Pikabu

“A crash is coming.” Andrew Ross Sorkin says a massive crash is inevitable. He’s one of the most credible financial journalists in the world.

$SIVE bears going quiet after this research, it seems? TL;DR… You've got reports from GS and BofA on the 10x TAM, supply chain constraint timelines (H2’26-H2’28) and preference for their CW laser tech. All 3 match what we’ve been saying. Future opportunity pipeline will keep growing with revenue expansion across business segments (although 50%+ should come from photonics), including $AAPL watch possibility. Geopolitical advantage (MOU backed), Chips Act, retail backing, and US listing ongoing for more M&A and TAM expansion. Financials are solid, CEO is Indian & visionary. Management is getting better. Valuation at 25x P/S with $2B annual revenue by 2030 gives you a company that could be valued at ~$50B+. Today's MC at $2B means a lot of assymetrical upside is still left. If $AXTI went 90x in a year, why can $SIVE not do a 20x (minimum) from today's levels? A thing to ponder on, anon. 🤠

$sive 3배 인버스 친구들의 희생(?)에 감사를 표하며.. 5시간 30분 후에 -99.9%로 만들어주자

AI capex spend is expected to go to "$3 to $4 trillion annually" by 2030 from $NVDA Jensen Huang projections. You're not bullish enough. And it might be a good idea to stay exposed + own the keys of the AI Kingdom: -> $AXTI controls the materials buildout with photonics. -> $SOI controls the AI buildout with silicon photonics. -> $SIVE controls laser chokepoints for CPO. -> $IQE controls Western epiwafer supply chains for photonics. All these started off as tiny companies, yet the trillions of projected capex gradually upward to them.  There's many more in other industries as well. -> AI Capex flows to Neoclouds like $NBIS. -> AI Capex flows to memory like $MU and $SNDK. And many of the "commodity" materials or "science projects" for the past 20 years now a sudden shift in exponential TAM expansion. We're witnessing the next industrial revolution with Artificial Intelligence + Physical AI.

Important note on $SIVE valuation & growth. Majority of revenue today comes from development contracts. That’s why valuing the company on P/S or traditional multiples right now is difficult and unfair. The CEO highlighted their disciplined strategy: taking NRE projects tied to future product shipments for multi-year runways, plus shifting from 1:1 product-to-customer to 1:many. This is accelerating their timeline from H2’26 to H2’28 (backed by GS report) for large-scale production and multi-year revenue growth.

$HYLN : I wouldn't put alot of money in this but this is trying to break after 4 years worth a shot for $13 and $20 target Taken some calls : Jan 2027 $5 Calls @ $2.14

Fun fact: Lot of the same companies are often used across different supply chains. One likely example is: $SIVE as the upstream laser supplier to Boston Dynamics via: Sivers -> $AEVA FMCW (CW DFB lasers) -> LG Innotek -> Boston Dynamics. I actually personally liked Aeva for 4D AI first. Just so happened to find out Sivers was their high confidence laser supplier for 4D FMCW lidar. So you actually get robotics exposure with photonics while the same CW lasers used for hyperscaler AI DCs. Near term revenue ramp though it's probably $SIVE supplying laser volume ramp for $NVDA self-driving car related architectures though Aeva. Humanoids are probably later in 2028? You can always get more indirect exposure like MU with memory or $INTC with edge CPUs, but of course there's more direct exposure out there. Think I've already covered a lot of names in the past like $VPG or Harmonic Drive. But hilariously enough CPO players like $SIVE are a core part of frontier physical AI development.

Software stocks have quietly had a very strong 6 weeks (up 25% since the bottom), while insiders are buying at the highest levels of the last decade (outside of the 2022 dip).

Gavin Baker is one of the best tech investors alive and he explains why the AI cycle might actually avoid a bubble. Every major technology in history ended in a bubble. Railroads, canals, the internet and even the PC. Every single one. The pattern is always the same: 1. Investors get excited about a genuine breakthrough 2. Diversity of opinion breaks down 3. Everyone converges on the same thesis 4. Valuations disconnect from reality and then it collapses. But Baker thinks AI is different this time and that's because of a physical constraint that no past technology ever had: Watts and wafers. TSMC is run by what he calls "flinty old men and women" who view themselves as the guardians of the most important institution in Taiwan. Jensen Huang flies to Taipei every three months and pushes them to double or triple capacity. They expand about 5%. Here's Baker's math: If TSMC actually gave Jensen what he wanted, Nvidia could probably sell $1.5 to $2 trillion worth of chips next year. He really believes that. The demand is there. But a boom that size would almost certainly end in a bust. And a bust is catastrophic for TSMC. So TSMC's conservatism isn't a bottleneck. It's a release valve. A real-world physical constraint that enforces discipline on the whole cycle and prevents the kind of overbuilding that turned the internet boom into the dot-com crash. Baker believes TSMC is the key reason why we won't have an AI bubble.

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.

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.

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.

Just to add to the very positive $SIVE news amid MSCI likely tens of millions of inflow in 2 weeks: $AMZN has a new private placement with AlChip. Probably implying design wins with future Trainium. If you don’t remember… AlChip was Ayar’s lead customer. And $SIVE is the primary laser supplier to Ayar. So implications for $SIVE, is enormous piggybacking off of Amazon’s ecosystem growth.

Wow, NASDAQ just added $SIVE to its Stockholm index. This is est. to be around ~$15-20M worth of passive inflow, with strict ETF-only being around ~$.5M. We’re able to see a lot of institutional inflow into Sivers, as this is on top of the MSCI index inclusion EOM.