UURL 財經新聞FINANCE
UURL Finance · Taiwan market + in-depth rewrites · hourly

UMC Falls to 111.5, 17x P/E Ratio Sparks Debate

Browser TTS · no download

30-second brief

After UMC's earnings call, its share price plunged 12.89% over two days, closing at 111.5 on the 30th. Some netizens compared revenue to 2022 and the share price of about 50 at the time, questioning why the P/E ratio is still 17x after surging to 185.5, debating whether it is fundamentals or liquidity-driven speculation, while bulls point to TFLN and CPO themes.

Over 10% Drop in Two Days After Earnings Call

No.2 foundry UMC pulled back sharply after its earnings call, falling 3.46% on the 30th to close at 111.5, with a cumulative drop of 12.89% over 2 consecutive days. Measured from about 160 earlier, the swing decline is already sizable, while this year's high of 185.5 has left a wide high-low gap that has drawn market attention.

Revenue Comparison to 2022 Sparks Valuation Debate

A netizen posted on the PTT stock board under the title "2303 UMC dominates Invincible discussion", citing financial data from Mitake Smart Stock Selection, noting that UMC's revenue in recent years, while higher than in 2023, 2024 and 2025, has not broken out significantly compared with 2022. By contrast, the share price has soared from about 50 in 2022 to this year's high of 185.5, and even after pulling back to 111.5, the P/E ratio is still 17x, which he called "not low."

The netizen argued that a high P/E ratio might be understandable for a company with strong growth prospects, but UMC's main business remains mature-process manufacturing, which may not offer enough growth narrative to support a high valuation. He also judged that the technical chart is approaching a suspected M-top neckline, expressing concern about the outlook, and asked whether this rally was supported by fundamentals or was simply liquidity-driven speculation.

Bulls and Bears Split, Some Say Buy at 90

The post triggered heated discussion, with many bearish netizens seeing further downside, leaving comments such as "buy at 90" and "buy at 60", saying "UMC is hardly a tech stock, mature process is about the same as traditional industry", "mature process can be done by any home fab, 10x P/E for the No.2 player is already a lot", "without EPS growth it gets de-rated", "sold at 16x earlier, tried to bottom-fish at 13x", and "bought at 40 before, with inflation, now waiting to buy at 80."

Bulls, however, argued that UMC is not without narratives, saying "this year for the No.2 player is all about the dream, no doubt, the reason it could be炒 up is next year's TFLN", "GG is cutting mature capacity, the No.2 player is the first to benefit from overflow, utilization has indeed picked up, price hikes are modest but the market was already very conservative", "the answer is CPO and silicon interposer", and "can't UMC have a dream, with CPO directly mentioned, how is there no dream", arguing that this year's rally reflects future expectations and cannot be judged on current revenue and earnings alone. Investors should make independent judgments, evaluate carefully, and bear their own investment risks.

FAQ

Why has UMC's recent share price performance sparked discussion?

After UMC's earnings call, its share price plunged 12.89% over 2 consecutive days, closing at 111.5 on the 30th with a single-day drop of 3.46%, pulling back sharply from about 160 and this year's high of 185.5, sparking debate over whether it has overshot to the downside or remains overvalued.

What is the basis for netizens questioning UMC's valuation?

The poster cited Mitake data, saying revenue in recent years, while higher than 2023 to 2025, is little changed from 2022, while the share price has surged from about 50 at the time, leaving a 17x P/E ratio even now, and with mature-process focus and a suspected M-top neckline on the technical chart, questioned whether it is liquidity-driven speculation.

What themes do UMC bulls cite?

Some bulls say this year's rally reflects future expectations, pointing to next year's TFLN, overflow benefits from TSMC, recovering utilization, as well as CPO and silicon interposer themes, arguing it cannot be assessed on current revenue and earnings alone.