Re: Active members dissappearing
I bet most are still watching closely. While I had to take much of my dollars to the sidelines defensively a couple several months ago because of a heavy weighting in this stock percentage-wise (of my small potato sack).
I thought that no 3G agreement by now might send our share price sharply down. With this news, I shuffled some right back in, even though it may not be a financial material event for the company. This news in combination with the amazing growth in institutional ownership talked me back into placing IDCC as my largest equity holding.
My thoughts are that the institutional ownership is proof positive that IDCC is finally getting respect on the street, and along with that there is a decreasing opportunity for the shareprice to be manipulated, and a decreasing number of market participants that would benefit by slamming IDCC.
I don't want to miss the ride, because with IDCC's strong balance sheet, a couple more pleasant surprises like this and we are off to the races. I hope all those that have been waiting so long for this company to succeed are taking note that the paid money managers are buying in, and they are doing so because they feel IDCC is positioned very stongly in the wireless sector, and is going to make them money. At no time in IDCCs history that I am aware of, have we met this milestone.
Since the 50 percent institutional ownership that for so long was just a long-shot off in the distance is now a reality, I will replace that thought similarly with that of a license agreement in the Chinese market - the next unbelievable event that could eventually happen. It's nice to know that it's a publicly stated priority acknowledged by IDCC as well.
I try to look at it optimistically that while China postures TD-SCDMA as their home-grown standard, electing IDCC as a founding member in the related TD-SCDMA forum promoting this technology was an early nod that it is not ALL homegrown.
From an international perspective, if China is considering going up against the likes of Qualcomm challenging rates, wouldn't it be better to have determined a fair and reasonable rate with someone that does have foundational patents in that space, than to go in to such a dispute still paying noone anything at all - in essence, honoring no intellectual property rights whatsoever. I don't think that China can remain in that position indefinitely on the international stage and so I hope that IDCC is in the right place, at the right price, at the right time for a phenomenal watershed event recognized as the company that has proven it has the goods.
