GUMM - Eliminate the Common Cold Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Biotech / Medical : GUMM - Eliminate the Common Cold

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: DanZ who wrote (4144)	6/23/2002 1:29:33 PM
From: Mad2	of 5582

Thanks for stating the obvious, Mad2. I would love to only be long stocks that go up and short stocks that go down. In fact, I would like to go long a stock at the low for the day, sell it at the high for the day and go short, buy it at the next lowest point during the day, and sell it at the next highest peak for the day and go short and... Too bad it doesn't happen that way, huh? At least not for me. Your welcome. BTW you suggest that you would like to trade, but you have been a unabashed long with regards to GUMM I didn't know that you were 100% on your trades. Another example of you ignoring facts in favor of your intrepretation. You have to pick and choose the stocks that you think will offer the best return on your limited capital, while at the same time understanding the risks and diversifying enough so you don't get blown out. I have at times taken too large a position in a single company. It has both made me a bundle and cost me a bundle. But that's not the issue. My point is out of the universe of stocks, would you rather be short a stock that goes down 20% or one that goes down 90%? This is where we differ. If I beat the market averages, I feel like I'm doing well. Again we differ. Look to absolute returns. Bear markets have been know to last 7-13 years and provide near zero returns based on averages. Anyway Dan you have been a bit narrow minded about GUMM (now MTXX) and the point of my post was to critize your justification (your claim it has dropped less than the NASDAQ average) for supporting/promoting GUMM while it was at unrealistic valuation. BTW MTXX has underperformed the $compq since hitting its high on 2/2/00 and significantly underperformed the S&P 500 stockcharts.com (adjust the above perf chart to the date 2/2/00 to view Message 12786315 Message 12751598 Message 12755299

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next