Schulz Duggan(@Schulz_Research):$NVDA guided fiscal 2028 to roughly 70% revenue growth on 26 August. I went back to that call this week, because the sentence sitting directly after the number is the one doing the work, and almost nobody quotes it. Colette Kress: "This is a supply-constrained outlook." Huang, on the same call: "even though our demand is much greater than 70%, our supply allows us to confidently deliver 70%." So 70 is what the supply chain can physically hand over. The demand number lives somewhere else. At Goldman Sachs on Wednesday the interviewer put a size on that somewhere else, unconstrained demand growth of over 100%, and Huang went straight into answering the question without correcting the figure. Call it 30 points of demand that exist and do not get filled. Those 30 points do not evaporate. They sit as pricing power with whoever is holding up the line. Three minutes before that exchange he had already listed who that is, unprompted and in order. Packaging. DRAM. LPDDR DRAM. Connectors. Voltage regulators. Wafers. He said "everything is challenging" twice while working through it, which is not a phrase you use about a supply chain you have solved. Four of the six are places we already sit. Packaging is $AMKR and ASE at 3711 TT. DRAM and the LPDDR line are $MU, $SKHY and Samsung. Wafers is partly $GFS, $AXTI and $IQE, though the actual silicon underneath is Shin-Etsu and SUMCO and neither of those trades here. Two of them we hold nothing in, and that is the part I have been chewing on since. Connectors is $APH and $TEL. Voltage regulators is $MPWR, Infineon and Renesas. Both got named in the same breath as DRAM by the single largest buyer of all of it, and neither is anywhere near as crowded a trade. $MU at 989 and $SKHY at 191 overnight are not undiscovered. $APH at 81 and $AMKR at 50 are a different conversation. Downstream he switched vocabulary to land, power and shell, and said the neoclouds go and secure it because the hyperscalers have already exhausted theirs. $BE at 267 sells the only item on that whole list that cannot be shipped in from anywhere. The detail I keep returning to is why they guided a full year out in the first place. Huang said flatly they have never done it: "we've never forecasted or never guided to a year in advance." The reason he gave was that customers, shareholders and the supply chain should all see the same view. Read that again as what it is. A capacity signal pointed upstream, telling six industries how much to go and build. Worth being straight about what is not proven. The 100% is the interviewer's framing, and declining to correct a number is thinner evidence than stating one. A company telling you its suppliers are tight is also a company pre-explaining a future miss. And the fat part of this list has been obvious to everyone for a year. What would change my read: if NVIDIA lifts the 70% at any point before fiscal 2028 closes, the constraint eased and the rent compresses with it, so watch which line they credit when they do it. If instead they are still saying supply-constrained twelve months from now, the six names have a longer runway than their multiples currently assume. Cleanest single tell is $MU's print in late September, because DRAM is the one he bothered to say twice.

2026.09.11 09:16

$NVDA guided fiscal 2028 to roughly 70% revenue growth on 26 August. I went back to that call this week, because the sentence sitting directly after the number is the one doing the work, and almost nobody quotes it. Colette Kress: "This is a supply-constrained outlook." Huang, on the same call: "even though our demand is much greater than 70%, our supply allows us to confidently deliver 70%." So 70 is what the supply chain can physically hand over. The demand number lives somewhere else. At Goldman Sachs on Wednesday the interviewer put a size on that somewhere else, unconstrained demand growth of over 100%, and Huang went straight into answering the question without correcting the figure. Call it 30 points of demand that exist and do not get filled. Those 30 points do not evaporate. They sit as pricing power with whoever is holding up the line. Three minutes before that exchange he had already listed who that is, unprompted and in order. Packaging. DRAM. LPDDR DRAM. Connectors. Voltage regulators. Wafers. He said "everything is challenging" twice while working through it, which is not a phrase you use about a supply chain you have solved. Four of the six are places we already sit. Packaging is $AMKR and ASE at 3711 TT. DRAM and the LPDDR line are $MU, $SKHY and Samsung. Wafers is partly $GFS, $AXTI and $IQE, though the actual silicon underneath is Shin-Etsu and SUMCO and neither of those trades here. Two of them we hold nothing in, and that is the part I have been chewing on since. Connectors is $APH and $TEL. Voltage regulators is $MPWR, Infineon and Renesas. Both got named in the same breath as DRAM by the single largest buyer of all of it, and neither is anywhere near as crowded a trade. $MU at 989 and $SKHY at 191 overnight are not undiscovered. $APH at 81 and $AMKR at 50 are a different conversation. Downstream he switched vocabulary to land, power and shell, and said the neoclouds go and secure it because the hyperscalers have already exhausted theirs. $BE at 267 sells the only item on that whole list that cannot be shipped in from anywhere. The detail I keep returning to is why they guided a full year out in the first place. Huang said flatly they have never done it: "we've never forecasted or never guided to a year in advance." The reason he gave was that customers, shareholders and the supply chain should all see the same view. Read that again as what it is. A capacity signal pointed upstream, telling six industries how much to go and build. Worth being straight about what is not proven. The 100% is the interviewer's framing, and declining to correct a number is thinner evidence than stating one. A company telling you its suppliers are tight is also a company pre-explaining a future miss. And the fat part of this list has been obvious to everyone for a year. What would change my read: if NVIDIA lifts the 70% at any point before fiscal 2028 closes, the constraint eased and the rent compresses with it, so watch which line they credit when they do it. If instead they are still saying supply-constrained twelve months from now, the six names have a longer runway than their multiples currently assume. Cleanest single tell is $MU's print in late September, because DRAM is the one he bothered to say twice.

Schulz Duggan@Schulz_Research

2026.09.11 08:01

$CRWD shipped its AI security stack nine days ago with $NVDA's CEO standing on the stage next to George Kurtz. I read the three model partnership announcements side by side this morning, and the thing that stands out is which model got handed the work that never stops. At Fal.Con on 1 September, CrowdStrike launched SafeMind. An offensive model called Red Tempest finds the attack path, a defensive model called Blue Solano closes it, and the harnesses run the two against each other in a loop until nothing gets through. Blue Solano is a fine-tuned NVIDIA Nemotron 3 Super. Nemotron 3 Ultra orchestrates the defensive harness. Open weights, both of them. Huang's words on stage for Nemotron were "completely free." The next day CrowdStrike announced OpenAI, and Anthropic, and on a headline scan the three look like the same kind of news. Put them next to the product and they are three different things. GPT-5.6 Cyber arrives through the FAIRR service to assess risk and rank what to fix, with expert oversight in the loop. The Anthropic one is procurement: their customers can put part of their existing Anthropic commitments toward Falcon. No Anthropic model runs inside the product. So the closed frontier model gets called when a human asks it something, and the open model is the one running continuously. CrowdStrike's own framing of this is blunt. Frontier labs can tell a defender a risk exists. The harnesses can act on it. Cost is why. CrowdStrike says Blue Solano beats leading frontier models on accuracy at 99% lower cost, alongside 29% higher detection and 6x faster remediation. Take those carefully. They are internal evaluations, no baseline model named, no task set published, nobody outside has reproduced them. The direction is still the part that matters. Anything that has to run around the clock lives or dies on unit cost, and security is the first large AI use case where continuous is the requirement rather than a nice feature. That is also why Nemotron is free. Free model, paid compute, and the whole point of taking the per-loop cost down 99% is that you then go and run a great many more loops. Huang's own sentence in the release: cyber defense will be among the most compute-intensive applications of AI. $CRWV is in there as well, named for both training and inference. Nine days later at Goldman Sachs he was asked about cybersecurity and said the industry is getting ready to launch some products. Then: "what better way to create demand than to create a problem?" And that there are responsible ways of doing it and less attractive ways. He opened the event where those products launched. Which makes the line worth more than a gotcha would be, because he is describing a mechanism he is standing inside of. Worth holding next to the two numbers used to frame the threat at that same event, an 89% rise in AI-enabled attacks and a 27-second breakout time, both from the company selling the fix. What would change my read: CrowdStrike says the harnesses work with frontier and open source models too. If that holds up in the field, the moat is the harness and fifteen years of incident response data, and NVIDIA's seat here is a swap rather than a lock. I want to see whether the next SafeMind release still needs Nemotron specifically, or whether customers start bringing their own model and CrowdStrike keeps the margin anyway. $PANW and $NTSK have no equivalent layer yet, which is the other half of the same question.