SI
SI
discoversearch

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: Paul Dubsky who wrote (1242)11/2/1997 2:41:00 PM
From: Tickertype  Respond to of 27311
 
Paul, I concur with every point you made.

- T -



To: Paul Dubsky who wrote (1242)11/3/1997 2:00:00 AM
From: Larry Brubaker  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 27311
 
Conservative Red Chip Numbers

I spent a couple of minutes looking at Red Chip's numbers.

They assume full capacity for Line 1 (PC batteries) would amount to 2-3 million units, and a selling price of $20 per unit.

They assume full capacity for Lines 2 & 3 (cell phone batteries) would amount to 7-8 million units, at a selling price of $8 per unit.

Assuming the lower numbers of 2 million units for Line 1, and 7 million units for lines 2 & 3, and assuming Red Chip's selling price numbers, full capacity would generate $152 million per year from these 3 lines. Yet Red Chip's FY 99 revenue projection is only $56.5 million.

Their 4 Q 98 assumption is one production shift per day at 50% capacity. They say their projection for FY 99 assumes a gradual expansion of capacity and additional shifts. Given the difference between $152 million (full capacity for a year using the lower of their numbers) and $56.5 million (their actual projection), it is obvious that they are projecting a VERY gradual increase in capacity and shifts.

They also do not appear to be factoring in a 4th Line (which they mention as being ordered for mid-April), the $32 million rebate, or any joint ventures. So, it appears their numbers are EXTREMELY conservative.



To: Paul Dubsky who wrote (1242)11/4/1997 5:36:00 AM
From: Javelyn Bjoli  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 27311
 
>Given the past debacle of promises in 1991 (which I believe ULBI is
>heading toward), VLNC is being very careful not to announce anything
>until after the fact.

Whoa ho ho! What prompts you to level such scary criticism against ULBI? I've seen the HP notebook and it is a really cool piece of design. You think they speak too soon?