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: Razorbak who wrote (13614)	8/11/1999 6:13:00 PM
From: Zeev Hed	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 27311

Well, the only thing I find there is that the burn rate has increased to about $8 MM per quarter, they have now gone through most of Berg (the loaning stockholder?) $10 MM in loanable funds. I still can find no signs of any inventory, all this material bought in January must have been absorbed in "Plant and Equipment", since that item decreased by $2.5 MM over last quarter, and there is no way they can depreciate that much in one quarter. Strange accounting, but maybe that explains why this big buy in January did not show anywhere. I wonder if someone is going to ask about this accounting peculiarity in the CC tomorrow. Last, the Hamil shipment does not show as revenues, but that might be because the shipment may have not actually occurred until July. I still would like to understand what caused the plant and equipment to go down by $2.5 MM. Typically, in the US you cannot start to depreciate "plant and Equipment" until the equipment is put in operation (a nice trick allowing MU not to charge deprec. on their Lehi mothballed plant). These kind of discrepancies are "enerving", are they hiding greater than expected burn rate in plant and equipment reduction? Did they have to "write off" some of this equipment as not usable? We were never told of that, I believe. Or, are they really shipping "plant and equipment (material) to Hamil, and that will appear later as "revenues"? Razor, you are an expert at dissecting a Balance sheet, take a stab at it. Zeev

To: Razorbak who wrote (13614)	8/11/1999 8:20:00 PM
From: P. Ramamoorthy	Respond to of 27311

Just skimming through the 10-Q, I saw: (1) their expenses increased by about 1/3 (directly reflecting the "per share" loss for the qtr), (2) BUT they deferred a revenue of $2.5MM and paid royalty of 250M (10% rate for the qtr, wow?) (3)their $3MM financing last two months is just about equal their increased burn rate. Do not see an explanation for the assets reduction by about 2.5MM. This month, it's IDB (or whatever?) is picking up the tab ($3MM). Next month? Hope Hanil starts selling batteries. In summary, no surprises but lots of lawsuits! Ram