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 (14836)	9/26/1999 2:12:00 PM
From: Mark Johnson	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 27311

And Larry/no?who! can only rearview it with second hand news. Have you no spine man....Don't you see Zeev's got you hoodwinked. All the talk of bankruptcy, death spiral, insolvency.......rubbish. The stock may have been played with by the big players, but the technology, patents, and market potential remain.... a point Zeev and his lapdogs conveniently ignore.... Patience....

To: Larry Brubaker who wrote (14836)	9/26/1999 5:09:00 PM
From: Dennis V.	Respond to of 27311

Larry, it's you and Zeev who have presented theories which have not fit well with the subsequent events. Paul's work is an evolving hypothesis based on observable data which are constantly updated. This evolving work owes something to the original "death spiral" team just like Einstein owed something to the "aether" theorists, e.g. light is a waveform. Similarly, Paul conceded that CC is hedging, something that he argued against many moons ago. He owes Zeev for alerting us to the possibility, but the rest is all his inasmuch as the original argument by you and Zeev must now be greatly modified and his hypothesis accepted in the majority. For you to insert additional suppositions at this point with no evidence or reasonable analysis is diversionary. Nevertheless, I am flattered that you would adopt my reasonable criticism of the sorcerer and his apprentice and attempt to turn it on its head.

To: Larry Brubaker who wrote (14836)	9/26/1999 5:10:00 PM
From: kolo55	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 27311

I didn't ignore these scenarios. You wrote: "First, the short interest rose steadily all spring, a period in which you claim Castle Creek was not shorting." Why don't you respond to my point? I discussed this clearly in my post. I said that if CC was still short a lot of shares from last spring, say in the 7s, then they certainly would have converted preferred shares and gotten common stock at 4.47 to lock in a gain of 40%+ on September 13. But if that was the case, why were they still selling shares from the conversion the last two weeks? They wouldn't have any shares left to sell. If CC had shorted a lot of shares last spring, then consistent with the selling over the last month, they would have converted more than 700,000 shares. They didn't, so at the time of the conversion, its unlikely that they were net short a lot of stock from last spring. Incidentally, this doesn't mean that they didn't short some shares above 7 last spring, and then buy some long shares in the 5s, in July to offset. I'm just saying that if CC has been the big seller who has sold close to 700,000 shares over the last month, then its unlikely they had a large net short position when they decided to convert. You and Zeev claim that CC shorted a lot of shares last spring, without driving the price down, then shorted even more shares in August, this time driving the price down. Then Zeev says they covered in the 4s, without driving the price up. Then he says they started shorting the stock in the 5s again. All this with really no evidence from watching the tape. Zeev apparently believes CC are Superman traders. They can buy large amounts of a thinly traded stock like VLNC, and the price goes down in spite of that. Then they turn around and sell large amounts of stock, and the price goes up! This "Superman trader" theory is ridiculous. It assumes the other participants in the market are dupes. It is far more likely that when CC sells, the stock price goes down, and if CC buys, the stock price goes up. The tape action is clear... there has been one large persistent seller over the last month. I still can only find one party that could be that seller, and that is Castle Creek. Paul

To: Larry Brubaker who wrote (14836)	9/26/1999 5:14:00 PM
From: kolo55	Respond to of 27311

I tried the "leaky floorless" scenario... it didn't fit the facts. You wrote: "Second, you ignore any impact of Daddy Warbucks' buying and selling in the equation. Don't you find it a coincidence that the stock is always quite weak immediately before Daddy Warbucks purchases shares?" First, I think there is more than one institution putting money into Valence on these monthly financings; there is more than one Daddy Warbucks. The discount from the market closing price has ranged from just several percent to about 10 percent. It seems to me that interested buyers are having to put a bid each month, and highest price gets the shares. Secondly, you and Zeev claim these guys are shorting/selling the shares on the open market for a profit immediately. The problem is that only in the case of the August financing, could the buyer do that profitably. Even the buyer in August at 4.35, would have been lucky to get over 10-15% on their investment if they turned around and sold the shares immediately. Of course, then you and Zeev claim that they shorted the shares, BEFORE the monthly offering. This is highly improbable... how do they know they will get the shares, and at what price? Too many unknowns for an institution to play this game for a relatively small percentage gain. Third, the selling below 5 over the last month has primarily come from one market maker. And most of the selling in the 5-5 3/4 range has come through the same market maker. And the number of shares is huge. Only CC is in a position to sell this number of shares below 5, and even CC doesn't make a lot of money. The evidence is pretty clear that CC has been sitting on the ask for the last month. I learned long ago, that when you suspect a large seller exists, get access to Level II and watch the tape. You will be able to "see" the action of the large seller. I want to thank several posters on this thread, who together have monitored VLNC on Level II over the last month, and have shared information with me constantly. Repeatedly, we have seen the number of shares offered at the ask by this MM, hit and reduced, ... only to be "reloaded" by the MM again and again. Finally, the new buyers of Valence are buying an unhedged position in a thinly traded stock. I doubt they have the same investment strategy as CC. They are more likely to be venture capital type of investment managers. Paul

To: Larry Brubaker who wrote (14836)	9/26/1999 5:54:00 PM
From: kolo55	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 27311

I admit CC's latest selling is surprising. You wrote: "You also claimed a few weeks ago when the price started rebounding that the short attack was over and you projected clear sailing ahead. Now once again you are predicting the selling is over." I didn't claim "clear sailing", those are your words. I predicted that a conversion decision or settlement with CC was likely, to the derision of many on this thread. And I believed the "death spiral" attack was finished, and I still do. We are unlikely to see the conversion price get below the 4.47 price CC converted at last time. I also said we should rebound to above 6, and that we did. But I didn't expect to see CC's massive sales over the last two weeks, because frankly, it wasn't in their interest to sell that way. I actually thought we would get some short covering, and CC would sell any incremental shares they converted over their short position over a longer period of time. It astonished me a week ago, Wednesday, to find them dumping 30,000 a day again. Of course, the shorts were in no rush to cover, given that tape action from CC. Everyone could see CC selling, and the buyers backed the price down fairly fast. On Friday, we saw signs that CC is finishing up, and we got unmistakable signs that the shorts are beginning to cover. Its pretty clear now that CC must have a policy requiring them to not hold unhedged long positions. They have to sell, or hedge long positions as fast as they are permitted. But by now, CC must be very close to disposing of all their converted shares, and the shorts are still mostly short. We didn't get the short interest numbers (for the period up through September 10 trades) on Firday as scheduled by NASDAQ. But we should get those numbers Monday (probably before the open?). I still believe there is over a million naked short shares out there, and this is a lot of buying fuel for when the stock starts climbing again. Paul