Good morning, and welcome to Texas Instruments' 2024 Capital Management Call. I'm Dave Pahl, Head of Investor Relations, and I'm joined by our Chief Financial Officer, Rafael Lizardi. This call is being broadcast live over the web and can be accessed through our website at ti.com/ir. In addition, today's call is being recorded and will be available via replay on our website, along with the complete presentation and prepared remarks for your convenience. This call will include forward-looking statements that involve risks and uncertainties that could cause TI's results to differ materially from management's current expectations. We encourage you to review the notice regarding forward-looking statements contained in our most recent earnings release, as well as the most recent SEC filings, for a more complete description. During today's presentation, we'll begin with a recap of our objective, strategy, and business model that is built on our sustainable competitive advantages. Next, we'll review the scorecard for 2023 and updates for 2024. Then we'll provide a historical summary of our capital allocation and share a reminder of our approach to capital allocation as we prepare for the opportunity ahead. Next, we'll provide an update on our progress in strengthening our manufacturing and technology competitive advantage, where you'll see our CapEx plans are unchanged as we prepare to support long-term growth for our customers with geopolitically dependable capacity. Then we'll review R&D allocation priorities and our progress on building closer, direct relationships with our customers. Next, we'll review our free cash flow per share performance, and lastly, we'll wrap up with a review of our cash returns. If you haven't already, we encourage you to review our investor overview, which provides insight into our business model and competitive advantages. It's also available on our investor relations website at ti.com/ir. Before I go through an executive summary of TI's guiding principles and our objective and strategy, let me pause and make a few important points about today's presentation. Companies and investors are looking at a world where the semiconductor cycle is playing out at the same time that geopolitical tensions, particularly between China and the U.S., are reshaping supply chains and competitive dynamics for the next 10-20 years. We will continue to allocate capital to the best opportunities to prepare for the future, particularly our investments to provide geopolitically dependable, low-cost, 300 millimeter capacity at scale. History has shown the importance of staying focused on the opportunity ahead, even through weak periods of the semiconductor cycle. It is precisely in times like this that we find it important to remind ourselves and our investors of the principles that guide us on a day-to-day basis. At TI, we run the company with the mindset of being a long-term owner. We believe that the growth of free cash flow per share is the primary driver of long-term value. Our ambitions and values are integral to how we build TI stronger. When we're successful in achieving these ambitions, our employees, our customers, communities, and shareholders all win. Our strategy is comprised of a great business model, a disciplined approach to capital allocation, and a focus on efficiency. Our business model is built around four sustainable competitive advantages: manufacturing and technology, a broad product portfolio, the reach of our market channels, and diverse and long-lived positions. After accretive investments in the business to grow free cash flow per share for the long term, the remaining cash will be returned over time via dividends and share repurchases. With that as a framework, our objective is to maximize long-term growth of free cash flow per share, which we believe is the best metric to judge our performance and generates long-term value for the owners of the company. Our strategy to achieve this objective has three elements. First, a business model that is focused on analog and embedded products and built around four sustainable competitive advantages, advantages that we continue to invest in and make even stronger. Second, discipline in allocating capital to the best opportunities. This spans how we select R&D projects, develop new capabilities like ti.com, invest in our new manufacturing capacity, or how we think about acquisitions and returning cash to our owners. And third, striving to constantly increase our efficiency, which is about achieving more output for every dollar of input. Our strategy is designed around four sustainable competitive advantages that, in combination, provide tangible benefits that are difficult to replicate. First, at the bottom of the slide, we start with a foundation of manufacturing and technology. This provides us lower cost and greater control of our supply chain. The advantage of lower cost has always been recognized as a benefit. The last few years have increasingly highlighted the importance of owning and controlling our supply chain, including manufacturing, process technology, and packaging. Our second competitive advantage is the broad product portfolio of analog and embedded processing products. These products provide us more opportunities per customer and more value for our investments. And third, the reach of our market channels, including our field sales force team and ti.com.... This provides us access to more customers, projects, sockets per project, and insight into their needs. And lastly, we have diverse and long-lived positions, resulting in less single point dependency and longer returns on our investments. With that, I'll turn it over to Rafael, and he'll review our approach to capital management and the scorecard. Rafael? Thanks, Dave. We have shared our capital management scorecard with you since 2013. You can see that the scorecard includes descriptions of our long-term objectives for each metric, as well as the target range. The long-term objective provides insight into how we make decisions and run the business, as opposed to only a number or a range. In 2023, we again met our objectives. Capital expenditures were about $5 billion as planned, and cash return was about $5 billion, which is a reflection of our continued commitment to returning all free cash flow via dividends and repurchases over time. We're pleased with the consistency of these results over time that have been enabled by our business model, discipline in allocating capital, and constantly striving to increase our efficiency. For 2024, our long-term objectives remain the same, as we will continue to allocate capital to the best opportunities to maximize the growth of free cash flow per share over the long term. Before I move into those details, I would like to back up and provide a top-level view into how we allocate our capital overall. In the 10-year period spanning 2014 to 2023, we have allocated about $94 billion of capital. Given that magnitude, you can appreciate why capital allocation is a job we take quite seriously, and one that has significant impact on owner returns. Our largest category of capital allocation, about 40% of the total, has been investments in critical areas that drive organic growth, such as R&D, sales and marketing, capital expenditures, and inventory. For reference, capital expenditures have been a little over $15 billion over this 10-year period. The next two categories of dividends and share repurchases are similar in size. For dividends, our objective is to appeal to a broader set of investors, and we focus on their sustainability and growth for obvious reasons. For repurchases, our objective is the accretive capture of future free cash flow for long-term owners. And finally, potential acquisitions are evaluated through two primary factors that have remained unchanged. It must be strategic match, meaning catalog analog focus with high exposure to industrial and automotive. Additionally, it must meet certain financial objectives. For simplicity, we have not included changes in net debt, which over this period increased about $1.6 billion, as we have increased cash levels. Next, I would like to discuss our approach to capital allocation as we look at the opportunity ahead, and this may be the most important point during today's presentation. Our confidence in the opportunity ahead remains high for several reasons. First, we have a high level of confidence in the secular growth of semiconductor content for analog and embedded products, especially in industrial and automotive, which have the potential to grow faster than the overall semiconductor market over the coming decade. Second, we have greater exposure to industrial and automotive than we did 10 years ago, growing from 42% of revenue to around 75%, with a 10% compounded annual growth rate since 2013. Our work over the past 10 to 15 years has further strengthened our position in these markets. This includes our investments in process technology, package technology, and the expansion of our product portfolio. In addition, our work to build closer direct relationships with customers allows us to better service tens of thousands of customers in the industrial and automotive markets. In summary, the decisions we have made have increased our exposure to industrial and automotive, and we are well positioned for continued growth in the coming decade. Lastly, customers across all of our markets have expressed a strong desire for geopolitically dependable capacity, as it will be increasingly critical and valuable in the next ten years. Our elevated level of CapEx, which began in 2021 and will continue through 2026, enables us to support customer demand for supply outside of China and Taiwan at scale. During today's presentation, and consistent with last year, we're investing in capacity to support about $45 billion of revenue in 2030, and to increase our internal manufacturing to greater than 90% for both wafers and assembly. While it may be easy to question the viability of this plan, history has shown the importance of staying focused on the opportunity ahead, even through weak periods of the semiconductor cycle. Now, I would like to update you on our progress in strengthening our competitive advantages. To start, I will update you on our manufacturing and technology competitive advantage. We mentioned earlier that for each of our competitive advantages, we work to ensure that they provide tangible benefits and are difficult to replicate. Our investments in manufacturing and technology, particularly in 300 millimeter wafer fab capacity, help to expand our cost advantage and give us greater control of our supply chain. Today, we will review the progress of our long-term capacity roadmap that will support growth over the long term.... Before we do that, I would like to provide some insight into the benefits of owning and controlling our supply chain and the benefits of 300 millimeter. There are several benefits to owning and controlling our supply chain. First, these investments provide the capacity necessary to support growth. Second, we have more control of our supply chain, with more than 90% of our wafers and assembly tests to be manufactured internally. Third, our process technology is focused on 45 nanometer to 130 nanometers, which is optimal for analog and embedded products and vital for industrial and automotive markets. Lastly, we have a structural cost advantage because of our increasing 300 millimeter wafer fab footprint. All of these benefits allow us to provide geopolitically dependable capacity for our customers, with equipment and process technologies that last for decades. This example, which we have shared for many years, is an illustration of the cost benefit of internal 300 millimeter wafer production. Two years ago, we introduced a long-term 300 millimeter roadmap, and we are pleased with our progress throughout 2023. RFAB2 and LFAB1 continue to ramp production, and construction is underway on SM1 and SM2 in Sherman, Texas, as well as on LFAB2 in Lehi, Utah. Last year, we presented a detailed manufacturing roadmap that would enable TI to support about 10% revenue growth rate through 2030. Our capacity buildup plans and our confidence in the importance of these investments remain strong. As we mentioned previously, these investments are a reflection of a combination of confidence in semiconductor content growth, particularly in industrial and automotive, our position in these markets, and continued strong customer demand for a geopolitically dependable capacity. As a reminder, we plan to spend about $5 billion of CapEx per year from 2023 to 2026. Beyond 2026, we expect capital expenditures to be a function of both revenue and revenue growth rate expectations. Underneath the black line, we have highlighted some of the key wafer fab and assembly test projects. For the sake of time, I will not go through each of these, but we hope it provides some insight into the detailed planning involved in this roadmap. Finally, at the bottom of the slide, we have highlighted several key metrics this roadmap will deliver. The top row shows supportable revenue, meaning this plan can support approximately 10% annual growth through 2030 and beyond. On the second line, in 2022, about 80% of wafers were sourced internally, and this will increase to more than 90% by 2030. On the third line, you will see that 300 millimeter will increase from 40% of our internal production to more than 80% by 2030. This gives some perspective into how our 300 millimeter advantage will grow over time. And finally, while most of the world discusses the importance of wafer fab capacity, assembly capacity is equally critical. We will grow assembly from 60% internal to greater than 90% by 2030. As we consider capacity investments outlined previously, it is important to maintain a steady hand through the cycle. To help the generalist portfolio manager listening, who may not be familiar with the semiconductor cycle, we have updated this chart from last year to explain why we plan for the long term, independent of what the semiconductor cycle may be doing in any one year. This chart shows semiconductor units shipped, excluding memory, on a trailing twelve-month basis over the past 30 years, as reported by WSTS. While there is much debate that focuses on the cycle in our industry, the more important element is that the gray line, which shows the long-term trend, grows consistently over time. Our approach is to have a disciplined long-term plan with our capital spending, with the gray line in mind. Now, let me provide a brief update on the CHIPS and Science Act. As a reminder, there are two main provisions in the act. First, the investment tax credit, or ITC, provides a 25% tax credit for U.S. semiconductor manufacturing investments. We expect a cash benefit of around $4 billion for investments made through 2026. Additional benefits extend beyond 2026 through 2032 and will be a function of the CapEx spent at that time. In addition, we have submitted our applications for the manufacturing grants to the CHIPS Program Office, and the future benefit is to be determined. With those details, let me ask Dave to comment on our investments in R&D. Thanks, Rafael. I'll comment on our R&D investments that we allocate to growth opportunities in order to strengthen our technology and product portfolio while improving diversity and longevity. On this slide, we summarize the current direction of our R&D investments and our revenue breakdown by end market. For the revenue breakdown, we provided data for 2013, 2022, and 2023, so you can get a sense of how the portfolio has changed over the long term, as well as compared to last year. We can find great investment opportunities in all of these markets. As shown in the second column, the direction of our R&D investments is consistent with prior years. Industrial and automotive investments continue to be up broadly, reflecting our belief that these end markets will be the fastest growing markets due to growth of semiconductor content.... Personal electronics and communications investments are steady. Enterprise system investments are up slightly in support of the growing cloud and server infrastructure. Other, which is shown for completeness, is primarily the calculator business, where investments is flat and at low levels. Here, you can see the strategic progress we've made in the important markets of industrial and automotive. In 2023, those markets combined represent 74% of TI's revenue, compared to 65% in 2022, and just 42% back in 2013, and have grown at about a 10% compounded annual growth rate since 2013. As a reminder, the industrial and automotive markets have high diversity, meaning many customers, many sectors, and many end equipment types. These markets also have high longevity, where they tend to have life cycles ranging from several years to several decades. Success in the industrial and automotive, therefore, requires a long-term commitment and a willingness to invest broadly across sectors and product categories, both of which we've done and continue to do. I'd also like to share an update on our progress in building closer direct relationships with our customers, which serves to strengthen and extend the reach of our market channels. As a reminder, we believe that our customers increasingly desire the convenience and productivity of an online relationship, along with skilled customer and commercial support. This is a broad secular trend that we see all around us in our daily lives. Our multiyear investments in our sales and marketing team, ti.com, business processes, and logistics, uniquely position TI to lead this transition in the semiconductor industry. With these investments, customers have the choice of buying direct from TI via traditional backlog or through ti.com for immediate shipment, where they enjoy the convenience of online ordering and get the best price and availability. In 2023, we continue our progress on building closer, direct customer relationships, averaging almost 3/4 of our revenue transacting direct. This compares to about 1/3 of our business transacting directly in 2019. TI's reach of market channel results in higher growth through access to more customers, projects, sockets per project, and better insight into customers' needs. With that, I'll turn it back to Rafael to talk about our free cash flow growth and cash returns. Thanks, Dave. Before discussing free cash flow growth and cash returns, it is helpful to consider how our operating cash flows are enabling our long-term investments. Specifically, operating cash flow in 2023 was $6.4 billion, which was down from 2022, as we operated in a weaker market environment and positioned the company for the upturn by building about $1.2 billion of inventory. At the same time, CapEx was at $5.1 billion, or 29% of revenue, as we increased investment levels in 300 millimeter wafer fabs to strengthen our competitive advantages. As we described at the beginning, our overall objective is to maximize long-term growth of free cash flow per share. We believe this is not only the best metric to judge our performance over time, but it is also the one that we, as owners, ultimately care about. In 2023, free cash flow was $1.49 per share, as we made the decisions to invest in 300 millimeter manufacturing capacity and inventory growth, as we outlined earlier. The longer-term trend line of free cash flow per share growth has been low double digits through 2022. We expect to continue elevated levels of CapEx through 2026, as long-term growth of free cash flow per share guides our capital allocation decisions. As mentioned before, our long-term objective is to provide a sustainable and growing dividend to appeal to a broader set of owners. For 20 consecutive years, we have steadily increased our dividend, including a 5% increase in Q4 2023. These increases represent 14% for 5-year and 17% for 10-year compounded annual growth rates. As of January 26, 2024, the dividend yield was 3.1%. Our objective in repurchasing shares is the accretive capture of future free cash flow for long-term investors. While the ultimate assessment of return on investment of these purchases depends on the future cash flow stream, the track record of this approach is encouraging. We have reduced shares outstanding 47% since 2004. We ended 2023 with $21 billion in open authorizations, having bought back about $300 million worth of stock in 2023. With respect to cash returns, in 2023, we returned $5.34 per share. Over the last 10 years, we have returned a total of 114% of free cash flow. Returns have grown at 13% since 2004. It may be helpful to frame our performance versus others in the S&P 500. Our free cash flow generation puts TI in the 39th percentile and is a reflection of our decisions to invest to make the company stronger for the long term. Underlying this is our cash generation. Operating cash flows, a% of revenue, would put us in the 83rd percentile. Our cash returns put us in the 93rd percentile, and return on invested capital in the 87th percentile when compared to the S&P 500. We believe our performance versus the S&P 500 is a reflection of our focus on growing free cash flow per share over the long term, and the three elements of our strategy. First, a great business model that is built on our four competitive advantages, advantages in which we are continuing to invest and make even stronger. Second, discipline in how we allocate our resources, focusing on the best product opportunities, as well as areas that strengthen and leverage our competitive advantages. Third, striving to constantly increase our efficiency, which is about achieving more output for every dollar of input. We believe if we can continue to do these three things well, we should be able to grow free cash flow per share for a long time into the future. Let me now wrap up my prepared remarks with a few summary comments. As engineers, it is a privilege to get to pursue our passion of creating a better world by making electronics more affordable through semiconductors. We were fortunate that our founders had the foresight to know that passion alone was not enough. Building a great company require a special culture to thrive for the long term, and we continue to build this culture stronger every day. The desires of sustainable investors are aligned with our long-term ambitions and have been part of our formula for success for decades. We will remain focused on the belief that long-term growth of free cash flow per share is the ultimate measure to generate value. We will invest to strengthen our competitive advantages, be disciplined in capital allocation, and stay diligent in our pursuit of efficiencies. You can count on us to stay true to our ambitions, to think like owners for the long term, adapt and succeed in a world that's ever-changing, and behave in a way that makes us and our stakeholders proud. When we're successful, our employees, customers, communities, and shareholders all win. Thank you. With that, I'll turn it back to Dave. Thanks, Rafael. Operator, you can now open the lines up for questions. In order to provide as many of you as possible an opportunity to ask your questions, please limit yourself to a single question. After our response, we'll provide you an opportunity for an additional follow-up. Operator? Thank you. At this time, we'll be conducting a question-and-answer session. If you'd like to ask a question, please press star one on your telephone keypad. A confirmation tone will indicate your line is in the question queue. You may press star two if you'd like to remove your question from the queue. As a reminder, we ask that you please limit to one question and one follow-up. For participants using speaker equipment, it may be necessary to pick up your handset before pressing the star keys. One moment please, while we poll for questions. Our first question comes from Timothy Arcuri with UBS. Please proceed with your question. Thanks a lot. I had a question on the long-term assumption for revenue and your share. So, if you look at your trailing 12-month share in analog, it's now dropped back to about 16%. It was about 19% pre-COVID. Does the long-term assumption assume that you get that share back? I'm just kind of wondering what is assumed from a share point of view, because each point of share is roughly $1 billion plus worth of revenue in that, you know, time frame. Yeah, Tim, maybe a couple of comments, and as we've talked about and moved through, you know, there's been quite a bit of noise in the system. We do longer term, we are not assuming that the rate of change of our share over time is changing when we put together those assumptions. So, we are assuming that noise comes out of the channel, of course, but that long-term rate doesn't assume that it accelerates from what we've done in the past. You have a follow-on? I do. I do, yeah. I guess, Rafael, I had a question also on the credits. You accrued $1 billion as of last quarter. I imagine you'll probably accrue a couple hundred million dollars more this quarter, but you said that the benefit is only gonna be $500 million this year, which is a bit lower than I think some of us thought. And you're not cutting CapEx. So can you help understand how the credits are a little lower, but the CapEx has not changed? And also, since the credit is gonna be a bit lower this year, do you get that back next year? So yeah, it's 500 this year, but it's gonna be, you know, 1.5 or something like that next year. Thanks. Yeah. So first, you know, big picture, as we just talked about, we expect to get about $4 billion of benefit from the ITC, CHIPS Act ITC, for the CapEx that we'll be spending, we're already spending from 2023 through 2026, okay? So out of that $20 billion or so of CapEx during that time, $5 billion per year, we're gonna get about $4 billion of benefit. The way that works is we accrue for it first, and then, a year later or so, we get the cash, right? And then the asset is placed on the balance sheet at that lower base, so minus the accrual. Now, the timing of the cash, that can be a little quirky. It's all a function of when the assets are placed in service. So anything that's placed in service as of the end of the year, December 31st, that is eligible to get the cash by October of the next year. So that's what you're seeing now. We expect $500 million this year just because of the $1.4 accrual. Only about that $500 million was put in service, and that means qualified, you know, running the factory when it comes to equipment. When it comes to buildings, you actually have to finish the building and then have a certificate of occupancy. So that's what's going on. So we are gonna get the $4 billion of cash over the next few years as we continue to accrue, and then eventually, subsequent to that, get the cash about a year, year and change later. Great. Thank you, Tim. We'll go to the next caller, please. Our next question is from Toshiya Hari with Goldman Sachs. Please proceed with your question. Hi, good morning. Thank you for taking the question. I wanted to follow up on the market share question and just clarify. Dave, you mentioned. I think you mentioned that you're not expecting an acceleration in your share growth going forward. But when I look at the numbers, the revenue supported for 2026 and 2030, you know, I guess off the base of 2023, to get to those numbers, you know, you're looking at a 20% CAGR through 2026. If it's through 2030, it's a mid-teens CAGR. So, if the rate of share expansion is not accelerating, are you assuming that the TAM, the market growth is accelerating going forward? Is that the right way to think about it? Yeah. What I'd ask you to do and just to pull you back to slide 18, where we show the last 30 years of shipments inside of the semiconductor market. And, you know, for convenience, we, you know, estimated the peak of each cycle with the red dots, and you can see that movement, you know, over the long term. And what was important, as we said, in the prepared remarks, was that long-term gray line. So yeah, if you draw lines off the bottom of any one of those cycles, you'd have a much higher growth rate at any particular time. So again, as we put together those plans, we're looking at that longer-term trend line. As we've talked about before, the things, the investments that we're making, whether that's in capital expansion or even preparing for inventory, it's really made with that longer-term view, in mind. Yeah, let me add to that. Dave alluded to noise earlier. I just wanna explain that a little bit, because these market share comments are; they're a point in time when people make those arguments. So you gotta think a little broader than that. Now, remember, over the last couple years, many of our competitors have used long-term agreements. They've also, which we do not use, so we've been shipping directly to what the customers need. We are 75% of our revenue now is direct, so we don't have that channel in between, the distribution channel that distorts those trends. So we're shipping, again, what the customers need and only what they need. There's also been a pricing movement in among some of our competitors that could also be distorting the market. So be careful just assuming just taking one point in time and drawing conclusions on market share. I think you need to look at that over time, peak to peak, trough to trough, over the entire cycle before you draw any hard conclusions on that. Toshiya, a follow-up? Yep, I do. That's helpful. Thank you. My follow-up is on inventory, and I know the range is unchanged. It continues to be, you know, a rather large range, right? It's 130 to above 200. You're above 200 today, and I think, Rafael, on the earnings call, you talked about inventory, you know, potentially growing a little bit for the next couple of quarters. So as we think about your business over the next couple of years, is that range... I guess, can we assume a reversion to, you know, 160, 170? Or, how should we think about, you know, your inventory, given your portfolio and your view on growth? Thank you. Yeah, no, good question. So, step back, you know, inventory objective is to serve our customers, serve them well, and have a potential upside for revenue. Keep in mind that inventory is very low risk, and when it comes to obsolescence, given the low product life cycles, et cetera. Now, stepping back even further, remember, our strategy has evolved over time. We are now a much more catalog industrial automotive, companies. About three-quarters of our revenue are in, in those buckets. And again, those are long, long product life cycles, long shelf lives, for the, for the product. So that's one thing to consider. The other one, we're now three-quarters of our revenue goes direct, so less of the channel, therefore, the inventory that used to be supported with the channel that was off the balance sheet, essentially, now we have to support internally. So that also drives the need for more inventory on our balance sheet. Third one, we're providing immediate availability on ti.com for those catalog parts. That's also a key differentiator, a key enabler, and it requires additional inventory as an investment to enable that. And the final one I would tell you is that we are not only do we have most of our manufacturing internally, but we're taking that up, right? Over the next several years, and we already did that in 2023 to a large extent. Internal wafer starts are gonna go to 90% from about 80%, and assembly tests from 60%-90%. So all of that also adds more inventory because now the inventory is on, on your balance sheet from the moment the wafer starts, you have WIP in the line, same with AT. Whereas if you compare that to our competitors or the way we operated before that, that wasn't there to that extent. So, so all that to say, we're very comfortable with our inventory levels. I don't see that, that draining or draining significantly over the coming months or years, or quarters or, or years. Remember, inventory is a backward-looking metric, so you gotta be careful how you look at it, but for $4.5 billion of inventory, given our revenue expectation over the next year or so, is a good bogey to be thinking about. Great. Thank you, Toshiya. We'll go to the next caller, please. Our next question is from Vivek Arya with Bank of America Securities. Please proceed with your question. Thank you for taking my question. How much did TI ship through ti.com last year? I think that, that slide, you know, wasn't there in the presentation. How much higher are margins in that channel? And why hasn't that direct channel done more to help TI avoid some of this overshipment to customers that some of your peers, right, were also, in hindsight, had to do? Yeah, I'll start with that. If you look at ti.com, as Rafael mentioned, it is a way for customers to get immediate shipment of product. And that with customers coming direct and placing backlog or consignment feeds on us represented about 75% of our revenue, up from about 70% last year. So, it's increasing. Now, you would imagine in periods of tight demand, ti.com will be higher. Obviously, it'll be lower in periods of weaker demand like now, so it has fallen off. But the long-term strategic value of both of those channels remain very, very, very high. Let me just add to that. As you alluded to, it did react to the environment. That's why it is lower than it was in 2022. So we did ship less to customers immediately as things weakened. So it did behave as expected. It's there to support growth on the other side. You have a follow-on, Vivek? Yeah. Thank you, Dave. The CapEx intensity is supposed to stay elevated even after this 2023-2026 period, right? So 10%-15% of revenue. What has fundamentally changed, right? Because in the good old days, you guys could keep CapEx well below, you know, mid-single digit, and it worked well. Now, it's supposed to be 10 or 15, and I'm curious, what has fundamentally changed, and does it mean that investors should now think of the analog industry being structurally less profitable than it has been historically? Well, what I would tell you, we are committed to the $5 billion per year for the next four years, that $20 billion plan, to put us in a great position to support long-term growth, given our confidence in the markets that we talked about. Beyond 2026, that's gonna depend on revenue and revenue expectations at that point. The CapEx, the CapEx intensity beyond that, so. Okay. We'll go to the next caller, please. Our next question is from William Stein with Truist Securities. Please proceed with your question. Great. Sort of related to that last one, not precisely, but it's related. Your free cash flow to sales, obviously, that ratio is much lower currently because of the elevated CapEx, but you have this still fairly, you know, high target. Can you talk to us about the timeframe in which you expect to track towards that? Is it like 2026, 2027? What should investors expect? I'm sorry, when you said a high target, what are you referring to? The Free Cash Flow to sales target that's in the slide deck. Oh, okay. Yeah, so we have a plan for elevated levels of CapEx through 2026, similar to the previous question. After that, CapEx will depend on expectations on revenue and revenue growth. And the free cash flow is, of course, a function of operating cash minus the CapEx, right? So that will follow it. So the goal is 25%-35%, right? And you're operating much lower. So is the... I think what you're interpreting is that it's 2027 in which we should expect that target to that statistic to go back to the target range. Is that correct? I would say sometime after 2026. You know, I don't wanna put together a specific number. You never know what could be happening at that point, right? There's, we're a cyclical industry, but the elevated, CapEx, you should expect that through 2026. Then after that, it'll be, a function of revenue and revenue expectations. And, so then CapEx, will adjust to that. Mm-hmm. Okay. May I follow up? Yeah, I think, sure. Go ahead. We'll give you a bonus, well. Appreciate it. The first is really the same question, actually. The next is really about the expansion of internal wafers as a percent of total. You've had this message out there for a while, and you continue it, but you do have some product that's a bit more leading edge. And so the curiosity that I have is whether the implication is that you're gonna do less leading edge as a percent of your revenue, and it remains outsourced, or are you starting to insource and manufacture at some closer to leading edge geometries? Yeah, yeah, maybe I'll go, I'll start, if you want to add, Rafael. So, you know, the capacity that we're putting in place today is targeted to support 45- to 130-nanometer, and those are optimal for analog and embedded. So, you know, we expect to use those nodes for decades to come. We likely will go below 45, but probably not much below that over time. So those are the nodes that we will be insourcing. We'll have needs for products below that, but, as you know, we show inside of the charts, that will be a pretty small portion of our total demand. Okay? All right. That was three questions there. Yep, we'll go to the next caller, please. Our next question is from Ross Seymore with Deutsche Bank. Please proceed with your question. Hi, guys. Thanks for letting me ask a question. The first one is on the chip side of things, and a clarification on the actual question. The four billion you're talking about, given the one-year lag, I know that's reflective of the investment through 2026, but does the $4 billion number not come till 2027? So that's the clarification. And then the bigger picture question is: How do we work through the accounting on the grants? I know you're not gonna tell us what that is, but just walk us through how that flows through your financial statements relative to how you're doing the ITC, please. Sure. So let me start with the ITC, the first question. So the $4 billion, remember, we started accruing that in late 2022. So that's roughly, we're spending that CapEx from 2022 to 2026. So essentially, we're gonna get the cash from 2024 through 2028, more or less, if you wanna think about it. So it's over four years with kind of a two-year time shift. Okay? I also wanna we mentioned it during the prepared remarks, but I wanna make sure it's not lost. We expect additional benefits beyond 2026 on the ITC, on CapEx spent in the United States. Just the way the regulation works, the way it was written, it applies to certain projects, in our case, Sherman and Lehi, from 2026 to 2032. But those benefits, we don't have that quantified because it's gonna depend on how much we spend during that time. But there are—there'll be additional benefits beyond the $4 billion. On the second part of your questions on the grants, we just submitted that application in December, so we don't know the specifics. I'd imagine the accounting will be very similar in terms of the balance sheet and P&L, meaning it's just gonna decrease the carrying value of the asset, and therefore, you have a lower depreciation. What I don't know is the cash. The cash could be given upfront, could be given in milestones, or could be given at the end, so that remains to be seen. But I believe the balance sheet and P&L accounting will be very similar to the ITC. Okay, Ross. Thanks for that. You have two parts to that. You have, you have a follow-up? Yeah, this will be a simple one. Last fall, you took down the depreciation slightly. You had more efficiency gains, et cetera. You know, I think $1.5 billion-$1.8 billion for this year versus $2 billion prior, similar slight decrease for what you're talking about next year. Any update on that? Any change to those ranges on depreciation, of course, pending all the grant stuff that we don't know yet? Yeah, no, thanks for asking that. That gives me an opportunity to clarify that. So yes, no change to that. I talked about it last week at the earnings call, but 2024, so this year, 1.5-1.8, and 2025, 2-2.5. That is, again, the same as what I said last week and what I said 90 days ago. I wouldn't expect the grants to change that, because it would probably change beyond 2025, but we'll see, depending on how things play out. Great. Thank you, Ross. We'll go to the next caller, please. Our next question is from Tore Svanberg with Stifel. Please proceed with your question. Yes, Rafael, Dave, thank you again for hosting this really informative call. The first question is on the growth, you know, behind obviously all these CapEx investments. So I think we all agree that the analog industry is great, the embedded industry is great, but we also think about the geopolitical stuff. So, you know, China has been about, you know, a quarter of the market over the last 30 years. How should we think about that 10% growth target and how, you know, TI expects to continue to ship into the Chinese local market? Thanks. Yeah, thanks for that question, Tore. So let me just make a couple of comments, and we had some of it in our prepared remarks, but just to bring it to the top of the list. So, you know, when we look at our growth in the future, what gives us confidence in it is the trends that we have seen is just higher semiconductor content growth per system over the long term, and especially what we've seen in industrial and automotive. The second is our position in that market. As we showed earlier, it's now 74% of our revenue, so three quarters. That has grown at, you know, just slightly over 10% over the last decade. And I'll point out, over the last decade, you know, we have worked to strengthen our positions in both of those markets. So our product portfolio today is broader and stronger. If you look at our reach of channels, we have closer direct relationships with customers. We have capabilities like ti.com that we didn't have a few years ago. So all of those things help to build confidence. And then the last one is the increasingly strong customer response to what they're seeking, which is geopolitical dependable capacity. And they're specifically looking for that outside of China and Taiwan. And the important part is, it's at scale. So when customers are looking at that, they look at the same roadmaps. Of course, we share more details with them than what you see there, and they're increasingly positive about that longer term. Specifically in China, you know, as we talked about before, you know, there's no question that we're in a different geopolitical environment. But we continue to have those four sustainable competitive advantages that allow us to compete in China. And when we've got great products, better specs, lower power, smaller footprint, better service, lower price, a better availability, whatever that combination is, we can continue to win in China. Just to add to that bottom line, we will continue to compete in China. It's an important market for us. It's roughly 20% of our revenue comes from customers that are headquartered there, and our competitive advantages and combinations give us a really good ability to compete there, effectively. You have a follow-on, Tore? Yeah, no, thank you for that. So my follow-up is on the M&A strategy. And Rafael, you talked a little bit about, obviously, what some of the criteria are there, but I also know you have some specific, you know, sort of financial barriers for M&A. Could you just remind us what those are? I think they're related to your weighted average cost of capital, but any more color you can share with us there? No, I think you summarized it well. We evaluate any M&A opportunities through two factors. It's got to be strategic, so generally catalog, analog, focused on industrial, automotive, and second, it's got to meet financial objectives. Yeah, think about that as meeting or, or meeting or exceeding our WACC, really on a cash-on-cash basis is how we like to look at that. Great. Thank you, Tore. We'll go to the next caller, please. Next question comes from Stacy Rasgon with Bernstein Research. Please proceed with your question. Hi, guys, thanks for taking my questions. My first one, I want to challenge the low-cost 300 millimeter capacity statement a little bit. I mean, is it really low cost? I mean, it's not the same as what you did before when you were buying the stuff at 10 cents on the dollar. So I guess, how do we think about it being low cost in this context if you're buying it all new? And what does it really mean for the cost structure going forward, as the new equipment scales? Yeah. So, Stacy, it is low cost. It's a structurally low cost. Think of any of these factories, all-in will cost with new equipment, about $6 billion or so with building and equipment and everything. But they're gonna support about $6 billion a year once they're fully equipped for many, many years. You know, we currently have plans to shut down one that's been around for 50 years, so you can do the math on that. And the advantage of the new equipment, it's not just new equipment is worse than old equipment because it's more expensive. You actually get significant efficiencies with new equipment, so you can't just look at it on a cost-to-cost basis. Another point, we've talked about ITC. That's a 25% discount on all that equipment. We'll see what we get on grants. And finally, you know, we have operations around the world, so I'm pretty knowledgeable on electricity rates and other factors like that around the world, and you cannot beat Texas when it comes to electricity costs. Utah is not bad either, but Texas is really the best in the world. So most of the cost factors of putting factories here are in our favor, if not all of them. Yeah. Let me just add that, we've got that slide in the slide deck that shows how and why it is structurally lower cost, and the chip is 40% less cost. And if you look at the, you know, our revenues and profits, we began production of RFAB1 in around 2010. I think it was right at the end through 2022, we had 40% of our wafers on 300 millimeter, and of course, as we invest, we expect that's gonna grow to 80%. So that will continue to be a tailwind for us over that period of time. Let me add one more comment, Stacy. We currently buy from foundries, analog and embedded wafers. We know how much they charge, and we have enough intelligence to figure out or estimate their cost structure, and our 300 millimeter factories compete with the best of them. So we and they're only gonna get better as we reach scale. Think of, you know, RFAB1 and Two is two factories next to each other. Sherman is four factories, which, by the way, is just what is it? 40, 50 miles up the road. So we get a lot of synergies of having that cluster of factories together and being here, where we have our great talent, and we can leverage those skills. You have a follow-on, Stacy? I, I do. I do, thanks. So, regarding the longer-term capital intensity, so I get it, you talked about beyond 2026, the return on revenue. Is the revenue dependence what determines whether you're 10% or 15%, or are there plausible scenarios where CapEx could go below 10% structurally or above 15% structurally? Yes, there are scenarios where it goes below, of course. Yeah, and it'll just depend on actual revenue levels and then growth expectations, so- Right. Yeah, absolutely. That's right. That's right. Okay, thank you. Thank you, Stacy. We'll go to the next caller, please. Next question is from Joshua Buchalter with TD Cowen. Please proceed with your question. Hey, guys. Thanks for taking my question. Maybe following up on Stacy's last one, if we think about the $5 billion per year over the next few years, I think you've talked about expectations for a normalized growth rate in of 10% ±. But as someone mentioned earlier, off Street numbers, to get to the 2030 number, you have to grow at 20%. I guess for the $5 billion through 2026, how much would those growth rates need to diverge before you would think about lowering that number? Or is that essentially set in stone for now, and the vector will be more on what Stacy was asking, the 10%-15% in the out years? Thank you. Yeah. So if I understand your question correctly, what I would tell you is that through 2026, count on the numbers that we have given you, which is $5 billion of CapEx per year through 2026, okay? That is. And you can see on the slide 17, what we're doing with that. We're completing RFAB2 in, on equipment. We're completing LFAB 1 with equipment. We're building SM 1 and SM 2 to a large extent, and LFAB 2, we're starting to, it will be in the process of building that, and we're equipping SM 1, and you can see what we're doing on the ATs. So that $20 billion of CapEx will pay for all of that. Beyond that, it's gonna depend on where we are on revenue growth. You can see that by 2026, according to this chart, we'll be able to support $30 billion of revenue. So depending on our expectations, we get closer to that edge, we'll decide what makes sense to have for CapEx beyond 2026. Yeah, and let me add that, bringing up Sherman One is important, so that long term, we can release products to that, it can go through qualification cycles at customers. So when we need to expand into that factory, that portion will already be done. SM 2, Three, and Four, then is considered by our industry standards, essentially the same factory, and that won't be a hurdle in the future. The second point that I'd add is that spend between now and 2026 is also going to enable us to bring more wafers internally, as well as bring more assembly test internally, which both have a great economic benefit to us. Josh, you have a follow-on? Yeah, I appreciate all the color, Dave and Rafael. It's been a while since you've done a meaningful M&A transaction. I think it was 2011 when you did National, but it you mentioned that the second of the two objectives in which you evaluate M&A is essentially financial. And does all of your capacity investments and your lower cost basis, does that go into the potential ROI calculations of how you would evaluate your willingness to do M&A? And basically, like, does bringing a potential fabless company or someone onto your manufacturing footprint, does that play into your decision to do a deal or not? Thank you. You know, marginally it does. It would, I should say, 'cause we have the capacity available. It's just much easier to potentially transition an acquisition internally. But frankly, it takes a lot of qualifications and other things. It's not as, especially in the analog space, also in embedded, it's not like you can just take the company and plug it in right away. But, you know, it plays into it on a marginal, at a marginal level. Yeah, and let me add to that. If you look at National and the types of products, they had a high exposure to industrial, high exposure to automotive, a large diversity of products. So when we acquired them, you know, we didn't pick up and move all of their products to RFAB1. You know, we continued to build the products that were already released in the existing manufacturing footprint and release new products into RFAB1. So- Correct. So really over time, it leverages the competitive advantages, but it's not makes a difference on day one after the acquisition in that case. So we think a future one would be of similar type. Correct. Like today, 13 years later, we have two factories that came with National, and there's one in Maine, and they're running 100% there, and an assembly test in Malaysia. That's right. They're still in the footprint. Okay, thank you, Josh. We'll go to the next caller, please. The next question is from Chris Danely with Citi. Please proceed with your question. Hey, thanks, guys. So given all the benefits that are coming from the CHIPS Act, I think you said believing in 2026, does that mean that depreciation should peak in 2025, or is it possible for depreciation to keep going up after 2025? It's possible. In fact, I would say likely to go up beyond 2025. We haven't quantified that, and we were not gonna quantify that. But that will be a function of CapEx, CapEx net of ITC and net of potential, potentially any grants. So as you can appreciate, there's a lot of moving pieces there. So as we, and of course, the CapEx is a function of revenue, so start with that, right, revenue longer term. So as we as we understand those over time and get a sense of those, we'll we'll update you as best we can. No problem, Chris? Yeah. So, you know, you guys said that your, your CapEx is set in stone for the next few years, and, you know, we all looked at the revenue growth targets. So if the revenue growth, you know, is materially lower than your 2026 target, and, and the revenue growth looks like it's gonna be lower than the 2030 target, how do we get back to the target model of, you know, free cash flow margin, since you guys would not, sounds like you won't change your, your CapEx at all? Yeah. So, as I, yo u're correct. Through 2026, we're committed to our plan, but beyond that, CapEx will be a function of revenue and revenue growth. So, CapEx can change meaningfully at that point. And operating cash will still be a function of revenue and working capital on other things, right? Keep in mind, like, take just last year, operating cash took a hit from building inventory, but that's something you don't have to do every year, at least to the extent we did. So, you know, you add all those pieces and you can model what operating cash and free cash flow can do over the coming years and then beyond 2026. Great. Thank you, Chris. Thanks, guys. Thank you. We'll go to the next caller, please. Our next question is from Harlan Sur with JP Morgan. Please proceed with your question. Yeah, good morning. Thanks for hosting this event. So part of the operational plan underlying your longer term strategy is insourcing more of the assembly and testing. It, it is a smaller part of the manufacturing economics, but I would assume it's growing as a percent of total product costs, just given some of the complexities of these next generation analog and embedded packages in auto and industrial. What, what was the percentage of internal assembly and testing in calendar 2023? And then, as you move towards your target of 75% in 2026 and 90% in 2030, similar to your wafer cost advantage, can the team quantify the improved product costs as you execute the assembly and test strategy? I'm sorry, you said the product cost, or what, can you say that part again? Yeah, product cost. Yeah, product cost. Product cost. Yeah. What I would do, I think you're correct that, Assembly Test is becoming an increasingly important portion of manufacturing. You know, some of these chips are so small, the die- Mm-hmm. Really, more and more of the cost is, as a% of the total cost, on the packaging and the assembly. Right. So that is critical. It's also from an enablement of the technology, you know, power dissipation and things of that sort, that's becoming really, really important and a key enabler of the technology. So yes, it is important. We are taking that number higher. I don't think we're quantifying how much, but I would tell you that we are ahead, we're ahead of schedule. If you linearize from 60%-75%, 2022-2026, we're well ahead of that pace. So we're looking good on that front. I would also say, similar to the question earlier on the wafer side, we also benchmark against the sub cons. We know their price, of course- Mm-hmm. Since we buy from them. So we know we are competitive, and we do just as well as they do, or better. Not just on price, of course, but on cost. So that's very important. That has to, those factories have to stand alone in our view, in terms of cost competitiveness. Not just, that is, you know, nice to have a supply internally, but they need to be cost efficient. Yeah. Maybe, just to add, too, because we own and control those assets and the technologies that go on them, there are things that we can do that others wouldn't be able to. And, there are benefits that will accrue back into assembly test, if you think of wafer scale packaging or chip scale packaging, as well as other things that that we do because we own both of those processes and the technologies that form them. So, again, I'm gonna go into that 'cause there's just a lot of details and it's highly dependent on the package and and market. But, there are additional benefits that we get in owning and controlling that. You have a follow-on, Harlan? Yeah. Thank you. So on the potential for a better revenue growth profile over the next few years, right? There are many dynamics that have to come together: new product, process innovation, new customer engagements to capture that content gain opportunity, right, that we talked about. Realignment of the embedded business towards more catalog, that's a good example, right? Because there, you know, the team significantly, you know, outperformed from a growth perspective, your analog business last year, right? I think another good example is ti.com, that's channel innovation. Any other major initiatives, products, process, system solution, that the team is focused on that will help to drive the content capture and maybe that potential faster revenue growth profile going forward? Yeah, I'll start. Maybe I'll start. I think that you've hit on, you know, examples of how we're strengthening our four competitive advantages, right? The manufacturing and technology, the broad product portfolio, the reach of channels. And those are stronger, no doubt today than what they were, you know, a decade ago. And if you look, you know, we have, you know, I think we've talked about 65 or so product lines at the company. We're releasing somewhere in the neighborhood of about 600 new products a year across each of those product lines. So those product line managers are very close to customers... They understand what their competitors are doing, they get information from our systems teams through ti.com of how to improve those product portfolios, and those just continue to get stronger each year. Other things like the convenience at ti.com, you know, none of these things is going to change market share overnight. But when you have consistent pricing, when you've got stable lead times, when you've got product that's immediately available, when we can connect digitally to customers and make the operations teams smoother, and make their life better, we believe that that's going to lead to higher share over time. Yeah, the other comment I would give you is that, take ti.com and now that we're 75% of our revenue direct, that is very hard to do internally. Meaning, there's a lot of work that many teams have put in over several years to take that to where it is and to take that further. And that goes, you know, inventory management, order management, how we build the parts, how many we build for 100,000 different parts. So it's just a key enabler of and a driver of one of our competitive advantages. Thank you, Harlan. And we'll go to our last caller, please. Our last question is from Joe Moore with Morgan Stanley. Please proceed with your question. Great. Thank you. I wonder how you think about U.S. versus having fabs in places like Europe? You know, I've sort of talked to some of your customers and some of your competitors, and they sort of say, you know, obviously, you see the benefit of having internally owned manufacturing and not being dependent on Taiwan. But does that put you in a different position when you're talking to European customers or other parts of Asia, where the subsidization may be similar to the CHIPS Act? You know, have you thought about kind of broadening that out? Yeah. What customers are really looking for is geopolitically dependable capacity, and outside of China and Taiwan, that can scale to support growth. And these factories that we're putting in the United States, Texas and Utah, give us that. And as I alluded to earlier, we have the ITC that helps with that. We'll see what happens with grants. But then we have other factors that work really, really well here in the United States, specifically in Texas. That is, the electricity is reliable, which you couldn't say that in Germany or in parts of Europe for some time. It's also very low cost, frankly, compared to. It's the best, really, best in class around the world, and that's a key input factor in our factories. You have follow-on, Joe? Yeah, that's helpful. Thank you. You know, as you guys think about make versus buy decisions, is part of the calculus here that, you know, foundry prices get more expensive over time? Because you know, you used to have all, sort of, newer nodes just aging naturally, and so a lot of the foundry wafers were fully depreciated. Do you think foundry prices, you know, foundry inputs need to go up, and that's part of what makes internal manufacturing more compelling than buying it externally? Foundry prices are already very expensive. And, you know, just look at the players in that space, how many there are. It's really pretty concentrated space. So that's already a pretty big headwind for anybody buying those those wafers. And they are geographically centered in Taiwan on the foundry side, and in China. So when you think of geopolitically dependable capacity that we prefer, clearly the factories that we're building in the United States have that aspect to them. Yeah. And I'll add, as I think you're alluding to, Joe, that to support growth in the industry, that whether it's us or whether it's you know, a foundry, they will need to buy new equipment to support any a dollar of additional revenue growth. So, we won't be using you know, a 10-nanometer fab or a 5-nanometer fab that's repurposed. It really needs to be targeted at 45 to 130 to be optimized for our markets, and that's true for us and true for our peers. So with that, let me turn it over to Rafael to wrap this up. Okay. So to finish the call, I want to thank all of you for taking time today to go through our capital management update. Let me emphasize a few key points. First, we remain focused on consistent execution on of how we manage capital. Second, our discipline allocation of R&D is delivering growth from the best products, Analog and Embedded, in the best markets, Industrial and Automotive. We have great diversity across all the sectors within these markets. Third, our 300 millimeter manufacturing strategy is a unique advantage and will continue to benefit TI for a long time to come. And finally, we remain committed to returning all free cash flow over time to our owners. Dave? Thanks, Rafael, and thank you all for joining us today. A replay of this call will be available on our website, as well as the slides that we used in today's call. Have a good day.