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)
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Robert Cohen who wrote (19067)4/7/2000 10:15:00 PM
From: Larry Brubaker  Read Replies (2) of 27311
 
Robert, I don't know how one could read Fred's history of lies pawned off as inside knowledge and defend him. Literally hundreds of posts claiming insiders told him production/contracts/$100s of millions of revenue are imminent. Not one of which turned out to be true.

Whereas I would challenge you to find a single thing I have said on this thread that has turned out to be untrue.

And yet you defend Fred. I used to think you had a relatively open mind, Robert. Can't say that's the case now.

Now that we are through casting aspersions on people's character, why don't we discuss something substantive regarding VLNC as a company.

Fred predicted a $50 stock price by July. I pointed out that with 43 million fully-diluted shares, VLNC would need 43 million of profit to generate $1 of profit per share. At Fred's $50 and $1 per share of profit, that would equate to a p/e ratio of 50.

I asked Fred when he expected VLNC to earn $43 million in profit. I stated my own opinion that under even a wildly optimistic scenario, I would not expect $43 million in profit before 2002. Fred didn't bother to answer this question, but rather changed the subject to the fact that the stock price is higher than when he first began touting it.

What's your opinion, Robert? Do you think VLNC will earn $43 million in profit this year? Next year? The following year? I'd like to hear your rationale for why you (apparently) agree with Fred that the stock should be at $50.

Or are you going to continue the same ad-hominem arguments as some of the other immature posters on this thread?
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News