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 : Cymer (CYMI) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: FJB who wrote (20240)	11/19/1998 12:08:00 PM
From: D. K. G.	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 25960

The move to 300mm could have a negative impact on equipment suppliers: Message 6476665 More comments posted by Katherine Derbyshire via the author in the first report, Dr. Robert Castellano. Message 6481817 excerpt of note: And even if the same number of new fabs (20) were built, semiconductor companies would not buy all the tools to stock them anyway -- why purchase 20 steppers at $6 million if you only need to use 10? Fabs would be partially stocked with equipment, which would be purchased on a "need to buy" basis. Either way, only half the equipment would be needed. The Information Network site: theinformationnet.com regards, DKG

To: FJB who wrote (20240)	11/20/1998 12:11:00 PM
From: orkrious	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 25960

Anyone heard from Tom Kurlak lately? He must be hiding. Jay

To: FJB who wrote (20240)	11/21/1998 10:34:00 AM
From: orkrious	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 25960

Bob, I believe the old forecasts were for 2000 lasers needed in a year once 300mm operation gets going full steam. With chip companies being forced to invest their money a little more wisely, it seems like the forecast for the number of fabs that will be built (or upgraded) are coming down, particularly since people are realizing that their is a huge yield improvement at smaller line widths. Can you gave a updated WAG as to the number of lasers needed per year when the industry totally recovers? BTW, my own uneducated, biased guess is even if the number comes down by a third it won't be so detrimental to Cymer. All of the analysts were figuring that they would lose 20-33% market share, and I doubt that they will. Consequently, Cymer's number should end up as good as originally projected. Jay