$ON
on semiconductor3/10Does he own it?
No first-person ownership signals at all: never says he is long, bought, added, or holds ON, and gives no portfolio weight. ON only appears as an item inside theme lists and as a comparison name. His own conviction sits elsewhere (XFAB, memory/photonics). A $46B large-cap cited repeatedly as a representative name reads as coverage, not a position.
His thesis
ON is treated as one of the established SiC/GaN power-semiconductor names benefiting from the 800V DC data-center power buildout and the broader semi supply-chain bottleneck theme. It is grouped with Infineon as a vertically integrated SiC player. He frames it as a credible large-cap way to play power-delivery demand, but it is never his preferred or highest-conviction expression of the theme — he favors smaller or upstream names like XFAB plus memory/photonics.
How his view evolved
Consistent throughout: ON stays a background list/comparison name within the power-semi and bottleneck theme. Early it appears in framework and performance-tracking lists; later only as a contrast to XFAB and in a community-sourced 800V list. No deepening into a personal position.
Key points
- Listed as a SiC/GaN power-delivery name in his bottleneck supply-chain framework
- Cited as a vertically integrated SiC player, contrasted with his real focus name XFAB
- Appears in community-sourced 800V DC list by market cap; no personal ownership language
Derived from a holistic read of his public posts — paraphrased, never quoted. See his actual posts about $ON on X ↗