Aehr is a familiar stock to those who have been with the I/O Fund for some time. We’ve held the stock in the past, participating in the company’s former upward trajectory from wafer testing and burn-in systems that stress test devices to avoid early failures.  

While Aehr has struggled as of late, plagued by weakness in EVs weighing heavily on SiC revenue, the company is working to pivot for wafer testing and burn-in of AI processors following last year’s acquisition of Incal. Though Aehr’s stock has witnessed a sharp rally since the summer following a handful of AI orders, growth in FY26 remains pressured by SiC weakness as AI begins to ramp up.  

Background on AEHR: 

The primary market where AEHR saw former success was with electric vehicles (EVs) as Tesla, for example, made the switch from Si-IGBT (silicon-insulated bipolar transistors) to silicon carbide MOSFETs for EV components. By switching to silicon carbide (SiC), Tesla was able to build traction inverters, DC/DC inverters, on-board chargers, fast chargers and energy storage applications that charged faster and offered a longer range of miles. We’ve covered this in the past here. 

As you can imagine, Aehr's stock has struggled over the past two years as EV sales have declined, causing companies like ON Semi (who supplies Tesla) to cut their orders with Aehr.  

Yet, Aehr’s stock has seen a resurgence as of late based on its burn-in solutions for AI processors. Similar to EVs, by stress testing the chips at elevated temperatures and voltages (“burn in”) at the wafer-level, Aehr can lower costs from failures happening at the package or system level. Overall, Aehr’s value proposition is to make sure expensive chips don’t fail when placed under stress. 

Although silicon carbide is becoming a lower percentage of Aehr’s overall revenue as they shift toward AI processors, it’s Aehr’s background with silicon carbide that is becoming useful for AI data centers to perform testing to prevent overheating or other failures at the wafer level. Per the CEO: “Many AI processor companies are talking about billions of dollars of devices a year with the largest AI processor company in the world shipping over $100 billion worth of processors in the data center applications this year alone. Even a 0.1% increase in yield by shifting the burn-in of devices from the system or heterogeneous package level to wafer level is very significant.”  

Testing at the wafer level is attractive due to the complexities of AI hardware, as advanced packages combine multiple GPU or ASIC dies (including dual-die setups) with 8- to 12-high HBM stacks—often totaling dozens of memory dies, all assembled via technologies such as CoWoS. This complexity increases as AI processors reach the reticle limit (maximum area that can be exposed in a single path of lithography equipment). By using chiplets, or smaller dies, to form a larger system, the reticle limit is circumvented for a larger transistor count. This places more emphasis on CoWoS technologies to integrate multiple chiplets onto an interposer. 

When Nvidia attempted to use CoWoS-L packaging, there were reported delays due to “alleged mismatch in the coefficient of thermal expansion (CTE) among the GPU chiplets, LSI bridges, RDL interposer, and motherboard substrate led to warping and system failure.” 

What that describes is that AI processors and advanced packaging could benefit from earlier testing as these delays of about 3 months in production have led to nearly 6-9 months in delayed timelines for shipping in volume.  

InCal Acquisition and Sonoma Systems 

Aehr announced its acquisition of Incal just over a year ago, buying the AI semiconductor burn-in test solutions manufacturer for total consideration of $21 million, or ~1.75x Incal’s TTM revenue of ~$12 million at the time. While the deal was financially accretive on the top-line, more importantly, it is Incal’s Sonoma Test System that is the primary product driving Aehr’s AI and HPC transition. The high-powered system is used for test and burn-in of leading-edge AI processors/GPUs and networking chips up to 2,000 watts.  

Combined with Aehr’s FOX systems, Aehr is now the only company that can offer wafer-level and package part burn-in for qualification and production of AI processers. Additionally, Aehr can offer prospective customers direct, side-by-side comparisons for testing costs, output, operational costs, and impact on yields, translating to improved results at the manufacturing level and higher revenue and profits from improved yield. 

At the time of the acquisition, Aehr stated that it believed that its manufacturing capacity and R&D resources would help accelerate production and adoption of Incal’s Sonoma Systems in the AI market. Aehr backed this up in Q4 by stating that it has shipped more Sonoma systems post-closing than Incal had in the prior three years.  

In Q4, Aehr disclosed that it has upgraded its facility to be able to manufacture ten to 20 systems at once, if needed, should demand require them to produce multiple systems at once for different customer shipments. Aehr said that it won its first production AI processor customer during the fiscal year and received “initial volume production orders for the multiple Sonoma ultra-high-power system.” This customer, while unnamed, was stated to be a premier data center hyperscaler producing their own AI processors and ramping capacity significantly. 

More orders for the Sonoma systems have been a core factor in Aehr’s recent multi-month rally, as the broader opportunity for wafer-level and package part burn-in for AI is multiples larger than SiC. These orders are instilling a higher degree of confidence in Aehr’s ability to transition to a higher AI mix while navigating the difficulties of SiC.  

Silicon Photonics ICs: Another Upcoming Market 

Another emerging opportunity for Aehr is the silicon photonic IC market, as adoption of optical chip-to-chip and optical networking switches rises with Nvidia, AMD, Intel, TSMC and GlobalFoundries all announcing roadmaps featuring optical chip-to-chip communication.  

Silicon photonics are expected to be the only viable choice for rack-to-rack interconnects and across the data center due to the need for high bandwidth and lower power at high speeds. There is also low-loss over long distances with optical fiber, which refers to preserving the original signal, whereas copper sees signal degradation over longer distances. For example, Nvidia stated that by replacing pluggable optics with silicon photonics on the package, it can “deliver 3.5x more power efficiency, 63x greater signal integrity, 10x better network resiliency at scale and 1.3x faster deployment compared with traditional methods.”   

Aehr says it has five to six customers in the SiPho space, some noted above, with one of the customers being an OSAT (outsourced semiconductor assembly and test) that purchases Aehr’s systems. Management said that they have seen a “significant number of new wafer pack designs from our installed base of systems…that they use for qualification and development work on their FOX wafer level test and burn-in systems.” 

Additionally, Aehr stated that it now is offering a new higher-power system, up to 3,500 watts per wafer, to meet the higher power needs for optical I/O and chip-to-chip communication devices. The new system is available as an upgrade to FOX-NP systems for low-volume production and to the FOX-XP 9-wafer system for higher-volume production. 

However, while SiPho is emerging as an entirely new market to capture, the long-term opportunity remains rather limited, with management forecasting SiPho’s opportunity to be smaller than SiC by the end of the decade. 

Recent AI Orders Rejuvenate Shares with 63% Rally 

On July 22nd, Aehr shared a press release in which it announced orders for 8 Sonoma systems from its lead production AI-processor hyperscale customer, with delivery expected to occur over the next 2-3 quarters. On August 26th, an additional press releaseadditional press release announced a follow-on order for 6 more Sonoma systems from the same hyperscaler, with delivery scheduled across the next 2 quarters (likely contributing to FY26 H1).  

This concurred with a paid evaluation of Aehr’s Fox-XP systems from a leading AI processor supplier, announced on August 25. Aehr said this 3-6 month paid evaluation features a custom WaferPak high-power wafer contactor and a production wafer-level burn-in test program development. Management noted that while they cannot guarantee a final purchase, they believe this marks the first step toward adoption of its WLBI solutions as an alternative to this customer’s production burn-in done in later manufacturing. They also believe that a successful evaluation phase could quickly transfer into high-volume production, which they see as a significant growth opportunity. Notably, Aehr has already proven to some degree that its FOX-XP system is viable for high-volume test and burn-in for AI processors, having received a >$10 million order in December 2024 from a leading AI accelerator company. 

Tracking these AI orders and related revenue is important as AI is now a much larger portion of Aehr’s revenue, both from the acquisition of Incal and the SiC slowdown. For example, AI accounted for 0% of Aehr’s revenue in FY24, but more than 35% in FY25, and these orders suggest AI’s contribution could increase further in FY26 as deliveries occur. 

Despite weak financial results reported in FY25, 14 Sonoma systems ordered over a 2-month span by a single customer helps validate the efficacy of the tech. While underwhelmed with the recently reported results discussed further below, investors have now turned optimistic due to these repeat orders & the potential for revenue growth. 

2026 Revenue Estimates Getting Crushed 

This flurry of orders has rejuvenated Aehr’s stock with shares rising 63% since the first order announcement in July, signaling increased optimism in Aehr’s ability to capture more AI-related growth as the silicon carbide market lags. This compares to less than a 2% gain for the Nasdaq 100 over the same period. 

The big question here for Aehr and for investors likely hinges on one key facet: can these new AI orders help drive a meaningful inflection in revenue to make this run sustainable. Since April, Aehr’s valuation has tripled, and shares no longer appear cheap considering FY26 revenue estimates have gotten crushed even after a weak FY25.  

For FY26, revenue estimates have plunged from $92 million in Oct 2024 to $73 million in April 2025 and now barely $61 million in August. This would correspond to minimal 4% YoY growth after a challenging FY25 where revenue declined nearly (11%) YoY. It’s important to note that visibility on Aehr’s future growth can be very limited with minimal analyst coverage, so estimates can change quickly, such as if Aehr secures a large order. 

What would be crucial to see here is if these recent AI orders can help drive revenue for the year higher, or if SiC headwinds will weigh on growth. SiC had accounted for >90% of revenue in FY24, though it declined sharply to <40% in FY25, or a decline of more than (56%) YoY.  Keep in mind that Aehr also warned that SiC may not experience order growth in fiscal 2026 as “customer forecasts for this market are back-half loaded, with stronger growth expected in our fiscal 2027.”  

Timing Issues Impact Q4 Revenue, Yet Rebound is Prolonged 

Fiscal 2025 revenue declined (10.9%) YoY to $59.0 million, versus FY24 revenue of $66.2 million, reflecting a continued SiC slowdown and tougher prior-year comps, with Q4’24 being a very strong quarter due to elevated EV chip demand. Revenue declines in Systems (-9% YoY) and Contractors (-18% YoY) were partially offset by increase in Services +37% YoY as Incal acquisition contributed $18.6M to FY25 post close, up more than 50% YoY. While SiC / EV revenue weakened, early signs of diversifications towards AI, HDD, services, and US mix helped dampen the decline.  

Q4’25 was also tough with revenue of $14.1 million, a (23%) decline against Q3’25 revenue of $18.3M. Year over year figures reflect the same softness, a 15.1% decline of $2.5M YoY from Q4’24 revenue of $16.6M. Management noted the YoY decrease was “primarily due to a delayed shipment of a FOX-CP system that was forecasted to be shipped to our hard disk drive customer. Because of tariff-related uncertainties, probers sourced from Asia to support the FOX-CP system were delayed. We now expect to complete this shipment in our current quarter, Q1 of fiscal 2026.”  

Beyond this timing issue, product-line trends provide additional insight into the revenue composition. WaferPak revenues were $4.2 million and accounted for 30% of Q4 revenue, underscoring Aehr’s ongoing pivot toward packaged-part burn-in. Package part burn-in now represents nearly half of quarterly revenue, partially offsetting legacy wafer-level volatility.: “Sonoma, Tahoe and ACO package part burn-in systems continue to contribute strongly, accounting for 44% of our fourth quarter revenue. .” The takeaway here Is that Q4's revenue contraction reflects end-market and timing headwinds, not necessarily competitive erosion – positioning Aehr for potential rebound as deferred shipments clear and packaged-part momentum continues. 

As we look out to FY26, analysts see Q1 revenue of $11.46 million, a decline of both (20%) QoQ and (16%) YoY. For Q2, analysts see revenue of $14.4 million, signaling a pick up to 26% QoQ but just 7% YoY. Coming into the year, analysts originally expected 30% YoY growth for FY26. That number has now fizzled down to a measly 4%.  Management would argue that a strong pipeline in AI and memory could make FY26 a different story. 

Geographically, Aehr was able to generate YoY revenue growth in Q4’25 from the US ($4.1 million vs $3.8 million) and Europe ($1.3 million versus $0.9 million). Unfortunately, the sharp decline in Asia revenue ($8.7 million vs $12.9 million) significantly offset any of these incremental improvements. Management noted that the Asia softness was driven by tariff-related uncertainties (e.g. sourcing disruption in Asia) causing delayed shipment of FOX-CP System, although shipment is now expected to occur in Q1’26.  

Key Segments

Contractors Revenue: 

• Q4’25 vs Q3’25 (QoQ): $7.35 million vs $9.91 million (Q3’25) represents a (25.8%) decline  
• Q4 FY25 vs Q4 FY24 (YoY): $7.35 million vs $9.80 million represents a (25%) decline  
• FY25 vs FY24 (YoY): $30.8 million vs $37.5 million (FY24) represents a (17.9%) decline 

Contractors revenue was the most cyclical and the biggest drag on QoQ and YoY performance. Contractors scale with system utilization – less wafers going through Aehr equaling lower contractor demand.  

Systems Revenue: 

• Q4’25 vs Q3’25 (QoQ): $4.78 million vs $6.28 million (Q3’25) represents a (23.9%) decline  
• Q4 FY25 vs Q4 FY24 (YoY): $4.78 million vs $4.96 million (Q4’24) represents a (3.6%) decline 
• FY25 vs FY24 (YoY): $22.0 million vs $24.2 million (FY24) represents a (9.1%) decline. 

Q4 systems shipments were lighter than Q3 which reflects timing of customer evaluations and slower follow-on orders from SiC. System revenue will be lumpy and fluctuate quarter to quarter, with the full year decline tied to fewer installs in the Asia/ EV end market. 

Services Revenue 

• Q4’25 vs Q3’25 (QoQ): $1.96 million vs $2.08 million (Q3’25) represents a (5.8%) decline. 
• Q4 FY25 vs Q4 FY24 (YoY): $1.96 million vs $1.84 million (Q4’24) represents a 6.5% increase.  
• FY25 vs FY24 (YoY): $6.14 million vs $4.49 million (FY24) represents a 36.8% increase.  

Service revenues are contract-driven and therefore recurring and less volatile in nature. While down QoQ, the slight growth in YoY metrics noted above shows stickiness with existing customer base and early AI evaluation work. While systems and contractor revenue swings, look for services revenue to act as a stabilizer. 

Margins Show Sharp YoY Contraction 

Q4’25 Adjusted Gross Profit came in at $4.89 million, reflecting an adjusted GM of 34.7%, down 42.7% reported in Q3’25. YoY figures reflect even more weakness, down significantly from 51.5% reported in Q4’24. Q4’25 gross margin marks the 3rd sequential quarter of margin degradation.  

Management noted margin softness in the quarter was partially driven “high manufacturing overhead due to under absorption as our manufacturing capacity utilization was lower during the renovation of our Fremont site and the consolidation of inventory from the Incal facility.” In simpler terms, certain factory costs can either be (i) expensed right away as period costs in the P&L, or (ii) be capitalized into inventory and only hit the P&L when that inventory is sold. When production runs at normal levels, more of those costs are absorbed into inventory. But when volumes fall (like during down-time or site renovations), fewer costs are absorbed into product, meaning a bigger share flows straight to expense in the current quarter – reducing margins. 

FY2025 Adjusted Gross Profit was $23.9 million versus FY2025 Gross Profit of $32.5 million, down (26.4%), reflecting a margin of ~40.6% (down ~8.5% YoY). Compared to FY2024, the margin compression & overall decline in gross profit can be attributed to: (1) volume pressure (2) inventory step-up amortization related to Incal acquisition and (3) mix shift toward lower-margin packaged part-systems. Until the backlog can convert from orders to shipments and contribute to acceleration in top line growth, expect a continued trend of lack-luster margin performance. 

Q4’25 Adjusted Operating loss was ($0.55 million), reflecting a –3.9% operating margin. The QoQ decline from 8.2% GM in Q3’25 is due to the gross margin squeeze mentioned above in combination with ~$0.86M in restructuring charges. The YoY decline from 20.60% is attributed to a handful of factors: prior-year was profitable, the current year includes Incal integration, lower gross profit, and higher R&D pend for AI systems. 

FY25 Adjusted Operating Loss of ($4.3M) declined substantially YoY, down $15.8M from $10.1M reported in FY24. This was also driven by the lower gross profit, higher R&D / SG&A spend tied to AI systems and Incal acquisition integration costs mentioned above. Operating leverage turned negative as opex remained relatively flat while revenue declined.  

EPS Back to Negative in Q4

Q4’25 Net Income of ($0.25 million), down from $1.9 million in Q3’25 and $24.7 million in Q4’24. Q4 net margin came in at (1.8%), down significantly from the 10.8% reported in Q3. The swing downward should not be considered a seasonal dip as it reflects timing issues and margin compression. YoY comps are skewed by the $20M one-time tax benefit but reflect the same weakness. In future quarters, watch for these margins to recover with volumes – if they don’t that signals additional issues beyond timing noise.  

Balance Sheet & Cash Flow

Cash & Equivalents: $24.5M, Down $4.9M or ~16.6% QoQ; Down -$24.6M or –50% YoY. On a quarterly basis, the decline is driven by cash usage from negative OCF (-$7.4M) and higher capitalized expenditures. Q4 inventory build flattened while receivables and order timing consumed cash. On an annual basis, this decline is driven mainly by cumulative FCF burn in FY25 of -$12.4M along with Incal acquisition related spend. The takeaway here is that the Company has plenty of runway with ~$25M in cash and little debt. A re-acceleration in revenue could help the company avoid having to tap into its $100M shelf.  

Inventory: $42.0M, Modest QoQ decrease (–0.8%), up ~12% YoY.  Inventory build continued for anticipated new orders (AI, HDD, NAND) even while SiC slowed. We will continue to monitor these levels to understand how the new systems are ramping. If SiC continues to slow which could cause inventory to become excess / obsolete.    

Bookings for Q4 were $11.1M, less than half of Q3’s $24.1M. Backlog slipped to Q4 were $15.2M compared to $18.2M in PQ. With $14.1M in revenues for Q4, bookings did not fully cover sales, requiring backlog drawdown to support revenue. A disappointing performance compared to Q3 where bookings of $24.1M comfortably exceeded revenue of $18.3M. Management noted “while there was only a small amount of revenue in the fiscal year from wafer level burn-in in Hard Disk Drive components, about 10% of our order bookings for FY25 came from this new market, all of which we expect to ship and generate revenue from during this fiscal year now, '26.” 

Effective Backlog (to include bookings received after quarter-end) of $16.3 million.  

Net Working Capital: $73.1 million (–3.3% QoQ; –16.3% YoY). The decline in net working capital is linked to AR & AP, as order timing and delayed FOX-CP shipment affect both cash collection and payables alignment.  

Debt: None, aside from lease obligations (ST $0.91 million; LT $9.92 million).  

Operating Cash Flow: -$7.4M (vs. +$1.2M prior); margin: –16.3%. This is largely driven by weak earnings performance but also compounded by the consumption of working capital. Cash burn levels remain manageable when compared to liquidity, signaling that AEHR doesn’t appear to be in near-term distress.   

CapEx: $5.0M (vs. $0.75M) is elevated due to Incal integration and capacity expansion. 

Free Cash Flow: –$12.4M (vs. +$1.0M); FCF margin: –21.0%. These stats mentioned above reflect poor financial performance in a transitional year that included high integration costs. An improvement in future cash generation could be driven by (1) shipment of the delayed FOX-CP or (2) a ramp in AI/HDD/NAND.  

Earnings Q&A:  

AI Market is 3-5X Larger than SiC/EV Market for Aehr 

The flurry of orders and resurgence of optimism tied to a handful of Sonoma orders is underpinned by the fact that the AI market is 3x to 5x larger than SiC, where strong growth in 2021 drove a >10x increase in Aehr’s stock within the year. Thus, the relative size of the AI opportunity theoretically could open the door to more explosive growth in the future as capex on test and burn equipment is attached to a much larger device base with strong forward growth prospects.  

Aehr laid out a tentative discussion on the TAM that they believe they have in AI processors versus SiC: 

“The original silicon carbide models that took a look at, say, the target applications for silicon carbide, which were primarily the electric vehicles, how many EVs, how many components would be in it, et cetera, et cetera, you could come up with how many wafer starts that would require in, say, 2030. And I know that you had put some models together at that time. There were about 4 million wafer starts. We looked at 12-hour burn-in time, single insertion with our systems. Long story short, we saw that the total market was somewhere 300, 350 of our systems with ASPs about $4 million a piece or something like that.” 

Back of the napkin math here places SiC’s 2030 modeled TAM at $1.2 billion to $1.4 billion. For AI, management said that by 2030, wafer starts may actually end up around half that of SiC, but because these are 300mm wafers, up to 20,000 watts of power, they require multiple touchdowns as testing is only done at 3,000 to 4,000 watts at a time. This is where management sees the market at 3x to 5x SiC, or a $3.6 billion to $7 billion TAM.  

Potential For More Incoming Orders: 

As we have seen with the recent orders in August, the potential for more intra-quarter orders is a key factor in moving Aehr’s stock. Aehr does have the paid evaluation that they expect to complete over the next one to two quarters, with the possibility of transitioning to high-volume production afterwards; management hinted in Q4’s call that the decision could be made within six months with orders thereafter. They did not quantify potential sizing, but expect it to be a “significant opportunity” should it reach high-volume production as this customer’s capacity requirements are significant.  

Outside of this, management stated in the call that they do expect more evaluation phases with other AI companies this year, allowing them to capture a “meaningful share” of the AI processor burn-in market with its FOX systems and WaferPak contactors. 

Analysts also asked about Aehr’s first AI customer, understood to be behind the December 2024 $10 million order: 

Larry Edward Chlebina 

Gayn, that first AI customer at the OSAT, so they're — are you under the belief that they're really pleased with it? And do you expect more orders from them in the near future? 

Gayn Erickson 

Yes to both of those. Wait, you said near future. I want to be careful of setting any time lines, but I'll go out and say we expect more — just more this year, though. 

Larry Edward Chlebina 

And then now you have another AI customer in evaluation. So that's the second one for wafer level burn-in. And then you have a third one that's going after the production in the package part burn-in. Are they 3 distinct AI customers? Or are they… 

Gayn Erickson 

Yes, totally different. 

Update on Customers & Concentration Easing 

Aehr also provided some insight into current and prospective customers and customer concentration, noting that expansion into new markets is leading to customer concentration easing.  

Christian David Schwab  

Gayn, I've received a lot of questions regarding your most recent slide in your investor deck with a lot of well-known marquee names. And I'm just — is that — should investors think of that list as a list of current and previous customers? Or does it include maybe names of prospective customers such as new AI customers that you're working with or new silicon photonics customers, et cetera? How should we be thinking about that slide?  

Gayn Erickson  

So we're — yes, we're — the new SEC rules do not require you to name it. So unless we already have prior arranged agreements with the customers to name them, we're no longer doing that. Prior to that SEC rule, we could name them even if the customers objected, if you will, but we're not doing that now. 

Below is Aehr’s slide naming its global customers, which it says is a partial list – some of the top names include Nvidia, Google, Microsoft, Marvell & Inphi, Samsung, TSMC, Broadcom and Qualcomm.  

For customer concentration, Aehr said that it now has three companies representing >10% of revenue for FY25, with two of these customers “representing new markets and customers.  

Tariff Uncertainty Still Lingering 

Aehr has been fairly open about the effects of recent fluctuating tariff policy on results, providing commentary on tariff-impacted order timing. Aehr also temporarily withdrew its guidance as of Q3 and has not yet reinstated the figure.  

In Q4’s call, Aehr said that in April they were primarily concerned with the “potential secondary impacts on our current and prospective customers as well as the possibility of pauses or delays in customer orders, shipments or supply chain deliveries.” Aehr also said that they “know it must be a broken record to hear terms like uncertainty around tariffs on many company earnings calls, but this is still the case.” 

Management followed this up by saying that they still seeing tariff-related impacts on specific order timing, particularly for fiscal Q1. Additionally, there was more clarity on the delayed FOX-CP shipment to its Japanese HDD customer. Aehr had expected to receive a high-power prober part shipment for its FOX-CP systems by the end of May, yet the first shipment was not received until early July, delaying delivery.  

Conclusion 

Aehr’s AI pivot has renewed optimism in the stock, with AI now contributing 35% of revenue for FY25 with more orders suggesting growth in AI can continue. However, Aehr’s primary market in SiC remains weak, and management has noted that SiC may not grow in FY26, with revenue estimates plunging over the past few months as a result.  

Overall, the AI processor market opens the door to a much larger TAM for Aehr’s systems compared to SiC, with management believing it to be 3x to 5x larger by 2030. Should Aehr successfully pivot to AI processor test and burn-in, and continue to scale capacity, production and orders, it can pave the way for stronger revenue growth in FY27 and beyond.

Every Thursday at 4:30 pm Eastern, the I/O Fund team holds a webinar for premium members to discuss how to navigate the broad market, as well as various stock and crypto entries and exits. Beth Kindig offers weekly deep dives including lesser-known cryptocurrencies and AI stocks, plus the team offers trade alerts. The I/O Fund team is one of the only audited portfolios available to individual investors. To receive $100 off our Advanced tier use ADVANCED100 or click here and email your request to upgrade.4:30 pm Eastern, the I/O Fund team holds a webinar for premium members to discuss how to navigate the broad market, as well as various stock and crypto entries and exits. Beth Kindig offers weekly deep dives including lesser-known cryptocurrencies and AI stocks, plus the team offers trade alerts. The I/O Fund team is one of the only audited portfolios available to individual investors. To receive $100 off our Advanced tier use ADVANCED100 or click hereclick here and email your request to upgrade.

Please note: The I/O Fund conducts research and draws conclusions for the Fund’s positions. We then share that information with our readers. This is not a guarantee of a stock’s performance. Please consult your personal financial advisor before buying any stock in the companies mentioned in this analysis.

Recommended Reading:

• Lumentum: Stronger QoQ Growth than Coherent, New $600M Quarterly Revenue Target
• Bitcoin Miners Addressing AI’s Near-term Time to Power Bottleneck with up to $50 Billion in Commitments
• Innodata: FY25 Revenue Growth Raised to >45%, yet Largest Customer Revenue is Flat for Two Quarters
• Vertiv Q2: Margins to Rebound by Q4, Yet Growth is Decelerating