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 : Iomega Thread without Iomega -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ken Pomaranski who wrote (6061)	1/18/1999 2:41:00 PM
From: David Colvin	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10072

Hey Ken, Glad you showed up with your usual "objective", "deflating", view of Iomega's potential. But, seriously...since you're a really smart guy, I'd really like to know your opinion of my recent post in which I brought another poster's (for whom I have a great deal of respect) viewpoint of Iomega, and the industry in general, over from the AOL MF board. Here is the link to that post: www3.techstocks.com Looking forward to your response....don't be a stranger...hear? Dave

To: Ken Pomaranski who wrote (6061)	1/18/1999 2:42:00 PM
From: rll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10072

"If anyone cares, I'll list my assumptions going into the model in a later post. I doubt anyone will, since the analysis will be labelled as flawed because it doesn't meet your expectations. " I care. Please post them. Thanks

To: Ken Pomaranski who wrote (6061)	1/18/1999 2:57:00 PM
From: go4it	Respond to of 10072

Ken, I am not sure who you are but it sounds like you have a history here. Regardless of that I would love to see your model and why you think +0.02. I agree that the 0.10 and 0.11 guestimates are probably way high but I also think that 0.02 is way low. I base this on the belief that if the comapny were to miss street estimates by a shortfall of 60% that the company would have had a moral obligation to at least state that they didn't feel street estimates would be met. In addition to that I believe that the insiders would not have been buying through the $6 range. Personally I am looking for a turn around of the company and believe that the company is achieving that in several respects. I base my guestimate of 0.07/share on INTC and computer makers beating estimates and thus implying that IOM will beat estimates. This is what I base my belief on and would love to hear what you base yours on. Chuck

To: Ken Pomaranski who wrote (6061)	1/18/1999 3:02:00 PM
From: s. bateh	Respond to of 10072

Update: Just back from provo, park city, salt lake etc...all i can tell you in speaking to iom and others is that they expect to have a good qt. how good is yet to see, BUT i can tell you that they own this and the forseeable future imho.....i say stay low so we can blow out earnings.....

To: Ken Pomaranski who wrote (6061)	1/18/1999 3:06:00 PM
From: Cogito	Respond to of 10072

>>If anyone cares, I'll list my assumptions going into the model in a later post. I doubt anyone will, since the analysis will be labelled as flawed because it doesn't meet your expectations. But the .10 -> .11 cent ones will be embraced... Reminds me of a time some time ago when Allen started questioning well researched numbers that Mike posted on his awesome home page, but let the wild bullish junk being posted go unchallenged..<< Ken - Once again, you have misinterpreted the post I made at that time. I simply asked Mike for clarification about how he had derived certain numbers. I did not question his veracity or integrity. Yes, I do leave a lot of the "wild bullish junk" go unchallenged, because there's no point in asking how someone comes up with conclusions which are obviously just wishful thinking. I mean, wouldn't it be silly to ask someone to define "huge" and "tons"? Meanwhile, you are also clearly incorrect about the majority of posters on this thread "embracing" the estimates of .10 or .11. If you look at the list of estimates, you will note that most of them are well below those numbers. Therefore, the thread as a whole is not embracing the numbers at the top of the range. My own guess of .06, which I clearly labelled as just a guess, is based solely on the fact that SSB's analyst has estimated that figure, and H&Q's analyst is sticking with .05. I have a fair amount of confidence in their models, and I'm sure they have gotten better guidance from Iomega than you have. Nonetheless, I'd be very happy to see how you derived your estimate. I wonder if you used the same methodology you used in figuring out how many digital camera owners would buy Clik! drives. As I recall, you said the percentage of digital camera buyers willing to spend 200 bucks for Clik! would be "almost none." I'm betting you did absolutely no market research before making that statement. If I'm correct about that, then your criticism of the objectivity of others has a hollow ring to it. Of course I say this in the most cordial spirit, because I do agree that we need opposing viewpoints in this forum. - Allen

To: Ken Pomaranski who wrote (6061)	1/18/1999 3:09:00 PM
From: David Colvin	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10072

Reminds me of a time some time ago when Allen started questioning well researched numbers that Mike posted on his awesome home page, but let the wild bullish junk being posted go unchallenged. Unchallenged? Ken, the last I checked you don't pay my bills, so I can guess any $%#@& number I want to which happens to be net diluted earnings of $0.05 per share...which happens to be consistent with H&Qs recent published estimates and most likely consistent with Salomon Smith Barney who recently initiated coverage of Iomega with a buy rating and a 12-18 month price target of $11 (conservative in my view). Who are you to "challenge" anyone here? Those that are way off will learn something from it. Those who guess way high aren't hurting you or anyone else, and are also entitled to guess an $#@%& thing they want to because it's a free country!. It's kind of fun to guess in a kind of town hall atmosphere for a change (since RRs departure), not unlike a friendly little community. My guess is the collective "community" mean average estimate is somewhere around $0.065 right now. For the last week or so, it's been a pleasure (for me) to read this thread with nobody having an attitude like yours. If you really believe your BS Ken, short Iomega with every dime you've got! Don't worry about us mere mortals, we'll get along somehow. Human nature will never, ever, change... Right on brother! When it comes to your arrogant, supercilious attitude, things have obviously not changed a bit!....know-it-all! Dave p.s. I've really missed your posts....can you tell?

To: Ken Pomaranski who wrote (6061)	1/18/1999 3:36:00 PM
From: HRP	Respond to of 10072

Ken, The average per share profit predicted for Q4 98 by analysts that cover Iomega is $0.05. The analysts publish these numbers based upon their conversations with Iomega and I consider them to be conservative as of the time they are made. You may disparage their judgement. However, for myself, this is a reasonable starting point for making a personal judgement. Since the time of the estimates what significant, uncontemplated favorable or unfavorable events have occurred that will increase or decrease the per share earnings. I count two. The estimates did not anticipate that Syquest would withdraw from the market during the fourth quarter leading to a significant increase in profitable Jaz sales. (Add $0.01) Also, Iomega announced the sale of more than 100,000,000 Zip disks during the quarter. I am on weaker ground here but I believe the fourth quarter contribution to this volume of high margin product was much higher than contemplated. (Add $0.01.) There were other factors, some favorable and others unfavorable, such as sales of new product and ramp up costs that I'm estimating as offsetting each other. My model (I only have one) shows +0.07 for the quarter and wishes your models good luck! hrp