跟踪 Serenity 的最新研究

Citibank TMT: "lasers and optical fibers are being positioned as the "next HBM." I've been talking about lasers like $LITE / $AAOI since 2025... and architectural shifts toward CW, ahead of the current industry consensus. And fully agree with Lightmatter/Citi. Just for reference: For lasers: $LITE / $SIVE / $AAOI / $COHR / $MTSI / Furukawa / Sumitomo are your better known ones. For fiber: $GLW / Furukawa / Fujikura / Sumitomo are your more well-known exposure (obviously a lot more in the supply chain) *disclosure, personal exposure to theme With added commentary that: "Tight supply conditions will support a scarcity premium for these assets." We're already seeing price hikes with lasers as seen with $SIVE channel checks at CIOE 2026 Shenzhen today + $LITE commentary from earnings. So I think the 2027–2028 photonics supercycle will look a lot like memory did in 2025–2026. Especially as optical content/GPU-ASIC goes up significantly per Goldman Sachs revised estimates...

Glad $SIVE is attending CIOE Shenzen and hope my followers can go too! If you want my read on current landscape: -> Chinese pluggable makers like CIG (剑桥科技) are facing severe shortages in 70mW-200mW lasers. If you look at filings from CIG, they claim "substantially longer delivery times and deposits to secure capacity” along with statements of shortages. -> Innolight and others were also looking to secure multiple laser suppliers with LTAs recently from their filings. On the US side of things: -> $COHR was a major merchant laser supplier before, but largely withdrew from the market after rerouting them internally. "I do not see any time in the near future where we would be selling Indium Phosphide lasers externally." From their ER transcript. And then likely turned into a buyer in an already supply constrained market... where "over the long term, we will have some portion of our datacom transceivers that will be supported by external sources." -> $AAOI not really known to be a merchant supplier, but said same thing about laser capacity being rerouted towards transceivers. And having to turn away customers for lasers. -> For $LITE, they still supply lasers but stated: "We are commanding a significant price premium" for CW lasers $LITE Wupen Yuen: "wherever they can get the laser source, they will use that solution to support their build-out." So hinting... about customers just finding anything available due to shortages. -> $MTSI has no meaningful capacity online now, but they're already stating customers are approaching them with urgency to secure CW laser supply. -> Trendforce reported $AMD and hyperscaler CSPs are aggressively going out to secure CW laser supply to avoid future bottlenecks. And then you have Europe... Where $SIVE is coming online with "tremendous capacity available now" from their foundry partners. With 100M+ laser capacity Q4 2027, and maybe if you look at their 2:1 ratio implying ~200M targeted laser capacity from external foundries. They also happen to offer the same power range (70mW, 100 mW, 200mW) as the ones currently in shortage by pluggable makers in China. There's a massive void to fill, so this dramatically increases the chance of converting customers. (esp. Supported by Lumentum statements) My speculation was that some of the 6 active pluggable engagements were from China? Which is why they're attending the conference. So to any of my Chinese followers, maybe you can ask a few questions like: - if Europe is a laser source geography, if Innolight/Eoptolink/Cambridge are considering $SIVE. - if they're seeing ASP hikes in lasers, and what CW products are hardest to obtain If you are attending CIOE in Shenzhen!

I'll let you decide that for yourself since that was an illustrative laser revenue modeling off $SIVE 100M CW DFB laser/year target. But... do you want to know the main reason I like laser companies so much? They don't just have to stay laser companies... just look at $LITE! If we look at Lumentum's previous Cloud Light acqusition (pluggables)... it enabled: - more than a 5X+ expansion in served opportunity inside DCs. From Lumentum's OFC deck: - ELS expansion from UHP laser chips was 2X TAM opportunity.. But selling lasers alone... just from one UHP laser fab was $5B in projected revenue capacity (their fab expected to ramp in early 2028), if we apply similar 55-65% CPO laser margin quotes by $AAOI. So lasers by itself is very profitable, and despite industry capacity expansion, there would likely still be a demand imbalance for lasers. Isn't that pretty cool? So it's not quite just modeling component value for certain types of companies since they can keep growing into other products. And you have new overlapping cycles eg. NPO/CPO/1.6T pluggables increasing demand. So I'd personally assign higher premiums for laser companies over types of suppliers that stay in the same layer.

This is the correct response when looking at $SIVE >100m CW DFB extraordinary capacity disclosure. To give some context, Trendforce July data cites global CW/EML capacity is roughly 608.4M/year (~50.7M monthly units annualized). With $AVGO, $LITE, and Sumitomo making up ~335m/year combined. By Q4 2027, it's likely a lot of these players will significantly expand capacity again, with broadcom citing 3x Y/Y growth. (also capacity not being 1:1 since many are allocated to EML or UHP CWs, etc). But this capacity target would place Sivers in global Tier 1 laser supplier category. With possibly low double digits global laser market share if you factor in their hybrid 2:1 manufacturing model. This new disclosure is very exciting coming from a conservative company. And sheds more light on why the $MRVL SVP cited Europe as a major geography when talking about laser supply chain sourcing.

Just my final recap on thoughts + fundamentals of $SIVE from ER: Pluggables (1.6T Ramp) for 2027: - $JBL (1.6T LRO, confirmed) Orders H1 2027, Ramp H2 2027 -> -> Likely multiple hyperscaler customers - 3 pluggable makers (evaluation) - 3 pluggable makers (supply assessment) Reference Design for likely H2 2027–28+: - $GFS (Globalfoundries) SCALE (confirmed)) -> -> Likely $AMD and other hyperscalers as CPO customers External Light Sources / Optical Engines for 2027: - $POET (confirmed) -> -> Lumilens / hyperscaler end users - O-Net (confirmed) -> -> Massive ODM/OEM for Hyperscalers + Asia - Likely $AEVA (mapping) -> -> supplying to OE -> hyperscalers / lidar - SemiNex (confirmed) Optical I/O for 2028: - Ayar Labs (confirmed) -> -> Likely $AMD, ALchip, and hyperscaler ASIC program end users + $NVDA NVLink - $MRVL Celestial (potential customer from 2023-2024 disclosures) - Lightmatter (potential customer from 2023-2024 disclosures) - Lightelligence (potential customer from 2023-2024 disclosures) Then potentially $AAPL for 2028 for next-generation wearable updates and other programs from TFLN with Lightium. In terms of capacity allocations: - Win Semi - 1 other foundry (with tremendous allocations) during an InP CW DFB laser shortage. These are all on-going developments/qualifications since Sivers is targeting next-generation SiPH + CW with 1.6T and CPO for 2027-2028. Especially as Goldman Sachs models the CPO opportunity going from effectively near-zero today to ~$91B TAM by 2028. However my criticisms were: => Main focus was not on communicating economic scale of 2027-2028 optical ramps to Western audiences. => Legal vagueposts around NASDAQ listing should be dropped, and clear direction should be set + executed faster on. =>Too much focus was put on defending smaller current revenue/TTM revenue/pipeline conversion (allspace, Tachyon.) relative to future qualifications/partner size/capacity/potential. $SIVE needs to position themselves as a forward looking, global hypergrowth optical company supplying lasers to hyperscaler programs. And not let the narrative get dominated by backward looking metrics. And as Morgan Stanley put it... "Key [CPO] participants include … $LITE, $COHR, and Sivers laser supply". I'm personally a happy $SIVE shareholder for high-beta exposure to the next 2027-2028 optical shift with 1.6T/CPO.

If I had to be critical of $SIVE earnings: 1. Management underweighted the two disclosures that matter most. -> 6 pluggable engagements -> Foundry capacity (during an industry bottleneck) That's the most important part of the call and should have been the focus to provide economic scale of them. But we got 2-3 sentences about it. And it shouldn't take an Anime avatar on X to talk most about the implications of those. 2. CFO needs retraining or bring on a new one. The lawyer like answers were infuriating to listen to as a shareholder. Even I got pissed off with this statement: "we will evaluate the timing and decide whether the conditions are right to move forward at that particular time." It should be a 100% given by now they file for dual listing to escape hostile Swedish markets. Shareholders didn't fund a future growth type company to hear lawyer-like answers. Again, this was probably one of the worst answers the CFO could have gave and there needs to be firm commitment along with faster timelines. 3. $70M should have gone toward M&A and dual listing. -> Brutally honestly speaking, it's a waste of capital to focus on hybrid manufacturing at this stage and I was disappointed to hear this during this timeframe. It's eventually needed but with 2 foundry suppliers -> You have a ton of new capital and large marketcap. Use it to pull $AVGO style acquisitions of Cloud Light style IP for pluggables or optical engines. Lumilens went from 0 -> $5.5B in 2 years and now with hyperscaler engagements. Sivers should expand out of the laser chokepoint as fast as possible and not stay just a component vendor. And most of all, who cares about competing with customers? If a customer says: "if you do pluggables, we'll go with other players for lasers" who?? $LITE / $COHR / $AAOI reroutes their lasers to internal usage. Lot of your Asian players already allocated. Abuse the current bottleneck as much as possible because there's almost no qualified choices left. And I'm certain all the partners are trying to vertically integrate upward toward the laser level too and compete. If there was a new OE/pluggable accusation attempted during the Q2 time frame, things would have been a lot different. _ TLDR: $SIVE should aim to be the next $LITE and blitzscale like a Silicon Valley company. Use that $70m capital to move faster H2, and at the bare minimum finish readiness then. And expect NASDAQ listing to be finished H1 2027. Not "evaluation" at that timeframe. And use the capital + equity to expand downward into optical engines/ELS/optical transceivers using your equity valuation, and buy a Celestial/Ayar/Cloud Lite type startup. As for the wording of the call, markets care about economic value of the foundry allocation + 6 pluggable players, not other business segments. $SIVE has been extremely conservative to date, but they need to speed up and communicate to forward looking US/Int shareholders. Not geared toward local Swedish audiences who care about Q2/TTM revenue. Otherwise they'll be treated like an Asian component supplier and eventually be valued like an EU one.

Here's the angle I'm looking at $SIVE at: Companies/CSPs have been going out of their way way to lock up any qualified CW laser capacity for optical transceivers. So now, Sivers is coming into the industry with: - Large capacity from Win Semi - "tremendous capacity that is available now" from a new foundry (likely qualifications since 2024) since it's engaged "for a while" And what excited me from this earnings was the "6 pluggable/module" engagements (which is an enormous amount). The nuance I'm reading is: - $COHR said it sees no near term ability to sell InP lasers externally because internal transceiver demand consumes all available - $AAOI said the same about consuming laser capacity internally (wasn't a major merchant supplier before though). - $LITE has been bottlenecked and been buying lasers off the open market Your previous merchant players rerouted laser capacity internally. So a lot of the bigger names (eg. Eoptolink/Innolight as just a random example) are probably looking to source more lasers. And that kinda matches the quote "capable of very rapid qualification and ramp" (which would not match Series B startup)... Lot of people are asking why aren't there LTAs to 2030 then? -> You can't just randomly escape the qualification process that established players have already completed. Why aren't the customers disclosed? And as seen with the $MRVL + $POET engagement, you can't just disclose the vendors you're working with. But the "$1.2B opportunity pipeline" almost doubled relative to the jump of $JBL + $GFS. So it's signals that the new pluggable engagements might be pretty substantial relative to Jabil. So if $SIVE comes along with enormous amounts of CW DFB laser capacity during a supply shortage... The industry conditions have changed in a major way that increases conversion rates of engagements. And with the sheer size from all your ~est. customers jabil, globalfoundries, poet, aeva, lightium, ayar, (maybe lightmatter, celestial, lightelligence), 6 other pluggable players, and others. I think Sivers is going to cook after connecting the dots.

Very positive. My opinion is that the optical sector underperformance recently from $AAOI to $SIVE has been absurd. The demand visibility... is just way too stupidly high. AOI: “Even combined AOI, Coherent program altogether, is still very tough to meet the customer demand in the next 3 years” (2029) Elazr GM: "entire optical supply chain was facing major shortages." "The shortage will continue to the next few years" Sivers CEO said the same thing about InP laser demand imbalances expected for the next 3-5 years. Can go on and on about $LITE, $MTSI and other comments. We haven't even hit the inflection point with 1.6T, NPO, CPO scale out/up, and optics with memory (as seen with SK Hynix). Yet the industry is already bottlenecked by EML/CW and all your other upstream components from PDs/TIA/DSPs, transceivers, and soon FAU + others when CPO scales… I'm personally extremely comfortable watching this all play out, but just a little confused that markets don't know how to math a year or two ahead.

Yes, I'm still bullish on memory like $MU / Samsung. As I said earlier, markets tend to rotate from bottleneck to bottleneck. This week it looks $AXTI to $LITE in the photonics sector is the focus again. The thing is... the primary thing that changed are the stock prices, followed by some narratives + updates sprinkled in here and there. For photonics: > We already knew $COHR / $LITE lasers were completely sold out for the next 2 years during July's drop. > We knew about demand imbalance from $AAOI from last quarter's earnings calls. Nothing deteriorated fundamentally during July's crash, other than listed price after liquidations. Yet tons of people called $AAOI a "scam" when it dropped to $75, or $AXTI a "scam" on its drop to $35... But are bullish again at $140 or $80, when the transciver/InP substrate bottleneck hasn't changed at all, but maybe even got worse... (eg. draft for US ban on new china optical transceivers, scale up demand projections) For Memory: I'm witnessing a lot of retail capitulation, but the same people I'm seeing were mega bullish after $MU signed 16 SCAs and gave exceptional projections a month ago. Or were celebrating Samsung having the highest operating profit in the world. There's updates here and there eg. Rubin Ultra with memory optimizations (which Nvidia strives for every generation), with prices no longer being hiked way above expectations to the extreme. But the operating income relative to MC is just absurd around current prices, especially memory becomes structural. And the demand imbalance should be even worse next year. People tend to capitulate and follow narratives when a sector drops (eg. Helium/LNG back in Iran war), even if the bottleneck or fundamental situation hasn't really changed much (eg. $SPCX Elon earnings call reiterating memory tightness). I can't tell others what to to do: But $AAOI at $140 and $AAOI at $75 are the same company. Samsung at a $1.5T MC and Samsung at a $980B MC are the same company. Just valuations and narratives (often noise) change, and markets rotate from sector to sector.