Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Micron Only Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sean who wrote (46177)	6/8/1999 4:58:00 PM
From: Skeeter Bug	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 53903

sean, don't believe the hype. supply is too great for supply. computer rev growth has stalled. unit growth is slowing. mu's debt is through the roof (why didn't the pimp piece have debt per share? it would have been more than $6!) supply and demand. don't let anyone take your eyes off of that ball.

To: Sean who wrote (46177)	6/8/1999 9:27:00 PM
From: A. A. LaFountain III	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 53903

Re Gruntal update A very quick read of this piece generates the following thoughts: 1) There's a fair amount of fodder in it for SI response on some issues that the thread has been over many times; 2) One glaring factual error: according to Tom Engibous (the CEO, who was in my office earlier today), TI does not collect royalties from Siemens (and it's important to understand that due to their own patent portfolios, the royalties from the Japanese vendors tends to run at lower levels than the latecomers [Samsung, Hyundai/LG, the Taiwanese]); and 3) Am I the only one who finds it a little bizarre that major research pieces on MU tend to TOTALLY disregard MUEI? I mean, it was just a few quarters ago that PC revenues actually exceeded memory revenues. And at one point, the MUEI holdings were seen as a major cash "reserve." While there's no denying that memory has the biggest effect on revenue and earnings growth rates, why is such a major piece of the company treated like it doesn't exist? Could it possibly be because it doesn't fit the investment thesis? Hmmm. - Tad LaFountain