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: David Colvin who wrote (8325)	3/16/1999 12:51:00 PM
From: Ken Pomaranski	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 10072

<< Prior to earnings, you said that your "model" said that Iomega would have negative earnings of $0.02 per share >> wrong. When performing a personal attack it is important to get the facts straight. I said POSITIVE $.02. I was much closer than you think. If SG&A was more in line with Q4 1997 (it was down 22% in 1998), I would have been on the money. So, Iomega cut marketing to make their numbers. I was 'wrong' because of the Syquest demise and SG&A expenses, BUT THE NET RESULT WAS CORRECT. (no real top & bottom line earnings) and it kept me from losing 50% of my money. The analysis were 'right', but for the wrong reasons. (they assumed top line revenue growth would grow earnings... WRONG). and anyone who listened to them lost their behind... So who was really 'right'???? You, losing 50% of your money by blindly listening to analysis? or those who stayed out based on data? About your 'challenge': I'm not sure if I'll take it. The reason is that I could be proven to be 95% right, but the thread will harp on the 5%. It's really not worth my time and effort. If someone actually cared about my views, I might change my mind. But your intentions are to use it against me no matter what I say. kp