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 : Formerly About Applied Materials -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Katherine Derbyshire who wrote (23244)	8/24/1998 5:06:00 PM
From: Paul V.	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 70976

Katherine and Big Bucks, I personally appreciate the critical analysis that you as very knowledgeable individuals contribute to the AMAT site. Through our collective knowledge bases we can invest far more wisely. Thanks for you feedback. Paul V.

To: Katherine Derbyshire who wrote (23244)	8/24/1998 10:31:00 PM
From: Big Bucks	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 70976

Katherine, "Wait a minute. You can't have it both ways. If a 200mm fab will be competing with 300mm in 2 years, then someone's got to start building 300 mm pretty soon. And if 300mm won't come online until 2002, then (barring a collapse) there's got to be some additional 200mm capacity built between now and then. As far as current construction projects go, Intel plans capital spending of $4.5 billion in fiscal 1998. I'd say they've got at least one fab in the works in addition to the one in Ireland that opened already. intel.com There are also a number of projects still going on in Asia, particularly Taiwan and mainland China (joint ventures). Can you give me a listing of any new announced fabs that weren't planned/announced prior to 1998. I have not heard of one newly announced fab expansion so far this year, but I have read/heard about numerous fab delays and fab closures due to the overcapacity issues that are still prevalent and will be into 2000. All of the delayed fabs that were previously announced were suppose to be 300mm, and it seems the reasoning given for the delays was due to current production overcapacity and an incomplete 300mm equipment set that is unproven. As for INTELs' capital equipment expenditures for '98 I haven't heard of any huge single orders from one specific vendor, which leads me to believe it is being used to selectively upgrade outdated fabs/equipment to 0.25uM capability and possibly for R&D evaluation purchases of newer technologies and 300mm equipment. If you information to the contrary please elaborate. Regards, BB