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.

Biotech / Medical : GUMM - Eliminate the Common Cold -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: DanZ who wrote (1045)	10/10/1999 2:44:00 AM
From: Mark Marcellus	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 5582

Dan: You're slowing down. There was a lag of over 50 minutes before you responded. <g> I'll take into account your bias towards shorting stocks and the fact that you frequent the Dog Pound thread when considering your opinion My stock holdings are about 95% long and 5% short. I'm not sure how that makes me "biased" towards shorting. I use shorting infrequently, and as a slight hedge for my overall portfolio. It's also true that I follow the Dog Pound thread, among many others. I've found it a good source of ideas, both long and short. The signal to noise ratio has deteriorated there lately though. A group of people who support one of the stocks Mr. Wexler has shorted are invading the thread and are carrying on long tirades in support of their stock. Unfortunately, Mr. Wexler eggs them on because he knows that each time they post they provide more credibility to his theory that the company is nothing more than a stock promotion scheme. Funny how nobody on the CANSLIM thread even came close to your ridiculous claim that my opening comment sounded like I was trying to sell GumTech's stock. I can only speak for myself, but you certainly came off sounding like the ghost of shills past. A favorite shill opening goes something like: Hello <victim's name>, I see that you're interested in <victim's interest>. Well, the way it looks to me, <shilled company> is a perfect example of this type of stock. <Make whatever leaps of logic are necessary to make the shilled stock fit the profile>. I'm not saying that you're shilling this stock, I honestly don't know whether you are or not. But when you tried to claim GUMM as a CANSLIM stock, you got my attention. Once I stopped laughing and read carefully what you you were saying, the pattern of your opening sounded familiar to me and I made note of it. Ok, let's assume that revenue growth can't be submitted for earnings growth. That would exclude the C and A attributes. They still meet the requirements of the N, S, L, I, and M attributes. I'm not interested in getting into a detailed debate about CANSLIM here, and it would be way OT anyway. The short answer is that if GUMM does not meet the C and A requirements, it is not a CANSLIM stock no matter what. However, I believe there are problems with most, if not all, of the other points (excluding "M", which is external to GUMM). A short synopsis of some of the problems: More than 5-10% above its base (N), Lack of earnings (S), Thin capitalization with no institutional sponsership (S and I), Low ownership by management (S), Declining RS (as per MSN) (L). By the time they meet the C and A attributes, the stock will be trading much higher than 13. Yes, if this stock ever meets the C and A (and the N, and the S, and the L, and the I) attributes, it would probably trade at a much higher price. That is when a CANSLIMmer would buy it. BTW, are you short GUMM? Don't know why it matters, but I'm not. I actually thought Wexler was crazy when he shorted GUMM. I wouldn't go long on a bet, but I thought a short was too dangerous. I didn't believe there was enough public information to eliminate the remote possibility that this is one of those rare story stocks where the story plays out. I'm starting to wonder though. Maybe Wexler knew more than he was letting on, or maybe he just has a good nose for these things, but the pattern so far is hauntingly familiar.