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: Pallisard who wrote (3802)	8/18/1998 8:04:00 PM
From: MGV	Respond to of 27311

which he was touting at 30, went to 21. The poster on AOL who predicted it, he called a fool. MIKL is down today 13/16 on high vol. w/Dow up 140. Firsr of all, there was never any touting, neither in the shameless cheerleading style seen here, nor in any other way. Second, I have participated in discussions on MIKL and owned it since it was $8 per share, not 30. Third, although it closed down today it is priced at 26 5/8 down from yesterday's $27 7/16. Fourth, even at a near 30% increase from its lows, it still is a very compelling value. Read the recent Smart Money feature on it as well as the IBD positive reference. If anyone would like to read them, ask for links. Fifth, the volume today was 161,000, hardly "high" volume. All of the statements that Pallisard made were outright falsehoods. It is what I have come to expect from him and others like him. Look, I know you guys are hurting but do something constructive about it. Learn from your mistakes. Perpetuating inaccuracies about other stocks and other people is no way to correct your heavy losses in VLNC. Besides it ireally is getting tiresome correcting all of the errors and worse here. I am convinced that this VLNC bull thread is a very small club. The inaccuracies are not in dispute. Anyone with an objective doubt is welcome to read the Yahoo thread on Michael Foods and decide for themselves.

To: Pallisard who wrote (3802)	8/18/1998 8:48:00 PM
From: MGV	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 27311

The poster on AOL who predicted it, he called a fool. Here is a sample of the AOL poster pallisard endorses: Poster: "The stock closed at 22 1/16. If it breaks 21, it might slump back to the 15-16 area. What do you think?" Response: You asked what I think. 1. You are disappointed that VLNC pulled back further today and is down about 50%. 2. You wish VLNC were earning $2.00/share and worth $22. 3. You will never learn, condemned to your pettiness for life. Poster: "Canstic - Are you Visnic in disguise?? Why are you screaming out these over- optimistic opinions while completely overlooking the technical analysis. The "dead cat bounce" is nearly complete. Technically speaking you can expect a return to the 21 area to form a double bottom before any major turnaround begins. IMO" Poster: "Mail room clerks are not good investment counselors. If you want to make some money, sell MIKL and buy VLNC now!" Response: Go back and read my posts on MIKL (and VLNC for that matter). The case for MIKL is fundamental based. When you made the ridiculous statement that MIKL was preordained to fall, my response was that given the fundamentals, if it fell to the low 20's it would be all the more compelling and I would buy more. Based on fundamentals, I said MIKL would be fairly valued in low to mid-40's. I also said that the low to mid-40's would be a fair 12 month target. And it is. Keep putting money into the market ronroy, the market is a zero sum game and without lightweights to throw their money away, it is more difficult to exploit inefficiencies. Regarding VLNC, which has fallen from 10 to less than 5 and remains under 5 today, I raised questions regarding its poor balance sheet, frequent change in senior management, and poor credibility in meeting targets. The market appears to be pricing VLNC pretty efficiently at under 5. You are an angry person. If VLNC is representative of your investment prowess, it is clear why you are so angry and dense. A fool? That word is pallisard's not mine. The description that comes to mind regarding the poster is a different one.