I see, so you think that it makes more sense for a new investor to come in and pay $100,000,000 for an obscure chewing gum manufacturer that as of its last 10-Q had $250,000 in the bank.
Probably some of that logic you used when you shorted Yahoo!... Frankly, I prefer that you short GUMM...Then you can pay 200,000,000 when it hits 24 and you decide to run. At what price did you finally decide to buy Yahoo! back, and then what price did you go long? Wasn't a "billion dollar market cap too much for Yahoo!"? How much money did they have in the bank? Come on Bill, you can't have it both ways. By the way GUMM's market cap is 92M....
...and has lost roughly $12,000,000 over the last year or so?
Good job, Bill. The last 12 months is actually $3.5M....Didn't miss it by much. I guess this makes you sort of a historian.
Tell me, though, if we are using your kind of analysis, then why are we willing to pay $676M (OOPS, we may have paid more than that-that's just what it is worth now) for a company which lost over $30M(CPU) the last 12 months?
I thought the logic was more on what the company's potential was, not on how it did last year. Anyway, it's not very smart to value a young company on last years numbers.
I guess you've been chewing some of Gum-tech's "brain gum" - but it doesn't seem to work very well.
Maybe you should be chewing some of the brain gum....Bill. |
