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.

Non-Tech : Bill Wexler's Dog Pound -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: eli74 who wrote (6418)	1/28/2000 7:36:00 PM
From: Kevin Podsiadlik	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 10293

If what the bulls are saying about the product and techonology is true, then being short is gonna get real expensive, real fast. There's a bit of a fallacy built into that remark, specifically the notion that if a stock runs up big on anticipation, it will run up even bigger on the event. In practice it rarely, if ever, works out that way. Take for example, Sunrise Technologies (SNRS), which ran from 6 to 14 in a very short time in anticipation of the approval of their ophthamolgic device. When approval finally came, the stock spiked to 16 (over 20 in off-hours), and has gone nowhere but downhill ever since, so far down to 8. From many other incidents such as that one, the popular phrase has arisen, "Buy the rumor, sell the news". At this level I can assure you that many future large orders are already priced into the stock. And that's assuming such orders are even coming, and that VLNC has the capacity to fill such orders, neither of which has been demonstrated as yet. And you might ask Mr. Wexler the factual basis for his claims that the managment of the company is engaged in a criminal conspiracy to defraud the investing public... Numerous people have asked him numerous times for his proof, and his response has been more assertions that he's right. Like it or not, that is his style. The theory is that people not predisposed to disagree with him can figure it out for themselves, and the others are a waste of time to talk to. But seeing as how I'm inexplicably in a good mood this evening, I'll give it a shot. The charge is based largely on VLNC's history of burning investors for years with promises of a saleable battery product "real soon now", even going into such minute details as the capacity of individual production lines and the target date for their readiness for operation, followed by nothing but excuses (if that) for lack of an actual product. This has been going on for some time, too: some of the earliest messages on SI (from 1996), say things along the line of "remember that VLNC fiasco?". More recently was the much-hooplaed announcement of a successful sale of "battery product", which, some cursory investigation revealed, was in fact a transfer of raw materials from VLNC to a VLNC subsidiary. If VLNC were legit, why would they feel the need to issue misleading press releases? I know, just maybe "this time is different" (as the REFR crowd loves to say), but generations of experience have shown convincingly that that is a losing proposition to bet on.