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 (44053)	3/21/1999 1:39:00 AM
From: Carl R.	Respond to of 53903

I suspect that you are right. Given strong DRAM prices during the last quarter, it will no doubt be better than the next one, and therefore they can add the charge to last quarter and still have decent results. Also as a non-recurring charge it won't affect the street number when done in the past, but future estimates would include it if they announced that they were going to do it in Q3. Carl

To: A. A. LaFountain III who wrote (44053)	3/21/1999 11:51:00 AM
From: Thomas G. Busillo	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 53903

Tad, thanks. Now it makes a little more sense. It's quite possible that the relevant assets were deemed impaired prior to the proposed transaction (perhaps as the negotiations progressed). So in theory, it's possible they "discovered" during 2Q that the assets had a lower value and they take it as a write-down 2Q so when the deal actually closes 3Q, they wouldn't have to book it as loss on sale of assets. I guess I was coming at it from the school that says charges should be incurred during the period the transaction occurs. Definitely "old school" <g> Good trading, Tom