Microchip let customers push committed purchases back by one or two years. Not because its long-term agreements were worthless, but because keeping the customer mattered more than forcing delivery.
onsemi's filings tell a similar story. Its 2025 LTSA amendments changed delivery schedules and committed volumes as demand shifted.
Neither example requires a broken contract.
That's the risk investors should consider when valuing memory makers on multi-year HBM commitments.
A legally binding agreement can still be renegotiated if both sides have more to gain from preserving the relationship.
For $MU, Samsung and SK hynix, HBM qualification barriers are real. But those barriers don't establish how much contracted revenue or margin would survive a major reduction in accelerator orders.
Deposits may protect cash. Minimum purchases may protect volumes. Neither automatically guarantees the original profit forecast.
The real test of HBM's new earnings durability won't be how many years of supply are committed during a shortage.
It will be how those commitments behave when customers no longer need every unit they reserved.
#stocks
$MU.US