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 : WDC/Sandisk Corporation -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TREND1 who wrote (12998)	7/17/2000 11:21:40 PM
From: Tumbleweed	Respond to of 60323

RE Seagate selling. Larry, is the dispute over the timing of SEagates selling caused by the fact that the SEC filing may have been in March, but that is merely a note of an intention to sell, and doesnt give the timing? i.e. they then could have sold a month or so later, thus exacerbating the fall? Joe

To: TREND1 who wrote (12998)	7/17/2000 11:37:39 PM
From: Bargain Hunter	Respond to of 60323

SEG started selling in November 1999 (2M shares). They sold a further 6.2M shares in the Jan - Mar quarter and 2.5M in the Apr - Jun quarter. They have sold a further 1M since the end of June. [All numbers post split. Sales since June assume they have sold all from the 144 filed July 5th and not filed/sold any more.] A large proportion of the sales were in Feb (most if not all of that quarter's selling). Those sales were masterfully timed by SEG, selling into a buying frenzy that raised the NASDAQ in general and SNDK in particular. Noone cared that SEG was selling shares so long as the stock price was going up. In March the price declined significantly, along with NASDAQ, apparently without any direct help from SEG. SEG did not start selling again until May. The price of SNDK dropped significantly during May. These timing of these sales did not seem so masterful and the price of SNDK dropped significantly more than the NASDAQ. It was around this time that people began to understand that SEG was dumping at any price in an attempt to liquidate the shares before the VRTS deal closed. [See Seagate's SC 13E3/A filed on July 13th for confirmation that they are attempting to liquidate as much of their non-VRTS stock as possible.] So it is up to everyone to decide for themselves what effect they think the SEG sales have had. You can put greater weight on the number sold in Feb vs May and decide that the price decline in May was not due to SEG's selling. Or you can decide that the effect was greater in May due to general market weakness, even though the number of shares was lower. Does HAL care about any of this, or is it purely statistical?

To: TREND1 who wrote (12998)	7/17/2000 11:47:05 PM
From: Sam	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 60323

Larry, Steve, and thread, I am really really sorry we started this, but I will say one last thing on it, and then will let whoever wants to blast me as silly or whatever they wish, and so be it. First of all, in their filing in the quarter that ended 3/31/00 Seagate said this: "During the quarters ended December 31, 1999 and March 31, 2000, the Company sold 2,000,000 and 12,400,000 shares, respectively, of SanDisk common stock, adjusted for a 2 for 1 stock split on February 23, 2000, for proceeds of $67 million and $468 million, respectively, net of underwriting discounts and commissions. The sale of shares of SanDisk common stock by the Company in the quarters ended December 31, 1999 and March 31, 2000 resulted in pre-tax gains of $62 million and $453 million, respectively." They do not say exactly when they sold the shares, but dividing 453 million by 12.4, you find out that their average price was around $37/share, which means that they sold before the ascent, since they couldn't have gotten a price that low after the stock went up. It is possible that somehow this filing is in error, and there was a correction filed later on somewhere that I didn't notice, or it was in error, but no correction was ever filed. However, presuming that it is correct, I was in error to say that it was Seagate selling that drove the price down, at least in any direct sense. I still think that the float and psychology hypotheses have merit as partial explanations for the dive, but, you know what? I could care less right now. I am more focussed on the future, and am holding onto my stock (indeed, have added a fair bit recently) in the belief that there was no fundamental operational reason for the fall. We shall find out in two days time. I hope this issue can be put to bed now. I will not comment on it again. Somehow I suspect that others will want the last word, though. Let it be. Sam (73 13/16)