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 : Information Architects (IARC): E-Commerce & EIP -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jeffrey S. Mitchell who wrote (3701)	12/11/1997 11:10:00 PM
From: ZOID	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 10786

Jeff: Thanks for responding. I can always count on you to keep me honest! I had in mind the SPNSF announcement and I think if you go back a few months CRYSF put a dollar amount one of their contracts. KEA also. I will go back and dig these up. However, despite the paltry amount of revenue announcements, I still maintain that more revenue linked announcements are necessary to bring transparancy and legitimacy to any company involved in remediation. Blue chip names are always a big positive, but those days are over. It is no secret what many banks are going to be paying. Analysts have published numbers for NB,CMB,WB,FTU and others. What is preventing anyone from actually reporting these numbers are infact true and that we are tackling the problem with KEA, DDIM or ALYD? The point is revenue is the main factor that will drive ALYD stock higher. If it comes in the way of dollar value in contract announcements or actual reported revenues. If ALYD or their respective clients want to keep things close to the vest then we will not have the degree of relative certainty that will keep the stock from its richter scale fluctuations. Alydaar is absolutely positively a major force, player and winner in the Y2k arena. That is not my gripe or debate. They question is how are they going to manage public information going forward now that they are on NMS. It is now about consistent documented earnings growth. I think you have to admit they did not get off to a great start with the 3rd quarter breakeven "shake and bake". Anyway that is behind us and I am putting it to managment to show us the revenues. Offering wide range projections $10-$18 million is not condfidence building. An 80% deviation for 1st quarter estimates is too big to be meaningful to Wall Street. Analysts from JPM, UBS or MS do not operate with those type of paramaters. Pick a point and beat it! Wash, rinse, repeat for 2 or 3 quarters and we've got the real life upward movement and a lot of soiled shorts.

To: Jeffrey S. Mitchell who wrote (3701)	12/12/1997 2:29:00 AM
From: sibe	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10786

>Subject: Re: Cost Disclosures >From: year2000-discuss@year2000.com > >Check out the Business Section of the Chicago Tribune, Nov. 20, 1997. >There's an article entitled "Scramble to catch year 2000 bug is on" >and has the following items related to your question: > >First Chicago NBD: estimates $100 million >Chase Manhattan: budget $250 million >Bank America: estimates about as much as Chase ------------------------------- I would be very cautious about taking these figures as gospel. I attended a conference where the speaker was from the Government of Canada. This speaker worked very closely with the major Canadian banks, and he said that the figures they were publishing for Y2k expenditures were inaccurate, and the banks knew it. At that time, (a few months ago), the quoted figure was around $100M (CDN) per bank. His opinion was that it was closer to $500M (CDN). All of the banks knew the real figures, but none would disclose them due to business reasons.