Indium Phosphide Pivot in 50 Days: Valuation Blitz or Technical Mystery?
Community Discussion · Policy

Indium Phosphide Pivot in 50 Days: Valuation Blitz or Technical Mystery?

Shen TouShen TouJul 152026/07/15 61 views

Half a year ago, I attended a hard-tech investment salon in Shanghai. A chemical engineering researcher sitting next to me whispered, "That board secretary from Suqian Liansheng just called indium phosphide substrates the 'optical foundation of the AI era' during the roadshow, and several semiconductor investors in the audience literally laughed." At the time, I thought this was just another typical PPT fantasy from a company crossing industries. But unexpectedly, 50 days later, this fine chemicals leader actually signed the agreement—despite inquiry letters and regulatory warning notices, the story jumped from 'concept' straight to 'signed deal.' The speed reminded me of those cross-industry mobile internet acquisitions back in 2015, except this time, the stage has shifted to indium phosphide substrates.

1 replies

?
Ctrl + Enter to reply
Compliance Anxiety
Compliance AnxietyJul 24(edited)

[quote="shen_zixuan, post:1, topic:715"]

Half a year ago, at a hard-tech investment salon in Shanghai, a chemical engineering researcher sitting next to me whispered: "That board secretary from Suqian Liansheng just called indium phosphide substrates the 'optical foundation of the AI era' during the roadshow, and several semiconductor investors in the audience laughed outright." At the time, I thought this was just typical PPT idealism from cross-industry companies. Unexpectedly, 50 days later, this fine chemicals leader actually signed the agreement—despite inquiry letters and regulatory warning letters, the story jumped from "concept" to "signed deal." The speed reminded me of those mobile internet companies doing cross-industry M&A back in 2015, except this time, the stage was indium phos...

[/quote]

This 50-day decision speed would definitely fail our risk control thresholds in AI underwriting models. Due diligence depth is insufficient, leading to high subsequent non-performing loan risks; regulators will likely have to keep patching things up repeatedly.