| Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Natasha Zuko
   |
Posted - 2010.09.26 05:05:00 -
[1]
why have the price of Hulkes has spiked??
couple of weekes ago it used to be 120m now it 135m??
and there is no hulkgedon or anything i can see than can raise the price of hulks?
|
Lost Hamster
Hamster Holding Corp
|
Posted - 2010.09.26 06:01:00 -
[2]
Increased material cost. And I suppose it will go higher.
|
Akita T
Caldari
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2010.09.26 06:48:00 -
[3]
MUCH higher. Hulks (well, exhumers in general) are the most affected ship as far as Technetium price increases go. And Technetium looks like it's going to go up even more in the near future. Although it might drop too, you never know.
_
Beginner's ISK making guide | Manufacturer's helper | All about reacting
_
|
Lost Hamster
Hamster Holding Corp
|
Posted - 2010.09.26 06:54:00 -
[4]
 Originally by: Akita T
...
And Technetium looks like it's going to go up even more in the near future. Although it might drop too, you never know.
I guess it depends on how you manipulate the market. 
|
Akita T
Caldari
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2010.09.26 07:08:00 -
[5]
I have surprisingly little to do with the Technetium price evolution 
It's been well over one month since I last touched that market.
_
Beginner's ISK making guide | Manufacturer's helper | All about reacting
_
|
Lucyna
Interstellar Killer Bee Enterprises
|
Posted - 2010.09.26 23:16:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Akita T
I have surprisingly little to do with the Technetium price evolution
It's been well over one month since I last touched that market.
Just out of curiosity Akita, since you are much more knowledgeable about manufacturing, for T2 modules, which tend to involve the most technetium-requiring materials to build? T2 Ammo?
I could do it myself but you tend to be helpful ;)
_________
Eve - for when I'm not playing minecraft ;) |
Breaker77
Gallente
Reclamation Industries
|
Posted - 2010.09.26 23:20:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Lucyna
Originally by: Akita T
I have surprisingly little to do with the Technetium price evolution
It's been well over one month since I last touched that market.
Just out of curiosity Akita, since you are much more knowledgeable about manufacturing, for T2 modules, which tend to involve the most technetium-requiring materials to build? T2 Ammo?
I could do it myself but you tend to be helpful ;)
Short answer, most T2 modules and ammo only use 1 or 2 T2 components. Therefore if tech increases 10k per unit the overall prices won't fluctuate much. Now for ships, if tech goes up 10k per unit, there might be thousands of units of tech required to make all the T2 components needed to build a ship so it adds up fast.
|
Akita T
Caldari
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2010.09.26 23:39:00 -
[8]
Edited by: Akita T on 26/09/2010 23:39:48
For T2 modules and ammo, the highest costs are those related to slot costs (be it invention costs, lab slot time or manufacture slot time).
Even a radical increase of T2 component prices will barely affect T2 module/ammo prices.
_
Beginner's ISK making guide | Manufacturer's helper | All about reacting
_
|
Lucyna
Interstellar Killer Bee Enterprises
|
Posted - 2010.09.27 04:27:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Akita T
Edited by: Akita T on 27/09/2010 00:00:25
For T2 modules and ammo, the highest costs are those related to slot costs (be it invention costs, lab slot time or manufacture slot time).
Even a radical increase of T2 component prices will barely affect T2 module/ammo prices.
For instance, there's 1.25 Technetium in one Aurora L, or 1 Technetium in a Ballistic Control System II, but there's 451 Technetium in a Hulk.
Well, actually, noticeably more, since, you know, invention waste... and those were numbers at "perfect build".
Considering the cheapest option overall is using an Engagement Plan decryptor (ME-3, so 40% waste), that would be roughly 631 Technetium per Hulk. You get the idea anyway.
So, for every 10k Technetium goes up, Hulks go up at least 6.3 mil, assuming everything else remains unchanged (which seldom happens, so the price increase could just as well be over 7 mil, if not more, for every 10k Tech goes up).
Cool thanks!
And as far as other ships besides Exhumers, what would be the next T2 ships to rise like the Hulk has?
_________
Eve - for when I'm not playing minecraft ;) |
Cista2
Hydra Investment Fund
|
Posted - 2010.09.27 06:26:00 -
[10]
Originally by: Akita T
Even a radical increase of T2 component prices will barely affect T2 module/ammo prices.
For instance, there's 1.25 Technetium in one Aurora L, or 1 Technetium in a Ballistic Control System II, but there's 451 Technetium in a Hulk.
I don't get what you are saying at all. As far as I can see the Technetium then is about 15 % of the cost of Aurora L, and also about 13 % of the cost of a Hulk. Therefore the Aurora L will increase at least as much as the Hulk when Technetium rises.
What am I missing here?
-----------------------
"Signatures" chatroom / Hydra Fund / LLSE Stock Market |
|
|
Lost Hamster
Hamster Holding Corp
|
Posted - 2010.09.27 08:11:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Lucyna
And as far as other ships besides Exhumers, what would be the next T2 ships to rise like the Hulk has?
T2 Battleships. Maruders, Black ops.
Originally by: Cista2
Originally by: Akita T
Even a radical increase of T2 component prices will barely affect T2 module/ammo prices.
For instance, there's 1.25 Technetium in one Aurora L, or 1 Technetium in a Ballistic Control System II, but there's 451 Technetium in a Hulk.
I don't get what you are saying at all. As far as I can see the Technetium then is about 15 % of the cost of Aurora L, and also about 13 % of the cost of a Hulk. Therefore the Aurora L will increase at least as much as the Hulk when Technetium rises.
What am I missing here?
The amount what is required for production.
15% increase when a product cost 1k isk, or when it cost 1M, is not the same.
|
Cista2
Hydra Investment Fund
|
Posted - 2010.09.27 08:26:00 -
[12]
Edited by: Cista2 on 27/09/2010 08:28:35
Originally by: Lost Hamster
15% increase when a product cost 1k isk, or when it cost 1M, is not the same.
Yes it is the same, it is 15 % of cost. If the price of Technetium doubles, then that's another 15 % to add to the production price of the Aurora as well as the Hulk.
If Technetium price was doubling I would therefore expect Aurora L to cost 115 % of what it cost before, and Hulk to cost 115 % of what it cost before. That is the same price increase.
Except Akita said that price on Aurora will not increase, only the price of the Hulk 
I must be very slow this morning because I simply don't get what you people are saying.
-----------------------
"Signatures" chatroom / Hydra Fund / LLSE Stock Market |
Victor Michaelle
Gallente
|
Posted - 2010.09.27 08:49:00 -
[13]
Originally by: Akita T
For T2 modules and ammo, the highest costs are those related to slot costs (be it invention costs, lab slot time or manufacture slot time).
|
Cista2
Hydra Investment Fund
|
Posted - 2010.09.27 09:03:00 -
[14]
Originally by: Victor Michaelle
For T2 modules and ammo, the highest costs are those related to slot costs (be it invention costs, lab slot time or manufacture slot time).
Once more, please explain to me if 1.2(?) units of Technetium is NOT 15% of the cost of 1 unit of Aurora L? If that is actually correct then explain to me how a doubling of the price of Technetium would NOT increase the price of Aurora L on the market, but only the price of the Hulk, because I don't get it.
-----------------------
"Signatures" chatroom / Hydra Fund / LLSE Stock Market |
Victor Michaelle
Gallente
|
Posted - 2010.09.27 10:24:00 -
[15]
I'm not actually a producer so I'm just interpreting Akita's word here.
But it kind of makes sense that if the raw materials isn't the major portion of the cost then a change in the raw material cost won't have a major impact on the overall cost. The various other costs, such as aquiring access to slots, apparantly outshadow the raw material cost on tiny things.
|
RaTTuS
BIG
Majesta Empire
|
Posted - 2010.09.27 10:31:00 -
[16]
there are a lot more Auora (L) bpos out there than Hulk bpos
and you can make a lot more crystals / month than hulks with bpo's
then you have invention on top of that
--
|
Cista2
Hydra Investment Fund
|
Posted - 2010.09.27 11:10:00 -
[17]
Originally by: Victor Michaelle
I'm just interpreting Akita's word here.
........
aquiring access to slots, apparantly outshadow the raw material cost on tiny things.
Stop quoting, start thinking for yourself 
I am sorry to harp on, but nobody on this thread is making any sense. Slots have a price, and materials such as Technetium have a price. Slots may very well be 50% or more of the production cost of Aurora L, that is TOTALLY irrelevant here.
My question was very simple: if Technetium is 15 % of the cost of Aurora L, and 15 % of the cost of a Hulk, why do you say that a doubling of the price of Technetium will have effect on the cost of Hulks but not the cost of Aurora?
It is really ridiculously simple IMO.
What WOULD make sense would be for you guys to say that a change in slot fees would have larger impact on the price of Aurora L than the price of Hulks, because slots are a larger part of the cost of Aurora. But what you are saying about the effect of Technetium is nonsense, since Technetium has been shown to be equally important for both products.
-----------------------
"Signatures" chatroom / Hydra Fund / LLSE Stock Market |
Akita T
Caldari
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2010.09.27 11:21:00 -
[18]
First off, Aurora L might have been one of the worst examples I could have possibly given, you only need to look at the history graph to see why. Its usage rate has declined so badly that in spite of material prices rising and invention cost not dropping noticeably, its price dropped to less than half of its peak price, and has been basically clawing at the bottom of actual loss for quite a while now. But it was alphabetically near the start, and meh, I didn't bother checking for ACTUAL price history at that time. But now I did.
A much more adequate example would have been the second one given, picked again mainly alphabetically, Ballistic Control System II.
Technetium price was hovering around 55k-60k in the recent past.
So on one hand you have Ballistic Control System II, base contents 1 Technetium (1.5 with ME-4), selling for between 710k and 870k in the recent past. As you can probably notice, the variance in price had very little to do with material cost increases (which were negligible) but much more to do with inventors entering or exiting the market.
On the other hand, you have Hulks, base content 450 Technetium (630 with ME-3 which is the best to use right now or 675 with ME-4), selling for around 126-127 mil ISK in the recent past.
Technically, for a Ballistic Control System II, the Technetium contribution was around 82-90k ISK, noticeably less than the 160k swing amplitude that naturally occurs in this module's price. The total contribution of Technetium was between 10% and 13% of the final price.
Would Technetium increase in price to, say, 100k ISK a piece, the total contribution would be 150k ISK, or around 60k ISK extra per piece.
So, 60k extra, or, if you prefer, a rough 7.5% increase in final price (assuming an average price of 800k for when Tech was at around 60k) for a 66% increase in Technetium price.
Either way, I would call that negligible given the usual, natural price swings that are much more noticeable than that.
Now, for a Hulk, you have either 630 or 670 Technetium in it. Let's go with the more favourable approach for you and call it 630. That's a total Technetium contribution (at 60k a piece) of 37.8 mil ISK, or roughly 30% of the recent price. Not 15%.
Would the price of Technetium spike to 100k like in the above example, the Hulk price would go up around 25.2 mil ISK, or 20% of the current price. I don't know about you, but 20% looks to me to be quite a bit more than the 7.5% in the previous example... especially since Hulk prices have been quite stable without huge ups and downs like module prices, so it's felt much worse.
So yeah, I still stand by my previous statement : a Technetium price spike will be felt quite badly as far as Hulk prices go, but would be barely noticeable for modules and ammo.
But now you also have an explanation. And some more numbers.
_
Beginner's ISK making guide | Manufacturer's helper | All about reacting
_
|
Cista2
Hydra Investment Fund
|
Posted - 2010.09.27 13:50:00 -
[19]
Originally by: Akita T
That's a total Technetium contribution (at 60k a piece) of 37.8 mil ISK, or roughly 30% of the recent price. Not the 15% you were claiming. Where did you get that number from anyway ?
That was my gross miscalculation, I had a wrong price in mind for the Hulk, sorry.
So, forgetting the Aurora L then, you are absolutely right, the point being that Tech makes up a much larger portion of the price of production of the ship.
Whether prices fluctuate more or less is irrelevant when speaking of an expected future price though. The expected price will be 5% higher if that is the contribution of a rise in Tech, but as you say that is pretty minor on a module such as the one mentioned.
Thanks for the clarification.
-----------------------
"Signatures" chatroom / Hydra Fund / LLSE Stock Market |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Minmatar
Vahrokh Consulting
|
Posted - 2010.09.27 15:12:00 -
[20]
Originally by: Cista2
Originally by: Akita T
That's a total Technetium contribution (at 60k a piece) of 37.8 mil ISK, or roughly 30% of the recent price. Not the 15% you were claiming. Where did you get that number from anyway ?
That was my gross miscalculation, I had a wrong price in mind for the Hulk, sorry.
So, forgetting the Aurora L then, you are absolutely right, the point being that Tech makes up a much larger portion of the price of production of the ship.
Whether prices fluctuate more or less is irrelevant when speaking of an expected future price though. The expected price will be 5% higher if that is the contribution of a rise in Tech, but as you say that is pretty minor on a module such as the one mentioned.
Thanks for the clarification.
Also, please don't forget how the larger items (like ships) have an higher inertia and generally derivative of rate of price change than small items. This causes their overpricing to add up to such inertia for more prolonged extents of time, while small items settle in less.
Bleah I can't write, I hope you'll manage to decypher this ... crap.
-
Auditing & consulting
When looking for investors, please read
http://tinyurl.com/n5ys4h + http://tinyurl.com/lrg4oz
|
|
|
Berikath
|
Posted - 2010.09.27 16:21:00 -
[21]
Originally by: Vaerah Vahrokha
Also, please don't forget how the larger items (like ships) have an higher inertia and generally derivative of rate of price change than small items. This causes their overpricing to add up to such inertia for more prolonged extents of time, while small items settle in less.
Bleah I can't write, I hope you'll manage to decypher this ... crap.
That.... doesn't make sense. I mean, I'm not an economist, so I'm not quite 100% sure, but far as I can tell it's the writing, not technical terms.
I'm pretty sure you were trying to say "Larger items like ships tend to have more inertia in their pricing and generally don't adjust to changes higher up the supply line as quickly, which leads to them tending to "settle" at a price much more than smaller, less time- and capital-intensive items like modules and ammo."
That does make sense, but I would expect that ships would adjust up pretty quickly; I would expect T2 ship producers to be fairly involved industrialists, and they would make sure their prices adjust up for increased cost MUCH more quickly than down for decreased ones.
***
Wish list for PI:
*One-click input routing
*Copy product, inputs & outputs in factories
*Launchpad upgrades: twice the space, twice the cost, half the hassle! |
Quazal Atreides
Gallente
Gamma Draconis Industries
Eternus Imperium Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.09.27 16:30:00 -
[22]
the way i have viewed it,
Large ships because of their volume traded a lot of htem already on market at pre-price rise cost of mats, So when one of the mats (tech) rises this takes longer to effect the price of ships, and ofc when newer ships are priced onto the market they price lower than current lowest (in most cases)
Obviously once back stocks sell at the old material cost then the price rise of mats is seen in price rise of ships.
And i think the (my interpretation ) what VV was saying refers to the fact that larger ships have a lower turnover than smallerships, so ofc takes longer to clear back stocks on market already.
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |