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: Mark Marcellus who wrote (3712)	2/28/2001 6:08:24 PM
From: Mike M	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 5582

*and we have seen results propped up by a cash infusion of unknown size from the mysterious new GelTech partner.* Hold on there, Mark. What results have we seen "propped up" by a "cash infusion" from the new Gel Tech partner? That new partner did nothing for GUMM except insure that the minority owner would be able to keep their end of the cash infusion bargain(they own 40%, they kick in 40% of the capital needs). The financial transaction was between BDT's new partner and BDT, no money passed to GUMM. 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. I don't think so. Management certainly made a mistake by not filling an international channel this year. I suspect their reasoning was they thought they might have a big marketing partner by now. A long term international deal of one or more countries would have diluted any marketing agreement. Bad decision. They could have shown growth year to year by filling the channel of only one large country. However interested prospective marketing partners might be, it is a chess game and takes an awful lot of time to promulgate. I doubt, however, that GUMM considers the year a bust. 40% growth year to year at the counter is nothing to sneeze at(no pun intended). That they have already matched 1st quarter of 2000 sales further attests to the fact that the product is not only selling better than last year, but that the channel is no longer overstocked. You can downplay the sales success and the marketing partnership opportunities all you like but with two billion dollar companies doing business with them already, I'm not willing to say they cannot pull it off. That you do is hardly a surprise. You are no more unbiased than am I, as the tone of your remarks have attested since day one. Your tendency is strictly a half empty glass where GUMM is concerned. I will admit my patience with management is wearing a little thin. If within the next three months, GUMM doesn't deliver on at least one of the three things I expect should happen: a Zicam partner, dental gum launch, and/or significant nicotine gum progress, then I will begin to unwind my position. I do not expect I will have to do this, however, I will not tie up considerable investment dollars "betting on the come" forever on any management team. Finally, you seem a reasonably intelligent fellow. I wonder why, without a dog in the hunt, you continue to frequent this thread to point out GUMM's latest problem or to once again denounce Dan. People like Hank, Wexler and Floyd cannot help themselves. The very essence of their nature is to harass, interdict, and destroy where possible. I just have you pegged differently.