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.
Does anyone have any thoughts as to why Google would want to intervene? My 'conspiracy theory' mind goes straight to the possibility of something to incriminate them in the previous V vs G trial or maybe their participation in the 'war' against V. Any other ideas?
And that's what we were hoping for, right? If I've understood previous comments, 'NOT' being on the list means it "MAY" by on the discuss list.
My interpretation is quite different:
It would seem to me that Z's new attorneys are being very cautious in their replies so that they (the attorneys) are insulated from any further wrong-doing by their client. Reading between the lines, the attorneys are kind of saying we've done all we can to garner your requested info from our client. To the best of our knowledge, all of this is true. None of the previous attorneys really pushed for complete disclosure from our client. We have. BUT, if we find out they haven't. . . well, that's the Z's fault, not ours. We'll let you know right away if we find out they've been withholding info. Please don't beat us up over this like you did the previous attorneys.
Nice! VRNG future revenue stream up 22%
ZTE Files Antitrust Complaint with Euro Commission Against Vringo - RE: Licensing Practices
Another group of institutional filings hit:
Previously 16,897,000 shares
updated over the weekend to
17,836,000 shares or approx 21%
Just noticed more updates to institutional holdings. . . .
Increased up to 17,376,000 from 16,897,000
Almost 500,000 shares added and ownership % up to 20.66%
Pretty sure that number will continue to rise as 12/31/2013 disclosures get released
disregard my last message. . .was typing at the same time you replied. Hope than helped.
AS I already explained, options contracts do NOT exist perpetually to expiration or exercise. A "Closing" transaction can reduce the open interest. It all depends on the number of trades "to open" versus those "to close" as recorded by the OCC - the Options
Clearing Corp.
Sorry for being a bit of a wise ass. . .couldn't help it. The buyer (or seller) of an options contract can buy or sell the same contracts at any time prior to options expiration. Contracts are created with transactions "to open". Whoever bought (or sold) those contracts added to open interest during any "opening" transaction. If they subsequently sold "to close", their number of contracts is then subtracted from open interest. New contracts created with an opening transaction do not need to remain in existence until expiration or exercise, etc. This is it in simplest terms. hope that helps.
Sure, I'll explain. You started the post stating that you had a question. The only question posed was, "am I an idiot?" You didn't say much else related to that question.
However, if you were looking for more explanation for the Feb $5.50 open interest facts, let me help you there:
since you only asked one question. . . . I'll take a stab at answering it:
yes
No offense, but Google did NOT take a loss on the sale of Motorola. It's not just a buy of the assets at $12.5B and a sale today for $2.91B.
See below:
Google paid $12.50B
Google received
Cash from MOT $ 2.90B
MOT Patents (value) $ 5.50B
MOT Home sale $ 2.35B
MOT Mobility sale $ 2.91B
-----------------------------------
TOTAL Received $13.66B
Google's 'ballpark' profit = $1.16B. By no means a windfall, but certainly NOT the massive loss everyone keeps claiming it to be.
Short-Interest increased to an all-time high of 20.236MM shares as of 11/15. Stock's up 10% in that time (10/31 - 11/15) and another 5% more since then.
You asked: "Should we not be getting this kind of news from corporate?"
I replied: "No"
I agreed with you. What is it you don't understand?
Institutional Ownership up to AT LEAST 20% now.
Millennium Mgmt increased their position by 1.67MM in the 3rd qtr
Not yet reported on NASDAQ site.
These numbers make them the largest Institutional holder with 3,347,105 shares
Not too shabby!
New Institutional Ownership numbers out (as of 09/30/2013)
Yesterday - 14,127,109
&
Today - 15,069,893
18% Institutional Ownership including:
Barclays
BlackRock
Vanguard
Susquehanna
State Street
Northern Trust
Goldman
B of A
BNY Mellon
TIAA CREF
Schwab
CalSTRS
etc. . .
Not too shabby
09/30/2013 Institutional holdings updates are slowly being reported. So far the only reported activity is a relatively small increase of about 50k shares since 06/30/2013 reporting.
Inst. ownership up from 11.6MM to 12.9MM with last nights update. Inst owners now @ 16% . . . nasdaq dot com
New institutional ownership took quite a big jump from yesterday's reporting - up 3.6MM shares to 14% institutional ownership. This includes BlackRock increasing their positions by 1.6MM shares. TIAA-CREF is a new owner @ 300k shares.
All available on NASDAQ dot com.
Thanks JJ
Sarcasm is obviously lost on you. . . . .
My message(s) weren't invitations to debate, more of a call to say, "you both sound like kids in the playground arguing over who's a better cat wrangler!"
at least Realizer got the message!
Google. . ."Don't do evil". . . "Don't tell the truth". . . "Don't pay taxes". . ."Don't pay what you owe to inventors"
http://www.businessinsider.com/reuters-busted-goolge-over-taxes-2013-5
Quinn Emmanuel. . . should be embarrassed again. . .
http://www.businessinsider.com/microsoft-slapped-google-around-in-court-and-its-becoming-clear-google-overpaid-for-motorola-2013-4
BUT. . . you can't put anything on the internet that isn't true.
and. . .
Here comes my date. . .She's a French supermodel!
So we're all looking for an "afternoon delight"?!