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: lws who wrote (5493)	11/22/1998 8:22:00 PM
From: Dennis V.	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 27311

What can I say, lws... articulate, organized, etc., but what I want to know is "can I uncross anything yet?" (cramps!)

To: lws who wrote (5493)	11/22/1998 9:09:00 PM
From: mooter775	Respond to of 27311

I think your post gives a pretty good summary of the situation. And while I agree with Larry B. in one aspect of his posting - Zeev did not say that the convertible is or is not "toothless" - I believe he stated that it "could be toothless". I, for one, think we will have a contract or other material event by 1/27 and so I remain comfortably long in both the stock and in the March and June calls.

To: lws who wrote (5493)	11/22/1998 9:58:00 PM
From: Gordon Quickstad	Respond to of 27311

A reasonable summary, lws. I think back to Lev's statements that he was pleased with the installed line and that he hopes to be contacting us with good, material, news or something to that effect, during the last conference call. Judging from the quality of our BofD, and from the quality of companies the company is marketing to, I don't think any of these folks would stand to hear Lev say things like this if they were misleading. I suspect Lev walks the straight and narrow in business dealings, all the more so during this important time and wouldn't use terms such as "cusp" unless warranted. In breaking open a new technology, and given the false starts in the past, a contract would have to be written very carefully. I am convinced that this is the reason we have not been allowed to hear any news of any pending contract. We've had contracts with Motorola and HP in the past, but they were very easy for them to walk away from if the stringent requirements were not met. I would think that a contract written today would not be any less carefully written than the ones in the past.