VALENCE TECHNOLOGY (VLNC) Message Board

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.

Technology Stocks : VALENCE TECHNOLOGY (VLNC)

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Larry Brubaker who wrote (14100)	9/1/1999 11:00:00 AM
From: kolo55	Read Replies (2) of 27311

Sorry I got your fur ruffled Larry. When I hear that an investor has a "no lose" proposition, with tremendous opportunity for profit, I must admit it raises a credibility question in my mind. This was the "theory" we were talking about last March... you kept saying CC had a "no lose" proposition. They might have a greater reward probability than risk probability, but they still will lose if Valence fails completely. CC has invested in the eventual "success" of Valence, not the "failure" of Valence. The issues of SEC disclosure, preferred convertibility, short selling history, were used in our discussion last March as we tried to determine if CC had a net long position, or was truly ambivalent about the eventual success of Valence (as you repeatedly claimed). The theory we were discussing regarded the intention of CC in making the investment in Valence... you claimed that CC did it to make money off the variable conversion and shorting against the preferred, and wouldn't willingly hold a net long position in Valence for long. I countered that CC's major intent was to make money as Valence succeeded. Paul

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next