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 (14880)	9/28/1999 8:33:00 AM
From: kolo55	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 27311

I guess there are two more explanations. They are: 3. CC delivered some of their converted shares against the short position by the settlement date of 9/15/99. I didn't think that was possible given the time it would take to get the converted shares, but I should mention it as a possibility. 4. The new purchaser(s) of Valence shares is selling the shares on the open market. If so, they lost money when they sold in July/August for less than the June/July purchase price, but have made a profit in September from the August purchase. I don't even know whether the recent purchaser can sell these shares yet. I don't know the SEC regs on selling newly issued shares like these well enough to know if there are any restrictions on the sales. But it is a possible explanation. Paul

To: kolo55 who wrote (14880)	9/28/1999 10:13:00 AM
From: MGV	Respond to of 27311

"Short interest didn't rise much." Another poor call. Rethink your assumptions if you are able to.

To: kolo55 who wrote (14880)	9/28/1999 11:12:00 AM
From: Rich Wolf	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 27311

re: Short interest ....... It is not entirely surprising that the reported short interest didn't increase much. If the shorting this spring, during the 6 months of 'rolling stock' behavior, was 'boxed' at the low end (ie, long shares bought, to hedge the short position taken at the higher price, but the short position not closed out), then the shorts had a pile of long shares to work with. As we've discussed, it is a lot easier to sell long shares to push the price down for an attempted lower conversion price for CC, than to short. So the short community would have wanted to prepare for a potential push down this summer, by taking such hedging (boxing) actions this spring. So a possible explanation is that this last month saw a combination of: 1) 'unboxing' of boxed short positions, to push the price from the 5s to under 4.5 and hold it there a while (took place during second half of Aug); 2) attempts to outright cover and close out the short positions during the first half of Sep, when it became clear that the stock wasn't going to stay down, much less go lower than it had in Aug. Since CC feels they don't have to file with the SEC, we'll never know the answer to what the short position apart from them is. And the 'net' short position is unknown to us as well. C'est la vie. Rich PS After writing this, and being busy for a while, I simply posted it, and now find you added this to your list of possibilites in a later post. PPS Larry, our 'exhaustive analysis' of level 2 indicated the FACT that the shorts were unable to cover enough from the bid side (since the massive hoped-for selling by longs did not occur), to compensate what they had sold. IF they bought from the ask side, the MM they bought from was another short... now maybe this fellow was unboxing his position, not shorting further, but in that case it was just a transfer of the unhedged short position from one short to another. EITHER WAY, if the shorts were gearing up for another push down, they would have started last Thursday when the entire market was vulnerable, but they've passed up opportunities since then to push it down. Will they change their mind? If they do, they show themselves as indecisive and poor tacticians, having lost opportunities and having left a ton of money on the table last time. IMHO.