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: Naggrachi who wrote (50355)	3/17/1998 12:31:00 AM
From: Gottfried	Respond to of 58324

Zead, you're very right when you say >Joe sixpack, doesn't know any better. In his mind he's thinking, "Wow, that guy is good, how did he see this coming."< Not everyone has the time or interest. Some watch only Wall Street Week and expect that to be enough. You noticed how the guests on these shows are always the same regulars? Almost like our threads.<g> GM

To: Naggrachi who wrote (50355)	3/17/1998 6:04:00 AM
From: Jock Hutchinson	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 58324

Both descriptions of CNBC's comments are in part false as to content but accurate as to substance. The short seller was Myron Berman. CNBC made it very clear that Iomega's current price reflected splits and that the six to nine dollars Myron Berman predicted was before the splits. However, Berman was a rabid short seller of Iomega at a split adjusted price of about $7.50 on up in 1996, so it is doubtful if he made any money on his short as CNBC implied. Berman was also a world class buffoon who looked foolish getting into shouting matches with the "SOAS Bandits". "Squawk Box" virtually went up for grabs when Myron was "Guest Host", although he provided welcome contrast with the ceaseless variety of talking heads pandered by other brokerages. But just as important is the fact that since Berman's appearances in April and May of '96 no one has made a dime on Iomega. Tens of thousands of small investors lured by the various hype on chat lines have lost money--hardly the "stuff" of which brand loyalty is made. The wonder stock of '95 and early '96 has underperformed the market with bleak prospects in the near future. Finally, we now hear a lot about people who were around at the start. What nonsense. The company has been around for almost two decades. What start are people talking about? And more importantly, Aren't we much closer to the end? After all, current management sold out before the recent debacles. What hope is there for them? Why would anyone want to invest in a company when its most ardent supporters express a near vitriolic hate for the CEO? Who knows? Maybe Dr. Iomega did work for Iomega. Just not in the way he said he did, but rather as shill for management whose job was to buy time for management so they could dump what they could. Would any respectable company want to buy this mess? Might there not be problems with the books thus preventing a takeover? Who wants to buy into a law suit that on the face of things has merit? At every level in the market, it's about trust. This latest announcement was as ambiguous as these announcements can be. These hucksters have no credibility left. The end is sooner than many wish to believe. Its epitath will be that the company had a superior transitional portable storage product line, but failed because of management lack of integrity.