Dear TED,
I am frankly astonished that no one see any significance that the Y2K mutual fund of EMERALD does not hold ZITL in its top ten holdings and may not hold it at all. Does it really matter at all what EMERALD says in print or at a conference if they are not investing in the company? I'd say this says something mighty big about why they wrote positive research reports. Can you give me ONE logical and reasonable explanation for them not holding ZITL in their Y2K mutual fund? Don't dodge the question, just a simple answer. Show me my ignorance in this, and I'll go long on ZITL again. If no one can offer some explanation, then I might just break my rule of never shorting stocks and make ZITL my first short, because this one fact sure does seem to me that EMERALD sees no potential out of Matridigm, and if that is the case, this is a guaranteed ride to zero by June, 1998. I say that based on IBM's lack of confidence in ZITL's core business. By the way, I didn't see ZITL listed in this press release. Any thoughts?
biz.yahoo.com
I remain,
SOROS
ps Thanks for the invite to FBN, but my bats keep me plenty busy. Mad Monk would not approve, either, I think. |
