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.

Strategies & Market Trends : Gorilla and King Portfolio Candidates -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: mauser96 who wrote (35651)	11/29/2000 6:29:09 PM
From: tinkershaw	Respond to of 54805

On CREE, I am not real concerned about the interlocking agreements. The only suspicious one is the CC deal, with the CEOs brother, but that was done (1) when CREE had no other commercial products and (2) to subsidize their R&D to be able to produce a commercial product. CREE has been stating for several quarters (not just now as Greenberg implies) that CC would become practically a non-customer going forward. As for how unique this is here is a quick link to a comment from Tayspop: boards.fool.com This relationship issue is bogus, unless of course you think that CREE has the power to coerce money from this partners without arms length agreements. This is also not LHSP who has to restate their books going back over 2 years and who was able to mess the books up with enormous quantities of acquisitions. CREE has made 2 small acquisitions. And CREE, in its business model, has always been paid by others (US Gov't, GE, MVIS, etc.) to do beneficial research for themselves but financed by others. As for CREE cash flow. CREE's operations produce large amounts of cash. Cree's early stage need for plant and equipment purchases spend about 10% more than this. The cash burn is small, and if you believe that CREE can dominate its markets, the ROIC from these investments will be enormous going forward. CREE will become a free cash flow positive manufacturing company. As for the recent RF purchase, I'm still evaluating it. I think much of its value gets down into technical aspects of RF technology delivery, things which are difficult to convey to lay-persons and in a press release. So I may never fully understand why CREE has called this acqisition maybe the most important strategic move they have ever made. I personally do not like RF's gross margins, nor the competitive environment it operates in. CREE's advantage is that its mastery of SiC puts it above this common silicon markets and removes almost all threat of competition. RF has some ingrained competition. But that is all I have to say on this subject. Tinker P.S. Herb's been dissing CREE since CREE was in the 20s. MArket conditions have him back on track because it gives him the impression "he was right all along." Of course any monkey could have picked a tech stock out of a barrel this year, shorted it, and looked like a genius.

To: mauser96 who wrote (35651)	11/29/2000 10:07:20 PM
From: Robert Jacobs	Respond to of 54805

The "nepotism" has more to do with Eric Hunter's fertile mind continuously inventing new ideas to use Sic. CTHR was deliberately done as a separate venture to protect Cree...it was a good (altho poorly executed) attempt to find a new SiC application. The World Theatre investment is also logical....World will give Cree enormous orders for LED's for their billboards...as an investor in World, I call tell you it was oversubscribed...they didn't need Cree's $$$...but the financial position does give me comfort as I know that the 10,000 billboards the plan to role out in the next five years will each use 500 - 700k of Cree's LED's. The math is awesome.