SI
SI
discoversearch

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: Larry Brubaker who wrote (9763)3/24/1999 12:27:00 AM
From: Mark Johnson  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 27311
 
Hey Larry, don't be so touchy <VBG> I only asked if you could balance your checkbook, I did not draw any conclusions whether you could or could not balance your checkbook by analyzing whether the terms of the first tranche or whether the terms of the second tranche affected the terms of whether the warrants sold via the first tranche. Which brings me to the aforementioned issue of whether you have anything to do with your time except confuse yourself by concocting "WAGS" <VBG> LOL. But the more tantalizing subject is whether excessive obsession leads to circular mania manifesting itself in "SEC document syndrome" causing permanent paralysis of the <VBG> acronym.



To: Larry Brubaker who wrote (9763)3/24/1999 8:04:00 AM
From: Zeev Hed  Respond to of 27311
 
Larry, I do not know why the last 10 Q did not have a similar charge. It is quite possible that its absence from the Sep Q is due to changes in accounting, SFAS 131 is effective for reports after Dec 15, 1997 but during the first year (to 12/15/98) it is not necessary to apply to interim reports, and thus only the Dec 27 quarter include the charges due to the "fair valuation" (the Black Sholes valuation method) of the warrants.

Zeev