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 (46121)	6/4/1999 12:51:00 PM
From: Carl R.	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 53903

I am disappointed. We're already seeing some signs of capitulation from the competition, and MU is not down in the 20's. We're running out of time. One in Tiawan is converting to foundry and NEC is slashing investment. If we were in the 20's I'd call these buy signals, but up here, I'm not so sure. They certainly eliminate any temptation to short, though. Carl

To: Thomas G. Busillo who wrote (46121)	6/4/1999 1:10:00 PM
From: Thomas G. Busillo	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 53903

Third, I do not believe that it is in NEC's best interests to start a price war. But it's in MU's best interests? Why would MU be the only major DRAM player capable of attempting to put the squeeze on marginal players? If NEC believes its the or one of the low-cost producers, why would NEC reach a conclusion that is different from MU? Or Samsung for that matter? Isn't part of the danger that you have some major players smelling blood and all going for the kill at the same time? Isn't it also possible that the net effect of going for the kill will be to produce an even worse short-term situation than if the marginal players just were ground down by their own inefficencies? If supply/demand parity were expected to come at point X (caused by industrywide reduction in CAPX + fairly normal demand trends), and the top players as a group over-compensated for the effect of marginal suppliers, aren't what they really doing is pushing the supply/demand partity point further out into the future? Isn't this in some sense a variation on the "we have to burn down the village to save it" strategy? Tom