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: StockDung who wrote (4402)	5/13/2003 11:24:35 PM
From: DanZ	Read Replies (1) of 5582

The sales and profit analysis in that post was right on target. The only thing that was off was how fast sales of Zicam would reach $25 to $35 million. I thought that it would happen in 2001 and it didn't happen until 2002. Big deal. I even revised my outlook after the mild 2000 cold season. Care to dig up that old post? Matrixx sold $23.5 million in 2002, and earned 14 cents per share. That fits right in to the estimates in the table, doesn't it? I believe that the gum business would have generated profits close to what I estimated had they not sold it to Wrigley. As it turned out, Matrixx received $25 million for the gum business, which was obviously based primarily on Wrigley's belief about how much profit they would make on the P&G dental gum contract. Why else do you think Wrigley paid $25 million for the gum business? Effectively, Matrixx realized several years of future profits from the gum business by selling to Wrigley, and it gave them cash to build their Zicam business. Instead of making a fool of yourself by posting old messages that weren't that far from reality, why don't you respond to my estimate for 2003? The company is providing much more guidance now than they did in 2000, and my estimate is very close to Mr. Lavigne's. He estimated that Matrixx would earn 22 cents per share this year and I have them earning 26 cents per share. I'll ask the question again because you keep skirting around it. What is your rationale for being short this security at today's valuation knowing that the company recently put out guidance for 30% top line growth, which translates to about 80% bottom line growth? Since none of you shorts have an answer, I'll assume that there isn't a rational reason.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next