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: Zeev Hed who wrote (19443)	4/29/2000 3:00:00 PM
From: MGV	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 27311

Understand that the goal is not to make money "in VLNC." The goal is to make money at the best risk-adjusted return. Visibility relates to risk. Visibility is good. It lowers risk. With the right secular growth trends it absolutely does not lower return. Now finding the right secular growth trends is as much art as it is science. But within the art there are certain rules that I have found to work. You may have found other rules work for you. Don't disparage anothers style by making incorrect assessments and assumptions.

To: Zeev Hed who wrote (19443)	4/29/2000 3:36:00 PM
From: MGV	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 27311

This bears further comment: " .... success is so self evident (like positive cash flow and nicely growing top line and bottom line), that the price will already reflect the potential continuation of such a success 10 years hence, by then however, that price will, IMHO, be fundamentally too high to make VLNC a "safe investment". I find a couple of controversial ideas in your statement. First, the words "so self evident" are subjective words. The level of "evidence" required is individual. Second, and more importantly, your assumption that waiting for the level of visibility that fits one's risk adjusted return parameters means one cannot enjoy greater than market average returns is wrong in my view and experience. I didn't invest in Cisco in 1991 but I have since 1993. I didn't invest in AOL in 1993 but I have since 1995. There are many other less prominent examples. I've invested much earlier in other great companies because I saw something that I didnt see as early in AOL or Cisco, in relative terms. But, in every company there are certain things that tend to correlate with success. At this point, in my view, VLNC does not have nearly enough of them to merit an investment.