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: Dennis V. who wrote (13338)	7/23/1999 12:52:00 PM
From: Pallisard	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 27311

The one thing that is crystal clear to me is that David Penfield is a professional short. He's been here before using the same tactics, trying to cause the greatest amount of apprehension among small investors by focusing only on POSSIBLE scenarios that would be detrimental to Valence, whether they be feasible or not. He wants the small investor to sell his shares so he and his "team" can maximize their profits.

To: Dennis V. who wrote (13338)	7/23/1999 12:53:00 PM
From: Rich Wolf	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 27311

Yeah, Dennis, I wanted to see what he would say. As if we hadn't fully read the SEC documents and understood 'variable conversion.' Sheesh. This man is investing (on the short side) in a company that HE clearly does not know anything about apart from a potential variable conversion. Talk about living dangerously. I would suggest people talk with the company and attend shareholders meetings, read up on their technology and patents, ask questions, determine the market and market projections, evaluate the competition's product and production status, compare it to Valence's, run some numbers about profit potential, and THEN estimate what the company will be worth ... once they sell the product from the factory they've built (and are still expanding, though two lines are currently producing two different cell sizes that they've shipped, as per the conference call). Meanwhile, looks like our test of the sub-6 range didn't last long. We may revisit it, or not. It doesn't affect my long-term view, either way.