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: Tmoore who wrote (5057)	11/14/1998 8:31:00 PM
From: John Curtis	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 27311

Thanks to everyone for the cogent discussions presented here of late. It certainly points out the relative worth of SI, particularly when compared against the likes of Yahoo's unfortunate excuse for a thread. As I've said before, one would be foolish to totally ignore the negative aspects of a floor-less convertible, but Fred has a good point which Zeev has yet to answer. Of the total universe of such financial arrangements what percentage of those arrangements have gone on to be the disasters noted by Zeev's discourse? Since we're basically gambling....eh..speculating on VLNC, it's a worthwhile question to ask since that percentage helps determine the relative risk for all of us when it comes down to this tactic, eh? And I bow to Zeev's data in this area once he/she provides it, as the poster claims superior, at least to mine anyway, knowledge in floor-less vehicles. So need I say I am curious? Yet when considering this Pronichev points out another aspect to take into consideration when mulling over the possibility of said floor-less. That is, what's the "character," or history of the financing entity ponying up the money in support of VLNC. This history needs to be considered when trying to weigh the risk of the floor-less gambit being exercised, no? Does Castle Creek Partners' have a privateers, or boiler rooms, history of "raping and pillaging" their clients in such an amoral manner which the discussion of the negative aspects of a floor-less implies? Or do they stand by their clients once they've assayed the risk of the venture(remember L.D. claimed they did their d.d. in excruciating detail) as any respectable institution would, fully expecting to reap the benefits of their loan? Now although I cannot assess the percentage of floor-less convertibles that have gone the way described, it should be easy enough to determine whether Castle Creek is of this type or not, eh? As for whether or not Lith-poly will make it, as described by one posters hyper-text link to a certain computer "magazine," my gut answer is of course it will. But it does take the very thing no one's been able to do to date, and which VLNC just may very well be on the verge of. And that is mass manufacturer capability. No one has been able to do it yet, and it ain't because of an argument I've seen present which is "the Asians don't see the value in it else they'd have done it already." I mean, just WHAT kind of argument is that? Bottom line? No ones been able to do it. PERIOD. At least, until now. And with the competition a year away from being at a point similar to where it appears VLNC is now...well...it appears to be their game to lose. A better battery is the electronic version of the better mousetrap, in my view, and if they can mass produce it...... Well, let's just say I've crunch the numbers, mulled the potential for damage, and now consider VLNC to be a great speculative gamble. One which may be about to metamorphosis into a full production company from an R&D shop chrysalis. Time will tell. And it ain't gonna be much longer, either, me thinks. John~