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: lws who wrote (4027)	8/31/1998 2:02:00 PM
From: Robert Einstein	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 27311

<<<<In my "balanced opinion," the company's chances for success in both the near and far terms are decent, in contrast to my hope, which is that their chances are good if not great. My balanced opinion (:-)) assigns subjective probabilities of 25% likelihood to failure within the next 5 months, 30% likelihood to decent success over the next few years, 30% likelihood to good success, and 15% likelihood to great success over that time period. My balanced opinion is not the same as my hope. I am now drafting an explanation of this and will send it to you by private message.>>>> Sir, my hats off to you if, and only "if" you can make a coherent discussion about how you have arrived at such precise mathematical calculations. Pray, do post and share your wisdom with us, no matter how lengthy the post. Appears to me that we have a future Byron Wein or Ralph Acampora or Barton Briggs in our midst. Sends a chill up and down my spine, knowing that I am actually communicating with you sir. Robert

To: lws who wrote (4027)	8/31/1998 5:13:00 PM
From: FMK	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 27311

LWS, thanks for your thoughts on Valence's outcome. Regarding your comment<<Likewise I do not believe Dawson bought 950k shares just to make an impression. I am sure he hopes to profit from them through Valence's success. Since the purchase evidently involves a non-recourse loan.>> As I understand it, a non-recourse loan is one he personally would not have to pay back, as in the case of being a limited partner. Lev put up assets as collateral and is "on the hook" for paying back this loan or he will lose the pledged assets. It is therefore not a non-recourse loan. An old axiom was mentioned recently on one of these threads - "There are many reasons why insiders sell. There is only one reason why insiders buy." I personally rate Valences chance of failure somewhere between 0.2% and zero. Apparently someone agrees with me or we wouldn't have seen this much volume and a 1/16 gain on a day the Dow dropped 512 and the Nasdaq 140 points.