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: MangoBoy who wrote (24022)	9/10/1999 7:22:00 AM
From: trendmastr	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 29386

As today will more than likely be pretty rough, I thought that all might get a kick out of the last paragraph of Herb Greenberg's column today: <<SFX Revisited This column believes in fair and equal treatment, so if a company doesn't believe its opinions have been adequately covered, this space will more than gladly print what the company believes is its side of the story as soon as it has been received. Comments from SFX Entertainment (SFX:NYSE) Chairman Robert Sillerman rolled in yesterday afternoon, and were published as an "extra" to this column. If you missed it, click here. >> tm p.s. Would anyone be surprised to see Mr. Greenberg take note of the WSJ article in a future column?

To: MangoBoy who wrote (24022)	9/10/1999 8:58:00 AM
From: George Dawson	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 29386

This is typical provocative journalism - a blending of facts, quotes, rhetorical questions and SEC boilerplate to suggest that somehow this is news. Let's face it - Ancor investors have known the details of this for months now. There is nothing said here by Steve Snyder or George Reyas to suggest any problems. The dilutive aspects of the warrants are well known and as I pointed out in my previous response to Mr. Greenberg are not as great as other potential dilution according to my reading of the SEC document. It looks like Sun uses this type of financing deal quite often - which was the only interesting part of the article to me. It is clearly in Sun's interest to use their business strengths to leverage these deals. In fact, it would have been interesting to see some investigative journalism on the pacts with the other 100 business partners. All things being equal, in order to get the business - you have to strike a deal. That deal is often a complex negotiation where the outcome for each partner can only be determined over time. For Ancor, that is basically unchanged at this time, regardless of what the WSJ or thestreet.com says. George D.

To: MangoBoy who wrote (24022)	9/10/1999 11:47:00 AM
From: Eleder2020	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 29386

<<<David Harrington, a money manager at Friess Associates, thinks it is a great deal -- particularly for Sun. (Brandywine and Brandywine Blue funds, managed by Friess, had more than 3% of their assets invested in Sun on June 30.) Without having to lay out lots of extra cash, Sun gets an ownership stake in Ancor. Sun earns a nice paper gain on the warrants as a result of the boost the deal has given Ancor's stock. And it is a flexible deal, the manager notes: Sun doesn't have to buy the switches if, say, a better technology comes along. "It's such a win-win for Sun, that it's hard to argue" with the pact<<< With this logic I wouldn't want Harrington managing my money. He fails to mention the great deal it has been for Ancor shareholders as well as putting the company on the map. He's not above some FUD either. SUN doesn't have to buy the switches and goes on to say it's a win win deal for SUN AND FAILS TO MENTION that if SUN doesn't buy the switches they don't qualify for the warrents.What great spin!!! Brocade couldn't have written it better themselves. >>For Ancor, Friess's Mr. Harrington says, the results are mixed. While Ancor benefits by having a huge buyer of its switches, giving away its stock at a discount dilutes Ancor's shareholders.<<< Mr Harrington would obviously rather own ANCOR stock with 25million share at $8-$10 (before SUN), then a 5% diluted ANCOR stock(diluted sometime in the future) at our current $25 price thanks to SUN when SUN will be a part of the revenue mix and not the entire enchilada. >>>Moreover, accounting rules require Ancor to discount the revenue it gets from Sun by the value of the warrants. The biggest determinant of the warrants' value is Ancor's stock price. The higher Ancor's stock price, the more it has to discount the sales. How big will the discount be? In a Securities and Exchange Commission filing, Ancor says that revenue could be "materially reduced."<<< What a money manager!!! SUN obviously thinks the deal sends ANCOR higher and the warrants are SUNs investment that it turns out that way.(Hows that for spin) I think present Ancor shareholders can live with that. I wonder if any Friess funds own Brocade?- Just curious? It all seems so calculated IMHO? Just too many coincidences.