RE: Shallow Arguments.
Can you back up any of your statements? Many appear to be erroneous:
>> leading Jaz sales 2-1 <<
This is certainly not reflected in the channels I check. It appears to be AT LEAST 2-1 Jaz over SparQ, and considerably more in some channels. The $100 price cut in Jaz (and the introduction of the new Jaz2) appears to be working wonders (at least in the Jaz line) for Iomega.
>> clear focus of product <<
And just what is that focus? Low-end? Power-user? Low-end still prefers Zip (because it's cheaper). Power-user still prefers SyJet or Jaz (because they are SCSI).
>> 1 gig product with ramp of 25,000 units to 175,000 to 300,000 Sparq sequentially <<
Are you talking future ramp? I think it was 38,000 in Q1. I'll agree that 175,000 is reasonable in Q2. 300,000 in Q3 is yet to be seen. (Am I reading you wrong here?)
>> This is what has come from the $200 million infusion that you refer to as dilution. <<
So for a $200 million "investment", they've sold less than 250,000 drives. At $200 each, that's only $50 million.
>> Compare Syqt & Iom on P/S basis, then you see that the dilution argument is hollow. <<
I have. I'm glad to see that you're looking at P/S ratios for SYQT. I think it's the most valid way to value companies like this. See message #reply-3559190. I had one with a table of SYQT's market caps over the years, too, but can't find it.
IOM: Revenues $1.74 Billion, Market Cap $1.7 Billion. P/S Ratio 0.98.
SYQT: Revenues $107 Million, Market Cap $216 Million. P/S Ratio 2.02.
>> Iomega & Syqt will cross price within 5 months. <<
Stranger things have happened. I guess we'll see in five months.
- Michael Coley
- wwol.com |
