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: John Curtis who wrote (5058)	11/14/1998 9:57:00 PM
From: FMK	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 27311

Hi John, I somehow knew if I put out an "eh" as bait it would attract a few words from a prominent poster from the Northeast, eh? I agree with your thoughts on the category of Castle Creek in terms of comparative track records as to whether they conduct their DD for the purpose of finding companies they can exploit with floorless convertible terms. I was told they tended to stick with higher quality companies and intended to profit from a financed company's success rather than its demise. Again, if someone were to acquire the percentage of how many companies fail after financing with a floorless convertible clause, I suspect the percentage with Castle Creek would be somewhat lower than most. I just asked a CFA and managing director of a large brokerage firm this question. The CFA (chartered financial analyst) was not familiar with Castle Creek but would be surprised if the percentage exceeded my 5% estimate. So without corroborative percentages from those that warned us, that's about as good as I can do for the moment. So, I would put such warnings in the category of just slightly higher risk than many of us face everyday when we worry about making our house payments. It seems the naysayers(short interest, holders of put options or writers of call options) are running out of subjects to worry the shareholders. The financing fine print has been about the best they can come up with lately. It does appear they have been able to at least distract us temporarily from the positive trend in volume and direction.

To: John Curtis who wrote (5058)	11/15/1998 1:24:00 AM
From: gvander	Read Replies (6) \| Respond to of 27311

John, I posted that article for its comments on the mixed nature of demand. Valance may again be overcommitting to a production and possibly a battery technology that will soon become obsolete. Similar to 1994 Valence timen and again demonstrated a tendency to overinvest and over promote (as they did then with other high profile directors and executives and machinery) In 1994 Valence had to abrubtly abandon a technology they also believed furvently was destine to take the market. In 1995 they had to scrap the whole thing and then license the bellcore battery in 1996--1.5 years after the first movers. These movers may move ahead Valence again. I alot of money has been spent on multiple lines with essentially identical manufacturing processes. Again setting up Valance with huge investment not justified by the innovation structure of the industry. All of their powder has been spent--none left for next gen tech/prod. Just as last time they have elites telling us that they have to be successful just because they have managed to associate themselves with successful people--not a good bet. If it was a good bet then IBM would have never lost the heart of the computer to Microsoft. Do I even have to mention Al Dunlap or Japan Inc. The directors don't run the company, the executives do. What have these guys built? 120 million in losses (not couting the junked equipment from the last holy grail). The executives of Valance's competitors have actually started successful business from the ground up IN THE LITHIUM BATTERY BUSINESS. A good example is PCI (started and sold by pre-Ultralife Execs). BTW it is still in business today.

To: John Curtis who wrote (5058)	11/15/1998 9:12:00 AM
From: Herb Blair	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 27311

Hi John Someone a few treads back said "Lev said that he could not announce anything material in the conference call or close in time to it because it would be a partial disclosure" Is this an accurate quote? If it is then I am not concerned about that no comment answer. Aside to Fred, relax the shorters are out in force on this thread. One of the biggest nay-sayers has been signed up only since 8 Nov. Their dead line is sooner then January. Herb