Hock.....I thought of that as well. The answer is it could be BOTH. Nokia is staring at a CAFC loss and the need for a settlement before it happens. That's a big cash outlay. It could also be that Nokia needs the IDCC patents for better development of new products so they need to settle and license. It may be that their tech is inferior to what other phone makers are coming out with. In order to upgrade their competitiveness and strength as a major manufacturer they need to do both before they then announce their new phones. We already know it's all about royalty rates, not IF they will pay. The closer to CAFC they get, the more leverage they lose.

Gamco.....I took the liberty to move your previous post over to the IV IDCC board, with credit to you provided.

Unfortunately I know nothing about the tech in any other way than just an average Joe sort. The more specific questions might be what synergies or locks on the market might be produced and what would be the eventual monetized value on such a deal. It may interest NOK to do so as things have not been so rosy for them and keeping cash would be an interesting lever along with keeping abreast of cutting edge tech to revitalize their failing strength. Jan 13th looms. Every day becomes more pressured for NOK to resolve things. For all that you do, this Bud's for you. DS

Gamco.....You have done it again and the bold print on IDCC that you highlighted is direct to the point of what my questions have been about what sort of tech patents IDCC is looking to acquire. They are clearly focused on improving what I think are the most important areas. Increasing bandwidth, speed and LTE patents. Could IDCC possible come out of this being the new #1 portfolio holder in terms of quality of patents? We're neck and neck with Qualcomm.

Looks like morning profit takers are gone and we resume upward movement. Volume is still strong. LG by Christmas? We're finally in new long term territory. THAT is a major positive.

I don't recall the exact numbers but the pps for qcom was above 200 somewhere when they split 4-1. Too long ago for me without researching the data.

Gamco......Just wanted to say thanks for posting all the great fundie stuff all the time. It is real food for thought and often where the rubber meets the road down the road. How effective is Fuzzy Cell or anything else in the IDCC portfolio at creating more bandwidth? It seems like the tech to deliver so much more is advancing ahead of 1 obviously large obstacle. Can you or anyone provide me with thoughts about a "bandwidth bottleneck" that may impede more rapid devolpment of 4G/LTE?

Amen

It would be perfect timing if the dividend news is released tomorrow along with the tax bill signed and just 1 day before the London presentation. I wouldn't mind a new LG license, while I'm wishing.....

You are correct. It could still be the case that his thoughts were on the more recent closes.......thinking one thing and saying another. Nuke could clarify this except that it is not very important because if we move much higher, the 10 year technicals will be broken anyhow. After our run up to
36.61, we pulled back, along with markets and went through a short consolidation and now it looks pretty obvious we are cathcing a second wind. A strong close abouve 36.81 on volume would confirm the long term breakout. I agree with Nuke that it will be very interesting to see what happens to share price on a positive news event. I have to wonder how many shares may be available.

Olddog...Yes I believe NJ is referring to to 35.37 as a key number. I think he is basing this on on 2 closes earlier in Nov., 1 at 35.36 and the other at 35.37. He is not looking back as far as you are.

Best of luck to you and everyone. Funny thing, we dissect every minute detail we can find and while there is that blindside risk, there is also plain old luck. Murphy's Law says that evertying that can go wrong, will. Dshostakovich's corrallary is "for every instance of Murpny's Law there is and equal and opposite amount of shit luck.

Why the concern about short interest? It is not simply 1 number vs. another number. We don't know and will never know how the big money is hedged. Positions that are hedged can be zero sum or the risk spread with options. This can skew numbers in a major way. Does anybody here think that the 7.3M shares short are simply in an account by themselves? Funds can and do go both long and short and with additional leveraging in options. They make money either way even it's a mega-ton of pennies at a time. If you are both long and then short YOUR OWN STOCK, this is a zero sum. It is done to provide stability while pennies are collected in the ups and downs while a core is stabilized with offsetting positions. As I have explained before, when I traded JCOM some years ago, the institutional ownership reached something like 112% or some such mathematical absurdity until it was determined that positions are indentified as both long and short. It was even more confusing when the retail onwership was something like another 10%. My figures are off, no doubt, but that was the approximate situation. It's not like the Ruskies are holding the entire short position in an offshore account, to exaggerate my point. How MUCH of this short position is the result of hedging? If it is very sizable (or small) it means that a certain percentage of a short position is immune to loss, because it is hedged. This can vary somewhat depending on the leverage of the hedge. The only way to know is to see the hedge fund books. Now what was that about the SEC saying something about better transparency? Geez, I must have forgotten. I think it might be another one of those Federal Agencies Asleep At the Wheel type of things. You know.......like the banking debacle that we are still in the midst of. The SEC probably doesn't WANT to know.

What we don't know is how much of this is MM's shorts that still have some time to cover and how much may be hedged as a zero balance. Sometimes the answer might be in a bond that bondholders hedge in a zero sum and collect an agreed sum of interest. This isnn't the case with IDCC. What we don't know can be a little scary only because I have been blindsided so many times that sometimes the best of research over time can be destroyed by some unanticipated news or event. I won't visit there too much because it might keep me awake wondering if there really is a DOG.

I tend to agree about Romulus.......He may post with a lot of cheerleading fluff but that is not any reason to censor him. I think someone who posts factually incorrect with an intent to manipulate is much worse. While misinformation can be a problem, as long as the poster corrects after realizing an error....again no harm. I think the rules should have a little more flexibility. As long as no one is obviously vicious or flooding the board with off topic stuff, we should allow for more freedom of thought pertinent to IDCC. On other boards and this one, there are posters whom I may not like or find their opinions to differ considerably from mine, I still respect their right to say so. This board is a far cry from Yahoo or even IV but it just seems a little too constrained, IMO. I am glad that the board is policed as it is but I don't see any harm from Romulus. If someone says they think that the stock will go to 200 in 6 months, it's fine by me. Someone saying it will go to 16.......same thing. Intelligient investors can seperate the wheat from the chaff.

LI......Perhaps I am incorrect but when you short the same shares you own, i.e "shorting the box", you are correct that it is much better for taxes but also the easiest to do, since the shares that you need to "locate" are already in your account. Needless to say, it is a zero sum play but sometimes a good way to protect an investment in an an uncertain environment. If you do so on margin, the short typically requires a larger margin requirement and interest.....and then there's the pesky interest........but interest may not be so bad to preserve capital if the market tanks 25% or even 7% short term. It's fairly worry free. The money is to be made on timing and exiting one side or the other on a turnaround and doubling back (maybe). OK. I'll shut up for now. In a questionable situation, yes, THOSE special situation stocks like litigational, FDA, FCC, CIA FBI,
XYZ, HoChiMinh and any other organization that can levy some power to be resolved in some unknown fashion, it is better to hedge with options against the shares rather than shares against shares. The reason is that if, for instance, you are not sure which way a ruling may go but your tilted on way, you can use both calls and puts to balance the impact to the core position. The better thing about this is if the stock can make a BIGGGG move one way or the other, either the put or call options will go bust but you will make a lot more money on the other position because options tend to move exponentially against share price. You can, on the best of moves, lose the entire position used to leverage and still make A LOT on the other position. Straddles and strangles are the choice in such an instance. OK now I'll really shut up. G'nite.

Jim......While many rules and regs are uniform (SEC, Fed, Exchange, etc) there are also "house rules" with individual brokerages and clients that can vary. I have talked with people that "answer the phone" at TDAmer...and have had to correct some things with them but if you get a broker, they can answer the question(s) and they coudl be the "house rules".....these same "house rules" are subject to change.

JimLur.....While I cannot confirm the post from Keaho (sp?), he is not the type to make things like this up. I have read his posts for several years. I like the idea of a regularly scheduled meeting of the board. You are correct that a meeting is not necessary and the dividend amount(s) are just waiting a contingency. I think the board would be getting anzious to do the release.

IDCC is also above it's 20 DMA at 34.21 as of today.If markets pop tomorrow, I think we see 36

TA on IDCC from IV board SAB

Msg 563653 of 563660 at 12/2/2010 4:18:43 PM by
sab63090







Send PM
View Profile
Add To Favs
Ignore





report abuse recommend

Here's what the chart is revealing to me.....
http://bigcharts.marketwatch.com/interchart/interchart.asp?symb=rmbs&time=&freq=

A series of higher highs, a triangle........very close break out level (appx 20.70 to 20.80)......if we pop tomorrow above this level, I think we might have news of real importance.....this triangle is just as big (timewise) as the one I caught back in 2009....with a run from 18 to 26 within days......my problem then is I didn't sell....

Other stocks I am following also have "key" levels needed to break out......for example: DNDN is sitting also right on a downline, but has the added plus of a nice reverse head & shoulders bottom......something like 38 to 38.25 needed to pop..........Nuke John's IDCC looks (to me) like it broke out from a dynamic triangle with a flat base at the low and the downslant line has been broken.....the all time highs are probably going to be hit and surpassed, imo, and I think Nuke John has an excellent pick and he backs up his opinions with very good comments on what is happening.....I am grateful for his analysis and do NOT hold him responsible either if it does not work out.......




e-mail to a friend printer-friendly

A couple of small blocks passed. 1 for 10K and the other for 12.5K. Some tute getting active or MM covering.

A move and close above 34.21 would be positive for pps. Needless to say, we need news. It could even be positive news from one of the companies that IDCC does business with. It seems that most here have abandoned the possibility that management might be buying shares. I have maintained that BOTH a share buyback and dividend will be quite positve for IDCC market cap. Money spent buying shares increases in value.
The remaining element to drive pps is simply time. The closer we move toward CAFC, the higher we will go.

The last 2 large trades WERE up. 33.0964.

TDAmeritrade.

To be exact, I show 4 trades. 41.8K, 13.8K, and 2 for 16.9K

and still another one for 17K. News coming?

41K trade posted AH at 33.06 and now another 13k trade for same pps. now another for 17K.

DClarke.....Whether shorts are profitable or not is not black and white. Just as a long can lower the average cost per share through profitable trading, the shorts can do the same. Hedging techniques for both the long side and short side can produce profits from either an upside or downside move. It is quite possible that a very large percentage of "shorts" are thus hedged. Because they are hedged they, in effect, alredy have their "cover" or a move in either direction is mitigated by hedgiing. These are the big funds. They don't try to make a killing by buying naked calls, puts, etc. They try to screw the smaller investor by manipulation and make their profits through worthless options they have sold and the smaller profits they make on their hedged positions. Rinse and repeat. Today, there is much more option activity on the call side than the put side. Are shorts coverying and hedging with call? Probably, at least to SOME extent. The funds selling long positions to cover short position at a lower price and reap some, albeit smaller profit, while getting their shares back on the cover may not be making some huge profit but they are likely making a profit.
What also is not stated is how much accumulated profit these funds have. To abrbitrarily say that "at X price. all shorts are underwater" simply may only be a point of view, depending on the investing parameters of a given fund. If we look back over three years, as an example, accumulated profits might mean that shorts aren't under water until 55, just as a wild guess. maybe it is 65. who knows? If you think of a hedge fund as a washboard, the fund makes money on the upside and downside. As this occurs, re-balancing or "re-hedging occurs. This COULD be done by an algo.
Some years ago, when I traded JCOM, there was over 100% tute ownership alone. This is possible because hedged positions can be counted as both long and short. There is no certain way to know how the funds are hedged.

Gamco...Thanks. Is Caltech where IDCC did it's presentation on Nov 2?

LI.....I'm sure you're aware of a number of comanies whose futures for longer, better and more sustained growth are to be found in litigational/settlement ends. I don't recall other CC's where management sounded so genuinely rosy, i.e. not an act. LG can sit on their hands for a while, if they want, but Nokia has to be more worried about the start of a CAFC trial, since they likely already know the end. I won't try to give odds but I think that it is a point where the pps will be drawn to by Jan 13th. If NOK was going to bid for IDCC, it would be best to do so sooner than later. The higher the pps may rise, the higher NOK may have to chase the company with their buyout offer. Would NOK risk a court appearance and then try to settle or buy? I doubt it. I am not a business pers, a judge or a lawyer but it seems to be business common sense. It is better to settle before THE END.

Simply....mid 60's, the same as VectorVest.

As an addendum to my last post, I think, between a share buyback and a larger dividend, management would see a more immediate rise in pps from a dividend, but even that is questionable. What may be a better question is if management's interest is for IDCC and "increasing shareholder value"...... is one and the same. that is to say that perhaps the "muscle" management seeks for deal making may be in raising pps significantly, in which case they could do that by BOTH issuing a good dividend AND buyiing back shares. The shorts would be caught and an explosive rise could happen........especially if IDCC had that "hole card". We still don't have the big guns on the street.
Probably when the share price hits 78, Goldman will issue initial coverage with "strong buy". :)
Does anybody remember Soundview?

They COULD make that kind of payout but I doubt it. Maybe the 60 but I think the Q dividends will be below what QCOM pays. Intel pays higher than QCOM by some measure. I think the question remains "what is not being said" regarding any forthcoming deals. How much more financial strength may found right around the corner?? The guesses run rampant. I think the balance will be between "increasing shareholder value" and thus increasing pps and keeping what they need to do business. When MSFT first issued a dividend it was, I believe, 3 bucks a share special, which was roughly 12% of pps. They were a stock like AAPL in the respect that MSFT had so much cash they could afford the BIG BANG (which really wasn't that much considering it's been a dead money play for a long time.)
I don't think management will try to drive pps with just a dividend of ANY kind without a "hole card", i.e. some unknown- to- us source of more immediate revenue, either as a single deal or a collective whole. I'm glad they waited until after TDay because the market generally is not so attentive right before major holidays and many people take a slice of pumpkin pie home.

DataRox........Glad to see this.....I'm sure management is no fool and would certainly know that IDCC's value in the market is partly dependant on the value of pps. There has been a steady stream of very positive press for IDCC. It seems like various market forces are in agreement about IDCC's uncdervalued pps.
The use of the word "modest" is what struck me about the dividend. How they manage to balance paying a "modest dividend" and one "commensurate with high tech stocks" and still come up with something attractive to the street (and, yes, us shareholders)to spur buying and garner still more positive attention remains to be seen. I think the "modest" portion will be the regular Q dividend but I am hoping for a special first dividend, as is everyone.
i don't know what to make of the shorts. It wouldn't be the first time some paid shill issues a dissing of IDCC and shorts get the VOLUME they need to cover in droves. This could be a TZOO situation, where the stock went from the 20's all the way to 104 or so before plummeting back down. Longs bought and squeeze shorts. They shorted more and were squeezed more in a game of leap frog between the yin and the yang of the market. Fair valuation was at around 25 which is where it went to. The real question is "how are they hedged"?, eh?
Find Thanfulness tomorrow and every day.

The technicals for IDCC will look good tomorrow because of positive close on some volume against a pretty soft market. It should be interesting. American Bulls should change from Hold to Buy If or Buy for tomorrow.

Would a CAFC decision mute the Del. Case or are they apples and monkeys? Just totally stupid here, so thanks.

I don't understand what you are saying. How can a district court hold rule over CAFC. I must be missing a piece/ ???? Don't respond, as I am going to bed and may not remember a thing that we have spoken of. Cat't wen jsut poison Nokia or something. Give them a CAFC cas they can't digest and go into settlement convulsions? OK. Buy on the close tomorrow, unless it goes higher than 34.47. If it heads this resistance, buy. and buy

Mr. LI....You resound with my own thoughts. You know the ITC case and judge history. I only know a pattern in the (US Justice Sytem) and that is when the CAFC rules, because it is, most often and by expertise to speak on such matters, that it rarely goes to SCOTUS. While NJ may be overzealous in his hope for pps, he is very good in the many details of analysis. When the CAFC rules, IF it rules in favor of IDCC, to my knowledge as a non-atorney (NA) person, NOK has no last recourse and is subject to the ITC ALJ decision of a Limited Exlusion Order and Cease and Desist order upon reversal. I haven't found a single post on this board to the contrary. That would leave NOK in a position to only settle at whatever??? cost. Many other rulings have had some period of remand for final disposition. Nokia already has the noose around their necks. If the CAFC rules entirely against Nokia, they have zero wiggle room. I just hope there is a tie to an LG "all in one" contingency. I also hope to win the Powerball along with a hefty dividend for IDCC. (Well, Hell that was fun) I think either LG or NOK would suffer if they were the last big guy to sign. Such legal fritterings may occur again. InMyFKOpinion with burger. Don't bang my buttons. Cheers!

Olddog,,,,ditto on all points

excuse me if I confused anyone when I referred to CJ Michel and the CAFC "botching" things. It was in reference to Rambus. The more imporatnat thing is that someone of very significant stature along with 50 of many of the largest corps. in the US, will be going forward. I am not sure what this may mean, but I hope it frees up the "free World". Will CJ Michel bring some new changes in law and funding to upgrade the USPTO and the Federal Court sytem? Sorry if this is too off topic. I don't think it is. It may have bearing on our own CAFC case........if it is EVER heard. Pardon me if I may seem irrationally exuberant over refreshing changes in the wind.
Do you ever wonder what the wireless arena may look like in 2 years or 5 or 10? Trying to figure it out is like trying to predict tidal forces when the earth is loosing it's axis. I think it will be like a lesser battle for the PC/wiredstuff expansion of the 90's. We try so hard to predict, with every fact we can seize......and try to pin the last fact down, when it is something so large that we can but begin to see what possibilities there are, while we may extract ourselves from small details. I have gotten to know IDCC a lot better but the big guys are...well........Big. I think the CAFC wants to give itself an enema and be rid of th s70-t clogging the system. CAFC may have a more "git 'er done" approach in coming months.