David, so according to Soundviews "very reliable source"...wait, here's an excerpt from one of the Reuters pieces (http://dailynews.yahoo.com/headlines/tc/story.html?s=v/nm/19990107/tc/micron_1.html):
SoundView Financial Group, an equity research firm focused on technology stocks, said Thursday in a report obtained by Reuters that, according to a ''very reliable source,'' a major Asian producer of DRAMs had told distributors it was not accepting additional orders for 64-megabyte chips, indicating difficulties in meeting demand.
SoundView confirmed the contents of the report.
''The implications behind this suggest that this supplier is having difficulty in satisfying demand from large OEMs (original equipment manufacturers) and is therefore performing triage on its customer base, choosing to cut back on shipments to distributors,'' the report said.
Why wouldn't Randall name the supplier? Presumably he knows it, right? I mean, his "very reliable source" didn't call him up and say "a major Asian distributor is doing XYZ"?
"on shipments" - this would be shipments of all types of 64Mb chips or just certain types? Or didn't the "very reliable source" say?
Are all Asian players in the same boat as this "a major Asian producer of DRAMs"? Or is perhaps something going on with this particular firm that would cause them to hold off on accepting additional orders on certain 64Mb chips?
And why is Randall using language like "The implications behind this suggest that this supplier is..."
Perhaps because his "source" could be intimately involved in distribution - perhaps even a distributor. I would hope Randall confirmed the assertion of his "source" with other "sources" in the industry, but since he is using the singular, not the plural and since Reuters excerpts no reference to any additional confirmation of this assertion (for example, "additional industry sources confirm..."), I have my doubts.
I don't doubt that his "very reliable source" fed him the information. I do however question it's scope.
Good trading,
Tom |
