David, sorry my last post was cut in half. Here is the full post.
The "conversion" stage as handled by CSGI constitutes at best 15% to 20% of the effort of these projects.
The "conversion" stage as handled by anyone represents 20% of the effort. The better question to ask is what portion of the project will constitute the greatest amount of expenditures , which in turn will provide the greatest amount of revenue for the y2k companies? i.e Assessment, Correction or Testing ?
Keep in mind that CSGI's burn rate is approx. $4 million a year.
Even if they only make as little as $15 million in total revenues in 1998, net revenues would be around $11 million. With 17 million shares outstanding that would give them earnings of approx. $.64 per share.
x a multiple of 30 = a stock price of $19.20
x a multiple of 40 = a stock price of $25.60
x a multiple of 50 = a stock price of $32.00
To make $15 million in net revenues CSGI would only have to convert
approx. 75 million lines of code at an avg. price of a mere $.20 per line. That works out to only 6.25 million lines of code in a month.
Note* prices per line of code are sure to go up as flood gates open
Note* AGISS may, alone, provide CSGI with that monthly total.
Note* If CSGI can sign only 1 or 2 large projects or several small ones, they should be able to meet all their expenses.
Note* as other teaming partners and alliances are signed much more code will flow CSGI's direction.
Note* If we say that the avg. price of converting per line of code in 1998 will be $.40 per line, then CSGI would only have to convert 37 million lines of code. Since prices are likely to go up as we get more demand, this scenario could easily come true. I don't have to tell you that several midsize or even one or two large projects could meet that total easily.
Crowing that CSGI does 100% while SEEC & PTUS only claim perhaps 95% just shows that SEEC & PTUS have a bit more experience under their belts.
On the contrary, it shows the difference between companies that must have code converted manually and one that does not. In CSGI's process NOT ONE SINGLE LINE OF CODE IS CONVERTED MANUALLY PTUS, SEEC, and VIAS can't say that.
Any time you have any code converted manually, you will increase the potential for human errors. I can't wait until some of the code gets back and from INDIA or other places it has been sent to be converted manually. ERRORS ..... ERRORS ...... ERRORS....
As I have asked others, please find one other company that has announced they have successfully started, finished, and tested a year 2000 project. Any size, any environment, using automated tools or manual conversion. |
