SI
SI
discoversearch

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: A. A. LaFountain III who wrote (47526)8/6/1999 11:43:00 AM
From: DJBEINO  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 53903
 
European PC shipments up 20 percent
By Bloomberg News
Special to CNET NEWS.COM
August 6, 1999, 7:45 a.m. PT
Personal computer shipments rose 20 percent in Western Europe during the second quarter, a pace seen continuing for the rest of the year, due to lower prices, higher Internet use and more purchases ahead of the year 2000 date change, said Dataquest.

The pace of shipments by Compaq lagged the market, rising only 16 percent for a 1 percent drop in its market share to 16.3 percent. For the first time in more than two years, Dell eclipsed Compaq in the U.K. Market researcher Context also showed Dell surging ahead, shipping 212,026 units versus 180,746 units by Compaq in the U.K.

About 6.35 million units were shipped in Europe, with the average PC price shrinking to $1,499 from $1,690. As lower prices cut into margins, PC makers such as Dell began pairing computers with free Internet access to boost sales. Others targeted notebook computers, which afford higher margins.

"The Internet is the biggest driver for growth among consumers,'' said Philip Williams, a PC analyst at Dataquest, a unit of the Gartner Group. "'We don't see any change in this rate of growth for this year."

The money value of shipments grew 6.5 percent compared with an increase of 3.8 percent in the same quarter last year.

"Higher-priced notebook computers accounted for the higher value of the shipments," said Williams.

Dell took the second spot with a 9.6 percent market share. IBM followed in the third place with 8.8 percent share of the market.

Hewlett-Packard and Siemens followed in fourth and fifth place. Hewlett-Packard grew fastest at 49 percent, capturing 7 percent of the market. The report did not take into account the recent venture joining the computer units of Siemens and Fujitsu.

Among the major markets, Sweden, which had seen record sales last year on employee purchase plans, saw shipments fall in the second quarter.

Copyright 1999, Bloomberg L.P. All Rights Reserved.

news.com



To: A. A. LaFountain III who wrote (47526)8/8/1999 9:00:00 PM
From: Fabeyes  Respond to of 53903
 
Tad-- How do you feel about what MU will post?

SB



To: A. A. LaFountain III who wrote (47526)8/12/1999 1:39:00 AM
From: daniel becker  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 53903
 
Tad, I've been reading this thread and others like it for 2+ years, for the same reason I ascertain that you have: to run into someone who might have some interesting ideas and knowledge worth sharing. I haven't written many responses but your recent posting triggered a question: Given our job success necessitates both cynicism and optimism, I share you worry regarding semi inventory accumulation as a driver of higher than normal order growth. Help me with this though, if one tracks a large group of system companies, semi vendors, contract manufacturers, and distributors,(about 50 tickers) examines the last 5 years of quarterly balance sheets up to 2Q 1999, and from the 10-Q's tracks the raw material inventory accounts, one would think if inventory was building rapidly , we'd see it in the overall days inventory #'s or the raw material #'s, just like last cycle(94-95). It appears to me that your worry is valid, especially in areas like flash memory, but in general is premature. Please tell me where I'm wrong with the following theory: Over the past several years, semi supply has been abundant, so no one had the incentive to have high levels of inventory and had the incentive to "destock" and reduce overall inventory levels to bare bones minimum...then against all odds, we see the combination of a quick reversal in Asia, a continued strong US, a stabilization in Latin America and the early signs of an improving Europe. Add to this the "free PC effect" , the Internet and all the bandwidth "stuff", and finally, Y2K stimulation..etc and you have probably scared some OEM's into building more inventory. The problem is, they can't do it fast enough as the cyclical economic conditions and the secular tech consumption trends around the world keep accelerating. So the customers try to "restock" but they can't really change their overall raw material positions yet.(Because restocking has not occurred in the balance sheets yet) So as you go into the seasonally strong tech production period, OEM's will still be trying to restock which means more quarters of unusually strong results(no summer slowdown)..after they restock, then the double ordering takes place as capacity scares gain attention. The double ordering goes on for a few quarters and then something negative happens like it always does, and destabilizes the cycle ...Maybe I'm naive but it seems to me this process is still on-going and early in its life cycle. CSCO in its recent ccall had a 15% Q/Q rise in raw materials inventory even as total inventories rose 3% q/q. I had a talk today with your cap equipment analyst Theodore and he hadn't really thought about this process yet. He wasn't quite "close enough to the semi co's" to verify or dismiss the argument. My point and my question is if this process is ongoing, by being too negative too early, one leaves a lot of money on the table even if the valuations are high by historical standards....Any thoughts??

Thanks



To: A. A. LaFountain III who wrote (47526)8/14/1999 2:09:00 PM
From: Thomas G. Busillo  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 53903
 
Tad, I'm trying to work out some stuff on the JV's and I've run into a problem.

If the cost of products purchased from the JV's was stated as $149.6
mil on their Q299 10-Q for the first 6 months of their FY and the
Q399 10-Q states that their costs for products in Q3 was $106.1 mil.
it would seem that the cummulative cost for the first 9 months of
FY99 would be $255.7 (6 month costs + MRQ costs).

However, it isn't. They have it down as $221.3.

I'm wondering if they ever explained why there appears to be a $34.4
mil. difference between what's stated in the most recent 10-Q and
what logic would seem to suggest.

When they call them "aggregated net costs", I'm taking that to mean
simply TECH + KMT.

And by "net costs", I'm interpreting that as the gross costs of units
purchased minus whatever services, equipment, process fees, etc.
they get...

Actually, wait a second...in the process of writing this, I answered
my own question. So, I guess this now becomes an "observation".
Perhaps a useless one (unless one of your idiosyncracies in life is
a real hatred of situations where persons/institutions can use the
truth to evade THE TRUTH, in which case, it's still useless, but at
least you get some minor self-satisfaction <g>).

The company stated the JV costs as gross costs on their Q1 and Q2
10-Q's, but suddenly for some reason decided that when stating the
cummulative cost total over the last 9 months, they would state it
as "net costs".

My question would be why?

For example:

Q199 Q299 Q399
product purchases in quarter 46.1 10-Q 103.5 10-Q 106.1 10-Q
cumm total 46.1 my calc 149.6 10-Q 221.3 10-Q

prior cumm + MRQ 149.6 my calc 255.7 my calc
diff 0 my calc -34.4 my calc

assembly/test services 12.9 10-Q 21.5 10-Q 0
cumm total 34.4 10-Q

"net costs" 33.2 my calc 82 my calc 106.1 10-Q
cumm total 115.2 my calc 221.3 10-Q

% change gross cost to net cost 28.0% 20.8% 0.0%

Converting the prior Q costs to net costs by adjusting for
the "test/assembly" services gives 221.3 cummulative v. 255.7.

Of course, in the process, one notices the magnitude of
their "test/assmebly" offset, which appears to have lowered their
actual "net costs" by 28.0% and 20.8% Q1 and Q2, respectively.

And yet, suddenly what happened last Q? It would seem that that went
to zero. Of course, any reference to test/assembly services is
missing from the last 10-Q - an obvious departure from Q1 and Q2 in
which they were clearly stated.

Okay, maybe this flips from an observation back to a question again.

A) does the above seem right?

B) if it is right, did they mention it or give any explanation for it?

Best regards,

Tom