Trey, amen on the analysts. FWIW, the Journal has a very brief mention of MU in today's special supplement on analysts.
L. Borgman of Josephthal, Lyon & Ross, has a price target of "the $70 range as memory prices stablize", generally because the company is executing its business plan and gaining market share from overseas rivals.
I personally think he's wrong (over the next 3 months), but he could be right. What I find so frustrating in listening to analysts is "the public's" (for me, meaning, non-clients) inability to really hone in on the actual thinking that leads to these opinions (and no, I'm not saying an analyst's research is some kind of "public good" that we have a right to; I'm just sort of stating my own frustration). For example, some very general questions:
When do you see memory prices stabilizing? Is this based on an anticiapted increase in demand? Are you assuming that supply just isn't capable of meeting the demand, and if yes, why? Aren't any market share gains wiped out if some of the overseas players decide to unleash their inventory? And wouldn't that tend to destabilize prices? And which markets are you talking about? Are their primary products positioned where the growth is accelerating or plodding along at a pace under the rate of historical price reductions?
I mean, you'd have to believe that somewhere in a research note these questions (and many far more complex) are answered. Or are they?
If MU moves today, I'd tend to doubt it will be because of L. Borgman's comments. It will be probably because people saw things they did or didn't like in the 10-Q (which I'm not finding). Or maybe it ends up being a non-issue. I just don't know.
Good trading,
Tom
|
