To: Petz who wrote (10085 ) 9/24/2000 1:17:09 PM From: david_langston Respond to of 275872 Petz,I'm sure the CEO's of the semi companies are livid about the current situation and would probably welcome the move to publishing the industry average data. The question is are they livid enough to resume the B2B ratio after the problems of the past? In my explanation, I may have oversimplified the reasons for discontinuing the ratio. IIRC, one reason stated at the time was that the SIA was primarily an American organization founded by the likes of AMD, Intel, LSI, etc. and the data was primarily collected from American companies. The rise in importance of Japanese (and later the Korean) chip production was distorting the data. I'm not sure why they couldn't gather that info from foreign companies because they do collect the billing data now and separate it into geographic regions when they publish it. They have just dropped the "bookings" aspect of data collection. My recollection of this aspect of the problem may be faulty. Another aspect that I do remember well was the objection to aggregating the logic market numbers with the memory markets data. The logic producers (primarily Americans) were not happy being lumped with the wilder boom-bust swings of the commodity DRAM producers (Asians). For a while there before '96, the total value of the DRAM sales became equivalent to logic sales simply because DRAM ASP's rose along with unit sales instead of following the more normal 30% annual decline curve. Then the DRAM ASP's crashed hard and pulled down the B2B ratio for the entire industry even though the logic makers were doing fairly well. At one time, AMD published their own internal quarterly B2B ratio and I think some other companies did as well, but then they dropped it. My take is that CEO's want to brag and hype high B2B ratios when they have them, but clam up when they are below one. So they have chosen to forgo the numbers totally rather than have to explain at times why they've dropped below unity. Their failure to provide this date only encourages analysts to invent "rumors". Maybe the CEO's thought that they could manipulate the analysts' opinions through the use of private selective disclosure. Now that that option has been shut down by Regulation FD, perhaps companies will begin to offer some type bookings guidance again. OTOH if the trial lawyers elect a puppet president, the Safe Harbor law will be at risk and the companies may disclose even less in the future. Dave