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: Larry Brubaker who wrote (12873)	7/6/1999 11:03:00 PM
From: Mark Johnson	Respond to of 27311

Larry: Arguing over trivia what a waste.... Everyone has advised you to stay out of the stock until we get a purchase order from IBM at which time the stock will move to $20. You will then start up a negative "diatribe" against the longs because the first laptop order should have gone to Dell because of their stronger domestic presence or other such nonsense. You'll act like the time is not right to get in because Valence will have a $100 million dollar PO and still show a loss the first two Qtrs because of the opening of Valence's new American plant with an additional 10 production lines with capabilities of 100's of millions of battery cells per year... Just my WAG's MJ

To: Larry Brubaker who wrote (12873)	7/7/1999 12:57:00 AM
From: Rich Wolf	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 27311

Larry, the comment by the COO regarding being able to be in the black in the fall quarter was not completely explained. He was responding to two overlapping questions from Mr. Covington, the first being the R+D expenditures for this and coming quarters (which have contained the capital expenditures), and the second being 'when would they be in the black?' Wright's response may have been more in the line of a response to the first ('ending this quarter') 'AND' a response to the second 'in the fall quarter;' not the causal connection implied by my paraphrasing of his responses to each of these questions, each of which have themselves been correctly quoted. That is, putting a 'so' instead of an 'and' between those two responses is my error, not his. I suppose there are many ancillary labor costs associated with the installation and debugging of new equipment, and this component of the burn rate would reduce as more of the factory was being run in an operational mode. However, I am unfamiliar with the various methods of cost accounting one would use for a startup versus an operational facility, and defer to others in these matters.