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: E. Graphs who wrote (46124)	1/28/1998 11:27:00 PM
From: Gary Wisdom	Read Replies (9) \| Respond to of 58324

E. Graphs, this one's for you: Must reading for all As I mourn the loss of my investment, I've taken some time to validate Susan Stillings assertion of really how well Iomega stockholders are doing. I found some interesting tidbits for all: I tracked the stock price from January, 1995 to present. A three year period. During that period, there were 158 weeks. In that time, there were 65 weeks where the stock traded under $8 the entire time. There were 20 weeks where the stock traded both above and below $8. And there were 73 weeks where the stock traded above $8 the entire time. Out of those 65 weeks when the stock traded under $8 the entire time, 62 of them occurred PRIOR to March 25, 1996. Basically, if you bought before this date, you have either a large profit in this stock, or barely any. Of the following 93 weeks, in 90 of them, investors for the most part paid more than $8, with the vast vast majority paying much more than that. So, the great, great majority of Iomega shareholders have lost money in this company if they bought and held. Of those that bought prior to March 1996, while they made money, and while some made very good returns, considering where the stock is now, their money has been dead for quite a while. In other words, a very, very mediocre investment. From another perspective, during the week of May 20, 1996, the stock price hit $27.56 (no question this was a ridiculous valuation, but that's not the point). Anyone that bought prior to this date has seen their investment drop more than 70% in the almost 2 years to follow. You cannot refute this point. Anyone had the opportunity to sell their shares at $27. The fact that one didn't has caused them to see their investment in Iomega depreciate 70% over a 2 year period, a truly awful performance. As for the other 95% of Iomega investors that bought after March, 1996, this $27 price is irrelevant (except for those that paid this price and held). However, for 99% of these poor souls, they have either lost money or seen a zero return for the past almost 2 years. In addition, while I did not total the weekly trading volumes, I can tell you that the great, great majority of shares purchased were purchased above $8. Except for 240MM shares (post-split) traded on June 5, 1995, the majority of trades took place on dates where the price exceeded $8. I defy anyone on this thread or anywhere to counter these FACTS and explain to me how KE has done a good job maximizing shareholder value for anyone (but himself). Folks, these are the FACTS. As for me, my average cost now is a little above $11. Not as good as Allen's I'm sure, but not as bad as many. I chose to invest in Iomega under my own free will, and I choose to inform others on this thread that all is not well in the magic kingdom. I am not recommending selling your shares at this level, nor am I recommending or giving any investment advice here. I just thought that all would benefit from knowing the FACTS. Thank you for your consideration. :>(