There was nothing in my earlier post that discussed 1996 earnings, and the ASP and cost numbers for 1999 and 2000 looked fairly defensible, based on my experience in the semiconductor business. Pulling numbers out that an analyst may have come out with 3 years ago isn't particularly directly relevant to the conversation at hand, is it?
>as for analysis, that is a nice view of demand side analysis that had had mu making $17 a share in 1996. instead of earning $17 a share, it traded at $17 a share.
With regard to your other comment (below), Skeeter, yes, in this business, one of the ways that a company is able to decrease costs is by increasing the number of units manufactured. Does this in turn allow/encourage prices to drop? Yes, but again, it's also a factor of demand. DRAM demand is demonstrably going through the roof (and it's not just demand based on PC's), so things are looking good on that front.
Was there anything in particular you disagreed about with regard to the pricing estimates (expected to drop just a bit through the end of the year) or the cost estimates (expected to go down 15 to 18% per quarter on the fully loaded costs)?
Regards,
>remember this (or learn it): cost reductions require huge output increases and that, in turn, affects pricing negatively. |
