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 (18873)	6/14/1999 5:29:00 PM
From: shane forbes	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 25814

Your core argument changes faster than Monica Lewinsky's dresses. Therein lies the core problem. *Oh yeah and BTW the average is now 1.85 1.12 = 2.07 b or did this get messed up in the transcription. So now you need just 8.35% sequential growth!** Again I brought up the 9% to bust your chops about your math abilities. That was it. Again I said LSI would not make the numbers because... (you fill in the gaps - go back to the first post to Patrick. Read each line carefully. Write it down a few times just in case. Look back at it in a few days. Memorize it. Understand it. Simple when you really put 1+1 together. But adding 1 + 1 is too difficult for you isn't it? Let's see Jock turns the calculator on. He enters 1 in the calculator. He enters the + sign. He enters 1 again. But now he forgets that he has entered the first 1 [getting caught in the 'transcription' process as usual]. So he enters another + sign. Then he enters another 1. Darn! He forgets that he entered a prior 1. So he enters another + sign and another 1. This goes on for months until his battery runs out. In the meantime when people ask him what 1+1 is - he looks at his calculator and reads off from the display on June 1: 5890; on June 9, 45689; on June 15: 70897. Ad infinitum. Never right (no one asked him what it was when he entered the first couple of 1's. He did that too quickly!). Never in the same ballmark. More likely never on the same planet. Such is the life of the lawyer who can't do arithmetic.). No call it a chastening from posting on the Yahoo! message boards. Enough arrogant dimwits there to make you feel right at home. -- ending song: Repeat 10, typo-- '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.' ---