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: MGV who wrote (12459)	6/28/1999 9:36:00 PM
From: Pallisard	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 27311

Why should anyone give credence to your advice or analysis? I believe you recommended MIKL last spring ('98) at 28 - 30 to various naive investors on the MICHAEL FOODS board. The stock has since gone to 16 and has had trouble retracing to 22. DOWN AGAIN today I noticed.

To: MGV who wrote (12459)	6/29/1999 12:14:00 AM
From: mooter775	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 27311

So who is asking you to invest in Valence? I certainly don't care if you or anyone else does. If, or I should say "when", since I believe that adverb is more appropriate, the company announces a contract, the degree of short selling or healthy skepticism will clearly work in Valence's favor. Most longs - and I disqualify those who try to trade the short term swings from $ 6-$8, since that strategy at least for me fails more often than not - have a different view of risk/reward than you do. That's why I, or we, don't invest in MIKL, tho it may be a very fine company. My own perception of Valence is that it has a strong chance of redefining 'portability' over the next 1-5 years. My visit to NI confirmed my conviction that Valence can (and is) producing higher quality batteries than currently are available in the market. This was true before the phosphate innovations mentioned earlier and, I believe, will prove more so as the company makes still another leap in technological capability for its cells over the coming months. Furthermore, I don't tend to give an inordinate amount of credence to the legal disclaimers in the S filings. Did you ever review the disclaimers in Amazon or Ebay, or any of the rapidly growing tech stocks? Would make you shudder. As I've said before, if one doesn't buy into Dawson and his view of the world, or trust him, then surely one should avoid the stock. I've a different view of both him and the company's capability. And it is becoming clearer to me that even though the financials haven't improved in the past 12 months, the company is making substantial progress and lowering its operating risk as well. It is not clear to me at all why nobody would buy the company, and I'd not like to see it sold. I believe that the company will announce continued progress and a contract or contracts very soon, and that over the coming weeks and months we will see both institutional coverage and a significant short squeeze. Just my opinion, but I am quite comfortable with my not insignificant position.