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 (5238)	5/2/1998 12:25:00 AM
From: shane forbes	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 10921

Ian: (applies only to weaker companies of course) the above phrase followed the phrase you quoted from my post: poof there goes the R&D budget, hence poof there goes their long term viability In other words I already qualified the above in my previous post. ---- Point is that this is Darwinian survival of the fittest and the strongest balance sheets and the cleverest R&D will pull the best companies through the cycle. But I do also realize that a prolonged slump will cause the weaker companies to be put in a very non-competitive position when (if?) they come out of the cycle. ---- Don't know anything about who or what are the famous 8. mmm... flash back - was it that group with AMAT, SVGI, NVLS, UTEK, & 4 others that I can't remember (KLAC? included maybe KLIC?) ---- No I am not really a market timer - certainly not with growth stocks or value stocks that are not cyclical. However when it comes to cyclical industries one has to be careful. The profits gained in an upswing can all be lost (and then some) in a downswing. It's akin to the companies "splurging" during the up-cycle and then "battening down the hatches" and reining in costs and spending during the down part of the cycle. The companies do not behave the same during the stages of the business cycle and likewise neither should investors behave the same throughout the various stages of the stock investment cycle. Doing so would be foolhardy (unless one has an extremely long time-horizon I guess - say over 4+ cycles or so - maybe 15+ years - then the down cycle pain may eventually get washed out - assuming the company is still around after 15+ years!) --- On actually putting money into the group, I don't nec. aim to put 100% in at the point I perceive as the bottom (I WISH I was this prescient but I am not), and I certainly don't mind averaging in near the bottom but I do need to see some indication that the industry business cycle is not getting progressively poorer and more so that the stocks are not being artificially propped up on a whim and a prayer. --- (suprisingly good news: DRAM crunch this q?) --- Shane.