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 (4633)	11/1/1998 4:37:00 PM
From: I. N. Vester	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 27311

It's very important to understand the dynamics of how the market is made in VLNC. Haven't you read the post by J.C. from a person who worked as a MM? That post helped me to unravel what i think is the large part of the mysteries of how VLNC trades, especially in periods like the beginning of this week. Where do the shares come from when lots of demand appears? The answer in part is that the MM's are willing to short the stock in order to make a market when excess demand apprears This produces a market gravity whereby when the buying frenzy subsides, the price will naturally fall to the point at which the MM's can cover their short positions As long as the demand eventually subsides, the MM's are in a good position to bring the price back down to where they can cover at a profit. We've seen this so often with VLNC. It can be quite disheartening to see the price drop quite a bit on really low volume. Even aside from the fundamental business reasons for taking a longer term view of an investment in VLNC, it's important to realize that to understand the value the market is placing on the stock in the short term, you can't just look at the immediate price at any given point in time. In some sense that's true of any stock, but i think much more so in an issue like VLNC, imho. Note also that a very large part of Tuesday's was UP volume. I think there may still be a good size short overhang from the high volume run-up. The previous week's nice slow and VERY steady move up is much more healthy. Until we have some more definitive proof (i.e. contracts) of the improving fundamentals, any dramatic runup even on high volume, might not hold. But all in all the large jump in demand and holding above 5 1/2 is quite positive as far as i'm concerned!

To: lws who wrote (4633)	11/1/1998 4:38:00 PM
From: FMK	Respond to of 27311

LWS-It seems there was plenty of buying on both days. The buyers were just less aggressive on Tuesday and IMO, backed off and let some short termers take some profits. With all that volume, many shares have exchanged hands. I would expect most new owners to hang on, looking for higher share prices. More impatient shareholders should now be out of the stock, with the result of more pronounced and sustainable run-ups in share price. Its amazing how many reasons we can find to worry when the company shows few of their cards. It would appear line 1 alone became capable of making a profit months ago and personnel and production have increased since. IMO they are producing and inventorying more than enough to turn a profit every day and will have plenty of tested product to deliver for contracts. IMO we should cease worrying and acquire more stock while the price is in single digits. We are far past the point of failure. Remember its been over a month since four insiders, with firsthand knowledge, voted "yes" to the tune of 525,000 shares on the same subject.

To: lws who wrote (4633)	11/1/1998 5:34:00 PM
From: Dennis V.	Respond to of 27311

Speculation on Tues. price action. It wouldn't surprise me if some folks piggybacked on insider buying rumors; bought in the 3's and sold in the 6's for 60-70% profit. Happens every day. Those who can access this kind of info often have the big bucks. Quick in/out. On another subject- In reference to speculation about the recent S3-A. Some questions on the other thread about the timeliness of statements concerning delivery of product to customers. It was felt that if the products had not been delivered for testing by date of the filing, then PO's could not possibly occur before end of Jan 99. However, my position is that the S-3A would likely represent, insofar as possible, the situation in July 98. Reason being that lawyers for both sides would not give the document a pass if materially different from the original contract.