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 : Applied Materials No-Politics Thread (AMAT) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Proud_Infidel who wrote (16780)	12/7/2005 8:51:06 AM
From: robert b furman	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 25522

Hi Brian, The law of big numbers come in to play here also. 15% of a smaller industry and 6.5% of a fast growing but 10-15 year older industry could well support the same level of equipment makers - especially as M&A reduces the players AND these boys have been to the rodeo of "rightsizing" more then once before. In all, a great growth industry opportunity to those who create the next level of required equipment. Market share gains are still the end product of R&D that works and great wealth will go to those. In short a stock pickers dream,but no longer the tide that lifts all boats - for some. Bob

To: Proud_Infidel who wrote (16780)	12/7/2005 11:21:53 AM
From: etchmeister	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 25522

in mid 2003 IC sales were at same level achieved in mid 95 - of course in between up and downs where downs were setting the stage for sharp rebounds; it appears 2003 marks the beginning of the longest expansion - I don't see forecast that is predicting 2006 will be "worse" than 2005. Who is going to suffer from lack of boom and bust & volatility? the analyst community because boom and bust justifies their existence home.comcast.net

To: Proud_Infidel who wrote (16780)	12/7/2005 11:39:59 AM
From: etchmeister	Respond to of 25522

During upturns the growth has always been higher than anyone expected. Do they only look at growth rates during the up cycle? It almost looks that way - looking at Gottfrieds chart you can draw a no growth line from 95 to 2003 and that period is considered "growth" while 2003 marks the begiining for a strong and robust growth without overheating. What a spin - granted the downs provided the buying opportunities; a buy and hold seems make more sense rather "timing" the sharp cycle up and downs. Of course also the research firms will suffer due to the lack or lets say less severe boom and busts - so the final spin is the industry becomes less exciting and boring.