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 : The New QLogic (ANCR) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: KM who wrote (23829)	8/20/1999 7:37:00 AM
From: KJ. Moy	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 29386

KM, <<By Herb Greenberg Senior Columnist 8/20/99 6:30 AM ET >> I hope you are not short based on this guy. He has never said anything positive about Ancor from day 1....another one of those who has a chip on his shoulder....making bold statement of like Ancor should have gone out of business....too much hype and so on. Why didn't he mention other OEMs that Ancor has? Why didn't he mention Fidelity own now probably close to 15% of Ancor? Why didn't he mention IBD's list of institutions who invest in Ancor, has a track records of A (highest rating possible, meaning these guys are consistently over the years highly successful). The successful secondary is the single most important event which would provide Ancor enough fund to ramp their business. Do you think Bank of A, Montgomery, Morgan Keegan and others would underwrite Ancor's secondary without doing their DD? This guy Herb Greenburg is doing a dis-service to investors. He did not provide a balance view. To have strong opinion is one thing. Deliberately say only the negatives as a reporter/columnist is another. KJ Moy

To: KM who wrote (23829)	8/20/1999 8:03:00 AM
From: Neil S	Respond to of 29386

Alert the media: << This cash-starved Minnetonka, Minn., maker of fibre-channel switches >> How can anyone take Herb Greenberg's comments seriously when Ancor completed a successful secondary offering, the DAY BEFORE this article appears, that generated an estimated $64,914,000 in cash and as much as $75 million if the over-allotment is exercised. Cramer needs to spend some money on a fact checker. Neil

To: KM who wrote (23829)	8/20/1999 9:32:00 AM
From: ShamukE	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 29386

To all who choose to read. Why is it that there is always someone that is ready willing and able and does post messages warning all that their investment isn't everything that they think it is. Do they think that they have incite that we are incapable of and they posses a benevolence that dictates that they warn the unsuspecting investor? Perhaps, they think that it is better that they pick up a few short points rather than inflicting others with the chore of deciding when to exit with a few long points. Let me say that I for one would not be able to function in the market without the availability of their learned advice. Please, don't go away and let us hanging. We need you, we want you but please when you post, head up the message with the reason for those particular words of wisdom. P.S. It has been a long week. I'm tired and washed out. I just felt like posting a message. I believe that this is the first of the week. Sorry for wasting your valuable time. HAGO

To: KM who wrote (23829)	8/20/1999 11:36:00 AM
From: George Dawson	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 29386

My only comments about Mr. Greenberg's article: 1. His main point about Ancor's future being strongly dependent on the Sun deal I would consider a basic fact. In my opinion this is why the stock appreciation has stalled (along with low expectations for Q3). 2. His points about Sun backing out of a deal last spring "and causing the stock price to fall to $1." is of course inaccurate. Short selling of the convertible shares is what caused the stock to drop to $1.00. 3. I do not believe that Sun was "co-developing" the switch (MKII) that Ancor currently sells as a SAN switch. In fact, Sun sold a small number of Ancor's older LAN switches - or at least had them listed in their on line catalogues. There is a 1995 press release somewhere, describing Ancor's switch working with Sun storage. 4. Considering the terms of the deal. I have not had that much difficulty getting a hold of officials from Ancor for comment, I can't speak for Sun. The deal with warrants and the dilution effects are (or should be) well known to Ancor shareholders. The dilution from these warrants is mild compared to the effects of the convertible shares. The SEC filings contain notification of potential dilution that is greater than the effect of the Sun deal. 5. I have been posting for years now, that Ancor is a speculative investment. If you are long Ancor, you are essentially betting that Ancor will be qualified with Sun and start doing big business. Maybe there is as much value in being a skeptical long as a short seller? Maybe Mr. Greenberg should have talked to me or one of the other skeptical longs on the thread as well as the "short sellers". After all what's the harder task - picking a winning high risk stock or short selling high risk stocks? Just another "Ancor investor with half a memory" - but that half a memory is apparently better than some of the sources used for this article. George D.

To: KM who wrote (23829)	8/22/1999 3:24:00 PM
From: Ocean_Joe	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 29386

Reply (Part I of II) to: "Will the Sun Finally Shine on Ancor Communications? By Herb Greenberg, Senior Columnist, 8/20/99 6:30 AM ET" A few days ago (8/20/99) the above article appeared on one of the many electronic newsletters "investors" read on the net. Trading that day ended with ANCR posting a 2.19 pt loss. It is safe to say the article precipitated some stock selling and some shorting. Oh, the "games people play:" Let's review the real "game" , play by play. The article suggests that Ancr stock was "zooming higher before investors ever [got] around to reading the [SUN OEM contract] fine print." That is incorrect. The SUN OEM contract, "fine print" and all, has been both posted and debated ad nauseam. One need only scroll through the Yahoo and SI posts starting in June to confirm. Indeed, the SUN OEM contract "fine print" has long ago been factored into ANCR's price by any investor doing due diligence (DD) firsthand, including the more than ten institutions and funds that now hold in excess of 15% of ANCR stock. The article suggests that ANCR is merely a "cash-starved" company. Obviously, the article was written before the recent secondary, where investors, mostly institutional, gave ANCR over $60 million dollars for stock. This is significant. It exposes just how shallow and incomplete the research behind the article is and/or exposes the blatant bias of the article. Again, the SUN OEM contract, now three months old (at least), is already factored into ANCR's price. We have not even mentioned much less discussed the more than eight other OEM contracts ANCR has signed, some of which are already shipping and booking revenues, such as MTIC. Shipping and booking revenues despite boilerplate OEM contract language stating the OEM is not required to do so. Again, shallow and incomplete research or blatant bias of the article. The article suggests that a past deficit was "especially staggering when [ANCR's] revenue this year, at best, is expected to be just $15 million." Au contraire, $15 million in revenues represents quite a turnaround. In the context of a growth stock, it is phenomenal - what was once only a plan is now becoming reality! It represents an ability to execute! Such execution on a business plan is exactly why ANCR has caught both the attention and the money (as in the $60+ million raised from the secondary two days ago!) of investors, funds, and institutions. Again, execution on a business plan is exactly why ANCR is on the move up. The "future" is arriving daily, just as ANCR had planned many months ago - execution. The article suggests that the SUN OEM contract news "caused Ancor's stock to almost immediately quadruple before settling to its current price of 28 1/2, giving it a market value of $720 million." That is patently incorrect. There were several OEM contracts announced during that "quadrupling", thus (again) demonstrating conclusively ANCR's execution on its business plan with a product well positioned in the explosive growth storage sector. Further, funds and institutions heavily accumulated in June, and it is safe to bet that the depth and reliability of their research and investment decisions far exceeds the depth and reliability of the article. The article quantifies the market size "Using figures supplied by International Data Corp., the company has been saying that the fibre-channel switch market could be worth $235 million in 1999, $558 million in 2000, $1.1 billion in 2001 and a whopping $1.7 billion by 2002." Fair enough, we agree. Explosive growth potential now confirmed by third party sources. The article states "Ancor isn't without competition. Brocade Communications Systems . . . privately held Vixel and Gadzoox Networks (ZOOX:Nasdaq), which recently went public, . . . (Both companies, by the way, only recently started selling switches.)Fair enough. We agree. Is any of that new? Is not all that long ago factored into ANCR's price? Does it not imply ANCR stock is the best bet going, not exorbitantly priced by virtue of IPO frenzy while also not exposed to a future stock price collapse liability that 99.9% of the IPO's convulse through when their lock-up period ends? This point can not be overstated in any objective assessment of the competition. ANCR has no such lockup expiration liability; on the contrary, as ANCR's competitors lock up periods expire, ANCR's revenue stream and ramp-up will be underway in-line with ANCR projections made months ago. If you were an investor (retail or fund or institution) seeking to benefit from the explosive growth of fibre channel sector, which is the safer and surer play? ANCR of course. (Some would say ANCR is the only play until after the lock-up expirations, at which time all should be re-evaluated.) This reply is getting long so Part II will continue from this point forward by subsequent post. Let me conclude this post by reminding all that the article stated nothing new that is not already factored into the stock price. The article stated nothing new, unless of course, you have not been properly introDDuced to a company called ANCR. Ocean Joe Again - Part II to follow later tonight. I'll address by separate post the questions on shorts and discuss the opportunistic "baiting of shorts" that several suggest is occurring.