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: Tatnic who wrote (1117)	10/20/1999 10:37:00 AM
From: DanZ	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 5582

CCCrawford, I don't have a problem with anybody selling GUMM short if they it makes a good trade based on the chart, or a short term spike, or for other credible reasons. I disagree with trying to use scare tactics such as fabricating fraud claims and comparing GumTech to Quigley, for example. These types of bogus claims weaken the position of the short seller because few people accept them as true and they show a gross ignorance on the part of the person making the bogus claim. I think that this sends their credibility to zero in the eyes of most investors/traders. This is especially true when they have only provided one liners with misspelled words. Here is a link to Kovel/Fuller, the firm that has been hired to promote Zicam kovelfuller.com If you click on "Our Clients", you will see that Zicam is in good company. Given GumTech's small float, they don't have to sell much Zicam to make a big impact on earnings. For example, if they capture only 2% of the market, I estimate that Zicam would contribute $0.85 to GumTech's earnings. Nicotine gum will also add to earnings next year, and I think that the stock is worth 20 even if Zicam is completely removed. IOW, if you discount the future earnings from nicotine gum forward to today, the stock is undervalued even if Zicam has zero value. Therefore, I would conclude that shorting GUMM on the basis of Zicam makes no sense. Luck, Dan