Thank you, and welcome, everyone, to FormFactor's First Quarter 2024 Earnings Conference Call. On today's call are Chief Executive Officer, Mike Slessor; and Chief Financial Officer, Shai Shahar. Before we begin, Stan Finkelstein, the company's VP of Investor Relations, will remind you of some important information.

Thank you. Today the company will be discussing GAAP P&L results and some important non-GAAP results intended to supplement your understanding of the company's financials. Reconciliations of GAAP to non-GAAP measures and other financial information are available in the press release issued today by the company and on the Investor Relations section of our website. Today's discussion contains forward-looking statements within the meaning of the federal securities laws. Examples of such forward-looking statements include those with respect to: the projections of financial and business performance; future macroeconomic and geopolitical conditions; the benefits of acquisitions and investments in capacity and in new technologies; the impact of global, regional and national health crises, including the COVID-19 pandemic; anticipated industry trends; potential disruptions in our supply chain; the impact of regulatory changes, including the recent U.S.-China trade restrictions; the anticipated demand for products; our ability to develop, reduce and sell products and the assumptions upon which such statements are based. These statements are subject to known and unknown risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from those expressed during this call. Information on risk factors and uncertainties is contained in our most recent filing on Form 10-K with the SEC for the fiscal year ended December 30, 2023, and in our other SEC filings, which are available on the SEC's website at www.sec.gov and in our press release issued today. Forward-looking statements are made as of today, May 1, 2024, and we assume no obligation to update them. With that, we will now turn the call over to FormFactor's CEO, Mike Slessor.

Thanks, everyone, for joining us today for FormFactor's First Quarter Earnings Call. Although FormFactor's first quarter revenue was near the top end of the outlook range we provided in February, non-GAAP EPS fell short of the midpoint due to lower-than-expected gross margins, primarily from a weaker product mix in both segments, along with higher warranty costs in the Probe Cards segment. In the current second quarter, we're experiencing a significant sequential step-up in demand and expect a corresponding increase in gross margin and non-GAAP EPS. This is driven primarily by strength in both DRAM and foundry and logic probe cards as industry adoption of advanced packaging accelerates. To ensure FormFactor fully leverages and benefits from our strong position in enabling advanced packaging, we recently completed an important series of coordinated organizational and talent changes. First, we've realigned our organizational structure to consolidate the company's global operations, including manufacturing, quality, supply chain, environmental health and safety, and facilities, in a central group. This operational consolidation provides the critical mass and scalability to create commonality and efficiency as we continue to grow. With our operations now consolidated, our business unit's sole focus is on customer-facing innovation and competitive differentiation in FormFactor's product roadmaps. Second, we deepened our bench, recruiting and onboarding 2 experienced executives to lead our operations and commercial functions and realign responsibilities for other executives to ensure FormFactor has the required skills and experience in critical roles. Finally, we added Kevin Brewer to our Board of Directors, who is the former Executive VP of Operations and CFO of Axcelis Technologies, bringing significant operational experience and knowledge. Kevin replaces Lothar Maier, who's retiring after nearly 18 years of service to FormFactor. On behalf of our shareholders, employees, and customers, I'd like to take this opportunity to thank Lothar for his many contributions. These coordinated changes are designed to position the company for our next phase of growth, by enhancing our capability to develop and introduce highly differentiated products while advancing our ability to manufacture these products at world-class operational levels. This will allow us to capture the secular growth in our served markets driven by advanced packaging and to gain market share, enabling us to outgrow these markets. While the full benefit of these changes will be realized over a multiyear time frame, we do expect short-term improvement in our gross margins, for example, by focusing on areas like quality to reduce unexpected costs. Turning now to market and segment level details. DRAM probe card demand continues to be robust, and as expected, first quarter DRAM revenue reached the peak levels last experienced in 2021, with strong growth in high-bandwidth memory layered on top of steady DDR5 new design activity. In the first quarter, HBM was nearly half of FormFactor's DRAM revenue and was double the quarterly levels we delivered in the second half of 2023. We've previously stated that we expected HBM revenue to reach these levels sometime in mid- to late 2024. Achieving these doubled quarterly run rate HBM revenue levels in the first quarter of the year is a good indicator of how quickly HBM capacity and output is accelerating across our customer base. We expect this trend to continue and are forecasting a similar incremental growth contribution from HBM in the second quarter. HBM chips, which are a stack of 8, 12, or even 16 individual DRAM die, continue to offer a powerful example of how advanced packaging is driving our current results and foreshadows our long-term opportunity. As we've mentioned in the past, advanced packaging applications like HBM produce both higher test intensity, which expands the number of probe cards required per good die-out, and higher test complexity, which raises the performance requirements for each probe card. To ensure high yields of the stacked HBM DRAM chip, customers probe and test each component DRAM die prior to stacking and then probe and test the multi-die DRAM stack at various points during the assembly process, leading to a substantial increase in the overall probe card intensity for good die-out. In addition, the technical requirements for HBM tests are significantly more advanced than for standard unstacked DRAM products, involving higher test speeds and more challenging thermal scaling specifications. We believe our superior performance capabilities in meeting these requirements will drive both market share and profitability gains as HBM continues to grow, driven by the accelerating adoption of generative AI. Even though HBM applications comprise a small portion of the total DRAM bits produced by our customers, because of the stacked die architecture, HBM represents a much larger portion of the total silicon area and wafers produced, and because of the increased test intensity and test complexity, an even larger part of the overall test and probe card spending by our customers. This compounding power of advanced packaging is clear in our first quarter results and our second quarter outlook for HBM. Shifting to foundry and logic probe cards, as expected, we delivered first quarter revenue comparable to the fourth quarter as we shipped probe cards for a variety of PC, server, and mobile designs. As a reminder, since probe cards are a device-specific consumable that's customized to each individual customer chip design, production ramps of new chip designs generate demand for new probe cards even when these new designs are produced on the same technology node. This provides a more diverse and stable set of demand drivers than for capital equipment. We expect second quarter growth in our foundry and logic probe card business, primarily driven by the midyear ramp of new mobile application processor designs and stronger probe card demand for client PC and server microprocessor designs. As in DRAM with HBM, an increasing number of these foundry and logic designs are architected using advanced packaging processes like Foveros and 3DFabric. Similar to the die stacking in HBM, these processes drive both higher test intensity and higher test complexity. This is driving increased customer spending on FormFactor's products to both improve yields and reduce costly scrap. In the Systems segment, the sale of FRT in the fourth quarter produced the anticipated sequential reduction in revenue in the first quarter. However, product mix was weaker than expected with fewer high-complexity thermal systems shipped. We believe this mix of lower complexity configurations is a short-term dynamic and not a structural change in this market. Our customers continue to engage us to solve the most complex challenges in test and measurement, utilizing our engineering probers, cryostats, and other Systems segment products to test, measure, and characterize new technologies like co-packaged silicon photonics, infrared detectors, and quantum computers that are at the forefront of industry innovation. Systems segment products are also an important element of our lab-to-fab diversification strategy. Our uniquely broad portfolio enables us to compete for business across diverse demand pools at all major customers, providing a measure of stability in downturns and inherent exposure to fast-growing areas of the industry, like high-bandwidth memory. Finally, I want to share an important customer highlight from the first quarter. FormFactor was one of 27 suppliers to receive the exclusive Intel EPIC Program Distinguished Supplier Award for 2024. This award marks the third consecutive year we've been recognized as a top performer in the Intel supply chain. I'm extremely proud of the global FormFactor team for the dedication and performance that resulted in this recognition from Intel, and I'd like to take this opportunity to thank and congratulate our team. In closing, we're excited about both the strength of our second quarter outlook and the accelerating adoption of advanced packaging underpinning that strength. Longer term, we're confident in the growth prospects for FormFactor in the industry overall, driven by the fundamental trends of semiconductor content growth and advanced packaging innovations like HBM, chiplets, and co-packaged silicon photonics. These are trends where FormFactor is well-positioned as an industry and technology leader, and we're confident that our investments in R&D and capacity, along with the organization and talent changes we've made recently, position FormFactor as a stronger and leaner competitor. This will enable us to achieve and then surpass our target model that delivers $2 of non-GAAP earnings per share on $850 million of revenue. Shai, over to you.

Thank you, Mike, and good afternoon. As you saw in our press release, Q1 revenues were $3.7 million above the midpoint of our outlook range. Non-GAAP gross margin was 0.8 percentage points below the bottom end of the range, and non-GAAP EPS was $0.01 below the midpoint of the range. First quarter revenues were $168.7 million, a 0.3% sequential increase from our fourth quarter revenues and a year-over-year increase of 0.8% from our Q1 '23 revenues. The increase is due to stronger revenues in our Probe Cards segment. Probe Cards segment revenues were $136.7 million in the first quarter, an increase of $9.7 million or 7.6% from Q4. The increase was driven by a small increase in foundry and logic revenues and a significant increase in DRAM revenues, partially offset by a decrease in flash revenues. The Systems segment revenues were $32 million in Q1 and a $9.2 million decrease from the fourth quarter and comprised 19% of total company revenues, down from 24.5% in Q4. The main reason for the decrease is the sale of FRT in Q4 '23. Within the Probe Cards segment, Q1 foundry and logic revenues were $86.8 million, a 3.6% increase from Q4. Foundry and logic revenues increased to 51.5% of total company revenues compared to 49.8% in the fourth quarter. DRAM revenues were a record $45.9 million in Q1, $10 million or 27.9% higher than in the fourth quarter and increased to 27.2% of total quarterly revenues as compared to 21.3% in the fourth quarter. Flash revenues of $4 million in Q1 were $3.3 million lower than in the fourth quarter and were 2.4% of total revenues in Q1 as compared to 4.3% in Q4. GAAP gross margin for the first quarter was 37.2% as compared to 40.4% in Q4. Cost of revenues included $2.6 million of GAAP to non-GAAP reconciling items, which we outlined in our press release issued today and in the reconciliation table available in the Investor Relations section of our website. On a non-GAAP basis, gross margin for the first quarter was 38.7%, 3.4 percentage points lower than the 42.1% non-GAAP gross margin in Q4 and 0.8 percentage points below the low end of our outlook range. The decrease compared to Q4 and to the midpoint of our outlook range was a result of lower gross margins in both the Probe Cards segment and the Systems segment. Our Probe Cards segment gross margin was 37.2% in the first quarter, a decrease of 2.4 percentage points compared to 39.6% in Q4. Our Q1 Systems segment gross margin was 45.3%, a decrease of 4.3 percentage points from the 49.6% gross margin in the fourth quarter. The decrease in consolidated non-GAAP gross margins from the midpoint of our outlook range is due to the net effect of 3 main factors: first, a less favorable product mix in both segments, which contributed to a 1.9 percentage point decrease; second, higher-than-expected warranty expense in Q1 contributed to a 0.4 percentage point decrease; partially offsetting these 2 factors was 0.5 percentage points related to higher-than-expected revenues. First quarter GAAP operating expenses were $61.7 million compared to $59.6 million in the fourth quarter. The 2 main reasons for the increase were higher stock-based compensation of $1.2 million related to the benefit from futures in the previous quarter that did not recur in Q1 and transaction costs of $0.6 million related to the sale of our China operations. During the quarter, we entered into a definitive agreement to sell our China operations for $25 million, subject to customary working capital adjustments. The transaction closed on February 26th, and Q1 includes results from our China operations for the first 2 months of the year. Net proceeds from the transaction after adjustments and expenses were approximately $21.1 million. Non-GAAP operating expenses for the first quarter were $52.3 million or 31% of revenues as compared with $51.6 million or 30.7% of revenues in Q4. The $0.7 million increase relates mainly to the typical annual benefits reset, partially offset by lower performance-based compensation and the reduction in costs related to the sale of FRT and our China operations. Company noncash expenses for the first quarter included $10.4 million for stock-based compensation, $1.1 million higher than in the fourth quarter, as well as amortization of intangibles of $0.6 million and depreciation of $7.2 million, both slightly lower than in the fourth quarter. GAAP operating income was $21.3 million for Q1 compared with $81.3 million in Q4, which included the $73 million gain from the sale of FRT. Q1 included a $20 million gain from the sale of our China operations. Non-GAAP operating income for the first quarter was $13 million compared with $19.1 million in the fourth quarter, a decrease of $6.2 million or 32%, mostly due to the decrease in gross margins. GAAP net income for the first quarter was $21.8 million or $0.28 per fully diluted share, compared to GAAP net income of $75.8 million or $0.97 per fully diluted share in the previous quarter. The prior quarter included the gain from the sale of FRT. The non-GAAP effective tax rate for the first quarter was 13.7%, which is 7 percentage points lower than the 21.2% in the fourth quarter. We continue to expect our annual non-GAAP effective tax rate to be between 14% and 18%. First quarter non-GAAP net income was $14.3 million or $0.18 per fully diluted share, compared to $15.7 million or $0.20 per fully diluted share in Q4. The Q1 EPS was $0.02 lower sequentially due to lower gross margins and higher operating expenses on flat revenue, partially offset by higher other income and a lower effective tax rate. Moving to the balance sheet and cash flows. We generated free cash flow of $19.7 million in the first quarter compared to negative $0.3 million in Q4. The increase in free cash flow of $20 million is mainly due to higher operating cash flows, primarily driven by more efficient working capital of $19.4 million, partially offset by an increase of $3.5 million in capital expenditures. We invested $13.4 million in capital expenditures during the first quarter compared to $9.9 million in Q4. There is no change in our previously communicated 2024 expected CapEx range of $35 million to $45 million. At quarter-end, total cash and investments were $357.2 million, an increase of $25 million from Q4. The increase relates to cash provided by operating activities and net cash received from the sale of our China operations, partially offset by CapEx and stock repurchases. At the end of the first quarter, we had one term loan remaining with a balance totaling $14 million. Regarding stock buyback, during the first quarter, we purchased $17.4 million worth of shares under our $75 million 2-year buyback program that was approved in Q4 2023. As of quarter-end, $56.4 million remains available under that authorization. As a reminder, the main purpose of this share repurchase program is to offset dilution from stock-based compensation. Turning to the second quarter non-GAAP outlook. We expect Q2 revenue of $195 million, plus or minus $5 million. At the midpoint of our outlook range, Q2 revenue is expected to be approximately $25 million higher than in Q1. We expect DRAM revenues in Q2 to be approximately $10 million higher than in Q1 and foundry and logic revenues to be approximately $15 million higher than in the first quarter. Second quarter non-GAAP gross margin is expected to be 45%, plus or minus 150 basis points. The expected increase in non-GAAP gross margins in the second quarter is related to higher volumes and a more favorable mix. At the midpoint of these outlook ranges, we expect Q2 operating expenses to be $60 million, plus or minus $2 million. The expected increase is mainly due to higher performance-based compensation related to higher profitability. Non-GAAP earnings per fully diluted share for Q2 is expected to be $0.31, plus or minus $0.04. A reconciliation of our GAAP to non-GAAP Q2 outlook is available on the Investor Relations section of our website and in our press release issued today.

Let's open the call for questions. Operator?

Could you clarify the implied growth for the three main areas: foundry/logic, DRAM, and systems in Q2 compared to the guidance? Also, for Q1, since HBM was a larger part of the mix, why was the revenue mix on the memory side less favorable?

Sure. So regarding your first question, we said that with $195 million being the midpoint of the outlook range, that's about a $25 million increase quarter-over-quarter, of which $15 million is foundry and logic and $10 million is DRAM and the rest is relatively flat. These are the big movers. And regarding your questions on gross margin and HBM, yes, so HBM is indeed a relatively higher gross margin product for us, but it's still a DRAM product. And DRAM, as we said many times before, has a relatively low gross margin or lower gross margin than foundry and logic. So we had less favorable mix between the markets, even within the market. And also, the Systems business had a lower gross margin than usual at 45%, 46% while our target model for Systems is to be around 50% or low 50s in gross margin. So if you put all of this together and add the warranty expenses that were unusual in Q1, that's why we ended up with a gross margin lower than that. With Q2 at $195 million, we are very encouraged to see the gross margin growing to 45% at the midpoint of the range, even with DRAM and HBM or higher DRAM and HBM mix than before.

Okay. That's helpful. For my follow-up, I have a two-part question. First, it's not common to see a step-up of this magnitude quarter-over-quarter. Are there constraints and unmet demand in the second quarter that provide the visibility you mentioned regarding the third quarter? The second part is about the sequential increase in foundry and logic. While overall unit demand isn't ideal, it seems there's significant growth related to the mix in advanced packaging. Mike, could you elaborate on what you're observing in foundry and logic, and provide more detail on that?

Yes, absolutely. Let me take the second part of the question first, and then we can parse out some of the foundry and logic growth. We didn't leave anything on the table in Q1. This has been a fairly rapid step-up in demand, and it's fairly concentrated among HBM, microprocessor applications, and the usual midyear mobile application processor ramps. But if we take a look at the foundry and logic piece, it is interesting. Our customers in foundry and logic haven't had great earnings reports. But if you think about how they manufacture and their overall cycle times and flow, as they release new designs, most of them on advanced packaging and advanced packaging platforms in this process, they have to get the tooling and the probe cards in place several months, often even several quarters in advance of them shipping and realizing revenue for the part. So we're going to, in any kind of a new product ramp, lead our customers, be ahead of our customers in time in the demand and revenue. And so I think that partially helps explain. You also alluded to another piece. A lot of the step-up in the second quarter is associated with new designs in HBM, in microprocessor applications, and in mobile applications that are all being architected on advanced packaging platforms, whether it's die stacking and TSVs in HBM, whether it's Foveros in the microprocessor space, all of these things, as we said in the past and reiterated today, drive higher test intensity and higher test complexity. So the spending on test for these new designs is going up to make sure that the yields are high in these advanced packaging processes.

The guidance seems to remind everyone of what occurred in the fourth quarter of 2019, which was also a significant increase during a similar point in the cycle. My question is, during the fourth quarter of 2019, there was some caution regarding the strength being possibly transient. However, it turned out to be quite sustainable. This time, you haven't mentioned anything about transience. I would like to know how sustainable the near $200 million per quarter level will be in June, what the outlook is for the second half of the year, and specifically, it appears that you identified microprocessors as one of the strong areas for Q2. What is the sustainability of the demand for microprocessors going into Q3 and Q4?

Yes, thank you, Charles. This is Mike. I will address that. First, keep in mind that our business has very short lead times, typically within a quarter. Therefore, we don't have much visibility into the third quarter and the latter half of the year in general. Regarding the strength in the second quarter, it is quite concentrated in a few applications and customers. HBM has obviously been a highlight, along with the strength noted in microprocessors and some areas of mobile. However, in sectors like automotive, general DRAM, flash, and certain aspects of mobile such as RF, the performance has remained mostly flat. So, we are not witnessing a broad-based recovery. We do see significant momentum in specific areas where we are deliberately focused due to our strategy. I don't have hard visibility into the second half, but considering our positions in HBM and microprocessors, particularly due to the shift towards advanced packaging, we feel confident about our continued growth in line with the industry. One caution to note is that when we experience a quarter of high spending by one or two customers on specific designs that ramp up, we may see a digestion period in the following quarter. Nevertheless, we all anticipate continued growth in HBM, especially given recent statements from hyperscalers regarding their investments in data centers and AI, which are directly connected to this trend.

Mike, I appreciate your usual caution. I wanted to follow up about HBM. If I recall correctly, the demand in the second half of last year was largely driven by one customer. Are you noticing any broadening in demand, perhaps seeing interest from two customers now? Additionally, I want to ask about the reports regarding the second customer, not the leader, but one of the followers facing significant challenges. Is that influencing a rise in probe card demand in the short term, or do you not view that as a concern?

Yes. Our HBM business is still relatively concentrated with one customer, although there are contributions from the other 2 DRAM manufacturers as they quickly sample and start to ramp HBM 3 and HBM 3E here in 2024. We would expect that market to broaden a little bit. But at present and with the visibility we have, it really continues to be driven and pretty concentrated by the leader in HBM market share. I think it'd be interesting to see as we go through the back half of the year and all 3 start to supply HBM3 in volume and then transition in 2025 to HBM4. We expect that business to broaden quite significantly and be a supplier to all 3 of them. But again, pretty concentrated with one customer right now.

I have a couple of follow-up questions about the high-bandwidth memory market. You did an excellent job discussing the number of insertions. Could you quickly review two things for me? First, how much more test and probe intensive is high bandwidth memory compared to standard DDR5 memory? Second, it seems like with your 6, since you have 8 in the stack, you'll have at least 8 probe insertions for each one. How many additional probes or tests are needed when you build the stack?

Thanks, David. Your calculations are accurate. Each die, whether it’s part of an 8-high, 12-high, or 16-high stack, is individually tested before being added to the stack. If a defective die is included, it could result in scrap for all the previously stacked dies. Therefore, verifying that each input die is functioning properly is crucial. Additionally, there is a test conducted once the stacking process is complete, which often occurs at high speeds. I mentioned some of the challenging thermal specifications earlier. For the initial stages of HBM ramps, we are also implementing intermediate tests during the stacking process. For example, a test may be inserted after reaching a 4-high configuration, depending on the yield loss issues reported by customers. HBM presents various challenges that have impacted results for some metrology and inspection suppliers as customers work to identify and improve new yield loss modes. Currently, we are ensuring all input and component dies are tested, with an assessment at the end and often some intermediate tests throughout the stacking process.

And then just the test intensity of an HBM die versus a standard DDR5?

Yes. And we've estimated this in the past on a like-for-like basis is something like 20% to 30%, and I think that's a reasonable rule of thumb and continues to be a reasonable rule of thumb. There are situations where the test intensity is higher than 20% to 30%. Often, if it's a new product or when you're moving from 12-high to 16-high, new defect modes appear that need to be maybe over tested compared to that 20% to 30%. But I think that remains a pretty good rule of thumb for the uplift associated with advanced packaging chips on a like-for-like basis. So a couple of points on share. We, and I think most of the people who follow the industry, rely on the TechInsights, the formerly VLSIresearch report. That should be out any day now for 2023. So that will be the definitive word on market share. Having said that, as you can imagine, we do some pretty high-frequency internal benchmarking and data collection. And based on that, we do believe we've grown share through 2023, not just in foundry and logic but in our other served markets as well. As we talked about with you in the past, share gains and market leadership is a real core tenet of our long-term strategy, and we need to continue to drive share gains.

So Mike, I’ll also chime in and ask about high-bandwidth memory. It appears that in the second quarter, we should see around $30 million in quarterly revenues. Listening to your insights and considering the various stages of probing die at input, intermediate steps, and final stack, is there anything you anticipate that might reduce probe intensity as we look forward from high-bandwidth memory 3 to 3E to 4? If so, what might that be, and what kind of yield improvement or other manufacturing process enhancements could be implemented to achieve that?

Yes. It's an interesting question, Craig. So as you go from 3 to 3E to 4, especially the 3 generation to 4, there's a couple of things that are really increasing the probe card intensity and complexity. One is, generally, the transitions involve more die stacked. And so as we talked about, each of the component die gets probed, and so you can imagine more component die in a higher stack is going to drive higher test intensity for the finished part. I think the other piece, certainly going from 3E to 4, there's a significant step-up in speed. And that's one of the areas where FormFactor has a very differentiated set of DRAM products in delivering high-speed test to screen out die that don't meet the speed standard to participate in the whole stack at the spec speed for something like an HBM 4- or 16-high stack. On the other hand, the other side of the ledger, I do anticipate that customers are going to be able to continue to drive yields up. And as they do that, they're going to drive test times down. Now they're not going to sample right? We're still going to have 100% test to screen out these die. But I'd imagine they'd be able to eliminate some of those test vectors once they get the preponderance of those specific defect modes down.

Got it. That's really helpful. Regarding foundry and logic, it appears that when you discussed the dynamics of the second quarter, it was noted that lead times are short. I'm not inquiring about the current lead times, but it seems there is a seasonal factor in the APU segment. However, other elements at play, such as the transition to 2.5 on more product platforms and a positive momentum in those changes, appear to be more structural. Is that an accurate assessment? How do you view the business's capacity to achieve more consistent and steady revenue growth in foundry and logic moving forward, especially as these shifts are becoming more significant?

Yes. So if you go back to even when we presented our long-term target model, we expected the growth to come from foundry and logic because of some of the dynamics you talked about. Advanced packaging, a very, very strong driver of that business long term. Now some of our caution and conservatism is, as I mentioned in the response to a previous question, we have seen quarter-to-quarter digestion periods. The long-term secular trend associated with advanced packaging adoption in microprocessors and, more broadly, in foundry and logic, whether it's GPUs or apps processors, is quite clear. What I would caution against is drawing a straight line that goes up into the right quarter after quarter. There are going to be some lumpy spots in this as customers ramp, as customers digest. But the secular long-term trend associated with foundry and logic growth, we're very confident.

So maybe starting with the HBM side of things. Can you help me understand what the competitive positioning looks like on the HBM side? Are you sort of the market share leader just for HBM specifically versus the traditional DRAM? Is that a good way to think about it?

Yes, that's a good perspective. Our strong historical relationship with the leading DRAM manufacturer in the HBM market has contributed to our success. The native share we hold at this customer can lead to gains when they perform well in specific submarkets; sometimes we benefit from favorable circumstances. Our leadership in HBM stems from two key factors I've mentioned earlier. First, HBM requires higher test speeds as customers filter out lower-performing chips, and our DRAM offering for high speed is particularly strong, which helps increase our market share. Second, the thermal scaling behavior of HBM stacked wafers differs significantly from that of monolithic silicon DRAM wafers, and our technology effectively manages this variability. We can handle testing across various temperatures efficiently, which enhances our differentiation and contributes to our leadership in the market. So, is it fair to say you’re seeing market share gains at the other two HBM manufacturers? I'm not sure we have enough exposure there yet, given the relative volume of their HBM volume, to see any kind of movement in the needle on share at those other customers. But as we engage, that's certainly an aspiration and the goal we have as they get more engaged in the HBM market. Yes. Thank you. This does conclude the question-and-answer session of today's program. I'd like to hand the program back to Mike Slessor for any further remarks. Thanks, everybody, for joining us today. Over the next month, 1.5 months, we're going to be presenting and attending a variety of conferences and would welcome the chance to speak with any of you and provide more color on FormFactor, our current growth and our future growth prospects. Until then, take care.

Thank you, ladies and gentlemen, for your participation in today's conference. This does conclude the program. You may now disconnect. Good day.