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: FJB who wrote (38598)	10/23/2000 6:26:50 PM
From: Proud_Infidel	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 70976

Bob, Thanks for posting the BTB. Do you know what expectations were for? I am surprised they released it this early since normally its closer to 8 o'clock before we get the numbers. Hopefully this will not be misread. A lower number is not a bad thing; in fact, it's necessary to have a sustained upturn. "With the equivalent of 50 new fabs capable of processing 25,000 200mm wafers per month expected to come online around the world in 2001 and another 35 such fabs slated for 2002, we do not expect this pause in growth to signal the end of the cycle." BK

To: FJB who wrote (38598)	10/23/2000 7:49:31 PM
From: norm chin	Respond to of 70976

SW Cowen expects the B2B to be between 1.14 and 1.20. Thus, the reported 1.16 seems to be decent: "September book-to-bill not likely to surprise. We expect 1.17 +/-0.03, down from 1.24 in August. Don't expect it will have much impact on equip stocks since most companies (except Buy-rated Applied Materials) have already reported results. Most semi equip cos have reported in-line or better, but N-T outlook not consistent. Next few Qs appear solid for front-end cos, but back-end mired in order digestion period, as reported by Buy-rated Teradyne. AMAT $51/TER $28" cnetinvestor.com

To: FJB who wrote (38598)	10/23/2000 8:05:46 PM
From: Fred Levine	Respond to of 70976

Thanks for the post abt the B/B. Previously, I expressed skepticism abt the utility of the B/B because it may not reflect sales growth. The figures you found confirm my suspicions. Note: date xxxxxxx Shipments xxxxx Bookings xxxxx B/B 4/00 xxxxxxxx 1,991 xxxxxxxxx 2715 xxxxxxx 1.36 9/00 xxxxxxxx 2,441 xxxxxxxxx 2834 xxxxxxx 1.16 Therefore, both shipments and bookings actually increased from April to Sept, the B/B makes it appear as if a slowdown occurred. I frankly find the ratio of bookings to billing to be viewed with skepticism. The absolute numbers, IMO, are much more meaningful. (pardon the lack of symmetry, the editor doesn't correspond to the posting) fred

To: FJB who wrote (38598)	10/23/2000 10:43:07 PM
From: Math Junkie	Respond to of 70976

Update of month-to-month bookings comparisons. Prelim %Increase From %Increase From Month Bookings, %Incr From %Incr From Previous Month Previous Year $Millions Prev Month Prev Year Using Final Data Using Final Data January 2177.8 February 2268.0 4.2% 136% 3.3% 124% March 2451.7 8.1% 113% 10.6% 103% April 2731.3 11.4% 168% 6.6% 93% May 2745.6 0.5% 139% 2.3% 83% June 2796.1 1.8% 93% 2.9% 83% July 2930.0 4.8% 108% 1.5% 90% August 3013.3 2.8% 108% 2.9% 91% September 2834.0 -6.0% 91% -5.1% 88% In calculating the %Increase Using Final Data columns, note that final data are not available yet for August and September 2000, so revised data are used for August, 2000 and preliminary data are used for September, 2000. Consequently, the last two rows in those two columns will change as revised and final data become available. I got the historical bookings data, both preliminary and final, from the following URL: dom.semi.org!OpenView This is the first time bookings have fallen month-to-month since September of 1999.