Fluor pulls out because of risk.
Aside to Richard, you said to me <<<With respect to number of employees I do not believe you are right.
I believe Tpro has a total of 280 engineers and technical people.
In June they had 275.>>>
My statements weren't mine Richard they came from John Jenkins, that's what's nice about having the transcript in the research thread. And he didn't break down the planned new hires either:
Q: How many engineers do you have and how many of those are allocated to Y2K business?
A: We have added 12 since June 30 and total head count is a little over 330 Engineers and 280 technical people. No breakdown between Y2K and base business.John Jenkins
Q: Are you going to maximize growth here or try to manage your growth as the Y2K work proceeds?
A: We are going to widely distribute the CD tools and try to have everyone using the TAVA tools as the incremental cost of pressing CD's is "peanuts." We could increase our staff size three-fold but we don't want to do that because of "all sorts of problems associated with that" unless it is through an acquisition as a single step. We plan to add about 150 people over the next six to nine months and hold at that level. We will sub out some work to smaller System Integrators and focus our efforts on the accounts that we know we want to stay in after the year 2000.John Jenkins
The reason for THIS post is at top. A gentleman from AON has posted again on the Motley Fool board (again)in response to DocStones post.
Keep Fishing DocStone, you are catching some good information, even though the bait is a little stinky. LOL like Catfishin'
Subject: Re: Negatives to discuss....
Date: Sun, Nov 16, 1997 19:07 EST
From: MFlet
Message-id: <19971117000701.TAA19153@ladder02.news.aol.com>
<<<I simply do not buy that Fluor-Daniels suddenly decided the y2k issue was not as improtant as thought earlier. There is more to this then meets the eye. If Fluor is seeing a decline in its construction business, why not ramp up for y2k services?>>>
Fluor backed off because of the Liability issues. Their insurances will not cover them for repairing Y2K problems that ultimately don't work despite their attempts to remediate.....especially where they were the designers/specifiers of the equipment that now needs remediation! This is why their head Y2K man left for Topro.
The above was posted today by MFlet. This below is also from an earlier post on 11/13/97 by Mr Fletcher "MFlet" on AOL
Although I was not part of the team that considered who should be a part of the AON sponsered ARM2000 (AON Risk Management 2000) program, I am familiar with the program. I am sure that there is no "certification" by AON involved. Rather members of the Project do their own thing as part of an overall comprehensive approach to the Y2K problem. I would not think that AON would want to take on the liabilities inherent in any "certification" process.
Tpro is, to my uncertain knowledge, the only vendor out there that is widely recognized to be competent in working the Factory floor. Their market is, and because of the increasingly difficult employment market for qualified engineers,an dhas to be limited to the largest manufacturers. Their services can go for as high as $800,000 for one site (admittedly a large one). Large companies are beginning to Triage their operations for Y2K compliance
work.
All this bodes well for the short term work load and profits of Y2K professional remediation companies. It is estimated that 30% of the work on the Y2K problem will be achieved AFTER 1/1/2000! so there will be a continuing revenue stream after this date. Long term investors should be cautious however as to the viability of Y2K firms into the next century. Make sure that they will have products to sell to the marketplace after the mess is solved!
Milton Fletcher
AON Risk Services
Los Angeles
Good Hunting
Zebra
PS Cheryl, its $125 now to join SI. November 1, we got more valuable. |
