Weekly Edition
Return to the Press page
| |||||||||||||
SCO Group's stock falls (Salt Lake Tribune)
The Salt Lake Tribune observes a minor milestone in the SCO case: "After a sustained slide fed by sustained poor earnings results and courthouse reversals, SCO shares closed Tuesday at $2.28 per share.
That was 2 cents per share lower than the company's stock sold for on March 25, 2003. That was the same day SCO, alleging IBM had transferred SCO's proprietary Unix code into its Linux releases, filed its $5 billion complaint against Big Blue in Salt Lake City's U.S. District Court."
(Log in to post comments)
SCO Group's stock falls (Salt Lake Tribune) Posted Aug 2, 2006 16:17 UTC (Wed) by sbergman27 (guest, #10767) [Link] Petty of me, I know. But I find this news very satisfying. For years I've been watching that stock price and asking "why won't this stock just tank?". The answer, of course, is that SCO is mostly owned by insiders and not subject to fundamentals in the same way most stocks are. It looks like the insiders are finally losing confidence in SCOX. Bad sign for SCO.
But it makes my day! :-)
SCO Group's stock falls (Salt Lake Tribune) Posted Aug 2, 2006 16:44 UTC (Wed) by yodermk (subscriber, #3803) [Link] > The answer, of course, is that SCO is mostly owned by insiders and not subject to fundamentals in the same way most stocks are.
I'm not sure about that. Stock price is an indicator of demand. If no one on the open market was willing to pay over $2 for a SCO share, then the stock price would sink to under $2.
Unless insiders are buying, but I doubt that. (Could go check, but no time now. :-) )
SCO Group's stock falls (Salt Lake Tribune) Posted Aug 2, 2006 16:56 UTC (Wed) by sbergman27 (guest, #10767) [Link] My perception has always been that insiders have been setting the price to some extent for their own reasons.
It's been a while since I watched closely, but I used to note that if the stock was having a bad day, an automatic transaction would kick in at about 4pm to "correct" it, usually to an integer value like 4.00, and the stock would finish the day at or above that value.
Why do this? I dunno. But it seemed clockwork predictable.
The goings on surrounding SCO's owners and their interests have always seemed fairly opaque to me.
SCO Group's stock falls (Salt Lake Tribune) Posted Aug 3, 2006 17:24 UTC (Thu) by brouhaha (subscriber, #1698) [Link] If it could be shown that insiders have been doing that, can't those insiders be prosecuted for securities fraud?
SCO Group's stock falls (Salt Lake Tribune) Posted Aug 4, 2006 17:11 UTC (Fri) by giraffedata (subscriber, #1954) [Link] If it could be shown that insiders have been doing that, can't those insiders be prosecuted for securities fraud? Nope. Buying a stock because it's cheap is perfectly OK. And the person you bought it from couldn't possibly complain that you paid too much for it. A fraudulent stock purchase is where you cheat the person you're buying stock from by using information he doesn't have access to so as to get him to take less than it's worth. It's actually very common for stock traders of all types to automatically place orders whenever the asking price falls below a certain amount, which has the effect of making the price consistently bounce back to that level.
SCO Group's stock falls (Salt Lake Tribune) Posted Aug 4, 2006 18:00 UTC (Fri) by brouhaha (subscriber, #1698) [Link] An automatic buy (or sell) that kicks in at a certain price is not the same thing as the claimed monthly scheduled trade to keep the stock at a fixed price. If the original post about that was correct, that seems to fall squarely into stock price manipulation.
SCO Group's stock falls (Salt Lake Tribune) Posted Aug 4, 2006 18:12 UTC (Fri) by brouhaha (subscriber, #1698) [Link] More specifically, the claimed behavior would violate SEC regulation chapter vii section 24.1(a) and 24.1(e). For the transaction to be unlawful under this section, it is NOT necessary that the transaction induce any other party to buy or sell. From http://www.sec.gov.ph/index.htm?src/SecRegCode8799-chapter_vii:SEC. 24. Manipulation of Security Prices; Devices and Practices.[...] I have no idea whether this is actually occuring; I am just pointing out that another person has claimed that this sort of behavior has been happening with regard to SCO stock.e) To effect, either alone or others, any series of transactions for the purchase and/or sale of any security traded in an Exchange for the purpose of pegging, fixing or stabilizing the price of such security, unless otherwise allowed by this Code or by rules of the Commission.
SCO Group's stock falls (Salt Lake Tribune) Posted Aug 2, 2006 18:15 UTC (Wed) by iabervon (subscriber, #722) [Link] It's also an indicator of supply. Stock price only takes into account sucessful trades; if people are only willing to pay 2 for the stock, but nobody with the stock is willing to sell for that much, the price doesn't change. If you look at the trading volume of SCOX recently, it's looking like there isn't much consensus on the price. So the price is determined by outliers in the price estimations, and it's not a particularly useful number for any practical purpose.
But that value is still inflated Posted Aug 2, 2006 16:23 UTC (Wed) by JoeBuck (subscriber, #2330) [Link] At the time SCO filed the suit, their Unix business looked better than it does now, and they hadn't yet started alienating their own customers by suing some and threatening the rest. So the fact that their stock is now worth about the same as when they started their legal war means that their stock is still significantly overvalued. IANAA (I am not an analyst), but I think that any clueful analyst will still say "strong sell".
But that value is still inflated Posted Aug 2, 2006 16:35 UTC (Wed) by sbergman27 (guest, #10767) [Link] Not to defend SCO. But while their Unix business has suffered, Openserver is far better than it was at that time. Openserver had stagnated for years. The current offering is based on the far superior UnixWare kernel and includes lots of nice OSS software like samba.
Still not as good as Caldera Linux was. But far better than the old Openserver.
But that value is still inflated Posted Aug 2, 2006 21:16 UTC (Wed) by allesfresser (subscriber, #216) [Link] "Still not as good as Caldera Linux was"
Now there's a laughable comparison... how old is Caldera Linux now? And how would OpenServer compare to a modern Linux distribution then? Yeah... not very well... so why would anyone ever bother with it now?
But that value is still inflated Posted Aug 2, 2006 21:35 UTC (Wed) by dmarti (subscriber, #11625) [Link] Good point, but what matters isn't so much the absolute merits of SCOX products, but the gap between Linux and those products. And the gap has widened as SCOX cut R&D.
But that value is still inflated Posted Aug 2, 2006 23:30 UTC (Wed) by Arker (guest, #14205) [Link] Remember, when they filed suit, their 'unix business' was just a matter of fulfilling outstanding contracts and trying to maintain the relationship with the customers so that when they migrated to linux it would be Caldera Openlinux, rather than Redhat.
The SCO Group is not SCO (the Santa Cruz Operation.) The SCO Group is Caldera. Santa Cruz changed name to Tarantella then got bought up by Sun. The SCO Group/Caldera never had a 'Unix business.' They were a linux company from day one, with DR DOS on the side, which they quickly spun off. They bought the tattered remains of SCOs moribund Unix business for the customer/contact lists they thought would help expand their linux business. They've gotten very revisionist on their own history, trying to pretend they're SCO, but go look at the original complaint against IBM. Plaintiff: Caldera dba 'The SCO Group.'
But that value is still inflated Posted Aug 4, 2006 20:05 UTC (Fri) by pimlott (guest, #1535) [Link] And if you're still skeptical, you might believe one Darl McBride, who acknowledged that SCO was "a few quarters from being out of cash" prior to their anti-Linux offensive.
SCO Group's stock falls (Salt Lake Tribune) Posted Aug 2, 2006 17:29 UTC (Wed) by Sombrio (guest, #26942) [Link] Na, Na, Naaa, NaNa, Na, Naaa, Na Heeeeey, Good Bye!
SCO Group's stock falls (Salt Lake Tribune) Posted Aug 2, 2006 21:52 UTC (Wed) by sbergman27 (guest, #10767) [Link] If the topic were anything else, I would condemn the parent comment as a totally useless waste of everyone's time and bandwidth. I would label it as childish, and totally without merit.
However, since the topic *isn't* something else, please permit me to join in.
Naaah!! naaaah!! ney! naaaah!! naaaah!!!!
Die SCO, die!!!
;-)
SCO Group's stock falls (Salt Lake Tribune) Posted Aug 2, 2006 23:11 UTC (Wed) by allesfresser (subscriber, #216) [Link] Just as a side note, I think the parent post was referring to a pop song frequently sung by fans at athletic events when their team is winning decisively--aiming the lyrics at the other "loser" team: "Na Na Hey Hey (Kiss Him Goodbye)" by Steam (1969). See here (among other places) for more info.
SCO Group's stock falls (Salt Lake Tribune) Posted Aug 2, 2006 23:41 UTC (Wed) by sbergman27 (guest, #10767) [Link] In that case, I apologize to Sombrio for the misinterpretation... and continue my gleeful and totally petty chant.
This time in private. :-)
|
|||||||||||||