SI
SI
discoversearch

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: Jock Hutchinson who wrote (16684)1/28/1999 5:03:00 PM
From: Tony Viola  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 25814
 
Jock, >>>unless we see a major setback in out stock market--something
that is not out of the question with the uncertainty of cyclicality rearing its ugly
head due to world-wide Y2K problems.<<<

Yes, Y2K could be a major joker, of the kind in the Batman comics (not good). But, why do you use the word cyclicality wrt Y2K? To me, the classic model is that companies (mostly just U.S. ones, unfortunately) scramble, or continue to scramble to get their hardware and software systems compliant, and then, sometime 2H99, they stop buying new systems. They then ride through 1/1/2000, holding their breath, and then things get back to normal. Not right away, but maybe 2Q00. So, to me, this is a glitch, or pause, rather than a cycle.

Having said that, I still have a feeling that the companies and countries late to get started on Y2K compliance, could cause a wave of panic buying late this year, hoping to "fix" it quickly. Good luck. Some will even wait 'til next year. Net effect is that the late folks may smooth out the down glitch expected in hardware sales late this year.

It will be interesting to watch it all play out. And, to make it more interesting, just think that it is an unprecedented phenomenon in the history of computers and all things electronic, and mankind!

Tony



To: Jock Hutchinson who wrote (16684)1/28/1999 7:41:00 PM
From: patrick tang  Respond to of 25814
 
At the risk of somebody calling me cold hearted again (I believe it was Shane last time :-) ):

"flat revenue thus leading to RIF" (reduction in force) is necessary to reduce work-force. Legally if company "lays-off", they are required to call back laid-off workers when they expand again. But not so for RIF.

patrick

PS Learned that at AMD when they had their first lay-off 15 years ago.