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: Jacques Tenzel who wrote (25402)	2/19/2002 9:41:34 PM
From: Rich Wolf	Respond to of 27311

Jacques, if I parse the language, the comments attributed to Stephan during the CC are regarding an MOU that defines product specifications, not a commitment to purchase anything from Valence (otherwise the wording would be stronger); whereas the 10Q refers generically to lack of an 'agreement' with an OEM, which I take at face value to mean there currently exists no agreement by an OEM to purchase some product from Valence. Stephan may be wanting to telegraph that he hopes this relationship with Wistron will result in a contract, but all he has in hand right now is an MOU regarding product specs and nothing more (i.e., not even a contingent purchase agreement). Even the base unit that is ostensibly to be sold through some OEM's website(s) may not entail any 'commitment' from the OEM. That is, all the risk capital may be Valence's. Just one person's view.

To: Jacques Tenzel who wrote (25402)	2/20/2002 12:04:08 AM
From: P. Ramamoorthy	Respond to of 27311

Jacques Tenzel, Re.: "Are these statements at odds..." Not really. Both statements are valid within the context they are stated. VLNC does not have an OEM order per se, a la QCOM or GSTRF. That was obvious in the two announcements - Acer and Wistron. Wistron does not reveal who their customer is and how much the order is for. Even if VLNC knows who the customer is, VLNC does not reveal. Investors need to guess. It could be Dell or Apple or Handspring. Nobody knows. The Wistron order was significant enough for Stephan to claim a design win. Stephan implied that there was no need for a product spec agreement if Wistron did not have an order for a product using VLNC battery. He said that the product was a handheld computing device. He did not go into more details. My interpretation is that Wistron has an order (an unknown amount) for VLNC cells and that the NI plant is supplying these batteries. Wistron's customer does not want to reveal yet. The next conf call should confirm our speculations. jmo Ram