China has a somewhat unique system for investors who wish to communicate with companies they are thinking of investing in or already own shares.  They have an online platform where investors can ask questions of company management and hopefully get answers .  Not all companies answer questions, and not all questions are answered, but it does give a unique window into what investors are thinking about specific companies.  We check those sites to see if there is any unusual change in sentiment or if the company has mentioned something significant (rarely) and we took a small poll at last night’s peak at the Q&A for BOE, China’s largest display producer.
We looked at the first 19 questions that were asked by investors that were answered by the company.  Out of those 19 questions, the score was as follows:
14         What are you doing about the poor return on shareholder value?/Market Value?
3           How will your all-in-one IoT products gain traction as there are many competitors already?
1           I question the authenticity of your financial data./Potential fraud.
1           Will you purchase production line equity as did Chinastar?
With 73.7% of the questions on the first two pages of the answered Q&A concerning the poor stock market results of the company shares, it seems quite obvious where the mindset of BOE investors lies currently, and we note that this is not as common as one might expect.  Looking back at other times, questions have been based on specific topics that are the focus of a BOE announcement or an article in the Chinese trade press.  While there is always some complaining about investor return, this time it was unusually large and rather vitriolic.   As noted, the company rarely makes specific comments as they might be construed as material information, but gives the usual party line, which they often repeat word for word in subsequent quesions. 
Here is an example (Fraud’ question):
Hello, Secretary Dong: I am an individual investor. Regarding your annual report released on April 15 and the first quarter performance forecast that met market expectations, the stock price has been falling. As an investor, I question the authenticity of your financial data. Is there any fraud? The state requires state-owned listed companies to do a good job in market value management. How do you do market value management? We adhere to value investment. How does your company reward investors?
Hello! The company strictly abides by relevant regulations and fulfills its information disclosure obligations in a timely manner, and there is no financial fraud. The company's achievements today are inseparable from the long-term trust and support of the majority of shareholders. In order to achieve continuous, stable and predictable shareholder returns, the company recently announced the "Shareholder Return Plan for the Next Three Years (2025-2027)", planning to distribute profits in cash each year not less than 35% of the net profit attributable to the parent company's owners in that year; the total amount of funds used to repurchase and cancel shares each year is not less than RMB 1.5 billion (share repurchases for other purposes such as equity incentives will be specially planned separately); consider mid-term profit distribution under certain conditions. In order to implement this return plan, the company plans to distribute cash dividends of 1.87 billion yuan in 2024, accounting for 35% of the net profit attributable to the parent company in the consolidated statement that year; at the same time, it plans to repurchase and cancel A shares of 1.5 billion to 2 billion yuan; in addition, it also plans to cancel treasury shares worth nearly 1 billion yuan, in a multi-level and combined way to effectively improve shareholder returns. According to statistics, from 2015 to 2024, the company has implemented cash dividends for 10 consecutive years, with a cumulative amount of nearly 22 billion yuan; from 2018 to 2024, the company's annual cash dividend ratio has remained above 30% of the net profit attributable to the parent company for 7 consecutive years, allowing investors to share the growth results with the company. From 2020 to 2024, the company's cumulative payment for repurchasing A shares exceeded 5.6 billion yuan, and the cumulative payment for repurchasing B shares was nearly HK$1 billion. With the company's further high-quality development, the company hopes to continue to share growth dividends with shareholders and achieve mutual benefit with shareholders. Thank you!

The Q&A forum is an interesting way to see what more aggressive investors are thinking, while also understanding that the forums can be used by short sellers, angry shareholders, and just about anyone, to plant negative stories and ideas, which then become obligatory for the company to respond to.  While like any forum, it’s IIWII (It is what it is), but it is an interesting idea for US companies, who will immediately say “it takes too much time to respond and most of the questions are ridiculous”, but it does give some insight into what rank and file investors are thinking.  Whether the company cares is another question.
Side note:  In asking Gemini to create the final image below, we used the following prompt: “Can you create an image of an angry shareholder holding a stack of papers while banging on a table at a corporate shareholders meeting?” Once the original image was created, we asked Gemini to change the investor to one who is Chinese as this references BOE.  It made the change, however not without a slight modification.  We corrected it for the final image, but it points to the fact that AI image generators do not have any understanding of the physical world, even if their training images depict it in a certain way.  They match what they have ‘seen’ in training data to what the prompt requested but sometimes forget that no matter how angry we might be at a company management, we don’t have 3 arms.

​Way back in April of 2022 we noted that Visionox (002387.CH) had been trying to develop a system for producing OLED IT products on a Gen 8.6 production platform, rather than on a Gen 6 line, where they are usually produced.    There were others doing similar work, particularly Samsung Display (pvt) and BOE (200725.CH), both of whom have gone on to attempt construction of same currently.  Visionox itself announced last August that it would be constructing its own Gen 8.6 OLED IT fab, although details were slim.  Ostensibly, Visionox was to forego the typical fine metal mask OLED material deposition system, in favor of the company’s proprietary lithography OLED deposition system known as VIP (Visionox Intelligent Pixelization) as a differentiator, but the display grapevine indicated soon after the initial announcement that Visionox was planning to open its first Gen 8.6 line using standard FMM deposition tools and was proposing to initiate VIP at a later stage in order to maximize yield as early as possible.
The Visionox fab is still in the planning stage, which typically requires that at least the initial construction phase be funded.  In China , most display projects are financed by both the company involved and the local government, in this case 20% from Visionox and the remainder from local or provincial governments or similar state-run or affiliated funding sources.  Depending on the type of project (LCD, OLED, Micro-LED, etc.), project details, and point in the current display-type maturity cycle, funding can usually be plentiful and easily obtained, but as each display technology matures, funding becomes less available and more strict as to the necessity for financial results.
For example, in the early days of OLED display production, with only two OLED producers, China’s BOE was given almost carte-blanche in terms of capital to build an OLED fab to compete with South Korean producers.  A number of Chinese provinces competed for the fab, which wound up in Ordos, a city in Inner Mongolia, an unlikely place for a display fab.  The location became viable when the local government offered 1 billion metric tons of coal as an additionsl one-time incentive to BOE if they were to build in Ordos, as it was both a potentially valuable asset to the region and a large employer in what is typically an agricultural and mining region of China.  We know that BOE sold at least 400 to 600m metric tons of the coal in later years to raise between $1b and $1.6b in capital. 
That was ~10 years ago and things have changed as there are dozens of OLED fabs in China and around the globe and while the industry continues to grow, it faces the same maturity funding constraints as other technology industries.  In fact, Visionox seems to be facing a difficult time developing funding for its Gen 8.6 IT OLED project, as it would seem that even in China, funding for another fine metal mask deposition OLED fab, even a Gen 8.6 OLED fab, does not seem to generate the funding enthusiasm it did in the past, so Visionox is reconsidering the more difficult task of creating an initial Gen 8.6 OLED line using VIP technology, something that could put China ahead in the OLED space, rather than ‘just another’ FMM fab. 
If Visionox were to be successful in developing a commercial IT OLED line using photolithography, the funding sources and the government organizations that supported the project will gain considerable credibility with the state, but even a fine metal mask Gen 8.6 IT OLED fab will put the prject about 2+ years behind competitors, one of whom is BOE who is already being funded for such a project.  Perhaps Visionox management got the hint that funding for another Gen 8.8 IT OLED fine metal mask fab might not be forthcoming, while a more advanced VIP fab could see the light of day.  The equipment suppliers needed for a fine metal mask type fab were recently invited to a Visionox project preview but remain confused as to what path Visionox is going to take.  To use FMM seems pointless and potentially unfundable, while a VIP fsb seems to be attracting the attention needed for the $7.6b fab. 

Samsung Electronics (005930.KS) and BOE (200725.CH) are rivals, not quite directly but Samsung Electronics’ affiliate Samsung Display (pvt) competes head-to-head with BOE in the small panel display market and to a lesser degree in the large panel TV space.  As we have noted, Samsung Display has been at loggerheads with BOE over IP issues and after a recent partial win concerning BOE’s misuse of Samsung trade secrets and IP, Samsung Display continues to fight BOE in the courts.  That said, Samsung Electronics also has issues with BOE.  As the largest TV set producer, Samsung Electronics, requires that those who use “We supply to Samsung Electronics” in their advertising, pay a royalty.  In 2022 BOE, who was the second largest supplier of TV panels to Samsung in 2021, refused to pay and Samsung has reduced BOE’s share as a TV panel supplier considerably since that time as they continued to battle over the royalty situation.
It seems that the President of Samsung Electronics TV division is scheduled to visit China in the middle of May, and BOE officials are expected to visit Samsung in Korea, with both expected to try to negotiate an agreement between the two on both panel prices and royalties.  The idea is that BOE can either lower panel prices to compensate Samsung or can leave panel prices the same and pay the royalty. 
While this seems reasonable, it might not be to BOE, who is also a major supplier to LG Display (LPL), Samsung’s local rival.  LGD has recently sold it’s last LCD TV panel plant (Guangzhou, China) to Chinastar (pvt), also a supplier to both Samsung and LG (066570.KS).  The large panel product that was being purchased from the LGD Guangzhou fab before the sale, would now become purchases from Chinastar.  Samsung has an internal requirement that no supplier of key materials can represent more than 30% share, and that means that it will have to maintain that 30% restriction, keeping it from purchasing panels from the Guangzhou fab now under the Chinastar banner.  While there are other large panel producers, such as AUO (2409.TT), Innolux (3481.TT), HKC (248.HK), and CHOT (pvt) that Samsung already buys panels from, Samsung tends to go with suppliers that have large capacity, leading to a secure supply, without violating the share limit..
At least to a degree, this puts BOE in the catbird seat or at least gives it some room to negotiate with Samsung, as Samsung Display is out of the large panel LCD business and supplies only QD/OLED TV panels to its parent which make up only a small portion of Samsung’s TV panel needs.  This leaves Samsung Electronics to outsource all of its LCD TV panel purchases.  As they cannot increase purchases from Chinastar without overstepping their limit, BOE is the obvious choice if they can come to an agreement over royalties.

China’s largest display producer BOE (200725.CH) and Korea’s largest display producer Samsung Display (pvt) are locked in a race to be the first to produce IT OLED panels on Gen 8.6 substrates.  Current production is done on existing Gen 6 OLED production lines, but with expectations that demand for OLED laptops and monitors will continue to increase, and the carrot of Apple’s (AAPL) slow but steady conversion of its mobile products to OLED, the race continues to escalate.  OLED It panels can and are produced by both (and others) on Gen 6 OLED lines, but the number of panels that can be produced on one substrate of Gen 8.6 glass is more than twice the number that can be processed on one Gen 6 substrate, so overall fab efficiency is higher for Gen 8.6.
Of course, the necessity for increasing OLED IT panel production volumes is based on demand, so both Samsung Display and BOE are making the bet that OLED IT volumes will continue to increase, although both are starting production at levels below the stated capacity of the fabs, and both stating that the expansion to full capacity will take place as the market continues to grow.  Some of this open-endedness comes from Apple, who has been thought to be adjusting its OLED transition plans due to weak market conditions, but when making long-term plans (fab equipment has a 5–7-year depreciation term in South Korea and a 7 year term in China) shorter -term factors carry less weight.
So how much does it cost BOE and Samsung Display to build out these new fabs?  SDC has the advantage of being able to reuse fab space that was previously used for large panel LCD production, so no greenfield cost, but lots of modifications for new equipment.  Samsung Display is using Canon (7751.JP) as a source for the deposition tools it is building its fab around, which are estimated to cost ~$400 million each (2 are needed for a 15k line) with another ~$100 million for vacuum chambers and logistical equipment that is tied to these tools, so the key equipment cost alone is over $600 million. 
BOE has selected Sunic Systems (171090.KS) to supply their deposition tools for an expected ~$500 million price tag (inclusive of associated equipment) so BOE will have a cost advantage.  This seems to have lit a fire under Samsung Display to beat BOE in being the first to mass produce IT OLED products on a Gen 8.6 platform, gaining the advantage of experience, a key to improving yield.  In that vein, SDC took delivery of its 1st (of two) Gen 8.6 OLED deposition tools about a year ago and has been refining the process and tool characteristics since the installation was completed.  The 2nd tool is expected to be delivered within the next 2 – 3 months.  SDC has stated that they expect to begin mass production in 2026, however more recently there have been indications that SDC is planning to begin mass production this year, likely putting at least the first (of two) lines about a year to 18 months ahead of BOE.
Again, the risk to both producers is how rapidly the market for OLED IT products develops and how much of that capacity can be produced on existing Gen 6 capacity.  In the table below we look at rough (very) shipments for OLED IT products in 2023 and 2024 and we note that it is estimated that Apple (iPad Pro) was responsible for at least half of the growth in OLED tablet shipments.  Given that there is a considerable amount of global Gen 6 capacity, even another year of strong unit growth could be covered by existing Gen 6 capacity, albeit a bit less efficiently, so the necessity for either SDC or BOE to begin production at these new facilities is less critical.  

​That said, much of the existing Gen 6 OLED capacity is unable (as it stands currently) to produce some of the more esoteric OLED stacks and backplane configurations that Apple seems to desire and are becoming the leading edge in IT OLED production technology, so we have to sub-divide  demand further into ‘advanced’ OLED IT and ‘regular’ OLED IT production, and that is where both SDC and BOE will really compete.  LG Display (LPL), who produces ‘Advanced’ OLED IT products on its Gen 6 OLED lines and has yet to announce plans for a Gen 8.6 OLED IT project, is also a competitor and one that has been qualified as a full-scale producer for Apple using its current Gen 6 fab, so things get even murkier when LG Display is put into the mix.
All in, SDC and BOE will duke it out for leadership in this new Gen 8.6 OLED IT category and will likely not get much out of the results for the first few years, while LG Display has the option of remaining a Gen 6 OLED IT player or stepping up to Gen 8.6 and incurring the risk of taking on a considerable financial burden and hoping that the market can support all three players quickly.  It is good that the industry is progressing in terms of its ability to efficiently produce OLED IT products, but the necessity for immediacy seems a bit harder to understand.  Samsung Display has always been the leader in RGB OLED production and as BOE is the masthead producer for the highly competitive Chinese display industry, neither seems to have much choice that to compete at this point, while LG Display will likely be the only profitable supplier of IT OLED for the next few years without the cost and depreciation of a new fab.  If it’s between 1st or 2nd place and losing money for the next few years and 3rd place and making money now, we go for the bronze.

​Samsung Display (pvt) has committed to OLED in a big way, ending its many years of large panel LCD production.  The company’s OLED focus has made it the leader in RGB panel production for smartphones, but as OLED became dominant in the small panel market SDC realized that it could not maintain it singular dominance in that space as competition from China increased.  To that end, SDC is building RGB Gen 8.6 capacity specifically designed for the production of larger OLED panels for IT products, such as tablets, monitors, and notebooks.  There are a number of manufacturing challenges that make this expansion more than just adding capacity as the deposition equipment has to be specially designed and processes have to be modified to make such a change, but as is typical of SDC, they are willing to take the risk to become the leader.
China’s leading panel producer BOE (200725.CH) understands that while it continues to produce large panel LCD displays, it must compete directly with SDC in this emerging space and has begun construction of its own Gen 8.6 OLED for IT fab and Visionox (002387.CH), a smaller Chinese OLD producer has begun the planning for OLED for IT capacity.  This leaves one major panel producer, LG Display (LPL), with no announced plans for such expansion, despite its close relationship with Apple (AAPL), who is expected to drive OLED IT demand as it transitions its product line to OLED over the next few years.
LG Display already produces OLED for IT panels on a Gen 6 line and was the first producer to develop the tandem display structure that Apple uses for the iPad, but it does this production on a Gen 6 line, which makes it less efficient than a Gen 8.6 line would be.  This has caused considerable speculation about why LG Display has not committed to building a dedicated Gen 8.6 OLED for IT line to compete with rivals SDC and BOE.  Much of the speculation was based on LG Display’s financial situation, which has been strained over the last few quarters, but with the sale of the company’s LCD fab in China, the pressure has lessened, and the assumption has been that LGD would commit to the new fab early this year.
It seems that this will not be the case if a story out of South Korea is correct, as it indicates that LG Display is actually preparing to do just the opposite.  Instead of adding Gen 8.6 OLED capacity, or adding additional Gen 6 OLED for IT capacity, the information suggests that LGD is actually planning to reduce its existing OLED for IT capacity and convert it to additional Gen 6 OLED capacity to produce iPhones.  The motivation for the change would seem to be Apple, who has seen relatively weak demand for the OLED iPad, which has led to lower utilization rates for LGD at its OLED for IT fab.  In response the story says that LGD wants to convert some of its Gen 6 OLED for IT capacity to iPhone capacity, as it expects to increase3 its iPhone production for Apple this year by almost 17%. 
Such a change would not be cheap as the new iPhone OLED line is expected to cost ~$1.36b US, after LGD spent almost $2.6b US to build the Gen 6 OLED for IT line.  It would also indicate that LG Display does not believe that the demand for OLED IT products will grow as quickly as some predict (OLED penetration into the IT market is expected to reach 2.8% this year and 5.2% next year), essentially betting on iPhone growth and its own ability to capture additional iPhone production share from SDC.  Given LGD’s relationship with Apple, and the fact that Apple has likely financed a portion of LGD’s Gen 6 OLED for IT fab construction cost with pre-payments, Apple would have to sign off on the plan, a tacit agreement as to the potential for a weaker demand picture for OLED for IT going forward.
All in, this is a major decision for LG Display if the story is true, and one that LG Display has been unable or unwilling to make while others have committed.  If LGD decides to reduce OLED for IT and that market takes off it will fall far behind its rivals.  If it reduces OLED for IT capacity and OLED IT demand is less than predicted it will have bypassed months or years of low utilization at a very expensive fab.  No pressure…

The rivalry between South Korean panel producers (Samsung Display (pvt) and LG Display (LPL)) and Chinese panel producers has been ongoing for a number of years as Chinese producers have pushed South Korean producers out of the large panel LCD business.  As it became obvious that Chinese producers had the advantage of significant government construction and operating subsidies, South Korean producers began shifting from LCD display production to OLED production, a relatively new technology at the time.  While Chinese large panel producers eventually won the battle for LCD display domination, South Korean producers went on to establish OLED as a higher quality technology, particularly for small panel displays.  Not to be outdone, Chinese panel producers have been building OLED capacity to challenge South Korean dominance in the OLED space, and while there are a multitude of CE brands that use OLED displays, the top of that list is Apple (AAPL).
Apple’s transition from LCD to OLED starting with the iPhone X, released om November 3, 2017, is expected to continue for the next few years as they migrate much of their product line to OLED.  Samsung Display and LG Display have been the primary small panel OLED suppliers to Apple but are continuingly being challenged by China’s largest panel producer BOE (200725.CH), who has made some inroad with Apple, supplying replacement displays for earlier iPhones and as a 3rd supplier for some later models.  While BOE has had its own issues with Apple, they continue to challenge SDC and LGD, along with a number of smaller Chinese OLED producers, and SDC has gone to the US ITC alleging patent infringement, with BOE, and other Chinese OLED producers (Chinastar (pvt), Tianma (000050.CH), and Visionox (002387.CH)) responding by challenging the validity of those patents in US Patent Court.
As the ITC investigation continues (target date 3/17/25) the patent challenges also continue, and the US Patent Review Board has ruled on one of the 4 patents that Samsung claims were infringed upon.  The ‘683’ patent, filed by Samsung Display on 11/13/17 in the US and 3/6/12 in Korea makes 15 claims concerning OLED pixel structure, particularly Samsung’s ‘diamond’ pixel structure shown on the left side of  Figure 1.  The PTAB has decided that 10 of the 15 claims made in the original patent are not valid, while leaving 5 intact.  Samsung will have the opportunity to appeal that decision. 
Limiting the broad scope of a patent is not an unusual outcome in patent review cases, but narrowing the patent will also narrow the ITC’s investigation scope, making SDC’s case a bit harder, and could open one of the other patents included in the investigation to further scrutiny as it is essentially a continuation of the ‘683’ patent mentioned above.
All in, the validity of the ‘shape’ characteristics of the pixels (polygon, Octagon, or non-quadrilateral) as specified in the ‘683’ patent, remain in effect, which is a key point in terms of the infringement, but spacing between pixels, size, and arrangement, the other ‘683’ claims, are invalidated, reducing the points that SDC can cite in the ITC investigation.  We expect SDC will appeal the PTAB decision, but this ruling and any potential appeal will likely push out the final ITC decision and the battle for OLED supremacy will continue in both the consumer space and the courts for another year.  That’s how lawyers put their kids through college.

[Note: The US Patent Office considers a patent unpatentable when the difference between claimed subject matter and prior art would have been obvious at the time of invention by a person having ordinary skill in the art to which subject matter pertains, where ‘ordinary skill’ means a degree in electrical engineering, material science, physics, or similar disciplines, along with 2 years of professional experience working with display design, including OLED displays or an equivalent level of skill, knowledge, or experience.]

Chinese panel producers tend to be an optimistic lot, at least publicly, likely somewhat influenced by the fact that much of their funding comes from the state and local governments, who need to remain positive about their investments.  As listed Chinese companies are required to post at least a summary of conversations they have with analysts and investors, and maintain an on-line Q&A presence, there are times when one can get some insight into what the company is saying publicly, and at times a bit of nuance toward what they are really thinking.  Two weeks ago China’s largest LCD and OLED panel producer BOE (200725.CH) posted its analyst and investor meeting summary, which, if nothing else, gives some indication as to what the company’s near-term plans are based on.  Here is a summary of BOE’s most recent meeting with analysts and investors (139), and a few comments.

Industry Overview

• In the 1st quarter the market supply and demand gradually stabilized.
• LCD TV panel prices started to rise, driven by increased demand and promotional activities.  We would say ‘seasonal demand’ and an emphasis on promotional activities.
• Panel manufacturers adjusted production rates based on demand and focused on healthy development and dynamic control.  Not sure that ‘dynamic control’ is anything more than ‘build to order only.’
• Overall inventory levels were normal, and the industry is expected to gradually recover.  At least back to where it was before the pandemic.

Company Performance

• The company maintained its leading position in the semiconductor display industry across various applications.  BOE holds the largest share (31.5%) of global large panel LCD sales (March) and represents 57.7% of China’s large panel LCD sales.  With LG Display (LPL) #2 at 18.5% global share, BOE is certainly the leader in the large panel LCD space.
• The flexible OLED business showed steady growth, with a target of over 120m shipments for the year. Here is where BOE shines.  The company saw ~4% q/q flexible OLED unit growth in 1Q against an 18.4% decline for the industry and saw an 81.4% y/y unit increase in flexible OLED volume, against industry y/y flexible OLED growth of 27.2% (units).  For perspective, Samsung Display (pvt), the industry leader saw a 20.6% decline q/q and a 2.9% decline y/y.
• Short-term performance was affected by industry and macroeconomic conditions, but the company maintained resilient operations.  On a relative basis, yes, as BOE large panel LCD sales were down 2.7% q/q and down 30.0% y/y while the industry was down 15.9% q/q and down 36.1% y/y in 1Q.
• The company implemented lean management, resulting in improved capital structure and reduced expenses.  Companyspeak

Q&A

• Regarding industry production rates, the industry has been adjusting production rates to achieve a heathier supply-demand balance.  LCD TV panel prices have rebounded, and the production rate is expected to gradually recover.  Based on current estimates for demand and LCD panel capacity, and using an overall 85% utilization rate, there remains considerable overcapacity in the LCD space, so it is hard to call such a situation ‘a healthy supply-demand balance’.  We understand that demand estimates are likely at their lowest at this time of year and in current economic circumstances, but even with some demand improvements, LCD overcapacity will likely remain an issue this year.
• The company’s flexible OLED business has shown significant growth, and the shipment volume is expected to continue to increase.  The company aims to improve the proportion of high-end products and expand into new areas.  We give credit to BOE here as they have done a good job increasing OLED display volumes, particularly with Chinese brands.  They will have to push hard to challenge Samsung Display’s Gen 8 OLED push and a similar one from LG Display, but if nothing else, they are persistent.
• The MLED business is positioned as an important platform for the company’s next generation display development, focusing on various applications in backlighting and direct display.  BOE produces a number of LCD modules with it own Mini-LED backlighting, which puts those panels in the premium category and at a higher-than-average ASP, so we expect this segment will grow throughout 2023, but will also be somewhat dependent on the Chinese economic picture, which is a bit less vibrant than expected late last year.  It’s good business for BOE but higher-end products are in the sights of almost every panel producer and that leaves a concern over the necessity to compete on price to gain a foothold against SDC, which could impact MLED margins.
• The company’s financial performance in the first quarter improved due to cost reduction measures, lower asset impairment losses, and increased product prices.
• The company’s future capital expenditures will focus on strategic planning including enhancing OLED competitiveness, IoT solutions and upgrading manufacturing capabilities.  While BOE has been a bit more careful about capex, despite continued funding from the government, they will have to start spending on Gen 8.6 OLED capacity before the end of the year if they want to get a place in Apple’s OLED IT conversions in 2024.  The company has been working toward the development of Micro-LED displays for wearables, which could become a selling point for the Apple watch down the road, but in the interim they will have to continue to spend on LTPO small panel capacity and IT OLED.

All in and corporate speak aside, BOE’s investor meetings gave only an indication of what management is thinking about the prospects for the current year, particularly for the LCD display business.  Seemingly more confident about the growth of their OLED business, likely as Chinese brands see the company as an alternative to more expensive Samsung displays, and a growing relationship with Apple, albeit with the drama associated with that relationship.  As BOE learns more what it can and cannot do as to its Apple relationship, the company should see its small panel OLED business expand, but the OLED IT space is more of an open field, giving BOE the opportunity to gain an early foothold if it both has the expertise to build out a Gen 8.6 OLED fab that has a reasonable yield and that they can meet Apple’s typically stringent specifications, which have proved challenging for BOE in the past.  That said, they are certainly the most successful Chinese panel producer and have a dominant share of the global large panel LCD space.  Whether that proves ultimately the correct positioning over the next few years, however, is still an open question.

​It has not been lost to the press that Apple (AAPL) has been working toward moving more of its product line toward OLED displays, and all sorts of timelines for the iPad, Macbooks, and potentially other products’ OLED adoption have been bandied about.  Given that there are only a few potential OLED suppliers who are both qualified by Apple and can deliver the volumes necessary, much of the discussion around Apple’s transition has been concerning Samsung Display (pvt), LG Display, and China’s BOE (200725.CH).  With current production of OLED IT panels limited to Gen 6 OLED fabs, all three OLED producers (and some others) have indicated or hinted that they would be making investments in new capacity to support Apple’s transition, of course, without naming Apple itself as a customer.
In order to improve efficiency and volume, there has been considerable speculation that such new facilities would be Gen 8 RGB OLED fabs, which currently do not exist (LG Display has Gen 8 OLED fabs but they use a non-RGB process that is not viable for Apple’s specifications), so considerable R&D has been, and still has to be done to design the equipment necessary to make the transition to Gen 8 OLED production for Apple’s (and others’) IT products. 
Up until the beginning of this year, most predictions included Samsung Display starting construction on a Gen 8 RGB OLED fab this year, either converting an idle Gen 8 LCD fab or converting a Gen 6 line to Gen 8.  LG Display, while a bit less specific, has been expected to do the same, and BOE, has hinted that they will follow a similar path ‘as the market demands’, but the ever-shifting sands of the CE space have begun to cast askance at those plans and concomitant timelines.  The equipment needed to deposit OLED materials on the larger Gen 8 substrates takes considerable R&D to develop, and as we have noted previously, there are only a few companies with the expertise to develop such tools.  Sunic Systems (171090.KS) is working with LG Display, and at one time Samsung Display was working with ULVAC (6728.JP) on such tool development, but has since abandon that project, and is looking at the industry leader Canon-Tokki (7751.JP) as a potential Gen 8 deposition tool supplier.  However, Canon does not want to bear the cost of the tool’s development, as Gen 8 OLED adoption is still an unknown, and expects Samsung Display to pay for the development as a part of the tool price.
With the objective of reducing costs/m2, a boost to tool costs will eat away at the process BOM, and SDC has been hesitating to place the order with Canon, with a cut-off of the end of 2Q if it is to meet the goal of Gen 8 production for Apple in 2024.  But it seems not only has the cost of building out Gen 8 OLED capacity been an issue, but the trade press has taken Apple’s recent Mac sales declines as an omen that is adding additional hesitation to the Gen 8 OLED build-out for all potential participants.  We differ.
As with almost all CE products, the COVID-19 pandemic changed what was previously a relatively stable demand picture for Apple products.  Mobile devices saw some early positive momentum, but the need to communicate online became the driver for tablet, laptop, and PC sales that set volume records.  We look at the years between 2020 and 2022 as ‘aberrational’ in terms of demand and look to more normalized unit volumes as a better indicator of what we should expect going forward.  In the case of Apple, particularly the Apple Mac, a tool that is known for its use among content developers who require high quality displays, the logic holds that Apple would like to make the transition to OLED for its color purity, high contrast, and color gamut, but recent headlines from overseas are decrying the fact that Apple’s Mac sales are declining and adding to OLED panel producers’ hesitation concerning spending for Gen 8 RGB OLED fabs. 
However looking at Apple’s Mac sales going back to 2018, they average $6.35b per quarter, including the heady COVID years, which puts the last two quarters above the LTY average, despite the decline from 2022.  More specifically, Apple’s 2Q Mac sales of $7.168b, which seemed to trigger the recent press concerns, are only 1.14% lower than the average of all 2Q results since 2018, including those in the COVID years, and just looking at the pre-COVID years (2018 – 2020), 2023 2Q Mac sales are 28.7% higher than the average.
We expect SDC and LGD are most concerned about the cost of making the conversions to Gen 8 against other larger substrate transitions, rather than Apple’s near-term results, and if either company has been assuming that demand during COVID was ‘real’, we have misjudged both companies.  Spending the billions necessary to build out a Gen 8 OLED infrastructure for IT was a risky business before COVID, during COVID, and will be after COVID, but those decisions tend not to be made on near-term issues, as they are bets that will play out over many years.  SDC does have the cost issue to settle with Canon, especially as LGD has aligned with Sunic Systems, but we expect that has more to do with the timing of Samsung Display’s decision than the relative decline in Apple’s Mac sales over the last two quarters.