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 (8217)	2/12/1999 11:44:00 AM
From: Pronichev	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 27311

There is an interesting article on the first page of the Finanicial Times, U.S. edition of today: "Cobalt trebles as trader buys stocks" "London company MRG beleived to have captured 30% of World supply." Go MRG! Go Valence!

To: Rich Wolf who wrote (8217)	2/12/1999 12:16:00 PM
From: Bob Childers	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 27311

Rich, lws & all- Didn't Lev say some time ago (last CC I think) that we may see our first sign of significant sales in revenue figures in quarterly reports?? Do you think this suggests we may have to wait till next report? I assume Lev meant the quarterly may be the first we hear from VLNC, but has no import re announcements from customers? On a related issue, does recent inside buying have any implied delay of material events - ie PO's not expected for X months? Someone on this thread helped me with this question several weeks ago, but I'm still quite uncertain how such restrictions may play in this situation. I'm climbing on a plane just before 2pm to return to Alaska, so will miss the CC - looking forward to your collected observations. I trust someone will ask about the packaging "problem". Thanks to everyone in advance. -- Bob

To: Rich Wolf who wrote (8217)	2/12/1999 1:04:00 PM
From: J. M. Burr	Respond to of 27311

Man oh man, I wish I had heard this before. Well, better late than never! I think my days of purchasing this baby at 6.5 are gone forever.

To: Rich Wolf who wrote (8217)	2/12/1999 1:15:00 PM
From: Zeev Hed	Respond to of 27311

Rich, the balance sheet does not show any inventories, those metric tons should have shown as inventories if these were ear marked for production. The way the balance sheet reads the metric tons were expensed and are part of the increased expenditures. It is unusual, since the tax man will not let you expense inventories, and since VLNC does not pay taxes and will not until it has earned a cumulative of about $150 MM, I see no reason to include those metric tons in expenses. Unless, all of these are still going to "free samples" which would definitely be expensed, IMHO. Zeev