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: Patrick Sharkey who wrote (24043)	9/10/1999 12:46:00 PM
From: Eleder2020	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 29386

>>>To: Craig Siebels who wrote (67466) From: Michael D.Burke Friday, Sep 10 1999 10:40AM ET Reply # of 67480 Craig, I think the warrant deal is great for Ancor. Some of the points the author and the analysts raise are downright silly. Such as, why do they have to give away warrants to sell switches? Because it is a competitive business. Duh! And where else is $100 million in revenues going to be handed to a co. with less than $14 mm. a year going in? Yes, the warrants dilute the revenues. But they don't really cost the co. anything. The stock is sitting in a vault. It costs dilution, but the time to worry about that is after they start making a profit, not before. True, I thought all of this was a better idea when ANCR was selling at $4 and change, but it is the biggest deal in their corporate history and pretty sweet for all concerned. What they should have asked is what happens if Sun dumps the stock?<<<<

To: Patrick Sharkey who wrote (24043)	9/10/1999 12:51:00 PM
From: The Freep	Respond to of 29386

Wow. Everyone's a little sensitive these days. (No, Patrick, this isn't addressed to you -- I merely clicked respond after reading your message). Step back. Remember that despite the devastating hit we are taking today (less than a point as I write this. PANIC!!!), we are up 500% for the year. We are all impatient. We all want Ancor to give us some good news. We all want Ancor to fight back. But if any of you would've known that Ancor would have signed Sun to an OEM (let alone MTIC and HDS) and would do a secondary at 27+ back in January, you'd've been happy. Now we're all just greedy. Also, keep in mind that if you try to fight a war with the WSJ or the media in general, you will lose. No response to this article will do any good. It seems to me, and I may be crazy, that MOST of the smart money out there already knows what the WSJ printed today. In fact, I think we can trace Fidelity's buying back to a period after the material facts of the Sun deal were posted. Didn't seem to bother them, did it? Or Piper Jaffrey? Or the underwriters, who are admittedly biased? Ancor is now on the radar screen and will therefore get bashed. Remember, we still have 1996 associated with the stock, and until revenues kick in to prove that this time is different, the stock has that extra burden. If you're holding Ancor, you must accept this. Similarly, I think we have to accept that the stock will not do much until material news is reported. Confirmation of Sun would be good. New OEMs would be good. But wanting the moon RIGHT NOW is always a guarantee of dissatisfaction. Patience is hard, no doubt. But if you've come this far, why not step back and remember the journey and realize that it didn't all come overnight, either. the freep

To: Patrick Sharkey who wrote (24043)	9/10/1999 1:02:00 PM
From: ShamukE	Respond to of 29386

Patrick I don't dispute that it was or wasn't spelled out in detail at the time of the original announcement. However, I do recall reading about it in some "official" type document. Perhaps, it may have been in the prospectus prior to the secondary. I'm sorry but I can't remember. In my opinion, when it's all said and done, I don't think that this article in the WSJ will cause the stock to either sink or swim. As I said in my first post: My interest is not so much in the content. Rather, I'm most intrigued by the timing of the article. i.e. "Stale" news seemingly being presented as a new revelation. Thanks for your reply.