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: jean1057 who wrote (9548)	3/19/1999 7:57:00 PM
From: John Curtis	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 27311

It's the same statement rendered for upwards of two years. I understand what you're saying(particularly with all the hyperbole that's been expressed on these threads), but consider that without benefit of some sort of surge in demand for VLNC.....well......selling 30K a day will take some time to exhaust C.C.'s supply, no? It amounts to the brokerage house equivalent of a chinese water torture. Trickle, trickle, trickle.......Not very effective from their point of view. Still, to those more knowledgeable about the "bean counting" aspects of this filing, I'd be interested in their thoughts. Enuf from me. Regards! John~

To: jean1057 who wrote (9548)	3/19/1999 8:53:00 PM
From: Rich Wolf	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 27311

Same text as from the December S-3 filing which registers the shares. It need not, and clearly does not, represent in entirety the current status of the company. This is the prospectus, which allows them to convert the shares. It doesn't mean they're going to. Look back through the sequence of SEC filings: freeedgar.com What you'll see is that for the SEC filings for both tranches of financings, the pattern was: 1. Original S-3 filing to REGISTER the shares. 2. First revision, the S-3/A, filed two months later. 3. Second and final revision, also an S-3/A, filed one month later. 4. Then a week or so later, the 424B filing of the PROSPECTUS to sell the shares. The wording was ESSENTIALLY UNCHANGED IN CONTENT from the first S-3, through the two revisions, and then into the 424B. Does it mean NOTHING changed over those three months? NO. For example, those of us at the shareholders meeting know for a fact that the status of the lines as represented in the most recent series of documents (beginning back in December) has changed radically, and that the first line has been debugged since January. Lev told us at the meeting that he was ready and able to produce commercially acceptable product off that line, if he were to receive a PO. But he was waiting for customer approval of the product off the line. That was on Feb. 4. Nothing has changed in our timeline of expectations since the meeting, simply due to the wording in this document. I would counsel against misinterpreting these documents as bringing forth any new information since the December date, by matter of omission. They do not, nor are they legally bound to, update every component of these documents once the series of filings has commenced. In fact, there is less room for 'error' if they just use the approved text from the final S-3/A for the 424B. Period. Am I happy to have such silence about the true status? No. But I am glad that at least they filed it after the market close, and before a weekend. That gives everyone time to digest, converse, reflect,.... and take their medicines! ;-) Have a good weekend, everyone.