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.

Strategies & Market Trends : Gorilla and King Portfolio Candidates -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: DownSouth who wrote (1911)	5/12/1999 11:36:00 PM
From: Uncle Frank	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 54805

>> I know that you avoid RMBS because you consider it a chip company Good evening, DownSouth. Sorry you've been working so hard and missing the action. The Casino has been very generous this week. You've melded together a couple of my statements and confused me. For the record, 1. I don't like chip stocks. They are cyclicals which I abhor. Plus the cost of leading edge fabs is astronomical (>$2B), and they are never loaded efficiently. 2. I haven't considered rmbs because they don't control their own destiny. Rdram has not been adopted as a standard, and, in fact, is not even in use to any significant degree. The big memory manufacturers don't want to pay the hefty license and royalty fees and are looking for any alternative to avoid rdram, even if they have to offer their customers reduced performance. Intel is forcing the issue with upcoming chip sets, so it may work out for rmbs investors in the long run, but I won't be one of them. 3. I don't think Q is primarily a chip house because they haven't committed to building a fab. I hope they never do, since capacity is available on the cheap from a number of chip makers who have misjudged the market or their own sales potential, such as IBM. Their success in asics is a direct result of their ipr position. I think I may be less confused now. Frank