Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : LSI Corporation -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jock Hutchinson who wrote (18870)	6/14/1999 4:54:00 PM
From: shane forbes	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 25814

Again see the numerous posts earlier. Like I've said you don't understand English. Oh so now you have gone and rounded 2.13b (recall it was 2.15b earlier) and you still don't think you are a math DUD. Why don't you round 2.1 b to 2 b? Or why not go the distance and round 2.1b to 0? 0.03b is 1.62% of 1.85b. When arguing with growth rates of 15% you don't round to this degree! It's pretty daft. You happily said that I was 19 million off at some point for Q4 (it was one of your crap 1.85 b posts). Well 30 million in revs is 7.5 mil per quarter. Compare 19 mil to 7.5 mil. Read the significance here. If you think 7.5 mil is so inconsequential I could just as well argue 19 mil is inconsequential! Or if not 19 mil then 14 mil. If not 14 mil then 12 mil. etc. But then I don't expect you math ability to do your kindergarten teacher proud. Forget 2 weeks why not make it 2 decades? I won't miss your ignorant arrogance. For sure. The truth of the matter is there is very little that needs to be said about the chip stocks at this point and maybe a while more. So shutting up is the best thing to do. BTW the real difference between 2.13 b and 2.1 b: the first requires 10.3% sequential growth from Q1's 457 mil. the 2nd requires 9.3% sequential growth from Q1's 457 mil. - again appreciate the delta here - that is 100 full basis points. Now do you see why you should not round? Compound interest man. Compound interest with a high interest rate. Double Duh! -- ending song: Repeat 8 -- '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: abilitly 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.' ---

To: Jock Hutchinson who wrote (18870)	6/14/1999 5:22:00 PM
From: shane forbes	Respond to of 25814

Among other reasons you can't do pooling if the company you are acquiring is a subsidiary of a parent company within the past 2 years (I am no accountant but I spotted this last year in a text book when I looked up why LSI undertook purchase vs. pooling. To quote: 'Each of the combining companies should be autonomous and not have operated as a subsidiary or division of another company within 2 years before the plan of combination is initiated'). Pooling is bad because it is being abused. However who the h* said it is 'no longer acceptable'. Have you seen what the Internet stocks (for one very appropriate example) are doing? Why just today I saw one more. DCLK is acquiring Abacus for 1 billion in a pooling of interests transaction: go2net.newsalert.com 'Under the terms of the agreement, DoubleClick will issue 1.05 shares of DoubleClick common stock for each share of Abacus common stock. Based on June 11, 1999 closing prices, the exchange ratio represents a per share price of $93.25, a 25.1% premium to Abacus shareholders. The transaction, which will be accounted for as a pooling of interests...' I love the way you lawyer types change your tune. One did I ever question why LSI used purchase vs. pooling? NO. Why did I bring up purchase accounting? To refute your claim about a disservice to shareholders for LSI to state pro-forma numbers in their earnings releases? SO I say A to refute your B. You bring up C to state why A is true. What the fk? Who the heck was arguing the difference between A and C? The judge would say 'inadmissable'? You don't understand English. Period. You're not in the same league Jock. And there is no problem here except that you are full of grandiose BS and arrogance. And one thing I won't take is an arrogant empty vessel throwing sh** in my direction? You don't like it. Get lost. -- ending song: Repeat 9 -- '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: abilitly 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.' ---