Slashdot Mirror


SCO and Baystar Strike a Deal

comforteagle writes "As you'll no doubt recall, SCO financier wanted to cash-in on its stock because of how SCO was being run. It appears they've struck a deal. 'The SCO Group, Inc. today announced it has entered into an agreement with BayStar Capital II LP to repurchase and retire all 40,000 shares of Series A-1 Convertible Preferred Stock currently held by BayStar.'" Summary: Baystar and the Royal Bank of Canada invested $50 million in SCO in October 2003. In 6 1/2 months, they've now converted their investment to $13 million in cash and $13.7 million of common stock, for a loss of almost half their investment.

26 of 336 comments (clear)

  1. Ha ha! by BWJones · · Score: 5, Insightful

    In 6 1/2 months, they've now converted their investment to $13 million in cash and $13.7 million of common stock, for a loss of almost half their investment.

    Nelson: Ha ha!

    Seriously though. This should be a lesson to VC funds and financing operations that finance companies whose business models are built upon legal action and sucking off the hard work and sweat of people who make ideas work through the creation of products that improve our lives. These companies based on litigious action are typically fairly sleazy operations and will not generate any "good will" for the financing operations or companies.

    I personally would much rather support and fund (and yes, even make money from) companies who are out there to make a difference. Work to make something new or make a difference rather than prostituting yourself for mere money and parasitizing off of others hard work and insight.

    --
    Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
    1. Re:Ha ha! by Skyshadow · · Score: 5, Funny
      Work to make something new or make a difference rather than prostituting yourself for mere money and parasitizing off of others hard work and insight.

      Hey, if it worked for Bill Gates...

      (yeah, I know it's a cheap shot, but it's all I can afford at the moment)

      --
      Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
    2. Re:Ha ha! by hopethishelps · · Score: 5, Insightful
      i run back to enjoy my commodity hardware...i guess i have to thank windows for that


      Absolutely not.

      The concept of the personal computer was popularized by Apple with the "Apple ][" and Dan Bricklin's spreadsheet, Visicalc. For the open architecture PC, we have to thank IBM and the companies who figured out how to write a legal BIOS: Compaq and Phoenix. IBM later tried to close the architecture by introducing a patented I/O bus, and we have to thank a group of PC makers, led by Compaq, who had the collective balls to stand up to IBM in the marketplace. That's what, and who, gave us the commodity open-architecture PC.

      All this happened before Windows had any significance. Windows had little market share before version 3.0 came out.
  2. Hmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    1) Start up a private investment company 2) Invest $50,000,000 in SCO 3) ??? 4) Prof.. wait, I think I'm doing this wrong

    1. Re:Hmmm by cipher+uk · · Score: 5, Funny

      yeah you missed the
      's

  3. some is better than none by lawngnome · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Getting some of their money is better than losing it all when sco gets their ass handed to them.
    Next time I would suggest in doing more research...

    1. Re:some is better than none by Wiseazz · · Score: 5, Funny

      sco gets their ass handed to them

      It would be cooler if it was their still-beating heart.

      --
      My sig sucks.
    2. Re:some is better than none by iDaZe · · Score: 5, Funny

      It would be cooler if it was their still-beating heart.

      That would imply they have one

  4. Stock to TP conversion by raistphrk · · Score: 5, Funny

    Well, the good news is, RBC and Baystar are giving all of their employees a year's supply of SCO brand toilet paper for free. Two-ply.

  5. Wow by neilcSD · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This is really going to hurt SCO, really going to put a large dent in their legal warchest. Let's say SCO does run out of money and they are forced to drop their suits...what happens when someone else purchases their "patents" and starts the whole thing over again (hi, Microsoft)? I'd almost rather SCO see this to the end, as it appears that they have a penchant for shooting themselves in the foot.

  6. Actually a little less than half... by Sebby · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Since I've taken my money from RBC to another bank, mostly due to their involvment w/SCO.

    Their (even bigger) loss.

    --

    AC comments get piped to /dev/null
  7. Look on the bright side by L.+VeGas · · Score: 5, Funny

    SCO let them run Linux without having to pay that licensing fee.

  8. Somehow by FS1 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I would call this poetic justice, but since we all know the money came from microsoft originally. A loss of about 24 million dollars is nothing to them.

    What is really sad here is that people who could do something about activities like this Baystar/SCO/Linux/Microsoft/Sun/IBM/etc debacle don't care.

    --
    A Fatal OE Exception has occurred, Sig will now reboot.
  9. Bow to Your Master's Card by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Baystar and the Royal Bank of Canada investment:
    $ 50 million.

    Money lost on investing in SCO:
    $ 23.3 million.

    Poetic humiliation and embarrassment as payback for all the SCO's actions against Linux Users:
    Priceless.

  10. How to make a small fortune investing in SCO stock by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    First, start with a large fortune . . . . . .

  11. Apparently not. by ron_ivi · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Aparanetly not... According to Baystar, they're happy with SCO's cash management, and mangement of the litigation.

    Quoth the article:

    "...BayStar is extremely satisfied with SCO's current operating and cash management plans, new initiatives, management of the litigation, and plans for improving its business going forward," said Larry Goldfarb, managing general partner, BayStar Capital.

    Now if they're so happy, why are they buying their shares back?

    1. Re:Apparently not. by alw53 · · Score: 5, Informative

      80 days in fact, today's volume was 262,879,
      and 10% of that is only 26,000 shares.
      They have 2,105,263 shares to dump!

  12. SCO stock is like ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny


    Daryl (to self): Our stock is like a stream of bat piss.

    Investor (in alarm): What did you say?!!

    Daryl (was that outloud?): What I said was .. err .. our stock shines out like a shaft of gold when all around is dark.

  13. You think it's funny, but actually ... by mec · · Score: 5, Informative

    When an investor such as Baystar does one of these convertible preferred deals, they can do something called "shorting against the convert".

    Here's how it works. At the time Baystar bought their convertible preferred shares, SCOX was trading at about $15 (roughly ... I can't be arsed to hit Yahoo Finance right now). Well, Baystar can sell shares at $15. They can sell shares that they don't even own ... that is called "short selling", and is a normal transaction on the stock market.

    You start with 0 shares, you sell (say) 10,000 shares at $15, now you have $150,000 cash and a position of -10,000 shares SCOX. (That's right, negative numbers!) Later, you buy those 10,000 shares back at $5 per share, leaving you with $100,000 profit and 0 shares of SCOX.

    What if you short at $15 and the stock goes to $25? Then you lose $10 per share on every share that you shorted. Except ... if you've got a convertible ... you just pull out the convertible preferred shares and convert them, in order to have shares.

    I'm not saying Baystar did this, but it's a common strategy for holders of convertibles. A convertible is really just a bond + a call option, and shorting against a call option is a common strategy.

    In other words, you guys are laughing that Baystar is stuck with a bunch of $5 SCOX shares, but Baystar may have already sold them a few months ago at $15 or $20. They'll just use these conversion shares to deliver back on the shares that they borrowed+sold at $15 to $20.

    1. Re:You think it's funny, but actually ... by GigsVT · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's not screwing anyone. It's a standard hedge. It reduces the holders profit potential, but it lessens risk since it basically locks in the shares at the short price.

      The only way you could ever consider this screwing anyone is when SCO initially issued the convertibles... convertible debentures and convertible preferred and the like dilute the stock, the same as any other stock issue, it's just that convertibles dilute the stock in ways that might be subtle for the beginning investor. (The dilution isn't immediate).

      --
      I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
    2. Re:You think it's funny, but actually ... by TheWizardOfCheese · · Score: 5, Informative

      The parent is an excellent post, and deserves to be rated +5, informative. However, I would like to point out a technical error to those Slashdot readers who understand finance:

      A convertible is really just a bond + a call option, and shorting against a call option is a common strategy.

      No. Many, many tears have been shed over this fallacy. Most converts are like a bond + call, so long as the credit of the name remains good. The credit will be reflected in the underlying stock price, and in this region, the bond value acts as a floor, producing an option-like value profile with positive gamma. That means that since you are long the option, your delta hedge will be profitable even if you can't rebalance. However, when the name is close to default, the bond value itself will go to zero; this produces a region of negative gamma. A convert thus has both positive and negative gamma, quite unlike a vanilla option; it's definitely possible to lose your shirt even if you're delta hedged.

      --

      "The good reader is a rarer swan than the good writer."
  14. SCO's Scam by Blackeagle_Falcon · · Score: 5, Funny

    Is it just me or does SCO's need for venture capital to fund it's IP litigation remind anyone else of one of those Nigerian 419 scams?

    Think about it, someone (SCO) has a line on a lot of money in the Nigerian central bank encumbered by some sort of red tape (IBM, Novell and basically every Linux user on the planet think SCO is full of hot air). They just need some cash up front in order to get it out (have to hire a bunch of soulless IP lawyers). If you are willing to front them them some money (invest in SCO) you'll get a phenomenal rate of return when the money is freed up (SCO wins their suit, or pigs fly, whichever comes first).

    The parallels are striking. Poor Baystar, they got taken by one of the oldest ones in the book.

  15. SubGenius fodder for sure by Weaselmancer · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You know the joke about the whole SubGenius thing..."If you're so smart, why aren't you rich?"

    Here is a prime example of why we are all SubGenii. We all knew that SCO would tank. We had a golden opportunity to make some serious cash. And you know what? I'll betcha not a single person on all of Slashdot cashed in on these fools. Damn.

    It's not often you have a sure thing in a horse race. And I just missed mine. Double damn.

    Weaselmancer

    --
    Weaselmancer
    rediculous.
    1. Re:SubGenius fodder for sure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Shorting is a big risk. When you buy a stock your potential losses are limited to your initial investment. When you short a stock your potential losses are unlimited. This is why I did not short SCOX, I was afraid someone like MS would buy them out, and then I'de be screwed. There is no such thing as a sure thing.

    2. Re:SubGenius fodder for sure by Spruce+Moose · · Score: 5, Informative
      Stocks very often don't go to infinity so losses are hardly 'unlimited'.

      Also read about stop -loss orders on how you can limit your losses.

      "There is no such thing as a sure thing" is also a cool paradox. (-:

  16. Poor, hoodwinked BayStar.... by Vancouverite · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Not only did they lose big bucks up front ($13 Mil back from an initial $20 mil + whatever they paid RBC for their shares), but they will be dumping this stuff for months!

    From the PR:

    The agreement includes a restriction on sales and dispositions by BayStar of the Company's common stock. BayStar may not exceed on any trading day, 10% of SCO's average daily trading volume on Nasdaq during the five trading days preceding such trading day. The agreement includes a mutual general release by the parties and has not required compensation to any outside agents.
    If Baystar is lucky, right now that's about 250,000 shares a day average, or 25,000 shares a day that they can sell.

    But, let's assume that they can get the sales up to 500,000 shares a day average, letting them sell 50,000 a day. With 2,846,004 shares to be sold, that means that Baystar, if they sold every day, would need 57 market days (about 11 1/2 weeks) to sell out... with 25,000 a day, you of course double that. This means that, if they could start selling next Monday, Baystar would be out of the stock around the First of September (around Thanksgiving if they sell at 25,000/day)

    Poor Baystar....

    NOT!

    --
    We are the Music Makers, and We are the Dreamers of Dreams...