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: John Curtis who wrote (3328)	7/12/1998 4:12:00 PM
From: MGV	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 27311

There is no mystery underlying any posts for which I'm responsible. Given your question about motive it may be worthwhile to back up a couple of weeks to the day in which the 10K was published. On that day I posted some issues here raised by the 10K. All of the posts discussed substantive parts of the 10K. All raised serious, legitimate questions to all but the most zealous VLNC supporters. The response to my posts were personal attacks and anger. There also was an undercurrent of posts that sought to downplay the 10K or to dismiss it as legal blather. These responses - the personal attacks and the reckless statements about SEC required disclosure documents intended to protect investors (and the source of important information in the professional investment community) - spoke volumes about the people posting them. They definitely inspired a Quixotic spirit. The posts amount to evidence of exactly what is described in the WSJ article on 7/10 about internet sharks preying on people who can't afford to be exploited. That is what this is all about. What has happened here has offended my sense of what is right and decent. So yes, I'm waving a banner I guess and, yes, I'm standing up against what I see as a combination of ignorance and duplicity. Thats all there is to this. There is no grudge on my part. I think its important to do.

To: John Curtis who wrote (3328)	7/12/1998 6:12:00 PM
From: MGV	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 27311

Substantive comments on merits of a projection of 12 months net profit of $95 Million are invited. Can anyone explain how if, assuming for the sake of argument, the numbers are plausible, and production of the magnitude represented in the projection is imminent, how a company w/ market cap of about $120 M would: a. find itself with more short term obligations than liquid assets and b. not have been in play as soon as the information necessary to project $95 Million in net profit became public? This assumes of course that the projection is not based on SEC prohibited insider information. Premises: 1. VLNC will earn $95 Million in net profit in first year of production and presumably grow cash flow annually after the 1st year. 2. Production is imminent. exchange2000.com Apparent Conclusion accepting the premises as true: Buy VLNC outright right now at approx. current market cap of $120 Million. If FMK could sit down and show his numbers to a banker and convince the banker, there is no banker in the world that would deny the financing to purchase VLNC outright, lock, stock, and barrel. Question: Why doesn't he or anyone else, including industry giants, to whom $120 M is pocket change, do just that? Maybe because his numbers wouldn't be convincing to anyone, anywhere (other than the internet apparently for some). FMK recently posted the following with regard to the idea of a VLNC investment in three additional production lines before having a contract and confirmed commercial acceptance of product: (Paraphrase) He said, three lines will earn $100 Million and cost $20 Million so he would invest $20 M to earn $100 M. Using the same rationale and applying it to VLNC as a going concern, he represents you can buy $95 M in net profit annually for in the neighborhood of its current market cap of approx. $120 M.