Larry, I had said:
<<And given that the SEC filings showed them to be beneficial owners of over 4.9% of the outstanding common, many of us expected them to have to file with the SEC if they ever did short.>>
You then replied: <<Wrong. Owners of 5% or more of the common must submit a SC 13G filing to the SEC. Castle Creek never submitted such a filing. Therefore, as I told you in February, your conclusion that Castle Creek must file if they short was erroneous.>>
Fact: you had no factual evidence that CC was shorting. We had factual evidence that the SEC documents worded it both ways, claiming in one part (CC's boilerplate) that somehow they would never ever be beneficial owners of more than 4.9% of the *common*, even though the document showed that they effectively controlled about 12% of the common. We discussed the inconsistency, and the nature of this 'loophole,' and it seemed too unbelievable that CC would literally invite the SEC to look into their activities if they did choose to short.
We hope the SEC does take a close look, and they will probably be invited to, if they haven't already. It's complete BS that CC can pretend they only own a fraction of what they do own, and that is in clear violation of the intent of the SEC regulations.
-----------------------------------
On another matter, you said: <As far as what the company says in conference calls, I don't believe I have ever ridiculed what they say.> Larry, you're right, and I only said you ignored and rejected what they said. It's your yahoo friends who ridicule.
You also said: < My comments are usually about what they don't say (e.g., last November when they refused to say they had sent out production samples and when Lev acted ignorant of the variable conversion issue, or this August when Lev avoided Harold Hartsfield's question about how much production capacity they have now).> -- This response was not evasive, and I don't see how anyone could interpret it as such. Lev is in the midst of negotiating pricing for his initial orders, and no longer wishes to discuss unit output at the same time as he speaks of related revenues. He can only use one set of units or another. I found it more useful to hear him speak of revenue rate, since we already know the run rate of the machinery from prior calls and meetings with the company, and visits to the plant. So I have a pretty good idea of the pricing he's talking about, but I'm not about to post it. Now, a year from now that sort of information will be available through the filings, and when market penetration is attained, the pricing will no longer be as sensitive an issue as it is now.
You also said: < Or possibly I question the spin you guys give to what they say (e.g., $76 million run rate expected within 12 months is spun to mean $76 million run rate within a few weeks).> ..... Larry, Larry, Larry..... c'mon, he spoke to that in more than one place during the call, and as I've posted in detail, his intent in saying 'within the year' was initially to be cautious, since he then also said that IN one year, he'll be at $250M/year... and then he said that WITHIN (not at the end of) the next year he'd 'run right through that $76M rate pretty quickly...' AND he then delineated exactly what pieces of equipment he needed to do that, and their delivery schedules. And those delivery schedules tell us that run rate is attainable within a few months.
So just bury your head back in the sand, Larry, you only seem to hear what you want to hear. The evidence is that the rest of us know how to process new information, even if it conflicts with our prior best interpretation (e.g., CC buying shares above market price in July '98, and exposing themselves to risk, versus the current situation where their behavior is one of seeking to minimize risk at all times; also clearly being unable to short below their cost until November, and then clearly not filing with the SEC if they had shorted after that, even though they were IN TRUTH beneficial owners of over 5% of the company once they'd funded the second tranche, since they couldn't have shorted enough against the first tranche to reduce the unhedged portion to less than a 5% position as of Dec '99 when they took on the second tranch).
Conversely, the company can tell you straight out that they have a relationship with Energizer, that it has been on hold pending their sale, that certain final customers of Valence cells are awaiting resolution of the sale of Energizer before signing on, and that Energizer will allow a 'Valence branding' of their cells, and so on, and you'll pretend you never heard it.
I reiterate not only are you inconsistent (picking and choosing what you call 'fact'), but apparently intransigent as well (not adapting to new information that contradicts your well-honed conclusions). |
