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: Art Bechhoefer who wrote (15178)	9/29/2000 11:06:33 AM
From: docpaul	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 60323

Thanks a lot Art.. I didn't understand that concept. Makes perfect sense, to me. I definitely want to start a position in the stock, and was planning on doing some more DD, but I just don't want to miss out on this dip, if in fact it's short-lived. Do you use I-Watch at all? If so, what's your take on the institutional selling like I'm seeing this morning on the stock? Perhaps they're hesitating somewhat irrationally on this insider selling news too, eh? Ah well, never claimed to be a TA fellow.. I just know and love the technology.. definitely a fundamental investor. All the best, docpaul

To: Art Bechhoefer who wrote (15178)	9/29/2000 12:14:52 PM
From: Marc Schiler	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 60323

Art, Your description of the reasons for insider selling of stock bought through options is exactly correct. What is beginning to concern me is the fact that insiders are selling stock which was not purchased through options. If you look at the yahoo link that John posted (15174, thanks John) you see that recent sales are not options, but regular positions. What am I missing? I've held SNDK about as long as Ausdauer and got caught by buying more at 122. I'm frustrated that at such good PE's and excellent market position and fundamentals, insiders are selling non-option positions. Am I reading the insider trading incorrectly? I'd be happy for a good explanation. Regards, Marc

To: Art Bechhoefer who wrote (15178)	9/29/2000 1:54:07 PM
From: Ausdauer	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 60323

Noticed on this older link that TDK stopped shipping... ...CompactFlash some time in 1999. I wonder if this has anything to do with licensing negotiations that were finalized a few months back. I sent a letter to SanDisk asking if TDK was a licensee way back in 1999 (as TDK CF was advertised in some trade journals I located) but received no response at all. I assumed this was essentially a "no comment" type of response. Now I think I have a clearer understanding of the situation. look at the burnt orange box on the upper right... psiprice.fatcatz.tm here is a related link... Message 14115343 FWIW, I still believe that the Q3 report could be pivotal. Eli stated during the Q2 conference call that "no new licensees" contributed to the $21+ million in royalties in Q2. I immediately interpreted this statement to mean that new licensees would contribute during Q3. I may have misread his intentions completely, but the TDK press release is at least some confirmation of my suspicions. The royalties were revised down to $17.0 to $17.5 million (if I recall correctly) for Q3, but up from $12.0 to $12.5 from Q1 projections. I remain very encouraged by this revised estimate. My Christmas wish is a crushing defeat of Lexar and a new contract between SanDisk and Sony to manufacture high capacity Memory Stick using 512Mbit NAND during 2001. Have a good weekend. Ausdauer SanDisk...Hey, I can wish, can't I???