Yahoo! SCOX Review

Message ID: 98374 Posted By: manyhats23 Posted On: 2004-02-26 06:48:00 Subject: Earnings, RBC, and their Hedge Client Recs: 3 Several events are converging within the next few days. The earnings call (a horror show) as well as the securities registration will make the next five trading days fun to watch. But one thing stands out that we all forgot .... Cohen, RBC, and Cohen's hedge fund. I remember the research not too long ago on Cohen's hedge fund. It was pretty much agreed that this was the RBC client, and that this is to hedge Cohen/Royce's long holdings in SCOX. Now as SCOX approaches the cliff (like Wyle E. Coyote) what is there to stop Cohen from pulling the rug out? (This, of course, assumes that Cohen's hedge fund is the RBC client) My personal belief is that Cohen/Royce doesn't want to have any questions about manipulation, so they are waiting for a bad event (like the earnings call) to pull the trigger and exit. I respect Korbomite, but...

Message ID: 97029 Posted By: heimdal31 Posted On: 2004-02-23 13:32:00 Subject: Lots of losers Recs: 4 JustBS, I fear that so many on this board have pre-judged you and failed to make a serious reply to your question as to who loses if SCO wins the IBM suit. I will make an attempt to provide a serious answer. First, IBM would certainly loose something. However, given that SCO has pulled copyright violations out of the suit and are making vague charges related solely to IBM distributing AIX, there is a real question as to whether SCO could convince anyone that the damages are in the billions. So, IBM loses, but I bet they don't lose much. Korbomite had part of the right answer: the common shareholders who expected some big lottery win. They lose because the IBM payout will be small and because NO LINUX USERS WILL OWE SCO MONEY. (See below.) I and others on the board lose out, win or lose, because a great source of entertainment will be lost. The idiots who ...

Message ID: 96811 Posted By: manyhats23 Posted On: 2004-02-23 08:56:00 Subject: Troll Alert: Thick as Pea Soup Recs: 2 As others have pointed out, two items have surfaced over the weekend that will have the trolls out enforce. The first, the ZDNet "article" adn the SCO License is available for purchase. To the first item, I say it is more of the usual FUD. Several old trolls and several new ones have appeared to push the facts off the front page. The second is interesting. I was under the impression that SCO had a "sales force" to sell SCO products to end-users and OEMs. If this is the case, why would SCO need to host a method to purchase online? And with a credit card? I laugh as I imagine the CIO of a Fortune 500 company whipping out his VISA card to purchase the SCO "License" .... hehehehehehe --m [This is a stock scam on the brink of being exposed. Stay far away .....] ------------------------------------------------------...

Message ID: 93316 Posted By: manyhats23 Posted On: 2004-02-12 12:41:00 Subject: For the Record .... Recs: 2 ... no one gives a rat's a** about this stock scam anymore. 12:17:00 Quote: Bid: $13.69 ( 100) Ask: $13.79 ( 100) 12:18:00 12:19:00 12:20:00 12:21:00 12:22:00 12:23:00 12:24:00 12:25:00 *Trade: 110 shares @ $13.77 12:26:00 12:27:00 12:28:00 12:29:00 12:30:00 Quote: Bid: $13.69 ( 100) Ask: $13.75 ( 100) 12:31:00 *Trade: 100 shares @ $13.75 *Trade: 700 shares @ $13.69 12:32:00 12:33:00 12:34:00 *Trade: 300 shares @ $13.69 12:35:00 12:36:00 12:37:00 12:38:00 12:39:00 12:40:00 *Trade: 200 shares @ $13.69 12:41:00 ------------------------------------------------------------ The text of this Yahoo Message Board post has been licensed for copying and distribution by the Yahoo Message Board user "manyhats23" under the following license: License:  CC Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike v2.0 ----...

Message ID: 92788 Posted By: heimdal31 Posted On: 2004-02-11 12:04:00 Subject: Insider Sales: John Wall Recs: 6 Someone this morning posted a list of insider sales and the total amount it has netted insiders. I think there is one person you are missing in all of that: John Wall. Of course, you are missing him becuase he didn't have to file any Form 4s. I also think that he is likely an innocent "insider" who got out when he saw the scam in the making. John Wall owned 800,000 shares of SCO when the scam started. Wall actually had founded a Redmond company and acquired the SCO shares when SCO had acquired some shares of his company and when SCO made a loan to his company. Soon after the lawsuit, Wall filed an S-3 stating his intention to sell. There was an article in June indicating he owned 600,000 shares--though, I could find no record of the sale or of the 600,000. I strongly suspect that he has exited his SCO position, though we may not know u...

Message ID: 91633 Posted By: walterbyrd Posted On: 2004-02-08 11:45:00 Subject: scox's not crazy, insane, or arrogant Recs: 31 It is generally assumed that a public company wants to continue it's existance and grow. Therefore, it is further assumed that a public company would not make public claims that are clearly irrational and/or untrue. Certainly it is a assumed that a public company would file merritless lawsuits, and then lie in a court of law. But, scox's strategy is different. This is just a cash grab. All scox needs is time to dump. Every insane comment that scox that scox makes has to be carefully diasected, in a pain-stakingly slow process. Scox will never run of insane "red herring" statements. When - after 11 months - scox's "trade secret" scam is proven a complete lie - no problem - scox just pulls the ol' switch-a-roo and now it 's copyright claims. Doesn't matter if the copyright claim is equally bogus,...