---
endpoint: analytics
pattern: 03 · House view · stance
status: done
latency_ms: 191324
conversation_id: 13411841-9486-4e0b-98f0-4159b2d9c83c
citations: 0
created: 2026-05-31 17:00:28Z
---

# How has our PT on TSMC drifted vs sell-side consensus over the last 6 months?

## TSMC PT drift vs sell-side consensus — cannot be computed

**Headline finding**: We do not publish a price target on TSMC. In CLSA/CLST's most recent Taiwan-semi note that explicitly lists the rated universe, TSMC is shown as **"TSMC (N-R)"** — Not Rated [1]. There is therefore no internal PT track to drift against consensus over the period.

### What the internal coverage actually shows

| Note | Date | TSMC role | TSMC rating/PT |
|---|---|---|---|
| Taiwan semi (AI semi update) — 607948074LinqAlpha.PDF | 13 Jan 2025 | Industry context for AI/CoWoS supply chain | **N-R** [1] |
| Taiwan semi (AI semi update) — 607952295LinqAlpha.PDF | 5 Mar 2025 | Context for Nvidia CoWoS bookings | No rating issued |
| Taiwan semi (Tariff risks) — 607955235LinqAlpha.PDF | 7 Apr 2025 | Foundry exposure mapping across tariffed end-markets | No rating issued |
| Taiwan semi (Advanced nodes) — 607957054LinqAlpha.PDF | 27 Apr 2025 | Context for Intel 18A vs TSMC 2nm competition | No rating issued |
| Taiwan semi (AI semi update) — 607959699LinqAlpha.PDF | 16 May 2025 | Context for Nvidia CoWoS/B200/B300 risk | No rating issued |
| Taiwan semi (Advanced nodes) — 607962511LinqAlpha.PDF | 22 Jun 2025 | Context for 2nm capacity expansion | No rating issued |

Across all six TSMC-primary CLST notes in the lookback window, TSMC is referenced only as the foundry anchor of the AI/HPC supply chain. The recommendation/PT history tables embedded in these notes track our **rated** Taiwan semi names — MediaTek (2454), KYEC (2449), ASE (3711), GUC (3443), Gudeng (3680) — not TSMC.

### Important entity caveat (CLSA vs CLST)

Taiwan-listed semi names are covered out of our Taiwan affiliate **CLST (CLSA Securities Taiwan / Sinopac)**, not CLSA-parent. The lead analyst is Jason Tsang. Where the question is "CLSA's view on TSMC," the practical answer is that the call is CLST's to make, and CLST has elected not to put a rating on the stock — TSMC is used as a sector beneficiary read-through rather than as a rated single-stock idea [1].

### Corpus recency caveat

The CLSA archive in this workspace has `MAX(published_date) = 2025-06-30` — the library appears not to have been synced past late June 2025. "Last 6 months" relative to today (2026-05-31) literally returns zero rows; the matched set above is the most-recent 6-month window the corpus actually contains (Jan–Jun 2025). If CLST initiated formal TSMC coverage after June 2025, it would not yet be visible here — worth re-running once the next sync lands.

### What I can offer instead

Since there is no internal PT to drift, the like-for-like comparison the question implies isn't constructible. Three productive reframings:

1. **Drift on the names we DO rate**: I can pull our PT history vs FactSet consensus PT for MediaTek (2454), ASE (3711), KYEC (2449), Gudeng (3680), GUC (3443) over the same window. The CLST history tables embedded in the notes (e.g. MediaTek: HLD NT$1,250 27-May-2025, HLD NT$1,350 8-Feb-2025, HLD NT$1,300 31-Oct-2024, O-PF NT$1,370 26-Jul-2024 [1]) give us a clean internal series to compare.
2. **Sell-side consensus PT track for TSMC standalone**: I can pull the FactSet `FE_BASIC_CONH_LT` series for TSMC (PRICE_TGT mean/median/high/low + revision direction) over the period and present it on its own, framed as "what the Street did to TSMC PTs while we stayed N-R."
3. **Read-through angle**: synthesize what CLST's six Taiwan-semi notes imply about TSMC fundamentals (2nm/3nm capacity, CoWoS, tariff exposure, advanced-node ASP) — i.e., the substance of our view even without a formal PT.

Which of those would you like me to run?

---
**Sources**
[1] Taiwan semiconductor (AI semiconductor update) — CLSA / CLST, 13 Jan 2025 — 607948074LinqAlpha.PDF (Companies mentioned: "TSMC (N-R)")

