>>The market collectively understands the fundamentals better than the few here.<<
let's see. they didn't at $60. they didn't at $55 (twice). they didn't at $50 (twice). they didn't at $45 (twice). they didn't at $40 (twice). and now it looks like they didn't at $35 (thrice).
but now they do. ok. at some point you will be right. but then again, even a broken clock is right twice a day ;-) even so, you will be right when you say that in the teens. just keep saying it, though. you will be right eventually ;-)
>>such as the one about micron being the low cost producer<<
ok. i believe everyone agrees that mu is a low cost producer. however, the low cost producer is rank speculation fed by the self serving dolts leading mu - you know, the ones that said the koreans may (think about the legal implication of their terminology ;-) be out of inventory during the slowest demand season of the year.
sure, mu is competitive on costs. however, buying a company and valuing it in the stratosphere based upon costs alone is ridiculous. it is one positive in a cut throat industry - that, btw, doesn't mean a whole bunch when you are losing money.
i would rather have $10 billion in resources and lose $350 million a year than lose $280 million and have $1 billion in resources.
there i go, using third grade math again. amazing that it is so hard to comprehend. well, maybe we'll get some graduates this year ;-) |
