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: Fred Fahmy who wrote (46147)	1/29/1998 12:58:00 AM
From: jwk	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 58324

FF -- You are right about the numbers you posted. My complaint is in the tone and nature of the the CC's, particularly the last one. As I have said here several times recently, "He can tell it like it is without telling it like he did." The growth numbers speak for themself and are a great accomplishment. But, this boat's got two oars and he ain't rowin' with one of them. respectfully, jwk

To: Fred Fahmy who wrote (46147)	1/29/1998 1:27:00 AM
From: Reseller	Respond to of 58324

Fred, If they could manage the return for their investors stock value as well as their revenue numbers than we wouldn't be talking about this issue Given credit where credit is due, but also call a spade a spade. The fact of the matter is that there's mismanagement of our stock value. Gary's summation aptly points out this fact out. If they can't toot their own horn than who will ? The poor slops that tried to toot IOM's horn during the vcall got slaughtered. I'm sure that we won't see that type of effort by analyst again. The excuse that IOM uses to deny business plan data to the analyst has been competition. There are areas that IOM could enhance the value of our investments without running into that hide all litigation curtain. Still Long IOM but wanting changes Reseller

To: Fred Fahmy who wrote (46147)	1/29/1998 11:07:00 AM
From: Cogito	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 58324

>>KE's job is to deliver the numbers. Blaming him because WS is not rewarding this performance is ridiculous. You keep forgetting that he, more, than anyone else, gets hurt when the stock gets hit. I'm sure he is extremely fustrated in light of these extrodinary accomplishments.<< Fred - Delivering the numbers is, fairly or not, only part of a CEO's job. Communicating the state of the business to the investment community is another very important duty. - Allen

To: Fred Fahmy who wrote (46147)	1/29/1998 12:52:00 PM
From: RetiredNow	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 58324

That's what I just can't figure. If their results are so good why is this stock so volatile. Answer: mostly individuals and thread lurkers are invested in this stock, no many big institutions. The real problem is that KE seems to be great at growing the company and marketing his product, but shitty at guiding analysts. And guess what, IOM and all of us are getting punished for it. I'm not too sad because I only own 200 shares at avg price of $15. Most of my real money is in the BIG stalwarts like LU, CPQ, MSFT, CSCO, and INTC. But this should be a lesson to everyone. If you are going to play high risk, do it with a small percentage of your portfolio. It's just called diversification. Endnote: don't worry, the price will go up in 6 months to a year. In the meantime, chill and enjoy the ride.

To: Fred Fahmy who wrote (46147)	1/29/1998 5:03:00 PM
From: John Alan Wallace	Respond to of 58324

<<<but in this case KE has an excellent track record and all is going according to plan. FF >>> That is exactly what I am afraid of!!!! Would a stock buyback be a good idea? Maybe in the short term but never in the long run. This would definately be like shorting your own company and if allowed to work would become (if it hasn't already) part of the culture of the company. I say if Iomega buy back their stock at these levels after the last CC that it is indeed a SCAM. JW