Your Potential Descendancy from a World Conquering Postmaster General

Your Potential Descendancy from a World Conquering Postmaster General

—May 5, 2020

Do you have world conqueror genes coursing through your blood? Let’s consider the possibility:

  • Alexander the Great?—While his only legitimate child died at age 13, it is possible that he sired some illegitimate children during his extensive travels.
  • Julius Caesar?—Same, with no known legitimate children, but perhaps some seed spreading while on any number of expeditions.  
  • Napoleon Bonaparte—while his one legitimate child—Napoleon II—died childless (Napoleon III being a cousin), Bonaparte did have at least two acknowledged illegitimate sons, both of whom have a few living descendants. Thus, there is a slight chance that you could be a direct descendant from one of these Bonaparte trysts.

Look East for Your Possible World Conquering Ancestor?

That all said, Napoleon’s blood line, as well as that of just about all other historically significant figures, has got nothing on Genghis Kahn. In fact, about one out of every 200 men alive today are descended from the Great Khan—that is, about 19.5 million men around the world (though most live in Mongolia and surrounding countries).

With six Mongolian wives and more than 500 concubines, the Mongol terror was a baby making machine. Researchers have identified a Y-chromosome sequence believed to be from the Great Khan that is present in 8% of men in 16 population groups spanning Asia. If you’re not from Asia, there’s still hope, though, as the sequence is found in about 0.5% of men in the rest of the word. And your odds of having that world-conquering blood may be enhanced should you have red hair and green eyes, as a Persian chronicler described Super G with those distinctive characteristics, which were present among the ethnically diverse Mongols of that time.

What Was Your Potential Ancestor Like?   

Born around 1162, young G had a rough childhood that included the murder of his father, his family’s exile from his tribe, and a stint as a slave for a rival tribe. But by his early 20s, he had established himself as a strong warrior and leader, and by 1206 had confederated the Mongol steppe tribes under his leadership. He quickly set about meeting the neighbors, and, up until his death in 1227 introduced himself to people from as far east as Korea to as far west as Kiev Russia (his son, Kublai, would subsequently say hello to Europeans proper).

Not that anyone in his path wanted to say hello to the Great Khan and his horde, as historians believe his world tour may have been responsible for the deaths of up to 40 million people, or more than 10 percent of the world’s population at the time (guess he needed to make room for his offspring). But Super G wasn’t all badness. Those who did not resist and gave freely of their possessions generally kept their lives. An early proponent of religious tolerance, he passed religious freedom laws and tax exemptions for places of worship. He brought order, stability, and free trade to the silk road, and developed an extensive postal system, an early form of the Pony Express.

Of course, any interest you might have in being a Genghis Kahn descendent is likely stoked more by his world conquering creds than that of perhaps being the world’s first Postmaster General.  

Rodney Dangerfield of Telecom Sector Seeks Respect

Rodney Dangerfield of Telecom Sector Seeks Respect

—June 9, 2009

Interdigital Communications Corporation (IDCC) has long been the Rodney Dangerfield of the wireless Telecom sector, as it just “can’t get no respect,” from either Wall Street or many of the big wireless players.  However, that may finally change later this summer as the world’s leader in cell phone sales, Nokia, could decide to come to terms with IDCC rather than face a possible U.S. importation ban on its smart phones.

IDCC has been seeking respect and revenues from its technology and patents since it was founded in 1972.  Its attempts to generate revenues from its proprietary wireless phone system resulted in significant operating losses, but the company realized that its patented cell phone technologies–those used both in handsets and for transmission (base stations)–were crucial to the development of the fledgling worldwide cell phone system. 

The big cell phone players, however, basically decided that IDCC’s patented technologies were not “essential” to the system, and balked at paying the royalties Interdigital sought, forcing the company to seek redress through the court system.

In 1995 Interdigital lost a crucial patent infringement case against the biggest cell phone maker of that time period, Motorola, which reputedly made other companies even more hesitant to license with IDCC and pay for the company’s technology.  This despite the fact that the U.S. Patent Office, and several European patent offices, revalidated and affirmed the disputed patents in 1999. 

A 10-year legal battle Ericsson resulted in a settlement in 2003, but the settlement itself disappointed Wall Street as it appeared that IDCC, which had reportedly been seeking more than $1 billion in damages, accepted “pennies on the dollar” (the settlement gave IDCC $34 million for past infringement and established a new license with rates of between .5 percent to .75 percent for handsets and a flat $6 million per year for base stations).  However, Wall Street did get excited because IDCC announced that the Ericsson settlement initiated licenses and multi-million dollar payments from Samsung and Nokia under licensing frameworks (basically agreements to pay whatever Ericsson agreed to pay) IDCC had in place with those two companies, and the stock rose  from about $14 to reach a high of $27.14 within two months. 

Of course, both Nokia and Samsung claimed foul, initiated arbitration and began other legal maneuvering (Nokia has initiated more than 10 separate legal actions–most of which ultimately proved unsuccessful–in the U.S. and abroad in a strategy some call “delay and obfuscate”) to get out of paying IDCC anything for its patented technology.  Ultimately, after arbitration awards granted to IDCC, appeals of those awards and other legal maneuvering by the defendants, Nokia in 2006 paid $253 million for their use of IDCC patented technology up to the year 2006, while Samsung in late 2008 settled for a reported $400 to $500 million to cover both past infringement and a royalty bearing license good until 2012.

At this point in the story it should be noted that most of the above mentioned legal saga revolved around 2G (or second generation) cell phone patents.  IDCC has also been a key player in the development of 3G technologies (which resulted in “smart phones” and is used extensively in wireless computing) and served on the international standards body that coordinated the development of 3G for commercial application.  The standards body reportedly accepted about 300 IDCC contributions of patented technology as either essential to the system or commercially attractive.

Starting in about 2003, Interdigital began publicly announcing that its goal was to get paid for every 3G device sold worldwide, and that it was aiming to receive from between $1 to $2 per every device.  Since then, IDCC has managed to license more than 50 percent of the 3G market with companies such as LG Electronics, Research in Motion, Apple, Panasonic, NEC, Hitachi, Kyocera, High Tech Computer, Arima, Toshiba, and, most recently, Samsung, coming to terms with the company.

And now Nokia, which remains the biggest hold-out, is facing an August 14 “initial determination” on whether the International Trade Commission (ITC) should ban the importation of Nokia handsets into the U.S. due to infringement of IDCC patents.  The ITC case mirrors the one IDCC had with Samsung prior to their settlement, in that it involves some of the same patents and that the ITC staff have recommended a finding of “no violation” (and thus, no importation ban) against the alleged infringer.  Samsung agreed to settlement just weeks prior to the “initial determination” deadline in its case, and many pundits believe Nokia will do the same. 

While the ITC staff recommendation would appear to favor Nokia, ITC judges are not under any obligation to follow the staff recommendation, and, in fact, often rule contrary to them.  And, like Samsung, Nokia just cannot afford even the risk–a sword of Damocles–of an importation ban due to the scale of the potential economic disruption it could cause.

If Nokia settles as expected, the rest of the 3G market, including Sony-Ericsson and Motorola, is expected to quickly follow.  In fact, IDCC officers have alluded to a 3G license framework the company has with Sony-Ericsson that dictates the terms under which that company will take a 3G license, and many analysts believe the primary dictate to be that IDCC licenses Nokia to 3G.       

A Nokia 3G license would boost IDCC’s annual revenues by at least 30 percent, and adding the other holdouts to the mix should represent a doubling of revenues.  While the company has been aiming for licensing terms of between $1 to $2 per 3G device, it appears that the company has been getting terms of between $0.50 to $1.25.  However, this still adds up to hundreds of millions of dollars in revenues per year, most of which will flow to the bottom line as the company generates almost 100 percent gross margin on licensing revenues. 

And these revenues should continue to increase every year for the foreseeable future as the number of 3G devices being sold every year continues to grow.  Under Interdigital’s own projections for the year 2012, with 75 percent of the 3G market licensed at $1 per device the company would earn about $700 million in 2012.  With 100 percent of the market licensed at $1 per device this figure almost reaches $1 billion.   

The company has more than 3,000 patents issued worldwide, with another 9,000 pending, and was ranked 141 among companies worldwide for the number of patents issued by US Patent Office in 2007.  Its patents cover 3G wireless, the future 4G wireless, wireless LAN and Mobility/Convergence.  Its roster of current 3G licensees represents a “who’s who” of the wireless business and currently help the company earn more than $1 per share (excepting a recent $37.1 million repositioning charge).  The addition of Nokia and other holdouts, along with a growing market for 3G devices, could easily raise the company’s earnings to between $2 to $3 per share by late 2010.

With a current P/E of around 109  and a price to sales ratio of 3.6 we cannot argue that the stock is cheap, however we would argue that the P/E is misleading given the repositioning charge.  We believe that future positive news flows, earnings surprises, new licenses, and growing revenues make the stock especially attractive on a forecasted 2010-2011 P/E of 9.5.  We expect investors to drive the price back up to the $32 to $36 range by the end of the year.

Disclosure: Long IDCC


Harley Davidson Executives, Investors Wear Generational Blinders

Harley Davidson Executives, Investors Wear Generational Blinders

–One of more than 70 articles I produced for the Financial Website, Seeking Alpha.

Harley Davidson Inc. (HOG) yesterday reported an 84 percent plunge in third-quarter profits and announced the dissolution of its Buell line of specialty sport motorcycles and the sale of its MV Agusta division in order to focus its resources on its namesake brand.  Harley Davidson CEO Keith Wandell said the return from the sale of an MV Agusta or Buell is far less than the return the company gets from a Harley Davidson, and that “we’re going to be able to grow the company more quickly … by investing in the power of the Harley Davidson brand.”  According to the Wall Street Journal, Wandell admitted that both Buell and MV Agusta have a strong following, but that those divisions were “diverting investment dollars away from the Harley brand to support those brands.”

The shares rose almost 5 percent on the news, and were up another 3 percent in this morning’s trading, but we wonder if investors have considered how the company plans to generate these greater returns when the Baby Boomer generation that makes up the vast bulk of its customer base is rapidly aging out of the market, and the generations following do not seem to share the same affinity for the iconic brand.

On a price to sales and price to book ratio one can see from the chart below that Harley Davidson is back to the levels of the late 1980s.  With the average age of a Harley owner at 47 years, the difference now is that unlike the period 1990 to 2002, the company is no longer mining the demographic growth market of the large Baby Boomer generation.  So, not only is the company’s potential market base growing smaller due to the smaller size of the oncoming Generation X, its growing smaller because the oncoming market base has displayed little inkling that it even likes the product.

In short, we feel that the company is making a big mistake in divesting itself of two brands that have far more appeal to younger generations than the Harley Hogs, and that company executives, as well as investors, have blinders on with regard to the multi-generational earnings power of the Harley Davidson brand.

How many people under 40 do you know that own or want to own a Harley Davidson Motorcycle? We know of none, and an informal poll of friends and family turned up none, which is not saying a whole lot because aforesaid informal poll certainly lacks statistical significance.  However, anyone giving any consideration to investing in HOG should conduct their own informal poll because those 40-and-under-year-olds are Harley Davidson’s fast approaching future market, and early indications suggest this future market doesn’t give a fig about Harley Davidson.  However, ask an under-40-year-old motorcycle rider if they’d like to own a Buell or an MV Agusta, and the response will likely be quite positive and in some cases may even induce a Pavlovian response.

The stock price action would suggest that we do not know what we are talking about; however, demographic change does not happen overnight, it’s a relatively slow progression, kind of like the Harley riders of today slipping into old age and out of their Hogs and into golf carts and wheel chairs.  As this comes to pass, Harley Davidson is going to see significant sales declines if the incoming and younger generations don’t buy into the Harley Davidson brand.

And Harley Davidson’s earlier success was built on a brand, the branding of the outlaw biker.  In the 1960s and ‘70s the Harley Davidson logo was signature wear for the “Hells Angels,” other biker gangs, and bad-boy wannabes–relatively rare and thus “cool.”  Today the logo seems almost ubiquitous on middle-aged and elderly bikers, who wear far more black leather and sport shinier chrome on their Harleys than any Hells Angel ever did.  The once cool, outlaw-style logo has been homogenized, and is about as outlaw and cool as the Walt Disney (DIS) logo.

Harley Davidson has been seeing significant sales declines since 2006, and the CEO reported that it will “bump along the bottom through 2010,” but suggested that the company’s “strategy,” cost-cutting efforts, and overseas opportunities position it for future growth.  We believe that a rebounding economy will help Harley Davidson for the short term, but feel that demographic headwinds will prove detrimental to the company’s long term future unless it accounts for the younger generations (please see our July 17 Seeking Alpha article).  With the boot Harley is giving to Buell and MV Agusta it appears that executives aren’t giving full credence to younger generational tastes quite yet, but at least they still have a bit of hope with the V-Rod model.

Oh, and speaking of overseas opportunities, Harley Davidson executives believe that India and China represent great opportunities and plan to significantly boost the company’s presence in both countries.  Let’s see, Harley Davidson primarily makes big, in many cases really big, production motorcycles.  People in China, and even more so, India, on average are among the world’s shortest people.  There’s just something not right about this picture.

–Originally Published Oct. 16, 2009 in Seeking Alpha.

He Should Have Used XXXX Alert

He Should Have Used XXXX Alert

I wrote these two blogs for a potential client last year. The client loved them and wanted me to blog for him, but was only willing to offer peanuts for my work. What's up with people who think writers are worth so little?  

So, you’ve met a new squeeze through an online dating service….

She’s hot!

She might be “the one!”

You’re smitten, and one date leads to another date, which leads to another date, but by the fourth date that magic starts wearing off….

By the fifth date you’re starting to think that maybe you’ve made a mistake. In fact, you might be wondering why you didn’t consider doing a background check on this woman, who just a week ago had you thinking weird domesticated thoughts like: I don’t need to go out with the boys Friday night, or Wow, check out the wheels on that baby stroller.

But now, as the prospect of your sixth date nears, has you thinking about how to disengage from this nascent relationship without causing undue stress.

Disengagement without losing an arm…or, possibly, a family pet.

Yeah, should have done a background check….

At least, that’s what the man from Thousand Oaks, California was probably thinking when his ex-online-girlfriend was found in his chimney last month.


Now we at are not saying that a background search in that case would have conclusively ruled out Genoveva Nunez-Figueroa as prime date material worthy of possible lifelong wedded bliss. But it could have provided warning signals. May have given that Thousand Oaks man enough information about his prospective date to make the relationship evolve more slowly….

Slow enough so that Genoveva would never have had any reason to end up in his chimney. Slow enough so that he might never have had any desire to date that woman…

…who ended up trying to break into his house by climbing down his chimney to do who knows what!

We’ll never know. But you can protect yourself from potential chimney-invading online dates by utilizing our services here at


Self Background Checks May Limit Damage from Identity Theft

Many people are confused about the concept of conducting a background check on themselves.

What? I’m not a criminal! or I haven’t done anything wrong! would be common responses to the notion.

But conducting a background check on yourself is perhaps as valuable to your peace of mind as the one you’re thinking about conducting on your daughter’s new boyfriend–the boyfriend who sports multiple piercings, has more ink in his skin than you have in your printer and said, “nice to meet you Daddy-O,” upon meeting you, while giving you a knuckle-bump to the forehead.

A background check on him might come up roses, but the one done on you may contain some potential thorns.

Consider that a 2012 study conducted by Javelin Strategy concluded that one in 20 Americans have been affected by identity theft, and that the Federal Trade Commission receives about 20,000 reports per week from consumers who’ve had their identities stolen.

And once your identity is stolen, the identity thief cannot only use that information to steal from you, but use your identity to abet his theft from others and make you appear to be the criminal.

The FBI’s website details the case of a Miami man whose identity was compromised for over 20 years. The victim’s driver’s license was suspended for driving infractions he did not do. He experienced trouble getting jobs due to records showing a felony conviction for a crime he did not commit. And he was denied a passport because the Department of State determined he already had one, even though he didn’t. All of this being the result of the identity thief’s use of the victim’s identity. And while the victim had filed a police report in 1989, the perpetrator was not caught until 2012.

Now we at are not saying that a background report would have  conclusively stopped the criminal from using the Miami man’s identity, but it may have mitigated the damage. Background checks would have allowed the victim to keep better track of how and where his identity was being used, information that could then be passed on to the police.

–Neither ever published, I’m sad to say….