Thank you for your detailed analysis.
My hypothetical was, in fact, purely hypothetical, as I did not look up the numbers for any of the three companies. I will bow to your superior knowledge of the company financials.
However, I do have a few comments on the rest of your analysis.
>> Thus, if we agree that MASK, PLAB, and DPMI
are in the same industry, then they're affected by the same macroeconomics.<<
DPMI and PLAB have grown their market share primarily due to expansion into Asia. Both companies get more business from Asia than MASK does, and therefore have lost a larger fraction of their business due to Asia's problems than MASK has.
At the same time, strength in Asia translates to more sales overall once the overall semi market recovers. Most foundries are in Asia, and foundries use orders of magnitude more masks than dedicated fabs.
>> With respect to technology, let's be honest: very little
activity takes place at .25 or below. For where the market is and where the market
will be over the next few years MASK is perfectly positioned. When the market
gets to OPC and phase-shift, MASK will be there. We'll see about DUV in a few
years.<<
On these points, I believe you are somewhat mistaken. 0.25 micron devices are here now, and 0.18 is rapidly approaching. OPC and/or phase shift masks are required to print these feature sizes using 248 nm light. At the end of 1997, Intel predicted 60% of their total capacity (total, not new construction) would be at 0.25 micron or smaller by the end of 1999, and shrinks are actually proceeding much more quickly than anticipated. Other companies are following similar trends.
High end masks also account for a disproportionate share of mask company profits. Less advanced masks suffer from commodity pricing, while the more advanced masks do not.
Katherine |
