Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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.

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

To: Mike M who wrote (1884)	7/11/1999 5:50:00 AM
From: Bill Wexler	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 10293

<<<Probably some of that logic you used when you shorted Yahoo!...>>> Wrong. I shorted yahoo based strictly on overvaluation. Yahoo was not a fraudulent stock promotion scheme. GUMM is. <<<At what price did you finally decide to buy Yahoo! back>>> Roughly 22 a share (split adjusted). <<then what price did you go long?>> Roughly 22 a share (split adjusted...my thanks also go to William Harmond on this one). <<Wasn't a billion dollar market cap too much for Yahoo!?>> Yes, and it could still be argued that it is. However, we are in the midst of an extreme stock bubble. <<By the way the market cap is 92M....>> False. The most recent round of dilutive financing pushes the real market cap (on a fully diluted basis) closer to $100,000,000. <<Good job, Bill. The last 12 months is actually $3.5M....Didn't miss it by much. I guess this makes you a historian.>> No, I simply made an error in my post. GUMM lost roughly $12,000,000 over the past 2 fiscal years. TTM loss was roughly $3.5 million. Any way you cut it, it sucks. <<Tell me, though, if we are using your kind of numbers, 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)? >> I'll say it again. You are a complete fool. <<I thought the logic was more on what the company's potential was, not how it did last year. >> I can't tell you how many times I've heard the "don't look in the rear-view mirror' spiel from the scam stock shills. GUMM's "potential" is based on the fraudulent promotion of a quack remedy. Period. I have no doubt that the stock is rigged and it may be squeezed further, I also have no doubt that it will trade significantly lower than its current price.