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: Hank who wrote (2144)	1/31/2000 6:53:00 PM
From: DanZ	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 5582

Hank, I don't wish to argue semantics with you. Over the past year or so that I have "known" you on SI, I have noticed that you spend a lot of time arguing semantics and issuing personal attacks, such as the one against Howard earlier. These types of posts are useless and I would much rather spend my time discussing relevant issues about stocks that I own or don't own. <I shorted it because of the glaring lack of scientific evidence that it works> The main theme of my post (message 2143) is that it doesn't matter if Gum Tech presents documented scientific evidence that Zicam works to you or anyone else. The value of Zicam will be determined largely by consumers and not by the results of a clinical study that proves it reduces the duration of the common cold by X%. Gum Tech is not required to conduct clinical studies before they can sell Zicam. They are doing so primarily so they can make specific claims in their advertising that they would be unable to make if they didn't conduct the studies. By conducting studies, Gum Tech has exhibited confidence that Zicam works, because they have to release the results to shareholders (and the public) whether the results are good or bad. If the studies come back positive, which I believe will be the case, the stock will most likely increase dramatically as a result of a huge amount of publicity in the media. This publicity should sell plenty of Zicam and it won't cost Gum Tech a penny in advertising. This significantly increases the risk of holding a short position in GUMM. <(in spite of your well orchestrated campaign to "prove" otherwise).> I have never orchestrated a campaign to prove that Zicam works. I have said that I have confidence that it works because of my personal experiences and the experiences of people who I trust. I have said that this is anecdotal evidence and not scientific proof. It makes no difference either way, because in my judgement, the majority of consumers are happy with Zicam and it is selling well. This is more important than whether I think it works or whether any other investor thinks it works. <...and the fact that (deep sigh as I repeat myself for the 1,000 time) GUMM always has been and still is a NET money LOSER year to year> Yes, and for the 1,000 time, past results are not always indicative of future results, and future results are what move stock prices. By the time this company puts together several consecutive quarters of earnings, I believe that the stock will be trading much higher than 30. <You have done well with your Las Vegas style gamble (aided by your personal hype crusade)so far and made a nice profit. Now lets see if you're smart enough to know when to take the money and run because time is running out on this one.> Simply because my investment style is different than yours, and I am willing to invest in stocks that you consider risky doesn't mean that GUMM is a Las Vegas style gamble. It is absurd to imply that I somehow aided the rally in GUMM. Over the year that I have held GUMM, about 30 million shares have traded. I appreciate your confidence in my ability to help a stock rally that traded that many shares, but uh, you are wrong. I believe that Gum Tech will earn over $2.00 per share in 2000, and based on my growth forecast for 2001, I think that the stock could trade at a PE of 30 to 50. That puts my new target on this stock at 60 to 100. You can call this hype if you want but it is substantiated with a well documented proforma income statement and sound reasoning. My previous target was 25 to 30 by the end of 1999, which I missed by three weeks. <I find it curious that you feel compelled to answer my posts even though they are not directed to you. Or did you forget which alias you were working under again?> I don't see anything in your reply to Carl that was unique to Carl and I don't think that it was inappropriate for me to respond to your comments. And no, I only have one "alias" on SI. Incidentally, it is against SI's TOS to use more than one name.