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: Gurupup who wrote (6600)	11/26/1997 11:57:00 PM
From: TokyoMex	Respond to of 31646

From Motley Fool Board Which you can excess via www.motleyfool for non AOL members. Date: Wed, Nov 26, 1997 21:41 EST From: Chrisluu Message-id: <19971127024101.VAA27651@ladder02.news.aol.com> Yes!!!!! Zweig is a owner of TPRO. They have already filed their holding in TPRO with the SEC. As of the end of the 3Q, they own 296,800 shares .....all bought in the 3Q. No information of their activity since then. I assume their participation in the PP was the purchase of additional shares. Other Holders of TPRO: TCW Group = 904,900 shares (all bought in 3Q).......very nice name Barry Feirstein = 200,000 (all bought in 3Q).........anybody know about them? Morgan Stanley = 67,100 (all bought in 3Q)......nice name Cambridge Equity Advisors = 36,550 (all bought in 3Q) ......... anybody know about them? There were two insitutional sellers in 3Q and they both no longer hold any shares. I check TPRO institutional holders almost everyday for new names........still waiting for Fidelity and Soros to pop up (I want to see how much they own) - Jonathan Well now they own 250,000 more Joe

To: Gurupup who wrote (6600)	11/28/1997 9:02:00 AM
From: Skeptic	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 31646

Four reasons not to buy TPRO: 1. No earnings and dilution required for future growth. 1a. You are correct, bu it is a $6 stock And it was a $2 stock four months ago. Valuation is extremely subjective when all earnings are in the future. Its pure speculation at this point. 2. Y2K boost, no matter how strong, is temporary. 2a. I strongly disagree. What IF they do the business that is possbile, build huge cash flow, use stock to buy more businesses that will be accretive, and the Y2K business goes for 3-4 yrs instead of 2? Let's assume their EPS are $0.25 in '98 and double for four years: 0.25, 0.50, 1.00, 2.00, 4.00. That only adds up to $7.75 without any discounting. Discount at 20% and you only get $3.71. Even with four years of hyper-growth, most of the value depends on how fast it will be growing well beyond 2000. 3. Y2K as Trojan horse is plausible, but far from guaranteed. 3a. No issue, that is what we are all guessing about. Right. If this doesn't pan out, TPRO will once again be an anonymous penny stock. A bet on TPRO is a bet that (a) integration of the factory floor is valuable, (b) the Y2K problem will help plant managers see the value, and (c) there is limited competition for many years. I have the biggest problem with (c). By the time TPRO is big enough to really benefit from the opportunity, other big players may also see the light and aggressively enter the market. 4. Y2K fallout could very well decimate the entire market, Y2K stocks included. 4a. Y2K can and probably will hit certain parts of market in a big way, but is it not possible that the TPRO's will benefit as a hedge, a concept play, or whatever? So TPRO only falls 25% in a market that's down 50%. Relative returns may be all that matters to fund managers, but I'm interested in absolute returns in my personal portfolio.