Replies to post #32834 on Secure Point Technologies Inc (fka IMSCQ)

[aintitahoot]

The price action of late has really given me a trip down memory lane, at that time there was a lot
of discussion, concern on how DMRJ would not continue to finance the company. How ironic that
now the discussion, concern is that DMRJ will continue to finance the company. If I remember correctly
there were a lot of people using caps for that discusssion too, some things never change. It would sure be hoot if the comment by BL about them being prohibited from buying stock was revealed this week, it would explain a lot.

[tedpeele]

My last post on price per unit - PROMISE.

Per the 4th qtr 2015 (6/30) 10k the annual revenues of $13m included 34% to Norway and the Netherlands for ECAC. That was 141 units, which therefore computes to $31.3k per unit.

As of 10/20 750 ECAC units were sold per PR. Subtracting off 141 gives 509 units for this fiscal year. Per that same PR 304 more France units are slated for 2016-2017.

FISCAL 2016:
ECAC minimum: 509 x $31.3k = $15.9m

$40-43m backlog for this fiscal year

Maximal TSA backlog: $43m - $15.9m = $27.1m
Maximal TSA price: $27.1m / 1178 units = $23k

SO, if that backlog doesn't include a single non-ECAC or non-TSA amount, nor a single sale for handhelds, and $31.3k for Norway and the Netherlands is ok to apply to the rest of ECAC, then we get a price of $23k per unit for TSA.

That's the best case. If the backlog includes 'other' units or it includes some of the 304 units for France, OR we use the lower backlog number of $40m then the TSA price is even lower. Last year 'other' was around $10m.

We shareholders have to hope that the price per unit for the rest of ECAC was a bit lower or that the backlog was 'adjusted' for a risk of non-delivery in order to come up with a higher TSA price. Let's hope that is the case, but I want to explain why the numbers support a lower price than what others seem to believe is the case.


BTW that promise expires in 1 week...