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 : Identix (IDNX) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Night Writer who wrote (6329)	1/22/1998 10:44:00 PM
From: Buck	Respond to of 26039

I don't think there is any problem other then the goverment doing things the goverment way. I hope in the next week or so, that question will be ask directly by one of our thread analysts, although the answer will probably still be what we all know . . . namely that when they get an order from the INS, they will tell us. After listening to the conference call again, I believe Randy would have liked someone to comment on it, and considering it would be the biggest contract ever? Go figure why they didn't!

To: Night Writer who wrote (6329)	1/22/1998 10:51:00 PM
From: David	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 26039

I thought it was a fairly tame call, all things considered. No news, in INS terms, is not good news. I very much believe IDX will get this business. I just am having trouble believing it's going to come on time for either us or the INS (i.e., before the end of June), and suspect we will be reading "INS in trouble again" headlines in the spring. These analysts are friendly, and if Fowler or they wanted to raise the subject, they could have. Buck, Fowler's remarks on the GSA schedule doesn't apply to the INS possibilities, since there is no way INS is buying off a GSA schedule for a $20 million potential order. What sticks in my mind is the LA newspaper's report that its INS office is going to manual fingerprinting for the time being. Manual fingerprinting! Give me a break. That's returning to the era of Dragnet. Don't get me wrong: it's doubtful that the INS is unhappy with IDX performance, and much more likely that they have not found a shortcut on this contract award. Big federal contracts can take a lot of time -- as long as a year, guys. We also don't want to see a contract award that gets challenged for being improperly awarded. OK, off that soapbox. What I most enjoyed was Mr. Saf's last question on the NRID "solution" which Fowler professed to know nothing about, since he doesn't bother to keep track of what NRID does. And the mention of IDX API's that are "first" in the industry. Well, I don't know if Fowler so studiously ignores competitors' claims, but it is very clear that IDX has a strong software presence and interest in this area, and NRID is far from having that field to itself. If IDX is HAAPI compliant, I think it will be a coincidence. Fowler was clear IDX was moving in this area on its own terms, and I bet its efforts are part of the "infrastructure" internet efforts aimed a little bit further down the road with, say, Microsoft and Netscape. Eight analysts on the call, and no Robertson Stephens shorts that I heard. Nothing to say?