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 (6284)	12/26/1998 12:40:00 AM
From: FMK	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 27311

Zeev, The way I heard it, there is more than one source of available capital and Castle Creek was given a chance ease their terms or Valence would not borrow the next $7.5 million from them. We are now better off because the Jan 27 date was moved to June and the worst case situation is even less to worry about. With all the information available, such as only 1800 laptop batteries per day required to break even mentioned during the last conference call, I am surprised you couldn't come up many positives for Sig. I realize, as you have explained it, that you specialize in pointing out the potholes, but Sig just wanted to feel a little better about his investment. After all, it is Christmas and Valence may not be doomed after all! BTW, did you note a previous post comparing my previous $1.65 per watt hour and profit projections based on less than 30mln outstanding shares. Someone's worst-case dilution under these "worrisome" terms was 40 mln shares. Hearing that customers are apparently willing to pay $2.50 per watt hour increases revenues and therefore profits enough to earn the same or more per share on 45 mln shares. This is far more postitive than the worst case negative of diluting to 40 mln shares due to financing terms. You could have reminded SIG of that, and explained that all these long tiresome discussion of financing terms and "potholes" you have detected have less impact than raising the dollars per watt hour to the figures mentioned during the last conference call. But as you explained, your purpose is to point out the potholes. If we use the new numbers, the outcome is even better than previous estimates even with such "worst case" dilution. Merry Chrismas from FMK