Mon, Mar 2, 2015, 2:52 AM EST - U.S. Markets open in 6 hrs 38 mins

Recent

% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

VirnetX Holding Corp Message Board

  • marketbs marketbs Oct 31, 2011 4:25 PM Flag

    FYI Part 2 Of Craig Hallum report

    Cont' from part 1

    As the first global wireless standard, it presents a major
    opportunity for several hundred hardware and software companies and is unlike 2G
    and 3G in many respects due to the strict standards required (as established by the
    3GPP). Encryption/network security was optional, not a requirement for 2G and 3G –
    but it is a requirement for 4G by law. Furthermore, it is unlike the rollout of CDMA,
    TDMA and GSM technologies during the mid 1990's. There will not be “3 or more”
    options, but rather one. Finally, 4G will be engineered so that enterprises will be able
    to transfer information and data efficiently and securely; 2G/3G networks were
    designed primarily for consumer traffic.
    The greatest opportunity for players participating in the 4G/LTE build will be in the
    least commoditized segments, and we believe the encryption and security requirements
    as outlined by the 3GPP (Series 33 specifications) may be one of the most critical
    standards that need to be met. More importantly, unlike routers, switches,
    semiconductors and other equipment that will be used in the 4G/LTE build, the
    security requirements are so strict that very few players will be able to develop
    technologies that meet Series 33 specifications in all respects – implying the
    possibility of commoditization is unlikely.
    VirnetX Holding possesses patents/technologies that are in compliance with the Series
    33 specifications and more importantly, may be deemed “essential.” We believe it is
    the only company that has made essential declarations as it relates to Series 33 (the
    company stated it believes its patents are essential in March 2011). Despite many
    technology companies simply claiming their patents are “essential,” we believe
    VirnetX has the documentation to support the claim.
    The 3GPP has made VirnetX patents (33 in total) available to the community (more
    than 700 players) implying that the company’s encryption technology may be licensed
    by any participant. Similar to the QTL division within QUALCOMM, VirnetX would
    collect royalties based on the total dollar value of equipment shipped. As the 4G/LTE
    build begins in earnest in 2012, we believe VirnetX’s technologies will be the most
    legitimate option for 4G/LTE participants – thus we anticipate the core licensing model
    will begin to materialize as agreements are established. Investors should view the
    VirnetX business model in a similar manner to that of QTL (with revenues in excess of
    $5 billion annually and ~80% operating margins), the difference being the market
    opportunity for 4G may be greater when compared to the adoption of QTL's CDMA
    (and derivative) technologies.

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • R. Piggot at age 16:

      "I can't get a date, obviously every girl is this school is a lesbian"

    • It's transparent to everyone that you insist on laudatory comments to the detriment of conversation. Floyd and Flyer are the only reputable posters on this board (unfortunately, there aren't any articulate contrarians here).

      The Blackrock/Vanguard comment was a direct response to someone who claimed their involvement as a research positive. The QCOM comparison was headlined on the Craig-Hallum report with the $50 target, which was directly connected to the most recent spike. I believe both statements were appropriately made in context.

    • This is nonsense. You claim to have been long before a $3 PPS when the company had absolutely nothing but a story and a lawsuit, but also claim to be completely ignorant of the ETSI and ATIS licensing declarations?

      You refuse to comment on your motives but bash the stock based on a QCOM comparison that no one on this board has made for months, all the while ignoring the positives of the company - much less the reasons groups like Blackrock and Vanguard are holding the stock.

      Its transparent to everyone here. Now go away.

    • "Think Galileo". You must be joking. Comparing yourself to the father of science, is like saying VHC is a litigation company. Both premises are absurd. VHC may not be a QCOM, but it not a TRSA. I'll put it like this say you bought a bridge. You bought this bridge because you knew it crossed a river in a very good position. You also knew that some people weere already using the bridge. After closing and signing all the paper work you went out to inspect the bridge. When you got there you noticed everyone was using your bridge. Now you put up a toll booth like you planned and the guys who used the bridge the most laughed and continued to use the bridge without paying the toll. Of course you call the local law enforcement! Does this chain of events put the bridge buyer in the legal business. I would say no, but his lawyers in fact are, and it will be their job to make sure the that anyone who wishes to cross the bridge pays. If they don't pay they will be all wet.

    • Yaz,

      Yours is the first comprehensible reply in this entire thread. The others degenerate to name calling and avoiding the question.

      However, even you don't address the earlier point I was making - whether the QCOM analogy applies to VHC (it's a leading point made by Craig-Hallum, and I don't think it's a valid one).

      Rather than questioning motives (and this board is definitely biased towards spreading false short-term rumors to the upside), it's better to address specific issues.

      You may agree or disagree - but it's clear to me that most of the people who're responding to the post are incapable of understanding my line of questioning.

      If you want disclosure - I was long the stock below $3, but I don't think there's any intrinsic value above $10 (even if they win against AAPL, CSCO). It's not a great short because there are no discernible catalysts before the case is decided in late '12.

      I'd argue the people who fill these boards with crap have a more short-term agenda of inducing misinformed decision-making.

      In layman's terms, I'm not bashing the stock. Merely making a valid point that seems to make all the blind believers uncomfortable. Think Galileo.

    • Actually, Mr. Piggy, there's plenty of discourse, but it's not a basher friendly board. When folks like you and johnnystocks come here with a single minded agenda to tear down the company, you're treated about the same as Terp, because the value of your "discourse" is about the same.

      At least Terp is paid for his BS, while Rosenbaum in his multiple identities is just a childish old man with emotional problems. Why are you bashing the stock?

    • Woooooooo.. some anonymous Internet troll named R.Piggot says the CEO is a snake oil salesman.

      Cowan loves the CEO and puts millions of dollars behind their decision.

      Hmmm....who to believe???

    • I bet you live on master. Bateman rd.

    • Did you live on bateman rd

    • The only articulate person on the long side is the guy who keeps writing up VHC on seekingalpha. Most of the 13F holders are surprisingly out of touch with the name.

      That being said, this isn't a discourse friendly board. I wouldn't be surprised if the CEO is somewhat responsible for this. He came across as a snake-oil type of guy, and I believe a lot of his shares that are lent out to the shorts (and pulled back, during certain squeezes, which he promotes actively at C&C conferences).

    • View More Messages
 
VHC
7.55+0.50(+7.09%)Feb 27 4:04 PMEST

Trending Tickers

i
Trending Tickers features significant U.S. stocks showing the most dramatic increase in user interest in Yahoo Finance in the previous hour over historic norms. The list is limited to those equities which trade at least 100,000 shares on an average day and have a market cap of more than $300 million.