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 : The New QLogic (ANCR) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Craig Stevenson who wrote (17354)	7/24/1998 10:08:00 AM
From: trendmastr	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 29386

This is not all that complicated. Hendricksen and Nelson have proven themselves incapable of running a publicly held company. If they knew things were getting pushed out then they needed to act to generate some kind of revenues and to have already secured additional financing, rather than wait until they (and us shareholders) are forced into one of a list of unappetizing alternatives. If they did not realize it........ When Hendricksen says that the company is a "near start up" does he take into account that start-ups aren't publicly held? How did the company become a "near start-up", what caused that to happen? Was it Nelson's and his lack of understanding of what customers' needs are? Was it their flawed strategy? Was it their inabilty to see that their marketing was non existent (whatever happened to that woman they hired anyway?), that their sales team couldn't sell ice to desert inhabitants? How long should it take someone to figure it out? Most of us here need the company to succeed. We try to find a glimmer of hope in new hires, yet when asked what Pasqua has turned up since he's been there, Hendricksen's answer is....another sales guy! Did Hendricksen think that was funny? I certainly didn't. "Pasqua needs more time, these things take a while to develop..We can't go into that"....blah blah blah. Maybe they just should admit that they don't have a clue. Come to think of it, didn't Hendricksen say that he was going to stop trying to "guess" when the market will need Ancor's product? Pathetic. Let's change the old adage a bit and say that results speak louder than words. These guys have had long enough to prove their worth. With a little over $5 million cash and a burn rate of $1 million a month, I'd say that it's the bottom of the ninth once again. Does anyone here have any suggestions as to how we talk to the investors that control this company? tm p.s. the stock is now trading below $2

To: Craig Stevenson who wrote (17354)	7/24/1998 12:21:00 PM
From: Greg Hull	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 29386

Craig, Thank you for asking the tough questions yesterday. Too bad none of the rest of us followed up with more of these issues after you were cut off. I did not think you were beating a dead horse. To whom does management answer? Wouldn't it be nice to be able to cut off your boss or an irate customer or client when you were in the hot seat? The two things that disturbed me the most from the call were 1) the elimination of LAN business pursuit just two months after the shareholders' meeting where they had the nice slide about the four segments of the LAN markets and the resellers or end users that they had lined up for each segment, and 2) the start-up comment from KH. When I worked for a conglomerate, months were spent planning for the division's meeting with the chairman. Many plans were considered before the meeting, but major initiatives weren't redirected just a few weeks after the meeting. How much time was spent considering what the shareholders should be told, and how much time was spent deliberating whether LAN pursuit should be dropped? This raises a concern for me regarding senior management's competence. Focusing on SAN alone may be the proper course of action, but why wasn't this decision made (announced) before the shareholders' meeting? When will the management team make their next shift? Could it be that all of the new hires in the last 12 months have SAN experience but no one has LAN experience? I did not realized when I began investing in Ancor that two years later the chairman and CEO would consider the company a start-up. Now of course I would rather that they switch directions than settle for less than $1M of revenue per year, but it is very disturbing to me nonetheless. I can't blame KH for what happened and didn't happen in 96 and early 97, but he can be blamed for what he has not done this year. I don't blame him for the SAN market not developing to date, but very good management would have developed a plan for the interim in case the slip that began in 96/97 continued into 99. On the (potentially) positive side, why do these new hires join Ancor, and why does management sound confident about future business? Greg