Slashdot Mirror
SCO Shares Plunge, Canopy Management Change
bretberger writes "Shares in Utah's SCO Group went into a tailspin late Tuesday as news spread of both deepening losses and an apparent coup at the software company's corporate parent, the Canopy Group."
...is if the parent co, Canopy Group, and all of the corporate criminal scumbags in charge over there lose their shirts and their golden parachutes mid fall. Otherwise, it will be them who are laughing all the way to the bank, despite the validity of the linux community's claims of fraud. This current administration won't go after them. Given what they have been doing lately to fuckups, they would probably give Darl an award...
Who are you? The new #2 Who is #1? You are #617565. I am not a number, I am a free man! Muhahaha.
Who wants to bet that before long Microsoft will march in as White Knight and have proxy control over SCO. Hell, it already controls it indirectly!
I've seen companies take a 35% hit based on bad news and return to previous prices in less than a week. Considering the apparent magnitude of the announcement and the ensuing PIDDLY 7.5% drop I'm going to wager on the stock price returning to its recent levels.
I'm placing a market open order for (virtual) shares of SCOX right now.
(This is not financial advice, I'd barely even consider it virtual financial advice.)
Settle? Does anyone see IBM settling? Why would they when they will win.
I hope for only one thing :
That their (inevitable) demise receive AT LEAST AS MUCH publicity on public news channels / papers that their foolish lawsuits received. To inform the population that it was FUD. Or else they'll have (kinda) suceeded in inspiring a doubt in the minds of many concerning Linux legitimacy. No one on slashdot, obviously, but the common man who heard on news that SCO was suing IBM on UNIX/Linux for code thievery... maybe.
Eureka Science News - automatically updated
Does she expect to retain any value as an "independant analyst" in the post-SCO market?
I imagine she expects a lucrative career doing similar PR work for other companies. I cannot imagine SCO is the only company out there for which this kind of service would not be greatly appreciated. Toxic sludge is good for you.
Who would value her opinion, knowing that her opinion is for sale?
People are at least in theory falling for the idea her relentless PR for the Canopy group is "independent" at the moment. Since people (such as reporters) are making no effort to check out her history as a source at the moment, I see no reason why they would suddenly begin to do so in future after the SCO case is over. DiDio is pretty much completely free from any sort of consequences for her actions, ever, and she almost certainly knows this.
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
Basically, this is a closely held thinly traded stock. Any delusions that free market rules prevail is a dream. This stock (according to the merry crew at Yahoo) is heavily painted.
.
.
.
At close, the stock was around $4 which is down from recent values. Look at the volume though; nearly 400,000 shares. That's a lot for SCO. The daily average is a lot less. Finding a buyer for that much stock at that price seems like a major coup to me, not some kind of disaster.
The following is a quote from an article by Melanie Hollands. She has a very realistic view of SCO's stock. Last spring when the stock was sliding toward zero, she predicted support at $4. The quote was found at Groklaw but it is from elsewhere. The link I found was broken.
"The stock's run has also been propelled by fresh speculative activity and year-end positioning in the market, aided by its high volatility and limited trading volume. Some 'top 15' institutional holders of SCOX have actually been adding to their positions: Chesapeake Partners Management Co. Inc., Glenhill Capital, Barclay's Global Investors N.A., S&E Partners LP, and Citadel Investment Group LLC. There's probably also some jockeying around SCO's fiscal fourth quarter 2004, scheduled for release Dec. 21. . .
"Although BayStar's position in SCOX has been reduced to 1,746,453 shares (10 percent of outstanding), this one position accounts for a substantial 19.7 percent of its fund - so the portfolio and concentration risks are still high. For my part, I don't like to have any one position that constitutes more than 4 or 5 percent of my portfolio -- the market and concentration risks get too high. So, with a position that constitutes 19+ percent of a portfolio, whatever happens to the SCOX stock price dominates the risk profile and returns of that portfolio.
"Although JHC, which had been holding SCOX for well over a year, sold only 61,867 of its 545,764 shares, its activity is interesting -- in part because it's run by Jonathan Cohen, who has a business relationship with Royce Capital (SCOX's second-largest institutional shareholder), and in part because its position is a hefty concentration of its total portfolio - over 4.8 percent. Interestingly, Royce hasn't been one of the recent sellers. . .
"Technically speaking, SCOX looks like it's been bouncing off the bottom, but it's a pretty meaningless bounce. Why? Because the volume is not near levels that would indicate a strong move is going to follow through on the upside."
"The stock's run has also been propelled by fresh speculative activity and year-end positioning in the market, aided by its high volatility and limited trading volume. Some 'top 15' institutional holders of SCOX have actually been adding to their positions: Chesapeake Partners Management Co. Inc., Glenhill Capital, Barclay's Global Investors N.A., S&E Partners LP, and Citadel Investment Group LLC. There's probably also some jockeying around SCO's fiscal fourth quarter 2004, scheduled for release Dec. 21. . .
"Although BayStar's position in SCOX has been reduced to 1,746,453 shares (10 percent of outstanding), this one position accounts for a substantial 19.7 percent of its fund - so the portfolio and concentration risks are still high. For my part, I don't like to have any one position that constitutes more than 4 or 5 percent of my portfolio -- the market and concentration risks get too high. So, with a position that constitutes 19+ percent of a portfolio, whatever happens to the SCOX stock price dominates the risk profile and returns of that portfolio.
"Although JHC, which had been holding SCOX for well over a year, sold only 61,867 of its 545,764 shares, its activity is interesting -- in part because it's run by Jonathan Cohen, who has a business relationship with Royce Capital (SCOX's second-largest institutional shareholder), and in part because its position is a hefty concentration of its total portfolio - over 4.8 percent. Inte
Yankee Group analyst Laura DiDio called the ousters "a changing of the guard at Canopy. It is quite literally out with the old and in with the new.
"With the departure[s] . . . go the last vestiges of the Ray Noorda era. Yankee Group expects that other, equally significant changes will be in the offing for 2005," she said. "The fate of SCO is one of the big question marks. New management at Canopy . . . may push [SCO] to try and settle."
And how exactly are they going to settle? Seems to me that with IBM having a winning case, it will be SCO that'll be forced to pay out the money. I wager SCO'll fall faster than anyone expects.
$u(k 1t!!!!11!
SCO's going to self destruct before we get to see IBM pound them into dust.
It's been obvious that things were headed this way for awhile, but I still wanted the judges ruling.
Professional Politicians are not the solution, they ARE the problem.
Is this not the same Laura DiDio who has been so reviled by Slashdot in the past as being less than tech-savvy and a mouth-piece for corporations?
Each of these claims have had some merit as well as critisism of the Yankee Group reports.
Are they another firm that waits until the writing on the wall is written in neon and suddenly pipe up with a resounding "Me too!"
SCO was under $3 at the beginning of November. It's last trade today was at $4.17. Yea, stocks go up and down, but to call this a tailspin is a bit extreme. It's taken a couple of bigger drops in the last two months, but the rises have been even larger. Hey, I hate SCO too, but reporting a relatively small dip in the stock as a tailspin is an overstatement based only on bias against them.
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
Wow, 14% JUST LIKE IT WAS NOTHING!
Wanna hear about my REITs that are up almost 300% counting dividend investments?
Or how about the 1000 shares of AAPL I bought at 19 (well, before I sold some to buy a new 17-inch PB, heh)
If you want to make money in the stock market, BUY AND HOLD a few good companies, don't gamble with CRAP like SCOX.
Can you tell me what's gonna move 14% TOMORROW so I can get in on it before it happens? Didn't think so!
That would make Cheney president. Are you sure you want that?
I'd bet IBM hasn't considered settling ... ever.
SCO has alleged that IBM has stolen SCO intellectual property and violated a contract under which both companies worked together on Monterey.
The fiscal yardstick for IBM isn't the cost of litigation, it's the value of IBM's reputation as a company that competes and collaborates fairly. It's about the ability of a client or partner to trust IBM to behave properly.
How much of IBM's multi-billion services business depends on a client's trust in IBM? How many of its partnerships with other software providers and with services firms are also dependent on trust in IBM?
The legal costs are insignificant in comparison.
You don't get street cred for rewarding extortion. Look at where SCOX was before they pulled this BS. About a buck a share. And SCOX has diluted shareholder value (in other words, printed and sold more stock) since then. Let's see: option 1. Pay more than 4x the original value of the company for an extortion threat or 2. let SCOX die a slow, painful and public death for being idiots. Anyone thinking of getting good PR by preventing this company from publicly bleeding to death from its self inflicted gut-shot is stupid. Paying off extortionists is *always* bad PR.
-Blaine
What more can one ask?
That 51% of Americans grow a brain?
Scox isn't only suing, scox is being sued *big time* by IBM, and by redhat. If you buy scox, you buy those lawsuits against scox.
Scox has absolutely nothing of any value. No IP, no worthwhile products, nothing. According to scox, by the end of January scox will have $7MM in cash - less than $0.50/share.
Scox is nothing but a penny-stock scam. The idea of a legitimate company buying scox is absurd.
Bear in mind that the weasels at the top will loot the burning hulk and golden parachute to new jobs with their friends and relatives, while the actual working stiffs at SCO are the ones getting "reorganised" out of the door with nothing to show for their work, some of which will have been performed before SCO went Dark Side.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.