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 : WDC/Sandisk Corporation -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Zeev Hed who wrote (14471)	9/3/2000 8:31:48 PM
From: thecalculator	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 60323

NOT OT Hey, relax a little,... Zeev, I will be more than willing to listen to any valid issues with regard to my investments; likewise, I'm quite relaxed enough to call out blatant error when I see it. You stated in your post that SNDK will have 20%, since ALSC invest the same $75 MM according to your own figures that should be 40%,... No Zeev, I was referring to SNDK's 'p-o-t-e-n-t-i-a-l' ownership of 20%. $75 million gets them 10%, but because they are a special partner, they are being given the option to 'p-o-t-e-n-t-i-a-l-l-y' own 20%, should SNDK choose it. I don't know for sure whether SNDK will choose to become a 20% equity partner or not, but I consider it a prudent thing for them to do so. As for a PSR of between 1 to 1.5 at the trough of a semi cycle, TSEM itself sold at a PSR of close to 1 in the last 12 months (low just under $7 with TTM sales of about $100 MM and about 13 MM shares outstanding then). I notice you neglected my comparison to TSEM's contemporaries, and instead choose to dwell on the past. Contrarily, I like to consider the potential consequences of a future explosive growth in TSEM revenues. ...contract fabs that do not have their own end products, but manufacture for others, have by necessity lower margins than the fabless companies they serve, and furthermore, they do not control their own future in the same way that companies serving end demand do. ...no need to be angry or aggressive. Zeev, you must understand that it is not aggressive nor a reflection of anger when I call out the error of someone aggressively dissing my investment, particularly when they are grossly misinformed about it. Tower's strategy for the last two-three years has been to not only continue to be a contract manufacturer, but to also develop their own higher margin specialty technologies. That is common knowledge to anyone that has done the minimum due diligence on the company. Furthermore, with regard to being a 'contract manufacturer', I find it a major positive as a hedge against any near-term slowdown, that Tower is pre-selling capacity to their investor clients, don't you? Regards, thecalculator

To: Zeev Hed who wrote (14471)	9/3/2000 9:56:07 PM
From: thecalculator	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 60323

control their own future...fab or fabless? contract fabs that do not have their own end products, but manufacture for others, have by necessity lower margins than the fabless companies they serve, and furthermore, they do not control their own future in the same way that companies serving end demand do. Besides the fact that Tower does have their own end-products, and specialty technologies in hot emerging markets (i.e., non-volatile memories and CMOS image sensors), one must consider that the fabless player is not necessarily the preferred stock investment for all market conditions and situations. As the following article states, "Large fabless and larger IDMs have made moves to lock down capacity, and I understand smaller buyers of wafers may have some difficulty getting access," : siliconinvestor.com I've wondered whether a fabless company is concerned about losing a grip on their IP once they farm out their fab business to the Far East. But what choices do they have? Maybe they figure that if they keep improving their designs every six months, then they can worry less about having to compete against their misappropriated, 'antiquated' technology? Pity the graphics chip players (SIII, TDFX, etc.) caught in this viscous cycle, eh Zeev? Nonetheless, I can forsee certain benefits to Israeli fabless companies that have a state-of-the-art fab at their disposal within their own country, would you not agree? Regards, thecalculator