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 : Rambus (RMBS) - Eagle or Penguin -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Scumbria who wrote (39014)	3/29/2000 1:15:00 AM
From: Bilow	Respond to of 93625

Hi Scumbria; There is a hell of a lot of difference between having a technological triumph and running the shorts. By the way, it's not like I've never helped run the shorts myself. I did quite a number on ADSP when they quintupled back this thanksgiving. So the shorts got run. Big deal. The stock didn't stay up forever. By the way, my explanation for those big leap positions is that they are there not to protect shorts from losing money due to market movement, but instead to protect shorts from having their shares bought in due to inability to borrow. Or equivalently, they are put on by people desiring to be short but unable to borrow the stock. Why long term investors are attracted to stocks with big short interests is beyond me. Presstek, (PRST) ran up to triple digits on hype but look where it went after that. They guys who make money are the traders like Zeev, not mom and pop who are, by their nature, bag holders. RMBS has been one hell of a hard stock to borrow, other than intraday, and sometimes not even that. So a long term bear would set up a synthetic short by buying a put and writing a call, at the same strike and expiration. This avoids the big time premium associated with a "naked" long put position. Such a position is immune to a short squeeze of the sort that Stuart Steele was calling for, (though I really can't avoid mentioning that the smell of big investors calling for stock owners to move stock into cash accounts is pretty bad. This is about one neighborhood better than when Riley was calling for the investors in that silly penny stock to call for their "certs"), but the position is not immune to the short call being exercised. To avoid that, one would want to keep the call well out of the money by rolling up. -- Carl

To: Scumbria who wrote (39014)	3/29/2000 9:10:00 AM
From: Ian Anderson	Respond to of 93625

Scumbria, I think I owe you and some others here an apology, though some of the longs will probably flame me for saying this. Having looked at the datasheet performance of DDR in burst mode, I now agree with you that DDR 200 could be expected to have very similar performance to a single channel of RDRAM 800, and that DDR 266 would be better. I still think RDRAM will get design wins for the following reasons. 1) The RDRAM bus is better specified, structured and in particular terminated to meet EMI specifications and to perform reliably at high speeds. These issues are left too much to the board designer in a DDR system. 2) It is much more practical to run multiple RDRAM channels (2 channel systems already in production), than multiple channels of DDR. If you ever tried to lay out a 128 bit wide data bus on a PCB then you must know what I mean. 3) It is possible to achieve full 1.6Gb bandwidth from a single RDRAM chip, which needs multiple DDR chips. This will be important for appliances and games where 64Mb is enough. 4) In server systems it is possible to degrade gracefully instead of fail, by switching off a faulty RDRAM, and reconfiguring the other chips. With DDR that would require switching off a whole bank. IMO this is a killer argument for why to build Servers with RDRAM, which has not been made yet. So my conclusion - RDRAM is here to stay in Desktops and appliances, and there might still be some surprises in the server segment as soon as the price premium is eroded. Ian