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 (26746)	1/17/1998 3:52:00 PM
From: Skeeter Bug	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 53903

>>This is not my conclusion from studies, this is what MU contends and other analsyts and commentaries posted on this thread have indicated.<< now, that was easy. finally, you admit that you are relying solely on mu management and ANALysts that won't cite their source (most probably mu management). again, wasn't that easy? now, if anybody really cares, try and get an executive at micron to guarantee they are the low cost producer in 16 mb in writing and i bet they won't do it. why? i bet they don't know their competitors costs. in a previous 10q they said that they didn't know what their competitors inventory level was. but they know their gross cost. yeah, right ;-) anybody that cares should ask them what it is, exactly, and where they got it. they can't answer, imho. to anybody that would choose to believe mu management in this manner (with no sources cited from mu, of course ;-), remember, "demand for dram continues to remain strong." HO HO HO HO HO HO HO! ;-) seriously, mu has a vested self interest in putting out the perception that they are the low cost producer. their stock options depend on it. >>This is not my conclusion from studies<< what studies? please share with us what you did and what results verify what mu management claims. or, did you just study what mu says (but not in official sec documents of course ;-). i guess you semi-answered. you still are trying to give the impression you have some sources (your studies) that corroberrate what mu says. you don't and i know it. that is why i ask what they are. houdini you aren't ;-) >>Let your biases go and you might be more objective of the information being diseminated on this thread.<< oh, i am VERY OBJECTIVE. that is why i don't let you get away with rif raf. the objective conclusion is that mu is cost competitive but, since nobody knows the gros and/or net cost of mu's competitors then we can't know the relative differences. the objective conclusion is that mu management all the way up to the upper echelons releases self serving information only (cut the dividend with no release and "demand for dram continues to remain strong in the midst of a pricing collapsed from over $10 to $2 in about 9 months!). >.I have said, time and again, it is not a simple task to obtain sufficient data to determine costs and ASPs on MU to accurately calculate their EPS. We can only ballpark it. You on the other hand believe with your oversimplified algorithms and third grade math can calculate and predict MUs future earnings to the nearest cent and that everyone else should be mystified by how brilliant and RAZOR SHARP you are to have this uncanny ability to do this.<< wrong. i never said this and i defy you to find one post where i said i can predict mu's eps to the nearest cent. in fact, i said that the exact value was of little consequence. the direction and the magnitude is what is important. my third grade math, and the saddest part is that i agree with you ;-), is the reason when the pros that you rely on for eps (and to verify mu's claim of being the low cost producer) predict eps of $0.46 i was right and said they were in the ballpark of 50% too high. i was right. when they predicted earnings near $40 i said they were only about 300% too high. not exactly, but balpark ;-) i was right again. all with third grade math. as for RAZOR SHARP, i'm mocking the fact that my third grade math and a web site tracking pricing is a more accurate predictor of mu's eps than all the pros' experience, industry ties, algorithms and their altered mind state caused by whatever they are smoking (it sure must be good stuff ;-). this is not debatable as it is fact. as an aside, you seem to look down on simplicity as though it is a bad thing. simplicity is genius. only dolts figure out complicated ways to do things when their is an easier and more accurate way to do it. follow your own advice and be objective. is the complexity of the process more important than the results? >>For Pete's sake they are using older fab technology than MU and can't afford to upgrade... << dave, i haven't heard tha at all. in fact, on the face of it that sounds absurd. for the record, is it your contention that the koreans are looking to upgrade their 16 mb fabs? hello? they want to upgrade to 64 mb fabs. 64 mb technology is better than 16 mb technology and the koreans have much more of that than mu. that is why they held inventory so they could impact crossover. btw, mu can't afford to upgrade as much as they would like, either. >.From postings here the big three in Korea have admitted that their costs are around $4.50(japan acknowledged as well).<< oh, please. be objective? the postings on this thread mean nothing, in and of themselves. what is their source? anyway, i never saw the postings where korea and japan acknowledged gross costs in the $4.50 range. what, are you now contending bateman is the ceo of toshiba? give me a break. ;-) is this what you were comparing mu's $3.27 to? someone saying that the asians produce fro $4.50 and you don't even know the source? if that is the kind of research you do then you deserve the results. btw, thanks for at least putting forth an answer this time - even if your source for the low cost producer mumbo jumbo is mu's "belief" and you compared mu's gross cost to the claims of a post on this thread and equate that with korea and japan "admitting" their costs ;-) as for continually learning, i try. that is why i'm shying away from this overvalued piece of fluff b/c i know people don't care about the fundamentals or they don't understand them. i'm waiting to see if i can anticipate the event that will cause the reality/perception disconnect to disappear. that will lead to immense profits if it can be done (maybe it can't, i don't know yet). mu at $50+ was just such an event. you only need one of these scenarios every 3-4 years to get returns in the 100% range. good luck.

To: DavidG who wrote (26746)	1/17/1998 5:46:00 PM
From: Kerry Phineas	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 53903

DG, SB, Korea has different accounting standards. They depreciate over 2 yrs. Fixed costs are so important in this biz that a cost per bit number isn't necessarily too meaningful unless you know all the details about the company's accounting. I believe MU depreciates over 5 yrs, which would at least suggest the numbers aren't apples to apples. I think that SB would admit that MU has traditionally been a very solid manufacturer of the chips, and has done so inexpensively. That matters right now, but not as much as how deep the companies' pockets are.