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 : VOLTAIRE'S PORCH-MODERATED -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: edamo who wrote (34955)	3/29/2001 8:33:49 PM
From: FR1	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 65232

edamo - I listened to Dan Niles just now on CNBC. He is super negative. Especially on telcom (AMCC, PMCS, JDSU, etc). He says Europe/PacBasin is just starting to get hit. He also points out that pricing pressures have not started to hit vendors yet (being forced to sell at lower prices). He says this correction is going to be more like 1985 not like 1995. When asked if rate cuts make a difference he says no. He says there is just way too much inventory. Asked what will make a difference, he says only purchasing will do it. Niles is probably the only analyst that I respect. He is usually very accurate although he has had some big misses (recommending INTC hours before it warned and dropped 35%). What do you think? Personally, I have the feeling that he overlooks a few things: 1) Today is not at all like 1985 because of demand. The internet, which was not big then, has put us on a fast track to replacing electronics with photonics. 2) New products demand: If you are CSCO and you have a OC-xx inventory glut but broadband semis have just put on the market OC-SUPERxx, you have to write off the old stuff and get the new stuff because that is what customers will demand. I get the feeling that Niles is counting up all the chips and assuming they have to be all used up before new stuff will be bought. 3) Rate cuts have always resulted in increased borrowing and spending. I don't understand how Niles feels there is no relationship between low interest and increased spending.