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: mooter775 who wrote (3669)	8/12/1998 3:38:00 PM
From: I. N. Vester	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 27311

Yet another take on the call: Paul, thanks for asking some very good questions. The question/mention of 'negotiating with 14 customers' was phrased in such a way that Lev had to push it back. I think it's clear that he may already be 'negotiating' price and delivery schedule with a small number. probably the 2 they had supplied with the original batch of henderson batteries. He mentioned different degrees of trust from different oems. I would take from his remarks that, contrary to mooter's more optimistic prediction, the time table will be: 1) make batteries off the NI line within the next few weeks. 2) test in house for 1 mo. 3) quarantine for 1 mo. 4) ship to oems for testing. I think the more agressive/trusting oem's might settle for a shortened test cycle of perhaps a few weeks then be prepared to contract for large deliveries. I really doubt that anyone of them will be trusting enough to place an order without having the actual NI batteries tested. And that, imo limits us to pretty much the above schedule which probably permits orders comming in by around the end of october at the earliest. if anybody believes otherwise, I'd really like to understand their reasons.

To: mooter775 who wrote (3669)	8/12/1998 3:42:00 PM
From: Tickertype	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 27311

Lev's comments re. the likelihood that no others could produce Li-polymer batteries without stepping on one of their patents was very intriguing to me. This company may just become the dominant player here, in more ways than one. - T -

To: mooter775 who wrote (3669)	8/12/1998 3:54:00 PM
From: atticus4paws	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 27311

First off, this message is to no one in particular. Furthermore, I'll qualify everything that follows by stating that I'm not an investment professional. I'm sure you won't have a hard time believing that ;) I've been trying to figure out what's going on with VLNC's price movement. Specifically, the recent movement from the mid/hi 4's to the low 5's where it hits a brick wall. Simple trading range? Fine with me. I even think that's most likely. Who is trading? I always thought that day traders looked for stocks with more volume. I know I would. Position traders looking for 1/2 pt? I guess, but I don't have the experience to know for sure. Is someone unloading a huge number of shares above $5? I don't have time and sales to see the blocks going through so I don't really know. But this leads me to think, "How is Valence positioned in the LiPoly market?" From the quick research I've done, the players (not necessarily viable) in this arena are VLNC, LITH, ULBI, Samsung, and 3M. - LITH might have a good design but I think that they are way behind VLNC in terms of large scale production potential. - ULBI I have no current info on - Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. announced a new PCS phone in 4/98 that used a lipoly battery. They didn't say who makes the battery (them or someone else). This company is a US company but part of the Samsung Group of S. Korea. Since a US company is subject to US patent law (I assume), what are the patent ramifications if any? - 3M was originally investigating lipoly for use in electric vehicles. In 2/96 they were awarded a 27 mill contract for a phase two effort to develop their battery. Can't find anything current on their site. Can any of these companies touch VLNC? The big wildcard is Samsung or their supplier, IMO? Could the market support two large suppliers? I'm sure. Competitive technology? Probably many years away. So WHY isn't VLNC trading to higher levels in light of very positive indications of large scale production? Whew! Sorry about all of the blathering. I guess the last question is the one that got me thinking of all those possibilities. Chris