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: Skeeter Bug who wrote (41100)	12/28/1998 5:13:00 AM
From: eabDad	Respond to of 132070

Skeeter: My bottom line on NVLS... If you want to buy puts, buy middle of next month and set the purchase to give you the return you want with a $35-40 target by Sept. My whole point to the analysis was not to defend NVLS or anyone else, not even to recommend shorts, but to put the whole industry in a proper perspective relative to itself. Go back to the 1990-1992 time period and just look at the normal volatility on a percentage basis for this sector. A 2x move is nothing in this sector, and it has simply moved from undervalued to "fairly" valued - whatever the hell that means <g>. Personally, I will not buy puts on AMAT nor NVLS. I'll consider for ASMLF, ETEC, and maybe KLAC. Z

To: Skeeter Bug who wrote (41100)	12/28/1998 6:05:00 AM
From: eabDad	Respond to of 132070

Skeeter: Yes, equipment can be directly transferred from one generation to the next. In fact, that average is about 75-80% can be used. Intel's move to 0.25 micron it was 80% can be used, and at 0.18 it was recently mentioned in an analyst meeting 70%. This is why we need a capacity driven event to launch a sustainable movement in sales. The technology buying bubble of 1997 was way off the charts, if you remember, and came crashing. Also, keep in mind NVLS has made acquisitions and/or gained share since 1996, as has KLAC and AMAT and ASMLF. Part of the fundamentals in the sales ratio I referred to earlier posts. WRT copper and Intel. Contrary to popular belief, Intel is NOT a process technology leader (watch out for flame mail from Engel<g>). Intel was NEVER going to implment copper before 0.10 micron. Their strategy for speeding up the chip was to split it up and place the P-II chip in a "module" (glorified word for PC board). Intel has not "delayed" anything - in was never in their strategy. Your thought on single chip solution ICs - now that is the driver for copper. Intel is not a single chip player at the leading edge. Z