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 (31319)	3/26/1998 10:05:00 PM
From: Thomas G. Busillo	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 53903

David, as far as the "everyone knows that already" argument goes, couldn't you turn it on its head and say that the fact that MU is trading at anywhere from roughly 29 times est. FY'99 earnings of .99 (from Zack's on Yahoo, dated 3/25/98) to 39 times est. FY'99 earnings of .73 (from First Call on a Baseline report dated 3/20/98) AND the fact that management was content to hit shareholders over the head with 3 consecutive negative earnings surprises (which also begs the question of a) the quality of some of the analysts covering the company and b) the duties a management team has to its shareholders when it's painfully obvious that the Q is going to fall short) plus the general industry environment, maybe means that the good stuff is priced in there too much, or at the very least, far too early given some of the uncertainties? Looking at that Baseline report, they're not expected to show any year over year growth or profit until the Feb. 1999 Q. That's, what, 50 weeks from now? That's a generous multiple to begin with, but also throw in the fact that you have 6 guys w/ strong buys and 3 w/ moderate buys contributing to that multiple. So, I'd argue that far from everyone knowing the bad stuff and failing to discount the good stuff, those 9 individuals, who make up about 1/2 the forward estimates have already made everyone fully aware of the fact that they know the good stuff. I mean, it's not like these firms would change their numbers without having their media relations people notify the press, right? <g> Clearly, A) the fact that the FY'98 estimate has dropped noticeably from last Q while... B) simultaneously we've been privileged to hear of upgrades or "initiations" from 1. Goldman, 2. Paine Webber, 3. CS First Boston, 4. Montgomery, 5. Robbie Stephens, 6. D.A. Davidson, and 7. Jensen Securities can't allow any hard conclusions to be drawn; however, wasn't the First Call estimate in late January at one point -.02/sh for FY'98? And yet, now the First Call consensus is -.62/.sh on that 3/20/98 Baseline report (and FWIW, Zacks has -.57/sh as of 3/25/98)? That might lead one to ask in curious bemusement: Are we to assume that Goldman, Monty, CS First Boston, Paine Webber, Robbie Stephens, et. al. all have exactly the same FY'98 and FY'99 numbers today as they did at the time of each of their respective calls (i.e. "the future" is no less positive today)? I'd ask each of them myself, but something tells me I'd have trouble <g> Good trading, Tom