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: DavidG who wrote (24825)	12/6/1997 7:53:00 PM
From: DavidG	Respond to of 53903

Mike, Correction to last posting: << Even if we used AICE, or Smiths and last quarters production we are looking at $350-370m this Q.(asp of 5.00 to 5.25 for mix of DRAM and SDRAM >> 5.00 to 5.25 should be 4.00 to 4.25 << So instead of the $300 sales vs $390m costs I would be looking closer to $525m sales vs $340m at this time.>> $525M should be $425M oops! They were my numbers for this past quarter not for current (which we were talking about. DavidG

To: DavidG who wrote (24825)	12/6/1997 11:08:00 PM
From: TREND1	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 53903

DavidG You wrote <<Forth, The ratio of DRAM probably changed significantly from last quarter and The SDRAM has higher margins and asp. And I would guess they are conservatively at 50% DRAM right now.>> DavidG EDO and SDRAM "must" have different yield rates. EPS is a guessing game ! Larry Dudash

To: DavidG who wrote (24825)	12/7/1997 12:43:00 PM
From: mike iles	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 53903

David, You're making this way more complicated than it is ... a point of clarification ... for me 'last' quarter is the Nov. quarter and 'this' quarter is, well .. this quarter. Let's call them Q1 and Q2 so we know if we're talking about the same thing or not. Now we have revenue (unit production x price) and costs and we know quite a bit more about these numbers than you think. Onward ... 1) costs ... contrary to what you think MU does not reduce its absolute dollar costs over time (what an unbeatable business model if they could pull off that trick!). What it does reduce is its costs per unit production ... and they do an excellent job of that due to process technology skills. If you actually go and dig out the numbers, their costs (all operating costs, i.e. cost of goods, SGA, R&D) in the last 4 quarters have been $343M, $366M, $356M and $372M in the August quarter ... I'm not making these up .. if you do the work you can dig 'em out yourself. The trend is slowly up and I'm estimating $380 for Q1. Of course, unit production in this period has increased tremendously (about 100% from Q1/fiscal 97 to Q4/97) with the result that costs per unit have declined sharply. It's interesting that their absolute costs are relatively fixed (what you would expect with the huge investment in plant and equipment ... raw silicon doesn't cost much). It means there's tremendous leverage on earnings from changes in revenue. 2) revenue ... OK prices ... dateline .... Nov. 26/97 ... Boise, Idaho ... The Salt Lake Tribune .... reporter Lisa Carricaburu chats to Bill Stover after AGM ... and Bill says that the average price of a 16-megabit DRAM chip has decreased to $4.50 in the company's current first quarter from $12 in the fourth quarter of (fiscal) 1996. "Think about how you would manage your household if your annual salary decreased from $50,000 to $19,000," he said (yeah, life's a bitch Bill). So that's what I'm using for my ASP, $4.50. This is about what I would have guessed using Achilles data and nudging it up for 64 Mbit production and SDRAM. And I could be wrong, it might be closer to your $5-5 1/4 range because Bill maybe meant just the ASP for EDO DRAM and not all 16 bit DRAM ... i.e. didn't include SDRAM. BTW I disagree with you that margins on SDRAM will be higher. Prices are (temporarily) higher but so are costs ... test and assembly ... remember MU has a bottleneck in T&A because of the switch to SDRAM. Anyway, to make up for possibly being low on price I'm going to be high on unit production, 15% versus your 10% increase. A $4.50 ASP x a 15% increase in unit production equals revenue of $385M. Which is not a great number. You can see the leverage, revenue drops from $484M in the August quarter to $385M and operating income (this is just MU, excludes MUEI) drops from $111M to $5M (leverage cuts both ways, Bill). 3) Q2, this quarter ... Prices are starting at $3 and I fearlessly predict they will end the quarter at $2 for an ASP of $2 1/2. This is due to increasing supply (new fabs, e.g. Samsung in Austin .. the biggest clean room in the U.S., and the conversion to 64 Mbit ... where MU is a laggard, not a leader) and a slack PC market. OK, let's say MU increases bit production by 50% sequentially (due to ramp in 64 Mbit). With an ASP of $2.50, this gives us revenue of $321M. Well costs aren't going down ... they have to buy new test equipment, gear up to manufacture 64 Mbit chips, etc... my guess is costs bump up another $10M to $390M. This equals big loss and is why management is so vocal about the Koreans. The only thing that can change this picture is if prices go up and not down. This outlook is why I'm saying that if management could swallow their pride and do the smart thing they would kitchen sink Q1. 'Cause betting that prices will go up this quarter sure looks like a long shot! regards, Mike