John:
The crux of the problem is that Mr. Tweedle Dumb bought LSI heavily in early 1998 around the time I started to reinitiated my position - 23 to 25. He expected LSI to be rocking and rolling in August 1998. Whether this was based on what I had said or not I don't know. If I recall correctly I had one of the lower estimates in that contest at 31 or so that Beach had run. And why? Because I knew that the semis were in big sh** trouble by Mid March. But LSI had a chance if a few things fell in their direction. I think LSI was the only semi I had in early May or so. Not sure. Anyway Did not happen. I knew it was not a large chance and so I kept plently of powder for when the right opportunity arose.
The fact that he had to sell some for a loss (I recall a tax selling loss comment somewhere but I may be mistaken?) or missed out on the opportunity cost of not buying until 10 3/4 has irked him (& others) and so he let loose vindictively a few days after I came back.
To which I responded in kind.
If people can't take responsibility for managing their own investment decisions they will find a way to blame someone else.
As to what's being argued ask Mr. Tweedle Dumb. I said right from the start that LSI would have to be average to hit 2.15 excl. SEEQ and that based on Q1 revs this was not going to happen. However any shortfalls would be made up next year. Again the stock price is reflecting a heck of a lot more than 2.1 vs. 2.13 vs. 2.15 vs. 'average' but I don't believe the vast majority of investors know how to value a company coming off a cyclical low and that is the crux of the valuation problem. All this P/E stuff and P/S stuff is ok (the P/S stuff is better BTW) but it still is way way off base. There is a right way to do this but it takes a sh**load of work. And since there are so many useless sponges off these boards I have no intention of showing how 'better' numbers are calculated.
People who are mean & selfish can dig their own grave.
BTW Mr. Tweedle Dumb just keeps hitting below the belt bringing up this and that and I will merely respond in kind.
I don't reply to any private e-mail. Besides this board is about LSI and that is what the majority of those posts contain (even though they contain a lot more!) Again boards are not run for the good of one and all since all the players are not equal - most take too much and contribute peanuts; the owners became multi-millionaires thanks to much 'free' effort put forth by others; many know very little useful; others are good for one-liners and on and on.
There is a tiny tiny minority who will give selflessly and those are the people who should be appreciated. The fact that there are fewer and fewer of these people should tell you something about the maturing of the net.
Besides SI is dying a slow painful death for these very reasons.
Nuff said.
- ending song: Repeat 23--
'The base revenues for LSI were $1.85 billion in 1998. Except for a IPR&D accounting
writeoff (bogus), the Symbios assets that LSI bought were not subsequently written off.
What did take place was a $5.4 million Symbios Integration Accrual. Per the 10-K,
page 42, this accrual comprised '$4 million related to involuntary separation and
relocation benefits for approximately 300 Symbios positions and $1.4 million in other
exit costs primarily relating to the closing of Symbios sales offices and the termination of
certain contractual relationships.' Therefore it appears that the $75 mil restructuring
charge taken later was for the 'old LSI' and has very little negative bearing on Symbios
continuing operations. LSI valued Symbios at a fair value of $804 million - $324 million
for tangible assets, $214 million for current technology, $37 million for assembled
workforce and trademarks, $83 million for goodwill, and $146 million for IPR&D (this
part was written off). In this context, $5.4 million is puny and irrelevant. Symbios' assets
(read: ability to generate revenue) only strengthened after integration with LSI. They did
not weaken. Further, LSI has not indicated that they discontinued anything significant in
the Symbios product line. Because they used purchase accounting (versus pooling) LSI
can't use pro-forma Q1, Q2, Q3 or
full-year 1998 numbers going forward. It is NOT because, as Jock mumbles
grandiosely: "It would be a terrible disservice to the company, shareholders, and the
public in general.". Give me a freakin' break.'
--- |
