The call on the field stands. I awoke yesterday like it was Christmas morn. Earnings had been released the night before and it appeared that the company had cleared a hurdle that I had been dreading. I was worried going into the announcement about the expense side because I knew legal costs had been incurred and the mystery cost was Evercore/Barclays. I had read the earnings release and was very satisfied that our running back was in the open field with just the CAFC defender between him and the goal line. As I watched the first play develop, out of nowhere a person with what appeared to be the same uniform ran up behind our runner and took him down with what looked like a horse collar tackle causing a fumble that bounced a few yards backwards and causing a loss as it rolled out of bounds. I thought no big deal. The kid was not going the distance anyway, but we would at least have some additional yards added due to the horse collar infraction. The play was reviewed and by golly, the play stands. The huge momentum across the sector was completely yanked from us because of a bonehead play by ostensibly one of our own players. We paid a lot for this player and we certainly expected better than what was exhibited on the first play of the game yesterday.
After the game, folks tried to defend this blunder with the chinese wall excuse. The reasons put forth was the LG termination. If this were the case, the horse collar should have taken place back on October 3 when IDCC added LG as a party to the ITC game. Yes, the revenue model was used by the Barclay player, but why be restricted to this model when the rest of the has formally changed valuation methods regarding IPR. Naturally it would be too speculative to base value on potential sale. However, it would be far more accurate to establish a revenue plus model for qualifying companies. It is equally too speculative to use just a revenue model when a company is known to be in play. The prudent value should rest on an objective formula of revenue model plus 20% while the "in play" light continues to be lit. All one needs is common sense and provide an explanation of the use of the objective formula in the report and nobody should have a complaint. Oh well, I threw the challenge flag and thus far the ruling on the field stands ripping what should have been great momentum from the team. I do not like it. In fact, I am still mad about it, but I am a realist and know there is absolutely nothing I can do about it. For those screaming class action, save your breath.
MO
zzfan
| 