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 (13308)	7/23/1999 8:04:00 AM
From: Zeev Hed	Respond to of 27311

Larry, SCUR is cooked alright and there is no knowing if they end up like HAYZ or not. Zeev

To: Larry Brubaker who wrote (13308)	7/23/1999 8:26:00 AM
From: Greg McDaniel	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 27311

Help me understand the following taken from their(SCUR) 2nd qtr report: Weighted average common shares and equivalents outstanding 17,744 17,471 17,203 15,945 As of june 1998 15,945,000 shares. as of june 30 1999 17,203,000. why didn't the number of shares increase 8 million? Is it too soon for the 8million shares to show up? Or is there official document wrong?

To: Larry Brubaker who wrote (13308)	7/23/1999 9:58:00 AM
From: Rich Wolf	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 27311

Re: SCUR - Short interest has been negligible, and has not increased over the period in question. See: viwes.com Since CC didn't convert and sell openly, and didn't sell short, then there is some other factor at play in why the stock price tanked, and the stock price has nothing at this time to do with Castle Creek. You've drawn a correlation where there is not one, and made an implication that is not supported by any data. Your reason for making this post would appear to be to lead readers to think CC was responsible for destroying SCUR's stock price, and hence Valence shareholders should expect the same. This would not be a reasonable conclusion to draw from the evidence. Sorry, Larry.

To: Larry Brubaker who wrote (13308)	7/23/1999 1:05:00 PM
From: Cathi Wierzbicki	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 27311

Hi Larry: I own both SCUR and VLNC. Personally, I put it into the category of "forgone conclusion" that Castle Creek hedged (SHORTED) their position in both companies. Standard operating procedure. And, of course, that hedging (read: shorting) caused the price to fall further than it would have without it. As far as those shares showing up in short interest statistics, I am not positive what the regulations are concerning it. I can say that I have frequently read on MANY threads that offshore shorting is not required to be reported. It is possible that all these posters are wrong. But, I tend to doubt that given the fact that the stocks in question did indeed decline substantially and did, subsequently, in SEC filings report HUGE share increases. We will have to hope that VLNC manages to get Castle Creek to waive the floorless again. But, I think there is no doubt the stock is lower priced right now then it would have been without the floorless financing. Cathi