I would agree with you if you had something back up your position. All I’ve heard from you is either FUD for personal attacks.

Note: comment has been flagged for arriving from a possible incarnation of a known (eet), pseudonymous, forever-nymshifting, abusive Internet troll that posts from open proxies and relays around the world.

your the one that is ‘desperately searching’ to prove Roy wrong. And you haven’t found any evidence to prove him wrong.

A bit about buybacks for those of us who are finance-impaired (me):

Buy-backs are intended to give investors increased confidence. The logic goes something like this: if a company buys back its own stock, the share price should go up – first, there are fewer shares outstanding after the buy-back so each share represents a greater portion of the company’s total equity, and second, with fewer shares outstanding the company’s earnings per share and book value per share figures should look more attractive, which might have a positive effect on the stock. A buy-back is also said to counteract the dilutive nature of employee share incentive schemes. But buy-backs do not always result in the share price going up. For one thing, the company has had to spend some of its cash reserves – which really belong to the shareholders anyway. While the buy-back seems to counteract the dilutive effect of employee stock options, all companies are really doing is transferring the problem: the dilutive effect of the employee share incentive schemes is now directly visible on its balance sheet where that huge pot of cash used to be. But just as importantly, by definition buying back stock means that the company feels there is no better way of using that cash reserve than ploughing it into the stock markets to buy its own shares – it does not feel that investing that cash in additional personnel, assets, intellectual property, or even other businesses would be a better use of that money. For some, it could be seen as the last desperate measure of a management team which has run out of inspiration.

FWIW

One thing is for sure: Google Trends is NO source for reliable info on stocks.

Note: comment has been flagged for arriving from a possible incarnation of a known (eet), pseudonymous, forever-nymshifting, abusive Internet troll that posts from open proxies and relays around the world.

Try ‘Sun Java’. Yep, it’s going downwards.

Now for the funny part: Search ‘Red Hat’. Wow. That’s a sharp decline.

What does this tell us? Are all values in the world rapidly falling? No, it’s only Google Trends which exaggerates the developments. Google Trends is NOT a serious source of information. Tell me you haven’t even realized that they don’t indicate any units on the y-axis? Yeah, that’s right; you can’t tell whether it indicates cents or millions…

Note: comment has been flagged for arriving from a possible incarnation of a known (eet), pseudonymous, forever-nymshifting, abusive Internet troll that posts from open proxies and relays around the world.

Aren’t you educated enough to understand that the latter hasn’t got anything to do with the former? Are you really expecting a financial backlash due to a politically incorrect decision?

You don’t know anything about the real word; but we already knew that…

For the record: Novell is doing much better than Sun which you – in spite of evidence to the contrary – tout as defender of freedom.

Note: comment has been flagged for arriving from a possible incarnation of a known (eet), pseudonymous, forever-nymshifting, abusive Internet troll that posts from open proxies and relays around the world.