John, that's just too perfect!!! ROTFLMAO
And also streaming tears of laughter onto yesterday's Gruntal report.
The new $70 price target? Very interesting justification in yesterday's 6-24 report:
Our 12-month price target of $70.00 (48.3 times our fiscal 2000 EPS estimate of $1.45) represents significant upside from current levels. We believe that the 48.0 [sic] multiple is justified given that Micron's market share is expected to rise to 23% from 20% over the next nine months, while capturing the number one position as the world's largest supplier of memory.
Okay, fine. She lowered her estimate from $3.00 to 1.45.
What I don't understand is why she expanded the multiple.
This is from the "Mona's Choice" report two days prior 6-22:
Our 12-month price target of $100.00 (33.3 times our fiscal 2000 EPS estimate of $3.00) represents significant upside from current levels, and is possible given the likelihood of a DRAM shortage by 2000, and the ongoing consolidation around the top four global DRAM suppliers. We believe that the 33.3 multiple is justified given that Micron's market share is expected to rise to 23% from 20% over the nxt nince months, while capturing the number one position as the world's largest supplier of memory.
So on Tuesday, they use a multiple of 33.3 times their own FY00 estimate (which happens to be $3.00) to justify $100.
But two days later, they're using multiple of 48.3, a multiple 45% higher than what they were using on Tuesday, on an estimate that has been more than halved to justify $70.
Question for Mona:
Ma'am what happened between the publication of your 6-22 and 6-24 reports that would leave you under the impression that the multiple you use to support your 12-month price target should be INCREASED 45%, not decreased, not maintained, but INCREASED. Now obviously there was an earnings report and conference call, so can you please point to the specific items in each which lead you to the realization that your 33.3 multiple was far too low, that really it should be 48.3?
And as if that wasn't insulting enough, one page one they write the following:
...we are reducing out 12-month price target to $70 from $100 to reflect the redcution in the fiscal 2000 estimate.
Really? TO REFLECT THE REDUCTION in the FY00 estimate?
Hey, Gruntal, see, what pisses me off isn't necessarily that that line is total b.s., that it is a half-truth, but that you have to know fully well it is. That shows a lack of respect where one is not warranted. IMHO, that's a real bad attitude.
If on Thursday you wanted to lower you price target to reflect the change in FY00 estimate, and you were using FY00 X 33.3 on Tuesday to support your previous price target, then really shouldn't the new price target be FY00 x 33.3 or 48.25?
You had to increase your multiple from 33.3 to 48.3 didn't you?
And on the 6-24 report you write [boldface my emphasis]:
The stock is trading at an approximate 36% discount to its long-term growth rate of 18% based on our 2001 EPS estimate of $3.80
Fine. You "introduced" FY01 and FY02 estimates of 3.80 and 5.20 repectively. Congratulations.
But look at what you were writing back on 6-22, only two days prior, regarding the whole MU trading at a discount to long-term growth rate argument [boldface my emphasis]:
The stock is trading at an approximate 13% discount to it long-term growth rate of 18% based on our 2000 EPS estimate
So, on Tuesday, your using your FY00 estimate (bad as it was), but then two days later, suddenly the reference to the FY00 estimate is replaced by a reference to a new FY01 estimate.
What, can't handle the truth?
And by the truth I mean that if you kept your "metholodgy" consistent, using a closing price of 43.93 and the reduced lowered 1.45 FY00 esimtate, that paragraph would have read as follows:
"The stock is trading at an approximate 68.3% premium to its long-term growth rate of 18% based on our FY00 EPS estimate of 1.45."
Do you see how it's a little, shall we say, "disconcerting" to see you hopping up and down on Tuesday about how the stock is trading at a "discount" based on FY00 and then see that when suddenly using that very methodology, the methodolgy you yourself were using only two days prior, that using that results in a ludicrous premium and then see this new FY01 materialize and then see you get on that train...
See, I can't make sense out of it on a rational level.
IMHO, the only level where it does makes sense is, well,
members.aol.com
You shake it, girlfriend <g>
Good trading,
Tom
P.S. John, you know what would be cool. Pairing that with a sound file, like, house/techno music with a voice going "strong buy", "Micron" looping in the background, maybe also have a voice reading parts of the report. I've got to dust off my old Prophet-600 and finally break-down and buy a sampler. I've got a multi-track deck, but I've been wasting my time trying to be Tom Waits when I should be wasting my time trying to be Negativland <g> |
