Wow, 400,000 followers! Thank you everyone. I find it fun to share ideas with everyone for free from $TSEM to $AAOI. And especially if they end up directionally right + help others build their own conviction. https://t.co/DeEnV6SAkq
Photonics is nuanced and using ChatGPT/Gemini makes you miss all of it: 1. $SIVE is actually a chokepoint and partially a bottleneck. The reason it's a chokepoint is leading CPO/optical hyperscaler players go through Sivers, likely: Ayar. Celestial. Lightmatter. Lightelligence. Poet. If you take out Sivers, you literally can't make some of their products + delay their roadmap by years. As many are sole/primary source but are heading the direction on multi-source. As for the bottleneck argument: Win Semi is the bottleneck for scaling laser production. But... the nuance is when you have capacity allocated for the next few years. You become part of the bottleneck itself if players fight you for allocation of finished lasers. That's the nuance people miss with capacity allocation dynamics. It's like saying $SNDK is not part of the NAND bottleneck when Kioxia makes all of it. But when Sandisk has the ultimate control of output supply, they become the bottleneck + have all the pricing power. Sivers controls output supply of CW lasers given allocations, and as seen with $LITE earnings, CW laser is currently bottlenecked as everyone seems to be stuck producing EMLs. 2. Like how LLMs always uses em-dashes. You can tell when people use AI when they always use the same "CW is a dumb interchangeable laser" argument or compare "power" specs after conflating different architectures. That's why your "analysts" using AI will get this wrong over and over. There's CW lasers... and then there's a specific architectural design that Sivers achieves with DFB lasers. If you compare power specs with $LITE vs. Sivers, Lumentum wins in isolation. But they're completely different laser architectures. All the leading CPO players like Ayar, chose $SIVE for an architectural reason for high power, low thermal, laser arrays. $JBL 1.6T LRO also made one of the most dramatic moats cited by their fireside chat, using Sivers lasers. If you think CW lasers are interchangeable with Sumitomo/Furukawa, and others. And can be plug-and-play... i don't know what to tell you? Again: $SIVE makes architecturally unique CW lasers for leading CPO players. 3. I'm not sure how many times I need to say this: $SIVE for 2024-2025 has been going through development contracts. People using TTM revenue or former P/S metrics are using completely the wrong metrics, when there's volume ramp in 2027. It's the same with $AAOI which volume ramps in H1 2027. $AEHR which volume ramps after qualification. $LPK that volume ramps after qualification. This is just missing qualification cycles in semiconductors and how to model financials currently. As for the $LITE comparisons (which was also my long last year): $LITE literally started off selling laser dies before acquisition of Cloud Lite and other downstream optical engine components. This is where $SIVE is at today with starting off in the laser chokepoint for CPO: People are modeling laser revenue off very isolated TAM projections. Meanwhile Sivers is targeting M&A to expand revenue for TAM projections. This is not a simple component FAU + ramp valuation modeling over with a Taiwanese company. Since Laser companies like $LITE, $COHR are known to downstream expand to make their lasers more valuable, then vertically integrate (fabs, assembly) afterward. Again, Sivers worked with Ayar and these types of companies before they all became billion dollar companies. I have high conviction knowing they know what to acquire down the ELS/optical engine stack + pluggable transceiver for TAM expansion. It's just annoying when I get people who don't understand the nuances backseat commenting wrong things about my longs. I got the same thing about $AXTI is not a bottleneck! InP isn't needed! China! back at $14. Now it's $140 I got the same thing about $AAOI "is going down 50%!" back at $65. or "AOI management is shady at $30". Now it's $170 I got the "there's nothing new with $SOI" back at $45. Now it's $170. I think I'm one of the few who actually understands the nuances with photonics, since I did call out $LITE, $TSEM, Innolight, $AXTI, $AAOI, $SOI, that outperformed both photonics markets and overall markets over the past year. And now I'm long on $SIVE.
I don't post dollar amounts because they don't matter. What matters is return %. Speaking of that... YTD: 3840.39%. I'm probably the only one in the world. Who called out multiple names that 10x'd in a short timeframe. Do you remember these thesis anon? 1. $AXTI 2. $SIVE 3. $AAOI 4. $LITE 5. $IQE 6. $AEHR 7. $CRCL 8. $EWY 9. Unimicron 10. Nitto Boseki 11. $OSS 12. $GDRZF 13. $RPI 14. $SOI 15. $ALRIB 16. $SNDK 17. $SIMO 18. $VPG 19. $TSEM 20. $ARM 21. $MRVL 22. $INTC 23. $LPK 24. $NBIS 25. $MU They're all up 100-1000%+, because... 1. I post a thesis. 2. People can see how the stock performs months later. 3. They turn out right (thesis validation) because they're up hundreds of percent + hold their returns. I really dislike the traditional X influencer who shows large dollar amounts or fancy watches/cars/private jets. Then use that to get more by selling expensive subscriptions rather than through market returns. So trying to set a new trend off pure information discovery/synthesis from free thesis posts and the results that follow in terms of return percentages. TLDR: Market returns in terms of percentages matter the most to validate a thesis. Not the dollar amount made.
Trump Just Put $2 Billion Into Quantum Computing The Full Quantum Ecosystem to Watch: Pure-Play Quantum: → $IONQ | $QBTS | $RGTI | $INFQ | $QUBT | $XNDU Quantum Security: → $ARQQ Arqit Quantum Foundries & Equipment: → $GFS GlobalFoundries | $COHR Coherent | $TSEM Tower Semi | $MRVL Tech Giants with Quantum Programs: → $IBM | $GOOGL | $MSFT | $NVDA | $HON | $RTX | $INTC The race to quantum supremacy just got a government balance sheet behind it. Not financial advice.
Not everyone on X can do a did you listen anon. With triple digit returns on everything like $TSEM they went long on. https://t.co/7jGCpZWRcd
Just in case you want to frontrun the next major catalyst: $NVDA June 1 Computex/GTC Taipei keynote should be heavily bullish Taiwan optical ecosystem? Just like when I went long on $TSEM and others in Nvidia’s US event. Shunsin, Foci, Nextronics, MSScorps, and a lot of my Nvidia photonics ecosystem port might be critical mentions or have indirect catalysts there.
because I have people backseat commenting my own names like $SOI on $TSEM earnings. Then throwing in random crap like m7u with it that's not even related to their prepayment. There was like 5 different posts like that. I'm going insane. It's understandable if you do it with $IQE / Landmark earnings, but wtf.
I'm 100% sure if I met all you "photonic memory" experts in real life. 498 out of 500 of you couldn't explain CXL memory pooling or KV cache infrastructure and what $PENG actually does to derive revenue off that. This is why I'm seeing all these random $RKLB, $HIMS, or non technical AI experts on my timeline now. Backseat commenting completely wrong things about M7U MOCVD capex and $TSEM that aren't related. Or conflating every single term like an $SMCI integrator with photonics IP. Then just pitching buzzwords every under every one of my posts.
I eyeballed ~50 major HF 13f filing summaries and Whalerock, of them all, seems the most dialed into GAI infrastructure trade. I love that they added $VIAV $TSEM $LRCX in relative size. $MKS seemed like the SMID name getting the most positive attention via new positions and adds. This is not a scientific view. I still might run my LLM driven proper analysis and will share my findings if I do.
Most people are focused on silicon. The real bottleneck nobody’s talking about? Indium Phosphide. $NVDA needs faster chips. Faster chips need faster interconnects. Faster interconnects need InP-based lasers. And InP supply is critically constrained. WHAT IS InP AND WHY DOES IT MATTER? Indium Phosphide is the substrate behind high-speed optical components — the lasers and photodetectors moving data at 800G and 1.6T speeds inside AI data centers. Silicon simply can’t do what InP does at these speeds. No InP = No optical interconnects = AI infrastructure hits a wall. THE FULL InP VALUE CHAIN 𝗦𝘂𝗯𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗲𝘀 & 𝗪𝗮𝗳𝗲𝗿𝘀 → $AXTI — one of the only publicly traded InP substrate suppliers in the West → $IQEPF — epitaxial wafer supplier feeding InP laser production 𝗖𝗼𝗺𝗽𝗼𝗻𝗲𝗻𝘁𝘀 & 𝗟𝗮𝘀𝗲𝗿𝘀 → $COHR — vertically integrated, owns InP laser fabs → $IPGP — fiber and InP laser exposure → $AAOI — transceiver/laser components → $LITE — InP laser supplier to hyperscalers 𝗦𝗶𝗹𝗶𝗰𝗼𝗻 𝗣𝗵𝗼𝘁𝗼𝗻𝗶𝗰𝘀 / 𝗙𝗼𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗿𝗶𝗲𝘀 → $TSEM — InP photonics foundry capabilities → $GFS — compound semiconductor exposure 𝗣𝘂𝗿𝗲-𝗣𝗹𝗮𝘆 𝗦𝗽𝗲𝗰𝘂𝗹𝗮𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲 → $POET — optical interposer platform designed to integrate InP lasers at scale, potentially solving the bottleneck directly → $LWLG — electro-optic polymer platform, InP alternative play → $ALMU / $SIVEF — smaller speculative names in the photonics supply chain 𝗧𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 & 𝗩𝗮𝗹𝗶𝗱𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 → $AEHR — wafer-level burn-in testing for photonic chips → $KEYS — optical and high-speed signal testing WHY SUPPLY CAN’T JUST SCALE OVERNIGHT InP isn’t silicon. → Only a handful of facilities globally can produce InP substrates → Building new InP fabs takes years and billions → Geopolitical concentration risk is real — much of the supply chain runs through Asia → Hyperscaler demand for 800G/1.6T is accelerating faster than supply can respond This is a structural bottleneck — not a temporary one. THE INVESTMENT THESIS IN ONE LINE The AI buildout runs through InP. And InP supply is stuck. The picks-and-shovels play isn’t just $NVDA. It might be the substrate nobody’s heard of yet. Not financial advice.
Leopold Aschenbrenner is a legend, but I'm not quite sure he can beat 3152.77% YTD in the Serenity Awareness fund. That being said, I've hit 23 different longs this year with 100-1000%+ YTD. 1. $AXTI 2. $AAOI 3. $SIVE 4. $LITE 5. $IQE 6. $AEHR 7. $CRCL 8. $EWY 9. Unimicron 10. Nitto Boseki 11. $OSS 12. $GDRZF 13. $RPI 14. $SOI 15. $ALRIB 16. $SNDK 17. $SIMO 18. $VPG 19. $TSEM 20. $ARM 21. $MRVL 22. $INTC 23. $LPK Do you remember all of these anon?
What an insane day for photonics. $SIVE up 31.3% $TSEM up 23.1% $AAOI 20.01%. It feels like a lot… but this just means you’re early to the next supercycle and there’s a lot of room to go. Lot of people on X ask what’s next after $SNDK? Here they are. https://t.co/jTeHpYtf0n
$TSEM 😁 Using case-insensitive whole-word matching and adding likely transcript errors that should be corrected: STRICT OPTICAL / PHOTONIC WORD-FAMILY COUNT Exact transcript words: optical: 15 Optical: 1 optics: 3 Optics: 3 photonic: 2 photonics: 12 Photonics: 3 Strict total: 39 CORRECTION-INCLUSIVE WORD-FAMILY COUNT Likely transcript errors that should be counted as optical / photonic references: optimal → optical: 1 Context: “multiple of the optimal customers” should read “multiple of the optical customers.” silica tonics → silicon photonics: 1 Context: “revenue capacity scale for silica tonics” should read “revenue capacity scale for silicon photonics.” Correction-inclusive total: 41 RELATED SIPHO SHORTHAND COUNT Because SiPho is Tower’s shorthand for silicon photonics, the concept-level count should also include: SiPho: 31 SiPhO: 1 SiPho shorthand total: 32 TOTAL INCLUDING SIPHO SHORTHAND AND TRANSCRIPT CORRECTIONS 41 optical / photonic word-family references 32 SiPho shorthand references = 73 total optical / photonics / SiPho references Important audit note: the transcript phrase “optical it is Optical Fiber Conference” appears to contain a transcription artifact. If the stray lowercase “optical” is removed in a fully cleaned transcript, subtract 1 from the totals. Under that cleaned-transcript approach, the correction-inclusive word-family count would be 40, and the total including SiPho shorthand would be 72.
$TSEM KEY READ-THROUGHS FROM TOWER SEMICONDUCTOR Q1 2026 EARNINGS CALL Tower Semiconductor’s Q1 2026 call was a high-signal event for AI optical infrastructure, specialty foundry competition, data center power delivery, RF front-end cyclicality, and Japan-based semiconductor capacity. The most important market implication is that AI optical interconnect demand is moving from forecast-driven optimism to cash-backed capacity reservation. Tower disclosed $1.3 billion of contractual 2027 silicon photonics revenue commitments, larger 2028 commitments, and approximately $290 million of prepayments from its largest SiPho customers. Management also stated that the $1.3 billion commitment is below both customer full demand and Tower’s internal 2027 SiPho forecast. The call therefore supports a positive read-through for AI optical component suppliers and next-generation networking architectures, while creating negative competitive read-throughs for alternative silicon photonics foundries and any company whose AI optical thesis depends on Tower losing share during the transition from pluggables to XPO, NPO, and CPO. The second-order read-through is that Tower’s demand bottleneck is shifting from customer interest to qualified capacity, materials supply, and architecture relevance. AI OPTICAL TRANSCEIVERS AND SILICON PHOTONICS COHERENT VALIDATION IN 400G/LANE SILICON PHOTONICS IS A DIRECT POSITIVE FOR HIGH-SPEED AI OPTICAL TRANSCEIVERS (READ-THROUGH 1) Affected company: Coherent Corp. (COHR: US) Directional impact and magnitude: Positive. High magnitude for near-term trading sentiment and medium-to-high magnitude for longer-duration fundamentals. Supporting commentary: Tower stated that it “announced the demonstration of an all silicon 400 gigabit per lane” modulator with Coherent and described Coherent as “one of our customers having signed a high volume long-term contract.” In Q&A, management clarified that the specific 400G modulator was “off of a Coherent design,” that “this specific modulator performance was because of Coherent’s design tied to our platform,” and that the design was Coherent IP. Transmission mechanism: The read-through to Coherent is direct because Tower identified Coherent as both a named technology partner and a high-volume long-term customer. The demonstration validates Coherent’s ability to design 400G/lane silicon photonics devices on a merchant foundry platform capable of scaling into volume. That matters because AI data center optical roadmaps increasingly require higher lane rates, lower power per bit, and more compact modulation schemes. Coherent’s design IP being specifically credited by Tower strengthens the read-through: the performance milestone is not merely Tower platform validation; it also validates Coherent’s internal silicon photonics design capability. Near-term trading catalyst: The named association with Tower’s AI SiPho capacity commitments should support investor confidence in Coherent’s high-speed transceiver roadmap. The call does not disclose how much of Tower’s $1.3 billion 2027 commitment is attributable to Coherent, so the revenue uplift cannot be quantified from the material. The trading relevance is nonetheless high because Coherent is explicitly tied to a high-volume contract and a 400G/lane demonstration at a time when AI optics execution is a core investor debate. Longer-duration fundamental shift: If Coherent’s 400G/lane design scales through Tower’s platform, Coherent gains a stronger position in next-generation 1.6T and higher-speed optical modules, with potential benefits to mix, share, and margin. The limiting factors are Tower capacity timing, the pace of 400G/lane adoption, and the evolution of competing modulation technologies such as thin-film lithium niobate and indium phosphide. ARISTA’S XPO STRATEGY RECEIVES A POSITIVE SUPPLY-CHAIN AND ARCHITECTURE VALIDATION (READ-THROUGH 2) Affected company: Arista Networks, Inc. (ANET: US) Directional impact and magnitude: Positive. Moderate-to-high magnitude as a strategic validation, moderate magnitude as a near-term earnings catalyst. Supporting commentary: Tower described “extra dense pluggable optics, XPO, being led by Arista” and said Tower silicon photonics was displayed in “leading XPO and Near Package Optics demonstrations.” Management also stated that pluggables are “not going away at all,” that pluggables should remain “extremely strong, at least through the 2030,” and that XPO and NPO form factors should transition with Tower “maintaining leadership.” Transmission mechanism: Arista is the clearest public networking company explicitly linked to the XPO architecture in the call. Tower’s commentary supports Arista’s strategic premise that pluggable and extra-dense pluggable optical formats can extend meaningfully before CPO becomes dominant. That is important for Arista because its AI networking roadmap depends on practical, scalable, power-efficient optical interconnect rather than a premature wholesale architectural shift into CPO. Tower’s view that XPO and NPO can coexist with pluggables reduces the risk that Arista’s architecture becomes stranded by a faster-than-expected CPO transition. Near-term trading catalyst: The call provides positive ecosystem validation for Arista’s AI networking narrative, but it does not disclose Arista revenue, order volumes, or a direct commercial relationship beyond Tower’s statement that XPO is being led by Arista. The near-term impact is therefore sentiment- and narrative-driven rather than estimate-driven. Longer-duration fundamental shift: The more durable implication is that Arista’s XPO strategy may extend the life and economic relevance of pluggable-adjacent architectures into the next several years. If Tower’s capacity ramp enables higher-density optical supply at scale, Arista’s switch platforms could benefit from more practical AI cluster scaling, lower optical bottleneck risk, and improved confidence in next-generation port-density roadmaps. NVIDIA GETS A POSITIVE ECOSYSTEM OPTIONALITY READ-THROUGH, BUT THE CALL ALSO HIGHLIGHTS DEPENDENCE ON EXTERNAL PHOTONICS INNOVATION (READ-THROUGH 3) Affected company: NVIDIA Corporation (NVDA: US) Directional impact and magnitude: Positive, with caveats. Moderate magnitude as a long-duration ecosystem read-through; low magnitude as a near-term trading catalyst. Supporting commentary: In Q&A, an analyst referenced Tower’s “recent relationship with NVIDIA at 1.6T” and asked about NVIDIA historically using TSMC while “also partnering with” Tower. Tower declined to discuss specific customer programs beyond the prior public NVIDIA release, but stated that NVIDIA “talked about us as a development partner.” Management also argued that Tower could add value in CPO by becoming the reference design for major integrators. Transmission mechanism: The read-through to NVIDIA is not a disclosed revenue event. It is an ecosystem risk-reduction signal. NVIDIA’s accelerator roadmap increasingly depends on networking bandwidth, optical interconnect scale, and power-efficient connectivity. Tower’s comments indicate that NVIDIA is at least publicly aligned with Tower as a development partner in high-speed optical connectivity. That broadens NVIDIA’s supplier and technology optionality beyond fully integrated TSMC-centric paths and may help de-risk future optical architectures where photonic integrated circuits become a critical subsystem. Near-term trading catalyst: Limited. Tower provided no NVIDIA-specific revenue, timing, product program, or volume commitment. The near-term implication is qualitative: NVIDIA’s optical ecosystem continues to broaden, and Tower’s SiPho platform is relevant enough to be discussed alongside NVIDIA’s 1.6T roadmap. Longer-duration fundamental shift: The longer-term implication is more important. If NVIDIA’s AI systems increasingly require optical I/O, NPO, or CPO, validated external PIC suppliers could become strategically important to NVIDIA’s ability to scale bandwidth without unacceptable power or packaging constraints. The caveat is that Tower acknowledged TSMC’s unmatched position in “extreme deep digital content,” which means NVIDIA may still rely heavily on TSMC-led integration for full-system packaging. SILICON PHOTONICS FOUNDRY COMPETITION AND CPO ARCHITECTURE GLOBALFOUNDRIES FACES A NEGATIVE READ-THROUGH TO ITS SILICON PHOTONICS OPTIONALITY (READ-THROUGH 4) Affected company: GlobalFoundries Inc. (GFS: US) Directional impact and magnitude: Negative. Moderate magnitude for AI silicon photonics narrative; low-to-moderate magnitude for total company fundamentals given broader foundry diversification. Supporting commentary: When asked about GlobalFoundries ramping scale and TSMC ramping CPO platforms, Tower stated: “I’m not going to give a percentage market share at present but I think that we’re certainly the leading market share and by far the leading market share in silicon photonics presently and I see no reason why that should change.” Tower also disclosed $1.3 billion of contractual 2027 SiPho commitments, larger 2028 commitments, approximately $290 million of customer prepayments, and more than 50 active SiPho customers. Transmission mechanism: The negative read-through is that large SiPho customers appear to be reserving Tower capacity with cash-backed commitments, which can reduce the near-term addressable share available to alternative merchant foundries. Silicon photonics foundry relationships are process-specific, design-intensive, and qualification-heavy. Once customers commit design IP, prepayments, and multi-year roadmaps to a foundry platform, share shifts become slower and more expensive. Tower’s $1.3 billion commitment therefore represents more than demand visibility; it implies customer lock-in and process-roadmap alignment. Near-term trading catalyst: Negative for GlobalFoundries’ AI photonics optionality if investors had expected GF to take rapid share in merchant SiPho during 2026–2028. Tower’s claim of “by far” leading share is management commentary rather than disclosed third-party market-share data, but the prepayments and contracts provide hard supporting evidence of Tower customer traction. Longer-duration fundamental shift: The longer-term risk for GlobalFoundries is that Tower’s early leadership in pluggables transitions into XPO and NPO before GF achieves comparable scale. The offset is that total SiPho port growth appears large enough for more than one winner. This is not a negative read-through to GF’s entire foundry franchise; it is specifically negative to the probability that GF becomes the dominant merchant SiPho beneficiary over the next 2–3 years. TSMC’S CPO STRATEGIC POSITION IS REINFORCED, BUT THE CALL ARGUES AGAINST A SIMPLE WINNER-TAKE-ALL OUTCOME (READ-THROUGH 5) Affected company: Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited (2330: Taiwan) Directional impact and magnitude: Mixed-to-positive. Moderate magnitude as a long-duration strategic read-through; low magnitude as a near-term earnings catalyst. Supporting commentary: Tower’s CEO stated that “TSMC as a one-stop shop” has an advantage and that “there’s nobody that can compete with TSMC with what they’re doing on the extreme deep digital content.” However, he also argued that Tower could still add value in CPO through superior photonic integrated circuits and modulators, stating that “there’s no reason that TSMC wouldn’t be buying our PIC” if Tower’s PIC were superior and became the reference design for major integrators. Transmission mechanism: The positive read-through to TSMC is that CPO increasingly rewards deep CMOS, advanced packaging, and system-level integration, all areas where Tower explicitly acknowledged TSMC’s structural advantage. If CPO adoption accelerates materially, the value pool could tilt toward TSMC’s integrated logic-packaging ecosystem. That supports TSMC’s strategic relevance in AI networking and optical I/O, beyond GPUs and accelerators. Near-term trading catalyst: Limited. Tower’s call does not indicate that TSMC won or lost specific business. The trading implication is mainly narrative: TSMC remains the most credible integrated CPO platform owner as architectures move closer to advanced digital content. Longer-duration fundamental shift: The call also cautions against assuming TSMC captures the entire photonics value stack. Tower’s argument is that best-in-class PICs and modulators may still be sourced externally if integrators standardize on Tower reference designs. The read-through is therefore mixed: CPO is structurally favorable to TSMC, but differentiated photonics components may remain merchant-sourced rather than fully internalized. TOWER’S COMMENTS UNDERCUT A BROAD MATURE-NODE FOUNDRY PRICING BULL CASE AND SUPPORT A DIFFERENTIATED-PLATFORM PRICING FRAMEWORK (READ-THROUGH 6) Affected companies: GlobalFoundries Inc. (GFS: US), United Microelectronics Corporation (2303: Taiwan), Vanguard International Semiconductor Corporation (5347: Taiwan), X-FAB Silicon Foundries SE (XFAB: Belgium) Directional impact and magnitude: Mixed-to-negative for broad mature-node pricing narratives; positive for differentiated specialty platforms. Moderate magnitude. Supporting commentary: Asked whether analog foundry pricing power outside RF infrastructure should be assumed, Tower responded: “Pricing power is particularly done by having best-in-class platforms.” Management added: “We are not a company that likes to indiscriminately raise prices because of a capacity constraint.” The exception was a 13% price increase in 200mm BCD, which management described as a value reset rather than scarcity pricing. Transmission mechanism: The implication is that pricing power in specialty foundry is not broad-based mature-node inflation. It is platform-specific. Foundries with differentiated BCD, SiPho, SiGe, RFSOI, imaging, or packaging-related capabilities can command premium pricing, while generic mature-node capacity may not see the same uplift. This is important for foundry peers because investor enthusiasm for utilization recovery can overstate wafer price leverage if the demand is not tied to differentiated process value. Near-term trading catalyst: The read-through is mildly negative for investors expecting broad analog wafer price increases across mature-node foundries. Tower’s language suggests disciplined partnership pricing rather than aggressive allocation-driven repricing. Longer-duration fundamental shift: The durable implication is that specialty foundry valuation should increasingly depend on process differentiation and customer co-development rather than capacity scarcity. Tower’s gross margin improvement supports this framework: newer higher-margin products, not generalized wafer inflation, drove the margin step-up. PHOTONIC MATERIALS, MODULATORS AND EMERGING OPTICAL TECHNOLOGY LIGHTWAVE LOGIC RECEIVES A POSITIVE COMMERCIALIZATION READ-THROUGH FROM TOWER’S ORGANIC POLYMER MODULATOR ROADMAP (READ-THROUGH 7) Affected company: Lightwave Logic, Inc. (LWLG: US) Directional impact and magnitude: Positive. High magnitude for company-specific narrative; medium magnitude for fundamentals pending production evidence. Supporting commentary: Tower stated that it “announced our partnerships with Lightwave Logic and NLM Photonics to bring organic polymers to high volume production for next generation compact modulators.” Management also emphasized reduced-size high-performance modulators as part of its CPO roadmap. Transmission mechanism: The read-through to Lightwave Logic is direct because Tower named the partnership and framed organic polymers as part of the path toward high-volume production. For a photonics materials company, the key investor debate is not only whether the material performs in lab conditions, but whether it can be integrated into a scalable foundry process flow. Tower’s commentary supports the commercialization path by placing organic polymers inside a broader SiPho manufacturing roadmap. Near-term trading catalyst: Positive. Public confirmation from a leading SiPho foundry can improve investor perception of Lightwave Logic’s relevance to AI optical interconnect. However, the call did not disclose production timing, revenue contribution, yield, customer qualification status, or volume commitments for Lightwave Logic-enabled products. Longer-duration fundamental shift: If organic polymer modulators reach high-volume production on Tower’s platform, Lightwave Logic could benefit from foundry-enabled adoption in compact, high-speed, power-efficient modulators. The risk is that Tower remained technology-agnostic across multiple modulation paths, including silicon, thin-film lithium niobate, indium phosphide, and organic polymers. Lightwave Logic is validated as a candidate, not declared the winner. INDIUM PHOSPHIDE-BASED MODULATION AND INTEGRATED LASERS RECEIVE A POSITIVE READ-THROUGH, WHILE PURE THIN-FILM LITHIUM NIOBATE NARRATIVES LOOK LESS DURABLE (READ-THROUGH 8) Affected companies: OpenLight (Private: country not disclosed in source material), Coherent Corp. (COHR: US), Lightwave Logic, Inc. (LWLG: US) Directional impact and magnitude: Positive for indium phosphide integration and heterogeneous laser/modulator ecosystems; mixed for thin-film lithium niobate-only approaches. Moderate magnitude. Supporting commentary: Tower said it announced with OpenLight a “heterogeneously integrated 400 gigabit per lane indium phosphide electroabsorption modulator” on its silicon photonics platform. In Q&A, management said integrated lasers are not inherently less reliable than discrete lasers and that Tower is “very bullish about the integrated laser and additionally about an indium phosphide integrated modulator for 400 gig.” Management also said that thin-film lithium niobate may “come in fairly strong for one generation” but that it does not think it “will last for many generations,” expecting a shift toward indium phosphide. Transmission mechanism: The implication is that the optical modulation market may not standardize around one material. Tower’s view favors an architecture-flexible roadmap, with indium phosphide gaining importance as channel count, form factor, and integration density increase. This supports companies and private platforms tied to heterogeneous integration and integrated laser/modulator strategies. It also makes a negative strategic point for any investment thesis predicated on thin-film lithium niobate being the dominant multi-generation solution. Near-term trading catalyst: Moderate. The quote is pointed and may influence investor debate around which optical material platforms are durable. It does not disclose revenue wins or customer adoption curves. Longer-duration fundamental shift: The key shift is toward integrated photonics architectures where laser integration, compact modulators, and form-factor efficiency become more important than standalone component performance. Companies that can integrate photonics materials into high-volume silicon platforms should gain strategic relevance; companies dependent on less integrated material stacks may face a narrower adoption window. OPTICAL CIRCUIT SWITCHING AND AI SCALE-UP NETWORKS OPTICAL CIRCUIT SWITCH STARTUPS RECEIVE A POSITIVE READ-THROUGH, BUT THE BIGGER PUBLIC-MARKET IMPLICATION IS THAT AI SCALE-UP NETWORKING IS BROADENING BEYOND CONVENTIONAL TRANSCEIVERS (READ-THROUGH 9) Affected companies: Salience Labs (Private: country not disclosed in source material), Oriole Networks (Private: country not disclosed in source material), Arista Networks, Inc. (ANET: US), NVIDIA Corporation (NVDA: US) Directional impact and magnitude: Positive for private optical switching platforms; moderate positive for public AI networking ecosystems; low near-term public estimate impact. Supporting commentary: Tower stated that it announced partnerships with Salience Labs and Oriole Networks to manufacture “advanced silicon photonics based optical circuit switches,” using Tower’s platform with “heterogeneous integrated indium phosphide optical amplifiers” to achieve “high bandwidth and ultra low latency optical switch solutions for AI data center scaling.” Transmission mechanism: The read-through is that AI data center networking demand is expanding into optical circuit switching, not just faster pluggable transceivers. Optical switching can become relevant where latency, power, and bandwidth constraints make electrical switching or conventional optical module scaling less efficient. This is positive for companies positioned around AI cluster networking and scale-up architectures, including Arista and NVIDIA at the ecosystem level, even though Tower did not disclose direct revenue exposure for these public companies through Salience or Oriole. Near-term trading catalyst: Limited for public equities because the named optical circuit switch companies are private and the call did not quantify revenue. The sentiment read-through is that AI networking architecture experimentation remains active and photonics is becoming more central. Longer-duration fundamental shift: The longer-duration implication is more material. If optical circuit switching becomes part of AI cluster scaling, photonic foundry capacity and heterogeneous integration become critical infrastructure. That favors companies with credible optical networking platforms and could create new competitive vectors against traditional electrical switching bottlenecks.
$TSEM EXECUTIVE CALL SUMMARY: Tower Semiconductor Ltd. (05/13/26) EXECUTIVE CALL SUMMARY Tower Semiconductor delivered a positive, investment-relevant call, but the quarter itself was not the core event. Q1 revenue of $414 million was broadly in line with prior company guidance of $412 million +/- 5% and up 15% YoY, while Q2 guidance of $455 million +/- 5% implies a company-record quarter, 10% sequential growth, and 22% YoY growth. The more material development was the formalization of silicon photonics commitments: $1.3 billion of contracted 2027 SiPho revenue from the largest customers, approximately $290 million of customer prepayments already received, and management’s statement that the contractual reservation is below both customer full demand and Tower’s internal 2027 SiPho shipment forecast. This materially improves medium-term visibility and shifts the debate from whether AI optical demand is real to whether Tower can add qualified capacity fast enough, maintain yields, and defend share as architectures evolve from pluggables to XPO, NPO, and eventually CPO. The quality of the quarter was high at the gross and operating profit levels. Revenue declined 6% sequentially from the Q4 2025 record, but gross margin held essentially flat at 26.8%, up from 20.4% in Q1 2025, demonstrating mix-driven profitability rather than simple fixed-cost absorption. Gross profit increased 52% YoY and operating profit increased 96% YoY on 15% revenue growth, which validates management’s argument that incremental SiPho and SiGe revenue carries structurally higher margins. The caveat is that net profit benefited from a non-recurring TPSCo-related tax benefit, and cash flow was heavily inflated by customer advances. Excluding customer prepayments, operating cash flow remained positive, but the optics of $510 million of operating cash flow should not be interpreted as a normalized quarterly run rate. The call likely drives upward estimate revisions for Q2 and increases investor conviction in the 2028 model, but the larger implication is that the February 2026 model may already be stale. Management reiterated the built-out model of approximately $2.84 billion revenue, $1.12 billion gross profit, $900 million operating profit, and $750 million net profit, but also indicated that the 2027 focus on incremental 300mm SiPho and SiGe capacity is not included in the current model and that a model update could come within the next quarter. This is the most important non-consensus element. The stock reaction should be positive because Q2 guidance exceeded external consensus, the SiPho demand signal is backed by cash prepayments rather than soft backlog commentary, and management sounded unusually confident on technology leadership and customer alignment. The sector read-through is positive for AI optical connectivity, SiPho foundry demand, SiGe driver/TIA content, and data center power-management content, while creating competitive pressure on specialty foundry peers and raising the strategic question of whether TSMC’s integrated CPO approach eventually compresses Tower’s standalone photonics opportunity. QUARTERLY PERFORMANCE AND QUALITY OF RESULTS Q1 2026 revenue was $413.6 million, up 15.5% YoY from $358.2 million and down 6.0% sequentially from $440.2 million in Q4 2025. The sequential decline was not a sign of demand deterioration; Q4 2025 was an exceptional quarter, and Q1 landed slightly above the prior guidance midpoint. The quarter’s investment quality came from margin resilience and technology mix, not from an outsized revenue beat. Gross profit was $111.0 million, up 51.6% YoY and down 5.7% sequentially. Gross margin was 26.8%, up approximately 640 bps YoY from 20.4% and essentially flat versus Q4 2025. That is the cleanest evidence that the model is migrating toward higher-value technology platforms rather than merely recovering from cyclical underutilization. Cost of revenue declined sequentially faster than revenue, which is consistent with mix improvement and operational discipline. Management attributed the margin improvement primarily to newer, higher-margin products, especially SiPho and SiGe. Operating profit was $64.6 million, up 96.3% YoY and down 8.8% sequentially. Operating margin was 15.6%, up from 9.2% in Q1 2025 and slightly below 16.1% in Q4 2025. Operating expenses were $46.4 million, nearly flat sequentially and up YoY from $40.3 million, reflecting increased R&D and SG&A investment without undermining operating leverage. This cost structure supports the thesis that Tower can absorb higher engineering intensity while scaling high-margin photonics and RF infrastructure revenue. Net profit attributable to Tower was $65.0 million, or $0.58 basic EPS and $0.57 diluted EPS, up 62.0% YoY from $40.1 million. Adjusted net profit was $74.5 million, or $0.65 diluted adjusted EPS, up from $50.5 million and $0.45 in Q1 2025. The net income quality was lower than the gross and operating profit quality because the quarter included a non-recurring TPSCo-related income tax benefit. The reported 9% effective tax rate should not be treated as normalized; management guided investors to a recurring 15% to 18% tax rate due to Pillar Two and higher-tax jurisdictions such as the US, Japan, and Italy. Cash generation was optically very strong but requires adjustment. Operating cash flow included approximately $290 million of SiPho customer prepayments, and the official release quantified net cash from operating activities at $510 million, including a $285 million increase in customer advances. Excluding the increase in customer prepayments, operating cash flow was $225 million. Net investments in property and equipment were $156 million. On that basis, normalized free cash flow excluding advance payments was materially lower than headline free cash flow but still positive, which is important given the heavy investment phase. The balance sheet remains a core strategic asset. Cash and short-term deposits totaled approximately $1.50 billion at quarter-end, against $156 million of short- and long-term debt. Total assets were $3.7 billion, shareholders’ equity reached $3.0 billion, and the current ratio was approximately 5.6x. Customer advances and deferred revenue increased sharply, with current customer prepayment/deferred revenue of $127 million and long-term customer advances of $215 million. The liability recognition is important: prepayments validate demand and reduce funding risk, but they also create execution obligations tied to capacity delivery. Inventory was $255 million, down slightly from $257 million at year-end 2025, while Q2 revenue guidance implies a sharp sequential revenue increase. This is favorable because it suggests that the expected Q2 ramp is not being manufactured through obvious inventory accumulation. The transcript did not disclose bookings, backlog, RPO, wafer ASPs, wafer shipment units, customer concentration by revenue, or detailed geographic revenue. No evidence was provided of channel pull-forward, distributor inventory distortion, or accounting-driven revenue recognition. The main one-time item disclosed was the TPSCo-related tax benefit. SEGMENT AND PRODUCT ANALYSIS RF Infrastructure was the dominant growth engine. Based on the company slide percentages, RF Infrastructure represented approximately 38% of Q1 2026 revenue versus 22% in Q1 2025, implying roughly $157 million of quarterly revenue versus approximately $79 million a year ago, subject to rounding. This category effectively accounted for more than the entire YoY revenue increase, offsetting declines or slower growth in less strategic categories. The segment’s momentum is tied to SiPho and SiGe demand for AI data center optical connectivity, including pluggable transceivers, XPO, NPO, and future CPO architectures. Silicon photonics was the central product story. Management stated that SiPho revenue grew 3x YoY and that Tower is ramping production across Fab 2 in Migdal HaEmek, Fab 3 in Newport Beach, Fab 9 in San Antonio, and Fab 7 in Uozu, Japan. The company achieved first-flow SiPho revenue shipments from both Fab 2 and Fab 7, with Fab 7 reportedly achieving 95% yield on the first SiPho wafers leaving the factory. The 95% first-flow yield is a meaningful data point because the investment debate increasingly depends on whether Tower can translate customer demand into qualified, repeatable 300mm output without yield drag. Silicon photonics capacity is being expanded aggressively. Management reiterated that SiPho capacity is on track to grow 5x by the end of 2026 from the Q4 2025 wafer revenue shipment base. In 2027, the capacity focus shifts to additional 300mm expansion in Fab 7 in Uozu, supported by expected full factory ownership. The key operational point is that Tower is not attempting to build an unqualified greenfield platform from scratch; Fab 7 already runs multiple qualified high-volume flows and is already profitable at current volumes. The strategic question is whether the existing fab, interim expansion options, and eventual new shell can bridge demand before capacity becomes the binding constraint. SiGe also strengthened materially. Management stated that Silicon Germanium revenue grew 24% YoY, with demand tied to drivers and trans-impedance amplifiers for optical transceivers, active copper cables for short-distance scale-up architectures, and low-noise amplifiers for a Tier 1 mobile platform. SiGe is not merely an adjacent legacy RF technology; it is increasingly attached to the same data center port growth that drives SiPho. Management explicitly said that SiPho and SiGe units “pretty much go hand-in-hand,” although SiPho carries a higher margin and therefore higher revenue growth. RF Mobile is in transition and remains the main near-term weak spot. RFSOI revenue was described as up 12% YoY, but the Q&A disclosed that RF Mobile was down approximately 36% QoQ. Management framed Q4 2025 as an exceptional SOI ramp and stated that full-year 2026 RF SOI revenue is expected to be down versus 2025, even at 300mm, before record growth in 2027 and 2028. The strategic logic is sound: Tower is moving RFSOI from 200mm to 300mm to access finer-line and enhanced capabilities while repurposing 200mm capacity for higher-margin SiPho and SiGe. The near-term consequence is a revenue air pocket while mobile design wins convert into future phone platforms. Power Management was a steady contributor. Management stated that Power revenue grew 10% YoY, with growth in both 200mm and 300mm BCD offerings. The company highlighted its Gen 3 power platform, with on-resistance below 1.5 milliohm-millimeter squared for key devices above 10 volts, and claimed customer-demonstrated 15% reductions in power-conversion losses versus high-efficiency alternatives. Management also disclosed a 13% price increase in 200mm BCD, not as opportunistic scarcity pricing but as a value reset after prior reductions. The emerging AI data center opportunity is rack-level 800V DC distribution, where smart power stages and point-of-load converters could become a meaningful BCD growth vector. Image sensors grew 9% YoY, according to management, with demand concentrated in automotive, industrial, machine vision, and high-end video cameras. Tower emphasized high-resolution, high-dynamic-range, low-light, and global-shutter requirements. The company won a second high-performance automotive product during the quarter and is fully qualified with a next-generation high-end video sensor for a leading photography camera maker, pending that customer’s product launch. The investment relevance is optionality: image sensors are not the current stock driver, but hybrid bonding and global shutter technology provide differentiated margin opportunities outside AI optics. Discrete and MS/CMOS/Misc appear to be de-emphasized or underperforming. Based on rounded slide data, Discrete declined from 16% of Q1 2025 revenue to 10% of Q1 2026 revenue, while MS/CMOS/Misc declined from 8% to 4%. The transcript provided limited discussion of these categories. The decline in mix is not necessarily negative if capacity is being reallocated to higher-margin SiPho, SiGe, and BCD platforms, but it increases portfolio dependence on AI optical infrastructure. Geographic disclosure was limited. The operational footprint matters more than customer geography in this call. Fab 2 was at approximately 60% utilization as SiPho and SiGe qualifications continue. Fab 3 was at 80%, with utilization temporarily constrained by new SiPho and SiGe process additions, and management expects higher utilization and output in Q2. Fab 5 was at 75%. Fab 7 was fully utilized and above the 85% model level. Fab 9 was at 80%. The utilization profile shows both opportunity and bottleneck: underutilized fabs can support near-term output increases, but Fab 7 is already above model utilization and is the strategic capacity constraint. GUIDANCE AND FORWARD OUTLOOK Q2 2026 revenue guidance is $455 million +/- 5%, implying a range of approximately $432 million to $478 million. At the midpoint, revenue increases 10.0% sequentially from Q1 2026 and approximately 22.3% YoY from the rounded Q2 2025 revenue of $372 million shown in the company slides. The low end still implies sequential growth of approximately 4.5%, while the high end implies approximately 15.5% sequential growth. The midpoint is also approximately 3.4% above the prior Q4 2025 revenue record. The guidance quality is strong because management also reiterated sequential revenue and margin growth throughout 2026. A record Q2 guide alone could reflect a one-quarter catch-up; the more important statement is that management continues to expect sequential margin expansion across the year despite heavy capex, technology qualifications, and multi-fab ramp activity. The assumptions behind that target are clear: continued SiPho growth, SiGe attach, higher Fab 3 output in Q2, ongoing Fab 7 utilization, product mix enrichment, and new high-margin platforms ramping faster than legacy RF Mobile or Discrete headwinds. The prior Q1 guidance was $412 million +/- 5%, so the actual $413.6 million result was only a modest revenue outperformance versus company guidance. External consensus context was more favorable: Reuters reported Q1 revenue exceeded LSEG consensus of $411 million and adjusted EPS of $0.65 exceeded the $0.56 estimate, while Q2 revenue guidance of $455 million exceeded the $436.4 million estimate. This reinforces that the stock reaction is less about the Q1 revenue beat and more about Q2 guidance, SiPho commitments, and model upside. The 2028 model remains the anchor but is increasingly likely to be revised. The supporting slides show a built-out capacity model at 85% utilization of $2.84 billion revenue, $1.12 billion gross profit, 39.4% gross margin, $900 million operating profit, 31.7% operating margin, $750 million net profit, and 26.4% net margin. The model implies incremental revenue of $1.274 billion versus FY 2025 and incremental gross, operating, and net profit flow-through of 59%, 55%, and 42%, respectively. Management stated in Q&A that 2027-focused 300mm SiPho and SiGe expansion is not included in the model and that an update to higher numbers could occur within the next quarter. The capex plan is large but increasingly supported by customer funding. Tower is executing a $920 million SiPho and SiGe investment plan across 8-inch fabs in Israel, Newport Beach, and Texas, plus 12-inch Uozu in Japan. Approximately 40% has already been paid, and the remaining 60% is expected to be paid through 2026 and 2027. The program is on track in purchase orders, process qualifications, and ramp planning. The $290 million of prepayments reduces funding risk and strengthens demand credibility, but it also raises execution stakes because failure to deliver capacity could create repayment, penalty, customer-loss, or reputational risk. The Japan strategy is central to the forward outlook. Full ownership of 300mm Fab 7 creates a more focused platform for optical photonics and other differentiated technologies. Management expects access to adjacent land to allow expansion up to 4x current levels, subject to grants and approvals. The new shell timeline is likely first half 2028 in a best-case scenario after METI approval and permitting, with an estimated 18-month build from breaking ground to tool acceptance. To bridge near-term demand, Tower is evaluating expansion within the existing Fab 7 footprint and potentially using the previously shut Arai factory for selected tools. This is operationally complex but strategically necessary. Guidance appears credible for 2026 and ambitious but increasingly substantiated for 2027–2028. The near-term guide is supported by demand, prepayments, visible capacity actions, and utilization upside in Fab 2 and Fab 3. The medium-term outlook remains execution-sensitive because the revenue opportunity is now outrunning the current capacity base. The clearest evidence of conservatism is management’s statement that the $1.3 billion contractual 2027 SiPho commitment is below the internal 2027 shipment forecast. The clearest evidence of risk is the same fact: demand visibility only creates value if capacity, yield, materials supply, and customer product ramps converge. MANAGEMENT COMMENTARY AND IMPORTANT QUOTES “Looking ahead, we guide the second quarter of 2026 to be the highest revenue in the company’s history with a mid-range revenue guidance of $455 million, plus or minus 5%, representing a 22% increase as compared to the second quarter of 2025 and a 10% growth quarter-over-quarter. We strongly reiterate our target of quarter-over-quarter revenue and margin growth throughout 2026.” This matters because management is guiding to both record revenue and sequential margin expansion, not just a temporary revenue rebound. The market should treat the 2026 setup as improving earnings power, assuming mix and capacity execution remain intact. “We continue to strengthen our alignment and partnerships with our photonics customers through the execution of long-term customer commitments, contractually representing $1.3 billion revenue in 2027, with significantly larger valued contracts for 2028, backed by approximately $290 million in prepayments already received from our largest SiPho customers.” This is the key demand-validation quote. Customer prepayments materially differentiate these commitments from ordinary backlog commentary. The phrase “largest SiPho customers” also highlights concentration risk, but the cash commitment gives management’s demand claims more credibility. “Importantly, these reservations do not represent the entire express demand of these customers nor the extent of our planned shipment to these customers, and do not include additional wafer shipments to our broader base of more than 50 active SiPho customers.” This is the most important upside statement in the call. The $1.3 billion figure is not presented as a ceiling. It is a contractual floor from the largest customers, excluding broader customer-base demand. If accurate, the current 2028 model likely understates the achievable revenue base. “The $1.3 billion is a contractual commitment. It is not, even with those customers that we have that contractual commitment from and with, it is not their full volume demand… that $1.3 billion is not what we’re forecasting for SiPho in 2027, meaning it’s forecasting substantially higher.” This quote directly addresses the modeling debate. Investors should not simply insert $1.3 billion of 2027 SiPho revenue and stop. Management is pointing to a larger internal forecast, although the transcript does not disclose the exact number. “The timing of updating a model to higher numbers, I would believe, will be within the next quarter.” This creates a near-term catalyst. The market will likely begin discounting a model revision before the company formally publishes it. The risk is that expectations may run ahead of the actual revision. “Our expansion remains on track to grow SiPho capacity five times from the base of our Q4-25 wafer revenue shipments by the end of this year, 2026.” This is the principal execution milestone. Demand is no longer the gating variable in the bull case; capacity and yield are. Failure to hit this capacity target would directly impair the thesis. “This quarter, we already achieved 27%. So like you said, it’s very nice that we already are up from the 20% to 27%. And that’s the linear progression that we expect towards the 39% when we achieve the 2.8.” This CFO comment explains why the quarter was high quality. Gross margin expanded sharply YoY even with sequential revenue down. The gross margin trajectory is the financial translation of the mix thesis. “Plugables are not going away at all. Plugables will stay extremely strong, at least through the 2030… the first things to come on at a higher rate is the near package optics, where we have multiple design wins presently.” This addresses a core investor concern: whether Tower’s pluggable strength becomes stranded as the industry migrates to CPO. Management’s answer is that pluggables remain durable, NPO ramps first, and Tower has design wins across form factors. The unresolved issue is whether Tower can maintain share when CPO becomes more integrated with advanced logic and packaging ecosystems. “Pricing power is particularly done by having best-in-class platforms… We are not a company that likes to indiscriminately raise prices because of a capacity constraint.” This matters for margin durability. Management is presenting Tower’s pricing strategy as technology-value pricing rather than scarcity pricing. That supports customer relationship quality, but it may limit upside if specialty foundry capacity tightens broadly.
$TSEM (Bloomberg) -- Tower Semiconductor reported revenue for the first quarter that met the average analyst estimate. FIRST QUARTER RESULTS •Revenue $413.6 million, estimate $411 million (Bloomberg Consensus) •Adjusted EPS 65c, estimate 56c •EPS 57c COMMENTARY AND CONTEXT •Tsem Targets Sequential Q/Q Rev, Margin Growth Throughout 2026 •Semi Signs Silicon Photonics Contracts for $1.3B 2027 Rev •Semi: Customer Prepayments of $290M Have Been Received •Company guides revenue for 2Q to be $455 million, a company record, with an upward or downward range of 5%, reflecting revenue increase of 22% year-over-year and 10% quarter-over-quarter •Confident in path toward achieving financial model targets of $2.8 billion in annual revenue and $750 million in net profit in 2028 •"Supported by growing customer commitments, including $1.3 billion of contracted silicon photonics revenue for 2027 from our largest SiPho customers, strong revenue visibility and continued focus on profitable growth, we are confident in our path toward achieving our financial model targets of $2.8 billion in annual revenue and $750 million in net profit in 2028."
They're literally aren't and have 0 affiliation. I'm not sure why I keep getting these backseat comments throwing out random tickers with wrong ideas. They don't scale with downstream SiPh volume, $TSEM has nothing to do with MOCVD capex? They don't even buy MOCVD equipment?
Just in case you were wondering $TSEM reported extra prepayment ($290M) to secure capacity. Downstream foundry capacity squeeze directly translates to an immense demand for raw substrates upstream with $SOI (more revenue). My optical picks are very interconnected. https://t.co/4vIAvS1jOl
And exactly 2 months later. $TSEM is trading at $250+ post earnings. The vast majority of my picks keep making ATHs every day after there’s more time for the thesis to play out. Did you listen anon? https://t.co/rGXFKwPC51
The “Inflation Era” of AI Compute is Breaking Out Across the Board Every layer of the AI infrastructure stack is seeing demand explosion — and the winners aren’t just $NVDA. Here’s the full supply chain map 👇 ⚙️ FOUNDATIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE → PCB: $TTM, $JBL → CCL: $ROG → MLCC: $VSH → Liquid Cooling & Thermal: $VRT 🔴 CORE COMPUTE & MEMORY AI Silicon: → $NVDA $AVGO $AMD $INTC Memory / Storage: → $MU $SNDK $WDC $STX $INTC Power Management / Analog: → $TXN $ADI $NXPI $STM $MPWR $VICR Wafer Foundry: → $TSM $GFS $UMC Advanced Packaging / OSAT: → $TSM $ASX $AMKR 🔵 OPTICAL COMMUNICATIONS NETWORK Optical Components: → $LITE $COHR $AAOI Optical Fiber & Cable: → $GLW Silicon Photonics Foundry: → $TSEM $GFS INP: → $AXTI Optical DSP / Interconnect Silicon: → $MRVL $FN ☁️ CLOUD & AI PLATFORMS → $AMZN $GOOG $BABA $BIDU The AI compute supercycle isn’t one stock — it’s an entire ecosystem repricing in real time. Not financial advice. DYOR.
Random CPO related names I like: - $SIVE - Foci (3363) - $TSEM - Browave (3163) - PCL (4977) - $AXTI - Msscorps (6830) - $IQE - Shunsin (6451) - Furukawa Electric (5801) - $MTSI - Nextronics (8417) - $LITE - $COHR - FitTech (6706) - $GFS - $ASX - LandMark (3081) - $SOI Disclosure: I own most, not all though.
The Complete Semiconductor Playbook — AI Supercycle 2026 🤖 EDGE AI $QUIK · $CEVA · $SYNA · $QCOM · $INDI · $VLN · $SMTC → AI leaves the data center. Devices. Cars. Factories. Multi-year secular trend just getting started. 🏗️ AI INFRA $SGH · $SKYT · $AVGO · $NVDA · $ARM · $CRDO · $MRVL → The “Nvidia-only” era is over. The full stack is getting priced in. ⚡ POWER $POWI · $TXN · $MPWR · $VICR · $GANX · $AEHR → AI data centers are power monsters. Unsexy. Essential. Increasingly scarce. 🔬 FUTURE-TECH $LWLG · $AXTI · $POET · $TSEM · $GFS · $IPGP → Silicon photonics foundry capacity = national strategic asset. 🛠️ EQUIPMENT $AMAT · $LRCX · $KLAC · $ASML · $ONTO · $ACMR → Without these, nothing above gets built. Map the full stack. That’s where the alpha is. Not financial advice. DYOR
The Complete Semiconductor Playbook — AI Supercycle 2026 The AI trade is no longer one ticker. It’s a full stack. Here’s every layer: 💾 MEMORY $MU · $WDC · $STX · $SNDK · $AMAT · $LRCX → HBM4 = the new oil. Not a commodity anymore. Strategic infrastructure. 🔌 CONTROLLERS $RMBS · $SIMO · $ATOM · $MCHP · $ADI · $TXN → The traffic cops of every AI system. Overlooked. Undervalued. Critical. 📦 PACKAGING / TESTING $AMKR · $FORM · $CAMT · $ONTO · $COHU · $ACMR → CoWoS. HBM stacking. Chiplets. This is where chips become systems. 🧠 NEXT-GEN MEMORY $MRAM · $GSIT · $NVEC · $NLST · $CEVA → Beyond DRAM. Early-stage. Asymmetric upside when the cycle arrives. 🌐 OPTICAL / INTERCONNECT $LITE · $AAOI · $COHR · $CIEN · $MRVL · $GLW · $MTSI · $TSEM · $POET · $LWLG · $FN → The hottest sub-sector in semis right now. 800G → 1.6T. CPO is the next arms race.
Capital rotation is getting louder in semis and AI infrastructure. Money is flowing into names like $MU, $SNDK, $AMD, $ARM, $CRDO, $MRVL, $INTC, $AAOI, $ALAB, and $TSEM. The market is rewarding memory, networking, packaging, and AI compute plays right now
$LITE CEO basically confirmed GS TAM expansion + CPO Supercycle. From ~close to nothing -> $91B. From H2 2026 to 2028: “ I think what we’ve said is that we will have a massive supply demand imbalance on CPO” Demand > Supply. “Largest single growth driver, scale-up CPO” Massive revenue driver is CPO. “is very much in its infancy”. We’re at the beginnings. This is exactly why I have positions in $SIVE, MSScorps, Shunsin, $TSEM, $SOI and others for high beta exposure to the start of the CPO supercycle.
This $GFS call was superb. They seem to be perfectly positioned for optical networking buildout and great to see margin expansion. I came away even more long-term bullish. Potential positive read on $TSEM. Analysis to follow...
True… I did call: $AXTI $12 -> $105 $SOI $43-> $145 $TSEM $110 -> $218 $AAOI $30 -> $180 $IQE $13 -> $46 $LITE $363 -> $1000 $AEHR $30 -> $85 (if you count siph segment) As individual thesis posts… and others like $COHR and Innolight last year… I think $SIVE is the most debated right now, but I do think I’m right. Feels like I’m seeing something others don’t with photonics?
Just in case you’re wondering why I’m so bullish on CPO. Like $SIVE (Lasers), Shunsin (Packaging), MSSCorps (Yields), Win Semi / $TSEM (Foundry). “The CPO market is projected to grow sharply by a 142% CAGR from 2026 to 2030 (excl. ELS)” “The scale-up CPO segment is projected to surpass scale-out applications before 2030 and become the dominant market. You have almost parabolic growth over the next few years. With many players like Sivers having no material exposure to previous 800g pluggable optics but are the bleeding edge leaders of CPO as the laser supplier. This is one of the best and earliest opportunities of the next optical supercycle for an architecture driven by $NVDA and $AVGO.
The Full Optical AI Industry Chain: 1. IC Design & Manufacturing (Where the brains are built) ASIC / xPU / Photonic ICs → $NVDA $MRVL $AVGO $LITE $COHR $INTC $AMD $CSCO Wafer Foundries → $TSM $TSEM $GFS $UMC 2. Materials (The Overlooked Layer) (The foundation of photonics) Indium Phosphide → $AXTI $IQE Gallium Arsenide → $AXTI $MTSI This layer is underfollowed and could see strong upside as optical demand expands. 3. Optical Components (The data highways) VCSEL / EML Lasers → $LITE $COHR $AVGO $AAOI Optical Module Assembly → $FN $COHR $LITE $MRVL $CSCO Fiber / WDM / Optical Connectivity → $CIEN $GLW $LITE MPO Connectors → $GLW $APH Optical Fiber → $GLW 4. Packaging & Testing (The hidden backbone) Packaging → $ASX $AMKR $FN $JBL Packaging Equipment → $KLIC Testing → $TER $KEYS $FORM $AEHR
$LWLG has been one of the most explosive photonics plays of 2026 — the stock went from ~$6.59 in late March to hitting a 52-week high of $17.28 intraday, a move of over 1,300% in the past year alone — and the catalysts keep stacking. The foundation was a development agreement with $TSEM to integrate its electro-optic polymer modulators into $TSEM ’s silicon photonics platform, followed by integration into $GFS GDSFactory process design kit, meaning chip designers building 200G/400G per lane AI data center infrastructure can now drop $LWLG’s polymer modulators directly into standard manufacturable design flows — that’s the bridge from “cool lab tech” to real commercial pipeline. Then came the $MRVL angle: $MRVL acquired Polariton Technologies, a firm that publicly uses $LWLG’s Perkinamine polymers, directly linking $LWLG to $MRVL’s 3.2T optical roadmap. On April 30, another 16.7% session triggered by the $GFS GDSFactory partnership going deeper. The bull thesis is simple — electrical interconnects are hitting speed and power ceilings inside AI data centers, and $LWLG’s high-speed, low-power electro-optic polymer technology is one of the few solutions that can push past that bottleneck. Balance sheet is clean with ~$69M cash and virtually no debt, giving the company runway to execute. Yes, revenue is still tiny and this is a pre-commercial story — but with $TSEM , $GFS, and an indirect $MRVL connection all in the mix, $LWLG is starting to look less like speculation and more like infrastructure. Not financial advice.
From the reference... it does look like Lightmatter uses $SIVE lasers? Which is brand new information discovery and extremely positive for Sivers. Lightmatter is a massive private leader (~$4.4B valuation back in 2024), with $TSM, $GFS, $TSEM, $AMKR, and $ASX scaling their optical program. And Lightmatter does require a light source... $SIVE also happens to be on the $GFS laser source suppliers alongside $LITE, so starting to put the dots together? End users are likely your hyperscalers like $MSFT, $GOOGL (they invested), $META, etc through Lightmatter-GUC and others. I don't think markets have priced all of this in, since all the supply chain BOM is very confidential + speculative. But when CPO and next-gen photonic architectures scale up, volume ramp revenue will appear out of nowhere on the balance sheet.
Fun fact, $SIVE just crossed the $1B MC threshold. So a select few US institutions are able to buy it now (fund mandates) However, the vast vast majority still can’t until they get listed on NASDAQ. Just an FYI: $1B valuations are spare change for institutional investors in US hyperscaler supply chains if they end up powering $JBL, $AMD, $AAPL, $AMZN, $MSFT and others. Just look at $LWLG, $1.9B MC off 1 testing agreement with $TSEM.
This has gotta be the dumbest selloff reason… someone could have provided? I am 99% sure names like $AAOI or $TSEM couldn’t care less about one internal leak of OpenAI’s high flying goals. But algorithms go reeee when they see mainstream media narratives like this. Perfect example on why nobody trusts them anymore for fully accurate reporting. That being said, corrections are always healthy to make higher highs.
$AMD $ARM $MRVL $CRDO $AMKR $RMBS $TSEM all seeing pullbacks after strong recent runs. Nothing unusual — healthy consolidation after momentum can create the next setup. Keep them on the watchlist. Strong names often give better entries when sentiment cools and price resets.
Uh chat... is my timing insane or what? Names like $TSEM are flat all year, I go long, then it doubles. The moment I go long on $AEHR, it almost triples. People are starting to think I'm the catalyst because this keeps happening over and over... lol this is a $22B+ company. Fun fact on how I get these right : -> Identify critical companies not really noticed -> I time my longs around catalysts like $NVDA GTC or OFC. -> And around when news about material changes comes about. -> Then look at good entry points on drops (this is where your astrology TA's get used). Going long isn't just picking a random point in time! On other names, like $ALRIB it's new information discovery (eg. Microsoft Quantum), so two different types. There's actually a strategy here that repeats... (as seen with the other 16 triple digit return stocks).
@manny_c5 Pretty negative. It's big news, but a no-revenue R&D partnership like $LWLG and $TSEM. They have a massive dilution vote from 45m -> 95m shares in 2-3 weeks as well, and I have an extreme distaste for massive dilution cycles. But I expect people to just buy into the fomo/news anyway.
Just putting out there... Would have been +15.02% in 2W equal-weighted return. On 30 different stocks... mostly medium-large cap. 1. $INTC +29.62% 2. $MRVL +40.95% 3. $TSM +4.72% 4. $COHR +18.9% 5. $RKLB +26.76% 6. $DRAM +12.29% 7. $AVGO +18.32% 8. $AMZN +9.17% 9. $ARM +36.6% 10. $TSEM -1.25% 11. $IBIT +7.68% 12. $NBIS +15.22% 13. $GOOGL +6.41% 14. $AMKR +32.25% 15. $HOOD +19.14% 16. $CRCL +17.58% 17. $META +4.9% 18. $LITE -5.28% 19. $LPTH +20.23% 20. $FN +11.54% 21. $JBL +15.45% 22. $MP +17.48% 23. $HIMS +42.53% 24. $SMTC +18.83% 25. $POWL +9.26% 26. $VPG +17.44% 27. $MOG.A -3.96% 28. $MSFT +11.44% 29. $CVX -1.47% 30. $XLU -2.29% Obviously short timeframe, but I expect many of these to keep going up more. And probably would have been higher if you time the drop on specific names, rather than going long all at once. Not too shabby?
@SidkMena $LWLG has one developer agreement trial with $TSEM and is valued at $2.2B $SIVE is shipping lasers that likely ends up in every hyperscaler optical program next year and is valued at $820m One of the most undervalued opportunities I see today.
Foundry YTD and 1y. GFS the laggard - a valid reason or an opportunity to catch up? My bet is on the latter. $TSEM $INTC $GFS $TSM https://t.co/fFFwWLUG0d
Frontrunning 1.6T/CPO within the broader photonics supercycle is the most compelling investment to me. I have high conviction in that statement. Which is why I'm long the entire supply chain (+1 extra bottlenecK) 1. $SIVE - Their laser revenue scales aggressively with $JBL, $MRVL, Ayar, O-Net. And I do think CPO/1.6T will blow away any conservative analyst projections from how hard $NVDA, $GOOGL, and others have been pushing photonics architectures. Downside risk is multi-sourcing, but there's a reason Jabil chose Sivers. When you compare $MTSI, $LITE, $COHR, Furukawa, and others. There's genuinely not many laser suppliers in the entire world... they're all $10B+, then you have this mini CHIPS act chokepoint trading at <$1B MC. 2. Shunsin (6451) - I don't see how it's possible Foxconn's optical foundry for testing, packaging, and assembly is valued at $1.5B MC less than $LWLG. When they look extremely derisked piggybacking off of Foxconn's photonics volume. $TSM's optical arm VisEra example is ~$5B, but they scale H2 2028 from Gen-3. Foxconn looks to be ramping up just next year. They're just scaling low fwd p/e multiples off of $NVDA CPO supply chain demand in Taiwan and all public indicators point to capacity expansion + extreme demand. 3. Win Semi - They're the foundry for Sivers to scale up DFB laser production. As well as $AVGO, SpaceX supply chains and others. When I do supply chain mapping and Win Semi pops up in every single frontier supply chain I see. There's probably something markets are not pricing in. 4. $MRVL - I find this genuinely compelling as a mini-Broadcomm. Their potential design with with $GOOGL today, helps the case past 2028. But the catalyst I was looking at was $MSFT Maia ramp, which happens H2 2026, and likely keep scaling up exponentially into 2027, 2028, 2029. Celestial acquisition was probably the smartest thing in the world for them. Maybe on next drop or CSP? 5. $HPS.A - Transformers/Switchgears are commodities + boring parts of the DC supply chain. However, when the bottleneck is 2-5 years, and you have backlog increasing 100%+... causing extreme shortages. It's only up 20%+ since my thesis post, but I do see this being de-risked given massive backlog visibility (even though it's inferred, they don't give exact #). I do think markets are missing something, especially with potential gross margin expansion from price hikes if they pull it off.... Again backlog + demand just de-risks this company, and it seems like a high growth compounder post facility expansion last year. There's many others like $NBIS, $JBL, $RPI, $TSEM, $LITE, $ARM, $SOI, $AXTI, $IQE, $ALRIB, Fittech, PCL, and others that I'm very fond of, but just mentioning 5 off the top of my head from today's prices... if I'm creating a new portfolio. Of course, it's good to barbell with other uncorrelated companies to AI supply chains, but these are just 5 I liked.
My Photonics watchlist:- Materials/Substrates: $AXTI $GLW $IQEPF Foundry/Manufacturing: $TSEM $FN $GFS $MKSI Components/Lasers: $COHR $LITE $AAOI $SIVE Silicon/DSP: $AVGO $MRVL $MTSI $CRDO Systems/Networks: $CIEN $NOK $CLS Infrastructure: $NVDA Moonshots: $POET $LWLG
@NftSpaceman $TSEM is a bit more priced in right now after doubling in a month. I'd personally hold it, but if you're entering new positions: I covered a lot of optical names recently like enplas/pcl/fittech if you scroll back a little.
Genuinely thanks for nice comments. I share my ideas for free in the end though since I want to help out the retail community. $TSEM hit triple digit return... so that's 16 different names YTD. So my YTD hit 1525%+ as a result. Just to recap all the endless abuse and harassment along the way: 1. $AXTI - "Pump and Dump", "Scam Chinese Stock", Got banned from WSB $RDDT after Mods got mad investors actually made money AXT going from $12->$80. 2. $AAOI - "Pumping stock with no fundamentals, Meme stock" 3. $SIVEF - "Pump and Dump" "Meme Stock" 4. $LITE - "Photonics Bubble" 5. $IQE - "Just pumping low MC stocks" 6. $AEHR - "Stock with negative revenue growth, why is anyone following this guy and not paying $2,000+ for my subscription?" 7. $CRCL - "TA says it's going down to $30" 8. $EWY - "Just from followers" (hint, it's the South Korean Index) 9. Unimicron - "Idea is useless give me US stocks" 10. Nitto Boseki - "Idea is useless give me US stocks" 11. $OSS - Stealing Ideas (no, my synthesis around Venezuela was novel) 12. $GDRZF - "You're a terrible human trying to profit off of the War in Venezuela" 13. $RPI - "Meme stock all because of a Meme Trader" (FT, European Media). 14. $SOI - "Pump and dump", "no novel idea" (random analysts) 15. $ALRIB - "Pumping low MC stocks" (no, it's $MSFT quantum information discovery) 16. $TSEM - "Pumping based on followers alone" (bro it's $25B+, these are institutions) Or how about... the idea around fundamentals was right all along? And I'm just sharing information synthesis/discovery before institutions find out about them. Retail and media should be celebrating when 16+ different ideas return 100%+ YTD, since stocks are positive sum. Everyone from retail, the companies, and local economies benefits. Instead, negativity is through the roof and people keep trying to diminish/downplay the ideas like frontrunning the photonics supercycle… even when they actually turn out right? The trolls are starting to get to me, from $IREN folks creating new accounts every day just to send IRL threats, to European media disinformation about "pumping and dumping"... since I do read every comment. But notice... how 95% of things keep going up? And institutions like Point72 and Apollo end up buying the names I mention? Comments like this do make it helpful to stay on X, and I do enjoy taking victory laps on the haters.
Wow, my 16th 100%+ return this year alone: $TSEM ($113 -> $226). Timeline: 40 days. Told you all it was possible for retail to frontrun institutions. https://t.co/ttbgTK1C5N
Excellent episode. Don't feel bad if you didn't know about Dust Photonics pre-deal. They said $TSEM was probably the fab for Dust, so if $CRDO blows out the product, it is incremental demand for TSEM. Also, an interesting liquid cooling angle. As it comes to CPU, my @openclaw built and deployed a local embeddings model and vector search on our @digitalocean VPS last night. We were previously using an OpenAI API embedding model, and I wanted to bring it in-house. All of this requires incremental CPU for my cloud, probably less compute-efficient than doing it through OpenAI. https://t.co/MJIrYBGKuW
$TSEM on the way. +3.5% today. Faster move than I expected, as has been par for the course. https://t.co/H6u7Jb7ldI
Glad to hear it! I've went long and wrote thesis posts on about out 15 different stocks that hit 100-1000%+ YTD? 1. $AXTI 2. $AAOI 3. $SIVEF 4. $LITE 5. $IQE 6. $AEHR 7. $CRCL 8. $EWY 9. Unimicron 10. Nitto Boseki 11. $OSS 12. $GDRZF 13. $RPI 14. $SOI 15. $ALRIB Not including others like $TSEM that are about to hit triple digit returns too in a month. The amount of hate people like myself get for posting free ideas over the internet is pretty insane TBH. Starting to make sense why people just set up $20,000 paywalls and sell info to Western institutions instead of helping out salty retail investors (especially over in Europe). But helps me keep motivated to keep posting with these positive comments.
@StrateGeee Foxconn’s live.. $NVDA optical supply chain for packaging, test, and assembly.. Is valued less than a development trial between no revenue $LWLG and $TSEM
They’re still there. It’s just hard to say anything…. When all my recent thesis posts from $HPS.A, $IQE, $AXTI, $SIVE, $AAOI, $LITE, $NBIS, Win, Shunsin, $AEHR, $TSEM, $SOI, and many many others I call out. Just hard outperforms the market. Year to date of +1,116.29% isn’t too bad, right chat?
PHOTONICS / OPTICAL STACK — THE FULL VALUE CHAIN “The layer below the chips” — AI’s real bottleneck Layer 1 — Materials Foundation of everything (InP, fiber, wafers) $AXTI $GLW $COHR Layer 2 — SiPh Foundries Where photonic chips are fabricated $TSMC $GFS $TSEM Layer 3 — Lasers (Bottleneck) EML + CW lasers — tightest supply in the chain $LITE $COHR $AAOI $FN Layer 4 — PICs (Optical Chips) Integration layer replacing discrete components $POET $LWLG $MRVL $AVGO Layer 5 — Transceivers 400G → 800G → 1.6T data movement $CIEN $AAOI $LITE $COHR Layer 6 — Co-Packaged Optics (CPO) Next-gen architecture — optics + silicon combined $NVDA $AVGO $MRVL $COHR $LITE $ALAB Layer 7 — Optical Switching (OCS) Routing light without electrical conversion $CIEN $COHR $LITE Layer 8 — Networking Systems DCI, long-haul, metro infrastructure $CIEN $ANET $NOK Layer 9 — Test & EDA Hidden backbone enabling scale $KEYS $FORM $ANSS Layer 10 — Demand Drivers Hyperscalers pulling the entire chain $NVDA $META $GOOGL $MSFT $AMZN THE BIG PICTURE (2026–2027) - AI demand is exponential - Electrical interconnects are hitting limits - Optical = the only scalable solution Key Constraint: Laser supply (InP → EML/CW) → Bottleneck today = pricing power tomorrow This isn’t a single stock trade. It’s a full-stack infrastructure shift — like semis in the early 2000s. The winners won’t just be chipmakers… They’ll be the ones enabling light-speed data movement. Not financial advice. DYOR. Bookmark this, retweet for others
$NVDA is driving CPO, extremely, extremely hard. As seen with investments in $MRVL, $LITE, and $COHR. But, what's interesting is: CPO timelines are also happening way earlier than expected. New report: " $ASE Reportedly to Break Ground on Six New Plants in 2026, CPO Mass Production Expected to Begin This Year " "He also revealed for the first time that mass production of CPO is expected to begin this year" Probably a good time to frontrun CPO related names like $SIVE (lasers), Win Semi (foundry), $TSEM (foundry), $SOI (substrates), and others around now, before ramp really picks up. The demand curve goes up exponentially all the way past 2029+, and I'm sure they'll break many projections. But basically, I was talking about frontrunning CPO/SiPH names before OFC/GTC. Turned out I was right on timing again? CPO Ramp now looks like it's beginning H2 2026, get ready.
I feel like I've called out the most triple digit stock returns YTD... Out of anyone in history? Hence why I have 150k+ followers now! In just a short timeframe: $AXTI -> 5x+ $AAOI -> 5x $SIVE -> 2x+ $LITE -> 2x+ $IQE -> 2x+ $AEHR -> 2x+ $CRCL -> 2x+ $EWY IV -> 2x Unimicron -> 2x+ Nitto Boseki -> 2x+ $OSS -> 2x+ $GDRZF -> 2x+ $AEHR -> 2x With many more like $TSEM, $RPI having close to triple digit returns. Not including many others last year like $HOOD or $RKLB for triple digit returns, just this YTD. There's stuff like $FORM and others like Macronix... and $NBIS that actually doubled from the bottom at $70. But I won't take credit since I didn't do a specific post about it during the timeframes. There's a difference between just mentioning among many other tickers. Then having conviction like myself, writing a specific thesis post about it, getting catalyst timing right, and going long yourself. But proud if this helped retail going the right direction. Especially that they don’t need to pay $2,000+ just to see tickers people go long on or join some “special club” for company discussion.
@kishwarAI Lower the marketcap, higher the growth usually if they have similar customer profiles. $AAOI probably highest ROI vs $LITE / $COHR on transceiver side. Then Win probably outperforms $TSEM on the foundry side.
Photonics — still one of the strongest sectors to keep on watch 👀 $AAOI $COHR $LITE $POET $MRVL $LWLG $TSEM $SIVEF $NOK $OPTX $AEHR $LASR $OPTX
@alexanderlee1 Good times… still can’t believe it’s less than a month? $TSEM was only $13B MC when I went long. Now it’s ~$23B so close to doubling. There’s always more fish in the sea. Win Semi is pretty good over in Taiwan though. But yeah $TSM and $TSEM sound too similar
No, I’m still at a conservative 759% YTD after today’s overall rally. Lost too much from hedging. Would probably be up more if indexes and many individual names like $RDDT weren’t so down from macro. But if you pick selective winners like $AAOI or $AEHR … in hyperscaler supply chains: Turns out it’s possible outperform markets? I do think it’s a tad harder than it looks finding important players in each sector and timing catalysts. $TSEM was basically flat the entire year until I bought, then it rallied 90% in 3 weeks, so timing important too (eg. OFC announcements). And I’ve developed PTSD after finding the unknown $TSM COUPE glass substrates supplier… Only to watch them get bought out by Apollo shortly after. So not always having a good time. But glad if my ideas helped others outperform indexes or see where frontier industries are heading to.
$TSEM from under $150 to $203+ now
Here's a bunch of random 30 US-available random stocks I like today and why: 1. $INTC - America's hope for foundry, national security 2. $MRVL - scales rev from future maia asics and add ons like cpo, they do everything lost count 3. $TSM - backbone of semis/ai 4. $COHR - They do everything vertically integrated + captures optical cycle 5. $RKLB - the final frontier of space will be around 5 years from now and 20 years from now. 6. $DRAM - memory exposure for samsung/sk hynix 7. $AVGO - hyperscalers dont like nvidia gpu tax 8. $AMZN - nobody can compete against the overnight shipping of toilet paper. robotics will lower opex over time 9. $ARM - AGI CPUs scale revenue quite a bit over the next decade 10. $TSEM - you're going to need a foundry for light based stuff 11. $IBIT - bitcoin, we all know by now 12. $NBIS - i think it's the next AWS. Also they do self-driving cars with uber, own scaling DB companies, data labeling. It's almost like a mini Google. 13. $GOOGL - youtube is not going away, gemini is great. they're vertically integrated with TPUs and fund buildout with operating income so i like it. 14. $AMKR - super facilities coming online in late 2027-2028. benefits from made in america 15. $HOOD - i dont like short term, but long term i'm a fan of Robinhood since they captured retail + have more products like banking, etc that they're scaling up. product innovation is wild. 16. $CRCL - I happen to really like stablecoins and see them as the future for both payments/holding (depends on clarity act) 17. $META - people aren't going to stop using instagram or whatsapp, or others anytime soon. 18. $LITE - $GOOGL TPU exposure decently high part of BOM. As long as Google's AI program keeps running I think $LITE will do well. 19. $LPTH - Germanium and China export controls will always be an issue so US made engineered alternatives will always be important 20. $FN - Someone needs to assemble optical stuff 21. $JBL - same as above, but added with ip from Intel's SiPh acqusition so might end up like innolight? 22. $MP - American rare earths program is extremely important, similar to $INTC national security risks 23. $HIMS - Okay here me out they just acquired a ton of companies, and at $19 they have global DTC channel. short sellers really hate this company, but I think it's actually promising as a contrarian long 24. $SMTC - LRO/LPO transition 25. $POWL - US alternative to hammond for switchgear DC type bottleneck 26. $VPG - Humanoids will be a thing down the road maybe 2027-2028, this makes the sensors. 27. $MOG.A - Feels like i see them everywhere in robotics, to spacex supply chains 28. $MSFT - At $375, one day we'll look back and see this as a buying opportunity. 29. $CVX - oil might crash after war but these oil companies are going to be extremely important, especially when Venezulea is a goldmine. 30. $XLU - i think rate cuts might be back online, we need power/grid for AI so these names will always be improtant from $CEG to $NEE Just throwing out other thoughts aside from $AAOI and $AEHR.
@NabQ321 Good question! $AAOI, $AEHR are two extremely high beta, fast growth stocks. Maybe some larger companies like $COHR, $TSEM, $SMTC, $MRVL, $INTC or $FN on the next drop? Companies like AOI or AEHR are pretty rare to come by.
Photonics / Optical / Semiconductor — Full Stack View Foundries $TSEM $GFS → Scaling silicon photonics capacity to meet demand surge Optical Components & Lasers $COHR $LITE $IPGP $LASR → Core building blocks: lasers, modulators, photodiodes Transceivers & Optical Engines $AAOI $POET → Where electrical meets optical — key bottleneck + opportunity Chip Design & SiPh Integration $MRVL $MTSI → Designing the brains behind optical interconnects Manufacturing & Packaging $FN → Advanced assembly becomes critical as complexity rises Networking & Systems $CIEN $GLW → Moving massive data through fiber at scale Testing & Materials $AEHR $AXTI $LWLG → Enabling performance, reliability, and next-gen efficiency Key Drivers → AI data center buildout (800G → 1.6T → CPO) → Demand > supply through 2027 → Aggressive M&A across the ecosystem This isn’t just a sector — it’s an entire supply chain being repriced in real time. Photonics isn’t coming… it’s already here. Not financial advice. DYOR.
Photonics and Space are two of the strongest sectors to keep on watch right now: Photonics — $AAOI $COHR $LITE $POET $MRVL $LWLG $TSEM $SIVEF $NOK $OPTX Space — $RKLB $ASTS $SATL $SIDU $RDW $PL $FLY $LUNR $SPCE Don’t ignore these spaces — both sectors are showing real strength and staying on watch for continued opportunities.
@TD_btc24 Most recent 5 thesis posts I've shared: 1. $HPS.A ($1.77B) - Transformer/Switchgear DC bottleneck 2. $ARM ($152B)- AI CPU ramp 3. Win Semi ($5.7B) - Foundry for CW lasers and other supply chains from SpaceX to humanoids 4. $SIVE ($295M) - CW Laser ramp for H2 2026 and 2027. 5. $TSEM ($22B) - photonics foundry Apart from those, names I've positively mentioned like $MRVL, $AAOI, $RDDT, $NBIS, $RPI, $AEHR, $LITE, $COHR, SK Hynix, $LASR, $SOI, $IQE, and others might be decent additions.
Photonics — still one of the strongest sectors to keep on watch 👀 $AAOI $COHR $LITE $POET $MRVL $LWLG $TSEM $SIVEF $NOK $OPTX Strong demand + AI/data center tailwinds = continued upside potential. Don’t ignore this space.
@degenlurker_ $AXTI is a bottleneck. $TSEM not yet so far, but I'd expect it to be maxed out on capacity next year or two. $SIVE upcoming with CW lasers. $COHR does way too much, on EML yes, on other things no. $SOI not exactly a bottleneck but it's a monopoly over soi substrates, which are required for siph and cpo. so this leads to material revenue increases from everything that gets made.
@jamesxtrades Idk according to Bloomberg, FT, Reuters, and others I’m a “meme trader”. Not sure why institutions would want to copy trade meme stocks like $LITE, $TSEM and others.
I still find it funny $TSEM was flat the entire year to date. I go long and now it’s close to doubling in 3 weeks. This is a $22B+ stock BTW (close to $NBIS size). Maybe institutions started copy trading? https://t.co/kUqw9b6Ksk
Please stop trying to model 2025-2026 revenue for future CPO/SiPH ramp… When I looked at $TSEM back at ~$115 last month (round to $200 now). The forward p/e compressed to rates like ~16-18 (down to 10-12 in growth scenarios) Same applies to $AEHR / $SIVE / $SOI /Win Semi and other names. This is H1 2026. Volume ramp hits H2 2026. We’re at the very beginning of a massive supercycle and these are my more pure play exposure picks for the next architectural changes in photonics: For testing, cw lasers, substrates, and foundries in next paradigm shift in the photonics supercycle. Companies like $LITE or $AAOI that I’ve longed last year cover multiple cycles. However, the most returns comes from anticipating what benefits the most Mc wise relative to future revenue/TAM growth (not priced into current earnings). Not looking back at 2 year historical returns to calculate fair value. And when we’re looking at massive new photonics TAM ($110B+ bull case from lightcounting), largely driven from architecture that use CW lasers as an example or struggle with yields. A lot of these companies are likely going to re-rate hard. Especially when you look at the start of the next architectural changes, happening around H2 2026.
@kevstern1 Because I was doing just as well even before I joined X? Keep seeing people try and diminish recent longs like $AXTI, $LITE, or $TSEM due to algorithms and platforms. Maybe it’s up 800%+ because the idea was correct.
I just realized… hit 5,118.02% returns last week. 5000%+ not too bad in <2 years? Hard to keep up with $5 footlong sandwich inflation even after front running: -> $MSTR for halving -> $RKLB and $HOOD for space/fintech rally -> $GOOGL and $TSM for large cap rally -> Samsung, SK Hynix, Asian equities for memory -> $LITE, $AXTI, and $COHR for EML/photonics -> $SOI, $SIVE, $AEHR, $TSEM, Win for CW/SiPH/CPO. Some side quests here and there with Venezuelan natural resource companies and drones (that didn’t turn out as well). But generally market read has been decent so far on what’s coming next. And I do think scale up photonics is next, especially focusing on CW laser companies, substrates, testing and foundries.
Lightcounting: "This is not a typo" Optical interconnects has a reasonable chance to reach $100B+ by 2030 from ~$19B (2025). If you're looking for my favorite names: Compounders: $MRVL, $SMTC CW Lasers: $SIVE, $MTSI, $AAOI Foundries $TSEM, Win Semi Substrates/Epitaxy: $AXTI, $SOI, $IQE Gold Standard: $LITE, $COHR The next TAM expansion multiplier is CPO/Scale Up, largely driven by SiPh and external CW lasers.
$TSEM $GFS EXECUTIVE OVERVIEW As of April 2, 2026, the public record shows a coordinated 3-part enforcement campaign by GlobalFoundries against Tower Semiconductor arising from filings made on March 26, 2026. GlobalFoundries filed 2 patent cases in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, Case Nos. 7:26-cv-00108 and 7:26-cv-00109, and filed a parallel Section 337 complaint at the U.S. International Trade Commission, Docket No. 3896. The district actions seek jury-tried patent remedies, while the ITC complaint seeks a limited exclusion order, cease-and-desist orders, and bond during the 60-day Presidential review period. GlobalFoundries states that the campaign covers 11 U.S. patents tied to semiconductor manufacturing process technologies and seeks compensation for damages and lost profits; Tower has publicly stated that it firmly rejects the allegations and will vigorously defend its intellectual property and technology leadership. All infringement allegations remain unproven at the complaint stage.  This dispute is best understood as a specialty-foundry platform conflict between 2 operating competitors, not as a classic patent-monetization action by a non-practicing entity. GlobalFoundries’ disclosed technology portfolio includes RF-SOI, SiGe, BCD/high-voltage BCD, power GaN, RF GaN, FDX, FinFET, and silicon photonics. Tower’s disclosed offerings include RF SOI/RF CMOS, SiGe BiCMOS, silicon photonics, mixed-signal CMOS, image sensors, sensors, and power management, and Tower’s own filing states that it competes most directly with GlobalFoundries mainly in RF business. That overlap is the central commercial fact: the complaint is aimed at a direct specialty-foundry rival operating in many of the same process domains and customer applications.  HISTORY AND STRATEGIC CONTEXT GlobalFoundries was formed in 2009 from AMD’s manufacturing separation and now operates a global foundry footprint spanning the U.S., Europe, and Singapore. Tower was founded in 1993, became public in 1994, and materially expanded its global position through the 2008 acquisition of Jazz Semiconductor, which established the Newport Beach platform that remains central to Tower’s U.S. manufacturing presence. Over time, both companies shifted away from direct competition in leading-edge digital logic and toward differentiated specialty-node manufacturing, where analog performance, RF behavior, power handling, yield tuning, and process integration know-how matter more than pure transistor shrink. That strategic positioning is precisely why manufacturing-process IP has unusually high competitive value in this rivalry.  GlobalFoundries also has prior form as an offensive patent litigant in foundry markets. In 2019 it sued TSMC in U.S. courts and at the ITC and then resolved the matter through a broad global patent cross-license. That history does not establish infringement here, but it changes the interpretation of the Tower action. The current filing reads less like an ad hoc legal reaction and more like a deliberate use of intellectual property enforcement to shape competitive behavior and licensing terms in differentiated foundry markets.  THE PARTIES GlobalFoundries is the larger and financially stronger company by a wide margin. In 2025 it reported $6.791B of net revenue, $1.690B of gross profit, $888M of net income, and $518M of R&D expense. Its 2025 filing disclosed approximately 1,600 employees dedicated to R&D and approximately 8,500 worldwide patents, with manufacturing centered in Malta, New York; Burlington, Vermont; Dresden, Germany; and Singapore. This matters because it supports 2 key points simultaneously: GlobalFoundries has the financial capacity to sustain a long, technical patent fight, and it has the kind of operating footprint and patent depth that makes an ITC domestic-industry case facially credible.  Tower is materially smaller but technically credible and strategically relevant. Tower reported 2025 revenue of $1.57B, gross profit of $364M, operating profit of $194M, and net profit of $220M. Its 2024 20-F disclosed $79.4M of R&D expense, 430 R&D professionals, and 272 patents in force. Tower processes wafers at 6 facilities spanning Israel, Newport Beach, San Antonio, 2 TPSCo fabs in Japan, and a shared 300mm fab in Agrate, Italy, and it also has a New Mexico capacity-corridor arrangement with Intel that is not yet qualified for production. Tower therefore cannot be dismissed as a thin reseller or passive assembler; it is a real specialty foundry with meaningful internal R&D and globally distributed manufacturing assets.  VENUE, TIMELINE, AND PROCEDURAL POSTURE The venue architecture is deliberate. Case No. 7:26-cv-00108 was filed by GlobalFoundries U.S. Inc. and GlobalFoundries Singapore Pte. Ltd. against Tower Semiconductor Ltd., Tower Partners Semiconductor Co. Ltd., Tower Semiconductor Italy S.r.l., Tower US Holdings Inc., Tower Semiconductor NPB Holdings Inc., Tower Semiconductor Newport Beach Inc., and Tower Semiconductor San Antonio Inc. Case No. 7:26-cv-00109 was filed by GlobalFoundries U.S. Inc. against the same Tower defendant set. Both cases were filed in the Western District of Texas on March 26, 2026, assigned to Judge David Counts, and accompanied by jury demands. The ITC complaint, publicly noticed on March 31, 2026 as Docket No. 3896, adds Newport Fab LLC as a proposed respondent and seeks border remedies directed at imported semiconductor devices and downstream sales after importation. Public-interest comments were due 8 calendar days after publication, or April 8, 2026.  The district/ITC pairing reflects remedy stacking rather than mere forum proliferation. The ITC cannot award money damages, but it can issue exclusion orders and cease-and-desist orders against infringing imports and U.S. inventories of imported goods. The Texas cases preserve a money-damages track, including GlobalFoundries’ stated lost-profits theory, while the ITC filing creates faster leverage over imported volume and customer supply chains. The Western District of Texas choice also looks more grounded than cosmetic because Tower has a San Antonio manufacturing presence in Texas, multiple U.S. affiliates, and the district has formal patent-case assignment procedures in place. This does not eliminate forum strategy, but it does make the venue choice look more like a rational operating-company selection than a purely ornamental forum-shopping exercise.  The ITC is likely to become the pacing item. The USITC states that it normally decides whether to institute a Section 337 investigation within 30 calendar days after complaint filing, and within 45 days after institution it sets a target date for completion. Official statistics show that investigations completed on the merits averaged 16.3 months in FY2025, while the average across all completed investigations was 14.29 months. If the normal schedule holds, the institution decision would be expected around late April 2026, with a likely merits window extending into H2 2027 and any remedial order then subject to the standard 60-day Presidential review period.  Recent USITC data imply a high institution probability but a much more balanced merits probability. The Commission reported 22 institutions on 23 complaints filed in FY2026 to date and 41 institutions on 48 complaints in FY2025. Yet official violation statistics show that only 54% of merits determinations found a violation in FY2025 and 47% did so in FY2024, while official settlement/consent-order/withdrawal data show that 43% of terminated investigations in FY2025 and 37.5% in FY2024 ended without a final merits adjudication. Institution therefore should not be confused with victory. The correct base case is institution first, then pressure, narrowing, and a nontrivial probability of settlement.  The district cases may be subordinated to that ITC schedule. Under 28 U.S.C. §1659, if Tower requests it, the district court must stay overlapping claims that are also in the ITC proceeding until the Commission determination becomes final. That makes the Western District of Texas cases look less like the near-term merits battlefield and more like damages reservoirs and post-ITC leverage vehicles. In practical terms, if the ITC proceeds normally and a §1659 stay is sought, full district-court resolution could be pushed into 2028 or later.  WHAT IS BEING CONTESTED This is fundamentally a manufacturing-process and device-structure case, not a product-feature or software case. The publicly visible patent set spans laterally diffused MOS structures for ESD protection, seal rings and chip-edge guard rings, substrate biasing, high-voltage devices, self-aligned liners on contacts, contact formation, nickel silicide damage reduction, interconnect grain-growth structures, and selective reverse-mask planarization. In semiconductor terms, the complaint attacks platform-level process integration, device layout, and contact/interconnect engineering that can recur across many analog, RF, power, and automotive devices fabricated on the same flow.  That distinction matters economically. When the asserted IP sits inside FEOL, MOL, and BEOL platform building blocks rather than at the outer edge of end-product functionality, exposure propagates across customer programs that share the same manufacturing flow. A single adverse finding can therefore affect a platform family rather than an isolated SKU. This is the core reason the case matters more than the headline number of 11 patents initially suggests. The case is about control of process recipes and device structures that can support multiple generations of RF, power, and radar silicon.  ASSERTED PATENTS AND PRODUCTS AFFECTED Based on public docket and search snippets, Case No. 00108 appears to assert U.S. Patent Nos. 11,476,244, 8,283,193, 11,658,177, 7,566,653, and 9,269,666, covering LDMOS/ESD structures, integrated-circuit seal rings, substrate-biasing schemes, interconnect structures with grain-growth promotion layers, and selective reverse-mask planarization. Case No. 00109 appears to assert U.S. Patent Nos. 10,062,748, 8,507,983, 9,093,425, 9,865,546, 10,707,167, and 8,330,235, covering segmented guard rings and chip-edge seals, high-voltage devices, self-aligned liners on metal/semiconductor alloy contacts, contact formation methods, and methods to reduce middle-of-line damage on nickel silicide. The overall mix is broad enough to create platform leverage but also broad enough to create multiple attack surfaces for invalidity and non-infringement defenses.  Public complaint snippets indicate that GlobalFoundries did meaningful pre-suit technical work and did not rely only on vague platform accusations. Those public examples identify a Qorvo PAC22140 power-management device and a PA22BZ die within it, apparently tied to Tower BCD processing; a DENSO DNSRR004 automotive radar sensor associated in public materials with blind-spot-monitor functionality and public snippets tying it to radar-relevant Tower flows; and a Qorvo QM81026 RF device allegedly built on Tower RF processing, with third-party teardown reporting associating that part with the Apple iPhone 16e. Those examples place the dispute directly into smartphone RF, automotive ADAS, and industrial/e-mobility power-management silicon.  The commercial scope is likely broader than those named examples. Because the patents target process features rather than only branded end-products, the real exposure is better understood as manufacturing platform families: RF SOI/RF CMOS flows, BCD/high-voltage power-management flows, and SiGe/BiCMOS radar-relevant flows. The visible accused examples likely function as evidentiary anchors chosen to show that the disputed structures are present in production silicon. Notably, the strongest public examples presently skew more toward RF, power, and automotive radar than toward explicitly silicon-photonics-specific devices. Silicon photonics remains strategically important mainly because both companies compete there and Tower is investing heavily there, not because the visible patent titles are obviously SiPho-specific on the current public record.  FINANCIAL AND STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS For GlobalFoundries, direct litigation expense is financially immaterial. The company entered 2026 with $6.791B of 2025 revenue, $1.690B of gross profit, $888M of net income, and approximately $4.0B of cash and marketable securities. The economic rationale is strategic, not accounting-driven: protecting differentiated platform IP that underpins pricing power, single-source wins, and future returns on capital. GlobalFoundries disclosed that approximately 63% of 2025 wafer-shipment volume came from single-sourced business and that it had approximately $11B of remaining revenue commitments under LTAs at year-end 2025. In that context, permitting a direct rival to commercialize overlapping process know-how without payment would threaten more than royalty economics; it would threaten the durability of a core business model built around platform uniqueness and long qualification cycles.  GlobalFoundries’ ITC domestic-industry position also appears strong on the public record. It operates major U.S. fabs in Malta and Burlington, disclosed approximately 1,600 R&D-dedicated employees and approximately 8,500 worldwide patents, and has received CHIPS-related support that includes up to $1.5B of direct funding for projects in New York and Vermont. That profile should help GlobalFoundries argue that the complaint protects a real U.S. manufacturing and R&D base, not just a paper patent position. The case therefore fits neatly into a broader narrative of defending differentiated American specialty-foundry capability while large public and private investments are still being deployed.  For Tower, the lawsuit is financially manageable in the narrow sense but strategically more consequential. Tower reported 2025 revenue of $1.57B, gross profit of $364M, operating profit of $194M, net profit of $220M, operating cash flow of $395M, and capital expenditure of $437M. At December 31, 2025, it held $235.369M of cash and cash equivalents plus $916.541M of short-term deposits, against modest debt. Litigation expense alone is therefore unlikely to impair solvency or normal operations. The more important issue is percentage sensitivity: a royalty burden, a customer delay, or a required redesign on a core platform would consume a materially larger share of Tower’s earnings power than a comparable outcome would consume for GlobalFoundries.  The timing is awkward for Tower because the suit collides with an expansion-heavy growth plan. Tower is executing a total $920M SiPho and SiGe investment program targeted for full qualification by Q4 2026 and 2027 starts, with planned capacity greater than 5x the Q4 2025 run rate and more than 70% of total SiPho capacity already reserved or in process of being reserved through 2028 with customer prepayments. Tower also guided Q1 2026 revenue to $412M, plus or minus 5%, implying continued momentum entering the dispute. On the day the lawsuit was disclosed, Tower shares fell 7.45%, versus a 4.64% decline for GlobalFoundries and a 2.38% decline for the Nasdaq Composite. The market move was not dispositive, but it was directionally consistent with the view that the dispute is more strategically material for Tower than for GlobalFoundries.  Tower’s U.S. commercial exposure reinforces that asymmetry. Tower disclosed that 42% of 2024 revenue came from the United States and stated in its own risk factors that inability to obtain licenses or adverse patent litigation may halt operations with regard to particular product technologies and adversely affect revenues. Tower also disclosed that some prior IP claims have been resolved through license agreements, which makes a negotiated licensing outcome entirely plausible. Customer concentration adds to the risk: Tower disclosed that in 2024, 13% of revenue came from NTCJ and another 27% came from 4 additional customers, each contributing between 3% and 11% of revenue. In a specialty-foundry model, where utilization, customer-specific qualification, and process continuity matter, even modest hesitation by a small number of customers can have an outsized effect on fab loading and margin capture.  A further complication is Tower’s still-unsettled capacity-flexibility picture. Tower disclosed in February 2026 that Intel had recently expressed an intention not to perform under the New Mexico capacity-corridor agreement, that the parties were in mediation, and that flows transferred or being transferred there were being redirected back to Fab7 in Japan. Tower’s 20-F separately states that the New Mexico corridor is not yet qualified for production. This matters in 2 ways. First, it reduces the practical flexibility implied by Tower’s headline capacity narrative. Second, because Section 337 is an import-trade remedy, any increased reliance on Japanese output rather than unqualified future U.S. capacity can, at the margin, increase rather than reduce Tower’s exposure to ITC-style border leverage.  LEGITIMACY, MERITS, AND PROBABILITY OF SUCCESS On case legitimacy, the filing appears facially strong enough to be taken seriously. GlobalFoundries is a real manufacturer with substantial U.S. fabs, a large domestic R&D base, and a deep patent portfolio. Tower is a direct overlapping competitor, not a downstream customer or remote assembler. The complaint set spans 11 patents and identifies public examples of accused products across RF, power, and automotive. The ITC complaint also maps naturally onto foreign and domestic respondent entities in Israel, Japan, Italy, California, and Texas, making the importation theory facially coherent. This is materially different from a nuisance case brought by a licensing shell with no operating business.  Several counterweights prevent an overly bullish view on GlobalFoundries’ ultimate odds. Semiconductor process-integration cases are technically difficult because reverse engineering rarely reveals every fabrication step with certainty and critical evidence often sits inside confidential process flows, materials stacks, and integration choices. An 11-patent package creates multiple invalidity and claim-construction attack surfaces, and older manufacturing patents often face dense prior-art fields. Tower is not a passive actor; it has its own R&D teams, U.S. fabs, international fabs, and a documented history of navigating IP through licensing where needed. GlobalFoundries’ lost-profits ask is especially ambitious because it requires more than a showing of infringement; it requires a persuasive argument that the displaced business would have gone to GlobalFoundries and that GlobalFoundries could have captured or supplied it.  Tower also has a meaningful structural defense on remedy. The ITC only reaches importation and post-import sale of imported articles. Tower has U.S. manufacturing in Newport Beach and San Antonio, which means ITC relief is not equivalent to an absolute U.S. shutdown if meaningful accused output can be sourced domestically. However, the ITC complaint’s inclusion of respondents from Israel, Japan, Italy, and multiple U.S. entities, combined with Tower’s own disclosures about Japanese and Italian fabs and the recent redirection of flows back to Japan, indicates that imported product remains central enough for Section 337 leverage to matter. The existence of U.S. fabs moderates the scope of worst-case scenarios, but it does not neutralize the ITC.  Public-interest arguments are likely to focus on automotive safety, smartphone supply continuity, and the availability of replacement capacity. The DENSO radar example gives Tower a more credible automotive-safety narrative than would exist in a purely discretionary consumer-electronics case. At the same time, GlobalFoundries can point to U.S. fabs, overlapping specialty technologies, and domestic-industry investments when arguing that replacement supply is feasible at least in part. On the present record, the public-interest issue looks real but more likely to shape the scope of remedy than to block the case at the front end.  A calibrated probability framework is therefore mixed rather than binary. Probability of ITC institution appears high at roughly 80%-90%. Probability that GlobalFoundries obtains meaningful leverage through ITC institution, early survival of at least some patents, and likely slowing of the district cases under §1659 appears roughly 60%-70%. Probability that Tower defeats the matter cleanly without material settlement or remedy pressure appears roughly 25%-35%. Probability of a clean GlobalFoundries sweep across the full 11-patent package, broad exclusionary relief, and strong damages recovery appears materially lower at roughly 15%-25%. The highest-probability zone is a partial GlobalFoundries win or a commercially meaningful settlement on narrower terms than the opening complaint suggests.  Official ITC data support that calibration. Institution rates are high, but violation rates are materially below certainty and settlement/withdrawal outcomes are common. GlobalFoundries’ own 2019 TSMC campaign further shows that multi-forum foundry disputes can shift rapidly from aggressive pleading to cross-license logic once leverage is established. The modal outcome here is therefore not a total merits sweep by either side. The more probable end-state is partial narrowing of the patent set followed by a negotiated license, cross-license, or other commercial accommodation once one side secures enough procedural and technical advantage to reset the bargaining range.  EXPECTED DURATION A practical timing view is as follows. The next key procedural event is a likely ITC institution decision by late April 2026 if the normal 30-day timetable holds. If instituted, the target date would likely be set by early summer 2026, with the evidentiary phase concentrated in 2027 and a Commission-level merits outcome most plausibly in H2 2027 under normal timing. Any remedial order would then go through the 60-day Presidential review period. If Tower invokes §1659, the Texas actions would likely slow materially during that process. A fully litigated district-court result could therefore extend into 2028 or even 2029, while economically rational settlement windows would likely cluster after institution, after early technical rulings, or after the first substantive ITC merits signal.  BOTTOM LINE The investment conclusion is that the lawsuit is serious, technically grounded, and strategically rational. For GlobalFoundries, it is a low-balance-sheet-risk attempt to protect differentiated platform economics, reinforce domestic-industry positioning, and constrain a direct rival in overlapping specialty nodes. For Tower, it is not an existential event, but it is a materially adverse complication because it touches core product families, lands during a heavy SiPho/SiGe expansion cycle, and could alter customer behavior, licensing economics, and import-dependent supply before final judgment ever arrives. The balance of legal and procedural leverage presently appears to favor GlobalFoundries. The balance of financial sensitivity and strategic exposure appears to favor Tower.  The products most visibly implicated today are smartphone RF devices, power-management ICs, and automotive radar sensors, but the real issue is broader platform control over RF, power, and radar-relevant manufacturing flows. That platform dimension is why the case matters only incrementally to GlobalFoundries’ near-term financial model but much more directly to Tower’s medium-term growth narrative and return on expansion capital. The most probable path is institution at the ITC, meaningful settlement pressure, and eventual commercial resolution on narrower terms than the opening complaint, not catastrophic impairment of either company and not a fully clean victory for either side. 
Sometimes it works out. I don't see how $TSEM is not a ~$250 stock by Jan-2028. https://t.co/9dnYUxvOcD
THE AI SUPPLY CHAIN — COMPLETE MAP I've spent a few hours mapping the entire AI supply chain. Hyperscalers are spending $750 billion. These are the 42 companies building, powering, and deploying AI from start to finish. Every layer. Every sector. Bookmark it. Feel free to add companies in the comments. Layer 1: Chip Equipment (the machines that build the machines): $ASML $AMAT $LRCX $TSEM Layer 2: Foundry & Fabrication (where chips are born): $TSM $GFS $INTC Layer 3: GPU / ASIC / CPU (the AI compute engines): $NVDA $AVGO $AMD $MRVL Layer 4: Memory & HBM (the bandwidth bottleneck): $MU $WDC Layer 5: Photonics & Optical Interconnects: $COHR $LITE $AAOI $POET $MTSI $ALMU Layer 6: Data Center + Space (the physical home of AI): $IREN $NBIS $CIFR $WULF $EQIX $RKLB $ASTS $PL Layer 7: Cybersecurity (every new AI system is a new attack surface): $CRWD $PANW $ZS $NET $S $FTNT Layer 8: AI Software & Automation (where the ROI shows up): $PATH $PLTR $NOW $HIMS $DDOG $SNOW $MDB $SOFI Layer 9: Defense & End-Use (where AI becomes operational): $ONDS $OSS $RKLB $AMPX $LHX $RTX $NOC $PNG.V Every company on this list has either government budgets, hyperscaler contracts, or can potentially benefit from the AI build it somehow. Save this. And if you found this valuable, you should follow me. The market won't be red forever. -BP Please note: This is not financial advice.
@SingularityRes 정말 재미있게 읽었습니다. 공유해 주셔서 감사합니다! 최근 이슈들에 대한 내용은 대부분 정확하네요! 저는 요즘 $SOI나 $TSEM 등을 포함한 CPO(공동 패키지 광학)/실리콘 포토닉스 분야에 확실하게 집중하고 있습니다. 몇 가지 사소한 정정을 하자면, 5억~10억 달러($500m - $1B) 규모의 수치는 $SIVE 가 아니라 셀레스티얼(Celestial)에 해당하는 내용인 것 같습니다. 그래도 흥미롭게 잘 읽었습니다.
The market are missing the implications from $NVDA investing: $2B into $COHR for optical. $2B into $LITE for optical. and $2B into $MRVL for optical today. Nvidia did this exact same playbook last year. They realized the push to 800G/1.6T pluggables would exhaust the global supply of EML. So they approached $LITE, $COHR, Sumitomo, and preallocated majority of production. And we've seen this reflected in their share price with $LITE rising 955% since the major supply squeeze. We're seeing the beginning of the same playbook happen now over the last month. Just for a new architecture, this time. As these deals included multibillion-dollar purchase commitments and future capacity rights. So... what's next? CW/EML and CPO bottlenecks. Nvidia just prefers to invest in downstream players. But the supply crunch happens upstream. Laser suppliers from $MTSI, $SIVE, $LITE, $COHR, Furukawa, and Sumitomo are on overdrive. Foundries from Win Semi, $TSEM, $GFS are likely on overdrive. The entire supply chain benefits (eg. testing from $AEHR, substrates with $SOI). But these two segments from foundries to ELS/CW laser chokepoints are likely to be the biggest beneficiaries. Nvidia is the biggest signal of what's coming next; it's just a waiting period for the inflection point to hit.
I want path-independent leverage in a name like $TSEM . My view on the majority of my GAI picks and shovels trades are +2 year holds. Often, after a gap up, I will short calls against my initial long leap call, converting it into a vertical spread and recouping some of the IV burden. The cost of doing business and holding a volatile name. Additionally, what's to say the IV doesn't rise even further, thus adding incremental value to your existing long call?
I added $TSEM 1/21/28 calls today.
CPO Value Chain Summary from Mirae Asset: Laser Source: Coherent < $COHR > Lumentum < $LITE > Furukawa Electric (TYO: 5801) Yuanjie Semiconductor (SHA: 688498) Innolight Technology / Zhongji Innolight (SZSE: 300308) PIC Foundry: TSMC < $TSM > GlobalFoundries $GFS Samsung Electronics (KRX: 005930) Tower Semiconductor < $TSEM> EIC, Driver IC: Broadcom < $AVGO > Marvell < $MRVL > NVIDIA < $NVDA > ELS, Optical Engine Innolight / Zhongji Innolight (SZSE: 300308) TFC / Suzhou TFC Optical Communication (SZSE: 300394) O-Net Technologies Eoptolink Technology (SZSE: 300502) FAU (Fiber Array Unit): Senko Advanced Components (Private) Sumitomo Electric (TYO: 5802) TFC (SZSE: 300394) FOCI Fiber Optic Communications (TWO: 3363) FAU, Align Tools: ficonTEC (Private) All Ring Tech (TWO: 6187) ADST (Private) FAU, Engine Assembly: Fabrinet < $FN > Hon Hai / Foxconn (TWSE: 2317) ASE Technology < $ASX > FOCI (TWO: 3363) OSAT, Advanced Packaging: ASE Technology < $ASX > Amkor < $AMKR > Kyocera (TYO: 6971) Powertech / PTI (TWSE: 6239) Shinko Electric (TYO: 6967) Fabrinet < $FN > Connector, Ferrule: Senko Advanced Components (Private) Sumitomo Electric (TYO: 5802) US Conec (Private) T&S Communications (SZSE: 300570) Molex (Private) Browave (TWO: 3163) Fiber: Corning < $GLW > Sumitomo Electric (TYO: 5802) Nittobo / Nitto Boseki (TYO: 3110) E/O Testing: Keysight < $KEYS > Teradyne < $TER > FormFactor < $FORM > Chroma ATE (TWSE: 2360) Multilane (Private) Switch, System: NVIDIA < $NVDA > Broadcom < $AVGO > Marvell < $MRVL > Google < $GOOGL> EDA: Synopsys < $SNPS > Cadence < $CDNS > Ansys < $ANSS > Confused by some of names of the list, they might have conflated a few names like Innolight with laser source like $MTSI, Sumitomo, $SIVE, Luxnet, with the actual end module (unless there's something that's not public material or I missed)? But just for people interested in the landscape, this is a good high-level overview.
There’s clearly some market outperformers despite index’s and mega caps from $META / $MSFT crashing. This probably signals institutions rotation or an extremely strong up and coming sector. The obvious one is into CPO/ELS supply chains. My personal picks were: $TSEM / Win Semi- TSM of photonics $AAOI / $SIVE / $COHR / $LITE- Light Sources $SOI / $AXTI - Substrates $IQE - Epiwafers But of course there are larger names out there like $MRVL, Sumitomo, $AVGO.
@mi20483980476 So they all sit in three separate categories (with some overlap) and I like all three. $AEHR does testing. $TSEM is more like a foundry then $AAOI is more like laser fab -> design -> assembly It's a supply chain.
I think I nailed the institutional bottleneck rotation. -> Caught the tail end of memory name rise with $SNDK, Samsung, SK Hynix, $MU -> Frontran institutions with photonics with names like $AAOI, $AXTI $LITE, $COHR. -> Doing it again now by adding heavily toward SiPh, ELS, and CPO: $SIVE, $TSEM, $SOI, $AEHR, Win Semi, and others. Of course if you want to play it safe: $MRVL (captive), $AVGO (captive), $TSM, and $NOK all do it as well, but they're larger players. And getting direct exposure to the next supercycle is ideal. I still think there's tons of room to grow for memory to EML optical transceivers, but the largest boom is at the start/inflection point of a new architectural cycle. Macro messing up some trades aside, expecting capital rotation soon toward CPO / ELS supply chains. TLDR from analyst note: The AI infrastructure investment supercycle follows a strict "bottleneck resolution" sequence: Compute/GPUs (2023) -> Memory/HBM (2024) -> Interconnect/Networking (2025+). Translation: "We judge that the third investment cycle of the AI value chain has officially begun. Following GPUs (2023) and HBM (2024), post-2025, optical interconnects will become the fastest-growing core segment. 2027–2028 will be a critical inflection point where CPO commercialization. 1.6T standardization, and Scale-Up optical transitions align, structurally expanding the TAM of related industries" Some takeaways: 1. CPO (Co-Packaged Optics) is moving from the lab to commercial mass production 2. 2027-2028 is the major structural inflection point (good idea to frontrun this now in 2026 from testing with $AEHR to ELS with $SIVE or packaging with $POET). 3. The Total Addressable Market (TAM) for optical components, materials, and testing equipment is expected to structurally expand 3x to 5x (I think this is sandbagging a bit).
Faster compounds: $AAOI - 10x revenue ramp from optical transcivers h2 2027 $NBIS - 10x revenue ramp Q4 2026 $ARM - 5x revenue growth from their new AI CPU $MRVL - 2-3x revenue growth from $MSFT Maia Ramp. $AVGO - Long hyperscaler ASIC $LITE - Long OCS / Google TPU Win Semi - Foundry exposure to frontier industries $TSEM - Long photonics, backlogged SK Hynix - Memory exposure, extreme operating income ramp With some barbell exposure away from Hyperscaler capex aside from Amazon: $VNP - Long term rare earths for Western Supply chains $NEO (TCX) - Robotics Supply chains $AMZN - Robotics/AI cutting opex $CRCL - Stablecoin long $RDDT - Ridiculously high profit $GLD - Safe Hedge $IBIT - Halving 2028 $CVX Calls - Oil Hedge And maybe long term (you know it's coming): $INTC / $AMKR- Made in America supply chains $SOI - Silicon Photonics / CPO substrates. $RKLB - Long term call on Space industry Then pick one or two small cap moonshots: $SIVE - CW Laser Chokepoints or $IQE for Landmark rerating on restructuring were my two favorites. There's others I've mentioned like $AEHR for testing or $VPG for Optimus. How I actively manage my own stuff from $AXTI and others is a lot different risk profile than what others should do. Going full port into high-beta in this macro environment is not the best idea.
@Ud197601 @AdityaInvests90 $SOI trades close to 1.3x book value. So it’s already at depressed valuations. I think it’s a slow re-rating up but it holds a material monopoly on the substrate level. Of course like $TSEM that 70% 1 week rally caught me off guard.
@norriswalker Claude is right, Win does slap. I think Win can pull a $TSEM and get re-rated rlly hard over next two years
@Ren_aramb There’s probably no rush. I expect Win Semi to be a slower compound growth company like $TSEM that benefits from both TAM expansion and revenue acceleration from optical.
@KaneCapz CPO scale up is 2027-2029.. for $TSEM, $SOI, $SIVE. Pluggable ramp is moreso until 2028. There’s clear timeframes for each trade and a thesis. I waited for $HOOD thesis to play out and sell for few hundred percent from $18. Waited for $MSTR bitcoin halving thesis to play out then sold for a few hundred percent (though a tad early). And used that to rotate into the names I have now
This crash today is a good reason why it's good to stay invested. -> $AAOI is still up 233%? -> $IQE is still up ~100%? -> $SIVE is still up 100%+? -> $LITE is still up ~88%? -> $TSEM is up ~48%? -> $SOI is still up 36%? Even after today my $AXTI positions are still up ~680% after the drop today? Yes, red days look rough if something drops 13% or 20% and especially so if you're later to enter. But if you keep thinking it's going to: -> drop from $500m and sit out -> drop from $1b and sit out -> drop from $2b and sit out -> drop from $3b and sit out By the time it's $4B and there's finally a correction 15%, you missed out on the entire rise. People can say "hindsight bias, you're posting after it went up". No, I've posted these are the returns after my original thesis, and I'm just riding the wave up. I keep getting trolls like these in my comments sections, but hope it doesn't make others panic. Not everything moves in a green line up, same applies to other sectors and stocks if there’s no material change. Risk exists. And portfolio sizing is very important. But if you’re going to enter higher beta names in bottlenecks especially with a clear thesis in mind. Need to learn to embrace the volatility for your thesis to play out.
Photonics are not having a fun time. Laser Companies from: $LITE, $SIVE, $COHR, $MTSI, $AAOI all down. Substrate, Foundries, and Epiwafer from: $IQE, $AXTI, $SOI, $TSEM all down. Almost everything is red. From 6% on lower beta like Coherent all the way to to 22%. Good lesson to learn: Embrace the volatility and don't use leverage. If a name can go up 25% in a day, it can also drop 20% today. Macro-driven liquidity vacuums and stop losses cause pretty violent swings. However, if companies like $LITE and $COHR are sold out until 2028... Or if you know $SIVE is coming next for CW lasers at a ~$340M MC and $AXTI will become a bottleneck for substrates. Crashes like these from Macro are often a way to exchange hands for those who can reposition long.
@Alex__0x0 Yeah, everything from $AAOI, $LITE, $MTSI, $TSEM, $COHR, $AXTI, $SIVE, $IQE, Landmark, and others have been strongly outperforming!. Sometimes you forget the index is down -4% YTD.
$SIVE at ~$400m MC is a name I genuinely believe... Institutions missed as the upstream laser chokepoint for hyperscalers. When you look at $TSEM following my thesis, the stock went up 70% to a $21B+ MC. Retail flows do not send NASDAQ stocks up $10B+. Information discovery and synthesis does. Especially when institutions validate it, and follow along. $SIVE was majority owned by Sweden retail investors, with **almost 0 institutional investors**. Now that information is distributed regarding the Upstream CW laser supplier for $MRVL, Ayar, Jabil, O-Net. And with $AVGO + other comments recently stating lasers were a clear bottleneck for supply chains: I strongly think that institutions are trying to accumulate off Swedish retail hands through Iceberg orders, vwap algos, or any other methods to gain exposure to the upcoming CW laser bottleneck. Again, the closest comparison to $SIVE are: $MTSI and $LITE, both at $18B and $55B MCs. Sivers trades at ~$400m MC. With architectural paradigm shifts in photonic supply chains: I think retail has a rare opportunity to frontrun institutions with $SIVE and have heavy exposure to the upcoming CW/EML laser bottleneck.
I’m curious… With $AXTI, $IQE, or $SIVE. And the many other photonics winners I’ve longed like $LITE that returned 100-1000% over the past few months. When is it time for the salty folks out there to admit… That my thesis are just right after all. Instead of downplaying it? $20B+ companies like $TSEM don’t just move up 70% in 2 weeks, unless institutions validated the thesis and found it compelling. Same with $AXTI, it wouldn’t have ran from $450M MC to $3.85B MC unless institutions found it compelling. I just spot these before others do, and post information synthesis/discovery. In these cases, retail has clearly frontrun institutions and made life changing returns. If the thesis were wrong, institutions can take the other end of the trade. Which they don’t. Everyone on X keeps asking for the next 1000%. And when there’s someone out there on X that posts multiple (for free) ideas. Posts a clear directional trade before the price even moved. -> then they do ~10x like $AXTI: They’re met with slander instead? Ever stop to think… maybe the thesis/idea was right after all?
@degentradingLSD I wouldn't say it's speculative. Hyperscalers have orders completely booked until 2028 from $LITE to $COHR. Even $TSEM has 70% of their capacity booked and it's low fwd ~20 P/E 2028. CW/CPO more speculative for photonics, not the pluggable optical transceivers cycle. But compared to memory/GPUs, makes snse. But think everyones looking at photonics bottlenecks right low like pcb, which is funny
I'm telling you guys... Even if I buy small cap $170 Billion dollar companies like $ARM. They just go up 20% like $TSEM or $SIVE the next day as well? https://t.co/ULZkv65d27
Bro how is a $20B+ company like $TSEM up 63%… 2 weeks after I go long? The company was stagnant for like 3 months until my post. https://t.co/fTYqm8ew03
Every industry leader... Especially $AVGO (Physical Layer Products division) in this statement today. Cites Lasers as a bottleneck for semiconductors. If you aren't long... -> CW Lasers: $SIVE | $MTSI -> EML Lasers: $COHR | $LITE -> or their foundries in $TSEM/Win Semi Maybe it's time to wake up? Broadcom Ramachandran: "Even though there are multiple suppliers in the industry today... there is definitely a supply constraint in the laser space,”
@beauty_oe 110ドルから185ドルまであっという間に上がりましたよね？ いつでもどうぞ、お役に立てて嬉しいです！ 全部を当てられるわけじゃないですが $TSEM がいい感じに動いてくれて良かったです。
+ 9 more
