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 : WDC/Sandisk Corporation -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ausdauer who wrote (11771)	6/3/2000 11:26:00 AM
From: Zeev Hed	Respond to of 60323

Aus, Dr. Harari and you are doing a pretty good job of pointing out all the positives. I was asked a question and responded to it in a rational manner, what is your problem, I know not. I certainly did not cast a negative spin on SNDK, since I am quite bullish on the company past the SEG saga. Zeev

To: Ausdauer who wrote (11771)	6/3/2000 12:19:00 PM
From: The Prophet	Respond to of 60323

Aus: You seem to be a nice enough person, but you do not own this thread. Personally, I would appreciate it if you did not jump all over any person who is not as unabashedly bullish as you. Mill once said that you never know if the opinion you are attempting to silence is in fact correct. To succeed, the marketplace of ideas requires that different viewpoints be tolerated in order to create robust discourse. Your comments at times tend to "chill" opposing viewpoints. Prophet

To: Ausdauer who wrote (11771)	6/3/2000 5:01:00 PM
From: Ausdauer	Respond to of 60323

Zeev, Earlier I actually tried to challenge you without being overly zealous. I guess I didn't succeed. In that case I apologize and will ask you straight forward to support the statements in your original post... "...even very rapid growth in end demand can be rapidly absorbed (some of the big one announced quadrupling capacity, if memory serves), meaning that there will be severe margin erosions." There is an old stating that "those who don't learn from their mistakes are damned to repeat them." I hope the same mistakes made in the DRAM market in the mid-90's are avoided in the future in the flash market. My question is whether you are predicting severe margin erosion or whether you are making a general statement using the the DRAM market several years ago as a parallel. Also, if you would like to use DRAM as an example please bring us up to date as to how DRAM is impacted currently using the same argument. Does flash fab expansion compete for space with DRAM fabs expansion? What information exists to suggest this (severe margin erosion) is a problem for SanDisk that will effect earnings for the rest of 2000 or even 2001? BTW, I do believe that overproduction and margin erosion is a serious issue and probably an eventuality, however, to bring this up now given the current inversion of the supply/demand relationship for high density flash memory seems a bit premature. "However, if SNDK royalties grows at only half that rate (a factor of 5 from the current base of about $50 MM/year?), we are looking at royalties revenues of $250 MM, which after taxes should be in the neighborhood of $175, or $2.5/share." On what basis are you predicting royalties to grow at 5 times the current base? I find this to be an extremely bullish estimate. I also know of no way to predict royalty growth this far in advance given the agreements are confidential and given guidance for 2000 is in the range of $50 million. "To that you'll have to add whatever profits (or losses) their actual direct sales will add. Remember that the DRAM industry, in 1998 lost about $5 billions because of excess capacity... I take exception to that comment only as Q1 of 2000 was our first profitable quarter on an operational basis and gross margins are expected to improve. To suggest we are entering a period of severe overproduction and multibillion dollar losses for the industry is unsubstantiated. What time frame are we speaking here? Zeev, if you feel challenged or uncomfortable because of either of my last two posts it is because I am asking for details. I also posed several other questions to you in the prior post because you had commented earlier on these same points. I am sorry if I offended you by stating your post was an "oversimplification". Finally, I don't understand in what way I am driving you off this thread or exerting some type of executive priviledge here. My original intentions were to draw you into a discussion of the very points you mentioned. Aus