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: Dave Gahm who wrote (42264)	1/15/1999 2:16:00 PM
From: Robert	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 53903

As others have mentioned, I find it VERY suspicious that on a day as volatile as today, with many semi's like AMAT, NVLS and INTC up big but with the warning out of Rambus (= boku volatility in the semi's), MU is locked in on the $70 strike. Hmmm . . . -- Robert

To: Dave Gahm who wrote (42264)	1/15/1999 2:59:00 PM
From: John Graybill	Respond to of 53903

Maybe Dan Niles was the fibber, or he goofed up and assumed that 10% sales meant 10% more bits, or just read his notes wrong or something. Oops, what am I thinking. A semiconductor analyst getting his facts wrong, or intentionally telling an untruth? Hush my mouth! :-)

To: Dave Gahm who wrote (42264)	1/15/1999 3:27:00 PM
From: Thomas G. Busillo	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 53903

Dave, you rule! That's just incredible. I mean since Dan Niles is such a "well-respected" analyst, has an extremely detailed model upon which he bases his forecasts, is constantly on the look-out for "continuous improvement" and therefore checks reported numbers against his own forecasts in a constant, ruthless pursuit of greater predictive accuracy everytime a company reports.... ...you'd think he'd have picked up on this when he plugged the numbers they gave into his own model wouldn't you? Or perhaps some of the assumptions I stated above could be as wrong as he seems to be <g> I guess that's why these guys sneak the fine print down at the bottom of all their reports. You know, stuff like "we make no representations or guarantees to the accuracy of the above". Who cares if what you wrote AS FACT later turns out to be an untruth as long as you can get CNBC, Dow Jones, Bloomberg to ram home the "$200 price target" without the slightest bit of the intellectual curiosity or professional responsibility on the part of the reporters? Hey, come to think of it...I wonder if "influential semiconductor analyst" Tom Kurlak, "First Team II All-Star" did the same? I signed up for the Merrill trial, so, hang on... OH BABY!!! HE did it too! Bits of memory grew 10% sequentially... And what makes it even funnier is that on the first page, bear that he is, he has under investment highlights: Memory bit growth, revenue less than projected Hmmm...well, TK, I have some good news for you and some bad news for you... And even funnier than that is this line on page 2: More rapid bit growth of 20% sequentially is expected for F'Q2 and Q3 as the TXN fabs ramp up Mr. Kurlak, I know your an II All-Star and everything, and therefore we all have to stop thinking and kow-tow to you in servile deferrence, but how is it possible for you to make a prediction of 20% sequential bit growth, when the baseline for that calculation would be the bit growth the previous quarter, a number you characterized as "grew 10% sequentially" and yet in MU's recent 10-Q it clearly states it as a "10% decline"? There's something very interesting going on when both bullish and bearish guys are making the identical observation. Would be interesting to see whether or not anyone else made similar observations in their research. Good trading, Tom

To: Dave Gahm who wrote (42264)	1/15/1999 4:00:00 PM
From: Skeeter Bug	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 53903

tom, dave, GRRRREAT job. these two bit hucksters have been totally faced... AGAIN...