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: Lynn who wrote (1510)	3/30/2000 1:30:00 AM
From: street_smart	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1989

Barbarians back at the gate! Last time around the Nabisco management did not get to screw the shareholders but instead got themselves screwed. Minority shareholders of SEG can probably expect nothing more, other than that they now get to vent their anger on the internet now. The sad fact is the majority of minority shareholders (that's a mouthful :) may never fully appreciate what is happening. As a minority shareholder you are taken for a ride by definition. You can only pray it is a fun and profitable ride. Lucky for them in this case they still get back more than they put in. SEG management obviously are not the only guys who figured this out. The big shareholders may raise questions, etc.etc. In a way we are the most unfortunate group here, feeling helpless about the injustice unfolding before our eyes. Erin Brockvich had a clearcut case and she had to "perform sexual favors" to get things done. What are we going to do? Start dating SEC members?

To: Lynn who wrote (1510)	3/30/2000 3:13:00 AM
From: StaggerLee	Respond to of 1989

>>We SEG shareholders and SEG's portfolio are moving over to VRTS as a package deal....We aren't losing anything because we shall continue to benefit from these securities.<< On the contrary, you're losing the hard drive business entirely, for essentially no compensation. SEG shareholders are upset because the value of SEG's investments was not properly reflected in SEG's stock price, and it's not reflected in the buy out. SEG's 33% VRTS stake alone was worth more than $77/share. I think management here has a lot of explaining to do, and "we didn't get any higher offers" isn't enough. There was no pressing reason for such a fire sale. I'm happy to be on the VRTS side on this one. For VRTS shareholders, this is a wind fall.

To: Lynn who wrote (1510)	3/30/2000 5:01:00 PM
From: KevRupert	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1989

Hi Lynn, you make an excellent point that "seg" shareholders will benefit by the purchase, in the sense that "vrts" shareholders will gain value. What about shareholders who wanted to remain in the disk drive market, via seagate? They are forced to accept "vrts"'s offer or sell out completely. I believe a spinoff of assets to shareholders (other than the "vrts" holdings) would be appropriate. I do agree with the points that you make. Thank you. Advalorem