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 : Clarify - upside to EPS -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (891)	9/17/1998 2:39:00 PM
From: Trader Dave	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1062

SEBL could generate damaging noise, but the advantage of the front office space is that the number of potential customers for front office crosses a much broader range of potential industries and customers than supply chain. I'd love to get the size of the field service/dispatch segment alone, but I'm sure it's pretty large based on some of the deals I've seen. SFA is an explosive market and the systems aren't typically replacing any mission critical systems. The customer support and service/dispatch markets are huge, but the decision cycles are longer since you are typically replacing a home grown but EXTREMELY mission critical system. I would make the following argument: the Support/service/dispatch market is massive and will sustain long term growth of 35% to 50%, but not much higher than that. CLFY has won a number of deals in recent months because it's demonstrated referenceble success with it's support/field service customers. So the support side of CIS is great growth, but not explosive. Obviously SFA is generating much more explosive growth. SEBL's growth is all the more surprising since I suspect it was generated with minimal help from the scopus side of the equation. It has higher growth, but decision and implementation cycles might be more rapid because you aren't replacing much in the way of mission critical infrastructure. I actually think Vantive could still be executing well if expectations hadn't been set so high for the company. If vantive had properly avoided positioning itself against sebl, and set expectations for 40% growth, then they would have faced less back end loading and the ability to build more visibility. While I expect a decent quarter for CLFY I'm quite sure it won't be a blowout since Jan has such a strong bias to building more visibility. TD