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 : Enterprise Informatics -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Steven V who wrote (2887)	11/24/1998 3:00:00 PM
From: Greg h2o	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 13797

<Just my 2c. Q1/Q2 1999 is the worst possible time for the new software release. What company realistically is going to spend lots of $ on upgrading any "working" software before Y2K? > Any company that wants to BECOME Y2K compliant, that's who. We are talking about utilities companies, oil companies, etc, who will be SOL if their software isn't Y2K compliant. Clearly you are correct regarding the large %of IT money going to Y2K compliance. But, if you can change vendors and become y2k compliant at the same time in a critical piece of software, I would think it would make sense. The reason Jay was using y2k as an excuse was they weren't really capable of delivering EB as they said they could. < IMHO Altris' best shot is to virtually have a product give-away (upgrades and new licenses) for all of Q299 with 2 years of support paid up front in full. This would instill a solid customer base on the new product, instill much needed cash now, and give companies a reason to redirect their $ (at least a little) from Y2K issues. And since we'd charge for new maintenance contracts, we really aren't giving it away.> The companies aren't going to just accept a give-away product of this type of software. This very specialized software that they don't want to screw up in their purchase decision. It would cost them more to unravel a bad product than it would to BUY the correct product up front. Oh, and the IT directors they are working with aren't idiots--they know you have to pay sooner or later (I understand your thought regarding the later part). It's just my opinion they would rather pay in advance and get a product they can depend on rather than getting a "freebie"....often times you get what you pay for.... <Last night, my wife said, "if they are worth anything, why doesn't Gates just buy them right out for $1.50?".> Maybe Gates can't buy EVERY software company. Unless a company fits into MSFT's long-term plans, why should they buy it? I mean, I think they have other concerns... by the way, my wife just said, "no" last nite...at least you got some conversation! <g> <What answer is there except there must not be offers. I mean, if the offers were there, we are the owners, shouldn't we know? At least, shouldn't some of these 30000 and 50000 share holders know? > Clearly, ALTS is worth SOMETHING...they just sold a piece of the company for $3mil, which was nonessential to their future. It was my understanding from the previous cc that none of the discussions have moved past the stage of a polite "we're not for sale" from ALTS. Now, yes, that DOES upset me. I control more than those 50k shares and am getting NO specifics.... Further, I am a money manager who could potentially buy even more shares, yet I NEVER RECIEVED AN INVITATION TO THE CC! At least Jay invited me to hear his lies. I WAS on the list.... I don't think current management is lying, but you'd think they'd want to entertain mm's who have held through this period, wouldn't you? By the way, the above is all just my opinion and in no way reflects any buy, sell or hold decisions.... greg

To: Steven V who wrote (2887)	11/24/1998 11:40:00 PM
From: jackhach	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13797

ALTS is surely for sale, in whole or in part. The company, in my estimation, will not likely qualify for any new round of financing from existing or potential creditors (that is, anything non-dilutive.) The recent sale of assets to SDRC, to me, was a clear indication that ALTS management is struggling to line up standard operational financing. They have already violated their creditor's covenents and were granted an extension till May of 99. Their are no assurances that another extension will be given come May. Coincidentally, the amount of their existing cash is expected to burn out by the end of Q2 (May, possibly June/July?) Fortunately, 1) they still have $12, as much as $15 million in existing sales, 2)EB is solid and ready to go by every indication, 3) the company is public and can be taken over for very, very cheap, 4) they have a larger then publicly perceived/understood installed base that are currently using a mix of existing/earlier products, 5) the boiler plate, class action lawsuit will go nowhere 6) they have a good balance of customers/sales between the US and abroad. We must also keep in mind, as Bob has explained. The stock is getting hit right now with a lot of year-end tax loss selling. In spite of this tremendous pressure it has been slowly basing higher and higher from very recent lows. This is an indication of net accumulation. This type of price pressure will be nearly eliminated come the first of the year. That is why I have been buying/and will continue to buy on dips. -JH