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 : Formerly About Applied Materials -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Skeeter Bug who wrote (19779)	5/30/1998 10:26:00 PM
From: Proud_Infidel	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 70976

Re:.toshiba reported profits will be down this q, but there will still be profits. so, toshiba has positive cash flow even in this environment Toshiba is a diversified business so we do not know where these profits are coming from. My guess is they are NOT from DRAM. In this pricing environment nobody is currently making $$. Even though I do not follow MU or the specifics of what is happening in the DRAM industry, I know that MU has increased yields by shrinking the dies and has been an "innovator" in a commodity industry whereas the Koreans etal simply ran their D/E up to the 600% level. They can do this and live to fight another battle though since cos. like Toshiba, LG, etc are multinationals and can afford it and they are not going to cede market share. They'll lose $$ in the ST to keep it. Re: My "source" for the 20% I can only say this piece of info was acquired through my reading(2nd hand); I did not spend any time poring over data to arrive at this conclusion, so it may in fact be wrong. If it is wrong as you say however, there are several sources who get their info. at the same place since the story was consistent in every article. Brian

To: Skeeter Bug who wrote (19779)	5/31/1998 5:47:00 PM
From: eabDad	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 70976

Skeeter: Regarding MU's costs relative to others MU uses 1-2 masks less than competition and have process flows which make their die smaller at a particular linewidth. This gives them a cost advantage. It used to be 35% or so, but currency drifts have cut that to 10-20%. Re: selling below gross costs and anti-dumping rulings It is my understanding that Mu tried last year to extend the prior anti-dumping suit rulings to 1997-98, because they "expired" or did not extend to last year. That effort was not fully successful, because the information was not considered relevant or current enough (original suit information I believe was circa 1993-94, don't remember exactly). What MU is faced with now is to file a NEW suit for the current situation. Since prices are selling below costs including depreciation, and very close to variable costs by foreign companies, it would not surprise me if MU filed another suit imminently. Skeeter, you sound like a jilted shareholder. I have made money on MU both up and down for ten years. It is wild and fun. MU's management knows what they are doing, but yes the commodity business loses money sometimes. One needs to take a 3-4 year view on MU, both up and down. Moves up can be 6-8x, and moves down can be 75+%. Understand the fundamentals, and it becomes a great money machine for investors. Z