the real danger for MU is it's dram tech-gap, ~ 1 year behind rest. ie. it's losing money no matter how it struggles.
it's dram vp seems not apt for the position,
stanford BS sounds bit of weak for such task,
boise generally host some tier2 folks,
MU could survive the last couple of cycles purely thanks to the blessing of intel for sharing their NAND tech.
Not sure u guys ever read the actual MU 3rd quarter financial report before commented. Except Samsung, I doubt Hynix, aka sk-hynix is financially stable than MU. In fact, we should look at Hynix debt level as MU has one of the lowest asset/debt ratio compare to rest of memory vendors. Additionally, cash flow generation is far more important in company financial health than financial loss due to accounting purpose. Don't forget recent MU/Intel agreement in NAND capacity allocation could play a part in recent financial report ..just my 2cents.
The only thing that matters in the memory business is how you do relative to your competitors. Do you make more money than your competitors during the good times, do you lose less money during the bad times. Samsung and Hynix perform better than Micron consistently over the business cycle. It has been this way for the last ten years. Micron has survived because they have scavenged the carcasses of dead memory companies. I don't see how they can survive long term in direct competition Samsung, unless they can find a miracle investor with unlimited funds like GlobalFoundries did.