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 : Lam Research (LRCX, NASDAQ): To the Insiders -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: RockyC who wrote (1919)	5/13/1998 10:05:00 AM
From: Ian@SI	Respond to of 5867

Rocky, Thanks for the clarification. (...especially when it confirmed what I thought to be the case. <vbg> ) I also thought that Lam had a polisher-cleaner combination tool being beta tested as of last Quarter. i.e. - permits dry-in, dry-out wafer processing. Further, doesn't Ontrack OEM its tool to AMAT for sale to its customers? ... or does the AMAT CMP customer go to Lam for the product? Thanks, Ian.

To: RockyC who wrote (1919)	5/13/1998 10:28:00 AM
From: Clarksterh	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 5867

Rocky - OK, so name some instances where a semi manufacturer would order a polisher without a cleaner. If, as Lam asserts, the cleaner CMP market is not growing then AMAT can only be growing at 60% Q/Q if: 1) The lead times for the polisher are a lot longer than for Lam's cleaner. Does anyone really know this to be true - it seems doubtful. 2) Manufacturers often order polishers without cleaners. This seems very unlikely on an industry-wide basis, although of course any given manufacturer may buy a polisher from one supplier, but, as far as that supplier is concerned, no cleaner. However, they still need a cleaner - they just bought it from another supplier. Thus, if AMAT grew because the polishers grew, so should have Lam. 3) AMAT is really, really eating someone's lunch. I guess this is possible, but I have never seen that big a bite taken that fast out of the competition in any technical field. (60% Q/Q is huge!) So, all in all, your answers didn't really address the questions. NOI. Clark