Explain why panel-level packaging is the future in one picture:

I have increased my position in $IQE: > The InP bottleneck just became a sovereignty problem. China controls InP exports through a licensing regime. > A 6 inch InP wafer has gone from $1,400 to $5,000; a 250% jump. > China produces 70% of the world's indium. > $AXTI , the #2 InP substrate maker, makes most of its InP inside China and waits on Beijing export permits. The West optical supply chain runs on InP substrate from two places: China ($AXTI ) and Japan (Sumitomo, JX). Together $AXTI and Sumitomo are 80% of global supply. > $COHR and $LITE do epitaxy in-house but buy their substrate externally. > $COHR CEO literally flew to China with a US delegation to lobby on permit delays. > Now look at $IQE. Through its Wafer Technology division in the UK, its one of the very few Western players that grows its own InP crystal and substrate. Owning any Western substrate capacity starts being strategic. If the West has to onshore its optical supply chain, $IQE is one of the few names already well positioned.

$FCEL Carbon Capture path with $XOM opens the door to a full stack of revenue streams Here’s how $FCEL could see revenue: Equipment Sales LTSAs (Standard) - FCEL sells carbonate fuel cell modules directly to industrial customers (power plants, refineries, steel mills) - Long-term service agreements layer in recurring revenue on top of hardware XOM as Commercial Channel - ExxonMobil identifies industrial customers globally, FCEL manufactures and services the hardware - Revenue sharing structure TBD pending commercial framework negotiation The IP Angle Not Understood - Under the JDA (2019 2024 Amendment No. 5), $FCEL holds royalty-free, perpetual, worldwide licenses to jointly developed IP - Covers Power AND Hydrogen applications, including CO₂ capture-integrated modules - FCEL can commercialize independently, no Exxon approval required, zero royalties owed The licenses survive the JDA term (currently through Dec 2026). FCEL keeps the technology runway regardless of how the XOM relationship evolves. Module sales. Services. PPAs. Hydrogen. All on top of a royalty-free IP foundation. The carbon capture thesis is much bigger than a fee per ton.

VPEC全新光電 產品價格調整通知書 (Price Adjustment Notification) 親愛的合作夥伴您好： 首先，衷心感謝貴司長年以來對 VPEC 的鼎力支持。作為您供應鏈中值得信賴的夥伴，我們始終致力於透過技術革新與製程優化，為您提供卓越的產品品質與服務價值。 然而，在過去的一年中，受全球原物料成本持續攀升、供應短缺及通膨壓力之影響，我們面臨了前所未有的挑戰。儘管我司已盡最大努力透過內部優化來吸收這些額外成本，但為因應不斷增加的營運壓力，並確保能持續穩定提供高品質產品與不間斷的售後服務，經內部審慎評估，我司決定對磊晶晶圓的產品價格進行適度調整。 本次磊晶晶圓價格調整的具體調幅將依品項規格有所差異，相關細節將由我司業務專員與您進一步聯繫。

$AXTI vs $IQE: Some Food for Thought $AXTI just printed an all time high near $143 in May. It trades north of 50x sales and is still losing money. 12.7% gross margin. Negative net margin. $IQE trades at roughly 6x sales. It is EBITDA positive. It grows more revenue than $AXTI. Both sit in the same supply chain. One layer apart. So why the 10x multiple gap? Let's walk through it. > $AXTI makes the substrate. The raw InP and GaAs wafer. The blank canvas. > $IQE grows the epitaxy on top of that substrate. The active laser structure. The part that actually does the work. > Substrate then epi then device then module. $AXTI is upstream of $IQE. They are not competitors. They are sequential. In fact $IQE is a customer of the substrate layer. You cannot grow epi without a substrate underneath it. So why does the market pay 50x sales for the upstream layer and 6x for the layer that adds more value on top? Here is the answer, and frankly, some of the gap is real. > $AXTI sits in a duopoly. $AXTI plus Sumitomo plus JX control 80 to 90% of the InP substrate market. That is a cleaner monopoly story than the epi layer where more players compete. > $AXTI is a pure AI optical play. Over 90% of the business is optical substrate for data centre. One clean narrative. $IQE is five vectors stacked together. Photonics. Wireless. Defence. GaN power. MicroLED. Harder to model. The 40% wireless drop in FY25 masked the 15% photonics growth. > $AXTI is on Nasdaq. US institutional coverage. There is even a 2x leveraged ETF on it now. $IQE is on LSE. Thinner coverage Structural discount and lower liquidity. > $AXTI has a record $100m InP backlog and turns profitable next quarter. Clean visibility. That explains a lot of the gap. But not all of it. Here is what $IQE has that $AXTI does not. > Western defence moat. $IQE is Western domiciled. ITAR and export controls make it a qualified supplier for Western military radar, satcom, missile seekers. $AXTI manufactures in China. That same geography is a liability in Western defence. The export control sword cuts the opposite way for each of them. > Proprietary process IP. $IQE has its own NanoImprint Lithography that patterns laser gratings at wafer scale, production qualified since 2018. That is value add beyond a raw wafer. A substrate is closer to a commodity sold on scarcity. > Multi vector diversification. The same breadth the market dislikes is also a hedge. $AXTI lives and dies on one end market. $IQE has five. > It already makes money at the EBITDA line. $AXTI does not yet. The takeaway and my thoughts: I am not saying $IQE should trade at $AXTI multiples. The duopoly, the Nasdaq listing, the clean single story and the backlog visibility may justify a real premium for $AXTI. But a 10x sales gap between two adjacent layers of the same chain, where the cheaper one makes money, has Western defence regulatory protection, holds its own process IP, and grows more revenue, is worth sitting with. $IQE also trades at a fraction of its closest East Asian peer (LandMark Optoelectronics) - a whopping 12x forward sales gap. What do you think, do you think $IQE is undervalued here? I certainly do. Just my 2c. I am long $IQE. - Leki 🐵

$FCEL | Canaccord 𝐮𝐩𝐠𝐫𝐚𝐝𝐞𝐬 𝐅𝐮𝐞𝐥𝐂𝐞𝐥𝐥 𝐄𝐧𝐞𝐫𝐠𝐲 to 𝐁𝐮𝐲, 𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐧 𝐝𝐨𝐮𝐛𝐥𝐞𝐬 𝐏𝐓 𝐭𝐨 $𝟑𝟎 Analyst sees a landmark data center announcement within reach, representing a meaningful strategic and financial inflection point for the company.

In growth stocks, I beleive it’s often helpful to try and understand what a company’s price could realistically look like in 3-5 years based on whichever figures you believe are most relevant. Whether that’s future rev, acceleration, earnings margin expansion, or something else. This is as opposed to trying to determine what the fair price should be based on today or this year’s numbers. Look 3-5 years out and compare it to today’s price. That’s how I would determine if a stock is a buy today or not. I don’t believe a complex DCF should be necessary for this. If it’s a buy, it should be obvious. And I wouldn’t bother unless it’s a screaming buy. This is very difficult to do, which is one of the reasons why I pass up on pretty much every growth stock (except the ones I own, of course). Sure, you might (likely you will) be down on your position after you initial entry, but the long-term view will help you navigate the price better in the near term. I’ve watched investors fumble the bag because they were focused too much on the near term and convinced themselves the stock was overvalued and would drop, only to watch the stock run away and never look back, with “valuation” catching up after the fact. The opposite argument can be made about those who round tripped their gains because their company was all hype and no substance. The substance must be there. I beleive this viewpoint is most applicable for generational companies growing fast. And you better be right that it’s “generational”… which is really hard. Nobody has all the answers. Psychologically, it’s much easier to hold a company through “overvaluation” once it’s already a multibagger for you rather than entering the stock when it’s already ran up multi-fold and is considered “overvalued” on paper. Volatility is not for the weak… something to consider. Opportunity cost should also be taken into consideration. Holding a stock that you’re already up 20x on and seeking for it to double again is way different than entering a stock that already went up 20x and seeking for it to 20x again. This mindset is why I’m up 15x on PLTR. At one point, I was up 10x and the entire market is screaming it’s overvalued. I don’t care because I believe I’ll be up 100x one day… plenty of room to grow. Next thing I know I’m up 24x and the whole market is still screaming overvalued. Still don’t care because I believe the company is still on track to give me a 100x return on my initial investment one day. Today, the stock has fallen by nearly 35% and I’m back to being up ~16x, except the PE multiple has been slashed by like 70% YoY because the company is explosively growing. Still don’t care about price action because I believe I’m on track to be up 100x on my initial investment one day thanks to how company fundamentals are progressing. So in summary, IMO, when holding a generational company with intact thesis, it’s sometimes best to accept the risk of “overvaluation” in the near term in exchange for being able to see it through to the end without letting go too early. This becomes much easier if you get in when theres a misperception in the market and it’s selling at a big discount, which is rare. Stocks go through periods of overvaluation and undervaluation, and it’s difficult to predict the near-term price or time when the tide will turn. With the generational companies… just hold. In the end, the stock will track fundamentals over the long run. Hold elite companies for long periods of time. Track them closely. Ensure the thesis is intact. Be patient. Investing is hard. It’s not recommended to pick individual stocks. Yet here we are. If one is going to do so, I believe this is a rational approach. I don’t claim it’s the only way or smartest. This is my way. I don’t know much in the big picture and am continually learning. Everyone’s situation is different. This is the viewpoint I’ve come to have over the 6 or so years I’ve been in the market. Long and strong