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 (15837)	11/10/1999 1:42:00 AM
From: Pallisard	Respond to of 27311

Zeev and Larry still play to each other and the longs on the sidelines with an air of dignity and rationality that attempts to generate the most credibility. If I wanted to liquidate other positions and acquire more Valence, I guess I'd also like to see the price drop as I'm sure they do. Fortunately we have knowledgeable longs on the thread who are able to expose and explode these predictions and scenarios and stop them from becoming self-fulfilling myths.

To: I. N. Vester who wrote (15837)	11/10/1999 1:58:00 AM
From: Larry Brubaker	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 27311

<<Larry, the facts don't support your hypothesis.>> Maybe your perception of the situation does not fit my hypothesis, but you are just guessing about the facts, as I am. However, there is one fact that is very clear. Castle Creek had the opportunity to convert at $4.61 and did not. My perception is that Castle Creek is not stupid, therefore they must think they will get a better price. <<No Larry, the game is almost over. All we need is to hear the fat man singing. He will soon, because his net worth will exceed $1B by a very large amount.>> I assume you are talking about Berg here. All that money and he couldn't cough up a measily $25 million to finance VLNC at $7, and left VLNC to scrape to sell a few million each month in the $4s. <<Thanks for playing Larry. Too bad you were not a winner <VBG>.>> Yeah, I guess I'm a big loser for selling my shares a year ago this week at a price more than 50% higher than where we sit right now.

To: I. N. Vester who wrote (15837)	11/10/1999 9:59:00 AM
From: P. Ramamoorthy	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 27311

INVestor, Lev has to mind the execution of VLNC project, not CC or other speculators. Why would we expect the next call to be negative, if the last two were considered positive? Although, in the last two calls, Lev did not reveal much, did the investors consider it negative? There is every indication (business sense) that VLNC is moving along the time line (and project schedule). As the uncertainty gets reduced, Lev would have to sound more and more positive, not negative, assuming that VLNC has not run into some unexpected, insurmountable problem. For those that believe that PO announcement is the only validation of their investment and are in the stock for a quick buck, they will be disappointed by Lev. Lev has repeatedly said that he would not pre-announce or announce any PO's, without an independent verification of the material event. Why is the hang up over PO's? If the sell off occurs after the call, that move the stock into tight hands at cheap price. Market inefficiency is a great opportunity! VLNC chart looks fine to me. (Shows that some nervous speculators got in and out lately.) There has been no reasonable explanation as to why CC skipped those cheap conversion prices, except that CC is waiting for the nth time for a better price. CC is probably the "smart" tax loss seller, so far. In summary, Lev is a very conservative business man that likes to play his cards close to his chest. We need to live with that. JMO Ram