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 : Seagate Technology - Fundamentals -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: dav who wrote (1502)	3/29/2000 10:36:00 PM
From: Z Analyzer	Respond to of 1989

STEVE LUCZO COULD NOT EVEN BEGIN TO ANSWER THE QUESTION BY PUTNAM INVESTMENTS AS TO HOW THE $2 BIL PRICE FOR THE OPERATING BUSINESSES WAS DETERMINED! HE DIDN'T EVEN DANCE WELL. PUTNAM COULD NOT HAVE BEEN PLEASED. HE DID ADMIT THERE HAD BEEN NO OTHER BIDS. THE OPERATING BUSINESSES INCLUDE THE DISK DRIVE BUSINESS, ALL DD COMPONENENT SUPPLY, XIOTECH, SEG SOFTWARE, $800 MIL WORKING CAPITAL, ALL MINORITY OWNED BUSINESSES AND ALL OTHER OPERATING BUSINESSES. EXCUSE ME FOR SHOUTING. WE ARE WITNESSING ONE OF THE GREATEST ROBBERIES OF ALL TIME. I'M NOT EVEN A SHAREHOLDER AND THIS MAKES MY BLOOD BOIL. The good news is maybe someone will come in and outbid them. Their part of the transaction is extremely simple-net $1.2 bil for assts that could be worth more than 4 times that amount. Further Veritas said "nothing but good" in the deal including removing risk of someone else acquiring big chunk of their stock. Said deal was worth $3 bil to them (As in $3 bil less to SEG shareholders.) Why wouldn't they have done it for $1 bil since they have not earned that much in their existance (if anything)? I think its safe to say Luzco lied when he said the investor group hadn't really focused on when they would bring SEG public again. You better believe such an astute group of investors knows their exit strategy. -Z

To: dav who wrote (1502)	3/29/2000 11:18:00 PM
From: KevRupert	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1989

Criminal Behavior: From thestreet.com tonight: "Veritas will acquire the remainder of Seagate, which will then consist of 128 million shares of Veritas, other securities and some cash. The deal will reduce Veritas' shares outstanding, because it will issue only 109.3 million shares to exchange for the Seagate stake, and the Mountain View, Calif., company said the transaction would add to its earnings." Veritas is issuing "only 109.3 million shares" of Veritas for "128 million shares" of Veritas? Can any attorney dispute that this is criminal negligence by Seagate management? They are giving away less than they are receiving, in pure Veritas share terms? (Not counting any other assets - which is purely theoretical, because as shareholders, we deserve compensation for all assets!) Am I simply misinterpreting this information? Please inform me of my errors! Seagate management can be this incompetent or that criminally-minded? Either way, I don't know how I can remain a Seagate or Veritas shareholder. You know that due diligence went into this decision, and the numbers that we are discussing - they new in detail. Both Seagate & Veritas management thought this was a fair deal! Outrageous! How they can spill this info to the public is beyond comprehension. Please someone tell me what I am missing? Am I missing a section of the buyout article? Is the value of a tax-free distribution worth the valuation discrepancy? Send lawyers, guns, and money! Alan Derschowitz doesn't come cheap. Just my opinion, Respectfully, advalorem