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: Larry Brubaker who wrote (6378)	12/29/1998 4:34:00 PM
From: HQ	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 27311

Larry, I agree that 'official word' from VLNC is more meaningful. I also consider that the FRB also officially represents VLNC, although the information can be outdated. However, when I spoke with Ms. Betsy Truax at FRB in early December, I was told that she'd just spoken with Lev, and they anticipated shipping 'in earnest' from the first line by the first of January. The S-3 stated that they won't ship until the tests are complete. Yet it also stated that the failure observed during the abuse test was anticipated, so that should have been anticipated at the time of my contact with the FRB, and factored into the time estimate I received. So are they still on target for shipping in early January? I've got a call in to Betsy to find out the current time estimate, as well as to verify reports from others that they had already shipped some samples from NI (contrary to the S-3 statement). FMK is correct that parts of the S-3 are outdated (re: corporate officers, etc.); but when a newly inserted section of text is claimed to also be outdated, I cannot believe it until it is verified by the company, no matter that I wish it were. No doubt the wording was such as to buy ample time to complete the tasks. But as you pointed out, it clearly stated the sequential nature: complete testing, then ship. Might some OEM have requested early shipment of samples that had passed the initial tests? Maybe. Would VLNC have been confident enough at some point in the testing to have shipped some samples out? Maybe. Does the S-3 filing preclude this scenario? Not really, but why say it if it isn't so? So what is the probability of this scenario? Probably low. Most likely, it's just as I was told a month ago: shipping to take place in early January. My question then becomes, will the more aggressive OEMs use shortened tests to verify that the batteries meet the same specs as samples they could have received in July from the Henderson semi-automated process? Maybe, but again it may be at least a month or more (even if not the full 60-90 days noted in the S-3). Which puts us into late February or early March. While I might hope for another anticipatory 'spike' in the stock price prior to the shareholders' meeting (Feb. 4), the only good news we might reasonably expect by then is announcement of a new CFO. Maybe we'll hear of some OEM accepting the batteries, but that's a stretch (e.g., it may meet some of their 'normal, operational' specs, but they may not have completed testing, so why should they care to do VLNC stockholders a favor by making premature announcements?). But by the end of February and into March, I'd expect the stock price to be rising in anticipation. Barring the exogenous event, or unexpected setback, of course. And such anticipation may be premature even then. But that's what makes a market.