Aixtron - Die Perle im Technologiebereich (Seite 4617)
eröffnet am 14.07.04 15:26:35 von
neuester Beitrag 10.05.24 14:03:52 von
neuester Beitrag 10.05.24 14:03:52 von
Beiträge: 50.786
ID: 880.385
ID: 880.385
Aufrufe heute: 147
Gesamt: 4.169.238
Gesamt: 4.169.238
Aktive User: 0
ISIN: DE000A0WMPJ6 · WKN: A0WMPJ · Symbol: AIXA
21,890
EUR
-1,84 %
-0,410 EUR
Letzter Kurs 10.05.24 Tradegate
Neuigkeiten
| AIXTRON Aktien ab 5,80 Euro handeln - Ohne versteckte Kosten!Anzeige |
10.05.24 · wO Newsflash |
09.05.24 · dpa-AFX |
09.05.24 · dpa-AFX |
Werte aus der Branche Halbleiter
| Wertpapier | Kurs | Perf. % |
|---|---|---|
| 24,450 | +45,71 | |
| 1,0660 | +26,15 | |
| 7,6400 | +14,89 | |
| 4,5000 | +14,21 | |
| 19,900 | +10,56 |
| Wertpapier | Kurs | Perf. % |
|---|---|---|
| 22,950 | -10,18 | |
| 11,500 | -11,54 | |
| 4,1000 | -12,58 | |
| 27,30 | -33,48 | |
| 1.000,00 | -50,00 |
Beitrag zu dieser Diskussion schreiben
Feedback
Frankfurt (aktiencheck.de AG) - Die Analysten der DZ BANK empfehlen die Aktie von AIXTRON (ISIN DE0005066203 (Nachrichten/Aktienkurs)/ WKN 506620) zu kaufen. (24.11.2006/ac/a/u)
Offenlegungstatbestand nach WpHG §34b: Das Wertpapierdienstleistungsunternehmen oder ein mit ihm verbundenes Unternehmen handeln regelmäßig in Aktien des analysierten Unternehmens.
Analyse-Datum: 24.11.2006
Offenlegungstatbestand nach WpHG §34b: Das Wertpapierdienstleistungsunternehmen oder ein mit ihm verbundenes Unternehmen handeln regelmäßig in Aktien des analysierten Unternehmens.
Analyse-Datum: 24.11.2006
This is Part III of a five-part interview. Part I appeared on November 21 and Part II on November 22. Part IV follows on November 27.
Q: Previously, you mentioned Samsung’s major commitment to R&D. Are they anywhere near matching Intel, which I believe funds R&D at around US$5-6 billion annually?
BE: They’ve certainly been very close to Intel, over the past three years, in capex. They’ve been very steadily increasing their production lines, and they’ve done that very consistently, over the last three to five years. We saw that in Korea, and we expect that to continue into 2007.
PH: That’s capex, but 12 months ago they made a public announcement on their projected R&D funding – without capex – and that was huge. What was the figure, Bill? US$50 billion over five years?
BE: Yes, it was huge. They indicated they would hire 30,000 R&D personnel over a five-year period! Their commitment to technology, and R&D in particular, is just incredible. And today, in terms of execution, they’re marching down that path.
PH: But if we turn to Taiwan; I think we should recognize that Taiwan has some unique qualities, in terms of its ability to invest, very rapidly, very flexibly and very efficiently. It’s no coincidence that Taiwan is our biggest MOCVD market, and we have some individual Taiwan customers with more than 50 systems each. This is still the powerhouse of much of the volume of business we see in the LED industry, and I don’t see that changing in the short term. Taiwan is a very dynamic and powerful market.
Q: My understanding is that ALD faces a number of challenges, including the speed, and therefore the productive efficiency, of the process. Other considerations, in addition to throughput and batch versus single-wafer, include the design of the chamber and the design of the chemical injection system. How is the Genus legacy delivering solutions to these productivity issues and challenges?
BE: Over the past five or six years, the market for ALD has continued to grow. And where single-wafer processing was the initial force that drove the first high-K material, aluminum oxide (AlO2), into production, it quickly migrated to a batch process. AlO2 was a very well characterized material, so there were no great surprises, from that point of view. But as you continue to increase the K value of the materials, you have new precursors and new processes, and the implementation becomes a little more difficult.
The engineers are always looking for new ways to improve the incumbent technology, to delay the introduction of new material technology as much as possible. In our view the delay is driven much more by material and precursor technology today than it is say, by chamber design or by single-wafer versus batch. As we see the new materials coming in, it’s probably going to be 45nm where ALD really begins to prove its worth. There will be more conformal thin film requirements, and that will require some form of ALD or AVD in the marketplace. We think we’re very well positioned there because we have a core competence in both. That also means we can optimize the cost of ownership (CoO), so if you look at our offerings today, we see single-wafer and mini-batch being the drivers from an architectural standpoint, going forward, so whether the customer wants ALD or AVD, we can provide both.
PH: The three key elements that all technologies have to have in place to be successful are the material chemistry, the process and the equipment. Today, for ALD, it’s still very much a question of material selection, and then it’s the process and then deposition choice that are driving the equipment design, hence the importance for us to be actively involved in research, both with commercial customers and with institutions. The search is still on for the right combination of material, process and equipment, and I think the point Bill made about not underestimating the extendibility of the current technology is a tremendously important one. That’s a common factor in all industries that get to the size where they produce a roadmap, and roadmaps are essentially predictions of achievement in the future. It’s always the case that the industry is surprised by how extendible one node is, and how that extended lifetime inevitably delays the arrival of the next technology node.
BE: It’s interesting. Even in CVD, which is driving a lot of our revenue today, we continue to see improvements being driven by the customer – to change the chemistry, to change the continuous development of the film. In CVD Tungsten Silicide, where we have about 50% market share, this is a memory-driven marketplace, but we’re still doing film development in that area, and we see that technology being extended beyond 50nm. It’s these continuous improvements that delay the incoming new materials and processes, and that extends the existing technology. In addition to what we’ve seen in CVD, we’ll ship JDP systems into memory, specifically capacitor formation, and into logic, specifically the drive to metal gates. Exactly when it will come into production is still not absolutely clear. That depends on which crystal ball you read, but whenever it is, we’ll be ready.
PH: We’ve got such a range of technologies available to us now that inevitably we’re going to have a solution, whichever direction the industry goes in.
BE: Between what we’re doing in academia, in IMEC, and in the other JDPs we have with our leading customers, we’ve got pretty much every possible new application covered. Whether it’s the migration to MIM, in capacitor formation, or to metal gates in logic, I think we’re very well positioned as those transitions occur, and we’ll have production solutions ready for assessment.
I’m specifically referring to the move to high-K metal gates, of course. IMEC is very focused on that. Companies like Intel are focused on it, so it will happen, but when is anyone’s guess. There’s a lot of development going on, in the technical community, on these new materials and the transition to metal gates.
Q: I’ve been told that one of the key problems with ALD is that the process is slow, or it is at the moment, whether single-wafer or batch. Do you have any comments on the productive efficiency of ALD?
BE: When you look at ALD compared to CVD or PVD, yes, it’s slower, but at some point, CVD and PVD will not meet the customer’s production needs and you have to replace it with the thinner, more conformal films. That’s where ALD-type processes will come in. Will it be single-wafer systems or batch? I think the initial batch systems that came in were furnaces that had been modified to adapt primarily for AlO2. As you go to hafnium- and zirconium based materials and beyond, will a furnace-type batch system work? I don’t know. It will depend on the precursor, but so far precursor characteristics have not been conducive to production in a thermal furnace. Will it be mini-batch, more than single wafer? Most likely, because there are many things you can do to manage the process in a mini-batch environment, and we’re quite active in that area. So we will be in a position to provide what customers need, as they move to the higher-K materials
PH: But again; these developments will be driven by the complexity of the materials, the architecture, and the increasingly diminishing dimensions: Material, Process, Equipment – in that order.
BE: To me, the materials are the most critical factor today. They are always the most difficult aspect to integrate, at the device level.
Q: Do you see the trench approach to DRAM remaining viable at an ALD-type node, or is the future now with the stack?
BE: I haven’t seen any major DRAM player adopt trench who’s not already in it. I think there’s one player that has embraced trench, but I don’t see people that are in stack saying, “Gee, I think trench is the wave of the future.” I think it will work the other way, and the people that are in trench today will be making at least some evaluation of when to transition to stack. If you look at market share today, in memory, it’s predominantly stack technology that’s the winner. Let me add that
I’ve heard trench described as an architectural work of art rather than a manufacturing process you can take cost out of, and maybe there’s some truth to that.
Q: In a previous interview with DigiTimes.com, Paul Hyland commented that ideally the "pie chart" of company offerings would see 33% market uptake in the broad three technologies, MOCVD, Silicon and OLED. How does the pie chart look today, and what adjustments are you hoping for?
PH: I think the key term there is “ideally,” but a lot more work will have to be done before we will reach that “ideal” state. My comment was about our strategic direction and the attempt to leverage our core expertise; gas phase deposition, across as many markets as possible. Clearly MOCVD is the market where we are the major player, and we continue to do very well there. We’ve made significant investments in the past in the development of AVD technology for silicon, and now, with the merger with Genus, we can say that we do have a very sustainable position in two equipment markets, namely compound and silicon. And that’s our core business today.
However, I believe we also have a longer-term possibility, when the OLED and OVPD business develops, to look forward to a third element to our business. We’ve talked earlier about the increased percentage of consumer end-product demand being a factor in all semiconductor companies, so the ability to have a number of end-market applications is going to be a factor in helping us sustain a consistent technology development, which is key to anyone who is serving this market. Today we have two significant markets we’re able to serve. The third we continue to invest in, and it still looks promising, but perhaps on a slower time scale.
Q: You’ve already commented on the synergy between Aixtron and Genus, and you seem very pleased.
PH: We are very pleased, and I think it probably goes both ways because I think what we’ve been able to add to Genus is access to some fairly advanced modeling capabilities and gas phase transport understandings that enable us to accelerate new development. New product developments now coming through represent significant contributions from the technology group that we have at Aachen. But we are pleased because I think we can now talk about our third successful acquisition. Acquisitions are always particularly challenging, but we are now looking at the first 18 months of a very successful contribution to the business by Genus, looking forward, at a time when the markets are looking healthier.
Q: Previously, you mentioned Samsung’s major commitment to R&D. Are they anywhere near matching Intel, which I believe funds R&D at around US$5-6 billion annually?
BE: They’ve certainly been very close to Intel, over the past three years, in capex. They’ve been very steadily increasing their production lines, and they’ve done that very consistently, over the last three to five years. We saw that in Korea, and we expect that to continue into 2007.
PH: That’s capex, but 12 months ago they made a public announcement on their projected R&D funding – without capex – and that was huge. What was the figure, Bill? US$50 billion over five years?
BE: Yes, it was huge. They indicated they would hire 30,000 R&D personnel over a five-year period! Their commitment to technology, and R&D in particular, is just incredible. And today, in terms of execution, they’re marching down that path.
PH: But if we turn to Taiwan; I think we should recognize that Taiwan has some unique qualities, in terms of its ability to invest, very rapidly, very flexibly and very efficiently. It’s no coincidence that Taiwan is our biggest MOCVD market, and we have some individual Taiwan customers with more than 50 systems each. This is still the powerhouse of much of the volume of business we see in the LED industry, and I don’t see that changing in the short term. Taiwan is a very dynamic and powerful market.
Q: My understanding is that ALD faces a number of challenges, including the speed, and therefore the productive efficiency, of the process. Other considerations, in addition to throughput and batch versus single-wafer, include the design of the chamber and the design of the chemical injection system. How is the Genus legacy delivering solutions to these productivity issues and challenges?
BE: Over the past five or six years, the market for ALD has continued to grow. And where single-wafer processing was the initial force that drove the first high-K material, aluminum oxide (AlO2), into production, it quickly migrated to a batch process. AlO2 was a very well characterized material, so there were no great surprises, from that point of view. But as you continue to increase the K value of the materials, you have new precursors and new processes, and the implementation becomes a little more difficult.
The engineers are always looking for new ways to improve the incumbent technology, to delay the introduction of new material technology as much as possible. In our view the delay is driven much more by material and precursor technology today than it is say, by chamber design or by single-wafer versus batch. As we see the new materials coming in, it’s probably going to be 45nm where ALD really begins to prove its worth. There will be more conformal thin film requirements, and that will require some form of ALD or AVD in the marketplace. We think we’re very well positioned there because we have a core competence in both. That also means we can optimize the cost of ownership (CoO), so if you look at our offerings today, we see single-wafer and mini-batch being the drivers from an architectural standpoint, going forward, so whether the customer wants ALD or AVD, we can provide both.
PH: The three key elements that all technologies have to have in place to be successful are the material chemistry, the process and the equipment. Today, for ALD, it’s still very much a question of material selection, and then it’s the process and then deposition choice that are driving the equipment design, hence the importance for us to be actively involved in research, both with commercial customers and with institutions. The search is still on for the right combination of material, process and equipment, and I think the point Bill made about not underestimating the extendibility of the current technology is a tremendously important one. That’s a common factor in all industries that get to the size where they produce a roadmap, and roadmaps are essentially predictions of achievement in the future. It’s always the case that the industry is surprised by how extendible one node is, and how that extended lifetime inevitably delays the arrival of the next technology node.
BE: It’s interesting. Even in CVD, which is driving a lot of our revenue today, we continue to see improvements being driven by the customer – to change the chemistry, to change the continuous development of the film. In CVD Tungsten Silicide, where we have about 50% market share, this is a memory-driven marketplace, but we’re still doing film development in that area, and we see that technology being extended beyond 50nm. It’s these continuous improvements that delay the incoming new materials and processes, and that extends the existing technology. In addition to what we’ve seen in CVD, we’ll ship JDP systems into memory, specifically capacitor formation, and into logic, specifically the drive to metal gates. Exactly when it will come into production is still not absolutely clear. That depends on which crystal ball you read, but whenever it is, we’ll be ready.
PH: We’ve got such a range of technologies available to us now that inevitably we’re going to have a solution, whichever direction the industry goes in.
BE: Between what we’re doing in academia, in IMEC, and in the other JDPs we have with our leading customers, we’ve got pretty much every possible new application covered. Whether it’s the migration to MIM, in capacitor formation, or to metal gates in logic, I think we’re very well positioned as those transitions occur, and we’ll have production solutions ready for assessment.
I’m specifically referring to the move to high-K metal gates, of course. IMEC is very focused on that. Companies like Intel are focused on it, so it will happen, but when is anyone’s guess. There’s a lot of development going on, in the technical community, on these new materials and the transition to metal gates.
Q: I’ve been told that one of the key problems with ALD is that the process is slow, or it is at the moment, whether single-wafer or batch. Do you have any comments on the productive efficiency of ALD?
BE: When you look at ALD compared to CVD or PVD, yes, it’s slower, but at some point, CVD and PVD will not meet the customer’s production needs and you have to replace it with the thinner, more conformal films. That’s where ALD-type processes will come in. Will it be single-wafer systems or batch? I think the initial batch systems that came in were furnaces that had been modified to adapt primarily for AlO2. As you go to hafnium- and zirconium based materials and beyond, will a furnace-type batch system work? I don’t know. It will depend on the precursor, but so far precursor characteristics have not been conducive to production in a thermal furnace. Will it be mini-batch, more than single wafer? Most likely, because there are many things you can do to manage the process in a mini-batch environment, and we’re quite active in that area. So we will be in a position to provide what customers need, as they move to the higher-K materials
PH: But again; these developments will be driven by the complexity of the materials, the architecture, and the increasingly diminishing dimensions: Material, Process, Equipment – in that order.
BE: To me, the materials are the most critical factor today. They are always the most difficult aspect to integrate, at the device level.
Q: Do you see the trench approach to DRAM remaining viable at an ALD-type node, or is the future now with the stack?
BE: I haven’t seen any major DRAM player adopt trench who’s not already in it. I think there’s one player that has embraced trench, but I don’t see people that are in stack saying, “Gee, I think trench is the wave of the future.” I think it will work the other way, and the people that are in trench today will be making at least some evaluation of when to transition to stack. If you look at market share today, in memory, it’s predominantly stack technology that’s the winner. Let me add that
I’ve heard trench described as an architectural work of art rather than a manufacturing process you can take cost out of, and maybe there’s some truth to that.
Q: In a previous interview with DigiTimes.com, Paul Hyland commented that ideally the "pie chart" of company offerings would see 33% market uptake in the broad three technologies, MOCVD, Silicon and OLED. How does the pie chart look today, and what adjustments are you hoping for?
PH: I think the key term there is “ideally,” but a lot more work will have to be done before we will reach that “ideal” state. My comment was about our strategic direction and the attempt to leverage our core expertise; gas phase deposition, across as many markets as possible. Clearly MOCVD is the market where we are the major player, and we continue to do very well there. We’ve made significant investments in the past in the development of AVD technology for silicon, and now, with the merger with Genus, we can say that we do have a very sustainable position in two equipment markets, namely compound and silicon. And that’s our core business today.
However, I believe we also have a longer-term possibility, when the OLED and OVPD business develops, to look forward to a third element to our business. We’ve talked earlier about the increased percentage of consumer end-product demand being a factor in all semiconductor companies, so the ability to have a number of end-market applications is going to be a factor in helping us sustain a consistent technology development, which is key to anyone who is serving this market. Today we have two significant markets we’re able to serve. The third we continue to invest in, and it still looks promising, but perhaps on a slower time scale.
Q: You’ve already commented on the synergy between Aixtron and Genus, and you seem very pleased.
PH: We are very pleased, and I think it probably goes both ways because I think what we’ve been able to add to Genus is access to some fairly advanced modeling capabilities and gas phase transport understandings that enable us to accelerate new development. New product developments now coming through represent significant contributions from the technology group that we have at Aachen. But we are pleased because I think we can now talk about our third successful acquisition. Acquisitions are always particularly challenging, but we are now looking at the first 18 months of a very successful contribution to the business by Genus, looking forward, at a time when the markets are looking healthier.
Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 25.636.158 von Rabe66 am 23.11.06 22:27:48So gut wie alle Kauforder sind zurueckgezogen worden. Das hatte in letzter Zeit immer einen rasanten Kursanstieg zur Folge (So bloed das klingen mag, aber so war es nun mal). Das ist mir schoen oefters aufgefallen, der Kurs wird einfach von einer groesseren Partei ferngesteuert.
Mal sehn ob es uns heute auch Gutes bringt...
Mal sehn ob es uns heute auch Gutes bringt...
Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 25.635.170 von Informationis am 23.11.06 22:04:03Da muß ich dich aber enttäuschen.
so interessant ist dieses Phänomen nicht wirklich.
das beobachten wir hier schon etwas länger, daß auf Kauf und Verkaufseite zwischen 30 und 50 Tausend stücke immer mit dem Kurs mitverschoben werden ohne jemals gehandelt zu werden.
Morgen früh wirst du dir deswegen keine Sorgen machen müssen.
so interessant ist dieses Phänomen nicht wirklich.
das beobachten wir hier schon etwas länger, daß auf Kauf und Verkaufseite zwischen 30 und 50 Tausend stücke immer mit dem Kurs mitverschoben werden ohne jemals gehandelt zu werden.
Morgen früh wirst du dir deswegen keine Sorgen machen müssen.
Trading Spotlight
Wir haben heute einen sehr positiven Kursverlauf gehabt, der im späten Handel bei 3,43 € endete. Dabei gibt es keinerlei offizielle neue Meldungen (und keinerlei Pusherei an den Boards).
Interessant ist ein Blick auf das heutige Orderbuch Xetra. Wir hatte seit Tagen größere Verkaufsorder im Bereich von 3,40 € bzw. 3,41 €. Davor ist der Kurs mehrfach zurückgeschreckt. Es bildete sich ein Widerstand. Gleichzeitig gab es größere Kauforder jeweils ca. 10 Cent unterhalb dieser Verkaufsaufträge. Hier hat jemand mehrfach erfolgreich größere Stückzahlne eingesammelt.
Dies ist zunächst okay und durchaus normal. Heute ist jedoch dann etwas Interessantes passiert. Als der Kurs sich gegen Mittag deutlich Richtung 3,40 € bewegte und damit die Chancen wuchsen, dass die großen Verkaufspositionen um 3,41 € ausgeführt werden, wanderten die Limits plötzlich nach oben. Ab 14:00 Uhr befanden sich 30.000 Stücke (doppelt so viel wie z.B. in Stuttgart heute insgesamt gehandelt wurden), die eben noch zu 3,41 € standen, plötzlich bei 3,43 €. Als auch hier die Ausführung drohte, wanderte die gleiche Position noch höher auf 2,45 € und gegen 17:00 sogar auf 2,48 €.
Hier will jemand also gar nicht verkaufen, sondern nur psychologisch Druck auf den Kurs ausüben und ihn damit (eventuell für eigene Aufkäufe) unten halten. Das alles deutet auf professionelle Marktteilnehmer - Fonds oder Optionsschein-Emitenten - hin. Eventuell prügeln die den Kurs dann morgen früh - wenn noch wenig Order vorliegen - noch einmal etwas runter.
Den Rest kann sich dann aber jeder selber weiter zusammenspekulieren.
Interessant ist ein Blick auf das heutige Orderbuch Xetra. Wir hatte seit Tagen größere Verkaufsorder im Bereich von 3,40 € bzw. 3,41 €. Davor ist der Kurs mehrfach zurückgeschreckt. Es bildete sich ein Widerstand. Gleichzeitig gab es größere Kauforder jeweils ca. 10 Cent unterhalb dieser Verkaufsaufträge. Hier hat jemand mehrfach erfolgreich größere Stückzahlne eingesammelt.
Dies ist zunächst okay und durchaus normal. Heute ist jedoch dann etwas Interessantes passiert. Als der Kurs sich gegen Mittag deutlich Richtung 3,40 € bewegte und damit die Chancen wuchsen, dass die großen Verkaufspositionen um 3,41 € ausgeführt werden, wanderten die Limits plötzlich nach oben. Ab 14:00 Uhr befanden sich 30.000 Stücke (doppelt so viel wie z.B. in Stuttgart heute insgesamt gehandelt wurden), die eben noch zu 3,41 € standen, plötzlich bei 3,43 €. Als auch hier die Ausführung drohte, wanderte die gleiche Position noch höher auf 2,45 € und gegen 17:00 sogar auf 2,48 €.
Hier will jemand also gar nicht verkaufen, sondern nur psychologisch Druck auf den Kurs ausüben und ihn damit (eventuell für eigene Aufkäufe) unten halten. Das alles deutet auf professionelle Marktteilnehmer - Fonds oder Optionsschein-Emitenten - hin. Eventuell prügeln die den Kurs dann morgen früh - wenn noch wenig Order vorliegen - noch einmal etwas runter.
Den Rest kann sich dann aber jeder selber weiter zusammenspekulieren.
Recht hoher Umsatz heute und gestern. Dabei sind auch ganz ordentliche Stückzahlen im Block gehandelt worden.
Na dann!
Na dann!
Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 25.610.948 von wolf4920032000 am 22.11.06 23:09:41Hallo Wolfgang,
schön, dass Du wieder an Bord bist...
mfg
skat
schön, dass Du wieder an Bord bist...
mfg
skat
Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 25.625.966 von Rabe66 am 23.11.06 17:37:08Dann wollen wir mal hoffen, dass dies alles so eintrifft.
Könnte fast ein bullisher ´morning doji star´ diese Woche gewesen sein. Er(ake no myojyo doji bike) beendet oft einen Abwärtstrend. Im Anschluß an eine lange schwarze Kerze eröffnet der zweite Tag mit einem Down-GAP. Eröffnungs- und Schlußkurs des zweiten Tages sind nahezu gleich. Der dritte Tag eröffnet mit einem Upward-GAP und läuft tief in den ersten schwarzen Kerzenkörper hinein.
Durchsuchen
10.05.24 · wO Newsflash · American Express |
09.05.24 · dpa-AFX · Allianz |
09.05.24 · dpa-AFX · Infineon Technologies |
09.05.24 · dpa-AFX · Infineon Technologies |
08.05.24 · wO Chartvergleich · Plug Power |
07.05.24 · dpa-AFX · AIXTRON |
02.05.24 · Aktienwelt360 · Steico |
