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 (15405)	10/24/1999 2:34:00 PM
From: Mark Johnson	Respond to of 27311

Doesn't it embarrass you to keep spoutin' off without doin' a lick of research. You need to try and verify through a second source whether mooter or Paul believe what they are talking about. It's pretty damn serious to accuse anyone of being a stock "tout" without doin' a damn bit of research. It's hyperbole on your part just look at the record....

To: Larry Brubaker who wrote (15405)	10/24/1999 3:06:00 PM
From: kolo55	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 27311

Interim financier 13G filing. As you are aware, a large shareholder has to file a 13D, or if its a bank, an abbreviated 13G, within 10 days of exceeding 5% ownership of a stock (Regulation 13d from the Securities Act of 1934). Here is a link to the regulation: law.uc.edu Since there wasn't been a 13G filing in the 10 days following the September 22 financing (SEC filing on September 24), then that financing did not push the interim financier over the 5% mark. If there has been only one interim financier, clearly they must have sold some stock since June and before September 22, to keep them under the 5% mark. I flew out to Las Vegas on October 14th (the day MGV made multiple posts attacking me for my absence and accused me of sitting around on my thumbs) to meet with Valence management. The trip had been set up by another shareholder and poster on this thread, although he hasn't posted recently. At the meeting, I asked Jay King (the CFO) what investment philosophy the interim financier used. He indicated that the interim financier had admitted to him that they had sold some stock from time to time, but King seemed surprised when I suggested the interim financier was behind the recent wave of selling through JPMS. He didn't think that was likely, and I got the impression he was going to check it out. Then last week, a person I know, called management, and they said the interim financier has sworn that they are NOT selling stock at this time. Furthermore, the interim financier said that it wouldn't be through JPMS as a market maker, when they do sell. Yes, I consider these to be reasonably knowledgeable sources, ones that are open to any shareholder who wants to take the time and effort to call and talk to the company, or to fly out and visit them, as quite a few shareholders who post on this thread have. Its a nice thing about microcaps, they often use an open door policy like this for shareholders. As long as they aren't overwhelmed, and we don't tie their time up too badly, we can get access. You can always choose to disregard this information. What did Jay King tell you last time you talked to him, and asked him about Zeev 's leaky floorless theory? Please answer this; I would like to know how often you have talked to company management, before you came on the threads and espoused some of these theories. Have you ever talked to Jay King? Back to the key question: If the recent selling of over 600k shares through JPMS wasn't the interim financier, then who was it? I can only think of one party in whose interest it would be to sell so heavily in such a short period of time, and that is Castle Creek and cohorts. It is also too incredibly coincidental that the heavy selling that we saw for weeks through INCA/REDI/SKLC ended on Friday October 8th, replaced the following Monday by heavy selling through JPMS, which then continued for another two weeks. It seems likely that the recent selling wave was connected to the prior selling wave. And the selling from JPMS was huge... from the tape on Monday and Thursday last week, I estimate 80% of the selling volume on those days came through JPMS. What is going to happen when JPMS stops selling, or even eases off, like they did on Friday? ... Friday's tape action is an indication of what is coming. Finally, Larry, I suggest you re-read my post... you are mis-quoting me again. I didn't say that the interim financier had NEVER sold... I think mooter mis-spoke on that issue. I am careful with my wording, especially when I know a lot more than I am posting... which is most of the time. Paul

To: Larry Brubaker who wrote (15405)	10/24/1999 6:59:00 PM
From: mooter775	Respond to of 27311

Larry, You may or may not be right that the private placement investor is one, and only one, institution. When I mentioned that I was aware of one institutional investor who bought the early private placements, that was accurate. I was aware of one investor. I was also aware of a second institutional investor who bought/has been buying in the open market. I do not know if the later tranches of the private placement were bought by a second institutional investor or not. Could be. That would explain the lack of filing with the SEC, as you point out. I do think the initial institutional investor who bought the initial private placements was a foreign investor. Perhaps the institutional investor was a single institutional investor and lied to Valence's senior management. I doubt it, but you are free to speculate on that. I was aware that this investor had stated to company management earlier that on occasion he had sold some of his earlier tranche shares - but he was adamant that he had not been selling recently. You are also free to speculate as to whether Paul and I made up the entire conversation and deliberately lied to the thread. We didn't, but, then, you are free to think whatever you want. Still very long and very comfortable.