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: Mark Madden who wrote (1841)	5/17/2000 4:59:00 PM
From: Sam	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1989

Man, SSB is a w**re, looking for future business from both VRTS and SEG. Their argument is absurd. The value of Veritas to an undismantled Seagate is that it is a cash cow. They sold well over a billion dollars worth of VRTS and SNDK stock last quarter, and used it to buy back Seagate stock, some of it at higher levels than the stock is now. Gee, I wonder if they were thinking about their LBO when they bought the stock back? In fact, they have made more from VRTS stock sales over the past year than the entire DD industry has made over the past two or three years. Why is that? Well, at least a part of the reason is that Seagate itself has led a price war. Gee, I wonder if this brilliant strategy to lose money in face of strong demand (a strategy that was publicly decried by the CEOs of both QNTM and Maxtor, their strongest competitors) was related to this LBO? Long range planning at its best, I would say. Not best for shareholders, but best for LBO participants. As you say, Mark, any honest BOD that is in charge of a cash rich leader would never sell a company when the sector has been in the throes of a sector-wide decline. This is sell low, and in two or three years, when Seagate has relaxed the war, when their 15,000 RPM motors/drives have helped them reassert themselves in the enterprise sector, when their profits are many times higher than they are now, and when value has come back into the sector, then SEG management will sell high, selling itself back to public, another "hellavu deal", I'm sure Luzco will say, saying then that things have changed, it really isn't so good for a company in this sector to be private (as they are claiming now), it ought to be public. Of course, before taking it public again, he will probably have sold the software business for much more than the $1.2 billion that these people are suggesting is a fair price for the whole thing. Hellava guy, that SL. Smarrrrt. Realllll smart. IMHO. s.

To: Mark Madden who wrote (1841)	5/17/2000 8:25:00 PM
From: Z Analyzer	Respond to of 1989

<<They go on to explain $27 is a good price for SEG now because there are no potential buyers and stockholders need to realize you can?t get full value for your stock when there are not buyers for your company. >> Are they saying that $27 is a fair value but its OK to sell for $5 because management created $22 in value that they deserve. (Sorry, I keep getting confused and thinking that mgmt was working for the shareholders and that shareholders deserved a little of any value created). Why not create rights for SEG's current shareholders to obtain shares at $.01 per share in the new Seagate and immediately take it public. Of course only if tax considerations make all the fancy footwork necessary. Hopefully, in all these class action suits, we'll get the straight scoop as to what the real alternatives were. I'm sure Al Shugart is silenced by his severance agreement and that's a real shame. Would love to hear his thoughts on this theft. -Z