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: Return to Sender who wrote (17654)	8/5/2004 4:14:43 PM
From: Donald Wennerstrom	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 95640

Even with all the negativity, some upgrades are still coming. <<Helix Technology initiated with "buy" Thursday, August 05, 2004 9:38:36 AM ET Wells Fargo Securities NEW YORK, August 5 (New Ratings) - Analyst Theodore O’Neill of Wells Fargo Securities initiates coverage of Helix Technology Corporation (HELX.NAS) with a "buy" rating. The target price is set to $20. In a research note published this morning, the analyst mentions that the company’s latest service business is poised to report above par growth in the near-term. The company’s management team is the best in the sector, the analyst says. Helix Technology has the capacity to sustain its impressive cash flow in the long-term, Wells Fargo Securities adds.>>

To: Return to Sender who wrote (17654)	8/5/2004 6:10:45 PM
From: BMcV	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 95640

Well, looking at your charts, it sure looks like some sort of retest, though with oil probing unprecedented heights (forgetting the inflation-adjusted stuff), you have to worry there's not a level lower waiting. Your 450 SOX target now is up 12%, as opposed to the +7% when first raised! As far as AMAT's "cycle time" goes, leaving company-specific effects aside, my question had to do with the semiconductor cycle implications. A great deal of SCE analysis (eg Gottfried's good charts, but also lots of professional stuff) is based on historical analogy, relationships between order and revenues rates, and stock prices. If, in the past, it was necessary to order machines 9 months ahead of time (roughly 300 days), there are going to be a lot more ordering inefficiencies than if you can take delivery in 3 months (AMAT's goal). So the old model that cycle peaks are marked by wild order patterns--"just in case" orders that are then all cancelled--may not apply to the current state of the industry. And it's not just AMAT. Look at the incredible ramps at KLIC or BRKS with little incremental cost or payroll increase (except bonuses). If the entire group is moving to a delivery model that allows them basically to ship on a turns basis (within the quarter), why shouldn't this cycle be more measured and rational than previous ones? Every call I have listened to this quarter has stressed that they intend to remain profitable at all stages of the semiconductor cycle. That may be overly optimistic, but I have no doubt looking at the operating results that they have rationalized their businesses. ASYT is growing revenues 100% and laying off people. BRKS says they can handle downturns better because lots of basic functions (eg CAD/CAM) are now done by contractors. SCE is not heavy equipment, you cannot stockpile ion implanters like backhoes, but if buyers can rely on their capital goods suppliers to provide state-of-the-art machines on a schedule that allows them to match their production demand to equipment needs, using the most up-to-date forecasts, why shouldn't the whole industry show less and less excess buying and excess capacity, which is, after all, the analysts' bugaboo?