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: Mark Buczynski who wrote (7960)	12/27/1997 8:18:00 PM
From: Quad Sevens	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 31646

<<< Seems reasonable >>> Well, we know one part of that post, namely "Its obvious the $28MM refers ONLY to BASE business NOT including Y2K", is not reasonable. (No offense, JDN.) Let's estimate the BMY contract another way. During the CC Jenkins said "I've used a number in the past of an average of maybe a $300,000 total cost for a typical plant to go from assessment to remediation. I have no reason to back away from that at this point." A simplistic computation then yields 125 x $300,000 = 37.5 MM. Now remember, the press release said TPRO "has signed an agreement with Bristol-Meyers Squibb Company (NYSE: BMY - news) to provide Year 2000 tools and compliance support for all Non-Information Technology systems at approximately 125 sites worldwide." What is "compliance support"? Sounds like it might not be the whole shebang. So 37.5 million may be too high. Remember also that Jenkins said he was willing to cut deals with large corporations with humongous multiple plant sites. From the CC: " ... not everybody's going to pay retail price. When you sit at the table with somebody that's got 600 sites to address, there's a fair amount of negotiating pressure from his side of the table." Interesting tidbit here: BMY has 125 sites and we're all gaga over that (and rightly so). Why did Jenkins say "600 sites"? Who's been sitting at the table? Best, Wade

To: Mark Buczynski who wrote (7960)	12/27/1997 10:47:00 PM
From: CYBERKEN	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 31646

Mark: I should clarify here, so no one will think I have uncovered something new. The $36 mil I refer to is based on JDN's post#7669. It seems a reasonable estimate, though when the 2 years is up, BMY may or may not have spent that much (or perhaps much more). Sorry to Jan and all if that created a stir. The point being made on my SYNT post is that if Mike Winn is correct, BMY is wasting their money even researching Y2K and talking to TPRO, at a time when they need to pump every penny they can scrounge into drug development alliances to insure their long-term survival. Again, anything is possible, but I don't think BMY is wasting it's time.