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: Gottfried who wrote (27013)	12/8/1998 5:55:00 AM
From: Duker	Respond to of 70976

No Gottfried, you should only invest in AMAT and NVLS. The analysts are always correct! Follow them! Sell all but AMAT & NVLS! Put away your darts! Follow the gourd! I am sure benevolent INTC will be more than happy to trust its equipment budget to only those two companies. They have the landscape covered. You need etch? Trust AMAT. LRCX and TEL were just a hassle; qualifications were just a waste of valuable time and space. CMP? Hey AMAT has a beauty. Deposition? Well, just split it this way: CVD to NVLS ... PVD to AMAT ... or vice versa ... it is all interchangeable ... to sputter or not to sputter is not the question. Ion implant? AMAT. Cleaning? AMAT ... or at least they can borrow one from OnTrak. Photolithography? You probably won't need that in a couple of years ... will you? Makes sense to me. To highlight a general disconnect between the stock prices and the current business conditions is a valid angle -- but I think we can all agree (even on this contentious-of-late thread) that stocks discount future earnings and cash flows. On top of that, why talk to the two biggest bears in the business (and Fitzgerald was right AND early at UBS) without some other input; and to use the term "Disaster" in the title? Disaster happened in the early autumn. LRCX at $8 and change ... NVLS in the LOW $20s ... etc ... SmartMoney has always been a crappy periodical in my opinion. If I did not get it for "free" with my WSJ Interactive, I would never have the opportunity to read it. --Duker