FMK, I am sorry if I misquoted you, but I thought that is what you said in the following 6 posts, if you agree with me, I would accept your apology (VBG).\:
techstocks.com
"It is my opinion that before too long the company should bring line 1 up to 8000 good batteries per day. If line 2 for some reason becomes set up for laptops, it is believed capable of 20 per minute or about 26000 x per day x 80% yield. Add these two
together and its 34,000 per day with a likely selling price over $65 each. 28,000 x $65 350 days/year = $637,000,000 per year potential revenue from two production lines.
To estimate earnings, a conservative 30% yields $191,000,000/28 million diluted shares equals $6.80 per share potential earnings from the first two assembly machines!
or:
techstocks.com
"My engineering logic tells me to go back to the 1800 per day from line 1 to break even. Revenue from the 1800 should pay all the expenses including amortized cost of the plant. Any additional batteries, up to 8000 per day for line 1 and from any of the other"
or
techstocks.com
I estimate line 1's current capability as 8000 per day or about 3 million laptop batteries per year. This is about 4x the 1800 per day required to break even.
Mind you, I was understating your comment claiming only 4.8 MM from two lines vs your 6 MM.
In another post you state clearly:
Valence comes out clearly a winner. Remember, as of August 12,all they have to do is make 1800 laptop batteries per day to break even. Line 1
should be able to produce 8000 per day with 3 shifts,
or:
techstocks.com
To: Greg Smith (4867 )
From: FMK
Wednesday, Nov 11 1998 6:29PM ET
Reply # of 6395
I figure line 1 should be able to turn out 8 per minute x 60 min/hr x 23 hr/day or 11,000 per day. I would round down to 8000 per day which is a little more than 4x the 1800 per day required to break even.
So Fred, did I stoop to misquoting you, or do you owe me an apology?
Happy New Year. |
