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 : Kulicke and Soffa -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: scott_jiminez who wrote (4056)	8/4/2000 6:14:58 PM
From: scott_jiminez	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 5482

Revenues (in fixed font) Revenues: (in millions) Year Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 1998 123 120 92 76 1999 61 73 111 153 2000 180 222 268 These data make my point PRECISELY. There's no way the company could sustain the rate of revenue growth seen in the recovery quarters of 1999. The company could have revenues of over $1 billion this year which would roughly double the company's previous best year. So, a slowing RATE of revenue growth. Yes. DUH! A sustainable rate of growth with cash piling up. Yes. And with the non-bonder (HIGHER MARGIN) businesses coming on line, there are clearly additional avenues in the near future for revenue enhancement. You are only writing clearly enough to the extent that your point is so narrow - and certainly NOT a generalizable indicator (TER had insider selling over 2 years prior to its fall) - so as to be unusable. The fact that you accused others of 'confusion' about the revenue numbers is a reflection that it's YOU, not others, who fails to fathom contrasting views. Do you understand THIS post or need I explain it as well? Warpath? Sheesh. How about frustration dude!

To: scott_jiminez who wrote (4056)	8/4/2000 6:43:12 PM
From: Red Dragon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 5482

So, a slowing RATE of revenue growth. Yes. DUH! Don't you get it? That's why the savvy investors aren't here! They only want to be part of the rapid accelerating phase. They don't care about the more mature phases of the cycle, the rounding top, or the down cycle. TER had insider selling over 2 years prior to its fall Was it heavy insider selling, where the entire management team sold 50-100% of their stakes? I've explained this over and over and over again: Small insider selling is usually not meaningful and can be ignored. Big insider selling is usually bad.