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: Carl R. who wrote (42320)	1/16/1999 5:52:00 PM
From: Thomas G. Busillo	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 53903

Carl, thanks for posting that CC summary way back. Here I was thinking that Kurlak came up with his sequential projections on his own and it turns out he appeared to have just written down what management told him the night before. It's not Kafkaesque... ...it's Stengalesque! As in, can anyone here play this game?<g> Good trading, Tom

To: Carl R. who wrote (42320)	1/16/1999 7:01:00 PM
From: Skeeter Bug	Read Replies (1) \| 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.<< imho, this wasn't an accident. >>As for future quarters, MU did specifically say that there would be 20% sequential increases in bit output.<< from a much lower base, thank you very much. this means fewer chips sold and lower profits. much lower. i eagerly await the downward eps revisions that, imho, will never come as dan has an AGENDA, imho. this bit of information doesn't fit into his agenda. at least, imho. but, WE WILL SEE...

To: Carl R. who wrote (42320)	1/17/1999 4:02:00 PM
From: Dave Gahm	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 53903

Carl, It will be interesting to see if the analysts are "pissed" enough to make a public acknowledgement and adjust their forecasts based on the correct numbers. Niles probably won't want to jeopardize future underwriting, but Kurlak with his more negative view might enjoy the chance to trash them a bit. You strike me as a square-shooter, and an ethical guy, how do you feel about being lied to by MU management? Most shareholders probably don't care if management robs banks, as long as the stock goes up, but this kind of sleaziness does usually have negative consequences for a company in the long haul. Chainsaw Al's sales number fudging at Sunbeam is the first example that comes to mind. It worked great for awhile but eventually caught up with him. I'm sure Al thought he could get the business back on track before anyone caught on, and that is probably MU's plan as well. It is worth noting that MU would have made a profit in the 1st quarter if they had executed well, and increased bit production by 10-20%, assuming prices held. Now that they are coming off a problem quarter, and presumably have resolved the backend problems, it is possible they will show a very large actual sequential increase in bit production of 30-40%. In fact one analyst recently stated that MU upped their guidance for the quarter to 30% bit growth. If the market can absorb that without hammering prices then they will have a dandy quarter, but that strikes me as a very significant if during what is normally a lower demand quarter. Regards, Dave