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: I. N. Vester who wrote (15820)	11/9/1999 8:52:00 PM
From: MGV	Respond to of 27311

"To add insult to injury, CC also has the warrant position so they will profit when the company takes off, too." Think about what you are saying - the significance of what the above idea suggests. Remember Dawson saying last summer something about financing being no problem (or was it fmk parroting the same?). Now, realize the import of what you are saying is that Castle Creek arranged financing terms that you now can see are draconian for VLNC. Use logic now. How would Castle Creek be able to negotiate such draconian terms? They had leverage. VLNC must have been negotiating from a very weak position to agree to such terms. Now think back and try to reconcile all of this with what VLNC and VLNC bulls have been representing all along. Remember their representations that financing is not a problem. The disconnect between their words and the financing actions undermine the credibility of the people behind those words, do they not? Why would VLNC accede to such terms if they had other more favorable (to shareholders) options? They would not. The rational conclusion is they did not have other options. So why would they not have more favorable options if what management was representing or the interpretations of management's statements by certain members of this thread were true? The rational explanation is they were less than true.

To: I. N. Vester who wrote (15820)	11/9/1999 9:34:00 PM
From: kolo55	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 27311

I still believe that CC has to convert... ... at least some of their shares. They must have shorted a significant number of shares below the current conversion price, and probably don't want to let the conversion price climb too high above their shorting price, before they convert. If we get a close of 5.00 tomorrow and Thursday, the conversion price will rise to at least 5.10 a share. A higher close than 5 each day pushes the conversion price even higher. The recent selling binge just seems to confirm that there is a big short position out there. The longs have withstood these kinds of concentrated selling attacks quite well, and I don't think the current one will be successful. I don't think they can hold the price below 5 for long, and so buying at 5.00 seems a reasonable strategy for longs. We noticed that HRZG (who has been a big buyer, probably close to 500k shares or more, and then who sold around 100k in the high 5s) was buying today near the close. This is good news in that they are likely replacing their shares, and will put a floor under the stock. In any case, I see the worst case downside as 4.50, since we have bounced off that level five times. A better estimate of the downside is 4.95, the current conversion price... I don't think the shorts will want to sell under CC's conversion price, and will likely cover under that price. We are getting closer to the end game. I look forward to reading the 10Q. Paul