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.

Non-Tech : Any info about Iomega (IOM)? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: jwk who wrote (37472)	11/25/1997 8:51:00 PM
From: KM	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 58324

Aren't these guys the ones who juiced it up to 55 last year?

To: jwk who wrote (37472)	11/25/1997 9:27:00 PM
From: KM	Respond to of 58324

Jack: <<Can the Calbot Tribe produce a short squeeze just by riding into town>> When you throw them in with Vinik, who squeezes shorts til they die, could get hairy <GG>

To: jwk who wrote (37472)	11/26/1997 12:03:00 PM
From: Cameron Dorey	Respond to of 58324

OK, let's get this Cabot stuff straight, a little history here: The Cabot newsletter has actually told newsletter readers to buy Iomega about 4 times, the time before this latest in February, 1996, when IOMG was selling for about 8 (split-adjusted). The newsletter kept rating IOMG a "buy" through the runup to 55 in late May or early June, and only advised to "sell" when the stock had fallen back to 25 or so (which was only a couple of weeks after the top). Therefore, the newsletter was possibly responsible for some of the runup, but did not jump in during the last couple of weeks when things went crazy (and they did go crazy, up 10 points in a day, if I remember right), and that particular momentum newsletter was not responsible for the crash, because it was way late in giving a sell signal, the stock having lost >50% from its top. Get the facts straight before going in guns-a-blazing. Cameron "Pride is what we have. Vanity is what others have."