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 (14321)	9/6/1999 12:25:00 AM
From: kolo55	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 27311

Hmmm. Now I'm wrong because I was wrong before. Well, I certainly will be wrong again on something at some time in the future. I'm not sure why this fact invalidates my analysis. Regarding this comment from your recent post: I have to disagree with you there, John. In my mind, a self-proclaimed expert would purport to know exactly what is happening and make definitive statements. Such as our "inside knowledge" posters. Or these definitive statments by Paul Klemencic... I don't have access to "inside information", but I have studied this investment thoroughly and do have a lot of access to people who are knowledgeable about this company and industry, so I guess I am guilty of having "inside knowledge", apparently unlike yourself. I must admit VLNC is one of my poorest performing stocks over the last year... but as somewhat of a contrarian investor, this often the case for me for quite awhile. I actually have another large position that did worse than VLNC, but in spite of these misses, my margin account is up over 400% since last fall, and my cash account is up over 170%... and most of my big winners have been posted on SI. My investment returns have improved substantially since I got onto the internet in 1996, and especially SI, from the investment returns I had previously. Therefore, I am curious about your recent critiques of internet investors sharing information. Last fall I added about 50,000 shares when VLNC was less than 4. I essentially doubled up on a position established at around 6. Three months later the stock broke above 10. I would like to say that I sold most of those shares at that time, but I didn't. I lightened up a bit, but not much, and replaced those shares in the 6-7 range soon after. I admit I missed a selling opportunity then... and it probably won't be the last time. Larry, I don't post much on this thread unless some of these conditions exist: - I am trying to establish a sizable position, and am trying to work collaboratively to collect and analyze information. My posts from May, June, and July of last year, mainly fall into that category. Before that time, I almost never posted on this thread. - There is some material that I believe is clearly wrong and needs to be corrected. My posts from March, fall into this category. I felt that you and Zeev were incorrectly interpreting the SEC filings, when you claimed CC had already converted preferred shares and were selling the shares acquired on the open market. This was incorrect, and needed to be corrected, IMO. I spent a whole weekend working on that issue with you guys, to the detriment of my family. - There is a great buying opportunity for investors interested in the stock (IMHO). My posts from August and September last year fall into that category. When I post at those times, I try to give an indepth summary of the fundamentals, and discuss something of the current trading pattern to help fellow investors to help make a decision, and to check my own analysis. If you check my posts, they have come in bunches like that. In the last several months, I haven't posted at all until late August... the uncertainty of the stock's response to the floorless clause being activated wasn't predictable, so I didn't post. But when I felt the floorless trends could be analyzed, I began to post. I certainly don't definitive answers to every situation. But why can't I post an analysis if it seems reasonable to me, and isn't being discussed much on the thread? You seem to post here a lot more than I do, and constantly. If you are "nowaynohow" on Yahoo, who shares a remarkable similarity with your views, then you have been spending much more time talking up your views than I do. My handle on Yahoo is "zinfan94", but I rarely post there because the Yahoo threads are poorly designed and poorly moderated... this make those threads particularly suited for manipulation. I know you don't agree with my analysis, but why don't you address the fundamental points I raised in my current analysis... - That the rate of decline has been insufficient to allow CC to replace the shares that it has taken to drive the stock to this level, IF CC SHORTED at all during this decline since July 27. Through the third week of August, they denied they have been selling in their discussions with Valence management. - That deep pocket investors (possibly insiders?) appear to be supporting the stock strongly below 4 1/2 (four consecutive closes of 4 3/8, followed by two up days). - To prevent the conversion price from climbing, the sellers must push the price down below 4.35 by NEXT FRIDAY, through the resistance that the stock has now bounced off twice... the first time was on August 18. Why don't you respond to these issues? Paul