Slashdot Mirror
SCO Execs Dumping Stock
luigi6699 writes "According to the Salt Lake Tribune, 'SCO Group executives have sold about 119,000 shares of their company since it filed a lawsuit against IBM in March...' Their CFO started the $1.2 million sell-off just after the lawsuit."
Like we were suprised at this?
"Music is everybody's possession. It's only publishers who think that people own it." - John Lennon.
Maybe the mainstream media is finally going to get a peek at what we've been talking about for months!
One really has to wonder - this is SO blatent, why is the SEC not in this up to their necks?
But this is slashdot. A slashdoter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber!
How is this "insider trading"? They dumped the stock "after the lawsuit was filed", with the same information available to them that everybody else had..
They're involved in huge legal battles with two (maybe more) computer superpowers. The entire user base that supports them hates them. And there's now a free version available of everything they sell.
I wonder why they're selling their stock?
Slashdot Syndrome: the sudden, extreme urge to correct someone in order to validate one's self.
If this insider selling continues as an IBM vs. SCO trial were to draw closer, that would mean that SCOs own top brass don't think they much of a chance. Of course of SCO winds up going under, those same top brass will probably have questions asked of them for why they sold before IBM destroyed them (if it happens that way).
Benifit of the doubt though, insider selling does happen in companies to take profit, and if you look at SCO's 1 year preformance going from 95 cents to 16 dollars at it's recent peak (an increase of nearly 1,700%), you would see why it would seem intelligent to sell.
SecondPageMedia - Wha
...this isn't just insider trading: it's fraud pure and simple, and thus should be punished.
The difference between the two in my eyes is that insider trading charges can target people who have no control over the company's action. Case in point: Martha Stewart, who might have known that the stock was going to drop, but had no control over whether it did or not. Punishing someone for selling because of what they thought seems like an egregious violation of privacy and civil rights AND is incredibly hard to prove; but punishing someone for selling because they engage in the systematic dissemination of disinformation related to the enterprise for the express purpose of increasing their payout at the expense of other stockholders is perfectly justifiable. That, my friends, is fraud.
[ home ]
I'm outside his circle of friends, not white, pear shaped OR stinky (my wife would kill me) and I found it rather humorous. It wasn't about shooting babies, but rather compared SCO's current practices to something also pretty tasteless. Now -- I'm not a dad yet but my wife is 5 month pregnant and I'm WAY excited about being a dad so maybe your perspective is different than mine, but I think that I'd even find it somewhat funny after my son is born. Notice: I am not questioning your right to be offended, but just take this in context.
There, I said it. Sure linux marches on and the company will be pounded by big blue--but they, by which I mean the owners, get the cash for the FUD and run off. Legal liability is borne by SCO, which files for bankruptcy protection.
There's a lot of gloating here today, but I think that the SCO execs got what they wanted, the lawyers got rich, and everyone else would have benifited from this never happening in the first place.
gg.
"The avalanche has already started. It is too late for the pebbles to vote."
YOU FAIL IT!
that the company that bought their license yesterday is a little nervous right now.
Specifically, it doesn't mention the time period over which the sales took place. There is a relatively limited window of time during which "insiders" can sell stock. Generally, it's in the middle of financial quarters and definitely closes well before the quarter's beginning or end.
Although the article doesn't flat-out say it, it sort of implies that the execs selling stock have been doing it recently. Given the extraordinarily high level of scrutiny to insider trading abuses in publicly traded companies, I would be very surprised if the SCO insiders were anything other than legally scrupulous in their stock sales, particularly in the midst of litigation.
You may not agree with their position regarding Linux...no, let me rephrase that...you probably think that they are beneath contempt because of their position regarding Linux, but there's nothing unlawful or particularly unethical about realizing that your stock price is outrageously high, you're in an insider trading window and it's almost time for the new model-year Lexus introductions!
I think they deserve our scorn for playing fast and loose with the GPL and the Community in general, but I doubt they've broken any laws in this instance.
-h-
Oh, grrow the fuck up. Learn to differentiate between humor (even tasteless) and something actually worth getting offended over. There's way too many whiny little crybabies getting offended by something someone said these days. Don't like it? Move along, and turn in your PC police badge at the exit. You don't have to find it amusing, but jeebus fucking christ, grow a damn skin.
Do you mean that Microsoft was that single company? Why not Sun? Microsoft doesn't sell Linux to customers. Sun does. And since the beginning SCO said that Sun is the only company that should not worry about the lawsuit.
Less is more !
If I recall correctly (no pun intended since I live in California), the SEC nailed several Nvidia employees over insider trading regarding selling their options after Microsoft announced Nvidia had won the contract for the important chips in the Xbox. Considering SCO's behavior is far more blatent (and from the top of the corporate pyramid versus a few peons) than Nvidia's, I would bet money the SEC will throw the book at them [SCO]. I'd also bet on it since so many high tech companies have historically been the allies of the Republican Party (unlike Apple Computer), crucial for getting the Administration to act on anything (or not to act as in Microsoft)... Finally, since the Defense Department seems so gung-ho on Linux for security purposes these days, I don't think Uncle Sam is going to be happy shelling out $699+ per CPU just so SCO can make a profit off someone else's intellectual property especially when the OS is supposed to be free...
"Right now, somewhere in this world, Scott Baio is plowing a woman he doesn't love," - Peter Griffin, *Family Guy*
Let's be honest here, at the moment, is this entirely legal? Maybe...
At the moment, SCO's executives are profiting from allegation/conjecture/slander; there is also a clear correlation between the release of "news" and share movement. In the end, if IBM and RH et al. prove their claims, and to a degree the extent of the victory, the SCO executive will have a lot to answer for. This is not simply in the realms of a slap on the wrist or a demotion, but substantial fines and quite possibly time in a federal prison.
It's by no coincidence that soon after the FUD came flying from Utah, did SCO decide to Indemnify its executives for their actions. IBM has, in it's counter claim, made some very serious accusations concerning market manipulation; they would not release such material if they though for one minute that it rebound on them.
This has gone past the point of being a Microsoft vs Linux slagging match, this is serious. People are going to go "away" for it; families will live in the knowledge that their husbands/fathers are the worst lying thieves this country has to offer. So pick up some popcorn and watch, its only going to get better!
I know this is hot-button issue with the crap that SCO is spewing out, but I have a few questions before I jump to the guilty verdict. At what point is this action criminal? 1 share? 10 shares? 10,000 shares? One guy sold 17,151 shares leaving him 228,043 that he still owns. Another sold everything (12,000 shares). There are 13.7 million shares outstanding. Do percentages factor into the determination of criminality? Does anyone have an EDUCATED and FACTUAL opinion to offer? I have to say, this certainly looks suspocious. And, if their actions are criminal, I hope they get the just desserts.
JP
The facts expressed here belong to all, the opinions to me. The distinction between fact and opinion is yours to decide.
Yahoo's 2-year chart, and the six-month chart. Cute how the stock goes nowhere until the company starts crying for a buyout, and if you cross-reference with the insider trades page I linked in the other post, you'll note that nothing takes place until after the lawsuit is filed and the stock starts leaping. Curious, that. Expected behaviour, perhaps, but given the exaggerated nature of SCO's anti-Linux campaign and the fact that the company hasn't actually tried to produce anything since Project Monterrey fell through, the rather ambitious automatic sale targets set by the execs sure make me wonder whether the execs can honestly say this is not a pump-and-dump operation. The fact that SCO's stock flirted with penny-stock status for about a year, combined with no output beyond a lawsuit and legal threats, would seem to reinforce that impression.
Based on the noticeable downturn in recent weeks, I'd lay good money that SCO's about to issue another Comical Ali-esque press release.
Someday, you're going to die. Get over it.
Yes, but all of the 13.7 million outstanding shares were not held by the executives.
From further down the article:
Bench (the CFO) has sold 17,151 shares in three separate sales since March 10, reducing his holdings to 228,043 shares, according to the Washington Service and regulatory filings. Vice President Michael Wilson sold his entire stake of 12,000 shares between July 14 and July 18, the Washington Service said...
Also:
Before Bench's sale, SCO insiders had not sold shares in more than a year, according to the Washington Service, a firm that tracks insider transactions.
A suddent >5% sale gets noticed, but nobody can dispute that a 100% sale is significant to say the least. (Imagine if Billy-boy suddenly dumped 5% of his billion+ MS shares?)
My rights don't need management.
This entire suit stinks of a stock value manipulation scam. If you look at there history SCOX you can see they have managed to increase the value of the stock from less than a dollar to $15.02 a share at one point. It started dropping again last week when IBM announced the counter-suit. Now they have sold the stock at $10.06 a share. last update reported $9.72. SELL SELL SELL
I hope the SEC is watching this!
Science is the Real TRUTH!
OF course the kind of retard that takes offense at a joke about dead babies is usually a rabid supporter of united states foreign policy.
How about those 500,000 dead Iraqi children from sanctions? That wasn't good enough for ya? Had to go and invade the place and bomb them back into the dark ages to add insult to injury?
A joke about dead babies! Oh no I'm offended! Creating real dead babies? Sure! Go USA, We love DUBYA!!! WOOHOOO!!!!
This is so typical it's barely newsworthy. The amount of corruption amoungst upper management and the upper class has reached epidemic proportions and has done more harm to America and Americans than all the terrorists, foreign and domestic, have ever caused.
The affluent are the enemy. The truth is most wealth is transferred not earned and these people have corrupted the system to insure they receive the vast majority of all production even though they contribute little or nothing.
Slavery is alive and well in America. Now it's not just poor "lesser" races, it's just the "lesser" poor.
Oh, and being in the middle class just means you're paid just enough to just get back to work.
Low class simply means there's nothing left to exploit.
SCO, which stands for "Satanic Cultists' Operation," changed its name from Caldera in 2002, when it was acquired by an obscure organization which exclusively employs 1200-year-old undead trial lawyers. They are now embroiled in an ongoing legal battle with IBM [...]
One must wonder how they've got to be 1200-year-old with the lack of survival instincts demonstrated by engaging IBM in legal battle.
-- Repeat with me: "There is no right to profits".
Hopefully the SEC will investigate. Definitely sounds like a pump and dump move to me.
7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001
Well when you stocks go from $5 in Jan to 15 in Jul Its time to sell regardless of the law suit.
> Did you see it coming?
Considering the rolling blackouts taking our CA servers out of commision, let's just say I wasn't too surprised.
According to the story, SCO burned through $14 million last fiscal year. They had $10 million in the bank in April. This is about 8 1/2 months worth of fuel. This is assuming that this year is the same as last in terms of revenue (probably going down) and expenses (probably going up). So 8 1/2 months from April puts them running on fumes in December. I doubt this saga will drag on for years.
CEOs can borrow money against their company stock, especially if they have faith in their company. To sell the stock knowing that such sales will be reported to the public show that these CEOs know there are problems with the company. The smart bet would be to follow those in the know and sell the stock, too.
A NYC lawyer blogs. http://www.chuangblog.com/
After all, it's not like baby killing hasn't had a long history of use in propaganda and literature.
Let's at least try to act like we are educated.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
Or almost any other stock, e.g. MSFT, IBM. SCOX's growth is so high everything else is basically a flat line.
Insiders sell stocks all the time, but not at SCO Group apparently. According to the article, there hasn't been any activity for a year. Insider selling activity has increased since the law suite started.
I don't admire what they did at all. They are money-chasing scum. You should not just laugh off what they did, unless you are also prepared to trade your values for cash.
actualy I thought it interesting that after SCO throwing a multi-billion dollar lawsuit at IBM, habitualy bad-mouthing or scare-mongering anything Linux, and harrassing RH's customers, that their stock value looked pretty un-effected.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
Well, really, when (if) RHAT or IBM scores the stays in their countersuits, RHAT is going to double in price... it is going to get alot of "Linux is Safe Technology(TM)" press.
His firm just lost a case against it by the EEOC too. Boise is just like everyone else he puts his pants on one leg at a time. He has lost plenty but that isn't what they advertise. As far as I am concerned he lost the MS case. Since there was no penalty against MS and they are back to their old tricks.
Boise was a bad choice for a lawyer for SCO. They are going down like a led ballon. I mena he didn't even get his clients to keep their mouths shut? That is like lawyer 101.
As you can see I don't care about my karma.
Their case will be shown to be demonstrably weak in a court of law, so their trying of the case in the media is akin to running up the share price on lies and deceit. Of course, unless someone can prove they knew how weak their case was, they're not going to get punished for it.
What he was talking about was not risk management however. He had absolutely no intention of even holding SCO's stock. He wanted to make money by watching SCO's stock go into the toilet. God bless him for it too, I just think it's risky for the reasons above.
By the way, since we're quoting people, Warren Buffet, the biggest player in some of the biggest and most sucessful insurance companies in the world- and who knows a thing or two about risk management, called options "financial weapons of mass destruction" in his latest annual report and detailed his plans to get out of the options business as fast as he posibly can. Read all about it at BerkshireHathaway's website.
To highlight the problem, he has no idea how long it will take for him to even be able to get out of it. The way options are used for risk management has led to arrangements that are stupifyingly complex. It's kind of like this- would you trust a billion line program not to crash? Of course not because you would never, realistically speaking, be able to figure it all out.
Look at LTCM and Enrons adventures with options. They all thaught they were pretty smart too. Because options deal with hypothetical situations, valuing them is extremely difficult. You have many situtations in which people have widely differing valuations and this can cause chaos for accounting. Fancy formulas can only take you so far. The more complex things get, the more chances there are for things to break.
This is a man with as close to an impeccable record as it gets and he wouldn't lose any sleep if options were outlawed. Beware, because some very savy people look at options and see a great big steaming pile of financial risk.
Everyone shoudl put an option-driven perfect-storm-style financial meltdown on their list of possible 21st century catastrophies.