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: tech who wrote (2202)	1/16/1998 8:12:00 PM
From: Andrew Vance	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 3391

ConSyGen's burn rate is only about $4 million a year and it wouldn't take that much to make them profitable. One or two large projects or several small ones could do it easily. never mind the fact that they have seven alliance partners all working to get projects as well. This is a very interesting point. Of the 4 contracts mentioned in the previous posts, what do you think are the total lines of code CSGI coverted that will result in direct revenues. OR more candidly, what is the going rate for code conversion now. Last discussion I remember had it about 35-50 cents per line of code. Has this changed and gone up slightly as time is running out??? Of the alliances that have been spoken about, do we have any handle as to what percent of the total revenues CSGI is ecpected to receive as a function of their participation?? What I am driving at is some sort of working model for determining what mix of business and alliances coupled with lines of code, that will be necessary to sustain CSGI as a company. We can then use that as a barometer of how well they are performing down the road. We have some sort of timeline for how long it takes to complete a project once it is assigned and how long it takes to bring something from the interest stage to product demo to final contract assignment. On a monthly or quarterly basis we could project whether CSGI is on target. This inquiry is just as vital, critical and valid for each of the other YR2000 companies. Considering we are at T-minus less than 2 years, the lead time for contract assignment and contract completion (code conversion and verification) are measured in the terms of months, there should be some way to track this companies from this point in time on. Finally, a sobering excerpt from the New York Times and excerpted from the source listed with it: ú IBM Reports FAA Computers Will Not Operate Reliably After Midnight December 31, 1999 This is not the typical WBN story but it is of such momentous significance that we feel it necessary to bring to the attention of reader immediately. The NY Times carries the story this morning (1/13/98) that we have been waiting for which is that the air traffic control system will not be functional come midnight December 31, 1999. IBM, which built certain key FAA computers, has warned that 40 mainframe computers will not be functional and the FAA has responded that the FAA is "racing to determine whether the problems can be anticipated and eliminated." The implications of these statements by I.B.M. and the FAA are staggering. More on this later today at Westergaard Year 2000. y2ktimebomb.com Regards, Andrew