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: Robert Douglas who wrote (1728)	4/13/2000 12:00:00 PM
From: Sam	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 1989

Rob, <<Why can't I stay away from this?>> When you're raped, you're raped. We put so much time into this company, we stayed with it for a long time when it was undervalued, we kvetched when we believed it wasn't getting its due, we were "loyal" to it when it underwent restructuring after restructuring, when they got hit by the Thai devaluation, when they lost a good deal of share in the enterprise market, when they fell behind in aereal density on the desktop, when they made a mess of their 2.5 inch unit, when their tape drives underperformed--we waited like we were supposed to for the company and the sector to turn around, and when they and the sector look like they really are going to turn around, when the demand for drives is being broadened dramatically by the Internet, by increased use of video, and by consumer markets like PVRs and gaming-- they take it away from us for a song and dance. A deal that would never, NEVER be approved if the BOD and management weren't in on it. Wouldn't even be considered. In fact, it is so outlandish, that no one except them would have even proposed it, because they would have known that it would have been a waste of time and effort. It would have been called "grossly inadequate". These people say so sanctimoniously, "We didn't get a better offer." Oh. And why exactly do they have to sell it in the first place?! When you're raped, you're raped. You don't just forget it the next day. You obsess over it. And when the guys who raped you not only don't get caught, but get paid billions for doing it, and will plausibly be considered heroes among their own larcenous set who don't really care how you got your money, just that you have it for their possibly legal pillaging, well, you get the picture. I can't believe that any judge or jury, presented clearly and simply with the facts, would believe that these people have lived up to their fiduciary duty to shareholders. My opinion. But I'd like to see just one plausible defense of this deal. "No collar is necessary", they said. The only thing "necessary" was an extremely stiff penalty if the deal falls through. Oh. Right. No collar necessary for them, of course. But shareholders get screwed and screwed and screwed. I used to think that VRTS part of it was OK, but I don't even think that anymore. It's OK for VRTS--no, it's a great deal for VRTS. But it's a lousy deal for shareholders. We pay them to buy back their shares at a discount. All allegedly to avoid taxes. The market is extracting a much greater tax than the IRS ever would have. Cute. I hope the IRS gets them for this if this deal goes through. Ties them up for years in court and billions of dollars in fines and penalties. The obsession with avoiding taxes is just absurd. "Why can't I stay away from this?" When you're raped, you're raped. And you don't just forget about it the next day. Especially if you've been raped by someone you actually believed in for years and you've stood by and you thought that you could trust them at least to do what you thought they agreed to do. s.