Craig,
<I have mixed feelings about asking tough questions during the conference calls . . .>
As I've said several times in past CCs, I appreciate your participation in the Q/A time.
I think you were extremely effective in communicating the frustration of us retail investors and as Ken acknowledged, you were asking good questions. Thank you.
Regarding your being cut off, as Ken was answering your question, in the background you can hear what seems to be typing, followed by Ken's kind of pausing, fishing for words it seems, then his REQUEST that they move on to other callers. This suggests to me that maybe it wasn't Ken's idea to cut you loose. Could it have been Counsel? Nevertheless, undoubtedly he again asked for your permission to move on to the next caller. When you didn't grant his request and started into your next question, (rightly so in my mind), you were cut off. My guess is that the conference host made that unwise, cut-off decision. I don't see Ancor management having the access to actually cut you off.
Moving on,
Call me crazy but I think it was the best conference call to date in that AMBIGUITIES in statements made by Ancor management were minimal. Now, sure, there are still QUESTIONS that weren't answered to our satisfaction like in areas of product development and Steve's plan for refinancing. And other questions like "when are these OEMs going to start buying big?" as you said, <they don't have any real answers.>
But, at least it is as clear as ever where ANCR is as a company and what management believes is happening to Ancor and its targeted market. And, for me personally, when Ken says statements like the SAN market will be "very real" and "very large" and that Ancor "will be well-positioned to benefit", I believe he really believes that. And in his closing comments:
"Remember, most of the business in this emerging market has yet to be awarded by the computer system and storage systems manufactureres. Furthermore, the market place is uncrowded, the barriers to entry are high, our product offers some very compelling, cost, reliability and performance advantages over alternatives and our strong technical team is now complemented by a seasoned, experienced, and proven sales and marketing team. . . . we remain very optimistic about our long-term outlook."
I believe he really believes that.
So, I've asked myself, why believe him?
I think partially because I can't imagine that each member of the sales/marketing team he's assembled from the storage side of the universe would be duped into thinking FC switches in SANs is just a pie-in-the-sky dream.
Also, I believe that Ancor is now focused hard on meeting what customers want--this <seasoned, experienced, and proven sales and marketing team> didn't get that way by ignoring customer needs and opting for the 'obvious theoretical advantages' of a given technology (e.g. FC's Class 1 service)
Moreover, this management team admitted that Ancor as a company probably would have been better off pursuing a better migration strategy. This suggests to me that this team will be accountable for their actions and brave enough to acknowledge any future missteps.
(I know these reasons are subjective) but Cal just hits me as someone who wants to do the right thing and I believe he would bail before he would get mixed up (again) with a management team that purposefullywas all blow and no go. What's more, there's a hint of maturation on Cal the Engineer's part into Cal the President.
Craig, you remember how I've wished that Cal would be less ambiguous and more clear on the 'shipping' issue?
www3.techstocks.com
www3.techstocks.com
Well, in this CC, he's come around. Not that he did it eloquently, but at least he got it communicated:
"There's another subtlety here that I'd make sure, want to make sure is clear, we've been shipping that product, that's different than necessarily recognizing revenue. If we put equipment into a customer site for them to do systems development on--we don't always get revenue on that but we're still shipping product into there and at time that, that's in the customers' labs they're developing product with it is, is a very important time, so . . . "
Ed has succinctly narrowed down the big picture:
<The main reason for owning stock in this company is not because of current revenues or earnings but on expected revenues and earnings in the future. Has that changed since yesterday? Do we no longer think that Ancor can land any deals?
Either you believe in the technology, that next year will finally be the year of Fibre Channel, that they will soon get a big OEM deal or you don't.>
Well, I still believe,
dean
still long |
