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: lws who wrote (3418)	7/18/1998 1:14:00 PM
From: John Curtis	Respond to of 27311

lws: From the vantage point of "tasty" shoe leather I'd have to agree, heh! I'd like to add one thing. Folks, to the extent that you simply must be acrimonious with your commentary can you please express it via private e-mail. It contributes nothing to the thread and certainly doesn't enhance your image. As for VLNC, despite the swirl of rumors emanating from the "underground," rumors which could assuage concerns if true, all publicly available documentation clearly indicates they're "running on empty" when it comes to cash flow. With a tip of the hat to that same underground, it IS clear financing news has to be forthcoming, and forthcoming soon IF VLNC is to survive. As to the terms of said financing, it's anyone's guess. It could be as "friendly" as some here have hoped, or as potentially gruesome as Mark V. has indicated. Red Chip's April report leaned more to Mark V.'s viewpoint, ie. " In our experience, firms in this situation(cash flow running out, no revenues, etc.) have little leverage in negotiating financing terms. ..........our experience suggests that prudent investors should watch from the sidelines as the Company tries to arrange financing. The reason is simple: The lender is able to stipulate terms that place its claims to the firm's assets ahead of the claims of shareholders if, the firm fails, and if the firm succeeds, to ensure a disproportionate reward." Granted R.C. makes no reference to VLNC's backers, eg. Carl B., et.al., but the fact that VLNC hasn't communicated any financing arrangements in light of public data, doesn't do much to invalidate R.C.'s conjecture, eh? So they need to be forthcoming about this situation, and poste haste too! Bottom line? If you're on the sidelines trying to decide whether to jump in or not, stay where you are since it's clear things are gonna break one way or the other soon(next few weeks). A company cannot run without its lifes blood, and that blood is casheesh, eh? Meanwhile, enjoy the remainder of the weekend everyone, and let's try to be more civil, and less like a certain cap's only character I can think of over there on Yahoo. John~

To: lws who wrote (3418)	7/18/1998 2:01:00 PM
From: Tickertype	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 27311

lws, I couldn't agree more with your and Paul's comments, you both sum it up very well. If one looks back over the posts, the discussion tended to be fairly civil and useful until the last CC occurred, when this character appeared who became the catalyst for all the unpleasant bickering we now see here. Others have suggested it before, and I'll recommend it again - ignore these poison barbs and continuous attempts at grandstanding and self-promotion by this individual, skip down to the next post, and we'll be back to the rational and informative discussions we had in the past. If some can't resist responding to him, then we continue with the same nonsense indefinitely. The choice is up to all who post. - T -