Folks, we'll go ahead and get started here. I'm Gayn Erickson, President, Chief Executive Officer, and Member of the Board of Directors of Aehr Test Systems. It's a pleasure to welcome you to the 2021 meeting of shareholders of Aehr Test Systems. First, I hope you're all staying safe and healthy during this difficult time. Due to the restrictions in place related to the COVID pandemic, we're presenting this year's annual meeting via webcast. As we noted in our proxy filing, you'll not be able to vote while viewing the webcast. However, our Inspector of Elections is at our corporate office to accept ballots for those attending the meeting in person. During today's webcast, we'll be conducting formal business required as needed for the annual meeting. We will then have a brief presentation discussing some of the opportunities for Aehr Test, and in this case, today, it appears that we're going to just keep it to the formal presentation portion of this today. After our comments and the formal portions, we will open it up and see if there are any questions that will be taken. Online with me today is our Vice President of Finance and Chief Financial Officer, Ken Spink. Ken has been appointed the Secretary of the meeting and will record the meeting of the minutes. With this, we'll move to the formal portion of the meeting. First, I'd like to outline the formal business of this meeting as follows. I have received proof that notice of this meeting has been given and that the proxy statement, notice of annual meeting, and proxy cards were mailed on or about September 23rd, 2021, to all shareholders of record as of September 3rd, 2021. The proxy statement, notice of annual meeting, and proxy cards will be maintained with the minutes of this meeting. Mai-Chi Nguyen has been appointed as the Inspector of Elections for the meeting. She signed an oath of office, which is available for your examination and will be filed with the minutes of this meeting. Mai-Chi has informed me that we have present, in person and by proxy, a sufficient number of shares to constitute a quorum, so the meeting is duly constituted. Let me describe briefly the voting procedures. We will vote by proxy or by ballot. If you have previously turned in your proxy, it will be voted as indicated. For those of you who are attending in person, if you are eligible to vote and have not submitted your proxy, or if you want to change the vote you have previously submitted, a supply of ballots is available with the Inspector of Elections. Please fill out all proxies or ballots legibly and sign exactly as your name appears on your share certificate. Our agenda, we're going to go over five items. The election of directors, the approval of an amendment to the company's bylaws to change the authorized number of directors and permit certain amendments to the bylaws by unanimous consent of the Board of Directors of the company. The approval of an amendment to the company's 2016 Equity Incentive Plan to increase the number of shares of stock reserved for issuance thereunder by an additional 1 million shares of common stock of the company. The ratification of the appointment of BPM LLP as the company's independent registered public accounting firm for the fiscal year ending May 31st, 2022. Finally, the approval on an advisory basis of the compensation of the company's named executive officers. We will then consider any other business that may properly come before the meeting, and there'll be an opportunity to discuss such proposals. Let's proceed with the election of directors. A total of seven directors are to be elected. As disclosed in the proxy materials, the nominees of the company's Board of Directors are Gayn Erickson, Fariba Danesh, Laura Oliphant, Rhea J. Posedel, Mario M. Rosati, Geoffrey Scott, and Howard T. Slayen. Is there any discussions or are there any other nominations for directors for those attending in person? I see no hands and therefore the nominations are closed. Let us proceed to vote. For those of you who are voting here, please mark your proxy card and ballot accordingly. Thank you. I remind you that all proxy cards and ballots will be collected and counted after voting has been completed on all matters on the agenda. The next item of business is to approve an amendment to the company's bylaws to change the authorized number of directors and permit certain amendments to the bylaws by unanimous consent of the Board of Directors of the company. This proposal has been approved by the company's Board of Directors. Is there any discussion from those attending in person? With no hands shown, we'll proceed to vote. Please mark your proxy card or ballot. The next item of business is to approve an amendment to the company's 2016 Equity Incentive Plan to increase the number of shares reserved for issuance thereby by an additional 1 million shares of common stock of the company. This proposal has been approved by the company's Board of Directors. Is there any discussion from those attending in person? Seeing no hands, we'll proceed to vote. Please mark your proxy card or ballot. The next item of business is to ratify the appointment of BPM LLP as the company's independent registered public accounting firm for the fiscal year ending May 31st, 2022. The company's Board of Directors approved of the selection and is asking the shareholders for ratification. Is there any discussion from those attending in person on this matter? No hands. We will proceed to vote. Again, please mark your proxy card or ballot. The next item of business is to approve on advisory basis the compensation of the company's named executive officers. This proposal has been approved by the company's Board of Directors. Is there any discussion from those attending in person? Seeing no hands, we will proceed to vote. Please mark your proxy card or ballot. Let me ask if there's any other business to be addressed at the meeting from those attending in person. Any other proposals? All right. Hearing none, the polls for each matter to be voted upon at this meeting are now closed. We will continue. Please pass your ballots to the monitors to collect them. We will report the results momentarily. Okay, our Inspector of Elections has completed the tally of the voting at this meeting. Of the 24,482,796 shares of common stock eligible to vote at this meeting, total of not less than 16,188,075 shares actually voted. This represents a vote by 66.12% of the shares eligible to vote. For the first item on the agenda, the election of directors, I'm pleased to announce that the shareholders have elected to the company's board of directors, the following director: Rhea J. Posedel, Gayn Erickson, Fariba Danesh, Laura Oliphant, Mario M. Rosati, Geoffrey Scott, and Howard T. Slayen. For the second item on the agenda, I'm pleased to announce that the proposal to change the company's bylaws to change the authorized number of directors and permit certain amendments to the bylaws by unanimous consent of the board of directors of the company were approved. For the third item on the agenda, I'm pleased to announce that the proposal to authorize an additional 1 million shares of common stock of the company reserved for issuance under the 2016 Equity Incentive Plan was also approved. For the fourth item on the agenda, I'm pleased to announce that the ratification of the appointment of BPM LLP as the company's independent registered public accounting firm for the fiscal year ending May 31st, 2022 was also approved. For the last item, the fifth item on the agenda, I'm pleased to announce that the compensation of the company's named executive officers was approved. With this concludes the official business of today's meeting, and the meeting is hereby adjourned. We're given an opportunity for those at the meeting or online to ask any questions. I believe the screen in front of me, it was our expectation there would be few. Seeing no questions at this time, we will formally end the meeting. I appreciate everybody's attendance. Oops, we have one. Hold on a second. This is not as easy as I thought it was. Okay. All right. I have one question out there. Okay, there it is. It's coming in. I get the question here. The question is related to electric cars and how many are using silicon carbide versus silicon. I think I can answer that. There's maybe a couple of ways of looking at this. Today, in reality, certainly by contrast to the number of cars that are to be built that would be battery electric vehicles, is actually quite small. I think it's about a million automobiles that will be built or vehicles that were built this year. Whereas by 2030, the estimates are to be about 30 million or more electric vehicles by that time. The two questions are how many have silicon carbide today, and how is that going to change? I think that dynamic is probably a better question to answer. Today, the dominant supplier of the electric vehicles, of course, is Tesla. Tesla is credited, along with STMicroelectronics, as the company that really started this silicon carbide revolution, if you will, for electric vehicles. Silicon carbide has been around for well over a decade or two, and folks like Cree have been building it for smaller application spaces and touting the benefits of it, particularly as an advantage over silicon-based high voltage devices like IGBTs or superjunction FETs. It wasn't until Tesla actually introduced the Model 3 with silicon carbide as the main component in the drivetrain. It's actually referred to as the traction inverter. Traction, I guess, related to the traction motor that creates the traction to make it go forward. The traction inverter is the electronic system that converts the battery power, which is a DC, into the AC power that drives the engine. That inverter is made up of semiconductors, traditionally IGBT or silicon-based semiconductors, and each of the models from Tesla had all had IGBTs in them. With the Model 3, they introduced it with silicon carbide for several key benefits. That included not only the high voltage and high-power capabilities, but the efficiency that allowed it to be able to extend the battery life by estimates ranging from 5%-15% or more. It also has benefits in its ability to charge faster. Between range and charging, those ended up being two of the dominant things that were going on. The Model 3, which is, I believe, the most successful battery electric vehicle by a mile right now, is all on silicon carbide. Since they did that in 2017 or 2018 introduction, it is under my understanding is that all of the Tesla vehicles are now shipping with silicon carbide. As a result of the benchmarks associated with that, most if not all of the new electric vehicles are coming out with silicon carbide. Most of the folks that I have seen estimate that a minimum of 70% of all electric vehicles will have silicon carbide by the end of the decade. If you start looking at 30 million cars at the end, and 70% of them are going to have silicon carbide, you can start to understand the enormous growth that is ahead. Why that plays in, and for those that are kind of coming up to speed on this, is that Aehr Test has demonstrated a unique capability to be able to do a critical manufacturing step of silicon carbide devices in mission-critical applications, such as this automotive power device. We can test entire wafers of these at the same time on our FOX system, and in fact, 18 wafers at a time on a single system. In doing that, we have an enormous competitive advantage, and we've been able to demonstrate through our customers and then through them all the way to what's called the OEMs, which is the Teslas of the world, the advantages of being able to do this quality and reliability step on something that's so critical that if it were to fail, you would actually have to get out of your car and walk home. Right? silicon carbide has been known, it's industry-wide understood that it has a high extrinsic defect density, which is the infant mortality of the devices. Through a process such as the one that Aehr Test provides, we can actually remove those infant mortalities, creating a highly reliable device that is expected to last for decades without failure. The fact that the silicon carbide market is increasing in the percentage of cars that it's going to go into, and that the explosion of these electric vehicles over the next decade is one of the key market opportunities for Aehr Test. All right. We've got a number of other questions, so let's see if we can go through here. All right. All right. Let me have to pause for a moment here. Vernon, can you actually hear on a mic check test here? Why don't we do it one more time. All right. Well, at risk of this having to be, we'll probably record it, and we will put it out later. A couple of the people that are online are saying that they actually cannot hear the meeting at all. I'm not clear if that's widespread or not, but I'm going to go ahead and complete the process here, answer the questions as best I can, and then we'll publish this on the web afterwards for people to hear. All right. All right. Our next question is related to, okay, if people cannot test their wafers using an Aehr Test wafer burn-in system, well then how would they do that? That's a really good question. What's important to understand is that, if you follow the timeline of the introduction of our FOX solution really over the last couple of years to some other major semiconductor and mobile phone suppliers, it's relatively new in the silicon carbide. There were devices such as the ones that ST was shipping into the automotive space like Tesla. It's widely understood that all silicon carbide devices are being what's called burned in for the reliability test on what's called in our industry a package burn-in system. That device is actually tested on a different manufacturer's system. We make those systems as well. Interestingly, customers are really only interested in our wafer-level system for the silicon carbide application. The reason for it is that if you look at a package, particularly the new modules that might have as many as eight or more devices in a single package, if you burn in that device at package level and one of the devices fails, you have what's called a hostage failure, where the other seven devices and the entire package is thrown away. By contrast, Aehr Test will test those devices while they're still in a die form in an entire wafer before they're singulated and certainly before they're put into that package. By doing that, we remove that fatal flaw before it is put into that module. So you get the enormous advantage of not having to throw away the package or the other seven devices in that example. There are lots of people doing package burn-in. It is our understanding that all of them are moving to wafer level for the reasons that we've described. With Aehr Test believes that we have one of, if not the most competitive offerings out there that we believe we can have an opportunity to gain a substantial market share. Let me go on with the questions here. Okay. Another question is, how many WaferPaks would an 18-wafer FOX-XP require in practical use? Well, first of all, the question is, what's a WaferPak? A WaferPak is what Aehr Test has named a proprietary contactor that is effectively a cassette, if you will, that you place a wafer in with a highly sophisticated tool that we also supply, called a WaferPak Aligner. It optically places the wafer into this cassette so that you can make contact with all of the devices at the same time on a single wafer. A FOX-XP will take 18 of these WaferPak contactor cassettes, if you will, and test them at the same time. In each application or each, we call it a test or burn-in run, you would be using 18 WaferPaks. A customer may choose to buy more WaferPaks than that in order to address different types of devices. With each new device design, you would buy a different WaferPak, and in this case, multiple WaferPaks. Something that's novel, and I always like to point out, is our 18-blade, as we call it, FOX-XP. It can actually test 18 wafers of the same kind using the same 18 WaferPaks, but it can also test different wafers. Technically, it could test 18 different wafers with 18 different WaferPaks. While we haven't seen that, we regularly see customers testing several different wafers with, say, maybe six WaferPaks each. All right. All right. Another question is related to, I guess, other devices that are going into automobiles, such as ADAS and LiDAR systems and other critical sensors. The question is actually, would they also be comprised of silicon carbide and therefore another market for Aehr? Well, I would actually say that in general, no, those other devices are not so likely to be silicon carbide. Silicon carbide is particularly valuable for high power, high voltage power conversion, whereas sensors generally have different applications or needs. Having said that, one of Aehr's biggest markets traditionally before silicon carbide came along is in fact sensors. I believe our first production wafer-level burn-in system, that is still in production today with multiple systems and tens of wafers of capacity, has been doing full wafer burn-in of automotive sensors for 10 or 12, I think it's 12 or 13 years now. We're doing that. We also do that with automotive and other mobile sensors as well. There's for different reasons and for different applications, there's also wafer-level burn-in opportunities that is a key market opportunity for Aehr Test. The reason people do that is slightly different, but fundamentally, the critical nature of sensors, where you cannot have a sensor fail, requires the extra reliability, and by doing it at wafer-level instead of in a package-level, the value proposition still holds up. We absolutely see opportunities in lots of different automotive devices and sensors, in addition to silicon carbide power semiconductors used in the powertrain, particularly with battery electric vehicles. Another question, following up a little bit about the WaferPaks and just asking about the economics of it and how it might contrast to what would be deemed in their industry a probe card. Again, a probe card is the traditional name for a card that is adapted to an electronics automated test system that can make contact with some, and in some cases, such as in memory applications, an entire wafer at a time. Memory probe cards, if you think about DRAM probe cards from some of the industry leaders that are out there, can cost several hundred thousand a piece, up to even half a million dollars. They're, by anyone's math, quite expensive. At the same time, they're testing every single device on the wafer at the same time, and so proven to be quite economical and have driven the business of people like FormFactor to hundreds of millions of business every single year. Yes, at face value, they are quote, "expensive." If you look on the cost of test per device, because of the parallelism per device, they're actually very cost-effective. Having said that, our WaferPaks are a lot less expensive than folks like that. We're actually aiming not only to be cheaper, if you will, than other probe cards, but actually cheaper than the traditional package for burn-in cost effectiveness that's out there. Our goal has always been that way. We're able to offer WaferPaks that are very effective, have very short lead times, can be designed to customer needs quickly, and can have massive amounts of capacity to be able to address their needs. We do that, again, with a proprietary contactor that we call WaferPak, that Aehr has a significant number of patents and IP related to. All right. I actually, because it just used interface, I was sort of I got one more. It looks like somebody just got in under the wire. I'm going to, if you have another question, get in quick. If not, I'm going to end the meeting here in just a moment. There was a question just simply said, "Well, how long does a WaferPak last?" That's actually a great question. A really long time. It turns out people often will call it a consumable. In fact, we'll often do it, or I'll do the same thing. In reality, it isn't really consumed. The mechanism of our WaferPak is such that it can last thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of what we call an insertion. Each time it touches a wafer, that's a single insertion. The wear-out mechanism's having to do with mechanical tips, if you will. The electrical tips are such that after so many thousands of times, you would start to see some electrical degradation. That's measured in tens of thousands, and we've done better. We've done tip testing now up to 1 million cycles. In our application, which is a burn-in application, the subtlety about burn-in is that the key here is we're actually doing what's called a reliability test or infant mortality test, which is an accelerated life test. Fundamentally, all semiconductors have what's known as an infant mortality or an extrinsic defect density. What that means is when you first build it, even though it's good, the likelihood that it's going to fail in the first day is actually much higher than the likelihood it would fail a year later. That decays with time. As long as you're okay with that, consumer applications may be just fine. You don't need to do a burn-in. If you're in a critical application where you need that, you actually need to do this burn-in, and we effectively make a device look like it's one year old. Okay. It turns out that takes some time, too. Relative to traditional test times, which are measured in seconds, burn-in times are measured in hours and sometimes days. It is not uncommon for people to be testing for many hours or a day or two or more for burn-in. We've talked about the industry out there and thrown some different numbers, but reasonable numbers can be from six to 12- 24, 48 hours for a burn-in like this. Imagine now, to make it simple, it's a 24-hour burn-in, and it has 100,000 cycles till it actually starts to show electrical wear. That's a long time. From my perspective, it basically never wears out. Someone asked me, actually, a couple customers, "Is there any way you could make them cheaper and wear out twice as fast?" The answer is actually no. The reason is the same mechanism that allows them to be precise and repeatable makes them last a really long time. They don't actually want to trade off all the goodness, but they actually probably don't care if it happens to last 200 years. In this case, they really don't wear out. What happens, though, is why it's sort of a consumable, is it turns out the device doesn't last forever. Depending on the application, a device may only be manufactured for three, four, or five years, and then it's replaced by a new device that's bigger, better, stronger, faster, maybe smaller, in this case, where bigger is not better. Okay? When they do make that change, well, then, in fact, the probe card, or in this case, our WaferPak changes. With that change, you need to buy another one. That perfectly good WaferPak is set aside. The business model includes, if you will, a consumable element. For every system you would purchase from Aehr, over time, we would also supply you with multiple sets of these WaferPaks. They don't really wear out. All right. There's one more question. I'm going to go ahead and do it, and I'm going to end it here. Our focus, really, and we have been very upfront about where our energies and our focus has been. We're having great success with respect to the mobile side, our sensor business, the automotive side, silicon photonics, which we really didn't touch on here, which is the application of photonics-based transceivers in the 5G and the data center market, which is just exploding with 40%+ CAGRs over the next decade. One other area that we have been making investment in, and we've shared with people, is in memory. I have usually told people, and I'll say it again here, I wouldn't invest in Aehr Test because you think we're going to have some dominant share in memory, but we are working on it. If you invest in Aehr Test, you're investing in a company that is committed to continually work to get into the memory market. Because at least this guy personally believes that the application of our wafer-level burn-in systems for flash memory and also DRAM makes sense. Ultimately, the financials will be there that I believe that all memory manufacturers will shift their burn-in, other than flash memory and DRAMs, to wafer over time. We'd like to be there for that. That's a different topic, and it's beyond the scope of this year's discussion. I want to end it with that, and I hope everybody picked up a little bit from this meeting. I appreciate your time. We will go ahead and post this on the web to our website. If you didn't get a chance to get your questions answered, please find the IR website link on our website. Make a contact. Ken or I, or both, would be happy to set up a call and talk with you. With that, I appreciate it. Thank you very much. Bye-bye.