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: feltburner who wrote (1482)	12/8/1997 5:23:00 PM
From: tech	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 3391

First of all, I have never been emotionally attached to any stock, much like the folks over on the ALYD thread. I did not hesitate to sell CSGI when the stock was sitting stagnant. I stated that I would sell the stock and I did. Once the stock fell 10% the next day and I saw the opportunity to buy back in I did. Second, when Ted posted some of his conclusions about CSGI vs. PTUS, SEEC, and the others, I felt that there was no difference between these companies and CSGI does not have anything special. HOWEVER After talking with someone who has done vast due diligence on CSGI and owns many shares, I realized that some of the comments that Ted made regarding how CSGI measured up to the likes of PTUS, SEEC, and etc., may have been a mistaken. Ted stated that CSGI's identification consisted of 70% "for sure" and 30% that have to be confirmed by the client. Since then this statement has been said to be inaccurate. Ron Bishop states that CSGI's tool can hit 95% of the occurrences for sure while only 5% need to be verified with the client. I consider 70% / 30% vs. 95% / 5% a big difference. ALSO, It is now clear that PTUS and SEEC can NOT convert code in the manner that CSGI says they can. You don't have to be a technical genius, as I assume you think you are ?, to be able to tell the difference between a company that says: "Not one single line of code is converted manually once the process starts" and companies that say: *"Once the conversion is completed there will be some code that needs to be converted manually"* I specifically asked TED if the companies he named can: 1. Automatically find 2. Automatically convert code 3. And in the conversion phase not one line of code was converted manually. So far, PTUS says they didn't even have automated search engines, and that is why they bought Millennium Dynamics. They go on to state that they can convert 95% of the code and 5% remains (on average) to be done manually. SEEC, form their own website that Ted pointed out, and from my phone call also states similar conversion process. Neither of these companies say that not one line of code is converted manually. On the contrary, they both state that once the conversion is completed there remains code that must be manually converted. Ted may wish to say that PTUS and SEEC can convert code 100% automatically and no manual intervention is necessary, however the companies themselves don't say such. " the fact remains that SEEC and PTUS have DOZENS of customers and almost as many license partners. When CSGI can claim half as many, you will have a sharply higher stock price on your hands." - feltburner Well, isn't that the whole point ? Ted says that CSGI's tool is in the same ballpark as those companies you mentioned, I think it is better, but for the sake of argument we will use Ted's view. Okay, if PUTS, SEEC, and VIAS, have dozens of customers and as many license partners, and CSGI's tool is comparable to all of theirs, then wouldn't it be logical to say that at current prices CSGI's stock is undervalued ? Hey, if the technology is just as good as some of theirs, then it will only be a matter of time before CSGI's stock price follows their lead and companies and other partners start knocking on the door. stay tuned.

To: feltburner who wrote (1482)	12/8/1997 5:44:00 PM
From: TEDennis	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 3391

FeltBurner: Just between you and me ... Well, who'da thunk it? There are 'fully automated' solutions available. "Y2K Year 2000 Millenium COBOL Remediation, Fully Automated. Legacy System Migration Technology. Code Conversions. Fixed-Price Solution." srs2000.com How about ... www3.techstocks.com But, none of these guys have press releases saying they've put remediated code back into production successfully. Like a 500,000 line project at Motorola. Oooops ... Sorry, not tested yet, so obviously not back into production. Or a 1.4 million line HP3000 application. Ooops ... Sorry, not back into production, but available for sale from Millennium Enterprises to existing clients of the non-Y2K compliant version. Gosh, maybe nobody has one that has been put back into production yet? But, that can't be. 'tech' says that CSGI is the only company that has done that. Darn. Guess I'm wrong (again). I guess I'll just retire and forget all this Y2K nonsense. TED

To: feltburner who wrote (1482)	12/8/1997 6:20:00 PM
From: TEDennis	Respond to of 3391

FeltBurner: Gosh, this is kinda' fun. I never tried to find other 'fully automated' solutions before, cuz I know they don't exist. But, check this one out. superioris.com >>Our unique "extensive propagation" approach to date field identification means that we identify dates better than any competing technology. The technology also gives us a code conversion rate higher than any competing technology.<< Well, now ... isn't that interesting? I would assume that CSGI's technology would be considered to be 'competing technology'. So, these guys are better than CSGI? At least they say they are. But then, we don't know anything about these guys. Why should we believe any of their claims? Hmmm ... I suppose you could say the same about CSGI. What an interesting predicament. It seems we need a real live, honest to goodness benchmark comparing the performance of one against the other. TED ÿ