Sorry, can't agree with you on that one. The statement you quote was not justified by anything I read in the article. Rather, it was an unsubstantiated guess by the author.
I would note that the author dismissed Lev's clear statement that the company would be in commercial production within two quarters (from sometime last fall, likely, given that Mr. Scholl ignored the December SEC filings, which had pertinent status information). After having pointed out that the company was burned by a lawsuit for having announced a contract and then not been able to deliver, and realizing that the company has understandably been very close-lipped about matters this time around, Mr. Scholl ought to have applied more weight to Lev's statement.
Not very good journalism, on those points. That makes the article an 'a' on that count. And you forgot 'e', author negative on Valence.
Assessment of results based solely on who's got the deeper pockets would also not have predicted success of many of the current technology leaders, either. Yet it is often done, so in that sense, the article overall is 'd', a predictable assessment. Doesn't mean it's an accurate one. |
