Water Rationing Risk at a Taiwan Foundry
Formosa Logic is a Taiwan-based logic foundry with revenue $7.2 billion, EBITDA margin 44%, and 58% of wafer starts at two fabs in a single reservoir catchment. Its top 10 customers provide 71% of revenue. In the current dry season, reservoir storage is 31% of capacity versus a 10-year average of 52%; the government has announced 15% industrial water rationing, as in 2021. Formosa Logic recycles 86% of process water, but a new advanced-node fab will add 28,000 m³/day of demand when it ramps next year. Business-interruption insurance applies only after 30 days and has an $80 million sublimit. Customer contracts include allocation clauses but no explicit water-risk termination right. The company’s sustainability report cites water recycling and “no material impact” without a scenario analysis. The analyst covers the equity and a 5-year bond.
1. Is water risk material? Distinguish the short and long horizons.
Read the worked answer
Water risk is material, but the horizon matters. Over the next 12 months, 15% rationing is a known operational constraint; 86% recycling provides a buffer, so the immediate production loss may be low single digits. But 58% of wafer starts in one catchment and 71% customer concentration make the tail large. A 5% wafer-start loss on $7.2bn revenue is $360m; at a 44% EBITDA margin, $158m, or 5% of $3.17bn EBITDA. A 10% loss doubles that. The $80m insurance sublimit and 30-day waiting period cover only part of business interruption and not customer penalties. For the 5-year bond, the issue is liquidity and covenant headroom if rationing coincides with the new fab ramp. Over the long term, the added 28,000 m³/day demand, permitting, and catchment stress can constrain growth and raise capex. The 'no material impact' statement is unsupported without scenario analysis. Materiality is therefore high for the equity and at least moderate-to-high for the bond.
2. Build a scenario quantification of revenue and EBITDA at risk under rationing, stating assumptions.
Read the worked answer
Assume current water intake of 50,000 m³/day. A 15% rationing cut is 7,500 m³/day; with 86% recycling, the net process-water gap may be smaller, but recycling does not create new water and blowdown limits apply. Scenario A: no wafer loss because recycling and storage buffer the cut; cost of contingency water is $2m. Scenario B: 5% wafer loss - revenue at risk $360m; using the 44% EBITDA margin as a conservative contribution proxy, EBITDA loss $158m. Scenario C: 10% loss - EBITDA loss $317m; insurance pays after 30 days up to $80m, so net $237m. Add customer allocation penalties. For the bond, a $200m EBITDA hit on $3.17bn is ~6%, and leverage rises. Use probability weights, e.g., 60/30/10, giving expected EBITDA loss ~$75–95m. The new fab increases exposure next year, so the 5-year bond should be stressed at the downside.
3. What metrics and disclosures would you monitor?
Read the worked answer
Monitor reservoir storage versus the 10-year average, rationing stage, and daily water allocation notices. Company-specific metrics: m³ per wafer start, m³ per layer, recycling rate and reject rate, water reuse by fab, and water cost. Also track the new fab’s permitted intake versus actual, water reclamation capex, and backup sources such as desalination or tankers. Customer metrics: allocation clauses triggered, expedite costs, and order pushouts from top customers. Financial metrics: insurance terms and sublimits, business-interruption recoveries, capex overruns, and covenant headroom. Disclosure requests: a water scenario analysis by fab, a quantified production-at-risk range, and board oversight of water. The analyst should treat the absence of these as a governance red flag and request them before relying on 'no material impact'.