Ms. DICKINSON
Golden Member
Watching Europe and Asia in the red as of now. It's scary isn't it? I'll likely dump most of my positive holding.
Pliablemoose
Lifer
- Oct 11, 1999
- 25,195
- 0
- 56
Nerva
Platinum Member
- Jul 26, 2005
- 2,784
- 0
- 0
Bonton is essentially a 0 or a 10 dollar stock. Interest expense is heavy though, and they got that bond due coming up. Pretty good bet, lots up upside and you know what your downside is.
You play on BBG too much, looking up bond due payments...this thread is about speculation, not actual analysis!
EUBSC Index <GO> is interesting today again on an aside.
Nerva
Platinum Member
- Jul 26, 2005
- 2,784
- 0
- 0
my buddy is in this trade. me i already got my 0 or 100 trade in FMD. except FMD burns cash and BONT doesnt
Azurik
Platinum Member
- Jan 23, 2002
- 2,206
- 12
- 81
After a weekend of being able to grasp hold of everything, I come to these simple points:
1. I lost a lot of money.
2. I should not have bought more shares right before the halt without at least buying protection. Ideally, I should have known about the volatility (and I did), and could have capitalize on both call and put options, even if they had shot up in price when a verdict was announced. If I had not done what I did last week, I would gone from a heartbreaking loss to a manageable loss.
3. I still think Rambus should have received damages, and that Micron and Hynix are guilty.
I'm extremely disappointed they lost, and more upset that evidence that was very damaging to the memory cartel wasn't allowed in because the judge thought evidence post-2002 was enough. I thought it was, but clearly seeing what I know now, it wasn't.
The jury, at the start of deliberations, was FOR RAMBUS 7-5 and was pro-Rambus for weeks until the other side convinced the majority at the tail end of the trial 3-9 again against Rambus.
See article below with a jury opening up his thoughts:
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Exclusive-Rambus-jury-shifted-rb-3489738050.html?x=0&l=1
Exclusive: Rambus jury shifted views as deliberations wore on
Reuters – Fri, Nov 18, 2011 6:32 PM EST
By Dan Levine
SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - When he walked into the jury room to start deliberating in Rambus Inc's $4 billion antitrust lawsuit against two rivals, one juror felt confident that the small microchip designer should prevail.
But after weeks of discussion, he and several others were slowly swayed to the other side. When the last anonymous vote was taken on Wednesday morning, the jury dealt Rambus a stunning blow, deciding the company did not prove Micron Technology Inc and Hynix Semiconductor Inc colluded to fix memory-chip prices and discourage adoption of its technology.
"We didn't see the smoking gun," said the juror, speaking by telephone to Reuters after the verdict. The juror added that he was the first pro-Rambus member to defect and was "very comfortable" with the outcome.
Attempts to reach other jurors were not successful. The panel included people with a range of backgrounds, including a retired medical secretary and a software company employee who owns his own patent.
Investors had bid up Rambus' share price based on years of aggressive, and often successful, litigation.
The Sunnyvale, California, company has attracted a loyal following of small investors who see it as a memory-chip David battling Goliaths. Many investors contribute to a vigorous online message board where they discuss Rambus and ongoing cases; some showed up in court to watch the recent trial.
'BIG IN OUR BRITCHES'
"I thought about it, thought seriously about the case, reviewed my own oath, and really had to come to terms with the fact that there was no evidence," he said.
The verdict surprised many Rambus investors, perhaps in part because the company had settled antitrust and IP claims against Samsung Electronics in 2010 for $900 million.
That may have led Rambus to believe its strategic position was better than it actually was, said James Hopenfeld, an IP attorney who was not involved in the case. "You can imagine Rambus is thinking, 'Gosh we're big in our britches, we've got $900 million from Samsung,'" said Hopenfeld, who has followed Rambus' myriad court battles.
SARCASM
At trial, Rambus' attorneys hammered on an email sent by Micron executive Linda Turner. Turner said in the email that Micron had been requesting that Infineon, Samsung and Hynix lower their prices, which would help "drive Rambus' away completely." Micron contended the email was meant to be sarcastic.
The juror told Reuters he did not think the email demonstrated a conspiracy on its own, as there were no corresponding emails from the other companies confirming an agreement to fix prices. Thus the defense explanation - that Turner was being sarcastic - could have been true, he said.
MOUNTAIN OF INFORMATION
The three-month trial ended in September, and the jury deliberated for more than eight weeks. Overall the juror described the discussions as occasionally heated but always respectful, and said the group talked of planning a party together sometime soon.
Going into the deliberations, seven of the 12 jurors sided with Rambus', this person said. Nine was the minimum number needed to deliver a verdict.
The jury deadlocked at 7-5 in Rambus'' favor for more than a month, and then, one by one, members began to change their minds.
John Danforth, a former general counsel at Rambus' who still owns company stock, said some important evidence was barred from being presented to the jury -- including facts about how a separate U.S. Department of Justice investigation into price fixing played out.
Several companies, including Hynix, pleaded guilty to price fixing in the DRAM computer memory market. During the Rambus' trial, an attorney for Hynix acknowledged the 2005 plea, saying Hynix cooperated and took responsibility for its actions.
Because the jury repeatedly was told it could only consider Hynix's guilty plea for limited purposes, the price fixing probe did not play a large role in the deliberations, the juror said.
Micron cut a deal with DOJ to avoid prosecution, and the juror said that had he known of the company's role in the probe, it may have made a difference in his deliberations.
Along with Samsung, Infineon also reached a civil settlement with Rambus' before trial, and the juror said he also learned of those details after the trial was over. Had he known, the juror said it would have mattered in deliberations.
After the verdict, Rambus' signaled that some of these issues might be part of its appeal. "We do not agree with several rulings that affected how this case was presented to the jury," Chief Executive Harold Hughes said in a statement.
Ultimately, the juror told Reuters, deliberations took so long because the panel had to sift through a mountain of information - and because they were so deadlocked.
"It wasn't the sandwiches," he said.
1. I lost a lot of money.
2. I should not have bought more shares right before the halt without at least buying protection. Ideally, I should have known about the volatility (and I did), and could have capitalize on both call and put options, even if they had shot up in price when a verdict was announced. If I had not done what I did last week, I would gone from a heartbreaking loss to a manageable loss.
3. I still think Rambus should have received damages, and that Micron and Hynix are guilty.
I'm extremely disappointed they lost, and more upset that evidence that was very damaging to the memory cartel wasn't allowed in because the judge thought evidence post-2002 was enough. I thought it was, but clearly seeing what I know now, it wasn't.
The jury, at the start of deliberations, was FOR RAMBUS 7-5 and was pro-Rambus for weeks until the other side convinced the majority at the tail end of the trial 3-9 again against Rambus.
See article below with a jury opening up his thoughts:
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Exclusive-Rambus-jury-shifted-rb-3489738050.html?x=0&l=1
Exclusive: Rambus jury shifted views as deliberations wore on
Reuters – Fri, Nov 18, 2011 6:32 PM EST
By Dan Levine
SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - When he walked into the jury room to start deliberating in Rambus Inc's $4 billion antitrust lawsuit against two rivals, one juror felt confident that the small microchip designer should prevail.
But after weeks of discussion, he and several others were slowly swayed to the other side. When the last anonymous vote was taken on Wednesday morning, the jury dealt Rambus a stunning blow, deciding the company did not prove Micron Technology Inc and Hynix Semiconductor Inc colluded to fix memory-chip prices and discourage adoption of its technology.
"We didn't see the smoking gun," said the juror, speaking by telephone to Reuters after the verdict. The juror added that he was the first pro-Rambus member to defect and was "very comfortable" with the outcome.
Attempts to reach other jurors were not successful. The panel included people with a range of backgrounds, including a retired medical secretary and a software company employee who owns his own patent.
Investors had bid up Rambus' share price based on years of aggressive, and often successful, litigation.
The Sunnyvale, California, company has attracted a loyal following of small investors who see it as a memory-chip David battling Goliaths. Many investors contribute to a vigorous online message board where they discuss Rambus and ongoing cases; some showed up in court to watch the recent trial.
'BIG IN OUR BRITCHES'
"I thought about it, thought seriously about the case, reviewed my own oath, and really had to come to terms with the fact that there was no evidence," he said.
The verdict surprised many Rambus investors, perhaps in part because the company had settled antitrust and IP claims against Samsung Electronics in 2010 for $900 million.
That may have led Rambus to believe its strategic position was better than it actually was, said James Hopenfeld, an IP attorney who was not involved in the case. "You can imagine Rambus is thinking, 'Gosh we're big in our britches, we've got $900 million from Samsung,'" said Hopenfeld, who has followed Rambus' myriad court battles.
SARCASM
At trial, Rambus' attorneys hammered on an email sent by Micron executive Linda Turner. Turner said in the email that Micron had been requesting that Infineon, Samsung and Hynix lower their prices, which would help "drive Rambus' away completely." Micron contended the email was meant to be sarcastic.
The juror told Reuters he did not think the email demonstrated a conspiracy on its own, as there were no corresponding emails from the other companies confirming an agreement to fix prices. Thus the defense explanation - that Turner was being sarcastic - could have been true, he said.
MOUNTAIN OF INFORMATION
The three-month trial ended in September, and the jury deliberated for more than eight weeks. Overall the juror described the discussions as occasionally heated but always respectful, and said the group talked of planning a party together sometime soon.
Going into the deliberations, seven of the 12 jurors sided with Rambus', this person said. Nine was the minimum number needed to deliver a verdict.
The jury deadlocked at 7-5 in Rambus'' favor for more than a month, and then, one by one, members began to change their minds.
John Danforth, a former general counsel at Rambus' who still owns company stock, said some important evidence was barred from being presented to the jury -- including facts about how a separate U.S. Department of Justice investigation into price fixing played out.
Several companies, including Hynix, pleaded guilty to price fixing in the DRAM computer memory market. During the Rambus' trial, an attorney for Hynix acknowledged the 2005 plea, saying Hynix cooperated and took responsibility for its actions.
Because the jury repeatedly was told it could only consider Hynix's guilty plea for limited purposes, the price fixing probe did not play a large role in the deliberations, the juror said.
Micron cut a deal with DOJ to avoid prosecution, and the juror said that had he known of the company's role in the probe, it may have made a difference in his deliberations.
Along with Samsung, Infineon also reached a civil settlement with Rambus' before trial, and the juror said he also learned of those details after the trial was over. Had he known, the juror said it would have mattered in deliberations.
After the verdict, Rambus' signaled that some of these issues might be part of its appeal. "We do not agree with several rulings that affected how this case was presented to the jury," Chief Executive Harold Hughes said in a statement.
Ultimately, the juror told Reuters, deliberations took so long because the panel had to sift through a mountain of information - and because they were so deadlocked.
"It wasn't the sandwiches," he said.
Last edited:
It was the correct move to sell on the 15th at $2.80 and I am wishing I had done so. I was thinking the price was already low and would not return lower. My thinking has been to hold for at least a year for the dividends and this is hard to do when the market drops. In addition to the slightly decreased earnings posted in their quarterly reports.
I am still going to hold CIM, the dividends can pay one month of rent per quarter for me with the 6,000 shares I have. This is especially important for me now in the startup phase of my own business with no current cash flow and no paycheck. But at the same time, I need to be more conservative with the savings I have. It is a tough choice and this drop hurts.
Plus there was a small amount of insider purchases recently above the $3 level with no mention of insider sales.
http://seekingalpha.com/article/309300-the-hardest-part-for-the-income-investor
Last edited:
SunnyD
Belgian Waffler
Meaning: 4 out of the 7 were pissed off that it was taking so long and wanted to get home before the holidays. Justice served.
Imp
Lifer
- Feb 8, 2000
- 18,828
- 184
- 106
Their story is very well publicized. RIMM's hold on a very volatile consumer tech market is fading fast. They may have to start pawning off assets at some point, and "investors" are assuming that given its share price. Playbook is being sold at close to fire sale prices, this is the second "incentive" in a month or two; phone sales are progressively falling by the month; reports of internal management problems; the co-founders/CEOs aren't going anywhere by the sounds of it; nearest phone line overhaul is about a year away; Playbook update is months away (broken all previously promised dates); mass layoffs occuring; etc.
They are not a car maker and they aren't a bank, so I wouldn't bet on a Ford, GM, BAC, C, JPM, etc. revival.
Boo ya on the market. Been expecting/hoping for this for weeks. I'm slowly building positions in financials... Want to get into oil too, but crude is so stupidly expensive right now that I'm waiting for that crash (again) to bring down stuff like XOM and SU.
I am watching and considering Paragon Shipping, PRGN.
Current price = $0.77
Book Value = $8
A Greek owned shipping company having eleven ships. They seem to focus on shipments through the Panama Canal, have a solid schedule for the next year, with an average ship age about 8 years.
A manufacturing order I made last year was transported from China to New York by Paragon.
Current price = $0.77
Book Value = $8
A Greek owned shipping company having eleven ships. They seem to focus on shipments through the Panama Canal, have a solid schedule for the next year, with an average ship age about 8 years.
A manufacturing order I made last year was transported from China to New York by Paragon.
- Sep 29, 2004
- 18,656
- 68
- 91
PRGN involves Greek maritime shipping. This is a new area for me. I seem to be looking for underpriced, struggling, and risky opportunities dangling the dividend carrot. The potential volatility could lead to daytrading opportunities contradicting the annual dividend. I am not sure what I am looking for anymore.
Regarding the shareholder dilution, in the current economic climate, the company may feel safer paying the (stock) owners than investing for future growth. That is certainly not a good longterm sign.
Greek companies, especially a shipping company, run the risk of being nationalized during their debt issues and that could result in a complete loss.
UPDATE 3-Tanker downturn sends General Maritime to bankruptcy
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011...ype=RSS&feedName=governmentFilingsNews&rpc=43
Shipping Stocks Could Be in for Choppy Finish to 2011
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Shipping-Stocks-Could-Be-iw-989537468.html?x=0&l=1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panamax
Regarding the shareholder dilution, in the current economic climate, the company may feel safer paying the (stock) owners than investing for future growth. That is certainly not a good longterm sign.
Greek companies, especially a shipping company, run the risk of being nationalized during their debt issues and that could result in a complete loss.
UPDATE 3-Tanker downturn sends General Maritime to bankruptcy
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011...ype=RSS&feedName=governmentFilingsNews&rpc=43
Shipping Stocks Could Be in for Choppy Finish to 2011
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Shipping-Stocks-Could-Be-iw-989537468.html?x=0&l=1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panamax
Last edited:
Pliablemoose
Lifer
- Oct 11, 1999
- 25,195
- 0
- 56
Azurik
Platinum Member
- Jan 23, 2002
- 2,206
- 12
- 81
It's 9:3, but 7:5 going into deliberations is a good start. With the evidence that was omitted pre-2002, the jury would have founded for Rambus (as the juror who switched from for Rambus to against Rambus have stated).
Even then, the jury applied the wrong standard. The juror in that article stated he couldn't find a "smoking gun", but in a civil trial, as the judge instructed, one is suppose to apply it against the standard of "more likely than not" rather than "beyond a reasonable doubt".
One of the evidence they got to see explicitly states, "Micron had been requesting that Infineon, Samsung and Hynix lower their prices, which would help drive Rambus away completely." Micron's excuse to this was the executive who wrote that was being sarcastic (yeah right). Applying the former standard would have clearly sided with Rambus.
It's all water under the bridge now. The judge could have solved this whole thing by ruling it a "per se" case which he was close to doing and only asking the jury how much damages should be awarded.
The only hope Rambus has now regarding the antitrust now is that an appeal is accepted, or, that the judge rule favorable on Rambus' claim of criminal conduct by the memory cartel, which has yet to be decided by the judge and will be in the upcoming months.
Last edited:
theeedude
Lifer
- Feb 5, 2006
- 35,787
- 6,198
- 126
Conspiracy is multiple parties engaging in conduct, not just one party proposing they do. I don't think bankrupting two memory companies, which would have hurt consumers worldwide, over some emails some guy sent is justified.
FelixDeCat
Lifer
- Aug 4, 2000
- 31,268
- 2,787
- 126
Like I said before, based on my trial experiences facts make jurors heads spin and its possible to have to opposite opinions on the same information. In the end its just a popularity contest and personality wins. We did however try to be fair to all and delivered somewhat split rulings because both involved multiple issues in these paid exercises.
Azurik
Platinum Member
- Jan 23, 2002
- 2,206
- 12
- 81
That's just one e-mail. In my previous response to you, I gave you multiple instances where the memory cartel were communicating together to fix prices and colluding how to kill Rambus. An except of all these companies is below:
Managing Director of International Sales Linda Turner. Ms. Turner was responding to reports by her staff that Hynix was lowering its DDR pricing: "No problem! We want DDR to explode into the marketplace so have actually been requesting Infineon, Samsung, and Hynix to lower their DDR pricing to help it become a standard and drive Rambus away completely."
Farhad Tabrizi, Hynix executive, in his June 2000 email to Park, Tabrizi stated: "I really want to ask you to let me go back to my old mode of RDRAM killing. I think we were very close to achieving our goal until you said we are absolutely committed to this baby."
From the FTC evidence: ''Jeff Mailloux, a senior Micron executive wrote to President Tabrizi of Hynix on February 20, 1998 that he had called a reporter and had told him that RDRAM was "at least 30% more expensive to manufacture than SDRAM. Mr. Mailloux urged Mr. Tabrizi to make a similar call to the reporter, warning Mr. Tabrizi not to forward his email to anyone and asked Mr. Tabrizi "Anyhow, please visit me if I end up in jail, but felt it was important and timely enough to get our message out there that 5% is not realistic in our opinion."
Hynix manager Andy Ha that Hynix "get together with Samsung and ask them to suggest to Micron to have a joint management meeting for RDRAM/DDR price control in the future."
Last edited:
Add in net debt + ships on balance sheet at book value (i.e. overvalued book) + declining revenue + lazy greeks + shareholder dilution (like DRYS) = $0.77 stock
Arachnotronic
Lifer
- Mar 10, 2006
- 11,715
- 2,012
- 126
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter