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 : JDS Uniphase (JDSU) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: sam who wrote (13582)	10/27/2000 7:23:05 AM
From: Rod E	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 24042

Also, Cramer earlier reported that his hedge fund was selling its optical holdings and going short. I'm positive this article was written in part to salvage their "Wrong!" bet.

To: sam who wrote (13582)	10/27/2000 12:57:50 PM
From: LLCoolG	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 24042

Sam, Cramer is not dead wrong, he is just pulling an Al Gore and changing his mind, literally within an hour's time. Look at his stuff from earlier this week--he went from "Optical is dead due to CapEx slowing" to "I Think a bottom is here" to "Optical Bubble has burst" literally within 90 minutes. He has become a parody, which is too bad because he is a talented writer... Lost in all of this, I remember a year or two back when WCOM bought MCI, bears were saying how the new WCOM network was so old that the company would be buried when the new fiber-based networks went in, and they had to compete with that on the archairc copper-based networks they would have to pay to maintain and upgrade. Well, it looks like that is exactly what has happened to T and WCOM. My new question is, why would Capex spending slowdowns affect optical so heavily, when the big telcos are now hurting because of the SONET issues? I just don't see the logic in such a dramtic slowdown with these types of companies. If what I have been gleaming lately is true, that optical networking has extremely quick payback times, and that installation constraints are what is holding folks like NT back, I would think resource investment into fixing installation bottlenecks would allow these companies to realize the tremendous cost savings and ability to better compete in the market by going with optical systems. But then again, maybe I am too simple for this type of thinking... G

To: sam who wrote (13582)	10/27/2000 2:55:09 PM
From: pat mudge	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 24042

I've been away most of the morning, but I have to admit I'm becoming tired of half-informed if not uninformed articles and commentaries. If anyone would like a copy of RHK's numbers from a powerpoint presentation given at OFC in March, please email me. I've been told the statistics have been upgraded since then, but this will give you a starting point. One quote: RHK expects 50% CAGR in optical networking components between 1999 and 2003. For those who have trouble with percentages, this mean the sector will grow from $1.7 billion to $8.7 billion by 2003. We know from Josef Strauss and Don Scifres that the combined company will capture around $3 billion of that in 2001. Perhaps someone could have the charts blown up and put on a billboard in Times Square, right across from Tom Costello's window. :) Pat