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: DJBEINO who wrote (43747)	3/12/1999 5:40:00 PM
From: John Graybill	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 53903

DJ, you are the man! Are you a subscriber, or do you check that site every couple of hours, or what. I just checked out that site and didn't see a way to just pop up a page of MU headlines. (That article is indeed published today -- The "2/25" date is a typo.)

To: DJBEINO who wrote (43747)	3/13/1999 10:18:00 AM
From: A. A. LaFountain III	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 53903

Re: "Is Micron cutting DRAM prices to lower inventory?" These statements go back to the concepts incorporated in my original post on this thread about MU production and shipments. Growth rates are used without particularly precise definitions. When reports cite 50% bit production growth, is this production at wafer probe or at final test? When the resumption of a 20% bit growth rate is postulated for the next quarter, is that at wafer probe or final test. My thought about the growth rates was (and is) that testing bottlenecks could and should lead to a shipment growth rate that would then recede to more normalized levels as the inventory bubble worked its way through the system. If the message here is that shipment growth rates go down 10%, then up 50% in the quarter just ended and then proceed to grow at a 20% rate, then there has been a monumental jump in bit production. Obviously, these are questions that deserve attention in the upcoming conference call. Of a more pernicious nature is "rolling revision" management guidance. I certainly don't begrudge any management for attempting to put the best face on its results, and a management that attempts to keep the investment public up to date on developments within the company is to be applauded. Unfortunately, when guidance changes are made as a series of incremental shifts on a high-frequency basis to selected audiences, it's possible to end up with a quantum change in a relatively short timeframe. It's no wonder that media coverage can get distorted in its discussion of "prior" and "previous." My take on all of this is that like a lot of companies that compete against a number of competitors, Micron's management probably spends most of its time on its own operations and may not be as aware of developments at the large number of other producers. This situation would be the opposite of a market with a few number of viable suppliers (e.g., Intel/AMD/Cyrix, which are all very fluent in the others' products and market positions). The post concerning IDC's DRAM 1998 market share data runs counter to management guidance, but should not be a surprise to those who have been monitoring the SIA DRAM data As a rule, commodity producers react much more to their customers than their competitors, and this is precisely why commodity markets get whipsawed so badly - customers might not lie, but they pay no penalty for overstating their projected demand (in fact, they benefit from the oversupply that is often created in response to their claims of imminent need). When you factor in the perceived benefits of size, it's no wonder that bit growth production numbers are awarded all sorts of attention - to the detriment of a focus on profitability. Sure makes for interesting "investing." - Tad LaFountain