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 (35289)	6/18/1998 5:05:00 PM
From: Skeeter Bug	Respond to of 53903

>>PS: maybe you can short your PUTS against the box.:-) << yeah, how do im lock in those big profits on my 5 contracts? ;-) down, mu, down! this dog has too many flees ;-)

To: DavidG who wrote (35289)	6/18/1998 7:30:00 PM
From: ratan lal	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 53903

DavidG then they take a writedown, so the taxpayers like you can help pay for it. Are you admitting that Skeeter is making money?? Last time I checked you dont have to pay taxes if you dont make money ratan

To: DavidG who wrote (35289)	6/18/1998 8:03:00 PM
From: Kerry Phineas	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 53903

DavidG, this is the amongst the weakest analysis I think I've ever seen. "TXN isn't dumb...MU has more stuff to sell to keep their real estate and company going. <vbg>" TXN did a transaction potentially worth less than nothing to them. MU just greatly increased their capital expenditures and debt levels at a time when cash is needed. Both of those are likely negatives, definite negatives if there isn't a turnaround in the near future. The fact that MU can, in the near future anyways, sell more chips at a loss when they are running low on cash could be the straw that breaks the camel's back and regardless is a gamble to achieve the economies of scale they'll require to survive, imo. Kurlak's recent analysis was completely counter to MU's current strategy, btw.