Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : TAVA Technologies (TAVA-NASDAQ) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: M. Frank Greiffenstein who wrote (6083)	11/16/1997 3:39:00 PM
From: lbs	Respond to of 31646

The only point I would raise is that Jenkins said they were planning on subcontracting out work to smaller SIs. This could create a much larger revenue stream for TPRO. As far as the revenue fromt their own engineers, I think you raise valid points. Dan

To: M. Frank Greiffenstein who wrote (6083)	11/16/1997 4:25:00 PM
From: Mighty_Mezz	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 31646

DocStone - Re Fluor alliance. I don't think it's dead, just not so important. At the time Fluor alliance was made, TPRO thought they needed to hook up with a big guy like Fluor to get intros to the big multi-plant guys. Jenkins on confcall:It's turned out that we don't need that; word of mouth and our own direct selling and the uniqueness of our product is getting us there as fast or faster than working with Fluor. General Motors ggg And the big $ despite only 400 engineers will be from franchising. TPRO is going to have more business than it can handle - the problem is too big for one company to do it all. All those "mom and pop" engineering automation companies can become TAVAtech franchisees. McTAVA sound reasonable?

To: M. Frank Greiffenstein who wrote (6083)	11/16/1997 4:43:00 PM
From: Zebra 365	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 31646

Transcript of call Link I have reproduced the conference call nearly verbatim in the research thread, so the debate can quickly subside over what was said. techstocks.com The meaning I will leave up to the many talanted analysts on the thread. DocStone two points in response to your post. RE: Controlled Growth They have 330 engineers and 280 technical people and plan to add 150 people in the next year. They will not add more individuals after that but are leaving open the possibility of growth by acquisition. They should be soon generating a large pile of cash, and Ken Owen will be overseeing a number of smaller system integrators who will be trained, licensed resellers of the TAVA tool set. Gets me to thinking....hmmm? RE: Revenue Projections: Divide up the following: 1) toolset sales as one division (software) 2) remediation work as another (new Y2K engineering business) 3) current base business work as another (base engineering and equip) and run the gross revenues and gross margins on each division before recombining them. Given the quarterly report, and the numbers from the conference call, I think you will come up with a different projection. Specifically I think you are leaving out the software sales and what the cash from that could mean to both the bottom line and the future growth and direction of the company. I'm using 85% as gross margin for software sales in the absence of a real figure. I figure that development costs would not be included in Cost of Sales. Highest Regards Zebra

To: M. Frank Greiffenstein who wrote (6083)	11/16/1997 4:47:00 PM
From: eleebee	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 31646

DocStone, I think taking the role of Devil's Advocate is not a bad one since it makes us think. I have not the knowledge to refute your points one by one. The answere lies in management. Are they creditable? Are they honest? Do they know there business? If the answere is yes to all of the above then most of what you say does not wash. I do not know management from personal observation. I have followed this thread and listened to the conferance call and in my judgement I give management an A+ in all regards. Mark