SCOX going under
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| hkwint Aug 14, 2007 6:47 AM EDT |
AD 2000: ~$ 100 AD 2002: ~$ 10 AD June 2004: ~$ 5 AD Sep 2006: ~$ 2 AD May 2006: ~$ 1.5 AD -- today: ~$ 0.4 AD tomorrow: ??? |
| Sander_Marechal Aug 14, 2007 7:21 AM EDT |
I saw on Groklaw that they already filed an 8K with the SEC. Not sure what that is exactly, but I hope it's bad :-) |
| jrm Aug 14, 2007 7:45 AM EDT |
An 8-K is required for "material corporate events". SCO filed an 8-K saying that they're "disappointed" in the ruling, but that they still own copyrights to technology developed after 1995. They didn't specifically mention that they now have a significant liability in the form of royalties that should have been remitted to Novell. If I were a stockholder, I would be more concerned about the amount of that liability than with SCO's "disappointment". |
| jdixon Aug 14, 2007 8:17 AM EDT |
> They didn't specifically mention that they now have a significant liability in the form of royalties that should have been remitted to Novell. If so, then the current shareholders have a legitimate cause for a lawsuit. That definitely qualifies, and should have been mentioned in the filing. Not doing so is negligent. |
| gus3 Aug 15, 2007 12:28 AM EDT |
"Material corporate events": TSG loses major lawsuit "Immaterial corporate events": TSG issues a press release calling the court ignorant (implying major Freudian projection upon Mr. McBride in the process) |
| gus3 Aug 31, 2007 10:08 AM EDT |
As of a few minutes ago, SCOX reported at US$0.67. Thanks for playing, Darl, you can pick up your barrel of sauerkraut at the door. |
| techiem2 Aug 31, 2007 10:39 AM EDT |
That could be because InformationWeek just posted an interview with him. You know how that works, Darl says "We really are gonna win!" and the stock goes back up. I submitted the article to the newswire earlier. |
| jdixon Aug 31, 2007 10:42 AM EDT |
> That could be because InformationWeek just posted an interview with him. MarketWatch is reporting that SCO filed an appeal on Wednesday. |
| dinotrac Aug 31, 2007 10:43 AM EDT |
>MarketWatch is reporting that SCO filed an appeal on Wednesday. Are you sure that wasn't "SCO has filed away all of its appeal"? |
| jdixon Aug 31, 2007 10:52 AM EDT |
> Are you sure that wasn't "SCO has filed away all of its appeal"? I'll let you judge for yourself, Dino. :) [url=http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/sco-appeals-unix-ruling-seeks/story.aspx?guid={7A214920-2E0D-4706-B46A-60DE6CFEB3C1}&dist=TQP_Mod_mktwN]http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/sco-appeals-unix-rulin...[/url] |
| dinotrac Aug 31, 2007 10:58 AM EDT |
My favorite part was this: >SCO's shares ... rose 44%, to 72 cents in Thursday trading. That's not the kind of good news that makes you want to paint the town red. |
| tuxchick Aug 31, 2007 11:16 AM EDT |
Bwah. 44% = $0.32. That's almost a rounding error. It's just stock players, not anyone who has faith in Darl or SCO. |
| dinotrac Aug 31, 2007 11:28 AM EDT |
>Bwah. 44% = $0.32. It also means that it was down to $.40 the day before. Hmmm....a share of SCO was going for less than a single first class postage stamp. Even with the jump, I'd still rather invest in the stamp. |
| jdixon Aug 31, 2007 11:44 AM EDT |
> Bwah. 44% = $0.32. > It also means that it was down to $.40 the day before. TC, you're forgiven. Dino, you should know better. Have you forgotten all of your econ training? Yes, 44% of 72 cents is 32 cents (to the nearest cent). But, the stock was up 44% to 72 cents. That means that it was 44% of the original price, not 72 cents. Which means that the original price was 72/1.44, which would be 50 cents. > Even with the jump, I'd still rather invest in the stamp. The forever stamps would almost definitely be a better investment, yes. |
| dinotrac Aug 31, 2007 11:49 AM EDT |
jdixon -- ARGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You are, of course, right. I am, of course, w-w-w.... Can't say it. Universe might implode. Sorry about that. |
| jdixon Aug 31, 2007 11:54 AM EDT |
> Can't say it. Universe might implode. Understood, and appreciated. :) |
| tuxchick Aug 31, 2007 12:04 PM EDT |
haha, you're right. I remember when my aunt Mary was quitting smoking. She had cut down to 2-3 cigarettes per day, and she would sit there muttering "when I smoke 3 instead of 2 that's a 50% increase. But when I cut back from 3 to 2, it's only a one-third decrease. It's not fair, it's not fair." |
| gus3 Aug 31, 2007 9:04 PM EDT |
Well, we could use "baseline budgeting": It "should" have gone up 150%. It went up "only" 50%. Thus, the value actually "dropped" by 100%. Hence, SCOX is worthless. Yup, same result. |
You cannot post until you login.