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: Proud_Infidel who wrote (50165)	8/3/2001 1:11:09 PM
From: Gottfried	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 70976

Brian, Barrett keeps repeating this, so he must feel strongly about it. Good. G.

To: Proud_Infidel who wrote (50165)	8/3/2001 1:59:32 PM
From: Kirk ©	Respond to of 70976

IF you read the statement and look at the numbers and DO THE MATH... Intel sales WERE Q1 $6.7B Q2 $6.3B Q3 Est $6.2-6.8B Q4 ??? multexinvestor.com IF Q3 is 6.2 and 2H is stronger, then Q4 would have to be $6.8B.... meaning... If Barrett is saying the second half will be stronger, then it sure looks like the bottom is in.... it just might not be a fast recovery that some want until the economy gets back to higher levels of GDP growth. Kirk

To: Proud_Infidel who wrote (50165)	8/3/2001 2:30:14 PM
From: Dr. Mitchell R. White	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 70976

Thanks, Brian. IMHO, Mr. Barrett must be ingesting some of the local herbs. =8-0 I talked last week with friends who work in semiconductors here in Austin (I can't tell you who or the employer, or they'd have to kill me), and their story is dramatically different. Prices for their chips have never been lower, and they are in danger. Period. And no visibility to any upturn, or even flattening of the price & demand curves. So at best we're getting mixed signals, which is par for the course so far this year. Oh well.... M