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: Bill Wexler who wrote (9194)	3/12/1999 9:29:00 PM
From: Dennis V.	Respond to of 27311

You're the fraud, Bill, Goodnight.

To: Bill Wexler who wrote (9194)	3/12/1999 10:04:00 PM
From: Pallisard	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 27311

You must subscribe to the method that enough repetition of a lie will eventually make it sound true.

To: Bill Wexler who wrote (9194)	3/13/1999 12:01:00 AM
From: lws	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 27311

Hi, Bill, I see that in your brief acquaintance with Valence you have concluded that the company is the victim of, if not a participant in, a stock fraud. Please explain the basis for your conclusion. Your posts so far give the impression your conclusion is based on the presence of a number of bulls who have posted frequently on the SI and Yahoo Valence threads. Your posts suggest that the market price would fall toward $1 if it weren't for the internet bulls who are propping up the price with their misleading posts. I can't believe the high stock price and the bullish posters are the basis for your conclusion, though. Every stock thread has its bulls and bears. Aren't the posts of the Valence bulls -- with the rumors, spins, and dreams of possible riches -- just like those of bulls everywhere on the internet? But more important, your conclusion would seem to be predicated on the idea that (these) internet posters can have massive and sustained impact on the market as a whole (in this case, supporting a $7 price when it should be nearer to $1). As a sophisticated investor, I am sure you recognize the improbability of this. The upshot is that I can't figure out why you have concluded Valence is a fraud. Please elaborate. I am sure we would all want to know if there were fraud involved -- and your short position would benefit as the longs backed out. But for now, while I await your explanation, I remain long and confident. Finally, in the conduct of your due diligence, I suggest you focus on the jockey as well as the horse, and I suggest you inquire more deeply into the status of the race. Valence and the people involved (the real "smart money," I suspect) have a long history. The research you have reported so far focuses only on the horse. As reported, it seems far too superficial to be a solid basis for a large short position, except as a high-risk, low-gain gamble of a few weeks. Regards, lws