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: Thomas G. Busillo who wrote (44045)	3/20/1999 1:49:00 PM
From: Thomas G. Busillo	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 53903

Follow-up on PixTech charge: The agreement is contingent upon approval of the Federal Trade Commission and approval of PixTech's stockholders to increase the number of shares of Common Stock authorized for issuance by the Pixtech Board of Directors and to issue shares of PixTech's stock to Micron in this transaction, as well as customary closing conditions. The transaction is expected to close shortly after PixTech's annual shareholders' meeting, which is scheduled for April 27, 1999. If the deal is closing shortly after 4-27-99, why does the PR state that it will reduce MU's 2nd quarter earnings by .03/share? 4-27-99 is in MU's 3Q. Is the PR wrong in stating The transaction is expected to reduce Micron's second quarter* earnings per share by approximately $0.03.* biz.yahoo.com I don't understand why the charge would be to 2Q. I'd also like to know specifically when the deal was signed - not announced, but signed. Sorry, but a PR that comes out 9:30 p.m. on a Friday two days before they're scheduled to report 2Q mentioning a .03 share charge to 2Q is IMHO somewhat curious. Is the PR accurate regarding which quarter that charge will go to? Tom

To: Thomas G. Busillo who wrote (44045)	3/20/1999 10:43:00 PM
From: A. A. LaFountain III	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 53903

Tom: re $0.03/share charge in 2Q It's quite possible that the relevant assets were deemed impaired prior to the proposed transaction (perhaps as the negotiations progressed). As to speculation about the transaction being used to guide whisper numbers down, I would think that it could also be speculated that placing the charge in 2Q rather than waiting until the deal closes in 3Q could be an attempt to smooth earnings by assigning the charge to a period of stronger results than expected (please read that very carefully - note that I am not saying that this is the case, but that "one" could speculate). - Tad LaFountain