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: MGV who wrote (3260)	7/4/1998 12:54:00 AM
From: FMK	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 27311

Mark V- You suddenly appeared to yell "fire" to scare people. Now you are continuing when most of them see no evidence of a fire. Valence is not in "dire" financial need. If you analyzed the capability of their production, you should be able to conclude, as I have that they should have been able to more than break even with their first, (low speed) production line alone. If they were worried about surviving, they wouldn't have purchased enough laminate capacity for ten production assembly lines or place more on order. Isn't the 4th assembly line expected in NI in September? You state how the R&D budgets of larger companies dwarf Valence. You should keep in mind that Valence licensed technology from Bell Labs (Bellcore) a few years ago which gave them a tremendous head start. The size of Valence's R&D budget is no longer so relevant because they are now gearing up to mass produce the result of their years of R&D. You also seem in direct opposition to the opinions of Don Wolanchuk. I understand he has been a guest market monitor at least four times on Nightly Business Report and has won the Market timer of the year award 3 times straight. He recently visited Valence's facilities and witnessed the automated production himself. Why should we be so quick to discount Don's opinions in favor of yours? I have acquired more Valence recently because I believe we are finally getting close to what we have waited a very long time for.

To: MGV who wrote (3260)	1/20/1999 9:56:00 PM
From: MGV	Respond to of 27311

It was so predictable. Posted 7/3/98 #3260 Friday, Jul 3 1998 9:32PM ET Reply # of 7254 "For achieving thinness, the issue is the battery," said Saied Zangenehpour, senior manager for mobile systems at Gateway, based in North Sioux City, S.D. "Lithium polymer would help because you can shape it to fill any hole in your design. But in my opinion, there will not be any useful supply until late next year." Major players such as NEC, Sony, Sanyo, Matsushita and a number of smaller companies are developing lithium-polymer batteries, but none are ready to commit to volume supplies, he added. Although safety issues with the batteries have largely been addressed, they still cost as much as 25 percent more than lithium-ion batteries and offer 15 percent less energy density." Paragraph 1 - one of the largest potential consumers of laptop batteries, one who is in the thick of difficult competition, looking for every competitive advantage and accustomed to being on top of all issues affecting competition estimates that lithium polymer won't take place until late 1999. Paragraph 2 - among those looking to develop lith poly batteries include deep pockets such as Sony and Matsushita, which leads to the earlier question regarding FMK's wild estimate of $95 M in net profit for a company w/ a market cap of 115 M: If there was any liklihood that FMK's forecast had a probability of being even 1/5 accurate (for 17% 1 year ROI instead of the forecasted 83%), Sony would snap it up in a minute - or with VLNC's dire cash flow requirements to remain solvent, take a large equity stake in VLNC. At best VLNC is in a race with competitors with R&D budgets dwarfing VLNC's in the most liquid of times for VLNC. With its need for cash and a competitive environment that is increasingly cut throat, favorable financing terms are infinitesimally small. Its more likely that the race is over - for VLNC. Otherwise, for $115 M it would have been swallowed.