DannyDetail, to answer your questions
1. Please explain the logic of how that makes you more objective about IDCC than someone who has 1% (actually more like 5% now since I have cashed in a good bit of my portfolio).
It means I can't afford to wish. I have to be rational and open minded. I can't hold my investment to make a point. It's not a gesture, it's my future, so I have be objective. You can hold for appearances sake and if you turn out to be overly optimistic you can apologize and truthfully say "I lost too, sorry." Your life will not change one bit. Being wrong is an intellectual loss. I can't afford to be wrong.
2. Please explain why you still have 100% of your investments in IDCC given your negative conclusions that result from asking "logical questions" and closely examining "substantive issues" in light of these comments in your post: Every day I decide if I want to invest in IDCC. To do that I need to analyze the current information. I read and ask questions on the board to get opinions from others. Those that state their premises and explain their thought process help me shape my opinion. Who has more blind trust and loyalty in IDCC, you or me?
I have negative and positive conclusions. It is only the negative thoughts that are questioned and debated by others. The LG license gave me evidence that IDCC can monetize a significant portion of 3G at a decent rate. I still think it is probable, however the Nokia settlement makes me less optimistic than I was before. I see this settlement as a negative and that is what is under discussion now. Overall I still think IDCC is undervalued at current market prices.
I think it is obvious from my comment that I don't have blind trust - I analyze and assess. Those of us that are objective see positives AND negatives. Maybe if one believes you are either "for or against", then making a negative comment means you are negative. I still see more upside probability than downside. Things are rarely black and white. There have been times I've felt IDCC was snowy white and others when it got fairly gray. In fact, a week before the LG license I sold about 30% and bought back the full amount (dollars, not shares) on the open after the announcement. My plan was to sell most of my holding next good news from Nokia or Samsung, as without 3G revenues 2007 looked bleak. The LG license thrilled me. Yes, I wish I hadn't sold, but I was thrilled because the 70% of IDCC I still held just went up over 25%.
3. If I understand you, you believe that Wall Street and institutional investors are far superior to any other group, including Jim’s IDCC board, when it comes to investing. So what ever they think is right and everyone else is naively fooling themselves. No, you don't understand me, not even a little bit. I never said Institutions are far superior. All I have ever said is that they have by far the most money to invest and pretty much march to the same drummer. That means it is highly unlikely that any stock will come close to reaching its potential without meaningful institutional ownership. I have tried to make the point that the opinions and analysis on this board come almost exclusively from individual investors. As we have seen they can carry the stock price only so far and are highly volatile to both the upside and downside. I have been trying to make the point that that no matter how accurate our analysis, the stock price going forward will be primarily driven by the analysis of the sell-side analysts and institutions, not ours. I have stated that IMO everyone's DD is incomplete without a close and continuing monitoring of what this driving force is thinking. If that makes me arrogant and suffering from "Ivory Tower syndrome" then so be it.
You are right, I did misstate your position and I apologize. I do agree that when IDCC is an investment consideration of the institutions is when it will reach full value. It is important to make us as visible as possible so we can reach it as soon as possible. However I feel it is more important to achieve the results. The company doesn't have to choose between one or the other, they are working on both. My opinion is that if we build it, they will come. Institutions are in the business to make money. When we can provide visibility for recurring earnings and growth rates they will come. It will be quicker with good relations. However if we don't create the results, they can watch IDCC as closely as I do and it won't help because they won't buy.
4. Sorry you took my "CPA syndrome" post so personally since it wasn't meant for you. I was trying to take a somewhat lighthearted approach to letting Chris know he had crossed the line BIG TIME. If I had stated how I really felt I probably would have wound up in I-Hub jail.
I was not diplomatic in my response. I've been a bit irked at how the IHUB guard dogs were snipping and sniping at anyone who questioned the settlement. The barb directed towards a man I consider a valuable poster those of us who share his profession inspired me to respond. Sometimes things in cyberspace are perceived differently than intended. I apologize for taking your lighthearted comment as pointed insult intended to trivialize content. However as I re-read this before posting, the last sentence of your comment makes me wonder if I wasn't right the first time.
