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: James Rembar who wrote (6099)	11/16/1997 6:24:00 PM
From: lbs	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 31646

The market currently values other Y2K companies work at a higher P/E than One. Why should TPRO be valued differently. I do agree that the P/E should factor in the non-recurring nature of this work, but I think that a P/E of one is way too low. Dan

To: James Rembar who wrote (6099)	11/16/1997 7:29:00 PM
From: James Rembar	Respond to of 31646

Responding to my own post, I would add the following: Suggesting a p/e of only 1 may be too strict. If Topro is able to accumulate a significant pile of cash from earnings (however nonrecurrent!), this money of course can be put to uses, such as synergistic acquisitions, as some have suggested. In this way, there can be a multiplier effect from such earnings, but I still claim that traditional notions of p/e multiples do not apply to nonrecurrent earnings. I repeat from my earlier post that this does not take into account the benefits of developing business relationships that could follow from the Y2K business, however difficult it may be to place a valuation on such.

To: James Rembar who wrote (6099)	11/17/1997 5:12:00 AM
From: JDN	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 31646

Dear James: Professional services companies (like CPA firms or Engineering Consulting firms) are usually valued based upon annual Revenue plus assets. This multiplier of annual revenues can vary dependent upon the continuity of business relationship with existing client base. I am not yet prepared to comment on the appropriate multiplier until I get more data on the forward business. As to the asset, one could project out the Y2K business and discount the future cash inflows to current date. That also I am not ready to estimate. You may wonder why I even posted this. Reason is as follows: I would like to bring out AGAIN this NEW CONCEPT in Engineering consulting which is the FRANCHISING. THIS opens up a whole new realm of VALUATION and opportunity. I believe they are going to use their Data Base as the impetus to begin a business never before seen. Thats something to think about. Software will enter into it but believe me thats not NEARLY as exciting as the CONCEPT itself. Think about what I am saying! JDN (A MCTAVA sponsor)