WR Hambrecht analysts downgraded SanDisk from “buy” to “hold” in February 2007 because Samsung was reportedly considering ending an 8% royalty on NAND flash memory while continuing to pay SanDisk only a smaller royalty tied to Samsung-made SD cards. The analysts estimated Samsung supplied about 90% of SanDisk’s royalty revenue, making the threatened change a material risk to forecasts.
What royalties were at stake?
The February 26, 2007 report described two separate royalty streams. Samsung paid SanDisk an 8% royalty on NAND multi-level cell (MLC) technology. Separately, finished SD cards carried a 6% royalty to the SD Card Association, of which SanDisk received 2% as a founding member. These rates applied to different things; the SD-card royalty was not an additional 6% paid directly to SanDisk. EE Times reported the royalty structure.
Samsung was reportedly considering paying SanDisk only the 2% share associated with Samsung-made SD cards and ending the 8% MLC NAND royalty. The proposal therefore threatened SanDisk’s direct technology-licensing income, not simply its share associated with SD cards. The report on the proposed change did not establish that Samsung ultimately implemented it.
How large was the potential revenue hit?
WR Hambrecht estimated that Samsung had provided about 90% of SanDisk’s royalty revenue in recent years. The analysts said about 15% of SanDisk’s royalty revenue could be at risk as early as the second quarter of 2007, and estimated that about 25% of Samsung’s MLC royalty payments were at risk. Those are the analysts’ 2007 estimates, not measures of a confirmed loss. The contemporaneous report summarized their exposure estimates.
#1 Best Overall
- High-speed USB 3.0 performance of up to 150MB/s(1) [(1) Write to drive up to 15x faster than standard USB 2.0 drives (4MB/s); varies by drive capacity. Up to 150MB/s read speed. USB 3.0 port required. Based on internal testing; performance may be lower depending on host device, usage conditions, and other factors; 1MB=1,000,000 bytes]
- Transfer a full-length movie in less than 30 seconds(2) [(2) Based on 1.2GB MPEG-4 video transfer with USB 3.0 host device. Results may vary based on host device, file attributes and other factors]
- Transfer to drive up to 15 times faster than standard USB 2.0 drives(1)
- Sleek, durable metal casing
- Easy-to-use password protection for your private files(3) [(3)Password protection uses 128-bit AES encryption and is supported by Windows 7, Windows 8, Windows 10, and Mac OS X v10.9 plus; Software download required for Mac, visit the SanDisk SecureAccess support page]
| Royalty-revenue forecast | Before revision | After revision |
|---|---|---|
| 2007 | $373 million | $327 million |
| 2008 | $500 million | $405 million |
WR Hambrecht lowered these forecasts in 2007 in response to the royalty risk. The reductions were $46 million for 2007 and $95 million for 2008; they were changes to analysts’ estimates, not reported SanDisk results. The report gave the revised royalty-revenue estimates.
Why did the threat matter to both companies?
SanDisk depended heavily on licensing income
With Samsung estimated to account for roughly nine-tenths of SanDisk’s royalty revenue, a dispute with this one licensee could move the company’s royalty outlook substantially. The analysts’ concern was concentration: the threatened payments represented a large part of the revenue stream they were forecasting.
Rank #2
- Transfer speeds up to 10x faster than standard USB 2.0 drives (4MB/s); up to 130MB/s read speed; USB 3.0 port required. Based on internal testing; performance may be lower depending upon host device. 1MB=1,000,000 bytes
- Backward compatible with USB 2.0
- Secure file encryption and password protection(2)
Samsung had commercial leverage, but faced its own pressures
The analysts’ view was shaped by falling NAND prices and reported weakness in Samsung’s NAND profitability. Samsung’s manufacturing scale and role as a supplier also mattered alongside SanDisk’s patent position. Those factors made the dispute more than a straightforward question of whether SanDisk held relevant patents: each company had leverage the other could not easily ignore. The contemporaneous account described the NAND-market and profitability context; it also covered the patent and supply dynamics.
Legal action was an option, but not an easy substitute
SanDisk had patent and commercial disputes involving Hynix, Toshiba, and STMicroelectronics, according to the report. That wider litigation backdrop informed analysts’ assessment of its options, but did not resolve the Samsung dispute. WR Hambrecht analysts said: “Outside of going to court and trying to sue, there are not that many options open for SanDisk.” The report quoted their assessment.
The Tool Desk
Outbyte PC Repair FREERepair Windows errors before they cause bigger problemsFix Now →Outbyte Driver Updater FREEFix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitchesFind Drivers →Rank #3
- Reliable storage for photos, videos, music and other files
- Available in capacities from 8GB to 256GB (1GB = 1,000,000,000 bytes - Actual user storage less)
- Transfer with confidence when moving images and other content
- Retractable design keeps the connector safe
- SanDisk SecureAcces software with 128-bit AES encryption and password protection(1)
What did the downgrade mean for investors?
WR Hambrecht’s move from “buy” to “hold” reflected a less favorable risk-and-reward view after the analysts cut their royalty forecasts. It was an analyst rating, not a corporate announcement or proof that Samsung had stopped paying. For an investor reading the report at the time, the key issue was how much of SanDisk’s expected licensing revenue depended on a single company’s continued payments—and whether that exposure could be managed through negotiation, supply relationships, or litigation.
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.What the 2007 report does—and does not—establish
The contemporaneous trade-press report records the proposed royalty change, analysts’ forecasts, and their response as of February 26, 2007. It does not establish the final legal or commercial outcome. It should be read as a snapshot of perceived risk at that date, not as evidence of a confirmed permanent royalty cut.
Quick Recap
Rank #4
- Transfer speeds up to 10x faster than standard USB 2.0 drives (4MB/s); up to 130MB/s read speed; USB 3.0 port required. Based on internal testing; performance may be lower depending upon host device. 1MB=1,000,000 bytes
- Backward compatible with USB 2.0
- Secure file encryption and password protection(2)
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
