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: barrcuda who wrote (1380)	11/17/1997 1:59:00 PM
From: VikingWarrior	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 27311

Thanks for the great report. It is appreciated by all (EOM)

To: barrcuda who wrote (1380)	11/17/1997 3:49:00 PM
From: wm sharp	Respond to of 27311

David - Very much appreciate your report. This reinforces my impression of a solid, committed, and understated management. In a way, I'm pleased they can still play their hand on their own terms (i.e. with minimal competitor, press, or litigation pressures.) Larry - As a VLNC holder, I'm inclined to wish ULBI the same degree of success. I certainly hope their ramp up is on schedule and their yields exceed expectations. And I wouldn't mind if they were technically first to supply an OEM with production product. What neither company needs is distorted press, or the perception among OEMs that the technology is not ready for production.

To: barrcuda who wrote (1380)	11/17/1997 11:56:00 PM
From: Javelyn Bjoli	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 27311

>I asked Dave about the 50 thousand a month they receive from GM and >was told they are looking at batteries for lights and ignition >systems. Not so much for electric vehicles. GM is looking to polymer to make an ignition battery with half the weight of lead-acid. If a battery weighs 40lb. in a 4000lb car, saving half the weight shaves 0.5% off the weight of the car in one chunk. It's a big deal considering the work they go through to save ounces here and there. It's probably good for VLNC that this is the application of most interest, because electic cars are years away. The US Advanced Battery Consortium (USABC) is sponsored mostly by the big 3 automakers. Despite pouring millions (a pittance to them) into EV development and making PR statements about the future, they aren't ready to be forced to change their ways just yet, and are controlling the pace of development to suit their needs. Add the Big Oil lobby controlling the government's interest in USABC, and EV's don't stand a chance of existing for real until the California legislation mandating 2% of sales be zero-emission by 2003 kicks in. PS. David, thanks for your great report. Any chance they showed you around the lab or the small factory?

To: barrcuda who wrote (1380)	11/18/1997 12:19:00 AM
From: FMK	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 27311

Thanks David, your report brings clarity and provides more indication that it is all coming together. As the company previously explained it, their testing program seemed to require a time period of perhaps 60 days before samples would be released to the OEM's. I have believed for a long time, and had confirmed by non-company sources, that simultaneous testing was being performed because of an OEM's large investment in automated testing equipment. Adding 60 days for the OEM's seemed to extend schedules unrealistically. Now it is clear that certain OEM's are testing concurrently with Valence, and was the basis for my recently-posted belief that we are within the timeframe for a contract. I confirmed with the company today something I heard secondhand this morning - that batteries coming off line 2 presently meet OEM criteria and customers would be pleased with the results. Why not ship now? The way it was explained, there is a dominating force within the company that is something of a perfectionist- no matter how good it is, it can still be made better! Perhaps a carryover from the 7 years starting Seagate's automated production of computer disk drives! With the laminate process now in house, the company is fitting the equipment with some enhancements that should facilitate taking the test parameters "to the next level". Details will be considered proprietary. The company spokesman believes Valence has a substantial lead over any competitor. I therefore believe you have adequate reason for <<... feeling very upbeat about this company .... and that very good news is coming soon...>> Best Regards, FMK

To: barrcuda who wrote (1380)	11/18/1997 8:09:00 AM
From: Paul Dubsky	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 27311

David, thanks for the report. To the poster asking what EOM meant, End Of Message. I noticed from your profile that you're a senior electronic tech with the Los Alamos National Lab. It's reassuring to see the type of investors following VLNC. Very qualified, technically. With this type of R&D company, it's very necessary that the technical people chime in to give us the "reality" of the technology. Thanks for the technical perspective. I continue to like the chart of VLNC, short term and long term. $7.50 - $8.50 seems to be a solid basing range until further news is out, or until the market crashes. I recently lightened up on another stock I was holding for the long term (CKFR) to have MORE money available for VLNC. I will never have all of my eggs in one basket, but more and more, there are a lot of eggs with VLNC written of them! Trying to keep my enthusiasm about VLNC in check. Everyone says that if it's too good to be true, it probably is. But, like others have posted earlier, IOM at $2 was too good to be true, now it's in the $30s (after having skyrocketed to $60). Keep up the valuable posts and keep digging for information.