SI
SI
discoversearch

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.
Non-Tech : Bill Wexler's Dog Pound -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Bill Wexler who wrote (1883)7/11/1999 5:26:00 AM
From: Mike M  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 10293
 
I see, so you think that it makes more sense for a new investor to come in and pay $100,000,000 for an obscure chewing gum manufacturer that as of its last 10-Q had $250,000 in the bank.

Probably some of that logic you used when you shorted Yahoo!... Frankly, I prefer that you short GUMM...Then you can pay 200,000,000 when it hits 24 and you decide to run. At what price did you finally decide to buy Yahoo! back, and then what price did you go long? Wasn't a "billion dollar market cap too much for Yahoo!"? How much money did they have in the bank? Come on Bill, you can't have it both ways. By the way GUMM's market cap is 92M....

...and has lost roughly $12,000,000 over the last year or so?

Good job, Bill. The last 12 months is actually $3.5M....Didn't miss it by much. I guess this makes you sort of a historian.

Tell me, though, if we are using your kind of analysis, then why are we willing to pay $676M (OOPS, we may have paid more than that-that's just what it is worth now) for a company which lost over $30M(CPU) the last 12 months?

I thought the logic was more on what the company's potential was, not on how it did last year. Anyway, it's not very smart to value a young company on last years numbers.

I guess you've been chewing some of Gum-tech's "brain gum" - but it doesn't seem to work very well.

Maybe you should be chewing some of the brain gum....Bill.