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: Zeev Hed who wrote (6553)	1/1/1999 5:03:00 PM
From: Larry Brubaker	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 27311

Zeev: Of course the SEC documents are worth examining. The argument here seems to be that these are standard disclaimers that apply to any investment. This is about the most foolish argument I have heard on SI. All you have to do to realize these are not standard disclaimers common to any investment is to compare the filings for different companies. For example, try ULBI's recent annual report. It is not brimming with warnings about the risks of dilution of the financing situation, ability to continue as a going concern, etc. Any investment has risk. Some types of investments (e.g. stocks) are inherantly riskier than others (government bonds). Some stocks (MSFT) are investments (ongoing earnings with a reasonable probability those earnings will continue, and even increase) in the future. Other stocks (VLNC) are speculations in that investors are speculating on the successful outcome on a whole range of issues (e.g. ability to raise operating funds before products are sold, ability to avoid excessive dilution, ability to mass produce the product, ability to sell the product, ability to earn a profit, ability to compete successfully) etc. These risks are discussed in the SEC filings, and it is up to each investor to evaluate them and make a decision. If some want to totally discount what SEC filings say, they obviously can chose to do so. I would not recommend it. And if they think they are convincing others this philosophy makes sense, they must think people are stupid.

To: Zeev Hed who wrote (6553)	1/1/1999 5:47:00 PM
From: Mark Johnson	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 27311

Thanks Zeev, Thanks Larry for the concern both you non shareholders express in Valence. Zeev your posts are full of thus this thus that, I wonder this, maybe we can assume that, if rational people can assume. Do you think Lev would have ordered additional production lines for Hanil and the lines in NI without out having future revenues and financing lined up?? Come on!! I believe Lev has financing under control, I believe we are not far away from announcements, and that the markets view of Valence will swing to much higher levels of confidence. You continually conjure up conjecture knowing that no one can answer the rhetorical questions you present. You emphasize your intentions at the expense of thought. Levs financing and continuation plans have not been fully disclosed and you use SEC releases to present only one side of the story. Someone pointed out your posts are not relevant because they can only lead to a dead end. I know you perceive yourself as a genius, we've seen your resume more than once. But Zeev, one cannot argue the numbers unless we know publicly Valences complete plan. I totally view the risk as low. If you choose to base your opinions on balance sheets. Fine... Maybe you could tell us what the risks of being short in the stock are? In regards to nuclear war, the insurance policy hasn't removed the clause about possible nuclear war from the disclaimer in the same way CC refers to the convertible preferred. It's just boilerplate language Zeev nothing more. Mark P.S. Zeev, There is no reason to honor me with a response my money's on table and I have conducted My own DD. I consider your involvement less than genuine!