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.

Politics : Ask Michael Burke -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Knighty Tin who wrote (26875)	3/20/1998 7:27:00 PM
From: mike iles	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 132070

Hi MB, It all comes down to fear and greed and I seem to be endowed with too much of the latter, not enough of the former (except when it's too late). My mother always said I was a fatuous optimist ... but then she's Scottish!! Am I missing something on the MU inventory numbers? ... management is apparently saying they have about 3 weeks' production on hand. To me it looks like almost 5 months. Here's my reasoning which I welcome anyone to blow holes in if they can ... MU's chip inventory is the MU balance sheet number minus the MUEI inventory number. Since the latter wrote their PC parts down to almost zero (yes, we will show a profit next quarter folks ... great turnaround by the new Pres.), it looks like the semi business had $393 million of inventory at the end of Feb., up $42 million in the quarter. Semi sales were $283 million. BTW, if you go back say to Q3 of last year when semi sales were $511 million, inventories were $100 million less than they are now. Guess they didn't have 'test problems' then. Anyway, $393 million of inventory is about 143 million parts @ $2.75 each. MU's shipments last quarter were roughly 86 million parts (assuming everything was 16 Mbit for simplicity's sake). So you get about 5 months of inventory at recent ship rates. These guys were betting that prices would recover ... in fact they've gone back down after the Jan. bounce. Now maybe 5 months is wrong, maybe it's 4 months. But how do you get 3 weeks?? That's the number that Gumport at Lehman is using and he's the only 'analyst' I've seen so far that even mentions inventory. Don't get the much-maligned Kurlak's stuff but would imagine he's noticed this fast-growing weed. BTW, with both inventories and receivables up at MU Semi last quarter cash (net of debt) dropped a whopping $182 million and now stands at a negative $223 million (no Steve, you can't use that pile of dough at MUEI). Skeeter or anyone ... my url for Achilles isn't working anymore. Have they closed up or does someone have a new url? regards, Mike

To: Knighty Tin who wrote (26875)	3/21/1998 11:27:00 AM
From: Kapusta Kid	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 132070

MB, very old riddle : Why do the Brits drink warm beer? Because they've got Lukas refrigerators. My TR4A only ran well in the rain. Of course, the windshield (err, windscreen) wipers never worked in those conditions. Had a Porsche 356 Carrera, too. Rusted out old rat. To change the plugs, you either stood on your head, lowered in a small child, or dropped the engine. I never changed them. I also wound up using the car for a storage shed. And I wish I had a dollar for every Vega I saw blow up. Very pretty clouds of white smoke. Nice enough looking car, though. If only they hadn't tried that "sleeveless" engine...Pete

To: Knighty Tin who wrote (26875)	3/21/1998 6:16:00 PM
From: Knighty Tin	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 132070

To All, Barron's was chock full of interesting and controversial stuff this week: 1. A theme in Barron's and Forbes has been writeoffs and the overstating of eps. Barron's lays it out relative to the S&P 500 this week. The 1997 writeoff was the largest since 1993. Of $45.26 in 1997 eps, $4.32 were non-recurring writeoffs. Nearly 10 pct. of the phony eps were admitted to be phony. Barron's estimates another 10 pct. or so are phony due to options buyback scams. 1990-1993 were much worse. So, this is not a market where, "no matter what the bears say, the earnings have come through in fine form." It is a market where the cos. have simply reported earnings they didn't earn and considered as non-recurring something that recurs as regularly as genital herpes (or so I've heard -g-). 2. My favorite cub reporter, Jonathan Laing, bows down to the wit and wisdon of Abby Joseph Cohen. She is a wise seer and Jonny Jump Jump told us a few months back that all bears are losers. It goes to show you that journalism, as well as financial forecasting, is often ruled by the lowest common denominator. -g- 3. They do a fluff piece on John Bogle Jr., who I think is kind of ok for a 12 year old fund manager. But I didn't know he looked so much like Niles Crane of the "Frasier" tv series. Maybe Jr. can finally score with the elusive Daphne Moon. 4. An absolutely terrific article about Mike Margolies and his research outfit in Boca Right-On. Now, when I say today's Wall Street analysts don't know how to analyze, I am talking about in comparison to these types of guys. It doesn't mean I agree with all their conclusions. I just think they have done their homework and the Street geeks haven't. Which is why they sell research that makes clients money and the Street, well, you know that story. 5. A fluff piece on the ugly new Mercedes line. 6. Interesting comments by Charles Allmon and Geraldine Weiss in the Market Watch section. Aeltus Weekly also hit the nail on the head, despite their crummy name. 7. Scott McNealy slams Microslop in the Mailbag section. Donlan replies in full huff against somebody daring to say anything bad about the price-gouging monopoly. Another letter writer refers to those of us who hate Bill the Cat as conspiracy theory nuts. Love it. Good luck, MB