SI
SI
discoversearch

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.
Politics : Ask Michael Burke -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Earlie who wrote (48941)2/25/1999 4:25:00 PM
From: Eggolas Moria  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 132070
 
I still don't get it.<g> MU hit 90 in Sept 95 when the FY97 est. was $17/sh. Recently it hit 80 with the FY2000 est at 2.70 (high of 4.40).

I know I'm missing something . . .



To: Earlie who wrote (48941)2/25/1999 4:29:00 PM
From: MythMan  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 132070
 
Earlie,

speaking of delight, did you notice how AMAT got it's face ripped off today? One of the few stocks that the dipsters didn't run to rescue. I guess negative year over year growth is showing up in the stock price...Nah, couldn't be. -g-

MM



To: Earlie who wrote (48941)2/25/1999 6:05:00 PM
From: Knighty Tin  Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 132070
 
Earlie, I think we have hit upon something new on Wall Street. Revenues up 1% is the new code term for negative growth. It is like "hold" meaning "sell short." <g>

MB


HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News