Red Hat Is Now Part of the S&P 500 128
phantomfive writes "Red Hat has made it onto the S&P 500, an important measure of the stock market. It is replacing CIT, which is expected to go bankrupt after the government refused to bail them out. Red Hat is the first Linux company to make it on to the S&P 500. While this means little directly for the company, it is an indication of the importance Linux is taking on in the world."
Let Me Be the First To Say... (Score:5, Funny)
Could this be the Year of the Linux Stock Market?
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
You seem to forget that RH was 501st on the list. It is more stable than at least one recent S&P company.
Probably there were more than one companies that fell from that list since the regression.
So, RH beat more than one. People who invested in the now bankrupt ones should have done better by investing into RH.
Re:Let Me Be the First To Say... (Score:5, Insightful)
How else do you expect it to happen? Really?
Yes. It just KILLS some people that Linux might be doing well or
Redhat might be doing well. They will go so far as to even try to
stir up some sort of artificial stock panic.
Regardless of how some lemming might want to spin it, Redhat was
slightly less important last week when compared to this week and
this week they are a part of the S&P 500.
Perhaps Redhat will be a little less subseptable to FUD now.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
You clearly never have heard of BSD. ^^
It's their share pot for code, I guess.
Re:Let Me Be the First To Say... (Score:5, Informative)
HPQ [google.com] HP-UX [hp.com]
ORCL [google.com] Solaris [sun.com]
IBM [google.com] AIX [ibm.com]
NOVL [google.com] SUSE [novell.com]
Looks like Red Hat has plenty of competition. Red Hat's business performance selling support services for their distribution of linux has been outstanding and their inclusion in the S&P 500 is well deserved.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1, Offtopic)
Re:Let Me Be the First To Say... (Score:5, Informative)
Well, after 2008, the year of the Windows.NET stock exchange [computerworld.com], I think 2009 is already the year of the Linux stock exchange [techgeist.net]. At least it's clear now that people do get fired for buying Microsoft [seattlepi.com].
Benefit of being in S&P 500 (Score:5, Informative)
There is a benefit to stockholders since being in the S&P 500 creates instant demand - it means that all the S&P 500 index funds need to buy your stock!
Re: (Score:1)
While being added to the S&P 500 may result in temporarily increasing the stock price, over the longhaul, it means practically nothing.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Well, my theory is a bit rusty, but wouldn't this add some liquidity for the Redhat stock?
Might as well decrease as well if passively managed funds want to keep on to the shares, but going by gut feeling, I would think it's a good thing regardless. If anything, the share should be more correctly priced in the long run;
Depending on your definition of correct pricing of course.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually it reduces the liquidity because the index funds by a not insubstantial portion of the company.
I would Guestimate that 10% of the company will be bought by passive long term investors in the next week.
Re:Benefit of being in S&P 500 (Score:5, Funny)
Just now? (Score:1, Offtopic)
How many of the companies you own stock in trade with/do business in red china (or Viet Nam for that matter)? Or put it another way, how many *don't*?
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
How many of the companies you own stock in trade with/do business in red china (or Viet Nam for that matter)? Or put it another way, how many *don't*?
I believe by "commies" he was referring to actual communists. If there are any actual communists left in China these days, they're probably repressed by the Chinese government for advocating radical philosophies fundamentally opposed to that of the party. :p
Re: (Score:2)
Beware, for they might contaminate your businesses precious liquid assets!
Index funds (Score:5, Informative)
Inclusion in the S&P 500 could mean some index funds will have to acquire some shares. Inclusion in an index is usually seen as positive, and falling out of an index is seen as negative, when index funds have to sell.
Re: (Score:2)
As an interesting consequence, those of us who are invested in a typical S&P Index fund* now own a tiny part of RedHat. (We've long owned part of Microsoft, Sun and Apple) So now I can sleep well, knowing that I'm making Linux happen.
Hey, it beats being invested in most of the other companies that make up the S&P 500.
(*Or maybe not. Index funds are supposed to track the performance of indices, not necessarily the exact makeup of those indicies.)
Re:Index funds (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Index funds (Score:4, Insightful)
Owning Red Hat stock doesn't make linux happen. When you (or the index fund) buys RHAT stock, that money goes to the previous shareholder, NOT Red Hat.
Not directly. But as more people buy stock in RHAT it means that Red Hat will be a more viable business and more people will put money into it. So indirectly Red Hat does get money.
Re: (Score:1)
It's RHT now, they moved over to the NYSE.
The liquidity of a stock is a reflection of the viability of a business, not something that contributes to the viability of a business. A very weak or very strong stock can have some impact on the day to day operations of a company (for example, it can factor into acquisitions, and the attractiveness of options as compensation), but for the most part, it doesn't.
In order for new money to be 'put into' Redhat, the value of other shares has to be diluted (each share r
Re:Index funds (Score:4, Insightful)
P.S. I am not an economist and what I've posted above may be completely wrong... I'm working from very old memories of a 100 level econ course I took a long long long time ago.
Re:Index funds (Score:4, Interesting)
Not directly. But as more people buy stock in RHAT it means that Red Hat will be a more viable business and more people will put money into it. So indirectly Red Hat does get money.
Having a high stock price does not mean you have a viable business. Please remember the dotbomb bubble. Many businesses had completely ridiculous business plans yet their stock went through the roof. Then they ran out of money and the stock certificates were about as valuable as scratchy toilet paper.
I'm not saying this is true of RedHat, but PLEASE don't equate a high stock price with a viable business. If anything, a high stock price equates with the mere perception that the business is viable.
Re:Index funds (Score:4, Interesting)
Owning Red Hat stock doesn't make linux happen. When you (or the index fund) buys RHAT stock, that money goes to the previous shareholder, NOT Red Hat.
That is true, but there are tangible benefits to RHAT. One of the ways they can raise capital is to issue additional shares. An increase in the stock price means that they can raise more money when they do this. This also makes the stock options that are offered to employees more valuable without costing the company a cent.
It also protects the company from a hostile takeover since any buyout becomes more expensive.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Red Hat issues stock. People buy that stock and the money goes to Red Hat. Since Red Hat hasn't issued any stock lately, if you pick some up you're buying it second had, but so what? You're still responsible for an investment in the company. That is, you gave Red Hat money (probably through many intermediaries) to develop their Linux distribution.
Re:Index funds (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes and no. Directly, no effect on Red Hat.
Indirectly, Red Hat probably has a stock reserve that it maintains. Improving the price of their stock means that they can actually buy things with that stock, usually this is in the form of acquisitions. Many buyouts are done in the form of stock swaps.
Additionally, it makes their stock more attractive to give to employees/executives because its not some fly-by-night operation any more. Not that it was before, but some people like their certifications and industry recognitions.
In the end, it could potentially have a net positive effect on Linux, particularly if they use any advantage in a way that will help Linux, either directly or incidentally via side-effects of their corporate strategy.
A lot of what-ifs, but in the end, its nice to put a capstone on Linux success in the business world.
Re: (Score:2)
Owning Red Hat stock doesn't make linux happen. When you (or the index fund) buys RHAT stock, that money goes to the previous shareholder, NOT Red Hat.
As other posters have already noted, buying and holding stock enhances the value of the company, which can be useful if the company ever needs to issue new stock, either through a public offering or as incentives to employees.
Even if the company never issues another share, management benefits from having people buy and hold its stock. Investing requires confidence in a company's management and strategy, so buying stock is akin to voting for the business model. What's more, institutional holders (like index
Re: (Score:1)
The increased price is an ego booster, and the value is available to them indirectly.
More demand for RH stock means if they start selling/issuing some more stock, they can get more money from investors (at cost of reducing their stock price).
It may also mean more media attention, and thus, more buyers aware of Redhat products.
de-spin (Score:5, Informative)
Red Hat has made it onto the S&P 500, an important measure of the stock market.
First, the S&P members are selected by committee, not by merit alone. Companies are (usually) included because they have a high liquidity and are "representative" of their industry. Not that Red Hat being selected isn't good news, just understand they're not selecting it because of the "runaway success of Linux", but because Red Hat is representative of the overall health of this segment of the industry.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:de-spin (Score:5, Informative)
For Red Hat to be representative of their industry, they need to be a healthy and profitable company. While I agree that this doesn't necessarily point to Linux as a being a "runaway success", it is significant to note that Red Hat's flagship product is a distribution of Linux and the various open source tools from GNU, X.org, Gnome, X.org, etc, and that their other products that help to boost their profitable, like JBoss are also open source tools. So yeah, it's a big win for open source because it shows that you can make it to the S&P 500 by being an open source company. That puts things in proper perspective.
Re: (Score:1)
Isn't more accurate to say that their flagship product is support for a distribution of Linux? I can't imagine they charge a great deal more than IBM or HP.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
So yeah, it's a big win for open source because it shows that you can make it to the S&P 500 by being an open source company.
The index, industry, and business world in general, doesn't give two sh--s whether something is open source or not. It may be an ideological victory of sorts, but calling it a "big win"? No. It's like graduating from fifth grade and moving on to middle school... It might be a big deal to the kids involved, but to the rest of the world? Not exactly bragging rights. All that said, I really wish I'd had the money to invest in Redhat when it sent me its IPO e-mail several years ago for being an open source cont
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It's like graduating from fifth grade and moving on to middle school. It might be a big deal to the kids involved, but to the rest of the world? Not exactly bragging rights.
Right. Because the vast majority of companies eventually wind up on the S&P 500 list, just like the vast majority of people move from 5th grade to middle school.
Your attempt to downplay this is ridiculous. This may not be a big deal to "the rest of the world" (exactly how many things are a big deal when put in that context?), but
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Assuming this 2002 statement concerning the S&P Index Policy [standardandpoors.com] is still accurate, Red Hat was selected because they are a leader.
When it comes to publicly traded linux distributors you have NOVL, ORCL, RHT, and at one time Caldera which is now SCOXQ.PK. The make up of the industry has some extreme variation from
I wonder... (Score:1)
I seem to recall that NYSE does. Then again, I'm old.
They may have switched to Linux at some point.
I think too much significance is being given to this announcement. Linux has already been quite dominant on the web for some time now. But most people couldn't care less about what delivered their content. How would you even know? Aside from server side errors.
RedHat's best contribution is Tom Lane to PostgreSQL.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
"The" S&P 500 is a list of stocks published by Standard & Poor's, a division of McGraw-Hill.
I seem to recall that NYSE does. Then again, I'm old.
NYSE, AMEX, or NASDAQ might, but "The S&P 500" can't (except in the sense of "do the companies in the S&P 500 use Linux," in which case the answer is obviously "yes, some do").
Re: (Score:2)
Good catch there.
When I wrote that I didn't stop to think about the difference between the S&P 500 and NYSE.
I was actually curious about McGraw-Hill, not the S&P 500 as an entity. It's moot now since we'll likely be moderated down anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
Not a true representation then (Score:2)
As linux is EVERYWHERE anymore. Just about every small business and up runs it in some capacity. It runs major businesses too. Everything from big iron to the embedded market runs linux in some regard. Hell, Cisco's ASAs run a linux kernel.
Were this a true representation, linux companies would account for 60%+ of the tech companies listed in the index. Which is a bullshit measurement anyway, so I'm not sure what that statement was supposed to mean.
Re: (Score:1)
Were this a true representation, linux companies would account for 60%+ of the tech companies listed in the index.
Well, it isn't necessarily just tech companies that make money. And plenty of tech companies have a whole host of Windows machines, and maybe a few Linux servers.
Also, I'd be interested to see if it really is 60%+ running off of Linux. A lot of companies use a little thing called Solaris, you know. Unfortunately, I doubt the BSDs make much of a dent...
Re: (Score:1)
Were this a true representation, linux companies would account for 60%+ of the tech companies listed in the index.
Wow I just re-read your quote and I was worried I was missing the sarcasm. But looks like you really are serious
Re: (Score:2)
"linux company" could mean there is a box running linux somewhere in the dozens of locations
less and less companies use Solaris, I make my living helping them to ditch it in favor of something else
Re: (Score:2)
Google is a linux company. IBM is a linux company. I think they are both S&P 500. What's your problem?
Finally! (Score:3, Funny)
2009 - the year of Linux on the stock market
Next milestone - the desktop!
Re: (Score:2)
The thing is combine
*the fast pace of linux development
*the wide variety of distributions
*the fact that many linux users are using it because it is free (in whichever of the two senses is more important to them)
and there doesn't seem much of a market for software that you have to pay for on linux.
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The Obama administration is the one propping up all manner of failed business models with "bailouts".
It isn't about Anglo-American culture so much as the culture of the banking cartels, whose dynastic families have a somewhat different ethnic background.....
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure if GP was aiming at a Jew reference (would *definitely* be "not cool") or something else (Mafia?)
Re: (Score:2)
Saying someone is a member of Sicilian mafia doesn't imply that all Sicilians are gangsters, I'm sure most aren't. Similarly, pointing out that Western banking is controlled by a Jewish cartel is not the same as saying any bad thing about most of the very fine Jewish people of the world, who are not billionaires and who don't control international banks.
Re: (Score:2)
oh, so it's ok to talk of a say, a Sicilian mafia or Russian mafia but not a Jewish or Semite one, if such existed? (while understanding that vast majority of Jewish people are not criminals, and not to be confused with hate groups who use an example of a Jewish crime gang or cartel or mafia as an excuse for hatred toward all Jews)
Re: (Score:2)
The Obama administration is the one propping up all manner of failed business models with "bailouts".
Huh? The GP's post was entitled "CIT and moral hazard". Well, CIT is NOT being bailed out, and "moral hazard" was the reason used by the Fed under the *previous* administration for NOT bailing out the second corp that got into trouble (Lehman Bros., I believe), so actually *neither* the present or the previous administrations have bailed out "all manner of failed business models".
Instead of trying to blame Bush or Obama for the whole mess, why the hell don't we deal with the real issue here, which is tha
Re: (Score:2)
> The Obama administration are wise enough to allow them to be destroyed by the
> remorseless logic of the free market when they are too weak to survive.
Being of the Libertarian bent I have to like the idea of failure being reintroduced to the market. But I'm also a bit queasy when the current anti-market administration bails out it's friends (look at his economic team) on Wall Street and then allows CIT to fail. The question I instantly asked myself was Why? And why was it's failure so under report
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
> Hey, if there's THAT much blubber to cut from the US private healthcare industry, then clearly,
> that's a massive misallocation of resources that needs to be put to better use, like investing in education.
You misunderstand. What I'm talking about is the headwind small business is heading into. Break it down. You run a small business, here is your future. Your major source of financing just went out, payroll taxes are about to go up a minimum of 8% (play or pay provision in the health 'reform' bi
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Being of the Libertarian bent I have to like the idea of failure being reintroduced to the market. But I'm also a bit queasy when the current anti-market administration bails out it's friends (look at his economic team) on Wall Street and then allows CIT to fail. The question I instantly asked myself was Why? And why was it's failure so under reported?
Keep in mind that the TARP bailout was enacted and originally administered by the Bush administration. Rough estimiates where that fully half of the bailout was done by Bush's Secretary of the Treasury Henry Paulson.
I'm not going to excuse the Obama admin of doing everything perfectly however when people like yourself omit rather large facts in your argument it does nothing for your creditability.
Profit motive is good for Linux (Score:2)
This *IS* important to the company (Score:1)
Not true. Inclusion in a widely-invested index almost certainly means an increase in the stock's price, all things being equal. This will be most visible up front as index fund managers buy in (because they have to). But there will also be a much larger base of investors that hold this permanently insofar as they hold S&P 500 index funds (or ETFs, CTFs, etc.). This could directly provide the company more "currency" to make purchases of other firms
Too big to fail now! (Score:2)
So how long until Congress debates whether they have to give Red Hat lots of free money on the grounds that they're "systemically important" now? :-P
Re: (Score:1)
I'm more worried about when they will appoint themselves as the overseer of RedHat because they represent "systematic risks" that need to be managed—i.e. you are getting too big to fail, so we are going to make sure ... that you fail before that happens.
Actually it is significant (Score:3, Insightful)
S&P 500 (Score:1)
Congrats Red Hat (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
How many Linux kernel developers are filthy rich from the millions of people they have helped? None. RHAT just uses their code for free to make $$$$.
1/ How many low-level MS 'kernel' developers are filthy rich?
2/ Red Hat actually employs (and pays damn good salaries to) some kernel developers, as do various other companies like IBM.
That's the evilness and stupidity of communism...
Can't say I see where communism comes into it when everyone involved is either employed by a capitalist company or freely and vol
Revolution Revelation (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Oracle is First Linux Company on S&P500 (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Oracle does not have a Linux distribution. Centos is more of a Linux distribution than Oracle.
Re: (Score:1)
You can download something called "Oracle Enterprise Linux" from Oracle's servers. Looking at the name, I conjecture that it's Oracle's, and that it's Linux. Are you absolutely positively sure it's not a distribution?
Re: (Score:1)
Red Hat Enterprise Linux may be Linux... (Score:1)
In fact, is it even technically Open Source either?
From the Red Hat [redhat.com] site: "Available for immediate download starting at $80."
Um, 80 != 0, right? So, why would the F/OSS community trumpet this as a "win"?
Re: (Score:2)
...But it is about as far away from FREE Software as it gets.
In fact, is it even technically Open Source either?
From the Red Hat [redhat.com] site: "Available for immediate download starting at $80."
Um, 80 != 0, right? So, why would the F/OSS community trumpet this as a "win"?
Yes it is. You can download the sources for free. You can also download a white box clone called CentOS. There is *nothing* that says you can't charge for Open Source.
Sure its free. Download CentOS or the Sources. There is *nothing* that says you can not charge for open source.
Re: (Score:2)
Not quite completely free: RedHat's "RHN" service, for example, takes a paid subscription and is incompatible with non-RedHat clients. Also, their work on "GFS" is not entirely open source, at least at my last review of it, primarily because its original authors had not open sourced it for various reasons.
But RedHat is very good indeed at returning their tools to the free software and open source worlds: they're a model of how to do so and actually add value.
Re: (Score:1)
Remember, price has little to do with freedom.
You can download (most of) RHEL sources from RHT servers, recompile, rebrand and make your own RHEL clone. There's a popular distro (CentOS) doing exactly that, and a few more obscure ones. Oracle Enterprise Linux, a direct competition of RHEL, is also based off RHEL sources. If that's not "free" and "open source", I don't know what is.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I just forgot what I was going on about, but I really could use a beer right now.
Re: (Score:2)
Also, CentOS, Scientific, Oracle, and CERN Linux are all RHEL rebuilt from the open and freely available source code. Fedora Linux, Red Hat's testing ground, is completely Free and Open both in binary and source.
Remember, Open Source means the source, not the binaries.
Re: (Score:2)
You seem to be new to linux so I'll explain it. The $80 is a subscription to the Red Hat Network support service, it is not a purchase price for Red Hat Enterprise Linux.
In fact there have been multiple distribution forks/clones [lwn.net] created from the Red Hat Enterprise Linux source files. You download the source files, remove the Red Hat trade marks and logos, compile and distribute. :)
So with that bit of knowledge under your belt you can now intelligently discuss Red Hat's position in the F/OSS community and jo
Re: (Score:2)
Um, 80 != 0, right?
Wrong. There is no requirement that FLOSS software be available at no charge. Its the source code which must be made available at no charge.
So, why would the F/OSS community trumpet this as a "win"?
Because we've had to listen to trolls, shills, and the ignorant tell us for years that "no one is going to make money selling FLOSS software", and for years we've tried to explain the difference between paying for the software (software as a monetized "product"; profit derives from the software itself) and paying for customer support to use the software (software as a
Re: (Score:2)
What people said was that "no one is going to make money developing FLOSS software", and it's almost as true now as it was then. Very few(I can't name any from the top of my head) companies have developed open-source software, and then earned enough money on that(Including support) to pay for the development of that software.
Remember that >98% of the software included with "Redhat Linux" have been developed and paid for by companies other then Redhat. (Some of it, by stupid investors in the .com crash)
Re: (Score:2)
What people said was that "no one is going to make money developing FLOSS software"
They said that too, in addition to a lot of other (usually derogatory) things. They also said what I claimed they did.
that >98% of the software included with "Redhat Linux" have been developed and paid for by companies
[citation needed]
Look, Redhat's success doesn't deny your point, true, however, that was never the point I was making in the first place. You're basically just trying to change the subject from "selling" to "developing". Once the former is proven possible, then we'll find out if the latter is possible as well, but that won't happen until FLOSS is far more accepted/used than it is now (as
Oh Really? (Score:2)
Prove that statement with verifiable facts.
This news actually means a lot for Red Hat's stock (Score:2)
Lost Opportunity (Score:2, Interesting)
Back in the early days of RedHat, they used to be located in a non-descript office park in the Raleigh-Durham area. I remember working for an obscure Sales Automation company and our office was located upstairs, where if you turned to the left you'd head into our office and if you turned right you'd enter the small RedHat Software offices. I used to pop my head in occasionally to this company that was making this stuff called "Linux", and even asked for help when I was secretly setting up a Linux server a
While this means little directly for the company (Score:2)
While this means little directly for the company...
Really, it means little? Large companies tend to prefer, and even require, doing business with other large companies. Being on the S&P 500 is an indication of Red Hat's size and staying power, and thus should increase the desirability of other large companies to do business with it. Wouldn't you think?
Re: (Score:1)
It's true. Comes with a downside (for the Open Source community) that other companies may begin to look at the possibility of an acquisition...
How many years before we see an article that says something like "Microsoft to buy Redhat", "IBM to buy Redhat", "VMware to buy Redhat", or "Oracle to buy Redhat" ?
Conceivably someone bigger whose market Redhat represents a threat to, could seek to buy them in order to just kill their product line, and make sure Linux never has a year of the desktop. That's
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Don't sweat it too much. Red Hat's product line is the Red Hat Network, not linux. Microsoft could buy up Red Hat and destroy their support business but they would simply be replaced by another support vendor, either an up start or an existing vendor, i.e. Oracle, Mandriva, Ubuntu,
Microsoft stock flat since 2002 (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There's more where that came from: Microsoft revenue declines 17% in fiscal Q4 [computerworld.com]. Notice that the spinmeisters are talking about revenue declining. Profit, if there is any, is hit even harder especially if that profit is based on pump-n-dump of MSFT stock.
Red Hat bully customers ? (Score:5, Insightful)
Where, how, please provided verifiable citations.
Re: (Score:1, Offtopic)
Fixed it for you!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
funny, my clients love Red Hat, most of them transitioned from Sun and it wasn't Red Hat who was the bully
Re: (Score:1)
[citation needed]