SI
SI
discoversearch

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 : Disk Drive Sector Discussion Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Sarmad Y. Hermiz who wrote (8224)4/7/2000 11:40:00 PM
From: Gottfried  Respond to of 9256
 
Sarmad, you've given me something to think about with that post. I've called SEG a mutual fund in the past but did not make the connection to disguising a less profitable DD business.

The new Forbes issue names companies whose earnings are
suspect because they derive from investments and other
non-core business activities [on page 240]. LU, INTC, EK
are among them. SEG is not mentioned - may be too small.

I mention this because it is getting increased attention on the street. The article is online at...
forbes.com

Gottfried



To: Sarmad Y. Hermiz who wrote (8224)4/8/2000 5:31:00 AM
From: Stitch  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 9256
 
Sarmad,
<<I'd like to second the motion made by someone on a Yahoo thread that perhaps Seagate's troubles were disguised by its vast VRTS riches, and in fact the less integrated DD makers are the most promising as far as profits>>

You can't disguise your operating statement with stocks you hold in your treasury (unless they are paying huge dividends and even that has tobe shown as such).

I will also mention that I think it has been clear to even the most casual Seagate observer that the street wasn't paying anything for its DD operation. Nevertheless its stock has been a good investment until the recent announcement and may still prove to be so through the conversion to Veritas stock. It is hard to call.

Seagate itself has been long been executing against a much announced program that diminishes its reliance on internally built components. Its current lead in the rotational speed specification is the result of an outside partnership. Additionally, since Seagate doesn't sell heads or media outside it doesn't face the same problems that companies like Read Rite and Komag face. But that is a longer discussion that I won't go into now. I would conclude that a DD model without heads and disk technology and capacity is not a great deal more then an assembler.

<<It just now entered the NAS market through a partnership. >> Seagate announced its partnership with Sweden based Axis Communications in October of 1999. Their recent agreement with Cobalt to resell NAS products is an interesting addition to their approach to the NAS market. I think Seagate may be acting more thoughtfully then that represented by the acquisition by WDC of Crag actually. It is becoming a crowded space and when that space is occupied by your customers (EMC, Compaq, Network Appliance, Auspex, Dell, and so on)already I think it deserves some solid thinking. I think we should put the nascent NAS/SAN market into perspective. Its exciting with high double digit growth expected. A recent Dataquest forecast predicts it will be just over a billion dollars this year and rising to nearly $ 7B by 2003. In addition, there will likely be a chance for better margins due to the higher value add opportunity. But I do not feel Seagate has surrendered a lead hear because Maxtor and Connex have made acquisitions and rushed to compete with their customers.

These comments touch some of the reasons I have been disappointed that Seagate will likely fall in to the realm of not investable.

For what it is worth I am no longer a Seagate stock holder but will continue to hold the Maxtor I bought.

Best,
Stitch