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 : Natural/Health Food Industry Stocks -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: organicgerry who wrote (155)	1/7/1999 5:05:00 PM
From: Mao II	Respond to of 337

Lefty: My first reaction was that this must be GNC-Rite Aid related. You're right, doesn't make any sense. Regards, M2

To: organicgerry who wrote (155)	1/7/1999 6:21:00 PM
From: Beltropolis Boy	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 337

>Could this be a reaction to the GNC/Rite Aid deal? all may become crystal tomorrow <vbg>: CNBC The Daytime Guest List for January 8, 1998: 8:00am Squawk Box Lawrence Kudlow American Skandia William Sullivan Morgan Stanley Dean Witter Rick Santelli Sanwa Futures William Watts General Nutrition CEO Alexis Herman Labor Secretary

To: organicgerry who wrote (155)	1/14/1999 12:55:00 PM
From: Beltropolis Boy	Respond to of 337

for those interested in the replay, the CC number is cited below. culled from the motley fool board. ----- Subject: warning Date: 1/14/99 8:14 AM Author: ibystander Number: 373 of 380 I listened to most of the conference call, which was a fairly new experience for me. I can't say I was hugely impressed: JM's intitial [sic] statement was ok: straightforward, and cautiously optimistic that the problem would be corrected quickly, but IMO the company reps got a little rattled by the questions from analysts and had a hard time staying upbeat. For example someone (I think COO) said: "stock price will probably crash tomorrow. . ."; a statement which I'm sure could happily have been left unsaid. Many times management blamed themselves for poor performance. Another exec pointed out the inconsistant [sic] nature of the company's revenue growth over the years. Mackay [sic] called revenues "flat" whereas I see _some_ q-q and y-y growth even with this new number. Other similar examples, where the I feel the focus could have been directed to dealing with the specific problem, rather than these external issues. Stock performance is not purely a function of company performance, but also of how it's communicated, if I understand the way the street works. I'd be interested in second opinions on the CC. Check it out at 800.633.8284, res number 11471114. boards.fool.com