Ed SperlingEDN.com's news editors filter and comment on the day's events in the electronics industry.


Profile

RSS Feed

  • Add this blog to your RSS newsreader!

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Most Commented On

Archives

By Category

News Center Articles

Blog

Wednesday, January 23, 2008

Is there an abrupt change happening to the semiconductor industry cycle?

Jan 23 2008 11:01AM | Permalink | Email this | Comments (3) |
Blog This! using:  Blogger.com | LiveJournal |
Digg This | Slashdot This | add to Del.icio.us


According to Bill McClean, president of market research firm IC Insights Inc, increased specialization of IC suppliers has brought about an abrupt change to the semiconductor industry cycle. Historically, the semiconductor industry acted as one giant cycle, which contained eight very distinct stages (see Figure 1).



McClean notes that although the exact timing of moving from one phase to the next within a cycle was always difficult to predict, there were some key elements such as worldwide GDP growth, electronic system sales growth, IC unit volume shipments and semiconductor industry capital spending trends that suggested when a cycle was bottoming or peaking.

Since 2004, he says, the traditional industry cycle model has taken on a new look. It appears that the previous singular IC industry cycle that typically influenced all IC product segments at essentially the same time (although not to the same extent) has evolved into at least four sub-cycles (see Figure 2).



IC Insights also says a case could be made that DRAM and flash operate in their own individual cycles with individual product cycles moving independently of each other and sometimes counter to the overall trend in the IC industry.

McClean believes one reason for the evolution from one large cycle to four smaller ones is the increased specialization of the IC supplier.

In the past, many large IC suppliers such as Motorola, TI and NEC competed in many product segments such as DRAM, logic, analog, MPUs and others, but most companies have moved, or are moving to, more focused IC product lines which has driven capital investment and R&D dollars to be more focused on a particular IC product segment.

Also, each IC product segment (i.e., foundry, DRAM, MPU, etc.) now faces its own competitive environment that does not necessarily coincide with the other product segments, the company pointed out.

IC Insights points to the DRAM market as a good recent example of a sub-cycle. In 2006, the DRAM market grew 32% with DRAM ASP increasing 13%. In contrast, the total IC market grew 9% in 2006 with IC ASP dropping 8%. Moreover, the surge in capital spending in 2006 for DRAM, up 44%, was more than twice the total semiconductor industry increase in capital spending (18%).

As a result of this DRAM spending surge in 2007, DRAM ASP declined 39% in comparison to a 6% decline in industry-wide IC ASP.

Another example that IC Insights gives of the workings of a sub-cycle was the significant IC unit inventory correction in Q4 2006 to Q1 2007 in the analog and DSP IC segments targeting the cellular phone business which had little to no affect on the MPU, MCU, and many other IC product segments.

As such, the current MPU marketplace must also be considered an example of a sub-cycle, McClean believes.

With only Intel and AMD left as major suppliers to this large IC segment, which was $35 billion in 2007, capital spending, R&D spending, pricing schedules or price wars, etc., for MPUs are now really in control of only these two companies. Therefore, IC Insights says the MPU sub-cycle can be expected to behave in the future in a manner that is sometimes out of phase with other IC product segment cycles.

Finally, IC Insights believes these sub-cycles will continue to act to moderate the intensity of the total IC industry cycle and despite the irrational exuberance of the DRAM and flash memory capital spending in 2006 and 2007, it is expected that more rational future capital spending by increasingly specialized IC suppliers will continue to support the sub-cycle model and moderate the volatility of the total IC industry cycle.

At the same time, IC Insights believes that the potential still exists for the IC product sub-cycles to come into alignment, in the strong or weak portions of their respective cycles, and create very weak IC industry growth of negative 10% or lower or very strong IC industry growth of 20% or higher.

This is a very interesting concept and I can see how this makes sense in some cases. What has been your experience and observation?

Please chime in with comments!

--Ann Steffora Mutschler, Senior Editor


Reader Comments


at 1/24/2008 11:41:23 PM, Bevan Wu said:
It is an interesting observation. It shows the semiconductor market demands multi-product of low cost with various volume and life cycles. It is because the market is aligned with consumer electronics. Yet the present semiconductor fabricators have a difficult time to meet the market demand due to their slow response time (product cycle time) and the high capital investment of the present designed fabricator. The semiconductor fabricator in principle changed very little over the years. True, process equipment have increased in size and capability, but the basic fabricator design stayed the same chase-and-bay in a BIG BOX design. Mean while the cost of a fabricator increased from tens of million to three billion, even ten billion is in the estimation for next generation. Looking back the major innovations in semiconductor fabrication were the adaptation of SMIF, Automation of the 300mm Fab and the business model of Foundry. The rest of the progresses were made in so called evolutionary, technology driven incremental improvement. There is nothing wrong with this approach if the fabricators can keep up with the new market demand, but now the asynchronous cycles threaten the capability of many semiconductor manufacturers to make investment to meet the market demand. I think we should seriously consider the following questions: 1. Specialization means the volume of the individual product would be small. Major MPU or DRAM fabricators are not very good at deliver multi-product with low volume and short life time. Foundries carried most of the load for the time being, may be MPU and Memory product should go to foundry to take advantage of full pipe line production as well as shared investment cost? 2. How many manufacturers can afford a ten billion dollar fabricator? If only four or five can afford them, would the whole semiconductor industry going into a recession? 3. How about the customers who would under the mercy of the few giant manufacturers, is it going to be a healthy semiconductor industry? 4. Moore’s law has been great to push the industry. Should the law still be followed in the specialized market environment today? If so at what cost? 5. Should the semiconductor fabricator think outside of its BIG BOX (literally) to have an agile, modulized, fabricator connected by a super fast transportation system? We are pushing 300 mile per hour train in Europe or Japan, why not semiconductor fabricators? The present long product manufacturing cycle is not meeting the market requirement.

at 2/28/2008 8:17:53 AM, Z-Man said:
What a worthless piece of oviouse information. Get a real job.

at 2/29/2008 1:35:09 PM, Profazmat said:
Interesting way of looking at the cycles. Z-Man: If it is obvious to you (an 'expert', I presume) it cannot be 'worthless' to those who may not consider themselves 'experts'. Would be more helpful to offer some additional insight than just making a snide and offensive comment.

Post a comment


Display Name

Before submitting this form, please type the characters displayed above:


ADVERTISEMENT

©1997-2008 Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Use of this Web site is subject to its Terms of Use | Privacy Policy

Please visit these other Reed Business sites