Hi. Good morning, good afternoon. Welcome to the Rosenblatt Age of AI Tech Summit. I am Michael Genovese, the cloud and communications equipment analyst here, and I am very, very pleased today to be joined by the Chief Financial Officer and Chief Strategy Officer of AAOI, Applied Optoelectronics. It is Stefan Murry. Hi, nice to see you, Stefan. Thanks for having me, Michael. It is great to see you again. Perfect. We are going to have a 45-minute fireside chat here, go over some key industry and company questions. For the audience, which I am sure we will have a nice one here, if they want to ask questions, on the upper right-hand of the screen, there is an Ask a Question button. If you type something in there, it will come to me, and I will ask the question during the session. In fact, we have already got some questions as I look, so I will start to fold these in. Stefan, again, thanks for joining. Let us start with AOI, right? The data center revenue today comes from transceivers, right? You sell transceivers, but I would argue that at your core, you are a laser maker, and an indium phosphide laser maker. That is why companies want to buy your transceivers, because your lasers. That is one of the key reasons, not the only key reason. Yeah. I think there's two things. I think, first of all, yes, I think you're right. That's an astute observation that technology-wise, the foundation of the company is in the lasers. That's where we started. For many, many years, we made lasers and didn't make transceivers or other modules. It's only been in the last 15 or 20 years, really, that we've been making modules and the lasers. I think that's a very astute observation that technically, the laser capability goes back further than even the transceiver capacity. Customers do definitely appreciate the fact that we have our own laser fab because it represents a differentiated supply chain for them. It's an additional source of lasers that others don't have access to, that gives us greater supply continuity, and just basically adds to the availability of lasers, which is currently one of the things that's constraining growth across the industry. However, the other thing that customers, I think, really appreciate is the automation that we've built and developed for the production of the transceivers themselves. We have the lasers on one side. On the other hand, we also have this highly automated production process for the transceivers, which, to some extent, I think it's fair to say customers don't necessarily care a great deal about exactly how your production process works. However, with all the geopolitical tensions that we've seen, it now becomes very important to them that their supply chain for the transceivers has as high an integrity as possible, meaning they want production ideally to be situated in geographical locales that they view as more stable, less likely to be interrupted by any of the stuff that we've seen over the last five or 10 years, right? Natural disasters, pandemics, government restrictions, all of these kinds of things come into play. I think it's fair to say that most of our customers view the U.S. as being probably the most secure place in terms of supply chain in which to situate production. By virtue of the fact that our production process is highly automated, we have a greater likelihood of being able to economically situate production here in the U.S., and that's another thing that's really important to our customers, and probably growing in importance to our customers relative to where we were a year or two ago. Both of those factors, lasers, automated transceiver production that can be located in the U.S. Those are the two big selling points. Perfect. Do you find that customers are willing to pay a premium, or does the price kind of equalize in the market between all the transceivers at 800G, at 1.6T? No, they're willing to pay a premium for U.S. production. Yeah. Okay. Just because you touched on the geopolitical thing, we did the conference yesterday, and the companies I talked to yesterday, like Lumentum and things like that, Viavi Solutions, they don't necessarily think that anything is going to change all that much, but I don't think anybody really knows what's going to happen. Do you have a view on that? I think there's one person in this country who knows what's going to happen, and he's not talking. He's not to me. I think that's a fair statement. Nobody really knows what's going to happen. I do think there's enough concern about having the supply chain for such a significant component in our AI infrastructure being largely sourced either from China directly or from companies that are Chinese companies. I think there is a lot of concern about that. What the government ultimately does about that situation, I can't claim to have any significant insight into. However, I would posit to you that because nobody knows, including our customers, right? To a large extent, it's the uncertainty that's driving their decision-making at this point, right? To your point, they don't know whether there could be a ban coming, and there's a real possibility that that could happen. Again, I don't know when, I don't know what likelihood it is, but it's non-zero possibility that that could happen. Against that backdrop, if that were to happen, that would absolutely kill our ability to build new data centers in the U.S. if they were immediately banned from importing from the Chinese, right? I think against that backdrop, customers are increasingly looking at where their products are produced, and by whom, and how. When you start to look at it in that light, AOI's U.S.-based production capacity, currently existing and planned growth, becomes very attractive to them, and more attractive now than it was perhaps just a couple of weeks ago, even if a ban isn't actually imminent. Right. Going back to the lasers, I think what you're making, I believe, right, are CW lasers for silicon photonics transceivers. When you compare yourself and your laser-making capabilities to, say, Lumentum, Coherent, Broadcom, and we're talking about 100 milliwatt lasers, 70 milliwatt lasers. Do you think everybody is about equal, or does the laser actually become a differentiation, or are they all about the same? Well, I think there are certain technical advantages that our lasers have, especially at higher powers, when you look at CPO-type lasers, which are in the 300 milliwatt to perhaps even 400 milliwatt variety. What matters there is the amount of power that you can get into a very narrow linewidth. Not to get overly technical, but basically they want a very tight power spectrum, and our lasers are among the best in that respect. Now that being said, I think everybody that you mentioned, which probably is an exhaustive list of all the companies that actually have 300 milliwatt or 400 milliwatt lasers, and it's not that big a list, is my point. But I think all of us are able to make lasers that are good enough for the applications and probably sufficiently capable that it's not a decision-making criteria for our customers. I think they'll buy anybody's that meets the specifications. We are relatively smaller in production capacity, especially for the larger chip sizes that are used in those high-power lasers. So that's the main differentiator for us, is our production capacity currently is just a lot smaller than Lumentum, certainly, Coherent probably, and even Broadcom. So that's where we're working to try to improve is by increasing our capacity on the laser production. But from a design standpoint, from a specification standpoint, I think we're as good or better than anybody else, arguably better in some ways. Could you make the 300 milliwatt lasers and ship them today if you were if you had the capacity? The technology is there. This is just about having the capacity and- Yeah, absolutely. In fact, we are shipping small quantities for evaluation and whatever to customers today. There's no problem with our ability to produce these products other than the fact that we just don't have enough capacity right now to meet some of the demand that we're seeing, or hearing about, even. I think you said on the earnings, right, you said, "We're not going to be the very first." Well, because, right, some companies are shipping for scale-out this year, right? Right. Before the end of this year, that's not you. But then by the end of next year or early 2028, there's the next phase for scale-up. Is that what you kind of meant by that we'll be in the second phase, meaning scale-up, or do you mean the second phase of scale-up? Well, I think there'll be a second phase of scale-out as well. I think to a large extent, a big reason why AOI is not a bigger player in the first phase, as we point out, the early shipments, the stuff that's happening this year and early next year, is just simply what I said. We don't have enough capacity to provide a meaningful market share to our potential customers. So, they have to work with somebody who's able to supply product, regardless of whether they like us or how good our product is compared to anybody else's. If you can't produce enough of it to be commercially useful to them, then they have to go elsewhere, right? As we begin to add capacity, and we have been adding capacity, but specifically into the latter half of next year when we see our capacity increasing meaningfully enough that we can supply all the lasers that we need for the transceivers, and have additional capacity for the CPO or NPO or whatever type of laser that we're producing for those newer applications, then I think that's where we really will start to see our participation in that market start to grow, and that's kind of what I meant. It wasn't specifically tied to scale-up versus scale-out, but it does sort of coincide to some extent with that scale-up opportunity, which is where we're going to see, in my opinion, probably a very sharp increase in the overall market size for these optics. It's timely that we're going to have additional production capacity right about the time that the market size is going to grow dramatically. Have you looked at the content difference between scale-out and scale-up? Because what I am seeing is that a scale-out switch might have 16 optical engines, whereas a scale-out, right? A scale-up rack, though, might have 5x as many optical engines, it might have 10x as many optical engines. Yeah, that's- Each optical engine has eight lasers. So it just seems like the content opportunity and scale, not only is it a bigger market, but people are saying, "Oh, it's double the content per rack," but I am thinking it might be 10x the content per rack. Oh, we tend to think of it as an order of magnitude-ish increase as well. Yeah. The other thing that you hinted at, but just to make it a little more explicit, is the size, the die size of those lasers is much larger as well. When you look at the capacity as an industry that we have to produce those lasers, you are talking about, let us just call it roughly an order of magnitude increase in the number of lasers, and 5x or 6x larger size per laser. When you look at the amount of wafer real estate that needs to be processed and fabricated into lasers, it is an enormous increase, related to scale-up compared to where we are today, which is why you see a lot of these investments from us and from our competitors in the laser space being made because there is not enough capacity in the industry right now to even come close to meeting the demand from scale-up, much less the scale-out and regular opportunities that we see today. It is a big amount of increase in capacity that is needed, and the industry is responding to that along with us. What size wafers are you using? We are a four-inch right now. All of our equipment, all of our fab equipment that we purchased in the last, I don't know, year or two, is all capable of going to six-inch. We can turn on a six-inch production at some point in the future when it is economically viable to do so. But right now, we are not at that point, so we are at four-inch. Yeah, I actually like hearing that. I talked to Wupen Yuen about this yesterday from Lumentum, and he said that 4-inch is really just solid and the cost and economics make sense. The early guys working with 6-inch, just the yields are bad, and the economics are bad. I think waiting is probably a good idea. Yeah, no, we would agree with that assessment. I think 6-inch sounds good on paper and, at some point, I think it will be economically viable. But for us, it's a very simple decision. When 6-inch is basically cheaper to produce lasers at 6-inch than it is at 4-inch, we'll switch to 6-inch, but that is not the case now. We don't have a defined timeframe set in stone where, on this date, we're going to switch over to 6-inch. We're going to evaluate the 4-inch yields as they evolve. We're going to begin work on 6-inch to start to get our yield metrics and laser qualification and things like that done. Then over time, as those two factors, as we learn more on both of those fronts, when it becomes economically more advantageous to go to 6-inch, and we have 6-inch substrate availability, which is another issue, then we'll switch over to 6-inch. But there's no particular timeframe that we have for making that decision. Yeah. Stepping back from CPO here for a minute, and just getting back to transceivers and 800G, I think you said in the third quarter, you expect about a 5x increase in sales there, which would, I think, get you into kind of the mid-$60 million in revenue for 800G. First of all, how many customers, just because this is a question that the audience is asking, how many customers are contributing to that 800G revenue? More importantly, what changes between 2Q and 3Q? What investments did you make how long ago, so that you now have the material, the capacity to be, and any more detail on sort of what's different this quarter versus last quarter, so that you can 5x the 800G? There's two major hyperscale customers that are both purchasing meaningful quantities of 800G. Then there's several others that are smaller, that are either purchasing or about to start purchasing smaller quantities. But really, the volume is being driven principally by two large hyperscale customers. The question of what changed from 2Q- 3Q is simply the fact that we've added additional capacity, and we've talked about this for at least the last year, that we are adding capacity. The capacity for this year that's being added is mainly in our Taiwan factory. We have a huge amount of real estate here in the Houston area that we are beginning to build capacity here, but that really won't start to come online, the very first increment of it will start to come online later this year. But really that's more of a 2027, and even into 2028 thing, where we're going to see more of that U.S. capacity coming on board. So right now, the additional capacity that we've added that allows us to go from a few million dollars in 800G sales a quarter to our projection that you mentioned for Q3 and into Q4, that ramp is coming mainly out of our additional capacity in our Taiwan plant. And that's the thing that's changed, that's allowed us to grow that revenue. Okay. I want to hit some of these questions in the audience that always aren't the questions that I would ask, sometimes, but I want to hit these. To the extent that you can answer, they make sense. Yeah. What is the capacity utilization, or sorry, what is the capacity of a single automated line, and what is the realistic capacity utilization? We tend to think about our production planning in terms of 100,000 units per month capacity. I guess that's what you would call a line. We don't really look at it that way exactly, but it's sort of a unit of production, additional capacity, and that's 100,000 pieces per month. As far as what's the realistic utilization, it's going to be pretty high. There's some planned downtime for equipment maintenance and things like that, but the plan is to run those machines pretty much 24/7, again, with some downtime for necessary maintenance and things like that. It's the advantage of having an automated process is it can be run pretty much all the time. It doesn't require sleep and bathroom breaks and things like that. Are you at about 200,000 units of capacity right now, and then the end of the year target is 650, is that correct? Yeah. Probably a little more than 200,000 units. We were 200,000 units kind of at the end of last quarter, so we're probably a little more than that now, but we're on that pathway between 200,000 units- 650,000 units. Help us understand the difference between the capacity you have right this moment, and then the actual, the revenues you could ship this quarter. Tied into that question, for the $471 million per month target for data center transceivers in the second half of 2027, I just want to double-click on that, because you talk about it as a revenue target, right? A capacity target. Yeah. Is that a real expectation that you would expect to have 100% of that revenue in that timeframe? That's our current expectation, yeah. I could say this, based on our discussions with customers, the demand is not the limiting factor. We could actually do more revenue than that, if we had more capacity at that point or sooner, right? Our customers are aggressively trying to work with us to expand our capacity as fast as possible because their demand is growing very, very fast. It really, honestly, it outstrips our ability to build capacity fast enough. So, yes, that is intended to be a revenue number, and it's basically gated by how fast we can add additional capacity and to some extent, supply chain, the expectations. There's not an unlimited amount of supply of everything that we need to build those modules, but those are the limiting factors, not demand. Could you even take another large data center transceiver customer? If another hyperscaler came to you and said, "We want your lasers, we want your U.S. production, and we want to buy lots and lots of transceivers for you," would you bring them in the door, or would you have to turn them away? It would be difficult right now, honestly. We would love to have a couple other data center customers, and I would say there's probably some large data center customers that would be very interested in working with us, but we have to be very careful to not over-commit. We're still relatively small in this industry and we have to be careful not to over-commit. The last thing we would want to do is not be able to meet our commitments to our existing supplier or existing customers because we got ourselves out over our skis with new customer engagement. We're talking to them. We're trying to find a way to intercept with their demand. Maybe it's CPO, maybe it's some other newer technology that's a little ways out that we can try to build some capacity and intercept for them. To answer your question directly, today, if another customer came to us, and some have, and said, "We need X number of units," we have to say, "Sorry, we're really sold out at least through second half of next year and beyond. Maybe we have some opportunities to add certain types of things, but not till then. When we do this a year from now, do you think you'll be saying, "We're still relatively small in the industry"? Because you're going to grow a lot, but the industry's going to grow a lot. What do you think a year from now you'll say? The way I see it, with our capacity expansion plans and the way we see the market going, really the best we could hope to achieve is somewhere around 20% market share. I don't know if you would call that small necessarily. It's certainly a big improvement from where we are today. It's not like we're anticipating being sort of the dominant player or whatever. We're still one of the smaller players. That is big. I do not think any U.S. vendor right now has 20% market share. I think that that is actually pretty big. Yeah, fair enough. It depends on how you look at it. There are certainly companies out there that are going to be a lot bigger than us, although they may not be U.S. companies, right? Yeah. Then 1.6T, right? Obviously one customer has, there has been an announced $200 million order. I think you will have some revenue this quarter, and you sort of talked about $70 million- $80 million in the fourth quarter against that order. Then I think the rest kind of slips into the first half of next year, and then we get more orders from that customer. So, two questions, which is just flesh out what I just said, particularly, the confidence in delivering and then what the next orders could be. But then also, I think you probably have qualification trials going on now for at least one other big 1.6T customer. So when would be the timing where we could hear some news on another 1.6T customer? I know that is a lot of questions asked at once. Well, I won't really give an estimate on the timing for another 1.6T customer. It's hard to predict, but it's not based on our ability or inability to qualify those products. It's based on their schedule on when they need those products, right? Right now, that customer is focusing on 800G and getting ramped up on that. They're looking at 1.6T, but not for a full qualification at this point. I'll defer that part of the question. The first part of your question is, when do we see additional orders? The orders are going to come regularly and we're not going to be publishing every order that we get from here on out. The purpose of those first press releases was just to let everybody know that, in fact, we are starting to get orders for 1.6T. But as we satisfy those orders, we're anticipating getting a continuous stream of orders to utilize the capacity that we're building. Those are just the beginning phases, if you will. Okay. Back to some questions from the audience, since we're talking about capacity, any more new fabs plan to expand the laser supply, beyond what is being built right now? Then there's another more general question. What are the plans for capacity expansion? Yes. We will be adding fab capacity. We do intend to add fab capacity next year. We've talked somewhat about those plans, not in a lot of detail, and I can't give you a lot more detail than that. But we do have some significant capacity expansion plans, largely around enabling our ability to satisfy some reasonable amount of the demand for CPO or NPO type laser devices, which we think, again is going to be back half of next year. You actually make the lasers in both Taiwan, and then you will be making them in Texas or not? No, the lasers are only made here in the U.S. Okay in our Sugar Land facility. In fact, the building that I am sitting in right now has a laser fab downstairs. We will be adding, or we intend to add additional laser production also here in the Houston area, but we do not intend to put laser production overseas. Right. Then, you surprised me on the last conference call with the amount of space that you have access to in Texas. I mean, 1.6 million square feet. Yeah. How much of that is for transceivers and how much is for CPO? If that's the right way to think about it. I don't know if that's the right way to think about it. Well, I don't know. I don't have an exact answer to that question. I'd have to look that up, but I don't know that square footage is really the right metric anyway. But, definitely more square footage is going to be related to transceiver production, just because it physically takes more space than an equivalent amount of revenue-generating capacity on the laser side, if you will. But there'll be some significant square footage additions related to laser production. Again, mostly last part of next year, latter half of next year. Just substrates. Can you give us just an update on substrates? I mean, obviously you need to buy them to make these lasers and the availability of them, the pricing of them, any other issues? Yeah. So we feel pretty good about our substrate situation, substrate availability situation through next year, through 2027. We're actively working with a number of vendors on how to secure the capacity that we need for 2028 and beyond. Obviously, as our capacity goes up, we're going to need more substrate, more raw material, and we're working with vendors to see if they can scale up their capacity and what that would look like and how we can manage that. But at least for next year, we're feeling good about our substrate availability. As far as pricing goes, pricing has gone up a little bit. But it's not a dramatic impact on our overall margins. Yields for us have room to improve, on lasers. So that's one of the areas where if we can improve our yield, that has a very positive impact on our margins. Even if the substrate costs a little more, we can improve the yield, it's a wash or even an improvement in gross margins. Yeah. I think I hit all your questions. Yeah. Let me ask you this, because I'm a little bit surprised in that I'm not out there, I'm looking around, and I'm not actually seeing an overwhelming amount of demand for LRO, LPO type solutions. I would have expected more of that, but it's just across the board, we're not seeing that much of it. My question is, given the size of your company, and particularly if there are DSP constraints, do you have LRO, LPO products? Or how quickly could you respond to shifting demand if all of a sudden the customers are asking for something different? Yeah, we do have LRO products for sure. We have some designs on LPO. I wouldn't say they're productized completely at this point. But yeah, we're very customer driven. Our production process and our ability to switch from one to another from a production standpoint, we've designed that in. We can switch readily from one type to another. Obviously, there's supply chain implications, right? If you need DSPs or you need other components to replace the DSPs, we may or may not be able to switch that supply chain on a dime, so to speak. But given our ability to source components, we could switch from one type to another in our production process easily. But you're right, customers by and large, are still demanding full DSP solutions at this point. Yeah. As the Chief Financial Officer, are you expecting to have LTAs with customers at some point? Yeah. I do expect that. However, we're being very cautious with those LTAs. I understand the investor interest and, again, put my Chief Financial Officer hat on in a way, I'm like, "Yeah, it'd be great to have a three-year or four-year commitment from a big customer to buy product." But it does come with a price, right? You're giving up something in that process as well. We want to make sure that we have a good deal when it comes to an LTA. One that's not only going to guarantee us long-term profitability, but also one that's not going to necessarily scare away other customers that we would like to have in the future. If we get an LTA with one company that's too big and locks up too much of our capacity, then I think there's a concern that other customers might not look at us as an available resource for them. We want to keep all of that in mind as we're approaching these LTAs. We do have several on the table, but until we get them into a position where we're confident they're going to be a long-term win for both us and our customers, we need to be appropriately cautious about getting too into that. Okay, great. Let's go back to the audience. There's so many here. I have to pick and choose a little bit. Let me just see. I mean, there's a question here about M&A, but I don't really think about that as being part of the story. But the question says, "How are you thinking about M&A to expand capacity or add additional IP, somewhat like the Lumentum playbook?" Anything- Yeah. That has not been historically the way that AOI has grown. We've grown organically pretty much our entire history. That's not to say that we wouldn't consider it. I don't think we need M&A to improve our technology or capabilities. Adding capacity through M&A is a little bit tricky because a lot of our production processes have been designed in-house. Acquiring somebody else, they're not going to have the same process we have, they're not going to have the same automated design capabilities that we have. Their transceiver designs are not going to be compatible with our automated production. I don't see that really as being a viable or necessary path to increasing our capacity. Okay. Well, let's talk about margins. I mean, I think that the target for the end of this year moved down a bit because there's some timing issues on how much 1.6T we'll have by the end of the year. There's expedite costs, there's higher component prices, there's substrate increases that you just referenced. Talk about how long some of these expedite issues will persist, where you'll be at gross margins by the end of the year, and then how you expect them to trend through the different milestones in 2027. Yeah. I would say our expectation for margins exiting the year is probably going to be in the low to mid 30% range. Probably not all the way up to 35%, but getting somewhere in that range, maybe 32%, 33%, something like that. There's a couple factors. You mentioned some of them on the cost side. The other factor for us that's kind of a headwind that was a little bit unexpected was the 100G business for us is actually going down over the next couple of quarters, likely because one of our customers was unable to secure enough memory to meet all of their build-out needs. They're reallocating what memory they can get to higher speed nodes, so 800G, 1.6T type of nodes. Meaning they're deploying relatively less 100G links over the next most likely few quarters. That affects our 100G business, which was a pretty high margin business for us. That's a short-term headwind. As we get 800G and 1.6T growing, that will help pull our margins back up. But in the short term, the next quarter or two, that 100G is a bit of a headwind for us as well. Some of the cost pressures that you mentioned are real, although, I think those are short-term in nature as well. We're not going to be paying expedite fees forever. A large part of the expedite fee for us is just the fact that our volume on 1.6T has come up much faster than, I wouldn't say it's necessarily faster than we expected, but it's faster than our suppliers thought was actually going to happen. I think to some extent they gave us a little bit of a discount in terms of what they thought we were going to be able to do, and now we're saying, "No, we actually do need it." And they say, "Well, we're a little tight on capacity right now." But that'll iron itself out over the next few months, and I think it won't be too much of a factor beyond Q4. I guess, you said low to mid-30s by the end of the year, but where would you think ballpark middle of 2027 and then end of 2027 they could be? I mean, we're still targeting 40% as a target long-term. And I think that's really achievable. Our thought process has been that we think we can get there by the end of next year, end of 2027. Okay. Again, there's some of these short-term headwinds, makes that look like maybe it's a little bit more challenging now than we thought it was before. But honestly, I think most of these things are short-term, and I think we could still get back to that 40% by the end of next year. If there's a lot of CPO in 2028, could they be higher than 40%? Yeah. I mean, the margins on either ELSFP or laser diodes, depending on what we end up selling or what combination of those we end up selling for CPO, margins should be meaningfully above 40%. Certainly on the laser chip, they'll be most likely above 60%. Modules will fall somewhere in between. So there's definitely an argument that depending on how fast CPO or NPO or some other XPO-type application, depending on the speed at which that actually comes up and contributes as a portion of our revenue that could pull the margins up even from that 40% range. But for now, we want to think more about getting to that 40%. We'll worry about upside beyond that. Yeah. How many different customers are you talking to about CPO right now? Are any of them talking about NPO with you? Then if we take this to 2028, do we expect to have multiple? I guess starting with one would be great, but do you imagine having multiple CPO customers in 2028? We've got five companies that we're talking to about CPO. Some of those are also talking about NPO. So we do have very real discussions going on NPO right now. Do I expect to have more than one customer? Yes. I don't think we're going to target just one. I don't know if we'll get all five. That's probably a stretch because we probably don't have enough capacity to meet everybody's demand there. But, certainly I would expect more than one. Okay. Can you talk about CapEx? It was a very big number in the second quarter. Is it going to continue to be a very big number quarterly, or did you get a lot of MOCVD machines and other things in that order that you don't buy every quarter? It's going to continue to be a pretty big number. We're going to continue to make those necessary investments. We said that the back half of the year will be at least as big as the first half of the year. Again, it's not going down. But all of that CapEx is really going into production equipment and machinery. A little bit in R&D, but pretty much the vast majority of it is going into production equipment and machinery and the real estate to support this additional production capacity, which as we talked about, is really needed by us and by the industry. We think those investments are very appropriate, very well-placed. Return on those investments is very short, less than a year, certainly. Right now, most of the investments that we're making are 9 months- 10 months ROI. As long as we continue to see demand and we have capital availability, I'll make those kind of investments all day long, twice on Sunday. As long as demand continues, then you'll make similar type of investments in 2027 and then maybe 2028? Why wouldn't we? Yeah. Why wouldn't you? Yeah. Okay, so at what point can you organically fund that versus raising money? Well, I think there's four different ways that we look at funding, right? Obviously, right now we've been leaning on equity. That will become less a factor for us in the future. As we start to generate cash from operations, that'll help pay some of it. We think that it's appropriate for customers to make some sort of contribution as well, and we've talked about this for a long time, but there are still discussions ongoing about what that could look like. Then, there's various debt structures that we could take on that would be ultimately still us raising money, but it'd be less dilutive or in some cases, non-dilutive. Then, we're also seeing some government subsidy income. I think certainly one of the conversations that we're having around the potential Chinese ban is, well, look, if the government's serious about trying to ban Chinese competition and they want to do it sooner rather than later, there are vehicles in which they could accelerate the growth of U.S. industry, by making some appropriate investments in that area. We've seen that in rare earths. We've seen that in magnets and certain mining minerals and things like that. So it's not unprecedented for the government to make a commitment where they see a national security risk or a desire to grow U.S. industry in certain areas. So, all of those things I think could potentially contribute and certainly, raising everything on the back of equity for the foreseeable future is not our plan. Right. I haven't asked you about your cable TV business yet, so I should get some questions in there. The performance has been very, very strong recently. You've got multiple customers. You're talking about $350 million a year, at least in revenues. Does that number increase in future years? Is this cable TV a growth business beyond $350 million? Yeah, I think so. For another year or two probably. The cable investment cycle is cyclical. It will not grow forever. Frankly, no business grows forever, as we all know. But, certainly the cycles there are a little more longer term. The investment cycle is longer, and then the period between investment cycles tends to be longer than we would see in the data center business, for example. So I think it'll grow for a few more years and then there'll be a period of leveling off, and then we'll see what the next cycle looks like. Yep. We just have a few minutes left, a couple of minutes left. I guess I want to ask you, what else would you like to emphasize on this call for investors to, or even people who aren't on the call to read later, re-watch. What have we missed that you want them to understand? Well, I think I've already kind of gotten this message across, but just to make it explicit right now, our ability to grow revenue and profitability is largely dictated by our ability to add production capacity, right? And to some extent, supply chain. So those have to go hand in hand. But it's not limited by demand. We're hearing numbers from our customers, really credible numbers from our customers that are much larger than we're likely to be able to produce anytime in the near future. I think it's important for investors to understand when they look at things like CapEx, or they look at the growth rate that we're experiencing and they say, "Wow, that seems like a really aggressive plan." It is in one sense, but in another sense, if we don't make those investments, we're going to end up such a small player that we won't be relevant. So these investments that we're making, while they may look big and they may look very aggressive, the industry is even more aggressive than we are, so we're just trying to keep pace with that, basically. Right. The biggest risk is that you don't grow fast enough that your customers want to work with you. Yeah. As I mentioned earlier when we were talking about CPO, if we would've had more capacity a couple of years ago, we'd probably be a bigger player in CPO right now. So now that we have the opportunity to try to add capacity, we need to do it intelligently and reasonably, but we do have to do it, otherwise we'll just be irrelevant, and that's certainly not where we want to end up. This is probably the most impactful game changer that we've seen in the optics industry possibly ever, but certainly since in the 30 years I've been in this business, this is the biggest opportunity set that I've seen by far. That goes all the way back to the dot com age, which I don't want to bring up that specter because I think there's a lot of differences there, but there certainly were some boom times that we've been through before. But this is by far and away a more solid and longer-term growth prospect than I think we've ever seen, and we haven't spent the last 30 years getting ourselves in a position only to miss out on this opportunity. We're really excited about what we're seeing. We're excited about our trajectory here. Fantastic. It is my pleasure to follow your progress through it and cover this really exciting time. Thanks, Stefan, for doing this. Thanks to everybody in the audience, and we will see you all down the road. Sounds great. Thank you, Michael. Bye