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 : Energy Conversion Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: fred whitridge who wrote (3312)	3/8/1999 2:05:00 PM
From: Joe Master	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 8393

Even though some here think of me as the sum of all that is evil in the world (especially DD) I do think that there are ways to make the valuation of this company increase manyfold. I beleive that a market value of 1/2 billion is achievable within a couple years if more atteention is paid to maximizing shareholder value and not worrying so much about control. At its current market cap it would not be in the best interest of the shareholders to accept double today's price in the case of a buyout. I think if a buyout were possible (no supervoting stock) one would be inevitable. There are many companies out there looking for good tech. Noone however would be interested in ECD with the voting issues that are stake. If on the other hand the value of the company were 5 times where it is today I think it would be much more dificult to find someone so inclined. Of course if they were and were to pay a premium of 50% over that valuation ...... that might be a nice little return for the shareholders. Unfortunately fgor it to work properly "control" must be lost. The real value in this type of transaction is to allow each of these "businesses" to have alife of thier own. Not anywhere near the same type of indiustry but the same core problem is Tricon. Tricon was split off (KFC, Pizza Hut and Taco Bell) beforehand they were a drag on the parent's price because they were relatively slow growth. They were split off and are performing much better on thier own. In this case the sum of the parts was certainly greater than that of the whole. In this case though ECD could or would own a substantial part Stan would necessarily need to give up voting and day to day control of the spin offs (unless he wanted to concentrate his efforts in just one of the above).

To: fred whitridge who wrote (3312)	3/12/1999 2:11:00 PM
From: jacq	Respond to of 8393

I believe an IPO rather than a rights offering would be a bigger benefit to developing the technology. I believe that there are many good people out in the US and Canada who would love to see nothing better than the solar energy business get off the ground. This is perhaps the most frustrating thing about watching the dismal progress being made by ECD. It seems like a good technology is dying in the lab while folks at the top are worried about who controls where it goes. Meanwhile nothing gets built.