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: Math Junkie who wrote (44410)	3/23/2001 12:37:47 PM
From: Katherine Derbyshire	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 70976

Well, is 2001 more like 1996 or 1998? The 1996 drop was a fairly "normal" cycle, brought on by overcapacity due to overly exuberant capex. The 1998 drop was tied to the AFC, which in turn was tied to that very same overexuberant capex. In fact, both the AFC and the 1998 drop were caused at least in part by some companies using borrowed money to keep building through the 1996 drop. The good news is that I don't see anyone playing that kind of game right now. At least not yet. Some analysts I've talked to have actually compared 2000-2001 to 1985, in which huge capex growth was followed by a steep, but short decline. semiconductoronline.com{064B0512-E6FB-11D4-A76F-00D0B7694F32}&Bucket=Top+Headline (The above article was written in January, so the numbers are old. I think the thought process is still worth considering, though.) Katherine