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 (16418)	11/27/1999 3:49:00 PM
From: LTBH	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 27311

Thanks Larry, I appreciate both your viewpoint and your acknowledgement that its skeptical. I find it instructive to listen to a well rounded group of opinions to assist my decision process. I guess I wasn't clear on two of my questions: I know the burn rate and debt to equity is high, my question was how do you view it, do you believe management has a plan for correcting this soon? Have they vocalized any such plan? If so, what is it? Also as to peers, how do you see VLNCs plants and technology against its peers, for instance against ULBI? I know Li Poly is in its infancy. Do YOU trust Lev?? Thanks Networm

To: Larry Brubaker who wrote (16418)	11/27/1999 4:24:00 PM
From: Richard M. Jimmink	Respond to of 27311

Larry, " Is that your final answer"??? Are you sure, that is your final answer for today ??? Dick

To: Larry Brubaker who wrote (16418)	11/27/1999 6:12:00 PM
From: add	Respond to of 27311

>Networm, here's the skeptic's view on your questions, >1. Lev's leadership/trustworthiness. Big difference >between the rosy scenario Lev paints in the conference >calls and press releases vs. the SEC filings. An analyst >during the last conference call even asked why the >discrepancy between the two. Lev acted like he didn't >understand the question, and later said both the filings >and the conference calls are correct. My take is that if >both are correct, then the small purchase order they >recently received does not mean they have commercial >production capability (meaning the ability to produce in >volume, at a profit). Larry, didn't your mother tell you to tell the truth ? In the CC VLNC admitted to being able to produce at $40M run rate now, with $80M soon and $250M next year. Plus, add in Hanil which should be at full speed by June. So even if you take the current number of $40M, that is commercial production in book. SO Larry, why did you neglect to mention that ? What's your motive ? >2. VLNC's position among peers. Nobody seems to be >producing large volumes of lithium polymer batteries. True enough at this point. When VLNC gets the contract(s)to use up the $40M capacity, we should see for sure. Don't wait until it happens Larry, or you will miss the pop. >3. Burn rate is high and increasingly so. Debt to equity, >is high because there is not much equity. Total debt is >not that much, however. Long term debt is about $12M, book equity is about $4M.Book equity is so low because of the long time to reach production and sales. However, book equity doesn't mean squat. Market equity if more like $350 Million. That's what counts. Amazon only has $77M in book equity, think its worth that much? Its Debt to Equity is many times more than VLNC. The total burn rate is only $9M a quarter. Full production at the $80M level will make that point meaningless. >4. REAL short term order outlook. The $64,000 question. >Depends on whether you believe the conference calls or >the SEC filings, which say their technology requires >further development before they can produce in commercial >volumes. >For me, I want to see further confirmation (e.g., multiple >purchase orders and/or substantial financing at reasonable >terms) before I change my skeptical view. Without such >confirmation, my personal opinion is the current price is >not sustainable. If you wait for the multiple orders, you will buy VLNC past $20. Risk-reward that's the name of the game. Larry, why don't you just Treasuries,then you won't have to worry about anything. >Now you've got the skeptic's view. I'm sure Rich will tell >you a different story:-) Now you have a more balanced view.