Wed, Apr 16, 2014, 8:37 PM EDT - U.S. Markets closed

Recent

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

InterDigital, Inc. Message Board

  • hannibal7878 hannibal7878 Oct 27, 2011 12:32 PM Flag

    Called Barclays analyst Sarah Wang wanting to ask her how

    she valued IDCC without seemingly accounting for the 3G ongoing litigation and the LTE IPR in lieu of the comparable sales of MMI and Nortel IPR.Talked to a recorder but left a message questioning how barclays could be working to get our best value and she would downgrade the stockprice?Is she independant or what?

    I then called IDCC PR and they assured me they are aware of this and are addressing it..so we will see?i got a call back from IR and they told me that the understand the implications that this Barclays bank analyst engendered?

    They[IDCC] has contacted Barclays about this seeming disconnect and barclays branch that deals with M&A actually has a "firewall" between these divisions.Regardless barclays is also looking into it and "perhaps" we will get some NEW information being released from them.

    IF that transpires later today or tomorrow this weakness may have been the last cheap buying opportunity.Trust this ain't gonna sell for any 2B dollars.Its worth by most any metric..5-6B at least.

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • Barclay's will probably argue that their price target on IDCC is based on revenues and earnings - not assets. They are saying the company is worth $45/share today without a sale of IR, without a premium. That doesn't mean it's not worth $80-$100 in a sale.

    • ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!

      Yea, LAST BUYING OPPORTUNITY. LMAO!!!!!!!!!!!

      Do you realize what a putz you sound like? You're correct in the regard that this company will not sell for 2 bil. That's why this initiative WILL END without a sale and it will be biz back to usual.

    • It seems to me that if there is a "Chinese Wall" between M/A and the analyst, that wall comes down as soon as the analyst publishes. While they may not be talking face-to-face, clearly the analyst has made her position clear.

      If the analyst would have provided a price target of 120 would anyone consider it credible? You'd automatically assume it was self-serving. Only because it is contrary to the interests of the client does anyone assume it is an honest appraisal.

    • Great post Hannibal..I agree!

    • By email I also was assured that the Board at IDCC is aware of this one. Personally I think this represents a direct blatant conflict of interest at the corporate level regardless of chinese walls between their divisions. It was poorly managed there at Barclay's not IDCC's fault. Probably Barclays has to clear this up, even fire the analyst for this huge gap in judgement (extremely uninformed analysis) and or retract the analysis as incomplete and s/n/h/b issued in lieu of their current proprietary engagement with IDCC. One point being if someone hires you to sell something for 5 bucks, you don't broadcast that it is only worth $2 regardless! This is an incredible error on the part of Barclays!

      • 4 Replies to jackgotney
      • I think it shows that Barclays is a top notch company. They could have easily not allowed this price cut, but they did allow and that shows that they are not pumpers or bashers but able to make a neutral observation from another division and allow it to go through. I commend Barclays for their honesty.

        Guys before you attack..what if Barclays raised price target to $100..what would you have said..would you have cried foul then. Guys if you want to hear what you want to hear go to MPartners..if you want to hear all sides don't attack Barclay here.

      • IDCC doesn't get a pass on this. They hired Barclays and this is the end result. The message to the market is crystal clear now: a big firm with close ties to the company now thinks this company is not worth what everyone thinks it is. It doesn't get any clearer than this. The fact that Barclays is on IDCC's payroll makes this report all the more credible and devastating. Because they failed to factor in results of a possible sale can be taken to mean there will be no sale. They ought to know, they are sitting right there in the catbird's seat.

      • Huuum! Chinese walls?

        Sarah Wang?
        Jeff Kvaal, ex-Lehman Brothers, married with Jane Chang?

        A lot of Chinese influence with Asian interests around ...

      • I agree, they should have suspended coverage as someone has said, hell we are in a quite period all over, and for these to be announced today, what a joke---we should be up over $50----a large shareholder in Atlanta at the shareholders meeting berated mgment for not having more coverage , this company is totally mis-understood, NPE are very hard to value---they must tell the story better and more often--

    • Stick a fork in this. Barclays did. Very little question now that this sale was handled poorly beginning with the hiring of the M&A team. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot. It's truly laughable. Maybe IDCC's timing was off, but bringing these white shoe firms on to sell this company in the manner they did proved to be a big mistake sealed with a kiss by today's epic downgrade that negated a positive earnings surprise. Truly the cherry on top of a three-month series of plunders. They quite literally hired their own firing squad.

    • It's like the IDCC quarterly report, which was REAL, got "sandwitched" between the DR manipulation from early yesterday and the shitty opinion analysis from Barclays & Davenport which were made public this morning, where the "professionals" conveniently "forgot" to quantify the value of the patents.

      I feel that Barclays M&A team is some sort of Troyan Horse, whereby they claim a wall of silence bewteen the M&A and the analyst. This might be true but perhaps both talk to some of the various Barclays trading desks. So technicaly true but irrelevant in real terms.

      So, the fact that they don't speak to each other can be presented as plausible... well lets try to have an audit of the activities of their various trading desks.

      I certainly wish that Barclays to produce a statement to the effect that none of their propietary trading desks, or trading desks outside of the bank =but that trade on behalf of Barclays with the banks $$=, have traded IDCC shares since the initiation of the strategic process.........

    • It's like the IDCC quarterly report, which was REAL, got "sandwitched" between the DR manipulation from early yesterday and the shitty opinion analysis from Barclays & Davenport which were made public this morning, where the "professionals" conveniently "forgot" to quantify the value of the patents.

      I feel that Barclays M&A team is some sort of Troyan Horse, whereby they claim a wall of silence bewteen the M&A and the analyst. This might be true but perhaps both talk to some of the various Barclays trading desks. So technicaly true but irrelevant in real terms.

      So, the fact that they don't speak to each other can be presented as plausible... well lets try to have an audit of the activities of their various trading desks.

      I certainly wish that Barclays to produce a statement to the effect that none of their propietary trading desks, or trading desks outside of the bank =but that trade on behalf of Barclays with the banks $$=, have traded IDCC shares since the initiation of the strategic process.........

    • It's like the IDCC quarterly report, which was REAL, got "sandwitched" between the DR manipulation from early yesterday and the shitty opinion analysis from Barclays & Davenport which were made public this morning, where the "professionals" conveniently "forgot" to quantify the value of the patents.

      I feel that Barclays M&A team is some sort of Troyan Horse, whereby they claim a wall of silence bewteen the M&A and the analyst. This might be true but perhaps both talk to some of the various Barclays trading desks. So technicaly true but irrelevant in real terms.

      So, the fact that they don't speak to each other can be presented as plausible... well lets try to have an audit of the activities of their various trading desks.

      I certainly wish that Barclays to produce a statement to the effect that none of their propietary trading desks, or trading desks outside of the bank =but that trade on behalf of Barclays with the banks $$=, have traded IDCC shares since the initiation of the strategic process.........

    • It's like the IDCC quarterly report, which was REAL, got "sandwitched" between the DR manipulation from early yesterday and the shitty opinion analysis from Barclays & Davenport which were made public this morning, where the "professionals" conveniently "forgot" to quantify the value of the patents.

      I feel that Barclays M&A team is some sort of Troyan Horse, whereby they claim a wall of silence bewteen the M&A and the analyst. This might be true but perhaps both talk to some of the various Barclays trading desks. So technicaly true but irrelevant in real terms.

      So, the fact that they don't speak to each other can be presented as plausible... well lets try to have an audit of the activities of their various trading desks.

      I certainly wish that Barclays to produce a statement to the effect that none of their propietary trading desks, or trading desks outside of the bank =but that trade on behalf of Barclays with the banks $$=, have traded IDCC shares since the initiation of the strategic process.........

    • View More Messages
 
IDCC
32.91+0.41(+1.26%)Apr 16 4:00 PMEDT

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.