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 (8913)	3/4/1999 5:14:00 PM
From: The Ox	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 27311

I have come to this thread looking for information and I can't believe all the posts. I guess some people have too much time on their hands.?! I'd like to make one important point. Up until now, VLNC has been strictly a research and development company. To say that any addition to the company's staff is for a turnaround is pointless. How can you turn around a company that's never made any money? It is quite clear that this individual is being brought on board to help START the next phase of this company, not turn it around. If the company's products and patents are OK, then who cares where this person worked before? If you believe that the current management is capable and have the proper vision, then you should wait and see what they have planned for this new hire. The press release didn't exactly detail all the responsibilities that will be placed on this new guy. I think this thread is losing focus. But I'm new so maybe this is the way it always is here??? best regards, Michael

To: Larry Brubaker who wrote (8913)	3/5/1999 1:39:00 AM
From: Rich Wolf	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 27311

Still reaching to create a story, eh, Larry? Yours is under FICTION. Off Topic: Sorry everyone. After Larry's continued annoyance that somehow Mr. Wright drove Iwerks into the ground, and after his pulling a single post off a yahoo thread of someone against the proposed merger of Iwerks with Showcase, and holding that post up as an argument against Mr. Wright, I took up the gauntlet and went deeper. In sum, Larry's argument is weak if not meritless. I detail it below. Okay, Larry, I went back and read other posts around the time of the one you 'selected.' You picked one from your viewpoint, many had the opposite. I also read the SEC documents (your favorite sources), and found that indeed, Mr. Wright DID turn the company around. They were bleeding red ink, and he got them positive cash flow. What happened that took the stock from its peak of 11 (one year into his tenure) back to 5 a year later? The Asian economic crisis. Cut their revenues in half, all attributed to Asia. Iwerks had achieved much of its growth in Asia, and were greatly exposed, so they got hit pretty bad. Mr. Wright had to oversee some layoffs prior to his departure. The proposed merger with Showcase was on the table when he left in Feb. '98, but had been cooking in negotiations since Aug. '97. If it really was his plan alone, and without any other support on the board, it could have been pulled when he departed, but it was left on the table by Goldwater, the new CEO. The proxy mailing and the company's position were put out by Goldwater, after Wright was gone. Reading between the lines, there was a conflict within the board regarding how to best grow the business. Could they, undercapitalized Iwerks, take on IMAX? Some on the board wanted to, with aggressive deficit spending like they'd had before Wright arrived. The argument about the merger apparently had more to do with the negotiated terms of the merger. Some thought the valuation of Showcase was too high. In the end, the merger vote lost narrowly. The single post you extracted as some sort of 'evidence' that 'some' of the shareholders 'were not happy with the management' actually addressed the merger itself. Mr. Wright was gone, and other powers on the board, and the new CEO, still supported that merger. Or maybe you meant to refer to that management, and not Mr. Wright? Interestingly, many of the posts I read from the same time frame were supportive of the proposed merger. The only ones commenting on Mr. Wright praised his having 'righted' the ship after arriving. I think everyone was of the opinion that the lost revenues were due to economic conditions, and it wasn't a question of who was to 'blame' at that point, but what would the solution be. Bottom line? You persist in misrepresenting factual evidence, literally daring someone to challenge you. Well, I called your bluff. On this one I have to call you a LIAR, Larry. Sorry, I hate to use such harsh words, but I cannot dance around the issue. Now may we PLEASE get off that topic, and stick to pertinent issues, like Valence and the reason for hiring a senior VP of operations, and that it's a good thing, to free Lev Dawson (CEO) up to do top level planning and dealing, and detach him from the day-to-day a bit more. After all, wasn't that the complaint last summer, that he'd taken so much on himself? So doesn't this hire take it back in the right direction? I'll save you the trouble of posting; the answers are yes and yes. Goodnight, sleep well, tomorrow awaits.