SI
SI
discoversearch

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: Thomas G. Busillo who wrote (42274)1/15/1999 4:24:00 PM
From: Dave Gahm  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 53903
 
Tom, "Garbage in, garbage out". Adjusting Niles' spreadsheet to reflect the 10% drop in megabits for Q1FY99 results in 16% lower DRAM revenues for 99 and 2000. If you assume that the cost side of the equation stays roughly the same, this is enough to turn his estimate of a .70 profit for 99 into a loss. For 2000 his estimate of $2.70 becomes about .30. Of course it is possible that MU will ramp production faster than predicted and at some point catch up, but this certainly makes his $200 price target look even more foolish than it did.

Regards, Dave



To: Thomas G. Busillo who wrote (42274)1/16/1999 4:25:00 PM
From: Carl R.  Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 53903
 
Tom, the fact that Kurlak and Niles both used a 10% bit growth is not surprising. From the conference call, that was the impression I was left with as well. I wouldn't be surprised if they are pissed to learn that bits actually fell. Misleading analysts is not a wise practice.

As for future quarters, MU did specifically say that there would be 20% sequential increases in bit output.

Carl


HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News