Navitas Semiconductor Corporation (NVTS) Earnings Call Transcript & Summary

Great. Welcome back, everybody. I'm Joe Moore, Morgan Stanley Semiconductor Research. Very happy to have with us today, Chris Allexandre, CEO of Navitas. Thank you for joining us.

Thank you, Joe.

So first time we've done this as a fireside, you've been CEO for about 6 months. What have you learned? What are your priorities? How do you think about sort of Navitas 2.0?

So yes, as Joe said, I've been now CEO for the company for the last 6 months. The first thing I've learned is, and I think we all see it, is the size of the opportunity, okay? So the high-power market, AI data center, grid infrastructure and other markets are moving to a much higher level of power and density and efficiency, which we have never seen before. So it was very clear for me that we had to pivot the company to mobile. And that came and drove some of the pivot we've done, which mobile was historically where the focus and the revenue of the company was, and I wanted to prove it that even quicker. The other thing I've learned, which did -- was not clear to me before I joined is the importance of the grid, okay? You heard me talking about the grid. Everybody talks about AI data center, which is very important, right? But without a change of the grid infrastructure, you cannot enable the size and the magnitude of the AI data center rollout that we're going to see in the future. And the last thing I've learned is the importance of where we're coming from. We talk about Navitas 2.0. I'm going to give you a bit of a sense of the priorities we have. But 2.0 doesn't mean 1.0 didn't matter, okay? In 1.0, we pioneered GaN in the mobile space, which was really kind of taking the mobile chargers to much higher power, okay? And we've learned a lot about this, okay? And we apply this learning into the data centers and other applications. And we had a very kind of very specific high reliability SiC technology. And now as we take it to much higher voltage for the grid, we kind of [ roll this out. ] In terms of priorities, we use -- when I rolled out the new strategy of the company, I used 4 pillars, which I'm going to keep using, okay, in the future to give kind of investors a bit of consistency on how we make progress. Number one is the market focus, and I'm going to come to that in a second. Number two is the technology innovation, okay, and technology enablement. Three is operational efficiency and, of course, financial discipline. Market focus, I talked about the 4 markets we go after, okay, AI data center, grid infrastructure, performance computing, which is not to be ignored, and industrial electrification, right? The -- when we guide our Q1 and closed our Q4, I said that the revenue of mobile was now less than 25% of the company and high power is now the majority of the company. And as we're going to grow throughout '26, the growth will come from high power and mobile will go down to an insignificant level. That's something we are focused on in '26 to make sure that we pivot every resource we have in the company. Every dollar we spend is on the high power, but of course, we have to pivot the revenue. Number two is technology innovation and enablement to the customer, right? And this is technology, GaN technology and SiC technology. This is product. We've sampled our 650-volt GaN for the 800-volt HVDC. We've sampled the 100 volt as well. We've sampled the new super high-voltage SiC modules that will enable the grid. It's also a system, okay? We've introduced 800-volt, 50-volt HVDC board, we announced a few weeks ago that was in partnership with one hyperscaler. This is all about enabling the transition, right? Operational efficiency is important. We are in the transition of moving our GaN foundry partnership from TSMC to GF. I think we'll talk about that later. I'm sure you have a question about this. This is very important. And last but not least, it's my eyes on getting this company profitable, okay? And to be profitable, you have to grow the top line and of course, grow the gross margin, which we will do with the mix, but keep the OpEx in a controlled way, right? So those are kind of the priorities. That's what defines 2.0. 2.0 is clarity of what we go after, those 4 markets, clarity of who we are. We are a GaN and high-voltage SiC company. It's how we do it. We do it with speed because the customers we talk to, they want everything by us today and capitalizing on the 1.0 and all the experience we have to deliver value to the customers.

And the first indication of how decisive you are is this decision to exit mobile so quickly. Like it was tempting at all to sort of -- it's been clear for a while that there are headwinds in that market, but it's tempting to hang on to that revenue and use it for gross profit generation? Or what led you to the decision to do it that way?

So I would lie if I would tell you that on day 1, we made that decision to move that fast. But very quickly -- so what I did when I joined the company, the first thing I did is to take my backpack and go around the world, meet our employees and our customers. And everybody told me the same. They said, we need GaN because we can't do the AI data center without GaN, okay, partly the 800-volt DC. We need a grid and we need high-voltage SiC. We talked about that. And we need yesterday. And we're a small company. So every cycle we spend on mobile, every cycle we replace ourselves with the new mobile without innovation, which is just basically keeping what we have was a waste of engineering cycle. So the decision was we're going to pivot faster. That's why we kind of slash the outlook. And today, I look back, this is what, 6 months ago, I look back, and this is probably my best decision because what's happening is, first of all, Mobile is now less than 25% of the company, will be insignificant by end of '26. People ask me what is the French English meaning of insignificant? I say less than 10%, okay? That's in my language -- that's translation. What it means is it doesn't make or break the company. But the most important is the engineering and the time we spend. We flipped the company. So by moving away from mobile, the entire team is now obsessed and focused on getting the road map, the technology, the support, pivot from China to the U.S. We hired more people. We reduced also where we didn't have the right skills. So I would tell you, Joe, it was like doing it in a smooth way would have been missing the opportunity of growing faster down out of the gate. And it's proven by the guide to Q1. Q1 is up, okay? And it's all driven by [indiscernible].

And you're now in a position where you can grow potentially each quarter this year. Your confidence around that. And I think the company had a history of sort of having a tough time hitting expectations, your thoughts around that going forward?

So I mean -- so first of all, we're not in the business of guiding multiple quarters. We guided Q1. We're in a quiet period, but I would say -- what I would say today is we are confident in our guide and very confident in our guide. We also said that we're going to grow quarter-over-quarter multiple quarters in a row to give investors a perspective on how we are transitioning away from mobile and with mobile going down. So we're confident in that. And why we're confident? Number one is Mobile gives you 4 weeks visibility if you're lucky, okay? High-power gives you multiple weeks and longer visibility. So the customers we are dealing with now are giving you kind of midterm to longer-term visibility. So we have backlog in place for Q2, and we know what Q2 is going to look like. That's number one. And we have ramps coming up in Q3 and Q4. Number two, I think the challenge that the company had is, to your point about the pivot is to spend too much time trying to rescue, okay? The anchor, okay? And an anchor is going to go down. You can scream as hard as you want, it's going to go down, right? So there was so many cycles trying to save the mobile [ soldier ] and that was very hard. So I think that led to the miss, always trying to think we're going to do better. I think by pivoting, walking away from backlog in Q4, as I said, was the wisest decision because now we are basically focused on this, on the right thing to do. So I'm confident we are not going to give a model to '27 before later in this year, but we reiterate our messaging in the last 2 earnings, okay? We're going to grow quarter-over-quarter throughout '26. The mix of mobile going down, high power going up and the scale will improve gross margin gradually, which I think will be the best proof points for investors looking at how we change, okay, and becoming a different company.

So you've given us a SAM, a 2030 SAM. I think $3.5 billion unless that's changed across the 4 markets. Can you give us an overview of your comfort level around that sizing? Pretty big number for a company.

Yes. Well, what's interesting is when I talk to many investors, they tell me I under call the SAM. So because rightfully so, some of our competitors, they call for $5 billion, okay, wide band gap SAM in the 4 markets we're talking about. For me, I don't want to spend too much time on it $3.5 billion or $5 billion doesn't matter, right? It's growing fast. It's a 60% CAGR for the next few years. The most important here takeaway is, number one, the make or break of that market is AI data center and grid infrastructure. If you look at the $3.5 billion, 3 of that is AI DC and infrastructure or grid infrastructure. Computing is going to be $400 million. It's a good business. We'll talk about that later, and industrial will be another $600 million. But 2/3 of that SAM is those two markets. And by the way, you can argue it's one market because what is driving grid? I mean grid, we've talked about since I was in high school.

We know grid...

We talked about upgrading grid, right? Edison would come back today would see the same transformers than we've seen 50 years ago. AI is a complete different use case. It's a catalyst that drives -- you cannot deploy the 250-plus gigawatt of AI data center in the next 5 years with the grid we have today. So for me, AI data center and grid is -- it's the same thing. It's inside data center or outside of data center. The other thing that is an important takeaway is -- and we have both GaN and SIC, okay? That might not be applicable to other companies that only do SiC or only do GaN. We have both, and we think it's important to have both is that the SAM is split in half between GaN and SiC, which is very counterintuitive. You asked me what I've learned. This is something I've learned, like I didn't expect that when I came on board. And the reason why it's the case is, number one, GaN is mostly outside of computing and industrial. GaN is mostly 800-volt HVDC play. As you move to high integration, high-density GPU racks, you need to move to GaN, that's the 800-volt HVDC. That's a GaN play. SiC is playing also before that. So today, you have in the traditional AI architecture, you have to convert high-voltage AC to DC. Today, 50 volt, tomorrow 800 volt, right? That needs AC-DC, either inside data center or as what they call the side car. that needs SiC, okay? So SiC is in business today of AI, if you prefer. But what is interesting is it's insignificant today. We are sampling today. We're shipping today actually in that market, but it's not that significant. But there is a growth with the AI going. But what's happening is today, everybody shipped 5-kilowatt, 8 kilowatt, maybe 12-kilowatt type of PSUs. In 6, 9 months, whatever we have 30-kilowatt type of PSUs because as you get more power inside the same rack, you cannot just increase the number of PSUs. And the content per kilowatt is not linear. So if you think about a couple of dollars of SiC content in a 5-kilowatt PSUs, you're talking about $200 per kilowatt of SiC content in a [ 30-kilowatt ] PSUs. So that drives SiC growth. And of course, the grid. What is also interesting thing to think about is -- and of course, nobody looks beyond 2030, but how much of the grid will be upgraded by 2030, not the vast majority. So SiC is half of the SAM in 2030, but the grid re-architecture is just the beginning. This is going to be -- and think about AI being a 5 years to 10 years build-out, grid is a 50 years build-out. So for me, and that came to me as a surprise, SiC has a long leg because of the grid infrastructure as well and playing on both sides, inside and outside data center.

And how -- there are a lot of competitors in each silicon carbide and gallium nitride. There's a smaller subset that have both. And there's obviously relevant ones, but how important is an advantage to have both of those technologies?

First of all, my -- I've been in 25 years plus in semiconductor. I always believe it's better to give the customer a choice than projecting your own religion. So I hear people -- 2 years ago, people said GaN is not going to make it in data center, oops, okay? That was the wrong call. Then people said it's going to be a SiC play, oops, okay? It's a GaN play. Then people said, well, SiC has no market outside of EV, oops, okay? So my point is we don't know what the customer wants. So I don't want to push SiC because I have SiC. I don't want to push GaN because I have GaN. We go to customer and say, what do you want? And we enable -- so that drives a completely different conversation. If I come to you, Joe, and say, what do you want? I have both. That drive a different conversation if I come and say, well, I have water, so you better drink water, right? So for me, this is very good to have both. That's number one. So we are not challenged to be religious, okay? Number two is it's a continuum. You can look at grid, which is how you convert hundreds of watts -- hundreds of volts of AC into 50 volt or even 800-volt DC. And then you can look at how you convert this to 50-volt DC all the way down to GPU. It's a continuum, okay? You -- it's different customers, but they all talk to each other. And I think NVIDIA, in particular, has driven a complete ecosystem to make sure that you have to think about this as a continuum, right, because it's the same power chain. So I think both is actually very helpful. And as you said, there are not many vendors that have both, in particular, the ultra-voltage SiC. SiC, I know SiC got bad press, okay, because of the EV and it's hard to make money in the low-voltage SiC. That's why we don't participate. But it's a different game to do 1.2 kV, 1.7 kV or even 2,000, 3,000 volt, SiC for the grid. It's a different spot. So I think both is actually helpful.

Okay. Great. So maybe we could look a little bit more of each of the end markets, starting with the biggest AI data center. Can you talk about the shorter-term opportunities that you see there? And then longer term, the focus running 800 volt?

So everybody wants to talk about AI DC, right? So -- but I'm not surprised you start with that. So as I said, there is -- everybody talks about this change, which is the 800-volt HVDC. And this is not a GPU play. This is a rack play, okay? Most people ask me, are you attached to this GPU or this GPU or this [ TPU ] or this [ X DPU? ] I said it's not about the [ TPU or X DPU. ] It's about the rack. So if you look at NVIDIA as an example, right, the Oberon to Kyber. What is the difference? It's not just the GPU. It's number of GPU per rack. When you get to a point where you're compounding so many GPUs in the same rack, you cannot use traditional way of converting power. Too many conversion means more loss. More loss means less efficiency, okay? And the whole system doesn't work and you have less space. So the #1 big transition is the transition to Kyber for NVIDIA or any form of high-density rack, XPU. And I say XPU because we talk about GPU, but you can talk about TPU and any form of XPU, right? So that's one. And that will drive the 800 volt all the way down to GPU. So here, you basically convert the grid to 800-volt DC, that's the entrance into data center. And then you go all the way. And you can go to 50 volt first, maybe you go down to 6 volts later, okay? Or maybe you go all the way down to 6 volt because it's -- it's obvious less conversion means less loss. So that's number one. And that's really a GaN play. The other thing is the grid is still AC. You still need to convert AC to DC. Two ways to do that. One is through the grid upgrade, which is the SSTs and all the things we're going to talk about. The other one is what some of the hyperscalers have called to replace the PSUs, the side car, okay, which is those rack of PSUs that convert, let's say, 480-volt AC to 800-volt DC, right? That's full load of SiC, right? So I don't want people to think that data center is just a GaN play, okay, both. But the 800-volt HVDC is a GaN play, in my opinion, and the PSU is a SiC play. That's for data center, right?

And if you're me, how do you pick winners? So there's 14 suppliers to NVIDIA power supply business on 800-volt. How do we go about? What are the milestones along the way that show us that Navitas is going to play there?

So first of all, revenue is the source of truth, okay? That's how I grew up in my 25 years. You're never going to hear me talking about pipeline and all this what I call monkey money, right? So because on Saturday, when I go and do grocery shopping, they only take dollars, okay? They don't take pipeline. So outlook, revenue guide, this is what matters. But you're right, how do we know where we're going to win business? So it's a multi-doors type of approach. Number one, you have to validate that you know what you're talking about. I hear some of my competitors, and I respect everybody, they say, we're going to have GaN. Well, okay, we're going to have GaN, but the customers need GaN today. And I'm not leaving a company that's been in GaN for 10 years. I can tell you the last 10 years of experience makes a difference, okay? We're not going to develop a new super high-voltage SiC. We have it today. So validating that it works helps when you have it today instead of having in the future. Number two, once you prove it works, and it's a system play and it's a device play, you have to basically get chewed by the customer, okay? They're going to take high temp, low temp, they're going to go all the corners. That's validating that the device works. And then you have to go to rack level validation, okay, which is not like device level, but rack level. And then you get to supply chain and where you produce and do you have like a reliable multi-source, good Tier 1, Tier 2 OSATs and foundry. So it's a multistep approach. People ask me, when do we have the ChatGPT moment of Navitas that you have won 800-volt DC. I said we're going to see it in the order book. It's hard to tell you when -- and by the way, it's not me who's going to comment, it's the hyperscalers and the OEM, right? I don't like long-term planning like this about business. But I would tell you, people underestimate how much having done that before makes a difference. If you think about GaN has always been this esoteric technology that nobody is comfortable with, right? It's hard. It's not as simple to drive than silicon. And we're helping customers. When we released the 800-volt, 50-volt board a few weeks ago, which was the highest efficiency at 10 kilowatt. This is to help customers. This was done with a hyperscaler to help customers to see how to do it, right? If you've never done that before, good luck. That's my point.

Yes. Okay. And then you mentioned the similarities between grid infrastructure and AI, but can you talk about that opportunity as well?

Yes. So the similarity is what's driving the use case, okay? So I joke -- I mentioned Edison, but if you would come back and look at the grid today, it's the same grid we had 50, 100 years ago. Huge transformers made of coil and metal and operating at 60 hertz. I mean it feels like my first year of college, okay, in electrical engineering. This doesn't work, okay, with AI workload. So -- why they are driven is because the AI is the use case. EV was not even the use case, okay, to change it. AI is the use case. You cannot deploy remotely half of what we're trying to deploy with the -- so first thing I would tell everybody is don't think grid is slow. That was slow, okay? That's not slow, number one. Number two is that it's really a U.S. play. And we will come to U.S.-centric and focus on national security. Europe, energy is very regulated, okay? U.S. is deregulated or more -- less regulated. And I think the hyperscalers are involved in how the grid gets redefined. I talked about necessity being the force of nature, okay? If you have to change the grid. So I think we see an acceleration of investment development of battery energy system, which is going to be a large market, SST, kind of moving those huge transformers, weighing 2 tons and made of coil to electronification of the grid for lack of better terms. We see solar -- grid-level solar farms like huge stadium level type of thing. We see megawatt chargers and [ DC-DC ] converters, see many applications and they need super high voltage SiC, okay? This is -- you don't go there with silicon. You don't even go there with your 650-volt SiC that you use in an EV, right? That doesn't make the cut. But what is interesting is those guys are moving super fast. And you're going to see interim step. You're going to see first couple of megawatt SSTs, bundled with battery energy systems. Then you see high single-digit megawatt type of SSTs coming up. And as I said, it's going to take 2, 3, 4 decades before every transformer that we hear blowing up every other day in San Francisco is going to be replaced.

Yes. Okay. Great. Third category, industrial electrification, I guess, more of a catch-all around robotics and things like that. But what opportunities are you excited about there?

Yes. It's -- catchall is a bit of -- I know it's not dismissive, but...

I don't intend to be dismissed.

I don't know. I always use it with my team and my team say, don't say it -- it's -- the reason why we call it industrial, it's a mixed bag of many applications, okay? And the one thing I would tell people, which is also a surprise to me is -- we've talked about power efficiency for the last 20 years. Everybody always said we're going to be more efficient, but nobody cared. Now this is table stakes. So we have customers doing pumps. They want to get the next level of efficiency. We have customers doing high-power converters. They want to be more efficient. So it's almost like the energy has become the currency like one of our famous leader in the base said, and I woke up everybody that says, you cannot continue to waste power. And how do you waste power is heat. How do you basically get it out by being inefficient. So the table stake has moved -- being 90% efficient is not good enough. So we have customers coming out of the woodworks, doing, as I said, high-power pumps, not something I would have guessed GaN would go, right? And they come and say, oh, we need to use 650-volt GaN in this super high power couple of kilowatts type of pumps, right? So it's a catch-all, but it's -- the message is, I think we see the beginning of a transition to high-power technology. Customers have been reluctant because it's reliable, it's difficult to implement. They're not ready. They could get done with silicon. And now I think this is changing, right? And I think that's what's happening.

Okay. Great. And then the fourth market, performance compute. Is there a risk that you see some of the same stresses that you saw on the mobility side in that market?

Everybody asked me that question, okay? So first of all, I would say you're right, but we'll deal with that in the future. So in 2030, the SAM that we talked about, $3.5 billion, computing is $400 million. It doesn't make or break the company. But in the short term, and I think in the next 3 to 4 years, what we see is -- and I'm talking about the high-end computing. I'm not talking about your $300 notebook. I'm talking about high-end portable workstation, high-end game consoles, AI notebooks, okay, that are like $1,500, $2,000 and above. They need high power because unless you have a big backpack, you're not going to carry a 250-watt or 300-watt charger made of silicon. I mean we all got used to carry those big bricks, but it's painful. So -- and those are 100, 200 watt, 150-watt chargers. It's not going to work at 250. customer we talk to, they want 250, 300, 350 watts. That's just enough to drive the move to GaN. So what drove the commodity decision of mobile? Mobile was good up to a point where the customers say, okay, I have 100-watt charger. It's small enough. I don't want it smaller. I don't want it to be higher power, so it's going to be cheaper. Computing is not at that place. Today, when we do a 250-watt charger, they say, okay, can you do 350 in the same footprint? And now they say, can you make it smaller? So go back to what mobile had seen in the past. It's much higher content. It's higher margin, too. I think it's in 3, 4 years when every charger out there is tiny and then we'll see commoditization, but I don't think it's relevant today. And they do, it was basically a call I made. I said we're not just going to talk about how big things are going to be in the future. As long as we can make good money at good margin and we serve customer innovation with GaN, why not?

Okay. Great. So your long-term growth rate, you've talked about sort of a 60% to 75% SAM growth. If I have the numbers right, I know they've changed a little bit. But is that kind of in the right ballpark? And how are you framing that opportunity?

Yes. So it's the right ballpark. As I said, some of my competitors, I talked to one big competitor on Monday, say, why do you under call the SAM? I'm like, okay, $3.5 billion is big. So for me, it doesn't matter, okay? It's going to grow. What matters is what makes or break the SAM, right? The one thing I would call out to everybody is if you look at the SAM, people ask me, why do you call SAM and a TAM? I said, the reason why I exclude TAM is exclude EV, I exclude mobile. I don't want to confuse anybody. I mean the SiC TAM today is in the $6-plus billion. Remove EV, low-voltage industrial for SiC, you're down to the hundreds of millions. So for me, I call about the super high voltage, ultra-high-voltage SiC in the context of what we do. That's the $1.7 billion to 2030. Same with GaN. I want -- we're working away from mobile. I'm not going to include mobile in the SAM. That was misleading. We don't want to support EV with GaN. I mean GaN will have a life in EV, mostly in OBC. No offense to everybody in EV. We have customers in EV today that we support, and we're going to continue to support them. But it's not where I put the R&D because it's a long to revenue. And what I would say is the pain to revenue ratio is very high, too high. So I think we have our hands full, okay? So we just removed that from the SAM, and that gives team the clarity of what we go after.

Okay. Okay. Great. You mentioned on the supply side, partnerships with Powerchip, GlobalFoundries, TSMC's decision not to build GaN. Just how do you think about that supply chain? How robust do you think that is?

So we've been -- and we're still in business with TSMC on the GaN side. They've been our partner. We pioneered GaN with them, a great partnership. It was my first partner meeting when I flew -- I took the job a week later, I was in Taipei, winning TSMC. And they are helping us in the transition. So I give them great partners. Actually, as a matter of fact, I'm sure you've seen that they licensed their technology to GF, okay, as part of the GF deal that we've done, right? My predecessor and the team had started a partnership with TSMC. We sampled the first mid-voltage GaN with TSMC. It's in the end customer. We'll continue that, okay? We don't want to create more disruption for the customers. But this is a big business we go after. It requires scale. It requires 8-inch. It's not a nice to have to have a fab in the U.S. in national security application like grid and AI data center. So we quickly met with Tim and his team. They have GaN capabilities. They have GaN technology. They invested in GaN. We have long experience in process, in device, in application, in systems. So combining both was for us, the best thing of accelerating GaN production in the U.S. That's why we called it a strategic partnership. It's not a buzz word, and we call it a technology partnership more than a manufacturing partnership, right? So there's no direct flight between my site and Burlington, but there's a lot of back and forth between the -- between the 2 sides and the team are working around the clock. We'll sample to customers at the end of the year. We are open book with the customers, large customers on when they're going to get samples, what they're going to get. We're going to be in production next year. And you always look at what are the best decisions you've made, right? You asked me about mobile. This was probably one of the best decisions I've made. This is one of the best decisions I've made. I feel like it's going to be giving U.S. foundry [ COUS ] like we have in SiC, okay, for the -- and Tim and his team have a great team and a great fab.

Well, Tim will be here on this exact stage tomorrow, so we'll have a conversation. Yes, I will. Maybe we could pause there and see if there's questions from the audience. If not, the move that you made to consolidate your distribution around Avnet and WT, how are you thinking about that? How do you pursue -- you have this narrower focus now. How do you pursue those opportunities?

So I mean, Avnet and [ Wintech ] are great partners, okay? I worked with Phil and the team in the past. I worked with Eric Chang and his team in the past. it's kind of not the most important. What is the symbol of this is the pivot we've done from a go-to-market point of view. So if you think about 70% of the company was mobile. What does it mean? Well, that means your company center of gravity is in China and Korea, okay? Because I don't consider the other large company in the U.S. to be a mobile company. They are a computing company. So we work with them. We continue to work with them, but they are a computing company. So distributors kind of tend to gravitate where the business is. When you move to serving the hyperscalers, the Deltas, the Eatons, the big ODM in Taiwan or across the world, this is a different go-to-market, right? You need more people. The center of application is to be in the U.S. and less, okay, in China. You don't need one distributor per customer, okay? I think in mobile, you tend to have one distributor per customer. I mean, we've said it publicly, when I came on board, we had 40 distributors, 4-0. For the size of our company, this is one distributor per customer. So that was a bit too big. And no offense against the choice that we made before, but it made sense in the context of many ODM, OEM mobile guys. But when you go to a few hyperscalers, a few OEM, a few ODM and the grid guys, they also kind of different play, right? So it's a go-to-market change that we simplified. And I talk about speed all the time, which is, I believe, the foundation of our culture. As a small company, we have to be more innovative and we have to be faster. If we come after the big guys, it's not acceptable, right? And for me, Michael and the team were an aspiration. I was in TI when we look at those guys coming out of nowhere. And everywhere was going, they were first, okay? And we looked at them still with a form of they are too small. But when you're small, you have to be fast, okay? And to be fast, you have to have less baggage, okay? So having less distributors, a simpler go-to-market is a way to simplify what you carry and get faster.

Great. Well, I don't know if you have any final remarks, but we can wrap it up there. I mean, a very impressive view of the things you've done with the company and the decisiveness that you've approached this...

No, the one thing I would say is I talk about the 4 pillars, okay? And this was what I wake up in the morning, I look at those 4 pillars, okay? And we're going to continue to update how we make progress. It's a marathon at the speed of a sprint, okay? It's a marathon because it's -- it's a multiyear transition. What the AI guys and the grid guys are trying to do is a complete revolution, but they are trying to do it at consumer speed. So I'm very clear to the team, let's walk before we run. Let's be clear, let's execute one step after the other. And quarter in, quarter out, we make progress, and that's why we're going to keep telling investors and you guys and everybody to show that we are walking the talk. And that's what we paid for.

Great. Well, thank you so much. It's great conversation.

Thank you.