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: Karl Drobnic who wrote (12343)	3/6/1998 8:52:00 PM
From: Zebra 365	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 31646

Karl, As usual you are right on the money. The opportunity with KO harkens back to the supply chain management. Although in this case the supply is run by one company, KO, and the manufacturers and "assemblers" (CCE and the host of others who "assemble" the final product), are lower margin businesses who are highly dependent on their only supplier being Y2K uninterrupted. This is sort of the opposite of the GM model where multiple suppliers are available, but the assembler has the margins. And the assembler is STILL highly dependent on the multiple suppliers being Y2K compliant. The point is that, it doesn't matter who is taking the high margin part of the chain. They are all in trouble if the chain breaks down. No matter how small a part of the supply chain is down, it will stop the whole process. The hackneyed phrase, "A chain is only as strong as its weakest link", definitely applies here. I still lay claim to the fact that, if there is a Nobel prize for explaining the embedded Y2K problem in a very few words, I get it. Every announcement only confirms the "serial Christmas tree light" model. Zebra

To: Karl Drobnic who wrote (12343)	3/7/1998 11:53:00 AM
From: wlheatmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 31646

Karl, I posted this question last night and no one has yet tackled it. I'm long on TAVA but the problem I pose below remains nagging to me. Could you give it a whirl? Thanks. The only problem I've had with this company is that many of the projects have been "pilots". What exactly does that mean? Have these pilot projects proceeded to "real, live, money making" projects? I don't know the answer to that. Anyone out there want to take a stab at this? A couple of days ago, someone mentioned that Jenkins' response to whether or not TAVA will be profitable this quarter was less than a wholehearted "HELL YES". I, for one, would think that all of these alliances, pilot projects, busier than hell, everyone's banging on our doors and we've got people running all over god's green earth trying to fulfill all these requests---all of these things would tend to make me think that we'd damn well better be profitable. If not, why the hell not. Anyone want to tackle this? Thanks. mike