|
Chris Preimesberger - SCO Asked Fluff Questions During Conference Call |
|
Sunday, January 09 2005 @ 07:04 PM EST
|
This is something I didn't see before. It's a report from IT Manager's Journal's Chris Preimesberger on the last SCO financial teleconference: "Something I want to mention about this conference call: No hardball questions were asked. SCO Group undoubtedly selected only certain people it expected to ask fluff questions, and fluff questions they got. So we couldn't get to the bottom of these incongruencies. If I were a stockholder, I'd be very angry at this opacity.
"Did yours truly ask a question? I had several lined up: -
How will the recent sacking of both the CEO and CFO of its parent company, Canopy Group, affect SCO's business strategy? Canopy is SCO Group's largest single stakeholder.
- How can SCO Group look ahead with optimism, with only $7 million in the bank? It had $64 million in the bank a year ago.
- How is SCO Group going to look for new business, especially with all its public relations problems? The Unix space is not exactly growing.
"However, I was not called upon during the 38-minute (only about 15 of those were for questions) conference. (Most calls of this kind last about an hour.) All callers are asked to provide their names, affiliations, and phone numbers upon registering, and when asked, I pressed 'Star-1' immediately to get into the queue to ask a question. But no dice."
To be fair, there were, in my opinion, some good questions asked, but for sure it seemed odd that no one asked about the Canopy Group shakeup at all, while some were asking instead questions that SCO must have loved being asked, so they could present their side of things, like how important did they think discovery is to this case, or questions the answers to which were already known, like what the amended complaint they are asking to submit is about. I thought that only a few reporters had bothered to show up, but evidently that isn't the case. Were any other reporters in attendance who were unable to ask a question?
It seemed odd enough when I assumed there weren't any other reporters in the queue; now that I know at least one reporter was waiting in vain, it seems even more peculiar that Tom Eisenberg had time to ask historical question after question that he could have read up on prior to the call and to search for a sheet with the numbers on it that went out with the press release while we all waited. Now, I don't fault anyone for asking questions, and it's a valid way to learn, and it could all have been completely innocent. But why didn't the SCO folks at least tell Eisenberg to go get his paperwork in order, if not the due diligence, while they let Preimesberger ask at least one question and then they'd swing back by? Or extend the 15-minute question and answer session by 5 minutes to let everyone ask their questions? Please don't tell me that they don't know how to interact with the media. They surely know how important it is to a reporter to be able to ask his own questions. Instead, they let Eisenberg go on and on and then the questions were simply cut off at 15 minutes, with at least one reporter waiting to ask questions he wasn't allowed to ask. One SCOX Yahoo poster, mersenne137, says he called Eisenberg, who reportedly said he is a friend of Chuck Royce. You remember Royce. Here's the subpoena [PDF] he got from IBM, indicating an interest on their part in any dealings he might have had with the Canopy Group. Five of the seven items on the list mention Canopy. Whether Mr. Eisenberg and Mr. Royce are friends or not, the whole thing is starting to feel a little peculiar. I can also tell you that when I have called in to a SCO teleconference in the past and signaled I wished to ask a question, I was not called on either. Go figure. Of course, being me, I thought at the time they just had too many other, more important callers. Now, with this new report, I take it as a sign that I must be doing something exactly right.
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, January 09 2005 @ 07:11 PM EST |
. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: iceworm on Sunday, January 09 2005 @ 07:12 PM EST |
Post it here. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, January 09 2005 @ 07:18 PM EST |
Can a public company screen the questions so it doesn't have to answer the ones
it doesn't like?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Is this legal? - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, January 09 2005 @ 07:44 PM EST
- Is this legal? - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, January 09 2005 @ 09:42 PM EST
- Is this legal? - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, January 09 2005 @ 10:14 PM EST
- Is this legal? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 10 2005 @ 02:56 AM EST
- Is this legal? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 10 2005 @ 03:11 AM EST
- Al WAS screened - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, January 09 2005 @ 10:27 PM EST
- Is this legal? - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, January 09 2005 @ 11:20 PM EST
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, January 09 2005 @ 07:41 PM EST |
They have never been called on for a question either. In the early days of the
lawsuit only the supportive reporters were called on. Now it seems most
reporters are locked out. Maybe that's because the tide of positive coverage
has receded and journalists are now acting like the sceptics they should be.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: kawabago on Sunday, January 09 2005 @ 08:01 PM EST |
The truth is so much easier to tell and so much harder to hide!
---
constructive irrelevance.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Beyonder on Sunday, January 09 2005 @ 08:45 PM EST |
Main posts in this thread may only be made by senior managers or attorneys for
"The SCO Group". Main posts must use the name and position of the
poster at "The SCO Group". Main posters must post in their official
capacity at "The SCO Group".
Sub-posts will also be allowed from non-"The SCO Group" employees or
attorneys. Sub-posts from persons not connected with "The SCO Group"
must be very polite, address other posters and the main poster with the
honorific "Mr." or "Mrs." or "Ms.", as
appropriate, use correct surnames, not call names or suggest or imply unethical
or illegal conduct by "The SCO Group" or its employees or attorneys.
PJ says you must be on your very best behavior.
This thread requires an extremely high standard of conduct and even slightly
marginal posts will be deleted.
If you want to comment on this thread, please post under "OT[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: m_si_M on Sunday, January 09 2005 @ 08:49 PM EST |
This is a repost from 6th of January, but it fits with what I perceive as
SCOG's dubious attempts to manipulate their stock price:
Today I
tried
(out of curiousity) to find a way to buy a SCO "Unix IP License"
from
www.sco.com. On http://www.sco.com/scosource/linuxlicense.html (notice
the
URL!!!) I found the following:
"The license is available
immediately
and can be purchased by credit card through our online
store."
But
there is no online store. So the next step was to click
the "Buy now" button. It
was linked to a 3 step guide. Step 1 included a link
called "Please click here
to review the EULA." Clicking the link brought up
another page where I could
read: "Please contact your SCO sales representative
for a current copy of the
software license."
My question to the legal
eagles here on Groklaw: Is
this (stock) fraud? Advertising -- in press releases
and the FAQ
(http://www.sco.com/scosource/linuxlicensefaq.html - notice the URL
again!) -- a
"product" you can't buy? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, January 09 2005 @ 08:49 PM EST |
"How can SCO Group look ahead with optimism, with only $7 million in the
bank? It had $64 million in the bank a year ago"
A better question:
How will SCO pay Novell the money (95%) for SYSV license royalties from the 16
Million MS and SUN deal with only 7 million in the bank?
Is SCO-X already 9 million in debt?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- A good question - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, January 09 2005 @ 09:24 PM EST
- Royalties - Authored by: gleef on Sunday, January 09 2005 @ 10:02 PM EST
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, January 09 2005 @ 09:13 PM EST |
When reporting financial results, is a company required to answer questions at
all? If I understand correctly, this is not a shareholders' meeting. I believe
there are requirements about letting shareholders ask questions at a
shareholders meeting. (In past, environmentalists have bought shares in
companies so they could ask embarassing questions.) In this case though isn't
it just a public relations exercise? (Or, as is often the case, have I missed
something?) Sadly, I think the SEC isn't going to be interested in this one
unless we can catch SCO in an actual serious untruth.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Financial teleconference - Authored by: brian on Sunday, January 09 2005 @ 09:54 PM EST
- SEC - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, January 09 2005 @ 11:15 PM EST
- SEC - Authored by: brian on Sunday, January 09 2005 @ 11:25 PM EST
- SEC - Authored by: Wol on Monday, January 10 2005 @ 04:16 AM EST
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, January 09 2005 @ 09:13 PM EST |
One swallow does not a summer make, though it may hint at one
My suggestion is that we go back over all conference calls since 6 March 2003
(or better yet since Darl's inauguration at SCO) and make a list of the
questioners, number of questions asked by each questioner during each call and
across all calls, and the affiliation of the questioner if any with
SCO/Royce/Canopy.
I would also like to suggest the May-ish 2003 call (calls?) may be a good place
to start.
Quatermass
IANAL IMHO etc[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: senectus on Sunday, January 09 2005 @ 09:17 PM EST |
Surely your not surprised?
It's becoming obvious to me just as an external casual observer that SCO is
developing a "Boys Club" type feel to it.
This sort of thing is so easy to setup when the "Boys" rule the roost,
sitting around buying drinks for each other and making "suggestions"
as to what would make the meets so much easier to slid though so they can go
back to buying drinks for each other...
Thats the impression I get from them anyhow.. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, January 09 2005 @ 09:35 PM EST |
I feel sick, but here goes nothing.
$44m cash burn in 12 months, $7m in the bank ---> would seem to imply they
have 7/44 ~ under 2 months left before they run out of cash....
However, it's not quite as bad as that:
$44m cash burn includes $31m of capped legal fees
So, assuming they don't incur additional legal fees, their non-legal cash-fee
burn is $13m in 12 months ---> 6-7 months left before they run out of
cash...
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: fudisbad on Sunday, January 09 2005 @ 10:29 PM EST |
Please explain the recent uptick in SCOX stock during the past month. And why
has it stayed above $4? Note that most of the uptick occurred in the last 10
minutes of trade each day (we're talking up 20c in that time - consistently).
Here's some historic prices.
Date Price Change
----------------------
11-02 $2.85 -$0.07
11-03 $3.05 $0.20
11-04 $3.50 $0.45
11-05 $3.66 $0.16
11-08 $3.77 $0.11
11-09 $3.42 -$0.35
11-10 $3.40 -$0.02
11-11 $3.24 -$0.16
11-12 $3.45 $0.21
11-15 $3.47 $0.02
11-16 $3.45 -$0.02
11-17 $3.61 $0.16
11-18 $3.55 -$0.06
11-19 $3.50 -$0.05
11-22 $3.47 -$0.03
11-23 $3.66 $0.19
11-24 $3.69 $0.03
11-25 $3.69 $0.00
11-26 $3.84 $0.15
11-29 $4.00 $0.16
11-30 $3.98 -$0.02
12-01 $4.25 $0.27
12-02 $4.60 $0.35
12-03 $4.62 $0.02
12-06 $4.75 $0.13
12-07 $4.64 -$0.11
12-08 $4.80 $0.16
12-09 $4.99 $0.19
Manipulation? Short squeeze?
---
FUD is not the answer.
FUD is the question.
The truth is the answer.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: rao on Sunday, January 09 2005 @ 11:41 PM EST |
When I was listening to the conference call live, I remember thinking that
there must not be any reporters covering the "Darl Show" anymore. There was an
almost "awkward silence" after the second or third caller asked his questions.
The operator came on again and started giving directions on how to ask a
question. It was as if there were no people trying to ask
questions.
Did anybody else notice this or was it just me?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, January 09 2005 @ 11:55 PM EST |
I'm still on SCO's press list, and I still *1 like a madman every call, but they
don't call on me.
I was just going to ask if they had anyone to replace Scott Lemon in the CTO job
and how much of this quarter's "SCOSource" revenue was EV1.
Don Marti
Linux Journal
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 10 2005 @ 02:47 AM EST |
Sometimes, corporations will only call on (known) financial analysts from Wall
Street / Wall Street publications during earnings calls. If they did call on
more
general interest publication, then that theory is out.
If I were a member of the press calling in, I wouldn't put "linux" in
the name
of the publication I'm working on. And I'd try to find some (reputable)
financial publication to freelance for, so I could use their name.
--former member of the press who has listened to financial calls.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: zroh on Monday, January 10 2005 @ 02:47 AM EST |
Hoping this isn't a problem, just want to explain what
has probably happened.
Utahans are told not to question those with authority, if
you do something bad will happen to you. In other words,
I fear that you have been excommunicated.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- ??? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 10 2005 @ 11:52 AM EST
- ??? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 10 2005 @ 04:26 PM EST
|
Authored by: om1er on Monday, January 10 2005 @ 07:39 AM EST |
PJ,
Did you precisely identify yourself, or did you actually call from a phone
booth, two states over, like you said you might (joke, joke)?
---
Keeping an eye on the bouncing ball.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: mersenne137 on Monday, January 10 2005 @ 10:37 AM EST |
Tom Eisenberg is quite affable and willing to discuss his profession. He
describes his ownership position as "de minimus", and seems genuinely
disturbed over the attention due it. Mine was not the first call he has
received.
He seemed baffled by the intensity of opposition, and I tried to
explain it
several different ways: "They're programmers, to them it's binary,
either SCOX
is lying or it is not. End of story"
His stock-in-trade is
knowing what the Street thinks of forthcoming business
combinations, so he is
hungry for information. I let him know that Groklaw
reports in near-real-time,
and he was grateful for the tip.
He called my attention to the SCOX price
spike (Dec 27), "It ran to five, there's
money moving there."
Our call kept
circling back to the big funds, the possibility of a buy-out, or
settlement
from a defendant. "Those big funds can afford a half-million in
research, they
aren't making a mistake." He did know some of the big funds
had average cost
north of $11 a share, which given his puplic opacity on the
Baystar PIPE,
is an unusually complete financial perspective. He also appeared
to know that
Citadel and Chesapeake had bought in at a low price.
An earlier caller had
used the oft-repeated characterization, "IBM will never
settle." He was
skeptical, but willing to accept the position's logic, vis-a-vis
innoculating
against future nuisance suits. "We should make a bet, and see
who's
right."
Eddie Lambert, owner of AutoZone, and a childhood friend of Jonathan
Cohen
got some play. [on my initiative, so hard to read the attachment he
places on
this aspect]
Eisenberg shares an office with another SCOX share
holder, "Jay G. Goldman
and Company." Goldman has an active trading position in
SCOX. Jay G.
Goldman is described as a long-short equity hedge fund. 13F
forms show
Goldman bought 15K shares of SCOX in Oct-Dec, 2003, added to 31K in
March, 2004, down to 25K in June, and back up to 33K in September. The
SCOX
position is extremely small for typical Goldman investments, and
unusually long
lived.
Goldman has grown rapidly increasing from a total of $107MM
undermanagement in 2003 to 233MM in the Sept 04 13F filing. Filings only
start
in 2003. Goldman's trading pattern is aggressive 198 of 205 issues
show
activity (140 sellouts/new buys) in the latest 13F.
Jay G. Goldman attended
UPenn ('79). Classmates of his were Owen Brown
and Donny Deutsch. Owen Brown
now runs (sole employee?) Solaris Capital
out of the Jay Goldman address. A
joint venture aggreement between
Goldman and Brown was effective
1/9/02.
Owen Brown is the name of the retired President and COO of Sun
(Lawrence
"Owen" Brown, Auburn '61) so the selection of the name "Solaris" is
an
unusual coincidence. The NYC Owen Brown reports trading "his own capital",
could he be the scion of pere Owen Brown, though dates of graduation make
this
unlikely ?
Owen Brown's Solaris Fund appears to be oriented to commodity,
gold &
metals, and currency hedges. He gets predominate mention on the
hedgejapan website: it can be surmised that the Solaris Fund is marketed to
Japanese "Alternative Investment or AI" investors.
Solaris has a
registration statement for "Spectra Fund LLC", and a trading
arrangement with
"AIG Trading Corp". Spectra was a hot, aggressive growth
no load fund heavily
used by market timers. Both "AIG Trading Group" and
Spectra were implicated in
the original Spitzer mutual fund market-timing
indictments. a feature of the
market timing plays were use of Japanese
trading shifts. The original Spectra
trader David Alger died in 9/11.
Jay G. Goldman has a website JGoldman.net
which refuses to load, and has no
report from NetCraft. An email address of
Michael Rokicki is the only use
google can find of this domain. [Roricki, 34,
shows up running 8 minute miles
in Cranford NJ 5K fun runs, and is suddenly
seized by the urge to compete in
the NYC and Marine Corps DC marathons]
The
Solariscapital.net website is operational. Solaris Capital original address
was
211 Glenridge Ave. Montclair, NJ. This address (evidently several suites)
has
been various occupied by Starseed, a meditation center for Amazonian
shamans,
and Brandstreet LLC, an ad agency.
A Jay G. Goldman is recorded in a PIPE
investment with TiVo, Goldman's 13F
forms also report a TiVo investment. The
PIPE investment was in the name of
Woodmant Investments LTD. which is a British
Virgin Islands shell, which also
is recorded with a controlling stake in P-Com,
Inc.
Jay G. Goldman shows up repeated endorsing the several books of Ari
Kiev.
Kiev is a psychatrist who works as a Wall Street day-trading
coach.
Donny Deutsch is a flamboyant ad executive. Jay Goldman gets an
extended
mention in the description of Deutsch's outrageous Las Vegas batchelor
party.
Sources:
www.hedgejapan.com/colum_list.asp?colum_category=3&lang=en
www.globalfundanalysis.com/default.php?page=/news.php&&id=5 [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: k12linux on Monday, January 10 2005 @ 10:43 AM EST |
- Buy your own domain name today
- Set up a dummy news site
- "Publish" all sorts of pro-SCO rubbish in every story
- Make sure your
name and the email address you give for the call are on every page
- Call
in
- Act surprised you are one of the first questions taken
- Ask the kind
of questions that should have been asked this time.
--- - SCO is
trying to save a sinking ship by drilling holes in it. -- k12linux [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 10 2005 @ 11:46 AM EST |
I called in to the same conference, early, and when the
time came pressed the question key. And again and
again, as time went on and I was not selected.
Two of my questions mirrored your first two, plus some
about stock sale patterns.
I never got the chance to ask the questions. I was
assured by both a supervisor managing the conference
call-in and Blake Stowell no one was specifically
targeted.
But reading your posting, I wonder. I didn't hear one
"hard" question that day from those chosen to ask.
Cheers,
Bob Mims
The Salt Lake Tribune
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: blacklight on Monday, January 10 2005 @ 01:33 PM EST |
It is probably irrelevant that the snow making machines on board of the SCOG's
Titanic are working full blast now that the SCOG's Titanic is within half of a
nautical mile of that iceberg. To worry about SCOG's financial position right
now is about as futile as plotting to be the next emperor of Rome in 410 CE,
even as the barbarians are pouring through the gates of the city and spearing
the residents like shish-kebab.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|