Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Even with the maniac from Korea launching missiles IDCC can't be destroyed
SjRatty what were you saying, you can't defeat me, looks like I will be here
If we are down today I won't post for a month eom
INTERESTING, Didn't I Predict Media Coverage Was Right Around the Corner
My prediction is that news hits today, we will definitely be up 1 to 2 dollars without news and have over 1.5 million shares traded
Totally RIGHT, I read that article as if I never heard of IDCC and I thought, damn this would be a great investment, who cares if it is not one hundred percent accurate, let the author spin it as if it was Harry's mistakes, point is the article concluded that IDCC was moving in a different direction, I can't think of a more positive article
Has the idiot patrol stumbled upon this board? Read the website, the owner and the many posters agree with you.
Stich being that you are in Key West you shouldn't have a problem with your first request
Chartex, a very simple concept, don't understand why you can't get it. I like to talk about stocks and share prices. I actually respect a majority of the people on this board and I am curious about their opinions. Your point is not logical.
According to you because I like to talk share price with the board members here that means I don't have any contacts. That goes with the illogical statements by a few here that because I like to ask members what they think about IDCC, I invest based on that and don't do my own research.
DJ, your attacks only reflect on your own inadequacies
Navin, I think the consensus on this board that if things break right you are looking at between 100 and 200 a share over the next year and a half
OT Dmiller are you kidding me, you really must be smarter, please tell me you are. I asked a friend of mine who owns that website to add a stock tip and rumor board to allow posters from Ihub or from anywhere to post rumors and stock tips which Jimlur does not allow. So how did I lead people on?
I never stated that particular board was the source of the rumors. If somebody has any specific questions they can ask me there. What difference does it make who is telling me this, do you want what to know what companies they work for? I know people in the telecom industry, in the investment community, and in the media. I know people that work on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange. Without getting technical and breaking it down to each individual I am reporting to the board that I am hearing more rumors than ever before about Microsoft signing a 3g deal or getting involved with them in some capacity, can't see what else it would be, so when they say that I assume that it means a 3g deal. Some of the rumors have specifically stated a 3g deal, others have been vague.
Does anyone think the recent volume in this stock was a coincidence, big players are getting involved with IDCC
There should be a link at the bottom of my profile, but go to the message board and then you will see the stock tip board
Gargoyle, funny stuff, I assure you the origination is coming from people that work in the investment community
Wilco and ALL, Stock Rumors can be discussed at www.mikefrancesa.com, just go to the Stock Tips board, it has been created to avoid what Jimlur does not want over here.
Rumor Alert, Keep Hearing Microsoft Rumors in relation to IDCC. Now I don't know what to think of this, don't really think this is possible. However in the investment community there is a buzz about this.
I stand by my prediction of 2 3g licenses, thought at least one of them would happen in June, I guess July will be the month. However these Microsoft rumors are intriguing, could you imagine the share price if Microsoft were to get involved with IDCC.
Like I said before, don't really believe these rumors, but have never seen so many of them flying around as I have in the last 2 weeks.
Didn't the Guru JimCharts say this was going to be a bad summer and a bad market year, things that make you go hmmmmmm
OMG I thought the sky was falling, all of the insider sales, lol
Bobsil you are so right, only thing missing is the soundtrack to Gladiator, sound the trumpets this stock will be between 100 and 200 during the year of 2007
What are some here missing
Could you IMAGINE a new INVESTOR coming here, I doubt very highly an amateur would further look into this company based on 95 percent of the posts since the Form 4's came out.
I wouldn't want to go to war with some here, too many chickens and complainers, some need to look into hobbies
Oh boy you guys are acting like children, please learn about insider buying and selling before posting. Happens all year long at all different times, before bad news, before good news, before no news. Doesn't necessarily imply the individual possessing concrete insider information before buying or selling.
And don't forget that IDCC could be trying to sign many companies for 3g but until the ink is dry it doesn't mean anything.
How many times are the babies here going to complain about insider transactions.
To all of the WIMPS here who complain about insider selling, you are a whining and annoying crowd. Show some toughness, if IDCC's share price performed like you, we would be at 5 right now.
You can't even learn from last week's lesson.
OT Sailfree the link is called common literary knowledge. I'll tell you what, just to satisfy the nags on this board, IDCC was saying they expect a minimum of 4 signings.
Wow, maybe some here don't read much. Forget what the technical definition says, we are talking about how it is widely used in American English. I would say 95 percent of the time it means 4, I will leave 5 percent for the few who misuse the word.
So unless IDCC employees got their degrees at a paper mill then I would say they expect 4 signings.
You and your dictionaries, a few means 3, several means 4 or more but generally 4.
Most literate people know this, I assume the people at IDCC went to college.
When he stated several he meant they were expecting 4 new signings, end of story.
Several is commonly applied to mean 4 eom
I asked Matt about that a week ago, said he has no plans to do it and doesn't think it will happen ever
Cls I only report what I hear, I leave the why's to the technical experts on this board
Microsoft signing with IDCC, always have heard a smattering of rumors over the years, lately they have been gaining steam
WHOAH BOLD STATEMENT JTaylor, are you being serious or is this just biased hype. Please explain your rationale behind that bold prediction.
Doea anyone know QCOM's inherent value, before splits what is the current price of the stock, thanks
You got it, I told everybody to relax, when I checked the price I thought IDCC had released news, even better, obviously markets are the key boost today, but if you take a look at the other big names we are trading higher percentage wise
HAHAHA, JimCharts perfect timing, thanks for the advice, love it, first you say you wished you shorted at 28 and that you sold off most of your straight shares around that price, then you go MIA while this stock goes on a great run. You show up on the first bad negative day and mock the longs with a sarcastic statement and look........
Up almost 2 bucks. Thanks for making us laugh, keep up the great work. Oh I remember the other statement it will take 4 years of lawsuits to get above 30. Keep it up, you have to add to your greatest hits.
Revlis now you are comparing IDCC to Enron, I respect your opinions but this is far off the reservation
The Insiders Are Selling. But Is That So Bad?
EW research shows that pessimists are on shaky ground when they argue that recent heavy selling by company insiders is a bearish sign for the stock market.
Insiders, of course, are a company's officers, directors and largest shareholders. Laws require them to report to the Securities and Exchange Commission whenever they buy or sell shares of their company's stock. For decades, investors have paid close attention to what insiders at a business are doing, on the reasonable assumption that they know a lot more about its prospects than do the rest of us.
Many market timers, in particular, have paid close attention to the overall ratio of insider sales to purchases. Typically, they say it is a bullish sign whenever this ratio falls well below its several-decade-old average of around 2.5 to 1, and a bearish sign when it rises well above that average.
This indicator certainly looks bearish right now. The insider sell-to-buy ratio for trades over the last eight weeks is 5.51 to 1, according to the Argus Research Company of New York, which collects insider trading data from the S.E.C. and reports its findings in a newsletter, Vickers Weekly Insider Report. Largely because this ratio is more than twice the long-term average, Argus is decidedly bearish. For its newsletter's two model portfolios, the firm is recommending that investors hold no stocks at all.
But how valid is it to compare today's ratio to a long-term average that is based on insider behavior extending back several decades? In recent years, some researchers have worried that the widespread use of stock options has distorted the picture, making the sell-to-buy ratio artificially high.
Here is why: The ratio on which market timers focus is based on open-market transactions - purchases or sales at the market price. Shares bought when cashing in options are made at the price specified by those options, and therefore are not counted in the ratio. But when an insider sells the shares acquired by exercising his options, those sales are counted.
This calculation quirk is not a recent development. The figures have always been based on open-market transactions. But so long as relatively few options were being granted to insiders, few people worried that the ratio was significantly misrepresenting insiders' trades.
H. Nejat Seyhun, a finance professor at the University of Michigan who has extensively studied insider trading, recently set out to determine how much the sell-to-buy ratio has been skewed by options exercises. Professor Seyhun calculated what the ratio would be if it included shares bought when cashing in options. His focus was on the four years from the beginning of 2000 through 2003, a period that included the last few months of the Internet bubble, a bear market and a little more than a year's worth of the subsequent bull market.
He found that the inclusion of shares bought via options exercises caused the sell-to-buy ratio for those four years to drop significantly - to just above 2 to 1, on average, compared with 6.5 to 1 when those purchases were not counted. As he points out, the lower number is right in line with "what used to be the normal level before option exercises became more prevalent."
The biggest discrepancy between these two calculation methods came in late 2003, in the wake of the powerful bull market that began a year earlier. In November 2003, for example, the traditional sell-to-buy ratio, based only on open-market transactions, was more than 11 to 1 while the ratio including purchases from options exercises was less than 3 to 1. According to Professor Seyhun, this large discrepancy showed that insiders were taking advantage of the bull market to cash in their options.
Investors should take his findings into account if they want to compare current insider selling data to the long-term average. Ideally, apples-to-apples comparisons should include options exercises when calculating the sell-to-buy ratio.
But it's difficult to get up-to-date data that includes option exercises. Professor's Seyhun's numbers, for example, extend only through the end of last year. Without information that is more current, he recommends that we assume the norm for the ratio to be around 6.5 to 1.
He adds, however, that this number is no more sacrosanct that the 2.5-to-1 ratio once was. The number would need to be revised again, for example, if the S.E.C. required companies to record options as an expense in the year when they are granted - a proposed rule that the agency is seriously considering. In that event, he speculates, companies would reduce the number of options they grant, and the average sell-to-buy ratio would decline again.
For now, however, because the current sell-to-buy ratio is still below 6.5 to 1, Professor Seyhun says that insider selling is no worse than neutral for the overall market.
Mark Hulbert is editor of The Hulbert Financial Digest, a service of CBS MarketWatch. E-mail: strategy@nytimes.com.
By MARK HULBERT Article about Insider Selling
THE HEADLINES IN RECENT WEEKS have been scary indeed. Corporate insiders, who presumably know more about their companies' prospects than do you or I, have been selling the shares they own of their companies' stock at a near-record pace.
"Spike in insider selling alerts equities analysts," read one typical headline in March, this one from the Financial Times, which went on to point out that "selling of U.S. stocks by company officers, directors and other insiders last month reached the highest level since just before the bursting of the dot-com bubble."
Before you rush to your computer to transmit sell orders for everything you own, however, you might want to consider a different reading of the data. Believe it or not, when properly interpreted, recent insider data not only do not paint a bearish picture but a modestly bullish one.
That, at least, is the contention of Nejat Seyhun, a finance professor at the University of Michigan, who has extensively studied the behavior of corporate insiders and what that behavior can tell us about the overall stock market.
The starting point for Prof. Seyhun's argument is something that many researchers have noted before him: Not all insider purchases and sales are created equal. Some of those transactions tell us a lot about what the insiders think about their companies' prospects, while others tell us next to nothing. And yet the raw data on which the scary headlines are based make no distinctions between the various types of insider transactions.
The single most important factor to take into account in interpreting the current data, according to Prof. Seyhun, is insiders' option exercises. That's because option exercises have a perverse effect on the insider data that get reported.
When an insider acquires stock through exercising an option, and then sells the shares he acquires, only the sale is conducted at the then-current market price. Since the insider data that get reported in the popular press focus on open-market purchases and sales, option exercises will make it look as though insiders are primarily selling and only occasionally buying. Needless to say, this will significantly skew the ratio of insider selling to insider buying.
Other factors that should be taken into account when interpreting insider transactions, according to Prof. Seyhun:
* Who is the insider undertaking the transaction? Securities laws define insiders to include a firm's officers, directors and largest shareholders. Officers, for example, typically know more about a company than the largest shareholders, so officers' transactions should carry greater weight.
* How big are the transactions? Other things being equal, larger trades should carry more weight than smaller ones. That's because the latter are more likely to have been made for reasons having nothing to do with the insider's opinion about his firm's prospects -- such as the insider's personal financial situation.
* Did the transaction occur in the wake of a falling price for the stock of the insider's firm, or in the wake of a rising price? According to Prof. Seyhun, selling into strength is not nearly as bearish as selling into weakness. Just the reverse is true for purchases: Buying into strength is a stronger bullish signal than buying in the wake of weakness.
All these factors and more are discussed in a book Prof. Seyhun wrote, titled Investment Intelligence From Insider Trading, published by MIT Press.
None of these insights is new, however. Prof. Seyhun has written about them on numerous occasions over the years, for example, and other researchers have also written on similar themes.
But what is new is a formula that Prof. Seyhun recently devised to weight each insider transaction according to these various factors. He applied this formula to every insider transaction over the last 30 years, and then calculated for every month a ratio of weighted insider buys to weighted insider sells -- a ratio that Prof. Seyhun calls an Insider Confidence Index.
As is evident from the accompanying graph, Prof. Seyhun's Insider Confidence Index is markedly different from the ratio based on the raw data. Notice that the two series begin to diverge markedly in the early to mid-1990s.
According to Prof. Seyhun, this divergence was spawned by two factors. The first was a change in securities regulations that previously had required insiders to hold for six months any shares that they had purchased pursuant to an options exercise. After the change, insiders were allowed to sell immediately. The second factor, which was not unrelated to the first, was the explosion in option grants to insiders.
In back testing, Prof. Seyhun found that his Insider Confidence Index had statistically significant ability to forecast the stock market's return over the subsequent 12 months. It wasn't perfect, by any means, but nothing is. And it represents a big improvement over a ratio based on the raw insider data alone.
Prof. Seyhun says that the average level of his Insider Confidence Index is 60, and that anything above 60 is bullish for the stock market -- while any reading below that is bearish. That's good news for the current stock market, since his Insider Confidence Index currently stands at 77.3, significantly above average.
Prof. Seyhun's conclusion? Contrary to the doom-and-gloomers who believe the insider data are painting a very bearish picture, "2006 is likely to shape up as a good year for stock investors."
Mark Hulbert is founder of The Hulbert Financial Digest. He is a senior columnist for MarketWatch.
Comments? E-mail us at online.editors@barrons.com
Rmarchma I'm sure you can. But do you have evidence that the good or bad news was directly tied to the insider sales. Seems to me you have anecdotal evidence not scientific. I'm sure a person who believes in the good news theory can counter every example of someone like you who believes the sky is falling and another person can provide examples of nothing happening.
Yet none of you can provide evidence of knowledge of those bad situations. I'm sure many here can provide research and articles of how insider selling is overrated
Spence game, set, and match. That should end the dumb talk about how this predicts good or bad news. Totally has zero relation. I was waiting for somebody to come up with an example. Now please everybody stop crying.
OT Ed only an ignorant American would make that statement