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 : Cymer (CYMI) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: ScotMcI who wrote (7874)	11/2/1997 11:18:00 PM
From: Curlton Latts	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 25960

ScotMcI: That would be an S-8 filing. Incidentally, thanks for your efforts transcribing the CC. Good Luck To each and All Curly ~~~~~~^^ [6.6] ....> [_]

To: ScotMcI who wrote (7874)	11/2/1997 11:28:00 PM
From: Toby L. Toth	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 25960

Scott, The 10-Q form should reveal information that will have or may have a significant effect on the company. The report for the quarter ending Sept. 30, 1997 should be available at Edgar tomorrow. Toby

To: ScotMcI who wrote (7874)	11/3/1997 12:54:00 AM
From: GuinnessGuy	Respond to of 25960

Scot, -you wrote- "John - maybe you can answer a question regarding securities law: There's a form (the number escapes me right now) a company has to file with the SEC when significant events occur that might effect a company's future prospects." -Here is a cut from the URL below which should answer your question- "The routine periodic reports required to be filed with the SEC in compliance with the '34 Act are as follows: Form 10-K, which must be filed annually within 90 days of the company's fiscal year end. Form 10-K is designed to update, on a continuing basis, the disclosures in your registration statement. Accordingly, Form 10-K includes the latest audited financial statements and a somewhat condensed version of the information disclosed in Form S-1. Form 10-Q, which must be filed quarterly within 45 days after conclusion of each of the first three quarters. This report contains unaudited quarterly financial statements, management's discussion and analysis, and disclosure of certain specific reportable events. Form 8-K, which must be filed within 15 days of (l) a change in control, (2) the acquisition or disposition of a significant amount of assets not in the ordinary course of business, (3) bankruptcy or receivership, or within 5 days following (4) changes in independent accountants or (5) certain resignations of directors. At the registrant's option, a Form 8-K may be filed for any event deemed important to security holders. It is required that the company meet all of the due dates for these periodic reports. Failure to do so is a violation of the securities regulations and could result in adverse consequences for the company including enforcement action and the loss of the ability to use certain simplified registration forms for subsequent offerings of securities." ice.kpmg.com Regards...Craig

To: ScotMcI who wrote (7874)	11/3/1997 8:03:00 AM
From: John Bloxom	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 25960

<<There's a form (the number escapes me right now) a company has to file with the SEC when significant events occur>> Scott: Public companies are subject to various reporting requirements, but most are retrospective "periodic" reports on results of operations. These are the reports with which we are familiar and which form the basis of most stock reporting guides. The '34 Act generally does not impose obligations relating to the forecasting of future events. For a time it was thought that Rule 10(b)(5) required companies to "warn" of trouble ahead based on an omission = fraud on the market theory, but this theory was never favored by the courts. So, subject to the caveats below, the law currently is that a company has no duty to speak regarding its view of future results. If it does speak, however, the '34 Act requires that it speak fully, fairly and truthfully. Many public companies nevertheless do warn of upcoming poor results. They do so not because of the '34 Act but because forewarnings have the effect of mitigating the downward price movement and also the effect of chilling the enthusiasm of the plaintiff lawyers for bringing suit. Ever notice how infrequently a company pre-announces better than expected results? That's because if something goes wrong and the results come in lower, the plaintiff lawyers will be on 'em like ants on a picnic. The foregoing is subject to the following caveats: (1) that the foregoing is not intended as legal advice on which you or others may rely; and (2) that I left the securities law area several years ago to do commercial real estate deals, so the current law might be a little different from my recollection. As to the fundamentals, however, I am pretty confident that nothing has changed. Regards, John

To: ScotMcI who wrote (7874)	11/3/1997 8:11:00 AM
From: Mason Barge	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 25960

I haven't seen anyone even try to analyze the mid to long-term impact of the KLES-G10K on Cymer. If it doesn't work, fine, but that doesn't seem realistic. The chances are very good that once Komatsu gets this in production, it's going to impact Cymer's margins and market share. This stock's price assumes total market domination now and for 5 years hence. The degree to which this board completely poo-pooh's any possibility of future competition is not investment analysis, it is hero-worship. Has anyone seen any hard evidence of any weakness in Komatsu's product? Any idea of production capabilities and timetable? I'm getting out of Cymer until I get some harder information on competition. The assumptions that it is going to continue to enjoy 90%+ market share at 248nm has turned from a reasoned decision to an hysterical assumption. The hypothesis that it will continue to enjoy total market dominance at 193nm/EUV completely ignores excellent personnel and funding at Lambda Physik and TRW. Cymer is a wonderful outfit, but the longs have become touters rather than analysts. I'm addressing this to you as you are the only person who was even willing to admit the possibility that Goto's remarks might have at least some factual foundation, that Komatsu might be up to something it wasn't immediately informing us about (gee, how could someone have built a working laser and not informed us immediately?), and that Nikon might actually buy some of their lasers at some point.