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: MGV who wrote (11867)	6/7/1999 4:17:00 PM
From: lws	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 27311

Hi, MGV, First, I want to restate my thesis to make myself happy. It got rushed at the end because my fiancee was getting hungry. "Aren't you finished with that thing yet? We were going to leave at 6, I'm hungry, and we gotta be back by 8 for the movie." Loop to start, repeat, loop.... My thesis, which is nothing but idle speculation, is that Lev was willing to allow the mention of the June date in the SEC documents because he had his OEM program in hand, and hence had the ability to form his plans with reasonable confidence of being able to produce just when the customer would be ready to buy. (All terms subject to user definition.) Of course, maybe I'm just shamelessly torturing the data. But that's the fun of playing with ideas – and I do believe the problem for Lev of "optimal timing" is real and significant. That said, I have to say that after 2 days of checking, I don't recognize the 6 assumptions I believe you attributed to me. My thesis does not assume Valence has some technical superiority, nor does it assume "extraordinary economic rents" – as nice as that would be, and which we longs all hope, or we wouldn't be here. It only assumes that there are sufficient perceived gains to trade between Valence and some OEM to have produced an agreement between them. Everything else flows from that. Finally, your question about why there isn't a race to buy a small cap like Valence is interesting, and potentially important if not important already, but I'm still trying to figure out why IBM didn't buy Microsoft. Regards, lws