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 : TAVA Technologies (TAVA-NASDAQ) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Kevin Podsiadlik who wrote (21748)	8/5/1998 8:04:00 PM
From: Bill Wexler	Respond to of 31646

Bingo...go to the head of the class. An excellent post explaining why the average investor buying TAVA shares will soon become a TAVA fraud victim. It demonstrates that the easily available public information speaks much louder than internet hype from worthless shills. In order to "fill in the blanks"...and find out why TAVA is a dead-lock short candidate - a little investigation into the background of TAVA officers and directors, Scott Liolios, and Renaissance Capital Group is in order.

To: Kevin Podsiadlik who wrote (21748)	8/5/1998 9:34:00 PM
From: Captain Jack	Respond to of 31646

Kevin--- the Y2K problem is real and large. More is being done today than ever. TAVA has the POTENTIAL to fill a large void. Aligning many large companies to do an inventory alone IS a big deal. A ton of $$$ is being spent on this process alone. I am long on TAVA and feel it is a good company and should have a valuation about double todays. The mkt has seen the value of the company and at 1 point overvalued it based on momentum and promises. Many of these promises will be accidently kept and money will be made. TAVA has JJ a very good COO but the CEO is nonexistant. Y2K will go away after TAVA has had the opportunity to make a huge profit something mgmt has not yet been able to show, but will, more by accident than design. Again there is a lot of POST Y2K talk but zero action as expected as mgmt cannot get focused on the happenings of today. The main item going is no matter how ineffective mgmt is the product is good and needed and the company will make money as the service it can provide will be and has been sought after--- I have been long on this issue many times and expect to continue in that direction for sometime,,, but unless a CEO is hired I will be shorting in a year or so... as JJ is intellegent and wants the company to survive look for him to hire the required help and an IR/PR person that is also lacking .... as mentioned earlier the Aug 10s are cheap as it will take 3 miracles to move it that much in 3 weeks but in the next 3 - 6 months it will surpass that figure and sustain until the post Y2K direction has been formalized (if any) and will be valued on cash and/or holdings + future possibilities. The way things look at this time if we owned at 10 there should be enough cash and assets to cover the liquidated company. In the mean time long is the way to be...just in case

To: Kevin Podsiadlik who wrote (21748)	8/6/1998 12:08:00 AM
From: mchip	Respond to of 31646

Excellent Post!! 1. Does anyone have details of the $4mil financing deal for "substantially all assets?" What happens in 12/1998 and 7/1999 if the $4mil is not repaid (how many cheep warrants)? 2. A side note... Y2K. Yes it is a problem. I'm living through it. Software. that's easy. If I don't have compliant software by 1/1999 I switch vendors. Hardware. upgrade what is not compliant. Building Controls. I go to my vendor and find out if my system is compliant. Ok.. maybe in one building I have 2 vendors. Industrial Automation. same as Building controls. I don't need an inventory. I know what I have. My vendors know if it is compliant.

To: Kevin Podsiadlik who wrote (21748)	8/6/1998 8:49:00 AM
From: JDN	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 31646

Dear Kevin: I hope that you made an honest effort to be fair in your analysis. I will give you the benefit of the doubt that you did. I only wish to comment on a couple of your FLAGS. Iffy about the future: TAVA's success has been BEYOND ANY INITIAL ESTIMATE. I believe that it is in a state of flux as so many opportunities are being presented. The CC from which you are extracting was long ago since then they have more firmed up their future. Report date: TAVA has decentralized accounting with now 14 locations. They are using a second tier CPA firm and admittedly their accounting system is likely (I dont know for sure) not completely up to par given the TREMENDOUS growth they are experiencing. The fact the auditors probably wont issue their report until mid Sept. is NOT UNUSUAL at all. I ought to know I am a retired audit partner. Filings with SEC: I too have never seen a company report every press release on form 8-k. It exposes the signing officers INDIVIDUALLY to CRIMINAL charges if they tell a lie. I believe that Mr. Jenkins is doing this to reinforce that these incredible contracts are in fact true and material and NOT hype. Use of cash in operations: ANY growing company USES cash in operations. Only when a company is mature and stabilized or declining does operations PROVIDE positive cash flow. Why? Because ever increasing business (in this case huge increasing business) causes inventories and receivables to grow rapidly. Also they spent a good deal of what I would call development stage money in their data base, cd development, employee ramp up, acquisitions and the like. Thats all I can remember of your post to comment on. In summary, YES, TAVA is a speculative investment and not meant for widows and orphans. But I truly believe the potential gains far out weigh the potential losses at this point. If one wishes to be safer then wait for the earnings and CC to invest. But while you will feel safer you will not pick the stock up at this low level. JDN

To: Kevin Podsiadlik who wrote (21748)	8/6/1998 11:38:00 AM
From: John Mansfield	Respond to of 31646

<< Compounding that are the implications by Mr. Mansfield that Wexler, by expressing his opinion, is somehow committing an illegal act! That is a sign of near-irrational defensiveness and a gigantic RED FLAG. >> This is ridiculous. The biggest RED FLAG is supposedly a single poster on SI (me) posting his opinion; an opinion that you do not agree with? This indicates the true value of the other 'RED FLAGS' b.t.w. unsubstantially accusing a company of 'Fraud' indeed is illegal. When saying such things in a newspaper interview or on TV, people do get prosecuted and do get convicted as we all well know. I should also remind you of the fact that the SEC does monitor boards like SI exactly for such illegal behaviour. John