Royal Bank of Canada Cashes Out of SCO; SCO Begins Layoffs 585
jbell99999 is the first one to submit news that the Royal Bank of Canada is divesting itself of SCO stock. They're selling part of their preferred stock to Baystar, which has already indicated that they want to redeem their shares, and converting the rest to regular stock, which they can presumably sell on the open market. In other SCO news, Versicherung writes "The Santa Cruz Sentinel is reporting, SCO is laying off 10 percent of its worldwide workforce. The cuts come less than a month after the company brought on a new chief financial officer and just before the company ended its second fiscal quarter April 30." See also stories at Eweek and Linuxinsider.com.
Where have you been? (Score:5, Informative)
In Santa Cruz, for example, they sliced their tech staff by like 80% or something.
Not a Good Stock to Own (Score:5, Informative)
So, for every person betting it is going to go up, there is someone betting it will go down.
Heh.. Play with fire.. Get burned (Score:3, Informative)
Bert Young (Score:5, Informative)
10% is nothing... (Score:5, Informative)
From SCO.com:
Q. How many people does The SCO Group employ? A. As of April 30, 2003, 339 employees.
From the article:
Stowell said the cuts totaled less than 10 percent of the company's total worldwide work force of 275. There were cuts, however, earlier in the quarter as well. In March the company reported 305 employees, including 73 in Santa Cruz.
339 - 275 = 64 positions gone from April 2003 to May 2004, not including these layoffs. Jeez.
Re:The begining of the end... (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Not a Good Stock to Own (Score:5, Informative)
Of course, for this to happen, the stock price would actually have to go *up* first...
Well... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Thank "The Doors.".. (Score:3, Informative)
You make it sound so easy. Regardless of how much ones job may suck, finding another one is rarely easy these days. By your statement, I do not think you have much experience in the real world as what you said is far easier said then done.
Re:Not a Good Stock to Own (Score:5, Informative)
Aside from that, it seems that the only reason that people are still holding SCOX is to get some more money out of whoever has been manipulating the stock price for the past year. That's the only explanation I can see for SCOX not being the penny stock it was (and will be again).
All I can say is... (Score:3, Informative)
...ouch... [yahoo.com]
Re:Bert Young (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Where have you been? (Score:2, Informative)
Emphasis mine.
Now, if this doesn't have all the characteristics of an open forum press flood, I don't know what does. Thank you, YaHoo Finance! You bought it!
Naturally, Slashdot get's it WRONG. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Thank "The Doors.".. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Oblig. Simpsons Quote (Score:2, Informative)
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=SCOX&t=6m&l=on&
Time for Darl get a box and pack up the office.
Re:Naturally, Slashdot get's it WRONG. (Score:5, Informative)
The prevailing presumption is that they sold the 2/3 at a loss and will strategically dump the common stock. Keeping the common stock after a move like this wouldn't seem to make sense, but there is probably more going on than any of us know.
So they divested 2/3 of their stock for unknown terms, lost some benefits of the PIPE deal and are holding 1/3 of their original investment at >50% loss over 7 months. They presumably had the option to force redemption like Baystar, and being the majority investor would get their slice of the pie first. Instead they wait to weeks and pull this. Sounds like they're cutting their losses and splitting to me.
But admittedly that's not certain yet.
My best guess is that RBC prefered cutting losses and dropping SCOX rather than fighting about redemption, while Baystar has committed to redemption or bullying, and doubling their stock holdings for presumably a nice discount increases their leverage against SCO management and increases their redemption penalty should they win.
RBC folded, Baystar raised, and SCO is "all in".
Had to cover shorts (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Thank "The Doors.".. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Thank "The Doors.".. (Score:1, Informative)
On average, the Clinton deficits over the first three years of that administration were much larger than Bush's. The 2004 deficit, adjusted for inflation, is ranked 12th since 1940. The 2004 deficit, as a percent of GDP, is ranked 21st since 1940.
The media has compared a forecast of surpluses that was calculated while Clinton was president to a forecast of deficits which is being calculated now that Bush is president. However, in the real world, we find that the Bush deficits, when compared in inflation-adjusted terms, are relatively mild. And more importantly, since these deficits are being criticized because of their alleged effect on the overall American economy, when the deficits are presented as a percentage of GDP they are very small. For instance, the projected 2004 deficit as a proportion of GDP is 90% lower than FDR's deficit in the year 1943.
Deficit is not a bad thing! Weak $$ is great! (Score:2, Informative)
Furthermore, a weak US dollar is great for the US economy. A weak US dollar makes our exports cheaper for foreigners and makes imports more expensive for the locals. The result is more American goods are bought as opposed to a strong US dollar.
One last note, another poster was complaining that consumer debt was at an all time high, including mortgage debt. There is a logical explaination for mortgage debt to be at an all time high -- home ownership is at the highest levels in history!
Re:What if....... (Score:3, Informative)
Have a look at the figures for October 2001 versus October 2002. In October 2002, SCO had $21 million in current assets and $27 million in current liabilities.
SCO income statement [yahoo.com]
In the year ended October 2002, SCO had a net loss of $25 million.
SCO would have died some time in spring or summer 2003 without the massive cash infusion from Microsoft and Sun. All those employees would have been laid off a year ago. These employees kept their jobs for a year longer (and for 75% of them, they still are keeping their jobs) because of this evil, evil lawsuit. (And no, I don't think that makes the lawsuit a good thing).
Latest insider trades of SCOX stock (Score:3, Informative)
4/07/04 JEFF F HUNSAKER Divisional Officer 5,976 Open Market Sale proceeds of $66,558.83
4/07/04 THOMAS P RAIMONDI Director 11,841 Proposed Sale (Form 144) estimated proceeds of $126,817.11
4/07/04 JEFF F HUNSAKER Vice President 5,976 Proposed Sale (Form 144) estimated proceeds of $64,002.95
4/07/04 THOMAS P RAIMONDI Director 2,363 Exercise of Stock Options at cost of $2,646.55
4/07/04 THOMAS P RAIMONDI Director 11,481 Open Market Sale proceeds of $128,736.45
3/03/04 THOMAS P RAIMONDI Director 11,841 Proposed Sale (Form 144) estimated proceeds of $137,237.19
3/03/04 THOMAS P RAIMONDI Director 11,841 Exercise of Stock Options at cost of $13,261.92
3/03/04 THOMAS P RAIMONDI Director 11,841 Open Market Sale proceeds of $143,276.10
2/04/04 THOMAS P RAIMONDI Director 11,841 Exercise of Stock Options at cost of $13,261.92
2/04/04 THOMAS P RAIMONDI Director 11,841 Open Market Sale proceeds of $170,510.39
Re:Not a Good Stock to Own (Score:2, Informative)
I am short SCOX and have held a part of my short position for over a year. Indeed, an advantage of taking a short position vs. buying put options is that you can generally hold your short position if the stock takes longer to tank than you anticipated, while options have a fixed expiration date.
Of course, as has been mentioned, there are no options on SCOX anyway.