John, get a load of what Dow Jones is running:
June 15, 1999
Dow Jones Newswires
Micron Tech Sees Market Shr Gains As Asian Firms Merge
MINNEAPOLIS -- Micron Technology Inc. (MU) could gain a larger share of the memory-chip market as South Korea's LG Group and Hyundai Group merge their operations, said Kipp Bedard, vice president of corporate affairs.
Speaking at the US Bancorp Piper Jaffray conference here, Bedard said that inventory has been building over the last six weeks at the Boise, Idaho-based semiconductor maker.
Bedard said that even though 128-megabyte and 256 megabyte DRAM chip consumption will balloon in the next six months, 64-megabyte chips will remain dominant through 2000.
How can you make that the lead?
See the Bloomberg piece.
Problem - excess inventory
Solution - vague reiterations of price incentives to spur mem per box
What is not included - nonsense about market share gains without an understanding of some of the oustanding issues re: MU and market share.
Dow Jones, since you find their market share more important than invemtory overhang, why not go whole hog?
I suggest you do a piece on the very notion of MU's market share. What is it?
What market?
Why is there such a divergence of opinion?
How significant is it?
If an online publication reported several months ago that MU estimates it has near 25%...
...and the SIA is projecting 25% gains on 14.1 bil...
...then MU will book $4.4 bil in DRAM sales alone in CY99?
That will not happen.
You're the news org. talking about market share when you should be talking about inventory. So if it's that important why not dig into why the above numbers simply DO NOT add up.
Or if they do add up, please Mr. Baldwin, confirm them on the conference call.
P1 = By your own estimates you have roughly 25% market share.
P2 = The SIA projects 25% growth on 14.1 bil.
Conclusion = MU will do $4.4 bil in DRAM sales in CY99.
Are you comfortable with a $4.4 bil. estimate?
And if you're not comfortable with them, can you please explain the problem with the premises? The syllogism is very straightforward. Yet the conclusion is a joke. So...
P1: Is it that the "25%" share is not the same "market" as the SIA number?
If it is a sizable market niche within the overall market, is it ethical to propogate internal share estimates without clearly and unambiguosly explaining what specific "market" they represent?
P2: Do you question the SIA number?
What's MU's internal forecast for the market the SIA number represents?
Since the conclusion is so laughable, I do question the premises.
Good trading,
Tom
|
