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: P. Ramamoorthy who wrote (24770)	8/23/2001 8:27:45 PM
From: Doug McKenzie-Mohr	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 27311

Wasn't able to listen to the cc. Thanks for the summary. Doug

To: P. Ramamoorthy who wrote (24770)	8/23/2001 8:56:12 PM
From: Jacques Tenzel	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 27311

Appreciate the summary. It sounds like a professional approach. No purpose crying over missed past opportunities. Now let's see what God's followthru is like! Waiting for the archived Conference call to appear. ............Jacques

To: P. Ramamoorthy who wrote (24770)	8/24/2001 1:27:18 AM
From: Larry Brubaker	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 27311

He really blamed the lack of NI production on the pursuit of a licensing strategy? Up until now, I've been willing to give the new CEO the benefit of the doubt. But if he really said this, I have to ask, who is he trying to kid? Two years ago, the previous CEO said they could already produce at a $40 million run rate. The $15 million European cell phone order was to begin shipping at least 6 months before they even announced the Telcordia deal, and even more months before it was finalized. VLNC shareholders were promised big numbers long before the "focus shifted" to licensing. To blame the lack of fulfillment of these promises on this shift in focus is quite disingenuous. If the guy would have just come clean and explained the problems and how they are being addressed in a forthright manner, he would have gone a long way to restore the credibility this company is lacking. The change in CEO's was a perfect opportunity to do so. He blew it, IMO.

To: P. Ramamoorthy who wrote (24770)	8/24/2001 10:38:52 AM
From: rli123	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 27311

Ram: from your summary of the CC: "Any graphs on energy density? Stephan: $/kg? Not yet. We'll have these graphs and specs on the web site. Approximately pure cost of materials basis alone - phosphate at $4/kg or 17-18 cents/whr, Co at $30/kg or 32-33 cents/whr." I think this is what I heard as well. But these numbers don't make alot of sense to me: if phosphate has such a large cost per kg advantage ($4 vs $30), and only a modest (but not insignificant) $0.17 vs. $0.32 cost per whr advantage, there must be a significant phosphate whr/kg DISADVANTAGE (in order for the numbers to tie). (for example, using a kg of each raw material, the number of whr would be ($4 / $0.17 =) 23.5 whr/kg for the phosphate, and ($30 / $0.32 =) 93.75 whr/kg for the Co). This diverges significantly from what we have been told, doesn't it? Maybe one of the numbers is wrong. Another thing that has always lingered in my thinking: how significant is the raw material cost relative to the out-of-plant cost for these cells? Raw materials is only part of the cost of manufacturing. I think raw materials is probably pretty significant, but I don't have any specific experience in the economics of battery manufacturing. Is raw material cost 80% of the out-of-plant cost (which would be my best guess), or much less? Please help me understand. Thanks. rli