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 : Forecross Corporation : Y/2000 -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ruyi who wrote (1308)	7/27/1998 10:57:00 PM
From: Rick Voteau	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1654

Doug, I talked with Pat today and in the process reminded myself why I was heavily invested in Forecross and why I hadn't sold. The answer is "the elephant". There are several elephants out there including GM, the federal government, the Japanese financial industry, and others. All we need t do is bag one elephant. The question is, do you go for singles or home runs. Bag one elephant, say 40 million lines of code at $.50/line and overnight we are a $40 stock. Clinton said the government had to be ready by March of 1999 which means an automated solution. If BDM who is in DC can get some fo that business then we bag an elephant. If EDS who provides IT services to GM contracts with Forecross who to my knowledge is EDS's soul supplier, then we bag an elephant. If the new Forecross double byte technology allows for a Japanese financial institution to convert then we bag one and maybe a herd of elephants. To bag an elaphant of course you need a tool and access to elephant hunters and Forecross has both. Bagging an elaphant isn't easy but Forecross has an excellent chance. All of the naysayers will say I am dreaming to which I will say, you betcha. You don't bag an elephant if you don't dream. Oh, the lst kind of elephant is a takeover. Who knows, as Y2K heats up some large company may make a nice bid for the Forecross technology. Ahhh the dream just got better. Remember the elephants. There are still some to be bagged.

To: Ruyi who wrote (1308)	7/30/1998 1:23:00 AM
From: AD	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1654

A step in the right direction for Y2K sector?????? SEC requires full Y2K disclosure Investors aren't getting enough information, Levitt says By Rex Nutting, CBS MarketWatch Last Update: 1:59 PM ET Jul 29, 1998 Also see NewsWatch WASHINGTON (CBS.MW) -- With just 520 days to go until the millennium, almost every public company was ordered Wednesday to tell investors about any risks posed by the year 2000 computer bug. "We shouldn't kid ourselves that this issue will only affect selected industries or groups," said SEC Chairman Arthur Levitt as the commission adopted a new interpretation of its disclosure rules. "One company's lack of readiness could have adverse consequences for countless other companies." See a list of year 2000 stocks. $YTK Last Chg. 207.41 -3.59 % Chg. Vol. -1.70% N/A Day Lo. Day Hi. 206.48 212.83 Open Prev. N/A 211.00 As of Jul 30/98 1:19 am ET Last Trade Jul 29/98 4:02 pm ET Some economists, notably Ed Yardeni of Deutsche Bank Securities, fear that the computer bug will drive the U.S. economy into a year-long recession as hundreds or thousands of companies find themselves unable to do business. See Ed Yardeni's year 2000 site. Safe harbor The SEC voted unanimously to require nearly every corporation to disclose the risks of a Y2K failure in their quarterly and annual reports to the commission and the public. The new requirement will take effect for most corporations in the third quarter. Year 2000 disclosures will be covered under "safe harbor" provisions that shield companies from some litigation risk. See the SEC's year 2000 site.. The SEC also adopted similar requirements for investment advisers, brokers and dealers, and for municipal securities dealers. Levitt said lack of information about Y2K risks could set off "panic and overreaction" and disrupt the economy. Material effect Under SEC regulations, corporations are required to disclose any upcoming event that would have a "material effect" on their business, but many companies have ignored the Y2K problem in their reports, even after the SEC staff issued a legal opinion last year advising them that a massive computer failure, either in-house or among customers or suppliers, would have a "material" impact. "Failure to address this issue can be terminal," Levitt said. More than 70 percent of corporations used the phrase "year 2000" in their annual reports in the first four months of 1998, but the disclosure was just boilerplate in too many cases, the SEC staff found. The new interpretation will require all companies to consider their Y2K risk and to file a meaningful disclosure if they have not yet completed their assessment of the risks or if Y2K would have an material effect if the company did nothing. The disclosure would cover four items: the company's readiness, the cost of remediation, the risk of failure and the company's contingency plans. "The vast majority of companies have year 2000 issues," the SEC said. Many critics of the SEC called for a formal rulemaking on Y2K disclosure, but Levitt said Wednesday that there simply isn't enough time. Brian Lane, director of the SEC's corporate finance division, said a formal rule wouldn't do anything the interpretation didn't. Sen. Robert Bennett, R-Utah, and chairman of the Senate's special year 2000 committee, has introduced legislation that would require full disclosure by public companies of Y2K risks. See Sen. Bennett's year 2000 web site.