COHR
Coherent Corp.
stock NYSE

NBIS RDDT EWY COHR LITE

SemiAnalysis has been repeating the same pattern since the beginning of this year.

**1. Micron HBM4 Exclusion Theory**

Early in the year, rumors circulated that Micron had essentially been excluded from NVIDIA's Rubin HBM4.

The market interpreted it as "Micron has been pushed out of the next-generation NVIDIA HBM competition."

However, Micron later announced shipments of HBM4 for Vera Rubin, and reports emerged that NVIDIA had certified SK hynix, Samsung Electronics, and Micron as all suppliers for Vera Rubin HBM4.

At the very least, this was conveyed too definitively, or it didn't align with subsequent reality.

**2. SOCAMM Demand Collapse Theory**

Next came the issue of reduced CPU-side SOCAMM memory in Vera Rubin racks.

When word got out that it had shrunk from 55TB to 28TB, the market immediately took it as "AI memory demand is cooling."

Micron's stock plummeted.

Yet this, too, was hard to see as a simple demand collapse.

Instead, counterarguments emerged that it had been adjusted to a realistic configuration due to supply constraints.

It wasn't that demand had faltered; rather, there was a possibility that the configuration had been tweaked because of bottlenecks and supply shortages.

**3. CPO·800VDC Delay Theory**

What followed was CPO and 800VDC.

After the SemiAnalysis report, optical-related stocks tanked all at once.

Names like AAOI, COHR, LITE, CIEN, and MRVL all took hits simultaneously.

The logic was that CPO mass production could be pushed back to 2028–2029, and the 800VDC ramp-up could also be delayed.

It's true that there are technical difficulties.

CPO faces issues with yield, serviceability, optical engine failures, and ASIC integration.

800VDC also involves challenges in power structure transitions, component reliability, and rack architecture complexity.

But "difficult" and "over" are different words.

Saying CPO adoption might slow down is entirely different from saying the entire optical interconnect chain is collapsing.

CPO delays don't mean optical demand for AI data centers vanishes.

On the contrary, interim paths like NPO, LPO, pluggables, ELS, and laser sources might stick around even longer.

**4. Kyber NVL144 Delay Theory**

And now it's Kyber NVL144.

SemiAnalysis claimed that NVIDIA's Kyber NVL144 rack architecture had been delayed by more than 12 months to 2028 due to manufacturing difficulties with the 78-layer PCB midplane.

On top of that came narratives of NVL72x2 cancellation, low-volume potential for NVL576, Rubin Ultra scale-up domain limitations, and opportunities for AMD and Google.

In other words, this time too, it wasn't just a simple manufacturing risk—it created a narrative shaking up NVIDIA's entire next-generation rack-scale roadmap.

The problem is that even without official NVIDIA confirmation, the market once again consumes it straight away as "NVIDIA roadmap disruption."

**5. The Real Issue Is the Repetitive Pattern**

Looking at this year's flow, it's always the same.

Strong assertions.
Market shock.
Follow-up counterarguments.

And as time passes, the actual industry flow turns out to be far more complex.

Micron HBM4 exclusion theory.
SOCAMM demand collapse theory.
CPO delay theory.
800VDC delay theory.
Kyber NVL144 delay theory.

Each one may have its technical merits.

But every time, the conclusions are overly sensational.

Complex manufacturing risks get consumed as demand collapses,
Timeline adjustments get consumed as cycle endings,
Specific architecture bottlenecks get consumed as value-chain-wide negatives.

At this point, you can't view SemiAnalysis as just a technical research outfit.

If it keeps putting out these sly market-shaking reports, the "research credibility" that's the essence of a research institution is practically at zero.

A research institution's core asset isn't predictive power—it's trust.

It can be wrong.

But if it keeps shaking the market with strong assertions, and later you see cases that don't match actual industry flows or turn out to be far more complex, that's not just simple misjudgment.

It's a problem of research quality,
A problem of presentation style,
And a problem of accountability for market influence.

It wouldn't be surprising if someone has already tipped off the SEC.

The key isn't whether the reports are wrong or right.

If market-moving research repeatedly shakes sector prices,
And in that process, conflicts of interest, advance distribution, position disclosures, and derivatives trading are opaque,
It becomes an area for regulators to scrutinize.

In particular, SemiAnalysis sells AI semiconductor, data center, and networking models;
Sells institutional research and consulting;
And now even partners on memory and photonics ETFs as a paid information provider.

If such an entity can shake sector valuations with a single report, the market has every right to demand answers.

**Has the factual basis been sufficiently verified?**

Wasn't the technical risk exaggerated in its conveyance?
Is there no conflict of interest between institutional client distribution structures and market reactions?
Are the authors' or related entities' positions, derivatives exposure, and trading patterns transparent?

Negative research is necessary.

There are risks in NVIDIA's roadmap.
CPO is difficult.
800VDC is difficult.
Kyber isn't easy either.

But difficult and failed are different.
Delay possibilities and demand collapses are different.
Manufacturing bottlenecks and industry thesis breakdowns are different.

SemiAnalysis reports can be referenced as technical materials.

But you shouldn't believe them at face value and trade on them.

You must always cross-check against primary sources like NVIDIA, Micron, Broadcom, Marvell, GF, Jabil, Coherent, Lumentum, and Sivers.

What SemiAnalysis has shown this year isn't just technical insight.

It has also shown how market narratives are constructed,
How those narratives hammer stock prices,
And how nuance vanishes so easily in the process.

The moment research moves the market,

It's no longer just an opinion.

It becomes a power that must be verified.

\- Translation provided by X auto-translate.

COHR, UUUU, maybe some small/mid cap Robotics stock

At this point, ride it out. COHR just signed something with them … once the Optical networking sector picks up again, it shall rise.
AAOI is tanking too … so it’s not just AXTI, it’s the sector. Unfortunately, AXTI is more volatile.

But just to put that into perspective and to answer your question, Jensen Huang talked about Silicon photonics during a keynote in March 2025. Had you invested then in COHR and LITE you would've seen 3-400% returns in a year. But you would've had to (1) keep up with what was being said in tech, (2) do enough due diligence that you thought it was real, and (3) had enough conviction about it to make a serious investment. There is a lot of noise of there and that's most of the battle

Wow. I’d imagine very few people in Europe are able to enjoy your situation.
You make enough and can invest enough to be well off eventually with diversification.
But still, I’d recommend mostly QQQ or QQQM.
And while you are socking money away at this, study individual stocks. Here’s a start: NBIS, OUST, COHR, FN, CAMT.

I see your point, but AAOI volatility is based on future expecteatiosn that they will execute one the demand.
Honestly it probably can and will run up for earnings.
BUUUTT
I can see the stock running up for earnings, but I can also see more sell off
Last I checked they werent yet profitable and went back to the well for more debt.
And the market has been shitting on companies who even slightly mention the word "Capex"
In last AAOI earnings doc - Strong demand, investing capital to meet demand
“We made tangible progress during the quarter on expanding our manufacturing capacity, which is a critical step as we prepare for higher-volume production of our next generation datacenter products. We believe we are well positioned for sustained growth and the capital investments underway are expected to fundamentally strengthen the company as we execute on the strong demand we see.
I wont doubt that you guys have looked into this already, but beyone Photonics, when any company talks about bringing in mroe debnt aint been looking too good, I.e CRWV, AMKR, ORCL
AAOI does not have NVIDIA backing to make them look better than they do on paper like COHR and MRVL do
I dont know man, i lose money all the time, aint the best at this any way