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: Pallisard who wrote (15997)	11/12/1999 1:53:00 AM
From: Larry Brubaker	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 27311

<<Who set up the shorts as judges of which fledgling companies shall survive simply because this gang has the financial means to implement their demise?>> Actually, Pallisard, the shorts do not decide anything, the market does. Companies that continue to spend more money than they take in, go bankrupt and the stock price goes to $0, unless they can convince the market to keep buying new shares. Those that can't convince the market to buy shares at a fixed price, sell them at a variable price. Those that sell shares at variable prices attract shorts. Why? For the very reason that they can't sell shares at a fixed price. Because they have little credibility in the market. The shorts are not the problem, they are a symptom of the problem, which is a lack of credibility. Maybe VLNC is on the road to changing this perception. For the sake of people like yourself, who seem to be blindly in love with this company, I hope so.

To: Pallisard who wrote (15997)	11/12/1999 2:38:00 AM
From: Robert Cohen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 27311

Larry I establish a long position with the hope and expectation that the company is successful. Others may establish a short position believing that the stock is overvalued, that management is poor or that the business plan is flawed. I accept this as an ethical difference in opinion in an efficient market. What makes me mad is the attitude that a concerted group of financially well healed individuals has the power to attack start-up companies and cause them to fail in the hopes of making a buck. To me this behavior represents capitalism at its worst and harkens back to the days of the Robber Barons. Had not AOL purchased Netscape, Microsoft by giving away its product would have forced Netscape out of business. Talented and dedicated people would have become unemployed and stockholders would have lost their entire investment. Microsoft's behavior was in my mind reprehensible and unethical and the courts agree. In the end Larry, perhaps your value system is just different than mine. Robert