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: Zeev Hed who wrote (5338)	11/19/1998 11:46:00 AM
From: Tickertype	Respond to of 27311

Don't know, but I like the idea of a "toothless" floorless! - T -

To: Zeev Hed who wrote (5338)	11/19/1998 12:10:00 PM
From: mooter775	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 27311

Here's a scenario I dreamed up which might make sense: (1) Valence has indeed produced and shipped quality batteries for several weeks or longer to OEMs, which are testing them; (2) Smaller OEMs would like the batteries and would indeed be prepared to sign up with a "material" contract now; (3) Company would like to initiate production with larger, bigger name customers, like IBM, Dell, HP, etc., and would not want to allocate all line 1 production to the smaller OEMs; But the company also needs some time to ramp up line 1 in order to satisfy more than 1 potential OEM customer, including the larger, targeted customer(s); (4) Company's strategy is to continue to ramp up line 1, from 1,800 batteries per day to > 6,000 batteries per day, for example, and feels that it can do so in time not only for 1/27/99 contract with smaller OEM(s), but also with larger, target OEM(s). (5) If larger OEM(s) don't get on board, then company will go ahead and sign with smaller OEM(s). If Dawson feels that he has one or more potential "fallback" customers, that would explain his apparent nonchalance regarding the 1/27/99 deadline. This is all speculation, but what the hell....

To: Zeev Hed who wrote (5338)	11/19/1998 12:21:00 PM
From: kolo55	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 27311

What is "material" is defined in GAAP. I believe that what a "material" transaction is defined in GAAP. I had a discussion this year with a CFO about an acquisition that involved issuing shares. The announcement said the acquisition was a "non-material" event, and I wondered what that meant. The CFO indicated that if the shares issued were less than 10%, then the transaction wasn't "material". The annual SEC filing requires the disclosure of all customers over 10% of revenues. I'm guessing that a contract more than 10% of revenues is considered a "material" event. I don't know if there is a 'floor' of a certain dollar amount. If you have someone who is familiar with US GAAP, I suggest you ask them this question. Paul

To: Zeev Hed who wrote (5338)	11/19/1998 2:21:00 PM
From: Steve Hegji	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 27311

Zeev: I copied the following from the Yahoo VLNC thread. Care to respond? "I just read through some SI crud ( you know it's no better over there for garbage, it's just not as obvious) and read a note from vunderboy Zeev. I did a patent search for the number he claims to be one of his patents PN/3,891,461 dealing with fuel cells. The search came back with "no such number found." I also checked for patents under his name (Larry claims that Zeev Hed is not a pseudonym) since he also claimed to have numerous patents. Once again nothing came up. Maybe I searched incorrectly. Did anyone else check? Someone want to forward this to SI for their review and comments?"

To: Zeev Hed who wrote (5338)	11/19/1998 4:39:00 PM
From: Larry Brubaker	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 27311

Zeev: I think you may be misreading the filing. The discussion about OEM testing and qualifying relates to the necessary condition for the 2nd Closing. In order to close the second tranche of $2.5 million, VLNC must have a letter from an OEM stating batteries have been tested and meet OEM standards. The language relating to whether the conversion is a variable or fixed rate says that the conversion is at the fixed rate (of $6.03) until 1/27. If there is not a "material" contract for purchase of batteries by 1/27, the conversion is at the lower of the fixed or variable rate. If there is a material contract by 1/27, the conversion continues to be at the fixed rate until 7/27/99, when it again reverts to the lower of the fixed or variable rate. The dictionary definition of material is "important, essential." The inclusion of the word material suggests something more than a minor order, whatever that may be. I cannot imagine that "material" is not further defined in the actual contract between VLNC and Castle Creek. Otherwise, one lawyer's perception of material could be completely different from another's.