Oh my. Another of your petty immature arguments. This must be the post you are referring to:
Message 11765685
You said: "Fact two- GUMM is a NET money LOSER."
I replied: "The only fact is that GumTech lost money last year. What does this have to do with substantiating your opinion that they will "probably always be a net money loser"? Wow, you sure make analyzing stocks easy. All one has to do is look at last year's income statement to figure out what will happen next year LOLOL. I can see why you aren't a stock analyst."
I didn't say that last year was the only year GUMM lost money. I said that they lost money last year and asked you why it was relevant to next year. You again fail to see the meaning in a simple sentence, or perhaps you are the spin doctor and not me as you have accused. BTW, you still have answered the question about what last year has to do with next year. I suppose that you don't have a good answer for this, huh?
Speaking of spin doctors...am I a spin doctor or are you?
My post on October 31, 1999 Message 11761651
"the stock is breaking out of its trading range and there's probably a good reason for it. Moves of this nature in most stocks generally precedes positive news."
I wrote that post the night before the company announced news that the article would be published. Where's the spin?
My post on October 9, 1999 Message 11496666,
"It makes no difference which medical journal publishes the first study as long as it is reputable and gets the media's attention."
Did the situation play out as I predicted? You, however, continue to focus on an irrelevant argument about which Journal the article will be published in. Message 11797034 Now who is the spin doctor?
My post on July 31, 1999 Message 10757829
"In the short term, publication in the NEJM (or other reputable medical journal) is the gamble for traders. If Zicam is published, I think the stock will break resistance at 15 and trade up to 18 - 20. If it isn't published, I think it will test support near 9 1/2. Based on my DD, I think the odds significantly favor publication in the NEJM and that it's much more risky to be short than long at this time."
The stock traded to a high of 19 1/8 before pulling back today. Ah, but Hank stomps up and down with arrogance because he hasn't personally heard of the American Journal of Infection Control. lol Three things come to mind: 1.) Publication in AJIC resulted in a lot of PR for Zicam whether you've heard of the journal or not. 2.) Many doctors have heard of AJIC and probably scan it regularly. 3.) The fact that the article will be published makes it easy for any doctor to find it through a search at the library or online.
I remember your saying once that you used to work in the medical field. Are you a doctor? If so, are you a spin specialist?
Here's my next prediction. A tremendous amount of PR was generated for Zicam after the company announced that the study would be published. A few examples are the front page article in USA Today, CNN Headline News every hour yesterday, Howard Stern radio show that is broadcast to 400 stations, Paul Harvey's radio show, too many local news broadcasts to mention, news wires such as AP, etc. I'm not prepared at this time to provide an estimate for sales that will result from the PR; however, I believe that the PR went a long way to brand the Zicam name nationwide. The advertising that just started will reinforce the brand name, and I believe that the free PR machine will start up again once the results of the second study are revealed. The stock will probably trade between ~16 and ~19 until the results of the second study are announced, but if it makes a new high above 19 1/8, then I'd be willing to bet that good news will be announced again. While one might be able to scalp 1/4s, 1/2s, or even a buck on an intraday short sale, I would not hold a short position in the stock overnight. I said it a few months ago and I'll say it again. If positive news is released overnight about the second round of clinical studies or the nicotine joint venture, the stock will probably open significantly higher and squeeze shorts unmercifully. This is especially true if the clinical study for prevention comes back positive. Shorts are playing with fire and the risk to reward of holding an overnight short position in this stock is atrocious. |
