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: Tim McCormick who wrote (44274)	3/25/1999 12:57:00 AM
From: IceShark	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 53903

Ho, ho ho. Tank time.

To: Tim McCormick who wrote (44274)	3/25/1999 1:36:00 AM
From: Carl R.	Respond to of 53903

Thanks for posting. I'll try to listen tomorrow, I don't have time tonight. After they misled the analysts last month regarding the 10% reduction in bits shipped, I kind of expected a chilly atmosphere this time around. They did head off a lot of negative questions by specifically separating bits produced from bits shipped in the press release, I note. While it headed off questions, I doubt it did much to thaw the atmosphere. Carl

To: Tim McCormick who wrote (44274)	3/27/1999 12:58:00 PM
From: Thomas G. Busillo	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 53903

Tim, thanks for that. The exchange sparked by the guy from Capital was fascinating. I don't know if that was the most important part of the call in terms of what the consensus POV or consensus reaction to the call was, but if I had to edit the highlights that would be a significant portion of the highlight film. Not just that it was somewhat combative, but because it gave a very clear indication of IMHO how this company has been playing its hand and, more importantly, will continue to play its hand going forward. What I heard out of that was basically: We are just going to do whatever it takes to keep pushing costs down because that's how you win in a commodity market and if part of that process involves increasing supply coming out of us, well, we're just not going to sit around wringing our hands about what we do to global supply or how that's affecting pricing. The inefficient players will leave. And I guess there are two obvious "yeah, but -"'s that go with that: 1) yeah, but you obviously do affect pricing to some degree. 2) yeah, but what if they don't leave or leave as soon as you think or to the degree you expect. They're fighting a war of attrition. They seem to believe that their cost cutting efforts can outrun whatever "blowback" occurs on the price/supply end and that in the long-run they'll be among the winners. That may very well be the case, but maybe the market's recognition of the short-term effects of that strategy somehow played into the price action Thurs. and Friday. I don't know to what extent, but I do think it played a role. Good trading, Tom