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 (30605)	3/17/1998 9:54:00 PM
From: Robert H.	Respond to of 53903

...Chip Revenue Will Slow, Report Says. techweb.com What else is new?

To: DavidG who wrote (30605)	3/17/1998 11:04:00 PM
From: Skeeter Bug	Respond to of 53903

david, a sell rating is RARELY used. there are more bald eagles in my backyard than sell ratings. a neutral is loosely translated as sell. if you put out a sell then management cuts you off. although strange, it is the corporate dance.

To: DavidG who wrote (30605)	3/17/1998 11:21:00 PM
From: Zeev Hed	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 53903

David, Kurlak believes the stock is going to the teens, and it is not too late to save 50% of your capital from evaporating (if you are still in MU, which I doubt). That is what they call "Street Speak". Zeev

To: DavidG who wrote (30605)	3/18/1998 12:17:00 AM
From: Thomas G. Busillo	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 53903

David, if I was Mike McCurry I'd probably respond "I think the statement speaks for itself". I think it's fair to say that in Street parlance "neutral" has generally been interpreted as tantamount to sell. Don't know if Merrill ever lets their analysts issue flat-out sells, but my guess is that nuetral is as low as they'll go. It's unusual to see a flat-out "sell" or "avoid" from a well-known firm. Then again, you could be Bill Milton at Brown Brothers Harriman and issue avoids and be as right on short-term movements as Dan "wrong way" Niles has been wrong <g> As far as possibly backpeddling, to me that statement's a pretty firm "we're staying the course" on MU. After all, he's using the term "bloodbath" to describe his outlook for the 64's. Then again, there has been some hyperbole in the past, but I'm sure there are some people who would go "hyperbole-schmerbole the guy makes you money". But no, he's primarily a top-down guy who believes in broad industry cycles (that's why I thought Chernoff reporting that he was making a differentiation in terms of those mfgrs. less reliant on PC's was interesting; heck, even I went long on TXN this morning) and right now the news out of CPQ and INTC on top of an Asian situation that's still muddled confirms what he's been saying. IMHO, he's got the FA on his side and there's just no reason for him to change at these price levels. He did put the target of 20 out there and he's about as intense about winning as anyone out there. Frankly, I hope he does kick the crap out of the likes of Joseph and Niles. There will be a time when he changes full-scale on the sector and on MU. We'll probably be scratching our heads whenever that happens, but I'd be surprised if it was anytime soon. I could be wrong. No way did I think MU would post a number that bad after the way it was hanging close to its Niles-top and it did. I had been thinking about -.22, but to come that "close"...and then to have reality hit and see it was only because of that one-time gain...talk about mixed emotions <g> Someone on the thread had posted an estimate of -.45 (was either you, Skeeter, or Trey?). That was one heck of a call. Good trading, Tom