Seeking Alpha
View as an RSS Feed

Chung Yen Wong  

View Chung Yen Wong's Comments BY TICKER:

Latest  |  Highest rated
  • Nam Tai: Can The Land Offset Core Business Woes? [View article]
    how does the 10% dividend come into the picture? Do you expect any changes with that respect?
    Jun 26, 2013. 01:56 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • The Tragedy Of Long-Term Unemployment [View article]
    Good analysis. I also remember reading on businessweek about LT unemployed staying out of formal economy and shifting into the shadow economy, estimated at $2tril, such as using their own house as place to conduct trading business with cash only transactions. It is a representation of the underlying structural change in the formal economy.
    Apr 23, 2013. 08:01 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Sell In May And Go Away? [View article]
    "1871-2012"? Seriously? Is that even practical?
    I'm an advocate of buy-hold but am not convinced of that chart. Think it would give better picture if they have charts which cover more timeframe combinations up to the last 10 or 15 years aside from the starting point up there. The landscape has certainly changed in one way or another.
    Apr 10, 2013. 09:06 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Li & Fung: No Turnaround In Sight Except A Questionable Balance Sheet [View article]
    Hi frdmhr, as I have no access to data providers I'd go to for their reports/announcements. Agree that in the states there isn't much coverage, just look at the number of follower of this stock on SA should give you very good clue. I haven't had time to dig into the ownership structure, hope to get onto that when I have more time. On the dividend, they did make a small change to die dividend to COP instead of Operating Profit, the payout ratio for 2012 is around 53%, which is still pretty high considering their cash needs.
    After hearing what the management said last Thursday, it doesn't seem that they have realised the core issue. They claimed that LF USA is the core problem and once that is over Distribution will be good again. I'm not so sure. Looking at the growth of Logistics & Trading, they don't look like they are anywhere heading to their original target ($0.1 & 0.7bil respectively).
    Anyway they have abandoned their target now. Didn't set a new target, tells you how confident they are that the mess will be over real soon.
    Mar 24, 2013. 04:18 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Skullcandy: A Stock Ready To Pop [View article]
    Any follow up? It's 6.50 now :s
    Feb 5, 2013. 09:37 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Harris & Harris Group - A Nanotech VC For The Everyman [View article]
    Thanks for bringing this up. Would be interested to see your valuation work on the intrinsic value. Would be nice if u can publish a follow up on that.
    Thanks very much
    Feb 1, 2013. 06:00 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Vringo's Huge and Obvious Upside Potential [View instapost]
    dude you need to look into the 8K seriously. Look for the fully diluted share count.
    Nov 23, 2012. 11:57 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Numbers Don't Lie. Well Maybe This Time They Are... [View instapost]
    35% is to account for the past damage in the period as define by the laches, i.e. Sept 2011. The past damage is precisely accountable for the 35% of the 6 years that was originally sought after.
    Nov 7, 2012. 10:18 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Vringo Vs. Google: Take A Deep Breath, The Roller Coaster Continues [View instapost]
    Hi murphman,

    Thanks for the link to the Proffer. Although I still couldn't understand what do Laches and Proffer mean, after reading the entire Proffer Vringo submitted, it really-really doesn't make any sense to limit the damage in the initial years.

    I was again clearly known/stated in pg8 that:
    "Google was aware of the patents-in-suit prior to September 15, 2012. Google owns U.S. Patent No. 7,647,242, and the ‘242 patent lists the ‘420 patent on its face. (PX 0416). In particular, in an Office Action dated September 30, 2003, the ‘420 patent was cited as a reference made of record in the prosecution history of the ‘242 patent. (PX 0417).

    In a 2008 Google email, Google’s employees discuss Don Kosak, one of the inventors of the patents-in-suit. (PX 0408, 0409). Google also produced articles from 1996, 1997 and 1998 that were obtained from its corporate archives describing Ken Lang and WiseWire, which was a precursor to the technology described in the patents-in-suit. (PX 0410, 0411, 0412, 0413). Google produced a patent used as a deposition exhibit in a prior Google litigation, as well as another patent presumably produced as alleged prior art in this litigation. (PX 0414, 0415). The ‘799 patent is listed as a cited reference on the face of these patents."

    I couldn't understand why JJ made the decision at this particular moment with all this evidence on the table.

    Jeez man, jeez...
    Nov 2, 2012. 04:50 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Vringo: Remix For The Price Of A Song [View article]
    Not again...
    I'm sure the people comment after me will remind you how your so called "prior arts" have been mentioned multiple times to USPTO when Lang/Kosak file their search patent.
    Oct 24, 2012. 04:48 AM | 5 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Vringo Vs. Google: The Calm Before The Storm [View article]
    Yes, very fortunate indeed. Thanks Steve, once again.
    Oct 16, 2012. 10:20 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Vringo Vs. Google: Trial Update For 10/15/2012 [View instapost]
    Thanks steve, in advance.
    Docket 719 pg 11 #12
    "The reasonable royalty rate that is adequate to compensate 1/P Engine for Defendants' infringement of the '420 and '664 patents is 3.5%."
    Oct 16, 2012. 12:45 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Things To Watch Out For VRNG Shareholders [View instapost]
    Hi Mohan thanks for digging in and pointing this out for us.
    Oct 16, 2012. 12:41 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Vringo Vs. Google: Vringo's Damage Calculation Looks To Be Reduced [View article]
    Thanks steve, once again, for deciphering this. I personally think that your theory is logical and plausible. And if you are right, the market is over-reacting based on no settlement reached. The market is upset when Google hasn't paid the bill, yet missing the point that Vringo is still re-calculating the price for what Google has consumed in her restaurant. (not a perfect analogy I know)
    Oct 10, 2012. 01:48 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Tangible Possibility Of A Black-Swan Judgment Against Vringo [View article]
    Thanks Icarus, hoping to hear your view soon in light with the current /latest updates :)
    Oct 3, 2012. 12:14 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment