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 (1522)	3/30/2000 10:45:00 AM
From: Sam	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1989

Lynn, Z is a long time disk drive investor/observor. And frankly, I think he is right to bash the deal (see previous message). Not so much for the Veritas part of the deal (though even that isn't completely kosher), but for the other part. Both Veritas and Seagate management make out well, but stockholders don't, and Seagate management has a fiduciary to the stockholders which they clearly are NOT living up to. On the Veritas part of the deal: they have recently sold off their Sandisk holdings. Well, they had as part of their deal with Sandisk the option to distribute a fair percentage of sandisk products. Those products are just now coming into very high and rapidly growing demand. They just chucked it entirely. They also arguable didn't get the best price they could for Sandisk stock by selling it so abruptly, despite its huge recent run. They crushed the stock while doing so, and if they had sold it in a more discrete manner, holding it longer, they could have realized a great more. They also could have realized a great deal more if they developed a partnership with Sandisk. But after they dumped Shugart, this wasn't part of their "plan". Their plan, for some time it would appear, was to buy for themselves $1 worth of assets for less than 15 cents. This is shrewd from their point of view (and Perlman and Luzco certainly are shrewd), but a rip off from the stockholders' point of view, which was paying them to manage an ongoing business. They would rather--correctly from their individual point of view--manage it for themselves. It simply isn't ethical, and may also be illegal. We'll have to see. s.

To: Lynn who wrote (1522)	3/30/2000 10:56:00 AM
From: Z Analyzer	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1989

<<For someone who admitted to not even being a shareholder last night, you sure seem to be spending a lot of time here bashing the deal.>> Wake up and smell the roses. You obviously don't have a clue about the value of the assets being expropriated by managemnet- probably $4 to $10 billion and most likely toward the upper end. As for why I'm concerned: I'm incensed by management rip-offs of shareholders. We're witnessing attempted robbery. These guys could make $2-8 bil at yout expense and you could be left with the nuclear waste-check out Veritas's valuation.