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.
Hello my name is John and I'm an IDCCOHOLIC.
Today is my first day in 14 years without any shares.
I starting nibbling back in 1999 bought 1000 shares and saw it sky rocket from 25 to 81 in a few tradings days.
After that I was hooked. For years I kept buying and selling waiting for that homerun. What a schmuck.
I sold most of my years a few years ago and my last 100 shares today.
This company is proof positive that lawyers make bad CEO's.
Good luck to all holders. I really hope one day this investment comes thru but these 14 years was like going out with a hot girl who cheats on you all the time, takes all your money and leaves you with the clap. No more pennicilin shots for me thank you.
Shareholders need to do a full court press on the buy back,
For as long as I can remember (7 years or so) Bill Naz has consistently asked about buy backs. Last CC he was pratically begging for even a small buy back. The fact is wall streer rather see the company spend its cash on the stock rather then new patents. If they can't build shareholder value with the thousands upon thousands of patents they already own what makes anyone think that buying new ones will bring in value?
Putting some of the $600 million on hand to reduce the float would build shareholder value and make less stock available to the short sellers. From my stand point it makes too much sense. I don't think many outside investors will side with the company on this issue.
It is about Shareholder Treatment
In my opninon I don't think this company treats its shareholder very well. Year after year these guys cash in and pocket millions upon millions of dollars. This is very much a Marie Attoinette situation. No Dividends, let them sell RSU's.
They don't get the disconnect. They want people to buy shares which they won't. They want institutions to hold on to shares which they won't.
They want investors to be patient with a plan that will add value but they exercise and sell.
Bottomline, They feel no pain and shareholders suffer.
Wall Street won't come back here until these guys start treating investors better. The buyback helps build shareholder equity. They don't need $600 million in a bank account. Everybody knows this except the BOD.
So we have 329K shares traded the other day and it caused the price to go down .80 cents. Without a buy back and no coverage it is like shooting fish in a barrel for short sellers. And the shareholders are the fish.
I don't think it is blantant disreguard but in my opinion no one knows what to do to get better control of the stock price.
With $1.14 Billion market cap, 44 shares outstanding assuming insidesr and institutions hold we have 54.5 inst 1.5% insiders holdings equates to about 20 million shares tradable. Also have about 5.4 million short.
panl has 760 million market cap with 16% insider ownership and 52% institutional ownership with 1/5 th quarterly sales.
So without meaniful coverage and substantial insider ownership price movements move down with very little volume.
Aug 13, 2010 26.00 26.07 25.77 25.88 386,400 25.88
Aug 12, 2010 25.84 26.05 25.50 26.01 334,400 26.01
Aug 11, 2010 26.67 26.67 25.90 26.15 380,900 26.15
Aug 10, 2010 26.78 27.06 26.71 26.87 299,700 26.87
Aug 9, 2010 27.04 27.13 26.80 27.00 378,900 27.00
Aug 6, 2010 26.79 27.03 26.47 26.90 340,700 26.90
Aug 5, 2010 27.10 27.25 26.84 26.85 332,500 26.85
Aug 4, 2010 27.32 27.62 27.21 27.34 533,700 27.34
They need help. They need someone with and the understanding of how to build shareholder value in small caps stocks to map out a plan and execute that plan. They have never addressed this issue probably because the thinking is licensing will take care out that but it hasn't. They are trying to sell product (stock) without a sales force so the product that they are selling appears damaged.
They can high five each other all they want but they are measured by share holders by share price performance. As a long time shareholder I am not happy about the current day $25.88 price and I want to see the company take agressive steps to change this.
If Bill Naz's can't convince them, a letter to the BOD won't work. I'd like to see them get as mad as I am about the share price. They seem way too complacent. Feel like this is the manager of the mets running this company. It okay if the share price languishes for years. We have a plan.
No passion, no outrage, no ownership.
Bill Naz's has passion and understands that moves are neccessary when the share price won't/can't move and you have a ton of cash in the bank earning .5%.
No protection from company
My biggest problem with the discontinuing of the buy back program is no protection from low volume downside moves. I looked at my screen today and saw the stock down .62 cents on 30k shares. Management can't create new interest in the stock and won't support the price with the $600 million. They won't buy the stock with their own money or even stop selling shares they have into the open market. The percentage of inside ownership is only 1.5% of the company.
So if they won't buy themselves, won't buy with the companies money, won't stop selling so the insider ownership can increase, can't bring in any major new buyers or major new analyst how do they expect to deliver shareholder value?
Considering the markets Cash is king and I would imagine many small companies with IPR are restricted and can't borrow to improve or expand
I think a big problem here is lack of borrowing and using the right investment firms. I have seen really, really, bad companies get coverage and capital from major houses and we still can not land 1 big guy.
The company needs to start playing the game. They need to engage in the investment banking services from a major firm.
What is the valuation of the patent portfolio? Right now the street puts it at about $600 million. That is $600 million in cash + $600 portfolio = $1.2 bilion market cap.
In the 11 years I have been here they have yet to land one major house partly because they don't engage them in any type of services. If they brought someone who knows how to play the game and has the proper connections they could get proper coverage, expose the stock to a lot more buyers, and get this portfolio valued better.
Cash Management, Stock repurchases, bond offerings, exploring startegic buyout possibilities, these are all areas where they can bring in a major player.
Without a major known analyst putting a buy recommendation on IDCC it will be hard to have significant price movements sans Nokia, SNE and LG deals.
How about a decade rule for posters.
If anyone has held this stock a decade of longer (my 11th year). They should have the right to be critical without be called a basher. Personally I think long term shareholders have been extremely patient. I know for one thing I can not mention this stock around family or friends without being embarassed. I stopped speaking about this stock to the many people I convinced to purcase it when the ITC loss came in. I stay hoping for an exit point and a buyout.
A buy out is good for the shareholders. Management has adopted a do as I say not as I do attitude. No inside buying, no buyback, but yet they want investors to buy the stock at this level. When one looks at data points as to whether to buy a stock or not these issue tend to make investors pass.
As for no dividend? Well Management has scheduled RSU's they receive and then sell these via 10B's so they have been for yearsncollecting a revenue stream. As a shareholder this is infuriating. They won't give a dividend but they sit with the stock basically flat for the last 10 years and collect money on a consistant basis from stock sales.
The call really pissed me off specifically the Bill Naz part. I'm no loneger a Merrit fan. He over played his hand with Nokia and it sounds like now he is bracing us for a loss on appeal the way he braced us for a loss at the ITC. When he first talked of this ITC direction he made it sound like a slam dunk. Well in my opinion he hot doged and hit the rim. I'd just as well see him move to Miami with Lebron.
The problem is the story and the lack of buy back. It is hard to keep going back to an investment community year after year and say this time it is different. No one will price in future earnings for Nokia, Samsung or LG because they do not believe that the company can get these guys signed or reupped. The lack of the company buying shares for whatever reasons they give shows a lack of confidence that the company would be able to replace these funds.
I cannot understand why they don't want to play the game. My opinion is stubbornness. I thought it was Harry but apparently it is not.
Even if they spent $200 million on a buy back who is to say that they couldn't raise $200 plus with a bond/debt offering in an opportunity came up. Engaging the big boys (Goldman Sachs?) in an investment banking relationship would only help get better quality coverage and stabilize the share price.
Some reasons for todays decline.
First, a bad analyst report, downgrade, revised price target? Somebody or group was selling on a big up day and we have no idea why.
Second, an orchestrated short sale. Group decided that they can sell into this after an earnings report.
Maybe just a fund got tired of waiting and decided today was the day they would exit.
What bothers me about this sell off is that with all the positives that came out last week, we have no catalyst sans Nokia/LG to move higher.
Without a buy back in place we are at mercy to the traders who do not feel any positive short term event will happen.
Still rather see a buy back then a dividend sans Nokia settlement. A substantial buy back would add permanent value. A didvidend would allow the stock to be traded up and down around dividend distribution dates.
Bill Naz was pratically begging for even a small buy back on the call. A blow out quater and fantastic earnings, Revenues, cash flows, $100 million Samsung payment and a 3G licence renewal produced .36 cents of share value. Also it is trading less than it closed at 5 days ago. What is wrong with this picture?
Jul 30, 2010 27.21 27.46 27.00 27.29 400,100 27.29
Jul 29, 2010 28.13 28.47 27.21 27.46 676,900 27.46
Jul 28, 2010 26.88 27.29 26.62 26.95 228,000 26.95
Jul 27, 2010 27.46 27.56 26.85 27.02 351,400 27.02
Jul 26, 2010 27.35 27.45 27.06 27.43 229,500 27.43
I think these guys are stubborn and do not want to play by wall street rules. They can sit and high five each other about what a great job they did. How much money has been generate by the patents. How large a percentage of 3G market share they have. How bigb the LTE patent portfolio is. How much potential for revenue they have.
The fact is Merrit and Company have not delivered shareholder value and have pocketed millions for stock sales.
A $100 million dollar buy back on a $1 billion market cap would potentially increase our value by 10%. That is what the market wants. That is whatthese guys won't do.
Report is what I have expected. The hoarding of cash appears to be seen as a negative along with the renewal questions surrounding LG. Basically if these guys are not using cash to buyback stock then that cash is at risk of being used in an unknown manor (e.g. buying patents). If they can't get everyone paying on the existing patents (Nokia, Motorola and Sony/Ericsson) what makes the analyst think they will be able to get these guys to pay on new ones.
The problem here is unproven management and inconsistant stories.
We all remember the slim chip modem story. That was going to add value and help with licensing. $100 million dollars later they took write offs. The LTE talk today had a similar tone. Yeah been there done that but what will it do for the share price.
This team believes thay are better then their track records says. That is why when Bill Naz was asking about the earnings on cah they stated basically that can do do better than the 10% a buyback would yield.
They have yet to prove they can build shareholder value. When the stock price hit $18 an experianced management team would have taken advantage of that dip and bought shares. What is the percentage return from $18 to $27? 50%? what is the return on cash? .5%? Seems like about 100 times the return.
Bottom line I hate the way these guys think they are smarter then everyone else. Guess what? They are not.
Merrit, Put your Money where your Mouth is!
True leaders lead and the best way to lead is by example. If Bill Merrit beleives the statement below is true the he should buy 1000 at market price (token amount). Then promise not to sell any shares until the deal is done. That would send the right message to the investors and the street.
Q – Nokia at ITC - I can’t believe and was shocked that we went 0 to 16 on patent construction at the ITC. Can the ITC consider any additional info since that decision and if not does it make sense to go in a different direction like Delaware.
A.Bill Merritt – our patents are stronger because of the ITC decision. The breath of our patent portfolio allows a lot of options. There has been a lot of internal debate within the company. We have what we think is the best strategy which is not always visible to shareholders or the market. There is no question that “Nokia will sign – it is not a question of if but when- we will get it done!!”
Right now these guys all sound like Marie Antoinette when they talk about shareholder value. "What no bread just sell some options". Err, Merrit we don't get options or dividends or RSU's , just rhetoric.
Many Keys
Reading every analyst report and listening to every call in the last 11 years leads me to beleive that their are many keys to this investment.
1. Insider Buying - Carpenters reports have repeatively stated that the insiders should be doing market purchases of shares. Bill Naz's famos cursing call when our overpaid reject from H&R Block CFO gave a big "Duh" answer for why IDCC would not buy shares with both hands and feet when the stock price was $18 a share. Think about the message that that sends to potential investors. At $18 a share with $8-10 cash our management sent a message to the world that IDCC was not worth investing reserve cash or their own personal money. They stated oppoortunities that they can use the cash for. Well investors say hmmm, if they think their are bteer opportunities to put cash to work then IDCC stock then we better look for them elsewhere.
2. Over playing the Hand - This should be a technology company which uses laws suits to protect inventions. Rolling the dice at the ITC was a big gamble. The problem is Merrit made everyone beleive that he had pocket aces and went "all in". The fact is he/we lost and the hand was played badly. Prior to the decision Merrit made statements like "We had an offer which we would have took several years ago but not now". Well the objective of any good CEO is to make good solid business deals which benefit its shareholders. If a deal was on the table then they should have negociated it thru and get it done. He gambled that he'd get a better deal if he had an ITC decision and we lost.
3. Definition of Insanity - Doing the same thing over and over. We got $500-$600 million in the bank and still have sub par people doing the same jobs and over compensating them. Head of HR and CFO (Clown Financial Offender) have not been able to bring in one major brokerage house. And they can even bring in a lot of little ones. These guys are paid well and don't know how to play the game. IDCC needs to bring in real talent that understands how the street works. Guys with Rolerdexs who can bring investment houses to the table.
Okay, I feel better, Now lets hope for a good ASM.
Shareholder Frustration!
My hope is that with the pill and the board declassified that the company is taken out and we are all rewarded. I'm no longer confident that this group can deliver value to its shareholders.
Years ago when I started a wireless application company and was looking for money I was told that the investors wanted companies with leaders who were "Hungry" and would be rewarded as the company grew.
This management team has never been "Hungry". This company has created many millionaires but none from its investors. The main reason for stock based compensation is to reward people for exceptional performance and make sure they do not leave. Well except for the engineers we do not have exceptional performance and I could care less if a lot of these executives leave.
So without any "Skin in the Game" it is hard for these guys to understand the frustration of the common shareholder. They just continue to get RSU's and options. What is the difference if the price is $20 or $30 they can just sell more shares.
No need for insider trading here. These guys have a big old money tree right in the backyard at KOP. Peel off a few leaves and wala new leaves grow back.
First and foremost I am praying to the buyout gods so that we hit $58 and we all go home with a nice chuck of cash.
For 11 years now everyone associated with IDCC has made millions upon millions, lawyers, executives, assistants, patent holders, cell phone manufacturers, law firms, investment bankers.. and the list goes on. The only group that did not make any money on this $1.5 Billion licensing signings are the shareholders.
So after 11 years of watching options vest and RSU's sold and receiving 0 money I'd say it isabout time that the shareholder gets paid and the only way that this will happen it thru a buyout.
Haven't we all spent enough time and money on IDCC to start derogatory posts about each other?
I know how much of his life and attention that Tony has spent on this investment and he doesn't deserve to get slammed on a message board like this.
I could not find Merrits quotes on the AAPL lic only this old post of mine refering to his comments.
Posted by: jai Date: Monday, June 30, 2008 7:15:09 PM
In reply to: JimLur who wrote msg# 224101 Post # of 290818
Frustration
Jim,
I know your continual referal to news is pure share price frustration but the real fact is that earnings per share and earning per share growth drive price appreciation, period.
News and the way it is released can have temporary affects on stock prices. We have had our share of temporary bumps and we need permanent ones.
The real money managers look at fundamentals not stories. When they commit they do it after intense research and do not like unknowns. Right now they can not predict what will happen in the SAM/NOK/SNE situation so they will wait and miss the first run up and be ready for the next wave.
Apple for example. Apple has a $147 Billion dollar market cap. We are at $1.1. When Merrit and Jobs are in a room and Jobs (or the people representing Jobs) says this is what you can say the little engine that could (IDCC) says yes sir.
Merrit was grilled at length by Carpenter about the Apple license as well as the RIMM license and he basically stated that these licenses would be paying within the range of everyone else. He stated it would be foolish for the company to sign a license that is under value with the ITC investigation going on.
It is very ugly on wall street right now. Financials are the crapper. Look at Citigroup, Wachovia, Washingtom Mutual all at multi-year lows. The NASDAQ is cold and RIMM's missing is taking its toll on the wireless sector.
Gas and Oil needs to retreat in order for this market to get back to some sort of normal cycle. People are scared and every equity except oil and commodities are suffering.
Bottomline, We are in the final days of a 20 year texas hold em game. I'm all in and playing the cards that I have. No need to get cold feet now. I just hope we all get to say
READ EM AND WEEP LOL
Bennett Notman - Davenport & Company
In the Infinium/Apple one that you guys alluded to, would that revenue recognition be sort of one quarter in arrears like it happens with your regular handset manufacturers, or would it have to be even a little more delayed because it’s sort of one step removed. How should we think of the way that would ramp into your numbers?
William J. Merritt
We recognize revenue from anytime it’s sort of per unit. We do that on a one quarter lag. So the Infinium contract would work no differently than our patent license agreement with Sharp. It would be a one quarter lag.
Bennett Notman - Davenport & Company
I know you guys can’t get too specific but in terms of just trying to think of what that means, would that be a significantly less per unit contribution than if let’s say you were licensing one of the handset guys directly, or how should we try to think about that in terms of the potential scope of the impact?
William J. Merritt
We obviously can’t get into the per unit rate that Infinium pays us for that, but I would say that when they begin to ship in meaningful quantities then that revenue line for us will become meaningful as well. So if they get the success that we hope that they get, it will be a nice contributor to revenue.
Operator
Calling Olddog?
Could help with Merrits quote I think it was 2 years ago when refering to the Apple license. He specifically said the Apple license was provided during the arbitration discussions of frand for Nokia/Samsung. I don't remember his exact statement but something to the effect that the apple and rimm licenses were in line with what they were expecting from Nokia/Samsung and that they would not sign a license if it was not. No Lawyer/CEO would make these statements if they were not true so I have to beleive that the Apple license if more than what meets the eye.
Okay if it is the boards call where is the notification of the cancelation of the buy back? The board had an official vote and an 8K notifing the investment community that they were authorizing a $100 million dollar buyback to be executed.
Did they have a secret vote canceling this?
Repurchase of Common Stock
In 2006, our Board of Directors authorized the repurchase of up to $350.0 million of our outstanding common
stock (the “2006 Repurchase Program”). In October 2007, our Board of Directors authorized a $100.0 million share
repurchase program (the “2007 Repurchase Program”). In March 2009, our Board of Directors authorized another
$100.0 million share repurchase program (the “2009 Repurchase Program”). The Company could repurchase shares
under the programs through open market purchases, pre-arranged trading plans, or privately negotiated purchases.
A Big thanks goes out to our stella bookkeeper for this drop.
Mr. Scott A. McQuilkin , 55
Chief Financial Officer $436.00K
Plus options and RSU. What a job if you can get it.
By basically abandoning the per-authorized $100 million dollar buy back he left sharehoders out to dry and exposed to these low volume drops. Basically short sellers can drive down the price knowing the company is not coming in to help support the price. It sounds to me that this guy is an over paid accountant and should go back to a store front H&R Block office where he belongs. Althought I wouldn't let him touch my taxes.
This is the wrong audience for technical analysis.
Most of us are here for the home run play. We are waiting for this revenue stream to grow and become less dependant on legal actions. We have seen peaks and valleys and if you took a poll of what the exit prices of the members on the board you would be very surprized.
My exit price is probably aound $100 a share. That is a $4.3 billion dollar market cap. To get there we would need about $450 in revs and sell for 10 times revs. So at $6 a share in earnings a $100 selling price would be about an 18 pe. QCOM sells for a 20 pe.
I know Ronnie did an analyst of this and without the buybacks we would have something like 66 mil shares outstanding vs. 43 million. Stock dilution via insider grants and options vs. buy backs are two separate items. Do you think if we didn't have buy backs we would not have grants?
Management isn't buying because they don'tthink it is a buy. They are not buying indivdually because they get enough shares from options and RSU's, They aren't buying back stock because they want to hold onto cash. I think they should at least have some execution of the authorized $100 mil buy back. Thye bought $25 mil and quit. With $500 mil they can easily buy $5 to $10 million a quarter and not be affected.
Olddog, I think after 11 years of listening to these conference calls I earned the right to criticize them.
The company earned $600k on $500 million or under .5%.
"Net interest and investment income for first quarter 2010 totaled $0.6 million, a $0.2 million decrease from $0.8 million in first quarter 2009. The decrease was primarily due to lower rates of return on the company’s investments."
Now I can't fathom why they would need 100% instant liquidity for %500 million.
When I was with Citigroup I was trying to get the company to use us for cash management. It would have been a great connection for IDCC and would have helped with building a relationship with a big name brokerage house in Smith Barney.
My point is I'm not impressed with the CFO or the head of IR. I think he bungled thru a couple of CC's and I'm not impressed with either of these people in very key and important positions within this company.
I'd like to see both individuals step up at start performing at the level at which they are compensated for.
I look at these guys as if they were employees of a firm I own. If they do not meet a level of performance they shoud be told that they need to step up. I beleive that the performance of certain people within this company is sub par and they need to step up.
The communication from the CFO to the investment community was the approval by the board of $100 million to buy back shares. They bought back $25 million. Now they stopped. No communication just explanations of "pools of money" and "investments that they are looking at". Now it is clear for the CC's that they have no plans to spend this $75 mil on stock repurchases. So basically the stock repurchase plan has been suspended without a formal announcement.
Clear and concise communication with the investment community is crucial for the stock to be accumulate by fund managers. Abandoning the buy back with multipe choice column answers is not acceptable. First it was well ip companies keep lots of cash. Now it is "pools" of money.
I want/expect these guys to perform to a certain level. The buy back suspention explanation is not meeting that level, in my opinion.
Not so sure I want this CFO putting out any press releases.
Lets see he can't earn 1% on cash.
He issues a PR stating that we would be booking between 37.5 and 38.5 milion in revenue a month before he said oops I meant $35.5 million.
And halts a $100 million dollar buy back to quote "create 3 pools of money". Thus leaving the shareholders exposed to these down swings in price.
I put him right up there with our IR department who have not been able to bring any major analyst coverage in.
The CFO is not impressing me at all. The decision to publically abandon the buy back is a bad one. While I do support the overall direction of building up these stock piles of cash the total abandonment of the buy back allows manipulation of the stock.
Token buys under the already approved $100 million whou;d have sent a message to these hedge funds that they can't push the stock price around that easily.
May 6, 2010 28.26 28.60 22.30 26.67 943,900 26.67
When I looked up yesterday and saw IDCC down $6 dollars a shares my first thoughts were holy sh$t.
The two things buy backs do are first return equity to the shareholder by giving them a greater percentage ownership in the company. If I owned 1 mil shares of IDCC and it had 50 mil outstanding, my equity percentage would be %2. If they bought back %50 of the shares and left 25 mil outstanding my equity would rise to %4 and all ROI would go up significantly.
But the second thing that buy backs do is protect the shareholder from these types of wild swings in trading. With an active plan in place the company would be buying shares at these dips and the short selllers would have a harder time driving down the the price.
So while the CDO is busy dividing the cash into buckets for further use, he needs to keep one bucket filled with water to throw on the short sellers when they swing the stock down so much.
I really think that shorting and manipulating is not an IDCC specific problem but an overall market problem. This was not how the market were designed to allow hedge funds to swing prices so violently. If they do anything with reforms they should put in stricter short selling rules with severe limits.
Does anybody remember the miller lite commercial "We only need one pin Rodney"?
Well we only need one big house that can take institutional ownership past 65%. One of the main reasons for a large buyback would be to restrict the shares available and less manipulation would occur. They can still accomplish this by getting either a major brokerage firm or even start going directly to the small cap managers themselves.
My hope is that when Bill spoke about a new board member the guy that joins knows how to bring big time investors to the table.
These need to project continued recurring earnings and next year EPS. That is why the B&S guy keeps hammering away at LG. The analyst have models and without LG it is very difficult to model in $3.00 per share. Take $14 mil per quarter out your .60 cents goes down to .30 cents a share. Same with SAM. They want to understand that this is not just a one time spread out. SAM not renewing takes .55 cents per quarter out and leaves IDCC with .05. Take both out you are looking at negative EPS again.
This is part of the reason for the Nokia overhang. Nokia's continued fight put doubt on the business model. Why won't other companies just fight like Nokia. Also, this is one of the reasons for the high cash position, to keep a war chest.
I'm still holding out for thought that with a new COB, Nokia can be brought to the table. Nokia and Qualcomm did a win/win so Nokia amd IDCC should be able to also. Nokia wants a deal structured better than anyone else's. At this point it is in both parties interest to get this done and move onto the business of innovation rather than law suits.
All in all I think the Conference call was excellent.
The LG question was handled about as good as WM could. Very clear and concise. Whether the analyst beleives that LG will reup that is another story. I like the explanation that a reup is easier then a new license.
Two things that make a good call for IDCC. One is congradulations comments and we had one or two. Another is the call ending with people still askong questions. That shows interest. We have had calls in the past where the operator was begging people to ask questions at the 35 minute mark. This time the last question got cut off by a bad connection then time ran out.
Carpenters soft balls were great also. He was basically stating that proper valuation today should be about $1.6 billion or 25% above the current cap. ($600 mil cash $1 bil in value of patents). I think the patent portfolio is double that but I'm no expert.
I also think they came prepared to justify then cash position. Not sure if Bill N agreed but it was much better then 2 quarters ago when he was cursing them out left and right. Basically they were stating they wanted some time. My hope is they start hiring some big house to help look for oportunities, and we get a I scratch your back you scratch my deal that brings in new coverage.
Lastly nobody was dwelling on Nokia. They got to talk about technology solution which is what they should be talking about. Carpenter asked about patents from the case which was answered clearly by WM.
Bottomline the sky did not fall and the .12 cent miss was irrelevant. Really good price action friday with a very bad market.
Put everything in perspective. How does a $1.09 a share in earning equate to this?
These guys kept finding a way to f’ shareholders!
The problem with the $1.21 number is the March press release stating they would bring in $37.5 to $38.5 new revenue this quarter. The number came in at $35.7. Hitting that number was meaningless and cost us a headline. The issue here is the CFO needs a lesson in CISCO guidance 101. Make sure that when you give out your bottom number you can be hit. $35 to $38.5 would have given them a cushion and the eps prediction would have been lower.
Maybe they will paint some lipstick on this tomorrow...
This ain't a pig.
Question what is .59 + .69.+ .60 + 1.09?
Answer = $2.97
That is what IDCC has earned over the last 4 quarters. PE of under 10 for a growth stock in the hottest sector does not a pig make.
Bottom line we need help telling this story. Go out a hire some savy street people who know how to play the game. Let them bring in a team of PR experts and a rollerdex of contacts of analysts. Hire a big firm to perform cash management. That will get your foot in the door.
What is needed is a fashion consultant (a.k.a Street Savvy person) to can put this girl in a new dress and do her hair. Underneth the stock is a beauty. We just can't present it right and don't have enough bachelors at the dance.
The After Hours trades are meaningless. All small blocks crappy volume.
This will not be an indication of how we will trade tommorrow.
Time (ET) After Hours
Price After Hours
Share Volume
19:58 $ 26.85 150
19:45 $ 27.18 400
19:45 $ 27.20 600
19:42 $ 27.18 600
19:28 $ 27 200
19:27 $ 27 500
19:26 $ 27 100
19:25 $ 26.85 200
19:23 $ 26.85 300
19:20 $ 27.20 300
19:15 $ 27.30 300
19:12 $ 27.30 400
19:01 $ 27.30 300
18:54 $ 27.30 300
18:52 $ 27.30 300
18:47 $ 27.30 350
18:33 $ 27.31 250
18:32 $ 27.31 100
18:32 $ 27.31 250
18:32 $ 27.31 250
18:22 $ 27.30 150
18:21 $ 27.30 500
18:21 $ 27.30 150
18:20 $ 27.30 200
18:18 $ 27.50 900
18:16 $ 27.50 100
18:16 $ 27.50 500
18:12 $ 27.50 100
18:12 $ 27.50 400
18:06 $ 27.50 100
18:06 $ 27.50 250
18:06 $ 27.50 200
18:06 $ 27.50 150
18:06 $ 27.50 100
18:04 $ 28 200
17:45 $ 28 250
17:43 $ 28 100
17:43 $ 28 100
17:42 $ 28.04 100
17:32 $ 28.40 200
17:32 $ 28.40 100
17:32 $ 28.40 100
17:32 $ 28.40 100
17:32 $ 28.40 100
17:32 $ 28.40 100
17:32 $ 28.40 200
17:32 $ 28.40 200
17:32 $ 28.40 100
17:32 $ 28.35 300
17:31 $ 28.40 200
Read more: http://www.nasdaq.com/aspxcontent/ExtendedTradingTrades.aspx?pageno=1&&selected=IDCC&mkttype=AFTER#ixzz0mRoUd4zx
This should not be about earnings, the earning are great. This is about new buyers. On big house would bring institution ownership up by at least 10%. Imagine what new buyers of 5 million shares would do here. The story is fine the problem is in the audience. They need new blood.
Now with $500 million in cash I'd find a first rate brokerage house, JP Morgan, Morgan Stanley, Bank of America, UBS, etc..etc. and get professional cash management, Next I say "By the way we want to engage in your investment banking services to see if we can find opportunities for us in the market place". No sooner would the ink be dry on the contract when IR would be getting a phone call from the analyst stating that they were interested in intiating coverage.
Is this really a miss or just a CFO blunder. They could have easily given themselves breathing room last month when they issued revised guidance. Does the CFO know how to communicate to the street?
"The company expects that the new agreement and audit resolution will add approximately $37.5 million to $38.5 million, substantially related to past sales, to total first quarter 2010 revenue."
He did not have to guide that tight. He could have said $35.5 mil to $38.5 mil and came in at the bottom of the range. Then we would not get the .12 cent miss headline.
Bottomline, no big deal.