ph, IMHO it should read: "Paine Webber ostrich John Lazlo pulled his head out of the sand long enough to cut his numbers..."
If he's looking for -0.14 v. +0.26 for Q499, that's a 0.40 swing.
But if he's now calling for -0.35 v. 0.13 for FY99, that's a 0.48 swing.
So, wouldn't that mean his Q399 estimate had to have been something along the lines of 0.08 above the actual?
Niles pulled the same garbage.
Now calling for -0.33 next quarter and -0.48 for FY99 and 0.20 for FY00. "We would use the latest rally to sell the stock with risk to the low 30's." It's a long-term attractive, but the guy writes a VERY bearish report in which he recommends selling the stock?
I love this line:
"Though we expected to cut estimates sharply following the conference call..."
Uh, Dan, why would that be?
Sir, isn't true that last quarter you jacked up your estimates the day before they reported?
Can you please explain why this time around you "expected to cut estimates sharply" AFTER they reported? Did you think they would report +0.07/share?
Oh, and also Dan, can you clue us all in on when MU will be paying their quarterly dividend?
See, I've noticed that your reports have consistently made the representation that MU has a dividend of "0.20".
I've also notice that what you are representing as the yield has changed as the stock price has changed.
The numbers don't change themselves do they Dan? I mean, you do control your work product don't you?
So please, when can your clients expect to get that dividend payment?
And Mona, well, what can you say? I guess her lowering her price target 30 pts. wasn't "earnings-driven" either, although one might note that sandwiched between the latest two Gruntal "Strong Buy" reiterations was in fact an earnings report and conference call, but let's not jump to any hastey conclusions.
Good trading,
Tom |
