| ▲ | mschuster91 16 hours ago | |||||||
> Soo ... how sure are we that the memory makers themselves are not going to be the ones holding the bag? We aren't. The remaining memory manufacturers fear getting caught in a "pork cycle" yet again - that is why there's only the three large ones left anyway. | ||||||||
| ▲ | twic 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | |||||||
Surely this can be solved with financial engineering. The memory makers build more capacity, but they finance it with something like floating-rate notes linked to an index of memory prices, or even catastrophe bonds or AT1s. Or more crudely, set up special purpose vehicles to build the extra capacity, and issue convertible bonds from those; if the memory market collapses, investors don't get paid, but they do get a memory factory. | ||||||||
| ▲ | ahartmetz 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | |||||||
If they don't expand capacity much, the only negative consequences I foresee happening for them is that they might lose spending discipline, and that systems will be set up to make do with a little less memory. Apart from that, it's just very high profits followed by more or less regular profits. | ||||||||
| ||||||||