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: Thomas G. Busillo who wrote (42280)	1/15/1999 11:17:00 PM
From: Dave Gahm	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 53903

Tom, Very interesting, the omission of the word "megabit" is clearly a departure from the unambiguous language they use when the news is good. I think you are correct that this is the first decline in at least 8 quarters. It is even more noteworthy because this quarter included 2 months of production from the former TXN fabs. Considering that TXN's DRAM megabit output prior to the close of the deal was close to MUs it indicates those "backend" problems at Boise were severe. If they are struggling to work the kinks out of .21 technology at Boise, what does this say about their ability to deploy their technology at the acquired facilities? Perhaps the analysts failed to pick up on the megabit decrease because MU failed to disclose this important fact prior to the 10Q. Carl R. listened to the conference call and had this to say: 7. Analysts were surprised (as was I) by the fact that even with TI there was only a 10% sequential bit increase. exchange2000.com Either MU made an honest error, but again why did they use "output" instead of "megabits".... or they purposely fibbed. In either case, where is the analyst response? If all these estimates and price targets were based on erroneous data, it would seem to require a reappraisal and a public acknowledgement. Which leaves me wondering if none of them care about honest analysis, but are only concerned about the stock price...and we know that can't be,<g> or perhaps they don't bother to read 10Qs. I have also considered that the drop in production might have been the result of a conscious decision to control the price, but if so I think they would have said so. Regards, Dave

To: Thomas G. Busillo who wrote (42280)	1/16/1999 1:04:00 PM
From: Thomas G. Busillo	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 53903

FWIW, study of 10-Q language. 1Q'97 Total megabits produced in the first quarter of fiscal 1997 more than doubled the megabits produced in the first quarter of fiscal 1996 and represented a 48% increase in production over the fourth quarter of fiscal 1996. 2Q'97 Total megabits produced in the second quarter of 1997 more than tripled the megabits produced in the second quarter of 1996. Megabit production for the first six months of 1997 represented an increase of 183% over megabit production for the first six months of 1996. [Also, very interesting use of language: Net sales of semiconductor memory products for the second quarter of 1997 decreased by 38% as compared to the second quarter of 1996, primarily due to the sharp decline in average selling prices which was partially offset by increased production of semiconductor memory products. Why would megabits "produc[ed]" (as opposed to "shipped" or "sold") have anything to do with an "offset" in regards to sales? Although the writer is saying the decline in ASP's was offset by "increased production" is this really the case? Is this what the writer means? Conceivably, you could "produce" megabits up the wazoo without having any effect on "sales", right? And there is an argument to be made that increasing production has a negative effect on ASP's, right? Does the writer really mean megabits "shipped"? Would the average investor take the term "production" in this context to mean "shipped" or "sold"? IMHO, yes.] 3Q'97 Net sales of semiconductor memory products for the third quarter of 1997 increased by 23% compared to the third quarter of 1996, primarily due to higher levels of production of semiconductor memory products. The Company's principal memory product in the third quarter of 1997 was the 16 Meg DRAM, which comprised approximately 92% of megabit sales of semiconductor memory. Total megabits of DRAM produced in the third quarter and first nine months of 1997 were three times the megabits produced in the corresponding periods of 1996... ...Net sales of semiconductor memory products for the third quarter of fiscal 1997 increased by 27% compared to the second quarter of fiscal 1997. This increase reflects a 31% increase in megabit production of semiconductor memory primarily due to further yield improvements on the 16 Meg DRAM, as well as an approximate 6% increase in the average selling price for the 16 Meg DRAM for the third quarter of 1997 over the average selling price for the second quarter of 1997. 4Q'97 Total megabits of semiconductor memory shipped in 1997 increased by more than 200% over 1996 levels. 1Q'98 As a result of the decline in average selling prices, net sales of semiconductor memory products for the first quarter of 1998 decreased by 9% as compared to the fourth quarter of 1997 despite a 24% increase in megabits shipped for the same period. 2Q'98: Total megabits shipped increased by 47% and 85%, respectively, for the second quarter and first six months of 1998 as compared to the same periods in 1997, and total megabits produced increased by approximately 70% and 100%, respectively. [Oh, so now we see that Micron mangement does have a clear understanding that "total megabits shipped" and "total megabits produced" are two different things. Is it that it took until the 2nd quarter of 1998 for Micron management to realize the distinction? Or did they fully know the difference all along and merely chose to use certain language in some SEC filings and not others?] 3Q'98: Total megabits shipped increased by 80% and 84%, respectively, for the third quarter and first nine months of 1998 as compared to the same periods in 1997... ...Net sales of semiconductor memory products were flat from the second quarter of 1998 to the third quarter of 1998 as a 30% decline in average selling price per megabit of memory was offset by a 45% increase in megabits shipped 4Q'98 : Total megabits of semiconductor memory shipped in 1998 increased by approximately 110% over 1997 levels. (this was an annual fiscal year comparison) 1Q'99: Net sales of semiconductor memory products increased by 10% in the first quarter of 1999 as compared to the fourth quarter of 1998 principally due to an approximate 18% increase in average selling price per megabit of memory sold, partially offset by a 10% decline in megabits shipped Why is Micron management apparently choosing to use certain terms in certain mandated federal filings (not feel-good PR's) and certain terms in others? [Also, why did all the links from FreeEdgar fail to appear as links when I cut and pasted them from my browser (causing me to cut them from this post: but all the excerpts are from the "Management's Discussion..." section of the filings) and yet I did the same thing last night and it worked, and pretty much do it everytime I post a link and it works?] Tom