SI
SI
discoversearch

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: jtechkid who wrote (19280)5/11/1998 7:52:00 PM
From: jtechkid  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 70976
 
lthe book to bill in 1996 was the world one not the north american. another perspective, in the first quarter of 1996 amat earned 172 million-rmore than what i see that they do in the next couple quarter. james morgan, stated "capital investment remains strong among the various geographic regions, PARTICULAR ASIA-PACIFIC".just to make a point that asia has been the backbone of their growth and this is different than 1996. i think when its over will have earned more money in 1996 then it will this year. just imo



To: jtechkid who wrote (19280)5/11/1998 8:04:00 PM
From: Sampat Saraf  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 70976
 
jtechkid,

AMAT started moving up by June/July 1996 (see chart below)

techstocks.com

Stock price almost always proceeds the actual upturn by about six months in AMAT's case. I guess bottom for this cycle of 25-28 was made in Dec/Jan time frame. Now we are slowly inching upwards. However, bull stampede may only come in after AMAT predicts rosy future.



To: jtechkid who wrote (19280)5/11/1998 9:19:00 PM
From: Math Junkie  Respond to of 70976
 
While it is true that November 27, 1996 was the start of the raging bull market, on November 26th, AMAT was already 42 per cent off its low, which occurred on July 24, 1996 at a split-adjusted $11.25 per share (closing price).



To: jtechkid who wrote (19280)5/11/1998 10:35:00 PM
From: srs  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 70976
 
kid,

in the past the book to bill was calculated differently two years ago then today. Now the b-t-b is derived from a lot more sources. So I do not beleive that you are making a fair comparison in your post.

srs