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: TREND1 who wrote (33403)	5/15/1998 9:59:00 AM
From: Skeeter Bug	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 53903

i did, larry. the mu bullsh*tters told everyone korea was probably out of inventory in december. mu went up on the expectation that pricing would snap back and mu wpould be powerfully profitable very soon. they were wrong. A-G-A-I-N. but the dolts believed them all the same. why? they are naive to believe anything mu management "believes" b/c they are clueless.

To: TREND1 who wrote (33403)	5/15/1998 10:52:00 AM
From: mike iles	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 53903

Larry, Does HAL care about the fundamentals?? regards, Mike p.s. you're right ... quite often fundamentals don't explain short-term price movements. They do explain long-term stuff such as 90 to 30 and expect they will be behind the move from 30 to 6. Short-term movements that run contrary to this spell 0-P-P-O-R-T-U-N-I-T-Y. From what I can tell you seem to explain the fundamentals by using short-term price movements ... e.g. if MU goes from 20 to 35 in 2-3 months then that must mean the fundamentals are improving. Well that might even be true. Could you name one fundamental that has improved for old MU in the last 6 months? Otherwise you're putting the cart before the horse. Don't think HAL would approve. regards, Mike