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: Mad2 who wrote (1830)	12/6/1999 6:49:00 PM
From: DanZ	Respond to of 5582

Mad2, One of the problems with moving averages is that there are an infinite number of them. Some people use 9 days, some 20 days, some 50 days, some 100 days, some 200 days, and there are iterations in between. The 50 day moving average is between the 20 day and 20 week moving average and I don't use it. I have been using 20 day, 20 week, and 20 month moving averages in conjunction with bollinger bands for several years with very good success. I am not as concerned with the short term technical indicators as the intermediate and long term indicators because I do not consider GUMM a short term trade. My confidence in my prediction about the direction of the stock has not changed. The debate has centered primarily on the sales and efficacy of Zicam. If the second clinical studies come back positive and the manuscript is published in a reputable medical journal, then the efficacy will have been proven in my opinion. Sales will be proven in future quarterly reports. If sales continue to grow for the next two quarters (Dec and Mar), I think we can agree that Zicam is being accepted by consumers. Would you agree with these two points? If the second study is published and sales of Zicam continue to increase, then the stock will undoubtedly trade higher. My projection of 30 by next spring is based on my expectations for sales, profits, and the PE ratio. There are too many variables to accurately predict future stock prices, but I am confident that the stock will trend higher. Let's assume that the manuscript is published and sales of Zicam approach $20 million in Q1 00, but the stock only trades to 25. In that case, nobody would prevail in the little game that you want to play; however, the fundamentals would clearly indicate that the bulls were right. What would you suggest doing in this case if the game is based on stock price? BTW, I disagree with your assertion that "the story loosing (sic) it's (sic) luster (ie Zicam) and the increased registration of stock all point downward." As I have said, sales of Zicam have just begun and the company will soon increase production by about 200%. Gum Tech already said that they intend to sell Zicam internationally as soon as they can meet the domestic demand. Zicam is in the infancy of it's life cycle, IMO, and is far from losing its luster. The registration that might be having a short term negative psychological impact on the stock will eventually blow over and be replaced by a focus on significant revenue and earnings growth. You are exaggerating the effect of options that were issued three or four years ago. Everyone knew that the options would eventually be exercised, and other options will come due as well. You can't assume that somebody will sell stock simply because they exercise options. Some people might sell part of their holdings to pay for the exercise if they don't have enough cash on hand. This is a necessity and I don't think that it should be construed as negative. I would be interested in your opinion on this. Let's say that you hold in the money options that are goint to expire soon, but you don't have enough money to pay for the stock. You exercise the options and sell just enough of your position to cover the cost of the stock and your taxes. Does this mean that you have a negative opinion on the company? Regards, Dan