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: Craig Freeman who wrote (2866)	4/23/1998 1:46:00 AM
From: Jerome Wittamer	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 60323

Hi Craig, Notwithstanding tax issues related to transfer pricing (arm's length requirement) why would I want, as a shareholder, to put my company in financial distress? Of course I would be able to make the profits on my own but I would have to take a write-down on the value of one of my fixed assets : SanDisk. Remember the 'Law of Lavoisier'= 'nothing is created, nothing is lost' (translated from French). Just wondering!

To: Craig Freeman who wrote (2866)	4/23/1998 10:13:00 AM
From: Jerome Wittamer	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 60323

Craig, I got the wonderful idea to go dig in the annual report and read page 9. I found what you mentioned but my understanding is rather different : as from 1-1-99 Seagate will have the right to become distributor of 33% of SanDisk's output. This does not mean that it will have the right to command low prices (where did you read that?). If it becomes a reality, it's due to be a mutually beneficial relationship. I assume that SanDisk already has access to some of Seagate's distribution channels. Also there's no certainty as to Seagate exercising the option given its financial situation. Indeed it could be better-off staying out and reaping the profits from a soaring stock. Of course it is only my understanding, take it for what it's worth. Any other interpretation?