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: DanZ who wrote (3698)	2/27/2001 5:25:11 PM
From: Hank	Respond to of 5582

Yes, Danny Boy, you're just marvelous with numbers and a Grade A ANALyst. You are 110% right on the money (pun intended) with your expectations for GUMM. You can add, subtract, and multiply with the best of them. It's just too bad you never learned the difference between a + and a - sign. It's no wonder you have so many fans that believe in all your carefully worded lies and intentionally leaked insider info. You're like a cult leader. Your followers are not only willing to lose money hand over fist on your "recommendations" but I bet they'd drink that special Kool Aid if you told them to! Meanwhile, the POS known as GUMM continues it's decay on higher and higher volume. That's not good is it Danny Boy? $5 is the next stop. Then there will be some REAL fireworks as the margin calls get worse!

To: DanZ who wrote (3698)	2/27/2001 5:34:11 PM
From: Hank	Respond to of 5582

I'd like to remind you of some predictions I made about GUMM and the overall market/economy. Message 14217218 So far, I am 100% correct about GUMM and as each week goes by, I hear more and more evidence to prove I am right about the market and the economy. Not bad for somebody who doesn't know anything eh Danny Boy?

To: DanZ who wrote (3698)	2/27/2001 5:42:32 PM
From: Hank	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 5582

A typical SHILL'S twist: messages.yahoo.com Ziscam in the top 10? Too bad the market doesn't believe you! How do you sleep at night Danny Boy?

To: DanZ who wrote (3698)	2/28/2001 12:56:29 AM
From: Mark Marcellus	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 5582

A few things: First of all, I don't call you a tout, and I'd appreciate it if you stopped framing my comments as a "shorter's twist". It's true that I once shorted this stock, I have no regrets about doing so, I could short it again, and there is virtually no chance I would go ever go long. However your implication is that I am negative on this stock because I am short, not that I shorted the stock because I was negative on it. Let's avoid the name calling and just leave it that I think your analysis is extremely faulty and you feel the same way about mine. It's also true that I didn't credit you for getting the figures right for the first 3 quarters of 1999 and coming relatively close in the 4th quarter. Since the post was made in January 2000, I thought that even you would consider this to be a rather modest accomplishment. Regarding the bloated inventory coming out of Q4 1999, let's remember that questions were raised at the time about this, a full year before the company 'fessed up that there was indeed a problem. If you don't like the term "channel stuffing" that's fine, we don't have to call it that. The important point is that growth companies with successful products do NOT have inventory problems caused by overshipments a year earlier. The first year's sales history for Zicam bears no resemblance whatsoever to a successful product launch. It does however bear an uncanny resemblance to past product launches by this company. And while we're on the subject of recurring patterns at GUMM, I couldn't help but be struck by a recurring phrase you used while explaining some of your failed predictions: "I was wrong here, but feel like the company led me to believe" "Again, I feel like the company led me to believe it would happen sooner." And in a similar vein, and even more telling: "the company later decided not to release the results of any preventative studies that they conducted" Let's be clear. Analysis does not consist of being led by the nose by the company, even if current Wall Street practice seems to indicate the contrary. Now, an example of a rather rudimentary piece of analysis would be to infer from the last statement above that the company did not release the results because they showed no correlation between the use of the product and cold prevention. I do assume that you are bright enough to have drawn that inference (at least I hope so) but I still find it interesting that you couldn't bring yourself to come out and say it, instead couching the decision in neutral terms. It is obvious, even from the sketchy details in the press release, that the year 2000 was yet another failure for GUMM. Zicam cold remedy has had mediocre results, at best. BTW, note that Zicam's vaunted "Top 20" rating is by SKU. This means that instead of comparing against, say, the Dimetapp cold remedy line, the comparison is made separately against each of several SKUs. And despite the optimism of a year ago, the company has had yet another year of losing money. As bad as the losses are, they probably do not tell the full story. During 2000, we have seen, um, "aggressive early shipments" of Zicam Allergy which are no doubt waiting to serve as an excuse for poor results in the spring and summer, and we have seen results propped up by a cash infusion of unknown size from the mysterious new GelTech partner. From my perspective, another year has passed and it is still true that the only product GUMM has ever sold for a profit is its stock. It also looks like they are winding down on Zicam as the next great thing and preparing to move on to the Nicotine gum as the product that will bring us to the brave new world. I have to wonder how many times the merry go round can go around before it finally comes to a stop.