Pamicell (005690) Part 3 — 1Q26 Earnings Confirmation: Revenue ₩36.7bn, OP ₩13.1bn, OPM 35.7%. Above Consensus on All Lines

Tue, 12 May 2026 11:30:00 +0900

📚 Pamicell series — Part 3. Part 1: Pamicell — April Foreign + Institutional Buying and Doosan Electro BG AI CCL Materials Re-rating Part 2: Pamicell Part 2 — AI CCL Materials Transition and the 12-24 Month Industry Cycle

🔗 Related reading: ROE-25% Screen — 4 Names That Pass 9 Filters · Korea AI PCB Ecosystem: 10 Companies · Why Korea Part 1 — Semiconductor Substrates

Parts 1 and 2 traced Pamicell’s reclassification from a biochemicals company into an AI-memory CCL (copper-clad-laminate) upstream materials supplier. KRX officially changed the industry code from “basic-pharmaceutical manufacturing” to “electronic-components manufacturing” on May 4. Citi and Goldman Sachs reframed the CCL supply shortage as a 2026-2027 “new normal.” On May 12, the 1Q26 print landed — revenue ₩36.7bn (vs. ₩33.1bn consensus), OP ₩13.1bn (vs. ₩10.6bn consensus), OPM 35.7%. This is the first numerical confirmation of the Parts 1 / 2 thesis.

TL;DR

1Q OP ₩13.1bn cleared consensus (₩10.6bn) by +23.6%. Revenue ₩36.7bn also +10.9% above consensus ₩33.1bn. OPM 35.7%, with revenue up +43.4% QoQ (₩25.6bn → ₩36.7bn).
The revenue range broke out. Four straight quarters (1Q25-4Q25) printed revenue in the ₩21.5-27.0bn band. 1Q26 printed ₩36.7bn — clearing the box top by ~₩10bn.
OPM stepped up from 30-32% to 35.7%. Pure volume growth would have produced flat margin; revenue and margin lifting together signals a mix shift toward higher-value products (low-dielectric materials).
The 2026 ₩60bn+ OP scenario requires 2Q-4Q quarterly OP averaging ₩15.0bn+. The 1Q ₩13.1bn print clears the “necessary condition,” not the “sufficient condition.”
TTM PER sits in the 23-30× band. Not “extremely cheap” by Korean-market standards, not “extremely expensive” either. Multiple-validation depends on whether the 2026-2027 forward path holds.

1. 1Q26 print — how far above estimates

1.1 Vs. consensus

Item	Actual	Consensus	Diff	Read
Revenue	₩36.7bn	₩33.1bn	+10.9%	Beat
OP	₩13.1bn	₩10.6bn	+23.6%	Strong beat
NI	₩11.7bn	₩11.7bn	+0.1%	In-line
OPM	35.7%	32.0%	+3.7pp	Core positive
NPM	31.9%	35.3%	-3.4pp	NPM softer than expected

Cross-checks:

Revenue beat = 36.7 / 33.1 - 1 = +10.9% ✓
OP beat = 13.1 / 10.6 - 1 = +23.6% ✓
OPM = 13.1 / 36.7 = 35.7% ✓
NPM = 11.7 / 36.7 = 31.9% ✓
Expected OPM = 10.6 / 33.1 = 32.0% ✓

1.2 Quarterly trajectory — the box top broke

Period	Revenue	OP	NI	OPM	NPM
1Q25	₩21.5bn	₩3.1bn	₩4.2bn	14.4%	19.5%
2Q25	₩27.0bn	₩8.4bn	₩8.5bn	31.1%	31.5%
3Q25	₩26.8bn	₩8.2bn	₩7.4bn	30.6%	27.6%
4Q25	₩25.6bn	₩8.1bn	₩8.8bn	31.6%	34.4%
1Q26	₩36.7bn	₩13.1bn	₩11.7bn	35.7%	31.9%

YoY / QoQ:

Revenue YoY = 36.7 / 21.5 - 1 = +70.7%
OP YoY = 13.1 / 3.1 - 1 = +322.6%
NI YoY = 11.7 / 4.2 - 1 = +178.6%
Revenue QoQ = 36.7 / 25.6 - 1 = +43.4%
OP QoQ = 13.1 / 8.1 - 1 = +61.7%
NI QoQ = 11.7 / 8.8 - 1 = +33.0%

This isn’t a “modest beat.” Revenue stepped up from the ₩25-27bn band to ₩36.7bn — a clear range break. And OPM lifted from a ~30-32% range to 35.7%, with revenue and margin moving up together — a pattern that volume growth alone does not produce.

2. How far do Parts 1 / 2 theses get validated

2.1 Part 1 — Doosan Electro BG AI CCL cycle exposure

Part 1 framed Pamicell not as a biochemical company but as an AI-memory CCL (copper-clad-laminate) upstream materials supplier. The chain: Doosan Electro BG grows AI-memory / server-grade high-value CCL revenue → upstream low-dielectric materials suppliers (Pamicell) capture the lift.

How the 1Q26 print is consistent with that read:

Revenue jumped from ~₩25.6bn (4Q25) to ₩36.7bn (+43% QoQ) — too large to be pure price effect, suggesting volume growth
OPM 35.7% — high-margin product-mix lift signal
Part 2 noted that Doosan Electro BG’s 1Q26 OPM (30.1%) precisely matched Pamicell’s 2025 average OPM (30.1%). This quarter, Pamicell extended that linkage by stepping one tier higher (35.7%).

2.2 Part 2 — the “new normal” industry-cycle framing

Part 2 catalogued five data points by early May:

KRX industry-code change on May 4 (basic-pharmaceutical → electronic-components)
Citi / Goldman Sachs’ “CCL supply shortage as 2026-2027 new normal” call
DS Investment + Meritz Securities 1Q26 estimate convergence (revenue ₩36.2bn, OP ₩12.1bn, OPM 33%)
Expanded 4-layer value chain (upstream mineral → monomer → polymer → CCL application)
Doosan Electro BG OPM linkage to Pamicell

Today’s actual print (revenue ₩36.7bn, OP ₩13.1bn, OPM 35.7%) cleared the DS / Meritz estimate (revenue ₩36.2bn, OP ₩12.1bn, OPM 33%) by +1% revenue, +8% OP, +2.7pp OPM. The “new normal” thesis just got one quarter of numerical confirmation.

3. What it takes to justify ₩60bn+ FY26 OP

3.1 Simple 4× annualization

Annualized revenue = 36.7 × 4 = ₩146.8bn
Annualized OP = 13.1 × 4 = ₩52.4bn
Annualized NI = 11.7 × 4 = ₩46.8bn

At a market cap of ₩1,102.5bn:

Annualized PER = 1,102.5 / 46.8 = 23.6×
Annualized EV/OP-proxy = 1,102.5 / 52.4 = 21.0×

That isn’t extreme by Korean-market standards. But the published market read of ₩56-63bn FY26 OP requires more than 1Q ₩13.1bn × 4.

3.2 The remaining 3 quarters

FY26 OP target	1Q actual	Remaining OP	2Q-4Q avg required
₩56.2bn	₩13.1bn	₩43.1bn	₩14.4bn
₩57.7bn	₩13.1bn	₩44.6bn	₩14.9bn
₩60.5bn	₩13.1bn	₩47.4bn	₩15.8bn
₩63.3bn	₩13.1bn	₩50.2bn	₩16.7bn

Cross-check:

₩60bn target - 1Q ₩13.1bn = ₩46.9bn / 3 = ₩15.6bn
₩60.5bn target - 1Q ₩13.1bn = ₩47.4bn / 3 = ₩15.8bn ✓

In other words: for FY26 OP ₩60bn+ to feel natural, quarterly OP from 2Q onward needs to step up to ~₩15-16bn. The 1Q ₩13.1bn print is the starting point, not the destination.

4. TTM (trailing 12-month) — two ways to calculate

4.1 Why two paths exist

The official quarterly filings include quarterly P&L. But company IR materials’ FY25 annual figures don’t always reconcile to a clean sum of the four quarters. With the user-shared quarterly data:

FY25 quarterly sum:
Revenue = 21.5 + 27.0 + 26.8 + 25.6 = ₩100.9bn
OP = 3.1 + 8.4 + 8.2 + 8.1 = ₩27.8bn
NI = 4.2 + 8.5 + 7.4 + 8.8 = ₩28.9bn

The Part 1 / 2 analysis used company IR FY25 annuals of revenue ₩114.0bn, OP ₩34.3bn, NI ₩40.3bn. Gaps: revenue ₩13bn, OP ₩6.5bn, NI ₩11.4bn. These can arise from (a) standalone vs. consolidated, (b) continuing vs. discontinued operations, (c) cumulative vs. quarterly conversion, (d) reclassification of operating vs. non-operating items. Definitive reconciliation requires reading the actual quarterly report income statement.

4.2 TTM under both bases

(A) Quarterly-sum basis (conservative)

TTM revenue = 27.0 + 26.8 + 25.6 + 36.7 = ₩109.1bn
TTM OP = 8.4 + 8.2 + 8.1 + 13.1 = ₩37.8bn
TTM NI = 8.5 + 7.4 + 8.8 + 11.7 = ₩36.4bn
TTM PER = 1,102.5 / 36.4 = 30.3×
TTM mcap / OP = 1,102.5 / 37.8 = 29.2×

(B) IR-annual-adjusted basis

TTM revenue = 114.0 - 21.5 + 36.7 = ₩129.2bn
TTM OP = 34.3 - 3.1 + 13.1 = ₩44.3bn
TTM NI = 40.3 - 4.2 + 11.7 = ₩47.8bn
TTM PER = 1,102.5 / 47.8 = 23.1×
TTM mcap / OP = 1,102.5 / 44.3 = 24.9×

Both readings converge on the same conclusion: TTM PER 23-30× — not “extremely cheap” by Korean-market standards, not “extremely expensive” either. Multiple-validation rests on the 2026-2027 forward path holding. One quarter doesn’t settle the question.

5. What’s validated, what remains open

5.1 Validated by 1Q26

Item	Part 1 / 2 expectation	1Q26 actual	Result
1Q revenue	₩35.0-36.2bn	₩36.7bn	Above top of range
1Q OP	₩11.5-12.3bn	₩13.1bn	Above top of range
1Q OPM	~33%	35.7%	One tier higher
Range break	Jump from ₩25.6bn (4Q25)	₩36.7bn	Confirmed

5.2 Still open

Item	Part 1 / 2 expectation	Check window	If not confirmed
2Q-4Q revenue ₩40bn+	FY26 revenue ₩160bn+	2Q report (late Jul-early Aug)	1Q-as-one-off concern
2Q-4Q OP ₩15bn+	FY26 OP ₩60bn+	2Q report	Multiple-rerating gets harder
Doosan Electro BG high-value CCL revenue visibility	New-normal cycle validation	Doosan quarterly IR	Single-customer concentration risk surfaces
Disclosure of low-dielectric materials revenue mix	Quantification of mix shift	Quarterly report / IR Q&A	OPM 35.7% remains under-attributed
PTFE competitor qualification / dual sourcing (bear signal)	Maintained supply position	Industry news	Core Parts 1 / 2 thesis damage

6. Key calendar — what to verify next

Window	Event	Why it matters
Throughout 2Q	Doosan Electro BG 2Q26 guidance	Pamicell’s primary end-demand pulse
June-July	Sell-side estimate revisions	Does the FY26 ₩60bn OP scenario enter consensus
Late July / early August	Pamicell 2Q26 print	Confirms or denies the 2Q-4Q ₩40bn+/₩15bn+ path
2H	Post-reclassification flow effect	How the “basic-pharma → electronics” code change reroutes index / theme flows
Ongoing	PTFE competitor qualification news	If it materializes, Parts 1 / 2 thesis takes damage

7. Bottom line

The Pamicell 1Q26 print is the first numerical validation of the Parts 1 / 2 thesis — Pamicell reclassifying from a biochemicals name into an AI-memory CCL upstream materials supplier. Revenue ₩36.7bn broke the ₩21.5-27.0bn range; OPM lifted from ~30-32% to 35.7%; OP ₩13.1bn cleared consensus ₩10.6bn by +23.6%.

But a single quarter does not settle FY26. For the ₩60bn+ OP scenario to feel natural, 2Q-4Q quarterly OP needs to step to ~₩15-16bn. That answer lands in the late-July / early-August 2Q report.

Part 1 introduced the AI-CCL upstream reclassification hypothesis. Part 2 tracked five data points showing the cycle as a 12-24 month new normal. Part 3 logs the first numerical clearance of that thesis. Validation remains in progress, and the next quarterly print is what distinguishes “single-quarter spike” from “sustained cycle.”

FAQ

Q: Is OP ₩13.1bn a strong number? A: It’s +23.6% above the ₩10.6bn consensus and lifts OPM to 35.7% — one tier above the prior quarter’s 31.6%. Revenue also rose +43% QoQ from ₩25.6bn to ₩36.7bn. This qualifies as a strong beat, with the caveat that it’s a single quarter.

Q: Why did NI come in exactly in-line while OP beat strongly? A: Most likely larger-than-expected non-operating expense or tax. Definitive attribution requires the quarterly-report income statement. The OPM 35.7% itself signals operating fundamentals strengthening regardless.

Q: What drove the revenue jump to ₩36.7bn? A: The Part 1 / 2 working hypothesis is Doosan Electro BG’s AI-memory high-value CCL revenue growth flowing upstream into low-dielectric materials. The company does not disclose customer-level revenue, so direct verification isn’t possible. The Part 2 observation that Doosan Electro BG’s 1Q26 OPM (30.1%) tracked Pamicell’s 2025 average OPM (30.1%) provides an indirect signal of the linkage.

Q: Is TTM PER 23-30× expensive or cheap? A: Neither extreme by Korean-market standards. The multiple’s adequacy depends on whether FY26 OP reaches the ₩60bn band — in that case, the FY26 forward PER drops to 17-20×.

Q: What invalidates the Parts 1 / 2 thesis? A: Three primary breaks: (1) 2Q-4Q revenue reverting to the ₩25-30bn range (one-off interpretation); (2) PTFE competitor qualification formalizing dual sourcing (supply-position erosion); (3) Doosan Electro BG AI CCL guidance weakening (demand-pulse erosion). Any one materializing would meaningfully weaken Parts 1 / 2.

Q: What does the KRX industry-code change do? A: As of May 4, classification moved from “basic-pharmaceutical manufacturing” to “electronic-components manufacturing.” Index / theme classification and flow patterns can shift accordingly. Underlying fundamentals don’t change because of the code change itself.

Q: How do you track Pamicell’s customer-level revenue without disclosure? A: Indirect routes: (1) Doosan Electro BG’s quarterly IR for CCL revenue / mix commentary, (2) the Pamicell quarterly report body for any explicit low-dielectric-materials mix mention, (3) industry news flow on memory / server CCL supply tightness.

This article is for research and informational purposes only and does not constitute investment advice. 1Q26 figures are based on user-shared DART preliminary results (2026-05-12 10:27 KST); the full quarterly report body is not directly verified. Consensus figures (revenue ₩33.1bn / OP ₩10.6bn / NI ₩11.7bn) are user-shared. FY25 annual figures referenced in Part 1 / 2 (revenue ₩114.0bn / OP ₩34.3bn) differ from the quarterly-sum baseline (₩100.9bn / ₩27.8bn); both bases are calculated in section 4. Doosan Electro BG-level revenue, low-dielectric-materials mix, and PTFE competitor qualification status are not precisely verifiable from public sources. Analysis can be wrong. Data cut: May 12, 2026 KST.

Disclaimer: For research and information purposes only. Not investment advice. Names cited are for analytical illustration; readers should perform their own due diligence and consult licensed advisors before any investment decision.

AI CCL on Korea Invest Insights