I might have a slightly biased perspective on this case because I work with these things on a daily basis. However, I hope no one invests their hard-earned pennies based on my posts. I also research the semiconductor industry a lot in my free time, as I find it extremely interesting and educational, both professionally and from an investor’s perspective.
In my opinion, the narrative hasn’t gone anywhere. ASML’s machine power levels are increasing, and consequently, reticles require a pellicle made of a material that can withstand both the increasing power levels and hydrogen plasma.
The transition to new technology takes time, and that proverbial can has been kicked down the road in Canatu’s case. At the time of Canatu’s listing, I was under the impression that things were further along on the customer side, but now we have seen otherwise, and the share price is naturally following suit.
One must remember that the one reactor currently in the field hasn’t yet achieved an approved SAT (Site Acceptance Test), which might partly explain the share price reaction. The market may be afraid that the project won’t succeed and that the customer will choose a supplier like Mitsui instead. My strong guess is that this unnamed customer is TSMC.
Canatu’s new management has also been pressed on what is required to get the SAT across the finish line with this customer as well. The answers have been very political: “We need cooperation, and we believe we will get it across the finish line soon.” I might be completely wrong, but it could be that TSMC wants to validate a broader package that includes the pellicle supplied by Canatu and a (new EUV) reticle, as well as certain process-related conditions. Only when everything is successfully validated will Canatu’s SAT be approved. In this case, Canatu’s process would be fine, but given Canatu’s limited muscle, they simply have to settle for the conditions set by TSMC and accept the aforementioned process. Or then, it could be that Canatu’s own process still needs some fine-tuning before TSMC can approve it. However, since Canatu has already been refining its process for several years with both IMEC and ASML, I’m somewhat leaning toward the first option, where approval is tied to other parameters. I intend to seek confirmation on these points at the spring AGM at the latest.
It must also be remembered that Canatu does not hold a monopoly position like ASML, for example. Mitsui and Lintec are working to gain market share, and this certainly explains part of the share price decline as well. However, FST and potentially TSMC are very strong references looking into the future.
Based on my own research, however, Canatu has certain strengths compared to its competitors Mitsui and Lintec. One of these is dry deposition technology. Other strengths include high 13.5 nm transmission, which, as I understand it, is a few percentage points higher than competitors’. But this is inherently a very critical parameter, as ASML’s machine produces more wafers the more light can be directed onto the silicon wafer.
As for the questions from user @123456789, I think they contain quite a bit of AI hallucination.
1. TSMC certainly manufactures pellicles in-house because they have their own “mask shop”, but they purchase the technology from someone else. TSMC definitely does not want to tie up its own R&D budget on something it can buy for pocket money from an external supplier.
2. This is true, but pellicles do not last forever. In addition, every reticle needs its own, and the more complex the manufacturing process becomes, the more reticles are needed. Sure, the future 6 x 12 reticle will solve some current issues, so the total number of reticles might not grow as much. However, that is still a long way off, and anything can happen before then.
3. A pellicle-free process is not an option. 