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: Nanda who wrote (686)	7/2/1998 3:12:00 PM
From: ratan lal	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 1031

What about the 12 page ad in computerworld ?? That was supposed to give them a boost. I am sure that customers do not care about their stock price.

To: Nanda who wrote (686)	7/2/1998 3:46:00 PM
From: P. Ramamoorthy	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1031

Nanda - Welcome back! Give the benefit of doubt to SEEC and CMND. We know how these contract documents are done and when revenues are booked by companies. There is definitely a lag period. (In the case of PTUS, their sales dept. was out of communication with operations. They had to get a new VP for sales. We do not know of SEEC and CMND having such problems.) SEEC and CMND do have problems of being a small company with small float, but they try to make up through alliances with IBM, CBSL, VIAS, etc. They are not like CBSL or IMRS or KEA with thousands of workers. I hope that Ravi Koka and Caputo are consciously making the effort in getting legacy system migration/conversion, maintenance, as part of their y2k contract. This is a question I'll ask Ravi Koka at the annual meeting because this is where they are all (IMRS, CBSL, etc.) are heading. This is where earnings will come after year 2000. There is a shortage of people too. A single qtr does not tell the whole story. At prices close to cash/sh, SEEC and CMND prices are not so bad compared to internet stocks that are valued at $2000+/subscriber with no income. Earthlink at 87? Yahoo? Long term (beyond year 2000), Ravi Koka and SEEC will do well. SEEC has products to sell and license revenues to book. Their margin will not top out by the number of "able bodies" available for hire. Ram

To: Nanda who wrote (686)	7/5/1998 8:15:00 AM
From: ForYourEyesOnly	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1031

At last some positive press: It ain't much, but it's positive..... THE YEAR 2000 PROBLEM By Jim Moore of Year2000stocks.com ---------------------------------- Thursday, one of the most well known Y2K names on the street found itself in its own blood-bath as its pre-announcement of revenues and earnings led to its market capitalization being cut in half and left its shareholders wondering what in the world happened. Let's take a look and see if we can make some sense out of all this. Thursday morning before its stock could get out of the starting blocks, SEEC, a provider of Y2K conversion tools and software to migrate COBOL programs, shocked Wall Street by announcing that they would fall well short of the analysts' expectations of its revenues and earnings. Before you could say "COBOL REMEDIATION", its stock, which had closed the previous day at $12.25, opened up at $8.50, and closed at $6 (down $6.25) on volume of nearly 2 million shares. In its press release, SEEC mentioned the fact that the EPS shortfall was taking place because of "deferrals of sales" from its end-user customers. In layperson's terms, this means that their customers, or potential customers are putting their decisions off until a later time at which SEEC hopes to capture that particular business. SEEC called it a lack of urgency. In all of this I have one question I would like to ask. Why in this world would businesses, governments, or anyone else that SEEC might have been waiting on a contract for delay repairing their Y2K problem? Don't they own a calendar? Can't they realize that we're less than 550 days away from some major technological problems unless businesses and governments take this more seriously? This question continues to perplex me. My own personal belief is that the street has created a monster that can't be fed, and CEO's don't want to answer to their own boards and executive committees as to why their own stock got whacked in half because of their own EPS shortfall because of an unexpected 3 zillion dollar charge to the bottom line because of this thing called the Year 2000 bug. Therefore they continue to put off the inevitable expenses that are needed to fix the companies' Y2K problem. This company has traded down from 37, so value players, in my opinion, should sometime or the other begin to come in to own a Y2K company at what they hope will be bargain basement levels. (Only time will prove if they are right.) Like so many other Y2K companies, this one is just one or two good announcements away from re-ignighting its bull market flame, so take heart and watch this one very closely in the near future. According to press releases on this company, they have an estimated $30 million in cash and investments as well as working capital, so it's not like we're seeing any major burn rate that we would need to be concerned about. And they are in an industry whose best day's are still in front of it in my opinion. There are still billions of lines of code waiting to be found and remediated and the due date keeps growing closer and closer. So take heart, be patient and look for any news that would turn out to be a boom for this company. Meanwhile, keep checking out ou! r site at year2000stocks.com for research and comments on companies that will find and repair this problem called Y2K. [All comments are the property of Mark VIII. Under no circumstances does the comments from this or any other column represent a recommendation to buy or sell any of the companies discussed. This is not a solicitation for any transaction or any investment advice period.] ------ Thank you to everyone who sent in feedback on Jim Moore's Year 2000 commentary. About 90% of the feedback was positive and wanted us to continue the column. We also received lots of great comments and suggestions which I've given to Jim. One thing that many people asked for was more information on specific companies, and that's something we'll try to do in the future - starting with this week's column. -Jeff