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 (15422)	10/24/1999 10:12:00 PM
From: kolo55	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 27311

Why do I have to defend tickertype's comments? You posted something, and asked me to respond. I even copied the comment from your post that you asked me to respond to. I responded appropriately. The problem is yours, if you asked me to defend another poster's comments, and I didn't respond as you wanted. Not my problem... just yours. If you want information on the upcoming secondary, call the company and ask them. I shouldn't have to do your legwork for you. I even asked you if you discussed your concerns with Valence's plans to raise capital with the CFO. Why do I have to address your concerns? I don't share your concerns. Regarding equity sales, all equity sold to finance 'burn rate' for a development company is dilutive. I agree with you that a stock price under 5 is too low... this is why I have been buying the stock in that price range. Paul

To: MGV who wrote (15422)	10/25/1999 1:19:00 PM
From: Tickertype	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 27311

<<-- the claim(s) of significant revenues by VLNC have come from "tickertype" and other VLNC longs.>> I didn't say 'significant', Visnic, you're making things up again, as always. And why are you asking others to tell you who the underwriters for the secondary are, why don't you show some backbone and ask the company yourself? Guess it's because all you bashing jerks have one thing in common - you don't have the balls to ever ask the company anything on your own, you look to these boards for the answers while preaching the opposite! - T -

To: MGV who wrote (15422)	10/25/1999 2:06:00 PM
From: add	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 27311

Mark, Obviously you know nothing about the basics of Corporate Finance when you state: "Third, debt would not be dilutive to shareholders' ownership interest. Why no debt offering to avoid the heavily dilutive onus of sub$5 share offerings?" Tell me, Mark, how does a development-stage company with no revenue pay the interest on debt when it has no revenue? Obviously to use debt you must have either good cash flow to service the debt or a huge chunk of excess cash. The excess cash typically comes from a large stock offering. VLNC has neither at this point. One could issue a zero-coupon. However why would one want to hold a bond that doesn't pay for a while on a risky development stage company? If the company works out,then you will get paid. If it doesn't you won't. Thus, the payoff looks like equity, but without any of the upside. Thus, one never sees a zero coupon. For most of high-tech startups without any revenue, no one will lend to them, they are almost all financed by equity or loans from the founding members or directors. This has been the case with VLNC. The long time to market has used up all the cash from all the previous offerings. So with the cash used up and still no revenue , VLNC has to continue to go to the equity market. In terms of dilution. One has to look at the return on invested capital. Obviously, doing a deal at $7 is better than doing a deal at $5. But if the additional investment at $5 results in a much greater return down the line, everyone is better off including the original stockholders. Yes, VLNC has burned through a lot of money and those that invested 7 years ago have not seen any return yet. However, if a few million dollars results in a huge payoff, then the return on the original investment may still be quite good. Obviously the return for those just investing will be even better. So Mark, you can't just look at the dilution, the denominator(shares outstanding), without looking at the numerator, the return. Its the ROIC, stupid. Obviously, Mark knows little about finance. His postings are suspect due to ignorance. Hope he has been educated a little today.