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 : Semi-Equips - Buy when BLOOD is running in the streets! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Robert Douglas who wrote (10083)	1/24/2002 3:57:23 PM
From: Cary Salsberg	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 10921

I definitely would not!

To: Robert Douglas who wrote (10083)	1/25/2002 9:30:48 PM
From: scott_jiminez	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 10921

Robert - it is absolutely logical to consider the likelihood that other stocks might constitute the 'top semi-equips'. Many of the 'classic' 'top semi-equips' have long been perceived to be just that and thus have been give valuations far above their brethren. The fact of the matter is that over the past couple of YEARS, 3 of 4 Cary's so-called 'top semi-equips' have done quite poorly versus many of their peers. For example, I started a SI portfolio of nine equipment stocks on 9/29/00. Here is the 16 month performance of those stocks: KLAC +20.0% KLIC +19.5% LRCX +6.0% ASMI +4.8% NVLS -18.7% TER -24.1% AMKR -31.2% AMAT -33.5% ASML -43.6% Group -11.2% (http://www.siliconinvestor.com/portfolio/detail.gsp?pid=9219891) CYMI was flat during this period...which means it also significantly outperformed 3 of 4 of Cary's 'the top semi-equips'. And these rankings have been as such for many, MANY months. So when you say, 'I'd add CYMI to the list' (as I would KLIC...while subtracting out some of the others) and Cary comes back with the obnoxious and arrogant proclamation, 'I definitely would not!', the obvious behavior is to stick with your own knowledge and perceptions and ignore such pathetic behavior. And when Cary provides similar unsupportable opinions in the future, perhaps we should all ponder the question, 'Would I consider this guy to be a reliable and objective source of information on equipment stocks?'. In view of the combination of his overbearing belligerence and supremely underwhelming results, each of our responses should be: 'I definitely would not!'

To: Robert Douglas who wrote (10083)	1/26/2002 9:39:28 AM
From: Proud_Infidel	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10921

I'd add CYMI to the list. While I agree with Scott 100% regarding Cary's unbridled arrogance, I will have to admit that I have pared back my CYMI holdings over the past year based on the fact that any advancements in cutting edge chipmaking may not need CYMI's expertise, namely lasers for DUV or EUV lithography. While that is still a ways off because EUV should get us down to .03 micron line-widths (or thereabout), (1) the market looks far out and will not reward CYMI with any generous multiples given that their "pipeline" of products has a finite existence and should run out within this decade(at least for critical dimension technology), and (2)leading-edge chipmakers have been exceeding the projections from SEMI and others for critical line-widths for several years now. Number two makes number one all the more likely. In essence, time itself is a threat to CYMI unless the trend of the semiconductor manufacturers changes anytime soon. While I still hold some CYMI shares, they are a fraction of what they once were, and I do not believe I could justify additional purchases regardless of what EPS may be since I view them as hitting a wall so to speak, not too long from now. I may be wrong(and very well may be), but it is only because I am extremely cautious about being on the wrong side of the bet for next-next generation chipmaking. FWIW. Brian