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.

Gold/Mining/Energy : BCB VOICE SYSTEMS INC. (c.BIV) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Flora Wood who wrote (66)	3/20/1998 5:26:00 AM
From: philipah	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 440

hi Flora, and welcome back to the wake, er, thread... You/BIV must take the moans and groans seriously, as they reflect accurate sentiment among SI posters. This neighborhood of disappointment is saying so, other subdivisions of dissatisfaction are just selling. I am astounded that an IR personality at such a troubled co. isn't using this thread to maximum advantage, just by responding accurately to sincere and concerned SI posters. Your disdain for participation speaks volumes, not. No hype, spin or obfuscation please...just timely info. I'm interested in going concerns, and cash burn is a remarkable indicator. Significant cash inflows are required, we all know that. And it comes from sales,debt or additional equity. BIV has demonstrated itself on the last two. I probably speak for most shareholders on that point, at least. What's going on at the marketing department? the sales department? Gross margin gains of a few percent are largely irrelevant in the absence of recurring and material sales figures. Is further development required? BIV reminds me of those last few sands in an eggtimer, and this egg isn't cooking. Good luck in the IR department, may the force be with you.

To: Flora Wood who wrote (66)	3/20/1998 6:01:00 PM
From: J J	Respond to of 440

Yes (re points to bring up at AGM), 1) We would like to see some concrete numbers re escalating revenues without the hype (i.e VAR & distributor relationships notwithstanding - minimum commitments are one thing, but are they generating any SALES?). 2) A lot of clarification re institutional/newsletter publishers/ brokerages involvement. If you go back over this thread, you'll see a good deal of concern (and rightly so) over this issue and the very real concern that we, the average joe & jill investor, are nothing more than pawns in a stock market "game". JJ

To: Flora Wood who wrote (66)	3/23/1998 11:55:00 PM
From: George K.	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 440

Flora, Let me share a few thoughts and maybe you will get a clue why the share price is where it is. A lot of people bought BCB a year ago, after reading about it in ID, where sales forecasts were given as 4.3M this year and 43M within three years. Where Phil Speller came up with these numbers is a mystery, but my guess is that someone from BCB TOLD HIM!!!! He's not smart enough to make up numbers. The actual sales for this year were only 1.6M. Yes, a 60% increase in sales is not bad, but a lot of that increase was probably due to the purchase of Granville Research. Buying Granville took me completely by surprise. After watching I-star shares go from $20 to $0.65, (and Hookup internet did even worse) I did not really want to have anything to do with an internet integration company, and I don't care what the growth rate of internet usage is! Also, it seems that Granville was a potential customer for BCB's products. Does BCB intend to buy out all their potential customers? Next, as I already noted, expenses in all areas have roughly doubled (as has your net loss), with the exception of one: Research and Development has increased BY A FACTOR OF 14.6!!!! Do that three years in a row and you will be at 2.3 BILLION (yes, that is a B). Why am I worried about such a huge increase in R&D? Maybe I can refresh your memory by quoting from LAST years Annual report: "In 1996 the Company geared up for a major push towards marketing, selling and producing the products that had been developed in the initial years of operation". Up to that point (from 1992 to 1996), the company had invested 500,000 in development of its products. Imagine my surprise when in one single year (1997) you spent 745,000. Regarding the rights offering, you say that it's OK to leave out 80% of Canada as "not eligible", but it would not be in the best interest of the co. to restrict the offering to a small area. That was my point exactly. It was not in the interest of the company to make restrictions on the rights offering. It was only in the interest of certain shareholders who live in Alberta or Ontario, and since this group includes ALL of the insiders of the company, you can just imagine how it smells. I have lots more, but I'm probably boring you, so I'll stop here. Best regards, George.