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: Earlie who wrote (26909)	1/21/1998 1:17:00 PM
From: MR. PANAMA (I am a PLAYER)	Respond to of 53903

Earlie...its too early to go to sleep but when its about that time i will read your post in its entirety....hahahaha Let me give you some help ...NOW that i am a GURU in web page design..you have to keep the readers attention...post two seet and sour posts rather than 1 long mother of all posts... add some animation if you insist on one long one... (just joking man) but i P R O M I S E you i will read it...some F@$#@#$#@$ day...ho ho ho

To: Earlie who wrote (26909)	1/21/1998 1:20:00 PM
From: Kerry Phineas	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 53903

Earlie, the underwriter support definitely suggests more debt. Why else would these guys be coming out of the woodwork. MU has another half a billion to play around with as a result of their shelf registration for a billion, and they should hurry up.

To: Earlie who wrote (26909)	1/21/1998 1:21:00 PM
From: MR. PANAMA (I am a PLAYER)	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 53903

Earlie I have a pressing Kest IONNE is this 12 % position on a fully diluted basis..if not please restate according to currently accepted standards...hahahah

To: Earlie who wrote (26909)	1/21/1998 2:13:00 PM
From: Sridhar Srinivasan	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 53903

Earlie: my compliments on your brevity of expression (G). I might be paltering with the truth if I were to congratulate you on the factual bases of your perceptions. I have neither the desire nor the wherewithal to respond in kind to your rather fanciful projections of doom/gloom. However, I will try (at least in terms of long sentences) to bring to your kind attention the following FACTS: 1. Micron is a very(if not the lowest) low cost producer of DRAM 2. The cutbacks in equipment purchases and DRAM production, at least for now, seem real. (Conveniently, the bears seem to lend credence to only announcements of new capacity coming on in the year 2000 as reason to call for MU's demise). 3. MU knows more about this business than all the pseudo analysts that run rampant here (wrt costs. Incidentally, a lot of published sources indicate that MU's per chip cost for 16 Mb generation is below $3). In Fall of 96, MU projected crossover to 64 Mb in Fall of 98 when the bears were writing obituaries based on a belief that crossover had already occurred. 4. Growth in the PC business is not about to turn negative, as you imply. Not if you wish to concede that Mr. Pfeiffer and Mr. Dell know more about it than you or I. CPQ in their latest quarter earned $0.84 a share, a 33 percent increase. Sales for the quarter rose 22.8% to $7.32 billion from year-ago level of $5.97 billion, while full year sales increased by 22.9% to $24.58 billion. Compaq expects to post strong sales in 1998 despite the problems facing anyone doing business in Asia According to CEO Eckhard Pfeiffer, Compaq was able to deliver volume growth of "more than 2 1/2 times the industry's rate while increasing profitability. This is remarkable growth for a $24.6 billion company." (Here I might suggest you to go back and re-read some of your own articles posted on this thread, if only to get a measure of how wrong you have been in predicting the PC market). 5. If information and facts available point to a growth-based scenario for PCs and MU, while inconsistent with your beliefs, then I would suggest that it is fairly rational to be bullish. Judgements about being informed or not are best left to those that do not have the skills to understand that varying perceptions are what make the markets. Incidentally, I might suggest that you re-examine your own bases for the inferences you provide, for I see a significant paucity of logic and rationale. Best Regards, Sridhar

To: Earlie who wrote (26909)	1/21/1998 2:22:00 PM
From: TREND1	Respond to of 53903

earlie My computer searches for my name...and so Larry was in your last posting (g) You wrote <<Apologies to Larry for length of post and use of "words", (although I suspect we come out even, given my less frequent posting).>> Earlie No need for apologies ! you also wrote: << I'd be delighted to review any counter post that looks at the one-year-out.scenario and provides some numbers and reasonable assumptions. I suspect that the degree of optimism that would become evident in any such prognostication would prove embarrassing once committed to paper. Let's see who responds to the challenge>> earlie (1) I have no idea what you are saying here. (2) I can NOT predict the future price of MU one year ahead ! (3) As stated before, some where back I posted time and date 1/2/98 where I went bullish on MU at 27 1/2 (4) Monthly trend of MU is UP (5) Have a nice day ! Larry Dudash

To: Earlie who wrote (26909)	1/21/1998 2:40:00 PM
From: DavidG	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 53903

Earlie, MU made $.04 this quarter, and the analysts think minus $.13 or so for Q2., the current quarter. With current ASP's around $3.00, and using an estimated $4.50 (a bit generous, and David might disagree, but lets be nice) as an average net cost, if the company ships even the same number of units as last quarter (100 million), they will drop $150.0 million on memory. I am reluctant to respond to the same issue again, but your comments are so far from accurate and I believe without ANY basis that I thought I would try from a different perspective. The average selling price of one of MUs hottest selling chips of 1997, 16mb DRAM, has been under pressure because of the Korean debacle with the spot dropping possibly below $2.00. This does not mean that the contract prices by DELL and others ON AVERAGE went this low. Now these prices have also recovered and hovering around the $3.50 range. But oddly enough in 1998 Dram is not MUs highest running product but rather 16mb SDRAM and the spot has not significantly dropped... but on average is in the $4 to $4.50 price range. MU started the quarter at 70% SDRAM so if one would want to guestimate the ASP for MU 16mb chips you would find it at or somewhat above $4.00 per chip. It is not the $3.00 per chip you have contended all along. If you can show analysis to arrive at $3.00 it would be greatly appreciated by all on this thread. As far as the production costs for these chips it is well known to be around $3.00 per chip. As in the past I have asked if you can disprove this then please let us see it. Now as far as this Net cost of 16mb chips that you allude to as $4.50, I do not know how anyone outside MU or another semi company can derive this type of number. You must know the SGA, R&D, and other cost specific to only the 16mb chip to calculate this so called "NET COST". Their is so much R&D going on for PC100,displays, maybe microstamp, 64mb 256mb chips, new test facilities etc that these expenses cannot be readily broken out as you might suggest, but what I believe you are doing is taking all this expense and associating it to 16mb chips. I believe you are just being unduly over pessimisstic of MU. I do agree that MU will have difficulty making any money fy98 but how that relates to market price is very different. The fundamentals for MU are improving and if they continue MU might be in an uptrend inspite of its lack of '98 earnings. Good Luck Trading DavidG

To: Earlie who wrote (26909)	1/21/1998 2:44:00 PM
From: Richard Russell	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 53903

Earlie, << Fidelity votes with its feet., taking a virtually complete exit from a 12% (OF TOTAL ISSUED) position.>> Are you saying that fido is now almost completely out of mu? If so what is the source of your info? Did they file? RR

To: Earlie who wrote (26909)	1/23/1998 2:58:00 AM
From: John Graybill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 53903

>>Fidelity votes with its feet, taking a virtually complete exit... Hold on there, the Proxy Statement for the 1997 Shareholder's Meeting lists Fidelity as having almost 32M shares, that's over 15%. They're still in, not just big-time, but also as the biggest shareholding entity. Easily!

To: Earlie who wrote (26909)	1/25/1998 1:01:00 AM
From: TREND1	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 53903

Earlie You wrote: MU made $.04 this quarter, and the analysts think minus $.13 or so for Q2., the current quarter. With current ASP's around $3.00, and using an estimated $4.50 (a bit generous, and David might disagree, but lets be nice) as an average net cost, if the company ships even the same number of units as last quarter (100 million), they will drop $150.0 million on memory. Earlie (or Skeeter) Are you saying MU's cost are $4.50 ? Are you saying MU's cost are $4.50 ? Are you saying MU's cost are $4.50 ? Are you saying MU's cost are $4.50 ? Larry Dudash