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: DavidG who wrote (42771)	2/4/1999 11:59:00 PM
From: TREND1	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 53903

David ........................POINT "A"......Feb 4, 1999........... .........................??????????????????????????............. The odds were high enough to keep my day trade "short" over night and maybe longer ! Hal (Just a computer program)

To: DavidG who wrote (42771)	2/5/1999 10:30:00 AM
From: Earlie	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 53903

Dave: We'll agree to disagree. - TXN upgrade costs,...see 10-Q - "ahead of schedule" useful if we knew their "schedule". - Do the math on their "bit growth". Suggest you use the "revised" starting point rather than the original, as did Niles. It's lousy now, and even using company-provided percentages, the future numbers are not encouraging, given the TXN add-ons. - When $1.0 billion gets spent, some folks usually do a "return on equity" calculation. Unless the PC market turns and heads straight north, a "return" of any kind appears unlikely on the TXN expenditure. It merely brings these plants up to the current technology,...a point where no one is making money at the moment. It will reduce their contributed losses,....so long as the chips can be sold and so long as current prices hold. You know what additional supply usually does. - Yesterday, investors learned that INTC and AMD are in a price war. This has been evident in the field for many months, and I've said as much. The memory producers' world is much more heavily populated and the price wars are fiercer. There is just no possibility of memory prices moving up beyond the cost of production in this environment. A company can't "make it up on the volume" when they are selling at or below cost. - You and I have discussed "cost-to-produce" apples and oranges in the past. My bias to view "all-up cost" (particularly including interest costs) as more valid than carefully crafted company perspectives, appears to have been more useful, given the massive losses that ensued where analysts were projecting mild profitability. $7.00 per 64 doesn't show up at this end. Last quarter's loss (with $9.50 to $10 selling prices) also suggests that truly remarkable yield gains, well in excess of their own claims must be taking place. - If competitors are also improving yields at rates that match or exceed MU (and they are), what does this say about supply? If PC sales are not accelerating, and if there are no new applications to drive memory requirement growth, then mbit production growth just adds to the supply side problems and ensures price pressure. Unfortunately, the upgrade/add on market is a small fraction of overall memory sales. You stay bullish, I'll stay bearish. Time will tell. Best, Earlie