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 (16484)	11/30/1999 12:20:00 AM
From: Mark Johnson	Respond to of 27311

Jeez you're two-faced...Have you no shame? <<Why anybody would tout Wolanchuck as a reason for owning VLNC is beyond me.>> messages.yahoo.com And you touting Wolunchuck:http://www.siliconinvestor.com/~wsapi/investor/reply-6146507

To: Larry Brubaker who wrote (16484)	11/30/1999 1:24:00 AM
From: Rich Wolf	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 27311

Larry, Larry, Larry, ... Yes, you are no lawyer. Success by the company at this juncture has everything to do with motive in regards the lawsuit. Since in 1994+ Valence invested heavily in the Northern Ireland facility and equipment (which they are sadly now still saddled with, namely the ancient Klockner line), while they were attempting to resolve technical issues that arose, it speaks as to their 'intent' at the time ... namely, their intent to attain mass production. (As opposed to the insinuated attempt to merely fleece unknowing shareholders.) The entire case, if it ever makes it to court in a few years, will hinge upon who knew what, and when. From a technical and legal perspective, it would seem there is no way the plaintiffs can prove beyond reasonable doubt that the company knew beyond a doubt that there would be problems after the signing of the initial Motorola contract that would not be as surmountable as others they had previously beaten.... and further, that while knowing this, they launched the secondary and then proceeded to sell their stock options. No, the events did not occur in that sequence. Further, there is always risk in any technological endeavor, and you will find those risks outlined in the original stock offerings. Further, ALL investors were informed each quarter of various board members' stock sales, PRIOR to those sales, by virtue of the 144 filings. Any investor who was not comfortable taking a risk with a new and unproven technology should not have been invested. I held shares at the time which I sold the majority of, at a minor loss, since there were too many unknowns for me at the time. However, when the price went to below $3, I bought back in, since it was clearly a technological hurdle, and I knew I was investing in the technology leader. The events since then have proven me out. While the initial investment was indeed 'dead money' for longer than I thought, the larger part of my later investments have now yielded me more than if I had purchased index funds at the time. And when additional events play out over the next few months and into the next few years, I anticipate outstripping those other investment vehicles by a very wide margin... based on what I know the company can produce... which information is based on more than just the rear-view mirror of the SEC filings. As the poster 'add' recently noted to you, you will not read definitive statements such as 'we have now manufactured commercial quantities of our products' in those filings until after multiple POs have been announced and delivered to... and the stock is much higher than now. A gentlemanly 'Good luck with your other investments' ... since you are not invested in Valence (at least, not on the long side). BTW, you're getting a poor return on your Valence investment... since it takes so much time from your valuable schedule, to maintain your consistent negative posting here and on yahoo. I would recommend leaving the thread.

To: Larry Brubaker who wrote (16484)	11/30/1999 9:36:00 AM
From: Gordon Quickstad	Respond to of 27311

It'll be an interesting case. The Wall Street Journal, prior to the bad news, had published an article that quoted a Motorola spokesperson as saying, to the effect, "we have tested ~46 kinds of batteries and this is the ONE that works". Also, there are batteries NOW on the market that utilize pure lithium - somehow they've overcome the dendrite problem. I believe it's the Israeli company Tadiron that has a lithium AA cell in production. The plantiffs must have an insider who will testify - why else would they be so dogged? PS - In previous whining post about the questionable MM's, the dip that stopped me out was the one a few days PRIOR to the 23rd, when the stock was lower. The scenario was very similar to the 23rd, though. It seems very unfair, possibly illegal to use stops as sell orders before other market forces move the stock price. Anybody know anything about this? I doubt that it's tracable due to real-time data rolling off screens.