Maybe I haven't looked at the numbers closely enough. I thought their net debt would be pretty close to 15 bil after the buyout. If it's more like 6 billion that is a lot more palatable. I guess I need to do some more homework.
And by the way: I would not be averse to the Sandisk buyout if it were primarily in the form of stock. But in the volatile tech sector you need net cash on your balance sheet to ride out the down portions of the economic cycle. So I would be extremely wary of a WDC that had massive debt on the balance sheet on account of the buyout of Sandisk.
I would say WDC deserves to sell at a discount to STX because the albatross of the Sandisk deal hangs around its neck.
If it weren't for the Sandisk deal I would be buying WDC shares hand over fist.
It's not clear to me that SNDK is a compelling buy, but it seems to me it would be utterly idiotic to short it.
I have about half my retirement acct in 2-5 year CDs and the rest mainly in stocks of semi eqt companies.
I have been wanting to do a bit more to judge how well I am investing. I figure having mostly semi eqt stocks that I probably should use the SOXX index as a benchmark.
Looking at a graph of the SOXX, from beginning of 2015 to today it appears to have dropped to 83% of what it was on Jan 2, 2015.
My CDs average about 2% interest rate, so half of my account should have gained 1% since beginning of 2015 and half of it should have dropped 17%. Or in other words my portfolio as a whole should have gained 1% on the CD gains and dropped 8.5% on the stocks. So it should be down 7.5% since beginning of 2015.
But instead it is flat. So I am feeling pretty good about how it has performed.
Most of my stocks are small companies in the semi eqt biz. But when I look at the big boys like AMAT and LRCX they actually look like pretty good stock values right now. If I buy any I would probably lean toward AMAT because the purchase of KLAC by Lam makes me feel it is more complicated to try to judge whether LRCX is a good buy or not, whereas for AMAT it is a matter of judging it like any other company in this business, and it appears to me it is a decent value.
I kicked myself for not buying NVDA at 20 and vowed if it got back to that I would love to have that do-over.
It's starting to look attractive again but I'd really like to get it at 20-21. Please dear lord, let me buy some NVDA at 20-21.
Pardon my ignorance, but does single carrier versus multiple carrier relate to whether single or multiple optical wavelengths are used to transmit a stream of data?
As some guru said, Warren Buffett or whoever, buy when there's blood flowing in the streets.
After studying INFN some more over the weekend I was planning to buy some more and gambling on it being cheaper than what is appropriate for the business results they report this week. I was worried it would be an up day on the market and INFN might be up 3-5%.
Well it turned out that was not something to worry about, lol! So of course I bought some.
Market swings are not necessarily all that rational and it is foolish to assume that even when they appear to have gone overboard that they might not go further.
I bought some more INFN and ACLS just now but I also dumped my EXFO which has held up well in the recent downturn. I want to still have some dry powder to buy more beaten down stocks if this downturn continues even further. EXFO, a small fry in the optical test biz do similar products to VIAV I believe. Their financial ratios have seemed dirt cheap to me for some time. But that seems to be characteristic of that business since VIAV seems also very cheap.
I had already been thinking of selling EXFO since for whatever reason it appears to be chronically set at a rather low valuation. But with the continued market slump of the last couple days it seemed all the more appropriate. It would stand to reason that when you own individual stocks you own them because they appear to be good values and presumably all the stocks you own are ones you feel are similarly good values, otherwise you would get more shares of the ones you feel are the best values and thin down on the ones you think are not as compelling values. So when the market goes down and some of my stocks like INFN and
ACLS go down while another like EXFO stays put then I figure now the former are more compelling values and the latter less so so I tend to buy more of the ones that went down and sell the ones that didn't, if I still want to have cash to buy more if and when the market drops even more.
Another question about INFN. In that Nov conference the INFN guy acknowledges that Ciena's coherent is superior to INFN's at this point in time.
(I don't mean to imply that concerns me much about INFN because I get it that their superiority in PIC is a much more durable technological trump card)
But as someone with an engineering background but not in photonics, I am curious exactly what is that advantage that Ciena has. Does it mean that the signal they can transmit onto and receive off of a fiber is higher quality in terms of signal to noise ratio or something?
Does this issue perhaps involve a highly integrated PIC not necessarily being able to achieve as fully optimized performance of its photonic components as hardware that is based on discrete photonic components that can each be hand picked to use the most optimum photonic materials?
Volatility is just opportunity. What matters is what is this company's prospects? If it is destined for a share price of let us just hypothesize $40-50 two years from now, whether it is $14 per share today or $20 per share today in my view has absolutely zero bearing on where we will be two years from now. But it does mean that you will get a lot better return if you are able to get some today at $14 rather than $20.
Listened to their archived investor presentation from some conference in November. The company's guys put a lot of "uh"s in his talk, but either he got over that or else the material was just so compelling I didn't even notice it once I got focused what he was discussing.
The case they make for their business is incredibly compelling.
If I were an investor analyst the one question that first pops into my mind is: They feel that the metro business will be very beneficial to the company in appealing to customers that are increasingly wanting to reduce their vendor count, and perhaps go so far as to get all their stuff from one company.
They said one limitation for Transmode's market has been breaking into non European markets, trying to get potential customers to view them as a trustworthy vendor rather than an iffy small company from scandinavia.
Which makes me wonder: What is INFN's business plan for the Transmode operation? If the metro market is as big and fast-growing as it sounds, and if the combination with INFN open's Transmode's doors to a whole lot more of the addressible market out there, what would be the plan to deal with potentially rapid growth? Is Transmode in a good position facility-wise to handle a huge expansion? If such growth does occur, would part of the gameplan be to build new facilities in other parts of the world, e.g. US and/or Asia?
Not sure how much of those strategies they can divulge, but INFN does tend to be pretty forthcoming in discussing the business including future scenarios.