4 ms·

> The deal will value LifeLock at $24 a share, a 16% premium to its Friday price of $20.75... Actually it is even more than that if you look at the chart for L

> The deal will value LifeLock at $24 a share, a 16% premium to its Friday price of $20.75... Actually it is even more than that if you look at the chart for LOCK (https://www.google.com/finance?chdnp=0&chdd=1&chds=1&chdv=1&chvs=maximized&chdeh=0&chfdeh=0&chdet=1479709994206&chddm=8211&chls=IntervalBasedLine&q=NYSE:LOCK&ntsp=1&ei=n5QyWKGECcanjAGW4aXoDA https://www.google.com/finance?chdnp=0&chdd=1&chds=1&chdv=1&...). Check out the price increase since Nov 11th. Insider trade much?

ec109685 10y ago
This was rumored for a little while: http://www.investopedia.com/news/symantec-among-potential-bidders-lifelock-symc/ http://www.investopedia.com/news/symantec-among-potential-bi... It is really unfortunate folks feel like they have to pay for these services.
- bitJericho 10y ago
  This is a rich person service. Don't feel bad for them. What they're buying is someone else to watch their credit so they can go do whatever they want. The other customers are corporations that get hacked and then have to pay for credit monitoring.
  - xyzzy123 10y ago
    Yep, in a sense, buying lifelock is really a "long" position on future data breaches. The money comes from companies buying 100k+ "seats" after they lose a bunch of pii. Which is interesting right? "security" company essentially betting that security measures won't work. I suppose they're at least in a good position to have some insight on that.
    - jdavis703 10y ago
      Betting that security won't work is called defense in depth. Security people are paid to be paranoid, so if one level fails you hopefully have another. It's like keeping a gun by your bed, even though you feel confident in your lock.
      - xyzzy123 10y ago
        I see your point but I think a more accurate analogy would be a safety company buying shares in hospitals. This is not so much defense in depth as the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff. Funded by a company that makes fences. I think this supports your point of view, but it's kind of a 2.3bn dollar statement about how well fences are working out for people.
  - ikeboy 10y ago
    I've known people that were not rich by any means but felt they had to pay for this.
    - bitJericho 10y ago
      Poor people can't afford this service.
      - ikeboy 10y ago
        I didn't say poor, I said not rich. Unless you're going to claim anyone who can afford an extra $10 a month is rich, I don't see what point you're trying to make.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]

ec109685 10y ago

This was rumored for a little while: http://www.investopedia.com/news/symantec-among-potential-bidders-lifelock-symc/ http://www.investopedia.com/news/symantec-among-potential-bi... It is really unfortunate folks feel like they have to pay for these services.

bitJericho 10y ago
This is a rich person service. Don't feel bad for them. What they're buying is someone else to watch their credit so they can go do whatever they want. The other customers are corporations that get hacked and then have to pay for credit monitoring.
- xyzzy123 10y ago
  Yep, in a sense, buying lifelock is really a "long" position on future data breaches. The money comes from companies buying 100k+ "seats" after they lose a bunch of pii. Which is interesting right? "security" company essentially betting that security measures won't work. I suppose they're at least in a good position to have some insight on that.
  - jdavis703 10y ago
    Betting that security won't work is called defense in depth. Security people are paid to be paranoid, so if one level fails you hopefully have another. It's like keeping a gun by your bed, even though you feel confident in your lock.
    - xyzzy123 10y ago
      I see your point but I think a more accurate analogy would be a safety company buying shares in hospitals. This is not so much defense in depth as the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff. Funded by a company that makes fences. I think this supports your point of view, but it's kind of a 2.3bn dollar statement about how well fences are working out for people.
- ikeboy 10y ago
  I've known people that were not rich by any means but felt they had to pay for this.
  - bitJericho 10y ago
    Poor people can't afford this service.
    - ikeboy 10y ago
      I didn't say poor, I said not rich. Unless you're going to claim anyone who can afford an extra $10 a month is rich, I don't see what point you're trying to make.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]