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 (19318)	2/25/2001 10:36:09 AM
From: TREND1	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 60323

Art Lots of luck, but I think SEC FD rule will result in no answer from CEO. His lawyers will stop him. Larry Dudash

To: Art Bechhoefer who wrote (19318)	2/25/2001 10:38:52 AM
From: Apollo	Respond to of 60323

great letter, Art. Way to go. Hope you get answers on points 1 & 2. Apollo

To: Art Bechhoefer who wrote (19318)	2/25/2001 10:40:10 AM
From: scots40	Respond to of 60323

Go get 'em Art! At the very least, Eli should respond to question #1. My trust in this management is shaken at this point, but not broken. I hope I am just being paranoid. All the best, Scot

To: Art Bechhoefer who wrote (19318)	2/25/2001 2:15:08 PM
From: Ausdauer	Respond to of 60323

Art, I also wrote a letter to Dr. Harari and asked some similar questions. Specifically, I asked whether there could be more detail about licensing agreements, licensing revenue streams, and the plan to leverage '987 following its successful defense. Right now the licensing strategy seems to have stalled. At least that is my perception. This may be due to confidentiality agreements at the time of licensing negotiations. I think written letters and e-mails are useful in making management aware of shareholders' concerns. I suspect management appreciates some contact with the outside world and from perspectives other than those gleaned from inside the walls at the corporate office. Management is limited, however, in how it may respond to such shareholder inquiries. Therefore, I wouldn't take the lack of a response personally. BTW, I have sent several e-mails to Frank Calderoni without reply, so don't feel too special. After considering the limitations resulting from FD regulations I asked Eli whether the upcoming 10Q or annual report might expound on the game plan for card assembly licenses. This would seem to be an equitable way to disseminate information. I think it would be a bit much to expect an individual response regardless of how many shares one owns. I think the general policy is to not reply to any individual questions unless they are quite general and are filtered through the IR department. The filter probably works in two ways. First, incoming questions never get forwarded to management or are noted and discarded early because they are "sensitive" to the company. You'd probably get a stock reply that SanDisk cannot disclose information relating to "x" or "y" unless it is made public in the form of a press release. Second, management decides to respond, but only in very general terms or simply reiterates prior public statements. Right now there are only three major suppliers of CompactFlash in the US: SanDisk, Lexar and Hitachi (via second tier assemblers). If '987 cannot be applied to those companies using Hitachi flash/controller combos then SanDisk should stop trying to sell the licensing angle to investors. This pertains both to CF and MMC, the present core of the consumer business for SanDisk. The fact that '987 enters into discussions during c.c.'s and in the SEC filings suggest that it is alive and well. After all, Lexar wasn't beaten until just a few months ago. Aus

To: Art Bechhoefer who wrote (19318)	2/25/2001 3:06:07 PM
From: Ausdauer	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 60323

Art, I am thinking about a camera upgrade this Summer. I may try to sell my Epson PhotoPC 850Z to a friend and use the cash to defray the cost of my next digital camera. A friend just bought the Nikon 990 for $750.00 at eCost.com, so my 2.1 megapixel camera seems a bit underpowered. I did recently learn that Canon, Sony and Epson are all using the same lens assembly... dpreview.com I attribute the excellent image quality I have obtained to this fact and believe that performance of Epson's digital camera line-up is underappreciated. I was interested in the Canon G1, but the CCD is ISO 50 rated and some reviews have indicated significant background noise and color abberation in lighting situations that require ISO 100 or above. I am also wondering if it may be better to wait and see if any newer 4.0 megapixel cameras are announced and whether one with an mpeg movie capability might be a better investment. In that case I would just hop over the 3.3 megapixel class of digital cameras altogether. Has anyone on this thread purchased the Canon G1? If so, how has the performance been? Aus

To: Art Bechhoefer who wrote (19318)	2/25/2001 7:58:06 PM
From: Ausdauer	Respond to of 60323

Digital Camera Upgrade I believe the Casio QV3000 series also uses the same lens assembly as Epson, Canon, and Sony. For some reason Sony refers to this as a Carl Zeiss lens, but nobody else does... dpreview.com Aus

To: Art Bechhoefer who wrote (19318)	2/26/2001 2:29:07 AM
From: Craig Freeman	Respond to of 60323

Art, if you really are a "registered investment advisor", you have my proxy. If SNDK doesn't provide a satisfactory response to your query within 30 days, I'd recommend approaching the SEC to initiate an inquiry. As foreign as this may sound to shareholders at SI, all shareholders have the same rights. We all have the right to inquire into anything that "materially" affects the future prospects of the Company or any company with which they do business. Since corporations exist "solely to serve their shareholders", proving that shareholders aren't entitled to knowledge is next to impossible to do in a court of law. Anyone who choses to sue SNDK and spend money to pursue the matter would likely serve us all. In the end, you would learn all the answers you seek and most other investors would end up knowing far more than they know today. If you have deep pockets to pay legal fees, W ould be pleased to volnteer as your advocate. I have signed signed and honored nondisclosure agreements for more than 25 years. I have NEVER been sued for a breach of any such confidential agreement. I would be more than happy to sign an agreement that discloses the answers to your questions .. and ... to act as an ombudsman to determine what other SI investors are "entitled to know." Craig