[lug] Red Hat $ 217/share long or short?

[Jeffrey B. Siegal]

"Michael J. Hammel" wrote:
> > 1. Intel as a major investor could not buy stock without SEC filings, if at
> > all.
> 
> Then another institutional investor.  I doubt the individual investors were
> pumping it up 160 points in a week.

It makes a difference.  By Intel, you suggested that some an insider was
manipulating the stock in order to effect some fundamental effect (making it
easier for Red Hat to buy other companies).  There is no evidence of that. 
More likely, the buyers, whether they are institutions (mutual funds, etc.) or
not, are buying Red Hat because they think they'll make money in it, at least
in the short term.

BTW, no one can buy more than 5% of Red Hat (or any other company) without
filing with the SEC, so Red Hat is up because some big buyer is accumulating
just to make it go up, they're either doing it without making the necessary
SEC filing, or there are multiple such people acting in concert (conspiracy).

> Yep.  It [Cygnus acquisition] was a real coup.  I never saw it coming.  
> I doubt many others did.

True, but there was still a lot of money to be made recognizing the value of
the acquisition after it was announced but before it was fully appreciated.  I
bought the stock moments after the announcement (and sold last week at 219). 
Just about as long as it took me to read it.

My view is that Red Hat is up primarily because (in no particular order):

1. Enthusiasm over Linux generally.  Cobalt is also up big.

2. Microsoft in check.

3. Red Hat being viewed as an Internet infrastructure software company. 
People have been buying these almost without reason.

4. Oracle deal; High end (read expensive, with expensive support) edition of
RHL for high end servers.

5. RHL being viewed as a credible alternative to WNT/W2000 for server.

6. Dell deal.