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: Mark Marcellus who wrote (10706)	10/9/2002 5:45:24 PM
From: Ira Player	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10921

I do not believe we are not even close to the "period of long, slow decline" stage with the semiconductor businesses. They allowed what could be done to control the timing rather than what should be done. For years, the "SIA" road map (now "ITRS") had a 3 year cycle for technology nodes. This began compressing in the late 90's, (unofficially at first, as individual companies demanded faster delivery, then officially) to 2 year cycles. In my opinion, this did not allow the companies to profit from their previous investment before moving on the next. Once this race started, all companies had to join it or be left behind. This resulted in product being delivered with capabilities the consumer was not yet interested in using, because the applications had not had time to mature, at prices that were falling because of the aggressive, node pursuing, over-capacity. This slowdown will slowly reverse as applications mature and the semiconductor companies develop some restraint. My guess (and it is purely a guess) is that when the semi's are fully recovered, the industry will be very close to where a unmodified 3 year cycle would have placed it. However, without the profits that would have resulted from staying with that 3 year cycle. Just because something can be done, does not mean it should be done. An oil company COULD increase production, lower prices at the pump and increase market share in the short term and make a lot of money. However, they would deplete their reserves and be out of the oil business in a few years if they did so. They SHOULD pump at a rate that will maximize the return over the life of the asset. The Semiconductor companies forgot this simple rules for a few years as they unrealistically dreamed of getting an overwhelming advantage on their competition. They will be much better from now on....<ggg>. Ira

To: Mark Marcellus who wrote (10706)	10/9/2002 5:48:19 PM
From: Proud_Infidel	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10921

steel was, for a long time, a growth industry riding the cutting edge of technology which supplied one of the building blocks of modern production. Steel NEVER was an industry with the growth we see in semiconductors, doubling in power every 12 months, yet remaing the same in price or even dropping. There are NO parallels for this type of innovation no matter where you look. The analogy is far from perfect, That is the understatement of the year. magic money machine Not once did I mention money. IC's have, and will continue to allow, growth in productivity the likes of which we have not seen before. You can argue with this all you want, but in the end until Moore's Law is eclipsed by physics or a lack of innovation, we will continue to see this growth.