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 : Enterprise Informatics -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Elliot Puritz who wrote (2234)	3/24/1998 10:09:00 AM
From: jackhach	Respond to of 13797

Elliot, First off, I believe the longer the delay in any announcement - the better. To me it is an indication that meaningful discussions are going on and ALTS is taking its time in whatever it will ultimately announce. Again, I can't imagine the numbers being reduced that dramatically. The math won't allow it... If this is the case: Then ALTS need not worry too much about the boilerplate class action suits. Revisions are not that uncommon, and delays in software releases are more common then not. When I worked at Lotus it was absolutely amazing how long these delays would go on for (Desktop/CC:Mail/Notes.) Especially Notes and CC:Mail -- you could not help but think you were doomed in the marketplace. Having said that, given the limited amount of available capital in which to operate going forward; I cannot see how ALTS would survive without a fresh infusion of cash, or a merger/partnership with another firm. I'm certain they know this. I am sticking to my theory that this whole revision mess started when ALTS sought out new capital from either Tandem or an interested suitor. One or both of these parties did some quick math and recognized that cash-flow was not consistent with books (or possibly ALTS admitted to the problem.) Before coming to any type of agreement -- ALTS was required to clean the books and provide an adequate explanation. Any merger or refi is contingent upon these revised numbers. I trust that PW may have been a bit too permissive, however, it did not risk its reputation and allow for an entirely bogus set of numbers to be published. I trust PW kept ALTS honest to the degree that would keep ALTS out of any serious problems with regulators/litigants. Remember in the end: ALTS has millions of dollars of installed product. Product that has to be upgraded or replaced. Customers do not care for other companies coming along and uprooting the existing technology. Typically, they want to go the for a seamless upgrade/transition route. They want a company that understands the existing product, not just the replacement. Any suitor of ALTS knows all of this and would rather approach such customers as an extension/partner of ALTS. Believe me (no room for debate) -- it is much easier to buy a customer then to develop one. In fact most customers will leave "poorer" existing technolgy in place then be forced to uproot or change-out to something foreign despite the new product's greater advantages. Software is a business of who gets in the door first. Especially e-wide tech solutions. -JH