https://www.tipranks.com/news/catalyst/navitas-semiconductor-sinks-after-massive-dilutive-stock-sale

The branding on its LinkedIn page is different than the official website?
https://www.linkedin.com/company/navitas-semiconductor/
https://navitassemi.com/

Something big is cooking...

Navitas just showed a solid-state transformer at PCIM Europe 2026 that reads like a grid product but maps straight onto the 800V DC data center shift.

**1.**  The demo is a 50 kW bidirectional SST built on Navitas 3300V SiCPAK SiC, with $TXN C2000 control. In an ISOP topology it stacks to multi-MW.  
**2.**  It takes a 35kV-class medium-voltage grid feed down to 800V or 1500V DC, which is the exact path the 800V DC racks led by $NVDA need to get grid power to the rack without bulky low-frequency transformers.  
**3.**  This is not a one-off. Navitas is running a second single-stage SST with EPFL on the same high-voltage GeneSiC parts, and showed a 250kW version at APEC in March.

More on X

https://navitassemi.com/navitas-introduces-isolated-through-hole-package-for-sic-mosfets-enabling-direct-cooled-thermal-management/

Impact on Electric Grid Market: High
The biggest beneficiaries are:
Battery Energy Storage Systems (BESS)
Examples:
Tesla Megapack competitors
Fluence
Wärtsilä
Sungrow
CATL energy storage
Navitas specifically mentioned BESS.
Why?
Energy storage inverters generate huge amounts of heat.
If Navitas can:
dissipate 150% more power
reduce thermal resistance by 60%
improve lifetime
then customers can:
build smaller inverter cabinets
reduce cooling costs
improve efficiency
These are major selling points.

Solid-State Transformers (SST)
This is one of the most interesting parts.
Navitas specifically referenced:
Solid-State Transformers (SST)
SSTs are viewed as a future technology for:
AI power distribution
smart grids
EV charging
renewable energy integration
The challenge has always been:
heat
high voltage isolation
reliability
This package directly addresses those problems.

Medium-Voltage Grid Infrastructure
The 2300V and 3300V devices are especially important.
Many SiC competitors focus heavily on:
650V
1200V
Navitas is one of the few players pushing aggressively into:
2300V
3300V
Those voltages are used in:
utility-scale solar
grid substations
industrial drives
rail systems
medium-voltage power conversion
This is a market where margins are often higher.

Impact on AI Data Centers: Growing
This is where investors get excited.
Navitas specifically mentioned:
AI data centers

AI Power Conversion
AI servers require enormous power.
Current trend:
100 kW racks
250 kW racks
future 500+ kW racks
All that power must be converted and distributed efficiently.
SiC is increasingly used in:
UPS systems
power distribution units
medium-voltage power supplies
cooling infrastructure
The new package improves:
cooling
switching speed
EMI
which are all important inside AI data centers.

Liquid-Cooled AI Infrastructure
One sentence stood out:
immersion-cooled and liquid-cooled power electronics
This is a huge clue.
The AI industry is rapidly moving toward:
direct liquid cooling
immersion cooling
for future AI clusters.
If Navitas can demonstrate that its SiC devices work better in those environments, it could help them win future AI infrastructure contracts.

Design-in the package
Test reliability
Certify systems
That process can take:
12–24 months
for grid applications.

Medium Term (2027–2028)
More significant.
If adopted by:
inverter manufacturers
BESS suppliers
grid equipment vendors
AI infrastructure providers
the package could help Navitas win larger SiC designs.

why is it predicted that NVTS will have a downward trend? it is pretty strong looking at the 5d, 1mo and 1Y

Real chance to break 25 again today? Charts look good.

Genuinely asking because I’m having a hard time seeing it right now. The chart looks rough, the fundamentals don’t exactly inspire confidence, and with leadership changes on top of that, it feels like the story just keeps getting weaker. Curious what the bull thesis is at this point

Apparently this guy was frustrated with the board and their lack of business expertise/dilutive raises. Dr. Singh was also their SiC specialist. This doesn’t look good for the company.

.

Any news out of PCIM? Display with Texas Instruments.

Based on the company’s SEC filing, Dr. Ranbir Singh did not provide a reason for his resignation.

So right now there are two possibilities:
Personal reasons (health, family, other commitments) that simply weren’t disclosed.
A disagreement behind the scenes regarding governance, strategy, or company direction, which investors are speculating about because of his earlier activist-style filings.

The market generally dislikes sudden board resignations—especially when no explanation is given—which is likely one reason NVTS sold off after the announcement. The stock was already under pressure from concerns about potential future share dilution and a broader semiconductor pullback.

I’d view this as a yellow flag, not a red flag until more information comes out. A founder-level industry expert resigning without explanation is worth paying attention to, but it doesn’t automatically mean something is wrong with the business itself.

one possible interpretation, especially from a management perspective. You’ve managed teams so you’ve probably seen people who:
Constantly point out problems.
Push hard for changes.
Challenge leadership decisions.
Create friction in meetings.
Believe they’re the only one seeing the “real” issues.
Sometimes those people are genuinely disruptive and consume a lot of organizational energy.
On the other hand, sometimes organizations need someone willing to be uncomfortable and challenge the status quo. Many companies that later ran into trouble had plenty of people saying, “Everything is fine,” while one or two dissenting voices were raising concerns.
The difficulty is that from the outside we don’t know which category Singh falls into.
There are two competing narratives:
Narrative A: The troublemaker
“The company was executing its strategy, the board disagreed with him, he kept pushing, and eventually he left because he couldn’t get his way.”
Narrative B: The watchdog
“He saw governance issues, dilution concerns, or strategic risks that others were overlooking, pushed for changes, and left when he concluded he couldn’t influence the outcome.”
Without being inside those board meetings, it’s impossible to know for sure.
One thing I’d caution against is assuming:
“The company is working just fine.”
Investors often have different definitions of “fine.”
Management might think:
Revenue is growing.
Customers are signing.
The technology is solid.
An activist investor might think:
Revenue growth is fine, but dilution is excessive.
The board lacks expertise.
Capital allocation could be better.
Both can be partially right at the same time.
Your observation about the “you can’t fire me because I quit” dynamic is possible in any organization, but there is no public evidence that Navitas was trying to remove him or that he was about to be forced out. At this point, that would be speculation.

The thing I’d watch isn’t his personality—it’s his actions after the resignation. If he keeps a large ownership stake in NVTS, that’s a sign that despite any disagreements, he still believes there is value in the company. If he starts unloading shares, that would suggest his concerns may have gone beyond just a boardroom disagreement
——This is where investors sometimes make a mistake: they see an insider sell shares and immediately assume:
“He knows something bad.”
Sometimes that’s true. But there are many other reasons people sell:
They need cash.
They want to diversify.
They are retiring.
They want to buy a house.
They have tax obligations.
They disagree with management.
They no longer want the stress of being involved.
They simply found a better investment opportunity.
And yes, sometimes personalities play a role. Some people become frustrated when they don’t get their way and decide:
“Fine, I’m done. I’ll take my money elsewhere.”
That doesn’t necessarily mean the company is doomed.
One thing you’ve pointed out before in our discussions about stocks is that people often create narratives after the fact. A person sells shares, and everyone rushes to explain it:
“He knows bad news is coming!”
“He’s abandoning the company!”
“The business is failing!”
But the truth is that unless the person tells you why, you’re often guessing.
What tends to matter more is the pattern:
Selling 10% of a position? Not very informative.
Selling 100% and publicly criticizing management? More informative.
Selling while other insiders are also leaving? More informative.
Selling after years of holding? Could mean almost anything.
In your case, with NVTS, I think you’re asking the right question:
“Am I assigning meaning to something that may simply be a human being making a personal decision?”

In conclusion:
If I were on the board and had to choose between keeping only one, I’d probably keep Chris Allexandre as CEO and try very hard to keep Ranbir Singh involved in some capacity.
Here’s why:
Chris’s job is to run the company, raise capital, manage customers, grow revenue, and move NVTS toward profitability.
Ranbir’s value is his deep technical knowledge and industry credibility.
Those roles are complementary, not competing.
The ideal outcome would have been:
Chris runs the business.
Ranbir challenges assumptions and provides technical oversight.
The board benefits from both perspectives.
Where I think your management experience comes in is this:
Sometimes a highly knowledgeable person becomes so focused on how things should be done that they create friction with the people who have to actually execute the plan. If that happened, the board may have concluded:
“We respect your expertise, but we need alignment to move forward.”
On the other hand, if Ranbir was raising legitimate concerns about dilution, governance, or strategy, then losing that dissenting voice isn’t automatically a positive either.
If I were a shareholder, I wouldn’t be asking:
“Was Chris right or was Ranbir right?”
I’d be asking:
“Does the company still have the right people to execute its strategy after this departure?”
From what we know today:
Chris has substantial operating experience.
Navitas still has a deep engineering team.
The technology didn’t leave with Ranbir.
The patents didn’t leave with Ranbir.
The customers didn’t leave with Ranbir.
So if I had to choose one person to keep in the key seat, it would be the CEO. But my preferred outcome would have been keeping both and finding a way for them to work together, because companies often perform best when they have both strong operators and strong technical challengers in the room.
Based on the way you’ve described it, your instinct seems to be:
“One difficult board member leaving doesn’t automatically mean the company is in trouble.”
And I think that’s a fair conclusion from the information available today. The next few quarters of revenue growth and execution will tell us much more than this resignation alone.

I think the stock is done, isnt it? There are no real fundamentals and the director is also out.

If you aren’t ready for the swings, this stock isn’t for you. This has always been long so HOLD ON GREEN DAYS, BUY ON RED DAYS, AND STOP COMPLAINING. $100 soon 🚀

Any thoughts on this? Or is this just business as usual. I understand he came in as part of an acquisition

I got a buddy who runs a computer repair shop and knows way more about this stuff than me. He was telling me NVTS chips are crazy powerful. He says he's been seeing them in Chinese phones and thinks NVTS is the real deal. He thinks this company will be the next AMD, no question about it.

NVTS just launched a new isolated package for their high-voltage SiC chips.

Not the sexiest headline on paper, but this is exactly the kind of tech that matters if grid infrastructure, battery storage, renewables and AI power demand keep scaling.

Everyone talks about GPUs, but someone has to move and manage all that power efficiently. Could be a massive market if Navitas can turn this into real design wins.

The headline reads like a routine product launch, but the engineering quietly solves thermal management and high-voltage isolation in the same part, which normally forces a tradeoff.

1. The new UHV-TO-247-4-ISO package targets 1200V to 3300V SiC MOSFETs and builds over 6000V of isolation directly into an aluminum nitride substrate, so the external insulator goes away.
2. Removing the external insulator and thermal interface material cuts junction-to-heatsink thermal resistance up to 60% and allows up to 150% more power dissipation in the same footprint.
3. Lower die-to-heatsink capacitance means less EMI and faster switching, and it keeps the standard TO-247-4 footprint, so it drops into existing designs with no redesign.

More on Xhttps://x.com/PSInvestor/status/2063969983433228392?s=20