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: Knighty Tin who wrote (33178)	5/11/1998 12:53:00 PM
From: DavidG	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 53903

Mike, David, So, if MU is the low cost producer, why do they have to borrow money at 7% plus an equity stake (admittedly worthless) while the Japanese can borrow at 2 1/2% with no equity stake? Sorry, it just doesn't compute. Being a low cost producer, today in DRAM manufacturing, does not mean they HAVE TO MAKE money. Unfortunately I don't believe any of the companies are showing a profit on 16mb chips and probably just minimal profit in 64mbit chips. You mention Korea, Taiwan and Japan almost interchangeably and IMO are completely different situations. First of all the Japanese, although not making money in DRAM have many other products in which to make money and given that their diversity gives them more opportunties to fund than MU. ...but the Koreans are shot to s&%*, including Samsung, but especially the others. They got into a busines they had no right to start, they squandered money on overcapacity that is now taking them down. Their currency value is cut in half, which gives them some advantage in exporting, but have debt and raw material expenses in $US that will eventually bankrupt them. They are stuck with their technology which they will minimally be able to upgrade, relative to the rest of the industry. Mike I don't disagree with you on some of your opinions on MU, I just look at MU as the best runner in a dog race...but I put my money on the rabbit:-) Thanks DavidG

To: Knighty Tin who wrote (33178)	5/11/1998 1:07:00 PM
From: TREND1	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 53903

Mike We all know MU is a DOG, but MU still makes those 1/2 point up and down moves. Larry Dudash

To: Knighty Tin who wrote (33178)	5/11/1998 10:33:00 PM
From: AHale	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 53903

could'nt have said it better myself.

To: Knighty Tin who wrote (33178)	5/13/1998 12:13:00 AM
From: Carl R.	Read Replies (5) \| Respond to of 53903

Still playing the puts, Michael? From where I sit it looks like this stock has made about the same number of up moves and down moves over the last year or so. I'd have to guess that the sellers of options have been the big winners so far, and the buyers of both puts and calls the big losers. I have made only occasional bets on this company, mostly on the long side, mostly successful. My take on some questions regarding MU: 1. Is MU the low cost producer? It certainly seem so. 2. Does that make them profitable. No, it only makes them the one who loses the least. 3. Is anyone making money on memory these days? Doesn't appear so. 4. Is MU the technology laggard? No, in fact they may well be the technology leader. They apply advanced technology to old products, increasing the yields on them, and making the older produces profitable for longer. This forces the competition to "run" to the next generation of chips prematurely. The competition gets higher prices for the next generation, true, but much lower yields, and remains less profitable. The lower you are able to make your costs, the longer you are able to profitably stay with an older generation of chips. Many people believe that because MU stays with an older generation of chips longer it is a sign of weakness, but in fact it may well be a sign of strength. Recall about 17 months ago when MU made the crossover from 4MB to 16MB they were able to lower costs on the 16MB chips much, much faster than anyone expected because they had the technology in place. There is every reason to believe that MU is prepared to make just as dramatic change when they crossover to 64MB. 5. Does MU have the staying power to play the game? This is the big question. Certainly if they weren't the low cost producer, they'd have been dead a long time ago. 6. Can they outlast Korea? Same question as number 5. My guess is yes because the Koreans will be unable to buy sufficient next generation equipment, and will eventually be unable to compete, while MU will find a way to get what they need. My current position is on the sidelines. Good luck, Carl