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 (6472)	12/30/1998 12:36:00 PM
From: FMK	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 27311

Zeev, I think you should start your customer testing timetable somewhere around October or November because as of August 12, Lev had already been discussing "...terms and conditions, pricing and delivery schedules" They were also producing and inventorying at that time. As indicated by multiple sources, the policy has been not to publicly acknowledge any shipments of samples because the it was not an SEC requirement. This could explain why Lev's answer was "no comment" rather than "no" during the last conference call when asked if samples from NI had been shipped. This is understandable because it would require less of Lev's time to explain where the samples have gone, have you heard any results yet from customers etc. I do seem to recall a statement from one of the recent conference calls that batteries meet or exceed customer requirements. If that is the case, then extensive testing must have already occurred.

To: Zeev Hed who wrote (6472)	12/30/1998 1:22:00 PM
From: Mark Johnson	Respond to of 27311

Zeev, please start your posts with a disclaimer of what is to follow is conjecture from Zeev's point of view. Your posts are written in an authoritative manner cleverly "MISLEADING". How do you know what a "best case scenario" would be. Well a best case scenario would be a contract tomorrow which is more probable than the some of "the wild ass guesses you have put forth". You stated in your last post that " I do not have information on the OEM's, their buying terms and thus a better handle on the cash flow." But you put forth your best case scenario theory of second Qtr billable shipments. Valence could be shipping batteries right now and receiving revenue and simply reducing inventory. The point is you don't know whats happening and would rather slant negatively than objectively.

To: Zeev Hed who wrote (6472)	12/30/1998 3:04:00 PM
From: DStandish	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 27311

Larry Assuming you, Zeev, Darkgreen, etc., are not conspriring to bring the stock price down, for whatever reason, please explain: First, why are the bulk of your posts typically adversarial and negative? What are you trying to achieve by always raising issues about the financing, legal disclosures, company history of delays, etc.? You have to know that those of us who are owners of the stock already know these things. Second, why are you so concerned that someone might make a mistake by investing in VLNC? I believe it was you who invited Zeev to address some of your issues. Others have been polite in engaging Zeev but I don't believe any one else has really sought his counsel. Third, why do you bring up the same issues over and over again? You have to know that everyone who follows the thread knows what your posts are going to be about before they even pop them on screen. I have been involved in an adversarial process (trial law) most of my professional life. There are always two sides to an issue. But, the process only occurs when each side is trying to achieve a different end. I frankly don't see the need for thrashing these issues over and again unless you have a different goal than the typical long term investor. Speaking only for myself, I am hoping to see the company succeed and the stock price go through the roof. That is why I invest in a stock like this. The upside is tremendous. The downside is my problem, not yours. Why do you make it your problem? I have a hard time seeing in your posts any real desire to determine the true value of VLNC stock. I see an adversarial attitude to those who want to see the company succeed and the stock price go up. Zeev, I'm sorry to clutter up the thread with this rhetoric which does not address the substantive issues. Perhaps you truly do see yourself as our protector. Perhaps you truly believe that pointing out the same things over and over are important. If so, here is a brief summary of what I have learned from you: 1. FMK is an optimist. He bases his predictions on information that can not be confirmed. 2. Castle Creek is in a position to cause damage to the stock price if certain events don't happen in time. 3. Murphy's law is always active. 4. Valence has not always performed timely on their promises. 5. When TA and FA don't jibe, go with TA. TA doesn't look great with VLNC but could change on a dime. 6. Valence's patents may not be as good as they look. Did I leave anything out? If you are considering posting any of these points again for my sake, you don't need to take the time. .