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: Pallisard who wrote (12648)	7/2/1999 1:41:00 AM
From: Larry Brubaker	Respond to of 27311

So, your position is the SEC filings (dated as recently as July 29) are completely inaccurate. And you are placing your faith in a video shown at an annual meeting? IMO, not a wise move. Remember, material facts must be publicly disclosed. A PR is a public disclosure. An SEC filing is a public disclosure. A video shown at a meeting is not a public disclosure. Furthermore, I am certain that nothing Lev said at the annual meeting contradicts the material facts as presented in the filings. Just as nothing Lev has said during any conference call contradicts the material facts in the filings. He has never said in any conference call that any production line is qualified for production. He has never been specific in any conference call about when they expect to be ready for production. In fact, it is what Lev doesn't say in these conference calls that convinces me to sell. He talks about the wonderful performance of the battery. He talks in generalities about "programs" with customers or potential customers. But he refuses to be pinned down on anything of substance (size of contracts with JV partners, timing of production start-up, what type of financing we might expect). IMO, Lev is the one who is playing a clever game with his shareholders. He talks a good game in conference calls while refusing to be pinned down on substance. The substance is only disclosed in SEC filings (as required by securities law). Which the internet shills ridicule as "dated attorney disclaimers." And for about the 100th time, the SEC filings have continually been correct. While the internet shills have been continually incorrect. If you don't realize that by now, I feel sorry for you.