Good morning, my name is Justin and I’ll be the conference operator today. At this time, I would like to welcome everyone to Park Aerospace Corp Fourth Quarter Fiscal Year 2021 Earnings Release Conference Call and Investor Presentation. Thank you. At this time, I will turn today’s call over to Mr. Brian Shore, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer. Mr. Shore, you may begin your conference call.

Thank you very much, operator. Welcome everybody to Park’s fourth quarter conference call. With me as usual, of course, is Matt Farabaugh, our CFO. We published our earnings release earlier this morning. So, if you haven’t checked it out, I encourage you to do that. In the earnings release, there are instructions for accessing the presentation. We’re about to go through our presentation. You can also find it on our website, but it's really beneficial to have it in front of you to make this call more meaningful. Without the presentation, it might be a little confusing. Also, there is a supplemental financial information attached as Appendix-1 to the presentation. In the past, Matt used to read that for us, but these presentations are lengthy now, so we don’t do that anymore, but feel free to access it and ask any questions about it. We mention this every now and then, probably almost every call, that we’re not able to cover everything. These presentations feel lengthy as is. We need to select what we think would be of interest to you and helpful in understanding our company. We do our best with that, and perhaps on the next call, we’ll cover something else. The call could last 45 minutes. So you see, we can't cover everything. We’ll try to keep it to 45 minutes. When I say the call, I mean the presentation and allow as much time as you want for questions and answers. When we’re done with the presentation, I will turn it back over to you and you can ask any questions you want, whether about the presentation or anything else about Park that’s not covered in it. Okay, so let’s go ahead and get started. When we turn to Slide 2, this is our forward-looking disclaimer language. Any questions about this, just let us know. Slide 3 will take a little bit longer; it’s very busy. So let’s look at the top line for the quarters of the 2021 fiscal year, one, two, three, and four. You can see what’s going on based on the significant downturn in commercial aerospace, and we discussed destocking at some point, which came back a little bit in Q4. But I want to remind you right away about something we discussed last quarter or maybe in the prior quarter regarding this essential component for rockets and missile systems, which is our ablative product line. This is an essential component sourced overseas. We have a relationship with the supplier. The OEMs are concerned about this. These are critical missile programs. They asked us to buy that component and sell it to them just to have a safe stockpile of it. It’s an essential component, as the product can’t be made without it. We buy this component and sell it to the OEM, to the customer, who never owned it to begin with, and it’s their product; they can do with it what they want, I guess, but the expectation is that we will use that component to produce the ablative materials for these rocket and missile programs. This is significant for a couple of reasons: it affects our top line and bottom line. We sell it at a small markup; the margins are quite small. The material content for these sales is quite high. I just wanted you to be aware of that for background. In Q2, sorry, in Q3, we had approximately $2 million of those component sales, and in Q4, we had $3.5 million of sales, which we had predicted during our Q3 call, so it shouldn’t be a surprise. But I just wanted to remind you of that because it does affect the numbers. So, let’s go through Q4, the current quarter, fiscal 2021 Q4, $14.441 million of sales. You can see the numbers moving up, but in that number, $3.5 million of sales of that critical component were through low margins. Gross profit was $4.326 million. Gross margin was 30%, which we like; we don’t like it below 30%. We were surprised about this because, with that critical component, the margins are quite low, so we were surprised that the gross margins actually came in at exactly 30%. That’s not a forced number; we don’t do that. That’s just the math. It came in at 3.0%, and the adjusted EBITDA was $3.257 million. So, we’re a little surprised about that. Let me remind you of our forecast philosophy before we go into more discussion about the numbers. When we give you a forecast, we’re telling you what we think is going to happen based on working very hard and everything we need to do to make it happen. We don’t give you a low number to beat it. We think that's silly. We know lots of other companies do that. We just don’t do things that way. If we tell you something, we’re telling you what we believe will happen. We could be wrong, but we want to communicate what we think is going to happen. So, with that in mind, let’s talk about what did happen in Q4. What did we say about Q4 during our Q3 conference call? We estimated sales to be $14 million to $14.5 million. Well, we came in within that range, slightly above the higher end, but still within that range, no problem. We also said the adjusted EBITDA estimate was $2.3 million to $2.8 million. Well, we came in at $3.257 million. So, significantly above the top of the range. That’s not what we thought was going to happen, and what happened was that we did not properly capture in our estimate for Q4 the margins on the ablative products. No, I’m not talking about the essential component. These are sales of ablative materials for rocket and missile programs. Very good margins, and we just didn’t capture those margins fully. That’s on us. This was not something we did to present a low number. We could be wrong; we just don’t do that. Let me see, is there anything else to cover on the numbers? No, I don’t think so. But there’s another big item to address on this page. You see at the bottom, it says before special items. There was a big special item in Q4, $1.570 million related to something we call the Pioneer plant, a facility in Singapore we opened in 2008. This was a composite materials plant. This was around the time we were getting into aerospace. This plant was supposed to be our Asian aerospace composite materials facility but was part of our Singapore company, our Singapore entity. In electronics, our Singapore facility was our largest facility, so it was part of that. It wasn’t a separate entity, and a key point is that it was going to be operated and managed by our Singapore team, which was the Electronics Group at the time. I wouldn’t say it was very successful in terms of marketing. We didn’t achieve much sales, but for whatever reason that was, I wouldn’t say it was a great success. As you know, we sold our electronics business entirely to AGC in December 2018, which included the Singapore operation, of course. The Pioneer plant, as I said, wasn’t a separate entity; it was part of the Singapore entity, but we separated it and dropped it into another entity owned by Park. Why is that? Because AGC did not want to buy the Pioneer plant; they didn’t want it. So we agreed to retain it, and we have. We mothballed it almost right after the sale in 2018 because we didn’t have, without AGC, our Singapore team, we didn’t have the ability to operate this plant anymore, so we mothballed it. We didn’t write it off immediately because we had hopes that we might be able to use it at some point. Remember we discussed working on an Asian joint venture for a while? I don’t think we discuss it every quarter, but we’ve been talking about it, and we’re still in discussions with a large Asian aerospace company about forming a joint venture in Asia. Our thought is that maybe this plant could be used in that venture. These discussions are high-level, executive-level discussions with this company. I would say they are serious, but they are still preliminary. COVID has not been our friend in this regard because we really need to meet in person. We’ve had a lot of phone discussions, exchanges of correspondence, questions back and forth, but to me, for this to reach the next level, we need to meet in person and have their team come to Kansas and spend a couple of days with us. With COVID travel restrictions, that hasn’t been possible. It sidetracked the whole situation. We’re still in active discussions. I don’t want to imply that it’s dormant at all; we are still actively engaged, probably on a weekly basis, with emails or phone calls, that sort of thing, but I feel that until we meet in person, it won't reach the next level. Why did we decide to write off this time? Because this situation has persisted for a while, and even if we establish a joint venture, it’s not clear that we’d use this facility in it. So, we decided to write down the assets at this time, and I believe that was the right decision. I believe it was prudent and thoughtful. Just so you know, it’s not a significant impact. The pre-tax benefit now that we’ve written off the facilities is a positive $200,000 per year, and the EBITDA benefit is only about $80,000 due to depreciation costs. I wanted to make you aware of that because I think there’s a reference to this write-down in the news release, but I wanted to provide the background. We just did not have the ability to continue to operate this plant after we sold Electronics to AGC; we had no way to operate it. Perhaps the decision was somewhat inevitable, but we made it. I believe it was the right decision and the right timing. Let’s go on to Slide 4. Just a little more history with our 2021 results. You can see the top line showing some nice growth from 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, and, of course, 2021. No shocking news here; that reflects the effects of the commercial aircraft industry downturn and the destocking we sometimes discuss. Now, let’s move to Slide 5; our Top 5 customers. This is something we do at each presentation. It’s almost a fun item. AAE Aerospace, that’s the MK125 picture on the bottom left, and we supply material to this program, or rather, structural components. This is not for rockets, but structural components of the warhead. Let’s see, CPI Radant—it’s MK1 that’s over on the top right, the Navy Multiband Terminal, and we supply radome materials into that program. Kratos, we talk about Kratos quite a bit; here in the bottom middle is the Valkyrie. I think we’ve mentioned that we believe we are the main material supplier for all their drone programs; this is a picture of Kratos launching what they call a Baby Drone—a drone launching another drone. Interesting concept. I think Kratos said they expect the first production delivery of the Valkyrie in a couple of months. That was their terminology. Middle River aircraft, owned previously by GE Aviation, is now part of ST Engineering Aerospace; you are probably familiar with them. We have a picture of a 747-8 on the top left, and Turkish Aerospace, not often in our Top 5, which is nice to see them; they are a contractor for Sikorsky Aerospace. So you have a picture of a Sikorsky helicopter on the bottom right, and now let’s go to Slide 6. These pie charts are interesting. Let’s look at military in 2021; total revenue was $60 million, with 35% being about $21 million. Our total revenue in fiscal 2021 was less, only $46.3 million, with about 59% military, showing that military percentage has grown significantly, though the absolute number is about $27.25 million. So that represents nice growth from 2020 to 2021. Just to remember, we decided about a year ago to shift our focus to military, and while we’re not entirely satisfied with the results, we need to do better, at least we’ve achieved some positive outcomes. Also keep in mind that $27.25 million figure includes quite a bit from the sale of that essential component for ablatives for rocket programs. Moving on, looking at the commercial aerospace portion, it yielded $28 million in fiscal 2020 and only $16 million in 2021, which is a striking downturn in commercial aerospace. Now let’s go on to Slide 7. This is our fun slide; Don and Elaina put this together every quarter, and we attempt to include entertaining elements alongside the serious figures. It’s not necessarily about our biggest programs but features exciting military programs. For example, up at the top left is a B-1B, but it’s not solely about that—the LRASM, the long-range anti-ship missile that’s launched by the B-1B; our materials are utilized for that program. The Avio Aster 30 air defense missile employs our rocket nozzle material, ablative materials designed for that program. The F-15 Eagle is listed as 104 to zero; that means its combat record, 104 wins and zero losses. So, it is not even a fair fight, and we contribute materials for those radomes. We also provide some components for JSTARS, among others, and notice the pie chart—I think it’s interesting; rocket nozzles, structural components, and drones are significant segments for us. Radomes are not as big, but still significant. Moving on to Slide 8. We need to give equal time to our commercial aircraft programs. You know the story if you’ve been listening to our call. Single-aisle versus wide-body planes—there’s a clear trend favoring single-aisle. Even prior to the pandemic, there was a preference for direct flights rather than going through hubs, but that’s even more so now since domestic aviation has significantly recovered. International travel likely has a way to go. For domestic, a single-aisle aircraft is preferable, while for international, to think of wide-bodies. So our opinion is that if you want to be involved in commercial aircraft—particularly now, it’s crucial to be in single-aisle. We participate in two of the three major single-aisle programs. We believe these are the two most advantageous options to be involved with. We’re happy to be on the A320neo program and also the Comac 919 program. We think we’ve checked two of the three boxes, which is what we desire, and we feel strategically positioned, mostly due to luck, in the commercial aircraft market, although I’d argue that it’s much more than luck that puts us in this favorable position. Moving on to Slide 9—a review for commercial aviation: emerged from the abyss. It certainly was an abyss. High jet fuel prices and environmental concerns gave airlines additional motivation to replace less fuel-efficient legacy aircraft with modern, more efficient ones like the A320 family. A year ago, when fuel prices were lower, that detracted from the introduction of newer models. Now, however, fuel prices are rising, which is concerning. Those environmental concerns persist regardless of fuel pricing, but high prices provide an economic incentive for airlines to upgrade to fuel-efficient aircraft. In China, domestic aviation has returned to pre-COVID levels and is thriving, depending on who you ask; it’s a positive signal for single-aisle models. The U.S. domestic market has recovered to about 75% of pre-COVID levels, and we expect a full recovery in 2022. There’s optimism in single-aisle, and interestingly, two new U.S. domestic airlines recently announced their launch without plans to buy aircraft; however, Park is involved with some of their programs. This is positive news for single-aisle aircraft when just a year ago, many believed such announcements wouldn’t be possible. Now let’s go into Slide 10. This slide is a regular component of our presentations. The first item highlighted here is the long-term agreement starting in 2019 through 2029, requirements contract with Middle River Aerostructure Systems, which is a subsidiary of ST Engineering Aerospace. So, what’s the GE connection? Why mention GE Aviation so much? That’s because Middle River, MRAS was a subsidiary of GE Aviation until two years ago when it was sold to ST Engineering Aerospace; these programs were originally GE Aviation programs, and that includes all nacelle structures and thrust reverser structures. We’re discussing redundant factory plans that we’ll cover later. The LTA with MRAS required us to build that redundant factory. Why did we commit to that? Because we agreed it was crucial given that if something happened to our one plant, it would create a major crisis almost immediately for these aircraft programs. As you can imagine, it was very appropriate for them and understandable for us to develop a redundant factory when signing the LTA and we followed through with that commitment. I believe the arrangement was informal, but we are people of our word. Top right: there is also a component produced for those Passport 20 engines; this is not part of MRAS LTA but still associated with GE Aviation through one of their contractors. It’s a significant role we play in these aircraft—like the Boeing 747-8 nacelles. I love this image as it offers perspective on the immense size of nacelles. Now, transitioning to Slide 11, let’s update you on specific GE Aviation programs. For the A320neo family, we recently added an A319 deal. That’s part of the family, not often discussed, but there are some sales anticipated here. So, we’re in ramp mode here; in March, Airbus delivered 57 neo family aircraft. Airbus plans to up the production of the A320 family from 40 per month to 43 by Q3 and 45 by Q4. For clarity, remember that the A320neo family aircraft operates with two engines—one being the LEAP-1A engine, which is where we’re involved. Just a reminder: when looking at the May addition of Aero Engine News, the LEAP-1A engine has approximately 61% market share of all firm orders for engines for the A320neo family, just to give some context there. Let’s keep moving. Something significant to note: during Airbus’s Q1 investor call on April 29, 2021, the CEO, Mr. Faury, mentioned a steep ramp-up for 2022 and 2023 for single-aisle aircraft production. Those quotes about an impending ramp-up for the A320neo family are incredibly useful for our understanding of what’s transpiring in our domain. Slide 12 continues with the A320neo family. The A320XLR is part of that family using the LEAP-1A engine; the first test flight is nearing its final assembly, with the inaugural flight expected in 2022 and certification slated for entry into service by 2023. This timeline for the aircraft is closer than it sounds, as in the context of aviation, that’s is around the corner. This aircraft is expected to be a game-changer, with significant range and capacity. A vital factor is that Boeing currently lacks a suitable response to this aircraft; they’re reportedly considering a 5X to compete, but they haven’t even officially initiated that yet, which puts them at a disadvantage. Slide 13 covers the Global 7500. They have recently sold their 50th unit. This aircraft model is in production and ramping up, which is promising for us. Continuing to slide 14, the Comac ARJ-21 is in production, mostly catering to the Chinese market for now, and they plan to ramp up as well. On to slide 14: The Comac 919 uses the LEAP-1C engines, and Comac aims to certify this aircraft and start deliveries by the end of 2021, if that’s still the case. I believe this is a significant potential program for Park as they rival Airbus and Boeing, so it promises to be a big deal. Also, the Boeing 747-8 is set to terminate production in 2022, with only 12 orders left. I personally have a fondness for the 747-8, which contributed to Park, as it was our first program with GE Aviation back in February 28, 2014. Now moving to Slide 15 for an overview, in commercial aerospace this past fiscal year, we experienced significant challenges. Airline terminals were ghost towns, and flights often carried a mere handful of passengers, with thousands of cancellations and job losses in the commercial aircraft and aviation sectors. It was a dire period—doom and gloom prevailed. Many analysts predicted that full recovery would be years away, if it were even possible. Slide 16, fortunately for Park, we didn’t buy into all that negativity. We didn’t believe that the sky was falling. We established minimum monthly baseline production levels with MRAS to preserve our operational capabilities when the time for ramp-up arrived. This was a vital move that we’ve discussed during our prior calls. We were determined not to let our production levels drop below a critical threshold, as we were convinced that, while we may not have an accurate timeline for recovery, a ramp-up was on the horizon. We maintained our production capacity with required monthly outputs, leading to between $700,000 to $900,000 worth each month, which commenced around July. Despite widespread layoffs across the industry, we did not lay off any of our employees through the most challenging times. While others furloughed their workforce, we retained ours, setting us in a strong position for recovery. Slide 17, continuing with this theme: We discussed at length during our Q1, Q2, and Q3 investor calls about the significant divergence between the minimum monthly baseline production levels we agreed on with MRAS and the market requirements for GE programs at that time. While Airbus maintained a commitment to keeping production at 40, many analysts suggested adjustments were needed—saying it seemed inevitable that another downturn was looming. We stated that inventory could not be destocked below zero, which is unsustainable. Our assessment was accurate. Destruction has now ceased; all GE Aviation programs Park is on are ramping up except for the stagnant one, the 747. Let’s proceed to Slide 18, where we see the ramp intensifying. This is an update from last quarter. GE Aviation program sales for various periods were, calendar year 2019, $29.3 million; calendar year 2020, $15.8 million, with the last six months of that year holding a $10 million run rate. This correlates well with our earlier discussions. For calendar year 2021, we project GE Aviation program sales based on updated forecasts flat at about $25.5 million. This is an upward shift from the $24 million we discussed previously, although whether it continues to rise remains unclear. Slide 19 marks the beginning of a hit mode. Recently, we received an updated long-term forecast for GE Aviation. This forecast spans from 2021 to 2029, based on the balance of firm pricing LTA established in 2019. This updated forecast indicates that GE Aviation program sales for 2021 through 2029 closely resemble those from the pre-COVID forecasts of the same time frame. We’re essentially returning to our previous pre-COVID predictions. Regarding the construction of that updated forecast, we develop units based on our knowledge of material requirements per unit, pricing of these materials—we meticulously compile all this detail. This updated long-term forecast may not adequately reflect the substantial ramp-up of A320neo aircraft production as predicted by Airbus for 2023; it is likely that these remarks were made after our forecast was rendered. It is also possible the forecast doesn’t account for expected sales tied to XLR introduction, so we see a potential upside if captured in sales opportunities. However, we also have concerns about how the commercial aerospace manufacturing supply chain will align with the projected ramp-up. Slide 20 details how we are responding to this ramp. Our current employee count stands at 106, which is interesting as last quarter it was 107, and we had previously planned to hire 15 to 20 workers. The lack of an increase in personnel may relate to some employees receiving unemployment benefits to stay at home. It’s notable that the conversation around businesses reopening often omits the impact on individuals; some may not have the capability to return to work after long absences. Our focus is on our team, and, as usual, our people are committed to ensuring that we meet our ramp-up needs. Corey has done an exceptional job coordinating our workforce so we can fulfill our customer expectations. Disappointing customers is not in our vocabulary; we will meet our commitments. Slide 21 highlights our customer flexibility program, crucial for our situation with a current participation rate of 80%. Of those, we have varying job categorization percentages. Without this program, we would face enormous challenges, yet its implementation has allowed us to maintain staff during downturns, not having to rehire employees—a substantial advantage in our recovery efforts. Slide 22 details our GE Aviation program sales history and forecast estimates. The upper portion familiarizes you with last quarter’s Q4 production, which produced approximately $4.4 million. This aligns with our Q3 estimates. Total sales for the fiscal year amount to $13.2 million, representing less than half of fiscal year 2020 totals, which wasn’t unexpected. Our Q1 forecast ranges between $6.5 million to $7 million, and that’s mostly booked. For Q2, we maintain the same expectations. Over the fiscal year, our forecast stands between $26 million and $28 million. However, a lot remains uncertain depending on the outcome of the A320 and what the Airbus CEO indicated. The ramp is fundamentally reliant on supply chain capabilities meeting these expectations; single-source contributions will be pivotal. Shifting to Slide 23, we recap our expectations. The past year saw essential component sales yielding about $2 million in Q3 and escalating to $3.5 million in Q4. We forecast Q1 sales between $13.3 million to $13.8 million, down from Q4 as we no longer anticipate those essential component sales. We project $3.6 million to $4.1 million of EBITDA, showing our return toward growth once again. However, in Q2, we expect adjustments due to changes in military mix for revenue and adjusted EBITDA. The GE Aviation business remains steady; however, seasonal military programs may affect variability in our quarterly results. We anticipate sales ranging from $55 million to $62 million and adjusted EBITDA between $13.5 million to $16.5 million. Our fiscal 2020 total was $60 million in revenue and $13 million in adjusted EBITDA, hence forecasting better or similar numbers. We could be wrong; nevertheless, we do not shy away from providing forecasts based on our hard work and cautious evaluations. We’re still hiring, aiming for eight or nine people and later consider expansions as well. The cost of hiring increases is always present, and we hope to start better in our new plant with possible raw material cost increases arising from inflationary pressures. Our LTA with GE keeps certain raw materials secured against inflation, but for customers without LTA agreements, we must increase prices in response to rising material costs. There are serious concerns regarding the broader economy—including inflation and interest rates—but we manage our operations carefully amidst climate change uncertainties. Moving to Slide 24, our expansion budget is now $19 million; we began at $20.5 million. Now, we started with $20.5 million but dialed it back to $18 million due to economic concerns, though with recent ramp-up expectations, it has increased back to $19 million with $15 million already spent. We anticipate completion next month, with manufacturing trials set for major equipment scheduled for July of 2021 and qualification runs for MRAS planned for September of 2021. The new facility’s image displays numerous modifications and improvements tailored for our operational needs. We can now wrap this up, so slide 25 reflects on our 2021 fiscal year—an extraordinary year despite the challenges and sorrows faced. Yet, at Park, we persist. We forge ahead and continue our major expansion while many others cut capital spending. We’ve stayed true to our principles when others perhaps did not. We did not lay off staff when thousands of others did. At Park, we are a family, always supporting each other through tough times. Slide 26 reiterates Park as a unique company with wonderful people on our team. We believe in our mission to make a meaningful impact. Our 2021 fiscal year stands as the best year for Park since 1988. That’s my belief; I can't claim otherwise. Yes, our finest hour. So, let's conclude with a picture of our dedicated crew. The top row features Guadalupe and Juan; the bottom row showcases Josè the lead, Joshua, and Seraphin. Each has been selected to operate both lines, underscoring participants’ flexibility. This talent retention program allows us to adapt and respond effectively during the downturn and now as we ramp up. I believe that is the final slide; let's proceed to Slide 27, our thank you slide, Operator. We’re open to questions, should any arise.

And our first question comes from Brad Hathaway from Far View. Your line is now open.

Thank you very much and congrats, Brian, on navigating such a challenging year. It's truly impressive.

Thank you, Brad.

I appreciate your effort in providing a 2022 forecast and sharing insights into the ramp you’re observing. Given that improvements are coming along, I’m curious if you have thoughts on prior forecasts and when you might feel comfortable issuing a long-term forecast again?

As mentioned, we are forecasting for the current fiscal year. It feels like 2020 is on the horizon again, prior to COVID. Our estimations might be slightly better, particularly when it comes to EBITDA, aligning with the top line. I don't have a straightforward answer, but it might serve as our restarting point. Clearly, before launching a new long-term forecast, we can’t simply push it back or project forward. We need to reflect everything we know now, including significant developments that are largely positive. I hope before the end of the year we can deliver a forecast that covers more than just one year; after all, we’re gathering valuable insights from industry leaders instead of focusing on commentators who have generally been unhelpful. Airbus is a great one to align with, as their CEO's announcements are helping us. I can't promise a more comprehensive forecast, but I'm optimistic about making strides soon.

That sounds promising. In terms of M&A, do you have updates on what you've been observing?

Yes, last quarter, we anticipated possibly getting some distressed sales last year, which did not materialize since the Fed's interventions allowed many to hold on. We're quite active in pursuing options; we’re planning to put a preliminary bid on a company later this week. We're looking for niche opportunities rather than ones overwhelmed by multiple buyers, which pushes prices up significantly. We’ve identified a product area that closely aligns with composite structures and are doing meaningful research there, having contacted several firms in that space, some of which our customers have highlighted as potential fits. M&A is challenging now, however, we haven’t slowed down; we are continuously exploring opportunities.

Understood. Given the environmental context, at what point will you consider that the cash on the balance sheet is underutilized, prompting you to explore alternatives?

Yes, there is a point, though I cannot pinpoint it exactly at this moment. That’s a key reflection for us. I appreciate your viewpoint.

My preference would definitely lean toward securing an excellent bolt-on acquisition; achieving that would be fantastic.

Thank you. We feel the same way about that.

Thank you very much. I appreciate all your efforts in achieving outstanding results during this past pandemic year. It is truly incredible. Thank you.

Thanks for your comments.

Thank you. Our next question comes from Leonard Cooper, a Private Investor. Your line is now open.

Hi, Brian. It seems like you're quite active.

Yes, hey, Leonard. How have you been? Haven't heard from you in a while.

We are doing okay; we're hanging on. I came across a story indicating that the U.S. is advancing on a wind turbine farm, which would be the first authorized by the government. Are we involved in that or could we participate?

We’re not involved, nor do we wish to be. Wind turbine projects are not aligned with our market strategy; typically, those endeavors yield low margins. We're strictly aerospace-focused. We decided from the start that we lacked expertise in various other sectors—boating, wind turbines, skateboards, etc.—and aerospace is our sole focus.

I noted that aerodynamics plays a significant role in turbine designs.

Right, they are becoming more advanced but simply aren’t our market.

Thank you. It was a fascinating conversation. Wishing you all the best.

Well, thanks for reaching out, Len. It’s nice to hear from you.

Thank you. I am showing no further questions. I would now like to turn the call back to Brian Shore for closing remarks.

Thank you, operator. Thanks, everyone, for participating. I apologize for exceeding 45 minutes; I tried to rush through it, but there’s always much to cover for perspective. Thank you for tuning in, and don’t hesitate to reach out. Matt and I are available should you wish to chat further. Expect our first quarter announcement in just a few weeks, probably early July. Have a wonderful day, everyone. Goodbye!

This concludes today’s conference call. Thank you for participating. You may now disconnect.