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: Mad2 who wrote (4296)	10/9/1999 5:21:00 PM
From: DanZ	Respond to of 10293

Mad2, <Last April you touted the NEJM thingy.> I have repeatedly said that the only reason I wrote about the NEJM last April is because they submitted the paper there. I would have written about XYZ Journal if they had submitted it there. Is this hard for you to comprehend? It makes no difference which medical journal publishes the first study as long as it is reputable and gets the media's attention. I didn't know in April that GumTech was going to conduct two new clinical studies. The first study has probably taken longer to get published than they expected, and now the second studies are almost finished. Quite obviously investors as a whole don't view this as negative because the stock price has been stable and this has been known for several weeks. There is no inconsistency in my opinion whatsoever. The first study has become less important because of the events that I have described here. If you can't understand this, then I would have to say that you are dense--no disrespect intended. New developments warrant a different opinion on the significance of the first study than I had in April. <The fact that GUMM is grossly overvalued in comparison to QGLY escapes your comprehension> My opinion on Quigley can be found at Message 11319039. GUMM is not overvalued compared to QGLY in my opinion, because Quigley's quarterly comparisons have declined for the past 9 quarters while GumTech's revenues have grown. We all have our own way of valuing companies, but your method does not discount where a company has been compared to where it is going. Investors will pay a higher multiple for a company that has grown its revenues ~40% Q to Q and more than 100% Y to Y than one whose quarterly comparisons are down for 9 quarters. This is especially true when the revenue growth at the former company is expected to continue and the revenue at the latter company is expected to continue declining, or at best, remain constant. Nothing about Quigley's valuation escapes my comprehension, but apparently it escapes yours. <Time to short GUMM again> Whatever. What you do with your money is your business. <I can't even find the stuff having looked at 3 Walgreen's> Well, duh. Maybe Walgreens doesn't have it in all their stores yet. Try Walmart, Kmart, Target, Eckerds, or Rite Aid if those stores are in your area. It is my understanding that Zicam is available at most of their stores. If you find it, you might want to give it to somebody who has a cold before you short GUMM. It might save you some money. Regards, Dan

To: Mad2 who wrote (4296)	10/9/1999 7:15:00 PM
From: Mike M	Respond to of 10293

Mad2, I think you have given all the reasons why you should be short. It is furthermore true that you have made money being short in the past. It is not only your prerogative but if your logic is correct perhaps you will make some money. Certainly you will be in a lot of company as there are over 800k shares short. Investment long or short is generally a case of investor confidence in the product and the management. If you have no confidence in either then you choose to short or you do nothing. After all your sleuth work I cannot imagine doing nothing. For both of us it is an issue of faith. My faith in this company is based on personal knowledge of the management and confidence in the products. I wish you well in your other investments but I hope you are dead wrong about this one.