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: Larry Brubaker who wrote (12917)	7/8/1999 1:44:00 AM
From: Larry Brubaker	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 27311

Confirmed, Wall Street Journal article of Friday, July 2 in "Small Stock Focus" Column, entitled Who's In, Who's Out? Stock Rebalancing Act By Russell 2000 Takes Some Issues on Wild Ride. Some points made in the article (I'm not going to retype the whole thing). The index was reconstituted on June 30 (Wednesday). (In looking back at the VLNC chart, Wednesday--not Thursday as mentioned in the previous post--was the day we saw the large buying before the close). Twenty-three stocks being added to the index gained more than 20% last Wednesday. Quote from a senior research analyst at Russell, "Everyone is very aware of the reconstitution and they understand that index managers need to have their new portfolios in place by July 1." (My comment, apparently "everyone" does not include Fred). Conclusion: VLNC has already seen its Russell 2000 effect. The shorts have nothing more to worry about relating to this issue. However, anyone following Fred's advice to "frontrun" the institutional buying will actually be following the institutions.

To: Larry Brubaker who wrote (12917)	7/8/1999 2:31:00 AM
From: Pallisard	Respond to of 27311

"There have been consistent sales of 3,000, 5,000 and 8,000 share blocks that began during the conference call" Sales or buys, Larry, for every seller there's a buyer. Why do you call them sales, just because the price was dropping? Obviously someone did the same amount of BUYING, that's the nature of the beast. "My suspicion is that whomever [whoever] bought the $3 million worth of shares at $6.24 is unloading for a quick profit." How would you have any possible knowledge of that, Larry, do you know who the original buyer was? Do you have any evidence? Everyone else thought the private placement was positive. Only a person trying to twist things into a negative would make that conjecture. You never pass up an opportunity to spin a negative out of a positive, do you? Is that the first rule of professional bashing. Paid or not, your sole intent is to create doubt and confusion in the hopes, I suppose, that you can pressure some weak investors into selling. I stand by my original impressions of you. Hopefully those weak investors are listening and will assess it for themselves.

To: Larry Brubaker who wrote (12917)	7/8/1999 8:39:00 AM
From: Eli74	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 27311

Larry, I would have to disagree with your statement that much of the selling we've seen in the past week has been the "mystery investor" selling to make a quick flip on the stock he purchased. While I can't be certain, obviously, it seems to me that someone who would invest $3,000,000 into a company as speculative as this would have more on his mind than a quick flop for a 1/2 point profit. Maybe I'm wrong, but in the normal course of events you don't (if you're intelligent) buy a large position in a small stock with a small float if you're just looking for the quick flip. So I doubt it was Mr. Mysterio taking his half point off the table and running. Doesn't make sense.