SI
SI
discoversearch

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: C.K. Houston who wrote (11526)2/17/1998 4:16:00 PM
From: Jack Zahran  Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 31646
 
WSJ Interactive has already changed TPRO to TAVA, so update your portfolio's my friends. This is a whole new ball game and we are on home turf. Squeeze......... :)



To: C.K. Houston who wrote (11526)2/17/1998 6:11:00 PM
From: j g cordes  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 31646
 
Supply Chain Additional Comment
Traditional manufacturing until the Japanese miracle of the '80's, relied on having a ready stock of finished parts for assembly. The concept of "just in time delivery" introduced by the Japanese cut down the overhead costs and inefficiencies of maintaining a large stock of parts on hand. It also allowed a more rapid product improvement cycle or design changes since fewer parts were in the pipeline to absolve.

Supply chain software takes this a step further by refining the anticipation of assembly need, modification of parts if necessary, delivery and quality control cycles. Tighter loops of communication between suppliers and manufacturing are being forged with suppliers having 'virtual contact' with the factory floor, design and procurment.



To: C.K. Houston who wrote (11526)2/17/1998 6:53:00 PM
From: Judge  Respond to of 31646
 
Two important points about supply chain disruption risks and one minor quibble:

1. Most manufacturers today engage in "just-in-time" inventory management to keep SG&A as low as possible, so even a minor "hiccup" in supply can idle a customer's operations; and

2. More and more frequently manufacturers are entering into "single-source" or "requirements" contracts in order to obtain favorable discounts and better treatment from their suppliers. This, too, can leave a customer without an alternate source in the event the "single-source" has hiccups.

As an added note, bear in mind that many highly-regulated manufacturers (such as pharmaceutical manufacturers) must obtain regulatory approval for items obtained from certain suppliers (such as constituent chemicals and packaging), a time-intensive and very expensive process. Consequently, most such manufacturers have at least TWO sources for such supplies, but a hiccup by even one of two "qualified" suppliers can have a substantial negative effect on the manufacturer's ability to perform its own obligations.

The quibble (intended in a gentle & friendly manner): Actually, the SEC doesn't care at all whether any individual reporting company is compliant or noncompliant: that's not in their regulatory portfolio. They care about complete, accurate and timely DISCLOSURE of material information concerning such companies' businesses, operations & financial condition. To the extent that Year 2000 issues will affect those things in a material way, the SEC Staff has made clear that it believes "specific and meaningful" discussion is required. Since no public company wants to have to say that Year 2000 issues are likely to have a material adverse effect on its business, operations or financial condition, the pressure to become compliant is enormous. I point this nuance out only, Cheryl, because I know it's as important to you as it is to me to get things right, which is one of the reasons I have the regard for you that I do.

NOTE: The above discussion is only a general discussion and is not intended to constitute legal advice, which may differ according to the facts in a specific case. Recipients should consult their own legal counsel.

Best regards, Cheryl.

Cathleen