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 : CSGI ...READY FOR TAKE-OFF! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TEDennis who wrote (1450)	12/1/1997 10:32:00 PM
From: HERB MILLER	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 3391

So when is your trip to ALYD, KEA and the others? Just kidding Thanks for all the info. I'm holding on also. H Miller

To: TEDennis who wrote (1450)	12/2/1997 5:13:00 AM
From: tech	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 3391

TED, Here is a list of some of your comments about CSGI. 1. Their toolset is NOT Fully-Automated. They have Automated some aspects of the process, but nothing that would distinguish them from other companies who have similar products. 2. When it comes to different MVS environments the company is "weak" YOU look at the blank expression in their eyes that indicates they haven't the foggiest notion what you're talking about. 3. Technology wise, CSGI falls in between CPWR, DDIM, VIAS, PTUS, and MatriDigm. 4. Other companies such as PTUS, SEEC, and MatriDigm, all have an automated search engine and a automated conversion. So any claims that CSGI is unique in this regard are not true. 5. There is absolutely nothing special about CSGI's tool 6. Other companies who hire hundreds and hundreds of people, don't hire them to convert a line of code at a time. They are there to help the client gather the data, determine all the pieces and parts, determine the conversion rules, etc. 7. Could the other tools be done with absolutely no programmer intervention? Probably, but the overall process would be hampered just as CSGI's is. 8. CSGI hasn't tackled a major effort yet. It gets lots more complex than the stand alone applications they've converted. So, it remains to be seen whether they only "need" 30 people. 9. PTUS, MatriDigm, and SEEC, all have an automated search engine and a automated conversion, in which not one single line of code is converted by a programmer. 10. The reason I am holding ConSyGen is that "CSGI has a tool that works within a defined set of parameters. They are not the only fish in the sea. But, there will be plenty of conversion work to go around. They'll get their fair share. And, with their small 'burn rate', they should make a profit." ===================================== I assume you would agree with the list above ? You state that one of the reasons you would hold CSGI is that they have a "small burn rate". Correct ? The company has stated that their technology is what allows them to have this small burn rate. Since their tool is "fully-automated" they have much less need for programmers, which in turn means that they don't have the huge payroll costs as other companies do. Logic would dictate that if you don't believe they have what they say they have, then their small burn rate will also not last. Especially if it was based on the aspect of having something no one else did, or that since their toolset was unique it allowed them this luxury. In comment #8, which I posted above, you point out that CSGI has not tackled a major effort yet and it remains to be seen if they only need 30 people. Well TED, you would have to agree with me that if what you are saying is true and their technology is nothing special, and they only fall in the middle when it comes to other companies, then we can go ahead and throw that small burn rate right out the window. Based on your comments they will fall under the same need for bodies, as others do, once they start to tackle a major project. So you see my friend, we can't have it both ways. Either they have a leg up in their technology which in turn allows them the luxury of having a small burn rate, or they don't have a leg up and once major projects come in and they will have to add staff just like everyone else.