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: kolo55 who wrote (14508)	9/11/1999 12:22:00 PM
From: Larry Brubaker	Respond to of 27311

<<Zeev,be careful about twisting the facts to suit the theory.>> Gee Paul, do you want to reserve that privilege only for the touts? <<Also your newest interpretation flies in the face of logic: - How could they significantly cover shorts in only a four day rally, after five weeks of unrelenting downward selling pressure?>> I don't recall Zeev saying they covered a significant amount of their short position. Trying to knock over a straw man once again? <<- Why would they reverse direction when they needed to keep the conversion price dropping, so the number of shares in their arsenal keeps increasing?>> Gee I don't know. Sell high. Buy low. Keep doing it. Makes sense to me. <<- If the selling coalition were the major sellers, who sold the shares to them at such low prices when they began buying?>> I'd guess it was the MMs who sold them shares, presuming this scenario has any merit. Also, you guys keep acting like whoever is shorting made a mistake taking on the "deep pockets" supporting the stock. Berg's purchases in late July/early August appear to be an attempt to hold the stock above the conversion ceiling. This attempt failed. Also, if it was Berg supporting the stock a week ago in the low $4's, or any other "deep pocket" insider, that would imply, once again, purchase orders are not imminent. I ask you. Has Castle Creek converted any of their preferred shares? If not, they must think they will get a better price, even though right now, the conversion price is not falling.

To: kolo55 who wrote (14508)	9/11/1999 4:09:00 PM
From: Zeev Hed	Respond to of 27311

Paul, it quite possible that with the limitation on CC (not selling more than 30,000 shares per day or 15% of recent average volume), they could not hedge to the new higher number of shares during the last decline. Thus, if they had "nefarious" motives (like making money), they may want a temporary rally and increased volume in which they continue and increase their hedge. Of course, this has no more validity as the assumptions and analysis we gave us during the recent rally, and indeed we might have seen the end game. From my prior observation of other floorless (like GATE), I do not think we have gone through the end game, so I have to assume that the onslaught will continue. My "signal" would be a close under $5.25, and if that happens, I would say there is a better than 50% probability that on the next decline $4 will challenged again. Depending on the volume, $4 might be taken out or not. Mind you, from a technical point of view, retesting the four area and holding will provide a good double base from which a rally might develop. I have no special insight into the progress VLNC might or might not have done in the last few months, so I have to stick with the pure technical picture, and as of now, it is not yet healthy. The rally corrected some damage, but not enough for me to jump back in yet. Zeev