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: Cary Salsberg who wrote (48210)	6/19/2001 8:28:16 PM
From: Cary Salsberg	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 70976

B2B I predicted a BTB of .64 up from .42. I predict that BTB will gradually approach 1.0 as we approach the end of the year. Why are these predictions bearish? I predicted bookings will fall 5% from last month. I predict bookings will fall slowly for the rest of the year. Bookings were down 60% from the peak last month. I would be surprised if the bottom is much below 70-80% off the peak. I predicted that revenue will fall faster than orders, fast enough to raise BTB to .64. Revenues will fall faster than bookings for the rest of the year so BTB will approach 1.0 when revenues reach the low booking level. At these low revenues, there will be losses. TER and ASYT warned of losses for the current quarter. The recovery will not be a V and we do not know how long revenues will stay down, but I believe it will be long enough for new lows. The 12 to 18 months Nortel and Lucent talked about makes me confident that 2001 is toast. Solectron announced 16,000 layoffs yesterday on top of a previous 10,000. A research house lowered 2001 chip revenue growth forecasts from -9% in March to -21% today. Again 2001 is toast. SSB raised the Semi-equip outlook yesterday and referred to the coming BTB as a catalyst for higher prices. Obviously, I believe this to be disingenuous. As LTB&H's will tell you, holding AMAT in the face of my scenario will not cause them to lose sleep. I have over 50% of my assets committed to stock investing in tech stocks (the rest cash) and I am not worried that any I hold will go out of business. I present this information so that readers may make better personal decisions. I believe my analysis is less self-serving than any other you are likely to get either here at SI or from professional sources.

To: Cary Salsberg who wrote (48210)	6/19/2001 8:52:54 PM
From: Sam Citron	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 70976

Cary, While I can't fault your desire to stick with strategies that have served you well in the past, I really do not think that shorting stocks is the radical departure that you seem to imply, which would cause you to have to implement entirely new strategies or tactics. Your Buy Low Sell High discipline already forces you to have a pretty good idea of the value of certain things and to know whether they are under or over valued. I just don't see why there is this assymetry that you can exploit undervaluation, but not overvaluation. I recognize, of course, that to some the idea of shorting may be as heretical as bisexuality, but I thought that you might be a bit more prone to experimentation.<g> I merely thought that shorting would be a simple expansion of your arsenal as it eliminates the dead weight cost of waiting for your stocks to hit the buy range. But I can't disagree with your "gut" logic. Sam