Mark: I failed to convey adequately that I have invested, not speculated with my continuing acquisition of FRX. I have not sold it on previous run-ups, nor will I do so on the next run-up. I am in this for the long term, since I have already been in FRX for more than two years, and continue to add to my position.
I believe that the steady growth that you speak of will be driven by the competitiveness of the particular market which any prospective customer may find themselves in. Hence, some will "rush" to conversion or be left behind in their particular market, while others will have the luxury of time.
Indeed, supply will respond to demand, and competition will develop.However, I do not believe that it is necessary for FRX to have some *unique* technology to prosper. General Motors does not sell a *unique* internal combustion automobile. As to their competitiveness, my guess is that they must be, and/ or their technology perfectly suited to Brown Brothers Harriman, judging from the recent comments of Brown Brothers Harriman.
As for your observations vis a vis the attitudes of investors, I think that perceptions are oftentimes more important that reality.
If you make the briefest examination of some of the Internet stocks, I think you will see the manifestation of this. The most recent of course is Broadcast.com. Here is a company whose IPO was priced last week at $18.00 and settled at $62.50 after the first day's trading.
Obviously, this could only happen because of investor perception, not the reality of the financial markets, since this company lost $6,500,000 last year.
I could go on and on, citing similar examples of Yahoo, Excite, Lycos, Amazon.com, etc. Anyway, you get the point.
I believe that continuing and increasing news coverage of the ramifications (too many to mention here, as this post is already too long) of failing to respond to the Y2K problem will turn the tide of perception in favor of those companies who can provide a very rapid factory solution. The contingent legal exposure alone is now becoming too great for boards to ignore.
I remember that you are a programmer, and perhaps that was why I was a little irritated with your posting. The brief explanation of legacy programs was for the benefit of others on this thread, not you.
Best regards,
Crandell Addington
|
