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 (18913)	6/15/1999 8:44:00 PM
From: shane forbes	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 25814

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 shload 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.' ---