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: Bill Wexler who wrote (9293)	3/14/1999 1:25:00 AM
From: I. N. Vester	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 27311

BW: you'll soon be sorry you ever heard of vlnc <eom>.

To: Bill Wexler who wrote (9293)	3/14/1999 8:43:00 AM
From: Zeev Hed	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 27311

Bill, I do not see what is there to gain by branding VLNC a fraud. In my opinion VLNC is no more a fraud than Amdhal's Trilogy and Stan Ovshinski's many venture which have both gone through a lot of OPM and shown nothing or very little for it when everything was said and done, yet both were honest hard working business people. If your thesis that VLNC is a fraud is correct, you must have an underlying assumption that all current activities are carried on with management implicit knowledge that no product will ship. I doubt that is the case, and I have some doubt that astute business people like Shugart and Berg would not see through that. Shugart himself is an expert at getting all the way to the edge of the abyss, seeing failure eye to eye and coming back victorious. It would not surprise me that his involvement s another devil daring mission like that. I just do not agree with the bulls on this thread that assure everyone that such victory is assured. You must also understand that some of the bulls on this thread have committed major portions of all their assets on that one bet and will find it very difficult but to paint an extremely bullish picture, just to support their own position and not because of any sinister plot with management. It would help your case much more if you based it on factual evidence of the company current "starits" (and such evidences are ample) rather than anecdotal "connections" to a stock letter writer or another and the fact that some posters have not had an iota of criticism to voice against management's missteps in the past, IMHO. Zeev