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 (34890)	6/14/1998 9:50:00 AM
From: Skeeter Bug	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 53903

>>since you and Mike iles have been saying every day, week and month it should be in single digits...and you were both WRONG?"<< nope. we are right about where mu s/b. we were wrong to over estimate the intuitive powers of fellow investors. we will get there. david, 2-5 of your reasons why mu went up to $39 are still in effect. granted, the ongoing weakness in asia and the currency situation also plays a big part in the whole mix. i guess the new era mantra that economic turmoil lasts 2 months isn't quite accurate ;-) as for mu management saying that korea was almost out of inventory, what was i thinking? if the claim was true then dram pricing would catapult up, mu would dump their inventory and mint profits for the short term. longer term the glut would be over as supply and demand would then be inbalance and profits would be minted again and again. no more 78 tons, and growing, of inventory. of course, this is absurd to think there is any correlation between this scenario and its ensuing failure to play out, and mu's stock action. what was i thinking ;-) i think you are mad mu is 30% below where i turned bearish meaning i was really way ahead of the dolt longs as i proclaimed all along. especially all that smack mike and i were talking when mu was $60. then $50. then $30. it will get worse. for the right reasons ;-) mu may very well may go bankrupt. of course, i look forward to the day where you tell me, after the fact, of course, that mu went bankrupt but my reasoning was wrong. i'll get to count my profits then... HO HO HO HO ;-)

To: DavidG who wrote (34890)	6/14/1998 10:11:00 PM
From: mike iles	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 53903

Hey DavidG I would rather be right for the wrong reasons than vice-versa ... having said that our reasons will prove sound ... give it time ... this bull market mania takes time to unwind ...let's talk after the results come out next week ... IMO the main focus of analysts' reports after those results will be how much longer MU can survive ... Dave, I know you can't admit it but this is one sick puppy and having sleazeball management is not going to help in the credibility department ... my respect for MU management has disappeared (and I did respect their manufacturing skills and the way they fought tooth and nail against the offshore guys, many of whom were unfairly subsidized) after I realized that instead of formally pre-releasing they slimed the news out to their favourite cronies (I bet Tom K. didn't hear from Boise this time!). As Michael Burke has pointed out this is how they keep Wall St. in line ... if you turn negative you get cut out of the news loop. Well guess what, this behaviour is a 2-edged sword and we're about to see the other side. Anyway, I guess we have to look forward to more rants from you when MU is in single digits ... along the lines of how wrong we were ... whew!!! 'hey, it's only an inventory correction' (the Capital Noresearch trading desk) regards, Mike