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 (46068)	5/31/1999 7:30:00 PM
From: Bill F.	Respond to of 53903

tad -excellent post.particularly agreed with the conclusion vis a vis sentiment.

To: A. A. LaFountain III who wrote (46068)	5/31/1999 9:13:00 PM
From: Skeeter Bug	Respond to of 53903

>>the most irksome thing about it is that there is never any attribution.<< does a convenience store robber tell you what company made his gun? -ng- talk about dishonestly defining market share and then only sharing said definition with <<<<<<<<< 1% of the market... hey, tad - sounds like your buy point is dropping a little closer to mine ;-)

To: A. A. LaFountain III who wrote (46068)	6/1/1999 9:42:00 AM
From: Thomas G. Busillo	Respond to of 53903

Tad, thanks. Once again, we see how telling a truth that misses The Truth can actually work. I totally agree w/ what you're saying re: the significance (or lack thereof) of market share. It just pisses me off to see such sloppy reasoning left unexamined by the media. Maria Bartiromo and Dan Niles - a perfect couple, as IMHO, they both epitomize the worst of their respective professions. Barron's Weekday Trader citing the 20% market share figure in their memorable POS of mid-February another great example of psuedo-journalism partnered with psuedo-analysis. Instead of talking about net CAPX, working capital needs, external financing needs, etc., let's talk about a market share figure in which we define the market, but we don't really go out of our way to let anyone know exactly how we are defining it, but then again why would we since it certainly doesn't help the "why MU is going to be trading at $X by Y" marketing-brochure quality argument we're making. And when it comes to valuation, well, why do a DCF valuation when you can simply pop out an earnings estimate and a price target and have everything make sense on the grounds that "well, we think a forward PE of X is justified given [general and vague allusions to an abnormal period of past-performance and a murky future]." Best Regards, Tom