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 : Cymer (CYMI) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ian@SI who wrote (23821)	12/20/1999 8:53:00 PM
From: Mani1	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 25960

Ian Re <<n fact you're so clueless and closed minded on this subject that I won't bother posting anything to you ever again. Thus you get as many last words as your youth and inexperience dictates appropriate.>> Thanks Ian. I am as young as I am and will certainly not apologize for it. I will say that I have owned Cymer since the IPO days and followed them closely for personal as well as financial reasons. I personally did a lot of machine shop work at UCSD for Akin when I was a freshman in college (just explaining my personal reason to follow the stock). And two of my best friends who graduated with me have been working for Cymer for 4 years. One of which who I recently spoke too also said that Cymer is NOT a pure play for 300 mm. Cymer owns the DUV regardless of 200 or 300. And trust me he is in the position that would know this. Currently there is a fab capacity shortage and all the equipment makers are going to benefit for the time being. If some of the new expansion is 300 mm instead of 200 some equipment makers benefit more than others, not Cymer. If 300 mm fabs are pure fab expansion as you say, how does Cymer benefit from the fab being 300 mm instead of 200 mm? The Litho light source is Cymer's regardless of fab being 200 or 300. Again Cymer is not by any stretch of imagination a pure play for 300 mm move. Like the pure play that they were in the move to 0.25 Micron. I find it hard why you are not getting this argument. You can resort to name calling as you usually do, but that does not make what I am saying not true. Mani