decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
SCO Added to "New Russell Microcap Index" and Some SEC Filings
Thursday, July 21 2005 @ 07:55 AM EDT

SCO has put out a press release that they have been added to the "New Russell Microcap Index". My first reaction was, what's that? My second reaction was, so? My third was, how'd SCO get chosen for anything? I went to visit the Russell Methodology page, where they say their purpose is the following:
Act as a performance standard for active managers.
Serve as a proxy for asset allocation purposes.
Become a purchasable and replicable vehicle for passive investment strategy.
Serve as a proxy? For whose asset allocation purposes? Maybe one of you brainiacs can explain it to me. Here's a bit about Russell Indexes and how they are ranked number one in institutional usage. If you wish to read Russell's PDF providing an in-depth look at their methodology, there's a link to it on the methodology page.

At that point, I was feeling a little bit like when I watch a movie love scene and a couple are under the covers, from their head to their toes. You see movement, and you know generally what must be going on, but you can't tell for sure exactly who is doing what. So, I decided to keep digging.

The press release tells us this:

SCO Added to New Russell Microcap Index

Thursday July 14, 8:00 am ET
The SCO Group Was Added to the Russell Microcap Index July 1, 2005

LINDON, Utah, July 14 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- The SCO Group, Inc. ("SCO") (Nasdaq:SCOX - News), the owner of the UNIX® operating system and a leading provider of UNIX-based solutions, today announced its inclusion by Russell Investment Group in the new Russell Microcap(TM) Index. Membership in the index took effect July 1 and will remain in place for one year. The Russell Microcap Index measures performance of the microcap segment of companies, representing less than 3 percent of the U.S. equity market.

"We are pleased to be selected for this index," said Bert Young, chief financial officer, The SCO Group, Inc. "Our inclusion on this index should provide greater stock visibility among the investment community. It's nice to be in the company of these corporations that meet the criteria for being listed on the Russell Microcap Index and shows that we are in good standing in meeting the requirements and methodology for being listed on this index."

The newly launched Russell Microcap Index, which debuted on July 1, is comprised of the smallest 1,000 securities in the small-cap Russell 2000 Index along with the next smallest 1,000 companies, based on a ranking of all U.S. equities by market capitalization. A complete listing of the requirements for inclusion in Russell Indexes can be found at http://russell.com/us/indexes/us/methodology.asp.

Russell indexes continue to rank as the most widely used by investment managers and institutional investors for index funds and as benchmarks for both passive and active investment strategies. More than $2.5 trillion in assets currently are benchmarked to them. Investment managers who oversee these funds purchase shares of member stocks according to that company's weighting in the particular index. Russell recently posted the complete index membership list at www.russell.com/US/Indexes.

About Russell

Russell, a global leader in multi-manager investment services, provides investment products and services in more than 39 countries. Russell manages more than $135 billion in assets and advises clients worldwide representing $2.3 trillion. Founded in 1936, Russell is a subsidiary of Northwestern Mutual and is headquartered in Tacoma, Washington, with additional offices in New York, Toronto, London, Paris, Sydney, Auckland and Tokyo.

Headquartered in Tacoma, Washington. Hmm. Is that anywhere near Seattle, I found myself asking? You don't suppose. . .

Then I noticed the Russell page, where they explain how they can help you "achieve more":

If you're a busy person and don't want to play around with your investments, Russell offers opportunities to get the type of solid investment program that some of the world's largest, most sophisticated investors use.

We bring together some of the world's best money managers to meet our clients' needs.

We do this through industry-leading money manager research used by corporate investors like AT&T, Boeing, United Airlines, and organizations like the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

Well, well. What do you know? Look who just showed up. Mr. Gates. Purely coincidentally, I'm sure. Um. So Microsoft's little buddy just got chosen for this index, and that means, what? More investment money funnelled into SCO? No? Then what? Here's the complete client list.

Another company chosen for the list, Isonics, also put out a press release, and they explain what they think it means:

"Isonics is excited to see that one of the most respected names in financial and equities research has developed this new and powerful tool for tracking the marketplace performance of innovative companies such as ours," said James E. Alexander, Chairman and CEO of Isonics. "In recent years, smaller-cap equities such as Isonics have grown sharply in their importance among institutional and retail investors. We believe the Russell Microcap Index will assist all investors in their decision-making and portfolio planning."
Ah. So it's sounding like they think it's like an arrow that points at you and reads, "Invest Here." Another company chosen, IMPCO Technologies, gives us a smidge more:
Russell indexes are widely used by investment managers and institutional investors for index funds and as benchmarks for both passive and active investment strategies. More than $2.5 trillion in assets currently are benchmarked to them. Investment managers who oversee these funds purchase shares of member stocks according to that company's weighting in the particular index.
And U.S. Energy's press release spells it out plainly enough that even I get it:
"We are pleased with our inclusion in this new index," said Keith G. Larsen, U.S. Energy Corp. President. "Our inclusion will help generate greater interest in our stock at an institutional level."
And one more, Nanometrics:
Nanometrics acknowledges its addition to the Russell Microcap Index as an indicator that the company is performing well in the eyes of the market's most influential investors. "While we continue to make positive strides internally to meet our long-term business objectives, recognition by the investment community is great affirmation that our past efforts did not go unnoticed," stated Nanometrics CEO John Heaton.
Russell has its own explanation:
Membership in Russell's U.S. equity indexes -- widely used as benchmarks for both passive and active investment strategies -- is determined primarily by market capitalization rankings and style attributes. Recent studies by some large brokerage and investment firms that preview Russell's annual reconstitution process and attempt to predict subsequent changes to the indexes have proven once again to be generally accurate.
Let me guess. It was SCO's "style attributes" that got it chosen. I'm just guessing now, but off the top of my head, what do you think? Think maybe SCO isn't going to run out of money after all?

SEC Filings

Thought you'd heard the last of SCO's claims about AIX on Power after Judge Kimball denied their motion to amend the complaint a third time? Don't be silly. This law firm is made up of werewolves, I gather, and they just keep coming back and back, no matter what you do. In a recent 424B3 filing with the SEC, a prospectus supplement dated July 15, 2005, SCO says this about that denial:

We have also filed a motion for leave to file a third amended complaint in order to assert an additional copyright claim against IBM in the case. The Court heard argument on that fully briefed motion on April 21, 2005, and took the matter under advisement. In its July 1 order, the Court denied our motion. The Court first allowed IBM to narrow the scope of its Ninth Counterclaim, and having done so concluded that our proposed new claim would expand the litigation and delay its resolution. The Court also opined that it appears that we or our predecessor-in-interest either knew or should have known about the conduct at issue in the new claim before we filed our original Complaint. We therefore will not pursue additional copyright remedies in this case regarding IBM's alleged misuse of our code in its AIX product as set forth in the proposed amended complaint. We have explained in briefing and argument before the Court, however, that the predicate facts of the proposed copyright claim are already in the case as part of other claims.
Oh great. More hijinks. Does that mean we have to listen to more leaked emails?

As regards the denied G2 motion, do I detect a certain distancing from a party who remains nameless in SCO's account?

In addition to the materials that have been publicly filed with the Court, certain information has been filed under seal in accordance with the protective order entered in the case. On November 30, 2004, a third party moved to intervene in the case for the purpose of challenging the sealing of certain documents filed with the Court, and additional groups subsequently joined in that motion. Following argument on April 26, 2005, by Order dated April 28, 2005, the Court denied the intervention motion. In its Order, the Court set forth various procedures to minimize the risk that documents would be improperly filed under seal. The parties have since directed the Clerk of the Court to unseal numerous previously sealed filings.
See what I mean? "A third party." It doesn't look like the case filed in India is going so well, by the way. They report it this way:
        In April 2003, a former Indian distributor of our company filed a claim in India, requesting summary judgment for payment of $1,428,000, and an order that we trade in India only through the distributor and/or give a security deposit until the claim is paid. The distributor claims that we are responsible to repurchase certain software products and to reimburse the distributor for certain other operating costs. The distributor additionally requested that the Indian courts grant interim relief in the form of attachment of local assets. Management does not believe that our company is responsible to reimburse the distributor for any operating costs and also believes that the return rights related to any remaining inventory have lapsed. Discovery has commenced and hearings on the requests for interim relief have been held and are ongoing. We intend to vigorously defend this action.

        Pursuit and defense of the above-mentioned matters will be costly, and management expects the costs for legal fees and related expenses will be substantial. The ultimate outcome or potential effect on our results of operations or financial position of the above-mentioned matters is not currently known or determinable.

And this SC 13G filling shows that somebody still thinks they can make some money investing in SCO. The word "offshore" pops up again:

Item 2(a). Name of Person Filing:

(i) Jet Capital Investors, L.P. (the "Investment Manager"), a Delaware limited partnership which serves as investment manager to Jet Capital Concentrated Offshore Fund, Ltd. (the "Offshore Fund") and certain discretionary accounts, (the discretionary accounts and the Offshore Fund are collectively referred to herein as the "Funds") with respect to shares of common stock directly owned by the Funds.

(ii) Jet Capital Management, L.L.C (the "General Partner"), a Delaware limited liability company which serves as the general partner of each of Jet Capital Arbitrage & Event Fund I, L.P. and Jet Capital Concentrated Fund, L.P. (together, the "Partnerships"), with respect to shares of common stock directly owned by each of the Partnerships.

(iii) Alan S. Cooper ("Mr. Cooper"), who, together with Mr. Mark, is responsible for the supervision and conduct of all investment activities of the Investment Manager and the General Partner, including, without limitation, for all investment decisions with respect to the assets of the Funds and the Partnerships, with respect to shares of common stock directly owned by the Funds and the Partnerships.

(iv) Matthew Mark ("Mr. Mark"), who, together with Mr. Cooper, is responsible for the supervision and conduct of all investment activities of the Investment Manager and the General Partner, including, without limitation, for all investment decisions with respect to the assets of the Funds and the Partnerships, with respect to shares of common stock directly owned by the Funds and the Partnerships, and with respect to shares of common stock directly owned by him.

Here's SCO's 8K filed on July 15, to round out our collection today, with an Exhibit attached, a Notice of Grant of Stock Options, which spells out what happens to the options if someone dies or goes crazy or the corporation ceases to exist. Didn't they just file something like that in April? Why, yes. Yes, they did. Here's why they needed to change it, according to the 8K's explanation:

Item 1.01. Entry into a Material Definitive Agreement.

        On July 13, 2005, the Compensation Committee of the board of directors (the "Board") of The SCO Group, Inc. (the "Company") adopted a revised Form Notice of Grant of Stock Options (the "Form Grant Agreement") for The SCO Group, Inc. 2004 Omnibus Stock Incentive Plan (the "Incentive Plan"). The Form Grant Agreement is used to grant to employees, non-employee members of the Board or the board of directors of any parent or subsidiary of the Company and consultants a specified number of options that may be exercised at the exercise price specified therein, in accordance with the terms of the Incentive Plan. The Form Grant Agreement also provides for the issuance of either incentive stock options or non-qualified stock options and a specified vesting schedule and expiration date for the stock options. The Form Grant Agreement has substantially the same terms as the Form Notice of Grant of Stock Options previously used, except for changes that were deemed necessary to make the Form Grant Agreement more consistent with the Incentive Plan, including the provision governing how certain significant corporate transactions will impact the holders of outstanding stock options.

        The terms and conditions of the revised Form Grant Agreement filed as Exhibit 99.1 to this Form 8-K are hereby incorporated by reference herein and replace the prior Form of Notice of Grant of Stock Options for the Incentive Plan filed as Exhibit 10.35 to the Company's Form 10-K, filed on April 1, 2005.

Here's the April 1st 10K, and the Exhibit 10.35 is here, if you'd like to parse out the changes. Here's what I notice that has been changed, first in the section titled Special Termination of Option, and then in the Appendix definitions:

 

April NoticeJuly Notice
  (a)                                  In the event of a Corporate Transaction, this option shall terminate and cease to be outstanding, except to the extent assumed by the successor corporation or parent thereof in connection with such Corporate Transaction.   (a)   In the event of a Corporate Transaction, any options that the Optionee holds that are exercisable will remain exercisable until their expiration, and any options that the Optionee holds that are not exercisable will expire on the date of the Corporate Transaction, unless otherwise provided in an agreement between the Corporation and the Optionee, or the Committee, on a case-by-case basis, elects in writing to waive termination. Any vested, exercisable options that the Optionee holds will be cashed out, converted to an option of the acquiring entity, assumed by the acquiring entity or otherwise disposed of in the manner provided for in any shareholder-approved agreement or plan governing or providing for such Corporate Transaction or, in the absence of such governing provisions, as decided by the Committee consistent with the terms of the Plan.
C.   Cause shall mean any of the following:  (i) Optionee’s material breach of any employee, confidentiality, or other employment related agreement with the Corporation, (ii) Optionee’s violation of the Corporation’s policies or procedures set forth in the Corporation’s Policies and Procedure Manual, as amended from time to time, or (iii) Optionee’s conviction of or entrance of a plea of nolo contendere to a felony or to any other crime punishable by incarceration. C.    Cause when used in connection with the cessation of Service of the Optionee by the Corporation, shall mean (i) the willful and continued failure by the Optionee substantially to perform his duties and obligations to the Corporation (other than any such failure resulting from his incapacity due to physical or mental illness) or (ii) the willful engaging by the Optionee in misconduct that is materially injurious to the Corporation. For purposes of this section, no act, or failure to act, on the Optionee's part shall be considered "willful" unless done, or omitted to be done, by the Optionee in bad faith and without reasonable belief that his action or omission was in the best interest of the Corporation. The Committee shall determine whether a cessation of Service is for Cause.
 E.  Committee shall mean a committee of two (2) or more Board members appointed by the Board to exercise one or more administrative functions under the Plan.    E.  Committee shall mean the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors. The Committee shall consist of three or more persons each of whom is an "outside director" within the meaning of Section 162(m) of the Code and a "Non-Employee Director" within the meaning of Rule 16b-3 under the 1934 Act (or who satisfies any other criteria for administering employee benefit plans as may be specified by the Securities and Exchange Commission in order for transactions under such plan to be exempt from the provisions of Section 16(b) of the 1934 Act), and an "Independent Director" under applicable NASD rules.
G.                                     Corporate Transaction shall mean either of the following shareholder-approved transactions to which the Corporation is a party:

  (i)                                     a merger or consolidation in which securities possessing more than fifty percent (50%) of the total combined voting power of the Corporation’s outstanding securities are transferred to a person or persons different from the persons holding those securities immediately prior to such transaction, or

  (ii)                                  the sale, transfer or other disposition of all or substantially all of the Corporation’s assets, or the complete liquidation or dissolution of the Corporation.

 G.    Corporate Transaction shall mean any of the following occurrences:

        (i)    any "person," as such term is used in Sections 13(d) and 14(d) of the 1934 Act (other than the Corporation, any trustee or other fiduciary holding securities under an employee benefit plan of the Corporation or any corporation owned, directly or indirectly, by the stockholders of the Corporation in substantially the same proportions as their ownership of stock of the Corporation), is or becomes the "beneficial owner" (as defined in Rule 13d-3 under the 1934 Act), directly or indirectly, of securities of the Corporation representing 50% or more of the combined voting power of the Corporation's then outstanding securities;

        (ii)   during any period of not more than two consecutive years (not including any period prior to the adoption of the Plan), individuals who at the beginning of such period constitute the Board of Directors and any new director (other than a director designated by a person who has entered into an agreement with the Corporation to effect a transaction described in clause (i), (iii) or (iv) of this section whose election by the Board of Directors or nomination for election was approved by a vote of at least two-thirds (2/3) of the directors then still in office who either were directors at the beginning of the period or whose election or nomination for election was previously so approved, cease for any reason to constitute at least a majority thereof;

        (iii)  the stockholders of the Corporation approve a merger or consolidation of the Corporation with any other corporation, other than (A) a merger or consolidation that would result in the voting securities of the Corporation outstanding immediately prior thereto continuing to represent (either by remaining outstanding or by being converted into voting securities of the surviving entity) more than 50% of the combined voting power of the voting securities of the Corporation or such surviving entity outstanding immediately after such merger or consolidation or (B) a merger or consolidation effected to implement a recapitalization of the Corporation (or similar transaction) in which no "person" (as herein above defined) acquires more than 50% of the combined voting power of the Corporation's then outstanding securities; or

        (iv)  the stockholders of the Corporation approve a plan of complete liquidation of the Corporation or an agreement for the sale or disposition by the Corporation of all or substantially all of the Corporation's assets

I.  Disability shall mean the inability of Optionee to engage in the performance of his duties as an Employee for a period exceeding three (3) months by reason of any medically determinable physical or mental impairment and shall be determined by the Plan Administrator on the basis of such medical evidence as the Plan Administrator deems warranted under the circumstancesI. Disability shall mean: (i) any physical or mental condition that would qualify the Optionee for a disability benefit under the long-term disability plan maintained by the Corporation or a Subsidiary of the Corporation and applicable to such Optionee; or (ii) when used in connection with the exercise of an incentive stock option (within the meaning of Section 422 of the Code) following cessation of Service, disability within the meaning of Section 22(e)(3) of the Code.
O.  Fair Market Value per share of Common Stock on any relevant date shall be determined in accordance with the following provisions:

(i)   If the Common Stock is at the time traded on the NASDAQ National Market, then the Fair Market Value shall be the closing selling price per share of Common Stock on the date in question, as the price is reported by the National Association of Securities Dealers on the NASDAQ National Market or any successor system.  If there is no closing selling price for the Common Stock on the date in question, then the Fair Market Value shall be the closing selling price on the last preceding date for which such quotation exists.  

(ii)    If the Common Stock is at the time listed on any Stock Exchange, then the Fair Market Value shall be the closing selling price per share of Common Stock on the date in question on the Stock Exchange determined by the Plan Administrator to be the primary market for the Common Stock, as such price is officially quoted in the composite tape of transactions on such exchange.  If there is no closing selling price for the Common Stock on the date in question, then the Fair Market Value shall be the closing selling price on the last preceding date for which such quotation exists.  

(iii)  If the Common Stock is at the time neither listed on any Stock Exchange nor traded on the NASDAQ National Market, then the Fair Market Value shall be determined by the Plan Administrator after taking into account such factors as the Plan Administrator shall deem appropriate.

[No equivalent language -- the Fair Market Value definition is gone]
Z. Stock Exchange shall mean NASDAQ.[No equivalent language]


  


SCO Added to "New Russell Microcap Index" and Some SEC Filings | 280 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Off topic here please
Authored by: fudisbad on Thursday, July 21 2005 @ 08:08 AM EDT
For current events, legal filings and Caldera® collapses.

Please make links clickable.
Example: <a href="http://example.com">Click here</a>

---
See my bio for copyright details re: this post.
Darl McBride, show your evidence!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Corrections here please
Authored by: fudisbad on Thursday, July 21 2005 @ 08:10 AM EDT
If required.

---
See my bio for copyright details re: this post.
Darl McBride, show your evidence!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Index based funds
Authored by: jseigh on Thursday, July 21 2005 @ 08:34 AM EDT
The investments backing those funds are in the proportion that the index is
based on. If company X represents 10% of an index, then an index fund will have
10% of its porfolio in company X. If X is doing poorly then the index will drop
and the index based fund will do poorly as well. The fund manager can't dump
company X's stock because they wouldn't be an indexed fund anymore by
definition. There might be some question of representative Russell's index is
of the actual microcap market and how objective it is. These things happen on
the big indexes too. There's talk that Google should be added to one of the big
indexes (indices?) because in somebody's judgement it would make the index more
"representative".

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Added to "New Russell Microcap Index" and Some SEC Filings
Authored by: dcf on Thursday, July 21 2005 @ 09:11 AM EDT
When there are financial stories about SCO, you really ought to consult someone
who knows something about finance, just as you consult a lawyer when there are
legal questions which go beyond your own knowledge.

Russell creates stock indexes which represent various portions of the entire
market, just like the S&P500 index. Those indexes are in turn used by index
funds. The economic hypothesis behind index funds is that the stock market is
efficient, meaning that the market value of a stock reflects all the available
information about that stock. This occurs because if the stock were
over/undervalued, and people knew it, they would sell/buy the stock. If the
market is efficient, then it is a waste of money to pay an expert to evaluate
individual stocks or to incur commissions or taxes by buying and selling stocks
frequently.

Note that the efficient market hypothesis doesn't mean that the value of an
individual stock is always perfect. Even given all the relevant information, no
one can predict the future with 100% accuracy, so individual stocks will do
better or worse than the market expects them to do. The efficient market
hypothesis only says that on average the market makes the best prediction
possible based on the available information.

Also, individual stocks may be misvalued because of incorrect information or
beliefs. For example, some people may buy SCO stock because they believe SCO's
FUD, thereby propping up its price. Others may by a stock because they see its
price jump and they think it is going to continue going up (at least long enough
for them to sell to some other sucker for a profit). Others may buy because the
payoff if SCO were to win is so large that they think it is worth putting some
money on SCO's horse even if the odds are against a SCO victory. Still others
may sell SCO stock because they read Groklaw and are well informed. The actual
stock price reflects some balance between all these investors. Again, if the
people fooled by SCO's FUD outnumber the people in the know, the balance may not
reflect SCO's actual prospects, but the efficient market hypothesis only
requires that on average, cases where individual stocks are overvalues balance
out the cases where they are undervalued.

If the creators of stock indexes evaluated the individual stocks themselves, or
played favorites, that would defeat the purpose of creating an index.
Therefore, a respected index listing company like Russell does not actively
evaluate the individual companies they add, nor do they recommend the particular
companies as investments. The criteria are objective, and in fact are listed
explicitly on the Construction and Methodology page. In this case, the primary
criterion is market capitalization, which is the total market value of the
company, determined by multiplying the number of outstanding shares by the
current price per share.

Here is Russell's brief overview about the construction of their indexes:

"If you want a genuine reflection of the market, count on Russell Indexes.
We don't pick the stocks in the Russell Indexes — the market does. The top 1000
U.S. stocks are in the Russell 1000®. The next 2000 are in the Russell 2000®.
Together, they're the Russell 3000®. Large cap, small cap, all cap. It's as
simple as 1-2-3. "

[ Reply to This | # ]

additional copyright?
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 21 2005 @ 09:21 AM EDT
Did anyone else notice "assert an additional copyright claim" in their
filing? Wouldn't this imply that there is an existing copyright claim? I'm
confused now since my understanding was they were not making copyright claims.
Just contract claims. Can someone explain?

[ Reply to This | # ]

The pupose of a stock index
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 21 2005 @ 09:22 AM EDT
The purpose of a stock index is entirely to give someone who makes decisions a snapshot of how well the industry represented by the index is doing as a whole. Stocks are not chosen for the index based on how good of an investment they are. Look what Russel has to say about their methodology for inclusion in their indices:
Determining Index Membership
  • Rank the U.S. common stocks from largest to smallest market capitalization at each annual reconstitution period (May 31).
  • Top 3,000 stocks become the Russell 3000® Index. Largest 1,000 stocks become the Russell 1000® Index.
  • Next 2,000 stocks become the Russell 2000® Index.
  • The smallest 1,000 in the Russell 2000 Index plus the next smallest 1,000 comprise the Russell Microcap Index
So it would appear that the SCO Group shows up in the Russell Microcap Index entirely because of its market capitalization. If I read Russell's methodology correctly, the microcap index is chosen by ranking all US common stocks traded on national exchanges according to market capitalization. That's it. Being on the index is proof of nothing other than share price times number of shares issued.

Russell explains this a bit further in the document titled Russell US Equity Indexes: Index Construction and Methodology

Russell Microcap index is constructed to provide a comprehensive and unbiased barometer for the microcap segment trading on national exchanges, while excluding lesser-regulated OTC bulletin board securities and pink-sheet stocks due to their failure to meet national exchange listing requirements.

I think trying to connect inclusion of the SCO Group on the Russell Microcap Index to Microsoft is extremely uncalled for. Politics has absolutely no say on whether or not Russell includes a stock in its indices.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Do the math: it's not a select group
Authored by: Tsu Dho Nimh on Thursday, July 21 2005 @ 09:42 AM EDT
It's purely mathematical ... and automatic.
  • Rank the U.S. common stocks from largest to smallest market capitalization at each annual reconstitution period (May 31).
  • Top 3,000 stocks become the Russell 3000® Index.
  • Largest 1,000 stocks become the Russell 1000® Index.
  • Next 2,000 stocks become the Russell 2000® Index.
  • The smallest 1,000 in the Russell 2000 Index plus the next smallest 1,000 comprise the Russell Microcap Index

So they are somewhere in line ... with as few as 2000 companies and perhaps 4000 companies ahead of them in the rankings by market cap.

Some of those comanies could be small and stable, nascent superstars, or has-beens sliding slowly into oblivion.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Feeelthy Reech
Authored by: WhiteFang on Thursday, July 21 2005 @ 10:13 AM EDT
When your filthy rich {pun intended}, you can't help but have a 'finger in every
pie'. i.e. There are a finite number of investment opportunities available.

'Availability' in this context is tricky. You're actually limited to the number
of investment opportunities which your advisors are aware of. So the pool of
opportunities is much smaller than one thinks. Especially since investement
researchers tend to mostly do the same types of research and/or use the tame
types of research methodologies.

Since 'Russell' is such a 'common' investment tool, it is not surprising in the
least to see the B & M Foundation invest in or have investments managed by
the 'Russells' of the world.

Being added to the Index is meaningless. And all companies issuing press
releases about this either don't understand or are deliberately trying to drum
up positive PR.

BTW - I completely disagree with the preposition that "The Market is
efficient". It's based on the fundamental flaw that it assumes everyone has
the same knowledge available. If there were true, we wouldn't have had fiascos
like Enron. Or SCOX for that matter. The 'efficient' assumption has serious
problems with 'lies' and 'scale' since virtually every stock has information
which is not equally available.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Does anyone know...
Authored by: DaveJakeman on Thursday, July 21 2005 @ 10:28 AM EDT
...if SCO were previously listed in a different Russell index, or is this their
first appearance in any Russell index?

If SCO were previously listed in another category, what SCO didn't say in their
PR would speak volumes.

---
Should one hear an accusation, first look to see how it might be levelled at the
accuser.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Added to "New Russell Microcap Index" and Some SEC Filings
Authored by: muswell100 on Thursday, July 21 2005 @ 10:44 AM EDT
Ok, call me a cynic, but on the surface this might almost look like one of those
'orrible pump 'n dump stock exercises one occasionally finds in one's inbox.
Artificially build up the stock in view of the general public and then offload
your own inflated shares before anyone else is the wiser. This would tie in with
the situation at SCO at present - aka: the company is dead in the water, the
mangement know it and reckon on making a quick buck by bolstering the stock
before their lawsuit falls flat on it's face.

Of course, I may be wrong...

[ Reply to This | # ]

Leading Provider Of Unix??
Authored by: Jeff on Thursday, July 21 2005 @ 11:44 AM EDT
SCO's press releases claim they are "a leading provider of UNIX-based
solutions" but can they really claim that anymore? The other Unix providers
I know of are IBM, HP, and Sun. I would be surprised if SCO is selling more
licenses than they are.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Look for Royce somewhere in this maze
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 21 2005 @ 12:18 PM EDT
Royce Funds is a well-known firm in the investment world and it's people have
showed up on Wall Street Week. That they owned a significant nunber of shares in
SCOX in the previous years was surprising (because of the nature of SCO).
However, that said, it must be the case that there are some good contacts in the
financial world to get them in bed with Royce and now with the Russell Microcap
Index. These connections must be very good.

Did Royce make money? They could have. Anyway, follow Royce on this story and
you might find the connection to the Russell Microcap Index. Or perhaps, Royce
IS the connection and this is a way for them to get their investment back.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Documents from the Indian lawsuit?
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 21 2005 @ 12:23 PM EDT
Is there any place where the documents from the Indian SCO lawsuit can be
obtained? I think these documents belong on this site as well.

[ Reply to This | # ]

A couple of points
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 21 2005 @ 12:27 PM EDT
1) I agree with all of the comments associated with the math and capitilization
driving the inclusion of SCOX in the fund.
2) Emotion aside, we all know that the courts, and juries, don't always end up
doing what is right and fair, at least in our opinion, as such, if you own IBM,
RedHat and/or Novell, SCOX is a hedge against losses associated with the current
court cases.
3) With respect to the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, if you manage
>$28 billion US, diversification is critical. As I understand it Mr. Gates
was selling $100 million US a day in Microsoft stock in his personal holdings to
do just that. I would expect the fund managers to follow leading indexes.

[ Reply to This | # ]

It's not easy, but let's not see ghosts
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 21 2005 @ 12:40 PM EDT
Hi, I've worked with guys who run indices as a day job and things are not very
straightforward. For instance, Russel may say 'The top 1000 stocks are in the
Russel 1000', but if you think about it, that kind of statement doesn't mean
anything.

If a stock drops in price, it might move from being number 998 to being number
1003. Do you drop it that day? Do you put it back in the next day because it
jumps back to number 996? In reality, index providers use a mix of hard rules
and committee decisions. So Russel may decide to put a stock in an index based
on some sort of soft rule.

The question is whether that means anything. If I think SCO is doomed and I'm a
fund manager benchmarked against an index, I *want* SCO in the index because I'm
not going to buy it. That way I outperform just because SCO will pull down the
index, but not my portfolio.

Nobody ever buys all stocks in an index. Russel runs an index of 5000 stocks but
given that any one stock is just noise, managers focus on what they understand
and kind of shoot to track the rest without given away too much risk.

To summarise, if there is some conspiracy here, it matters very little. And
given the risk a company would run playing this kind of game (did anybody say
SEC?), I don't see the motivation. But then again, if you sue Big Blue for code
you don't own...

[ Reply to This | # ]

They just do not learn...
Authored by: frk3 on Thursday, July 21 2005 @ 01:18 PM EDT

There is that pesky "... the owner of the UNIX® operating system".

Novell or The Open Group might want to smack (new)SCO's hand in regards to that statement. One can only hope.

[ Reply to This | # ]

How many shares of SCO?
Authored by: micheal on Thursday, July 21 2005 @ 01:26 PM EDT
I looked at two microcap funds.

Dimensional U.S. Micro Cap (DFSCX) has assets of about $3.2B and Buffalo Micro
Cap (BUFOX) has assets of about $42M.

I expect the allocation of funds to a particular company to be proportional to
the company's capitalization (feel free to correct me), in which case the number
of SCO shares would be about 90,000 in the large fund and about 1,000 in the
small fund. Even if the fund gets to $3.2B in a year that would be only about
400 shares per day!

---
LeRoy

If I have anything to give, made of this life I live, it is this song, which I
have made. Now in your keeping it is laid.
Anon

[ Reply to This | # ]

Closely held, thinly traded, microcap
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 21 2005 @ 01:33 PM EDT
www.itmanagersjournal.com/print.pl?sid=04/06/21/2017216

One of the stock analysts who 'got it' is Melanie Hollands. The above cited
article gives her opinion of how one should deal with stocks like SCOX.
Basically such a stock does not follow the regular market assumptions and is
ripe for fraud.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Added to "New Russell Microcap Index" and Some SEC Filings
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 21 2005 @ 02:26 PM EDT
Getting included in an index, particularly an index of a thousand units, means
adding stability to your stock. It means that when someone invests in the
index, even if one of the stocks is a dead duck, with a thousand stocks, the
loss by the dead duck will probably be made up by the gains in other stocks. It
means that you are selling your stock, even when there is no one who would be
stupid enough to buy your stock, but would invest in the index. It means that
if you have a chunk of stock as part of your compensation, you now have a way of
realizing some value for that compensation, rather than have the price of the
stock fluctuate wildly when you try to unload. Even if the stock went to zero,
with nine hundred and ninety nine other stocks in the index, the value of the
index would probably not be signifcantly hurt. So it's small risk for the
investor in the index, and large return for management.

As for the coincidence. I'll refrain from speculation on what may well be
innocent coincidence.

Looks like Baystar won't experience a total loss on the transaction.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Lies damned lies and Statistics
Authored by: darkonc on Thursday, July 21 2005 @ 02:33 PM EDT
This fund talks about quality, but it does the most trivial of listings -- Stocks in the 1000-3000 range in terms of capitalization. Absolutely no filtering for quality other than that 'size' indicator.

And SCO gets a free ride for the next year, even if it tanks (say, because of losing some critical motions).

The one nice thing that this provides for SCO is that it's someplace where you can find them for the next year, even if they get delisted by Nasdaq. Other than that, the question of why Russell would create this index floats in my mind. 'Friends of Microsoft' is one legitimate explanation.

On the other hand, The Gates' have so much money that this might be just a coincidence, but I don't see this list providing any really useful information.

---
Powerful, committed communication. Touching the jewel within each person and bringing it to life..

[ Reply to This | # ]

Most Interesting Stock-option change
Authored by: darkonc on Thursday, July 21 2005 @ 03:09 PM EDT
They removed the stipulation that you lose your options if you plead (or are found) guilty to a felony.
Of course, It might just be a coincidence.

---
Powerful, committed communication. Touching the jewel within each person and bringing it to life..

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Added to "New Russell Microcap Index" and Some SEC Filings
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 21 2005 @ 03:23 PM EDT
A number of people have criticised PJ's analysis here. I do not know enough
about the US financial markets to counter that but please remember that it is
often the discussion that is generated that bears fruit. It is the collective
consiousness of GL that makes it such a powerfull tool for analysis.

Tufty

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • I agree - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 21 2005 @ 04:21 PM EDT
"Oh, Bill? Mr. McBride would like a towel."
Authored by: TheBlueSkyRanger on Thursday, July 21 2005 @ 03:38 PM EDT
Hey, everybody!

This popped up awful sudden-like. As everyone here couches, it could be just a
coincidence. However, I would like to speculate a little and see if you think
there might be anything here.

Okay, the memo comes out, establishing SCO lied like a cheap rug. They are now
looking at being run over by every legal steamroller in existence. McBride
might even do time for taking such a flyer with the company.

"However," IBM, Novell, and crew says, "we will show mercy on
you, let the little fish go, if you give us a big fish. We have that memo from
BayStar and a lot of other suspicious things about MicroSoft funding this whole
escapade. Lots and lots of bricks. If you can provide the glue that puts it
all together, we won't send you to the pen and the poor house."

M$ realizes that every company they've rooked in the past is looking for an
angle to attack them. So they offer to help prop up SCO and aid so that the
people running it aren't reduced to ashes. And this is the first step to
ensuring cooperation.

How many tin foil hats do you rate this theory?

Dobre utka,
The Blue Sky Ranger

"Greetings, my friends. We are all interested in the future, for that is
where you and I are going to spend the rest of our lives. And remember, my
friends, future events such as these will affect you in the future."
--Criswell
"Plan 9 From Outer Space"

[ Reply to This | # ]

Proximity does not necessarily mean anything
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 21 2005 @ 04:53 PM EDT
...just as it didn't mean anything that you live near IBM, PJ. :) FWIW, according to Mapquest, it's 46 minutes from Russel's HQ to MS (although that probably would only be true at 2am, usually it's probably closer to 60-70 minutes)(yes, I live in Western Wa).

Also, from what I can tell from reading the article, SCOX simply meets the criteria for being included in this particular index. The index is new, and they are simply including all publicly traded companies that fit into a certain range, market-capitalization-wise. :)

[ Reply to This | # ]

reminds me of a Dilbert
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 21 2005 @ 05:36 PM EDT
(from memory)
PHB: bad news everyone, we are getting a pasting in the market place from lots
of small dynamic fast moving companies
PHB: on the bright side, it looks like we are heading towards being just as
small as the competition.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Expecting convictions?
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 21 2005 @ 09:03 PM EDT
the deletion of this language from the definition of `cause' seems significant to me

(iii) Optionee’s conviction of or entrance of a plea of nolo contendere to a felony or to any other crime punishable by incarceration

It appears that SCO optionees may now continue to enjoy their options while incarcerated. Fancy that!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Caldera Added to "New Russell Microcap Index" and Some SEC Filings
Authored by: Sunny Penguin on Thursday, July 21 2005 @ 09:42 PM EDT
I hae grown tired of calling Caldera by their AKA name.
I will refer to Caldera by their real name from now on.

It was once said "If you are going to saysomething bad about me, at least
spell my name right...."

I will not give in to possibly misleading people who do not know Caldera as a
Linux start-up that has failed.

---
Just Say No to Caldera/SCO/USL/?

[ Reply to This | # ]

WangHo Really Fast Abacus Company added to Key Financial Index
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 21 2005 @ 11:50 PM EDT
NANKING, China, July 14 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- The WangHo Really Fast Abacus
Company, Inc. ("WRFX") (Nisei: WRFX) (formerly, Wang-Lo Really Fast
Arithmetic Board Company), the owner of the ECOFF obsolete executable format and
a leading provider of wires already strung with little beads, today announced
its inclusion by the National Harmonious Communication Bureau in the new Nanking
Telephone Directory. Membership in the directory took effect July 1 and will
remain in place for one year or until Wang-Lo forgets to pay the corporate phone
bill. The Nanking Telephone Directory measures how to contact all the
corporations with paleohistoric founding dates, representing less than 3 percent
of the People's Republic of China equity market.

"We are pleased to be selected for this directory," said Wang-Lo,
chief financial officer and sign painter, The WangHo Really Fast Abacus Company,
Inc. "Our inclusion on this directory should provide greater phone number
visibility among the investment community. It's nice to be in the company of
these corporations that meet the criteria for being listed in the Nanking
Telephone Directory and shows that we are in good standing in meeting the
requirements and methodology for being listed on this directory."

About the National Harmonious Communication Bureau

The National Harmonious Communication Bureau, a National Office of the
Government of the People's Republic of China, couldn't help noticing recently
that it can be really hard to get ahold of some of the older established firms
in the heavily industrialized Nanking area, even though they supposedly have
telephone service.

About The WangHo Really Fast Abacus Company

The WangHo Really Fast Abacus Company, Inc. ("WRFX") (Nisei: WRFX)
helps millions of shopkeepers in more than 82 countries to count higher than ten
without taking off their shoes everyday. Headquartered in NANKING, China, The
WangHo Really Fast Abacus Company has a worldwide distribution network of Cousin
Wang-Ming in San Francisco and Auntie Wang Ah-Bu in Paris.

-Wang-Lo.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Do employers encourage corporate psychopaths?
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 22 2005 @ 01:58 AM EDT
I debated for a moment whether to post this as "off topic" but on
reflection with SCO and crony's in mind I thought it might really be on topic.
It follows on from a post I made yesterday about the best thing Groklaw ( not
just PJ but all the other temperate posters and contributors here) has taught me
and that is that anger is futile and in fact makes you ineffectual; an opinion
is one thing but a rant makes you look silly.

If you google (managers+psychopaths) you'll find plenty more but this one is
the program I saw.

http://www.management-issues.com/display_page.asp?section=blog&id=2115

Psychopaths, it is estimated, make up about 1% of the general population tho
most don't go on to be Ted Bundys ( the rest work at SCO tho and perhaps MS).
That statistic puzzled me until I saw the program that link refers to. They
apparently do really well in business. It'll make you think differnetly about
your boss tomorrow I'm sure as I've isolated at least one where I work.

getting to the point, if you find yourself wondering "what the" with
this SCO story in particular and getting frustrated and angry at "how
the... could they do that" just keep in mind they are probably psychopaths;
They DO NOT have empathy and by implication no shame. Its just business!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Scox = "The Jerk" ??
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 22 2005 @ 08:33 PM EDT

Remember when Steve Martin's character got all excited about having his name in
the phone book?

Scox making a fuss about being included in the Russel micro-cap is like that.

- walterbyrd

[ Reply to This | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )