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.

Strategies & Market Trends : Zeev's Turnips - No Politics -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Zeev Hed who wrote (36134)	3/2/2002 3:01:21 PM
From: LiPolymer	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 99280

Zeev, the pre-shorting of a fixed price tranche makes a lot of sense. The only other thing I might add is that whether or not the current weakness all the way below $3 was in the bandits' "plan", it is probably having some bearing on exactly where the price is to be "fixed". Thanks for hangin' with the rest of us mere mortals on a snowy Saturday.<g> Gary.

To: Zeev Hed who wrote (36134)	3/2/2002 4:48:17 PM
From: sylvester80	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 99280

Zeev, why do you say "mortals" can't short a below $5 stock? I've never had a problem with Datek shorting a stock below $5.

To: Zeev Hed who wrote (36134)	3/2/2002 7:18:53 PM
From: Rich Wolf	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 99280

Zeev, maybe it would have helped to understand my post if I had remembered to tell Larry that that was a good observation re rising short interest. I was agreeing that it had a high probability of being related to shorting prior to pricing a convert. What I was saying was that it may not be the toxic kind. Historically, we saw this clamping/hovering prior to each other financing, and in hindsight saw increased shorting each time. My point was that if they were doing it simultaneous with another large seller AND for the amount of money they would need, the market would never absorb the shares. Hence my counter proposal that it could be shorting just the amount needed to fix the price. As far as the business plan, this is where we thought they'd be two years ago, just introducing a product that would provide potential validation of production capability. Was the delay due to yield issues with the manganese material (or was it independent of composition), or was it to await the new phosphate materials, or just because the economy tanked and there was an excess of production capacity in lithium-ion battery manufacturing, and hence severe price drops? Probably some combination of all of these, together with the equipment really not being in place at the time as shareholders had been (mis)led to believe. So on the one hand, the company can be viewed as running on 'fumes,' but on the other hand they are further along, with better equipment ostensibly in place, with a better management team in place, and with better materials that might also be licensed to the liquid-electrolyte lithium-ion cell makers. Does CB pull away now, or does he know more about how the possibilities are progressing and hence continues minimal funding? If the latter, I would not expect him to repeat the near-toxic mistake he did with CC three years ago. JMHO on that. We'll know soon enough. If the price seems stable but with overhead resistance here, then watching how deeply it dips when we get the next correction and what the volume is like will provide indication as to whether it is really toxic or not... and perhaps stepping in for a toe-wetting position could be appropriate. Too early to tell right now.