Hello, I am Kenneth Hsiang, the Head of Investor Relations for ASE Technology Holding. Welcome to our first quarter 2026 earnings release.

I am joined today by Joseph Tung, our CFO. Thank you for attending our earnings release today.

Please refer to our safe harbor notice on page 2. All participants consent to having their voices and questions broadcast via participation in this event.

If participants do not consent, please do not ask questions or you may leave the session at this time. I would like to remind everyone that the presentation that follows may contain forward-looking statements.

These forward-looking statements are subject to a high degree of risk, and our actual results may differ materially. For the purposes of this presentation, dollar figures are generally stated in New Taiwan dollars, unless otherwise indicated.

As a Taiwan-based company, our financial information is presented in accordance with Taiwan IFRS. Results presented using Taiwan IFRS may differ materially from results using other accounting standards, including those presented by our subsidiaries.

For today's presentation, I will be going over the financial results, and Joseph will then provide the company's guidance. We will then be available to take your questions during the Q&A session that follows.

Our business throughout the first quarter remained resilient. Typically, we would expect to see manufacturing seasonality, as many consumer and corporate products wind down at the end of the calendar year.

This year, we saw such seasonality in our EMS business, while demand for our ATM services did not slow at all. Even with less working days during the first quarter, our ATM revenues grew sequentially.

We experienced continued strength in our LEAP services and traditional advanced packaging, while our wire bond also saw some pickup. As our product mix shifts, typical seasonality may become more muted, as AI-related products do not appear to follow the same seasonal patterns as typical consumer-driven devices.

Our blended factory utilization rate was around 80% for the quarter. This percentage can be slightly misleading.

Loading was actually a little better. However, we have been installing additional LEAP manufacturing capacities that are expected to start generating revenues weighted towards the fourth quarter.

We are also consolidating traditional capacities. These transitional activities would naturally bring down the blended utilization rates.

As production resources get tighter, it needs to be emphasized that customers prefer manufacturing certainty. They like to know precisely the timing and pricing of wafers, substrates, packaging, and testing services.

As uncertainties arise at key manufacturing points, customers perceive supply chain risk for their products. Our capacities, along with those of our upstream foundry partners, are finite with limited ability to be pulled forward at this point.

With that said, we are seeing strength not only in our LEAP-related capacities, we are also seeing strong demand in wire bond and traditional advanced packaging. From a financial perspective, first quarter ATM revenues came in slightly ahead of our expectations.

We saw slight pickups throughout our customer base, especially as it relates to computing-related products. We also saw incremental improvement in our profitability due to this pickup, with gross margin outpacing our original expectations.

Our EMS business slowed slightly due to underlying product seasonality, as per our original expectations. Please turn to page 3, where you will find our first quarter consolidated results.

For the first quarter, we recorded fully diluted EPS of $3.08 and basic EPS of $3.24. Consolidated net revenues were $173.7 billion, representing a decrease of 2% sequentially and an increase of 17% year-over-year.

On a US dollar basis, our sales decreased by 4% sequentially and increased by 22% year-over-year. Our gross profit was $34.8 billion, with a gross margin of 20.1%.

Our gross margin improved by 0.6 percentage points sequentially and by 3.3 percentage points year-over-year. The sequential improvement in margin is primarily due to NT dollar depreciation.

The annual improvement is primarily due to a higher mix of ATM revenue, in addition to higher ATM factory utilization, offset in part by the annual appreciation of the NT dollar. We estimate that foreign exchange had a positive 0.6 percentage point impact to our gross margin sequentially and a negative 1.2 percentage point impact annually.

Our operating expenses increased by $0.3 billion sequentially and $2.1 billion annually to $17.3 billion. The sequential increase in operating expenses is primarily due to higher R&D labor-related costs.

Meanwhile, the annual increase is primarily due to higher R&D labor-related costs, and to lesser extent, R&D supplies and other non-R&D labor-related expenses. Our operating expense percentage eased 0.4 percentage points sequentially to 10% and declined 0.3 percentage points annually.

Operating profit was $17.5 billion, down $0.2 billion sequentially and up $7.9 billion year-over-year. Operating margin was 10.1%, up 0.2 percentage points sequentially and up 3.6 percentage points year-over-year.

During the quarter, we had a net non-operating gain of $0.7 billion. Our non-operating gain for the quarter primarily consists of net foreign exchange hedging activities, offset in part by net interest expense of $1.6 billion.

Tax expense for the quarter was $3.6 billion. Our effective tax rate for the quarter was 20.0%.

Net income for the quarter was $14.1 billion, representing a 4% decline sequentially of $0.6 billion and an 87% increase annually of $6.6 billion. On page 4 is a graphical presentation of our consolidated quarterly financial performance.

The chart effectively shows the impact of ATM business growth and its impact to our consolidated holding company level results. For the first quarter this year, our ATM business represented 65% of our consolidated holding company revenue, while representing 91% of our operating profit.

This is compared to 58% of consolidated holding company revenue, while representing 86% operating profit in the first quarter last year. On page 5 is our ATM P&L.

The ATM revenue reported here contains revenues eliminated at the holding company level related to intercompany transactions between our ATM and EMS businesses. For the first quarter of 2026, we had record revenues for our ATM business of $112.4 billion, up $2.7 billion from the previous quarter and up $25.8 billion from the same period last year.

This represents an increase of 2% sequentially and 30% annually. Our ATM business was able to avoid a seasonal decline in revenue during the first quarter, upsiding our original expectations.

We also delivered higher-than-expected margin performance via improved profitability from higher utilization of equipment. However, we were unable to avoid the higher running costs during the Lunar New Year holidays.

Gross profit for our ATM business was $29.2 billion, up $0.4 billion sequentially and up $9.6 billion year-over-year. Gross profit margin for our ATM business was 26%, down 0.3 percentage points sequentially and up 3.4 percentage points year-over-year.

The sequential gross margin decline was primarily due to a higher rate of labor during the Lunar New Year holiday and also a higher percentage of depreciation from preparing equipment for further expansion. These negative impacts were mostly offset by a positive foreign exchange environment and efficiencies from higher loading.

Meanwhile, the annual gross margin improvement was primarily due to higher factory utilization and a higher LEAP product mix, offset in part by negative foreign currency impact. As a note, during this year, we see our depreciation rising faster than revenues as a result of our ongoing investments in LEAP.

The granularity of our OS and full process LEAP equipment differs from our more traditional advanced packaging lines. Our LEAP lines must be installed at scale and together as a full set of differing machinery, instead of in small incremental units like wire bonders and testers.

This results in our LEAP lines taking a greater amount of time to bring up and tune when compared with more traditional packaging capacities. Currently, our full process LEAP lines are in the midst of tuning and qualification.

As a result, we will continue to see gradually increasing depreciation without significant amounts of associated revenue during the tuning and qualification period. Meanwhile, revenues associated with these full process lines will ramp mostly during the fourth quarter.

With that said, we continue to believe our margins will increase sequentially quarter-over-quarter and reach the higher end of our structural margins by the end of the year. During the first quarter, operating expenses were $13.3 billion, up $0.6 billion sequentially and $2 billion year-over-year.

The sequential and annual increases in operating expenses are primarily related to higher overall R&D costs and labor expenses. Our operating expense percentage for the quarter was 11.8%, increasing 0.2 percentage points sequentially and down 1.2 percentage points annually.

The sequential increase was primarily due to relatively higher R&D labor costs. The annual decline was primarily due to higher revenues generating a higher operating leverage during the quarter.

During the first quarter, operating profit was $15.9 billion, representing a sequential 1% decline of $0.2 billion and a 90% annual increase of $7.5 billion. Operating margin was 14.1%, down 0.6 percentage points sequentially, while up 4.5 percentage points year-over-year.

On page 6, you'll find a graphical representation of our ATM P&L. The chart highlights the improvement in our gross profit margin.

It should be noted here that our second and third quarter 2025 margins were heavily impacted by NT dollar strengthening. On page 7 is our ATM revenue by the 3C market segments.

LEAP services are primarily used within our computing applications, with a lesser amount being used in the communications applications for infrastructure hardware. As can be seen here, the computing application percentage has been growing steadily, with our communications segment declining.

Our automotive, consumer, and others application appears to be consistently growing in line with our overall ATM growth. On page 8, you will find our ATM revenue by service type.

We did not see any meaningful changes here during the quarter. On page 9, you can see the first quarter results of our EMS business.

During the quarter, EMS revenues were down 10% sequentially and 1% annually to $61.9 billion. Sequentially, our EMS business's gross margin increased by 0.5 percentage points to 9.5%.

This change was principally the result of product mix. Operating expenses within our EMS business decreased by $0.3 billion sequentially and increased by $0.1 billion annually.

The sequential decline is primarily the result of lower profit sharing during the quarter. The slight increase annually is primarily attributable to higher R&D headcount.

Our first quarter EMS operating expense percentage of 6.4% was up 0.2 percentage points sequentially and 0.1 percentage points annually. The sequential and annual operating expense percentage increases are due to underlying product revenue seasonality relative to more stable operating expenses.

Operating margin for the quarter was 3.1%, up 0.3 percentage points sequentially and 0.5 percentage points year-over-year. The higher operating margins are primarily the result of product mix.

Our EMS first quarter operating profit was $1.9 billion, down $0.1 billion sequentially and up $0.3 billion annually. On the bottom of the page, you will find a graphical representation of our EMS revenue by application.

The communications applications decline is primarily due to underlying product seasonality. The computing applications increase is primarily due to a pickup in new AI accelerator products.

On page 10, you will find key line items from our balance sheet. At the end of the year, we had cash, cash equivalents, and current financial assets of $114 billion.

Our total interest-bearing debt decreased by $7.6 billion to $265.3 billion. Total unused credit lines amounted to $419.4 billion.

Our EBITDA for the quarter was $38.2 billion. Our net debt to equity this quarter was 40%.

On page 11, you will find our equipment capital expenditures relative to our EBITDA. Machinery and equipment capital expenditures for the first quarter, in US dollars, totaled $1 billion, of which $636 million was used in packaging operations, $327 million in testing operations, $40 million in EMS operations, and $1 million in interconnect materials operations and others.

In addition to spending on machinery and equipment, during the quarter we also spent $771 million on facilities. With that, I'll hand the presentation over to Joseph to present the company's outlook.

Thank you, Ken. Before we get into the guidance for second quarter, I would like to give you a bit of a color for the full year.

Now first of all, we are upping our CapEx for the year, which includes additional 0.9 billion for buildings and the infrastructure, as reflected in our recent announcements, and an incremental US$0.6 billion in machinery, driven by stronger demand for LEAP services this year and next. The majority of this additional machinery CapEx will be allocated to LEAP, particularly wafer sort, and expected to be deployed in the fourth quarter to support capacity ramp-up in 2027.

For ATM 2026 revenue, we now expect LEAP services revenue to be around 10% above our prior guidance, reaching over US$3.5 billion, while the mainstream segment remains on track to grow at a similar rate with last year. For 2027, we continue to see strong LEAP business momentum and expect even stronger incremental revenue growth than this year.

Lastly, on ATM profitability, our strong market position continues to support a favorable pricing environment throughout the year. We reported first quarter ATM gross margin of 26%, which is ahead of our original expectation of 24.5%.

As we continue to expect sequential improvement for ATM margins, with second half gross margin to reach the upper end of our structural gross margin range, second quarter gross margin improvement, however, will be partly offset by higher costs associated with early resource deployment for product transitions. Now with that, let me give you the second quarter outlook.

Based on our current business outlook and exchange rate assumption of US$1 to NT$31.8, management projects overall performance for the second quarter of 2026 to be as follows: At the consolidated level, in NT dollar terms, our consolidated second quarter revenue should grow by 7% to 9% quarter-over-quarter. Our consolidated second quarter gross margin should increase by 20 to 100 basis points quarter-over-quarter.

Our consolidated second quarter operating margin should increase by 50 to 120 basis points quarter-over-quarter. For ATM, in NT dollar terms, our ATM second quarter revenue should grow by 9% to 11% quarter-over-quarter, and our second quarter gross margin should be between 26% to 27%.

For EMS, in NT dollar terms, our EMS second quarter revenue should grow at least 10% year-over-year. Our EMS operating margin should be similar with second quarter 2025 levels.

With that, I'll open the floor for questions. Thank you.

During the Q&A session that follows, we would appreciate it if your questions could be as clear and concise as possible and asked singularly. We will start by taking questions from participants online.

As moderator, I will be receiving each question and repeating and directing each question individually. After a participant's initial question, he or she may ask a follow-up question, clarifications of the earlier question or another question entirely.

Then we will move on to the next caller. With that, let's see if we have the first call.

Hi. Good afternoon.

Great results, congratulations on that. Thanks for the opportunity, Joseph and Ken.

My first question is on LEAP. The 10% upside in LEAP in 2026, could you talk a little bit about what is the reason for that?

Is it mainly coming from on substrate and wafer sort or any composition? Also just to clarify, 2027, you said LEAP could grow at stronger incremental revenue growth than this year.

This year is around $2 billion incremental revenue based on the new guidance. Are we implying that next year LEAP can grow at $2 billion-plus kind of incremental revenue?

Is that how we should read that statement? Any early lead on what is the composition of LEAP next year?

Yeah.

Gokul is looking for clarification on our LEAP guidance, actually just primarily focused on revenue side, right?

Revenue, yes. This year and the 10% upside, where it's coming from, and 2027, like the $2 billion or more than $2 billion incremental revenue, just want to clarify that's what you meant.

For this year, I think we are seeing a stronger than anticipated demand, particularly in the LEAP's part of the business. As such, we need to increase our CapEx to support that expansion.

Also a lot of the increase of CapEx is really to prepare ourselves for next year's ramp-up as well. In terms of momentum, I think in the LEAP services, both in terms of assembly and test, we are growing at pretty much the same pace.

In terms of combination, I think this is about 75% in assembly and 25% in tests. With tests, we have about 75% in wafer sort and 25% in final test.

Understood. On 2027, could we talk a little bit about, I think, Joseph, you mentioned incremental growth can be higher than this year.

Does that mean that we can grow from the $3.5 billion this year to at least $5.5 billion next year? Is that what you implied?

I'm only implying that we are continuing to see very, very strong momentum going into 2027. The $2 billion or $1.9 billion is really just to serve as a baseline.

In fact, we can safely expect even stronger momentum than that, although I'm not giving out any particular number at this point.

Understood. Just within that 2027 LEAP, any context on the full process CoWoS-like or full process oCoS kind of composition and do you think that you will have some AI accelerator-related full process revenue in 2027, or is it going to be mostly like the CPU and some of the other AI-adjacent kind of full process revenue?

I think right now, the full process is going on track, and we still believe that we can reach the $300 million dollar revenue mark for this year. As we continue to expand that part of the capacity, I think for next year, we can see quite substantial growth in that area as well.

Not just on the revenue growth, we are also expanding our customer base in this particular area. We believe that be any other application that will be moving into CoWoS-like kind of packages, I think we will be able to entertain those part of the requests.

Understood. My second question is on gross margins, Joseph.

You're already reaching probably the higher end of the structural range of gross margin, and you're already at the midpoint in Q1 and Q2. Why not raise the structural range of gross margin given you have higher margin products coming in next year as well with full process and more testing as well?

Is there anything that is holding you back from kind of raising the structural gross margin range?

Gokul, you're looking for more clarification on the context of our structural margin?

Yes.

Thank you.

I think things are moving very fast at this point and it's very dynamic. Of course, we already said that even in first quarter, second quarter, we are ahead of our original expectation in terms of margin improvement.

We are even more confident now that in second half, we'll be reaching the upper end of the structural margin. I think at this point, because things are moving very fast, I think we will rather wait till things are more settled.

Maybe next year, we will review the situation to see if this is justifiable to revise up our structural margin.

Is there any risk factor that holds you back? Is it just the depreciation growth is very strong, or is there anything else that is holding you back?

I wouldn't call it holding us back. I would say that, because, as Ken is mentioning, right now, the investment or the CapEx that we put in are in pretty large chunks, rather than four, we can incrementally add capacity.

Before if the capacity is fully ramped up, that normally creates some pressure on the margin during that ramp-up stage. We need to wait until a more steady-state kind of situation before we can find the suitable range for our margin.

Got it. You can leave some more good news for later.

Thank you. I'll go back to the queue.

Right.

Good afternoon. Could you hear me okay?

Thank you very much for taking my questions. Congrats on the very strong results.

My first question is actually to get your thoughts on CPO. Would you be able to share a bit more color on what would be the role that ASE can play for CPO's packaging and test?

How should we think about the revenue opportunity ASE from CPO? When would you expect the sales to start to contribute to ASE from CPO?

Sunny's first question refers to the context of CPO and the various financial aspects of that, right?

Yes. Thank you.

We are working very closely with the upstream foundry, as well as our customer, the end customer, in terms of the development of CPO. Right now, we don't have a number for it.

What I can say is once it gets into a volume scale, we will definitely be a very, very critical partner within the overall effort. I think things are moving on track, and we are continue to make progress on this CPO development.

Got it. May I follow up?

One, what would be the timeline that you start to expect revenue contribution? Then secondly, in terms of packaging and test, what may be the role that ASE may play if you could share a bit more details?

No, I don't have that much of a detail, except we will start with the packaging part of it, and eventually, of course, the test is a more complicated than the regular chips that we are testing now. I think we'll have to sync up our technology roadmap with our partners and also our customers to find the most suitable work combination between the three of us.

Whatever happens, it will be a natural division of works for each of us to do what we do best.

Thank you very much. My second question is on CapEx.

Now with the higher CapEx for this year, capital intensity should be above 30%. How should we think about the capital intensity for the coming maybe one to two years?

Should we expect, given a very strong demand, you need to continue to accelerate capacity expansion, and therefore capital intensity will remain high at above 30%, or should we think about maybe in 2027, given the revenue generation, maybe CapEx will start to slow in terms of intensity? How should we think about the growth between the sales and CapEx?

Sunny, you're looking for clarification on our CapEx trend going forward in the capital intensity in bulk, right?

Yeah.

We're still in this megatrend, and we're certainly not going to be shy about making the necessary investment, not only just on the capacity itself, but also on the R&D spending that we need to put in. From the momentum that we're seeing now, I would expect pretty heavy CapEx for this, and maybe even going into next year.

Although, as I said, things are moving very fast and there's a lot of variables in front of us. I cannot give you a number at this point.

I would say that we will be making the necessary investments, and we do have multiple cost-effective funding sources that we can leverage on to continue to support the CapEx requirement that we will be facing for this year and also next year.

Thank you. If I may have a follow-up.

Earlier you mentioned lots of capacity expansions throughout this year for the output from Q4. Would it be fair to say that for LEAP, we should expect a pretty meaningful step-up in terms of revenue going to Q4?

That should meaningfully improve your gross margin on sequential basis. While the direction is upward in the coming few quarters, but in terms of magnitude, you would expect a pretty meaningful expansion from Q3 into Q4 given a lot stronger LEAP growth.

Sunny, first of all, I don't see how that's a follow-up, but I guess I'll let you ask it. You're looking for basically what type of trend we're looking at in terms of LEAP given that we're upping the outlook currently?

Is that probably the right summary of that?

Sure. Thank you, Ken.

Yes. I think from the get-go, I was saying that, we're still expecting a very strong year going to 2027 as well.

Particularly in the LEAP services, we do see the need to up our CapEx to support that momentum. I think I already answered Gokul's questions that right now we're expecting even stronger incremental revenue growth for next year in terms of LEAP.

Whatever that we're seeing this year, the incremental revenue will serve as a baseline for us, and we do see further potential for further upside.

Very clear. Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Yes, hi. Good afternoon.

Can you hear me?

Thank you for taking my questions. My question is also regard our LEAP advanced packaging progress.

We know that ASE also build up your own full process. I'm just wondering that for our $3.2 billion and even stronger growth into next year, how should we think about the full process of our LEAP business?

What would be the gross margin profile comparing to the substrate part?

Laura, you're looking for more expansion on our full process business opportunities, is that correct?

Yes, and what's the percentage and also what the gross margin profile?

Okay. Thank you.

I think, like I said, we are on track at whatever capacity that we're putting in, and the customer engagement that we are having at this point. We do see further potential going forward, as we have multiple customers requesting for this kind of capacity.

This is a very complex process that we need to go through, and we are in the midst of trying to tune up our capacity, as well as the yield that we can generate. We're going to take one step at a time at this point in time, although we do see very good potential, but we want to be cautious in making this part of the business with very good execution.

At this point, I think it's not very easy for us to give you a number for this business for next year. What I can say is, yeah, we do see very good potential, and it's just a matter of how we can quickly execute the expansion plan.

Sure, that's fair and very clear. Also my following question is just wondering that as we see that many of your clients or the AI chipmakers, they are looking for various different back-end support, including the panel-based or large reticle support from the OSAT, not just at the foundry side.

I'm just wondering that how is the progress at ASE on the panel-based, and how would you think about these business opportunities in your LEAP revenue?

Laura, you're looking for our opportunities in terms of supporting large reticle size manufacturing

[unclear]

panel, right?

Yes, the panel-based or the reticle, that kind of packaging design. Thanks.

On panel, I think we're also on track, and right now, we have already installed a fully automated pilot line for customer qualification. We do expect to have small mass production volume starting from next year.

We'll see how it goes from that point on. I think in terms of panel, right now, it's still at its early stage.

It is something that's going to happen, but we're still at the early stage of the overall development, and how the industry infrastructure will be built remains to be still some work to be done going forward. Yes, there is potential for that, and if anything else, we'll be the first to start the capacity ramp-up.

Sure, and will wait for more details. Thank you.

All right.

Thanks, Iris. Hi, Joseph.

Hi, Ken. How are you?

Also, congratulations for very strong results and guidance. My first question is actually on the non-AI or so-called the broader semi.

Over the past three months, do you see smartphone, consumer semi demand bottoming out, or it continued deteriorate? Because we are getting a bit confused why some mature-node foundry are hiking wafer price, and Texas Instrument also, it's that they want to hike the price, but overall end market demand are so weak.

Just want to get some thoughts from management. Thank you.

Charlie, you're looking for some characterization of our non-LEAP-related revenues, and how we view that going forward, right?

Yeah. Exactly.

Also the tendency, whether it's getting better or getting worse, and how ASE kind of benefit or suffer from those incremental trends. Thank you.

I mentioned earlier on that we are maintaining I think the general market revenue growth. We are maintaining the same guidance as we made last quarter, which is repeat of last year's growth rate, about 13%.

Yes, what you do see that the PC and cell phone market softness continues, and it seems to be softening a bit more. On the other hand, I think a lot of the softness is being picked up by the more IC contents in devices, different devices.

We are seeing the AI peripheral chips emerging. We are seeing good recoveries in terms of automotive and industrial segment.

Put everything together, I think we're still very, very confident that we will repeat our last year's growth in terms of general market.

I see. Ken, may I clarify with Joseph what did you mean by the AI peripheral chips?

We do have some sense, right? Just want to get some clarification from Joseph.

Oh, there are power-related, connectivity, sensors, all different kinds of edge devices that will be using. We were dividing this general market with a LEAP.

It's not being in a industry segment per se, a segmentation. We're just only looking at the process itself to decide what's general market for us.

I see. Thanks for the clarification.

My second question is actually about your pricing strategy. You're investing heavily, but there's also some cost increase from the recent geopolitical events, right?

Just want to get a sense, what's your prediction for your fab utilization in the coming quarters? Would you transfer that sort of tightness into further pricing power to your customers?

I believe, Charlie, you're asking what the impact of recent political volatility would be on our pricing, and then also different components that go into what we do, what our pricing strategy is relative to our services that we provide. Is that correct?

Yeah.

Thanks, Ken. Maybe it's more from a strategic perspective, right?

One is that you can just passively pass through those additional costs. Like you said, right, there's a increase in energy cost or chemical cost.

I'm not sure how much of chemical cost you have exposure to. Or think it differently, right?

Your fab in the coming quarters, if utilization continue to be getting higher and you feel like it's sustainable, why don't you further kind of hike your price and it's more like a proactive price hike?

I can never give you a direct answer on that, whether we're going to raise our prices or not. What I can say is we will continue to seek for the suitable pricing strategy, given the situation, and also considering the customer relationship that we need to maintain.

Also, we will set the pricing to reflect the margin requirement that we will have for ourselves.

I see. Sounds like this.

Short answer is that

whatever the cost increase there is because of all the market uncertainties, those can be fully passed through.

Also

at the same time, we will continue to set the pricing to reach our margin requirement.

All right. Thank you.

It's very clear. Thanks, Joseph.

Next,

Hey, thank you. Thanks, Joseph, Ken, and Iris, for taking my questions.

Congrats on the solid results and guidance. I guess my first question is also a follow-up on the near-term guidance.

Just want to get more clarity regarding your view on what is going to be the key driver for second quarter sequential growth for your IC ATM business? Will you be able to quantify it between LEAP versus traditional business on the growth momentum?

Then, I think a quick follow-up also on the full-year outlook for your overall IC ATM business, that you did provide more detail on the non-LEAP business and the reason why you are still holding that kind of a growth guidance similar to last year. Would you be able to provide the breakdown on the unit and also pricing assumptions for that kind of growth outlook?

I was just wondering if in the past 3 months, if there is any meaningful change on the mix of assumptions on the pricing that you may be able to improve your pricing further, or you simply have not yet seen your customers have been cutting their orders at this stage. Just want to get more clarity on the second quarter and also full year IC ATM growth momentum between LEAP versus non-LEAP business.

Haas, I believe you're looking for clarity on our guidance relative to LEAP and non-LEAP contexts. Is that correct?

Yes, on the quarterly basis, as well as on the full-year outlook basis. Thanks.

I think second quarter revenue growth is really broad-based. I think both LEAP, as well as the general market, we're seeing similar kind of a growth to support the quarterly growth revenue for us.

I think, as I said, we are more than doubling our LEAP revenue this year, which is up our LEAP revenue by another 10% and showing the strong momentum that we're seeing at this point. General market, we continue to see the same kind of growth rate from last year.

As I tried to explain, I think although we're seeing some softness in some certain segments, but we do see that the so-called AI peripheral, AI-adjacent type of chips that will be broad-stream, and then that we're seeing the demand for those chips are more than offset what we're seeing the softness in these particular segments.

Okay. I think just a quick follow-up here to my first question is that so you are actually not changing your pricing strategy in the past 3 months or in the next few quarters to reflect the potentially higher cost on the materials or the labors?

You pretty much on an aggregate basis, you are not seeing much of the customers' demand dynamic change in the past 3 months? Should I just make that kind of assumption for your full-year outlook?

I'm not sure I quite get your question. Can you

I was just trying to get more clarity that you simply are not seeing any of the order cuts from your customers, even though that the end-market demand, including smartphone, PC at this stage, and also the overall end-market demand is just tracking slower, but you are seeing incrementally automotive, industrial-related demand, and also some AI peripheral chipsets are making up some of the weakness in the other parts of the market. Net-net, you are not seeing much of the unit demand weakness versus 3 months ago for your full-year outlook.

Is that correct?

Yes. Okay.

Then

my second question is on CapEx and also gross margins. Joseph, you just mentioned that on the CapEx for this year, you raised it by 20% versus your original guidance.

I understand there is a lead time between your pulling equipment and building cleanroom versus it starts to contribute to revenue. Would you be able to help us to triangulate that growth rate or the incremental 20% hike versus the 10% hike in your LEAP business for this year?

What is the reason why you raised your CapEx by 20%, but in the meantime, your LEAP business in general only being raised by 10%? On top of that, I was just wondering with the current supply tightness in the back-end equipment supply chain, do you think there is any further potential for you to raise CapEx throughout this year, if you would like to have more capacity being installed throughout the next few years?

Thank you. I will have a follow-up on the CapEx.

Haas, you're looking for commentary in terms of how our capital equipment expenditures are correlated to our leading edge advanced packaging revenue outlook. Is that correct?

That's right. Thanks,

Ken. Two-thirds of the increase of our CapEx is for building and facilities.

As we've been saying that the suitable new factory or facility is one of the gating factors for us to expand. In that area, we are making progresses, as shown in our past announcements that we've managed to start some of the building constructions, and also to acquire some of the existing facilities that are suitable for our operation or for our LEAP services business operation.

For the machinery is largely for next year's ramp-up, and the bulk of it, or 0. $600 million worth of the CapEx is really for wafer sort that the capacity will be ramped up in next year.

As for this year, whatever the capacity that we're building or the CapEx that we're spending for machinery should be sufficient to support another 10% growth in our LEAP service.

Got it. Then I think just a quick follow-up from this part is Hey, Haas,

I think you got your follow-up earlier,

so. Sure.

We'll move on to the next caller, right?

Sorry about that.

Hello. Can you hear me?

Okay. Let me ask a simple question to save time for Ken.

Can you give us the update for the global capacity expansion?

Global capacity expansion, you mean outside of Taiwan?

Yes. US, Southeast Asia, anywhere, any places.

You're looking for a geographical differentiation between our capital expenditures, is that what you're looking for?

No, no, no. I'm looking for is there any incremental update for your expansion outside of Taiwan?

Your current investment is mostly highly concentrated in Taiwan. You have limited capacity.

You have limited cleanroom. Why not go outside?

I asked a couple of quarters ago, and yeah, I'm going to ask again.

Outside of Taiwan, I think the main investment that we're making today is really in Malaysia, where we announced that we've acquired a factory from ADI. That will be used as our buffer capacity to serve the demand coming from outside of Taiwan.

In other areas, I think we are making mostly maintenance kind of CapEx to support the operation there. However, aside from Malaysia, I think we are also ramping up quite a bit in Singapore for our test operation, which is mostly to serve the AI-related test requirements.

I see. Thank you.

I want to ask the next question is that can you give us some update for the profitability for the I think people ask that before, but I want to ask a bit different. For the full process of your LEAP, right?

Because the CapEx requirement is higher. The utilization might be low.

Yield might be unknown, right, at the current stage. Assuming a blue sky scenario once you eventually will deliver the good yield with reasonable utilization rate, can the full process profitability be higher than LEAP services, gross margin higher than corporate average?

Bruce, you're looking for our profitability potential of our full process

leading

edge advanced packaging lines going forward

in the case that

that everything goes perfectly, is that correct?

Yes, which eventually you will deliver.

We haven't reached the blue sky yet, it's kind of difficult to answer that question. In theory, it should be accretive to LEAP.

Accretive to the LEAP.

In theory, yes, given the complexity of it.

I see. Understand.

Thank you. I don't have a follow-up.

Thank you very much.

Hello.

Can you guys hear me?

Okay. Hi, Joseph and Ken.

I just got one question here. I think for your very strong demand for your IC ATM, the driver behind that, apart from AI and ENI, automotive industrial, do you guys see any order pull-in from your customers across the board because of the concern on the supply chain uncertainties?

If so, are you concerned about any demand relentance in order relentance in the second half? Because apparently, Charlie said earlier, right, there's a disconnect between the non-AI end demand and the wafer and chip loading.

Just my only question.

Rick, you're looking to see whether we see order pull-ins and then how we may respond to such situations, is that correct?

Exactly, especially for second half.

As I said, in certain segments, we're seeing softness, but those are more than being offset by the AI peripheral chips demand that we are getting. Yes, I think in first quarter, we are seeing stronger than normal seasonality demand may be coming from pull-in.

Having said that, we don't really have the capacity, because our capacity is really limited. We don't have the capacity to entertain those pull-in demand, to speak.

I think our revenue is very solid. It's not because of particularly in the first quarter's growth, I don't think it's because of the customers' early pull-in that really bumped up our revenue for the quarter.

Fair enough. Thank you so much.

That's the only question I have. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hi. Thanks for the second chance.

One question on CapEx, Joseph. Building upon what you're hearing from your customers and your foundry partner, could you talk a little bit about do you feel that this year is a peak of CapEx, or you think that you will have to keep spending on CapEx even into next year, given it feels like you're going to be a little bit free cash flow negative this year?

Just wanted to understand how you're thinking about CapEx into next year as well, and if CapEx is growing next year, any thoughts on how we are looking to kind of fund that CapEx into next year?

By the way it's going, I think next year could be another CapEx-heavy year for us.

We should assume that CapEx keeps growing next year then, yeah?

It's more likely, yes.

Got it. Any thoughts on the funding given that the cash flow is kind of probably kind of flat-ish or close to zero or negative this year given the heavy CapEx?

Is there any new fundraising or something like that that we need to think about?

Whatever the funding gap that we're going to have for this and next year, I'm not sure about next year though, but for this year, I think the funding gap will mostly be funded by additional borrowing,

Understood.

which we have multiple sources for that.

Okay. Understood.

Maybe one more question from my side is on the on the testing business. I think we did talk about final test as potentially something that we wanted to win with a large GPU customer.

Is that still the objective right now, or you're too busy with too many wafer sort kind of projects on hand to kind of really go and support that kind of demand with a heavy capacity on final test?

I think primarily I think we will be focusing our resources in wafer sort at this point. I think we are tight in both facility, as well as in capacity.

For the time being, I think the main focus will still be on wafer sort.

Got it. Very clear.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Yeah. Thank you.

I was not able to fully ask my questions in the first round, but thank you so much for accommodating my additional questions. I think just on the back-end equipment, is the supply right now is getting tighter and the lead time for delivery is also getting longer.

Do you think there's further potential or possibility that you need to raise your CapEx again just to show your equipment supply chain more commitment in order to ensure that you could expand the capacity as scheduled throughout this year, if needed, that you need to raise your CapEx again this year? Haas,

you're looking for characterization on the likelihood of our ability to spend more on CapEx,

is that right? That's right.

Yes.

That's straight way to ask, yeah.

Haas is looking to understand whether we have any potential to increase our capital expenditures during this year.

I wouldn't say no. I think like I said, things are moving very fast, and our forecast is being adjusted pretty rapidly at this point.

I wouldn't preclude that there will be further needs for us to increase our CapEx for the year.

Okay. My second question before I jump back to the queue is that I was wondering if you could quantify the impact of the new technology ramp transition-related costs impacting your first quarter, second quarter, or even second half this year, as you have more capacity gradually online, but not yet entering to mass production at this stage, contributing to your revenue.

Would you be able to quantify the potential negative impact to your gross margins? Because we already see some of the mildly negative impact in first quarter and also your second quarter outlook.

Should we actually expect more of that negative dilution to happen throughout second half this year before your full process or even other parts of the LEAP business capacity ramp is going to contribute to your revenue growth in the following year? If you have any way to quantify any of the potential negative dilution throughout the next few quarters would be pretty helpful.

Haas is looking to understand whether we have previously included the incremental depreciation into our original gross margin outlooks for the year, is that correct?

Yes, thanks.

Yes, I think when we look at our margin trend, of course, we will consider all factors, including the CapEx that we're going to make, including the timing of the revenues that will be generated. I think the margin profile that we presented in the beginning of the year remains the same, that first half of the year all quarters will be within our structural margin range, except at first quarter, we already ahead of our original plan.

Second quarter, we remains to be very confident that we will be reaching the upper end of the margin of the margin range. Yes, everything is included, and so far, we haven't changed the our view on the margin profile for the year.

Got it. Is there anyway you could quantify probably 50 basis point or 100 basis point impacts to your first quarter and second quarter margins and then into second half?

If the similar 50 to 100 basis point negative impact from that margin dilution for the capacity ramp, is it a reasonable assumption?

Haas, I think we haven't been able to necessarily release that as of yet, but there is expansion into the depreciation percentage. We have not been able to create an immediate dilution effect at this point.

Maybe we can have that for you next quarter.

Got it. Thank you so much, Joseph and Ken.

Thank you. Just quick follow-up.

Thanks for taking my follow-up questions. I think just briefly talk about the CPO opportunities on the packaging and also the testing front.

Although it's still in relatively early stage, can you share with us what would you see that the most difficult part or potential technology bottleneck and what ASE now is working, and when would you see that will be kind of a indicator we can see better traction?

Laura, you're looking for an understanding as to where we see a technology bottleneck going forward?

Yes, and what would be a key watching point just we can judge that when it will be becoming stronger revenue catalyst at ASE?

As I said, this is a team effort between us and the foundry partner, as well as our customer. I think at the end of the day, each will be doing what they do best, and there will be a natural division of works.

I couldn't tell you what is hard, what is not. It really depends on what our respective expertise is, and then suitable works will be allocated to different partners.

That's how the thing is being managed at this point. Like I said, I think everybody understand that CPO is still at It's a must-have going forward, but at this point, it's still at a very early stage.

I think it's a bit premature to say when and how much it's going to be a major revenue or profit contributor to us.

Sure. Thank you.

Our

Hi, thank you very much. This is Stefan from Aletheia Capital, and thank you for taking my question.

Congratulations for your good result and guidance. Two questions from me.

The first is regarding the two fab acquisition for the past month you announced, one for USI and one for ASE. I'm just curious in what timeframe you expect this to newly-acquired facility can start to contribute to the company revenue?

Stefan, welcome to the call. You're asking about our two recent acquisitions in return in regards to buildings and facilities, is that correct?

Yes, that's correct. Thank you,

Ken. Both buildings are going to be for LEAP services.

I think we will start ramping up progressively starting from early next year.

Yeah. Thank you for that.

A quick follow-up. If early for early next year, and I think especially for the second fab, in the news release, you mentioned that is for the packaging.

Does that mean the tool installation for this to a facility, the CapEx will be in this year or that will be in the next year? Thank you.

You're looking for the timing of the facilitization and equipment of these two facilities?

Yes, and also the impact the CapEx, whether it's this year or next year.

I think for at least for equipment, it will be for next year, and this factory will be how should I put this, because the current facility needs to be vacated before we can start moving in and start installation. Before that becomes available, there are also some construction works for facilities and some of the wiring construction that needs to be done.

If we're breaking down the CapEx between for building of facilities or for equipment, I think for the building part of it, it will start earlier, but for equipment, it will be starting from next year, once the space becomes available and we progressively put the machinery in.

Understood. Thank you.

Also one last quick follow-up is so we discussed about full service and even some the new technology of panel, but I'm curious if you can give us any color, how do you see CoWop right now? Thank you.

CoWop?

Yes, chip on wafer on PCB. Thank you.

That's I think that's further away. I'm not an expert in this, I don't think I'm qualified to comment on that.

Got it. Thank you.

No further question from me. Thank you.

Thank you.

All right. Thank you very much.

See you next quarter.

I think to sum up, we had a good quarter, and we'll continue to see have a good year. Next year, we see a very, very strong momentum continuing.

We will do our best to execute our expansion plan to meet the demand from our customers. We'll continue to see our profit return to expand.

Come next year, when things are more settled, we will be reviewing our structural margin range to make it a more suitable range for us. Thank you.