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 (25463)	3/15/2002 10:33:43 AM
From: Mark Johnson	Respond to of 27311

<<<Of course, the fact that VLNC went on to make new lower lows shortly thereafter may be the reason why Berg isn't willing to commit $30 million at one price now.>>> Yeah Larry he's holding back hoping to get his shares below $2.....LOL...... It would never cross your mind that this was a shareholder friendly deal....Berg is a shareholder, you know......

To: Larry Brubaker who wrote (25463)	3/15/2002 10:45:23 AM
From: Larry Brubaker	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 27311

Given that in February 2001, VLNC sold shares to Berg at a discount to the (52-week low) market price in December, 2000, I wonder what the chances are that the first installment of Berg's new financing will be at a discount to the ($2.50) market price on March 6, 2002? I wonder if a good trading strategy for this year might be to buy the Berg dips?

To: Larry Brubaker who wrote (25463)	3/18/2002 4:13:28 AM
From: I. N. Vester	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 27311

By Feb 2001, the stock was $5. Chose your view 'why did they sell so cheap in dec at 10 (cheap relative to earlier in 2000)' VS 'they managed to do pretty well selling at $9 in Dec when by Feb the stock was $5. Boy Berg really got screwed especially since he didn't sell a single share and now the price is $3'. You're using 20/20 hindsight to insinuate malfeasance. What's the point? It's very easy to second guess all kinds of decisions based on 20/20 hindsight. You think Berg is the one who made the decision when to get the financing done? Get a clue on corporate governance 101. You read something sinister into the stock dropping before the company has made sales to Berg, as tho Berg may have manipulated the stock by shorting without reporting it to the SEC. He's really likely to be involved in illegal transactions and risking his $1B net worth or jail time over what he pays for Valence shares. a) When the company gets low on cash the stock tends to go down. b) They have a history of going to Berg when they are running out of money. By your logic, and your logic alone is it possible to conclude that Berg was instrumental in CAUSING the price to go down before the company turns to him for more $$$. Berg being available as funder of last resort - has that fact had anything to do with keeping the price above $3 in spite of no revenue? No, of course not. Berg has poured millions and millions into the company without taking anything out, and he has nothing so far to show for it but a huge paper loss. That's very suspicious and all Vlnc shareholders certainly should resent his involvement, really gotta agree with you Larry.