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: Keith A Walker who wrote (46255)	6/11/1999 8:21:00 AM
From: Keith A Walker	Respond to of 53903

Sorry, I was wrong about Micron posting positive earnings when the stock hit the 90's in '95. However, Malone's thesis holds true.

To: Keith A Walker who wrote (46255)	6/11/1999 9:24:00 AM
From: Sridhar Srinivasan	Respond to of 53903

By the way, if my memory serves me correctly, MU was not reporting positive earnings when the stock hit 90+. I will check on that point. Keith: I beg to disagree. MU was very handily profitable at that time (they earned a 1.51 per share for the quarter ended Nov. 30, 1995). You are right in that current earnings may not matter if potential for significant future upside exists. The market will reward you handsomely for the potential. However, if the potential for significant upside does not exist, then there is little or no likelihood that the stock (and its price) will flourish. The comparison to Malone and TCI may not be valid because of the differing dynamics of the two industry segments. Micron is a commodity supplier, and if they pull a John Malone in DRAM, they will be off the map before they know what hit them. Best Regards, Sridhar

To: Keith A Walker who wrote (46255)	6/11/1999 9:54:00 AM
From: Skeeter Bug	Respond to of 53903

>>MU was not reporting positive earnings when the stock hit 90+. I will check on that point.<< they were minting money back then. poof, it is all gone now ;-) btw, i heard the same arguements just before mu collapsed from $60 to $20 - in a short time frame. as for earning potential - it is hard to get excited about earnings potential when you lose 15+ cents aftwer earning 12 cents. shouldn't you increase earnings to reach potential ;-) and next q will be worse... knuckleheads with money, notwithstanding. ;-)

To: Keith A Walker who wrote (46255)	6/11/1999 10:03:00 AM
From: Thomas G. Busillo	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 53903

Keith, I think they're in a situation where the Q was so bad for the industry overall that everyone's written it off. Which is why it's ridiculous that the experts on the Street have such a Rip van Winkle complex. IMHO, it's embarassing that the consensus was so ridiculously off for as long as it was. Much like the last Q. On the correlation, I'd say it depends on how they got there. The irony possibly waiting to happen is that just as supply is getting itself straightened out, there are demand issues looming for the 2nd half of the year, especially 4Q, which will play into Q100 and Q200. The Kipsters comments about Mb/Pc had some validity to them (the sheer brilliance of the Kipster is his ability to take "some validity" and turn it into "Papal infallibility" in the minds of the people who go to those things wanting to hear gopd thing). High-end boxes are already shipping w/ 128Mb standard for the guys. Other than CPQ, I couldn't find a PIII 550Mhz system that wasn't already there and in the case of CPQ, for the line I was looking at the 450Mhz shipped w/ 128 standard, but the 500/550's were still at 64 - which doesn't make sense. As far as the low-end goes = whose low-end? DELL's "low-end" or EMachines "low-end"? The SIA numbers are interesting. Their November forecast had 1998 @ 12.9. 1998 came in at 14.1 - so whoever's feeding them their numbers was only off by 9.8% on an annual number of which arguably 75-83% was already in the bag. Their current forecast implies 1999 coming in around $17.625 bil. But 25% on 12.9 was only 16.125. So that's an additional $1.5 billion in global revenue that got tacked on. I have a hard time reconciling the type of price declines we've seen, the surge into mid-Jan notwithstanding, with a revenue figure $1.5 billion higher. Good trading, Tom