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.

Technology Stocks : Intel Corporation (INTC) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: GVTucker who wrote (150046)	11/28/2001 10:47:27 AM
From: Mary Cluney	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

GVTucker,<<<Eric Chen has been tracing Intel's raw wafer and photoresist demand for a while now, with the logic that if his data is accurate, it can provide a 4 to 6 week lead on Intel's output.>>> How would that square with Andy Bryant's forecast from yesterday? Mary

To: GVTucker who wrote (150046)	11/28/2001 12:04:50 PM
From: Tony Viola	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 186894

GV, re Eric Chen's wafer data conclusions, and not to shoot the messenger, but Andy Bryant used the word "strong" three times yesterday when asked about demand. Tony

To: GVTucker who wrote (150046)	11/28/2001 12:39:55 PM
From: Saturn V	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Ref <Eric Chen has been tracing Intel's raw wafer and photoresist demand for a while now, with the logic that if his data is accurate, it can provide a 4 to 6 week lead on Intel's output. September was unusually strong, which led to strong October sales. Intel's October and November raw wafer and photoresist were weak according to Chen, which would lead to weak Nov and Dec output > Eric may have the right data but can draw grossly incorrect conclusions. Firstly the time delay from a wafer start to a shipping product is longer than 4-6 weeks. So the timing in his model is wrong. Next he is totally ignoring the impact of the conversion to 0.13 micron. As the microprocessor product line is converted to 0.13 micron, you need fewer wafers and other consumables like photoresist. Thus you can have a dramatic decrease in the number of wafers consumed,accompanied by a dramatic increase in units manufactured, if Intel converts overnight to 0.13microns, and Eric's model becomes absolutely meaningless. However Intel ramps up newer technologies instead of an overnight conversion. During a new technology transition period following wafer starts and wafer fab consumables is asinine. If he followed the package piecepart consumption and packaging consumables, he might have better luck.