Look, April 2026 we raised $632.5M gross — the train's fuel. I tell you: first doubling to ~$35M/quarter by end-2026, funded and committed in a repurposed Beijing site; next to $65-70M by end-2027, planned and funded but not yet contracted; 2028 greenfield is direction. Management frames demand at roughly 10x that first step — their read — but cautions adding capacity versus delivering wafers are two different things. Long-term agreements discussed, not signed. No customer named. Okay?
We grow compound-semiconductor crystals and slice them into substrates - the wafer the laser is built on, not the laser. Indium phosphide is the one that matters right now; it crossed 50% of revenue last quarter, and the backlog reached a new high over $100 million. Two things I want you holding at once, Okay? First: our annual filing lists three primary InP suppliers worldwide; on our own call we said there are two, and we're one of them - both statements are on the record, and I'm not going to reconcile them for you. Second: all of it is made in China, and the gating factor on every non-China shipment is the export permit. Non-China permits come readily; inside China we need none; the United States is still pending, not denied. That's the real picture, and I'll leave it there.
Look, April 2026 we raised roughly $632.5 million gross. First doubling to ~$35M/quarter by end-2026 is funded and committed in a repurposed Beijing site. Next step to $65-70M by end-2027 is planned and funded but not yet contracted; 2028 greenfield is direction, possibly outside China. Management claims demand runs roughly 10x that first step, but repeats: adding capacity versus delivering wafers are two different things. Long-term agreements with larger customers and hyperscalers discussed, not signed. No customer named. Okay?
Look, our March quarter was the profitability inflection — $26.9M revenue, up 39%, non-GAAP margin 29.9% from negative. InP hit $13.6M, tad north of half, datacenter-driven, backlog over $100M. Next quarter guided as our largest InP ever, past the pandemic record. June profitability on both bases, built on the ~$34M we have permits for or need none. The wafer train's moving; the US permit gate stays the wildcard. Okay?
Look, they're right about the epitaxy bottleneck — we feel it in our backlog. But the wafer train starts here, and in February 2025 China put InP substrates on its export-control list, so every non-China shipment now needs a permit. Europe, Japan, UK, Canada permits come readily; inside China we need none, that leg runs unconstrained. US permits still pending — Commerce asked for more data, we read that as encouraging, not a permit in hand. Only about 2% of last year's revenue reached North America. Timing is not predictable, nor in our control. Okay?
Look, April 2026 brought $632.5M gross — our train's fuel for the InP roadmap. I tell you the first doubling to ~$35M/quarter by end-2026 is funded and committed in a repurposed Beijing site; the next to $65-70M by end-2027 is planned and funded but not yet contracted, 2028 is direction. Management frames demand at roughly 10x that first step — their read — but cautions adding capacity versus delivering wafers are two different things. Long-term agreements discussed, not signed. No customer named. Okay?
Look, March quarter was the profitability inflection — $26.9M revenue, up 39%, non-GAAP margin 29.9% from negative. InP $13.6M, tad north of half, datacenter-driven, backlog over $100M. Next quarter guided largest InP ever, past pandemic record. June profitability both bases, built on ~$34M permitted or permit-free. So. Okay?
Look, in April 2026 we completed an offering raising roughly $632.5 million gross. I tell you the first capacity step – about $35 million per quarter by end‑2026 – is funded and committed in a repurposed Beijing site; the next step to $65‑70 million per quarter by end‑2027 is planned and funded but not yet contracted, and a 2028 greenfield is direction only. Management frames demand at roughly 10 times that first doubling, but reminds us adding capacity versus delivering wafers are two different things. Okay?
Look, there's a divergence in our own disclosures on how many InP substrate suppliers exist, and it's worth holding both halves. Filing lists three primary worldwide, names Sumitomo and JX Nippon. Call said two, and we're one. Both on the record, unreconciled. Filing notes a third the call omits — open whether that third is commercially marginal, making two directionally right, or the call narrows the field to assert more dominance. Both stand as management's. Okay?
Look, in February 2025 China added InP substrates to its export‑control list, so every non‑China shipment now needs a permit. All our manufacturing sits in China, making that permit the biggest growth gate. Europe, Japan, UK, Canada permits keep coming; shipments inside China run free, and US permits stay pending — still‑pending, not granted. Only about 2% of last year’s revenue reached North America, and timing is not predictable, nor in our control. Okay?
Look, the epitaxy bottleneck they cite — we feel it in our backlog. Our March quarter was the profitability inflection: $26.9M revenue, up 39%, InP a tad north of half at $13.6M, backlog over $100M. Next quarter guided as our largest InP ever, past the pandemic record. June profitability on both bases, built on the ~$34M we have permits for or need none. The wafer train's moving; the US permit gate stays the wildcard. Okay?
Look, April brought $632.5 million gross from the offering — the train's fuel for the InP roadmap. First doubling to ~$35M/quarter by end-2026 is funded and committed in a repurposed Beijing site. The next double to $65-70M by end-2027 is planned and funded but not yet contracted; 2028 greenfield is direction, possibly outside China. Management reads demand at roughly 10x that first step — their framing — but repeats: adding capacity versus delivering wafers are two different things. Long-term agreements with larger customers and hyperscalers discussed, not signed. No customer named. Okay?
Look, there is a divergence in AXT's own disclosures about how many InP substrate suppliers exist, and it is worth holding both halves. Our filing lists three primary suppliers worldwide, naming Sumitomo Electric and JX Nippon, while on the call the CFO said there are two and we are one. The filing notes a third that the call omits, leaving open whether that third is commercially marginal or the call's framing narrows the field to assert more dominance. Both statements stand as management’s; neither has been reconciled. Okay?
Look, we raised $632.5 million gross in April to fund our InP roadmap. First doubling to ~$35M/quarter by end-2026 is funded and committed in a repurposed Beijing site. Next step to $65-70M by end-2027 is planned and funded but not yet contracted; 2028 is direction. Management frames demand at roughly 10x that first doubling — their claim — but cautions adding capacity versus delivering wafers are two different things. Long-term agreements with larger customers and hyperscalers discussed, not signed. No customer named. Okay?
Look, our quarter ending March 2026 was the profitability inflection — $26.9 million revenue, up 39% year over year, non-GAAP gross margin 29.9% from negative territory. InP hit $13.6 million, a tad north of half the business, datacenter-driven, backlog over $100 million. Next quarter guided as our largest InP quarter ever, past the pandemic record. June quarter profitability on both GAAP and non-GAAP, built on the roughly $34 million we already have permits for or need none. Okay?
Look, our filing says three primary InP suppliers worldwide — names Sumitomo and JX Nippon. On the call I said two, and we're one. Both on the record, unreconciled. Filing acknowledges a third the call leaves out. Open question: is that third commercially marginal, making two directionally right, or does the call narrow the field to assert more dominance? Both stand as management's. Okay?
Look, our annual filing says three primary InP substrate suppliers worldwide — names Sumitomo and JX Nippon. On the call I said two, and we're one of them. Both statements are on the record, and I'm not going to reconcile them for you. The filing acknowledges a third competitor the call leaves out. Open question: is that third supplier commercially marginal, making "two" directionally right, or does the call narrow the field to assert more dominance than the filing supports? Both stand as management's; neither has been reconciled. Okay?
Look, February 2025 China put InP substrates on its export-control list — every non-China shipment now needs a permit. Okay? Europe, Japan, UK, Canada permits come readily. Inside China we need none, that leg runs unconstrained, InP-laser revenue more than doubled quarter over quarter. US permits still pending, not denied — Commerce asked for more data, we read that as encouraging, not a permit in hand. Result: about 2% of last year's revenue reached North America. Timing is not predictable, nor in our control, doesn't align with our quarters. Okay?