Slashdot Mirror

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like this would only be a problem for high frequency traders that don't pay to colocate at the New York Stock Exchange.

For those that don't know, you can pay to have a server on location at the NYSE site in New Jersey. The exchange goes through great lengths to make sure all clients have the same latency. I believe all of the network connections are equal length.

I'm about to make a fucking killing shorting YELP

Yes, capitalism allows, in theory, for workers to own the means of production. In practice it doesn't work out that way. In the US "the 99%" owns, collectively, only about 1% of stock

This isn't remotely close to true, the total of IRA and defined contribution plan (401k and similar) plan holdings in Q4 2014 totaled $14.2T, over half the total value of the combined NYSE at $16.6T, and NASDAQ at $8.5T. While the 1% hold some of the value in those two categories they are both limited in their total annual contribution amounts so it's actually much less skewed than the overall wealth holdings.

Much like Laffer curve, it has a peak somewhere between strong and weak.

It depends on what you are trying to optimize.

With overly weak regulation, you pretty much inevitably end up with large companies monopolizing whole markets and becoming nearly impossible to unseat without direct interference - mid-to-late 19th century USA is a classic example of that.

Actually it isn't. The monopolies of that time tended to be temporary things, unless they had government backing. Even Standard Oil, which is considered the most famous example of a monopoly, was getting its lunch eaten by the time it was broken up (it had rapidly lost market share in the years leading to its breakup).

And a lot of those markets didn't have monopolies. One hears about the monopolies in rail or oil, but not in groceries, ocean-based shipping, or mail order retail, because there weren't any in those.

The point here is that there's a lot of ranting about the evils of low regulation, but when are we going to hear about the evils of too much regulation?

For example, there's an insane amount of legislative law and regulation being added each year in the US. It's probably at the point that a reasonable person could not read all the law and regulation, simply because that person couldn't actually keep up with the creation of new law and regulation.

If the rate at which new regulation is added continues to increase, then it won't be long until industries become impossible to regulate simply because neither the industry nor the regulators can understand, much less comply with, the law and regulation that has been created.

Also, it's worth remembering who can be providing the regulation. It's a fairly common assumption that only governments regulate. But private markets can and do provide their own regulation.

How exactly would that work?

Why not look at real world examples like the stock markets. For example, the NYSE has listing standards that have to be met in order to be listed as a stock on the NYSE.

For example, a requirement of being listed on the NYSE is that one follows commonly accepted procedures for releasing "material information", that is, things that are thought likely to change the price of the stock.

No OSHA

Which would be fine. Of course you are ignoring the overlap with other things: if someone get hurt on my property I am possibly liable for damages - yet OSHA doesn't apply. So clearly there are other restrictions that aren't intervention in business anyway.

If you contract with a company knowingly putting yourself in danger, well, that's *your* fault, not theirs. You should have worked somewhere safer.

That's just a repitition of the previous point.

Monopolies and Oligopolies are free to exist since no government can step in to take them down.

I'll take that over the government created monopolies and oligopolies we get with the current way of doing things. Since monopolies that arise in a free market can at least be destroyed by a new competitor (say when tech changes reduce the barriers to entry) but the government created ones get protection from the government.

Collusion is free to run rampant since there will be no regulation on it.

Repeating yourself again, collusion only works when the number of players is reasonably small and barriers to entry are reasonably large - so it's the same issue as monopolies and oligopolies.

Insider trading and stock manipulation is all good to go, again, no government to stop them!

I also have no problem with that. Obviously that increases the risk in owning shares in companies and hence would increase the risk premium and so lower the price of shares and provide more pressure on companies to provide dividends and so on.

And private stock exchanges would be free to restrict such activity too - as they do already in the current system (for example: http://www.nyse.com/pdfs/11-NYSE-6.pdf). If a company is listed on the NYSE they have to follow the NYSE rules.

In a free market you can get some competition on this - one exchange can have very strict rules that are expensive to comply with. Another can have less rules that are easier to comply with but result in more risk of manipulation. One exchange can spend lots of money on investigation and enforcement of their rules and charge higher fees to be listed or higher transaction fees on trades. Another can do less investigation and enforcement but have lower fees.

People get to decide what risk level they are comfortable with and what terms they'll agree to in order to use said exchange. Companies get to decide what level of compliance they are willing to deal with (stricter exchanges result in lower risk premiums and hence higher stock prices so there's an incentive to go with them).

Privacy? Regulatory Compliance? Who needs that?

What does privacy have to do with government intervention in business? That's an area of general law.

Regulatory compliance again just repeating the previous item.

You got injured from a product, aka lawn darts? Then don't buy them if they're so unsafe!

Exactly. And sue them (just like in the current system) if you think they were negligent/etc in making the product.

I don't think they are patent trolls, somehow.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BT_Group

Don't know about that. the NYSE and LSE charts havethem not selling so well. If you can't produce a profit, produce a law suit.

Any publicity is good publicity.

Article is a a bit misleading....
Reuters, Netbuilder et al are quote services that run externally and fetch quotes (price/volume) from the LSE and are *not* part of what would be considered the main trading platform. The problem isnt the actual OS (Linux) or tradiing platform, which has been heralded as a big step forward from the MS solution, but rather how the resulting trade data that is pushed from the exchange to the 3rd party sites and then ultimately to the end users.

BTW... these protocols while well documented are complicted. To get an idea, check out either the NYSE ArcaEX Direct API or the NYSE Arca FIX specs

If someone could point out the LSE equivalent, I'd be interested in seeing the differences

Article is a a bit misleading....
Reuters, Netbuilder et al are quote services that run externally and fetch quotes (price/volume) from the LSE and are *not* part of what would be considered the main trading platform. The problem isnt the actual OS (Linux) or tradiing platform, which has been heralded as a big step forward from the MS solution, but rather how the resulting trade data that is pushed from the exchange to the 3rd party sites and then ultimately to the end users.

BTW... these protocols while well documented are complicted. To get an idea, check out either the NYSE ArcaEX Direct API or the NYSE Arca FIX specs

If someone could point out the LSE equivalent, I'd be interested in seeing the differences

Here is a press release from a couple of years ago basically trumpeting the same thing. I think it is policy to recycle this every so often to prop up their stock price.

Exactly! It's the new "racetrack PR" where the same press release is continuously circulated and re-published every few quarters.

Here is a press release from a couple of years ago basically trumpeting the same thing. I think it is policy to recycle this every so often to prop up their stock price.

You do have a valid point, the weekly view says it has been rising steadily since monday, but more than likely they made this "breakthrough" earlier and decided when to spit it as the stocks bottomed on a certain threshold. Just because the announcement was strategically planned does not mean that the breakthrough is any less real though.

Here is a press release from a couple of years ago basically trumpeting the same thing. I think it is policy to recycle this every so often to prop up their stock price.

That is a completely false statement. Small firms are a lot more likely to use colos than the big banks. As I posted before, there is information on how to get colocated with NYSE right on their website:
http://www.nyse.com/technologies/sfti/1228187874506.html

The costs run about $10k/month/rack if I remember right.

There is no spooky back-room stuff going on here.

How about right on the NYSE website- they even have a phone number you can call- http://www.nyse.com/technologies/sfti/1228187874506.html Btw... all I did was google "NYSE colocation" and this was the first link.

High speed market data? Call up 29West or Exegy.

And its not necessary to colocate to have a profitable HFT system. A guy I know has a strategy running on the side, not colocated at all, and he says he makes a decent chunk off of it.

The combined market capitalization of the stocks list on the NYSE is ~ $16 trillion:

http://www.nyse.com/about/listed/1170350259411.html

I really don't see how a few tens of billions of dollars hooked up to fast moving trading programs can be responsible for 'a lot' of that valuation. Especially when the programs are all using basically similar strategies (so they are competing with each other for each little bit of advantage vs the rest of the market).

That isn't to say I think they are doing a whole lot of good, I just don't think they are particularly capable of doing much damage. If they are hugely harmful to other traders, some market maker will decide to make a market where they can't play, to attract the other traders.

Note that Transocean stock has been a little more affected than BP stock so far:

http://www.nyse.com/about/listed/lcddata.html?ticker=RIG&fq=D&ezd=1Y&index=5

http://www.nyse.com/about/listed/lcddata.html?ticker=BP&fq=D&ezd=1Y&index=5

Note that Transocean stock has been a little more affected than BP stock so far:

http://www.nyse.com/about/listed/lcddata.html?ticker=RIG&fq=D&ezd=1Y&index=5

http://www.nyse.com/about/listed/lcddata.html?ticker=BP&fq=D&ezd=1Y&index=5

"Very few systems (especially in house ones) require true cross platform development so that's generally irrelevant anyway."

That's too blanket a statement to be valid in the general case, it's certainly true for some companies. As I stated however, our company is Microsoft based, however even here we want to expand some of our apps onto mobile devices and we have a combination of them such that Java is the only real sensible option. Of all the companies I've worked in I've yet to work in one that only ever has a single platform throughout the entire company, they've all had the odd Linux server between their Microsoft servers, a combination of mobile devices and so forth. It's certainly not an uncommon situation to want apps to be portable. There's also the issues of larger companies which have different operating subsidiaries who have to share some apps and data, but who also are given autonomy on IT decisions from subsidiary to subsidiary- Java absolutely excels here, it acts as a common language that just works between subsidiaries pretty much whatever their platform choices.

If you're not developing in house applications and are developing to sell Java makes sense too, because there's no point writing say, a piece of helpdesk software in C# .NET, or C/C++ with multiple binaries to sell when you can just write once with Java and inherently have a product that works across Windows, Linux and Mac OS X greatly expanding your potential clientbase.

"Or maybe its a developer who doesn't have a knee jerk reaction that the tool that leads to the quickest prototype is the best."

Whose talking about prototypes? I'm referring to real working apps.

"I've developed back-end trading apps in the past that required the fastest possible throughput of data (we're talking down to milliseconds being shaved off here) to beat the competition and for that Java simply was not an option."

Really? Apparentlyy the NYSE doesn't agree with you:

http://www.nyse.com/tradingsolutions/transacttools/1204674243385.html

"Not every "app" is some floppy piece of GUI code that sits there doing bugger all 99% of its life - some apps are back end systems that are maxed out all the working day and for that you can't beat C and C++."

Simply put, you're wrong. Java performs just as well as C/C++ in many cases, better in some, slightly worse than others. This is largely because the JIT compiler is better suited to optimising per platform, rather than per architecture like classic compilers. Plenty of case studies here for Java use in HPC for example:

http://www.sun.com/customers/index.xml?soln=31a8487e-0f60-11da-99bc-080020a9ed93&page=1&sort=date&asc=false

The fact that you talk about Java being faster simply for prototyping, the fact you are not aware of the fact that Java performs just as well in many cases as C/C++, and the fact that you do not think Java is used for high load back end processing demonstrates one thing- you do not know enough about Java to be able to correctly evaluate whether it is the right tool for the job or not in the face of C/C++ and are a good example of the type of developer I was referring to as not being a great developer for this reason. It may well be that C/C++ was in fact the right tool for your particular solution after all (i.e. if you had some custom hardware to take advantage of), but as you clearly don't know much about Java, you cannot possibly say for sure whether that was the case or not, despite the fact you are attempting assert otherwise.

The likes of eBay runs on Java and much of Google's back end work is done with Java also. There's a good reason it's the most prominent language in business still today and has been for a while. It's because it does offer advantages, it is versatile, and yes, it ca

Yup. The latency for some feed handlers that NYSE Technologies produces can be as low as 10-20 microseconds. Or even nanoseconds for transport latency. The feed handler is the software that takes the input form the data feed and converts it to something the trading apps can use.

Its a lot of work to get software to go that fast, and it wouldn't be done unless it was worth it.

Disclaimer: I work for NYSE Technologies. Actually, I'm the manager of the tech pubs team, and before I left the office today I was writing a manual about this stuff.

Yup. The latency for some feed handlers that NYSE Technologies produces can be as low as 10-20 microseconds. Or even nanoseconds for transport latency. The feed handler is the software that takes the input form the data feed and converts it to something the trading apps can use.

Its a lot of work to get software to go that fast, and it wouldn't be done unless it was worth it.

Disclaimer: I work for NYSE Technologies. Actually, I'm the manager of the tech pubs team, and before I left the office today I was writing a manual about this stuff.

i have a somewhat-better-than-passing knowledge of how these systems work. i'm very unconvinced by your explanation.

you seem to be assuming the intent would be to out-compete Goldman by re-implementing this system, perhaps with some changes/optimizations. for that, sure, you'd need the rest of the environment. but a good understanding of the algorithm and implementation could be obtained without the rest of the environment (like i can read C# code and extract the algorithms without having the rest of the environment). that seems like it would be enough to game Goldman's system (which is a sizable part of the system overall).

note that i am not asserting that this is a catastrophe for Goldman, just that your explanation isn't convincing. i will, however, agree with a previous poster that Goldman's sudden absence from NYSE's 15 most active members, rather than being #1 as they had for a good while, is very suspicious.

Most countries are poor and lack any cultural influence. Time Warner's market cap is about $28 billion which puts them ahead of more than half the world's nations in terms of GDP (I know, not exactly apples to apples). Obviously Time Warner has far more cultural influence than most countries.

"Biblical" is pure hyperbole, but this merger should have been significant. Time Warner acquired service providers, search engines, and web browsers at a perfect time in the Internet's development. With their television, movie, publishing, and music properties at the time, they were in a much better position than companies like Apple or Google. They can't blame the merger for this failure, it was good old-fashioned incompetence. They let AOL, Netscape, AIM, etc. wither into irrelevance and put their energy and resources into fighting the advances they should have been developing (i.e. RIAA.)

First off, AT&T is not a private company. It's a publicly traded company.

http://www.nyse.com/about/listed/lcddata.html?ticker=ATT

Second, AT&T cannot do whatever they want, even if they were a private company. There are laws in place that govern everything from employment to the actual business of communications that prevent "private companies" from running afoul of the consumer's rights.

Consider Comcast and their throttling of BitTorrent traffic. If we consider your theory of private companies being able to do whatever they want under the guise of it being a "business decision" to be correct, Comcast should be able to get away with bandwidth throttling of BitTorrent, right? Wrong.

http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2008/08/fcc-rules-against-comcast-bit-torrent-blocking

Companies, whether they are privately owned or publicly traded, have laws and regulations that they are supposed to abide by. AT&T can't make a decision, no matter how good it is for the business, if it violates the law. While the system of laws and regulations doesn't always work, it does provide some measure of defense against companies trampling all over the consumer.

Yeah, in general I'm wondering what's the right thing to do with stocks I own that are very low in share price. Normally I don't try to "pick stocks" at all, and I don't buy or sell based on movement in prices -- the only reason I own individual stocks is that I wanted to have a socially screened index fund that met my own idiosyncratic social screening criteria. But my understanding (corrections would be appreciated!) is that when a stock goes down below a certain share price or a certain market capitalization, it can get delisted. After delisting it can only trade as a pink sheet, and there may be problems with liquidity. Here are the NYSE's listing criteria, which include (with some oversimplification on my part) market capitalization of 100 M$ and a share price of $4. They don't lower the boom immediately if a company falls below their standards, but when you're getting down to share prices of $1 and $2 it's pretty clear that it could be delisted. So what's the smart thing to do? If I sell, it costs me $7 for the trade, and I could just be locking in losses. If I hang onto it, I could lose my ability to liquidate it, and even if it retains liquidity I'm also not clear on what happens as a practical matter if I own a stock via an online brokerage, and then it goes to the pink sheets market -- hassles for me? expenses?

...better solution is to actually monitor the naked shorting occurring in the marketplace and enforce prohibition of the tactic.

That's been done for ... years. Just about every exchange publishes lists of their stocks that have current failure-to-delivers from naked shorting. If you compare the short-seller positions against regular long buys/sells, it's not much.

Halting short sells wouldn't have prevented the current market tankage -- overrated CDOs backed by crappy mortgages caused it. When cashflow from the homeowners slowed, the House of CDO cards collapsed.

It's my impression that short sellers show up at buzzard-feeding time: when the given equity isn't dead yet, generally after the price has a noticeable downward trend. Like most traders, they tend to respond to public news, excluding action/thriller movie plots where short-sellers work with terrorists to ensure downward acceleration of an equity (Casino Royale 2006.)

Not trying to pick a fight, but where are you getting this 800 point single-day jump from? The biggest single-day point increase on record for the Dow is just under 500 points, and that was right before the bubble in 2000 burst. Here's the list of historical prices for September.

I'm not talking about companies taking out a loan to pay the bills, I'm talking about a company with a line of credit for their inventory. It's done everyday across the retail space, and it allows the retailer to keep more inventory on their shelves than if they had to pay up-front. Ask your local mom-n-pop how important a line of credit with their supplier is, and whether they could reasonably stay in business if they had to pay for inventory up-front.

Nothing wrong, except one you mentioned does not exist anymore, another is merged with Euronext and renamed itself and new market places popping up and taking double digit volume percentages. Three markets are thing of past long gone so your initial statement is very far from reality. But otherwise I agree, nothing is wrong with stock markets per se.

Nothing wrong, except one you mentioned does not exist anymore, another is merged with Euronext and renamed itself and new market places popping up and taking double digit volume percentages. Three markets are thing of past long gone so your initial statement is very far from reality. But otherwise I agree, nothing is wrong with stock markets per se.

I suspect that this isn't an April Fool's joke as it is mentioned on the NYSE site here

I am an ordinary investor. When I heard about the upcoming IPO last month, I instructed my portfolio manager to purchase some shares. So, yes, I did get them at $29, but demand outran availability, so I only was "priviliged" to obtain one thirtieth of the number of shares I sought. Yeah, they're worth 75.86% more now, but lots of investors have only little bits of this issue at the pre-IPO price. I don't understand what is "ordinary" about waiting until public trading begins before investing...

the audience gladly puts up with the ad being onscreen because it doesn't interrupt the show.

Program trading is HUGE already. The bulk of that trading is probably ETF's and other mutual funds that are automatically rebalancing to match changes in the indexes and what not. Another chunk are programs catching split second arbitrage opportunities. So it's not quite the same type of investment that is implied by the summary, but it's scary nevertheless. Who knows how all of the programs will interact with each other over the open market during a really weird chain of events? It could be disasterous... for people on the loosing end of that day, anyway.

My quick google search for a reference came up with this direct from the NYSE: 70% of trades are program trades in June of 2004. It's an old article, IIRC, I've seen a more recent number that was closer to 90% of all trades being program trades.

Do someone know a "good or recommended" web site with similar concept where you can cash on your knowledge and instinct?

Judging from the outside, HP's CEO before Carly, Lew Platt, was a terrible manager. But Carly was far worse.

While HP was under Carly, our company stopped buying HP products because we would discover large problems within the first few minutes of installation and use. If the disconnected-from-reality mood of HP's technical support was any guide, things were VERY weird at HP while Carly was there.

A lot of HP's ability to make a profit comes from selling inkjet ink for $8000 per gallon and from people who learned long ago that HP had the best products, but have not updated their understanding.

Carly's former job was at Lucent Technologies, another company on the way down. Lucent has gone from about 165,000 employees to 30,500 employees, and from $84 share price to $2.37.

Note that Lucent is another company with a female CEO, Patricia Russo.

Both Carly Fiorina and Patricia Russo are heavily involved with Bush league politics. They inhabit a parallel universe in which they are considered a success while their organizations are on the way down, just some have considered the the U.S. government a success as it has been on the way down since Bush was elected. Losers find each other.

Some people think that someone with no technical experience, and little respect for technical experience, can run a technical company. I think that belief is hogwash.

You obviously don't understand what you're talking about... Valve has never made $800,000,000 ever or even to date in total sales. What's Valves stock symbol. Doesn't have one? Why on earth wouldn't it with $800,000,000 in sales from chicken pluckers XI! Who is bullshiting and pulling numbers out of their ass? Why just look at patheric old MGM in comparison to "pick a gaming company".

Looks a bit like a crescendo to me NYSE 1-year history.

Ya jackass.

66.64

As a sidenote, it will be 66.6 when GOOG hits $349.35.

Er, Pizza Hut is part of "Yum! Brands Inc.", which is listed on the NYSE with 280 million outstanding shares. I think they have quite a few public shareholders.

France vs US
http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Sept05/Bouzid0909.ht m
result : France is poorer than USA.

HP vs (IBM | Dell | Whatever)
http://www.nyse.com/
http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=IBM
http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=HP
result : seems evertone is lossing ground nowadays...

Here Try Again - Poor Squirrels.

You're so angry that I have to reply

First of all you can be legally obligated to perform in a certain way without a "USA law" saying so. For example, contracts create legal obligations without being recorded in any state or federal laws

That being said, I imagine that most corporate charters require that the executives act in a manner that will create profit.

Umm, even if a company should act in a way to create profit; it doesn't give that company any rights to break laws. Get real, you sound like your are grasping for straws.

If you have any question of how a publicly traded corporation is supposed to act, just check out the NYSE.

Okay, let's see...

Livejournal runs on mySQL (with memcached), and has had 970k users update their LJs in the past week. Assume that on average, each journal gets 10 views in that one week (it's probably higher, as there are some really large communities). That's 9.7 million page views in a week, or ~ 40 million a month. Plus the people who just browse and don't have an account.

Slashdot itself uses mySQL..I have no clue about the pageviews, though I know it's in the millions a month.

Google is a mySQL customer. As is Dow Jones, the people that publish the Wall Street Journal and its online editions. So is the NYSE, NASA, the US Census Bureau, everyone's beloved AOL, the Associated Press, Texas Instruments, among plenty others.

Just because mySQL doesn't work for your project doesn't mean it doesn't for others. Not to mention that it's free and ships with almost every major Linux distro out there.

The real surprise is that their shares are not going down faster. It annoys me.

Good luck with that... IBM shares are trading at around $95 right now. Their variations in price alone over 52 weeks are the entire value of a single share of the company I work for. IBM shares might be nice as a core holding for a stable portfolio, but I wouldn't expect them to make you much money. Too big, too old, too stable. In other words, I'd also expect them to make a few brutal misteps to compensate for the warm fuzzy feelings they are giving the Open Source development world ;)

Posting on EDS site

From the NYSE Site

http://www.nyse.com/cgi-bin/ny_charts?sym=HAL

http://www.americanpolitics.com/20020709Page.html

http://www.nyse.com/cgi-bin/ny_charts?sym=UDI

The linkage between the Carlyle Group (TCG) and United Defense is known. UDI and Halliburton have both made oodles of money in the last year (see the charts on the bottom of the NYSE links). And it seems that Bush I is an owner of TCG.

And if that's not enough, check out Senator Bob Graham of Florida's book, Intelligence Matters, which is discussed here:

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/9584265.htm

It seems that the Bush-Bin Laden connection goes beyond simply what Michael Moore understates. Graham, an obsessive compulsive about detail who documents his life on a daily basis, alleges that the Bush administration stopped an investigation of two Saudis who funded the 9/11 hijackers and then had them flew out of the country. What's more, Graham alleges that this fact was among the 27 pages blacked out of the congressional inquiry report on 9/11.

Whether or not you like Moore or his spin, there are a lot of questions that he asks in F911 that need to be answered before Bush gets into office again. Just my two cents.

http://www.nyse.com/cgi-bin/ny_charts?sym=HAL

http://www.americanpolitics.com/20020709Page.html

http://www.nyse.com/cgi-bin/ny_charts?sym=UDI

The linkage between the Carlyle Group (TCG) and United Defense is known. UDI and Halliburton have both made oodles of money in the last year (see the charts on the bottom of the NYSE links). And it seems that Bush I is an owner of TCG.

And if that's not enough, check out Senator Bob Graham of Florida's book, Intelligence Matters, which is discussed here:

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/9584265.htm

It seems that the Bush-Bin Laden connection goes beyond simply what Michael Moore understates. Graham, an obsessive compulsive about detail who documents his life on a daily basis, alleges that the Bush administration stopped an investigation of two Saudis who funded the 9/11 hijackers and then had them flew out of the country. What's more, Graham alleges that this fact was among the 27 pages blacked out of the congressional inquiry report on 9/11.

Whether or not you like Moore or his spin, there are a lot of questions that he asks in F911 that need to be answered before Bush gets into office again. Just my two cents.

When you read the press releases that SCO sends out every second week or so, you see how they fool (themselves and others) to believe that they are a strong company with strong products. One example here

Seriously, I think so too. I visited finance.yahoo.com a lot and when the site became unresponsive I become suspicious, so I checked out slashdot and there was the prominent link right to their chart generator.

Silly slashdot! Why not link just link directly to NYSE instead?

Sco keeps on making press releases in order to keep their stock price up but they they are still free falling Scox on NYSE in the lower part you can see 2 press releases this morning.

...it doesn't seem to have affected SCO's stock price.