Thursday, August 26th 2021

KIOXIA and Western Digital in Merger Talks

KIOXIA and Western Digital are in talks to merge, creating a behemoth in the data storage industry. This would be KIOXIA's first big corporate move after being spun off from Toshiba Corporation as its flash memory business. The combination—if it goes through—would essentially see the merger of three distinct brands—KIOXIA, Western Digital, and SanDisk; with KIOXIA and SanDisk bringing together market-leading expertise in flash memory; and Western Digital bringing in "warm" and cold storage solutions, such as hard drives. 5G is expected to create an explosion in data, and the merged trans-Pacific entity could more effectively address it. A deal worth $20 billion could be struck by mid-September, if the merger talks succeed. KIOXIA is declining to comment on the story, as it prepares its IPO that includes shares from Toshiba and Bain Capital. Shares of Western Digital, meanwhile, are trading up.
Source: Bloomberg
Add your own comment

21 Comments on KIOXIA and Western Digital in Merger Talks

#1
Dragokar
I am not a fan of this idea, it would be nice to have Kioxia alive alone.
Posted on Reply
#2
tripleclicker
DragokarI am not a fan of this idea, it would be nice to have Kioxia alive alone.
Neither am I. They already have Hitachi, that would leave Seagate alone.

Baaaaaddddd.:fear:
Posted on Reply
#4
TheLostSwede
tripleclickerNeither am I. They already have Hitachi, that would leave Seagate alone.

Baaaaaddddd.:fear:
Toshiba still makes the spinning rust...
Posted on Reply
#5
freeagent
TheLostSwedeToshiba still makes the spinning rust...
I’ve got a 1TB Toshiba spinner in my rig. That 5400 rpm laptop drive is about as fast as the original 1TB black :D
Posted on Reply
#6
TheLostSwede
freeagentI’ve got a 1TB Toshiba spinner in my rig. That 5400 rpm laptop drive is about as fast as the original 1TB black :D
I have four 4TB drives in my NAS.
Posted on Reply
#7
Valantar
Yaaaaay .... 'cause what we really need is an even more conglomerated storage industry. Yes. That sounds like a good idea. What could possibly go wrong?


I sincerely hope this is shut down immediately by whatever regulatory agencies are relevant. The storage sector needs more competition, not less.
Posted on Reply
#9
zlobby
tripleclickerNeither am I. They already have Hitachi, that would leave Seagate alone.

Baaaaaddddd.:fear:
Yeah, but when all banks in the world are actually controlled by couple of people it doesn't seem to induce so much fear? Odd. :confused:
Posted on Reply
#10
W1zzard
zlobbyYeah, but when all banks in the world are actually controlled by couple of people
Just look up free float of those banks
Posted on Reply
#11
zlobby
W1zzardJust look up free float of those banks
And that gives you any confidence? When even with a small part of the shares they hold the ENTIRE ledger? :) Or maybe because their major shareholders somehow differ from them? I project a bright future for all mankind! Or who knows, maybe I'm just the next run-of-the-mill nutjob? I guess time will tell, eh?
Posted on Reply
#12
CheapMeat
This isn't good for the market; constant mergers.
Posted on Reply
#13
Valantar
zlobbyAnd that gives you any confidence? When even with a small part of the shares they hold the ENTIRE ledger? :) Or maybe because their major shareholders somehow differ from them? I project a bright future for all mankind! Or who knows, maybe I'm just the next run-of-the-mill nutjob? I guess time will tell, eh?
Well, isn't that why we have external oversight and regulation from democratically controlled bodies? Bodies with actual laws, and actual power to enforce them? At least that's the idea - though neoliberals have been doing everything they can to ruin those systems since the Reagan administration. Funnily enough, in my experience the people professing the most hatred towards banks and how crypto will/should save us all also tend to vote for the people deregulating those very banks, undermining the agencies tasked with regulating them, etc. Thought that's just my experience.
CheapMeatThis isn't good for the market; constant mergers.
Depends how you define "the market" I guess - for the people at the top, this is great for the market. They get to set the prices, decide on supply, control as much of the value chain as possible. "Efficiency", they say - yes, efficient extraction of money from the pockets of customers.
Posted on Reply
#14
zlobby
ValantarWell, isn't that why we have external oversight and regulation from democratically controlled bodies? Bodies with actual laws, and actual power to enforce them? At least that's the idea - though neoliberals have been doing everything they can to ruin those systems since the Reagan administration. Funnily enough, in my experience the people professing the most hatred towards banks and how crypto will/should save us all also tend to vote for the people deregulating those very banks, undermining the agencies tasked with regulating them, etc. Thought that's just my experience.
The same bodies of power that regulate Afghanistan, Middle East, Vietnam, the Balkans? I bet they all loved the fresh import of democray?

Or it might be different democratic bodies of power that regulate finaces, like the guys who bailed all hedge funds during the recent Robin Hood weaponised autism act? I'm not sure, I may be mixing them all.

As for the experiences, I found out they can vary wildly for each individual.
Posted on Reply
#15
Jack1n
I do hope that if the merger goes ahead, they would still keep the branding separate. I find KIOXIA's quality to be lacking.
Posted on Reply
#16
Valantar
zlobbyThe same bodies of power that regulate Afghanistan, Middle East, Vietnam, the Balkans? I bet they all loved the fresh import of democray?
I think you're confusing the role of domestic regulatory bodies, international governmental bodies, and foreign policy (including, sadly, warfare). If anything, nobody "regulates" most of the places you mention, in large part due to imperialist interventions from the US and NATO. Though it's a bit odd to include the Balkans on that list considering they're still struggling with the breakdown of a dictatorship and subsequent creation of various new states, had a genocidal civil war where the UN proved itself utterly ineffectual in stepping in, etc. International society failed them, true, but the responsibility for what happened isn't on anyone but the people in power there at the time. Vietnam is a reasonably well functioning (if extremely corrupt) one-party state that has done an amazing job at rebuilding after yet another US imperialist shitshow. It's definitely not perfect by any measure, but considering what it went through, it really isn't bad.

But, again, how does this relate to trade regulatory bodies? Yes, those can absolutely be (and very often are) instruments for imperialism, but ... that's not applicable in this case whatsoever. And I utterly and completely fail to see how the fact that the west has generally screwed over, exploited and brutalized the rest of the world for the past few centuries is relevant to whether or not trade regulation is a good thing. Trade regulations can (and do) exist outside of western countries, after all.

It's also pretty naïve to talk detrimentally about "democracy" in relation to US warfare - the US is barely a functioning democracy at all, with its current legislation, governmental practices and power relations being much closer to an oligarchy. That they love to propagandize their imperialist warfare through racist and colonialist ideas of "exporting democracy" and similar BS is just how they try to sell it to the general public. The US drive to war is backed by massive corporations, their owners, and the deeply self-interested US military, and has near zero relation to the more democratically controlled parts of US society. Like, when was the last time an elected US official argued for cutting military spending? They would be buried under a mountain of propaganda and slander and would be pushed out immediately, regardless of actual public opinion.
zlobbyOr it might be different democratic bodies of power that regulate finaces, like the guys who bailed all hedge funds during the recent Robin Hood weaponised autism act? I'm not sure, I may be mixing them all.
... let's see:
ValantarAt least that's the idea - though neoliberals have been doing everything they can to ruin those systems since the Reagan administration.
So, yes: these bodies are too often utterly ineffectual (or even sufficiently corrupt to work against their intended purpose), in no small part thanks to concerted political efforts from pretty much all politicians in the countries with the most global economic power for the past ~60 years (yes, saying it was since Reagan was a bit optimistic - Milton Friedman's lunatic ideas gained traction in the 60s). But, and this is crucial: is the fact that these systems have been broken (not are broken, but have been actively broken, on purpose, by people wanting to do so) an argument against effective regulation? That makes no logical sense - if anything, recent history shows us what happens when you don't have effective regulation. The problem isn't the systems or the intent behind them, the problem is that every single effective measure at their disposal has been systematically dismantled over a period of decades. Deregulation only further entrenches power in the hands of those who already have it. And that power allows them to hijack any alternative system that is invented - crypto becoming an investor darling is an apt illustration of this.
zlobbyAs for the experiences, I found out they can vary wildly for each individual.
It's uncanny, almost as if that is exactly the point of what I said.
Posted on Reply
#17
zlobby
ValantarI think you're confusing the role of domestic regulatory bodies, international governmental bodies, and foreign policy (including, sadly, warfare). If anything, nobody "regulates" most of the places you mention, in large part due to imperialist interventions from the US and NATO. Though it's a bit odd to include the Balkans on that list considering they're still struggling with the breakdown of a dictatorship and subsequent creation of various new states, had a genocidal civil war where the UN proved itself utterly ineffectual in stepping in, etc. International society failed them, true, but the responsibility for what happened isn't on anyone but the people in power there at the time. Vietnam is a reasonably well functioning (if extremely corrupt) one-party state that has done an amazing job at rebuilding after yet another US imperialist shitshow. It's definitely not perfect by any measure, but considering what it went through, it really isn't bad.

But, again, how does this relate to trade regulatory bodies? Yes, those can absolutely be (and very often are) instruments for imperialism, but ... that's not applicable in this case whatsoever. And I utterly and completely fail to see how the fact that the west has generally screwed over, exploited and brutalized the rest of the world for the past few centuries is relevant to whether or not trade regulation is a good thing. Trade regulations can (and do) exist outside of western countries, after all.

It's also pretty naïve to talk detrimentally about "democracy" in relation to US warfare - the US is barely a functioning democracy at all, with its current legislation, governmental practices and power relations being much closer to an oligarchy. That they love to propagandize their imperialist warfare through racist and colonialist ideas of "exporting democracy" and similar BS is just how they try to sell it to the general public. The US drive to war is backed by massive corporations, their owners, and the deeply self-interested US military, and has near zero relation to the more democratically controlled parts of US society. Like, when was the last time an elected US official argued for cutting military spending? They would be buried under a mountain of propaganda and slander and would be pushed out immediately, regardless of actual public opinion.

... let's see:

So, yes: these bodies are too often utterly ineffectual (or even sufficiently corrupt to work against their intended purpose), in no small part thanks to concerted political efforts from pretty much all politicians in the countries with the most global economic power for the past ~60 years (yes, saying it was since Reagan was a bit optimistic - Milton Friedman's lunatic ideas gained traction in the 60s). But, and this is crucial: is the fact that these systems have been broken (not are broken, but have been actively broken, on purpose, by people wanting to do so) an argument against effective regulation? That makes no logical sense - if anything, recent history shows us what happens when you don't have effective regulation. The problem isn't the systems or the intent behind them, the problem is that every single effective measure at their disposal has been systematically dismantled over a period of decades. Deregulation only further entrenches power in the hands of those who already have it. And that power allows them to hijack any alternative system that is invented - crypto becoming an investor darling is an apt illustration of this.

It's uncanny, almost as if that is exactly the point of what I said.
Oh, boy. You're making me multiquote on a mobile, just to receive a warning from the mods to stay on topic... :)

Anyway, the short version.

I used the wrong tense when I mentioned Vietnam and the Balkans. I meant what the U.S. did there, concealed as a democratic act. Since the Balkans is less known to the general public, let me elaborate a bit what US' involvement was there. They basically marched in the Balkans and 'helped' some countries get their 'independence'. It's like Russia to go and help fight for Texas' independence, if Texas was to leave the U.S. forcefully.

As for the rest, as I said I may be mixing all the regulatory bodies, comissions, etc. After all, it's my understanding that they stem from the same place - by the people, for the people [Eagle!:D]

As for the part before the last one, I think it utterly true but it also contradicts completely your previous post, i.e. where we started it all. First you say 'don't worry, everything is regulated' and then 'the regulation is totally broken'. Or maybe I didn't put much effort comprehending it?
Posted on Reply
#18
DeathtoGnomes
So I was relaxing in ...NVM. I had remembered the drama between WD and Toshiba over the bidding for the nand chip division and went looking for the news on that.

finance.yahoo.com/news/western-digital-says-resubmitted-bid-062808765.html

So I ask now, what if, and this is a reach, that this was planned out, since its been less than 2 years and this comes up. Are there any earning reports that indicate Kioxia was in financial trouble?
Posted on Reply
#19
wiak
R.I.P Competition
Posted on Reply
#20
TriCyclops
DragokarI am not a fan of this idea, it would be nice to have Kioxia alive alone.
I agree completely. We have good competition in the market as it is.
Posted on Reply
#21
Valantar
zlobbyOh, boy. You're making me multiquote on a mobile, just to receive a warning from the mods to stay on topic... :)

Anyway, the short version.

I used the wrong tense when I mentioned Vietnam and the Balkans. I meant what the U.S. did there, concealed as a democratic act. Since the Balkans is less known to the general public, let me elaborate a bit what US' involvement was there. They basically marched in the Balkans and 'helped' some countries get their 'independence'. It's like Russia to go and help fight for Texas' independence, if Texas was to leave the U.S. forcefully.

As for the rest, as I said I may be mixing all the regulatory bodies, comissions, etc. After all, it's my understanding that they stem from the same place - by the people, for the people [Eagle!:D]

As for the part before the last one, I think it utterly true but it also contradicts completely your previous post, i.e. where we started it all. First you say 'don't worry, everything is regulated' and then 'the regulation is totally broken'. Or maybe I didn't put much effort comprehending it?
You're misreading me quite dramatically here. I never said anything even remotely close to "don't worry, everything is regulated". I said
ValantarI sincerely hope this is shut down immediately by whatever regulatory agencies are relevant.
Hope for someone to do their job is not faith in them doing so. That should be abundantly clear from the rest of my writing. My hope stems from mergers like this being one of the very, very few instances where trade regulation bodies actually regularly make themselves known. That doesn't mean this part of the process isn't also fundamentally broken and corrupt in most countries (and especially the most powerful ones), it just means that at times they still manage to make sane decisions, and I hope for this to be one of those.

Also, do you think the US invented trade regulations, or government oversight? Uh ... that's rather out there in terms of assumptions. Being the most powerful country on earth for half a century clearly made their version of regulations and the ideologies behind them dominant, but that doesn't mean their way of doing things is the only one in existence. But there are plenty of alternative approaches - though thanks to neoliberal politicians enacting sweeping trade agreements with vast legislative power, these have been on the decline.

As for any of this being "democratic acts" - as I said, the US has effectively been an oligarchy for quite a while now, and it's highly debatable whether US international policy has any relation to its version of democracy. Of course international democracy doesn't exist at all. But nobody in the US has ever voted for going to war, and since WWII (and before, but at least then there was a legitimate threat) there has been a huge propaganda effort put into convincing Americans of the moral right of the US to do as they please militarily and economically, including violent and systematic suppression of dissenting voices. So again, any claim to democratic involvement in those things is tenuous at best. Which is exactly why I said this:
ValantarWell, isn't that why we have external oversight and regulation from democratically controlled bodies? Bodies with actual laws, and actual power to enforce them? At least that's the idea - though neoliberals have been doing everything they can to ruin those systems
The idea has been implemented, worked well for a while, but has been systematically deconstructed and is currently a shell of what it was. That doesn't mean it doesn't occasionally work - but it's down to a lot of luck and happenstance. And I hope we're lucky enough for this to be one of those cases.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment