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: Tickertype who wrote (12044)	6/11/1999 2:28:00 PM
From: Eli74	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 27311

Ticker, I think your comments make a lot of sense, at least in terms of the potential importance of Engergizer being a spinoff rather than sold to someone like Sony. It could be hugely important, and having access to a "new and improved" techonology such as Valence offers could be critical to Energizer in its post-Ralston life. In terms of purchasing VLNC, I hope they don't. I've been told by Mooter that the world-wide market for rechargeable batteries is $10 billion/year. And, given the demand for better sources of mobile, rechargeable power, it can only grow. One can create a scenario that boggles the mind. And I think Berg, Dawson, et al are well aware of that. So I don't expect the folks at VLNC to quickly put their company up for sale. The potential payoff is just too big. Eli74

To: Tickertype who wrote (12044)	6/11/1999 4:19:00 PM
From: lws	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 27311

Hi, Tickertype, I think your general assessment of Energizer is perfectly reasonable speculation -- probably the most reasonable scenario in the absence of all real information. It seems to me Energizer's ability to make a purchase would depend in part on its capital structure, and it's currently unprofitable, so I suppose its financial strength will depend heavily on how Ralston spins it off. I supposes Ralston would spin it off with a clean balance sheet, but who knows? Its financial strength, though, would doubtlessly affect its ability to get satisfactory financing to buy what is presently a company without revenues, not to mention profits. Off-hand, it seems a real stretch. Hopefully, someone more knowledgeable about finance than I am can comment. (Too bad Mooter's out bicycling somewhere.) I agree with the recent posts, though, that speculate that Lev & company probably wouldn't want to sell at this point for much less than the moon, given their evident faith in the potential of the company and the amount of work and time they've put in already. That might make it much too expensive for Energizer, clean balance sheet and creative financing or not. Personally, I'd like to see the rumored Energizer-Valence repackaging deal put on the fast track for the benefits you cite for both companies. I'd like to see what happens to Valence once it's in production, and once the shape of the market for its product becomes more apparent. Energizer might want to see the same thing. Perhaps it will do the repackager deal with Valence to find out! Regards, lws