Good day, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to today's conference call to discuss Nano Dimension's third quarter 2022 financial results and quarterly update. My name is Betsy, and I'll be your operator for today's event. On the call with us today are Yoav Stern, Chairman and CEO, Yael Sandler, CFO, and Julien Lederman, Head of Corporate Development. Before we begin, may I remind our listeners that certain information provided on this call may contain forward-looking statements, and the safe harbor statement outlined in today's earnings press release also pertains to this call. If you have not received a copy of the press release, please view it in the investor relations section of the company's website. Yoav will begin the call with a business update, followed by a question and answer session, at which time Yael will answer questions. I would now like to turn the conference over to Nano Dimension's Chairman and CEO, Yoav Stern. Yoav, please go ahead. Thank you very much. Good day to everybody. We're going to go which is short. Hopefully, everybody has it in front of him. We finished a beautiful quarter of $10 million of revenue, which takes us to about $31 million of revenue over three quarters, comparing to three quarters last year as hundreds and hundreds of percent above, almost 1,000. Comparing, to the last quarter, a similar period last year, it's also 650%. We're happy about it, and, we have certain criticism at ourselves, which we'll be talking about, but we'll start with the highlights. We'll go through what we think should be improved. On the highlights, which are not numbers highlights, but rather, milestones in the business. First and foremost, we had M&A and investment activity. We acquired a relatively small company, but probably with the largest potential to grow from all the acquisition we acquired until now. It's called Admatec in Netherlands, with an amazing additive manufacturing technology for metals and ceramics based on DLP direct or Digital Light Processing. It is something we looked for for a long time. Size of the company was relatively small, less than $10 million in revenue, but it was a subsidiary for many, many years of a much larger company that was in different business. It was growing kind of behind the scenes. We believe that the growth potential is more than anything we acquired until now, and it will be already manifested as we go forward. This year, they'll finish one and a half quarter under us, which are already ahead of their projections last year. On the Fabrica side, the first AM company we acquired a year and a half ago, major advancement in the material. If people remember, I told you early in the game that whoever speaks about additive manufacturing in general, and additive manufacturing electronics specific, as a technology of robotics automation is missing the point. Additive manufacturing main core technology is materials, process, and process. Major advancement here in Fabrica, which was the main kind of blocking of substantial sales because it took us until now, since we acquired them to develop the new materials. That's very good. AME, application development. I should say, what's not written here, we have a very, very exciting advancement in the materials in AME as well, which enabled the application development. We have about three new materials that are much better than the previous materials that are going to be released to the market at the beginning of the quarter, next quarter. They are going to be applied for all the models of the machines we have, including backwards compatibility, which is very, very important. Customers are very excited. We had just a month ago, customers, users conference in Munich. We had 40 people, 24 customers, and including very high profile ones, which I can't mention for risk reasons. Excitement was felt across the board. Finally, last but not least, in spite of the amount of cash we have, we are still operating the way we operated last year in so much as the acquisitions. We're frugal. We're not spending money on acquisitions which are foolish at multiples that are totally unacceptable, which was done by everybody around us. We relate the same way to management of our overhead, which is not acquisitions, of our manpower this quarter, in the beginning of the third quarter. That was not easy in a company that is growing and where the employees and executive know that we are relatively comfortable cash-wise. I still, and we still, Yael and myself, insisted on reducing the headcount because we felt when company grows so fast, there's enough fat that we can cut, and it resulted in reduction of $10 million expenses level on this quarter comparing to the original budget, which we're very proud of. Now back to focusing on the numbers, which are important. The revenue is $10 million this quarter, $31.5 million for the three quarters. Gross margin is deceiving because obviously the IFRS includes a lot of non-cash expenses and for sure, Shares granting, et cetera. Look at the 29. Even the 29, which is net, and its real gross margin is a bit lower. Our typical gross margin is about 40, and it's a combination of margins of above 60 for the new machines and about 40 or 38 for the more machines that are in a later stage in their life cycle as products. Why is it lower this quarter? The answers are pretty clear, and I'll speak about it in the next slide. Our EBITDA, - $24 million, includes about $13.5 Million of investment in R&D. That basically means that if you guys told me that if we didn't have the belief in the huge multi-hundred million dollars potential of the additive manufacturing electronics, which demands still an investment of about $13 million a quarter in R&D, we could close, cut that or sell that, and within two, three quarters we'll be making money. We're not going to do that because we're not going to give up the opportunity which we believe will lead us to where we promised it will lead us. It is still important to know that as we look at the EBITDA, half of it, more than half of it is an investment in R&D. The rest, by the way, was investment in developing of the go-to-market after the acquisitions. The net cash used in operation is $22.3 million, which is more than $10 million less than projected. Our projected run-rate for the whole year was above $100 million cash spent on the investment. As you see, 22 is a rate of about $80 million-$90 million a year. Our backlog is untypically high, and the reason is will be discussed in the next slide. Actually, I can speak about it now. Our cash is $1.05. The reason the backlog is high is because in Europe, the results of the conflict in Ukraine and the result of the supply chain holdbacks, caused our customers, didn't cause us problems, but customers that bought machines, asked to deliver them either this quarter or even next year. A lot of revenue from this quarter was held back and postponed, but it is on backlog, which means signed purchase orders. You will see the results in next quarter. This is also, by the way, a reason why the gross margins were reduced in this type of products, because and it's all by the way, in very gory details in the news release, because as we sold out of the door less machines, certain overhead in COGS, which was fixed, is of course manifesting itself in prcentage of revenue as higher number of COGS, lower number of gross margin because the revenue is lower. That is going to correct itself between the next quarter already and maybe two, even during the next two quarters. Some information about this acquisition I have mentioned before. As you heard from my voice, we're very excited about it. The activity and the type of materials are shown here in the picture. We are expanding already the portfolio, and we're expanding the go-to-market. We applied all our go-to-market forces, sales people around the world. They already, since the acquisition in July, had a course and training in these machines, and we're starting to sell them in North America, which was almost not sold. We're expecting very, very positive results from growth, as I mentioned before. This is just a manifestation of what I mentioned earlier about R&D. There's no way a company can be profitable when it invests 52% of its revenue on R&D. Our business model, which we are running on a five years basis, is showing that profitability, on a quarterly basis, will happen in 2025, and at that time, the ratio of the R&D to the revenue is going to be down below 20. I should correct myself. The R&D is not 50% of revenue, it's 52% of operating expenses, which is much, much less than 52% of revenue. You have the actual numbers in the left, so that's easy. R&D is $18 million a quarter. Out of this $18 million a quarter, my estimate is the R&D for AME is much more than a half. Actually closer to $14 million. It's obvious why I said before that we are very encouraged with the results in the products in the AME, which are coming to the market in the next two quarters, because that's what's going to lead us to the growth as expected and profitability. This is just a comparison of our cash divided by our annual run-rate. If you take us and three competitors in the market, by the way, they're not direct competitors, but at least they're in the same market. You can see that we have 14, almost 14 years if we continue to burn cash the way we are, and we're not going to, as you already heard, we cut it even this quarter. Assume we continue at $88 million-$90 million a year. We have 14 years with our acquisitions, the other companies have between less than a year to around two years. We're very comfortable that we're not going to go back to the market to raise more money, and we are comfortable that it's not going to take 14 years to spend this money. Because we're spending more of it on acquisitions, and wait for the news, it's coming this year and earlier. I mean, 2003 and earlier, 2023 and earlier. It's all aimed for profitability with spare cash as we need. As much as revenue for the three months and none months I mentioned before. On the right side, you see the... On the right side is the quarter, and on the left side- In the right side, it's the gross profit for the year- to- date. The gross profit, the, and the left side is the revenue. You can see how on three quarters, nine months, the number is $31.5 million, I have mentioned before, and the gross margin is accordingly around 11% and change. Next. Vision. The vision of the company has not changed. The strategy is a derivative of the vision. We are aiming to build a network of very smart machines, mostly additive manufacturing and additive electronics, which are going to serve as edge devices on a manufacturing and on a cloud manufacturing network. Both of which, the network and the machines, are going to be run and directed by our DeepCube Deep Learning technology. If you wanna use an analogy which will describe it the best way, we are seeing the industrial market moving forward to become you manufacture it when you need it, where you need it, if you need it, and the rest is staying as digital inventory on the cloud. The analogy is, think today about the paper industry and PDF. You do not buy a printer. You buy a Word processor application, and you buy the PDF from Adobe or whoever, and you work your product on your computer, and you print it where and when you need it. If you need it in England at your lawyer's office, you'll send it through the cloud, and it'll be printed there. The same vision we're seeing for cloud manufacturing, especially if the edge devices are additive manufacturing machines for electronics and for other additive manufacturing. That is our vision. As we build, we know we're not going to have all the types of the edge machines, but we have certain technologies that will be mastering the edge machines for certain type of products. We are focusing on the software and the artificial intelligence that's managing this network and managing the machines as edge devices. The vision is described here. I'll just read it quickly to you. We want to transform the additive manufacturing and additive manufacturing electronics to a fully digitized sector with environmentally friendly and economically efficient additive manufacturing that fits the definition of Industry 4.0. One production step, conversion of the designs to functioning results and devices. Now, you all realize, I'm sure, that the focus of this vision initially is on high mix, low volume. That's where it excels. When you have very, very large amount of designs and the manufacturing per design is not 40 million pieces. Industries that are served by this kind of profile is defense, is aviation, avionics, aerospace, advanced medical, advanced automobile, advanced industrial, including energy, and of course, the whole array of research institutions and academy. All our products are aimed, including this vision, to this specific vertical direction. Now, let me step off the presentation here and mention to you that about a month and something ago, we had a investors conference in New York, which was very, very successful. We were not the only participants. Many, many companies did participate. We met 35 to 40 institutional investors. After we finished the presentations one-on-one, we did a survey. We wanted to get feedback from our investors. Some of them were our investors. Some of them, by the way, were new investors, of course. The feedback is not qualifying who is who because it was unnamed, unanimous. We had out of about 30, 40 response, we had about seven response that were, I would define them as criticism or requests for what is not being supplied. I wanted to go to this response specifically. I'm not going to go to the positive response, obviously. It's too self-serving, but it's not as important as... It's important to us to fix what investors feel is missing. I'll just quickly go through that for you. It may cover part of the questions you are having, make it shorter, or it may not. Hopefully, it will help. First question is, or was very hard to understand organic growth story and how shareholders are served by buying companies without near-term incremental upside. The response to that is, first of all the companies we acquired, bar none, on exception, I'm sorry, it grew organically since we acquired them, which is an amazing achievement. The company grew the growth from $10 million to a rate of run-rate of $42 million, is combined, frankly, mostly from organic growth, because this year we acquired only kind of one and a half company, if you wish, because the first, the last company we acquired in July, it's not even appearing on the numbers. The organic growth is inherent. Many of... Most of it came because we merged the companies, we merged them into our go-to-market. We leverage our go-to-market to sell more. Therefore, the organic gross growth come from there. The only exception which I promised to mention is I spoke before the situation in Europe for the company that is in additive electronic. There was, for instance, a reduction of one and a half million dollars in sales comparing the year before just from Russia and Poland, which was a major number. 75% down on that section because we stopped selling to Russia for obvious reasons. Poland stopped ordering. This is the exception. By the way, at the same time, the same company, we took them to the United States and grew the revenue in the United States by 60%, 70% just organically. It goes to show you. Second question. One issue we have is how to value the company with relatively low revenue, especially with respect to such large cash balance. Well, that's simple, actually. You take the cash balance, that's worth cash. To be fair, we had the cash balance of $1.5 billion about a year and a half ago, bit more, February 2021. We have close to $1.2 billion, including investments today. We only spent $300 million, out of which half of it was acquisitions and half of it was operating costs. We're very proud and affected we didn't spend it, but we don't intend to continue not to spend it. We just intend to spend it smartly. What is the value of our company? It's valued at $1.2 billion. You take our business. We have a $50 million or $45 million run-rate business, which is very high-tech, growth business, advanced technologies. How much does a $45 million business valued? It's up to you. It can be valued 1 time investment, Sorry, 1 x revenue, 2x revenue, 5x revenue. If it was 10x, if it was a year and a half ago, it would be valued at 10 x revenue. 10x revenue is $500,000. $500,000 + $1.2 billion is $1.7 billion, divided by 280 million shares, you can find out where, why the share should be $7 or $8. I'm not the one to say what the share should be. I'm just the one to say very simple to value our business. Cash plus the value of the business. Today, the value of the business is clear because the numbers are much clearer and the growth is there. By the way, our revenue by, over the last two years only went up by 2,000% and more. Another way to give you a guideline or a tool to measure what is the worth of the business. Third question was, person that said, I wish to better understand the company's acquisition strategy, especially in light of looking at so many companies. Since we have Mr. Lederman here. My voice is getting a bit coarse. He is heading with a team of four or five very talented people, the implementation of our strategy of acquisitions. Why won't you speak a few words about it, please? Hi. Good morning, good afternoon, wherever you are. Our strategy is generally two pillars to it. One is technology, the two is commercial. On the first one in technology, it's about hardware, software, and in particular, material science companies that can help us leapfrog our R&D pipeline to get us to where we wanna be faster. Secondly, on the commercial side, it's about acquiring, I would say, commercially successful businesses that are selling products and services to the same end customer verticals. I think that's a very important aspect of what we're doing. To give a few examples briefly on the technology side. DeepCube is an exemplary example of a software, specifically AI, that is a key technology. On the commercial side, our acquisition, most recently of Admatec and Formatec, is an example of that. The products, particularly the printers that they make and sell, they sell to the same end verticals that our other businesses do. A third example, and one that's particularly interesting, is our acquisition going back almost a year now of Essemtec. Particularly interesting to us because it is a technology acquisition and a commercial acquisition. This is something whether of these three varieties that we plan to do significantly more, in large part because of the market valuations, which I'm sure, have been discussed before, and we can elaborate on later. The one thing we don't do with acquisition strategy is we don't buy companies that has to be maintained afterwards as a silo, standalone subsidiary. We're not in that business because there's no synergies, no growth, and no delivery of dollars to the bottom line. The second thing about acquisitions is the size. As much as I'm concerned, I'm much better by company with $200 million of revenue than company with 10 or 20 or 30. We've been looking at it. We've been negotiating that for, I would say two years. We said no to everything other than what happens over the last quarter and a half. We're starting to see finally the numbers shrinking down. People don't ask for 5x-10x revenue anymore. The large companies that we have looked at, none of them other than one was sold. Our total preference is to buy large companies as long as they fit the guidelines that were described by Julien. Now, another feedback. Large cash balances that are just on balance sheet are not strategic assets, and the company will be pressured to spend it. Very good comment, and let me tell you something. Cash is not strategic question, but cash can buy strategic, which means cash is strategic asset in potential if you spend it right. If you spend it wrong because you're under pressure, because questions like this are being asked, then it is not a strategic asset, and then it's going to become a wasted asset. I'm sorry for the person who asked this question, which I don't know, but I'm telling you, I am totally committed not to spend your money unless I think it is converted to a strategic asset, which it is. Everything we spend it until now was, and hopefully the few things that are on our table right now are going to make you even happier because of the size and their strategy. Today, look at our competitors. Companies in this industry are anything between 1.5 years of survivability with their cash to less than a year. That makes cash much more strategic in regular times, and it makes it positive for myself as an investor and you as investors, because reduces the chance of going to the market and needing to raise money at a lower valuation as the market delivers right now. People who know our industry know, without name, certain companies that raised over the last half a year, emergency cash at valuation of half and less of their valuation before, of course, they, that took them down. Next question. An investor asked, "Why did the company invest in Stratasys? I don't want to invest in companies that invest in other public companies, particularly in the same sector." I agree with this person 100%. It's not attractive for me as an investor or for you to invest in public company or invest in public companies. This is one of a kind. I explained it a few times before. I don't wanna get too much into details, but it is a strategic investment, which is explained in the email when we announced it. Please read it. It stays very strategic. We are now the largest shareholder of Stratasys, as much as we know. Stratasys came out with the last quarter result. They were the only company in this industry other than us, and they are bigger, of course, that came with good quarter results without excuses. We're very happy with them, and we're looking at this very favorably as much as what is going to happen in the future. We're not going to do other investment in public companies. This definitely, this gentleman is right. Investor feedback about following the stock long time. Sorry, that's not what I want. The next one. The market cap and cash value have a disconnect, and this is concerning. The company is either burning cash too fast or there is not a real business to support. Well, the first question, it stems from a source of lack of knowledge, which is fair because this is probably a person met us the first time. Company is not burning cash too fast. I described to you that cash we're burning in the 14 years we can be living with that, obviously is not going to be the case. Do we have a real business or not? Well, we have a $45 million or $43 million, $45 million run-rate business with gross margin that's growing. We spoke about it enough. We think it's real. It's growing. Last but not least, with the reluctance to buy back shares, the company must do solid acquisitions in 2023. Two comments about that. First of all, I agree that we must do solid acquisitions in 2023. Secondly, regarding reluctance to buy back shares, well, watch us. We have a year to do that. We know through The board is valuing on a monthly basis, when and how much to buy. You will hear about it. Until now, I think I went through the seven comments I wanted to go through, and I think it's time to let you, ladies and gentlemen, ask your questions, and we'll be happy to answer. We will now begin the question and answer session. To ask a question, you may press star then one on your telephone keypad. If you are using a speakerphone, please pick up your handset before pressing the keys. To withdraw your question, please press star then two. At this time, we will pause momentarily to assemble our roster. The first question today comes from Ashok Kumar with ThinkEquity. Please go ahead. Much. A couple of questions. First one is on the supply chain of components, are you seeing any ease up there which would help support, you know, faster organic growth? You also talked about cash burn and R&D, right? R&D is about 60% of cash burn, you know, now, and your cash burn is about $80 million annualized on average. You talked about R&D dropping to about 20% of expense ratio by 2025 versus, you know, currently it's about 60%. Just an absolute number is, right, so where do you see that in 2025 from the $55 million ± today? The third part is the gross margin trends. I think you also highlighted, 65% on new machines and, you know, mid-30s on the traditional, you know, surface technology, with the increased focus on software and service, which is not part of your revenue stream now. Where do you see that, in that same timeframe, 2025? Thank you very much. Okay. Let me start with the second and the third. I don't remember the first one, but the second one was about the R&D expense. Let me make it clear because I think it was a bit my mistake in the slide, and I kind of maybe have confused you. Our R&D expense today as percentage of operating expense is 51%. Our business model leads to R&D going down as percentage of revenue to less than 20% of revenue. That is where the profit starts to come up at the bottom line, EBITDA and below. In order to reduce the R&D to less than 20% of revenue, there's two ways of doing it. A, increasing revenue, B, reducing the actual dollar spent on R&D. We have a very clear business model moving forward that the only assumptions that are less known there is of course what acquisitions will come on the way, and we have certain assumptions about acquisitions as well. In 2025, it shows that the profit on the EBITDA level comes somewhere in the middle to the third quarter of the year. That's exactly when the EBITDA, sorry, the R&D level of, in percentages, goes below 20% of revenue. It goes... Frankly, it depends on the, how fast the revenue grow. If the revenue grow fast enough to fit this model, we're going to continue to invest in R&D in order to accelerate product development in new technologies. If, from the other side, the revenue grows a bit slower, then we will reduce the amount we spend on R&D, but we'll choose where to reduce it, so we don't risk our innovation, which obviously creates the revenue moving forward. The last question that you asked was about our gross margin and services and software moving forward. We have a lot of investment in software now, which includes or comes from the concept that we believe that as the analogy I gave you and when you print documents, you don't think about your printer. You buy the printer from Lexmark or HP or wherever. You think about what kind of software you're using to design the document. It's the same for product. We are focusing on design, therefore we're focusing on adding software to the mix, which includes software potentially in the future as a service and software as part of selling a machine. We see this starting to affect the numbers in the end of 2023. I'm sorry, Ashok, can you remind me the first question? Yeah. The first question was just basically, supply chain components, right? Whether you're seeing any- Oh, yeah. Ease up. Yes. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. We do not feel a supply chain issue with our machines. What we did is when the whole thing started, since we were not stranded for cash, we pre-purchased a lot of our semiconductors that we need for our own usage in advance. We paid premium for that, but we didn't care. By the way, it does affect gross margin, but we didn't have any delay because of delivering machine because of that, so we're not affected. What we are affected is that our customers are affected by lack of components. Customer, for instance, will buy additive manufacturing, additive electronics machines, which are used to position and add and mount components on boards. Since they don't have the components, they say, "We bought the machine, but we want it to be delivered next year." That's the effect on us, not by effect on our manufacturing. One last question on your M&A strategy. You've been very disciplined in terms of acquisitions. Earlier, you talked about having both a technology and a commercial strategy in that realm. I mean, the acquisition of the Polish company was a sub of a large American company. It looks like you're open to larger acquisitions and then how that fits into this cloud manufacturing strategy, the machine learning and Deep Learning and so on, right? I think how you tie all that, you know, together. Yeah. Thank you very much. Very good. Excellent question. First of all, it was not Polish company. It happened to be Netherlands company, but close enough, a bit north. Actually north and west. The component of in the decision algorithm of what to buy, which is derived from our ownership and our achievements in the Deep Learning algorithms and artificial intelligence is critical. All the companies we buy, less very small exceptions, will gain from applying the artificial intelligence, the Deep Learning that we have into the machine, which will increase their throughput, especially through increasing their yield by having a very smart robotic brain that in real-time can identify errors in printing and correct them or stop the printing, so increases the yield. No artificial intelligence, Deep Learning machine exists like this in the world today that can do it in real-time with 30 milliseconds response time other than in Tesla, actually, and probably in certain Deep Learning in space technology or in missile technology. Other than that, we have it. The difference is they have to do it over in hardware. We have the patents, and we did it in software, so it can work actually with a regular computer inside the machine. That's point number one, and about acquisitions. Point number two is, yes, we are looking at large acquisitions, larger acquisitions, and the way they fit the cloud manufacturing concept is that the machines that or the companies we're acquiring and manufacturing the machines through the integration of the Deep Learning is going to connect the cloud and enable through the software developing and design through the cloud, including inventory, subject to IP protection. Certain defense companies will do it on a private cloud and downloading it straight into the machine, which is a micro center for manufacturing, and it's being printed as needed and when needed. It fits beautifully, and we're actually very, very excited about the concept, this concept. Thank you very much, and all the best. Thank you. Next question. The next question comes from Anne Margaret Crowe with Edison Group. Please go ahead. Hello. Thank you for taking my questions. I have a couple, mainly related to acquisitions. Firstly, could you talk a little more about how you are actively integrating the acquisitions to remove that silo effect that you talked about? Following on from that, when should investors start to see the results of this integration, or is there evidence of that already with regards to cross-selling and the integration of the DeepCube technology into other you know, existing systems that you have already? Yeah. The third question is, looking at the cash pile that you, that you have, and one alternative would be not to spend on acquisitions, and then you'd have, you know, 14 years of cash at the current rate of cash burn, which, you know, clearly you're not going to do. Could you give us any indication of roughly how much of that cash you've got earmarked for acquisitions? I think you've made it, you know, quite clear that valuations are more reasonable now, so you've got much more to choose from. Okay, that's great questions. As usual, you know, the human brain, or at least my brain, is limited. We remember the last question. We'll start with the last question. Okay. We go backward. The cash that is earmarked for acquisitions in the next three to five years is between $600 million-$800 million. We have certain assumptions about that. We have some assumptions based on the multiples today of how much can it bring as revenue because multiples by now going much lower than 2x revenue even. It starts to become very interesting. Yes, we're not going to wait 14 years. We are hopefully not going to wait five years because we'll accelerate. Until now, we are ahead of our plan. When I had this five years model and program, I had it since two years ago, and we are ahead of that plan. That's point number one. Point number two, the D.C. technology, we are looking at the acquisitions, as I mentioned before, the Deep Learning is a very, very advanced technology. It has one, if you wanna call it disadvantage. It takes huge amount of data from the field, which means a machine that will fit our engine of Deep Learning needs to have a lot of data it manufactures. It can be data through all kind of sensors, it can be data about temperature, data about vibration data, of course, visual data, thermal data. We are measuring. If they don't manufacture this data, then it'll take longer time to implement the DeepCube into the machine. We are looking at acquisitions also based on how the machines are built and if they are data-rich. If they are data-rich, the effect of the Deep Learning as a self-learning technology that's able to correct without human interference is much more maximized, actually. Mm-hmm. Going back to the question before, you asked about how do we do this integration in order not to keep it in a silo format, and what's the result or when we will see the results for this integration. Oh, I'm impressed I remember all the questions. The integration is an example. We acquired a year ago, no more than a year ago, actually exactly in November. Exactly a year. The Additive Electronics company in Switzerland. Since then, we converted all the North American sales into our go-to-market. As a result, the sales in North America almost doubled organically. We already started the whole infrastructure. We are going to build our next machine in Additive Manufacturing Electronics in Switzerland, not in Israel, because it's better, frankly. They are better in building machines. They are building machines for 20 something years, similar kind of technologies. We have started already to build machines in Switzerland. Mm-hmm. Originally were built in Israel. Third point, we are already applying our artificial intelligence technology to the machines that were built in Switzerland. In this case, they didn't have enough data, so we're developing the sensor array to generate enough data so we can apply the AI. Another example is a company that we acquired in Netherlands only in July. I think I mentioned it before. Since July, we already trained all our salespeople, the go-to-market, which is much bigger than that company had, to sell their company. Since it was in July, August, September, October, November, they already have revenue ahead of what they budgeted themselves, what you'll see it is next year. I'm not talking about overhead, which is of course, very easy. You know, we have one finance department. We don't have a whole array of finance and administration people in every company we buy, and if we do, we move them around, so become very, very efficient. Our management team, think about the following: We have 12 people in our senior and mid-management team. First of all, 10 of those are ex-CEOs. 10 of 12 are ex-CEOs. They joined us, I guess, with the excitement of working with such an open-ended and beautiful planned development and growth plan. Out of this, five were from acquisitions, which means our management team is, of 12, is integrated with five, which are ex-founders or ex-general managers of the acquisitions we did. That's closing up on your first question. Right. Next question, please. Those were my questions. Over to somebody else now, I think. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. -for answering those so fully. Okay. Okay, guys, it's 50 minutes. I think, this is, you know, everybody has a day of work ahead of them. Unless there's other questions, I wanna thank you very, very much for participating. Thank you very much for your interest. Again, you have our emails, phone numbers, and you know how excited we are to speak with you. Even if it's offline, looking forward to that. Thank you very, very much. Thank you. Thank you. The conference is now concluded. Thank you for attending today's presentation. You may now disconnect.