Good day, and welcome to the Aehr Test Systems Fiscal 2022 Fourth Quarter and Full Year Financial Results Conference Call. All participants will be in a listen-only mode. [Operator Instructions]. Please note this event is being recorded. I would now like to turn the conference over to Jim Byers of MKR Investor Relations. Please go ahead.

Thank you, operator. Good afternoon, and welcome to Aehr Test Systems' fiscal 2022 fourth quarter and full year 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 you Ken and Gayn, I'd like to cover a few quick items. This afternoon right after market closed Aehr Test issued a press release announcing its fiscal 2022 fourth quarter and full year 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 on the investor relations page of the company's website. And 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 and 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 results to differ from 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 Chief Executive Officer.

Thanks, Jim. Good afternoon everyone and welcome to our fiscal 2022 fourth quarter and full year’s earnings conference call. Thank you for joining us today. Let’s start with a quick summary of the highlights of the quarter and fiscal year and the momentum we're experiencing in the semiconductor wafer level test and burn-in markets. And then Ken will go over the financials in detail. After that, we'll open up the lines to take your questions. We're pleased to report very strong growth for fiscal 2022 with record revenue for both the fourth quarter and full year. Total revenue for fiscal 2022 was $50.8 million, our highest annual revenue on record and more than three times last year's revenue. We also had record bookings for the year at $60.2 million. Importantly, we're seeing the significant leverage in our operating model, as evidenced by the strong profit for the fiscal year. We also improved our balance sheet significantly with our year ending cash position of $31.5 million and no debt. Let me go ahead and start and talk about the wafer level test and burn-in markets silicon carbide for electric vehicles that's where a lot of the excitement is going on. Our strong revenue growth in fiscal 2022 was driven by the demand for our wafer level test and burn-in solutions, particularly for wafer level stress and stabilization of silicon carbide devices for use directly in electric vehicle market. The silicon carbide market for electric vehicles and its supporting infrastructure requirements are growing at a tremendous rate with Canaccord Genuity estimating that wafer capacity will increase from 150,000, 6-inch wafers in 2020 to 2021 to over 4 million 6 inch equivalent wafers in 2030 just to meet the electric vehicle market alone. This represents growth of over 25 times the wafer starts…

Thank you, Gayn and good afternoon everyone. As Gayn noted, we're pleased to report record revenue for both the fourth quarter and full fiscal year. Our fiscal 2022 revenues of 50.8 million were more than 3x last year's annual revenue. In addition to record revenue, we finished the year with record bookings and strong growth in our profit margin. We also finished the year with a solid balance sheet with cash of over 31 million and working capital of 49 million. Looking at our financial results in more detail. Fourth quarter net sales were 20.3 million, up 33% sequentially from 15.3 million in the preceding third quarter and up 166% from 7.6 million in the fourth quarter of the previous year. These record Q4 revenues reflect our capacity to increase revenues. We actually shipped over 10 million for revenue in the single month of May, which really shows our ability to scale and meet customer demand even in the near term. WaferPAK and DiePAK revenues comprised 45% or 9.2 million of our total revenue in the fourth quarter. This is our second consecutive quarter of record WaferPAK, DiePAK shipments reflecting the growth and the consumables piece of our business. Non-GAAP net income for the fourth quarter was 6.5 million, or $0.23 per diluted share, which excludes the impact of stock-based compensation. This compares to non-GAAP net income of 4.1 million or $0.14 per diluted share in the preceding third quarter, which excludes the impact of stock-based compensation, and a $1 million, one time charge for excess and obsolete inventory and non-GAAP net income of 930,000, or $0.04 per diluted share in the fourth quarter of fiscal 2021, which excludes the impact of stock-based compensation. On a GAAP basis, net income for the fourth quarter was 5.8 million, or $0.20 per…

Thank you. We will now begin the question-and-answer session. [Operator Instructions]. And our first question will come from Christian Schwab with Craig-Hallum Capital Group. Please go ahead.

Hey, guys, congratulations on a strong start to the -- strong ending to the fiscal year and outlook for next. Gayn, when you guys are talking about, several more customer orders. Can you help us understand, is this going -- should we be assuming that this is going to come from kind of the major European and American silicon carbide manufacturers like STM or Wolfspeed, [indiscernible] et cetera? Or is there an opportunity to get into some of the newer Chinese manufacturers that are ramping as well?

So even in our prepared remarks, we have talked about I think -- it started in a few quarters ago, we talked about a benchmark with one of the other major suppliers of silicon carbide today that I think given February, so we're saying it was taking longer than we had originally expected. That benchmark, we had a really key milestone that was achieved last quarter that bodes really well. We think that we can complete the correlation results, et cetera over the coming months, and we are expecting to get orders from them. We also teed up last quarter that we had indications from another [leak test] [ph] another of the large customers that wanted to do a on wafer benchmark. We were actually able to complete that. We brought up the WaferPAK the whole thing and we presented them with the correlation and test results recently that it was excellent results. And we were pleased with how that's going and think that we can advance that along further. And those were, two of the large silicon carbide players today, new players that are not current customers and I believe that we will be part of their production plans. And that's sort of how I'm describing it. We believe that they will be going forward with us. There are others. In fact there's a -- reviewing the funnel with Vernon and the team. There is a significant number of players that are talking about getting into silicon carbide. Many of them have been in now announced that include large and small and candidly, many actually see large players that have not announced their plans that have approached us and have been talking to us about their very real plans for entering the silicon carbide market. Now folks like Canaccord Genuity have actually been ringing the bell for the last really six months pointing out that the current announced plans by all the major silicon carbide suppliers only supplies about half of just the electric vehicle needs by the end of the decade. So it's welcome to have all these new players coming in, because all of the players today don't have a chance of meeting all the demand as they basically go from 1x to 25x, the output by the end of the decade. So we're leaving it kind of open, not trying to be too vague here. But there's -- we're going to have a pretty significant number of silicon carbide customers, and we're just trying to make sure people understand that that will include at least several this year that will not only buy from us, but will already start taking production orders for their ramps.

Great. And then, Gayn, when we talk about wafer starts in silicon carbide for the electrification of the automotive industry. Have you guys know, yields are substantially different potentially, by different customers. But for every -- can you give us an idea, or if you've been able to finalize yet or not have enough data for every 25, or 50,000 wafer starts, if there was a customer using you, how much capital equipment they would need to buy. And the reason why I say that is, the wafer start numbers between Canaccord and others out there in the industry such as [indiscernible] and such as the lead provider, on the capital equipment side for I&M plan to really doesn't face much competition, those -- the trajectory of growth is very similar. The exact wafer starts aren't all that close. So I'm curious, your thoughts on that?

Yes. Okay. So I'm going to try and answer it with a couple of different ways. So first of all, like, we get a front row seat of people's yield, and we sure as heck don't want to talk about it publicly. So when you look at the Canaccord’s of the world, et cetera, they're taking their assumptions of yield into account? I think most people understand and it's widely known that, the yield, the native yield of silicon carbide devices is not extremely high. Let's call it that. But it's also not, it's not crazy low either. So, I'm just not going to answer that. But specifically, if you look at gross die per wafer, which is prior to yielding, that data is out there. There's a lot of data points out there, because people like Wolfspeed and other sell that singulated die, so you can -- they actually describe the size of the die. And the numbers that we can see out there is for an inverter, for a electric vehicle, they tend to be about maybe 350 to 400 in some devices, gross die per wafer at 150 millimeter today. And then when you go to 200 millimeter that's going to start kicking in towards the end of the decade in particular, I mean, I don't think the midpoints 50%, till late in the decade, split between 200 millimeter, 150. 200 millimeter as about 75% more die per wafer. We've been using the number approximately, and this has averaged over this whole period, like maybe 500 die per wafer is all you're going to get off of these wafers for call it six-inch equivalent wafers. And that's rounding up, I mean, and then we know that there's about 48 die, or there are 48 die per inverter,…

Okay, great. And then into my last question, again, kind of on the wafer start side. Others are projecting, that silicon wafers for the automobile industry will have to at least triple, over a three-year timeframe to potentially hit the penetration rates that are expected. So, as we look at your leading customer, and let's assume, that they grow with the industry and their market share remains, whatever it is today. I guess there's no reason to believe that they couldn't be at least three times larger than they've been, over the last 12, 14 months of orders. Is that the right way to be thinking about that?

Yes. I mean, it's always awkward. So we announced on semiconductor as a 10% customer last year. On semiconductor was a distant sixth or seventh place player in a three-man race two, three years ago. I mean, they did a couple few million dollars, where it's very clear that they are taking a significant amount of share. And they're boldly out making comments about the first company to reach a billion dollars in silicon carbide. This again, from a company that a couple years ago didn't do 10 million. They also just announced a billion dollar -- a commitment to a billion dollars it was in Korean won, but into their Korean facility for silicon carbide. And so, they're making some significant investments and it's going to take them and a whole lot of other people to supply the demand. I listened to ST and they were talking about the capacity they're increasing in Singapore over the next year, and then a new fab coming online in Sicily, Italy in 2024. And they were saying they don't believe that they're going to be able to sustain their market share, even without adding an entirely new fab. So there's going to take a lot of new players, and there's -- we kind of look at it as a land grab, there's a lot of folks getting into here. We're trying to run as fast as we can. We're adding resources in sales and marketing and other things to try and get, make sure we get our message out there. We're adding applications engineers and doing some things structurally to be able to address more customers. Because there's going to be a lot of new and big players out there from our perspective. So pretty exciting time.

Yes, sounds very exciting. Congrats again on a great year. No other questions. Thank you.

Thanks, Christian.

Our next question will come from Larry Chlebina with Chlebina Capital Management. Please go ahead.

I got a quick question. Your anticipated additional sales, I think you said and automating the XPs going forward. Is that last August, you had a sale to your lead silicon carbide customer or an automated aligner? And is that going to revenue anytime soon or did you already shipped it?

Yes. It is going to revenue anytime soon. So you're actually been bouncing around a different question, I'm just going to share it here. That order, we talked to the customer about it. And we have converted that order into our next generation automated aligner. That new liner is available in both what we call a standalone or an integrated form. Sometimes people want to do as we do today with our volume customers, which is they share an aligner across multiple systems. There's other customers that want to take the aligner and bolt it right onto the front of it and remove the people that are actually moving the WaferPAKs around similar by the way to how all packaged part burn-in is done today is with people moving around these bps. In our case, they're called WaferPAKs. So in fact, the order that we announced today is the second order for that system, those aligners will be shipping over I mean, the second one will actually ship before the end of February as well. The automated version of it is just more integrated, it has some additional R&D that we're going to be working on over the next three to six months. And we are now have quotations out and we'll be accepting orders for it in the automated form for delivery sometime towards the end of our fiscal year.

So the one you put in the press release today from -- for the 12.8 million. That's actually the second automated aligner.

Yes. That’s correct.

And that was the first one you expect revenue. When did you say again? Did you mention it?

I actually haven't given a commitment on that. But prior to the second one, which will revenue in February, how's that?

Right. I hope so. So since this is your lead silicon carbide customer, do they have intentions of automating all of the XPs that they're eventually either have or going to receive? Is that kind of what your expectations are?

Not at this time. No. They like other customers are totally convinced they want to be offline because of their extended burn-in times in the way they used the tools. And so we offer the ability -- we kind of say yes to every customer. So this gives us an opportunity. There are customers that absolutely feel strongly one way or the other and we want to be able to meet their needs.

So some of the potential new silicon carbide customers may be fully automated is that…?

I believe that is true. That's correct. Yes.

Okay, then initially this application or a fully automated XP by the way, what are you calling a thing? Do you have a name for it yet?

We haven't named that system yet. We'll get a name out later this year.

Okay. So the initial application I thought was for memory, specifically flash memory for a stack die applications in order to get rid of the infant mortality risk on one of those stack dies. Is that you expect to get kick that off anytime soon now that you're on the verge of launching this new product yet to be named new fully automated XP?

It's always been a little bit hidden down in the comment sections, but we've teased people at every quarter along the way. We had actually done some design reviews with a couple of key memory suppliers on this aligner right before COVID. And all those guys went very, very quiet during COVID. We've had conversations that have been, quite frankly, a little bit in the background, their comments to us were at this point, they're ramping what they have. Nobody is doing evaluations, which I think has been the experience across the whole semiconductor test business. Nobody was really buying new things. They were buying what they had before. So we've had some recent conversations that lead me to believe that there's the opportunity to renew those discussions is upon us.

With the slowdown in memory slightly that they will be more open to kick some off like this. But the question is, is it your intention? Or do you think the best way to look at this would be an existing fab that would be adding this capability because it would look so confident.

No. Definitely not. My experience is usually the best time to cut in is at discontinuity, such as a new fab for going in.

Even though there are cost benefit might be so great that, can pay for itself, so in six months, or…

That has been my experience, in particular, as they add these new fabs and they will put a floor space in plan consistent with whatever it is that they plan to put the tooling in on. That would be my experience.

Lastly, along those lines, with that new capability, would it make sense to joint venture with maybe an ATE testing company to incorporate, since it's a fairly long burn-in, where maybe they could do the ATE test on a wafer? While you're burn-in in 18 wafers, they could do maybe one at a time, but get 18 done during the entire burn-in cycle, is that something that you guys might be considering because that seems to be, seems to make a lot of sense.

We are getting a lot in the futures here. But let me just make a plug. There's not an ATE product out there that has the level of density and power management that could fit into our XP, that's one of the key differentiations that we have is that we're able to put a 2048 channel ATE system into a basically a 3.4-inch pitch and put 18 of them in the same footprint as a regular ATE system with not dissimilar pin count testing one wafer. So I would not -- if I could, I couldn't pick one ATE supplier out there that I wish they could build a tester and stick into my system. I think we're actually more differentiated. The FOX-XP system and its base hardware was in fact defined around capabilities that are much more complex certainly than, a MOSFET, for example, it has full digital capabilities, pattern generation, et cetera. And it is capable of testing these flash memories. So I actually am pretty proud of the system, we spent a lot -- we haven’t talked a lot a lot lately. Now there are other ways to potentially partner with some of the supplier or some of the customers who themselves have done some of their own work with test and that could be something to think about. But most days I wake up and I focus most of my energy on what's going on exciting in the silicon carbide space. The memory business in time is everybody who has heard me talk knows.

All right. That's all I had. Thanks. Again, great quarter and keep up the good work. Good year, look for a better year.

Thanks, Larry.

Our next question will come from Dylan Patel with SemiAnalysis. Please go ahead.

Hey, thanks for taking my question. I want to ask about this test intensity sort of question so many other tests firms sort of speak about the relationship of lower yields meaning higher test intensity and right now silicon carbide yields aren't pretty even at the best firms but they're expected to go up. My understanding of your solution is that it's unique in that, because it's burn-in. You basically test the same regardless of how low or high yields are, is that accurate? Or do -- I get that low yields necessitate, please people would want to buy your product, but can you expand on the durability of demand even if yields reach multiple nines eventually?

Yes. Okay. So there is certainly correlation between low yielding devices and devices that are more apt to need reliability and burn-in. But at the same time, the failure mechanisms are not the same. The primary mechanisms that cause the yield and the devices are not the ones that are necessarily induced by the burn-in. The burn-in sometimes require additional energy through heat and voltage and power to actually create the tunneling effect on the gate that causes this failure, you can't actually test for it, you have to actually do a stress test to find it. So there are devices with low yield, that don't use burn-in the application doesn't need it. There are devices with very high yield that need 100% burn-in. DRAM would be an example of it. DRAM has extremely high yield, but it still has 100% burn-in to catch about a 1% defect and has now for 40 years. So that's a scenario where, there's way more money in it to get rid of burn-in in DRAM than even silicon carbide. And no one's figured out how to do it. The information that I'm hearing from the silicon carbide folks is that they don't believe that there's any chance that burn-in is going to go away basically, in the horizon of a decade or more. One thing is going to happen is there will be ways to try and optimize test time by increasing temperatures and doing things to try and optimize. But you're always writing the line that if you stress the device a little too much, you can actually damage it. And so there's a balance. One of the analogies I've used is a microwave versus an oven. You can actually cook a turkey in a microwave but it doesn't come out that…

Great. And then I wanted to switch gears to WaferPAKs related to Silicon Photonics. Specifically, where is the burn-in specifically happening on the silicon photonics? Is it happening on the indium phosphide wafer where lasers are fabricated? Or is it happening once you bond them onto the silicon photonics wafer?

Well, we have examples where customers want to burn it in on a wafer, call it a substrate that would then be bonded on. But the examples of our current customers are all in a scenario where well, on the wafer level customers where they're bonded on and then they're burnt in after they're bonded on. So and customers like Scorpios, which we've announced they actually fabricated on. It's printed on if you will as a process known, so it's not really a bonding if you will, and they do the burn-in on the wafer level for scale before that die is singulated and then placed into the system.

Okay. Thank you that was helpful for trying to understand, when there's new generations of lasers, or if it's when there's a new set transceiver and it's the latter. And just one last little question is, in the past, we've talked about difficulties visiting your major prospective clients, especially in Asia, like China, South Korea, and I've luckily been able to start visiting some of my clients and have you been able to and you think that's going to help move the needle on some of these future customer orders or evaluations?

It is. I mean, Europe has been pretty free and getting better. You aren’t getting get back to the U.S. without passing a COVID test as of like last week, but we've been able to freely move there with some restrictions. We've had people that are moving to and from the U.S. and Asia. And we've got some -- recent Asia customer that's been making visits here. So I think it's opening up, China's still pretty iffy. But as that opens up, we think that will be better. Yes.

Great. That concludes my question. I look forward the next year.

Awesome.

[Operator Instructions] Our next question will come from Bradford Ferguson with Halter Ferguson Financial. Please go ahead.

Hi, my clients are now 1% holder of your company now so shareholders. I was curious, what's keeping the likes of these the serious silicon carbide makers from creating their own wafer level burn-in and curious what's protected? Is it the 18 wafers at a time? Is it the aligner? Or the loader? What's protected from that?

There's actually a lot of protection, is it Brad, I guess it's nice meeting you. So while our systems have a significant number of patents and IP that make a very significant hurdle to get into, if you understand our space, an expert in the test space, they will tell you that being able to test a wafer is not novel, every semiconductor wafer in the world has been tested. And they are all tested in a similar way with what's called a wafer prober, a probe card, and a tester that sits on the wafer prober. I built them for years. When I built a tester, I had to build a tester that would always sit on the generic platform of the three major prober suppliers and each other five or six probers. So there's like maybe 20 probers maximum or something, maybe it's less than that, that the tester was generic to. The probe cards all had to be worked with. If you want to build a tester you had to build it with that would work across, half a dozen to a dozen pro card suppliers. And all the folks like form factors and techno probe et cetera have standard design packages for a specific tester. And the product teams in the tester groups work with them to ensure that the probe cards are there when the testers come out. Similarly, the docking to the prober, these sort of three pieces create sort of commoditized and stable market, because you could buy any one of the three probers any one of the 20 probe cards, any one of the five or six testers out there. And that's how the world has operated. With us that problem was a you couldn't break through a cost barrier. If you…

Okay. That's great. I'm guessing that the FOX system can handle 200 nanometer today.

200-millimeter wafer size, is what you meant. Yes, we can. We actually do four inch, six inch, eight inch and 12-inch wafers today, with our WaferPAKs, they're all in volume production and all of our FOX WaferPAK aligners can handle all of the above.

So 12 inches effectively 300 millimeters, is that right?

That's correct. Yep. Yep.

Okay. So several of the serious players are creating new fabs that are dedicated to silicon carbide and gallium. And they're intending to grow at four. Yes, they're intending to grow at 40% a year with their silicon carbide business. Meanwhile, we look at EVs growing at 100% a year. So it seems like maybe they're being a little conservative. And you all are guiding to a high end of 40% annual revenue growth? What makes you all a little on the conservative side? Is it, I’m wondering whether Photonics is going to come through finally this year? Or is it just a nervousness about when orders come?

I think it's just a timing of orders and when not if. We've alluded to our order growth is going to be higher. We've never guided orders, we talked about as a board whether we should do that. So we've at least said for the first time they're going to be higher. The question is, when is the timing happening? I mean, we've talked about this in previous calls, there were some of those big silicon carbide companies that one year ago, we're talking about opening up a fab by the end of the calendar year, like, last December. And people were beating me up, and I felt bad that, how come you haven't sold them away for a little burn-in system. And the reality is, is I was questioning that ourselves, trying to understand what were we missing. Till the dust settles and we realized that they're not even sampling out of that fab yet. And that break production isn't going to be really until next year. So I think that the timing of these new fabs and their output is the piece we're watching. But there's no doubt that some of that time is behind us. And the pending orders coming from the automobile companies are driving big dollars, to put this capacity in place, or during 23, definitely, to meet the 25 ramp. And so that's where the hesitation comes from. And we're doing a ton of things in the background to our supply chain to ramp it up. To be able to do things faster to do. We were doing more outsourcing with our contract manufacturers, so that we can assemble and test a system in a much shorter period of time. And I was I mean that data point, folks, we shipped a system. And on the eighth day, basically or the ninth day, they tested 18 wafers. Okay. It's like shipping 18 testers and having them all released eight days later, that is crazy. And that's awesome that both talks to how much demand there is and how they're pulling. But Vernon and his team and my support guys are just awesome that they could do that. And as we do that, that allows us to ramp faster and faster for people. So I'm trying to be cautious and appropriate with setting Street's expectations but I don't think I've ever been more optimistic than we are right now.

And one more question. Revenues versus last quarter grew 5 million. But your COGS only grew a million. So even if you adjust for that inventory write down that happened, it seemed like your COGS only grew by 2 million. So to me that says you have a potentially a 60% gross margin as you scale bigger and bigger as you…?

You are within a point. You are right. You're dead on. Yes, are what we call our direct margin, which is basically our total costs, including warranty, et cetera, are about $0.40 on the dollar. And our margins are actually improving from last year to this year in direct margins. As we go to 200 millimeter WaferPAKs, our margins are actually improving. But the customers are delighted because they get more lower costs associated with it. Our new systems are actually we're expecting to see improve margins related to some of the new features that we think provide additional value to customers. Yes, a lot of things are going right for us.

All right, thank you very much.

Thank you, Brad.

Our next question will come from [Wally Waldman] [ph] with Constitution Research. Please go ahead.

Hi, Gayn, how are you? Well, a couple of just fill in the blanks. Can you hear me? Okay.

Yes, perfect.

Okay. Did you maybe I missed it? Do you say what percentage your revenues your lead customer? Was either for the year or for the quarter?

Yes, it was a significant number at over 80% -- 82% is what Ken telling me across the board right now.

Okay. And I'm also curious when you talked about going forward your R&D spending more, you spent, you focused on the silicon carbide mark. And now you're focused on let me call it the legacy markets. But I'm curious if that spend is going just to upgrade in the hands existing tools? Or you're trying to develop new tools for new markets?

Yes, it's -- there's a little of both. There's some things that we're doing to add some voltages and all that some customers have specifically asked us, they would allow us to win that customer, but they're in the same market. But because remember, everyone does do everything exactly the same. There's also things that we really would consider new markets and opportunities. And I think, particularly the automated aligner, there's going to be certain classes of markets that really makes a lot of sense. So it's a mix. But there's a lot of things that we're doing just to make sure we shore up to capture sort of the markets that we're in, capture a larger if not dominant market share of that, and address all customers. But we're also doing things that we think are at a play forward, like for example, the applicability to memory that Larry was talking about.

Okay. And then you've talked over the last couple quarters about potential new customers. I'm curious, so that $50 million annual revenue, fiscal year revenue, how much of that came from existing customers? And how much came from new customers? Or however you want to fray answer that question?

Yes, it was pretty, I mean, we consider our lead silicon carbide customer, an existing customer. So we just talked about 82%. I think when we started the year, we were expecting, and I think I would have shared that we were going to get one or two, probably single system orders or something by the end of the fiscal year and they didn't come in from the new customers. We're excited about where we're at right now heading into the year. But it's sort of surprising to me that some of that stuff didn't happen as fast as it did. We did not lose those customers, they did not change their mind. They have -- they're more engaged with us than they were a year ago in this case. But it's been bizarre, and it's sort of taking some time. This year is -- this is revenue, I won't give specific numbers, but we believe a good chunk of that is going to be new customers. And has a potential -- some of the growth is from those new customers too. But candidly, our current customers could easily surprise us, just based on the tone they're talking about and kind of re-engaging. And so we're trying to make sure we have plenty of material and the supply chain to be able to address that mix, if you will, during the first half of calendar year next year in particular, where there's more uncertainty.

I don't know if you are willing to answer this enough, but the last couple quarters you've talked about being a to handle volumes above what your existing forecasts, I'm just curious what your sales capacity would be? Or what it is, could you -- if the [indiscernible] you ship $100 million, or 80 million? What's that look like?

Well, I'll tell you what I give you this one. Ken mentioned it the other day. So we just by the math, we did 20 point, whatever million in Q4, over half of that was in May. Okay, so, we're doing 120 million on runway.

So I can write down 120 in my model.

We have proven to ourselves that we have the ability to do that right now. And I don't believe that's enough, as we go forward over the next several years.

Last quick question. Pricing, were you just passing through your cost increases? Or were you able to get out in front of that.

You know, what we've been able to manage our vendors fairly well and penalize them drastically, when they try and raise their prices with us. I just disdain that. But there have been certain things like shipping, oh, my gosh, last Christmas, we normally would ship chambers, we have two chambers, suppliers, we ship them. They're built-in low-cost regions that to our specifications. And normally, our chambers would cost us like $2,000, if we put them on a boat each to ship them to us. We wrote a check for $96,000 for a pair of them to get them here right after Christmas. Because they couldn't get on a boat, LA was locked up, if you want to see it on a plane $48,000 a piece, it's crazy. We wrote the money. I did not pass that on to the customer. I had tear in my eye and explain it to him. And those costs are coming back down again. It's our hope to try and manage this. We are seeing some raises of some prices in certain areas. But we've been able to manage it fairly well.

Okay. Thank you. That's enough.

Our next question is a follow up from Christian Schwab with Craig-Hallum Capital Group. Please go ahead.

Hey, just a quick follow up, Gayn, is there any reason, other than, I guess, lack of success, by new customers designing new end-to-end customer shipments. But we've already discussed at great length, the rapid growth that's going on, that these other customers couldn't ramp, in a one year plus or minus timeframe from when they start giving you orders to a similar level is on? Is it fair to assume something similar to that?

Yes. I mean, yes, and no. I happen to have a pretty good idea of what those guys are. So it depends on the timeline. So if you said, within a year, can they be as big as on for the first time they take a system? I would say, yes. Could they be sooner, even sooner than what, sorry, our original customer? Probably, our first customer bought a system and then didn't take another one for, about a year-and-a-half. That's not going to play out with the new guys, I don't think. I think they're going to go much faster. And do they have the ability to do $20 million, $30 a piece? Absolutely. Any year.

Great. No other questions. Thanks, Gayn.

No problem.

I show no further questions. I would like to turn the conference back over to management for any closing remarks.

I appreciate it. And thank you, folks. We've had some feedback that our conferences do run aways, but I wanted to make sure last time we ended up cutting off before everybody got their questions in. So I'm glad that people had a chance. So with that, I appreciate everyone's time. We're really excited about this fiscal year. We look forward to seeing you at one of the investor conferences or on our next call. Take care now. Bye-bye.

The conference has now concluded. Thank you for attending today's presentation. You may now disconnect.