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 : Siebel Systems (SEBL) - strong buy? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Kevin Rose who wrote (1237)	3/12/1998 1:58:00 PM
From: Trader Dave	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 6974

I made a mistake in one of my areas of concern - the transition to lower asps. There are still huge challenges on technology - see kevin's discussion and huge human resources integration issues and there's still a business model change since the two companies have vastly different deal sizes. However, I was mistaken on the average price per seat. I though siebel got close to $5k per seat and the average revenue per seat in CIS was (is) much lower. Apparently sebl has asp's per seat of $2,000 to $3000 per seat based on a list price of $3500 per seat. Since that's in-line with the rest of the industry, it won't be a huge problem for the sebl sales force. I'm still nervous, but not as much so. This deal still seems to strengthen Vantive's position. The folks at Clarfiy had better develop a stronger personality pretty soon though. TD

To: Kevin Rose who wrote (1237)	3/12/1998 2:31:00 PM
From: Melissa McAuliffe	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 6974

Kevin, You seem to have some information I was not aware of, i.e. << They brag that the whole deal was done in 10 days>>. Who are they bragging to? Where did you get this information? Is it possible that they mean from the original offer to the agreement to sell at the negotiated price? I simply have a hard time believing that Tom Siebel woke up one morning and decided if he couldn't have clfy (which may or may not be true btw) then he just had to run right out and buy scop...within 10 days no less. Whether he is impulsive, shoot from the hip, non-contemplative or whatever other adjectives you may use to describe him, I find it hard to believe that it came down this way. What...he involved absolutely no one else within his own company in this decision? Somewhat hard to imagine. Might he possibly have used an external consultant who might have information about both systems to provide some guidance here? He may be many things, I don't know, but I do not think he is stupid. Just because someone might appear impulsive doesn't mean his brain doesn't work. I simply find this totally hard to fathom. It's not like the guy is some software neophyte and doesn't know about these things. Hard to believe anyone from this industry wouldn't think of just a FEW of these issues. I believe you provide some good insight which on the surface sounds very credible. The only thing I question is whether the fact that you work for a competitor somewhat clouds your objectivity? That would be perfectly normal, btw, not something I am criticizing necessarily. I know that when you responded to my message here yesterday, you stated that you were not unbiased. It is very difficult, IMHO, to work for a company where you are doing well and you are relatively happy and to speak well of the competition. It's just not the way it is in most cases. If I were in your shoes I would probably feel the same way. No matter where you work, it is not the norm to like the competition. Actually, I am somewhat surprised that clfy lets you post on these threads since it appears that most companies have policies against this. I'm just curious about one thing. You sound as if you know Tom Siebel. Did you ever work there or with him at orcl? If not, how do you know so much about him and the company other than internal clfy information which you have access to?? Melissa Melissa

To: Kevin Rose who wrote (1237)	3/12/1998 5:40:00 PM
From: HERB	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 6974

KEVIN: I'm not an expert in these things, but when I look at the series of events that took place, I think this deal must of been agreed to by both parties in Jan.'98 or before. #1- S.E.C. filing Form #PRFS 14A sent on 1-30-98 indicating a special meeting to increase shares to 300,000,000. #2- S.E.C. filing Form #DEFS 14A sent on 2-9-98 indicating a definate special meeting. Read this one closely "under purposes" for increase of shares. #3- Read SEBL press release carefully, especially paragraph #12. Let me know if this is valid or not. Herb

To: Kevin Rose who wrote (1237)	3/12/1998 8:32:00 PM
From: Lee L.	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 6974

I would conjecture that this deal was done in haste as well... sort of. Tom Siebel has said many times that he sees lots of consolidation in this market. Siebel and SAP were very chumy not-so-many months ago. I think that Siebel has been in an acquisition frame of mind for a while. With its sky-high valuation, Siebel saw an opportunity and went for it. I am confident that there wasn't lots of due-diligent technical reviews -- no way. Tom cut a deal based on overall fundamentals, not on detailed analysis. I don't know him, but I've met him and heard him speak many times. He's not one to ponder and over analyze.