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: Zebra 365 who wrote (11852)	2/21/1998 10:06:00 PM
From: Money Mood	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 31646

Zebra, << I'm expecting a correction similar to or worse than April, 1997>> Last year correction was not Y2K driven and most Y2K companies were engulfed in the whole market movement. This year, I believe, we may expect the opposite: Y2K vendors should do well through the correction (if it happens) and even benefit from it. On the other hand, only those companies that will report low Y2K readiness/awareness may correct significantly. Does this sound like "differentiative correction"? JMO. Thanks for the timely reminder - I completely forgot that the SEC requirement takes effect in April (time is flying). Viktor.

To: Zebra 365 who wrote (11852)	2/21/1998 11:22:00 PM
From: Quad Sevens	Respond to of 31646

<<< Now that they are forced to disclose this risk in the SEC filings ... I applaud this move by the SEC >>> Zebra, it is not really a move by the SEC. It is a legal opinion issued by a division of the SEC. In the opinion of this division, existing SEC regulations (may) entail various disclosures on the part of companies with respect to y2k problems. Note the wording " This legal bulletin represents the Divisions' staff views. This bulletin is not a rule, regulation, or statement of the Securities and Exchange Commission. Further, the Commission has not approved or disapproved its content." Waffle City. You write "In fact, it requires an 8-K if those risks are really significant". Yet the actual wording is much milder: "A company's Year 2000 costs or consequences may reach a level of importance that prompts it to consider filing a Form 8-K.". Prompts it to consider? Make that Cream-puff City. Tony Keyes, at y2ktimebomb.com, was upset by the toothlessness of this SEC bulletin. Wade