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: Reseller who wrote (45915)	1/27/1998 9:36:00 PM
From: Gary Wisdom	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 58324

Reseller, re: Stillings. Doesn't it strike you that they have no concern whatsoever for the stock price? Sorry, but anyone that bought after january of last year has lost money. Now. if the company lost money, I can understand this. But, with a company with as good growth as has Iomega has actually seen their investors lose money with the company, doesn't that make you question their concern for their shareholders? Ok, so everyone that bought prior to, I don't know exactly, but let's say, Feb 1996 is still up in their investment. However, since then, they've lost money. Is that still a good investment? What about the millions of investors that bought sometime this year? Shouldn't they care about them too? As for margin and options, well, I understand your position there. Margin is not that relevant and with options, you always bear a risk. However, if I recall correctly, the great majority of the posters here have been "crying" since December 1, whether they were long term investors or "shorter" term investors. Your conversation with Stillings only confirms what I already knew: present Iomega management is getting exactly what they deserve: a stock price that reflects very poorly on the company. Whaa whaa.

To: Reseller who wrote (45915)	1/27/1998 9:50:00 PM
From: Alan Rosen	Respond to of 58324

Reseller, Your account of the conversation with Susan S. leaves me with the strong impression that a "bunker mentality" exists and that the company is not willing to admit any responsibility for the havoc wreaked on shareholders. Comments seem to defend the recent split as a "value" to investors. Twice as many shares at half the value....helllloooo! It is pretty clear that IOM isn't going to do anything to satisfy their investors or the "street" until they are forced to do so. So until we control about 100 mil shares we are SOL. archcc

To: Reseller who wrote (45915)	1/27/1998 10:38:00 PM
From: Cogito	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 58324

>>Susan questioned the return on my investment and after stating that I had been invested for over two years and the value of the stock is less now than it was then she asked how many stock splits I had as if to suggest that an adequate return had occurred. I would suggest that Iomega not look back over two years ago to validate their position we hear too much about years ago. How much better have they done for the owners of the company if after growing as much as they have and spending as much as they have we are worth less ?<< Reseller - If you have been invested in this stock for over two years, then your stock could not possibly be worth less than it was when you bought it. I first invested in Iomega one year and eleven months ago, and when you account for the splits, the cost basis of my original shares is less than four dollars. So I'm still looking at more than a 100% return in two years. But of course, anyone who invested last January is now just barely even if they are lucky. So I agree with you that the company has not done right by all of its investors. A long term view of shareholder value is fine by me, as I am a long term investor. But there is a difference between a taking a long term view and giving it no consideration whatsoever. I'm glad you spoke to Stillings about that. Bet it's not fun to be her right now. - Allen