Ruling: Good company, but not a good price. Recorded for the record—continue to observe.

Opponents move against the way—standing on the opposite side of the narrative doesn’t mean you should buy. Refuting a wrong bearish thesis proves only that the sentence was wrong; it doesn’t prove this price is right. Between these two things lies an entire set of discipline.
I’ve also written the conditions under which I will get “slapped” back and change my stance here—four about the company, and one about myself:
If the gross margin falls below the long-term floor of 56% that the company guided for in its 4Q25 earnings call; the contract manufacturing market share falls below 65%; the only peer in the same tier secures the first named external large customer; or revenue per chip turns year-over-year negative—then if any one of those happens, I’ll come back and change my commentary, publicly.
And here’s the one that’s aimed at me: if the price drops into the valuation lower-bound range I’ve identified, I will come back and publicly update this ruling, laying out the reasons and data again—both for what’s right and what’s wrong. A ruling has two axes, and reconciliation has to have two axes as well.
Until then, I wait. The hardest part has never been understanding a company—it’s understanding it and still managing to not buy.
Not investment advice—please do your own research (DYOR)