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 (7844)	2/3/1999 9:53:00 PM
From: FMK	Respond to of 27311

Larry, Valence has more equipment on order also. That's why I was comparing ULBI with only Valence's first 3 lines that they already have. My capacity calculations are based on several years of notes and conversations with Valence engineers. Many of these same numbers were noted by Mooter and others over a long time period during conference calls and conversations with the company. Didn't Mooter ask you why you didn't work harder to gather such information for yourself? I don't recall that you ever gave him a satisfactory answer.

To: Larry Brubaker who wrote (7844)	2/3/1999 10:13:00 PM
From: FMK	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 27311

Will Valence produce more laptop batteries than world demand by the end of the year? Consider this example for Line 1. Its maximum footprint is 4x5 inches. A 4x5x 6mm thick cell should hold about about 30 watt hours with the new chemistry. four of them packaged edge-to-edge would be 8x10 inches would nicely fit into a laptop cover or behind the screen and hold about 120 watt hours. They should be able to make about 1 million of these per year. My combined estimate for 3 lines was 250 million watt hours per year. At 120 watt hours per battery, this would be about 2 million laptops per year. Please explain how I projected "....they would produce more batteries by the end of the year than the world demand for laptops and cell phones combined...." Does 2 million portable computers exceed the world demand? If not, maybe Valence is ok to have ordered more production equipment.

To: Larry Brubaker who wrote (7844)	2/3/1999 10:24:00 PM
From: gvander	Respond to of 27311

FMK forgets that you need more money than VLNC has/or has commitments for just to spend on captial expenditures (lines); and working capital (necessary just to produce--even more needed for more production). This is basic so I don't feel I'm hurting anyone in giving away the following observation: FMK forgets that competitors have money to buy newer lines utilizing newer technology. Example: Let's say lines are 6 mill a piece--that would mean VLNC could get exactly 0 new lines (I'm not even including the cost of getting them going). FMK, has underestimated almost every competitor of VLNC's. He pompuously dismissed my predictions of another first mover and the need for radical financing, just as he has pompously dismissed other clear indications that things are not what they appear. He was wrong about who would be first, who had the best tech, VLNC's financial straits, the size of the market, what are the important competitive advantages, and even the names of the most basic players. Before I posted a list of competitors here in 1997 FMK claimed there wasn't any. He also tried to claim I my info was false when I said I thought Sony was working on lithium polymer. Later he changed his tune. This has happended over and over. Can you believe that he didn't even know the names of the competitors--he didn't even guess the number correctlly. Wouldn't an expert know that off the top of their heads like I did and post a list (of 50) in fairly short order like I did? 30 identify themselves FMK, 80 likely globally. Why didn't he know that?