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: nealm who wrote (7404)	1/23/1999 4:41:00 PM
From: FMK	Respond to of 27311

Thanks Nealm, you saved a trip to the news stand. Editor Jaye Scholl's theme is ".. Is America about to blow it again?" He obviously worked hard to gather evidence to argue his case, including digging into Valence's long history. He did confirm, however, that Valence was Bellcore's top pick. Should we worry about Valence? I wouldn't let one magazine editor convince me to sell my stock. Instead, If possible, I would prepare to use any effect of lowering the stock price to add to my position. As the editor observed, the industry is secretive with cards close to their chests, and doubt Valence or the Japanese have shown him their hands. We should remember Lev's statement on August 12 that Line 1 can produce at least 5 laptop batteries per minute,"initially" and 1800 per day are enough to break even. An 8-hr shift per day should do it. Additional production should therefore make Valence profitable and 270 employees should be several times enough for that first shift! I rest my case, but saving .02!

To: nealm who wrote (7404)	1/24/1999 3:00:00 PM
From: gvander	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 27311

I think the Barron's article will ultimately help the U.S. pure plays. 1. It may attract strategic money to prevent losing another industry--to develop the technology properly takes a lot of capital. 2. The article provides a wake up call to domestic companies and gives managers a more accurate sense of reality. (they can then make better decisions and allocate capital more efficiently). 3. The article tends to initiate an advantageous perception pattern that has occasionally proved fatal for some Japanese competitors. In the past, Japanese companies overestimated their ability and underestimated their competitors. e.g. Compaq, Intel, Micron, Nokia. This results in a natural change in competitiveness--incentive decreases for leaders and increases for those who are now perceived to be the perma-followers. Do our companies' owners want to lose a battle that was completely foreseeable. NO! Large egos actually help the losers but hurt the leaders. 4. In the end accurate information only serves to accelerate the emergence of a leader. Better information leads to better decisions for all the industry participants. Leading companies already know the information that was presented in the article, however, information inconstancies were fostered between potential OEMs. This article will lead to a resolution of those inconstancies and allow for a U.S. lithium polymer battery leader to emerge. The article indicated that only one of the three public pure plays "is now producing plastic lithium ion batteries and that the fully automated facility can make many millions a year." This seems to resolve at least one piece of misinformation. I now think all three public companies could reasonably be moved up one slot in my original ranking which originally placed three Japanese companies in the top slot. Unless the current media infatuation with polymer exacerbates the over-investment within the industry, I think U.S. players may be able to turn the effects of this major mainstream article to their advantage. Follow up article link provided: techweb.com Direct link to the Barron's article: Message 7444390