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: sheila rothstein who wrote (48466)	2/21/1998 2:30:00 PM
From: Senthil Sankarappan	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 58324

RE: 8/12 page advt. in WSJ Shiela and all, Lot of people are questioning about this big expense for IOM now. But i think IOM wanted to give a strong message to the corporate world. WSJ is highly respected and is read by almost all top level corporate people. These are the people who take high level decisions and set the path for their companies. So, i guess IOM just wanted to get into their minds. Whenever they see an IOM product, they will think about this 12 page advt and if this happens, i think IOM achieved its goal though they might have paid some big money for this. But may be this will get many times that money in return. I am always a supporter of heavy advertisement and brand name recognition. KO, INTC, AOL all did the same thing and it is no surprise that advertisement works. Remember, AOL was not profitable for a long time and are making profits only in the past 2 Qtrs while IOM has been profitable for 2 years. Like you said, they are not too bothered about share prices in short term and are looking at building an IOM empire for long term. I m sure short term traders will be very pissed off but if you are a long term holder, you will feel happy about yourselves few years from now. IOM sure will have the run up of DELL and AOL but nobody knows when it will happen. People will start to celebrate only after that happens. Just my 2c -senthil

To: sheila rothstein who wrote (48466)	2/21/1998 2:51:00 PM
From: Ron Flanigan	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 58324

Sheila: You too! Brutus! A doctor friend was sitting on the next bar stool at our Yacht Club complaining about the high cost of malpractice insurance. The conversation went like: Doctor: You trial lawyers are going to put us out of practice. Ron: Come on Richard. Quite complaining. Have another. Doctor: I'll tell you Ron, my malpractice insurance cost me $48,000.00 last year. That was one months income. Ron: Really. There was a long silence. My friend had stuck his foot where? My precision brain said, let's us see, 12 X $48,000.00=$576,000.00 minus $48,000.00 which leaves $528,000.00 for the years gross income.Assume his overhead was 50%, which I doubt very much. Let's see, that is $264,000.00 pre-tax income. Deduct 35% taxes and that is a take home of $171,600.00. The long pause continued. The bar was empty other than the two of us. Finally I said: Ron: Richard, you have my sympathy ---Marine Corps fashion. Doctor: Whats Marine Corps fashion? Ron: Check the dictionary for sympathy. It falls between shit and syphilis. That is the Marine Corps definition for sympathy. I feel for your problem. Doctor: You are not paying $48,000.00 per year for your malpractice insurance. Ron: No and I ain't grossing $576,000.00 per year either. I also ain't delivering babies like you. The conversation ended. My friend the doctor is still my friend. We do not see as much of each other as we once did. We do not sit at the Yacht Club bar sucking down cold ones anymore. We both have had the experience of MI. Our life styles have changed. Our priorities have likewise changed. Now, my take on why 8 law firms are involved. It's like my sainted Grandmother would say "Where there is smoke, there is fire." BUT I really do not know anything at the moment. I will, after I receive their complaint and other documentation. Ron

To: sheila rothstein who wrote (48466)	2/21/1998 4:22:00 PM
From: Michael Coley	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 58324

RE: Six Law Firms. Sheila, >> I think it's amazing that 8* law firms are competing for lead council to sue IOM. <<* Ooops, sorry for starting that false rumor. The last two in my list... uhmm... "haven't been confirmed": 7) Curly, Larry, and Mo LLP [Unconfirmed] 8) Dewey, Cheatem and Howe [Unconfirmed] - Michael Coley - wwol.com