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 Applied Materials -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Teri Skogerboe who wrote (17838)	3/18/1998 11:07:00 AM
From: Fred Levine	Respond to of 70976

Teri, what you wrote was true and obvious, but only part of the story. Just as obvious is that the price of a stock is influenced by expectations, and the .92 B:B exceeded expectations. In addition, capacity of semi's have increased and therefore sales may have increase, and finally, we don't know yet what AMAT's B:B was. I suspect they beat the industry standard. So far, with all the bad news out, AMAT has held up surprisingly well. I hope no one is caught short when good news, (the B:B) begins. good investing -- fred

To: Teri Skogerboe who wrote (17838)	3/18/1998 11:26:00 AM
From: Steve Rolfe	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 70976

Teri, I never said .92 was a positive number in and of itself, only that it was positive compared with the expected.86-.88. Contracting orders still - yes, but not as bad as expected. Everyone knows that sooner or later this will turn up. My point was that the fact that the BTB was higher than expected might indicate that the decline or downtrend of BTB may end quicker than expected. I'm sure you have taken a test where you figure out what the the next number will be in a sequence. Which sequence would you expect a higher number in. A) .99 .93 .92 (differences of .06, .01) or B) .99 .93 .86 (differences of .06, .07) I think it is valid to say you would expect a smaller next number in sequence B than in sequence A. That is all I was saying... Also, If you look at GM's chart of BTB, we have been in a downtrend for 11 months(July was the only blip up). In 96 the downtrend lasted 7 months with a sharp turnaround albeit the decline was sharper than we are currently experiening. How long do you think BTB can decline and stay under 1? In 96 it stayed under 1 for 7 months. We have been right at 1 or below for 5 months now. I think GM's chart shows clearly that the avg BTB in this decade is over 1. If this is not THE silliest "logic" you have heard lately, may I ask what is? I was shooting for silliest, not just close to silliest <g>...

To: Teri Skogerboe who wrote (17838)	3/18/1998 11:41:00 AM
From: Paul V.	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 70976

Gottfried, Teri, and threaders, Hold down the SI Fort for me until Sunday evening. I will be driving to Chicago to visit relatives. Hopefully, I will run into a relative who is connected to the internet. Then, I can get back online and get updated. Guess I am going to have to buy a Powerbook computer. They are getting alot cheaper. I found out yesterday that you can hook the powerbook up to your cellular phone while driving. My wife will sure love me working while traveling. <g> Just heard on CNBC that the equipment makers came in at 0.92 rather than the expected 0.86. Bull % below: SECTOR Percent 3/17/98 bpeuti 89.4 bpbank 80.5 bpsavi 80.3 bpinsu 77.92 bpguti 76.7 bpreta 73.1 bpwall 72.7 bpreal 72.4 bpaero 71.9 bpmedi 71.2 bphous 70.8 bpnyse 70.6 10week 69.38 bpfore 68.5 bpsoft 66.8 bptele 66.2 bpbuil 65.9 bpfina 65.6 bptrans 64.9 bpmach 63.9 bpdrug 62.6 bpotc 62.2 bpfood 61.7 bpauto 61.36 bpbusi 59.9 bpchem 58.6 bpcomp 56.6 bptext 56.4 bpmeta 56.4 bpgame 56.4 bpwast 54.3 bprest 54 bpheal 51.9 bpelec 51.5 bpleis 51.3 bpsemi 50.9 bpoil 50.6 bpstee 49.4 bpbiom 45.3 bpoils 41.1 bplati 34.6 bpprec 24.6 bpintl NA Naturally, the above is only my opinion and the data which I have reviewed from the Dorsey Wright site. Reader are reminded the old saving, "caveat emptor (buyer/reader beware)." See you later. Paul

To: Teri Skogerboe who wrote (17838)	3/18/1998 4:00:00 PM
From: Gottfried	Respond to of 70976

Teri, Steve was just reporting what CNBC said. GM <eom>

To: Teri Skogerboe who wrote (17838)	3/18/1998 5:15:00 PM
From: Ian@SI	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 70976

Teri, I definitely wouldn't want to "twist your post". However, you should keep in mind that the current numbers in the Book to Bill are Preliminary. They're called preliminary because all companies haven't yet reported their bookings/billings. Next month, revised numbers will be issued and the month after that final numbers will be issued. For anyone to look at a single inaccurate datapoint and treat it as if it were a god given indicator of the equipment industry is almost as ridiculous as Aki worrying about AMAT because MTSN warned. AMAT spilled more on its anniversary party than MTSN earned during the past couple years. Nevertheless, all of us know, and most of us accept that the sector is in the middle of a major slowdown of unknown duration. Ian.