Hello, everyone, and welcome to Atomera's Third Quarter 2025 Update Call. I'd like to remind everyone that this call and webinar are being recorded, and a replay will be available on Atomera's IR website for 1 year. I'm Mike Bishop with the company's Investor Relations. As in prior quarters, we are using Zoom, and we will follow a similar presentation format with participants in a listen-only mode. We will open with prepared remarks from Scott Bibaud, Atomera's President and CEO; and Frank Laurencio, Atomera's CFO. Then we will open the call to questions. If you are joining by telephone, you may follow a slide presentation to accompany our remarks on the Events and Presentations section of our Investor Relations page on our website. Before we begin, I would like to remind everyone that during today's call, we will make forward-looking statements. These forward-looking statements, whether in prepared remarks or during the Q&A session, are subject to inherent risks and uncertainties. These risks and uncertainties are detailed in the Risk Factors section of our filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission, specifically in the company's annual report on Form 10-K filed with the SEC on March 4, 2025. Except as otherwise required by federal securities laws, Atomera disclaims any obligation to update or make revisions to such forward-looking statements contained herein or elsewhere to reflect changes in expectations with regards to those events, conditions and circumstances. Also, please note that during this call, we will be discussing non-GAAP financial measures as defined by SEC Regulation G. Reconciliations of these non-GAAP financial measures to the most directly comparable GAAP measures are included in today's press release, which is posted on our website. Now I'd like to turn the call over to our President and CEO, Scott Bibaud. Go ahead, Scott.

Thank you, Mike, and good afternoon, everyone. This quarter has presented both challenges and validation, highlighting the realities of introducing a new material technology to the market and the potential it holds for addressing fundamental issues in the semiconductor industry. I will begin by providing an update on our collaboration with STMicroelectronics, deviating from our usual format to explore the larger context, the traction we are gaining with new customers, and the various market opportunities that Atomera's technology is poised to address. As announced, our work with STMicroelectronics on their smart power platform reached a critical point this quarter. We faced a significant performance trade-off for their 200-millimeter platform. Despite achieving our goal of improving key device performance metrics, this came with a reduction in device lifetime, or reliability, which fell short of ST's specifications. Over several months, our teams collaborated extensively to tackle this trade-off. However, ST decided to discontinue development on 200-millimeter wafers as they shift focus to 300-millimeter for the next-generation BCD110 platform. Concurrently, Atomera discovered a new MST implementation validated by our TCAD simulations that doubled our performance improvement without compromising device lifetime. This breakthrough, only possible through MST, represents a solution to the earlier trade-off. In recent months, ST has confirmed our findings for this new approach. Unfortunately, as it required a change in device architecture that would involve multiple validation cycles, ST concluded they could not incorporate it within their fast-paced BCD110 launch timeline, meaning they will proceed without MST, and currently, no plans exist for a future variant that includes it. While this is disappointing, several key positives stand out. First, we demonstrated significant performance advancements at STMicroelectronics and validated MST's integration capability within a Tier 1 production environment. Second, we have developed a high-performance solution that resolves the performance reliability trade-off, creating a new differentiator for us as we engage with additional players in this market. Lastly, ST has reiterated their commitment to continue collaborating with us in other technology sectors where MST could provide value. Under our license, they are continuing to conduct experiments in various areas. This experience with ST highlights that introducing a new material into mass production is rarely a straightforward process. However, the insights gained from this endeavor strengthen our foundation as we approach other players in the same power market segment, including a major existing customer and a new relationship that began this past quarter. Customers are currently assessing MST for power devices ranging from 5 volts to 48 volts. It's crucial to note that ST is just one of numerous large customers we are collaborating with to deploy MST in the power sector. We also have three other active technology focus areas. In the Gate-All-Around segment, we are in discussions with three large competitors and one emerging player. In the DRAM sector, we are engaged with two out of three major manufacturers, maintaining a solid relationship with the third. Within RF-SOI, we are working on integration projects with four different fabs and a fabless entity, many of which are actively processing wafers. Therefore, we have abundant opportunities across several segments. In fact, over the past three months, we have processed a record number of wafers for our customers. As we evaluate these opportunities, we categorize our business priorities based on revenue potential. The first priority is achieving the fastest time to market, followed by the highest return on investment, and finally, breakthrough long-term growth. A swift route to market for Atomera's technology involves applications utilizing MST deposited on top of the starting wafer rather than integrated midway through the manufacturing line. This approach can accelerate revenue for several reasons. Customers can acquire an MST starting wafer and pass it through their standard production process with minimal modifications, simplifying experimentation. They avoid the complexities associated with wafer transfers in and out of their fabs, major process changes for integration, or the need for a license agreement. The cost of MST can be incorporated into the starting wafer price, allowing Atomera to achieve revenue while customers perceive it differently. Additionally, qualifying MST starting wafers is typically faster compared to those integrated midway through the process. Presently, we utilize MST starting wafers in our work with RF-SOI, GaN, and potentially soon in next-generation DRAM. We actively pursue these implementations due to their relatively easier integration and quicker path to revenue. The second category of applications presents tremendous revenue potential, though the development process is more intricate since MST is integrated amid a complex set of production steps. The potential upside justifies this effort, as one design win in this area can secure the company's future success. As mentioned earlier, we currently have six or seven initiatives underway. In the Gate-All-Around and advanced memory space, our collaboration with a leading capital equipment company announced earlier this year showcases our capabilities at advanced nodes. Using their test infrastructure, we have validated MST’s ability to reduce contact resistance, enhance channel reliability, and integrate with the tiny structures of nanosheet transistors. We are thrilled by the deep cooperation and interest from customers generated through this partnership. This quarter, we will embark on joint visits with our customers to demonstrate that challenges in their manufacturing processes can be addressed using MST. The influence of our partner's endorsement is invaluable. Additionally, we have numerous new breakthrough materials enabled by MST under development through commercial partnerships and university collaborations. For many of these initiatives, we have already filed fundamental patents and are now focused on creating prototypes and understanding their capabilities. These programs initiated our GaN efforts, and we have approximately a dozen similar initiatives in early exploration, some of which could lead to near-term disruptive announcements in fields such as quantum computing, AI server power, high-bandwidth memory architectures, piezoelectric devices, and optical networking, potentially facilitating entirely new applications. By outsourcing early R&D wherever feasible, Atomera's core team can maintain a sharp focus on immediate revenue opportunities and allocate more resources to promising innovations as they mature. Our gallium nitride initiative continues to show promising progress. In partnership with Sandia National Labs, we are nearing the completion of device fabrication to showcase enhanced electrical performance. Previous results confirmed MST’s capability to improve GaN growth on silicon substrates, which is a significant hurdle for high-volume production, drawing interest from our initial commercial customers. We aim to publicly release a comprehensive data set later this year, paving the way for a complete rollout. As we advance our GaN efforts with Sandia, they are now seeking to broaden their R&D engagement with Atomera technologies relevant to their top priority development areas. The semiconductor industry is clearly entering a new materials innovation cycle. In the realms of logic, memory, power, and RF, engineers are reaching the limitations of traditional scaling and are in search of material solutions that enhance performance, boost reliability, and reduce variability, exactly the areas where MST provides value. This necessity is particularly pronounced in AI infrastructure and data centers, where there is a heightened focus on power efficiency and thermal management, driving innovation at the device level—capabilities MST can deliver. One of our key challenges is to ensure potential customers are informed about MST, which is why I’m excited to introduce Wei Na as our new VP of Sales. Wei has experience in growing a semiconductor technology licensing business similar to Atomera’s, reaching the same customers we are targeting, and we believe his leadership will aid in expanding sales and converting existing opportunities into licenses. Our goals remain focused: prioritize MST starting wafer products like RF-SOI and existing engagements to expedite production and revenue; leverage our strategic OEM partnership to enhance active engagements in Gate-All-Around logic, memory, and power through comprehensive silicon test results and early licenses; advance MST for GaN to a customer-ready stage with shareable electrical data; and exercise fiscal discipline as we transition from R&D validation and integration to revenue-generating licenses. Our mission remains unchanged: to enable better, faster, and more efficient semiconductors through advanced materials engineering. This mission is as relevant as ever. I want to thank our employees, customers, and shareholders for their ongoing trust and support. Each quarter brings us closer to a point where MST's influence will be recognized across multiple product lines and foundries worldwide. Now, I will turn the call over to our CFO, Frank Laurencio, to discuss our financials.

Thanks, Scott. At the close of the market today, we issued a press release announcing our results for the third quarter of 2025. Our summary financials are shown on this slide. Our GAAP net loss for the third quarter of 2025 was $5.6 million or $0.17 per share compared to a net loss of $4.6 million, which was also $0.17 per share in Q3 of last year. GAAP operating expenses in the third quarter of this year were $5.7 million, an increase of $857,000 from $4.8 million in Q3 of 2024. This was due to a $544,000 increase in R&D expenses, reflecting both higher outsourced device fabrication work and increased compensation expenses, and a $353,000 increase in G&A expenses, primarily consisting of higher stock compensation expense. Sales and marketing expenses were basically flat. Non-GAAP net loss in Q3 2025 was $4.4 million compared to a loss of $3.9 million in Q3 of last year due to a $423,000 increase in non-GAAP operating expense, primarily reflecting the higher R&D expenses I just discussed. Stock compensation expense, which is the main difference between GAAP and non-GAAP operating expenses, was $1.3 million in Q3 of 2025 and $907,000 in Q3 2024. The increase in stock compensation expense, which is non-cash, reflects the adoption of performance-based RSUs or PSUs for executive equity-based compensation in March of last year. PSUs vest over 3 years rather than 4 years as is the case for time-based RSUs. However, PSUs will only vest if we deliver shareholder returns that meet minimum targets relative to the Russell 2000 Index. Sequentially, Q3 2025 non-GAAP net loss of $4.4 million compares to a $4 million net loss in Q2, primarily due to higher R&D expenses. Our balance of cash and cash equivalents as of September 30, 2025, was $20.3 million compared to $22 million as of June 30, 2025. We used $3.4 million of cash in operating activities during Q3 compared to $3.5 million in the second quarter of this year. During Q3, we raised approximately $2 million under our ATM facility, net of commissions and expenses, by selling approximately 393,000 shares at an average price of $5.23. Since the end of the quarter, we've raised an additional $836,000 from sales of approximately 171,000 shares at an average price of $5.03. As of today's date, we have 31.7 million shares outstanding. In Q4, we expect to recognize between $75,000 and $125,000 of NRE revenue from wafer shipments to customers running the demos that Scott mentioned in his remarks. Those shipments and the associated revenue recognition will happen in Q4 as well as into next year. Gross margin was negative this quarter because a portion of the cost for MST deposition on those wafers was incurred during this quarter, but the revenue will be recognized as we ship the wafers going forward. Moving to expenses. I expect our non-GAAP operating expense for the full year 2025 to be in the range of $17.25 million to $17.50 million. Sales and marketing expenses ticked up last quarter in connection with recruiting for both sales and marketing leadership roles. The compensation expenses associated with those roles are built into our plan. Our recruiting efforts have started to pay off with the hiring of Wei Na as our VP of Sales. With that, I'll turn the call back over to Scott for a few summary remarks before we open the call up to questions.

Sorry, a little trouble with the Zoom controls here. Thanks, Frank. Across all of our technology focus areas, we have strong developments underway with the leaders of the industry. I hope today, we've given you a sense of our wide and deep potential to deliver important material solutions that will ultimately make Atomera a financially successful technology provider across many different semiconductor segments. I appreciate you taking the journey with us. Mike, we will now take questions.

Thank you, Scott. Our first question comes from Richard Shannon of Craig-Hallum.

All right. Great. Hopefully, I'm unmuted here, Mike.

You got it.

All right. Excellent. Thanks, Scott and Frank, let me ask a few questions here. Scott, maybe let's do a redux on STMicro. So I guess my first question here is, so it sounds like you did a new design on 300 millimeters that you validated in your simulations, but there would have been multiple cycles of learning to validate for ST. So is that trying to match your simulation to the real world to their simulations to make sure that it worked, and that cycle time was just too much to fit within their timeframe getting to 300-millimeter? Is that the kind of dynamic here that led them to their decision?

Yes. First of all, the new implementation we developed could have worked on both 200-millimeter and 300-millimeter processes. If I may digress for a moment, we've received a number of questions regarding when we became aware of the trade-off between reliability and performance. Every development involves trade-offs. You make a trade-off in one aspect, leading to improvements that may inadvertently affect others. This process of learning and balancing is standard for us with every customer. What’s different in this instance is that the transition from 200 to 300 millimeters caused us to lose the chance to deliver the optimal solution within their timeline. The shift to 300-millimeter delayed their development efforts, and they needed to ramp up production quickly, which left them without enough time to conduct the necessary validation runs for our new solution. I'm not sure if that fully addresses your question, so please let me know.

I guess the point here is that it sounded like they were confident that this solves not only the performance but the reliability issue that you discovered in 200-millimeter, and it was just the time frame that was too tight for them to want to continue right now?

Yes, that's correct. Initially, you inquired about the simulation work. We conduct simulations based on our understanding of a customer's manufacturing processes, which are often kept confidential. They typically don’t share that information with us directly. We do our best to approximate their needs. We created a TCAD simulation that indicated a significant improvement, and we shared that with them over the summer. They then spent the next two months running their own simulations, which are tailored specifically to their manufacturing processes. They incorporated all the improvements we suggested, and they reported back that our simulation results were also reflected in their findings. The good news is that they confirmed our results, which gives us confidence to introduce this as a new product in the market. We are also optimistic about the possibility of reengaging with ST regarding this product and having them integrate it into their processes.

Okay. All right. Fair enough. Let me follow up on one other comment you made related to STMicro, and then we'll move on to some other topics here. So what seems obvious and you just commented on is the ability to take some of the learnings from the process with ST and take it to other customers in the power space here. What have you been able to do so far? Can you use similar kind of structures that you've built with ST and use those with other power customers? Maybe just kind of give us a sense of the benefits you can see from the situation.

Yes. Exactly. What we did with ST involves a technique and architecture that the industry has known about for a while, but it hasn't been feasible until now. Previous attempts caused disruptions, and no one has successfully made it work. However, due to the way MST functions and its ability to control dopant diffusion, we believed we could make that process operational. This isn't something entirely new; it's a theoretical concept that hasn't been effectively implemented, but now we can make it work efficiently. We’re not using any proprietary information from ST; this is a standard design technique that we can suddenly utilize effectively because of MST. Therefore, we can apply this to other customers, and they quickly grasp the concept.

Okay. All right. Fair enough. Let's move on here. In the last number of quarters, you've talked about transformative customers here. And unless I missed something, you didn't necessarily use that phrase here today in your prepared remarks. But I think you did mention a large demo run, which I think refers to one of them, and I think is also contributing to some of the revenues this year. I will ask a question to Frank on the revenue side here in a second. But maybe just kind of detail where we're sitting with the transformative customers. And I do want to hit on one specific point that I had a question on. I actually asked Mike Bishop offline earlier today, and he said to ask this question of you, which is you've talked about two or maybe three of these customers. I want to make sure how many we're talking about and which ones are still ongoing versus any ones that may be stalled. So if you can enumerate that first and then discuss what's going on with this large demonstration you talked about last quarter, and I think you briefly mentioned today, that would be great.

I understand everyone's frustration with the code words, and I share that feeling as well. Unfortunately, back in January or February, we had to announce that one of our transformative customers decided not to move forward with our deal, although we maintain a positive relationship and communicate regularly with them. Currently, we are not actively engaged with that customer. During the same call in February, we introduced two new transformative customers that we are actively working with. The record number of wafers we are processing includes those two transformative customers. Today, I highlighted four different segments and discussed our collaboration with many customers, breaking it down by revenue potential. There are substantial players involved in Gate-All-Around and DRAM, as well as others in power and memory architectures. All of these customers can be considered transformative, and we are collaborating with more than just the two I mentioned.

More than just the two that you would refer to as transformative. Is that what you're saying, Scott?

Yes, I mean I'll avoid using the term transformative. We're good. The two customers I mentioned in February as transformative are very large revenue potential customers with significant processes that we aim to engage with. However, we are also collaborating with other large customers who also have the potential to be transformative.

Okay. Well, let's talk about the specific transformative customer you talked about last quarter that you're doing a large demo run here. What's the update on what's going there? And is that leading to at least some contribution to the revenues you're guiding to this quarter?

Yes. I will let Frank address that. There are some complexities regarding when we recognize revenue. We have many customers contributing to our revenue this quarter. I can't confirm if that specific customer will be included in Q3 or if it will be part of Frank's guidance for Q4, but we are indeed generating revenue from wafer runs with that customer.

Yes, that's correct. The revenue guidance includes multiple customers, specifically three, and is scheduled over time. While I prefer not to show negative gross margin, the timing aspect provides some visibility since we perform a significant amount of deposition work, which incurs costs related to our tools, metrology, and associated labor. These costs often align quickly with revenue due to a limited number of wafer runs, as has been the case previously. We have mentioned in past calls that we are collaborating with a very large customer on the largest wafer run we've ever undertaken, along with other customers as well. Currently, we are engaged in a lot of that work, although not all wafers are shipped right away, and deposition might not occur for every single wafer due to the iterative nature of these projects. Typically, we might run some wafers for setup, conduct a series of tests, receive customer validation, and then adjust for subsequent runs based on feedback and conditions, which can involve modifications in processing. This results in substantial activity in a given quarter, but the shipping of wafers occurs over time. One challenge in providing guidance is that it isn't fixed; we may not ship a set number of wafers each month, as it often hinges on the customer's learning process, the evaluation of results, and the setup of new experiments before we ship more. Thus, we are working with multiple customers, and these engagements are significant across various application areas.

Okay, that's helpful, Frank. I might follow up with you later on that. I have a couple more questions. First, Scott, in your prepared remarks, you mentioned segmenting your opportunities based on where in the stack your MST is applied, specifically on top of the wafer versus somewhere in the middle. I understand that the layers in the middle are quite complicated, especially for someone like me who isn't a device expert. However, applying it just on top seems like a much simpler process and might be an area where you could expect to see your first license from a time-to-market perspective. So, I have two questions for you: I think I missed the application areas that you referred to, and do you believe it’s likely that you will achieve your first manufacturing license and start commercial production soon?

Yes, you're correct that depositing on top of the wafer makes the process much simpler. The applications we've mentioned that utilize this approach include RF-SOI and gallium nitride, and we also have ideas for next-generation DRAM that could benefit from it in the future. It’s important to note that when we deposit MST in the bottom layer, it needs to be on a process that doesn't involve very high heat for extended periods. If an MST starting wafer undergoes an annealing step at 1,100 degrees for an hour, it would damage the MST and render it ineffective. Therefore, we only use MST on the starting wafer for manufacturing processes that operate at lower temperatures. There are many such processes, like RF-SOI, which runs at very low temperatures. The new Gate-All-Around processes are also aiming for low-temperature operation, making it theoretically feasible for MST to be on the starting wafer for those. In the case of gallium nitride, we apply MST to the bottom before growing the gallium nitride on top. While that process isn't as low in temperature, it still functions effectively as a starting wafer. A layman might wonder why we don’t apply this approach to every process if it simplifies things and speeds up time to revenue. However, it must align with specific dynamics related to temperature ranges. You had a second part to your question, which I might have overlooked.

You addressed the applications well, and I appreciate that. For my last question, I’ll step out of line. You mentioned a significant capital equipment partner and talked about a roadshow. Could you provide some insight into the extent of your engagements with this company? In the past, you referred to two opportunities, but I'm curious if that's the full extent or if there are more that you haven't disclosed. How can we grasp the scope and depth of your customer interactions with this partner?

The stated aim of our partnership is in the Gate-All-Around market, as mentioned in our press release. However, I must emphasize that there is great value in collaborating with this partner across all areas. We have engaged in discussions and conducted some work related to DRAM as well. Therefore, I would say our primary focus at the moment is on Gate-All-Around and DRAM. When we go out on the road, that will be our main focus.

Thank you, Richard. Several questions have come in through the Q&A line, and I will summarize and ask some of the more frequently mentioned ones. The first question pertains to the Gate-All-Around projects, specifically regarding the timeline for these initiatives that are expected to launch soon. How many years do you anticipate before the target process you are currently collaborating on begins production?

Yes. So first of all, working with a few different customers, so there might be a different answer for each customer. In general, the guys working on Gate-All-Around, the great news is it's amazing working with them because they have armies of people working on this stuff, lots and lots of resources to test out your material. And the bad news on that is that they come back with a ton of requests for more information and more testing. But they're almost always working towards some kind of a launch that you would be built into. Some of them, I would say the majority are looking at a launch that's still a few years out. There are some of them that are actually looking at using MST to improve yield on processes that are in production today. I can't exactly say, well, if or how long it would take to get into production on those processes. But my guess is if they integrated MST, they would have to do some qualification work on it. But if it did indeed improve their yield, which I think is what the majority of them are looking at for the current timing processes, they would try to move it into production very quickly. As long as it didn't break anything in the specifications of their production wafers, they would have every incentive to get it into production as soon as possible to improve yield.

All right. In the past, you've talked about JDA1 and the fabless RF licensee. Have you been doing wafer runs for those? And what do those results look like?

Yes. So the answer is yes, we are doing wafer runs with them. Unfortunately, we don't have the results yet. I can't really commit that I'll be able to give you results from each customer. But generally, what happens is when the results come out, that's the timing when we'll be able to start driving towards licenses and transitions to production. Generally speaking, we have a number of different customers with wafers underway right now. None of them are coming out in the next few months. I would say we might have some coming out at the end of the year, but more likely into the first quarter before we start seeing a lot of results from those runs.

Okay. One for Frank. Can you discuss the economics of the Incize partnership for GaN testing and clarify who is responsible for the costs associated with the runs and testing?

Yes. I mean at this stage, this is an arrangement with Incize, where we're each bearing our own costs, and we'll hopefully achieve a result that would lead us to some further activity. But right now, we're not paying them to run testing, nor are they paying us for wafers. So it's early stage. And I think our hope right now would be to generate good RF data because that's something notoriously difficult. RF testing is complex. It's not something that we can typically do ourselves. So a lot of the work on RF-SOI that we can do is kind of physical characteristics of our film. But when you get into some of the testing of actual devices on different figures of merit, then those are more specialized tests. And so getting more insight into that is very helpful from a marketing standpoint. And our view is there was some question on work with Soitec and wafer-based products. The more information that we have to market to the ultimate customers of RF-SOI devices, the better it is in terms of building a relationship with Soitec, who's a wafer manufacturer. So the more end demand that they see, the closer the collaboration is with us. So I kind of see it as a means to an end there.

Okay. And then Scott, going back to a topic we've touched on in the past, but is there an update on JDA2?

JDA2 is running wafers with us. And they're one of the ones that I talked about that we'd hope to get some results at the beginning of the year; and hopefully, see if we can turn that into a license and then plan to go to production.

Okay. And then with regard to the STM news, we had a number of questions on disclosure channel. And can you talk about why you chose to put the news out on a blog post?

We had ongoing discussions with ST throughout August, September, and into October about implementing a new architecture and advancing toward 300-millimeter production. We were waiting for them to clarify their plans and timeline for starting that work. About 1.5 weeks ago, we had a call where they informed us they did not have a plan in place to utilize MST for the new architecture. Following that call, we recognized we had an earnings call in 1.5 weeks, but felt it was necessary to notify investors sooner. The following Monday, we began discussions with ST to ensure our disclosure adhered to their internal guidelines. On Tuesday, we released a blog post instead of a press release. We believe press releases can present information in a more rigid manner, while a blog allows us to convey a more nuanced message. Although ST confirmed they do not plan to use us for the upcoming run, they reassured us that they are still using our technology in other areas. Therefore, we felt a blog post was a more suitable communication channel. Our priority was to share this information promptly while ensuring we coordinated with ST appropriately.

All right. And one more question here. Is there any chance of government funding now that Atomera has been working with Sandia for a while?

I talked a little bit on this call, which I've never done much about in the past about all of the different R&D efforts that we have underway. And many of them are, as I mentioned, through Academia, through outside commercial partners so that we don't have to burden our internal team with too much of it. But Sandia is very interested in many of those technologies, and they have government programs that are interested in implementing things that would use those. So yes, there's a lot of interest through Sandia. And we also continue to work with the government and with the CHIPS Act infrastructure such as it is to see what we can do to kind of deliver some of our technology in through that channel and get some near-term revenue that way as well.

Okay. Thank you, Scott. At this time, we'll turn the call to Scott for closing comments.

Okay. Thanks, Mike. Yes, thanks for joining us and listening to our progress that we've been making here at Atomera. Next month, we'll be attending the Craig-Hallum Alpha Select Conference in New York, and we look forward to seeing some of you there, if you'll also be attending. Please continue to look for our news articles and blog posts, which are available along with investor alerts on our website, atomera.com. Should you have additional questions, please contact Mike Bishop, who will be happy to follow up. Thanks again for your support, and we look forward to our next update call.

Thank you. This concludes the conference call.