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: Quad Sevens who wrote (6315)	11/20/1997 3:04:00 AM
From: Cents	Respond to of 31646

I agree completely!!! However content seems to be a subjective thing wouldn't you agree? I merely felt that Skip was unduly harsh on that guy with the vacant post. I am sure that the guy meant no harm in posting it and I am sure that Skip pressed many more buttons typing the letters to respond to it than he would have by ignoring it. I respect him, you don't get to be a money manager easily in this jungle of a world, and I also respect you. But let us not throw levity to the wind here! He who is without humor is without soul. But I know you know that from your profile. Nobody is on this thread for the fresh air and sunshine. This to me seems to be a very well run mechanical contracting company having some growing pains that it looks like they have under control. They probably do have the y2000 solution but I am not even factoring that in. I see that only as a great sales tool for the company. This is a company which in my belief is poised for a nice long run into the realm of the Blue Chips! They have a great concept, desire, and obviously a plan of action that works! The smart money is not going to ignore these things because they have to weed through a few extra posts. I think if a fund manager bases his decisions on something silly like that I would rather they did NOT throw that kind of money at this! I KNOW that all the truly smart money like Skip who I truly believe is no flash in the pan at all, will hold this until they feel this has peaked then will sell only then.Who needs scared money in something like this? Anyone who would skip a potential investment because there are too many links to press are truly sheep in my eyes and Skip is without a doubt no sheep. He obviously had had a bad day. This is an open discussion group with TPRO as the subject. It is not a classroom, or a library but rather similar to a democracy with Jill the sysop as the ultimate moderator. We all want this to go up with the exception of a few possible shorters, and as for them, I have no sympathy. Saying that,and I know I have possibly unfairly vented all this after your post which quite possibly was merely a clarification, I will exit for the night no longer able to contain my rational exuberance, with only these few words... Don't you just LOVE IT? !!!!!!!!!!!!! Cents

To: Quad Sevens who wrote (6315)	11/20/1997 10:28:00 AM
From: M. Frank Greiffenstein	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 31646

TPRO Capacity Underutilization I have calcualted TPROs capacity utilization to estimate maximum future revenues. I made one major assumption: All 280 engineers are FTEs (full time equivalents). Here goes. First, I backed out materials "markups" from revenues for Q1. THis is 40%, so 40% of 11.5 million subtracted from 11.5 million is 6.9 million. Thus, 7 million (rounding up) is the revenue generated by engineering services billables. Then I added the million bucks in billables lost ebcause of reassingment of billing engineers to the y2k software writing. So, my "adjusted" Q1 revenues is 8 million. Second, I calculated capacity by looking at Man-Hour units (number of FTEs times the number of hours in a quarter). I made my seocnd major assumption, 40 hour work weeks, just like Gartner does. So, 280 X 96 days x 8 hours = 215,040 ManHours. Q1 work was all core business work so that's about $90/hour. 215,040 X $90 = $19.353 million in potential billables if everybody billed 4oh per 40 hour work week. Third, I divided 8 million by 19.353 million and got 41%. So, TPROs billables were 41% of potential billing hours. Now, the accuracy of this depends on FTEs. If some or most of engineers are part timers, the FTEs would be less than 280 and the calcualtions would ahve to be redone. Nonetheless, the 41% figure is a good news/bad news kind of thing. The good news is, if TPRO can put all of its workforce in both y2k and base business work, billable hours can potentially more than double, up to $30 million a quarter. And that's a normal work week and that doesn't count new hires (target = 400) or subcontractors. THe bad news is, isn't this inefficient usage of staff currently? DocStone