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: I. N. Vester who wrote (16242)	11/17/1999 9:14:00 PM
From: Larry Brubaker	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 27311

<<I will try to dig out the only published financial analysis of Vlnc from Red Chip review this weekend and let you know what their analyst said about margins.>> You don't need to bother. I've already done this and Red Chip assumed a 14.9% operating margin 5 quarters into production. Note that a 14.9% operating margin would mean that the net profit margin would be less, because operating margin does not include all costs. This compares to my generous assumption of a 15% net profit. <<So your'take EI&C average and multiply by 3 and that is generous' is highly unsophisticated and completely incorrect.>> Of course it is unsophisticated. However, given that we have absolutely no idea of what VLNC's actual margins will be, I see no point in spending hours developing a more sophisticated model. Once again, taking the industry average profit margin and multiplying by 3X (to account for the VLNC new product factor) seemed generous to me. But feel free to explain to me why you think their margins will be more than 3X the industry average. <<That does not justify a methodology of taking numbers which are completely inapplicable, applying an arbitrary multiplier, and then claiming to have provided insight.>> I acknowledge it is arbitrary. However, without any way of knowing what VLNC's actual margins will be (and without inside knowledge of what they think their margins will be) any estimate is arbitrary. And once again, my estimate was 3X the industry average and more generous than what Red Chip assumed. <<Was this an honest mistake or a deliberate attempt to mislead? Call that question 'ad hominem' if you wish, but I suggest readers ask themselves who Larry Brubaker is, why he has continued to post here, what axe he has to grind, and whether he is a sophisticated investor out to deceive them or merely a clever sounding knave with an incredible neurotic need to spend so much time where he 'has no financial interest'.>> Yep, completely ad hominem there, IN.

To: I. N. Vester who wrote (16242)	11/17/1999 9:24:00 PM
From: I. N. Vester	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 27311

More on phoney 'analysis a la Brubaker': Larry, it is exceedingly hard to believe that you had any motive but to deceive the naive when you 'analyzed' Valence's '2001 earnings' but forget completely about the second Valence factory which is also now on-line at Valence Hanil, which has it's ability to raise capital and continue to expand. And when I remind you of this fact, instead of responding you claim I make nothing but 'ad hominem' arguments. Sorry if I'm wrong, Larry but "who is Larry Brubaker and what does he know" are questions I have to urge the thread to consider. Larry, you know Valence owns 1/2 of that venture. You predict $250M revenue for Valence from NI in 2001, but you predict 0 revenue from Hanil? How can a sophisticated investor such as yourself make a stupid mistake like that? You've spent hours and hours posting msg after msg here and you don't know Valence has a 50% interest in Hanil Valence? Your 15 minutes of fame are over. Actually your credibility here lasted 12 months because you knew what CC was doing here. That was the one expertise you brought to the thread. Not because you have a deep understanding of other aspects of corporate finance (your completely inappropriate 'analysis' of Valences margins based on ROV prove just how shallow your understanding is), but simply because you have observed them in action. You may even be working for them, who knows, and who cares? Yes, we suffered for our naivite. Yes, you knew better than we did. But in the last 2 months while you have continued to warn how dangerous CC was, the longs understood their actions far better than you did - well enough to profit big time by getting in at the bottom. Castle Creek just proved that they do not have any inside connection to understand the status of the companies business. They sold thousands of shares at prices below 5, just weeks before the second commercial order after Alliant was finalized. They still seem intent on capping the price and selling shares against their 6.75 warrents for a measly buck, buck and a half. This just as the company is in the process of working with 50 OEMs and working out additional customer contracts. We are rapidly burning thru this artifically produced overhead. Volume is our friend. They have made their money thru market manipulation on the short side. They never had any understanding of the business. They didn't care. It had absolutely nothing to do with their plans. In fact, it proved quite inconvenient to them when Valence did announce an order! They were planning to capitalize on continuing delays. They don't know or care about the upside potential. They neither know nor care how many additional orders the company will finalize before the end of the year. Case in point ANCR - this is another great company the bandits tried to screw into oblivion. I don't really know anything about it but the chart and mention by Larry: 52 week low $2.22, now $58 down from $73. I'm sure the bandits did not stick around to make money on the long side. Like Larry they did know or care anything about the actual value of the technology or of the company. They are traders raiders actually, no more no less. I don't know what Larry's game with Valence is, but apparently he is trying to extrapolate the success he first had in guessing better than the longs the outcome of CC's games. Funny thing is, we ended up beating him at his own game and making very good money in the process. At 4.5 he said 'look out below'. We said 'look out above'. Now he is trying to convince you he knows something about how to determine profit margins, how value a stock, etc. He doesn't. Or if he does but he surely is lying about why he stays here. Is to bask in the glow of "Brubaker knows more than they do" or is he being paid to disseminate dissinformation to the retail investors? In either case, his 15 minutes of fame here are over. Bye-Bye Brubaker. Your credibility is rapidly dwindling down to nothing. You're next for the ignore list if you don't come clean.