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: Larry Brubaker who wrote (25463)3/18/2002 4:13:28 AM
From: I. N. Vester  Read Replies (2) of 27311
 
By Feb 2001, the stock was $5. Chose your view
'why did they sell so cheap in dec at 10 (cheap relative
to earlier in 2000)' VS 'they managed to do pretty well
selling at $9 in Dec when by Feb the stock was $5. Boy
Berg really got screwed especially since he didn't sell
a single share and now the price is $3'.

You're using 20/20 hindsight to insinuate malfeasance.
What's the point? It's very easy to second guess all
kinds of decisions based on 20/20 hindsight. You
think Berg is the one who made the decision when to get
the financing done? Get a clue on corporate governance
101.

You read something sinister into the stock dropping before
the company has made sales to Berg, as tho Berg may have
manipulated the stock by shorting without reporting it to
the SEC. He's really likely to be involved in illegal
transactions and risking his $1B net worth or jail time
over what he pays for Valence shares.

a) When the company gets low on cash the stock tends
to go down. b) They have a history of going to Berg when
they are running out of money. By your logic, and your
logic alone is it possible to conclude that Berg was
instrumental in CAUSING the price to go down before the
company turns to him for more $$$.

Berg being available as funder of last resort - has
that fact had anything to do with keeping the price
above $3 in spite of no revenue? No, of course not.

Berg has poured millions and millions into the company
without taking anything out, and he has nothing so far to
show for it but a huge paper loss. That's very
suspicious and all Vlnc shareholders certainly should
resent his involvement, really gotta agree with you Larry.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2026 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News