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 (24817)	12/6/1997 3:26:00 PM
From: julian hatfield	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 53903

Mike et al, Why 1/2 sales? Seems that MU has not traded that low historically (at least not since its been one of the more popular trading names on the NYSE). See: www1.wsrn.com Also, your figure of 3x sales right now must refer to a runrate based on last Qtr as opposed to trailing 12 months right? Anyway, how do you explain valuing MU by extrapolating using a washed- out commodity disk drive maker. Granted they are in similar situations vis-a-vis the supply/demand characteristics but wholly different industries no? I guess I'd just feel more comfortable in your statements if you had picked a Semi company to use as a reference point, and one that had a history of trading that low in the bottom of the cycle. To add my two bits to this: I'm grappling with the same topic .. I posted to the AOL message board the question of correct valuation for MU about a week ago and got a lot of different measures from folks. i.e. Price/Book of 1 (= MU ~12), Price/ Sales of 1 (= Mu ~17), Technical Support at 15. From that I gleaned mid-teens should be about right? not very scientific, huh? but then again, I have a business degree. : ) P.S. I agree with Sridhar re. amount of dreamers (both bull and bear) on this thread that want very badly to see things come out their way, bigtime and tomorrow to boot! I was there once, and it only causes grief and anguish for you and those around you. Folks should keep in mind that this game just ain't that easy and that it should be played dispassionately and at a distance if it is to be played a long time. FWIW, the only active contributor to this thread that seems to get this is GRIM .. Later, J

To: mike iles who wrote (24817)	12/6/1997 4:40:00 PM
From: DavidG	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 53903

Mike, >> If you're tired of reading that old bearish drivel on a daily basis, maybe you could enlighten us as to what a company losing money in a commodity business should trade at ....<< What makes you say that MU is losing money. If I am not mistaken, even Skeeter who always has a negative perspective feels the need to be cautious coming into earnings time with a $.11 eps for the quarter. And he knows very well that MUEI will not be reporting any profit. Also I believe Trey is going bullish on MU( unless he was just kidding) ...and...he is looking for a positive $.09. so I guess if you truely believe MU is not making money, maybe a little analysis on where you think they are coming in this quarter than we can look at your sales to price ratio.:-) Also the market sets the price based on future earnings...and they already have a very low quarter factored in already. The estimates are now coming in even lower and the disappointment should not be that great... if at all...so you may find MU rising on Dec 17. Also if they beat the revised numbers, MU might just take off.<g> There are some analysts (other than the TK crap) that are beginning to look at MU fundamentals as improving given the SEA debacle so "wishing and hoping" for the impossible may be costly if you bet wrong. Some of the low target prices I have been hearing lately for MU are a joke and should treated with laughter and not seriousneess. Below book value is just plain silly for a company that didn't even have a negative quarter last year. When it is negative 3 or 4 Q's than I will reconsider.<g> Good Luck Trading DavidG