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 (13317)	7/23/1999 10:56:00 AM
From: Rich Wolf	Respond to of 27311

Larry, you keep avoiding the point re: SCUR, that all that CC might have done on the downward slide is continually cover, not short. Hence the net selling that must have occurred (since the price kept falling) was due to other investors deciding that they wanted to liquidate their positions. What do you suppose caused the precipitous drop from 12 to 4 (then slowly to 2+ and now back to 3+) at the end of March? It had nothing to do with CC. But sure, why wouldn't they take advantage of converting at that time? Prior to falling off the cliff in March, the shareprice was above the conversion price. Hence, if CC had shorted at 29, and covered on the way down to 12, they're probably partway home, but not all the way. I don't think they originally invested in the double digits because they expected to see the price in the single digits (and they are not the ones that put it there). Now they need the extra shares they obtain from converting at the current bargain prices, to guarantee a net positive return, since the investment didn't pan out as originally planned. But there is no evidence that there was a 'death spiral' employed to push the price down. The cataclysm that took it from 12 to 3+ is entirely unrelated to CC's net short/long position.