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: LTBH who wrote (16438)	11/28/1999 1:54:00 PM
From: Socalsteve	Respond to of 27311

Networm....as an aside, CDMA was second to market after TDMA was already well established in Europe. Hasn't seemed to hurt QCOM in the long run. I am long VLNC and quite bullish on it's long term prospects. Good luck to you, Steve

To: LTBH who wrote (16438)	11/28/1999 2:02:00 PM
From: Dennis V.	Respond to of 27311

Hi, Networm. The technical differences between Co and Mn(not Mg) are real and not simply a marketing exercise. You have touched prematurely on a very complex subject but I assure you that the issue is not as trivial as Beta vs. VHS. Frankly, I do not know where to begin and I have been watching the technology for only a year. Cobalt probably is a dead end approach in all but military applications unless the price of materials declines and someone finds a safe way to scale up in size. The difference in specific capacity of the two materials is largely masked by particular engineering developments of the battery cells. This is tricky stuff, both in R&D and manufacturing. Currently, Valence has demonstrated their ability to produce Mn based cells with higher energy density than comparable Co based cells described in the PR from other companies.

To: LTBH who wrote (16438)	11/28/1999 3:14:00 PM
From: John Curtis	Respond to of 27311

Networm: Testing the $8.5 level? Hmmmm....your question sounds like you've looked at a recent chart of VLNC where it shows how much of a spurt VLNC has undergone here in the past couple of weeks. $8.5 happens to be its ~12 day moving average. Typically speaking TA, in the form of free sites like Clearstation, etc., states that the best time to buy a company which has gotten way out in front of it's short term moving average is when its retrenched back to that same average(which is now a floor). And since VLNC has left the extreme speculative category(for me at least), it's reasonable to assume it'll begin to act like a "normal"(whatever THAT is) stock. That is, surges with subsequent backing and filling. Indeed, I've even put in a limit buy at the level you mentioned juuuust on the off-hand chance I might catch it. It may fall to that level, it may not.....the operative determinant is the sooner management comes out with addition p.o.'s....welll, the less likely a return to that level will occur. All this is imho, of course. I agree with you that management must be forthcoming and non-contradictory with their statements. VLNC management's history in this area is admittedly mixed. My guess is this is because to a certain extent they're "muzzled" by legal council as there IS at least one legal action still in motion. And based on their 1994 debacle...well...once bitten is twice shy in THAT department, eh? Particularly if the bite is self-induced.... So recognizing this, and juxtaposing it against their probable excitement at having finally 'rounded a significant corner in this companies development....contradictions are somewhat easy to understand. Still, Larry's correct that the SEC filings must be taken as a major source of credibility, particularly since they've been accurate to date. But, too, at this point certain company actions must be factored in, and that's the recent p.o. announcement, coupled to Hanil's announcement, insider buying, etc., etc.. If you're something of a speculator, or at least willing to lay monies down on a gamble, then these two areas should be explored.... As for the merits of cobalt vis-a-vie manganese....I won't claim any expertise in that area, but I seem to recall a conference call with former CEO Cal Reed, wherein he stated at least two fundamental reasons why cobalt won't be a ubiquitous battery solution. First, it's hands down more expensive than manganese, and by a quantum level in difference. Secondly, and to my mind in light of these environmentally conscious days, more to the point, cobalt ain't exactly environmentally friendly. It's a pain to dispose of...as a matter of fact, C.R. stated something to the effect that Europeans are looking more, and more, askance at batteries using cobalt(but I bow to any/all Europeans/experts who have first hand experience in THAT area). These two obstacles alone, discounting completely the more volatile characteristics of the substance, to my mind relegate it to niche applications.... With regard to your real-player difficulties, if you wander back to the time of the call I think you'll find several summaries worth reviewing....As for your "tie up" market segments statement. It's hard to get a read on this from management statements. BUT, one can read the tea leaves of L.D.'s statements about looking to involve VLNC in the product planning stages of their clients product development cycles. My bet is they'll attack cell-phones first(already verified by the recent p.o. announcement), then move on to PDA's, and other handheld vehicles, then to laptops as the prior sectors prove out their products capabilities. After that...who knows?? Toy industry applications? Alternative energy storage applications in such as automobile, home, etc..?? The key will be approaching key OEM's in the relevant sectors, from a sales perspective, and enticing them with VLNC products capabilities.....over-all it's a sales game at this point. To my mind the applicability of lith-poly battery products is limited only by one's imagination. Still....before going THAT far I'd just like to see another p.o...... Regards! John~