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: davesd who wrote (23653)	11/8/1997 1:33:00 PM
From: Thomas G. Busillo	Respond to of 53903

Dave, just read that over on Techweb. In a way, I'm scratching my head over a competitor or competitors coming out and saying they played "unfairly". I'm missing the point. How were they "unfair"? Look, I'm a bear on MU because I'm a bear on the DRAM industry. But saying that MU trying to beat the competition by outselling them because they may have been better at driving down costs is somehow "unfair" doesn't fly. And if there's something going on that I've missed, I apologize, and would appreciate knowing about it. If by "unfair" these unspecified competitiors mean that MU didn't squeeze the breeze on production and fall in line when some of the big players were trying to bail themselves out of the overcapacty problems they themselves created, well, I don't think that's being "unfair". The industry has a lot of its problems because these are the same guys who went ape s*** on expansion when things were going good because IMHO they never fully understood the answer to the question "what's causing these prices to stop falling all of a sudden and when/how do those drivers lose their effectiveness?" If these guys were looking for some sort of "collusion" out of MU on shutting down lines, well, they didn't get it. So now it's "unfair" for a company to make a strategic decision if they think it's in their best interest and also has the effect of making it tougher for competitors to thrive? Is that what they're arguing? As far as MU's decision not to put on the brakes goes, IMHO, it certainly didn't help prices go up (or more accurately - stop falling <g>) across the industry, but MU's responsibility isn't to the industry, it's to its shareholders. Good trading, Tom