To: Roger Arquilla who wrote (15310 ) 3/20/1998 7:55:00 AM From: Patrick Sharkey Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 29386
Roger, in my opinion, management performance is like quarterly grades. If the card shows A's, then that confirms ability. Just because the card does not yet show A's does not mean that they will not get them in the future. On the other hand, just because you got A's on your High School Report Card does not mean that you will get them in College either. For these reasons, I believe that management is doing the best they can, with what Ancor has. Just as it was not possible to change the direction of the Exxon Valdez in an instant, Ancor cannot change overnight either. Remember prior Ancor management gave their opinion, on national TV, that Class 1 was the only game in town, and that AL was nonsense? If I understand correctly the opinion of many on the Board, trouble with AL slowed Brocade down dramatically, and allowed Ancor a real opportunity to compete for the SUN business (although I wonder if prior management's expression of disappointment with SUN during the August, 1996 conference call was an opinion that rankles SUN personnel even to this day). Remember when that same management said that adapters were unimportant (when it turned out that many on this board said later that part of the Sequent problem was the inability of the adapter provider to produce the right product)? Remember when prior Ancor management said that hub business was unimportant to Ancor, but now we have the possibility that the initial hub business may provide switching opportunity for a company providing hubs to SUN? Remember when this board talked about an HP chip that had to be reworked that that this, too, contributed to the demise of the SUN deal? If that is true, what was said by prior management to HP about that situation? Did those type of comments trouble HP, whether true or not? In short, that prior management team had opinions, held in good faith I assume, and those opinions guided what turned out to be a business plan which left Ancor where it is today. This management team, on the other hand, has focused on storage, and did something to advance their opinion by completing and marketing the MKII. Just because their report card doesn't have A's on it does not mean that it won't in the future. That being, my view of the fundamentals of this company have changed because of the much shorter time frame within which management must achieve A's, and questions in my mind about whether or not Ancor is viewed as a good development and business partner, as well as the real need for what MKII has to offer in comparison with products offered by others. The only OEM announcement we have heard about, without much detail (including whether or not it was exclusive and, if so, is that exclusivity based upon narrow features of a narrow product line which only Ancor can address, is with Bull and the Escala, but there is no indication that the Bull product line is going to generate much revenue, if any, for Ancor. There is only so much private funding out there, as prospects dwindle and much remains unexplained concerning the MKII, its stature and just how important having the best performing switch really matters in this segment of the business world. Management can be a large part of the final determination here, and they appear to be on target, in theory at least; now let's see some sales which, at this point, are the only things that really can confirm the existence of good fundamentals for Ancor.