Correction on my numbers. It turns out that I misunderstood my conversation with IR the other day. AS reported by snow, the "finished goods" market value is not known by IR, and therefore we have no assurance that it's worth anything more than the stated value in the 10Q.
This clearly means my assumptions about both COGS and uptime are incorrect, and it renders my entire message and projections useless.
My apologies. At no time did I intend to mislead anyone.
I, personally, am not satisfied with the level of transparency the company has provided shareholders regarding the uptime and COGS capabilities of the processors. The explanation of feedstock contamination and cyclone addition was, in my opinion, insufficient.
The new CEO has said that he recognizes that "communications are of critical importance, as is setting appropriate expectations" and that he "intend[s] to provide greater detail around the state of our operations". And yet one can conclude that the success of this strategy is reflected in the share price lately (a.k.a. investor confidence).
Speaking objectively, the goal of CFP by early 2012 does not appear remotely feasible with the information shareholders have on-hand.
I still believe they will achieve it, but clearly the average shareholder does not. Clearly the company needs to do more to explain WHY they believe it is possible, because on paper it defies logic (and even arithmetic).
Market Data 
Markets 
