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: mike iles who wrote (34910)	6/14/1998 10:35:00 PM
From: Zeev Hed	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 53903

Mike, I am not going to try and rewrite history or go through all the what ifs. The fact remains that in 40 years using 5 billions OPM, INTC brought in as retained earnings $16 Billions, while MU in 20 years with 1/10 of that OPM brought in as retained earning 2.9 Billions. Could it be that if INTC stayed the course in memories they could have had 80% of the market like they have in CPU? The fact of the matter is that IBM gave INTC the CPU business in 1980 or so, just as they gave Gates the DOS and monopoly on the PC OS. The bears in this thread are not happy enough that at the current time MU is in a down trend, for a variety of reasons, they need to prove that MU is an intrinsically bad company or mismanaged. I brought the numbers to speak for themselves. You look at the numbers at tell me who brought more earning per investment and time to its investors (those supplying the OPM). A bunch of numbers can be fabricated, but paid up capital and cumulative retained earnings are not very easily manipulated. Zeev