re: SSTI will be at the whim of their contract suppliers and their contracts for allocation of product.
Jason, That statement is quite misleading. SSTI did quite well with wafer allocation issues in year 2000 as evidenced by growing both the top and bottom lines at triple digit rates. And SST is already set up to do quite well in year 2001 with regard to wafer allocation issues. SST announced two months ago at the November 28 CSFB conference (available on SST web site) that their wafer allocation would double in year 2001. In addition, smaller process geometries will allow SST to get more output per wafer than in year 2000, so SST's total unit output can grow at an even faster rate than the wafer allocation. SST has already given guidance for another year of triple digit earnings growth and they have already secured more than enough wafer capacity to do this.
SST has lots of manufacturing partners and technology licensees and they include IBM, National Semiconductor, Motorola, Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., Sanyo Electric Co., Ltd., Seiko Epson Corp.and Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co. and UMC to name a few. Taiwan Semconductor also offers SST's SuperFlash under its trademark Emb-FLASH.
Last week SST signed an agreement with Vanguard International Semiconductor whereby Vanguard will serve as a foundry for SST's 0.18 and 0.13 micron flash memory products. Vanguard will be supplying SST with wafer allocation above and beyond the wafer allocation that SST already had when they announced they had doubled the wafer allocation for year 2001. Initial production will begin in the fourth quarter of year 2001. ``Attracting SST's business is of strategic importance to us,'' said Paul Chien, president of Vanguard. ``SST is a highly successful flash memory company whose growth prospects demand a high-volume, sustainable supply of wafers. Our new vision is in complete synergy with SST's requirements and we anticipate a successful, long term relationship.''
biz.yahoo.com
re: Time will tell how well a fabless company competes with a company which has control over its manufacturing.
Don't know what you are talking about here. There is no evidence that Sandisk has more "control" over its manufacturing than SSTI does. How do you distinguish between the SST/Vanguard agreement (or other SST foundry agreements) and the Toshiba/Sandisk Flash Vision, LLC agreement? Sandisk and Toshiba don't own the fab in Manassus, Virginia; they will be using space in a fab owned by Dominion Semiconductor to build their products. Technically speaking, I would call Sandisk a fabless company as well. But both Sandisk and SSTI exert "control" over the manufacturing of their products. Finally, as QCOM and RMBS shareholders will be happy to tell you; there is nothing wrong with being fabless when you have great, intellectual property. And SSTI has great, intellectual property in its Superflash technology.
re:When comparable, substitute products exists, people often go with the cheaper one.
Precisely---that is why SST with its low cost structure, Superflash technology will be a winning investment for many years to come. .
re:Of course, I suggested to holders to sell (SST) when it was at 100 (pre-split) because I sensed it had gotten too far ahead.
Hope you also sensed Sandisk had gotten too far ahead when it was $169 per share.
Best, Huey |
