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 (27531)	2/1/1998 11:24:00 PM
From: Skeeter Bug	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 53903

david, now do you see why it is so important to use adjectives to zero in on the true meaning when discussing concepts that can mean several different things. cost means little to me. gross costs and net costs mean a lot. i agree that the sdram/dram asp is higher than $3.05. if it isn't then mike is right and the blood will flow badly. however, i don't think mike is right. now, why would an analyst change his recommendation on mu and cite 30% of its business as a justification while never mentioning the other 70%? that is piss poor analysis. imho, the analyst is including sdram. we'll never know b/c all of his experience and professionalism, or lack thereof, have not led to clarity of thought when writing a report. it is ambiguous at best. i just think his numbers are wrong. but i hope they are right ;-) dram is a gen'l term that can be reasonably used to mean all kinds of (edo, sync, static etc.) dram. the s is the adjective. since you leave off adjectives that would clarify any potential ambiguity, perhaps you are a good person to decipher the ambiguity in this gentleman's report. did he do this on purpose or out of ignorance? i'm not good at that b/c i expect clarity of thought - even though it is often too much to ask.

To: DavidG who wrote (27531)	2/2/1998 10:55:00 PM
From: mike iles	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 53903

earth to davidG, earth to davidG ..... What are you talking about man, have you taken leave of your senses (evidently not a long trip)? The reason the Lehman analyst has a 50 cent loss for this quarter is because he's using a $3.05 price. Now you can argue up and down that that's a bad price, and I know you will, but it is the price he's using ... cain't argue that. << If you would follow the posts, you would realize that MU is now 70 to 80% SDRAM, which has averaged around $4 to $4.25 in 2Q98.>> Funny you should say that ... why don't you actually read the latest 10Q? Earlie already pointed this out to you in a post but I guess it didn't sink in ... page 9:"ASPs for the Company's semiconductor memory products [ guess that includes the fabled SDRAMs] continue to decline and in December 1997 were approximately 38% lower than in the first [fiscal] quarter of 1998." Well guess what, that puts them at just over $3.00 (ref. the Q1 confercall where Bill Stover said ASPs in the quarter were just below $5.00 ... I'm using $4.88 as a number. BTW later in the call in response to a question about the [sacred] premium that SDRAM gets over EDO, management said it's about 10-20%). So to get your $4.00-$4.25 number we have to take $3 for December and add what, $5??? for January to saw off at $4.00? ... I don't think so!!!! 70-80% SDRAM eh?? ... actually I can't fault you on this one. That's what they said on the confercall, i.e. "SDRAM has been about 70% of wafer starts for the last 2 months" ... from mid-Oct. to mid-Dec right? Then you read the 10Q (page 9 again, david it's the only page you have to read, can't be that hard!) and it says plain as day: "The Company's ramp of its SDRAM products reached 55% of DRAM wafer starts at the end of the first quarter of 1998" ... so who are you going to believe? I'm going with the document filed with the SEC but these MU guys sure don't make it easy. Someone else posted this same info earlier but you casually blew him out of the water ... everyone knows it's 70%. Like everyone knows the ASP is $4.00-$4.25 right? Hey, I just gotta read the posts! A few clues in the 10Q that all is not well in SDRAM-land. Total wafer outs (pg. 9) in Q1 were 10% lower than in Q4 due mainly to the shift to SDRAM (funny how they didn't mention this on the call). And the transition to SDRAM as the primary DRAM technology is expected in early calendar 1998. Compare this to the 10K filed 3 months earlier: "late calendar 1997". Sounds like something slipped. Could it be testing???? David, I will not reply to your next rant unless you swear on a stack of bibles that you've read page 9 of the 10Q ... and you understand it! -gg- regards, Mike