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: Tickertype who wrote (7269)1/21/1999 2:14:00 AM
From: Larry Brubaker  Read Replies (4) of 27311
 
Ticker, first, I didn't see gvander refer to any of the VLNC bulls as a turd.

Second, I keep telling you guys if you don't want me posting here, you might suggest to FMK he knock off the b.s. He had been relatively restrained for a few days so you didn't see much out of me. But today I couldn't restrain myself when he made the "professional investors" and "misinterpreting the S-3" comments.

The whole "panic sell" argument is a crock. FMK would like you to believe that the reason the price is no longer $10 is because "unprofessional" "internet" investors "misinterpreted the S-3." If the "professional" investors are so enamored of this company, why do we not see any large block buys at what FMK would have you believe are bargain basement prices? Many if not most of the larger block trades I have seen lately are sells. So what is FMK's explanation for why some "professional investors" are selling? Surely "professional investors" are not inclined to panic by "misinterpreting the S-3?"

The fact is this is a very risky stock, not the sure thing FMK has been touting for years. The financials are shaky. The company refuses to tell us where they stand. A floorless conversion is lurking. The stock price of any such company's will be volatile, both up and down. To attribute a downward movement in price to "panic" by "unprofessional" investors who "misinterpret" company SEC filings is just plain b.s., IMO.

Fred argues that "unprofessional" "internet trading" investors who are not "advised by brokers" are responsible for the decline. Of course this argument ignores the fact that no major brokerages even cover Valence. Anybody who relies on a brokerage for advice would not be in the stock in the first place.

Fred advises to ignore the "dated" "attorney disclaimers" in the SEC filings. Of course Fred ignores the fact that SEC filings include both statements of fact "we have negative working capital" and disclaimers "which raises doubts about our ability to continue as a going concern." It would be one thing to ignore the warnings of the SEC filings if the company were providing information to investors through other channels. But they aren't, so the SEC filings are about the only source of official company information available. Instead, Fred would have you believe unsubstantiated "270 employees" "several contracts soon" internet rumors.

But, hey, if you guys want to keep defending Fred "Stopped Clock" Kellet, so be it. I will continue to provide my "One Armed" commentary when Fred strays too far into the cow pasture.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext