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: VLAD who wrote (39067)	9/25/1998 3:40:00 PM
From: DJBEINO	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 53903

Byron Walker, analyst at BT Alex. Brown Inc. in New York, said he didn't believe the Intel-Micron arrangement when he first heard it. "I checked it out, and now believe there's some validity."

To: VLAD who wrote (39067)	9/25/1998 3:49:00 PM
From: FJB	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 53903

Intel doesn't need a supply of DRAM. What Intel does want is some assurance that at least one major DRAM manufacturer is in high volume production with DRDRAM in mid-99. One way to do this would be to take an equity stake in Micron and contractually obligate them to deliver the parts in a specific time frame. That being said, it's just a rumor at this point.

To: VLAD who wrote (39067)	9/26/1998 7:54:00 AM
From: Carl R.	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 53903

To spell it out, low DRAM prices mean lower computer prices which means more CPUs sold. Also in the past falling DRAM prices have reduced the needs for INTC to lower CPU prices. Computer buyers expect prices to fall at a steady rate, and if price drops from memory are sufficient, why cut CPU prices? If memory prices actually went up, consumers would defer purchases based on the assumption that prices would eventually come back down, thus reducing the sales of CPUs. Thus the supply and demand for memory affects CPUs as well. If it keeps DRAM prices from rising, isn't that bad for MU? It certainly could be. Note my example in the prior post of WFR. However if it allows MU to reduce costs further, and faster than competitors it could also be good, especially if a debt laden competitor can not follow suit. Time will tell. Carl