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.

Technology Stocks : SYQUEST -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JP who wrote (6160)	4/16/1998 12:05:00 AM
From: Peter	Respond to of 7685

i think the earnings announcement is within a week - they moved it up from a published may date. the PC mag item has been out for a while - i'd say the bump from that has already been realized. i the m. coley has done a consistently solid job of examining this stock and decided a while ago to pull out. i hope he's wrong, but he built a good case. i on the other hand am still hanging around - my cost basis is 2.25. i think this entire storage market has become riskier in the last 6 months - too much competition couples with commodity like status. this keeps downward pressure on earnings and stock price.

To: JP who wrote (6160)	4/16/1998 7:18:00 AM
From: Robert E. Bruss	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 7685

I bought this stock since they just received the PC Magazine's highly read/regarded 'Editor's Choice' award. It's quite powerful when they make statements similar to, "surpasses Iomega", etc. This alone sets the stage for an upside trade. It's also nice to see such large block insider buys. ===================== PC Mag has always liked their products - they've been getting "Editor's Choice" awards forever. Nothing new there, and it's never done anything for the stock price.

To: JP who wrote (6160)	4/16/1998 10:04:00 AM
From: Michael Coley	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 7685

RE: SyQuest Downside Risk. >> Syquest upside potential is much greater than their downside risk. << With all due respect, we must differ on this opinion. SyQuest has a huge downside risk. If SparQ doesn't prove to be profitable in quick order, it's very likely that they'll be bankrupt within 2-3 quarters. - Michael Coley - wwol.com

To: JP who wrote (6160)	4/16/1998 11:59:00 AM
From: KiddStock	Respond to of 7685

Excuse me for jumping in here and changing the subject, however, you may want to do what I did in an effort to recoop some of the downside I am suffering with SYQT. I moved over to GKIS and today a press release was very positive raising the stock from $2.00 to $4.25 at one point. It is now, as I write this at 11:35 AM EDT, $3.125. So a little soft from high so far, but still looks like a good buy-in point. There is movement of executives from Compaq to GKIS, including Gribi who raised $500 mln for Compaq, providing for its explosive growth.

To: JP who wrote (6160)	4/16/1998 12:05:00 PM
From: FuzzFace	Respond to of 7685

JP, sorry to gang up on you like this, but your comments about SYQT technology reminded me of the wisdom in this TSC article. I got burned by IOM by believing just as you do now about SYQT. It took almost a year, but it happened when I least expected - when everyone "knew" IOM would have a blowout Q4. archive.thestreet.com Wrong! Rear Echelon Revelations: Cramer on the Trouble with Technology By James J. Cramer 3/30/98 11:07 AM ET Something bothered me about Friday's chat on ABCNews.com. It's part of a common problem that invades all chats. I call it the "techno-brilliant; stock market stupid" analysis and it causes people to lose millions of dollars a year in bad equity selection. OROM technology, DVD technology, Zip Drive technology; these are all part of the same affliction. It is a fundamental, misguided belief that if you discover some technology that you think is revolutionary, you can make money on it. I never, ever invest this way. I know that new technologies don't produce enough wins in the stock market to justify the dollars spent betting on them. Sure, somebody might make some money, particularly the earliest guys, but when we look back a year from now we won't find any winners worth investing in. If the technology is fabulous, then it will be copied by other, bigger companies. If the technology isn't fabulous, you will get blown up as surely as if you stepped on a live land mine. One of the reasons why I wanted Herb Greenberg to write for us so badly is that Herb was wise to this phenomenon earlier than anybody else. He may not agree with my typecasting of these kinds of investments, but over the years, Herb's Chron column has set me straight many, many times about the wonders of betting on new technology. ....