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: phbolton who wrote (46118)	6/4/1999 12:13:00 PM
From: Thomas G. Busillo	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 53903

ph, here's a follow-up question for Mona: Mona, if part of you're thesis involves MU increasing its market share from "20%" to "23%"... Define the market you are talking about. I ask this, because frankly, unless you carve out a market within the market, I'm hard pressed to see how "20%" can be possible in terms of either revenues or total DRAM bits. Message 9856748 So if you're doing that - say so. Also, if your expectations are for MU to achieve 23%, how do you reconcile your projections against the separate reality estimated by Don Baldwin, MU's VP of sales and marketing in an EB piece several months ago: With the [TI] acquisition, Micron's share of the DRAM market has gone from 6% to as much as 25%, Baldwin estimates. eb-mag.com [That doesn't look like it's going take you to the specific article, but if you goto the home page and do a search, it shouldn't be a problem. It's a VERY informative piece. Great insights on strategy and the futility of accurate market forecasts for this product area.] Hey, how about that, wasn't it Dan Niles who wrote that it was a "given" that MU has 25% of the DRAM market. Shame on us for assuming that "given that" was a rheotorical term intended to imply a basis in empirical fact... ...as opposed to a decriptive term illuminating how this insight was acquired <g> ph, I agree Niles and the other Rip van Winkles out there will lower their estimates. I think he'll lower them and then 6 weeks later raise them again at the Robbie Stephens Conference. Now on the surface, that may appear ridiculous, but really it's just a little bit of history repeating isn't it? He raised his numbers at the last minute right before they reported 2Q and then cut the thing and lowered his numbers roughly 4 weeks later 4-21-99. Should it matter? No. From a short-term trading POV will it matter? I guess if the Dow Jones/CNBC axis ram it down our throats without showing any sense of memory or context (i.e. their typical editorial bent when writing on the latest pronouncements of these exalted demi-gods) it will to some degree. Good trading, Tom