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: Mark Johnson who wrote (3199)	6/30/1998 9:47:00 AM
From: MGV	Respond to of 27311

Kaimes, you wrote: "The point I'm trying to make is that most of the warnings in this 10K were so familiar to me from previous years. When I said "if you read the annual report" I didn't phrase it properly - I was referring to the one from last year. This one looks suspiciously like someone who doesn't know the company history very well (as unlikely as that may sound!) had been given the task of redlining the old one to bring it up to date, only he/she wasn't familiar with most of the events. The most glaring case in point is the refernce to redesigning the production equipment, but even statements about having sent out hand-made samples to OEM's precedes the last CC where Lev stated that large batches (up to 700 in one case) of batteries off the Henderson line were sent out. None of the negative statements (disclaimers) in the 10K bear much resemblance to the things Lev said in the CC two months ago. - (Kaimes, are you referring to the CC in February?) Kaimes, if your theory about the construction of this 10k is correct, what does that say about management? 10ks contain disclaimers but there is no requirement nor reason to make statements such as the following one, if it isnt true: (taken from 10k) "Since the joint venture was on hold, Goldtron has licensed a liquid lithium-ion technology and is in the process of commercializing that technology." This says that the Korean JV has licensed another technology and has pursued bringing it to market instead of the VLNC technology. That isn't boilerplate. It is substantive fact as reported in the 10k and it is deleterious to the company's prospects. This is boilerplate: "There can be no assurance that when the Company desires to reactivate the joint venture, that Goldtron will still be interested in pursuing the Company's technology." This is substantive and not boilerplate: (excerpted from 10k) "The Company's high volume manufacturing equipment was specifically designed for use with the Company's prior metallic lithium anode technology. ... The amount of redesign and modification that is required is substantial ..... De-bugging of the lines has gone much slower than expected. The lines' reliability and yield are predictably low, although the Company believes that it will eventually reach its production goals. The last sentence is an instance where the company reported a positive opinion. When there is something positive to report, they do it. The 10k is not all about boilerplate and negative lawyer-speak. The above sentence is evidence that the company reports positive information where they believe it exists. This is not boilerplate. It is objective fact: "The Company has been unable to meet its prior schedules regarding delivery, installation, de-bugging and qualification of the Northern Ireland production equipment, due to unforeseen problems. " This is not boilerplate: "From its discussion with potential customers, the Company expects that customers will require an extensive qualification period once the customer receives its first commercial product off a production line. To date, the Company has not provided any such commercial product to any potential customer, and therefore, has not started any product qualification period." (emphasis provided) It is objective fact as reported by the company in the 10k that it does not have sufficient cash to meet current obligations. That is not boilerplate. Kaimes you also wrote: "I can recall reading the annual report two years ago and wondering why anyone would invest in a company with that kind of prospects - it was an endless series of negative statements about all aspects of the company and its business, and this latest one is almost the same." The truth is the company has not ben a sound investment over the last two years. The annual report was a warning. The 10Q is required by law to state objective information. It is intended to protect investors. You write it off as mere legalese, something to disregard. That is utterly ingenuous and irresponsible to others who rely on what you say. You wrote: "If they are about to go bankrupt, why are they hiring all kinds of people in NI and in Henderson, a good question to start with! " How do you know they are hiring "all kinds of people in NI and in Henderson?" The company hasn't reported that. Maybe they will tomorrow but they havent yet.

To: Mark Johnson who wrote (3199)	6/30/1998 9:48:00 AM
From: MGV	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 27311

Fred, you wrote: "I agree, the 10k was not worded with the intent to induce readers to invest in the company. I believe it is a legal requirement that they list all forseable ways things could go wrong. It doesn't mean that they are expected to. " The fact is that both 10ks and 10qs are neither intended to persuade or dissuade investment. They are intended to protect investors by requiring the company to report objectively as possible on the current state of affairs. Take a look at my post to Kaimes regarding the distinction between factual statements and boilerplate as reported in the 10K. I have to say I am surprised at the perceptions stated by you and other VLNC defenders on what 10Ks and 10Qs are. I'm also a little surprised at the defensiveness and nastiness of some of the responses to my posts. It may be unusual to post as many times as I have this evening without an ulterior pecuniary motive, of that I really don't know but, I do know that I have posted many times more than I anticipated because of the honest and strong disagreements I have about the legitimate information role of 10Ks and Qs. In the end, this debate isn't so much about VLNC as it is the misperceptions about these documents.

To: Mark Johnson who wrote (3199)	6/30/1998 10:05:00 AM
From: John Curtis	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 27311

Yup..similarities, yes indeedy. But some additions, too, to prompt questions for all those who can listen to the c.c. today. Meanwhile, look at the following URL. chart5.bigcharts.com:80/report?r=qchart&onbad=qbadsymbol&country=us&symb=vlnc&time=1&sid=8848&sec=c&xyz=520917672&s=6359 Clearly some folks panicked and placed a market sell order at open. Probably because they can't monitor during their work day and who choose discretion as the better part of valor. I think we'll stayed nailed right to this level until the c.c. provides direction, either up.....or down.... John~