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: JDN who wrote (8301)	1/3/1998 7:14:00 PM
From: E	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 31646

From the Financial Times, Dec. 31,97: COMPUTER 'BOMB' COST ESTIMATED AT $5bn by David Wighton, Political Correspondent [Below are excerpts from this article--JM]: Tackling the millennium computer "bomb" could cost the [UK] government 3 billion pounds ($5bn), three times the amount ministers have predicted, according to analysis by the opposition Liberal Democrat party. The figures [are]compiled from information supplied by central government departments, local government and the National health Service... Malcolm Bruce, the Liberal Democrats' Treasury spokesman, said the new estimates underlined his fear that the government was not taking the threat seriously enough. He said the problems...were already being felt within government departments. Calling for a National Audit Office inquiry, he warned that the costs of reprogramming computers could put public sector budgets under acute pressure. "I am convinced that the NHS, our armed forces and the local authorities are going to have a real problem on their hands come the year 2000," he said. Given the government's lack of preparation...private sector experience suggests it would be prudent to factor in cost overruns of between 25 per cent and 100 per cent, according to Mr. Bruce. He pointed to the example of Unilever which recently trebled its estimate for tackling the millennium bomb to 300m pounds. The [Health] department said the best estimate was that the cost of resolving the problem would be equivalent to annual expenditure on computer systems. For central government alone, that expenditure is 2.5bn pounds a year. Central government is taking under consideration a proposal to have a Mister Mike Winn remedy the situation for $30.99 some weekend soon. [OKAY, I ADMIT I ADDED THAT LAST PARAGRAPH --JM]

To: JDN who wrote (8301)	1/3/1998 7:58:00 PM
From: Andrew H	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 31646

Most of this info is already know to the thread, but I thought I would post it. It is of interest for comments made in the last part. Perhaps others would be kind enough to post Scott's answers to future questions. >>Subj: Re: Clarification of 12/19 press release Date: 98-01-03 17:30:52 EST From: Liolios@PacificGP.com (Scott Liolios) Reply-to: Liolios@PacificGP.com To: Andylana@aol.com (Andylana) CC: Biffpincus@aol.com (Biffpincus), mamma.san@juno.com (Jan McCabe), RAJUUSHA@aol.com (RAJU USHA), sheridan@ap.net (sheridan@ap.net), STLMOORE@aol.com (STLMOORE), Terra33513@aol.com (Terra33513), kwaskom@jhancock.com (Waskom, Keith) "Total new order in the company's first half are forecast to exceed $28 million." This excerpt from the 12/19 press release. First let me apologize I have not been able to respond more quickly, however I have been out of the office since12/24 for the holidays. I came in today, Saturday to tie up loose ends so we can hit the ground running on Monday and have received 37 email questions regarding Topro. Questions include clarification of the aforementioned quote, embedded chip competition, upcoming utility convention and even how many stories will the new Topro headquarters offices have. (I am currently researching the new offices.). But since the question of the "$28 million" has come up more than once, let me try to clarify. The $28 million represents new orders received between July 1, 1997 and Dec 31, 1997(Q1 & Q2). Some of these orders have been realized in the same period. Most, however will be realized in Q3 & Q4 of fiscal 1998. I know many will email me the question "What do we mean by "realized". So allow me to elaborate and I apologize if you already know this. Since Topro's business is not as simple as manufacturing widgets. The company is primarily in services the business, and more specifically the "project business". Therefore it is not always simple to determine when to recognize revenue. In Topro's case, revenue recognition is based on a percentage of project completed. So, some of the $28 million may have been completed in Q1 or Q2, but in speaking with Jenkins before I left, he sated most will be realized in Q3 & Q4. Allow me to generate a "HYPOTHETICAL" scenario for illustration. Please remember this is a hypothetical situation and not a projection, estimate, or forward looking statement of Topro actual financial data. Lets assume Topro had a $10 million backlog at June 30, 1997 (not actual backlog- illustration only). The company received $28 million in new orders from 7/1 - 12/31/97. the company would have $38 million in business. In the Q1 the company reported $11.3 in revenue, and lets assume the company reports $11.9 in Q2 (from red chip) for a total of $23.2 for the first half of fiscal 1998. $38 million - $23.2 million would equal $14.8 million backlog going into Jan 1, 1998. But the most important point of the the "$28 million" is that one may be able to reasonably assume without any additional growth, the company is already at a $56 million annualized run rate. That would be greater than 50% increase from the year ended 6/30/97 of $37 million. I personally believe that now we are in 1998 and corporate america is budgeting for Y2K, Topro will see many more multi-factory engagements. I believe 1998 is the year that Y2k stocks and most importantly Topro start to realize their true value. I also believe Topro has only touched the ear of the elephant and in 1998 will be the year the whole animal is exposed. I hope this answers your question regarding the $28 million. I will spend the first part of this week researching and returning the e-mail to those who are looking for other answers. Thank you for your patients, and I hope to see you at the shareholders meeting. Cordially, J. Scott Liolios<<