Dave, you rule! That's just incredible. I mean since Dan Niles is such a "well-respected" analyst, has an extremely detailed model upon which he bases his forecasts, is constantly on the look-out for "continuous improvement" and therefore checks reported numbers against his own forecasts in a constant, ruthless pursuit of greater predictive accuracy everytime a company reports....
...you'd think he'd have picked up on this when he plugged the numbers they gave into his own model wouldn't you?
Or perhaps some of the assumptions I stated above could be as wrong as he seems to be <g>
I guess that's why these guys sneak the fine print down at the bottom of all their reports. You know, stuff like "we make no representations or guarantees to the accuracy of the above".
Who cares if what you wrote AS FACT later turns out to be an untruth as long as you can get CNBC, Dow Jones, Bloomberg to ram home the "$200 price target" without the slightest bit of the intellectual curiosity or professional responsibility on the part of the reporters?
Hey, come to think of it...I wonder if "influential semiconductor analyst" Tom Kurlak, "First Team II All-Star" did the same? I signed up for the Merrill trial, so, hang on...
OH BABY!!! HE did it too!
Bits of memory grew 10% sequentially...
And what makes it even funnier is that on the first page, bear that he is, he has under investment highlights:
Memory bit growth, revenue less than projected
Hmmm...well, TK, I have some good news for you and some bad news for you...
And even funnier than that is this line on page 2:
More rapid bit growth of 20% sequentially is expected for F'Q2 and Q3 as the TXN fabs ramp up
Mr. Kurlak, I know your an II All-Star and everything, and therefore we all have to stop thinking and kow-tow to you in servile deferrence, but how is it possible for you to make a prediction of 20% sequential bit growth, when the baseline for that calculation would be the bit growth the previous quarter, a number you characterized as "grew 10% sequentially" and yet in MU's recent 10-Q it clearly states it as a "10% decline"?
There's something very interesting going on when both bullish and bearish guys are making the identical observation. Would be interesting to see whether or not anyone else made similar observations in their research.
Good trading,
Tom |
