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: John Graybill who wrote (43537)	3/8/1999 5:17:00 PM
From: John Graybill	Respond to of 53903

AMD announced at the tout-fest that they will have a "significant loss" this quarter! We're in The Bizarro Universe! marketwatch.newsalert.com "Demand for our desktop and mobile products remains strong," (for Mr. Bug)

To: John Graybill who wrote (43537)	3/8/1999 6:44:00 PM
From: Thomas G. Busillo	Respond to of 53903

John, I came up empty on Friday's Niles tout as well. Maria B. mentioned last Friday night on Business Center that "RS was pounding the table" on the stock, but it's weird that there's nothing out there other than the Fleck blurb. I checked through ETrade's Prof. Edge trial and there wasn't anything new MU and nothing appears in the 5 a.m. or 10 a.m. BBRS sales summaries for Friday. I think the guy will pull an estimate increase sometime before they report. When Fleck refers to "some old data" I'd assume he's referring to the "current version 12-23-98" earnings model that Niles has continued to use (at least in the stuff I'm getting through ETrade). He threw it into a report called "PC Hardware Update" 3-1-98. It still shows semicon revs. at $428 mil. and sequential DRAM bit shipments +7%, despite factual data to the contrary that has been sitting right out there in an SEC filing for over 7 weeks now. And of course, this is also in spite of being alerted to some of the issues in the 10-Q by the top business columnist for the New York Times roughly 5 weeks ago. His assumptions have grown more aggressive, yet the model for some strange reason fails to incorporate them, let alone get the historical financials correct. What's also interesting is that when MUEI warned, he was able to pop out a new model for MUEI dated 3-2-98 that accompanied his 3-2-98 rescue mission/research report. So the man is fully capable of changing an earnings model in response to new data, yet the MU model that went out in the 3-1-98 report fails to incorporate some of the assumptions stated elsewhere in the report and the historical actuals. I guess that's "new school" securities analysis. Throw out assumptions, but don't change the estimate until you can package it appropriately. Good trading, Tom