SI
SI
discoversearch

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.
Non-Tech : Any info about Iomega (IOM)?

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Tom Carroll who wrote (4935)10/17/1996 6:37:00 PM
From: Tom Carroll   of 58324
 
Predictions

To all:

Revisit messages 4935 and 5057. In those, I called 96Q3
revenues at "about $300 million." Not bad, especially after
having earlier called 96Q2 earnings at a dime to twelve cents.
(They came out at eleven cents, of course.)

If you play the really long game, you don't need to worry about
all the shorts and the options players and so on, because they
can't affect the price permanently. Only fundamentals can do that.
The fundamentals are there for this stock. (Every once in a while,
while you're calling up all those intraday IOMG charts from
Lombard, be sure to sneak in a historical chart of the last
365 days or so. Even with that mad momentum run-up in the
spring putting a funny wrinkle on things, a year-long chart
can be a very revealing indicator.)

I encourage those of you who've been flaming like crazy on
this thread to turn your creative efforts instead to the kind of
synthetic, informed speculating I tried in those two messages.
I'll come back with the same, work permitting, after I've had
a chance to digest the latest news. We'll help each other out
much better that way than we will with what's been passing for
"contributions" here lately.

Then again, I'm just a McGovern-Era Democrat who can spell
without resorting to a spell-checker, like Janice, so maybe
you should ignore me if you judge the merits of an argument
largely on ad hominem or ideological grounds rather than on
the substance of the argument. (Sorry, I owed this to my
Irish Democrat ancestors who would have died without a little
New Deal protection following the accidental death of my
grandfather--a very successful self-made businessman--in
May 1930, just after the crash.)

A more substantive reason to ignore me is if you want to make
even quicker bucks with riskier investing. I concede that it's
harder to get rich quick my way than it is with options and day
trading, though it's also _much_ harder to crash and burn.

Cheers, Tom (foolishly long IOMG-soon-to-be-IOM @ 44,
though I'm still up big on this stock overall even with my
more boneheaded purchases in late spring; were it not for
them, this post would belong 100% in the "gloating" bin,
rather than just 90%)
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext