The issue is simple. How did the company accumulate 50 million dollars in extra inventory if their main problem is in production? Why not drop the red herrings and comment on the issue I've been raising for the last six months?
Your turnover numbers are cockeyed. You are dividing market price by cost, apples by oranges. Here's the real turnover: Inventory 102 million. Cost of goods sold 352 million. Ratio = 15 weeks not 8.
The problem, as we've discussed a half dozen times already, is the increase from 8 weeks in 2004 to 15 weeks in 2005. 50 million dollars, twice what the company says it 'earned' in 2005, went into increasing inventory.
Look at it this way. Say I run a lemonade stand for a year and tell you I earned $1000. You are the owner, so you come and say where's the $1000? And I say, well, I have $2000 more in lemonade than I did at y/e 2004, and I only took on $1000 in additional debt, so that's your $1000!