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: Paul V. who wrote (27840)	1/22/1999 12:41:00 PM
From: Duker	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 70976

It ain't leading edge ... but it sure helps ... A service of Semiconductor Business News, CMP Media Inc. Story posted 11 a.m. EST/8 a.m., PST, 1/22/99 VLSI Technology upgrades Texas fab for 8-inch wafers SAN ANTONIO, Tex.--VLSI Technology Inc. here has begun converting its 6-inch wafer fab to 8-inch processing capability with the qualification of the new production line expected to be completed in the third quarter this year. The 200-mm frontend is slated to be in full production by the first quarter 2000, according to the San Jose-based chip maker. The move to upgrade the San Antonio fab played a major factor in VLSI Technology's decision to pull its planned investment in a new 8-inch wafer-processing plant in Malaysia. VLSI Technology said it was disengaging from its $120 million investment in a $1.2 billion fab planned by Wafer Technology (Malaysia) in Kulim, Malaysia (see Jan. 21 story). With an 8-inch wafer providing nearly twice the silicon area for chips than 6-inch substrates, the conversion of the San Antonio fab will effectively double the plants output without increasing its workforce or cleanroom floor space requirements. --Duker

To: Paul V. who wrote (27840)	1/22/1999 1:07:00 PM
From: marc henschke	Read Replies (5) \| Respond to of 70976

Paul V: One comment on your typically excellent post -- I just don't agree with the the argument that AMAT "should have gone lower into the teens." Nor did I it agree with during those dark days a few months back when it was the popular consensus on a thread awash in a sea of exaggerated pessimism. The reason is a simple one: everyone and their brother knew even then that AMAT at $15 per share would have been an incredible steal. Indeed, it was clear to all that if the opportunity arose to purchase the stock at those levels, you would be looking at something in the neighborhood of a 400% to 500% return over the next year and a half. That's exactly why it didn't happen. Who in their right mind would have been selling off AMAT stock from the $21 level down to the $15 level? No one would have been, and no one did. People who predicted AMAT at $15 per share focused too narrowly on fundamental analysis at the expense of considering investor psychology. The fact is, all the folks who missed the the train during the last up cycle weren't going to let it happen to them again. Accordingly, if anything, they were going to err this time on the side of jumping into the stock too early, thereby fortifying it against a precipitous plunge into the teens. Another way to look at it is that the $15 per share crowd were simply too damn greedy. Just as it might be greedy on the sell side to hope for a $150 price target in the next three months, so, too, was it greedy on the buy side to have expected firesale prices. Very few freebies are handed to us in life. Four months ago, this thread was dominated by aggressive, relentless bears who spent hours a day scouring the internet for catastrophic accounts of semiconductor weakness, and mocking those with the temerity to predict brighter days ahead. But human nature being what it is, many of those persons haven't been heard from around these parts anytime since. So how about it? Are any of those once prolific doomsday posters ready to step up to the plate and say "Yeah, I blew it. I totally missed the train from $21 to $59." Not as an exercise in public humiliation, but rather as opportunity for everyone here to learn from past mistakes. What made you think AMAT would be given away at $15 per share? What about your reasoning proved to be wrong? What have you learned about AMAT and the semi-equips and the market in general as a result? The true value of a thread like this is the lessons we can learn from one another, and use to our advantage the next time around.