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: Eli74 who wrote (12974)	7/9/1999 8:45:00 AM
From: Mark Johnson	Respond to of 27311

<<Guess you'll just have to be patient, Larry.>> That's an understatement. I think the technological potential for Valence will be worth the wait. What's keeping a lid on Valence is that the other Li/poly companies are so far behind Valence in their technical aptitude, it leaves Valence standing alone in the arena. If there was a second source of like supply, OEM contracts would have already been had...Marketable competition will help Valence. Li/Poly will replace current rechargeable battery technologys..the next generation. When some of Valence competitors get their acts together and form other sources of supply a broader market will be created, thus highliting Valence's superiority.

To: Eli74 who wrote (12974)	7/9/1999 10:20:00 AM
From: Larry Brubaker	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 27311

Eli, the 10-K covers the period ending 3/28 but was written later than this. There are several statements with later dates in the 10-K. Even if this particular statement was made as of 3/28, are you suggesting that as of the end of March they did not anticipate that Hanil would make significant shipments until April 2000 at the earliest, but two months later significant shipments by Hanil/VLNC could occur at any time? My reading of the shipment of "miles" of material by VLNC to Hanil is the use of the "miles" adjective was misleading. My evidence for this interpretation is: (1) they did not quantify the dollar amount of this shipment and refused to do so when directly asked, (2) their filings say VLNC is not able to produce in commercial volumes, and (3) the filings also say they do not anticipate Hanil/VLNC to make significant shipments of product during fiscal year 2000. If you want to believe otherwise (based on what evidence, other than internet chatter?), you are obviously free to do so. But a literal reading of VLNC's SEC filings has always more accurate than any other source of information I am aware of.