Cliff:
You are correct in your comments regarding unique characteristics
from different wafer suppliers.. The wafer manufacturers literaly
customize each of their products for each customer. This customization
comes in the form of inspection to different specifications as well
as different process steps throughout the manufacturing cycle.
Thousands of combinations are very possible.
However, your implication about the "permanance" of a supplier's
presence in a fab is both right, and wrong. The customers (fabs)
do qualify (sometimes a VERY lengthy process) each supplier they
use. The suppliers typically in turn get a % of the volume of
wafers the customer needs based upon a variety of factors such as:
cost, critical parameter Cpk, quality, etc. They also rank
suppliers on the yield from their manufacturing fab lines.
The process is so technical, that a spec sheet can not possibly
cover all of their needs, nor are they aware of all of their
needs in a specification format.
Based upon this information, they can (and typically do) switch
between suppliers to verify that any process problems that do occur
are not originating from the wafer substrate (i.e. MEMC, and their
competition). There are exceptions to this rule, of course.
However, I feel that they are the minority. Remember the message
posted earlier about customers investing in equipment,
or actually buying the rights to wafers produced in the future?
This is truly a unique market and company to disect and digest
properly at this moment in time. My limited investment
experience tells me to watch from the sidelines on this one.
I am an agressive investor, reaping the benefits of the Micron
and Kemet snafu, but I am having a difficult time reading this one
- the crystal ball is a bit cloudy. Mind you, if the sector
Book-to-Bill straightens itself out (i.e. Samsung bounces back),
MEMC was very predictable around the quarterly report times!
Hope this helps someone understand the industry a bit more!
Don |
