Replies to post #99665 on InterDigital Inc (IDCC)

[tonbar]

Jim, on several cc's including the last one, Fagan said he did not have answers to questions posed by the analysts. Fagan assured them he would get back to the analysts with the answers..... I believe he has had more than enough time to research those answers..

[Learning2vest]

One good thing about reading posts by folks who appear to be looking for negative stuff is the comfort of seeing them find so little of any real consequence.

A lot of the time the negative posts are just somebody's "lookie here!" spin on the same facts the rest of us read and digested soon after the last 10Q, 10K, PR, or proxy came out.

I'm guessing that they HAVE to keep repeating themselves because they cannot find anything else negative to post.

[jaykayjones]

JimLur; not in his head! He needs to check and get back with you.

In jest, JK

"so Fagan should have all the answers

[Corp_Buyer]

Jim- management pay and bonuses

I have to differ with you since:

* In the last 1Q CC earlier this month, Fagan either FAILED or REFUSED (not sure which) to clarify the cost to the company in 2005 for bonuses;

* However, Fagan's cryptic waffling on that issue led Ronnie to provde the accounting for the bonuses granted last year in 2004;

* Accordingly, we just realized that the 2004 bonus grants were actually $11M in value (not $7M), which is a surprise to me and it seems OD, as well as others here.

*Per WirelessWazoo and OD, it appears the recent 2005 RSU grants (presumably for 2004 performance) were MAXIMUM grants (at least to HG). Now IMO, 2004 was NOT a 100% great year for the company i.e. poor financial results (profits less than 2003), increased litigation profile, legal setbacks (appeal, UK patent challenge, etc., etc.), SEC investigation, stalled licensing, etc., only the new GD contract was positive.

* Also, the magnitude of the BONUSES granted in 2004 (for 2003) appear to be about 10% of 2003 revenues, which is ABSURD for a mid-cap company, no matter who we are or what industry the company serves.

* The 2004 grant occurred after shareholders, ISS, analysts, and institutions all objected to the compensation levels at IDCC and shareholders overwhelmingly defeated additional ISO shares for management. So management instituted these VERY EXPENSIVE NEW compensation plans FOR THEMSELVES without shareholder approval (not that approval was necessary, but evidently these plans were structured to maximize the grants while avoiding the need for shareholder approval).

So, all of this leads one to wonder: Are these bonuses under the NEW PLANS really PAY FOR PERFORMANCE? Or, are these bonus grants really viewed as a 100% ENTITLEMENT, no matter what the performance of the company?

If the RSU grants so far in 2005 (for 2004) are at the 100% allowable level, then how poorly must the company perform for the executive bonuses to be ZERO? or 50% ???

And, what about the cash bonuses in 2005??

This discussion and analyses are all VERY TIMELY and appropriate, in light of the recent grants by the company, the recent 1Q CC, and Fagan's failure to answer the question a couple of weeks ago, no matter how unpleasant this discussion may be.

Also, I strongly disagree with the hypothesis, expressed by some posters, that the Nok arbitration (still not concluded) will magically FIX everything and wipe away all our management issues at IDCC.

An arbitration win against Nok will do NOTHING to resolve our very serious management issues, especially if management feels ENTITLED to 10% of REVENUES in the form of cash and RSU bonuses.

All MO,
Corp_Buyer