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: Tickertype who wrote (3420)	7/18/1998 3:48:00 PM
From: FMK	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 27311

To all - Some thoughts to help refocus on the value of our investments. As I have understood for some time, it wasn't necessary for the company to do anything about financing until they needed it. We know from reading the 10k that a large shareholder has $20 million available if the company elects not to finance via other means. I contend that a reasonable person should find it highly unlikely that Valence would have placed three additional assembly lines on order for September/October delivery if they had any idea they wouldn't be able to pay for them. In fact, I find it almost impossible to believe that a company starting high-volume production of rechargeable batteries that hold 20-80% more energy than currently used in millions of portable devices, and has been selling volumes of samples that exceed customer specs to at least 12 potential customers, should have any problem borrowing money. Enough about financing? My own calculations indicate that the first and slowest assembly line, now in operation in NI, should easily be able to earn a profit all by itself by turning out the company's stated design capacity of 2.4 million laptop batteries per year that their customers will likely pay about $75 each for. (2.4 x 75 = $180 million in revenue). If they sold them at a low price of $50 and made only 1.8 million the first year, revenue should total $90 million. A low 40% profit should then contribute $36 million toward a "burn rate" of $5 million/quarter before even taking into consideration the approximately $37 million rebate that should begin flowing from the Irish Government. For anyone really concerned, I invite them to do their own computations from their own notes on just line1's earning power alone. My notes indicate that at design capacity, the company expects that assembly line1 can produce about 1.2 million laptop batt/yr with one 8-hour shift per day. From the 10k, stockholders equity dropped about $13 million last year, roughly indicating a burn rate of just over $4 mln per quarter. Please work the numbers and you should feel much better. You may even get rather excited about your investments! I recommend you go back and check your own notes and make your own assumptions. Remember that the joint-venture partners worked similar numbers before putting up 100% of the capital for the ventures and agreed to split profits 50/50 with Valence. At half Valence's expected % profit, they still considered it a worthwhile investment. This implies that as Valence shareholders, we should be entitled to twice the joint-venture partner's expected rate of return on batteries Valence produces independently of the joint ventures. Remember also that when you finished these computations, the numbers represent revenue for only the first and slowest of the assembly lines in Northern Ireland. Other lines are expected to turn out higher volumes but products such as cellphone batteries will be less profitable. Have a good weekend!

To: Tickertype who wrote (3420)	7/18/1998 5:07:00 PM
From: MGV	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 27311

A theoretical underpinning of the U.S. legal system is that adversarial process is valued for its role in arriving at truth. The weighing and evaluating of differing perspectives by strident opponents helps a fact finder to identify strengths and weaknesses in opposing views. This is a fundamental tenet of our legal tradition. The principle is equally apt for equity analysis. In reading the posts of persons offended by "rudeness" and general incivility, it is useful to consider the experience lws cites with regard to the intelligent dissenter who left in frustration upon enduring repeated hostilities - possibly from the very same posters who now profess faithfulness to civility and social pleasantries, as I suspect, based on a similar experience to the previous dissenter, the one who endured incivilities and "rudeness" before leaving in frustration. In the light of knowledge of the previous dissenter's experience it is clear that what is really being sought by the tickertypes, herbert blairs, mark johnsons, et al is a kind of "cyber smoking room" to which members may retire, unfettered by diversity of thought but, instead enveloped in the warm embrace of a simple, hand-holding mantra. They want the kind of place where they won't be challenged, won't be faced with the unpleasantries of dissent or of a differing sentiment, alternative idea, challenging thought. An environment that evokes smoke-filled rooms of non-diverse members in more closeted, uglier eras. Tickertype reminisces of how it used to be - "until the (most recent 10K was published and) the last CC occurred." A boys club prevailed then; one with a narrow but "oh so comfortable" and reassuring uniformity of opinion about the coming halcyon days of $100 stock and all that comes with it. When someone with a position counter to the club threatens to upset the accepted view, it is clear what to do: oppose the "rebel" with a stepford zeal, condescend but, if that doesnt work, call his/her view stupid, if that doesn't work, call him/her stupid and if that doesn't work, fall back on morality and agree how barbaric, how offensive, how uncouth of the rebel not to be able to take a "hint." It is indisputable that personal attacks - however direct or veiled - are unconstructive. Human nature suggests that once begun, a continuing downward spiral becomes difficult to avoid. It is also indisputable that this thread must make room for diverse, even opposing, positions and perspectives. As certain is the value of the adversarial system to the pursuit of truth in questions concerning human liberty and justice, the tolerance of opposing opinion can help not hurt the readers' investment prospects,however anxiety provoking it is in matters involving dreams and imagined riches.