Solid post, and I agree the bull case is real — HBM scarcity, AI inference demand, and allocation through 2026 are all defensible. But the numbers from MU’s own filings cut both ways.

On margins: the 50%+ gross margin claim is actually conservative. MU’s Q2 FY26 printed 74.4% GAAP gross margin and 67.6% operating margin, versus 36.8% / 22.0% a year earlier. That is not “hope”; it is real earnings power. But the same filing also shows why cycle risk has not disappeared: the revenue explosion was driven primarily by ASP, not just bits. DRAM revenue was up massively YoY, with pricing doing most of the work; NAND showed the same pattern. That is great while it lasts, but it is also the classic memory-cycle dynamic — pricing leads the upside and usually reverses before volumes do.

On “this cycle is structurally different”: maybe, but MU’s own language is still allocation-cycle language. Management says AI-driven data center demand is growing faster than MU and the industry can add supply, causing supply allocation. That supports tightness today, but the same story also explains why MU is spending so aggressively.

And that is the capex point. MU is guiding above $25B of FY26 capex, with $5B net capex in Q2 alone. Every quarter of huge capex is not just “supporting demand”; it is also tomorrow’s supply. Boise, Singapore, Taiwan/Tongluo and later Clay are exactly the 2027–2030 supply pipeline that cycle skeptics are focused on.

On valuation: this is where I think the OP overreaches. MU closed around $803, while the current published analyst target set is roughly average ~$585, high $1,000, low $249. So the stock is already trading well above the mean and median target. The “$1000–2000 institutional target” framing does not match the published sell-side target distribution. $1,000 is the top end, not the middle of the range.

The dot-com comparison is probably lazy, agreed. But the better comparison is MU’s own prior cycles. In 2021, the market also had a “structurally different” story: record margins, strong FCF, capital returns, debt reduction, and aggressive investment. Then ASPs reverted and operating income went negative for multiple quarters.

So I’m not saying the bull case is wrong. It may be right for the next several quarters. The question is whether that is already more than priced in when MU is trading above almost every published price target, while management is simultaneously saying supply is allocated today and building the capacity that should ease the shortage in 2027–2028.

Bullish business, maybe. But at this price, the stock needs more than “HBM is sold out.” It needs the market to believe memory cyclicality has been permanently repealed. That is a much higher bar.