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 (9755)	3/23/1999 9:38:00 PM
From: Sig	Respond to of 27311

Why don't you guys condense all this (re the warrants) and put it in the form of a written question (or questions) to the FRB? Or Lev? There must be only one answer, and no reason not to reveal it: the parameters have already been made public; it's the interpretation that has stockholders confused and concerned because the revealed facts just aren't presented clearly enough. Regards.

To: Zeev Hed who wrote (9755)	3/23/1999 10:06:00 PM
From: Larry Brubaker	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 27311

Zeev, I don't understand your theory that the warrants have been paid for already, but have to be paid for again if they are exercised. If they have already paid $3.2 million for 895,000 warrants, this would mean they have already paid $3.57 per share for them. But they would also have to pay another $6.78 per share to exercise them? I've also never seen a package which requires a payment to "acquire" warrants, and another payment to "exercise" them. Normally the "acquisition" of the warrants is free and they are paid for only if and when they are exercised. This would mean their total cost to acquire and exercise the warrants would be over $10 per share. It would also mean the total financing package is well in excess of "up to $25 million." In every other instance where I have seen a financial package described as "up to," the "up to" included every penny of "potential" revenue that could be realized from the package. Regardless of whether it was uncertain as to whether all of the revenue would be eventually realized. Additionally, I do not understand why they would have to show a $3.5 million charge on their income statement if the terms of the deal really requires Castle Creek to pay both to acquire and exercise the warrants. This circumstance would seem to call for an addition to income, not a reduction.