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: LiPolymer who wrote (18946)	4/1/2000 10:33:00 AM
From: kolo55	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 27311

What a wild week! I saw more nonsense being touted by the bears on this stock, than I ever saw before. I still wonder, did the bears know the terms of the Bear Stearns put contract on the plaintiff's settlement shares? Interesting note from the filing; it appears that only 600k shares were given this "protective feature". The remaining 350k shares were not. If these shares represent the lawyer's portion of the settlement, then they seem to have been treated differently. I wonder if the plaintiff's shares were "protected", i.e. essentially dumped on the market in a massive sell-off in this hedging play, while the lawyer's shares were neatly saved for a more reasonable sale later. Or worse, that the lawyer's shares were sold last Wednesday through Monday, before the remaining 600k shares had been "protected". I really don't believe the lawyer's could do something that blatantly against their client's interests, but the tape action is certainly interesting. It is very clear, that the stock was under selling pressure since last Wednesday, which could have been expected after the SEC filing. But then on Tuesday and Wednesday, the selling intensified dramatically, along with a rash of false rumors spread in the investment community. Could someone have been putting in place a large short position, knowing the terms of the Bear Stearns put option, last week? Then along with BEST, pounded the stock on Tuesday and Wednesday, in effect using the sale of the plaintiff's shares to push the stock price down, and profit on their short position? And then yesterday, covered a large short position? This smells extremely bad. At this point, it is clear that BEST has sold at least 600k shares in the last week from Level II action, and probably some of the lawyer's 350k shares (last W to F ??). Judging from the rush to cover before the close on Friday, I suspect the shorts are moving in to close their positions as BEST ran out of shares to sell. In any case, I bought heavily all week, especially on Wednesday, and added about 90k shares to my holdings. Paul