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: Rich Wolf who wrote (8120)	2/9/1999 7:00:00 PM
From: Jay Lowe	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 27311

>> Bert Roberts just bought another 20,000 shares for 7.44 on 1/4/99 Glad to hear Bert's paying more than I am ...

To: Rich Wolf who wrote (8120)	2/9/1999 7:26:00 PM
From: add	Respond to of 27311

One of the interesting tidbits is that the output capacity of the lines is very tight. So good in fact, that they don't need to sort the batteries on its capacity. Lev said that the others( here I wasn't sure if he meant Li-Ion or Li-Poly, but my guess is Li-Ion since he was discussing Sony's 50-60% yield prior to that) had to sort the batteries by the capacity because of the large variance and sell them differently.

To: Rich Wolf who wrote (8120)	2/9/1999 7:34:00 PM
From: add	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 27311

Here are the 5 disadvantages of Cobalt as according to Lev: 1. Must have a safety separator cost $1/sq. ft in all cells. 2. Must have a plunger to cut the lead to stop over charge/discharge. 3. Must have a High-current Impedance circuit 4. Must have mechanical vent to vent gases. 5. Must have a metal casing because of the gas pressure. Maganese based cells need none of these.

To: Rich Wolf who wrote (8120)	2/9/1999 8:07:00 PM
From: Gordon Quickstad	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 27311

You seem to have sensed that I was displeased with the S3 filings in December. It cost my mother and sister a lot of money and me a lot of profit, but I'm still a shareholder of much lesser standing. It may have been the legally safest way for the company to put a safety valve on the stock price; hopefully it wasn't for more sinister motives. That the company would release items that had such an impact after the stock had already cooled down so much and then not ameliorate it with a press release to shareholders is unfathomable to me. Something to consider is that the Italian line is not an exclusive product; the company advertises on the web that they make lithium polymer manufacturing machinery. VLNC knows this and is playing up their patent portfolio but they probably don't know if it really will be a barrier to entry. I have a feeling that the potential customers get the same dog and pony show as the SH's got along with the patent story. I don't think it's quite in the bag yet. VLNC's meager finances are big liability to their success. If there is a battery recall, VLNC would not be able to handle the burden as a large manufacturer would. VLNC may not be able to get liability insurance without the UL rating and a certain minimal financial rating. These would be the opposing salesmen's arguments, along with research and development over the long haul. Yes, I'm very ambivalent regarding VLNC and it has played very much to my detriment. If I were less intrigued, I would have bought less and just forgot about it for a while. The 20,000 shares Bert got - would those be the shares given to directors? I don't know how insider trading information would be listed for such a transaction.