To: Larry Brubaker who wrote (1234 ) 11/1/1997 11:05:00 AM From: John Curtis Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 27311
Larry: I've found Red Chip to be conservative with their reports, so their 10/17 VLNC analysis reflect's their stance. VLNC is an unknown entity at this point in time, from their point of view. So, if you're an organization who strives for accuracy, better to take a conservative stance, than a radical one and risk your reputation. It's a viewpoint I agree with because in their particular field(Red Chips that is), ie market analysis, a reputation is invaluable. I know that runs counter to some threads posting style, ie hyperbole becomes the norm, not the exception(thank goodness it's not the case here), but for VLNC, hell, I'll take the double they're forecasting. Red Chip could be wrong, as they freely admit since their numbers reflect a conservative projection(by the way, their numbers reflect each line running 1 shift I believe, something I think from a manufacturing standpoint is extremely conservative. If I recall correctly Cal Reed stated he'd be running 3 shifts per line, once the kinks are worked out? So maybe Red Chip's evaluation is 1/3rd potential?). Anyway, the next 6 months; with the hoped for OEM agreements by then known, as well as a clearer look at VLNC's manufacturing lines true production quantity capability, will allow all of us to do true number crunching. This should either confirm Red Chip's forecast, blow it away, or (god forbid), expose their forecast as radically optimistic. As for me, I feel VLNC's potential is considerable, but will take Red Chip's review until such time as the numbers reflect corporate results and not projections. Their review ain't bad, not bad at all, merely conservative. Regards!! John~