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: Robert Einstein who wrote (4028)	8/31/1998 4:15:00 PM
From: John Curtis	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 27311

Jezus, here that "THUD?" The market just fell out of bed. (eom)

To: Robert Einstein who wrote (4028)	8/31/1998 4:52:00 PM
From: lws	Respond to of 27311

Hi, Robert, I am tickled by your mildly sarcastic curiosity about my precision. Such apparent precision invites ridicule for obvious reason -- and it amuses me too. Of course I could have been even more precise without adding or subtracting anything from my point -- would, say, 24, 33, 31, and 12 been more fun or more informative? I could have put those numbers in for the giggle, but it didn't occur at the time. Maybe I'll use them in my post. All this, however, is beside the point. These are subjective probabilities in that they are not derived from a large "historical" data set, but rather apply to a unique event which is yet to occur -- which is to say, they're guesses. But what they do do, though, is give a sense of the relative likelihood among a set of alternative outcomes. To simplify the problem, I see Valence as facing 4 basic possibilities over the next few years, only one which can emerge: failure, and what I am calling decent, good, and great success. If each had the same likelihood of occurring (the flip of a 4-sided coin, say), then the probability of any one would be 25%. But as I lay out the arguments for each, I find some outcomes seem more likely than others. Since the probabilities have to sum to 1, higher probabilities for some must imply lower probabilities for others. In the end, you wind up assigning seemingly precise numbers to capture the relative differences you perceive among the alternatives. Thus, in this case I am quite comfortable in saying that the likelihood of great success is at best half that of just good success, and I am quite comfortable that the chances for good success is about the same as the chances for just decent success. Given the real possibility of failure, the upshot of all this is such numbers as 30, 30, and 15. Of course, 33, 31, and 12 would be more fun and would still convey roughly the same relative likelihoods. Since you quite reasonably ask me to post the details of my wisdom, I am inclined to do so sometimes in the next few days. However, I ask you to reciprocate by undertaking and posting the same exercise. Consider the possible fate of Valence over the next several years, allow for both failure and a couple of different amounts of success, and assign your probability numbers (they gotta sum to 1). Many of us will be interested in what you find. I suspect your results will be surprisingly close to mine. Regards, lws