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.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Reginald Middleton who wrote (28556)	2/20/1998 1:22:00 PM
From: Petz	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1572298

RE:<Have you compared the book value of the DEC FAB to its actual market value> IMO, the best way to compare fabs is 1)by square feet of fab space and 2)by newness of equipment contained therein. How old was the DEC fab, how many square feet of Class X space? The older it was built, the more likely it contained out-of-date equipment. You also have to look at whether the ground the fabs are built on is leased or owned, etc. Petz

To: Reginald Middleton who wrote (28556)	2/20/1998 7:29:00 PM
From: Jefferson Prescott Dewhurst	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1572298

Reginald, <<You are assuming that earnings relfelct actual value.>> I haven't assumed anything. Since there are no earnings THE MARKET has assigned the value of the assets at ~$19/sh. <<It gravitates towards the market value of the assets and not the book value.>> This is exactly my point. The "MARKET Value " of the assets is ~$19/sh. It's not $8 or $12/sh as your faulty analysis indicates. <<You are inaccurately casting earnings multiples as a reliable way of valuing the company. It is not.>> Incorrect. I am stating that the RISK INCREASES to the extent that stock prices are based on multiples of earnings estimates vs. a situation where the stock is selling @asset values which are less volatile and more reliably estimated. Dewy