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: J. M. Burr who wrote (2549)	4/1/1998 6:20:00 PM
From: Emmo	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 27311

I was checking the list of the large shareholders and as of 12/97 80-90% showed an increase in their holdings. Seems to me there are a lot of large investors that are not too concerned about the lack of news. Reminder; batteries take many weeks to test. Since they MUST notify public when there is negative news, the lack of any news is OK with me. For those feeling nervous, you need to start selling shares until you're not feeling nervious anymore.

To: J. M. Burr who wrote (2549)	4/2/1998 1:40:00 PM
From: lws	Respond to of 27311

J.M. Burr I certainly agree everyone has the right to "push." I do question whether it is prudent, if only because an atmosphere of good-will and trust between management and shareholders seems valuable too. I do not understand why you question their honesty, or their concern for the small shareholder. Nothing (except for the P.S. below) I have seen over the past few years would indicate a problem on either score. You might question their judgement as to the timeliness or contents of their statements, or any other aspect of their conduct of their business for that matter, but it is also useful to remember that their interest in ultimate success is no less than our own. It seems to me that your argument must be predicated on some divergence between those interests, but I have satisfied myself that this is not the case. In my mind, at most they are guilty of a bit of negligence toward the small shareholder -- but I find that difficult to really believe in light of DA's accessibility. P.S. If I am going to make complaints along these lines, it is to complain about the timeliness of last year's annual report. Valence's fiscal year ends on March 31. The annual report arrived, as I recall, in September. In light of the developmental nature of the company, it's on-going viability dependent on cash reserves and burn-rates, and so forth, it was off-putting to read an annual report (10K) that was no less than six months stale. I will agree with anyone arguing that that time management was inexcusably casual about the shareholders' need for timely information. I hope this will not happen again, and I have to hope that DA will insist that it does not. [I must also admit that as a 10K it might have been available sooner. Still, I have been annoyed ever since getting the thing and finding it was so hopelessly dated -- even if in compliance with the letter of the SEC rules.]