Called $MU bullish on Dec 6, 2025: $MU rose 95% in 3 months.
View call →
@citrini
Cite asCryptoQuant has tracked the directional calls on DRAM by @jukan05 on X since Jun 2025: not yet scored on DRAM (as of Nov 11, 2026).
Other assets covered (30)
Relative view by default: Jukan leans one way on 100% of days, so a softer or opposite tone stands out against their usual stance.
Sentiment timeline shows relative sentiment within this analyst's history. A perma-bull showing 8 bullish : 2 bearish in a bear market sets that as their baseline. If you notice any errors, claim @jukan05 to submit corrections.
Called $MU bullish on Dec 6, 2025: $MU rose 95% in 3 months.
View call →Hover the chart to read the thesis of that period · click a day to pin it
Another ripple effect of the memory supercycle: Taiwanese DRAM makers I thought were on their last legs have made so much money that they’re now looking to buy EUV scanners to develop DRAM on more advanced nodes. Nanya has already announced its plans, and Winbond is reportedly aiming to bring DRAM made with EUV lithography to market by 2030. https://t.co/LyCK4L7I66
View original →RE: The claim that TSMC will enter memory and disrupt the big three memory makers This doesn't make sense. As far as I know, TSMC has been working on this project for more than five years, but it would be a mistake to assume what they're building is commodity DRAM. TSMC has no DRAM IP, no DRAM patents, and none of the relevant technology. I think the term "3D DRAM" is what's causing the misunderstanding. After talking with industry experts, I believe this is the correct way to read the reports of TSMC entering DRAM. TSMC's earlier published research gives a good sense of the direction. At the 2025 VLSI Symposium, TSMC presented a memory technology based on oxide semiconductors, using a cell made of one transistor and one capacitor (1T1C). The goal was to integrate this memory into advanced logic chips and give processors a cache with low power and low latency. The key feature of the design is that the memory array is built directly into the back end of line (BEOL) interconnect layers of the logic chip. Conventional DRAM is manufactured as a separate chip. To build the memory array in the interconnect layers of an advanced logic chip, TSMC used select transistors with an oxide semiconductor channel and capacitors fabricated with a low temperature process. According to TSMC, the test chip, which integrates memory and logic on a single die, operated at 0.75V. Data retention exceeded 128ms, random read/write cycle time was under 8ns, and endurance was above 10¹⁴ cycles. TSMC positioned the technology as a processor cache that offers higher density than SRAM while keeping power consumption and latency low. So TSMC would be producing 3D DRAM as a next generation technology to replace SRAM. And not in large volumes, either. Anyone saying TSMC will make DDR or LPDDR has no idea what they're talking about.
View original →I'd like to believe LTAs are durable too. But take one example. Analog chipmaker onsemi said this in 2023. On January 5, 2023, at JPMorgan's CES forum, CEO Hassane El-Khoury was asked how much LTSAs would still hold once the shortage eased. His answer: “They are a legally binding agreement ’cause they’re a liability for the customer because they’re take or pay.” He also said he would not accept a customer reopening price talks just because it could get the same parts 10% cheaper elsewhere. On October 30, 2023, on the Q3 earnings call, onsemi cut its SiC shipment forecast for the year from $1 billion to more than $800 million after one automotive OEM reduced demand. An analyst asked how this could happen when the company had been saying its LTSAs were legally binding. The same CEO reaffirmed that they were binding, but said he did not want to enforce the contracts just to push inventory onto a customer whose demand had dropped. If it worked for both sides, terms could be adjusted customer by customer, whether by a quarter, a year, or longer. In its 10-K filings, onsemi also states that it amended LTSAs with some strategic customers by mutual agreement in 2024, and changed delivery schedules and committed volumes on some LTSAs in 2025 as demand shifted. Microchip is another case. Customers in its Preferred Supply Program (PSP) originally had to place 12 months of orders and could not cancel or reschedule them unless Microchip raised prices. On its November 2025 earnings call, however, the CEO said the company had accepted some cancellations and pushouts so customers could adjust their backlog. On the same call, the CFO separately addressed the multiyear LTSAs the company had signed. Some of those contracts were still in effect, he said, but customers had been allowed to defer taking delivery of committed volumes by one to two years if they needed to. Every time I see cases like these, I doubt how much memory makers' LTAs will protect earnings in a downcycle. Right now the most reliable thing is the prepayments and deposits themselves. That cash can go into capacity expansion today. I can picture hyperscalers with no DRAM inventory continuing to buy at current prices. But once inventory has piled up, will they keep taking every committed unit at the same price? I have a hard time picturing memory makers holding customers to the high contract price all the way through. The LTA itself may never be broken and may stay in place. But if both sides agree to push this year's volumes into next year or two years out, this year's earnings estimates come down. If price gets renegotiated too, margin estimates have to come down as well. Again, I agree LTAs are sturdier than they used to be. What I question is whether, after demand turns, memory makers can still earn 80% margins on contracts signed during the upturn and keep collecting hundreds of billions of dollars in profit because of those LTAs.
View original →Thoughts from my Shanghai field trip Sentiment among Greater China investors was far worse than I expected. Unlike the US market, A shares had not seen a single rebound since July. Still holding Chinese and Hong Kong AI stocks that had crashed and Korean memory stocks that had collapsed, investors kept pressing me on when memory would bounce back. Many investors said the AI trade was over, and a few said they doubted whether even 2027 capex, not just 2028, would go ahead as planned. Overall, the bearish sentiment was so strong that even I, a bull before coming to China, started to waver. It got to the point where, faced with the bear case that memory prices could start falling in the third quarter of next year, I took it seriously and couldn't refute it. As the conversations went on, I gradually began to understand where their pessimism was coming from. In the end, they were all asking the same question. So what comes after AI coding? What will be the next engine of ARR for Anthropic and OpenAI? Several candidates came up. AI4S, AI chip design, and so on... But none of them clearly convinced investors. I couldn't offer a clear answer either. Sure, there are rumors that Anthropic has made major breakthroughs in both AI4S and AI chip design, but what we actually want to know is when any of that turns into money. With AI4S, there could be beneficiaries right away, such as companies that sell lab monkeys or diagnostic kits. In fact, there already are. But while we can trade those names in the short term, what we ultimately want to know is whether Anthropic can make money by developing drugs. That is still several years away. As for AI chip design, the TAM itself is hard to calculate, and even if you do calculate it, it is hard to monetize. That makes it difficult for the market to believe in. Honestly, this feels like the hardest market in history. If a company isn't making money, selling makes sense. But right now the market sells even when companies are making money, even when they beat, and even when they say demand will stay solid all the way through 2028 and 2029. So my recommendation to investors was to buy memory, and within memory, DRAM. Not because I have conviction in the DRAM cycle, but because I see it as a relatively defensive choice within the AI trade. Memory stocks are now trading close to 1x P/B on 2027 BPS. Historically, memory stocks have staged technical rebounds when they fell below 1x P/B. And even if the broader market falls further from here, the three DRAM makers will keep buying back their own shares. I thought that would guarantee a certain level of buying and concluded the stocks would have downside support. Of course, I don't know whether memory stocks can break above their previous highs. That depends on whether sentiment across the broader market recovers. But I think there is a fairly good chance that memory outperforms the rest of the AI trade.
View original →TrendForce: GPU lead times are 30–45 weeks, with the upper end of the range up 5 weeks from the previous week. DRAM lead times have shortened to 19 weeks, down 1 week from the previous week. MLCC lead times have extended to 38 weeks, up 3 weeks from the previous week. https://t.co/QBRPWOuedR
View original →
