Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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.

Technology Stocks : Corvis Corporation (CORV) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: James Fulop who wrote (316)	3/6/2001 11:05:43 AM
From: Jeff Jordan	Respond to of 2772

something wrong with this picture

To: James Fulop who wrote (316)	3/6/2001 11:06:35 AM
From: Jeff Jordan	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 2772

5 mil shares traded nothing but down...somebody knows something?....something stinks here?

To: James Fulop who wrote (316)	3/6/2001 11:24:26 AM
From: Bill Tomko	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 2772

CSFB today specifically commented that NUFO's problems were NOT repeat NOT related to CORV. CSFB stated that based upon channel checks they thought CORV was at or ahead of plan. IMO todays sell off is "shot first ask questions later" reaction to NUFO. As one of the previous posters noted, unless you think this tech. is some kind of scam black box it makes no sense, short or long term for the company to be trading at ~ 2 times cash.

To: James Fulop who wrote (316)	3/6/2001 2:35:32 PM
From: GraceZ	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 2772

James, after reading your message I was inclined to agree with you, but I thought I'd better go listen to the call again to confirm. I was almost through listening and had half my response to you typed when a woman analyst asked some questions about a beam splitter and she named Corvis by name as a company that has an inventory bubble. There was no correction on the part of NUFO when they answered her question, so I have to assume the original assessment that CORV is one of the two companies sitting on too much inventory is correct.