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: golden_tee who wrote (6341)	12/28/1998 11:13:00 AM
From: Zeev Hed	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 27311

Pope, you are a veteran of SI, and I am thus surprised at your attack on Larry. He has seen many cases were the SI thread has been used by the "bulls" to paint much rosier pictures then the facts. One need not be short to try and discern the facts from the follies. It would be much better to address each one of his concerns factually rather then attack his personality. Even if he were short, he has as much rights as others to describe his opinion. I know for a fact that Larry was quite long until a short time ago (that is how I came to this thread, Larry pointed to me an imminent breakout of $5 some time ago). You could address the same concerns to me, and I will tell you on the spot, I am on a personal campaign against the use of floorless securities. The funny thing is that I have managed to make money (on the long side) in a number of these (particularly near the end game phase, as HEC is entering right now), but in the long term, as long as these floorless are around, the stock has a very strong potential of being under heavy selling pressure. You may not like our questions and doubts, but I have a large number of PM to attest to the fact that many silent lurkers are indeed quite happy to see opposing opinions. Let us try and cool the personal attacks stuff, and concentrate on clarifying the real potential. Something that concerns me right now is that both VLNC and ULBI have weak charts, and I am asking myself why is that. I have not found yet a satisfactory answer, but if the technical picture at ULBI does not improve by the second week in January, I'll be out of it as I have exited VLNC recently. Zeev

To: golden_tee who wrote (6341)	12/28/1998 11:24:00 AM
From: mooter775	Respond to of 27311

Robert, Larry is a short term technical trader who has been in and out of the stock several times in the past year. Currently he is out. So my assumption is he would rather see it decline for a possible entry point later.

To: golden_tee who wrote (6341)	12/28/1998 9:32:00 PM
From: Larry Brubaker	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 27311

Robert, I first invested in VLNC over a year ago when Red Chip Review put out its speculative buy recommendation. Unfortunately for me, my timing was right about when VLNC peaked. I've been a member of SI for over 2 years and have participated in discussions concerning every stock I follow. While I was holding the stock (and watching the market value shrink), one of the things that concerned me was the wonderful story that was being painted by those who purported to be "in the know" on this thread while the price of the stock was tanking. I noticed a definite similarity between this thread and other threads of speculative stocks I have followed. That similarity is that posters who purport to have inside knowledge are almost incessantly positive about the stock they follow, have no shortage of explanations for why the stock is not doing well, ridicule those who challenge their statements, and consistently claim good news is just around the corner. In every instance where I have seen this pattern, the "in the know" posters are almost invariably wrong. I managed to make back most of my initial loss by selling into conference call spikes, and as some have suggested, I've traded the stock since then. You call my posts slanted when the majority of them simply point out the inconsistencies between what the company says and what the "in the know" supporters say. From my point of view, an example of slanted posts are those that try to explain why the company SEC filings don't actually mean what they say. You call my posting style argumentative and I wouldn't disagree with that characterization. I would simply point out that whenever I point out the facts as I see them, certain "in the know" posters respond in a quite patronizing manner, as if I am sort of a dumb child of theirs. You ask why I take the time to post if I don't like the company? First, I continue to follow the stock and profit from doing so. I've never said I don't think the company can succeed. Second, while Zeev says he is motivated to point out the dangers of convertible financing, my own motivation is to provide balance to the unsubstantiated hype that occurs on these threads. As I mentioned, I've seen the pattern on this thread repeated many times, and I've seen people lose their shirts believing the hype thats put out on the internet. Mooter suggests that my motivation is to further my trading in the stock. This conveniently ignores the fact that I acknowledge positive events (such as the removal of the floorless conversion provision on Phase I of the financing) even if I'm not holding the stock. I call them the way I see them, regardless of my position. Now that I've explained my motivations (since you asked), I would suggest you follow Zeev's advice. Rather than question my motives, why not debate the merits of what I say? Can you point to one instance in which I have unfairly or erroneously described the company's SEC filings, press releases, or conference call discussions?