VALENCE TECHNOLOGY (VLNC) 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 : VALENCE TECHNOLOGY (VLNC)

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: lws who wrote (5843)	12/9/1998 12:36:00 AM
From: MGV	Read Replies (1) of 27311

lws Trashing a counter view for gloating is too easy. For each point you make in your rebuke, you gloss over some painfully apparent questions that remain unanswered. Start with the circularity of your first point: "Nothing of substance has changed .... the price went up with the rumors of imminent production and sales ...... Substance is a critical issue. It is difficult to find substance in the corporate reports or in the statements of corporate representatives that lend justice to the rosy and wholly unsubstantiated representations of persons having no apparent relationship with the company. The divergence between the representations on internet threads on the one hand and the official shareholder and public pronouncements and reports on the other is large. It has been noted and risen to a level of controversy multiple times by former and current VLNC longs as well as by posters having no position in VLNC. You mention that the stock ran up on rumors. Implicit in your statement is that the stock has not moved on substance. Nothing of substance has changed. Nothing of substance has been reported by the company. If one were to give credence to an article posted on this thread last summer, expectation of a material contract before the summer of 1999 at the earliest would be unreasonable. The article quoted industry spokespersons - both battery vendors and potential manufacturing buyers of batteries - to say that the lead time for incorporating product designs for batteries is a minimum of 12 months after testing has been concluded. Do you have confirmation that testing has been concluded? The report of a scheduled visit by analysts to a plant in Ireland raised the hopes of people on this thread who have personal financial stakes in VLNC. Do you have information approx. a week later regarding the results of the visit? Any independent confirmation whatsoever that the street was fairly represented let alone favorably impressed? Do you subscribe to the conspiracy views of other self-interested VLNC stakeholders that analysts are withholding their favorable views to allow for their clients to "load up" first? <big grin> I don't think you do. Regarding mutual fund/institutional ownership, do you know the track record of funds who have held VLNC? Regarding Wolanchuck's "market timing" call on VLNC, what is your definition of "market timing?" Dozens of companies' share prices have doubled and tripled or more from their price levels of 18-24 months ago. Yet Wolanchuck picked this name. How does that support a good market timing call? The overarching issue is the persistent absence of congruence between what is stated as fact on the thread and what is reported in corporate pronouncements. In the absence of information, especially given the financial condition of the company and the lack of production history, the steep decline of the past several days must be given serious evidentiary weight in judging the company's present fundamental state. The cackle of crusty old (not necessarily chronologically so) men with VLNC stakes notwithstanding, I expect a more reasoned response.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next