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 (15419)	10/24/1999 9:40:00 PM
From: MGV	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 27311

You leave several misstatements to be corrected here. First, in regard to this garbage statement -- But you have set up another 'straw man' by claiming significant revenues in the SepQ." -- the claim(s) of significant revenues by VLNC have come from "tickertype" and other VLNC longs. It is laughable for you to represent that I claimed that VLNC has significant revenues. Have you lost it? It is precisely my point that they must not have significant revenues. For if they did have them, they would not have so much trouble raising sufficient capital to proceed w/o having to seek new capital monthly with all of the disruptions, distractions, dilution, and uncertainty that monthly equity sales entail. The market treats such uncertainty harshly. That is one reason why VLNC sits below its price of over 15 months ago. Second, I consider monthly deals at below $5 as heavily dilutive. Raising capital at $7 or $11 is significantly less dilutive than at the prices VLNC apparently has been forced to issue new shares to continue in business. Third, debt would not be dilutive to shareholders' ownership interest. Why no debt offering to avoid the heavily dilutive onus of sub$5 share offerings? Fourth, you write "The two underwriters for this secondary are large well-known securities firms." Who are they? How many shares has VLNC registered to sell in a secondary? There is absolutely no reason to hide this information. So come clean. Fifth, VLNC is a public company. Private conversations with company insiders to elicit such fundamental information isn't a requirement in cases where the fundamental information is likely to produce positive assessment of the company. The absence of such information casts VLNC in a negative light. In fact, failing to publish the information you imply is counterproductive. You fail miserably to offer even the start of an explanation why VLNC has been driven to such a desperate state that they must issue monthly tranches of shares at such low price levels. Your bias is more clear. By your representation you have about 1.5 Million invested in VLNC. You have much to lose.