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: A. A. LaFountain III who wrote (44019)	3/19/1999 10:49:00 AM
From: Skeeter Bug	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 53903

tad, the bottom line is that mu and its touts pull this kind of partial or distorted information all the time. what is the result? record stock price highs. why fix something that isn't broken. too much money chasing too few stocks is dumb money. very dumb money.

To: A. A. LaFountain III who wrote (44019)	3/20/1999 10:28:00 AM
From: Thomas G. Busillo	Respond to of 53903

Tad, thanks for taking the time to post that. My guessimate looks like it was WAY too low. My data ended with Nov. and I just extrapolated it from there, trying to factor in my best guess at seasonal effects of Jan and Feb. I totally screwed-up re: compensating for the 3-month moving-average effect. Also, I tried to be conservative, as my point was to point out how flat-out non-sensical that "25%" market share garbage was and I didn't want to make him look any more out of touch than he was. So in a way, I'm heartened by the fact that I was off because it exposes what BBRS is reporting as fact, to be even more flat-out ridiculous (not really; I hate being wrong) <g> The higher the overall market the more mathetmatically impossible it is for MU to be doing what BBRS is stating as fact. In any event, for MU to get to 25% share, revenues would have to increase on the order of 200% during a period when ASPs were up low double-digits, implying bit growth around 150% EXACTLY! There's an obvious constraint at work. It's called "reality". What you wrote regarding the struggle between perception and reality and what it means - no one could have expressed it any better than you did. My impression of this company would be significantly more positive if the gap between perception and reality were closer. You're right. In many ways it is a compelling case. The bulls on this thread have done a better job of making that case than any of the nitwits performing so-called securities analysis at any of these i-banks. The more these other analysts have to stretch the truth and warp reality to make their point, the more suspicious I am about what's really happening under the surface. Good trading, Tom