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: Proud_Infidel who wrote (5577)	5/27/1998 9:17:00 PM
From: William Nelson	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10921

Kulicke of K&S expressed the opinion that companies whose revenue depended on the number of final ICs would turn up more sharply than ones dealing with handling the wafers. His theory was companies would move first to get more ICs from one wafer, before using more wafers. Thus a company like (just for example...) K&S that does something to each IC, will turn up sooner and more sharply than AMAT, which does a bunch of stuff to the wafers themselves. I have to admit I think this theory has merit, considering what I keep hearing about ongoing shift to small etching size vs. delays in moving to large wafers. But you have to suspect the source.

To: Proud_Infidel who wrote (5577)	5/27/1998 11:54:00 PM
From: SemiBull	Respond to of 10921

Brian, Just remember the "materiality" standard for AMAT is completely different than for any of thosee other companies your mentioned. So, what CEO Morgan said in the AMAT CC may be a bit of puffing - actually I'm sure it was). KLAC is the dominant player, and AMAT is not going to kick them off that pedistal through their Opal/Orbit acquisition overnight, if ever IMHO. The same applies to SFAM/IPEC and AMAT's Mirra product. I don't doubt they're marketshare is growing, maybe even substantially, but I wouldn't get too caught up in where its coming from (IPEC or SFAM or just natural growth of the sector) now. AMAT has been known to go about their business in a somewhat predatory manner - for example, AMAT bundling their CMP tool with a PVD in a manner reflecting a very inexpensive CMP tool (see MSoft for similar example with respect to the browser wars). And since AMAT isn't obligated to breakdown their EPS for you, you'll never know where their income is coming from. With respect to inspection tools or CMP, neither are currently "material" to AMAT's business under SEC rules, so Morgan can puff all he wants. Well enough rambling for one evening I'm starting to redundantly sound redundant. :~) Just one man's spin....SemiBull