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: Robert Cohen who wrote (11640)	6/1/1999 11:02:00 AM
From: lws	Respond to of 27311

Hi, Robert, While I share your view, and I find it hard to buy Bill's "conspiracy" view of markets, I still appreciate his reference to Ney. I will check it out. Meanwhile, here's another cite which sheds another view on the matter. It castigates the Nasdaq middlemen, but among other points, it does not offer much hope for Nasdaq short-sellers, whether middlemen or retail customers. The article: "One day soon the music's going to stop," Forbes, July 29, 1996. Some of its details are dated, but like John's cite, it is useful. The website on the top of my printout -- no idea whether it still works: forbes.com Regards, lws

To: Robert Cohen who wrote (11640)	6/1/1999 11:54:00 AM
From: William Epstein	Respond to of 27311

Doc; It is still your contention or mine? What difference does it make? The facts, whatever they are, stand alone. I could argue that smoking doesn't cause lung cancer or heart disease and you could argue that it does. Researching this question is good science but debate without the facts is pointless. Are we engaging in a cooperative effort to try to make some realistic determinations about this company or religious dialectic? I am trying for the former and I hold stock too. That is no guarantee that my choice was a good one. 28 mill. share market cap and almost 2mil. shares short. It begs the question, who is holding the bulk of the shorts? It doesn't seem to fluctuate. If the public owns it then it must be a very patient public, indeed. I have never seen the public that patient about anything, have you? You could be entirely correct. It could be a hedge fund. However, arguing among ourselves will not get us the information. If we can find out who holds the bulk of the shorts then we can make a determination as to their motive. Nevertheless, it is a large short overhang and it must be considered when looking at this stock. Anddd no one is patronizing you. Take a leap of faith, believe me about that. We are all pretty sincere here. If anything, in the stock market, I feel more patronized by the corporate insiders and the specialists than people like yourself. Don't you? Where is our focus? Bill

To: Robert Cohen who wrote (11640)	6/1/1999 4:19:00 PM
From: MGV	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 27311

It should come as no surprise that a favorite topic on threads frequented by daytraders and other individual traders is speculative paranoia regarding market makers. The ones who propagate the theory most likely are the ones who have lost and need an enemy to target for their losses. Pure and simple the market makers are not in the business of speculating. Their business model is better than that. This isn't a good guy / bad guy equation. It is a business model. MMs will exploit short term pricing inefficiencies and, by extension, anyone who accentuates those inefficiencies.