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: FuzzFace who wrote (41163)	12/21/1997 6:02:00 PM
From: Dale Stempson	Respond to of 58324

Thank you Ron and Edwin, This makes more sense to me. It's also too bad that BO would take the costing comments so far out of context. I'm looking forward to listening to the CC as soon as I can resolve a little problem I'm having with my Mac (yeah, I'm one of those Mac fanatics). BTW Edwin, I'd be happy to give you my comments. Regards - Dale

To: FuzzFace who wrote (41163)	12/21/1997 8:10:00 PM
From: KM	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 58324

OT: Any math whizzes out there? I need help with this one if anyone has any ideas: The assertion was made on a trading listgroup that 'all summation series converge to 0.618' (or its inverse, 1.618) in the context of a discussion of Fibonacci "ratios". The author didn't define the series parameters, but this seems to me a little hard to believe. It seem like it would be fairly easy to construct a (converging) summation series that doesn't converge to 0.618, but I'd like to hear some opinions from those more current in the area than I am. Thanks. I think I know the answer I am going to get but we'll see.

To: FuzzFace who wrote (41163)	12/22/1997 3:00:00 AM
From: Dale Stempson	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 58324

Re: Emerald CC & Rosencran's $10 - $12 loss comment Edwin, My initial reaction to the conference call was that there really wasn't all that much in the way of new information. Aside from some specifics with regards to analyst's estimates, the comments and opinions of the group largely reflect what we've already discussed here on this thread. You asked for my interpretation of the comment regarding selling OEM Zips in the future at a $10 to $12 dollar loss: I believe what Howard Rosencrans was trying to say is that Iomega will lose $10 to $12 each, selling Zips to OEMs at less than $50 when compared to selling Zips to non-OEMs. In other words, Iomega's Zip OEM margins will be significantly lower than their Zip retail channel margins. If they sold to OEMs at $50, then their price to non-OEMs would be $60-$62. (Iomega would still make a profit, but not nearly as much). This would also explain Howard's subsequent comments with regards to how OEMs enjoy the benefits of "ridiculous margins" because their costs are so low by comparison. This is the only explanation I can come up with that makes sense to me. If I'm correct in my interpretation, then I think Howard brings up a good point. Margins for boxmakers are pretty low, and with Zip demand increasing, those who can today offer built-in Zips stand to benefit. I could see more OEMs and SKUs offering Zips in order to take advantage of this current margin opportunity. Regards - Dale