To: DanZ who wrote (2739 ) 10/23/2000 8:31:48 AM From: Mark Marcellus Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 5582 Do you: a. Issue debt b. Issue equity c. Sit on your ass and do nothing because issuing debt and equity aren't a healthy way to look at a development stage company Dan, I really don't think you are this dense but, just in case, let me try to explain one more time, very carefully. If I were CEO of a company burning through cash, I would do everything in my power to raise money to keep the company solvent. This would be true whether I were running a promising startup or a pyramid scheme. But as an investor, I should be spending a lot of time making sure it isn't the latter before I gave that CEO any of my money. In the case of GUMM, this is a particularly relevant issue. In the 5 year period you chose to highlight, a lot of investor money has been flushed down the toilet on marketing failures. When Auric brings them up, you dismiss them as old news and say that it's different with the current company. Fine, but you can't have it both ways by trumpeting the fact that GUMM was cash flow positive over that period. This was true only because they were more successful in selling stock than they were in selling products.it is very misleading to imply that Gum Tech will run out of cash in one year even if they burn $1 million a quarter and have $3.5 million in cash. First, this assumes that they won't have positive cash flow from operations over the next year which I disagree with. Second, it assumes that they won't raise money if needed through a debt offering similar to the one with Citadel. Third, it assumes that they won't raise money as a result of the exercise of options which is completely wrong. Fourth, it assumes that they will burn $1 million each quarter which I disagree with. That is the argument you should have made the first time. It doesn't sound nearly as bullish as saying that Gumm has always been cash flow positive, but it more fairly states the case. I don't share your confidence in the products or management, but that's what makes a market. What it boils down to is that GUMM must have a profitable product soon, or they must raise cash through debt or equity to remain solvent. I wouldn't be as hysterical about it as Auric is, but I think it's a legitimate issue. Given current market conditions, if GUMM isn't profitable soon they may have serious problems raising money. Success in obtaining capital during a bull market which didn't particularly care about profits is not real relevant right now.