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 (3715)	3/1/2001 1:32:36 AM
From: Mark Marcellus	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 5582

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 The release does not specifically say that the new partner's cash infusion was in proportion to their stake. It's a reasonable assumption, and with most companies I'd assume that that's the way it went down. But let's just say that related party transactions between a mesh of privately held companies bring out the cynic in me. And my main point was that the joint venture was obviously in deep trouble, to the point where outside capital was needed just to keep it going. This reflects directly on the success (or lack thereof) of Zicam. Finally, you seem a reasonably intelligent fellow. I wonder why, without a dog in the hunt, you continue to frequent this thread Sigh. Why does investing have to be viewed as a giant poker game between the shorts and the longs, with the sides lined up and the money on the table? Since you ask, I've already spent the time to learn about this company the first time around, so it's not too hard to keep up with it, and you never know when things might get interesting again. Setting aside my suspicions as to the integrity of management, I'm reasonably comfortable that they have virtually no chance of success with Zicam even if all their efforts to promote it are completely sincere. I suspect the same will be true of the wondrous nicotine gum, should it ever see the light of day. It's rare to find a short possibility where I have this level of comfort, the stock trades for over $5, and it's not a BB stock. For that matter, there are plenty of stocks which I follow but don't own. I'm pretty choosy about what I buy, or short, and about the prices I pay. I think it is a mistake to believe that you should only follow stocks you own, or ones where you plan to make a buy decision in the very near future. If a stock has potential but is at a price I don't like, I might follow it for quite a while. Then, if the price moves to a point where I find it attractive, I'm ready. This is even more true if I've bought and sold the stock in the past. At that point I'm quite familiar with it and, as I said before, keeping up with it is pretty easy.

To: Mike M who wrote (3715)	3/1/2001 2:06:16 AM
From: niu72	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 5582

I've been watching this stock as a lurker for at least two years, mostly for the entertainment value of the never-ending exchange of "it's a fraud" vs. "no it's not". I have no particular axe to grind, have no position in the stock now or previously. However, I would offer the following observations, based on what perhaps could be considered an objective point of view. 1) Most of the regular posters clearly have their egos seriously involved in this stock. Maybe serious amounts of money (from their perspective) as well. In any event, it seems that most would rather be "right" than make money. 2) The company clearly has failed to deliver, thus far, in any meaningful way, on the expectations and hopes of its most vocal supporters. Over any reasonable time frame, this stock has to be considered a major disappointment to its ardent backers. Again, perhaps it would be fair to say "thus far. 3) Having read the press releases and followed the company for the past two years, I come away with the impression that management routinely strains the credability of even those who have the most positive outlook. This does not necessarily rise to the standard of "fraud", as some of it's detractors would suggest, but it sure does make one wonder if management is incompetent, inexperienced or "evasive". In any event, it certainly does not inspire confidence. 4) Anyone who has a serious amount of their net worth tied up in this stock is either very foolish or is more than just a garden variety investor. 5 ) So far, the "negative" team seems to be winning the debate. 6) My prediction is that the negative team will ultimately be proven correct. To be clear, I mean that the stock price will continue to generally decline, over time. Who is "right" in terms of all the charges and countercharges unrelated to the success of the company and ultimately the price of its stock is irrelevent Going back to lurk mode.

To: Mike M who wrote (3715)	3/1/2001 11:11:55 AM
From: Bob Trocchi	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 5582

Mike M... I know that I swore off posting on GUMM awhile ago but I could not resist at your comment... >>Management certainly made a mistake by not filling an international channel this year.<< I believe they also have missed something with my favorite gripe, not filling a channel with CVS. Now I know some one posted that they can get ZICAM at a CVS store. The other day I decided to check the CVS Website. Lo and behold, no ZICAM offered. You can however get Cold Ezze or however it is spelled. Hmmm. When I stopped posting GUMM was around 13 and I hoped it would go to my target for shorting at 15. Some long posted that I should be careful as I might get my wish. I didn't and never did short. Poor decision on my part to go along with a lot of poor decisions lately! :~(( Good Luck Bob T. Back to lurking.