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 (14270)	9/4/1999 1:16:00 AM
From: Rich Wolf	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 27311

Larry, the company has since admitted there were two prime factors delaying POs. One was that unexpected hurdles arose which they have since overcome, which would not have made it possible for them to accept volume POs in spring. But they could indeed have accepted POs back then, yes. Who would they have been from? Clearly from those who had already thoroughly tested the cells. Namely, Energizer Power Solutions. This is the second factor that delayed POs since spring: the decision by Eveready (or perhaps by their parent company, Ralston Purina) to completely sell off their OEM repackaging unit, EPS. Valence has since stated that this brought their plans with EPS to a halt, as potential EPS customers were waiting for this to be resolved, to see who the new owners would be (e.g., if potentially they were Asian competitors, these OEMs would seek other repackagers between themselves and Valence, out of self interest). Since the Valence-EPS relationship was the most advanced, this was a major setback for Valence. This setback is about to be overcome, as the EPS sale is to be finalized this month, according to EPS, Eveready, and RAL. To return to your point, yes, unexpected events prevented Valence from going on the path it had laid out, to get its product to market. The intervening time has been well-spent, though, and the company has more experience with its equipment, and has now expanded its production bottlenecks to where higher volume output is now possible than would have been last spring. I could add many other points, which you would ignore as usual, but the key issue is that if these unexpected events had not occurred, you would likely have been eating crow two quarters ago. Now it's just this fall that you'll be eating it. So keep posting about how it hasn't happened yet... you'll be right, to a point... namely, to THE point where it does. Then you'll be wrong, and oh so wrong. Frankly, I don't care what you think. You're so myopic in your view that you don't see what's happening in front of you.

To: Larry Brubaker who wrote (14270)	9/4/1999 2:52:00 PM
From: wm sharp	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 27311

Larry, What you should have done in February is invested in the company, plain and simple. In fact, this is what you should have done months earlier when your precious Red Chip jumped ship on the company at exactly the time when the returning Lev Dawson needed a vote of confidence from real investors. But this is obviously not your style. As Dawson forged ahead, you groused. As I've indicated repeatedly, you, Zeev, and a host of professional whiners are active on the Internet to service your own vulture appetites - pounding on the negative and preying upon small company vulnerabilities. Your response to this line of argument is to seek out your fellow scavengers. When Dennis V. posted a reasonable assessment of the damage these attacks can do to struggling companies, you grabbed the post and went crying "boo-boo" to Wexler. messages.yahoo.com Message 10742267 There you were consoled by the head worm and, most notably, got a crash course in cutthroat economics by one of his flock: techstocks.com I would suspect that any new visitors to this thread would look upon these sordid activities with a great deal of suspicion. The only appearance of paid hype around here falls on you and the rest of these slimy characters who persist (unless asked by management and/or lawyers to leave, that is!) at a time when short interest is roughly 10% of the outstanding. Fortunately, things are changing. As legal costs rise, small companies who aggressively challenge these attacks can look forward to a time when the pay scale for two-bit Internet mouthpieces just doesn't cover their legal expenses. Similarly, organizations like SI won't be able to justify the liability and will boot the scum out on the street. You are as aware as anyone of the outright lies spewn by Bill Wexler about this company in recent months. Yet you buddied up to the guy. This, more than anything, reveals your intentions. (PS: Do not come back with some tear jerker about how Wexler, Zeev and the rest of you donate your time to protect unwitting shareholders. This argument has been beaten into the ground by the shorts and rendered ludicrous by your self-serving, hypocritical behavior on these threads.)