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 (14888)	9/28/1999 11:28:00 AM
From: kolo55	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 27311

You wrote: "The short interest did not rise because whomever was shorting to drive the price down also covered at the bottom. Just as I predicted. And just as you claimed was not happening, based on your exhaustive scrutiny of Level II." How do you know that this is a fact? Especially versus the five possibilities I spelled out? You can't know this is what they did. Its only your guess. But I'm pretty sure this is inaccurate for all the reasons I spelled out in previous posts. Why don't you re-read the post, and respond to those points? Message 11366021 Your "Superman Trader" theory doesn't fit the observations, and doesn't jive with common sense. How did they sell for 5-7 weeks and cover in a little over a week without pushing the price up? I think the five possibilities I laid out are the only reasonable ones that I can see so far. Of course, some of those scenarios are more likely than others. Paul