To the thread - sorry this dispute rambles on, however, I think this
might be interesting information, as I will give a summary history of MU
and financial data since 85.
I hate wasting my Saturday doing this, but I dislike seeing Skeeter
distort and mislead people on this thread. Therefore, I intend to
response to Skeeter for the last time, present the facts, with sources,
and rub Skeeters nose in it.
Skeeter, I hate to do this, but I am going to give you the facts, and it
is going to make an ass of you. As Jack Nickelson said "you can't
handle the truth".
This started with Skeeter's following comment in post #32540:
"larry, historically, mu makes $0.15 per year. that is their normal
business. 1995 was an anomoly. won't happen again anytime soon."
Message 4218330
The above implies that MU made about .15 each year, not an
average over a decade.
I responded that he was wrong in post #32545:
Message 4219421
Skeeter then responded in post 32545, changing to AN AVERAGE
number:
"pat, is it not true that mu made $1.50 in earnings between 1985 and
1994? i understand it is. i'll double check, though. if so, then that is
$0.15 per year for a decade."
Message 4219985
I didn't respond, but I do now.
The answer is no, regardless what Ahale quotes from a newsletter.
According to S&P, during the decade you mention above, 1985-1994,
the earnings were as follows:
1985 0.00
1986 d0.70
1987 d0.38
1988 1.35
1989 1.14
1990 0.05
1991 0.05
1992 0.07
1993 1.04
1994 3.83
Total for the decade: $6.45
Average per year: $.65 (not 0.15)
Now, Skeeter, if you look closely at those numbers, you can see that
MU has had it's ups and downs. Your originally comment "historically,
mu makes $0.15 per year" doesn't resemble the numbers. And the
true average of .65 is 333% greater than your .15. Off just a tad. But
now, we don't want to mislead anyone Skeeter. You might have
meant 84-93, or 83-92. I suppose you also think that the DOW will go
back to 2500 because that might have been the mean of 85-94
period.
You said MU 95 was just an anomaly. Maybe 86 was with d0.70.
Maybe MU 88 was just an anomaly with 1.35. What 90 an anomaly
with 0.05?
The bottom line is that none of these facts above will do much in
telling us what MU will do in 98 or 99.
According to you Skeeter, we should not believe anything like the
Valueline, because you have pointed out that their 3 yr. forecast in 95
was probably off.
I suppose that you know MU's future earnings, production, etc. 3 yrs
out.
I say that no one on this thread knows. MU might increase their
megabit production by 16 fold in the next 3 years, for all we know.
MU started with 64k chips on 4" wafers, and unknown shrink size.
The standard chip size is now 1000 times greater, at 64meg. Wafer
size has gone from 4 to 5 to 6 and now 8in. The 10" (300m) will be
here soon.
The shrink keeps getting smaller and smaller. Fabs have been
expanded or added.
Somehow, MU keeps expanding megabit production to compensate
for chip cost reduction.
Now, for the benefit of anyone other than Skeeter that has read this, I
have traded MU options for about 5 years, and now a daytrader, and
trade up to 5000 shares at a time. I trade up to 100 contracts of
in-the-money options. I trade, first on the MU trend, then stochastics
on 1 day, 15min, 7.5, 3min, 1.5, and 1min charts. I don't care what
the earnings will be in 99. I leave that to the investors.
And to Skeeter, this is my last post to you and your obsession of MU
going to single digits or whatever. You have a real problem berating
anyone that disagrees with you. I thought that the purpose of this
thread was to share useful information on MU, and how we can make
money. This long post has been made because of your misleading
posts.
You really need to take off the blinders, and get a life.
And for all of the permabears and permabulls. MU moves both ways,
and money can be made both ways. Keep an open mind, and go
with the flow.
I am a TA person, but for those interested in past fundamentals, the
next post will give a summary of the full history of MU and financials
since 85.
Sorry, Skeeter, the sources are Micron, S&P, and Moody's, so it will
be hard for you to find fault with them.
Patrick
|
