To: Iceberg who wrote (221 ) 2/5/1999 6:42:00 PM From: DanZ Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 5582
Ice, I agree with your point from an investors' perspective and this certainly has caused some doubters to stir up negative sentiment. More investors might be willing to buy GUMM stock if the study results were already published in a reputable medical journal. However, I think GUMM is worth at least $10 even without Zicam and I think this mitigates the risk to a degree. I'm basing this on the earnings estimate from Dave Rich (GunnAllen financial analyst) of 47 cents per share in 1999 without Zicam. I spoke to Dave today and he convinced me that his estimate is reasonable based on new contracts in GumTech's gum business. If you believe Dave's estimate of 47 cents without Zicam, then essentially you get Zicam for free with the stock at 10. Stated another way, I do not think that the current stock price discounts any profits from Zicam. Perhaps your explanation is the reason and Zicam will have to prove itself in the marketplace before the stock fully discounts its value. I think the stock will react favorably if GumTech is able to expand its distribution into Walmart, Kmart, and Target. Short sellers can stand on ceremonies and remain short until they see the study published. In the meantime, Zicam might be an excellent seller and the stock will move up despite their objections. In the FWIW category, I added to my position today at 10 1/8 and 10 1/4. In the BTW category, a few people have asked me if I post on the Yahoo bulletin boards. I post there under the name Makemilns. Also, somebody needs to send a suggestion to the SI webmaster to add the word Zicam to the spell checker. I don't like seeing red. lol Dan