Mike,
Shorting bad companies is a pretty viable approach to investing. The clearest evidence is this thread. You find a company with a terrible track record, limited financial resources, and a lot of hype. You wait for the stock to rise, take a position, wait for the hype to fade.
Why do I call it hype? Why do I "berate" the good Dr. Epstein? Simply put, anybody can issue a press release saying they have a new product that's been clinically proven to do anything. Responsible doctors are inherently skeptical until they've actually seen and evaluated the results. I could start my own OTC Bulletin Board company and put out some smooth-sounding nonsense, and I'm sure a board would spring up on SI full of people excited about my new product. That's hype, and that's all we have to work on so far with GUMM.
Has anyone seen this Hensley/Davidson paper on Zicam? When will it be published in a peer-reviewed journal? Does anyone even know what their credentials are?
There's nothing self-righteous about me pointing out that this is BASIC information. If you don't know the details of their study results (not just the hype they spew out in a press release), then you've got no idea what you're investing in. In my view, that's stupid, and shorts justifiably love investors who don't do their homework.
But you say you have done your homework. Ok, bracketing Zicam for a moment, because I think we can agree it could be homerun or could be nothing, what impresses you about GUMM? Give me the bullish story. |
