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: Dennis V. who wrote (6642)	1/3/1999 12:25:00 PM
From: Larry Brubaker	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 27311

Dennis, sorry but I disagree. No company would deliberately face bankruptcy (how much was their negative working capital when they finally signed the Castle Creek deal?), face the alternative financing bandits, face bankruptcy again (negative working capital of $8 million by the end of December), face the risk of huge dilution via the floorless provisions, and allow another year for competitors to improve their products, if they were already ready to go with the "best product in the market" according to Fred at the time. I can't believe Valence is that stupid. What I can believe is Fred's sources pulled the wool over his eyes yet again. After all, the innacuracy of Fred's sources *has* been the one thing we can all count on. <VBG> Fred says the tradeoff of 25% more profits more than a year later is worth it, as if going into production with the "less improved" version a year ago was mutually exclusive with beginning production on the "new and improved" version presumably now. Also, with regular LI batteries becoming smaller, more powerful, and cheaper over the last year, it is quite possible that whatever performance increase the "new and improved" version generates will be lost in pricing power in the market place. Finally, Fred's argument ignores the time value of money. If VLNC was "ready to go" as Fred said, then the "goo" problem described in the March '98 conference call must have only applied to the "new and improved" version, and the same for the "major redesign" of the line described in the August conference call? Nope, don't buy that one either.