Energy Conversion Devices Message Board

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 : Energy Conversion Devices

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Mr. Sunshine who wrote (7429)	12/2/2003 6:24:13 PM
From: Allen Bucholski	of 8393

Steve,not having read yahoo post on meeting heres my take. First of all I was pleased that more questions seem to have given a chance to be answered this time. Some expectations of how to become profitable were given. (Cost cutting measures ,lower court fees in future, improved efficiency % on PV production panels, Increased Revues from product sales in future. The possibility of a projection of profit might be forth coming in next quarter. My computer went out it was in repairs for 9 days didn't get a chance to response to Wileys post. I was going to post a few comments on Forbes article. I like to think of it as a hatchet job ,my opinion. This isn't the first mud throwing that Forbes has done on ECD. Forbes took Stempel quote out of context in the article. I can't prove it but Stempel responed with letter to the editor shows his disapproval. Another point that smells fishy to me is saying Stan said ECD will be profitable in 2005. That's not like Stan to say something like that. I don't notice any quotes on that statement either. I been waiting years for Stan to make a prediction at meetings and he never has. If Stan did say it I belive it was not meant for public these thing have to be talked about at board meetings for instance.The article is a one sided blast it implies that the big companies got taken by ECD for money. What about IBM and Matsushita benefiting from CD technology and ECD getting nothing. The low royalties Matsushita,got ECD into signing its agreement by promising to make it a world standard which it as become.ECD was strapped for money or to put it another way taken to cleaners by a Big company . The benefits Cannon got from its machine that made its coppery drums. Cannons solar company that now competes with ECD. The low royalties that all the consumer battery companies pay 1/2 % on manufacturing cost. (any way pennies on dollar) This is from the top of my head without looking into it. Somebody didn't give a fair and balanced view in the Forbes article ECD has been taken advantage of by other companies it goes both ways. The article did not show this.I would like to read Stempel letter to editor if they ever print it. It looks like Forbes only holds money in high esteem. Value is not in bottom line and it looks like Forbes can't see it. Allen

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next