SI
SI
discoversearch

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 ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: kolo55 who wrote (15017)10/4/1999 10:17:00 PM
From: MGV  Read Replies (1) of 27311
 
Now for full disclosure of klemencic's revisionism.

What he failed to disclose was: 1. the price action of CLS versus FLEX for the weeks and months from the point of his "recommendation" and why such price action is extremely relevant to the accuracy of his call and what it suggests about his lack of acumen on relative valuation at the point of the call, as well as, 2. the context of his recommendation to short CLS while going long FLEX.

1. Without spending more time to pinpoint by exactly how much CLS outperformed FLEX, suffice to say the outperformance was by a substantial margin. It was not an insignificant amount. To be clear, what klemencic advocated was the sale of stock that far outperformed stock in which he advocated going long. In other words, the far better trade was the exact opposite of what klemencic recommended i.e. going long CLS and shorting FLEX. For the amount of capital klemencic put at risk, the return would have been significantly better doing the exact opposite.

2. Context - The reason why klemencic paired CLS and FLEX, however misguided the trade, was his reaction to comments by another poster and myself a few days earlier in which CLS' prospects and good value were noted. Look back a few days in the ECM thread to see the emotional reaction by klemencic to the ideas of a poster from Canada, named Marc, as well as my posts on CLS.

Understand that holding klemencic accountable on this point doesn't even address the question of his representing that he covered the trade after the fact. Of course by doing so, he could pick the point at which a trade may have been profitable, even if only for a short time.

In sum, klemencic's representations have to be held suspect in their timing. But even before arriving at that ripe issue, in evaluating risk-reward and the results of the reverse position, it is clear that klemencic's analysis yielded the incorrect conclusion on the basis of relative valuation. And relative valuation was the basis for the very trade he represented.

Unfortunately, the cost of holding him accountable is that it pushes him into his anal mode. And that is not a pretty picture. It is unfortunate.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext