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 : Semi-Equips - Buy when BLOOD is running in the streets! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ian@SI who wrote (5236)	5/1/1998 8:51:00 PM
From: shane forbes	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 10921

Ian: --- RE: I can't think of any examples of chipmakers regaining pricing power for any chip based product For my portfolio's sake I know of one very important one. --- RE: Earnings come directly from Sales not bookings. But first Sales have to come from bookings. [This is not a high turns business (though I will grant you, in the current environment, if bookings continue to shrink as they have been, likely to see some sizeable orders being filled with turns business.)] --- Good point w/ 2. But sales do not have to dive as fast as bookings to crush the profitability of these companies. They aren't doing those layoffs and selling non-essential assets etc because they think life will be hunky-dorey in the next few quarters! But the longer they have to go without profits, poof there goes the R&D budget, hence poof there goes their long term viability (applies only to weaker companies of course) and hence hence poof here emerge the big boys in a very good position after all of this is said and done. --- Shane.

To: Ian@SI who wrote (5236)	5/2/1998 8:38:00 AM
From: Mason Barge	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10921

<<During the downturn, Sales don't fall as much as bookings. >> Maybe, but earnings fall harder than bookings. Don't you remember a year or so ago? If I remember correctly, AMAT's earnings fell from about .50 per quarter to a little over 0. Ian, I know you are bullish on the sector, but this is just silly. The BTB is presently predicting a 20% decline in one month's future revenues (which may or may not be spread out over time depending on how fast the recovery is). Just about everyone in the sector is taking steps to cut production in order to save money against future sales declines, even to the point of laying off employees. I feel sure the sector will recover at some point, but it jurst isn't going to be as soon as we'd hoped. Saying that earnings have been growing is a non-factor. Early 1997 was a low-point; the earnings now coming out reflect the growth in orders (and the increase in stock prices) at that time. Revenue increases were priced into share values a long time ago. The point is, earnings are not going to grow as much as hoped in late 1998 and early 1999. Companies are buying from old budgets. Pushouts are bad, but not as bad as the lack of future orders, especially given the long time-frame from order to realized income for much of the front-end equipment. If earnings are solid, but orders are slow, and current orders reflect revenues a year from now, which one is the more accurate predictor of future stock price? A BTB of .80 is terrible news. On an annualized basis, anything less than 1.05 means that the company affected cannot even be called a "growth stock". We will, in effect, need to see a one month BTB of 1.30 at some point just to keep the industry growing at the same rate as the general economy. The trick here is to be long when the BTB climbs. The market is not only trying to look way beyond current revenues, but beyond the current BTB. For someone like Cymer or ASM, this means that current stock price attempts to predict revenues/earnings two years from now. Revenue growth with poor bookings just isn't fooling a lot of people.