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 (42606)	1/31/1999 12:36:00 PM
From: Thomas G. Busillo	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 53903

Dave, file me under "totally floored" <g> That rules! I think Gretchen Morgenstern just replaced Herb Greenberg on my personal financial journalist all-star team (Andrew Serwer is in a class all his own). She did a great job of cutting to the heart of the issues and conveying to readers why it's interesting. It really is an interesting story. She said Micron, of Boise, Idaho, found the error and fixed it in the 10-Q. But it did not publish a corrected news release. "It was not material," she said. So it's immaterial that 4.3 percent of the company's semiconductor sales weren't semiconductor sales at all. An interesting follow-up line - "when you say 'the error', what specifically do you mean?" On the surface, a redundant question. However... "I'd like to know the specific nature of the error. Was it that: a) you had no idea that $18.6 mil. of what you in a 12-23-98 release were calling sales of semicon mem products were actually service revs OR b) in preparation of the 12-23-98 release you were aware that they were service revs. but did not believe that classifying them under the line for semicon mem products sales was improper?" Each answer has its own branches of follow-up. These seem like the two mostly likely and reasonable explanations of the nature of "the error", but if there are others, I'm all ears. Sorry, Ms. Nash, but with all due respect, your answer sheds no new light on the question. Obviously if you changed the classification of the $18.6 million from the 12-23-98 release to the 10-Q, then someone "found" something in "error". IMHO, the issue is how this happened. Was it A or B? Or was it something else entirely? Dan Niles, an analyst at BancBoston Robertson Stephens, has a strong "buy" rating on the stock. The revenue number he has used in recommending the stock is the $428.1 million from the news release. Niles did not know the number was incorrect until a reporter told him on Friday. He said the new, lower number would not change his positive view of the company. That's beautiful. His relentless pursuit of excellence and committment to continuously improving the quality of his own work product is truly inspirational <g> Good trading, Tom