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: golden_tee who wrote (15389)	10/23/1999 3:58:00 PM
From: P. Ramamoorthy	Respond to of 27311

Recalling the stock price action in response to the last two news releases (supplying miles of battery materials to Hannil, supplying batteries to Alliant, etc.), I sensed a huge of credibility problem for VLNC, given that VLNC history was not that great in the past! If the short interest was positively correlated with VLNC credibility problem, short interest could have been a good indicator. But lately, it was not so, because CC presumably started playing games in July, with the hope of inducing a "death spiral", etc. (If CC's attempt to induce a death spiral failed and if CC's negotiation with VLNC failed , what choice CC has but to cover the "short" shares as soon as possible before the conversion price goes up?) The price action to any news of PO's (before or after the Nov 11 conf call) will be the most interesting event this time. How much credibility VLNC gains this time will depend upon how much Lev can "reveal" about VLNC PO's in dollars and cents? If VLNC CEO Lev hides behind those OEM secrecy agreements, the VLNC credibility problem will get worse, and the price will drop. just an opinion. Ram

To: golden_tee who wrote (15389)	10/23/1999 4:12:00 PM
From: Tickertype	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 27311

Yes, a truly excellent article. One could easily come to the conclusion that the author used this thread, and the one on Yahoo, as his model when he wrote it. Wexler's "Valence stock fraud" claims come to mind, and how many times have we seen posters trying to use the exact argument spelled out in this paragraph: 'Many concepts in the investment world are taken for granted, but these notions are easily manipulated to appear anomalous. For example, a common ploy when discussing development stage companies is to point out that the company has never reported any meaningful sales or earnings. One could argue that such comments either reflects very little experience investing in development stage companies, or that someone is attempting to turn the obvious into frightening revelations. It contributes to the na‹ve impression that one should not invest in companies, which have shown no profits. As a specialist in development stage companies, it seems fair to say I have never seen a development stage company that has produced revenues and earnings. But the negative use of the obvious creates a psychological feeling of estrangement in us--e.g. how could I be so stupid as to invest in a company with no earnings or revenues"? The distortion of common sense facts fosters a sense of enfeeblement in one's sense of self, as we feel exposed to such an "obvious" mistake.' ---------------------- Most of the Valence longs can take pride in the fact that they've (and I've) steadfastly ignored all these attempts to discourage, and have maintained, and even increased their positions. This confidence is now about to pay off. - T -