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: Robert Cohen who wrote (24782)	8/24/2001 10:13:41 AM
From: MGV	Respond to of 27311

The message from NEW management was not received well by the street. I don't understand how, with all that has happened with VLNC over the years, including the most recent problems, a reasonable person would not be challenged to revisit his assumptions. After all, that is the value of an open forum - to have an opportunity to challenge your own views. IN Vester and Tickertype would best serve their own interests by supporting a skeptical view. Investing is not about hope and faith. If you are honest with yourselves, you have to conclude that the counter-views expressed here (excluding the "VLNC is a fraud" bluster) have been valid. Rather than attacking Cohen, try understanding the issues he raises. I have to give him credit for having the guts to question the company when he apparently has (or had) so much invested in it. That is not easy to do. It is the right thing to do, no matter the company.

To: Robert Cohen who wrote (24782)	8/24/2001 12:19:17 PM
From: Jacques Tenzel	Respond to of 27311

>Now we hear that the killer application, the first breakthru in battery electrodes in decades is the phosphate chemistry. This has yet to be supported by a licensee!!! If I am not mistaken even the Samsung license agreement does not include this technology. Until we get verification of this sort in the marketplace we are in the dark as to the real value of this technology. M_E has been the only honest expert around to give us perspective. The highly qualified new additions to Valence management certainly imply that others have found this technology to be of value, but then again they are paid well for having those opinions. This company is now hanging it's hat on this technology. It would be nice to have some independent verification that: 1. They have sufficient I.P. and Patent strength to defend themselves in the aggressive battle that is sure to come. 2. The technology is worth what they say it is. I am sure that secrecy may be necessary to prevent the competition from seeing Valence's weaknesses. But to me their greatest weakness at this point is credibility and this can only be overcome with a little openness and honesty. .............Jacques