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: Emmo who wrote (1925)	1/15/1998 3:48:00 PM
From: barrcuda	Respond to of 27311

For the life of me I don't understand, if VLNC is only months away from producing millions of cells, why they can't get one of these PC contracts. It is most frustation to see company after company sign deals with major PC companies, like Mitsubishi, and watch VLNC flounder in the 4 and 5's. DSW

To: Emmo who wrote (1925)	1/15/1998 3:56:00 PM
From: Larry Brubaker	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 27311

Emmo: I had read that Forbes article before, and found it very interesting. Sure, NASDAQ market makers can play all kinds of games, and some of today's big block trades "might" be some of those games, then again they might not. I disagree with some of the conclusions of the article though. They seem to be trying to suggest that NASDAQ stocks are overvalued because they have higher PE ratios than NYSE stocks. Of course they do. In general, NASDAQ stocks are also growing faster than NYSE stocks also, allowing them to command higher PE ratios. They also suggest that the higher volatility of NASDAQ stocks constitutes some sort of problem. I buy NASDAQ stocks precicely because of that higher volatility. Greater risk means greater reward, and that translates into higher volatility. I use my "play money" to speculate on high risk stocks. My retirement funds are "safely" tucked away in large cap mutual funds and fixed income (fixed income proportion is pretty high these days). So, while I am interested in anything I can find out the ways that NASDAQ market makers can screw the little guy, I found the Forbes article to be a bit biased.