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: I. N. Vester who wrote (7958)	2/5/1999 2:31:00 AM
From: Chisy	Respond to of 27311

Thanks for your report. It is disappointing that they currently have no contracts. Quality control is a given in every business. Obviously, MOT has tried their battery. Why do you think there is no announcement, unless they are still undecided?

To: I. N. Vester who wrote (7958)	2/5/1999 2:50:00 AM
From: Tickertype	Respond to of 27311

I.N.Vester, thanks for the interesting details. It's obviously a complex process (an understatement) and Lev is taking the right approach by ensuring strict quality control at every step. I like his statement that the only thing that could cause failure would be if they shipped a bad batch to the first customer. As that isn't likely to happen, Fred's estimate of 0.1% chance of failure seems like a very good number, don't you think? - T -

To: I. N. Vester who wrote (7958)	2/5/1999 7:21:00 AM
From: Barrydub	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 27311

Thanks I.N.Vestor for your summary of the meeting. I found it, and the other reports posted from the Yahoo! board, most encouraging. Having followed this thread since taking a position in VLNC at the start of the year I am now crystalising my thoughts on the company and some of its 'followers'; VLNC: 70% chance of this being a real winner, which in my terms means a doubling of the price, or more, in a six month time frame. Positive. FMK: 75% correct on the content of information that he posts from his 'sources'. I have worked in organisations where even the Directors don't reach this level of accuracy when discussing their company! Positive. Larry: I have 50-50% reaction to his posts. I get the feeling that Larry wants VLNC to come out on top but has such a negative attitude that he can only draw people's attention to the doubts. He makes good points but is far too 'picky', especially when responding to Fred. Darkgreen: 0% What can I say? A lost cause. I wonder what it was that caused him to have such a pathological hatred of this stock? Irrational, negative to the point of absurdity, vitriolic, abusive. Totally unnecessary in this, or any, public forum. Just my opinions on a day that will give us a good pointer to what is in store for this promising, but still highly speculative, investment. Barry Dublin

To: I. N. Vester who wrote (7958)	2/5/1999 9:12:00 AM
From: Jay Lowe	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 27311

Thanks so much to the meeting attendees for your reports, which have been the best look into VLNC we've had for quite some time. I have some questions, please: What are the chances that what you saw was largely faked, or at least carefully orchestrated? From reports of the video, I can't visualize enough to know what you actually saw ... - Did you see the line completely in operation at one time? Or did you see snippets of success edited together? - Did you see any evidence of consistent volume production? Or is it possible that consistent production is still elusive? - Did you see any evidence of actual production volumes? I.E., How many batteries did you see go by? - Did you get any information on quantity of production to date? I want to know if VLNC can make a bizillion batteries per hour ... and VLNC only knows that if they have done it ... that's the simple reality of physical production. So, what is the hard evidence that VLNC can grind out batteries? What is the hard evidence that they have done so? "If you build it, they will come." -- I'm not worried about competition, OEM acceptance, etc, etc -- I believe if they can grind them out, they can sell them. Can VLNC really grind out volume production today? Or did you see a nice PR fluff job? Please think about what you really saw. Was it conclusive evidence of volume production capacity? I hope so -- and now it's time for more. So, we didn't get PO's -- what did we really get? Thanks much ...

To: I. N. Vester who wrote (7958)	2/5/1999 6:25:00 PM
From: wm sharp	Respond to of 27311

Many thanks I.N., Mark, Sig, and all for your reports. eom

To: I. N. Vester who wrote (7958)	2/6/1999 12:26:00 AM
From: Tickertype	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 27311

I.N., I've been looking at one of your comments all day, trying to figure out if it will give us a clue as to how much longer we'll have to wait for commercial shipments to begin. Here's the comment: <Lev said that they hoped to be able to hold off on more financing until PO(s) were a done deal, then do an offering at a significantly higher price.> Would it be correct to assume that Lev was saying he wants to be able to do this offering before the july date with Castle Creek comes due? If so, the contracts would have to be concluded by the time this quarter is over, I would think? Did you get any impression at all that he thinks we're that close now, even if he didn't say it in so many words? Thanks for all your posts, it's been great reading for several of us shareholders in my neck of the woods. To Sig: Unfortunately, Mark Leibovit did not mention VLNC at all this time. - T -