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: John Mansfield who wrote (23765)	10/4/1998 11:23:00 AM
From: Rick Bullotta	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 31646

<<Again, Y2k remediation work will continue for 3-5 years; and as this is becoming a pure sellers market (where are the competitors!? Only Raytheon mentioned; this is correct as far as I can see), TAVA can sell to customers with contracts for non Y2k follow up work in the works...>> Simply not true. Not even remotely true. Virtually any plant floor systems integrator is fully capable of doing the remediation work, and there are literally thousands of SI's in the U.S. alone. TAVA doesn't own the output of an inventory/assessment phase; the customer does, and is free to competitively bid the remediation work. Don't fall into the trap of thinking that TAVA has some type of unique monopoly for remediation services. What they might have is "first dibs" or a chance to submit a proposal on the work, but I can assure you that purchasing departments don't give charity contracts - not only is it not a sellers market, but they must be competitively priced, and for remediation work, this means significantly lower margins. This could be a case of "be careful what you wish for..." - if I was TAVA, I would leave the bulk of the remediation work to others. TAVA would be much better positioned if they were to shift towards more of a consulting/design capacity in their core plant floor business, (in addition to what they're doing with TAVA consulting, which needs to be aggressively expanded into the MES space). This would allow them to maintain good margins, keep the risk down (most of this type of work is time-and-materials, not fixed price), and secure a more strategic position with a client. Someone also referred to TAVA turning down contracts if the customer was not willing to commit to post-Y2K work. Of course this should be the case! Any intelligent business knows that there are "good customers" and "bad customers", and that there are alternate uses of one's resources (human and otherwise), and they should be assigned to their best possible short and long term utilization. TAVA is resource-bound at present, and prior to hiring new personnel, it would certainly make sense to ask for a longer-term committment from the client. Any chance to assume a "strategic" position (advisory, value-added role) within the account as opposed to a "tactical" position (execute individual projects) is a preferable role. NOW THE CHALLENGE: I think everyone has been missing (or ignoring) my point on the human resource challenge that lies ahead for TAVA. JDN and others keep pointing to the blurb in the 10K about "very low training costs" with the new hires - OF COURSE THIS IS THE CASE WITH Y2K WORK! As I've said many times, a well-trained animal could probably perform the basic inventory and assessment work, thus the reason that almost any warm body off the street didn't need much training. However, when the shift back to "real" work (consulting, design, project execution, etc) begins, a good number of these new hires will be sorely underskilled and will either require extensive on-the-job training (very expensive) or must be replaced. I hope this clarifies a few things. FWIW, I think TAVA is an excellent buy at current prices, with a planned exit in the 6 1/2 - 7 1/2 range (my guestimate of longer term valuation). I still think it is a good company, and am disappointed with how long it took them to get their Y2K machine rolling (probably cost shareholders $5-10 per share as a result). But that's ancient history. As a snapshot right now, it is a good investment at present prices.

To: John Mansfield who wrote (23765)	10/4/1998 7:32:00 PM
From: Captain Jack	Respond to of 31646

Mr Mansfield --- please go back and do some research before you become an expert on what I have done. I have traded more shares of this puppy than you could dream of. It is not an issue I would ever want to hold but is great for trading. I am far from frustrated at anything I have done but am frustrated at the price at this time as it should be much higher. If it would go back to 2 I would be far from hurt,,, how about you? The only thing you said that made any sense concerned the P/E that should be about double where it is now. Do you have an explaination of why it is where it is today? Actualy after reading more of your posts today I believe I have a bridge you may be interested in!