Kirk, I am just going to repeat a post I made on Don's thread just now about this topic. You can also refer to the earlier post I wrote that went into more detail about the supply and demand characteristics of the sector that I believe make this time different. It is here: Message 31458972 .There are a few more things to add to that post, but on the whole, it at least outlines my contention.
The reason I talk about "proof" in the post below is that Elroy had said in his post that neither one of us offered any proof of our assertions. Which is true enough.
I am just going to say this and that will be that.
Of course there is "no proof" either way. Words can't provide definitive proof for this sort of thing. If I point out that Samsung has said for several quarters now that they are putting shareholder returns (doubling their dividend, increasing their buyback) and increased corporate profits ahead of market share, Elroy will simply reply, "What do you expect them to say?" And further, that they have said that they will expand in part because 20nm and below DRAM requires more fab space and longer production times and in part to meet increased demand, the same reply as above will seem definitive to him and those who think like him.
And of course, we already know what I say in response to his argument.
So this discussion gets nowhere, it is just repetitive silliness, the only way it might be resolved is to see what transpires in the future. Of course, analysts have kept putting the quarter of reckoning back and no doubt will continue to do so until finally, a day will come when, indeed, the cycle turns, losses will be posted, and they will smirk and say, "I told you it was still cyclical."
Never mind that I have said over and over and over again, yes, Gertrude, it is still cyclical. But the cycles are different. However, I am not going to repeat that spiel yet again.
And this will indeed be my last word on this. |
