Bullpen.News From Edwin Dorsey
Get Daily Recap Feedback

NASDAQ

Broadcom Inc.

AVGO

55 stories

$1.6T Market cap · 2026-10-21

@convequity

Convequity on X

A confirmed Anthropic IPO would lower the odds that Broadcom $AVGO ever pays on its backstop of about $42 billion of senior debt owed by the vehicle that leases Google TPUs to Anthropic. A separate financing vehicle borrows the money, buys the TPUs and leases them to Anthropic, and Anthropic's lease payments cover that vehicle's debt. If Anthropic can't keep paying, Broadcom has agreed to cover part of the lenders' losses on about $42 billion of that senior debt. The support is there if Anthropic goes bust or falls into serious difficulty. It is not a promise to repay the entire amount. An IPO does not change the dollar size of that exposure. It changes the chance Broadcom has to pay. Up to $100 billion of new equity gives Anthropic more room to keep meeting the lease, so the vehicle is more likely to keep servicing its debt, and Broadcom is less likely to be called. A failed listing would raise that chance. In our view, confirmation of the listing is a modest positive for AVGO. The obligation stays. A confirmed listing makes it less likely to be called, and that shrinks the overhang.
@aleabitoreddit 4 clicks

Serenity on X

I've always defended X as the only platform to be on for financial discourse. But it's getting harder to when the owner constantly amplifies narratives of collapse… of companies whose interests conflict with his own at $SPCX or $TSLA. Would people be comfortable if $NVDA Jensen Huang owned $META? And then the timelines were dominated by his amplified narratives of $AVGO failing? I can't see how that would be healthy for grassroots discussion.
@convequity 5 clicks

Convequity on X

We think Huawei's control of lasers, optics and packaging could weaken pricing power at NVIDIA ($NVDA) and Broadcom ($AVGO). Our view: designing these components together lets Huawei choose embedded lasers based on what works best for the whole system, with less need to accommodate separate suppliers' products and margins. That makes lower-power embedded lasers easier to use and reduces dependence on scarce high-power external lasers. Huawei's 7.2 Tb/s Hi-ONE optical engine, which we highlighted in our recent report, shows the progress in connectivity behind this challenge. Better connections between processors can help an AI system use its computing capacity more efficiently, giving Huawei a way to compete beyond the performance of individual chips. If this lowers costs and deployment delays, customers in markets open to Huawei get a stronger alternative to systems built around Nvidia accelerators or Broadcom's custom chips and networking. At Convequity we think that could weaken both companies' ability to command premium prices.
@convequity 3 clicks

Convequity on X

AI models are now writing the kernels that made CUDA so hard to leave, and we think this breaks another part of $NVDA's moat. Kernels are the code that tells a chip how to carry out each basic step an AI model repeats, and how well that code is written decides how fast the model runs. Nvidia prebuilt a huge range of these through CUDA. Anyone building their own chip had to write that software from scratch, which was slow, hard and a big reason to think twice before starting a custom-chip project. OpenAI showed at Hot Chips in August that this is changing. On Jalapeño, its Broadcom ($AVGO) built chip, an internal version of Codex wrote attention and mixture-of-experts kernels that ran 1.5 to 1.8x faster than ones written by human experts. Within about three months of getting its first working chips, OpenAI had three open-weight models running on Jalapeño, even though none of them was designed for it. Our view: if AI can write the kernels, the software barrier that held back custom chips gets much lower, and we expect more companies to start their own chip projects. Investors still do not pay enough attention to that consequence. Deeper dive available at Convequity.
@convequity 7 clicks

Convequity on X

Networking, not compute, now decides custom AI chip wins, and in our view that is Broadcom's ($AVGO) edge. As GPUs become more like specialized AI processors, matrix compute looks much the same everywhere. At 224G high-speed chip connections (SerDes), only Nvidia ($NVDA) and Broadcom can do it. If you want a custom chip, you go to Broadcom. That is why we avoid Marvell ($MRVL). A cheaper design partner is not necessarily cheaper overall: weaker connections and networking compound costs after deployment, resulting in higher total system costs. The bottleneck is moving from the switch to the optics. Lasers and optical signal-processing chips are short, and Broadcom can bundle priority optical supply with its custom chips, even for customers running Nvidia GPUs. Nvidia's lack of optical know-how is becoming its biggest disadvantage, and we expect Broadcom to take more share from it for years to come.
@aleabitoreddit 3 clicks

Serenity on X

$LITE CEO interview on demand, counterparty + financing risk: - "CFO of $GOOGL came on and reported capex going up Y/Y, we expect hyperscalers for report an increase in capex in earnings. Based on what we see, we see their spend going up." - "The purchase agreements we have, to a large degree, are noncancellable." - The difference between Lumentum and companies like $AVGO, "we are not as dependent on AI datacenter buildout going forward" There's a conversion between electrical products to optical products" creating structural demand. Q: When do you see able to see yourself having more inventory? (catching up to surge in demand) - When we look at demand, there is "no end in sight" TLDR: Financing risk and demand aren't equally distributed across AI supply chains. But markets are just selling everything off together. As for photonics in specific, I said this before, but increasing optical content per XPU + CPO/NPO adoption keeps going up so we'll likely see sector spend go up, even if aggregate capex goes down. There's the usual "no end to demand in sight" commentary, but $LITE does have capacity commitments into 2029 now... and are negotiating for 2030. (with new information that most of which are likely hyperscalers + non-cancellable) So doesn't quite sound like it's all over for the AI trade, especially photonics.
@convequity 1 click

Convequity on X

3D chips could create more room for specialist EDA startups. We are not convinced that more difficult chip design automatically translates into a large revenue windfall for $SNPS, $CDNS and Siemens. Fine-pitch stacking changes decisions that used to be made within one die. Put a circuit upstairs and its wires may get shorter, but its heat affects the circuit below. Placement, signal timing and power delivery have to be optimized together across the stack. That creates a reason for $AVGO and $NVDA to build custom tools around their architectures. Broadcom already describes a proprietary design flow built on industry-standard tools. Nvidia publishes its own research on assigning connections across tiers in 3D chips. Our inference is that the chip designers will keep some of the most differentiating optimization work in-house. A startup that solves a costly gap in cross-die planning or optimization could also win business without replacing an entire EDA suite. The incumbents still supply implementation, verification and manufacturing sign-off tools, and they are developing 3D capabilities themselves. Internal tooling is evidence that customers need more than the standard flow; it does not establish that incumbent spending falls. We see a more interesting startup opportunity where a tool can shorten repeated design iterations or improve the resulting chip enough to earn a separate budget. That is the part of the 3D transition we would investigate before assuming the largest EDA vendors capture most of the upside.
@ParadisLabs

Paradis on X

Personal dip buys from today: $AVGO, $MRVL, $KLAC $AVGO: - Feels like the market has overlooked Broadcom YTD. - I think they're still one of the best positioned in the networking theme thanks to exposure to many diverse areas - optical DSP, Tomahawk, Jericho. - Future growth should accelerate via Tomahawk 6/7 ramping in 2027, Tomahawk Ultra, optical DSPs. - Obviously there are risks with Broadcom but I ultimately see earnings upside = stock should re-rate (at some point lol). $MRVL: - Investor day last week basically confirmed that they're a scaleable AI infra name...not just custom silicon / DSP. - Feels like Marvell's opportunity is now much bigger than most people thought. - E.g. other than 800G/1.6T....NPO/CPO, and scale-out + up. - Still think it's early from them with many areas yet to ramp volumes e.g. 1.6T and NPO/CPO. Overall, feels like both Broadcom and Marvell are very well positioned. Broadcom keep adding XPU customers + extend those deals with hyperscalers. Marvell keep growing, very high torque right now IMO. $KLAC: - Down 42% in 3.5 months and haven't had a position before and wanted to take one lol - more so as a re-rating trade rather than a longer-term hold. - No real in depth thesis, more so a risk/reward play in the broader "AI quality" ecosystem I'm tracking. - Especially when compared against other semicaps like $LRCX / $AMAT that are well ahead in YTD %. Obviously these aren't your sexy names like $NBIS, $INTC or $BE - but I feel like I built my positions in these types of names earlier in the year (was a little late to the Intel party) and don't want my core portfolio to get overly concentrated. That said, I'm well aware that semis earnings are right around the corner and that many of these bottleneck type names have de-rated. But as of right now, I'm sitting slightly on the cautious side by not attempting to time bottoms here. Recent flow data has been tragic for semis, so would rather wait to see a few days of +ve net flows first to get some confidence that investor fatique isn't a permanent scar. There's only so much tolerance investors have for multiple >20% drawdowns in a matter of months.
@convequity

Convequity on X

We think the market is pricing in too steep a growth slowdown for $AVGO. In Q3 FY26, Broadcom's AI semiconductor revenue reached $16.7 billion, roughly 56% of its $29.6 billion total revenue. In the same quarter, AI revenue grew 221% year over year, compared with 86% for total revenue. As AI accounts for more of the business, it has a greater influence on consolidated growth, so models that assume Broadcom's growth must slow each year risk missing this change. Our valuation work suggests that the market is pricing in revenue growth of approximately 66% in FY26 and 62% in FY27, followed by a 20% compound annual growth rate in years three to seven. Our view is that this assumes growth slows too quickly. Our base case gives more weight to the customer pipeline and management's outlook for the AI business. On that basis, we estimate Broadcom's total revenue could grow by 100% in FY27, compared with the 62% the market implied, with growth remaining well above the market's assumptions as we approach 2030. We increased Broadcom's portfolio weight from approximately 2.2% to 3.4% because we think the market underestimates both how fast Broadcom can grow and how long that growth can last.
@aleabitoreddit 2 clicks

Serenity on X

It's interesting to see Elon interacting with finance X accounts out of the blue. Then amplifying $CRWV financing concerns, Chinese memory flooding, to AI investors being gamblers recently. With $SPCX and $TSLA, I do think Elon is a visionary but from how it looks from the outside... Amplifying concerns about competitors does make their financing more difficult as a self-fulfilling prophecy. And multiple posts about Chinese memory flooding after calling Samsung/SK Hynix pricing extortion does harm these supplier valuations... The economic incentives of doing so probably benefits Tesla/SpaceX more in the long run, even if everything goes down together. There's merit to a lot of things (I've been voicing Coreweave concerns about debt interest + rate hikes for the longest time...). But much like high end memory flooding to nuances of "No crying in a Casino" when the $AVGO CEO comments were regarding OpenAI ARR datapoints... were missed. You can throw rocks at others when a glass house is propped up by passive index flows
@convequity

Convequity on X

$AVGO's Hock Tan is right that capital is now the constraint on AI, and that is healthy. The $60bn banks are placing for Anthropic's lease of $GOOGL's TPUs shows how it gets eased: by moving risk, not reducing it. We read his two remarks as cause and effect: tokens are not yet earning a return, so capital is expensive. That brake stops a buildout outrunning its returns. The $42bn senior slice leans on Broadcom's A-minus credit through a partial guarantee of the chips' residual value. The rest is expected to wait for Anthropic's IPO. The brake works where Broadcom's credit stops. On the guaranteed slice the risk has moved, not shrunk: out of a loan spread lenders would price, into a chip deal the seller priced, onto a balance sheet already long the same cycle, where it is too small to move the shares. Google sits on the same outcome three times: Anthropic shareholder, TPU lessor, Broadcom's customer for those chips. The IPO junior lenders are waiting for also puts a public price on Google's stake, and Broadcom's guarantee is safest if it goes well. Spreading risk only reduces it when the holders are diversified against it. None here are. Each piece is ordinary. The total is capital arriving ahead of proven returns, and two of the market's largest companies carrying more of one lab's downside than their labels suggest.
@aleabitoreddit

Serenity on X

So spent some more time to look at more DBS conference material: - "Two semiconductor giants, $AVGO and $INTC, both stated that breakthroughs in AI will keep demand for chip investment elevated for at least another 2 years. As current supply is insufficient to meet market demand." - "Current chip production capacity is already far from sufficient to meet demand, and $AVGO CEO expects the shortage to become even more severe in the future." (HKEJ) - "Regarding OpenAI, Hock Tan stated that the market had misinterpreted the company because its underlying fundamentals remained strong. He argued that investors who sell based on a single short-term data point [$50B ARR] are "essentially no different from people gambling in a casino." (eg. Hong Kong Economic Journal): - Commenting on investors' disappointment in OpenAI’s latest revenue forecast: "by itself, not that bad" on their $50B ARR. (Business Times) And connected investors' disappointment to a failure to understand the business and excessive expectations like a casino. - Tan rejected the proposition that OpenAI was overvalued. It quotes him saying: "It’s almost like they are in a casino gambling" in regards to investors' unrealistic expectations and lack of understanding on OpenAI. - Hock Tan if OpenAI and Anthropic achieve widespread market adoption: their attractiveness would substantially strengthen their bargaining power when raising capital. But cautioned elevated global interest rates could make capital requirements a constraint for future growth. - The real driver, he said, is whether frontier AI companies can create models that generate enough value and returns to justify the buildout. (which is fair) - Most companies are wasting money on tokens. He also warned that most companies just waste money spending tokens like kids in a video arcade. This part was the most badly worded by Hock Tan given he's running $AVGO. But Western media commentary narrowed this down to: - "Shortage of capital now, AI Investors are gamblers". In the conference, Broadcom's CEO was actually defending frontier lab valuations and giving cautiously bullish statements about AI infrastructure demand. While citing rising interest rates as a potential constraint that larger revenue or adoption could overcome. Cherry picking quotes out of context disorts the actual messaging. TLDR: - Large and elevated AI semi demand, semi supply insufficient to meet market demand. At least another 2 years of elevated spend - OpenAI valuations defensible, people who sell based on extreme expectations for the company are like casino gamblers. - Tan stated markets had misinterpreted OpenAI's ARR because its underlying fundamentals remained strong. - Frontier labs if they achieve widespread adoption / revenue would strengthen capital raising, which overpower headwinds from raising interest rates. Lot of $AVGO CEO remarks looks heavily nuanced, which Western media coverage distored.
@aleabitoreddit 2 clicks

Serenity on X

Sure... Random train of thoughts on markets now, optics like $LITE / memory + $IREN / Anthropic. On Memory: - Demand visibility on $MU / Samsung / SK Hynix extend into 2030-2031. Samsung has LTAs covering 70% of their capacity into 2031 (likely with SK Hynix type price floors)... and their operating profit is already absurd. There's a consensus that shortage in 2027 will be much more severe than 2026... Even $SNDK expends gross margins to exceed 80% entering 2030. You're going to hear Acer and other CEOs that want memory prices to go down cite bear cases like CXMT/YMTC, and Chinese players. But just looking at supply procurement that $NVDA is doing + hyperscalers, demand visibility is absurd for the next 5 years. And by that time, cumulative FCF coming in from these take/pay + pricing floor contracts might exceed some of their entire marketcaps so it feels like there's some baseline. Near-term is always volatile (IV dropped a ton across $EWY to $DRAM to $MU), so people with call options likely got nuked, along with underlying prices. But if Samsung is 3x 2027E, has 5 year LTAs with 70% of capacity committed from hyperscalers, and price floors, it's kinda hard to see these names suffer a sustained crash... For optics: - $LITE is literally sold out into 2029, starting discussions into 2030. With demand visibility lasting into 2031… with hyperscalers largely funding the capacity buildout. Their 2028 Greensboro fab expansion was ~$5B in UHP laser capacity revenue alone, yet it’s basically allocated toward $NVDA (50%+ with options for more) and co from channel checks. Existing supply chain bottlenecks are extremely severe as optical content/XPU skyrockets entering 2027-2028. So everything from DSPs/TIAs, photodiodes, lasers, InP/SOI substrates, wafers (epi, SOI, etc) are expected to go brrr. And what does that imply to anyone else with enormous amounts of capacity coming online like $AAOI + $SIVE + $MTSI capacity expansion in 2027? Or other players like Sumitomo / Furukawa? But again it's not quite the same situation as memory since the BOM % is extremely low in a cluster... If micron/samsung raised another 2000% hyperscalers would go bankrupt. But doing that for InP substrates seems possible. Or a 100% increase on CW laser content. I actually thought $LITE was overvalued at $100B+ MC, relative to capacity expansion on your smaller optical players to their respective MCs. So I chose to position accordingly (But lumentum does deserve premiums for demand visibility). For the companies leading the charge like $NVDA / $AVGO / $MRVL: - Nvidia has 70% forward revenue growth FY2028 which is supply constrained growth. - Broadcom 100% Y/Y for 2027/2028 which is also supply constrained growth. - Marvell FY2031 upgraded guidance to $70B-$90B from $46B analyst projections... They all seem to be very happy.... and read through on demand for next 2-3 years is enormous (also echoing what $INTC CEO said today on the panel with $AVGO CEO). So you have overwhelming growth on memory + photonics + from the leaders... But the nuance is not everything in the AI supply chain get the same economic benefit. HBM/Laser/CPU/MLCC and other players in the bottlenecks look to be printing money. And seem to be the largest beneficiaries of the current bottlenecks. Test players are also getting price hikes + capacity allocated by players like $NVDA, but economic impact seems a tad lower than other players since forward P/E for many I modeled were still in the 45x+ range even if you hiked prices like 10-30%. As for capex intensive players... there's some like $IREN ($25-30B for 2027) that despite a deal with Anthropic ended up dropping. I don't think markets seem to appreciate players spending a lot of money + ongoing financing (think they're like halfway through their $6B ATM). Just some hopium for $IREN investors, $NBIS also signed a deal with $META at the start of the year (but markets didn't care at all, since Nebius dropped to ~$70-80 at the lowest point?). But did 6 months later, as the time to revenue inflection gets closer and you're past the ATM/capex window, markets would likely care more. I don't think it's irrational but at the same time, the fundamentals have improved from Mirantis acquisition to others. I also think it was known for awhile it was either OpenAI/Anthropic from CEO comments earlier too? But either way to be a more risk-off environment where funds seem to be rotating to larger names as a flight to safety. $CRWD / $PLTR as just two example, but my take is that the valuations of these rotations are reaching clown levels. And that certain AI supply chain beneficiaries in comparison are undervalued now. I was thinking markets would just rotate to names that are extremely profitable like Samsung or names that have <2X P/E, so it was surprising to see $KOSPI and some legacy memory players get sold off today. Since all of this is colliding with uncertainty about sht macro environments and renewed sustainability concern of AI capex/commitments from frontier labs like OpenAI/Anthropic from due to that FT piece recently. I've always been sounding the alarm about the contractual backlog OpenAI has with $CBRS, $MSFT, $ORCL and others earlier in the year. But OpenAI did just raise $122B or so , so I don't quite think they're at risk of going down anytime soon. I also don't think overall capex can just exponentially go up, but even if it stalls / hovers around a certain point or even drops... Capex toward certain areas like optics will still explode as hyperscalers fight over allocations when CPO scale up comes about, but might drop in others where more capacity comes online like test or DRAM. So it's a lot more nuanced than capex down = everything down or vice versa. I also slightly agree with community agreements that open weight models wouldn't lessen demand on AI infrastructure (otherwise $NVDA wouldn't be funneling funds into Reflection), but all the contractual obligations that Anthropic has might get messy if their models/company get cannibalized. Either way, I'd expect some of these frontier lab valuations to likely compress but I do think Jensen knows what he's doing though to avoid contagion. But basically: - Extremely difficult market now, can't just throw money at any AI supply chain company like $GLW and expect it to go up. There's cause for concern of rate hikes mixed with financing per $AVGO CEO but not to the point you just blindly sell off everything. Also I think markets are stupid and ties baskets together so that leads to mispricing + individual buying opportunities with certain chokepoints too. If capacity + demand is visible and forward p/e compresses like $AAOI to single digits off hundreds or thousands of percent growth from hyperscalers off $471m transceiver revenues and hundreds of thousands of monthly ELSFP capacity. Or $SIVE coming online with 100M+ laser capacity + multiple foundries with ASP hikes on lasers. I wouldn't lump them into other AI supply chain names in IP like $RMBS or others. My take is that AI supply chain beneficiaries with closer inflection points, demand visibility, and forward P/E compressing due to economic leverage would likely outperform medium term despite current volatility. TLDR: - Memory strongest risk/adjusted return with LTAs + pricing floors extending to 2030's + buybacks. - My opinion is that optical supercycle for 2027-2028 with CPO/NPO is going to look absurd relative to capacity coming online of smaller suppliers. - Overwhelming fundamentals/growth colliding with sht macro + media scares - Markets are stupid and groups things in baskets and sells them all off together or buys overvalued names, creating short/long opportunities I'd give a prayer to people on short term options given underlying drop + IV decline, but there could be a reversal... who knows. Most valuable thing right now is time.
@convequity

Convequity on X

We think Google's ($GOOGL) TPU volumes alone could add roughly $11 billion to $14 billion a year to Broadcom ($AVGO) revenue on our illustrative estimates, and Anthropic and OpenAI are a larger opportunity on top. April supply-chain estimates put Google's TPU demand at 4.2 million to 4.5 million units in 2026, rising above 6 million units in 2027. We allow for MediaTek's allocation to rise from around 600,000 units in 2026 to 1 million units in 2027 and assume Broadcom supplies the remainder. At the 6 million-unit level in 2027, that leaves Broadcom with roughly 1.1 million to 1.4 million additional chips compared with 2026. At an illustrative $10,000 of revenue per chip, that would add $11 billion to $14 billion in annual revenue from higher volumes alone. The actual increase will depend on which designs ship and their selling prices. Our working estimates put Anthropic's demand for Broadcom-supplied TPUs at around 1 gigawatt in 2026, rising to 5 gigawatts in 2027. OpenAI's separate custom-chip program has demand estimated at 1.3 gigawatts in 2027 and 5 gigawatts in 2028. Anthropic's TPU purchases overlap with the Google TPU opportunity, so we count those sales once. Together, the Anthropic and OpenAI estimates point to around 10 gigawatts of demand by 2028. Assuming Broadcom earns $10 billion to $20 billion for each gigawatt supplied, that represents a $100 billion to $200 billion revenue opportunity across those deployments.
@convequity 1 click

Convequity on X

3D chips could create more room for specialist EDA startups. We are not convinced that more difficult chip design automatically translates into a large revenue windfall for $SNPS, $CDNS and Siemens. Fine-pitch stacking changes decisions that used to be made within one die. Put a circuit upstairs and its wires may get shorter, but its heat affects the circuit below. Placement, signal timing and power delivery have to be optimized together across the stack. That creates a reason for $AVGO and $NVDA to build custom tools around their architectures. Broadcom already describes a proprietary design flow built on industry-standard tools. Nvidia publishes its own research on assigning connections across tiers in 3D chips. Our inference is that the chip designers will keep some of the most differentiating optimization work in-house. A startup that solves a costly gap in cross-die planning or optimization could also win business without replacing an entire EDA suite. The incumbents still supply implementation, verification and manufacturing sign-off tools, and they are developing 3D capabilities themselves. Internal tooling is evidence that customers need more than the standard flow; it does not establish that incumbent spending falls. We see a more interesting startup opportunity where a tool can shorten repeated design iterations or improve the resulting chip enough to earn a separate budget. That is the part of the 3D transition we would investigate before assuming the largest EDA vendors capture most of the upside.zz
@aleabitoreddit

Serenity on X

Good question! Just some informal thoughts... there's three "moats" to look at for $SIVE: - Capacity - Qualifications (especially for custom DFB lasers) - Technological 1. For capacity, they're coming online with 100M+ CW DFB lasers Q4 2027 (global supply is roughly ~608M EML/CW lasers currently per Trendforce). Obviously by 2027 global capacity is going to grow a lot, with $AAOI, $AVGO (3x expansion), and others coming online. But if you extrapolate their 2:1 statement, that implies 300m lasers/year long term coming from their own supply + external foundries. This is incredibly valuable during a shortage that was quoted to be 3-5 years, and $LITE stating they already have demand visibility into 2031... And when suppliers have started to qualify many more (eg. 5-7 vendors vs. 2-3 earlier) due to bottlenecks. I'm sure a lot of how they achieve that staggering amount is due to their manufacturing process/yields (which is a moat). 2. For qualifications, if you look at 70mW/100mW pluggable lines with Chinese players, I'd argue this is more generic and moreso reverting back to a capacity argument and manufacturing process to achieve those numbers. Custom DFB arrays that they've been working on with Ayar (they hinted at 2-3 others back in 2023 like Celestial) take years for optical i/o related things and would be a moat if they finish quals. So it's not quite something you can hot swap or design out really easily for $MTSI or another company. But of course cpo scale up and such is mass volume in 2028, and we're still H2 2026. 3. People can always compare raw specs like power output, but it's probably way way more nuanced so easier to just point toward customer statements. With $JBL 1.6T LRO: "I think that there's the potential for a relatively dramatic moat with our LRO part…" from Jabil's EVP, especially related to power consumption. And $SIVE is my guess sole source in this line. Jabil is probably the most important testament to how their lasers perform in mass production scenarios maybe around Q2 next year. Ayar said something similar along the lines of "we couldn't do it without Sivers" for custom implementations.

Investor Letters

Letters that discuss AVGO.

Every letter that discusses AVGO

Tickers on this page

Companies the stories above are also about, besides AVGO.