InvestorsHub Logo
icon url

TFWG

10/26/04 1:04 AM

#82453 RE: Desert dweller #82452

DD, good post. But as I stated earlier, this one time event is going to push a full quarter's sales out of '04. Without some type of proforma adjustment to back periods, our ratios are going to be screwed up for at least a year.

I don't think tomorrow is going to be such a bright day.

Regards,

Bob
icon url

Desert dweller

10/26/04 1:32 AM

#82455 RE: Desert dweller #82452

Most important part of today's announcement to long term investors, all JMHO of course.

From today's press release:
In addition, because of its solid operating performance over the past few years and expectations for generating future taxable income, the Company will recognize a non-cash benefit of approximately $27 million in third quarter 2004 associated with the partial reversal of its valuation allowance against deferred tax assets, approximately $17 million of which will be recognized as income. The remaining $10 million will be credited to additional paid-in-capital.

History lesson: IDCC for years (decades actually) accumulated losses on its books. From a tax standpoint, these losses, with certain limitations, are allowed to be deducted in a future period IF IDCC has taxable income. The dollar value of the benefit for financial statements is a percentage of IDCC's carryforward loss and other tax credit carryforwards. By this I mean, if IDCC had an NOL carryforward equal to $100 million, the realizable income tax benefit would be equal to $34 million assuming a tax rate of 34%. With me so far? Good.

According to today's press release, the total dollar benefit of IDCC's carryforward items amounts to almost $90 million dollars. That means that IDCC could generate roughly 3 times that amount in future taxable income and not have to pay any taxes on that money since they have these carryforward items. In effect, IDCC has an asset that will be worth $90 million dollars in reduced tax expense in the future.

Now why don't you see this in IDCC's balance sheet? The reason is actually quite simple; since IDCC has always had losses, the accounting rules specify that after you record the asset of $90 million dollars you must also record a valuation allowance up to the amount of the deferred tax asset if future taxable income is not expected. In IDCC's case, this information is buried in the footnotes to the financial statements. The actual wording in FASB 109 is different but basically that is what it states. In IDCC's case, they have set up a valuation allowance equal to the amount of the asset which basically means the asset on IDCC's balance sheet is worthless, until now that is.

On an ongoing basis, companies with deferred tax assets must review whether or not the asset has a reasonable chance of being used and as in IDCC's case, if a reserve had been established, then a portion or all of this reserve should be reversed when it is more likely than not that they will have taxable income in the future in which to utilize the deferred tax asset.

What could make IDCC change its position on this reserve? IDCC now feels that EXCLUDING INCOME FROM ARBITRATIONS AND LAWSUITS, that it anticipates generating taxable income to use up $27 million of this reserve. In order to use up $27 million of the reserve, at an effective tax rate of 34% as stated in today's release, IDCC expects on a conservative basis to generate $79 million (27 million/34%) taxable income in the future.

This is a big change from the way they previously addressed the issue. In the past they reserved the entire value of the asset, in effect telling the world they didn't anticipate generating taxable income in the future. The wording in FASB 109 dealing with deferred income taxes is "more likely than not" that they will have taxable income in the future as was stated in today's press release. In IDCC's case, the way they are anticipating future taxable income excludes any Nokia, Samsung or Lucent money they are expecting.

From today's release:
This adjustment, as applied, is based upon conservative estimates that exclude future potential income sources such as impacts from litigation or arbitration proceedings. The Company expects that its cash tax obligations will remain unaffected until all federal net operating loss carryforwards, which approximated $123 million at December 31, 2003, are fully utilized or have expired.

"We are pleased that our recent and prospective performance warrants an adjustment to our valuation allowance against deferred tax assets for the first time in InterDigital's history," stated Rich Fagan, Chief Financial Officer.


Now recognizing $27 million of the total deferred tax asset, while not all of the reserve, certainly is an important piece of information as it foretells what the company is anticipating in the future. The other part of today's news release about revenue recognition IMO is no where near as important as the part concerning the reversal of the valuation allowance.

When IDCC reverses the remaining amount of the deferred tax asset valuation allowance, I will be a very happy investor as it will speak very loudly about IDCC's expected prospects. As with the royalty reporting, the issue of deferred income taxes and valuation allowances is a very complicated area. Hopefully the above post helps some understand what was very important about today's release. Maybe one or more of the analysts will read these posts and be able to digest it before the conference call in order to ask some specific questions.

Any comments are welcome from those who also have an accounting and tax background. Good luck to all long term investors tomorrow as I have a bad feeling that most don't understand what today's announcement means and will use the opportunity for the shorts to put some damage on the stock price. In the near future, hopefully it is the long term investors that have a reason to celebrate. I am tired of always having these once in a lifetime buying opportunities. I hope my short term prediction about possible weakness tomorrow doesn't come true. I have been wrong so many other times that I sure wouldn't be surprised by being wrong again. Only 8 more hours to find out. Good luck and good night.
icon url

sonetirot

10/26/04 3:43 AM

#82459 RE: Desert dweller #82452

Thanks: Now I feel much better. I could not sleep over it. Now I will let it ride whatever it will be until Nokia/Samsung.


icon url

rmarchma

10/26/04 7:01 AM

#82464 RE: Desert dweller #82452

Ddweller re accounting change in quarterly revenue recognition

I completely agree with your post. There is no change at all in the underlying revenue fundamentals, only a quarter delay in reporting the earned recurring per unit royalties from licensees due to narrowing time constraints being imposed by the SEC for quarterly reports. All IDCC is doing is changing to reflect recurring royalty revenue in the quarter reported by the licensee to IDCC, as opposed to the quarter in which the licensee actually made the royalty-bearing sales. Qualcomm is making this same change, no big deal at all. A repost on this matter as follows:

Posted by: rmarchma
In reply to: texb who wrote msg# 79606 Date:9/17/2004 11:10:53 AM
Post #of 82452

Texb re IDCC's quarterly royalty accounting

IDCC currently records royalty revenue in the quarter earned for its major licensees, as opposed to the quarter reported by major licensees. IDCC usually delays its quarterly reports long enough to get the major licensee's actual quarterly reports, before IDCC issues its own quarterly report. Qualcomm reports its quarterly earnings much earlier than IDCC, and thus has to estimate a lot of revenues, because they have not yet received many of their licensees' quarterly reports.

A major licensee like NEC would report its royalty for a quarter usually within thirty days in the month following the end of the quarter. IDCC has enough time to incorporate NEC's actual quarterly royalties into its royalty revenues for that quarter. For example IDCC probably received NEC's second quarter royalty report for March through June before July 31. Since IDCC did not report its quarterly earnings until August 9, they had enough time to incorporate NEC's actual second quarter royalties into IDCC's second quarter earnings. However, IDCC might try to estimate some minor licensees, who are semiannual reporters or later filers.

From the latest 10K as follows:

"We generally recognize revenue related to Current Royalty Payments in the period in which the sales of each licensee's products occurred.

Licensees that either owe us Current Royalty Payments or have prepayment balances provide us with quarterly or semi-annual royalty reports that summarize their sales of covered products and their related royalty obligations to us. We typically receive these royalty reports subsequent to the period in which our licensees' underlying sales occurred, but prior to the issuance of our financial statements for that period. In such cases, we recognize the related revenue in the period the sales occurred.

When we do not receive the royalty reports prior to the issuance of our financial statements, we accrue the related royalty revenue if reasonable estimates of such amounts can be made. These estimates are based on the historical royalty data of the licensees involved, currently available third party forecasts of royalty related product sales in the applicable market and, if available, information provided by the licensee. When our licensees formally report royalties for which we accrued revenues based on estimates, or when they report updates to prior royalty reports, we adjust revenue in the period in which the final reports are received. In cases where we receive objective, verifiable evidence that a licensee has discontinued sales of covered products, we recognize any remaining deferred revenue balance related to unexhausted Prepayments in the period that we receive such evidence."