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 (14258)	9/3/1999 6:52:00 PM
From: I. N. Vester	Respond to of 27311

Larry, if Marshall Capital Mgt is so close to CC, then why were they so dumb as to buy $3M worth of shares at $6, just before the short sellers forced the price down? <<waiting for an interesting spin here>> BTW - very good detective work, you do get credit for that. I think you are right, because I had heard Credit Suisse and also that the buyer was close to CC. I think you are correct. If they are in the business of floorless banditry, why, oh, why did they pay so much for those shares when the floorless squeeze was about to start? Pretty stupid move, and they are in the business! Maybe they had some good reasons for thinking $6 was a good entry point, eh? Even if they were covering a short position, why pay $1.50 premium? Why didn't they buy more? 2 reasons: 1. Vlnc didn't want to sell. 2. Marshall does not to own more than 4.9% (which they has after the 2 $3M tranches). They never do because they don't want to report to the SEC. As for Zeev's 'landmine' clause, explain again how anyone will be held liable for CC's losses if they fail to convert at the present low price. We know the terms of the floorless quite well, and we also know how to read and interpret the language, which neither you nor your English impaired turnip counter friend seem able to do. All your foresight does no good at all if you never take any position as an investor or even as a trader. Judging investments based on what could be achieved by trading in and out with 20-20 hindsight trading is pretty stupid, imo. But it seems to gratify your ego immensely, so enjoy your game!

To: Larry Brubaker who wrote (14258)	9/3/1999 11:18:00 PM
From: mooter775	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 27311

My understanding is that the institutional investor who had purchased some or all of the last three private placements stands ready, ie, is committed to continue to purchase additional shares as the need arises. A conversation with a member of senior management this week indicated that at least this member felt that the company had already arranged financing commitments "through positive cash flow". Clearly the price of that financing, and its attendant dilution, remains a question, but I seriously doubt that your assertion that $ 3.0 mm was "all the investor was willing to invest." Pure, and in my opinion, quite incorrect speculation. Company management has on one occasion stated, I believe, that the institutional investor is a subsidiary of one of the largest 5 banks in the world. That would preclude Marshall Capital and Credit Suisse, I believe.