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: John Curtis who wrote (11323)	5/24/1999 10:46:00 AM
From: lws	Respond to of 27311

Hi, John, I too have been sorta charmed by Wexler's present unwillingness to provide any form of substantiation for his strong claim. So let me ask two questions, one for him, and another for Larry which has puzzled me for a while now. To Bill Wexler: What reason do you have for not revealing the substance behind your claim? It seems to me that providing unambiguous evidence would advance your interest as a short seller by giving the longs new reason to sell. I can understand not wanting to be seen as manipulating a stock, but I cannot see any other reason to hold back. Given the truth is a "perfect" defense to libel, is there some other reason for holding back that I have overlooked? To Larry: Given the many millions (I forget how much, and am admittedly too lazy to check back through your posts or the SEC records), why do you suppose Lev came back? Certainly it was not for the salary, which the "Notice of Annual Meeting" reports as only some $83k for 1998. Even Cal Reed got $250k in 1997. It seems the bulk of his compensation was 1 million options exercisable over 18 months. (There is a "#" associated with the option column in the Notice, but I can't find the reference...) For the life of me, I can't think of any reason for him to have jumped back into this job (which impresses me as the most hectic I've ever heard of) unless he expected his options to pay big one of these days -- big enough to far outweigh what he got earlier when he sold stock in 1992-94. If this is not the case, then why didn't he just take those earlier gains and stay as far away from Valence as possible? Any thoughts? Regards, lws