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.

Politics : Formerly About Applied Materials -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dale Knipschield who wrote (37896)	10/5/2000 1:44:59 PM
From: Proud_Infidel	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 70976

Dale, I am not one prone to believe in conspiracy theories and I am not saying the following is true; it's just something to think about. Current market valuations place the entire SCE sector below that of CSCO alone. These are highly visible technology companies, yet can be moved by far less in dollar terms. Add to that fact that you have a cyclical sector with people scrambling for the exits at the first signs of a slowdown, and you will have people trying to take advantage of that for themselves. Several years ago, the Book to Bill ratio for semiconductors was done away with and replaced with Worldwide Sales number; the BTB was an indication of future growth while the current Sales numbers look only at historical numbers. This only has added to the low visibility of the sector and has given people with high visibility the ability to move markets so to speak. Neither JDSU not CSCO nor any fiber optic name can grow without AMAT; yet we see little evidence of analysts putting out the word on the chips needed by the broadband, wireless, and internet part of the SCE sector, which is by far the fastest growing part. One more thing to add. If analysts are not doing the above scenario, that would be fine. But when you have an entire group of "professionals" who misses a big move such as '99 and has fear at their disposal, would they always refuse to use their trump card and bring the sector back to where they could hop on board? I am not so sure. Just some thoughts, Brian

To: Dale Knipschield who wrote (37896)	10/5/2000 2:00:09 PM
From: Ian@SI	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 70976

Knip, If you keep talking this way, you're going to have the Proctologists on your butt for insulting all the self respecting cysts located near one's rectum. but none would affect the current calls by the "analcysts" (thanks, Ian) to pound the semi-techs down. In terms of "Why?": 1. These are sellside AnalCysts. Their employer makes money if clients buy / sell. They don't really care much about their clients wellbeing as long as the churn is there. Once prices are too low with insufficient sellers, they'll raise their outlook (after they've stuffed their own pockets and those of their favoured institutional buyers) adding to the churn. It's their business. It's what they're good at. Convincing the public to buy high and sell low. 2. Most of the sell side also has the conflict of interest related to their investment banking arm. Another driver of upgrades will be when they smell investment banking business to be won. JMHO, Ian.

To: Dale Knipschield who wrote (37896)	10/5/2000 2:11:52 PM
From: FJB	Respond to of 70976

I've heard a lot of crying and moaning by the analyst community, since Regulation FD came into effect in August. sec.gov Maybe in an effort to teach everyone a lesson, the brokerages are beating up on stocks without respect to fundamentals, so they can later say, "We didn't know what was happening, because we couldn't talk directly to the companies. See, Regulation FD has hurt our ability to do our job and has also hurt individual investors. It has to be changed..." I don't really believe this, but it would not surprise me. Bob