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.

Politics : Ask Michael Burke -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Kathleen capps who wrote (30793)	8/8/1998 12:32:00 PM
From: Knighty Tin	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 132070

Kathleen, I am also glad they state their assumptions, because that makes it easy to figure out how they went so wrong. 1. The US economy is already not growing, and continued steady growth is one of their assumptions. 2. Y2K is going to be a terror. They list is as a non-event. 3. They agree on the pricing pressures I see for Asics, DSPs, MPCs, etc. These are just about the only overpriced chips left. Without their high prices, growth in dollar terms will be a very rough row to hoe. I am surprised they can have this assumption and still have their conclusions. Maybe they are OJ jurors. <G> 4. PC unit volume growth is declining and has declined every year since 1995. They hold it steady in their assumptions. Ain't gonna happen. 5. A rebound in Asia, which they and I predict, requires chip cos. to expand. That is bad for chip prices. But the main thing is that they simply are not looking at stock prices. The prices of the equipment stocks and many of the chippies already more than discount such a rosey scenario. Anything worse, and it will be worse, cannot support these bloated prices, even if you are looking out to 2001. They sell this report for $295?????? Kathleen, we are in the wrong business. <G> MB