SI
SI
discoversearch

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: High-Tech East who wrote (25683)11/17/2002 9:48:25 AM
From: Zeev Hed  Respond to of 27311
 
Ken, I have no problems with Godevais, I don't know him and don't know if he can turn VLNC around, I don't think anyone can. Just because he was successful elsewhere, does not mean he'll be here. Take Lowery, another icon of high tech management, so far, his efforts on OUM are proving to be sisyphian.

Just look at the numbers for VLNC, I carried a short "best case" valuation or VLNC on I-hub:

investorshub.com

Look at what the numbers say. Don't count on the fact that Berg keeps feeding cash to VLNC, his motives might be very different thatours, mortals. See my response to da cheif on I-hub as well:

investorshub.com

A short summary of my point of view on VLNC is based on two points, a technology that finds it difficult to get to market after 15 years, may have intrinsic problems. Even if the technology works, Godevais does not have the resources to carry "the plan", if he gets more resources (on top of the $350 MM already sunk in VLNC), the current shareholders (that paid those $350 MM) will see very little returns on that. If you want to use a "da cheif argument" (namely if it is good enough for Berg, it is good enough for me...), may I remind you that the technology was not good enough for Ma Bell (and then SAIC) thus they sold it to VLNC...

How should I put it? The simplest form is probably "A floorless by any other name, is still a floorless".

Good luck.

Zeev