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: SlowThinker who wrote (42783)	2/5/1999 10:34:00 AM
From: TREND1	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 53903

SlowThinker I've been posting here for years. Long time posters here would never never ask a question like that from HAL. Do you recall the Estimated $17 EPS back in 1995 as MU picked at 95 ???? Why not talk to Skeeter Bug about non TA items, he has been a bear on MU since MU=22 And DJ has been a BULL for a long time. As for me (HAL)...I am just a computer program and go bullish and bearish.. Now I'll tell you this...The MU monthly trend is still up !!! Why not join the 400+ on my FREE EMAIL LIST which has covered MU for a long time ? Just email me at larrydudash@earthlink.net HAL PS:David, My bullish trading of DELL may have ended for awhile.

To: SlowThinker who wrote (42783)	2/5/1999 11:41:00 AM
From: Dave Gahm	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 53903

Slowthinker, Given Boise's terrible execution last quarter, and assuming they have worked the kinks out, 40-50% seems doable. I don't think that will translate into 50% higher revenue, as last quarter was helped immensely by a high mix of 16mb parts selling for a premium price, but revenue will be nicely higher. The analysts do seem pretty intent on keeping the bar low enough for MU to beat the estimates. During FYQ1, MU's megabits shipped dropped 10% (effectively removing TXN totally) and supply and demand came into balance. Current demand seems to be stronger than is normal, but a jump of 50% in MU's output is still a big increase on the supply side. I have read that MU memory is showing up on the spot market. Perhaps LG's troubles will allow the market to absorb the extra supply with no pricing pressure, we shall see. Business PC sales are not doing well, and with consumer sales gravitating to the low end, I remain a skeptic on the matter of demand growth exceeding supply. And even if it does longer term, all it takes is one inventory correction by PC makers to cause a collapse in DRAM demand and pricing. The other bearish argument that I find convincing is valuation. The stock price seems pretty far ahead of itself, given the very uncertain nature of earnings estimates further in the future than next quarter. The flood of 144s would argue the insiders are in agreement. I am glad to see that you are continuing to post, despite some recent unsavory responses. You have added many well reasoned, intelligent arguments to the debate, that I for one, have found very valuable. Regards, Dave

To: SlowThinker who wrote (42783)	2/5/1999 3:39:00 PM
From: John Graybill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 53903

Gruntal issued their second "reiterate buy" in four days today. Looks like they got caught long too.

To: SlowThinker who wrote (42783)	2/7/1999 10:57:00 AM
From: Thomas G. Busillo	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 53903

SlowThinker, I gave some thought to the factual content of the blurb. I'll assume Niles is the author of the note since he is their analyst covering the stock. "Believe Q2 could be much better than anticipated. Believe that total revenues could be up almost 50% sequentially due to bits up 40-50% and up sequential pricing". Due to bits up 40-50%. Since that "due to" ties back to "revenues", he's talking shipments. Obviously, if it took a New York Times reporter to alert him to some of the interesting things in the recent 10-Q, Q2 certainly I can see why he would "Believe Q2 could be much better than anticipated." I could leave it right there, but then I might be accused of the dreaded "ad hominem" attack <g> (I'd plead "not guilty" as IMHO, his position as a professional research analyst at a major i-bank inextricably links him to his work product), but here's where I'm coming from... I have the 12-24-98 Niles report. His estimate for Total DRAM Bytes (mil.) for 2Q was 492. The "Total DRAM Bytes" row title is coming under a column heading that reads "DRAM shipments". He has them down for 1Q coming in at 394. Based on those numbers he has them coming in at 25% sequential growth for 2Q. Sequential growth 4Q to 1Q is down as was +7%. The 10-Q states that total bit shipments declined 10%. So let's go back and look at what he had down for 4Q, make the adjustment and see where that puts us. For 4Q he has them down as 368. So, for 1Q, if shipments were down 10%, that would be 331.2. So, he was projecting 492 for 2Q'99 on a 12-24-98 doc. He was viewing it then as a 25% sequential increase. Using his 4Q'98 numbers and adjusting them to reflect the 10% decrease in shipments cited on the 10-Q, the 1Q figure now comes in at 331.2. Take a wild guess what the sequential increase is? 48.55% I must note that the NYT piece of last weekend certainly made it seem as if his familiarity with the 10-Q was, shall we say, "limited". And he's saying what now? Believe Q2 could be much better than anticipated. Believe that total revenues could be up almost 50% sequentially due to bits up 40-50% and up sequential pricing. I guess if you thought the sequential growth was 25% based on a faulty baseline, and when you adjust the baseline you get 48.55%, you would be under the belief that "Q2 could be much better than anticipated". Based on the available information I'm looking at: A. His 12-24-98 report. B. The MU 10-Q. C. The NYT article. That's my line of reasoning. The possible flaws are A. he may not have gone back and corrected his own work to reflect the 10% decrease in shipments, and B. he may actually have a different in their for 2Q shipments. I signed up for E*Trade's professional edge trial and when I checked earlier, it wasn't there. I'll certainly be interested in seeing how he dealt with his errors and what the numbers are. While acknowledging the possibility of flaws, I'd have to say that right now I suspect he probably dealt with it exactly as I thought he would. However, if you choose to view it as an ad hominem attack (and I believe your strongest ground is arguing it is the "circumstantial" ad hominem) and wish to successfully rebut it, you will have to prove that the truth or falsity of the proposition (his belief that 2Q will be much better than anticipated, in part, "due to bits up 40-50%") has nothing to do with the circumstances of the person (presumably, Dan Niles) making the proposition. IMHO, that's difficult based on the above line of reasoning; however, if he changed his total bit number for Q2 maybe you've got a little daylight there <g> As far as "total revenues", while I can see how that's possible, I'm with you on questioning the likelihood. Assume the total memory represented by 64Mb shipments will increase 40% sequentially. Assume their ASP's are 9.75. What has to happened for total revenues for semicon memory products to grow 50% sequentially? 64 1Q % change 2Q(E) units 29.707 41.590 asp 8.96 9.75 revs 266.175 52.34% 405.501 memory 1901250 40% 2661750 non-64 revs. 143.325 46% 208.7490234 TOTAL 409.5 50.00% 614.25 (Source for 8.96 1Q 64Mb ASP, 12-24-98 Niles report; source for 9.75, what I'm sitting on). My problem with the above is the following: If the 64Mb is their bread and butter product and it's also a product that is a larger % of total sales, what's happening out there that's going to drive non-64 revs. to a 46% sequential increase? Granted, the higher you choose to assume the 64Mb bit growth will be, the lower those non-64 revs have to be. Good trading, Tom