TBU
Semiconductor & AI Infrastructure Commentary
Danaher's rebound looks like one to fade near $190 because bioprocessing, its bigger business, delivered disappointing sales and guidance. Weak trading in peers, with Repligen also lower, echoed that. A move from $165 to $190 in two days seems off; the initial flush may have been overdone, but it is hard to argue Danaher deserves to trade back at $200, where it entered earnings, after that bioprocessing commentary. x.comÂ
Danaher's AI-driven life-sciences expectations look excessive against its results. After a 44% rise since May on hopes AI would lift life sciences to unprecedented levels, it missed Q3 revenue and guided Q4 growth to just 4-5%. x.comÂ
Danaher is a cleaner way than Thermo Fisher to play an aging population. Its greater bioprocessing exposure ties it more directly to drug cost of goods. x.comÂ
Thermo Fisher is too expensive to own at 26x next-twelve-month EPS with earnings growing only 10%. That is a 2.6x PEG ratio, not as stretched as FICO or Intuitive Surgical at their highs, but still no chance worth owning. @mathlonning, in the thread being answered, calls the valuation unsustainable. x.comÂ
Biotech tools stocks such as Charles River and Illumina are in a narrative-driven mania while their fundamentals haven't really moved. Charles River is ripping after reaffirming guidance for negative revenue growth this year. Illumina hasn't grown in five years, yet trades at over 50x earnings and 35x EV/EBITDA, with merely fine margins. Five straight years of easier comparisons are being sold as a coiled spring. x.com x.com x.comÂ
Iambic's R&D split and the basket's returns show why data-generating lab work matters more than compute in applied AI biotech. Iambic's S-1 puts about 8 cents of its 2025 R&D dollar into compute, 31 into discovery and the lab, and 28.5 into the clinic. After two months, the basket rose 20.5% versus -0.2% for the S&P 500 and -4.8% for biotech. Data-producing names rose 33.5%, or 16.8% without Moderna's readout day, versus 9% for bioprocess and reagents. The market bought the data. x.comÂ
Bruker's 20% drop on an unremarkable quarter looks overdone, and about half that loss should recover quickly. Its technology is incredible even if management is less than stellar, and eventually the technology is all that will matter. The AI-driven biotech capital spending boom has yet to arrive after Trump-administration cuts, and the inflection should be huge; as AI showed, buyers fight for scarce equipment at multiples of prior prices, so any AI aspirant should want a piece of Bruker. x.com … Show more
Johnson & Johnson's valuation does not make sense at a premium to Thermo Fisher and roughly flat to Danaher. @PythiaR, replying, calls J&J a clean story with limited patent-loss risk until the 2030s and a strong pipeline, but expensive at 22x, and prefers medtech such as Stryker. Pharma may simply have been easier to own than medtech given OBBB payer eligibility changes and hospital procedure volume risk, while life sciences has disappointed. x.comÂ
Thermo Fisher trading back at roughly Liberation Day multiples doesn't make much sense. Its guide was only 'down' against expectations that had grown too high at 25x earlier this year, after the stock re-rated once Liberation Day fears proved too pessimistic about the actual tariff, NIH and pharma-pricing impact. The other explanation is that an inflation shock is bad for long-duration assets. x.comÂ
Bioprocessing suppliers gain a new demand tailwind as antibody drugs shift from IV to subcutaneous injectables, per @Borlaug_. SubQ could add 1-3% to bioprocess demand growth over 5-10 years, and one drug that added a subQ version in 2025 is on track to add 150bps to industry volume in 2027. Antibodies are 85%+ of bioprocess sales at Danaher, Thermo Fisher, Sartorius, Sartorius Stedim and Repligen, and their volume grows 6-7% a year, supporting a high-single-digit floor for consumables growth. … Show more