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: Tom Simpson who wrote (1899)	7/20/2000 6:33:40 AM
From: Sam	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1989

<<It seems to me that the single reason a stockholder would vote yes on this deal is the fear that if he doesn't SEG will fall back into the condition where its market price fails to fully recognize the market price of VRTS. Anyone have another and/or better reason for checking the "FOR" box on the form? >> No, except for employees and prospective stockholders of the New Seagate who are willing to hang on to their illiquid investment for a few years. The same reasoning led me to sell my Seagate holdings that was in tax qualified accounts some time ago, though I still hold some in a tax account, unsure of exactly what to do. But, frankly, I don't think that it is awful if the market doesn't fully recognize the value of VRTS. That is what the market frequently does in situations like that, sometimes drastically so (e.g., the TOY/Petrie situation). But in Seagate's case, all they had to do was keep selling off a million or three shares of VRTS, pay the damn tax, and have a great balance sheet while making investments that would bolster their business, or that would grow and eventually be salable assets. Is that such a bad position to be in? The answer is obvious, which is why I think your comment that the market not recognizing the full value of Veritas within Seagate is what drove this whole deal in the first place is incorrect--it was management/Silver Lake/Texas Pacific greed that drove this deal, they just used the Veritas situation to opportunistically make an low-ball offer that they thought/perhaps still think shareholders won't be able to refuse. Sam P.S. What do you think about HTCH's report? They say they will be in some SEG programs. And adopt "shareholder rights" plan. Fascinating. I wonder who would take them over. Fujitsu? MKE? DSS? IBM?

To: Tom Simpson who wrote (1899)	7/20/2000 6:58:37 AM
From: MikeM54321	Respond to of 1989

"Anyone have another and/or better reason for checking the "FOR" box on the form?" Tom- I agree with your rollup as to why it would be almost ridiculous to give up the HDD business for single digits to the vulture group. It's ludicrous for any individual long term shareholder to vote for this deal. So much so that....I find it hard to believe that the institutions aren't being offered some kind of deal privately if they vote FOR the theft of SEG HDD business by the Texas group and SEG management. If so, IMHO, then the SEC would be interested because it seems that they only thing they care about is full public disclosure. Barring that, the SEC says it's not their problem and we'll leave it to the civil courts. I'm very curious as to what is being offered the institutions, is going to surface somewhere in the SEC filings. If so, I'm certain it's going to be so hard to decipher that many investors may miss it. I'm hoping that some of the astute SEG individual shareholders, such as Sam(http://www.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=14050570) may pick up the scam. BTW, I'm wondering why SEG management hasn't come out and pushed the deal using smoke and mirrors. Very curious as to why they aren't trying to publicly justify this individual shareholder rip-off. So that leads me to believe they are going after the institutions in private. -MikeM(From Florida)