Good day, everyone, and welcome to the Lumentum Holdings 4th Quarter and Fiscal Year 2026 Earnings Call. All participants will be in a listen-only mode. Please also note, today's event is being recorded for replay purposes. After today's prepared remarks, we will host a question and answer session.

If you would like to ask a question, please press star 1 on your telephone keypad. to withdraw your question press star one again at this time i would like to turn the conference call over to kathy ta vice president of investor relations miss ta please go ahead thank you matthew and welcome to lamentums fiscal fourth quarter and full year 2026 earnings call this is kathy ta lamentums vice president of investor relations Joining me today are Marco Hurlston, President and Chief Executive Officer, Wajin Ali, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, and Wupan Yuan, President, Global Business Units. Today's call will include four reviving statements, including, without limitation, statements regarding our future operating results, strategies, trends, and expectations for our products and technologies that are being made under the safe harbor of the Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. These statements are subject to risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from our current expectations. We encourage you to review our most recent filings with the SEC, particularly the risks described under risk factors and elsewhere in our 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended March 28, 2026, and in our most recent 10-K for the fiscal year ended June 27, 2026, to be filed by Lumentum with the SEC. The forward-looking statements provided during this call are based on Lamentum's reasonable beliefs and expectations as of today. Lamentum undertakes no obligation to update or revise these statements except as required by applicable law. Please also note that unless otherwise stated, all financial results and projections discussed in this call are non-GAAP. Non-GAAP financials have inherent limitations and are not to be considered in isolation from or as a substitute for or superior to financials prepared in accordance with GAAP. You can find a reconciliation between non-GAAP and GAAP measures and information about our use of non-GAAP measures and factors that could impact our financial results in our press release and our filings with the SEC. see. Lumentum's press release with the fiscal fourth quarter and full year 2026 results and accompanying supplemental slides are available on our website at investor.lumentum.com. We encourage you to review these materials carefully. With that, I'll turn the call over to Michael.

Thank you, Kathy, and good afternoon, everyone. Lumentum is positioned at the heart of a secular industry shift. As IAC compute workloads increase in both speed and bandwidth, data center architects are turning to optical links as a primary means of connectivity. Our fourth quarter results reflect the early stages of this transition. Driven by broad-based momentum across our scale-out and scale-across product lines, revenue surged 109% year-over-year to $1.01 billion, dollars, marking our eighth consecutive quarter of top-line growth. Additionally, we are maintaining revenue velocity as we saw our third consecutive quarter of greater than 20 percent sequential growth, notable as the compare point is getting ever larger. While we experience broad-based success, some of our previously highlighted growth drivers are just starting to layer in. Notably, in cloud transceivers, we achieved record 800 gig shipments while initiating production of our next generation 1.6T modules. In OCS, we successfully navigated supply chain constraints to meet steep customer demand, ramping internal manufacturing shipments according to plan. In addition to strong top-line performance, non-GAAP gross margin crossed 50%. We had originally targeted this threshold at a $2 billion quarterly run rate, so this milestone came quite a bit sooner than expectations. We expect gross margin expansion to continue, driven by product mix and tight operational execution. Non-GAAP operating margins expanded by more than 2,150 basis points year over year. These results prove two things. Our differentiated technology commands premium value, and our operating model delivers outsized leverage. Driven by sharp acceleration in AI revenue, the midpoint of our Q1 revenue guidance reaches our $1.25 billion target more than one quarter ahead of schedule. Additionally, our Q1 non-GAAP operating margin guidance exceeds the high end of our target model that we associated with this revenue level. I'd like to address some recent market noise around co-packaged and near-packaged optics. First, our lead CPO customers' production plans remain very much on track, and their demand signal has increased since our last update. Our visibility into the timing of CPO scale-up deployments is also sharpened. We remain confident in a demand ramp for ultra-high-power laser chips in the second half of calendar 2027 ahead of customer scale-up deployments in calendar 2028. Because the first phase of scale-up optical connections will span across compute racks within the cluster, this demand ramp applies to any topology larger than one rack. Adding to our confidence, we were recently given our first external light source, or ELS, module purchase for delivery by the second half of calendar 2027. Second, the rest of our customer base is currently prioritizing near-packaged architectures is an intermediate step to the eventual adoption of CPO. The NPO opportunity is completely additive for us, significantly increasing the optical TAM. We're seeing strong NPO momentum across multiple high velocity engagements using our differentiated laser chips. Even our largest CPO customer is looking at NPO for specific new use cases, further increasing the optical TAM at that account. These architectural shifts represent a major market inflection that plays directly to our core strengths as a premier laser chip manufacturer, benefiting us as optics begin to penetrate the copper domain. NPO offers a faster time-to-market option by placing optical engines on the board right next to the XPO accelerator, trading power and cost for simplicity in optical scale-up applications. Customers are evaluating two types of laser chips for NPO, a mid-power laser integrated directly with the optical engine and a high-power laser used in an external light source module. Our mid-power lasers inherit the reliability and engineering of our flagship high-power platform. Our family of NPO and CPO lasers utilizes common design and process know-how to achieve industry-leading efficiency across 120 milliwatt, 150 milliwatt, and 400 milliwatt output levels. Looking ahead, CPO continues to be viewed as the natural end state on the technology roadmap, placing optics directly on the substrate or interposer for maximum power efficiency through foundry-level advanced packaging. Now let's look closer at the metrics that defined our fourth quarter, starting with the components product category. Components revenue for the fourth quarter was $649 million, reflecting 22% sequential and 103% year-over-year growth increases. Our laser portfolio continues to demonstrate strong momentum across every vector. Shipments of our narrow-language laser assemblies grew sequentially for the 10th consecutive quarter, and we were up over 130% year-over-year. Pump laser shipments surge more than 80% year over year and will remain effectively sold out for the foreseeable future despite our rapid capacity expansion. Expanding inferencing and training applications are driving full-rate connectivity between data centers, while political and regulatory constraints favor smaller, more modular builds. These two factors, among others, are substantially increasing the demand for our pump laser solutions. To put this in perspective, for one major hyperscaler, the network capacity connecting just two AI data center sites is double the total global backbone capacity they built over the entirety of the last decade. To support the growth and scale across deployments, we have secured multiple long-term customer agreements that help offset our planned capital expenditures. We continue to expect a four-fold increase in our pump laser shipments over the next several quarters to meet this escalating demand. Turning to laser chips, we delivered another record-breaking quarter for EMLs, primarily driven by strong demand for 100 gig per lane devices. Momentum for our 200 gig EMLs is also accelerated rapidly, now accounting for over 25% of total EML revenue. Simultaneously, we are expanding our laser chip strategy to capture broader market opportunities in ways that align with our financial model. A key example is our CW laser chip for 200 gig per lane applications, which delivers high yield, proven reliability, and industry-leading performance in a compact form factor to a multitude of customers. Internal deployment of these lasers reinforces what our customers regularly confirm. We have a distinctive ability to deliver at scale to a very tight set of specifications, which enables superior yields in transceiver manufacturing. Importantly, these new CW laser products will deliver margins that are accretive to our long-term financial targets. looking ahead we expect demand for both eml and cw lasers to grow significantly through the second half of calendar 26 and into 2027 to capture the coming 200 gig and 300 gig lane speed opportunities we are expanding capacity across our two indian phosphide wafer fabs in japan qualifying both CW and EML process flows on our newest tools as they come online. Even as we allocate additional capacity to CW lasers, we remain on track to deliver over 50% EML unit growth by the December 2026 quarter compared to the year ago quarter. Wrapping up our components commentary, we have visibility to an expanding set of 3D sensing applications. These new opportunities are expected to drive growth in upcoming product cycles with our primary customer. Now I will move to our systems product category. Systems fourth quarter revenue reached $357 million, representing a 30% sequential and 123% year-over-year increase. Both cloud transceivers and OCS were major drivers of the revenue growth quarter-over-quarter. While pockets of supply chain tightness for certain components capped shipments below total market demand our factories executed to our aggressive plan for both product lines the bulk of our cloud transceiver shipments in the quarter were at 800 gig speeds and we began shipping 1.6 t transceivers as planned meanwhile profitability across our transceiver lines continues to improve driven by gains in both yield and capacity utilization, as well as the initial rollout of higher ASP 1.6T transceivers. Our visibility into future cloud transceiver demand is clearer than ever. In fact, we expect the 1.6T transceiver uptake to intensify starting in fiscal Q1 and sustain through calendar 2027. This momentum is anchored by our lead tier one hyperscale customers whose strong rollouts of custom AI clusters are driving a rapid transition from 800 gig to 1.6 T technology. With the use of improved design engineering techniques, we appear to be first to market in many instances ahead of larger competitors, giving us a market share advantage that we should be able to maintain through the cycle. The degree of difficulty with 1.6 T designs, again, is playing to our strengths as our signal integrity team is widely acknowledged as the best in a competitive field turning to OCS our internal manufacturing expansion is progressing smoothly after doubling shipments from fiscal Q3 to Q4 our guidance includes our first triple digit OCS revenue quarter the demand signal for 2027 continues to be incredibly strong and we have started the initial work to add capacity with contract manufacturers as well as continuing to increase output in our internal factories. Since our last call, the roadmap for OCS has also come into better view. We are now planning higher and lower pore count products, including specialized in-tray offerings. Rounding out our systems category, performance in industrial lasers and cable access strength in quarter-over-quarter. Within industrial lasers, we are seeing increased adoption of our ultra-fast lasers, targeting high-density PCB via drilling that supports advanced AI-XPU boards and 1.6T optical modules. Looking ahead to Q1, we expect to set another quarterly record and, as stated earlier, reach our $1.25 billion revenue target more than one quarter ahead of the plan outlined at the last OFC. we anticipate that approximately half of the sequential growth will stem for our components portfolio driven by continued expansion and scale out and scale across applications the other half will be powered by the ongoing ramp of our systems portfolio about 1.6 t transceivers and accelerating ocs deliveries now i'll hand the call over to wajit

Mr. Ali. Thank you, Michael. Fourth quarter revenue of $1.01 billion was at the high end of our guidance range, and non-GAAP EPS of $3.23 was well above our prior expected range, demonstrating the leverage of our business model. GAAP gross margin for the fourth quarter was 47.4%, and GAAP operating margin was 27.8%. Both metrics exemplify the company's exceptional performance. As disclosed previously, in the fourth quarter, we proactively equitized a portion of our convertible notes, which were in the money following the appreciation of our stock over the past year. This action reduces our debt by $1.1 billion, or approximately 35% of our outstanding convertible This transaction resulted in a one-time non-cash gap charge of $7.8 billion, bringing our fourth-quarter gap net loss to $7.2 billion. Turning to our non-gap results, fourth-quarter gross margin was 50.4%, which was up 250 basis points sequentially and up 1260 basis points year-on-year. Due to better manufacturing utilization, favorable mix, and increased pricing on select products, fourth quarter non-GAAP operating margin was 36.6%, which was up 440 basis points sequentially and up 2,160 basis points year on year. We continue to invest in critical R&D programs, serving cloud and AI customers, while maintaining the rigorous cost controls necessary to optimize our business model. Fourth quarter non-GAAP operating profit was $368.8 million, and adjusted EBITDA was $406.4 million. Fourth quarter non-GAAP operating expenses totaled $138.1 million or 13.7% of revenue, an increase of $11.9 million from the third quarter and an increase of $28.8 million from the same quarter last year in support of expanding cloud and AI opportunities. Q4 non-GAAP SG&A expenses were $50.6 million. Non-GAAP R&D expenses were $87.5 million. Total interest and other income net was $22 million on a non-GAAP basis. Fourth quarter non-GAAP net income was $326.3 million, and non-GAAP net income per share was $3.23. cents. Our diluted weighted shares for the fourth quarter were $101.1 million on a non-GAAP basis. I will now turn to the balance sheet. During the fourth quarter, our cash and short-term investments decreased by $0.43 billion to $2.74 billion, with the decrease primarily driven by convertible debt conversions. Our inventory levels increased by $59 million sequentially to support the expected growth in our cloud and AI-related revenue. In Q4, we spent $167 million in CapEx, primarily focused on manufacturing capacity to support cloud and AI customers. Turning to revenue details, components revenue of $649.4 million increased 22% sequentially in Q4 and 103% year-on-year. Systems revenue of $356.9 million increased 30% sequentially in Q4 and 123% year-on-year. Now let me move to our guidance for the first quarter of fiscal year 27, which is on a non-GAAP basis and is based on our assumptions as of today. We anticipate net revenue for the first quarter of fiscal year 27 to be in the range of $1.225 billion to $1.275 billion. The $1.25 billion dollar midpoint reflects more than 130% year over year growth, setting yet another all-time quarterly revenue record for Lamenta. We project first quarter non-GAAP operating margin to be in the range of 39.5% to 40.5% and diluted net income per share to be in the range of $4.05 to $4.35. At the midpoint, this operating margin represents an expansion of more than 2,100 basis points year over year. Our non-GAAP EPS guidance is based on a non-GAAP and annual effective tax rate of 16.5%. These projections assume shares used for non-GAAP diluted earnings of approximately 102 million. With that, I'll turn the call back to Kathy to start the Q&A session. Kathy?

Thank you, Wajin. To allow as many people as possible an opportunity to ask questions, please keep to one question and one follow-up. Now, Matthew, let's begin the Q&A session.

We will now begin the question and answer session. If you would like to ask a question, please press star one on your telephone keypad to withdraw your question press star one again please stand by while we compile the q a roster your first question comes from the line of joseph cardoso with jp morgan your line is now open please go ahead hi good afternoon guys congrats on the results here and thanks for the question maybe for the first one obviously you highlighted you're tracking to hit the 1.25 billion revenue target a quarter early and already well running well ahead of your high end of margin targets here you know just given both the stronger demand and

maybe the more favorable mix how should we be thinking about the read-through to the next set of financial targets particularly given what looks like incremental opportunities forming relative to the framework including ELS, MPO engagements and I think you even mentioned scale-up OCS as well just curious in terms of how we should be thinking about the next set of targets here hey joe this is uh michael um you know first thing thanks for for your continued support um you know look we'll we'll come out with some new financial targets probably at the next ofc we're obviously running well ahead on almost every metric on revenue on margin on operating margin we seem to be doing quite a bit better and you're right look i think there are some new things that we didn't factor into our discussion at OFC, NPO, we spent a bit of time on the prepared remarks on NPO. CW lasers, we think that that's an incremental opportunity for us that we've probably not spent a lot of time on before. And you're right, OCS, I think, is, we've discussed, but it seems to be doing a bit better than expected. So, you know, we feel like we're We're executing. We're trying to keep our head down and run. And obviously, you know, adding nearly $250 million incrementally into the guide is pretty impressive. And, you know, we think we have the opportunity to do that more as we look out in future quarters.

Nope. Got it. Fair. And then maybe just a follow up and specifically on the MPO. So curious if you could provide any further details there, you know, specifically how you're thinking about the time here, just given that it does sound like some of these opportunities are forming a little bit earlier than expected. And I know you talked about the different, you know, form factors or the different kind of content opportunities as it relates to the laser opportunities there. But any way to kind of flesh out like where you guys are seeing maybe the architecture of choice by your customers and is that biased in any direction? and how we should think about content as it at least relates to maybe your large customer on the CPO side relative to the ultra high power laser.

Yeah, I'm going to say a couple of things and then actually ask Lupin to comment a little bit on the differentiation in mid-power. You know, certainly the timing of these opportunities is plus or minus what we have talked about for our lead CPO customer. Our lead CPO customer, we just said in the prepared remarks, we'd expect to start shipping in high volume for scale up. We're already, of course, shipping for scale out. But for scale up, we expect to be shipping in the second half of calendar 27 for their deliveries in 28. Our leading customers on NPO, plus or minus, probably maybe minus a quarter, are in that zip code. The first couple of those are more the same kind of ELS, high-powered laser, and then maybe followed by a couple that are integrated where the optical engine, a mid-power laser is integrated inside the optical engine, and it's all one unit. So I would say that the ones that we have the best line of sight on and that are sooner are more of the high-powered laser type, very consistent with what we've been talking about for our largest CPO customer. With that said, I wanted Wupan maybe to give a few seconds of color because I think there's a little bit of a mischaracterization. We think that these mid-power lasers that are going inside the OE, a lot of things going on there in terms of differentiation. You want to give two seconds on that?

Yeah, definitely. Thanks, Michael. So definitely, it is to do the kind of the MPO optical engine, imagine each MPO is at about 6.4 T of bandwidth, which is really equivalent to four times that of one 360 module. The level of integration and the power density that's required and the efficiency required to fit everything into a small optical engine is immense. Therefore, you need really the best laser technology and the best efficiencies in order to really fit everything in a small package. So in terms of energy here really is to leverage our 400 milliwatt kind of design principle and leverage the higher efficiencies of the intrinsic design process and scale it to an application, right, around 150, 200 milliwatt range that enables the application. This is actually based on our awesome high-powered technology that we uniquely position to address this market. And we believe that by late 27, you know, 2038 timeframe, that NPO will hit the market and enable people to scale up, and this becomes an interesting opportunity for us to increase our laser business. Thanks, Joe. Thank you, Joe.

Thank you, Wuken. Thank you.

Your next question comes from the line of Simon Leopold with Raymond James. Your line is now open. Please go ahead. Thanks for taking the question.

First thing I wanted to try to ask is to what extent were you able to reprice backlog with your customers? And how did that affect this quarter's gross margin as well as your gross margin outlook? And then I've got a quick follow up.

Yeah, thanks, Simon. Look, we did reprice a little bit. I think most of our sort of LTAs are more foreign-looking in terms of the price impact. We saw some benefit, as Wajid said in his prepared remarks, on the gross margin line on pricing. We think that that still has some room to play through. But I'd say the long pole this quarter was more on on mix, right, where we were shipping a lot of more of our high mix components. And I think, as we said, we'd expect that to continue to play through as well. So we think we have some room to run on the gross margin line side.

Great. Appreciate that. And the other thing I've been hoping to ask you about is we've been hearing more about Chinese-based companies coming to market with new indium-phosphide fabs. What's your take on this developing and future competition? Thank you.

Yeah, look, I mean, I think we're hearing the same thing. We obviously haven't seen any impact on our numbers as yet, and I don't expect there to be any impact. we think we have differentiation, obviously, on EMLs. We're very strong there. And these high and mid-power lasers that are necessary for NPO and CPO, again, very strong differentiation there. And then even in CW, we've been surprised at our ability to price up, given what we said in the prepared remarks that customers are seeing far better yields given our ability to deliver consistent performance on our lasers. They just simply don't deviate. The width of the spec is very narrow and that results in far better transceiver yields for the customers that we've actually started shipping cw lasers to and so as a result we are able to command a a nice price premium that we'd expect to sustain you know as as these chinese if these chinese guys come online you know i caution people also i think people are some of these chinese laser suppliers are you know not delivering in the market today so they have every uh there's no recourse when they throw out these big numbers. We have not seen anything like that to date in terms of their output.

Thank you very much.

Thanks, Simon.

Your next question comes from the line of Mike Genovese with Rosenblatt Securities. Your line is now open. Please go ahead.

Great. Thanks. Really good to see the guide for a triple digit OCS revenue quarter, I think, the current quarter i think is what you said um so could you just confirm that but also the question is uh any comment on when we could expect to see that happen for ultra high powered cw scale out lasers where we get a triple digit quarter yeah mike um you know again first i want to thank you for the support of the company and and really following our details really well yeah you got So in the guide, which is the first quarter, we expect our first triple-digit OCS revenue quarter.

We'd expect to be meaningfully above the three-digit mark. We're executing well on OCS, as I said. And then for ultra-high-powered lasers, we have said, hey, we expect by the end of the year to be sort of in the $50 million mark. I think the third quarter is when you'd see the first triple-digit quarter for ultra-high-powered lasers. So we are executing. We're shipping today. We had good shipments in the reporting quarter before. We'd expect that to build somewhere in the $50 million range by the end of the calendar year and then to really meaningful impact in fiscal Q3.

Great. Perfect. And then finally, for Greensboro, is there any update on the expectation for sort of half of the capacity of Greensboro being there in calendar 28, the other half in calendar 29? Is that still the schedule? And I know it's early, but any kind of color you could give us in the progress there would be great.

Yeah, look, progressing super well. I'm actually very pleased that the team that we got in Greensboro is first rate. As you know, we inherited a fully functioning fab. So the switch that we need to throw is to convert it from gallium arsenide to indium phosphide. That is well underway. Some of the long coal items, reactors and things like that our team has gotten out in front of. I think we continue to say, you know, revenue, first revenue out of that in early 2028 and ramping through calendar 2028 into kind of a full pitch by the end of 2028 and into 29. So really no change in that, Mike.

Thanks for taking the questions.

Thank you so much, Mike.

Your next question comes from the line of Papasilla with Citi. Your line is now open. Please go ahead.

Thank you for taking my question, and congrats on the strong results as well. Michael, I was kind of double-clinking on the OTS. I was hoping perhaps you can refresh us. I know this quarter you mentioned is triple-digit, but if you can refresh us on the 400 million-plus OTS guide for the second half of 2026, are you running well ahead of it, or if any update on that side? And perhaps tied to that, how should you think about your key OCS customers, build versus buying from you, calculus? Do you expect momentum to eventually absorb most of their internal programs? If so, any timeline in mind?

Yeah, Papa, look, what I'd say is we're definitely tracking to the $400 million. I would not say tracking ahead. I mean, we've definitely, as you know, had some problems early on in the ramp with supply chain. We're out of that now. I think we're executing, as I said, to plan. We are plus or minus about where I would have expected to be for the guide, right? So that contributes, takes a dent out of the $400 million. And that leaves us some room to run in the fourth quarter, fourth calendar quarter. You know, relative to one customer that, you know, apparently has an internal source of supply, we are, I think, executing extremely well. I don't think we, I think they'll continue to use an internal version, but I think as they ship more and more OCSs, we will absorb the vast majority of that. So I would expect, you know, sometime in early 27 that we cross over and be the number one supplier and actually have momentum from there in terms of our OCS shipment. I think we surprised the customers. We are continuing to ship to a number of different customers, our execution, back on track. But most importantly, on software and things like that, where I'd expect us to have more difficulty, Papa, we've done well. So I think our customers in general, if you talk to them, would say, we've been an incredibly, incredibly strong supplier.

No, that's great to hear. And Michael, for my follow-up, just curious on any update on the supply-demand imbalance. I believe last quarter you mentioned 20% plus.

Where are we now and how do you see that improving or how do you see that going into fiscal 27 and beyond? yeah so i would say on on eml probably no change right so i don't think that it's gone up but it hasn't come down we're still shipping behind customer demand on eml um i think what surprised us is high powered lasers right high powered lasers uh you know again there's been a lot of noise in the system on what's happening on various co-packaged and near-packaged opportunities. We are way behind our shipments, unfortunately, on high-powered lasers. So if one vector has really changed since the last time you and I talked, I'd say it's the ultra-high-powered lasers. And we are very much further behind.

The demand signal has increased, uh and we are very much further behind relative to our ability to supply yeah i think just to clarify yeah just clarify our execution of the ramp is on track right we're further behind because our the demand has accelerated that as michael said in the prepared uh script yeah no that's very helpful.

Thank you.

Hey, Papa, thanks a lot.

Thank you, Papa. Thank you, Papa.

Your next question comes from the line of Christopher Rowland with Susquehanna. Your line is now open. Please go ahead.

My question, perhaps ELS modules as well. And I was wondering if you could speak and what the economics look like.

Yeah, Chris, yeah. No, we, again, first, you know, appreciate how much time you're spending on the company. Yeah, we've got our first ELS module order, right, which from an ASP standpoint is meaningfully higher than the set of lasers that we ship in. So we're very excited about the revenue opportunity, you know, small to start, right? And we said that we'd be shipping, you know, sometime mid-year, early second half of 27, to be honest. A little bit later, we felt like we'd see more opportunity on sort of scale-out applications than we have to date. But we're very pleased to be participating in the early phases of scale up with both lasers and now with the ELS module. As I said a minute ago, the ELS module meaningfully higher from an ASP standpoint, but the margins are not quite as good above corporate average, but not quite as good as the lasers. So we're trading a little bit of margin to get some revenue bump. We think, you know, I think Simon asked earlier in the call, we think we have enough drivers on the margin side that we can keep the margin vector moving, but, you know, help our revenue acceleration.

And also just a bit to add, right, if you recall that we've positioned our EOS module to be really enabling the customers who don't know how to deal with individual laser chips. So this is really a very first step for us to take to ship to one customer and then go from there to enable other end users to use the EOS to enable their CPO and MPO systems.

I think, Michael, you've talked about, I think it's the 1.6 T cycle or 200 gig per lane, and perhaps CW and SIFO working into the supply chain maybe earlier and being a larger part ultimately. I guess, first of all, where are we on that? Is this on the PSYFO-CW side accelerated even faster? And can you kind of describe the difference in economics for you between CW lasers and EMLs, which would be, I think, larger because they contain the modulators as well?

Okay, Chris. Yeah, good question. and I'll give some commentary and then have Wupen comment as well. So, one, you know, no slowdown in our EML demand. I mean, we are, I think it was Papa that asked a minute ago, we see still a significant supply-demand imbalance on our EMLs. As Kathy put in the prepared remarks, we're still very much on track to increase, our EML output year over year. But even at the end of the year, we'd expect to be significantly behind demand. So no slowdown at all in the demand that we're seeing from EML. We acknowledge, and we've said this before, that we would expect and are seeing CW lasers take a significant portion of transceiver output silicon photonics is a viable solution at 1.6 t of course we've also said and it also seems to be bearing out that as we think about 3.2 t silicon photonics loses some of its advantages and we'd expect to see emls come back in a in a meaningful way what i comment is you know a little bit of a shift in stance is that we are allocating some of our output now because we're actually doing quite a bit better in japan than we expected in terms of output and so what we're doing as part of that is allocating some of this excess output to cw lasers and we're now shipping cw lasers in a relatively meaningful way in this 200 gig per lane silicon photonics opportunity what's also changed for us is we have significantly reduced the dye size of our CW laser. So before, when you and I talked, we said, hey, probably from a margin standpoint, EML is better. Now we've brought things much more in line. CW lasers are smaller. They're better performing. We are commanding a significant price premium, as I said in a previous question, against what we view as the market price because of the performance of these lasers. And as such, the margin opportunity, still better on EMLs, but that gap has closed considerably, I think, since the last time we talked. Wupen, do you want to talk a little bit about the dynamic that you're seeing on CW and EML?

Yeah, Michael. Yeah, I think that's all very accurate, right? Just a couple of things to add to that. Number one, if you look at the application today, there's a lot of 200G per lane volume that's on 800 gig. And then in that, we actually see a much higher EML share versus the other laser share. So Michael talked about dynamics. I think this will both continue. EML will remain a very important player in 100G per lane. But as 1.6T runs up, I think we will see more CPU lasers. As Michael talked about, our new design of 2.0G CPU laser is much more efficient, therefore smaller and give us a much better growth margin profile another thing also note really dynamics here is that in a constrained environment uh we also see customers uh behavior as wherever they can get the laser source they will use that uh solution to support their build out so the dynamics of emlc lasers is not only a technical one but also a supply demand situation Chris, thank you.

Appreciate everything.

Thank you, Chris.

Your next question comes from the line of Vijay Rakesh with Mizuho. Your line is now open. Please go ahead.

Yeah. Hi, Michael and Raji, the good quarter and guide here. Just a quick question on the 200 gig per lane EML and CW. Looks like that's ramping very nicely. Is it fair to assume both the 200 gig EML and CW laser should be accretive to your margins? And when do you see this 1.60 crossover? It looks like it's already greater than 25% revenues. But when do you see that crossing over with data G, I guess? And I follow up.

Yeah, Mr. Rakesh, good to hear from you, my friend. Look, no change really in the forecast on the crossover. What we said is, and I think you're referring to 200 gig per lane lasers. We have said that for us, we'd expect 200 gig EMLs to be the majority volume shipments by the middle of 2027. We just said in the remarks that now 200 gig per lane EMLs are 25% of our mix. We'd expect it to be 50% or more of volume by mid-year of 2027. So we seem to be tracking to that. No real change in that. I think generally speaking, yeah, you're right. Lasers are one of our better businesses. And the lasers are more that are corporate creative, whether it's CW or EML. And as I said to Chris a minute ago, we've closed the margin gap quite considerably since our last call on EMLs versus CW by shrinking the die size of the CW laser. So EMLs are still better, but we've closed the margin gap quite considerably.

Got it. Thanks. Very helpful. And then on the operating leverage side, Vajid, looks like solid improvement there year on year. You're already at your 40% target. How should we look at, how should we think about it as you go through fiscal 27?

Yeah, thanks, Vijay. So, you know, the guideline that we had given at $2 billion of revenue was 38% to 42%. Like Michael said in his prepared remarks, we're already at the midpoint of that at much lower revenue levels. And so with gross margins improving, as we approach $2 billion, we'll see some improvement on the operating margin line as well that corresponds to those gross margin improvements. So, you know, think of the 42% outlier more as a midpoint with the range probably moving up 100 to 200 basis points versus what we showed at OFC.

All right. Thank you. Thanks so much, Vijay.

Your next question comes from the line of George Nauter with Wolf Research. Your line is now open. Please go ahead.

Hi, guys. Thanks very much. Congrats on all the success here. I guess I wanted to ask about indium phosphide substrate supply. I was really intrigued by the deal you guys signed in the quarter with AXT, because I think a quarter ago you actually said that you were doing pretty well on indium phosphide substrate, and so it feels like there's a bit of a change here, I guess I'm wondering like what you guys are seeing longer term here in terms of your need for more indium phosphide substrate and you know, as I extrapolate that kind of look at Greensboro and are you making more progress towards filling the rest of that facility?

Hey, George. Yeah, look, I would agree. I mean, I think what we tried to hint to in a previous question is the ultra high powered laser demand has surprised us. And that cuts across a couple of customers. So what we're trying to do, I think really in the last three months, is secure even more substrate supply. We were doing well. We felt like we had given the baseline of demand that we were seeing from ultra-high-powered and then, of course, the EMLs and CW lasers that go into our scale-out products. We felt pretty good, right, as you said. But I think we've seen a pretty big surge in demand, as we said, and in order to respond to that, we went out and we found additional substrate help from AXTI. They've been a great partner. Wupen's worked with them for a good number of years, and we think, you know, we're going to need their help just given the surge in demand. So that's what drove that deal. If this vector continues, we're probably going to need to look for more help on Substrate. We feel we're good at this moment. We're probably pretty comfortable just given our lead arrangement with a Japanese supplier and now the announced deal with AXTI, but given the rate of change in the demand vector that we're seeing, that may not be true a quarter or two from now either.

Got it. Do you think it's likely that we could see you sign some LTAs for more of the capacity in Greensboro? Is that a possibility? Thanks.

Yeah, look, we're looking to do that. I think we've sort of reported consistently that we have capacity in Greensboro. We have room there, and Wupen has been out talking to a number of customers about helping them with their laser demands, which are, again, changing minute by minute as everybody starts to look to adopt near-packaged or co-packaged solutions. And so, you know, I would expect that we'd have some things to talk about over the next couple of quarters relative to new arrangements in Greensboro that speak to more of the capacity we have there.

Thank you. Thanks so much, George. Thanks, George.

Your next question comes from the line of Tom O'Malley with Barclays. Your line is now open. Please go ahead.

Thanks for taking the question and great to be on the call. My first is on the NPO side where they spent a little more time in the preamble talking about the technology. I was curious, when you look at ASIC and GPU roadmaps, when you see the intersection of NPO, Does that need to be with a new generation of silicon, or can you intersect an existing ramp a la, if you were to say, you know, a big customer today ramping in the beginning of next year, were you able to ship NPO solutions where they originally started off as electrical only solutions just for the timing aspect of your ramp? That'd be super helpful.

Yeah, Tom, super to speak to you again. We really appreciate this chat, as always, Tom, as always. Look, I think what we're seeing now is an inflection in the A6 and in the CERDI speed, and that's driving the need for NPO and CPO. I don't know, and Wupen can comment a little bit on this. I don't think there are existing TPUs, XPUs, GPUs that are shipping that have a fast enough 30 speed that we could suddenly plop in an NPO or CPO solution, which I think is what you're asking. But as these new generations come online, really seeing silicon in mid-27, toward the end of 27 and early 28, all those new silicon solutions, again, GPUs, XPUs, TPUs, all seem to be driving 30 speeds that are consistent with the adoption of NPO or CPO. Wu-Pen, I mean, any color you can add for Tom?

Oh, thank you, Michael. I think that's very accurate. Really, I don't think, Tom, we are not seeing the kind of the retrofit of NPO onto the current XPUs. What we're seeing in real life does Michael talk about, there is a broad momentum towards the 28, kind of the 28 RAM of MPO and CPO and rejuven by optical scaled up. So it's not, this is beyond just the XPU itself, this is also goes into a rack-based multi-rack system that requires optical scaled up. And therefore, we believe there's going to be a new processor, new racks, and it's a 2028 event for optical's product from the industry's evolution only.

Super helpful. And then on the other side of things, on OCS, you talked about InTray OCS. I was curious, is the competitive dynamic there similar for you guys in terms of the timing? Is that in your current TAM or would that be additive to the TAM? And when do you see that intersecting in terms of that technology hitting the market? Thank you very much.

Yeah, Tom, additive, right? So it's, you know, anything that Kathy's presented at OFC, it's above and beyond that. It's a very new set of opportunities. We've come to find out there are a number of different folks that are looking at this kind of approach, and it's all very additive. It would hit for us 28 timeframe, Tom. It's not something that's super imminent, but it's imminent enough that we're working on it aggressively. It requires a lot of redesign from our engineers, but look, we're the only guy shipping. I mean, I know a lot of people are talking about OCS, a lot of startups. Because for us to be now at $100 million and beyond types of quarters, we're the only ones that have a track record outside of a contract manufacturing relationship with a large OCS user. So we're really the only merchant supplier today of OCS, and by virtue of that, we're going to get every single call and have the first look, I think, at every single opportunity out there.

Great results. Thanks, Tom.

Thanks so much, Tom. And Matthew, it looks like we have time for just one more question.

Great. Your next and final question will come from the line of Ruben Roy with Stiefel. Your line is now open. Please go ahead.

Yeah, great. Thanks for sticking me in here. Michael, maybe just to drill into the pump laser commentary a bit. You're growing quite nicely. I think you said 80% year over year for the second consecutive quarter and the four-fold increase coming still effectively sold out. Can you talk a little bit about where you are in the resort ramp and what exit capacity looks like? And then you talked about some long-term supply agreements that you're putting into place for scale across. Can you characterize maybe high level what the structure of those agreements are and the duration?

Yeah, Ruben, best for last. We really I always appreciate your questions. I think, you know, this is an area of incredible strength for us, right, which really I think is underappreciated. We have a very large market share here, and what we've done is, you know, really worked hard with, for example, a lot of the NEBS, the network equipment manufacturers, to form strategic partners. And we're super pleased with how people have come to work with us on helping offset some of the capex. And it's considerable that we have to put out to ramp in Rose Orchard. You got it right. And to then bring that into our tile and manufacturing for packaging and test. We formed a series of arrangements that, for the most part, are three-year arrangements. And those arrangements, as our normal arrangements, have pricing built into them. There are pricing levers that we can exercise if certain conditions are met. So we think we have some room there on the price line. But, you know, these are giving us a lot of surety in terms of that demand not evaporating. And in most instances, I think they're take or pay. We've had your comments since you've been in the middle of that. But we feel really, really good about where we're sitting, Ruben, on the pumps. Again, you know, rough order. We're somewhere between 70%, 80% share. and we believe we have a technology roadmap that our customers want to engage in that will afford us the opportunity to work on price to further increase output. But this is a darn exciting area for us. Lupin, any additional caller?

That's great. Thanks, Michael. That's really helpful. For the last 30 seconds here, a lot of discussion on NPO. My quick follow-up on that is, are the discussions, engagements, you know, that type of thing associated with some of the open or standards-based NPO, you know, kind of the, yeah, I guess the standard-based NPO versus custom. And I'm asking, I'm just wondering if, you know, there's a better alternative for you, given your technology and positioning. Does it matter?

Look, I'll have Wupen comment just in the interest of time. I mean, there are OCI, right, different standards that are coming out that are talking about the way the interface between the ASIC and the optical engine, for example. That's great for us because that opens up switch opportunities, for example, that may not be open to us before. So the standards-based approach opens up optical TAM, but we are engaged to be honest with you in both, right? There are a lot of custom, very specific types of implementations that our customers are driving to. And that's really going to be our first wave of NPO engagement, Ruben. Any color?

I think just to extend what Michael just talked about, there are actually two things. One is that today, the physical level, the optical level, they're all so-called fast and narrow, 200 gig per lane, massive lanes, and the next generation, as Michael talked about, would be like OCI, MSA-based, so that's on the optical side, but on the full factor side is very much proprietary. Everybody has a different design. Again, we talked about earlier, match to their rack design, their system design, and that actually is different from customer to customer. So again, optically, they are kind of standard-based, but then on the implementation side, they're different between different customers.

Excellent. Thank you.

Thanks so much, Ruben.

Thank you for your questions.

I will now turn the call back to Kathy for closing remarks thank you matthew that is all the time we have for questions and we look forward to connecting with you at upcoming investor conferences and meetings throughout the quarter with that i'd like to thank you for joining us today this concludes today's call thank you for attending you may now