<<<Probably some of that logic you used when you shorted Yahoo!...>>>
Wrong. I shorted yahoo based strictly on overvaluation. Yahoo was not a fraudulent stock promotion scheme. GUMM is.
<<<At what price did you finally decide to buy Yahoo! back>>>
Roughly 22 a share (split adjusted).
<<then what price did you go long?>>
Roughly 22 a share (split adjusted...my thanks also go to William Harmond on this one).
<<Wasn't a billion dollar market cap too much for Yahoo!?>>
Yes, and it could still be argued that it is. However, we are in the midst of an extreme stock bubble.
<<By the way the market cap is 92M....>>
False. The most recent round of dilutive financing pushes the real market cap (on a fully diluted basis) closer to $100,000,000.
<<Good job, Bill. The last 12 months is actually $3.5M....Didn't miss it by much. I guess this makes you a historian.>>
No, I simply made an error in my post. GUMM lost roughly $12,000,000 over the past 2 fiscal years. TTM loss was roughly $3.5 million. Any way you cut it, it sucks.
<<Tell me, though, if we are using your kind of numbers, 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)? >>
I'll say it again. You are a complete fool.
<<I thought the logic was more on what the company's potential was, not how it did last year. >>
I can't tell you how many times I've heard the "don't look in the rear-view mirror' spiel from the scam stock shills. GUMM's "potential" is based on the fraudulent promotion of a quack remedy. Period. I have no doubt that the stock is rigged and it may be squeezed further, I also have no doubt that it will trade significantly lower than its current price. |
