Please stand by as we are about to begin. Good day, and welcome to the Aehr Test Systems third quarter fiscal 2022 financial results call. Today's conference is being recorded. At this time, I'd like to turn the conference over to Jim Byers of MKR Investor Relations. Please go ahead, sir. Thank you, operator. Good afternoon, and welcome to Aehr Test Systems third quarter fiscal 2022 financial results conference call. With me on today's call are Aehr Test Systems President and Chief Executive Officer, Gayn Erickson, and Chief Financial Officer, Ken Spink. Before I turn the call over to Ken and Gayn, I'd like to cover a few quick items. This afternoon, right after market close, Aehr Test issued a press release announcing its third quarter fiscal 2022 results. That release is available on the company's website at aehr.com. This call is being broadcast live over the Internet for all interested parties, and the webcast will be archived on the investor relations page of the company's website. I'd like to remind everyone that on today's call, management will be making forward-looking statements today that are based on current information and estimates and are subject to a number of risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from those in the forward-looking statements. Those factors that may cause results to differ materially from those in the forward-looking statements are discussed in the company's most recent periodic and current reports filed with the SEC. These forward-looking statements, including guidance provided during today's call, are only valid as of this date, and Aehr Test Systems undertakes no obligation to update the forward-looking statements. Now, with that said, I'd like to turn the call over to Gayn Erickson, President and CEO. Thanks, Jim. Good afternoon, everyone, and thanks for joining us for our third quarter fiscal 2022 earnings conference call. Let's start with a quick summary of the highlights of the quarter and momentum we're experiencing in the semiconductor wafer-level test and burn-in market. Then Ken will go over the financials in detail. Then we'll open up the lines to take your questions. For the third quarter, revenue was $15.3 million, our highest quarterly revenue on record. This is a sequential increase of 59% over the second quarter and up 190% year-over-year. We also generated Non-GAAP net income of $4.1 million and ended the quarter with a strong $26.9 million in backlog. Our effective backlog, which includes all orders announced since the end of the quarter, is over $30 million. We continue to see very strong interest and demand for wafer-level test and burn-in of silicon carbide devices, and enormous growth potential for Aehr's unique solutions to test and burn in devices to support the worldwide electrification movement and electric vehicles, power conversion, and power generation and storage infrastructure. During the quarter, four additional companies provided detailed wafer layouts to Aehr for their silicon carbide wafers as part of their evaluation of using Aehr's FOX-XP systems and WaferPak contactors for wafer-level burn-in of their devices to meet the electric vehicle market and electrification infrastructure markets. We have provided those customers with the data confirming that we believe we can test their wafers and provided proposals and lead times to meet their needs. This includes another major supplier of silicon carbide devices, who has now committed to an on-wafer benchmark and asked us to put a system on their test floor to demonstrate our capabilities. This is now the second of the top four silicon carbide customers, and that's beyond our current lead silicon carbide, considered to be one of the top four, to engage with us in what we call on-wafer benchmarking of their actual wafers. We have now made several proposals to customers to place orders to lock in lead times of our FOX systems and WaferPaks, and then Aehr will provide on-wafer evaluations and validations for them within the lead time of those systems. In just the last few weeks, we met with multiple companies in both the U.S. and Europe face-to-face, and are very encouraged by the positive feedback we received about their forecasts for wafer-level burn-in needs and our expectations for winning this capacity with those prospective customers. This included very productive meetings with a major supplier of silicon carbide that is already currently doing on-wafer benchmarking and burn-in optimization investigations with our FOX system and WaferPaks today. It's apparent that wafer-level burn-in will become the standard for silicon carbide devices, and based upon customer feedback, we continue to believe that Aehr is unique in our ability to meet the cost and volume production needs of this market. Last quarter, we said that we believe we'll add several new customers that will be ramping into production by the end of our fiscal 2023, which ends May 31st, 2023. I'm often asked by investors about whether I'm more or less confident about a forecast than last time. I can go ahead and answer that question before someone answers or asks, sorry. The answer is yes. I'm feeling more confident, actually, even much more confident, that we will add new customers that will be ramping into production by next May. We continue to work closely with our lead silicon carbide test and burn-in customer. Earlier this month, we announced follow-on orders from them for additional WaferPak Contactors that reflect multiple new silicon carbide device designs they're building to be qualified by their customers, along with several silicon carbide devices now qualified and ramping into volume production to meet demand for electric vehicles. This customer continues to forecast the need for additional capacity to meet their goal of achieving a major market share of the silicon carbide market. We continue to expect significant additional system and WaferPak purchases from them over the next several years and through the end of the decade. The silicon carbide semiconductor test and burn-in market is being driven substantially by anticipated growth in electric vehicles. The combination of the industry moving to multi-die modules and the cost implication of burning in a package part versus at wafer or die level is a significant opportunity for Aehr. This is where we have a clearly differentiated solution for full wafer level test and burn-in of these devices. Our Fox XP wafer level burn-in system can test up to 18 wafers at a time, with 100% of the devices being tested and burned in parallel at the same time. It provides an unprecedented unit per hour capacity for wafer level test and burn-in. Wafer-level test and burn-in is becoming the preferred way to do the required stress and reliability testing, referred to as "burn-in," to remove the extrinsic or early life failures needed to meet the market requirements for reliability. The reality is this burn-in is really a stress test to weed out weak devices that would otherwise fail later on, such as after it's installed in an electric vehicle. This can result in a walk home event, where the EV will simply not operate, and the driver and anyone else in the vehicle will need to walk home. The need to remove these failures before they're packaged into multi-die modules is critical to reducing the manufacturing cost impact from yield loss. Having devices fail during burn-in at module level, if they're not burned in at wafer level before being put into the modules, is extremely costly and reduces customer overall output capacity. Even a small 1% yield loss can have an 8% yield loss impact on an eight die module. We have seen modules being designed right now with as many as 32 silicon carbide die in them, and it's very clear to those customers that screening out the failures of the die before they're put into the module is the only way to go. We're also seeing a major trend to do a test process that we call stabilization of key parametric specifications, such as the threshold voltage, which is the voltage at which an individual device turns on, or the on-resistance, which is the forward and reverse resistance of the device when turned on, and is a key parameter related to power loss or inverter efficiency. Companies are now driving to only put matched VTH or RDS(on) on parts in the same modules as a way to increase efficiency and reliability of the modules. This is another key driver for the shift to why customers are driving toward wafer-level burn-in. It's also important to understand that this stabilization is not something that is believed to be able to be done with short burn-in times, and actually increases the opportunity for wafer-level burn-in market. With the most cost-effective solution in the market to address this significant opportunity, we believe that Aehr can achieve a significant, perhaps dominant share, of the silicon carbide wafer-level burn-in market. Forecasts from Canaccord Genuity estimate that the silicon carbide market for devices and electric vehicles, such as traction inverters and onboard chargers, as well as the off-board charging stations used for electric vehicle charging, is expected to grow from fewer than 150,000 6-inch equivalent wafers of capacity built in 2021 to more than four million wafers built in 2030 to meet the more than 30 million electric vehicles anticipated to be built per year by then. This projected demand for just electric vehicle related silicon carbide wafers represents at least a $1 billion market opportunity for our wafer-level test and burn-in systems and consumables over the next eight years. Canaccord also forecasts an additional capacity need of more than four million more silicon carbide wafers made in 2030 to meet the demand in 2030 for other electrification infrastructure, industrial and photovoltaic power devices. In our recent customer visits, we're now seeing demand surface for the wafer-level burn-in of silicon carbide devices beyond electric vehicles, and we believe it's likely to become a significant market opportunity for Aehr Test as well. Moving to some other markets. We're also seeing a recovery and strengthening in the silicon photonics test and burn-in market, reflecting the post-COVID recovery that's driving devices to meet 5G and data center infrastructure buildup. Several customers addressing the silicon photonics market have forecast additional FOX system and WaferPak and DiePak contactor capacity needs from us over the next 12 months. In addition to the silicon carbide and silicon photonics markets that are strong drivers for our business, during the quarter, we received an additional order from a current FOX-XP customer for our proprietary DiePak carriers for a new optical sensor device. It represents a new application for our FOX-XP system. This customer is a supplier of sensors to a major mobile device, personal computer, and consumer electronics manufacturer. This is the first order of DiePaks for this device, which is expected to move to production and will require additional DiePak carriers and may also require additional FOX-XP system production capacity. Now, turning to our historical packaged parts business. As we emerge from this two year pandemic, it has become clear that the forecasts we saw from packaged part customers heading into the pandemic are not holding up on the other side. We now believe that material we had purchased against the customer forecasts at the time is likely not to be needed anytime soon. As a result, we're taking a $1 million one-time charge in fiscal Q3 for excess and obsolete material related to these products, primarily ABTS configurations and packaged part burn-in products. In addition, discussions with customers such as silicon carbide, silicon photonics, and memory about products to address their packaged part needs are met with a ho-hum attitude that quickly turns to requests for more information about our FOX wafer-level burn-in systems. With the increased interest and demand we're seeing for wafer-level burn-in, we are turning our focus to a full attention and doubling down on our efforts in the near term to fully capitalize on this substantial opportunity for our FOX full-wafer test and burn-in systems and consumables. This includes several new R&D enhancements to our FOX-P family of products that include FOX test system hardware and software features to expand the application space of our systems, enhancements to our WaferPaks to address higher power and higher voltage applications, and upgrades to our roadmap for WaferPak Aligners that we provide with our solutions, including the ability to meet the high volume capacity and full automation requirements we see with several customers we're engaged with today. We plan to be publicly announcing these new enhancements over the next couple of quarters. I've had lots of questions about how our supply chain is holding up. As I've noted in past calls, Aehr has the manufacturing infrastructure and supply chain in place to ramp to significantly higher revenue levels. For example, this year we'll ship three times what we did last year, and we're just getting started. We have been ordering long lead components for systems and WaferP aks, particularly for the enormous opportunity we see for silicon carbide that is gaining momentum. There are many integrated circuits used in our system that currently have greater than 12-month lead times. Our aggressive purchasing of IC components that began last February of last year, of 2021, is really paying off. With a few bumps in the road, our supply chain is holding up very well to the increase in demand and growth, and we've been able to maintain reasonable lead times to meet customer requests. Aehr has a very robust supply chain with world-class subcontract manufacturers and subsystems, our test systems, contactors, WaferPak aligners, and DiePak handlers. These are very mature subcontractors that have successfully supplied these systems to Aehr for years. In all cases, the suppliers have capacity well in excess of Aehr's historical shipments and the ability to ramp significantly higher as well. We're very confident in our ability to meet the customer forecasted demand plus considerable upside. Lastly, I'm excited to announce today the appointment of a gentleman named Adil Engineer as Chief Operating Officer at Aehr Test Systems. Adil has built a career in operations and supply chain, and has been in the semiconductor and medical equipment field for over 20 years. He started his career with semiconductor equipment company KLA-Tencor, where he spent 11 years and also worked at Coherent and Cativa in positions of increasing responsibility in manufacturing engineering, new product introduction, and supply chain. Most recently, he was the Head of Operations at Tecan, a Swiss company manufacturing medical test and diagnostic tools, devices, and solutions, where he oversaw operations for Tecan's primary site in the U.S. for manufacturing located in San Jose. Adil has a bachelor's degree in chemical engineering from TKIET, and a graduate certificate in Management Science and Engineering from Stanford. In his role as COO, Adil will focus on continuing to ramp our supply chain manufacturing, as well as increases in infrastructure to meet anticipated demand. We're certainly pleased with our record revenue in Q3, and forecast to finish the fiscal year with our highest annual revenue on record. Adil will be working to continue to ramp our ability to meet the needs of the silicon carbide, silicon photonics, 2D and 3D sensors, and other markets to support further growth momentum. We welcome him to Aehr Test and look forward to his contribution. In closing, we're very excited about the unprecedented inbound interest and expanding growth opportunities we're seeing with a significant number of new potential customers that are evaluating the unique capabilities and cost effectiveness of our FOX-P multi-wafer test and burn-in systems for their test and burn-in needs. We remain very focused on serving the several large market opportunities we see ahead, and are confident in our growth forecasts and ability to meet them. For the fiscal year, this one we're in right now, ending May 31, 2022, Aehr is reiterating its previously provided guidance for full year total revenue of at least $50 million, and to be profitable consistent with our operating model. Given our revenue in fiscal Q3 of $15.3 million reported just today, totaling over $30.5 million for the first three quarters, that equates to a fiscal Q4 revenue of at least $19.5 million, which would equate to another solid and record revenue quarter for Aehr Test. With that, let me turn it over to Ken to review our financial results and guidance in more detail, and we'll open up the lines for questions. Good afternoon, everyone. As Gayn noted, we had a strong financial performance in Q3, which included our highest quarterly revenue on record, solid Non-GAAP net income, and a healthy backlog of $26.9 million at quarter end. Looking at our financial results, net sales in the third quarter were a record $15.3 million, which is up 59% sequentially from $9.6 million in the preceding second quarter, and up 190% from $5.3 million in the third quarter of the previous year. The sequential increase in net sales from the preceding second quarter includes an increase in system revenues of $3.4 million and WaferPak DiePak revenues of $2.3 million. Customer service revenues were down $82,000. The increase from Q3 last year includes an increase in WaferPak and DiePak revenues of $5.5 million and an increase in system revenues of $4.7 million. Customer service revenues were down $217,000. WaferPak and DiePak revenue comprised nearly half, $7.4 million or 49% of our total revenue in the third quarter. Third quarter shipments were more than double the total number of WaferPaks and DiePaks shipped in all of last fiscal year. This is our second consecutive quarter of record WaferPak and DiePak shipments, and reflects the growth in the consumables piece of our business, as well as our ability to scale and meet customer demand. Non-GAAP net income for the third quarter was $4.1 million or $0.14 per diluted share, which excludes the impact of $880 thousand in stock-based compensation and $1 million one-time charge for excess and obsolete inventory. This compares to Non-GAAP net income of $1.5 million or $0.05 per diluted share, which excludes the impact of $718 thousand in stock-based compensation in the preceding second quarter, and a Non-GAAP net loss of $360 thousand or $0.02 per diluted share, which excludes the impact of $271 thousand in stock-based compensation in the third quarter of fiscal 2021. The increase in stock-based compensation compared to prior year is primarily due to stock awards of $278,000 accrued in Q3 2022 related to exceeding stretch goals for fiscal 2022 key business objectives and revenue targets, and an increase of $346,000 in expense related to the employee stock purchase plan due to increased employee contributions and new enrollments. While these non-cash expenses exceeded our plan, it is good to have such problems where stretch goals are being exceeded, and we recognize and appreciate the hard work of our employees who help achieve these goals. Excess and obsolete inventory reserves of $1 million were taken in Q3 2022, primarily related to packaged part burn-in product inventory as well as some legacy FOX inventory. We believe that this is a one-time adjustment, and we're very happy with our inventory levels to support the significant opportunity we see in wafer-level tests with our FOX family of products and consumables. On a GAAP basis, net income for the third quarter was $2.2 million or $0.08 per diluted share, and compares to GAAP net income of $717,000 or $0.03 per diluted share in the preceding second quarter, and a GAAP net loss of $735,000 or $0.03 per diluted share in the third quarter of the previous year. Gross profit in the third quarter was $6.4 million or 42% of sales. The $1 million charge for excess and obsolete inventory taken in Q3 had a seven percentage point impact on our gross margin. Excluding the impact of this one-time charge, gross margin for the third quarter was 49%, up compared to gross profit of $4.5 million or 47% of sales in the preceding second quarter, and up from gross profit of $1.9 million or 36% of sales in the third quarter of the previous year. Excluding the impact of the one-time charge, the increase in gross margin from both the preceding second quarter and Q3 of last year is primarily due to a decrease in an unabsorbed overhead cost to cost of goods sold. For the third quarter, labor and overhead as a percentage of sales improved by 1.4 percentage points from the preceding second quarter, and 12.4 percentage points from Q3 last year due to the efficiencies gained with the increase in revenue and our relatively fixed manufacturing overhead. While third quarter gross margin percentage compares favorably to the preceding second quarter and Q3 last year, the company continues to recognize costs impacting cost of sales related to the semiconductor shortage and challenging purchasing environment. In addition to increased direct material cost as a percentage of sales, freight and tariff increases from our business model result related to supply chain issues. We're finally starting to see some of these shipping costs come back down, so we think that these will ultimately settle down to previous levels. Operating expenses in the third quarter were $4.1 million, an increase of $339,000 or 9% from $3.8 million in preceding second quarter, and up $1.6 million or 63% from $2.5 million in the third quarter of last year. The increase from the prior year Q3 is primarily due to the elimination of cost reduction initiatives put in place during fiscal 2021. SG&A in the third quarter was $2.6 million, an increase of $123,000 from $2.5 million in the preceding second quarter, and up $969,000 from $1.6 million in the prior year third quarter. The increase from the preceding second quarter includes an increase in employment costs of $143,000 due to higher incentive payments related to bonus objectives, and stock compensation costs related to restricted stock bonuses, and our employee stock purchase plan due to new participants to the plan and employee contribution increases. The increase in prior year third quarter included an increase in employment costs of $731,000. The increase in employment costs included headcount increases, salary increases for employees during fiscal 2022, higher commissions and incentive payments related to bookings, revenues and key bonus objectives, and stock compensation costs related to stock bonuses, and our employee stock purchase plan due to new participants to the plan and employee contribution increases. R&D in the third quarter was $1.5 million, up $216,000 compared to $1.3 million in the preceding second quarter, and up $626,000 from $903,000 in the third quarter of the prior year. The increase in R&D from the preceding second quarter includes an increase in employment costs of $136,000 due to higher incentive payments related to bonus objectives and stock compensation costs related to stock bonuses and employee stock plan purchase plan due to new participants to the plan and employee contribution increases. In addition to the increase in employment costs, the company recognized increases in professional consulting and project materials related to R&D program initiatives during fiscal 2022. The increase from prior-year third quarter included an increase in employment costs of $463,000. The increase in employment costs included headcount increases, salary increases for employees during fiscal 2022, higher incentive payments related to key bonus objectives, and stock compensation costs related to stock bonuses and our employee stock purchase plan due to new participants to the plan and employee contribution increases. In addition to the increase in employment costs, the company recognized an increase in consulting costs and R&D project materials related to R&D program initiatives during fiscal 2022. We continue to invest in R&D to enhance our existing market-leading products and introduce new products to maintain our competitive advantages and expand our applications and addressable markets. Turning to the balance sheet for the third quarter. Our cash and cash equivalents were $32 million on February 28, down $3 million from $35 million at the end of the preceding quarter, and up $27.4 million from $4.6 million at the end of the fourth quarter of fiscal 2021. The increase from Q4 2021 included the impact of $24 million in net proceeds from our successful ATM offering in the second quarter of fiscal 2022. Excuse me. Accounts receivable at quarter end was $8.5 million, up from $7.4 million at the preceding quarter end due to the impact of higher revenue levels. Inventories at February 28 were $14.2 million, an increase of $1.1 million from the preceding quarter end and $5.3 million from Q4 2021 to support our strong backlog. As Gayn indicated, we have been ordering long lead components for systems and WaferPaks to ensure adequate supply to meet customer lead times and forecasts. Property and equipment were $776 thousand compared to $661 thousand at the preceding quarter end. Customer deposits and deferred revenue short term and long term were $6.3 million, a decrease of $4 million from the preceding quarter, and an increase of $6 million from Q4 2021 related to changes in our backlog from prior quarter. The company has no debt. This compares to May 31, 2021 fiscal year-end, where we had $1.4 million outstanding on our line of credit and $1.7 million outstanding on our Paycheck Protection Program or PPP loan. Bookings in the third quarter were $6 million, including orders announced after quarter end, our year-to-date bookings total over $59 million. Backlog as of February 28 was $26.9 million, compared to $36.1 million at the end of the preceding quarter, and up from $3.7 million at the end of the third quarter last year. Effective backlog, which includes backlog at February 28 and all orders announced since the end of quarter, the third quarter, is over $30 million. Now turning to our outlook for fiscal 2022, which ends on May 31, 2022. We are reiterating our previously provided guidance for full year total revenue of at least $50 million, which would represent revenue of three times that of last fiscal year and be our highest annual revenue on record. We expect to be profitable for the fiscal year at these revenue levels based upon our operating model, excluding the impact of the one-time excess and obsolescent charge and the impact of increased stock compensation and bonus costs associated with exceeding stretch goals for fiscal 2022 key business objectives and revenue targets. Lastly, looking at the investor relations calendar, Aehr Test will be participating in three investor conferences over the next few months. We will be meeting with investors virtually at the Oppenheimer Emerging Growth Conference on May 10, and also at the Craig-Hallum Institutional Investor Conference, virtual conference on June 1st. We will be presenting and meeting with investors in person at the LD Micro Invitational Conference taking place in Los Angeles, June 7th through June 9th. We hope to see some of you at these conferences. This concludes our prepared remarks. We're now ready to take your questions. Operator, please go ahead. Thank you. If you would like to ask a question, please signal by pressing star one on your telephone keypad. If you're using speakerphone, please make sure your mute function is turned off to allow your signal to reach our equipment. Again, press star one to ask a question. We will go first to Christian Schwab of Craig-Hallum Capital Group. Hey, you guys. Congratulations on another solid quarter, and thank you for the continued clarity, not only on the projected TAM over the next few years, but an update on the customers. My question comes from you know, you said it in your prepared comments, Gayn, as well, you know, as well as in the press release. I'm trying to understand where your conviction comes from. You know, maybe it comes from you know, the dialogue with the next you know, four customers that you've talked to other than onsemi, you know, that it's become apparent that wafer level burn-in will become the standard for silicon carbide devices. It's a pretty big statement. Yeah. Thanks, Christian. Yeah, I actually heard a few things in that question, just sort of where's my conviction coming from? I mean, to be fair, I'll throw it out there, you know, our orders are not, you know, we're not setting records with orders for the quarter, so where's the strength and conviction and confidence coming from? It's a combination of several things, but it's, you know, it is from direct conversation with customers, seeing their forecast, seeing their tension related to the capacity that they're gonna be bringing on, you know, this year, next year, and into the decade. You know, talking to them even personally. When I said we were traveling in U.S. and Europe, you know, it included me. I personally got to be in front of a large number of customers, and it was a very consistent thread. It was like you go from one to the other, and it's very clear within the industry that silicon carbide absolutely positively has this extrinsic failure rate, which is the infant mortality, that through burn-in, through stress test, you can remove the failures and hit the needs of the end market. It is widely understood. It's now being clear to what's called the tier ones or tier zeros. Tier zeros being OEMs or the car manufacturers, who are specifically talking about burn-in requirements to silicon carbide, including conversations related to wafer-level, which I've heard from customers directly is like a first-ever, like you never have those conversations. People are very clear about the requirements because they do not wanna get this into a car. They don't want it to be in their car, because of the failure implications of having that inverter fail with just a single silicon carbide shorting during a regular run. Everybody is clear it's burn-in. I've heard multiple specific statements with some real data behind that burn-in is not going away. We've had some investors call and say, "Hey, you know, I've heard that in the past. There are, you know, devices that burn-in starts, and then they go away." I always remind them that, you know, DRAM and microprocessors have been burned in for 30, 40 years, and that hasn't gone away. Not all devices ever get out of burn-in. Certain devices, silicon photonics-based devices, microprocessors, DRAM, NAND today for any kind of commercial applications, silicon carbide absolutely is gonna continue to do burn-in. The debate is not whether it's burn-in, it's where you burn it in. Do you burn it in at package or module, or do you do it at wafer-level? I was on some customer visits, some of which were brand-new customers, and it was as if, you know, someone had gotten there before us and told them about our products. They were reiterating exactly what we've been talking about, the necessity of these, you know, these gate stress tests as a way to both weed out infant mortality, but to stabilize the threshold voltages and RDS(on), the amount of hours that are needed to actually burn that in, and how you're gonna do it cost-effectively. You know, that's what I'm hearing. You know, you get it directly from the customers, and then you know, you see it in the news every day about the pull that's going on. You know, just, you know, every car manufacturer, all the things that are going on, all the infrastructure. You know, GM's gonna have 30 cars by 2025. It's like, you know, Ford's building an F-150 for heaven's sakes that's electric vehicle based. You know, and then you have. I don't wanna get into the politics of, you know, what's going on in the crisis in the world, but, you know, if you thought people were running away for their dependencies upon gasoline, oil, and internal combustion engines before, it's even getting more extreme. It's certainly one of the most exciting times of my career. You know, we think we can help. We've heard customers say, "You are absolutely unique in what you do. You know, please just make sure you can ramp and meet our needs." That's where my conviction's coming from. It's coming firsthand from looking, you know, at, you know, big and small customers that are out there. You know, if you don't hear it in my voice, you don't know me very well. It's a really exciting time. Great. I appreciate that, Gayn. Just a quick follow-up on that then. As it is, as you have these dialogues with your customers and the concern is about, you know, being able to be in a position to ramp a material amount of product or systems for them, you know, quickly, has the conversation about payment terms, you know, changed in any way? You know, should we continue to assume that leading customers, you know, will put a substantial amount of cash down or prepay COGS, in essence, if you will? Has there been any dialogue or change, you know, with, you know, say, the four customers you highlighted in the press release that's, you know, different than the way that onsemi has been giving theirs? I can answer that honestly, but also, as I always have to remind people that we have on these calls not only investors, we have key customers, and we have, you know, potential wannabe competitors and other things too. You know, we have stated very publicly with people, we have agreements with our large customers today. That is all of them. If you look at our 10% customers that we have publicly announced due to SEC requirements, that includes the likes of Intel, Apple, FT, ON Semiconductor, TI. Okay? We have had and continue to have down payment requirements from them, and we have agreed to do the same with other customers. Honestly, it hasn't been that big of a deal. I know this is interesting, and certainly the financial community would understand this. You know, now that we have cash in the bank, people are less worried about giving us down payments because it's sort of like, you know, our bankers are really happy to give us, you know, great terms on money right now when we don't need it. You know, that hasn't been an issue. You know, if it comes up, we'll have a conversation about that. Yeah, that hasn't been an issue so far. Great. Thanks. Congrats on a great year here. Thanks. Thanks, Christian. Thank you. We'll go next to Tom Diffely of D.A. Davidson. Hey, Tom. Yeah, good afternoon. Yeah, thank you very much. Again, I would like to talk a little bit about the sales cycle, and in particular, when you look at the four new customers that gave you wafer layouts. I assume that's so you can build your WaferPaks to start the testing process. I'm more interested, I guess, in where is this in the sales cycle, and how long would you expect it to take to get to orders after this? Okay. You know what? It's a very, well, a valid question, and it's very kind of pertinent right now. If you look at what we had been touting a couple of years ago is we had actually demonstrated to our lead customer at the time our ability to do an amazing thing, and that was not only test an entire wafer of these silicon carbide devices, but be able to tell them with 100% confidence everything, you know, about the device and when it actually failed during burning. We could test 18 of them. Quite frankly, when we said that to them, there was a reasonable level of disbelief, and we said, "We'll show you. We'll prove it to you." As soon as we did, they immediately, as we have told people, said, "Can you start shipping me wafers while I order one until you build me one?" Technically, that's how the process went. As we have gone around to other customers, particularly during COVID, we actually had this sort of marketing campaign that said, "Listen, I know you can't travel, et cetera. Send us your wafer. We'll do a benchmark for you." As people have been wondering, like, "Well, where are you?" We actually have been talking about another large supplier who has been doing a benchmark with us now for a while. They've actually continued to do optimization. We can't get into all the details, but that, I can tell you, is actually going very well. we just specifically pointed out that another one of the big ones, the big four, we have one of them, there's three other big ones, has now moved forward and said, "Listen, we want you to test wafers. We want you to put a system on our floor." What we have shifted to, candidly, is customers, for the most part, aren't questioning us at all. They're kind of, "I believe you. Tell me about your lead times." this idea that I need to prove it to them along the way, while we're still perfectly comfortable doing that, they're still like, "Well, okay, if I do that, and it takes you know, eight weeks to show me a wafer or something, and then I order, when's it What's that look like?" The conversation started to shift towards, "Well, you know, maybe you ought to buy a system, and then I will demonstrate it along the way." You know, I think that's a more reasonable thing to move towards. There may be still customers that want us to demonstrate it first and then, you know, order a system afterwards with whatever lead times, and we're perfectly happy to do that. I mean, everybody would like orders sooner. Quite frankly, I think we're gonna see more shift towards customers. They place the order. We will guarantee its feasibility. We do that all the time anyhow. I mean, if it didn't work, we would not charge them for it. We always, you know, put our money where our mouth is. That has never been a change with any order we've ever taken. Then it'll shift towards maybe you lead with an order, and the benchmark goes along the way. We think that's a appropriate thing to do, particularly as we go forward. As people start looking at their ramps to meet the EV needs in 2023, 2024, 2025 in particular, I mean, there's some big numbers that are coming on, starting next year. It's like, well, you know, how many systems do you need? I'm gonna need to start allocating capacity to you. I'm not just gonna do it on a forecast. You're gonna need to give me some commitments, et cetera. We're gonna start driving for kind of long lead orders and commitments from customers, including new customers, and that's gonna have to be a shift so that people can count on us. Stay tuned for that. Next quarter is where we'll announce, obviously, the year-end, but we'll give guidance for the year, and we hope to be able to have nailed down some agreements and other things with customers, so we'll be able to, you know, give some more clear resolution, you know, throughout the year and, you know, what next year looks like. Okay. I hope that helps. Yeah, no, absolutely. You gave some nice clarity on, you know, some of the lead times for things like ICs and how you kind of got ahead of that. I'm curious, are you doing any other pre-building of these systems ahead of what could be a very strong year? We are. We actually. You know, our supply chain is. I'd say by many people's, you know, math is pretty complicated. We're very familiar with it. I've been doing this my whole life. It's very similar to other ATE systems. You have large enclosures. You have printed circuit boards. You have sub-assembly mechanicals. We do all those through subcontract manufacturers, and the tools come in, and they get assembled and tested here and out the door. We always invite shareholders or customers who wanna come visit us. We would be happy to show you our manufacturing floor. All of that comes in. We are. Honestly, we're not trying to be. I'm looking across. We're actually in our same room for the first time for, what, Ken and I, for these conferences. You know, I'm not being cheap right now. We are buying ahead on material to ensure we're not caught. We're capturing chambers. We're capturing interiors. We're capturing thermal systems. We're capturing printed circuit boards. Right now, the most critical thing in our lead time is that when the components are coming in, we put them on printed circuit boards to ship the final systems. You know, we're kind of hand-to-mouth on that right now, and we think we're gonna start catching up during this quarter to actually have some additional buffer. So far, for the most part, we've been able to meet even the pull-in requirements of some of our customers, probably more than what's reasonable. But of course, you know, everybody would like stuff a little bit sooner. You know, we're stocking up, and that's why it shows up in our inventory. We've got we've kind of shifted our previous inventory all over into now FOX-related inventory instead of the old packaged part and some other things. If you go out there and you look at all the dollars, they're all FOX-related, in the FOX-P family, and WaferPaks and DiePaks are all shippable good revenue. Of course, we still have dry powder in the bank, thanks to everybody on the ATM raise that we did to actually allow us to buy more as necessary. We are—like I said, we started buying components last February. I'm buying parts out through next summer right now. I know everybody would like to know how many, I'm not gonna tell you. It's certainly enough to, you know, exceed reasonable expectations of our revenue. That's a good thing. Okay. Maybe just the last question on this topic. When you look at the systems, the FOX family of systems, it's pretty uniform across customers. There's not a lot of customization, and so there's not a big risk of not being fungible. That's right. across different customers. Yeah. Every one of my customers uses the same chamber. They all use the same, what we call blades, with slight variations that actually can be reconfigured here. They all use the same, which we call channel module controllers, which is a base system for power and communication. And then they use variations of what we call channel modules. And each of the customers uses some combination of three channel modules today. We're actually working on a couple of different flavors of them. They themselves share, like, 75% of the components are the same. The family and this platform to be able to kind of mix and match and kind of configure to order is. It was a critical strategy for us. We knew that when we came up with that and built this new family, and it is really paying off right now. Because I don't care what I tell you, we can never forecast exactly what's gonna happen. What you do is you build a product line to where within a, you know, a wide range of forecasts, you can still meet the customer's needs. We're actually proving that as we go. We've had some drop-in orders from our silicon photonics customer. We basically took capacity that we had, we're building ahead on some silicon carbide capacity, reconfigured it, and shipping it to the silicon photonics customer. Great. Just one question for Ken. From a modeling point of view, how do you view the steady-state level of stock-based comp? That's an excellent question. You know, as I spoke about, we had a significant increase in stock-based comp this, actually, this fiscal year, including $800,000 this quarter. For the fiscal year, I would not plan on having that significant of an amount. Yeah. Gayn's trying to have me state a specific amount. I don't wanna lock into any specific dollars. Yeah. It's not, Tom, it's not gonna go down to where it was before anytime soon, just because of the way some of the stock works right now. You know, I guess it's good problems to have, but you know, they're real numbers right now. The key item is that is the relative bonuses. Keep in mind that when we developed our compensation plans at the beginning of the year, it was based upon revenue levels of $28 million. Then we actually had thresholds. We've exceeded, based upon this year, the highest thresholds. We will be adjusting our numbers up for next year. As Gayn and I chatted about earlier Ratcheting up. Ratcheting it up. If we exceed it next year, the investor base will be very, very. Yeah, if we take our forecast and double it again, we might actually have excess. We might have some more again, and that'd be a wonderful problem to have, so. Yeah. No, understood, and thank you, and, congratulations on the nice momentum. Thanks, Tom. We'll move next to Jon Gruber of Gruber & McBaine. Hey, Jon. Oh, Jon, you're on mute. John, we're not able to hear you. Please pick up the handset or depress your mute function so that we can hear you. Operator, may we move on? Let's make sure we come back to Jon, though, okay? Thank you. All right. 'Cause I always like getting beat up about where are the orders from John, so I don't wanna miss out on my quarterly, you know. Okay, go ahead. We'll go next to Dylan Patel of SemiAnalysis. Hey, Gayn. Thanks for having me on. I wanted to focus on one of your comments on the earlier question, specifically on automotive customers. You mentioned, you know, so a lot of these automotive and industrial companies are, you know, becoming hyper-aware of semiconductors, and so they've been reaching out deeper into their supply chains and started working directly with fabs and, you know, the suppliers of the chips when previously they may not have. And you mentioned that, you know, that about wafer-level burn-in, an automotive customer potentially having, you know, brought that up. Do you think that these automotive customers could start demanding wafer-level burn-in and then that, you know, drive sales of your product? I hope so. You know, the way we're looking at this is that, you know, we're trying to provide, you know, our customers, the industry, you know, in the last quarter, actually, we just attended this big conference called PowerAmerica, which is an industry conference of about 60 companies helping to drive silicon carbide and electrification. It was a fantastic meeting of companies I had a chance to meet and rub elbows with. You know, one of the critical things with silicon carbide, in addition to actually capacity, is quality. I mean, it's like, you know, capacity, quality. How do I get quality defects out? How do I ensure I go out there? One of the tones I hear is it's sort of a rising tide, you know, maybe I've shared this before. We had a customer of ours directly talk to us, and they said, "Listen, you know, we think the world of your system, we think you should go tell so and so about it." It's like, "That's your competitor." He goes, "Yeah, I don't care." He goes, "They have issues with their product. You know, if they have issues in the industry, you know, that could impact the, you know. or give, you know, tarnish the reputation of all of us. There's this awareness and people rolling up their sleeves like, "Listen, you know, they don't have to differentiate necessarily on which tool they use just as long as everybody please do not ship, you know, these things without going through burn-in." There's an awareness in the industry that we're trying to help enable. We also think that there's evidence that. So we know for a fact, you know, many of the devices that are being used in our system, what end customer it goes to, okay? And we know that that customer is involved in signing off on the qualification and the quality burn-in. That eventually could show up as they buy from other companies as well in sort of an expectation. At least it's our expectation that if anybody goes to a VW or a Mercedes or a Tesla or a NIO or, you know, name it, and says, "By the way, you know, we're doing wafer-level burn-in," and they say, "And it's Aehr," and they say, "That's great. We're familiar with that. Check the box." It would be great if they could say, "Oh, are you using Aehr?" That would be an aspiration for us. But at this point, we just want to be known as the one you can count on to ship quality products if you follow our processes, use our WaferPaks and our procedures for actually qualifying your devices, and that would be a good thing. Great. I wanted to ask another question specifically regarding the WaferPaks and sort of the recurring revenue stream there, right? My understanding is that they're custom to each sort of wafer or die configuration, right, design or wafer configuration. I wanted to ask, you know, a lot of these, you know, probe card companies such as FormFactor have spoke about, you know, low-yielding products demanding more intensive probe card usage. You've previously described the WaferPak contactor sort of similarly to, you know, what a probe card is in some ways. Silicon carbide has low yield, and obviously that increases the need to do burn-in. As these companies move to more complex like trench transistor or trench designs and all these sort of other designs, do you think that the wafer-level burn-in demands could pick up even more per wafer? Or do you think they'll sort of stick around that you know previously mentioned amount of time that each wafer is burned in? How often do you think that, you know- Let me try and answer that. For some reason, I have this quote that's coming back about Reagan saying, "I won't let the age of my opponent get in the way," or something like that. I'm not gonna, I don't want FormFactor's statement that they said people have to use a lot more of those probe cards as some indication of quality. They're actually a fantastic company. I know Mike and those folks really well. It's a little different. In most semiconductor devices today, with the exception of memories and those being used in burn-in, the test time is measured in seconds, often 2 seconds, okay? Every 2 seconds, you actually, what you call touch down, you actually touch the device with the needles and you make an electrical test, low speed, high speed, DC, whatever it is. You move to the next device and you test the next one. Every couple seconds, the needle is moving. I wouldn't wanna quickly do the math in my head, but that's a lot of touchdowns per day and for example, okay? 60 seconds times 60 minutes times 24 divided by two. Somebody do that math for me, okay? Probe cards are often specified or differentiated based upon how many touchdowns they can make before they wear out. They actually scrub off a little bit of metal every time they touch at some micron level. After maybe, you know, 100,000 touchdowns, they might wear out, or 200,000 touchdowns. If you get, you know, 1,000 touchdowns a day, maybe 200 days later, it wears out. You with me on that? Okay. We're actually similar. We have the same, I'd say, quality levels. In fact, our probe cards are probably more robust than many others. They're also not quite as high frequency in some other things. They're designed to go at much higher temperature than the average probe card does. We'll do ours up to 150 degrees Celsius, versus many probe cards can only go to 85 or 100 or 125. Nevertheless, we'll still last 100,000 touchdowns. Keep in mind that, I mean, I just had a conversation with a customer this morning who was asking me about the life of their WaferP aks if they buy it from us, and they have an estimated burn-in time of 48 hours. I told them, "Well, it's gonna last about 100,000 insertions, which is 200,000 days. I'm pretty sure that even your automotive device will never last that long." So they don't really wear out. Instead, it will last the life of the device. The key is how often will they change to a smaller device or a new die size or something. Right now, in silicon carbide, there's a lot of turnover. People are going to gen one, gen two, gen three, gen four to a 150 mm, 200 mm wafers. When they do that, they end up with new WaferPaks or probe cards. We're right now thinking that maybe about every four years or so, there will be a turnover, more of the devices than of the probe card wearing out or the WaferPak. You need one WaferPak with each tester blade in a tester. Keep in mind, a FOX-XP configured for silicon carbide gate is 18 wafers at a time. You also need 18 WaferPaks. You buy a system, you buy 18 WaferPaks. That gets you an 18-wafer test cell. Then every four years, you might buy another 18 WaferPaks. Over about 10 years, you buy three sets of WaferPaks and one hardware, something like that. Might be a way of looking at it that helps. Thank you. That's very helpful, and gives me some napkin math to try and do or maybe some more in-depth math. Lastly, I wanted to ask about the automotive LIDAR market. You know, last quarter, we talked about smartphones and AR sensors and stuff. First, I wanna ask you about automotive LIDAR. You know, they're very expensive, high cost, high reliability requirements, right? 'Cause they go in automotive. Do you have any visibility into, you know, whether LIDAR could start requiring wafer-level burn-in, like other photonics applications, you know, how, you know, that you- Yeah. you've spoken about in the past? Yeah, can you just talk about that? Thank you. Not really. Yes, we have some visibility of it. We can't really talk much about it, but we are talking to. We do have some information under non-disclosures related to it. There does appear to be some reasons to consider the LIDAR to do burn-in and also some applications of value of doing it at wafer level. I think the jury's still out, in my mind, but we're working on some stuff right now in that space. Okay. We'll see. It's not clear exactly how that volume would turn, what that would turn into yet. What we do know is that LIDAR or the emitter itself, like all optical emitters, have some infant mortality, okay, and therefore may want to go through a burn-in or a stress test to weed out the infant failures. They also have what they call a stabilization issue, which means that their output intensity decays with time during the first 24-48 hours. In certain applications like communications, that intensity decay is extremely critical. It's why all the silicon photonics guys do burn-in. On LIDAR, it's not as clear, same as 2D, 3D facial recognition. The intensity drop may not be as significant in that application, so it may be more to do with the infant mortality. We'll see, but I would not count on that being a big driver for our business right now. You know, I might be wrong. Great. Thanks. Hope you have a good day. Okay. Hey, John, did you try and get back in again? We'll see if we're able to hear Jon at this time. Mr. Gruber, your line is open if you have a question at this time. Yes. Can you hear me? Yeah. Sorry, I- Yep. goofed up. We can, John. Hey, congratulations on the commentary of the two new guys ready to roll here. I mean, what do you realistically think it will take to get the first of the two here to come over the goal line? Well, they're both a little different. I can't get into a lot of it. They both have a balance of short and, you know, longer, maybe, you know, 1- and 2-year goals of intercepting capacity. You know, they're kinda coming at this a little different. Again, I can't get into all of that. We're I think we've got what is demonstrated a very good working relationship at the executive level of both of them. I believe we can help them, and I believe they think we can help them as well. We're just trying to be an impedance match and make sure that we're addressing what their needs are, being the guy, being communicating what our capacities are. You know, we think that, yeah, I mean, I personally think that we're gonna end up with them being customers as well. My attorneys always warn me about saying that stuff, but that's what I think. Yeah. Second of all, gross margin was lower than the first two quarters. What did you attribute that to? I think it was 41 something. Yeah, John, I think I touched on that a little bit. We actually took an E&O provision for our legacy products of a little over $1 million, which had a 7 percentage point- That was in that number? Yeah, that's in there. Oh, okay. Otherwise, they're fine. 49. We were at 49% excluding that. Okay. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Right on line with what we expect. They were pretty decent then, so forget that. Okay, thank you. You're welcome. At this time, I would like to turn the call back to Aehr Test management. All right. Well, thank you, everybody. Actually, this is great 'cause we did have some feedback from folks to try and see if we can kinda aim for one hour. That worked out great this time. We'll try and continue to be as concise as we can in our prepared remarks. As always, if people have questions, please follow back up with us directly or with MKR. We'll be happy to set up a phone call for follow-up conversations. We are excited about Q4, looking forward to seeing some of you folks at some of the conferences. Closing the loop with you on year-end, I guess here in July, is how it's a long ways out, and giving guidance towards next year, which ought to be exciting. Take care. Bye-bye. This concludes today's call. Thank you for your participation. You may now disconnect.