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 (41872)	1/6/1999 9:30:00 AM
From: Thomas G. Busillo	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 53903

Slow Thinker, I'm curious about something. You write: If you believe that we are at the start of a strong DRAM cycle and that the $.70 in EPS this year will be followed by $2.70 next year and even more earnings growth in 2001, then this method also yields a much higher stock price than its current $50 price. And you present several sets of ASP and costs estimates for FY'99 and FY'00. And you also state at the end of a post entitled "Pricing and Cost info on MU 64MB DRAM's": The numbers are courtesy of Robertson Stephens' recent analyst report You also state: Whether you believe it or not, these folks generally sweat over getting the numbers as right as possible And since you make reference to the BBRS $200 price target I think it is reasonable to infer that your report is either the report involved in the $200 3-year price target call or, given that you did not present 1Q/99 numbers, perhaps one which followed the release of 1Q/99 earnings and subsequently incorporates the $200 price target. What I'm curious about is the quantitative analytical support presented by the BBRS research team for FY'01 on that report. You make no reference to it, you are obviously a thoughtful person, and I would assume that as such you would try to present the strongest possible case - one which would presumably include those FY'01 numbers since presumably the estimate is higher than FY'99 and FY'00. What I am curious about is very simple - the existence of those numbers. Did you exclude those numbers for the sake of brevity or did exclude them because they do not exist on that Robbie Stephens research report? Let me clearly state, this is not directed at your integrity or credibility. However, if Dan Niles is out there throwing out $200 price targets without delivering "some actual numbers", I would find that greatly troubling. I found the lack of hard numbers sourced to the press EXTREMELY curious back when the story broke and your post made me even more curious as to the extent of his analysis. Dow Jones lead off their story on the target 12-17-98 as follows: BancBoston Robertson Stephens sees memory chip maker Micron Technology Inc. (MU) hitting about $200 a share by the end of 2001, analyst Dan Niles said. If you could please indulge my curiosity - are the ASP, COGS, and fully-loaded costs estimates for FY'01 as well as the earnings estimate for FY'01 which supports the $200 price target by the end of 2001 on the research report you were citing? As far as the estimates themselves go, why would his ASP numbers, for example, be any more accurate than those showing the 64MB ASP's dipping under $7 during 1999? Isn't it true that the persons who are predicting a more dramatic ASP decline "generally sweat over getting the numbers as right as possible"? Good trading, Tom