Investment secures OCZ’s near future – needs more money fast

We’ve just posted the following news: Investment secures OCZ’s near future – needs more money fast[newsimage]http://static.myce.com//images_posts/2009/11/OCZ.jpg[/newsimage]

OCZ has secured $13 million in private placement which should help the company to survive the near future. The company continues to suffer from a bad financial situation.

            Read the full article here: [http://www.myce.com/news/investment-secures-oczs-near-future-needs-more-money-fast-68434/](http://www.myce.com/news/investment-secures-oczs-near-future-needs-more-money-fast-68434/)

            Please note that the reactions from the complete site will be synched below.

This seems to be a narrow ledge to walk. I am wary of an industry that deals in Hundreds Of Millions then having a well-recognized member need to scrape together the odd $10 or 13 mil.

OCZ may not have expenditures on much more than marketing or distribution (and then, tens of millions would be substantial).

I think we’d benefit if they’d remain a strong competitor.

[B]OCZ signs distribution deal with Tech Data, shares higher [/B]

[ul]
[li]Tech Data, one of the world’s biggest IT hardware distributors, will resell OCZ’s (OCZ +6.4%) enterprise and PC SSDs via North American and Latin American sales channels. (PR)[/li][li]Tech Data’s Advanced Infrastructure Solutions unit, which will be responsible for distributing OCZ’s SSDs, has over 17.5K resellers.[/li][li]OCZ tumbled last week after announcing a $13M sale of debentures/warrants carrying less-than-favorable terms, and stating it has hired Deutsche to evaluate strategic alternatives.[/li][li]Shares -24% YTD.[/li][/ul]SOURCE

To be honest, I’ve always been bigoted against the OCZ name, because I always associated it with factory overclocked gamer RAM marketed to teenagers. I didn’t take the brand seriously and didn’t want to trust them in my PC. But they might actually make good stuff, I never took it seriously enough to find out. I’m sure they’ve moved beyond the kind of products I associated them with.
I don’t like seeing small competitors fail - in any market I’d rather have several smaller competitors than a few larger consolidated ones. So I’m hoping OCZ can dig out of their situation.

[QUOTE=shamino;2697320]To be honest, I’ve always been bigoted against the OCZ name, because I always associated it with factory overclocked gamer RAM marketed to teenagers. I didn’t take the brand seriously and didn’t want to trust them in my PC. But they might actually make good stuff, I never took it seriously enough to find out. I’m sure they’ve moved beyond the kind of products I associated them with.
I don’t like seeing small competitors fail - in any market I’d rather have several smaller competitors than a few larger consolidated ones. So I’m hoping OCZ can dig out of their situation.[/QUOTE]

But that’s an obvious contradiction. How can a company without strong profit base survive? Especially if it’s a US company. I know very many here on this community love the name OCZ. But just how many of them would be paying 20% or 50% more just to save OCZ? Would any of you pay $700 for a 500GB OCZ SSD when a better Samsung SSD costs $300 just because you want one more small competitor to remain in the market? $10 million is by no means a big money. Semiconductor companies regularly invest $10 billion at once just to stay rather than go ahead of the competitors. Any individual, any company could invest $50 million or $500 million into OCZ, but nobody did. You want cheaper OCZ drives. That only means you want OCZ profits to drop. Which means you want OCZ to go out of business.

[QUOTE=Kenshin;2698661]But that’s an obvious contradiction. How can a company without strong profit base survive? Especially if it’s a US company.[/QUOTE]Well, you’d have to ask Amazon.com that one. :stuck_out_tongue:

[QUOTE=Kenshin;2698661]But that’s an obvious contradiction. How can a company without strong profit base survive? Especially if it’s a US company. I know very many here on this community love the name OCZ. But just how many of them would be paying 20% or 50% more just to save OCZ? Would any of you pay $700 for a 500GB OCZ SSD when a better Samsung SSD costs $300 just because you want one more small competitor to remain in the market? $10 million is by no means a big money. Semiconductor companies regularly invest $10 billion at once just to stay rather than go ahead of the competitors. Any individual, any company could invest $50 million or $500 million into OCZ, but nobody did. You want cheaper OCZ drives. That only means you want OCZ profits to drop. Which means you want OCZ to go out of business.[/QUOTE]

I have yet to buy any SSD. But I’d consider paying 20-50% more if I thought a product was of better quality than the cheaper mainstream product. As a total non-consumer of SSDs, I have no opinion of any brand differences in this market.

Small doesn’t have to mean unprofitable. Small is a relative term, ie smaller than Samsung or Intel, but that doesn’t mean tiny. I’d rather have 6-8 smaller to medium sized competitors, than an oligopoly of 2 or 3. However, this is often the long term outcome. There comes a point where a few big names become entrenched, wield enormous influence over tangential factors, and it’s no longer viable for anyone else to enter or compete.