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.
fmilt,
I agree with what you said to me. However, many people on this board do not behave in the manner a reasonable person would. A reasonable person would either state that his mind is made up, or would participate in a debate for the reason of learning. What you have here are a lot of uneducated people who pretend to be open-minded but are not. They ask questions of the board, and then yell at people for giving them information they don't want to hear (F6). They offer a point of view, and then when it is shown through logical debate that their reasoning is founded on incorrect assumtions they spit out a few insults and then refuse to respond further (BSw). Some of them aren't even here to debate, merely to insult (arthritis, who was clogging my PMs with obscenetities, threats and insults until BZ added the 'block PM' feature).
I have never been one to back down from taking a stand when the facts clearly support me. I withstood a firestorm of criticism from the GSTRF investors some years ago after my analysis showed several key flaws in the business plan that were not yet readily apparent -- and months after, when analysts started picking up on what I had posted and circulating it, even then the "faithful" continued to hail criticism upon me.
Here, well this has been a walk in the park. A couple of years back I picked up on the fact that IDCC management was slipping a fast one by the shareholders and voiced that fact. No one cared at the time. Not Corp, not posty, not Jim, no one (at least, no one on the RB board ever did anything other than shush me that I know of). Now, after the damage has mostly been done, a few people out there are starting to realize what they already have lost -- but even now there are some "faithful" who would rather be blind and happy than use their own eyes to see the world.
That's fine. To each their own. But if you actually pay attention to the ebb and flow of the posts, you will see that it is the "faithful" here to like to use OT insults to start a flame-fest. Some of the supposed IDCC longs here use every chance they get to drag the topic away from IDCC and back down into the gutter.
So please don't tell me that people who post fact, like myself and Corp and others, are too brash and are driving people away from a vote of NO. No one intelligent enough to deserve a vote will vote against the truth, once they understand it. I would suspect that they are just being disengenuous -- their mind is made up, but they won't admit it for fear of looking un-PC. Rather, they will try to play the "undecided" card to shush the people they don't agree with.
My views have always been crystal clear, and have always been open for honest debate. I have even had my mind changed through intelligent debate a few times over the years. Unfortunately the only people here able to offer a debate at that level are all already in support of my position on this subject. That's the way it goes sometimes.
Do some people here hate me for it? Sure. That's life. People hate success, unless it is their own. That is the way of humanity. What do I care? But if you want me to stop posting then fine, I'll take some time off. This late in the game it doesn't make a difference.
loch, I "believe" in it the way I "believe" I will see the sun tomorrow. Sure, it may not happen -- but history says otherwise.
hacitra 72 + 5(ISO proposed) = 77 million.
I always use simple numbers, so as not to confuse. i.e. I am against bringing the share count to 77 million via ISO.
If some people like BSw can't figure out how to add, that isn't my problem.
Ken, try to stay focussed here.
You are bouncing all over the wall with your reply. Let's talk about IDCC for now OK?
Are shorts sitting on a "powder keg" here? Sure, no argument from me.
Is the float in IDCC too small for some of the bigger buyers? Maybe, so no argument from me.
Does any of that mean that the way the issue should be handled is for IDCC managers to give themselves 15-20 million shares worth of IDCC options? Not in this universe. Not that I can do anything about most of it -- but I can at least continue to point out that IDCC does not need a blank check to write themselves another 5 million shares on top of what we have already let them take.
If you are trying to introduce this canard of an argument as a replacement for B.S.waves fallacious statements that IDCC "needs the money that ISO will raise" you may want to think again -- unless you truly believe that ISO is a superior choice to a 3:2 split as a method of increasing the sharecount.
Now, as for people "all wanting a gold plated crapper" I wouldn't know about that. It sounds uncomfortable.
F6, read ronnies post. It isn't a matter of "should".
Corp, you can lead a horse to water ....
All I have to do is read posts like the one l2v just wrote, essentially stating that as long as the stock is going up no one should or would care about dilution, and I realize that those of us with our best long-term interests at heart probably will lose this issue.
Sure, *if* IDCC does everything we want it to and shows $2 plus in earnings the stock will be worth more than what we are paying for it -- dilution or not. But I personally would rather see my shares worth $90 each over them being worth $64 each. If I have a choice. And what happens if we are left with the heavily diluted stock of a company that failed to get its "$8-$9 per share in cash by the end of the year"?
77 million shares. Yep, IDCC is going to do a stealth 3:2 split -- only all the extra shares go into their bank accounts instead of our investment accounts ... and they will probably do it on the backs of lethargic shareholders who didn't fight them on the issue. **sigh**
lol art, how sad: you made yourself look stupid by picking an argument with me, and now you are reduced to wandering around murming to yourself and pointing fingers at other people. "Look mommy, that man said a baaaaad word!"
btw, what post was that again? 23397? Wow, well please let me know what I said in that future post -- also let me know where IDCC is trading once I make that post. lol
ps. "What's my name? Come on, say it: what's my name? You better say my name *****!" lol
Guess you gotta go back on the filter list. Sorry Amy, but he really doesn't seem interested in talking about IDCC -- he just wants to pick a fight.
Ken,
'cause as they say, fool me once, shame on you ... fool me ... fool me again ... shame on ... shame on ... no ... shame on the one who fooled the ... uhm ... :)
hehe
Suffice to say, Rip Harry et al have an unfortunate habit of making monkeys out of us shareholders (like massive selling DURING a CC, lol at us), so now with so much on the line there is a real tendency to distance ourselves from IDCC -- even discredit them somewhat. Pure defense mechanism that everyone has. Because if they yank the rug out from under us again, we really should have seen it coming.
We are all eager for this to be the last time we have to look at IDCC in the "it has potential" light, and hope that we will be able to look at it in the "goddamn what a hot stock I own, with all that cash and that big fat EPS number, damn I am a guru" light. imo anyway :)
Why don't we believe what management has already said
learning2vest, your last remark was pretty far off-base. Maybe the fact that a lot of people are focussed on the ISO issue isn't because we don't know what is going on "in the real world," maybe it is because we know exactly what is going on -- and we know what we can and can't control.
Why would anyone waste time yelling and arguing over uncontrollables like 3G contracts that haven't appeared yet when they could focus on discussing the ISO issue which is very controllable by shareholders. For now. This is probably the last vote that IDCC shareholders will be able to make a difference in (after the Institutions are done feeding our individual votes won't really matter) -- vote NO and make a difference for onceinalifetime.
.
.
(lol sorry I couldn't resist the pun)
Well I'd love to say good luck with your position Ge_Jim, but ... it seems my position is at odds with yours so ... uhm ... :)
It'll be interesting to see how much speculators are willing to pay to be in IDCC before Tuesday. I think they will pay a bit more than this, but since we are bumping up against resistance, and earnings could be less than what is hoped for, I can see why you took some profits off the table. I am going to sit still for now though and see what happens.
bulldzr, that wasn't an argument. I am surprised that you don't recognize obvious humor, respledant with multiple smiley-icons and "hehe". Now let me get some OJ and food and wake up before I read anything else -- I just had to take a quick peek and see how many more buyers were piling on before earnings. :)
Just remember that 1/2 of that "advice" (and I use the term loosely) came from someone so wired you'd get light if you screwed lightbulbs into his ears! :)
teecee, I'll need more than 1! Damn meds have me wired! (self-meds, that is) hehe
But seriously, are you saying you think IDCC is headed into a nose-dive? It's possible, of course, but imo we'll be seeing numbers like we haven't seen from IDCC in years, come next week.
If you have the cash, and think good news is coming up, steal the shares and call yourself 'Harry'(we are talking about DAQEDs right?). hehe :)
That's imo, but nothing of mine comes up before September so I have a long time to wait and see. I learned a long time ago that it's just too stressful for me to hold as long as you have. :)
Of course, I've already ingested over 1000 mgs of caffeine today -- so I don't know where my threshold for stress really is anymore! :-P
bluesky once again you are using a false premise to support your argument.
In nearly every post you use raising cash to "further growth" as a justification for dilution -- but I have already completely discreditted that arguement as a basis for arguing for ISO in the case of IDCC. Unless you can give us a fact-based reason, or even informed speculation, as to why "$8-$9 in cash per share" is not going to be enough money to further IDCCs growth then you need to find a new argument to support your opinion, because that one is tired and washed up (and to be blunt, all IDCC needs to do to further their growth is sign NOK / SAMSUNG / SHARP / ERICY for 3G like they keep telling us they will -- and that doesn't cost them anything).
So once again, your arguments hold absolutely no water and you need to stop avoiding the issue.
bluesky, that post makes 3 times today that you have answered your own question to me re: the outstanding shares issue. Why don't you act like a man and own up to the fact that you were/are wrong?
If you want to vote YES on the ISO issue because of your feelings then that is fine and well and your right, but please stop with your pie-in-the-blue-sky distortions of the facts behind the issue.
Watch out fmilt,
Trying to pin bluesky down with facts, and pointing out that he refuses to answer any question with a relevant response, and showing that he does not base his opinions on any facts that I have ever seen posted, will only cause him to filter you "until you respond."
I just hope the next stage isn't "I am gonna tell mommy on you!" LOL
LOL, blue: not only have I already spelled it out for you, today alone you used my exact numbers to justify your opinion in not one, but two, of your posts. Just like arth, you think the fact that I won't answer stupid questions means you are correct in your bone-headed opinions -- but it just means that I don't answer stupid questions.
Oh, but I am "on filter until I respond" -- another stupid statement in and of itself. But since by supposedly filtering me you are really just protecting yourself from losing a debate, it is understandable -- the natural human response to a threat is 'fight or flight,' and you made your choice. Your stated position and justifications fall apart under critical scrutiny, and with every post you contradict yourself and can not provide any factual basis to support your claims. So you run away. That really says it all, doesn't it?
there you go spouting nonsense again blue. You again say "Growth companies typically dilute their stock to finance their growth plans" to justify your pro-ISO opinion.
So, why don't you explain to me why you feel that IDCC should dilute my investment when they expect to end the year with "$8 - $9 per share in cash"???
That seems to be your recurring, and only, argument in favor of the ISO issue. So do you really believe that $400+ million in cash + $200+ million per year in free cash flow will not be enough for IDCC to finance it's growth plans?
Or are you saying that you do not think IDCC is being truthfull, and that you secretly believe IDCC will NOT settle a deal with NOK / SAMSUNG / SHARP and therefore will be in desperate need of raising a few more bucks through further dilution????
Since you have so far REFUSED to answer any serious questions, or reveal even a iota of fact to support any of your statements, I would at least appreciate knowing the emotional basis for the insane conclusions you keep drawing.
You are ducking the issue again blue. You don't know what you are talking about, so you advertise that you are the only person that knows what he is talking about. Sorry, but I am not wasting any more time with you. You "called me out" and said my numbers are misleading -- so prove it. Or are all your arguments based on emotion and a lack of factual knowledge, and nothing more? I have laid my arguments out for criticism from you, so why do you refuse to do the same? Afraid that once you leave emotionalism behind you will have nothing left to support your argument?
Let me know when you are ready to get serious. Until then don't expect a reply -- as I said, I am not in the habit of answering stupid questions and I am trying to decrease my involvement in stupid flame-wars with people who bash others but refuse to lay their own cards on the table.
Thanks old_dad. Warren Buffet is the paragon of virtue in the investing world.
Charles Schwab laid off a lot of employees a short time ago to cut costs and boost profits, and at the same time announced he was receiving a bonus for the year that exceeded the cost of employing every fired person for the next 40 years, assuming an average base salary of over $70,000 per year and adjusting for inflation and annual raises every year. How sickening is that for an example of greed run rampant?
artk, everyone has the right to vote however they want -- and yes, there is misinformation on both sides of the issue.
LOL you are still ducking the issue blue. Why? It is a matter of right and wrong. "Right" as a shareholder is anything that increases your investments worth legally, and "wrong" is anything that decreases your investments worth. And if you still can't figure out the rounded 40M and 60M numbers then you are either blind, know nothing about IDCC, or both. I don't answer stupid questions -- and yes, there is such a thing as a stupid question no matter what your mommy told you. If you want to participate in a debate and hold that smug tone of yours you better at least know how to add and subtract.
bluesky, so by your logic we should let murderers go free because there are mass murderers and serial killers out there. Compared to Bundy or Manson or Jones, what's the murder of your wife and unborn child? Nothing, so why bother prosecuting??
Sounds a little silly doesn't it? So does justifying IDCC managements abuse of it's shareholders by pointing to QCOMs Jacobs who, for example, received $63 million in compensation last year even as his shareholders lost $5 billion in equity.
They were both wrong, and they both continue to be wrong. You can't use a wrong to justify a lessor wrong.
Well said ST. Too many investors here, who are arguing in favor of ISO, keep saying that it raises "$22 per share excercised" for IDCC coffers. In fact, they are giving themselves the shares for $4 and $5. So they are making millions, literally, the company takes in a few thousand, and shareholders eat it all (since a few thousand dollars extra in the bank doesn't add to shareholder value in any meaningful way).
I give it another few years and we can declare an IDCC 2:1 split -- only you and I won't have been the recepients of said split. All the extra shares will have passed through the hands of IDCC management.
Still catching up on PMs and unviewed replies. Found this gem:
econeli: Please, state your "source" and let's have it all out.
mickeybritt: How about it was from your wife, so why don't you shut up and I will post what I want to when I want or they can cut me off and if you don't like it hit ignore, as it works very very good.
Ouch. How's that for an oldie but a goodie? Sheesh. Teach me to ask for a source. :-P
Now I am afraid to read through the rest of my messages, as that was one of the nicer ones.
I am sorry mickey, I won't do it again. :)
I am a buck-naked long, God help my soul.
Guess that means that, even with the ISO fiasco unresolved I still see a lot of potential value in the damned stock. Maybe I am starting to get soft and senile, who knows? The only thing I do know is, after years of trading and investing in IDCC I have a lot of shares that I will let run on good news.
Bad news, and well ... define "bad news."
Interesting article. I would think that the same holds true for those holding short positions -- that they would tend to buy the shares back faster as the stock declines, and tend to hold longer as the stock increases. Yet another possible explanation for why the number of shares sold short continue to increase even as IDCC stock increases in value.
ed, put a little perspective in your post:
Our licensing program has generated over $400
million in cash since 1995.
Yep, break that down and it equals a loss nearly every year. Some great job eh?
Our revenues for 2002 increased 67% over 2001.
Revenues have decreased by about 11% since 1998. Revenues of $99.2 million were reported in 1998. That means management has still not got us back to where we were 5 years ago. And how much have we paid them over the last 5 years? How much dilution have we already seen since then?
50% Stock price increase in 2002.
71% decrease in stock price since 1999, and a mere 4% stock price increase since IPO (not factoring the negative effects of dilution). Stock has yet to maintain the $20+ price for a significant period of time.
171% Royalty revenue growth over 2001.
Again, we aren't even back to where we were several years ago -- though if the promises given us re: NOK, SAMSUNG, SHARP, ERICY et al are fulfilled and IDCC ends the year with $8-9 in cash then I would say things are finally changing.
The management and employees of IDCC have made this happen, not investors like you.
You have that one right -- the current management DID preside over a horrendous 50% decrease in revenue while filling their pockets at the expense of shareholders / investors. They have yet to finish a year where revenue and earnings exceed the mark set FIVE YEARS AGO. Maybe AFTER they show two or more years of successive revenue and earnings growth above the 1998 level they will deserve the sizable bonuses they already pay themselves, but until then I am voting NO!.
thanks postyle, but I never said flawless. I reduce the odds against me, and then quit when I am ahead. My entire gaming theory is built around the fact that the odds are stacked against me. That's it. Know the truth, and then work with it instead of against it. (I told zitboy the super-simplified version, no mumbo-jumbo, but it's best seen and not talked about. I'll be in Laughlin over the week of July 4th for a wedding if anyone wants to meet there).
I see investors refuse to sell stocks when they are up at multiyear highs because they fear they will miss the next move up, and I see investors sell shares at multiyear lows because they fear the next move down. The mantra is "buy low sell high" but most people lack the fortitude to actually follow it. Then they call the stock market a big casino. Why? Because they either don't understand it, or can't stomache what it takes to succeed.
What do those two things have to do with eachother? Nothing. Everything. It's late, and I really won't waste anyones time talking about gambling anymore. Don't even remember how it came up. 'night all.
[more way OT] DD, glad to hear you are good at something. I am not a "21" expert and couldn't tell you whether 1, 2 or 6 decks made a significant difference. I also never said I never go over 21 -- I said that my knowledge of the game was pretty well limited to "count the cards, beat the dealer and don't go over 21". If you are going to start bashing me, at least quote what I said instead of criticizing something you imagined I said.
Also, your casino gaming assesment is incorrect. I know of many people who earn a living at both blackjack and poker. I have personally never finished a gambling trip a loser playing roulette (though I could never earn anything like a living by playing, even if I wanted to), and a friend of the family living just outside of Laughlin has reported Keno winnings of between $40,000 and $110,000 every year since I have known her (several), and as far back as anyone can remember. So there are apparently several games in which players can consistently "beat" the house. There could be more, but I am no expert on the subject -- I have seen the television shows in which casino security catches and throws out both known cheaters and known professional winners, so I would suspect that there may be several more games than can be "beat."
I learned a long time ago that just because I don't know something, it doesn't mean that no one does.
Any further gambling comments can be emailed to me please. I will refrain from answering / responding to anything else related to this topic.
(way OT, but it is the weekend ey?) jjff I am very adept at card counting, and find blackjack to be boring. I was asked to leave the table the last time I played and don't bother anymore -- and that was a six-deck game. The house gets real mad when you double-down on a "bust-hand" a few dozen times -- and win. I think they expect me to lose or something. (I'm actually not to familiar with the game, other than count the cards, beat the dealer and don't go over 21 -- as I said, I play roulette almost exclusively).
Want to talk about a confusing game, talk about craps. I can't for the life of me figure out a way to stack the odds in the players favor. I don't understand the draw of that game, except that the drinks girls goes by that table every 60 seconds. At roulette your lucky to get a drink before you leave the table sometimes.
email is ec ... heh, wonder if I'll start getting porn or hate-mail? ... econeliII@aol.com
be happy to carry the gambling conversation on there, so as not to clutter the board (and you are right, I don't look at wherever else you spoke of).
Hope everyone has a good weekend.
Also I just realized that there is a mailbox and mine was stuffed full. Sorry for the people I have been "ignoring" -- I didn't even realize you had sent me mail.
LOL@myself :P
btw Matt, technically I inferred, in a very direct manner, that O**e was a moron and did not outright call him a moron. So I do stand behind my statement, yes. However, I will refrain from doing it again. :)
I visit Laughlin much more than Vegas these days. Still have never lost, and taught my wife how to play (and now she doesn't lose either).
It was actually a pretty easy exercise in statistics to figure out how to improve my chances of winning at every game -- and statistics, for anyone that can remember back to their early college days, was actually invented solely for the purpose of defeating games of chance (by Fermat and Pascal for a friend, can't remember the friend).
Unfortunately, investing is much more complicated. In roulette I use the exact same play every time -- try that on IDCC or any other stock and you'll get crushed. That will change eventually, but for now nothing substitutes good DD and the willingness to see your investment plan through.
LOL art you really are petty person aren't you? I would guess that nearly everyone here knows and has had communicated with me for a couple(Jim et al) to several (easymoney and others) years (don't know who was who on the old, old SI board anymore it's been so long, so I won't even include that one). You are making yourself look like a retarded child, and for what? Because you don't agree with me when I say I am voting NO to managment greed / ISO abuse?
I am all for a healthy debate, but if you don't tone it down and stop making personal threats against me you and Once will be the only two people on my filter list.
That's the last I have to say about that.
nice post twelve. I was a good friend of my CO, and there is no way in hell I would have trusted someone with my life that never bitched about him at one time or another. Same with the food, pay, benefits et cetera. None of that means I didn't like my job or would have ever been disloyal. In fact, it was one of the best times I ever had, even with all the garbage I put up with. Same here. And I am still voting NO. And I have still been buying IDCC stock and options.
"don't let the greedy InterDigital employees BUY any more of OUR company at THESE valuations!"
I haven't seen ANY posts like that. You speak of people giving twisted versions of the truth, and add a LOL, but the reality was that little tidbit is as twisted as they come. And very slyly inserted too.
The argument is "Don't let those greedy IDCC MANAGERS GIVE themselves more options at 1/3 to 1/5 these valuations."
I would be more than happy, and have said this since the last time we had to vote on the exact same subject, if IDCC had a different employee compensation plan / retention plan that allowed employees to BUY SHARES while receiving a very gracious match from the company so long as the stock is held one year and one day at the least. Throw in some cash bonuses too. Maybe a big fat Christmas present while they are at it. After all, IDCC WILL have "$8-9 in cash" by the end of the year -- and almost all of it will be worthless to shareholders just sitting in the bank -- so what do we need to have our investment and our vote diluted by 30% for?
Heck I would be just as happy if the money was invested by IDCC. They are supposed to be smart, they should be able to turn $500M into enough money to buy QCOM in 3-4 years. But I digress. sheeeeesh
bluesky you are dead wrong, but nice try.
Again, the issue is how IDCC can take advantage of the interim period B-E-F-O-R-E the accounting rule change in early 2004. Assuming IDCC issues all 10M shares, for example, at an exercise price of $22, they stand to generate an extra $220M in cash without running it through their income statement. That's like a secondary offering.
No, again the issue is should we shareholders allow IDCC to take advantage of us. Your assumtions of 10M shares bringing in $220M as a "secondary offering" are uninformed at best, and beside the point. The point is, why should SHAREHOLDERS allow IDCC to stuff a total of nearly 40% dilution down our throats, when every conceivable reason for doing so has already been taken care of ("$9 in cash" etc).
Also, your logic that it is OK for any company to do something they know will not be allowed next year is astounding. The implication is that your type of thinking is a huge part of the reason why this economy has been in so much pain for the last few years.
bluesky, I got that rounded number by doing some simple math. You are pretty silly if you are out here giving advice, but can't even add and subtract.
And I know my opinions about increasing float have merit. I wouldn't have posted it if that was not the case.
You have a real talent for stating the obvious you know. What dos PE mean again?