Please standby. Good day and welcome to the Aehr Test Systems Second Quarter Fiscal 2021 Financial Results Call. Today's conference is being recorded. At this time, I'd like to turn the conference over to Mr. Jim Byers of MKR Investor Relations. Please go ahead, sir.

Thank you, operator. Good afternoon, and welcome to Aehr Test Systems' second quarter fiscal 2021 financial results conference call. With me on today's call are Aehr Test Systems' President and Chief Executive Officer, Gayn Erickson and Chief Financial Officer, Ken Spink. Before I turn the call over to Gayn and Ken, I'd like to cover a few quick items. This afternoon, Aehr Test issued a press release announcing its second quarter fiscal 2021 results. That release is available on the company's website at aehr.com. This call is being broadcast live over the Internet for all interested parties and the webcast will be archived in the Investor Relations section of the company's website. I'd like to remind everyone that on today's call, management will be making forward-looking statements today that are based on current information and estimates that are subject to a number of risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from those in the forward-looking statements. These factors that may cause the results to differ materially from those in the forward-looking statements are discussed in the company's most recent periodic and current reports filed with the SEC. These forward-looking statements, including guidance provided during today's call are only valid as of this date and Aehr Test Systems undertakes no obligation to update the forward-looking statements. And now, with that said, I'd like to turn the call over to Gayn Erickson, President and CEO of Aehr Test Systems.

Thanks, Jim. And good afternoon to those joined us on the conference call online and also listening on the -- over the web. Ken will go over the second quarter financial results later in the call, but first, I'll spend a few minutes providing some details around the challenges we experienced during the quarter and how we've responded. Then I'll turn to what we're seeing now and why we think things are moving in the right direction and then following our remarks, we'll open up the lines for your questions. As we anticipated on last quarter's call, our bookings and revenue for the first half of our fiscal year were negatively impacted due to several customer-specific production ramp delays and push outs of forecasted orders due to COVID-19 related impacts, as well as the continued challenging global business environment created by the COVID-19 pandemic. These customers continue to indicate they believe the push-outs are temporary and they will require additional system capacity and consumables in the current fiscal year. We continue to be optimistic about generating significant bookings and revenue increases in the second half of this fiscal year, compared to the first half based on these customer forecasts and the initial order flow we began to see already starting in the second half. As we get into the third quarter, just last month, we announced that we received a design win for high -- new high-volume production test and burn-in application for critical new mobile center application. This engagement with the new customer who is a supplier of sensors to a mobile -- a major mobile device manufacturer began with an initial $4.3 million order for an initial test cell consisting of the FOX-XP production test and burn-in system, a set of DiePak Carriers and FOX Automated DiePak loader/unloader.…

Thank you, Gayn, and good afternoon, everyone. As Gayn noted, our revenue and bookings for the first half of the fiscal year were negatively impacted by several customer-specific production ramp delays and push-outs of forecasted orders and the continued challenging global business environment created by the COVID-19 pandemic. However, these customers continue to indicate they believe the push-outs are temporary. Based on these customer forecasts and the initial order flow we have started to see since the beginning of the third quarter, we expect significant bookings and revenue increases in the second half of this fiscal year. At the same time, as we discussed on previous earning calls, we have taken significant actions to control spending and maintain our cash position as a result of customer orders push-outs and delays in production ramps. In our fourth quarter of the prior fiscal year, we completed a restructuring that resulted in permanent savings of approximately $120,000 per year and also required mandatory vacation days to reduce costs. Starting in our current fiscal year, we implemented additional temporary cost reduction initiatives across the company. These measures included 30% pay reductions for our executive staff that took effect starting the last quarter. The total of all cost reductions resulted in savings of over $550,000 in the second quarter. With our recent booking and improved forecast for the second half of the year, the temporary pay reductions for non-officers were eliminated starting in the current fiscal third quarter. The pay reductions for our executive staff remains in place. It is also important to note that even with these cost controls, our operational capacity and bandwidth have not been impacted and our main focus continues to be growing our revenue base within the large market opportunities that Gayn mentioned earlier. Now turning to the financial results,…

Thank you. [Operator Instructions] And we'll take our first question today from Christian Schwab with Craig-Hallum.

Hi, guys. This is Tyler on behalf of Christian. Thanks for letting us ask a few questions. First question...

Hi, Tyler.

Hi guys. So first question, so on the multiple, I think you called dozen previously or more than dozen Tier 1 and Tier 2 potential customers, engagements you have, kind of, the silicon photonics and silicon carbide, as well as other customers, in the next couple of quarters, fiscal year and into next year, should we expect a majority of orders from these customers or how many of this customer pipeline would you expect to turn into orders?

Okay. That's a good question and kind of tease out how we are looking at our forecast. And I know there is -- we have lots of feedback with respect to people on how we look at our forecast and what we're doing. Primarily what we've discussed is forecast for revenues and less about exactly what the bookings are. And obviously bookings come before revenues because you book, ship, get revenue. Right or wrong, when we started off the year, we tried to be clear in communicating that when we set the expectation for the year, we had basically communicated the majority of the forecast was only with installed base customers, customers that were already won, were already communicating to us that they intended to buy more, arguably, believed to be a conservative stance at that time, because the alternative was just sort of looking into when is COVID -- and what's going to happen etcetera, how do we anticipate. So we quite frankly just listened to what our customers are telling us. Generally speaking, when you look at forecasts, you actually forecast not only what the customers specifically tell you, but we anticipate winning new deals or that the customer will ramp or something, and that tea leaves that was a bit of a challenge to do. In our latest, if you will, guidance, we again took now our current specific customers, including the deal that we just won again and what are they specifically telling us. This is what we and the Board have decided is our best way to communicate our guidance because we have clear line of sight to those deals. It also helps to explain and I in my prepared comments, , it says, oh, and then we have other deals. So again, I just…

That was great. Appreciate all the color, Gayn. Second question here, I want to follow-up on your new customer order, this $4.3 million order for customers serving a large mobile manufacturer. So I know we've, kind of, been surprised or maybe disappointed in the lack of follow through previously here. So I'm just wondering if you could add some color, some comments on your conviction that this customer will turn into more meaningful revenue in the future? Just kind of your best expectations of that customer today. Thanks.

Sure. And I -- let me add to your comment about, I'll use the word disappointing follow-through, I'm not sure you used that word, but I'll use it. For those folks that are kind of new to us or not familiar with the story, we had a very large mobile manufacturer, who turned out they will be initial lead customer on our new FOX family of wafer level and singulated die and module products. And when they were first buying from us, there was -- it was unclear yet how they would deploy the tool in terms of which high volume applications, how long the test time was, and then as it turned out, what percentage of the devices were actually testing. What we have made clear is that, we've seen that market space in this case turn to what is called sampling, which means they do not test 100% of every single device using their tool. Instead, do it for a quality, reliability sample, which I won't go into a lot of detail, but the way to interpret this is, if you're only doing a 5% or a 1% sampling, you only buy 5% or 1% of what you could. So there is a huge dynamic range there. And in the initial orders from these customers and these applications we did not know whether they were going to do the sampling or higher volume production. And in fact, the sampling rate was lower-than-expected and therefore while they buy $10 million, $15 million worth , they didn't buy $50 million worth. Now, specifically in this application and we had to be really careful about what things we say, so I know we are going to try and say the same things I've said before and specifically in the release. We…

That's great. Appreciate that. And then last quick one, and I'll turn the call or the question over. A little bit of a modeling question, I guess, as well as fundamental. Your implied second half guidance with the visibility you have today, any color on Q3 versus Q4? Would you expect Q3 and Q4 to be kind of similar in size or more of a progressive improvement through the end of the year and Q4 sequentially better? Any color there would be great. Thanks.

I mean, I would -- so I guess we talked about it, but let me put it out there. I think it's pretty fair to say that Q4 would still be bigger than Q3, given the -- just the current situation of our backlog, albeit when we put the press release out for that order for about $4.3 million, and we've had orders since then, by the way. We just haven't put out press releases on them. I'm not sure if I even said it originally. I think we got it at, like, 9 o'clock in the morning on the 1st. It's like it missed our quarter by less than 12 -- certainly less than 24 hours or something. That was pretty sad. So it would have been nice to sit there in backlog, but it's certainly in backlog from day one. So you do need a little bit of a running head start to make sure you can ship things. So we haven't announced any significant orders as we are expecting yet this quarter, but I wouldn't say it's fair that the second -- that Q4 would be, revenue-wise, larger than Q3. Bookings, I'm not sure, it might actually be spread out or even, but I think revenues there should be larger in the fourth quarter.

That sounds great. I appreciate. That's all from me. Thanks, Gayn.

Thanks, Tyler.

[Operator Instructions] We'll now hear from John Fichthorn with Dialectic Capital.

Thanks for taking my question. I appreciate it. So a little bit of a follow-on from the questions you just got asked in a slightly different way since he asked some of my questions. Hey, are the bullet customer one with a $4.3 million order and then the bullet customer two, are those different customers or same customer different...

You know what, I actually do -- all right. I'm actually getting some feedback, John, I'm not sure if that's you. Okay, it seems to be better now. Okay. We had not made that clear, although I think most people had interpreted and you probably got -- you're wrong and close. So I do want to make it clear here. The end customer is the same, okay? But the subcon is different, the application and the device is different. That's a good thing for us. And just because the end customer is the same, I can tell you, you don't just win one application and then you get another one. Internally, the groups can be different, the applications are different etc. So this feels like a new win to us, not certainly with the subcon, but even within the application in the group that it was won in. And one of the reasons in particular I'm excited about is because there is cross-pollinization going on in that customer to recognize and they found us in this application. They came looking for us and said, can you do this? So that's the answer, John.

Great, that sounds exciting. And so without having to give any timeline around it, what do you think the total revenue potential is in these two products, either one of them alone or two of them together, like over whatever period of time. I don't...

Well, I'll tell you what, the one I -- I'm going to ease my way out of this one a little bit, but one thing is just looking historically, sometimes it's good to just point to people that it's historically happened, so you can say it publicly out there. We have been having a couple of million dollars with the DiePaks in Q4, I think, each of the last three, four years or so, right? And normally, what we get is we get a set of DiePaks somewhere around fall and then that turns into production around May. I've, kind of, made it pretty specific back as we would have expected again this time, but then you got pushed into the summer, so that's one example. So that type of device has generally been maybe a few million dollars a year of just the consumables. This new application, I am going to just simply say there will be more and a test cell is $4.3 million or $4 million or so. So they come in pretty good-sized chunks. We have ranges of what it is and we also know that all of the deep data is not in. And our visibility of this is actually still relatively limited. Meaning, we can see the capacity needs maybe over the next six or nine months or so, but we will see as the device finally gets out in its deployment, in all the different devices, what the growth rate is. I'll tell you, I'll share one thing, and I can -- I think this is okay to say. I have been told by the customers, you could think of even this one in the past, this is how big it is and how great it's going to be, and then they have not bought that much. And this is a customer that has certainly done that before. This time, they told us less about how great it's going to be, but it's more obvious from their actions how big it's going to be. So I don't know if that's a good thing, but it seems like when they tell us how great it is, it isn't as big as it is. And maybe the fact that they haven't said as much this time, maybe that's a good sign or not, but we know it's going to -- it's a good-sized deal and building more revenue and bookings.

But I have to believe that they need to plan their business. And so they have to give you some level of visibility. I mean, what are your lead times today? And you would say had a scope of those lead times, like, I mean, either lead time shifts or can you help us with an idea as opposed to revenue guidance through year-end like where do you think your backlog is at year-end? Maybe that will help us understand what you think the scope is as we move forward.

I think what I will share with is, given that the majority of what we have done with our forecast is basically shifted in time. I think, it's fair to say that we believe -- and I think if things play out as we expect, we should have a pretty strong backlog going into next year. I know that's, kind of, the weak way of describing it, but I think it would be a fairly substantial backlog going into the year, which is very different than it was this year when we went into this year and certainly last quarter. So, I -- you actually asked a different question, and I want to answer that, and that is, well given your lead times and stuff, how much visibility does it give you, there is pros and cons of our having a manufacturing capacity and infrastructure and supply chain to be able to ship significantly more than any of the revenue numbers we talked about, and I mean 10 times at least. So the downside is that as the customers come in and particularly this customer and other large Tier 1 customers, they kind of do a deep dive and make sure you have the capabilities to serve them, okay? So they know darn well that if they give us a multisystem order that we can ship that in five to six months, okay? So they don't have to get us too much visibility. They're not forecasting 40 systems with us and think that we're going to ship those inside of six months. But even at $4 million test cells, keep in mind, that's only one system to us. And we have no challenge shipping multiple of those per month with reasonable lead times. And our typical lead times on the Street are in the 16 to maybe 24 weeks or so kind of configuration of the backlog and stuff. So they don't have to give us that much visibility.

Okay. And so -- that was great by the way, great weaseling out of answering the question. I applaud you. That was black belt CEO dodge. I'm very impressed. So the -- on the transceiver customer, that sounds kind of like a new thing. What is the size of that opportunity? Maybe you could answer that one.

Okay. So let me -- it's interesting. So first of all, it feels like all of these silicon photonics guys have, kind of, a similar pattern, and that is they start with one or two, what we call blades, which is, say, one or two wafers of capacity to begin with. We now can do that with our new FOX-NP systems. And then when they go to production, they buy XP systems of either nine or 18 blades or something more. And so I think a general rule is to think about it that way. In fact, each of our initial silicon carbide -- I'm sorry, silicon photonics customers have all seemingly started off that way. I think except their initial lead customer, because we didn't have the NP systems to begin with, but the first XPs they purchased, they were doing all the calls and everything else, two, three, four wafers at a time, even though we shipped them a nine or an 18-blade system. So what it feels like is, oh, you buy $0.75 million or $1 million full test cell or something, which is an NP system with a couple of wafers and then you transition and you're buying a $3 million or $4 million test cell as you move to production, and then you duplicate that over time. And the capacity of that just gets into what do you think is the market size. So there's -- if you look at silicon photonics, and John, I think you've have listened in on this before, not everybody understands, but you throw these numbers out with the silicon photonics. So silicon photonics is an industry description of integrated device used for electrical to fiber optic or optical transmission. So historically, fiber optic transceivers to and from, okay, are…

Great. So you almost answered it in the last sense, and I appreciated the warm up, bigger than your biggest is -- would be great. So I'll give it to somebody else. My last comment is, once again, I would like to reiterate that I think your Board should continue to see some turnover. I appreciated that there was some last year, but Board should be refreshed. You did miss for six months. And I think you guys should either add or -- or I'd like to see some board members buy some stock or management. Like we're all out here risking our capital. You're on this Board for 12 to 44 years, reach in your pocket, buy a share. It shows that you believe in the story also. It shouldn't all just be Christmas presents of gifts and pay to be a Board member and have your four nice dinners a year. Shareholders would like to see you risking some capital alongside of us. And that is a message from me directly to them. So thank you and good luck...

Thank you, John.

And...

Appreciate it.

Yes. Good luck in the back half.

Thank you.

Next, we'll hear from Tom Diffely with D.A. Davidson.

Yes. Hi, thanks. Just a couple of quick ones. First is when you look at the recent cost-cutting you've done, has that impacted your ability to do trials with new customers? Or has it limited your engagement with new customers at all?

I would say no. I mean, we -- in no way have we slowed down anything, but my pause is things have slowed down that gives us some bandwidth that has allowed us to do cost-cutting, if you will, is candidly the case. And Vernon or myself or anyone of my staff was working seven days a week anyhow, even though we all stepped up and said we're going to take direct cash pay cuts till we get to profitability, because it's the right thing to do. But I don't believe that is the case. I don't think we're actually cutting anything that slowed down sales. That is -- we are absolutely engaged in some R&D programs, some point where I can give more color on that, but the clear focus right now with everyone in the company, including every single day of the call, is the pending purchase orders and the ones that we have, ensuring that we can install them and ship them as quickly as we can get paid etc.

Okay, great. And then maybe just a quick question on the competitive front. I mean, the fact that things have stalled a little bit here for a few quarters, has that enabled the new competitors to catch up with you? Or have you seen any competitors try to do what you're doing in this situation?

So at this point, I would say we have not at all. We have not seen any new competitors there. We have not heard as anybody working on something that could be considered a multi-wafer system for doing the, kind of, things that we're doing. There's no conduction-based multi or singulated die or module systems like we do with our mobile customers. There just isn't -- when we're competing, it's like we're competing with a packaged part burn-in system. It's just interesting to see we also sell those, albeit arguably not much or none this year. There still is a -- there is some markets where packaged part is cheaper and people are willing to make those tradeoffs. It's very interesting that we have examples like in silicon carbide, there's either some automotive companies that are moving from packaged to wafer level, so we see both sides. So we do these cost of ownership models and convince ourselves why the wafer-level makes more sense. So what I'm trying to point out is when we're competing, we're competing like against packaged part. And that is arguably an alternative, but very differentiated in terms of its value proposition. Not only talking it more parallel, but we get the yield advantage by somebody doing it at wafer level before it goes into a packaged or a multichip module or something like that. And so that's the primary still alternative to us, no real competitors.

That's good to hear. So you know that you're not actually losing any business. It's just purely being delayed?

Yes. And Tom, let me make that very specific. We have not lost a deal, right? We have not actually said, oh, we lost here so and so and said, hey, what happened in the entire last year. I mean, nothing about this slowdown or pushout is a result of us losing a deal.

Okay, great. And then finally, just a clarification. Starting this quarter, very little backlog and you say going into next year with a fairly significant backlog or meaningful backlog. That means that new orders have to be quite a bit higher than the revenue. And the revenue in the second half year is projected to grow quite nicely. So I just want to make sure that I understood you correctly when you said you'd have a fairly significant backlog going into 2021?

That's the math, Tom. And again, that's correct. And the only caveat I just said is based upon what we understand and rolling up I believe that to be the case. Sorry.

Alright. Thanks for your time.

I mean, we have specific customer forecast for the summer. And they need to give us the order before then, so -- and the summer, I bring that up because our fiscal year starts June 1st. So we need them in the summer in the next fiscal year. So that's all, yes.

All right. Thanks, Gayn.

Thanks, Tom.

We'll take our last question from Larry Chlebina with Chlebina Capital.

Hi, Gayn. I got two quick questions on timing. Your mobile center new customer, when you talk about more systems, you currently talk about this fiscal year, is that plural? In other words, in Q4, is there one more system that you're sure of? Or is there more than one? Just to clarify that.

Yes. Let me make sure I understand. Okay, one of the -- Larry is able to understand our business really well [ph]. One of the challenges is that our -- in the test business, the typical automated test equipment and the test suppliers like Advantest, Teradyne, Cohu, for example, Verigy that I came from before here, the testers in the wafer level test one wafer at a time; so one tester equals one wafer. Our solutions, we make single wafer solutions with the CP, dual wafer solutions with the NP and up to 18 wafers in an XP. So when we talk about systems and systems capacity, sort of how do I interpret it? So the advanced question Larry is asking is how many XPs are we going to get versus just how many, what we call, blades or testers within it. All we have stated, Larry, is, and tried to clarify, is that there is absolutely no blade or systems or testers with the capacity and no DiePaks and no loader, unloaders. We're not getting clarity yet as to do we think there'll be multiple XPs in this fiscal year or not. I haven't gone there yet, right?

So you're saying you're going to have loaders, but if you already got a loader on the system you're shipping this quarter. If you have a loader, you obviously have another XP that you use that loader on...

That's at least fair. I'll tell you what, I'll go this far. They need at least another XP DiePak and loader.

Okay. So at least there is one more system in Q4, but when I say yes, it implies to mean -- it implies to me that there's more than one, but there is at least one. Is that correct?

Yes.

Okay. And then on your new NP silicon photonics customer that's going to buy the XP, is that expected in Q3 or Q4 that will be? You said this year?

Yes, I'm expecting the order before I ship it and I don't have the order yet. How is that?

What would be the cutoff on that system if you got the order...

Yes. I mean -- I'll tell you what, we do have the ability to ship things on relatively short lead times, but generally speaking, inside of like eight weeks or 12 weeks, you're pushing it. So that goes to one of the original questions, I think, from Tyler, which is do you think Q3 and Q4 will be the same? No, I don't. I think Q4 will be larger. And so we do have revenue in Q3, which ends at the end of February that we have not booked yet. And we definitely have revenue in Q4 we have not booked yet.

Because you haven't identified...

So Q3 is not over yet, but not everything that we book in Q3 will ship in Q3 for certain.

Right. The CP customer for data center, is that still on track for at least getting off the ground before this fiscal year? On the data center customer with CP?

We have -- okay, I mean, we haven't really gotten -- part of this gets into how much forecast. So for folks that are listening for sort of clarity. So we won a new customer about a year and a half ago for a data center-related application that we continue to state is for this extremely high-volume application, right? We do continue to forecast that they will buy multiple systems for production and have every reason to believe that. They are absolutely using the tool today for early production ramp etc. We're trying to figure out when the ramp is. We know for certain the ramp is delayed because of coronavirus, okay -- 100%, okay. So -- and we have not seen the end of it yet. So I don't know exactly when that is. So right now, I actually don't have that in our fiscal year any longer, because I have not specifically been told by them that they're going to take it by May. That's why I pulled it up. It doesn't mean it couldn't still happen and we have the ability to ship, but there is just -- I don't have the visibility with them as I do with some of the other customers.

On that application in that system, that smaller system, you could -- if you got an order in a reasonable period of time, you could ship it quicker, and say an XP, in four weeks?

Similar, I actually have some CP capacity test cells around. If you, kind of, understand for those that have come and visited, I don't -- pictures of our products help a lot. So the product family on the FOX-P is -- has three different chambers, we call it. There is a single wafer, dual wafer and multi wafer. And then in those chambers go blades. The blades are interchangeable between all the customers. And then in those blades are channel modules specific to applications, but there is only three flavors and everybody is made up of the same three. So we just mix and match and configure the order. So if someone needed a couple of CP systems, I could ship them almost immediately.

Okay. So, it's good to know. So, lastly -- and I'll be quick because we're running late. I'm going to shift a little bit to this mounted memory potential that's out there, I don't know, four years ago when you were developing the XP. There were two fabs that got initiated and they were looking for somebody, the burn-in system at the end of the line. I think they won it with Tokyo Electron. You certainly are ready or the XP wasn't even be bothered alone effected. And the only thing I hear about that application was a disaster. I think they had loader [ph] system that worked around your IP, but it didn't work too well anyway. Can we get the sense that there is probably another one or two fabs that need to get off the mark shortly? Is -- especially with all the opportunities, you've got a full plate and the resources are limited. Does it really make sense to joint venture? I mean, you need all -- you have a proven machine, though. It's proven, the XP, it's the key technology for that application, but you need automation, which is -- you don't have. Would it make sense to joint venture with somebody like a Brooks Automation, like they got a $5 billion market cap. It would derisk an entire project, so you could get it off the mark. Certainly, you could push XPs through your facility. You now have a good ops manager to help you do that. And so in order to secure that opportunity, it would be a monstrous -- I think it would dramatically reduce the risk for the customer, if you present yourself in that manner. And ultimately, if you could land something like that, you could deliver the rest of your life on the consumables because there will be something like 1,000 DiePaks or so on that. If you could add a little bit [ph]?

WaferPaks, the memory -- so we teed up a ton of software, Larry. You've clearly done your homework, okay? I just want to acknowledge several data points and maybe try and answer the one question that was embedded in there. So I want to acknowledge, we do believe that some, but not even close to the majority of the memory companies had implemented wafer level burn-in, and only in flash memory today not doing that. We believe that long-term that it makes sense for all flash memory and potentially DRAM to go to wafer level burn-in. And there is some specific reasons that have taken some time, DRAM longer than flash, and we have a pretty good idea why, okay. The people that implemented wafer level burn-in first with flash did it in a -- what we believe is a compromised way and we've gotten specific feedback that they would like -- that they're going to need more cost-effective, higher parallelism, lower footprint, more automation in the future. And we do believe that long-term that is an opportunity. And as long as I'm in the seat, we at -- Aehr will always be trying to get into that space. We have shared vaguely with people, and I would vaguely repeat it again. Part of the investment in us as a company is actually that horse in the water related to automation and production cells, extending the XP and its capability. So it is more applicable and more effective for massively high-volume applications such as memory, right? And we are spending that money today. So in this downturn, in addition to the investments we're making in WaferPaks, DiePaks, high voltage, packaged part and wafer level burn-in systems, we're also engaged on automation and some other things that we think are particularly…

Yes. Particularly, if you could just get your key technology, your XP system out the door was -- would be a tremendous boon to you, but also, the consumable business would be, like I said, it would be literally set for life. So anyway...

I believe that one of the critical weaknesses of the way people have deployed and one of the headwinds of why people have not been able to do wafer level burn-in across a lighter segment of flash, as well as DRAM is the contractor where it has proprietary technology with what we call our WaferPak that can address it. So I think that's one of the differentiated things. I actually think the tester is as well and the test around the automation, but for certain, the probe cards that are out there cannot address the DRAM, the high-density, high-power flash memory coming up. And it's something the WaferPaks can.

Yes. This seems like why you take on the automation, that's really not the key technology. Just what you said is the key technology and by partnering with somebody, it would dramatically reduce the risk to the customer and we need to get down the road. Just my thought. But hopefully, you guys are seriously considering something like that.

I appreciate the feedback. And stay tuned, Larry.

Yes. Thank you.

Okay.

That will conclude today's question-and-answer session. I would now like to turn the call over to management for any additional or closing remarks.

Okay. Well, thank you very much, operator. And thank you, everybody. We appreciate you listening in and taking some really great questions and giving us some great questions. I absolutely want to acknowledge we understand that the first half was certainly one of the less exciting times of Aehr's history, even in recent memory, but I truly sit here at this edge and I'm so glad that 2020 is behind because it wasn't just last six months, it was really all of 2020, but we were feeling it. And starting up with this initial order and based on what the customers are telling us, it's not just COVID and all the other things going on in the world. We're actually more excited about 2021. So I'll leave it there, and appreciate it. And as always, you know how to reach us. Do talk to us if you want to have follow-up conversations etcetera. And thank you very much, and we'll talk to you next quarter. Bye, bye.

That will conclude today's conference. Thank you for your participation. You may now disconnect.