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: SeaViewer who wrote (41500)	12/18/1998 6:20:00 PM
From: Skeeter Bug	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 53903

jeff, "off by miles" niles doesn't know what happened yesterday 50% of the time so how can he have any idea what will happen three years out. this reminds me of the $17 eps projection from whittington. so he was off by $16, big deal ;-)

To: SeaViewer who wrote (41500)	12/19/1998 5:10:00 PM
From: Thomas G. Busillo	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 53903

Jeff, I've seen the light. I am open to reason and reason has smote me between the eyes into a conversion analogous to Saul's on the road to Damascus. How foolish I was to question Dan Niles. I mean, if you really think about it, why, gosh and golly Dan Niles and his team over at BBRS must have a darn good thesis for that price target. Niles must feel that MU can produce cash flows to justify a quadrupling in the share price three years hence and somewhere there's quantitative support for it. Right? Why should we care what his numbers are? Who are we to question it? End of argument. I owe my conversion and the above to the following logical tour de farce, courtesy of the Motley Fool's Dale Wettlaufer: BancBoston Robertson Stephens yesterday set a three-year price target of $200 per share on DRAM producer Micron Technology (NYSE: MU), which lays a red carpet into today. If a respected analytical team such as Robbie Stephens is forecasting the cash flow needed to get to a quadruple in the shares of Micron in three years, then the future must hold the promise of capacity buys for the DRAM business. Thanks Dale. Unfortunately, we must now leave the decks of the Good Ship Lollipop and return to reality... Jeff as far as Niles' estimate, which was one of the bits of information not sourced to the media (which is IMHO somewhat interesting; of course, not half as interesting as the "internal memo" characterization given to Dow Jones), I think that when Bloomberg ran that $3/quarter they used something like "as much as $3/quarter", so I'm assuming that's his peak quarter (not that I'd go out of my way to make Niles look less ridiculous) as opposed to 3 bucks each Q. But then again, since whoever has been feeding quotes from Niles to the press found it necessary to apparently supress the actual estimate (while of course making sure that the $200 price target came through loud and clear) we've been left to speculate. Ballparking it on the CBSMarketwatch story that put it @ twice that of peak earnings during the last cycle: By Peak FY = 3.90 in FY'95 x 2 = 7.80 By Peak trailing EPS = 4.81 x 2 = 9.62 Then again, IMHO the likelihood of whatever number may have been on the report staying the same for more than 3 months is slim to none. Good trading, Tom