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: FMK who wrote (1886)	1/6/1998 11:48:00 PM
From: Tickertype	Respond to of 27311

FMK, there's nothing wrong with you, or anybody else forecasting to their heart's desire on this thread - the analysts from the big brokerages do it every day on the public airwaves! And they certainly don't have a stellar record. As I've said before, if only known facts were to be posted here we'd be quoting yeasterday's stock price and that'd be about it. This is largely entertainment, a way for us to chat (and guess!) while we wait for the company to do what we all came for. BTW, last summer I thought your prediction was LOW! I now have a big margin debt as a result of my own optimism. Meanwhile, what do all you TA experts say about this volume reversal? Was it mainly mm's trading among themselves that produced the volumes we saw up until now? Are they now past the "accumulation phase" and getting ready to start pushing it up? Please feel free to guess. I appreciate all opinions. Regards, - T -

To: FMK who wrote (1886)	1/7/1998 8:41:00 AM
From: Jeff S.	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 27311

FMK, saw this on the AOL thread and thought I would repeat it here. BTW I was responsible for 5% of yesterday's volume, on the buy side. Jeff To one of you having SI posting privileges -- please post this on the VLNC SI thread. I haven't coughed up the necessary coins. Thanks. To FMK and others: Fred, I think you're correct in what you say (re price per unit of production capacity, VLNC vs. ULBI), but the bottom line is the bottom line. That is, the earnings per share is the key, not the revenue per share or production capacity per share. (I am assuming in the following that VLNC revenue per cell will be the same as ULBI's revenue per cell --- for the same cell size.) When considering the earnings per share, you gotta believe that VLNC's cost of production will be lower on a unit basis than ULBI's. I heard that ULBI has 150 workers busy as little bees manually assembling their batteries. Even when they get the slow-speed production line running, their unit manufacturing costs on their slow-speed line have to be much higher than VLNC's on their high-speed lines --- their fixed manufacturing costs (like the plant manager's salary, etc.) will be amortized over a much smaller number of cells. Furthermore, VLNC has vertically integrated by establishing their own laminating line. This has got to lower direct material costs considerably (compared to buying laminate from an outside source). This should further lower unit manufacturing costs. Then there's the effect of the large production volume on amortizing overhead (Henderson costs, etc.). Then there's the consideration that the first to market with serious-volume manufacturing capability will likely grab the largest market share --- market share that others will have to fight hard to win. This consideration, however, is very subjective and hard to value. I think that VLNC is even more attractive than you are suggesting when you look at it on a potential earnings-per-share basis. I look forward to your thoughts and a great '98 for VLNC. Regards, Tackman