Replies to post #21975 on InterDigital Inc (IDCC)

[georgebailey]

thanks Dish. One of Corpgolds analytical tools for measuring enterprise valuation was to divide market cap by the number of company engineers. You think incentive programs impact the denominator of this equation? I particularly liked this tool because it attempts to value a company's most important asset,engineers. So what is the value of those assembling this talent?

[EconEli]

Dishfan, that's what we call a "House of Cards" argument around here. IDCC is not trading at $166-share / $10Billion market cap. It's trading around $20 with a $1Billion market cap. Therefore your arguments are nonsense.

What if IDCC had a TRILLION dollar market cap? Then I guess management is underpaid, right? See how stupid that sounds? Deal in fact please, and not silly-talk. Too many IDCC investors start speaking gibberish when discussing IDCC and take assumptions as foundational fact on which to base decisions.

The same arguments were used to bash me the last time this topic came up -- "NOK will sign and the stock with be worth $100 per share, so management deserves it." Well I am still waiting for all of that to happen, and from where I sit it looks like everyone who voted for the increased compensation package was taken to the cleaners (no pun intended) by IDCC -- and they took everyone else with them. So now you want them to do it to you again? It really makes no sense.

[Centerline]

Issuing 5,000,000 options if used for the purpose of expanding business and aquisitions ... or bringing in some new talent with incentives to produce (get more options based on achievements) is not a bad thing if that is what happens. But that is most likely not the case. I am not for expanding 15 executives waistlines ... nor their wallets at this time. They should put it in writing what the purpose of their request for 5,000,000 additional options is and guarantee it in writing. Maybe at that point it could fairly be evaluated as to whether it should be voted up instead of down. I for one am against it. Interdigital presently has enough options to work with. If they are anything like the government then we're in trouble. I pay about 2¢ for the same screw that they have been said to pay $1.00 for (ficticious number). But it is known that the government has been buying things for inflated prices. I hope IDCC doesn't just give options away just to give them away and also I would hope that they are squeeking when they make their deals. They can't be so easy to give away options, overpaying every step of the way.

[Corp_Buyer]

"my best interest to provide management with whatever they think they need" - you don't get it do you? This is a zero sum issue. More stock returns for Management is less returns for investors, it is that simple. Management and we shareholders are in opposition when it comes to ISO shares.

You seem to think that these additional 5M shares will make management happy and this grant is needed to atract and retain talent. If 5M shares would achieve these goals (your view), then the PRIOR 14M shares have already more than accomplished your goals. That is why so many investors have now concluded that enough is already too much.

Furthermore, the ISO excess is SO great that we can see clearly in management's actions that they CHOOSE to delay driving the stock price per share, CONTRARY to your's and my interests, e.g. by choosing to do back-end loaded deals (e.g. Ericy, Nok, etc.), stopping rallies with coordinated group insider sales, and holding back on PR.

They are choosing such actions because shareholders continue to voluntarily fork over large blocks of stock options to them almost every year upon request.

If you want more of the same management incentives and actions then continue with your viewpoint. Otherwise, if you want management to behave to increase price per share rather than to increase their number of shares each year while delaying the ultimate success of the company, then vote NO on proposition #2.

Regards,
Corp_Buyer