Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: mooter775 who wrote (11916)	6/7/1999 4:36:00 PM
From: William Epstein	Respond to of 27311

mooter775; Now that sounds reasonable and I can agree. Remember, I am a bull, holding 8000 long? I posted the same thing to Zeev. I felt is was a safer place to park my money, at the moment, than some of the high flyers, despite it's previous history for the very reasons you've enumerated. What is not needed is unnecessary remarks about short termers being gone and this imagined cabal of loyal long termers remaining. I can be a short termer or a long termer, depending upon the circumstances. I've don't have enough info. to make that decision yet, with any real confidence. None of us have seen enough confirmation of our hopes to make that kind of decision yet with more than a "wing and a prayer". This post was not meant to offend you and I don't think you meant to offend me, either. I am just speaking plainly. I can understand the frustrations of waiting a long time. Bill

To: mooter775 who wrote (11916)	6/7/1999 5:58:00 PM
From: MGV	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 27311

You just made the argument to buy if/when an R&D company demonstrates tangible evidence of product marketability and not a moment before. Similarly, Bill Epstein's comment linking sale decisions with the amount of time held is flawed by the concept of sunk costs. In other words, evaluate buy/sell decisions on the basis of merit as adjudged at the moment and nothing else. Finally and predictably the starry eyed, emotion-driven share(hand)holders (with the exception of lws and John Curtis, who at least tried to approach the question with some varying level of analysis) let the question about industry takeout pass right over their heads and fixed instead on the dream levels at which they would sell. Of course the dream levels are irrelevant (on at least 2 levels) and they continue to have no clue why a company hypothetically poised to be first to market with new, useful technology would be stuck at $7, down from $11, even as (as the hype is spun) the company is moving inexorably to commercial practicability. lws, I'll bet you could come up with a fine list of distinctions between MSFT/IBM circumstances and VLNC/list of potential buyers if you weren't distracted by your fiancee. (No criticism there).