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: gvander who wrote (5068)	11/15/1998 1:49:00 AM
From: gvander	Respond to of 27311

Why didn't the Bert(MCI dir)anncmnt work in 1992--VLNC is starting to crack: <<Valence's IPO was in 5/92. In that prospectus I find this info: "Bert C. Roberts, Jr., 49yrs old, director", and "Mr. Roberts joined the Company as a director in March 1992." Conversations with people who know Valence and it's history suggests to me that Mr. Berg, Mr. Roberts and Mr. Shugart are "old buddies." Mr. Roberts resigned as director after Lev Dawson resigned, back in '93; Dawson returns in late '97, and a few months later old friend Roberts rejoins. >> Reprinted From: Use Solar NRG

To: gvander who wrote (5068)	11/15/1998 2:36:00 AM
From: gvander	Respond to of 27311

Stray thought for a prior poster. Assuming for a moment that everything goes VLNC's way and they get one of the many contracts that FMK has been telegraphing each month (and then retracting). Actually any contracts that VLNC may get through its buddy network will actually hurt the company in the long run. This form of paternalism will only weaken Valence and continue to cause it to allocate its assets in an inefficient manner by insulating it from economic realities of the industry. It would also reflect poorly on the integrity of its directors if they use their network to give favorable contracts to their buddies. This post was just for fun, although quite true when you think about it.

To: gvander who wrote (5068)	11/15/1998 2:39:00 AM
From: Gordon Quickstad	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 27311

>>). The executives of Valance's competitors have actually started successful business from the ground up IN THE LITHIUM BATTERY BUSINESS. << In the case of ULBI, not quite from the ground up. They took over Kodak's lithium battery operation!

To: gvander who wrote (5068)	11/15/1998 9:44:00 AM
From: Dennis V.	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 27311

Gvander, you say that Valence is over committing to obsolescent technology but offer no proof. Fact: Valence CEO has stated three months ago that Valence is prepared to submit patents on new and "revolutionary" technology. Isn't it completely presumptious of you to mislead others in falsely laying a course of failure. You don't know what this company is undertaking in R&D. In fact, you have no knowledge of the suitability or adaptability of equipment in place and on order to implement this new technology. Valence has this information and is proceeding accordingly. Isn't it true that the intent of all your recent posts is to confuse, mislead and harangue shareholders and prospective shareholders? Do you really think that past performance is an indicator of future results? Nobody who is forward thinking subscribes to this. You say Valence is about to crack? You are cracked, IMO. Have a good day. Dennis

To: gvander who wrote (5068)	11/15/1998 11:14:00 AM
From: John Curtis	Respond to of 27311

Gvander: So what you're saying is there's a chance VLNC could fail? That's why I call it SPECULATING!! Heh! Of course it's possible, to believe otherwise would be the height of hubris. They're gambling on new technology AND a new manufacturing process simultaneously. If it was easy clearly others would have gotten there by now, eh? But speaking of technology, you're comment of "Valance may again be overcommitting to a production and possibly a battery technology that will soon become obsolete," begs the question. The question? What technology do you see out there on the horizon which, over the next 2 years, could supercede VLNC's, or ULBI's for that matter? Indeed, have you taken a look at VLNC's recently granted set of patents? There's some interesting "stuff" going on there. And although I hate to reference L.D. on such as this, because more value can be derived from an external source, when one questioner put that very question of obsolescence to L.D. 2 c.c.'s back he stated the only technology he could see on the horizon which could make obsolete VLNC products are the patents/products they have currently under development. Now allowing for corporate hype, this is a telling statement. Lastly, I'd spin your IBM vs Microsoft comment one spin further. You're absolutely right, major corporate figures do not necessarily a company make. However, to use your IBM vs Microsoft example(or hell, let's take A.T.T. vs M.C.I.), a small unknown company with a technological edge in a high demand sector can often succeed against perceived tremendous odds. Silicon Valley has been built on such examples. Still, the proof as it relates to VLNC will be in their ability to execute their business plan. And I have high hopes the Dec. 3rd analyst visit will begin to make the efficacy of that plan clear, at least to market professionals whose job it is to assay such potential as VLNC will be "dog and ponying." And speaking of that, anyone know what houses are being invited to this event? Regards! John~

To: gvander who wrote (5068)	11/15/1998 6:15:00 PM
From: mooter775	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 27311

To: gvander,Greg Smith, Larry Brubaker, all those who are skeptical(and either not in Valence or short it): Relax. No one is making you buy the stock. I don't recall many people even telling you to buy it. If you are right, and all that shit hits the fan and the floorless convertible kicks in, then you can either buy it later or you can short it now. I certainly don't care and I do welcome your opinions. I've been long, traded once out of it last year at the $ 8 level and bought in in the $ 5 - $ 6 level. So I am a bullish hypster, I guess. I think they will hire a CFO pretty soon, I think their battery has been sent to OEMs out of NI for some time, and I think they'll get a contract by 1/27. If not, then I'll lose a boatload of money - and you'll be right with your skepticism. We have pretty well established that (1) we don't really know if the company has been able to ramp up line 1 and produce batteries for OEMs; (2) the financing they completed has some barbs in it - if they don't have some kind of material event by 1/27/99, then the stock will likely fall substantially, maybe to the $ 1 level Zeev Hed forecasts; and (3) we don't know if they will have a contract by 1/27. So, as I've said elsewhere, you can look at the stock as an interesting speculation with substantial upside, as I and a number of others do, or you can look at it as an over-promoted charade destined for the crapper. And I'll grant you that every day they don't announce that "magical event", the stock become inherently more risky. But it does strike me as a bit incongruous that, after all these months, when the stock has a rise from $ 3 and change to nearly $ 8, all these posters suddenly appear and question Valence's finaicials, their position, the market, Lev Dawson, the conference call, etc. etc. You're free to challenge, but no one is really asking you to buy the stock - I'd personally be happy to see all those worriers in the "wall of worry" out there doing their worrying thing...