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 : SEEC, Inc. (SEEC) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: DD™ who wrote (674)	7/2/1998 1:32:00 PM
From: P. Ramamoorthy	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1031

DD - You certainly have a point. SEEC's tools are licensed by service companies that are signing up contracts. The license revenues should flow to SEEC. Contracts approval can suffer unexpected delays. Some silly reasons can hold up the document. This process is not in sync with company's auditors or the accounting system. I rationalize this situation as one of widely fluctuating earnings and unrealistic investor expectation in a nervous broad market. Picked up more shares at 6 15/16 (at cash value), going against the crowd. By the way, I value your opinion. Now you need to start thrashing SEEC as well as CMND! just kidding! Ram

To: DD™ who wrote (674)	7/2/1998 2:32:00 PM
From: Larry Voyles	Respond to of 1031

RE: Y2K urgency. I think you absolutely hit the nail on the head with the "competent managers" thing. As time goes on, the the more incompetent managers will start realizing that there's no magical solution and then they will have to pay dearly for their hurried remediation efforts. I don't doubt that some smaller companies will go out of business because of this. You'd be absolutely amazed how many small- and medium-sized companies are still out there waiting for the "silver bullet" solution. They have seen the expenses associated with Y2K remediation and thrash about looking for alternatives. I work for a "major airline" and we're having to absolutely sit on certain vendors and suppliers to force their attention to Y2K issues. Our "done" date for many major systems is the end of 1998 and some vendors weren't planning on starting remediation until then. They have all year to get it done, right? Several vendors will have their contracts cancelled if they can't meet our Y2K timelines. We have to have a guaranteed supply of those nasty salted peanuts, ya know. Plus, we don't want to keep having to go back and remediate code specific to those recalcitrant vendors when they finally get around to fixing their code. Once we're done with a major system, the majority of the Y2K code monkeys move on to the next project. There is little room for negotiation, so we're being pretty hard on those suppliers.

To: DD™ who wrote (674)	7/2/1998 4:45:00 PM
From: Mike Milde	Respond to of 1031

<<After all, we only have a little over 1 year before the clock strikes zero, I can't believe that competent managers would still have this "lack of urgency".>> I've seen it myself. Almost ALL development projects get way behind schedule. It may not seem logical, but Y2K is no exception. Projects never, ever start on time. Funding doesn't just come from thin air. At atleast one major telecomm company they seem to be so concerned about Y2K that all new development in general is being slowed down to deal with Y2K. And the people that don't fix their code in time will be scrambling for software to help them fix it after the fact. Or they'll just decide to scrap their code. They really don't have a choice if they have a Y2K problem. Mike