To: Noneyet who wrote (2242 ) 10/1/1999 4:44:00 PM From: David Colvin Read Replies (2) | Respond to
Do you mean that we should put parameters on what we are allowed to talk about as it pertains to fcm, and that its history should not be included in those guidelines ? You sound fairly logical to me in your post except for that and one other item. you discuss here....God knows I and others have tried. Rather, the things I spelled out are the only things I will discuss with you in a logical, rational manner. I don't want to discuss things that happened circa in 1996 (such as Intrine or the "AT&T lawsuit"...too $%#@& long ago to have a MATERIAL effect on FCM's/FNet's future growth from today. You sound fairly logical to me in your post except for that and one other item. and the cons with me! No company that has $10.6 million in revenue in one year is all bad....not even FCM! The first is that a company's history should never be discounted, more so because management has remained the same. Not when that "history" goes back so far that dinosaurs were feeding in Colorado! Secondly, Iomega is a very bad example to use, as it subsequently fell after that offering, and I remember that well, as I was a shareholder myself at the time. It is also painfully obvious, that Iomega has remained on the canvas for a very long now. nothing to do with the secondary offering....period. It had to do with a gigantic short squeeze that culminated on May 21, 1996 with Iomega closing at $27 per share (split adjusted), and bankrupted one hedge fund (over $500 million in losses). The stock price should never have reached those levels in the first place.way before their real problems surfaced and had nothing to do with their problems of losing money for nearly all of 1998 and so far in 1999. However, with Iomega commanding over 80% of their market segment, I feel that some day (who knows, maybe this quarter, Q3) they will figure out how to sell $1.5 billion worth of products and make money !
