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 (19460)	4/30/2000 8:08:00 AM
From: LiPolymer	Respond to of 27311

I continue to maintain it was disingenuous for you to suggest to Zeev in the first place that Valence had to immediately cover current liabilities with the CG financing: "Zeev, that assumption ignores the fact that VLNC had about $13 million in current liabilities at the time they received the $30 million. Depending on how quickly those short-term obligations had to be paid, VLNC may not have had $20 million in the bank a week after they received the $30 million." This is right in line with your agenda, but inconsistent with the trend of Current Liabilities established in the SEC filings. Current Liabilities is a dynamic quantity that we get a snapshot of every quarter. From 3/98 to 9/99 it was in the range of $11M +/- 10%. As time marched on, older liabilities were paid off and newer liabilities added on, all while Valence generated/burned cash to continue operations. Valence has successfully managed a negative working capital situation for years, so it's difficult to see why that would suddenly have to change as the future financial picture brightens with the ramp-up to commercial production. Your suggestion that the CG financing had to be used to clear the decks of excess liabilities that had "piled up" for a year is inconsistent with the trend established in your beloved SEC filings. This is a clear attempt at manipulation to support a short agenda. There is enough circumstantial evidence to link SI's "Larry Brubaker" to Yahoo's "nowaynohow", and the latter entity has admitted to shorting Valence. Care to explicitly deny this association and provide any supporting evidence to the contrary? ;-) If you would like to consider questioning the suspicious motives of an individual an ad hominem argument, I suppose that is your prerogative if it makes you feel any better. See ya.