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: SlowThinker who wrote (41811)	1/1/1999 2:22:00 AM
From: Skeeter Bug	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 53903

>>Obviously I am long on MU because I buy in to what I believe is a compelling value proposition.<< value? mu? imho, you need to revisit what value is. rank speculation that you hope to pay off is more like it. that is, unless you define value as: 1. negative cash flow throughout the cycle. 2. debt going through the roof after the biggest boom time in history. 3. 2 years of tough times to insolvency. 4. increasing dilution 5. a high stock price with a n/a pe over the next 12 months as mu will be slightly above breakeven at best - in a commoditized business where the end user sales growth rate is slowing... that is incredibly price sensitive right now... maybe, maybe, somebody could claim value below $25. above $50? now way... not to a sensible person... value? NOT! ;-)

To: SlowThinker who wrote (41811)	1/1/1999 1:09:00 PM
From: Dave Gahm	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 53903

SlowThinker, Historically, MU's management has continuously ramped output with no regard for demand or the price consequences. They have focused exclusively on reducing costs. Are you suggesting they will change this strategy and gear output to expected demand now that they have a far more significant share? It is intriguing that MU's bit output only rose 10% after digesting the TXN facilities. The Milano shutdown for upgrade does not fully explain this, especially in light of past statements that the JV operations could be upgraded to .21 linewidths without slowing production. Boise alone should have increased more than 10%....unless of course those rumored yield problems are more troublesome than most believe. Is it possible that MU chose to reduce production in order to keep pricing firm? It seems out of character, but might be a smart move. Whether my choice or circumstance, significant production was removed, albeit temporarily, implying that demand is really nowhere near strong enough to absorb available capacity. If the bear case of a PC inventory correction and no robust Y2K demand prove to be true watch out below. Happy New Years, Dave