Reply: Part II of II
Greenberg Article of 8/20/99
In the spirit of a complete reply to the article are the following:
The article states: "Ancor investors with half a memory recall Ancor's previous relationship with Sun . . . [Sun] backed out, causing Ancor's stock to drop to a low of 1 . . ." That is incorrect. Any investor with half a computer can access to the net and determine that 1) faulty HWP switch caused loss of Sequent contract and price decline, 2) Hucom default on debt and revenues to ANCR and distribution of ANCR products (Hucom was ANCR's Japanese distributor), and 3) the conversion of the floorless convertible bonds continued the drop that went as low as one. Few companies survive such onslaughts and market turns; ANCR did, and SUN had little to do with it.
The article asks "Why did Sun return?" Excellent question. ANCR has a sound product, and ANCR attractively priced it to SUN. No reasonable person believes the article's statement that "Neither officials from Sun nor Ancor could be reached . . ." If you search the Yahoo posts there are entire news articles which quote both ANCR and SUN officials regarding why they each signed.
The potential dilution from the SUN warrants for 1.5 million Ancor shares, and the impact on gross margin, are consequences that have been overwhelmingly accepted by the investors who actually own ANCR stock, and any senior columnist worth his salt should probably have talked to some of them for comment. Anyone in the hi-tech business knows the value of landing such an OEM as SUN. The value is greater then the actual dollars received from SUN.
Finally, the article debates boilerplate OEM contract language such as the "non-exclusivity" terms and the "no minimum purchase" terms. Not only is that old news, long ago debated, and long ago factored into ANCR's price BEFORE the rise, it is "boilerplate". Boilerplate - fair enough. I agree. The impact of it being boilerplate is to recognize entire industries exist and thrive on revenues from such OEM contracts containing such "boilerplate". There is nothing new there, unless of course one is quite unfamiliar and ill-informed.
Overall, the article appears very poorly researched and sadly biased.
It is unfortunate. the article was written by a senior columnist, not a senior analyst, and I hope that distinction is not lost for the reader.
I would urge anyone affected in the least by the article to take the time and make a proper introDDuction to that company called ANCR.
Ocean_Joe
PS - I'll post on Yahoo answers to some short questions and "short baiting" that several think was / is underway. |
