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: FMK who wrote (6282)	12/26/1998 3:41:00 AM
From: Larry Brubaker	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 27311

<<Perhaps the legal firm that filed the SEC report used some old info from their hard disk just to get the report out before the holidays, and in doing so, failed to do a good job of updating all the company information.>> Actually, FMK, the most pertinent information was updated. The previous S-3 said the line was supposed to be qualified and providing samples sometime in the second half of '98. The current filing says the line is expected to be safety tested sometime in the first quarter '99 before providing samples to OEMs. I don't know about you, but that looks like new information to me. Are you aware of any official company statements that contradict the S-3? If not, exactly why should anybody believe its wrong? Personally, I don't quite understand why people are so willing to believe the S-3 is incorrect. The company has been working for over five years now to commercialize this product without success so far. The company has made no official statement that says they are now providing production samples to customers. The CEO refused to answer this question during the last CC. Their SEC filings say they are not providing such samples, and won't until sometime next quarter at the earliest. So what leads you to believe otherwise? Surely you have more to go on than your perception that the filing is outdated, when the actual question at hand...when is the line expected to provide samples?...clearly was updated.

To: FMK who wrote (6282)	12/27/1998 5:10:00 AM
From: MGV	Respond to of 27311

Another ludicrous statement from fredmk: "Perhaps the legal firm that filed the SEC report used some old info from their hard disk just to get the report out before the holidays, and in doing so, failed to do a good job of updating all the company information." Where is your logic slick? If the company, under your scenario, is half as unaccomplished in executing as it is in filing shareholder documents, the race to come to market is already lost. You continue to manifest an acute lack of understanding of the fundamental purpose of published shareholder reports.