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.
The volume would be higher if Nokia were establishing any type of position (long or short) to make a noticable difference to Nok's b/s.
agreed. me too. eom.
it does work over the long-term, but you can't look at a stock price and the market price movement at any given day and expect it apply. also, beta is a measure of the stock price volatility relative to the market, not the naz.
they can certainly have my 3,000 shares for $34 apiece.
Let's not get carried away. We have about $3 buck in cash alone. Not to mention, if the panel rules that the S/E agreement is not a trigger, it does not nullify the existing contract between Nok and IDCC, it just postpones when we will get paid. Assuming of course the rate is eventually triggered by someone else - or one of our existing licensees (NEC for example) garners enough market share for us to make the arguement that they should be considered a trigger.
Simple - "after reviewing all the evidence and hearing arguments from both sides, we the arbitration panel rule that -based on how the S/E settlement agreement was written - the S/E agreement does not trigger a rate in the existing contract bewteen Nokia and IDCC."
Next week always promises to be "more exciting" when it comes to IDCC.
Go questions. It might help to go back and look at all the challenges that QCOM faced in the early to mid-nineties and all the things that were being written about them at the time. Is it possible that IDCC could be a $4 to $5 billion market cap company ($82/stock)? Of course it is - QCOM has a $70 billion market cap. Is it a lay-up or a given that it will be? Absolutely not.
Or they'll say that the rate hasn't been triggered yet...
I for one would be extremely surprised and utterly disappointed if any IDCC senior executive spends their time reading message boards from Internet chat rooms.
It's not necessarily true that the call option writers believe that nothing extrordinary is going to happen. It's that they have established a target price at which they are going to sell (say $30) regardless of what happens, and instead of just waiting around until that day comes, they sell the calls and collect the premium in the meantime. If something positive happens and the stock price appreciates above $30, they will have collected the call premium in addition to the capital gains on their shares. If something negative (or underwhelming) happnes, they will have at least collected the call premium. If you plan to sell at a relatively low set price anyway, selling the call options is smart.
It's hard for most of the board to understand why someone would sell the calls, because most of us are here for a home run and will not start unloading any shares until the stock exceeds $50 or $60 (and a lot higher than that for some people).
The average Nok investor hasn't even heard of IDCC and doesn't know anything about our dispute with them. It is interesting to me to see all the press about the NTP and RIMM situation. Every RIMM investors knows about NTP and its claims against RIMM.
IDCC isn't even mentioned by name by Nok in any public statements. In Nok public statements, we are the lumped into the nebulous group of companies that have "claimed patent infringement" for which Nok is holding a reserve. It was the same with ERICY when all that was going on. We weren't ever mentioned by name.
Why the difference in disclosure? Is it simply that the American company, RIMM, prefers more transparency? Is it that Nok is still in denial?
We're talking real money in our dispute with Nok. I would think that they would want to start letting their shareholders know that they are in a pretty significant dog fight with a company called IDCC and that if things don't go their way, they're going to have to shell out a truck load of money.
I don't get it...Am I missing something?
idcc stock price is impacted more than others by market swings. look at the beta's of the stocks you mentioned:
idcc = 5.9
qcom = 1.65
nok = 1.88
ericy = 3.8
mot = 1.32
si = 1.8
of course idcc is down more than these stocks on a down day in the market.
cool. thanks. i've owned the jan 06 $40's as well for a while and they have appeciated quite a bit since i first purchased them. i've been watching the june 05 $30's, but haven't pulled the trigger yet. while i'm very confident we'll know one way or another about nok (and maybe sam too) by jan 06, i'm a little nervous about having a final resolution on nok by june 05.
i'm long a lot of shares (about 10% of my portfolio), which i consider investing.
my calls are pure speculation, but adds to the excitement.
the price would need to drop significantly below $17.50 (given the price paid for the calls, transaction costs and taxes) in order for the calls to have much value
which long term calls do you like?
which long term calls do you like?
"30% is probably about right ...give or take 5%"
I'm not disagreeing with you by any means, but I would be interested in knowing the basis of your statement. Is it just a best guess based on anecdotal information, instinct and years of experience in the industry? Or do you actually know all the IP embedded in the WCDMA standard and know which specifc patents QCOM holds in the standard that you could reasonably ascribe a 25 - 35% number?
I too am long IDCC and QCOM.
IDCC in the market buying-back 1 million shares
You are correct, 3G is the future. But you are smoking some good s..t if you don't believe that the 2G arbitration outcome with Nokia and Samsung will impact our ability to license and collect 3G revenues.
Agree with most of what you said. The opportunities in 3G is why we should all be invested here. However, there is a possibility that the arbitration panel will say that S/E is not a trigger for Nokia for 2G. That will cause major problems for us.
Even though we might have "the goods" for 3G, we will be perceived as a company with exceptional technology, but unable to get anyone to pay for it. The perception will be - "they couldn't get anyone to pay for 2G, why should we expect them to get paid for 3G."
Declaring that the S/E contract was in fact a trigger for the Nokia contract and establishing a reasonable rate for 2G is the catalyst for everything.
I think he's talking about $54 million in quarterly earnings.
It's early - we'll finish strong today, $16.13 on 250,000 volume.
Your best post of the year, arm.
Interesting that they chose the most conservative route in this situation, yet they take the risk tolerant route with respect to IDCC (assuming they do not settle before the arbitration decision). I wonder if this signifies a change in strategy going forward. Perhaps knowing what they know now, they would have taken a different tact with IDCC.
We are working on other significant deals that are contingent on the Nokia/Sam resolution. I agree that other significant deals will not close until Nok/Sam are resolved. However, that does not mean that we are not diligently working to line up future licensees that will close shortly after the Nok/Sam rates are set. We are not idly sitting around waiting for Nok/Sam.
Jai, while most people on this board tend to be extrememly risk tolerant, we can't expect IDCC mgmt to have the same tolerance for risk. There is a lot of uncertainty today - that has absolutely nothing to do with what is going on specifically at IDCC or in the wireless telecommunications sector. I know I have taken some money off the table recently (not any stock in particular, but just equities in general) because I'm a little nervous about the future of the economy and I have kids heading off to college next year. And, I consider myself extremely risk tolerant. If these thoughts are going through my mind, you can bet they are going through the minds of some IDCC management, regardless of how well the company is positioned for the future. We could settle Nokia and Samsung next week, followed by another terrorist attack the following week and I bet we would remain under $20/share.
Some Oracle shareholders, like myself, would disagree with you. If you have been following the business news regarding Oracle lately, you know that a lot of people are waiting to see how the PeopleSoft acquisition shakes out. Some people see the acquisition as the "catalyst" that will move Oracle out of its current trading range.
Larry's sales are concerning to current and potential shareholders. You could infer that either he knows the acquisition isn't going to happen or he knows it will not produce the benefits they are espousing in the media.
You could also agrue that 3G is the "catalyst" that will push the Q back over $100/share. Jacob's sales would have to be concerning to anyone contemplating a entry into QCOM after hearing that 3G is finally here.
Great report. Thanks for posting. It doesn't bother me that IDCC is not mentioned. The report is handset-centric and not focused on who owns the IPR. It's nice to get confirmation of what we all already know - that WCDMA is the future. But to me the most encouraging thing about the report is the absolute conviction this guy has that the Asian handset suppliers will dominate the 3G marketplace. Nokia will not be a major player in 3G. Companies like S/E, NEC, Panasonic, Fujitsu, Sharp and Sanyo will sell most of the 3G handsets.
Clearly, Nokia is important to us all over the short-term and, regardless of what management says, I believe we need the rates established to help with other license negotiations. However, according to this analyst, our relationships with the Asian suppliers (where we already have momemtum) will be more important to our future success.
I would recommed everyone read the report posed by drrtl on post #71234.
Tantamount to selling all your QCOM shares in 1993.
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=QCOM&t=my