Slashdot Mirror
BayStar Interviewed Regarding SCO Investment
Gonzo_Warrior writes "BayStar's managing partner explains what led him to 'ask' SCO for their money back. In this article, Lawrence Goldfarb describes '...the wayward corporate behavior on SCO's part' that led him to reevaluate BayStar's position. In a letter to SCO last week, BayStar claimed that '...SCO's behavior violated provisions of the investment agreement and that BayStar's convertible preferred stock be redeemed.' The article notes that since its founding in 1998, BayStar has never before asked a company for its money back." CNet has a story based on talking to a BayStar spokesdrone.
over the years, SCO is the first that they've asked for the money back from. If that isn't a tell, I don't know what is.
And the URL.
I think you are looking at the wrong stock. SCO groups symbol is scox not sco! Currently trading at 7.98 on yahoo!
Perhaps you've never read a newspaper before? This is a common journalistic method of inserting a fact without dedicating a whole sentence to it.
It also states that in over 400 investments they have never done this before. So while the history isn't exactly epic there is enough to show that, to date, they have resorted to this sort of action in fewer than one quarter of one percent (.25%) of cases. This strikes me as fairly significant.
-Peter
I think they already did.
Not really. Before this article it sounded like BayStar wanted their money back and were going to get it. Now BayStar's reasons for the redeption event sound less severe and that SCO will be able to weasel their way out of it. In fact they probably already have, as it looks like they got a new CFO which was probably their way of appeasing BayStar. Looks like SCO dodged the bullet this time.
fell 38 cents yesterday to $6.80 ... but now it's at 7.96
I think that's what professional investors call a Dead cat bounce.
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
I think it's even more telling of BayStar that they believe SCO should be investing more in thier legal team, as opposed to, I don't know, DEVELOPING GOOD PRODUCTS AND IMPROVING RELATIONSHIPS WITH THEIR CUSTOMERS!!
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
...there's the long-term investors. They go by the percieved real value increase. The real value doesn't change significally over short periods of time. These typically look for underpriced / overpriced stock and measure investments in years.
The rest are all trying to second-guess what others will want. The mid-term traders try to predict the long-terms, the short-terms the mid-terms and the daytraders the short-terms.
This typically result in "waves" in the stock price even where the real change is slim and none. Think of it as a bullwhip where the realinvestors give a nudge, and it comes out as a snap. Even if the original nudge is purely downward, the whip will go both up and down until it resettles.
This whole picture is even more clouded by derivates such as options and futures, which can act both as accelerators and brakes to such a process. You have e.g. the short squeeze and the dead cat jump, caused by options coming to a close.
The stock market has its logic. But it is definately that of its own, where expectations drive almost everything. Witness the 1929 stock crash or even the dotcom wave to see that. Eventually reality will catch up and ask "Yes, but do we make any money in the real world?" but it takes literally years.
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
oh brave new world, that has such people in it!
For some of 'em, yes: but I gather this sort of deal comes with a time limit. Sooner or later you have to pay back the stock you borrowed - could be that a lot of people are in that position. Many others might have standing orders - 'buy back if this stock drops below 80% of what I paid for it', for instance.
I'd agree with what the other (probably better informed) posters are saying - SCO will drift up and down, but their overall trend is heading rapidly towards a Schwarzschild radius of their own making ;-)
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
From this news article from yesterday:
SCO's market cap has NOTHING to do with whether or not they would have the cash on hand to redeem Baystar - the only thing that affects that is SCO's assets. They could make SCO's shares tank as much as they want, and it wouldn't change SCO's cash holdings.
Unfortunately, their investers seem to want them to forgo their legitimate business interests and restructure their company around the pursuit of frivolous lawsuits. That kinda sucks.
Chuck
Not neccessarily a time limit, but it does come with interest. You essentially borrow the stock from guy 1, then sell it to guy 2 at the price you bought it for. Now you have a lot of money in your pocket, but you owe guy 1 all that stock (currently the value of your money). He charges you interest on that, If you wait too long and the price doesn't drop enough, even if it does drop, you could loose money to interest.
Slackware, what else when it must be secure, stable, and easy?
Except Baystar only contributed $20 million of the $50.
It's still important/would be nice if this little fiasco would cause Royal Bank to follow suit and ask for their $30 back. Of course, that $30 had the lately added clause that it couldn't be used for lawsuits, but I'm still pretty ticked off about it.
(\(\
(^v^)
(")")
This is the cute vorpal bunny virus, copy to your sig or runaway, runaway in fear!
Motley Fool article about Baystar and SCO.
There are a huge number of yeast infections in this county. Probably because we're downriver from the bread factory.