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: mike iles who wrote (22797)	10/23/1997 8:55:00 PM
From: davesd	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 53903

CAN ANYONE CONFIRM THIS STORY.... exchange2000.com dave

To: mike iles who wrote (22797)	10/23/1997 9:44:00 PM
From: Skeeter Bug	Respond to of 53903

mike, wait until i roll my gtw profits into nov and dec mu puts :-) i may end up having a a massive return inspight of the bulls sticking thier head in the sand and disqualifying the obvious as being too simple. i can only hope they continue to "reason" like that ;-)

To: mike iles who wrote (22797)	10/23/1997 9:48:00 PM
From: Skeeter Bug	Respond to of 53903

>>BTW I agree about the GTW release, very misleading. I read the text first & thought looks like these guys made a profit, although a small one, before the 'nonrecurring' charge. Then you look at the income statement and they lost $24 million from operations before the charge. Fancy footwork!)<< mike, funny thing is, i KNEW right away that when they didn't mention ops eps that they had a loss and were trying to hide it. immediately. just like when kip da dip said demand remained strong and i immediately realized he was trying to mislead gullible bulls.

To: mike iles who wrote (22797)	10/24/1997 5:15:00 AM
From: Trey McAtee	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 53903

mike-- actually it made it high q3 of 95. granted it was a good run, and they should have done their financing then, but they didnt. you make another statement which proves why WE here at SI tend to have better knowledge than the street. mike burke was calling the analyst estimates for FY96 ($15.00/share) BS in late 95 and early 96. needless to say, MU didnt make anywhere near this much money, though the actual price of the shares got within a dollar of it<G>.some of the bulls may not believe this, so you can go back and confirm. i dont know how far the records go back here on SI, but mike was also posting on prodigy and i think they keep them forever. david, whether you want to believe it or not, we DO typically get better info than analysts. good luck to all, trey