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: Mike M who wrote (2732)	10/23/2000 12:28:36 AM
From: Mark Marcellus	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 5582

Seems to me Mark it was a response in kind I'm not always a fan of Auric's style, but if you judge him by the companies he has chosen to take on, his track record is pretty good. In any event, that response "in kind" hurts Dan's credibility for anyone who understands financial statements. Auric's point was that GUMM has been a money loser over the past few years. When Dan stated that GUMM was cash flow positive when, in fact, cash flow from operations has been negative, he was being misleading at best. If you are going to look at it that way, GUMM has lost money selling products but has made money selling stock. It is exactly those types of companies which Auric has successfully shorted in the past. Also, it was Dan's choice to show those "cash flow positive" numbers from 1995 on. That includes years which witnessed some of the failures Auric highlighted in previous posts, which Dan and you have dismissed as old news. Maybe so, but then how can Dan imply that those years were a series of triumphs for GUMM? I have no knowledge or opinion as to Dan's motivations for his postings on GUMM, but posts like the one I responded to don't help to dispel the insinuations being made against him. So they used equity to manage cash flow. Well Mike, that's an interesting way of putting it. Once again, it makes one think of a company which is selling stock rather than products. I assume that is not what you meant, but you would be well advised to abandon that mind set altogether. GUMM is a development stage company. They do not have cash flow to manage. They have a cash burn which they have to control until they become profitable, if indeed they ever succeed in doing so. The fact remains they have no debt. That's because they swapped debt for equity. Thing is, if the stock is truly undervalued, debt is a better deal for shareholders as long as they are not going to continue burning cash for the foreseeable future.