Dan, while I have appreciated your many excellent, detailed posts, I think you misrepresented Mad2's post. It's a small misrepresentation, but it strikes at the heart of how a short-seller works.
You said:
Your claim that this is all a stock promotion fraud is...
Mad2 wrote in the last post (I haven't reviewed his earlier posts to see if, in fact, he said something different before):
GUMM's deal with Gel-Tech smells of a stock promotion scheme...
Mad2 said it smelled of a stock promotion scheme, not that it was one (I realize that Bill Wexler was bolder). The reason I'm bringing up this subtle distinction is that it might explain the reason for the conflicts here. Short-sellers seldom get proof that a company is iffy when they put on their position. There's a little bit here that doesn't look right, then a little bit there, and finally later, when the whole thing becomes public, it's clear that the stock was nothing but a fraud. Most short-sellers have had this happen so many times that it's almost second-nature for them to expect it. As unpleasant as it may be for fair-minded people to accept, short-sellers necessarily deal in innuendo.
GumTech may be a wonderful company. All of their explanations for the earlier "confusion" may turn out to be true. The company may reach all the milestones that you have predicted. It may turn out to be a fabulous investment. And it may turn out that its products alleviate the suffering of millions of people. But now, at least at first glance, it seems to have some of the secondary characteristics of a worthwhile short.
Voluntary disclosure: no position in GumTech and no expectation of ever having a position. |
