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 : Ask Michael Burke -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Skeeter Bug who wrote (39825)	12/18/1998 6:15:00 AM
From: accountclosed	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 132070

Skeets, I don't usually enter the MU debate, so perhaps this point is already in the discussion. But isn't there another issue that the 200 valuation misses: I'll explain. It sounds like you guys argue whether we will get to 12.00 per share on earnings or whatever the ridiculous projection is. And correctly, imo you make the case that transitions to xxxxyyyyzzzzram (or whatever the next generation is called) won't be smooth, especially while there is old generation in the channel. And then you don't believe we will get to 12.00. My point is say it is a rough period to get to 12.00, but we do get there. Isn't the 200 stock price a ridiculous multiple even then? GM used to trade for like 3 times peak earnings. It seems to me that the 200 model on mu, both assumes a lot in the shorter term to get to the earnings and assumes that once we get there, the cyclical nature of the business has been tamed forever. Opinion?