Finally, let's take a look at GUMM's financials.
sec.gov
FY97
Net sales $3.116 million
Net income ($3.388 million)
FY96
Net sales $3.776 million
Net income ($5.398 million)
So for the last two years, the company's lost more money than it's taken in in REVENUES. You don't often see that for a non-development stage outfit. And it's not like this firm has ever had any glory days.
What about in 1998?
sec.gov
9 months to September:
Net sales $3.6 million
Net income ($4.4 million)
EPS ($0.70)
Q3
Net sales $1.3 million
Net income ($0.6 million)
EPS ($0.09)
Even without the increased R&D, the company has operated at a loss.
How about GUMM's financial resources? As of September:
Cash $1.78 million
Restricted Cash: $0.16 million
Total Current Assets: $4.78 million
Total Current Liabilities: $1.2 million
Long-term Debt: $2.58 million
Shareholder Equity: $4.67 million
Market Cap at $13 7/16......$92 million
If you want to know how big a joke this is, let's compare GUMM to Quigley (Nasdaq: QGLY), which at least has some real published science to support its claims for Cold-Eeze. Plus, it's got a very strong brand. Plus, it's got substantial and profitable sales. I'm not telling you to buy Quigley, because the company has numerous problems, but the comparison could hardly be more appropriate.
Nine months FY98 through Sept:
Net sales: $19.3 million
Net income: 4.3 million
EPS: $0.28
Cash: $26.7 million
TCA: $49.2 million
TCL: $3.6 million
No long-term debt
Shareholder equity: $46.3 million
Market Cap at $5 1/4...$78.8 million
I don't yet have a position in GUMM, but I'll probably short it. If you own this stock, you're speculating and you should be prepared to see the stock drop to the mid-single digits. All information from this series of posts can be confirmed by going to GUMM's public filings with the SEC or to Gel Tech's website.
Cheers. |
