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: FMK who wrote (3314)	7/11/1998 5:00:00 PM
From: MGV	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 27311

Fred, I take no pleasure in learning that you suffered the financial hardship you described because of your earlier investments in VLNC. Other than buying puts for hedging purposes, I have never benefited from a stock falling in price. I don't short for many reasons. One reason is that a short position is vulnerable to unlimited liability. When you are long of course your investment can only go to zero. I had read your posts previously on AOL after learning about VLNC way back in '92 or '93 via a bullish reference in Barrons. Your information about the extent of your investment makes your fanaticism about VLNC's prospects more understandable. You understand that misery loves company. I don't mean to offend you in saying that but, that point explains why posts such as yours can end in a spiralling downward cycle. I think your posts, whether purposeful or not, have misled others in the way described in the WSJ article on Friday. As a lawyer, I know your posts about the role of a 10K is incorrect. (As a lawyer, I also tend to not turn the other cheek when someone makes a personal attack in response to a post on the merits or not of VLNC.) Battery technology is a compelling investment object. I began to read about VLNC after the Barron's article. In 1993 or 1994, I recall Dawson or someone connected with VLNC (though I think it may have been Dawson) representing that it was no longer an R&D company. It allegedly was on the threshold of commercial production before crashing and burning. Dawson left on less than happy terms almost immediately thereafter. VLNC has done or reported nothing in any credible documentation thereafter to even begin to repair the damage caused by the 1993/94 turn of events. I think the WSJ article is important. Although it should not be expected to affect the internet posters with criminal or fraudulent motives, it may make some of the naive touts a little more sensitive to what they are saying and who is reading it. Objectivity especially is difficult when obstructed by emotional financial loss as you say you suffered. Nonetheless, objectivity is healthy. I've pointed out weaknesses in VLNC because I think they make up the company's dominant position and because this thread in particular has been so one-sided on the bullish side. My view that VLNC is in serious trouble (based on the 10K and the consistently irregular history of the company since at least 1993) combined with the intolerance on the VLNC threads for any view other than extreme bullishness catalyzed my posts because I think there are people who are relying on the one-sided bullishness to the extent described in the WSJ article. The personal attacks for doing that has only added to my suspicion about the motives of some of the bullish posts. I understand the emotionalism could be a result of sever financial losses such as yours but, it doesnt justify them any more.

To: FMK who wrote (3314)	7/11/1998 6:20:00 PM
From: MGV	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 27311

Here is an example of a misleading or false statement: FMK said: "There probably were some nimble traders who sold when they determined the stock was overbought and triggered volatility." Traders don't cause stock volatility. Volatility is a measure of risk. The riskier a stock is, the greater its volatility. On the other hand, the severe decline in price that caused substantial losses for people holding VLNC shares the last time its management represented that it was on the threshold of commercial production, was due to the extreme change in perceived fundamentals caused by the failure of management to follow through on their signals to the market. The price fell not from traders, traders are the messengers, the price fell because VLNC prospects swiftly fell.