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: John Dunigan who wrote (18908)	6/15/1999 8:06:00 PM
From: shane forbes	Respond to of 25814

John: If someone attacks me I will fight back. What you call boorish I call self-defense. The rationale is simple - I speak freely and nicely most of the time; in the 1% of cases where you say something that attacks me personally IN PUBLIC then I have a right to retaliate. What you call boorish I call fair play. No I am still informative - my embarrassingly large returns tell me so. Here let me throw in a <g> to make sure that this is not seen in any other light. And another <g>. Many of the so-called investors are in an ugly mood because the nets are busted (at least for now). You will see that the multiple exclamation points, the whimsical good naturedness will all come back when the nets come back. I am unaffected by the nets except that when sanity prevails my returns go up. And I guess this means that I am affected by the nets in a contrarian sense. Here's another <g>. Acerbic? No! <g> Yes! -- ending song: Repeat 21-- '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.' ---

To: John Dunigan who wrote (18908)	6/15/1999 8:13:00 PM
From: sea_biscuit	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 25814

It is not clear what Shane and Jock are fighting about. But I guess it is about the profitability of LSI going forward. I have no reason or inclination to take one side or the other. I belong to the "dividends don't lie" camp <G>. Or to be more precise, to the "A constantly rising dividend is a wonderful thing" school of thought. Consider this -- $10,000 invested in Exxon in 1980 is worth right around $100,000 today and is paying the investor $2,100 in dividends each year. This assumes that dividends had been pulled out of the account each year. Had the dividends been reinvested (say, using a DRIP), the value of that $10,000 would have grown to almost $300,000, and the investor would have somewhere around 3,700 shares. His annual dividend check would have been closer to $6,000 instead of the $2,100 he was getting. (Actually, with MO, he will be getting back his money every year, even if he never reinvested his dividends. I didn't use the MO example again not only because it would have been a repetition of what I have already stated before, but also because I wanted to demonstrate that there are other companies that produce similar fabulous returns. Now, that's what I call real long-term investing!).