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.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Solv Ex (SOLVD) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: mqmsi who wrote (5994)	9/2/1998 3:03:00 PM
From: Sid Turtlman	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 6735

Mark: You are asking two good questions. 1)Why do investors pay X for one stock, and only one tenth X for some other stock which looks like a better company? Two possible answers: A) Maybe you are wrong about the pro's and con's of the two companies, or, more likely, B) the people buying and selling the overpriced stock are unaware of the existence and merits of the underpriced one. There are so many stocks in the world, and some of them take a long time to learn about and understand. People don't have infinite time, so they stick to the ones they know, thereby missing out on better ones at a cheaper price. I fight this battle all the time. For example, there is a company BLDPF which is development stage company working on fuel cells, that has a market cap of about $1.5 billion. There is another company that is also working on fuel cells of a somewhat different type, ERC, that has a market cap of under $50 million. I strongly believe that ERC is the better company with a much better chance of success almost any way you want to look at it, but despite numerous posts over the years arguing this point, I remain fairly alone in the viewpoint. One thing I know about the stock market is that almost everyone suspects that there is someone else out there who may know more than they do. So market caps tend to be self fulfilling for a while. People assume that BLDPF must have the better technology because its market cap is so much higher than ERC's. Your question 2) Why would anyone sell SOLVQ at this low price? My answer: Assuming for the sake of discussion that most people in the stock share your bullish viewpoint, they still may want to sell to take the tax loss, figuring that they can get back in 31 days from now at a price not too much different than today. Of course many might be selling because they think the stock is headed to $0.02 but I agree with you--if you have ridden it down from north of $10, who cares about the last half a buck?

To: mqmsi who wrote (5994)	9/2/1998 3:06:00 PM
From: Mama Bear	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 6735

mqmsi, how many proxies have you actually voted? If you say every one that you've ever received, you are a rare bird. All of the proxies I've ever gotten have the clause that no vote will be voted with the boards recommendation. It's a silly argument to put forth that because the vote was overwhelmingly in favor of the reorg, that the shareholders care. Solv Ex has no valuable technology. Solv Ex will likely never produce oil or whatever they claim to be attempting to recover. If they do manage to produce some, it will not be a cost efficient production. Besides, I thought they were a paper company now. Didn't you hear that they had reinvented themselves? It is only your opinion that the sellers are letting go at "ridiculously" low prices. My opinion is that the buyers are paying ridiculously high prices. It is not likely that there is any significant short interest or new short sellers. That just does not make any sense. Rather, the slow and ongoing covering of pre halt short positions is what is holding this stock up at these inflated levels. See you at .02, Barb