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: Bob Childers who wrote (6981)	1/11/1999 4:01:00 PM
From: HQ	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 27311

No black and white rules on 'insider trading.' Companies can push it as far as they dare, and some dare quite a bit. While the SEC frowns on trading on insider information, it's definition is a gray area. Note the ongoing public discussions regarding analysts who sit in exclusive company meetings and dial out with cell phones based on information that only they have heard. For our situation, it would be entirely up to VLNC's lawyers as to whether they would think there should be a delay of contract announcements after any insider buying. It is public knowledge that negotiations are ongoing. If they have not been completed, then I doubt the SEC would go after Bert for having bought at the end of December, if contracts weren't announced until a month later, for example. The burden of proof would be on the SEC, and a month delay (for example) is hardly a 'smoking gun' that something was done improperly (e.g., did he 'know' it was a done deal, and was that info 'withheld'....not likely). So why did the others buy so heavily last August/September (rather than waiting)? Well, you could hardly have beaten the price! So even if it was going to be dead money for 4-6 months (until contracts were really imminent), say, just the bounce off the bottom gave them more than 50%. And maybe they really couldn't preclude a contract before the end of the year. So their risk would have been not being invested. On other subjects: I've not seen any confirmation of this reported purchase by Bert Roberts (10000 shares at $6 at end of December). Has anyone else? I had not yet seen confirmation of the exercise of his option on 20000 shares, either. Meanwhile, the selloff today between 11:55 and 12:25 which took the price from 8 1/2 to 7 1/2 (on about 45000 shares) was a surprise. Shows how much things can move, when volume is light. If I was that seller, I would not have been so intent....a little more prudence, and spreading it out over a few days, and the price may not have collapsed so much. From the small blocks I saw, there were other traders who bailed when they saw the bigger blocks. Curiously, the end of last week saw lots of accumulation without such a drastic price movement (apart from gapping at the open, or ramping at the close). E.g., on Friday, at times I saw 10-15000 go across at the ask without it budging. You could hardly tell from a daily chart that most transactions were purchases, either, but they were. Looked like shares were being 'delivered' to someone at an agreed price. Today was certainly different...

To: Bob Childers who wrote (6981)	1/11/1999 4:18:00 PM
From: mooter775	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 27311

I do not believe that there are hard and fast rules regarding the timing of activity in a stock and subsequent events in the company. Typically, insider buying or selling would mean that the shareholder would not have material inside knowledge of an imminent (30 days?) event which would cause his action to be in question. In Roberts (and Valence's case), this might indeed mean that Roberts cleared his transaction with the inside house counsel and nothing was deemed to be imminent for purposes of that transaction. Valence may or may not have that provision for outside directors in place - some companies do and some other don't. It also might mean, however, that while the company is seeking either to qualify the line for production, or safety test the batteries,or even negotiate an immiment contract - depending upon how one views the status of the current operation - that Roberts was not aware of the exact status or that nothing definitive had been determined as of the late December date. Often when parties are negotiating contracts, the uncertainty of reaching a definitive agreement allows for legitimate activity in the stock - depending on the certainty of reaching imminent agreement. I personally would feel your point is well taken if Lev or other senior management had acquired shares. Somehow, it doesn't mean quite the same thing to me in Roberts' case.