×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

SCO Given NASDAQ Delisting Notice

Zonk posted more than 6 years ago | from the vultures-are-circling dept.

Caldera 116

SCO Delenda Est writes "The SEC has given SCO notice that they will be delisted from the NASDAQ if they cannot keep their share price above $1 sometime in the next 180 days. Although they may be able to avoid delisting for a while, their small market capitalization will hinder their efforts. Given their other financials, this just goes to show how desperate their current financial situation is."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

116 comments

Business ? (1)

tizan (925212) | more than 6 years ago | (#18909751)

The slashdot tagging says "business" ...yep what business is that for trying to sell fear and get cash out of it ?

Re:Business ? (5, Funny)

Skreech (131543) | more than 6 years ago | (#18909769)

The slashdot tagging says "business" ...yep what business is that for trying to sell fear and get cash out of it ?
The media? ;)

Re:Business ? (1)

Marcion (876801) | more than 6 years ago | (#18910531)

So Long and Thanks for all the Fish. Proprietary Unix will be dead by Christmas. Linux forever.

See also:

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=200704271 85116413 [groklaw.net]

The trap for surviving the business for long time! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#18913001)

SCO has the black money that is given by M$ & its co. "The secret Government".

. SCO has money to pay US$ 1.01-per-action for many years that lives M$.

. Want you to play?

. It's terrorific for Wall Street, Nasdaq, !!!.

. The traps, the priviliged information and the black money are hiddenly permitted.

. It's the dirty game.

NASH's friends: kill -9 them! zombie processes! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#18913099)

Imagine ...

I kill SCO => SCO killed => with died SCO, the judge kills IBM => died IBM stops the CELL core productions => it kills Sony PS3, M$ XBOX360, Toshiba HDTV => with they died, they kill Intel and AMD.

Conclusion:

SCO, IBM, Sony, M$, Toshiba, Intel and AMD will are killed and died.

Re:NASH's friends: kill -9 them! zombie processes! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#18913461)

About the NASDAQ machines,

are they running SCO UnixWare?

NASDAQ rules, SCO rules, is it a conflict?

hahahaha

Re:Business ? (1)

Marcion (876801) | more than 6 years ago | (#18910581)

"The SCO Group, Inc. ("SCO") (Nasdaq: SCOX - News), a leading provider of UNIX® software technology and mobile services, today announced it has received a Nasdaq Staff Deficiency Letter "

What is the definition of mobile services here? I'm sure Nokia or Vodafone called be called leading in their markets, as for UNIX, the only company with any hope of success with proprietary UNIX were Sun and Oops they open-sourced it. AIX is still big but IBM are certainly backing the Linux horse as their primary Posix platform. HP-UX hasn't done anything new in a long time, with HP going for Linux too. So maybe there are the "leading provider of UNIX®", even if they only have a couple of customers.

Re:Business ? (1)

Marcion (876801) | more than 6 years ago | (#18910613)

I'm sure Nokia or Vodafone *could* be called leading in their markets,

Sorry, still eating breakfast, no caffeine yet.

From TFA (1)

DownWithTheMan (797237) | more than 6 years ago | (#18910615)

Just saw this wonderful little tid-bit in the press release

SCO owns the core UNIX operating system, originally developed by AT&T/Bell Labs and is the exclusive licensor to Unix-based system software providers.
To the death they'll defend that claim... And now they're in for a delisting... Let's all keep our fingers crossed until Oct. 22, then it's official!

Re:Business? (Why are you going to kill UnixWare) (1)

aim2future (773846) | more than 6 years ago | (#18911851)

The Aug 14 2003 I wrote the following to SCO:

Dear Sirs,

I'm very disappointed with your actions and claims this summer by attacking Linux and also GPL in the farsighted way you are doing.

The only logical conclusion I can make from this is that you have decided to kill your own product, UnixWare.

Whether you win this case or not is not important from that point of view. You have harmed your own business for all future. UnixWare is dead. If you win this case, the freedom in this world is gone. You are creating anarchy, worse than the US patent system causes due to it's unlimited patentability on software and business methods.

I don't expect an explanation back from you.

Sincerely yours
myname
mycompany

I actually recieved an answer containing:

SCO is not trying to destroy UnixWare, we are only trying to protect our
intellectual property. I'm sorry that this runs contrary to your
thinking, but when a company's intellectual property is being
threatened, it has to take action.

My immediate conspiratory consideration then was that Microsoft gladly supported the trial as it had potential to harm both UnixWare and the Linux kernel, both competitors to MS.

At that time the Microsoft mix into this were merely rumours but last year their support were more or less proven

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=200610080 1442692 [groklaw.net]
http://www.catb.org/~esr/halloween/halloween10.htm l [catb.org]
not funny

Pump and dump/ milking the cow (5, Insightful)

EmbeddedJanitor (597831) | more than 6 years ago | (#18909877)

Darl's business strategy was very successful for some, if not for SCO:

Pump and dump: The "we're going to screw over IBM" hype lured in the vultures and pumped up SCO stocks. Those that then dumped stocks probably got 10x the true value for their stocks.

Milking the cow: Darl's brother Kevin is part of the SCO legal team. Keeping SCO and the conflict alive and spending big on lawyers fees got a lot of money into Darl's brother's pockets. Families help eachother out.

Unfortunately SCO was once a great software company that got trashed by poor management and greed.

Re:Pump and dump/ milking the cow (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#18910299)

Unfortunately SCO was once a great software company

You must be confused...

Re:Pump and dump/ milking the cow (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#18910355)

the software company sco from that time is not the same company with that name today

just to remember, it was caldera who changed the name to sco after they bough the trademark sco

so it has absolutely nothing to do with the once successfull sco, they just try to let it look that way

Re:Pump and dump/ milking the cow (2, Informative)

_Sprocket_ (42527) | more than 6 years ago | (#18912831)

the software company sco from that time is not the same company with that name today


The software company known as SCO (The Santa Cruz Operation) sold their rights associated with Unix to Caldera Systems in 2001. SCO then renamed themselves Tarentella, Inc. having retained rights to their Tarentella product (something akin to Citrix). Caldera Systems immediately changed their name to Caldera International. In 2002 there is another name change to The SCO Group (often referred to as "SCOg" to avoid confusion with the old SCO). And in 2003 is the filing of the infamous lawsuit against IBM. In 2005, Tarantella is purchased by Sun Microsystems.

Re:Pump and dump/ milking the cow (1)

masticina (1001851) | more than 6 years ago | (#18910457)

Well maybe Darl's family isn't out of the scoop here. The court can judge that damages are taken from the laywers to if the ligation was without merit. It doesn't happens much but see it as the neighbour that always complains. If the neighbour for the fourth time starts a lawsuit against you ungrounded the law can simply request damages from HIM for the damage he done to you!

In a case like this with Sco lying and cheating and trying to inject steriods into a dying case..well I think this is the type of case where the Laywers will have to pay Damages to the winning parties for Pursueing a lost case without Merit!

Re:Pump and dump/ milking the cow (1)

lingenfr (62184) | more than 6 years ago | (#18911397)

I don't know that SCO was every a great company. They had some great products. As a company, my cut is that they always sucked. I can remember the days of being on the phone with their arrogant staff while they explained to me why I had to pay extra to be able to compile, extra to have standard communications packages, extra.... After paying $6000 for a single server license of Unix. As a company, I am not sure that SCO (regardless of incarnation) every GOT the UNIX market. Had they been able to pull their greedy heads out of their arses long enough to see the light of day, they might have been a force to be reckoned with. As it is, good riddance. I will drink a beer to their memory when they are delisted. I hope their story is captured in MBA case studies so that the budding entrepreneurs of tomorrow learn a lesson.

Re:Pump and dump/ milking the cow (1)

jon_anderson_ca (705052) | more than 6 years ago | (#18911673)

If all this is true, wouldn't it violate some kind of securities legislation? I mean, isn't that "insider trading" or something?

If I were a major shareholder that got burned by this, I'd be thinking about suing the McBrides personally, or at least trying to get prosecutors to make him the next Conrad Black. I mean, there must be some law that prevents executives from manipulating a publically-traded company for personal gain... right?

Right?

The Business of Giving You the Business (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#18909887)

and business is good.

Have a good weekend you fucking nerds.

*Hugs*

Re:Business ? (1)

leonmergen (807379) | more than 6 years ago | (#18909957)

.. only on slashdot can an article about a company's financial situation, nasdaq et al be questioned to not be business-related..

get the certificates of stocks as war trophies (1)

wganz (113345) | more than 6 years ago | (#18911395)

It would be nice to get a minimal # of stocks and demand that SCO print the certificates of shares for it. Then hang them in the den like people have war trophies of the defeated.

Re:get the certificates of stocks as war trophies (1)

morcego (260031) | more than 6 years ago | (#18912341)

That "minimal #" being 1. There is at least 1 company [oneshare.com] that allows you to do it. There might be others too, but this is the one I know (I'm not from USA, and don't play on the USA market).

Dear Darl, (4, Funny)

baryon351 (626717) | more than 6 years ago | (#18909759)

Dear Darl,

We told you so.

Sincerely,
Internet full of geeks with a clue.

Re:Dear Darl, (5, Funny)

pembo13 (770295) | more than 6 years ago | (#18909991)

Dear Internet full of geeks with a clue,

Did you miss the bit where I made a bunch of money?

Sincerely,
Darl

Other ways to sell stock (4, Funny)

Glowing Fish (155236) | more than 6 years ago | (#18909761)

I am sure that even without the NASDAQ, SCO can sell stock other ways. We can perhaps expect to be getting this e-Mail many times very soon:

Br3ak!ng NEWS! Great NEW STOCK P1CK! SCO corp is posed to go thru the roof when it wins LAWSUIT! CURR#NT PRICE: .50 cents. TARGET PRICE :$22.50!

Re:Other ways to sell stock (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#18909913)

I wonder if they will do reverse stock split to stay listed. They've got nothing to lose from the bad publicity compared to from getting delisted.

Re:Other ways to sell stock (1)

Bloke down the pub (861787) | more than 6 years ago | (#18910213)

I refer the right honoourable gentleman to my previous answer [slashdot.org].

Re:Other ways to sell stock (3, Informative)

wfberg (24378) | more than 6 years ago | (#18910257)

At a market cap of 19.53M at 92ct/share, there are 21M shares in SCOX. 14.25M are "float" according to finance.yahoo.com, so they can do reverse stock-splits quite a bit, and still have more than 500,000 shares listed.

Re:Other ways to sell stock (1)

gmack (197796) | more than 6 years ago | (#18911631)

Your looking at the wrong limit. If they do a 1:4 reverse split to bring the stock to just under $4 and the stock drops back to where it is now then the value of the company is Then 4.82 million. You calculate market value by subtracting the value of the stock held by insiders so there isn't that much room to breathe when they need to maintain a market value of at least 1 million.

Re:Other ways to sell stock (1)

wfberg (24378) | more than 6 years ago | (#18911685)

In my savings account, thirteen and quarter million dollars aren't exactly loose change. If they drop that much, they'll be bought up by some hedge fund who will split up the litigious part of the company (some LLC that can take the fall for the IBM counterclaims) from assets that they can sell on, like real estate.

Re:Other ways to sell stock (1)

jonbryce (703250) | more than 6 years ago | (#18912343)

What assets are these? The only asset they have now is a bit of cash in the bank, and we aren't talking huge sums in the overall scheme of things.

What happens to the case, then? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#18909765)

Without any money left... suppose they're completely delisted and considered a worthless company, how many people think the case will continue? I get the feeling the lawyers would just say "fuck it, we're done" and leave.

Capcha word: pitying

Re:What happens to the case, then? (4, Insightful)

Arker (91948) | more than 6 years ago | (#18909837)

That simply isn't an option. Novelle and IBM both have lots of counterclaims that will have to be dealt with, even if Caldera does drop their baseless claims. And lawyers aren't allowed to just back out of a case. Plus BS&F have already been paid to take this thing to the conclusion...

Re:What happens to the case, then? (1)

rfunches (800928) | more than 6 years ago | (#18910867)

Without any money left... suppose they're completely delisted and considered a worthless company, how many people think the case will continue?

Delisting will only kick them to OTC/pink sheets; it doesn't mean the company is worthless, just that SCOX can't meet the minimum listing requirements for NASDAQ. But as I posted previously [slashdot.org] the most likely scenario is a reverse split to bring the price back above $1 and stay NASDAQ listed. It's interesting to note, though, that in their last 10-Q filing [sec.gov], as of January 31, 2007, SCO said they have nearly $4 million to pay for "experts, consultants, and other expenses in connection with [...] litigation" and the company makes quarterly payments to law firms Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, Kevin McBride and Berger Singerman in the amount of $2 million. The company has already spent $11 million in the litigation.

Re:What happens to the case, then? (1)

RobertLTux (260313) | more than 6 years ago | (#18913787)

the big thing is secondary and teterary explosions (ie cases that will spin up just after the current one gets gaveled)
we have
1 the BSF bar cases
2 the TSCOG officers cases
3 the Microsoft / Baystar cases
4 the officer cases from 3

it stands to reason that a bunch of folks are going to be fitted for orange jumpsuits so the next few years will be very nasty for some folks
(i would bet that PJ will be deposed by Novell/ IBM /SEC/DOJ in an "undisclosed location" to pick up her part of this mess and you know what
SHE WILL BE HAPPY TO DO THIS FOR A PROPERLY WRITTEN ORDER)

Lets buy them out. (2, Funny)

orbitalia (470425) | more than 6 years ago | (#18909777)

Just for the fun of it. Then sack Darl of course.

Re:Lets buy them out. (3, Insightful)

qbwiz (87077) | more than 6 years ago | (#18909833)

The bad part of this plan is that part where we increase the stock price, thus giving Darl money.

Re:Lets buy them out. (1)

HaeMaker (221642) | more than 6 years ago | (#18909881)

Heh. It would only cost $19.4 Million!

$9,962,523.6 for a 51% stake. (2, Interesting)

burnttoy (754394) | more than 6 years ago | (#18910099)

It'd be worth paying just to get at the details of the MS/SCO Unix cross licensing deal and/or the Baystar investing silliness.

The flip side is if Novell are right and SCO don't have any real rights to Unix then MS may want their cash back.

Mark Shuttleworth could afford it...

Mark? YOU OUT THERE!? Fancy a laugh?! G'wan! ;-D

Re:Lets buy them out. (3, Funny)

Yvanhoe (564877) | more than 6 years ago | (#18910125)

Yeah but think about it : you would be owning Linux then !

Your chance for immortality (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 6 years ago | (#18910189)

Think about it. You own Linux. Then you open it officially to the OSS, untouchable for any corporations.

Your name would be standing right next to Linus and Richard in the book of reverence of geeks all over the planet. I mean, that ain't worth a mere 20 mil?

Re:Your chance for immortality (1)

Cid Highwind (9258) | more than 6 years ago | (#18911405)

Worth a mere $20 mil? Maybe.

Worth giving $20 mil to Darl, SCO's board, BS&F, and anyone else scummy enough to be holding SCOX shares now? Not even close.

Re:Your chance for immortality (1)

HUADPE (903765) | more than 6 years ago | (#18913067)

SCO is worth probably -$100 million. They will lose the IBM case badly, and get judged against for some gigantic amount. If you bought out SCO, you'd have to pray that IBM, Sun, and all the other people suing would drop the cases and let you be. If you arranged that in advance...you'd go to jail for insider trading.

Re:Your chance for immortality (2, Insightful)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 6 years ago | (#18913163)

Where's the problem? You buy out SCO, drop the case against IBM and declare all *nix code you own OSS, IBM comes after the company for damages, company goes poof since there's no assets left and IBM goes after management and board for money.

Bottom line, you give IBM a headache and drive Darl and his pals into bankrupcy. Win-Win.

A bad precedent (1)

mark-t (151149) | more than 6 years ago | (#18910215)

Although I'm sure it's crossed many people's minds to do just that, the problem with it is that it sets a bad example for future situations which may arise, where struggling companies might see starting baseless lawsuits with big corporations as a viable way to generate some final revenue, hoping that if they make a pest of themselves long enough that the big company will just get fed up and buy them outright (for a minuscule fraction of what they were asking, so it might look like a real "deal"), and then the owners will just take the money and run.

Re:A bad precedent (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#18911707)

That's why IBM won't buy them out... they will not only beat SCO, but using counter-claims, grind them into the dust as an example of "this is what happens when you sue IBM".

Re:Lets buy them out. (1)

Alien Being (18488) | more than 6 years ago | (#18910641)

Count me in. I'll take three rolls if it's the quilted variety (sensitive sphincter).

Re:Lets buy them out. (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#18911481)

try cutting down on anal sex.

What's this? (1)

pair-a-noyd (594371) | more than 6 years ago | (#18909821)

No "haha" tag? Someone falling down on the job?

Re:What's this? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#18909895)

No "haha" tag? Someone falling down on the job?


Look across the tagging on all recent stories. Probably all stories ever in fact. Or trying clicking on one of the "Recent tags" listed to the right of the front page (that's funny... these recent tags haven't been applied to ANY stories). I think we've quietly and very clumsily moved to editor only tagging, and basically just using the section titles.

But then why is Zonk actively encouraging people to use the "thinkofthechildren" tag [slashdot.org] in the department title when we seemingly aren't allowed to? Maybe he just didn't get the memo.

Link to proof (5, Informative)

Soko (17987) | more than 6 years ago | (#18909843)

Since there was no link in the story, I figured it'd be prudent to provide one [groklaw.net] sowing that SCO is indeed in peril of having their stock de-listed.

As usual, PJ provides the relevant and proper info.

Soko

What? Again? (2, Informative)

Anna Merikin (529843) | more than 6 years ago | (#18909857)

Wasn't the same warning given SCO several years ago...just before Microsoft and Sun bought SCO's expensive UNIX licenses for linux, bringing SCO's per share price back above the penny-stock listings?

This was just a warning, like last time, not a notice of delisting. That would come just about the time SCO v. IBM finishes.

Nothing to see here, move along.

Re:What? Again? (1)

Antique Geekmeister (740220) | more than 6 years ago | (#18909947)

Look for Microsoft to fund them again, but only enough to keep them alive, much as described on Slashdot in http://slashdot.org/articles/04/03/11/158214.shtml [slashdot.org]. Deals like this keep SCO and its Fear/Uncertainty/Doubt campaign against open source projects like Linux alive, while shielding Microsoft from counter-suit or public exposure of their genuine motives for keeping SCO alive.

Remember, Microsoft doesn't necessarily want SCO to *win*. They want SCO weak to prevent any good products coming from that particular UNIX vendor, and to continue the demonstrably false rumors that Linux developers steal from UNIX.

Re:What? Again? (4, Insightful)

Weedlekin (836313) | more than 6 years ago | (#18910703)

"Microsoft doesn't necessarily want SCO to *win*. They want SCO weak to prevent any good products coming from that particular UNIX vendor, and to continue the demonstrably false rumors that Linux developers steal from UNIX."

SCO was far too weak to be any threat to Microsoft long before this case started, and any FUD value it might once have had is now gone due to the fact that it's dragged on for so long, and has turned out to be so full of obvious crap from SCO and their lawyers that most geeks have lost interest in it, let alone everybody else. Microsoft's FUD-generation funds are thus now being spent on injecting money into commercial Linux vendors like Novell so they can make a noise about the possibility of Linux infringing on _their_ IP, which they have such vast quantities of that, unlike SCO's laughable (to geeks) claims, isn't easy for even the most diligent open source developers to discount because of the loose and wide-ranging nature of software patents.

From Microsoft's POV therefore, SCO has already served its purpose, and there's no reason for them to waste money propping up a case that even known shills like Laura Didio seem to have given up on, especially when that same money could be spent far more productively on their current "Linux probably infringes several of our patents" FUD campaign.

Re:What? Again? (2, Interesting)

Antique Geekmeister (740220) | more than 6 years ago | (#18912053)

I see your point, but SCO's usefulness to Microsoft is not yet played out. Like a tobacco lobbyist ranting about individual choice, Darl McBride's helps cast doubt on the intellectual property of Linux. It's been a *cheap* investment for Microsoft to harass Novell, IBM, RedHat, and other Linux and genuinely open source development companies this way.

You may be underestimating Microsoft's willingness to continue spreading FUD, long after intelligent technology people recognize it as malicious rumor-mongering. Inexperienced people will invest in the "known" or "safe" or "supported" vendor even when the vendor's history of customer abuse and fraud and lack of compatibility. Take a look at the BBC's decision to use Windows Media for its new Iplayer service for an example of such a policy, founded in avoiding difficulty with intellectual property or support issues.

Re:What? Again? (1)

Dan Ost (415913) | more than 6 years ago | (#18913347)

The SCO lawsuit might have been good for MS in the short term, but I think that Linux is far stronger now than it would have been without the lawsuit.

For example, do you think that mainstream media would be writing articles comparing Vista to Ubuntu on the desktop if the SCO lawsuit hadn't placed Linux so clearly on their radar?

Re:What? Again? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#18910139)

The last warning had nothing to do with share price, it was because they were late in filing.

wut (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#18909873)

I thought de list was how de servants kept up with de grocery shopping.

Re:wut (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#18911287)

LOL! Niggers can't read, numbnut's.

Wow... (1)

jrcsnet (714232) | more than 6 years ago | (#18909921)

Wow... not only no link to the story, but the half attempt at a summary says something different then the title. Possibly should be 'The SEC has been given notice by SCO that they will be delisted from the NASDAQ', not whats above.

Either way, SCO is toast. Not like its a big surprise or anything.

Latin... (1)

tmk (712144) | more than 6 years ago | (#18909975)

'SCO delenda est' is gibberish. You mean 'SCO esse delendam'.

Re:Latin... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#18910175)

Could you explain that a bit more? Obviously he's replaced "Carthago" with "SCO" in the famous quote "Carthago delenda est". As someone unfamiliar with latin that seems ta reasonable substitution. I'm guessing there's some subtlety I'm missing but could you explain it a bit?

Thanks

Re:Latin... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#18910241)

"SCO delenda est" is correct. If you want to use "esse delendam", you have to use it in a clause, thus: "Censeo SCO esse delendam".

Re:Latin... (2, Informative)

Ixot (915315) | more than 6 years ago | (#18910411)

What Cicero would say was indeed "Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam". This translates (roughly) to "Furthermore, I think that Carthage must be destroyed. The "C. esse delendam" part of the quote is what one calls an "Accusativus cum infinitivo" and usually follows verbs of dialogue, reflection or counsel.

I believe that "SCO delenda est" really translates to "SCO must be deleted".

Of course my Latin is a bit rusty, so I may wrong.

Re:Latin... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#18910835)

"Delenda" is a gerundive meaning "a thing which must be deleted" I can't see any reason why "SCO delenda est" should be considered incorrect.

Re:Latin... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#18911297)

It's not gibberish, it means "SCO is to be (must be) destroyed". The original phrase only had Carthago instead of SCO since my ancestors (I'm roman) weren't exactly Linux users.

or in other words... (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#18910041)

Microsoft has a 180 days to decide if this angle of attack on Linux is worth
another cash infusion. Me thinks, they'll not throw good money after bad.

$1 (1)

essence (812715) | more than 6 years ago | (#18910191)

why can't their price drop below $1? Is there a particar reason why a share can't be traded below $1?

Re:$1 (1)

MaGGuN (630724) | more than 6 years ago | (#18910229)

Quoted [groklaw.net] from Groklaw [groklaw.net]:
  On April 23, 2007, The SCO Group, Inc. (the "Company") received a letter from The Nasdaq Stock Market ("Nasdaq") indicating that the bid price of its common stock for the last 30 consecutive business days had closed below the minimum $1.00 per share required for continued listing under Nasdaq Marketplace Rule 4310(c)(4). Pursuant to Nasdaq Marketplace Rule 4310(c)(8)(D), the Company has been provided an initial period of 180 calendar days, or until October 22, 2007, to regain compliance.

Re:$1 (1)

essence (812715) | more than 6 years ago | (#18910243)

ok. its the NASDAQ rules ..but why is it in the rules?

Re:$1 (4, Informative)

KokorHekkus (986906) | more than 6 years ago | (#18910261)

It's because when a stocks value go that low it becomes very easy to manipulate in various ways (such as different pump-and-dump schemes etc) since even a very small swing in paid price means many percent in profit. Basically the stock price becomes much more unreliable as an indicator of the actual value of the company and that in turn would reflect badly on the stock exchange where it is trade.

More about penny stock fraud at wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penny_stocks#Penny_St ock_Fraud [wikipedia.org]

$0.999.. IS EQUAL TO $1 IN THEORY, NOT IN PRACTICE (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#18913217)

Thanks for your theories,

if SCO shares below $1 and i use your theory then

how can we kill SCO thanks to your mathematic model with the NASDAQ rules?

Before, i'm joining many linux people to structure a powerful armed team to kill SCO inside of the market, after to kill M$, after to kill Sun of his pacted friend McNealy, ...

Re:$1 (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#18910267)

Below $1 shares become increasingly volatile since a minimal movement in price - 1 cent - becomes more than 1 percent of the stock value. If you think about all those stock scams where you get emailed begging you to buy such-and-such in the hope that a few mugs doing it will knock the price a few percent and make someone a fortune, well that's exactly the sort of thing that Nasdaq don't want on their market. Some people would say that pretty much the same thing happened with SCO in the over $1 range but if anything that just highlights how volatile a stock can be, and why Nasdaq have rules to minimise it.

Re:$1 (1)

jcr (53032) | more than 6 years ago | (#18910371)

Like any other stock exchange, NASDAQ is the ultimate guarantor of any trades that take place under its auspices. Penny stocks are more likely to involve traders who can't make good on a contract, which leaves the exchange holding the bag. Penny stocks just aren't worth the trouble for an exchange to list them.

-jcr

$0.01 (1)

mangu (126918) | more than 6 years ago | (#18910611)

Suppose share prices could fall without limit. What happens when it reaches $0.01? At that point it cannot fall any further, and the smallest price increase, to $0.02, would bring a 100% profit. This is the ideal pump-and-dump scheme, unscrupulous managers would always try to get the stock price oscillating between one and two cents.

Re:$0.01 (1)

Jonny do good (1002498) | more than 6 years ago | (#18911595)

What happens when it reaches $0.01? At that point it cannot fall any further, and the smallest price increase, to $0.02, would bring a 100% profit.

Stocks can trade lower then $0.01. They can trade at fractions. When I watch a streaming stock screen low price shares often trade at the thousandth of a $1 level (usually 1000 shares at $2.225 or somthing like that). People will make trades at thousands of shares at a time at a minimum level hen stocks get really low in price, otherwise it doesn't make sense to pay the fees. I own a stock that was delisted (I never owned too much), now for me to sell it I have to pay about 1/2 the value in a transaction fee so I have just left it as shares, who cares if I lose another $15 or so at this point, I already lost a majority of my initial investment. A single share may not have any realizable value, but if you own 1 million shares valued at $0.001 you still have some value there and in the OTC markets you will run into many stocks valued at fractions of a penny. The bottom limit of shares price (before it truely becomes zero) is $0.01 divided by the maximum number of shares held by any shreholder.

Missing tag (1)

owlstead (636356) | more than 6 years ago | (#18910409)

We must have run out of "haha" tags, 'cause I don't see one (yet). Can someone have a look and see if we got an old rusty one somewhere in the basement? Otherwise, we could borrow a tag from previous SCO or MS related articles.

I don't believe you - show me (1)

hutchike (837402) | more than 6 years ago | (#18911015)

So where's your link to a story backing up you NASDAQ delisting claim for SCO? Sure, it's plausible, but where's the link it sounds speculative.

Re:I don't believe you - show me (1)

psychokitten (819123) | more than 6 years ago | (#18911393)

How about here? [nasdaq.com]

Re:I don't believe you - show me (-1, Troll)

hutchike (837402) | more than 6 years ago | (#18911465)

Thanks - I thought the story was just a bit more SCO-hate from the Linux luvvies - but I was wrong. Maybe its time SCO sold their claimed Unix trademarks and copyright in order to fund a share buy-back, and hence keep the bid price above $1. Hard times in Salt Lake eh?

Buy your stock certificate now! (2, Interesting)

(H)elix1 (231155) | more than 6 years ago | (#18911491)

I picked up a handful of SCOX shares the last time they were in danger of delisting. The paper certificates, framed, make for one of the best white elephant gifts in the IT sector. Even more desired than the chia pet or the Apple II people were swapping for. You pay extra to get the paper version, but at least the stock itself is less than a buck.

Re:Buy your stock certificate now! (1)

tinkertim (918832) | more than 6 years ago | (#18911755)

I picked up a handful of SCOX shares the last time they were in danger of delisting. The paper certificates, framed, make for one of the best white elephant gifts in the IT sector. Even more desired than the chia pet or the Apple II people were swapping for. You pay extra to get the paper version, but at least the stock itself is less than a buck.


I think socks would be more fun as a gift, unless you got one paper certificate and used it to have some toilet paper printed.

Wipe, send back to SCO , repeat. Wipe, send back to SCO, repeat. One more time : Wipe, send back to SCO, repeat.

Reverse stock split (3, Interesting)

Skapare (16644) | more than 6 years ago | (#18912585)

A stock split it normally done when the share price is too high which makes it difficult to trade. This is done by issuing new shares to existing shareholders on a specifically designated date, such that if they previously held N shared, they now hold N*M shares where M is the stock split multiplier. It generally changes the stock price to about 1/M. It usually makes the stock a bit easier to trade, so price will go up a bit just because of the split all else being equal.

A reverse split can also be done with M simply being less than 1. It can be harder to carry out due to the fractional shares involved. However, I have seen cases where stock splits with M greater than 1 have had non-whole values for M, so apparently brokers understand how to handle this for fractional shares.

If SCO did a reverse split, it would raise the per-share price. But whether they have enough outstanding shares to even do this is a big question. And it won't change their total capitalization (aside from a very minor price increase from making the shares have an easier to trade price), which might be the real issue, anyway. People with 1 share might end up with 1/5 share (same value ... mostly worthless).

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...