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 : LSI Corporation -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: sea_biscuit who wrote (15557)	10/8/1998 8:48:00 PM
From: patrick tang	Respond to of 25814

Here comes the 0.18um graphic cards nikkeibp.asiabiztech.com I tried out one G200 card last month and from that and all the info I can get on the net, I guessed that the newer cards really need 0.18um for both reasonable power dissipation, as in no fan required, and for performance. Not even 0.25um is ready for prime time. The article mentioned production by Q2 '99. That's in a hurry. By the time we get there, the semi upturn will be there too. How refreshing it was to get a voice from a non-American view on things from the last post. patrick

To: sea_biscuit who wrote (15557)	10/9/1998 1:47:00 AM
From: Jock Hutchinson	Respond to of 25814

Addi certainly made his initial purchases of LSI near their all-time high, and LSI certainly has been outperformed by many of the other named stocks in the past two years, but over time tech stocks are superior performers. You want a good example? Go back 80 years on the Dow, and tell me how the greatest tech stock ever, AT&T has done relative to the market. Now that's a long term time frame!

To: sea_biscuit who wrote (15557)	10/9/1998 10:52:00 AM
From: Jock Hutchinson	Respond to of 25814

But that's the point. I do think that you need to pick between MO and INTC, at least as far as strongly weighting your portfolio is concerned. Take a look at what INTC has done in comparison to other stocks that one might have in a diversified portfolio. I have not a clue as to how a company like Disney can command a higher multiple, except for the fact that it is held by a lot of young middle class families who associate their yearly vacations with their assets and from there Disney. Or how about Jack Walsh's glorified hedge fund that sells at twice the PE ratios of other banks? (Unless we assume that GE Capital is selling at a PE similar to banks, and that the manufacturing arm of GE is selling at a PE of 60, which is a hell of a lot of trump to be paying for lightbulbs etc. with a growth rate of ten percent.) techstocks.com techstocks.com A couple of final thoughts. Let's take a look at a company that spun off its technology sector and remained in the more "stable and secure" elements of its business: techstocks.com That company of course is T, which was for decades America's preeminent technology giant. (We all remember something called UNIX. Intel sure does.) And for decades, T's technology fueled the other more stable areas of growth, which led it to become a "widows and orphans" stock. Indeed, for decades, T was THE technology stock for the US. Moreover, some of those stable investments that you and others tout were cutting edge technology for decades not just years. The EKs Fs and GMs were the INTCs of their day, and that is precisely why one must overweight in today's technology--because the great growth stocks of yesterday were yesterday's cutting edge technology stocks. Should one's technology holdings be superior stocks? You bet. For every GM, there was a Studebaker. For every EK, there was a Polaroid. But the trick is not so much to be diversified across a broad sector of industries as to be diversified within the leading edge industry, and that industry for the foreseeable future and clearly the "seeable" past is that technology that furthers productivity in society. Now back to trading this whore named Yahoo.