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 Equipment Analysis -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Kirk © who wrote (10978)	8/14/2003 9:21:53 PM
From: Cary Salsberg	Respond to of 95738

RE: "Cary" I accept misspelling when you refer to me in posts to others and I give you permission to peek at my user name when you respond to my posts.<g> RE: "UTEK" They made money from chips and disk drives and now from bump processing. Clever use of the same 1-1 lithogaphy tool, but I would rather invest in companies that develop new tools. LTP has been in the works for a while. About the time they terminated the development of a mask writing tool that was not accepted at a beta test site, they sold the rights to their LTP IP to AMAT. AMAT has a track record of successfully developing new tools and grabbing 1/2 to almost all the market share. UTEK hasn't brought out a new production tool in over 10 years. I grant you that UTEK has more volatility at the bottom than AMAT. If you are an astute bottom picker, you could do better trading UTEK short term and you apparently have. Long term, I only see wishful thinking for UTEK. The pros live on getting investors to buy wishful thinking. RE: "LRCX" If x represented the total $ invested at the bottom in October 1998. 73% of x was the bottom portfolio value and 61.5% of x was the amount I sold all my LRCX for in 2000. I made more $ in LRCX than in any other. From 1995 to 1998, LRCX lost 1/2 of its book value. I wonder why I bought them in the face of that performance. My best result was dumb luck. I am not exempt from benefitting from luck. I know LRCX management is better (much?), it would be hard not to be and still be in business. I don't think there is anything wrong with holding LRCX stock based on improved management and a wish to diversify SCE holdings. I just can't abide the sniping at AMAT by people who hold LRCX up as a superior investment. LRCX doesn't even dream about the kind of success AMAT has had in the past and will have in the future. I am talking about new machines, new niches, and new markets. In the future, LRCX will grow more or less as rapidly as AMAT's etch group. LRCX will probably not add another nich that gains leading market share. AMAT will gain leading market share in most of the new niches that are developed over the comoing years. They are the only ones who are even trying. RE: "I'd consider myself lucky if I get out near the top with 50%..." I believe that behavior at the top is far more important than behavior at the bottom (past 3 years). I have a model since 2001, but there has been litle useful data for establishing a top. I sold everything in my IRA accounts (75% of total) within a couple of months of the top in 2000. I will hold all I have until I think the price has discounted the top. I might move some or all the SCE money into ALTR, XLNX, LLTC, MXIM, then. If you stop trying to convince people to buy LRCX instead of AMAT, we can concentrate on making money. I expect that you can do better than your 10% sale for every 20% move.