Alex thanks for your post!
You are helping me prove my point. You pointed out that I am the only negative poster--thus, in effect, this thread runs 99 perecent bulls 1 percent bears. Doesn't that indicate it is overvalued?
As for my post, I think you better reread it. I would think anyone who owns a company would find unsolicited e-mails, I.I. STOCK OF THE DAY designation 7/23/97 (beginning of run-up), and cold calling (one of our daughthers got one too) regarding their investment significant.
As for motive I think maybe the bulls motive is more suspect:
Emmo posted: <<Consider that if the price is greater than or
equal to the buy price at the time of trial then it is likley the case is dismissed as there is no longer a loss by these investors. Naturally one could wonder if information posted is
directed at keeping buyers away from the stock in an effort to keep the price as low as possible when the two sides square off.>>
First I have never been a shareholder of valence or am in any way connected to the case. Second, Emmo's statement is incorrect. Most of those involved in the suit would have fixed their damages already (sold) and thus subsequent share price action would be irrelevent. The example a securities attorney gave to me is: Suppose you buy a car ($5,000)--seller says it is something it is not--you pay more than it is worth--you then resale the car for true value in attempt to mitigate($1,000)--but 1st seller repairs car for second buyer (car now worth $2,500). The fact that car is now worth more is irrelevent to your case against first seller (the first seller still lost $4,000). That is analagous to the plaintiff in this case. In fact, they would have no motive to keep the share price low since they would want adequate equity to pay the judegment. The only one, in my opinion, who would have motive to change price would be the new shareholders and/or the company since they will have to fullfill the judgement. (I would also think that the current O&D named would want to prevent an adverse judgement against them)
Last, I think you all have really demonstrated a suspect motive since my post was not even equal in magnitude to some of the very postive posts here yet they go unchallenged. My post was fairy tame and matter of fact and did not even point out the fact that vlnc was STOCK OF THE DAY, etc. I did not say it was "the beginning of the end" I stated that the pattern of promotion would not be good for the longs. Hardly as forcefull statements as we'll see $65-$100 next year!
See my post:
techstocks.com
More evidence, My post get 15 subsequent posts attempting to question my motives! I think such actions expose this thread prettly clearly.
To all vlnc bulls: There are at least 50-80 global players now and though I think your devotion to valence is admirable I think it is possibly a little suspect itself (hope you don't mind since my motive was questioned first). If you would like factual information with links to secondary verifiable and factual sources See:
techstocks.com
Thank You and Good Luck Investing!! |
