Technology Stocks | Semi-equips - Buy when BLOOD runs, then find a new sector!


Previous 10 | Next 10 
To: Ian@SI who wrote (101)1/27/1997 8:26:00 AM
From: Sam Citron   of 117
 
Ian,

You have my "ceteris paribus" ;-)

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

To: Sam Citron who wrote (102)1/28/1997 12:12:00 PM
From: Ian@SI   of 117
 
Hi Sam,

As it's been many, many years since grade 9 when I took Latin, I'll have to trust that your comment was polite. ;-)

Saw that OWAV is now trading near the Cash/Share - $2.50. The gambler in me thinks this is similar to a lottery ticket. The odds are decidedly against getting any of my money back; but if I do, ...

Any further thoughts on this one?

Best regards,

Ian.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

To: Ian@SI who wrote (103)1/28/1997 3:53:00 PM
From: Sam Citron   of 117
 
Ian, ***NOT THREAD RELATED***

ceteris paribus = all other things being equal

Re OWAV: Yes it is tempting. Analysts bailed when they missed revenue targets, which is easy to do when a single company accounts for over 40% of sales (HWP). Specs bailed when stock dropped under 5 and it became unmarginable. My guess is that it is going into stronger hands as price approaches cash and treasury bills. Of course a wave of further selling may be expected in about 10 months as tax selling hits. Company will report in Feb and reveal plans for getting back on track. Company needs to dramatically alter its cash burn rate to conserve cash, because at present rate it could require cash by this time next year, and it will certainly not be able to attract cash on attractive terms in equity market. This "save the nest egg IPO money" strategy will require a complete overhaul of the company's rather grandiose spending plans. Web tools market is very dynamic and OWAV may have to dramatically alter its business plan, which is not that surprising considering the nascent state of the market. At $2.5/sh, it's worth the risk that they can pull it off. Of course, I wouldn't bet the farm. I wouldn't want more than 1% of my portfolio in something like this, and that might be a tad generous, considering my proclivity for indexing.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

To: Cary Salsberg who wrote (96)1/31/1997 10:25:00 AM
From: Sam Citron   of 117
 
Cary,

No blood running yet but I thought you might find this of interest:

January 31, 1997

Researchers Create Membrane
To Link Chips to Living Cells

By DEAN TAKAHASHI
Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

Jay Groves wants to make it clear that there are limits to
his laboratory breakthrough. "Our goal," he says
emphatically, "is not to stick a chip in your brain."

His disclaimer says a lot about the implications of a
discovery on the far frontiers of computer science and
chemistry: a way to attach a living cell to a computer chip
via a microscopic membrane.



The journal Science has the full text of the research by
Jay Groves, Steven Boxer and Nick Ulman on its Web
site at
sciencemag.org 



So-called biochips have been a staple of science fiction
for years. William Gibson, author of the 1984 cyberpunk
novel "Neuromancer," envisioned chips that could be
plugged into someone's brain so that they could
instantaneously catch up on their history or literature.

But in real life, living cell membranes are notoriously
slippery, amorphous things that can't be connected to the
surface of a solid silicon chip. So three Stanford
University researchers -- Mr. Groves, a graduate student,
chemistry professor Steven Boxer and
electrical-engineering researcher Nick Ulman -- have
created a synthetic cell membrane to serve as a layer
between chip and cell. Minute electrical fields help the
silicon chip adhere to one side of the membrane, while a
living cell sticks to the other side of the membrane.

"The synthetic membrane fools the living cell into thinking
[it's touching] another living cell," said Dr. Boxer, who
teaches at the university in Palo Alto, Calif. "So the living
cell will go ahead and attach itself."

The researchers, no fans of science fiction, say they can't
yet see the day when a "Six Million Dollar Man" starts
flexing bionic muscles. Indeed, they are far from
perfecting the tools that would allow cells and chips to
"speak" to each other across the synthetic membrane.

But their work does offer some more-realistic
possibilities. For example, doctors looking for leukemia
cells in blood could pour a blood sample over a chip with
a patchwork of membranes and get their answer within
seconds, as the cells in the blood were automatically
sorted and identified. Since millions of cells could fit on
the surface of a thumbnail-size chip, theoretically, millions
of tests could be done simultaneously.

Other independent researchers who have reviewed the
Stanford process speculate that it could allow drug
companies to perform, say, 10,000 blood tests for AIDS
in the time it currently takes to do one, measuring changes
in light or electrical forces. Another idea is to test new
drugs on living cells, with the chip assessing the drug's
effects on the cells.

News of the Stanford research, which will be detailed in
an article appearing in the journal Science Friday, has
excited some researchers who ponder the "man-machine
interface." Wentai Liu, a professor of electrical
engineering at North Carolina State University in Raleigh,
N.C., has helped eye specialists at Johns Hopkins
University create chips with light sensors that can help
blind patients detect shades of light. When inserted in the
eye near the optic nerve, his chips send an electric signal
over the tiny space between nerve and chip. A direct link
between cell and chip could make the communication
more precise.

Dr. Liu considers the cell-membrane research a
significant step forward in the science of bionics, or
putting humans and machines together. "It's an elegant
solution that could prove useful in our work," Dr. Liu
said.

The Stanford team's techniques "certainly offer a more
stable way of attaching chips with hard surfaces to gunky
biological cells," said Eric Drexler, a researcher at Palo
Alto-based Foresight Institute who has long sought ways
to develop tools to manipulate molecules and atoms, a
science called "nanotechnology."

The Stanford research project, which is Mr. Groves'
doctoral thesis, took several years of trial-and-error and
false starts. Mr. Groves is a 26-year-old graduate student
who has to brush aside long brown hair to look into a
microscope. He experimented with samples of lipid
molecules, which are common to all living beings and are
easily pulled out of cells. In his experiments, he
repeatedly scratched deep cuts into samples of the
membrane with tweezers, watching the way it flowed into
structures resembling cell walls.

The researchers then found that a synthetic cell
membrane would attach itself to silicon chip surfaces --
but wouldn't stick to other materials used on chips, such
as aluminum compounds. Thus, by controlling the
patterns of aluminum compounds placed on the surface of
a silicon chip, the researchers could dictate where the
membranes' molecules gathered on the chip, even if the
sections were each a hundred times smaller than a hair's
width.

The scientists envision chips with sensitivity to light or
electrical charges that would analyze the cells attached to
the membranes. For instance, a cell might trigger a
change in electrical charge that a chip could detect; the
chip would then communicate the exact location of the
cell to a computer. Researchers could use such a chip to
perform experiments on individual cells.

Tools like these, says Dr. Drexler, the Foresight Institute
researcher, will ultimately pay off in bionics applications,
like replacing damaged neural connections with chips that
conduct signals directly to the brain. Dr. Boxer, however,
is more circumspect.

"We're not interested in fantasy," he said. "We're
practical and we try to make things work on the physical
level, not the hypothetical."

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

To: Sam Citron who wrote (104)1/31/1997 6:08:00 PM
From: Scott Maxwell   of 117
 
Sam, OWAV was founded by a notorious IPO-crash-burn artist I once met in one of his previous debacles. I did very well with an OWAV short a few months ago. That said, selling at cash it is hard to resist even a company with odious associations, but his companies have a history of wasting all that they have and more, so beware.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

To: Scott Maxwell who wrote (106)1/31/1997 6:51:00 PM
From: Sam Citron   of 117
 
Scott, Many thanks for the warning.

SC

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

To: studdog who wrote ()2/6/1997 12:32:00 AM
From: studdog   of 117
 
Networking Stocks!!!!

Could the "new" sector be upon us? While not particularly cyclical like the semi-equips, the networkers do tend to bounce around and it appears they are beginning a descent. I suspect the descent will be faster and the climb faster than the semi equips but this looks remeniscent of the semi equip decline last year. There are already some fairly good buys out there right now, CS, and COMS come to mind.

CSCO is getting there.

USRX, Ascend, etc mays start to get cheap here in the near future.
Sure bears watching.

Anyone with the kind of insight in this sector such as Cary had with the Semi-equips??

Thanks
Karl

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

To: studdog who wrote (108)2/6/1997 1:26:00 AM
From: studdog   of 117
 
Somebody beat me to it!

suggest you check out the thread at Subject 12396 to discuss the networking companies

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

To: studdog who wrote ()2/9/1997 5:26:00 PM
From: Mark Adams   of 117
 
One industry that caught my attention is the Steel producers. It seems that this sector has the dubious distinction of underperforming the market the most for two years running. Today, I noticed that Al Frank (Prudent Speculator author) recommended Bethleham Steel, which it turns out lost money big time during the last quater of 96. Haven't been able to determine yet if this is a one time charge or what.

Negative factors for the industry include possible increased energy costs, a shift away from an industrial based economy to a knowledge based one, and competition from newer more efficient mills overseas.

I'd like to think there are some value plays here, but looking at the 2 year charts for players in this group scares me off..

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

To: Mark Adams who wrote (110)2/9/1997 6:49:00 PM
From: Patrick Clancy   of 117
 
The steel producers may be interesting for underperformance, but I'm not sure they qualify as a "blood running..." situation. I'm aware of only two periods during the last few years that clearly qualify: (1) emerging markets late-94 through early-95, and semis mid-96. You would have made major $$ buying near lows for both. So, what/when is the next one?

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read
Previous 10 | Next 10 

Copyright © 1995-2013 Knight Sac Media. All rights reserved.