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: ken foxx who wrote (16604)	4/16/1998 8:51:00 PM
From: Curlton Latts	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 25960

Welcome ken foxx - visitor since March 28, 1998!!! CYMI owns this market lock, stock and barrel. No one wants to risk using an unproven laser supplier in these extremely expensive machines. WQhy should they when the most efficient and effective is produced by a company that produced 100% of the production lasers in use. Incidentally, this thread has had a lot of 30 day visitors that questioned the ignorance and knowledge of the posters here. They have all been proven to be wrong in their one shot comments at CYMI. They invariably have taken a stance of ...... I'm long , but........ and then promptly disappeared. I find that interesting. Good Luck To Each And All Curly ~~~~~~^^ [6.6] ......> [_]

To: ken foxx who wrote (16604)	4/16/1998 8:53:00 PM
From: Curlton Latts	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 25960

Welcome ken foxx - "visitor" since March 28, 1998!!! CYMI owns this market lock, stock and barrel. No one wants to risk using an unproven laser supplier in these extremely expensive machines. Why should they when the most efficient and effective is produced by a company that made 100% of the production lasers currently in use. Incidentally, this thread has had a lot of 30 day visitors that questioned the ignorance and knowledge of the posters here. They have all been proven to be wrong in their one shot comments at CYMI. They invariably have taken a stance of ...... I'm long , but........ and then promptly disappeared. The stock meanwhile has continued to move upward lately and the pressure on those who mistakenly shorted has intensified. I find that interesting. Good Luck To Each And All Curly ~~~~~~^^ [6.6] ......> [_]

To: ken foxx who wrote (16604)	4/16/1998 10:15:00 PM
From: Tsaen Wang	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 25960

Ken, to capture the DUV game, bet on both? One is one trick pony, as you so elegantly put it. The other one is a medical laser outfit that also wants to dabble on semi. Seems to me the choice is rather easy, medical laser, go with COHR. Semi? can't go wrong with CYMI.

To: ken foxx who wrote (16604)	4/16/1998 10:52:00 PM
From: Mr. Aloha	Respond to of 25960

Cymer can't focus on anything else but lithography, if their agreement with the Venture Capitalists who first gave CYMER money is still an issue. Why diversify now? Why not take control of the Lithography market and get in soooo tight with the manufactures that they ask themselves WHY WOULD WE ORDER ANOTHER LIGHT SOURCE if both products are comparable, other than small quantities for a backup supply. Now cymer moves to the next level :-) Let L-P blow their horn about (ONE) sale etc... there's plenty of room for everyone. INTEL will be moving to <.25 microns by this year for large scale testing of their newest chips and probably full production at .18 or .13 in 1999. Aloha

To: ken foxx who wrote (16604)	4/16/1998 11:41:00 PM
From: FJB	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 25960

Ken, Read Lambda's press release. If you find it to be extremely positive, then fine. What I read is the company has shipped a laser to a potential customer. Not something to get overly excited about. At least, not if you're Cymer. Some things to ponder about Lambda: What is their production capability? What support infrastructure do they have in place? Why would a semi-manufacturer already using and being serviced by an excimer laser company add a second vendor with dubious support ability and untested production uptime for their equipment? If you are a stepper vendor, why risk buying from a second relatively unproven source in these difficult times? Wouldn't this entail added risk in an already hard period? If you can answer these questions to your satisfaction, then more power to you. There seem to be some very serious hurdles here. Good luck, Bob