Put me in the camp that thinks that anything is possible. I don't see anything that tells me that Theo is wrong, other than the date (obviously). If he is wrong on the exact number, who cares? He is probably close. We all believe that the company could fetch $1.14B if there was a deal.
There are thousands of reasons for delays in negotiations. Some include things as simple as vacation season for key board members or DD personnel. Maybe STX wants OCZ to acquire another company first before the deal occurs (acquirer with shallower pockets can negotiate a better deal sometimes), but OCZ wants assurances that it is not left holding the bag. Maybe other suitors entered the picture. Maybe STX wants OCZ to sell off part of the business first to reduce the stock dilution. Who knows?
Anything said by the companies to date is normal deflection (STX comments on OCZ acquisition rumors or OCZ on annual meeting). Either company spewing exactly what is going on opens them up to lawsuits, or at the very least shareholder unrest, if things don't materialize.
I'm sitting back and waiting and not complaining. I like the long term, and possible short term, outlooks for OCZ.
Pipster makes a lot of sense here. At the very least, Theo should question the validity of his source. He/she has shown himself to be unreliable at this point.
Also, with all the attention thrown on OCZ, why hasn't anyone else (hedge fund, competing journalist, etc.) been able to dig up anything from anyone else?
Thanks to all poster no matter which side you are on. I am long this stock mainly because I think it has great potential and the price has been discounted. I think it is entirely possible that STX or someone else might consider buying OCZ. That's a bonus, but not the only reason I continue to hold my shares.
If there is a buyout, then fantastic. And if there isn't, the PPS will definitely drop in the short term as many holders are here just gambling on the rumors. But, if OCZ, executes their plan I believe a much high PPS will eventually come in the not too distant future. Investing in growing companies with a good products still works in my mind. GLTA.
rrrw like i have said a zillion times this isn't a bad company however the pump piece from theo done you guys more harm then good.
i fully believe that this company will be fine on its own, given you have a long term investment idea here. the buyout is wishful thinking.
btw theo is batting 0 out of 100, i been saying buy/sell since this came to light, been right on every account. like i say resistance is at $5.50 if that breaks things look bad for the stock. if it don't this should hold at these levels for a while till some real news comes out about ocz and its products/sales.
Pipster: It is fine to be short the stock, and clearly you are. But really your arguments are as ridiculous as anyone's on the bull side.
I, personally, would put a decent amount of credibiliity in Theo's tweets - especially when he comes out and reasserts his position. The guy has put himself out there. He now firmly is set up to be ridiculed by anyone and everyone in tech land if he is wrong. Why is he doing it? I have no idea. But he did and that adds a certain level of credibility to HIS position, in my mind.
YOUR opinion that Seagate "moved on for whatever reason" is about as valuable or factual as having a watergun in a barnfire. This is YOUR opinion, of course, and since you are short the stock it comes with a short's viewpoint. It is pure fodder on your part that Seagate walked away. You complain about Theo's sources - what are yours to make such a statement?
Your last point about a new CFO in Seagate's SSD division is again fodder. For all you or I know, the CFO was interviewed months in advance (as was the STX/OCZ talks initiated months ago)in preparation for taking the reigns of an STX/OCZ package. Maybe he was put in place so the organization can "hit the ground running." I'm not trying to disparrage you - but yours is total guesswork from the SHORT side. Now if you could hint at some worthy sources as Theo implies he has, YOU could write your own Tech Letter Tweet. But until then don't make unsubstantiated statements about Theo's position.
a CFO would be the one who oversees such transactions. so why get into one if you know you have someone new coming onboard?
i mean it just don't seem logical they would be at the point of intent without having the head at the table yet. it would just bog down the DD phase. however if you want to look at it in another way maybe stx was looking at ocz and they hired him to do the DD.
either way theo is full of crap with his tweets.
exactly, however theo said this is 99% done, finished by friday, exact amounts. this is not your non-binding unsigned contract tweets.
like i say at most seagate looked at ocz, and for whatever reason they have not moved forwards on it and sure don't look like they are going to.
i will also say this since seagate just added a new cfo to the SSD division no way in the world would they even be this far into any contract talks. they would wait till he was onboard before moving to approaching anyone.
Negotiations take time. I have led several licensing negotiations with some large pharma companies for $1+ billion dollar deals and know how rigorous it can be. His sources are likely a little bit away from the negotiating table so they don't get 100% correct info.
PSU can i ask you this then:
in your experiance if something is so close that a date was put on it and something was wrong and they are now fine tuning it how long does it take for them to fix it on average?
for example the deal was thought to be done by 7/27 or 7/30 and it did not get done, it is now 8/1 so do things usally happen fast like in days or does it drag on for ever.
I would assume the kinks get worked out very fast while its still a hot issue but i could be wrong.
LEXIS please feel free to chime in if you read this as i know you also deal with this stuff.