Hi, and welcome to Norsk Titanium's Q3 presentation. With me today, we have the CEO, Carl, and Ashar, CFO, and we also have John with us today. So we'll start with a presentation of the figures, and then we'll end the session with a Q&A where we'll start with the audience and then the questions on the web. So I'll hand it over to you, John. Carl.
There we go. Thank you for joining us for a third quarter presentation of operational and financial update. Bottom line up front, we've had significant progress towards our goal of 60 parts in serial production. We've added additional parts in the second half, bringing our total to 54 parts in serial production. Short-term challenges in aerospace and in the semiconductor industry have affected the mix of parts that we anticipated, and some of the production rates for parts that have transitioned. As a result, we are lowering our 2024 revenue guidance to $6 million from $10-$12 million. Parts transitioning are delayed, not lost. We still have that we've been in contact with our customers. The plans for their production haven't changed. There is a delay, however, due to some disruptions going on right now.
We are planning on more than 120 parts in production in 2025, generating revenue between $70 and $90 million in annual recurring revenue, and affirming our long-term goal of $150 million in revenue in 2026. Now I'd like to introduce our chairman, John Andersen.
Thank you, Carl. Good morning, everyone. Before we dive into the specifics of what happened in the third quarter and our guidance for 2025 and 2026, I would like to take a step back and remind you all about the essence of the equity story, because what we are doing in this company is basically to replace traditional forging with a proprietary technology that takes the labor out of the equation, the labor cost, the capital, and the energy to produce parts with forging quality, but in a much, much more efficient way. That's really the key of this value proposition. And if you try to distill it even more, this is the value proposition of the company. This hasn't changed. This remains very much intact as it has been for a while. We do believe that we can offer 90% less machining time.
We have said this in the past. We are going to repeat it: reduced machining time, reduced machining cost to the tune of 75%. That's a very important part of our value proposition, and we do believe that we can offer our customers up to a 40% cost reduction. It's going to vary a bit from part to part, but I think it's a fairly representative number across our portfolio. Whether this next bucket is about sustainability or cost, that's really a matter of taste. 75% less raw material, 75% less energy, that works both in the sustainability equation, but certainly also in the cost equation. NTI is still the sole qualified additive manufacturer in this space, in this highly regulated commercial aerospace market. We do have 700 metric tons of manufacturing capacity installed. And I want to point out, right, we do have machine-to-machine equivalency. What does that mean?
This means that we can actually scale in an industrial way. This is not for prototyping. This is not for small scale. This is for large-scale industrial manufacturing. This basically means that when we print on one machine in Norway or a machine in the U.S. or elsewhere, for that matter, the quality of the end product remains the same. And we are well protected, right? We have added more than 10 patents to our portfolio during this quarter. It's a portfolio of patents that covers product, processes, and machines. And we will, of course, continue to develop that patent portfolio as we continue our developments. Market-wise, this has not changed. This remains the same. It's a plus $20 billion market. We talk a lot about commercial aerospace. It's obviously the largest market by far. It doesn't mean that these other markets are small, right?
$5 billion in defense, $5 billion in industrials. Going forward, you will probably see that we step up our activities in these markets. We are not scaling back our activities here, but we are stepping up our activities in these markets. Long term, we still believe that commercial aerospace is really going to be the backbone of this company. But short to medium term, we now see more opportunities in defense and industrials than we have done previously. And Carl and Ashar are going to speak about that in more detail. So where are we now? First of all, we have invested a significant amount of capital and more than 10 years in making sure that we have this platform, right? We have established specifications. We are approved and certified by the regulator, and we are approved and certified by our customers.
This is really the license to play in this space. If you are not approved by the regulator, if you are not approved by regulators, if you are not approved by your customers, then you are not really where you should be at this stage. Over here, that's where we have our main challenges. How can we ensure that this cycle goes from the upper end of that range, 12 months, to six months or less? And that's where you have seen some delays in this quarter, not related to parts transition as such, but related to the transition of the larger parts, of the high-volume parts that's going to have a significant impact on our revenues going forward.
So keep in mind, as we walk through the details of the developments in the third quarter and what we intend to do going forward, keep in mind that this is still very much intact, and this is where we need to see that we are able to increase the rate going forward. And with that, I'll leave it back to you, Carl.
Thank you, John. So operational and financial update. We have 54 parts in serial production. The ARR for those parts is $12.2 million. You can see first half, we were at 26, significant increase towards our goal of 60, less impacted than we expected for our annual recurring revenue. The majority of parts that we transitioned were from U.S. DoD contractors for manned aircraft, unmanned space, and two for industrial. The significance of this is, as John pointed out, our premise is intact. We have qualified our process and material with our suppliers. So when commercial had a delay, we were able to pull forward parts that we have seen in the defense side and bring them into our mix, which is how we got to the 54. Breaking it down, we still have industry acceptance. Parts are delayed, not lost.
In the first quarter, we had recurring semiconductor production orders. We had Northrop Grumman's first flight part. We did have issues with Boeing slowing down due to their tier one consolidations. You've all read that in the press. In the second quarter, we reported Airbus qualification, the master supply agreement, and Boeing's direct supply agreement. In the second quarter, we had anticipated the Wave 3 parts that has been pushed to 2025 for revenue. We do expect to still see the request for proposal this year, but it will not occur in time to generate revenue this year. Additional semiconductor parts were transitioned in third quarter. A large number of defense parts were accelerated into 2024, and we brought in our first space parts. Delayed demand, however, in the semiconductor industry has caused a dip in our production rate for the trays we make. That will come back.
Our $50 million annual recurring revenue is delayed into 2025. We haven't changed our 60 parts for the end of the year, and we believe this is just a dip in 2024. The short-term challenges in aerospace and semiconductor. You're all familiar with Boeing. They are currently on strike, and production has nearly ceased. Airbus has lowered their near-term forecasts, pointing to supply chain issues, and industry consolidations at the OEMs have caused some consternation in how they manage their business. On the industrial side, the demand has dipped. It's affected some of our already transitioned parts, but we expect to get back on delivery track next year. Explanation of the most recently transitioned parts and why it's $12 million, not $50 million. They are lower volume parts. Defense can be as low as four aircraft a year. The parts are still critical and financially attractive with good margins.
However, they are lower volume. We are in a position with our process to be able to adjust from low volume and high volume. That doesn't really change our dynamic. The high volume parts are commercial aerospace, the A350 and the 787. They are the dominant market for titanium. Industry is forecasting 200 new aircraft a year for the next few years. They are composite aircraft, and that makes a difference because they drive titanium use. The smaller aircraft, the single narrow body, single aisle narrow bodies, production rates are very much higher. They are more attractive in terms of production rates, but they use less titanium. But the parts we're looking at on those at 1,300 aircraft a year are very attractive to Norsk Titanium. Guidance and outlook is a very plain chart. There's no gloss or glitter.
2024 revenue is revised down to $6 million from $10-$12 million. High volume parts are delayed to 2025. We are sure of that. Development revenue is slightly down due to the aerospace issues that are occurring right now. However, the forecast is very, very good. OEMs are all still projecting increased production rates across the board. Defense spending has a $750 billion backlog. The aerospace and defense has more than $800 billion in revenue. Growing demand for innovative, efficient, and sustainable processes is in every contract in the defense and in the commercial side. Supply chains are recovering from COVID. They're stabilizing, and because of geopolitical activity, reshoring remains a focus of supply chains. If you look at the commercial aerospace market, you can see steady recovery after COVID. However, problems this year have caused both of the major OEMs to re-forecast their production rate.
However, in the next two years, 200 aircraft a year in commercial aerospace and a total of 46,000 in the next 20 years. The market and the forecast is very strong. To try and make sure that we stay on top of it, we have taken action in all three of the market segments. We're engaging corporate and program leadership at both Boeing and Airbus. I was at Airbus last week doing just this. We are re-engaging with the regional Embraer and Bombardier. They use less, but they have good production rates. Directed campaigns towards specific applications, landing gear, for example, pylons, high-value, high-production rate parts, and expanding the tier one customer base from our focus had been Spirit and the former PAG. We're expanding that across the tier one base. On the industrial side, we are leveraging our relationship with Hittech and expanding into other markets, industrial markets.
These have shorter qualification cycles. They use publicly available specifications in oil and gas and in the newer markets. We're expanding our sales force, getting specific salespeople that have experience in these markets. We are submitting data this year. First quarter of next year, that data will be available to industry that shows the material properties. MMPDS, it's the Metallic Materials Properties Development and Standardization, is the Bible for design engineers. Having this available to them is necessary in the industrial market. In defense and space, we've identified new opportunities in space and in the munitions part of defense. We're positioned as a second source for near net-shaped forgings. That is how we were able to bring some of the parts forward this year.
And we're broadening the tier one base even in the defense side using the specifications that we have developed for the OEMs, flowing that down to the tier one. These actions will speed up near-term transitions. Let me introduce Ashar, our CFO, and he'll carry us forward.
All right. Thank you, Carl, so we do expect growth and a significant amount of growth in 2025 on our way to 2026 targets. In 2024, we have transitioned 60 parts into serial production. Although the ARR isn't where we thought, the high-volume parts are moved into 2025. We're still at $15 million ARR for 2024. The 60 parts gives us a lot of confidence as we walk into 2025. In 2025, we expect to have 120 parts in serial production generating $70-$90 million in ARR. That includes the high-volume parts that have shifted from 2024 - 2025 in commercial aerospace, and also, as Carl mentioned, an aggressive push into the industrial markets that will help us get to the upper end of that range. As we look at 2026, we expect to have 200 parts in serial production.
The growth rate you'll notice is lower from the previous years, but the ARR growth is still phenomenal at $160 million. The reason for that is, as Carl mentioned, more specific focus on larger parts and high-volume parts, and that's what that ARR represents in 2026, so $150 million revenue target in 2026 is maintained. We have developed this forecast in conjunction with our customers. We know the parts. We know the production schedules with them, and we're transitioning parts alongside them with their knowledge. How is this forecast built up? What $150 million means is 41,000 pieces that are delivered to our customers, and that represents 200 unique part numbers on those platforms, so this is a bottom-up view. We expect to have approximately 40% from commercial aerospace revenue, 35% revenue from industrials, and about 20% from defense and development programs.
From a top-down view, when we look at market penetration, it's only 3% penetration into the markets that we're targeting by 2026, and that only uses almost 50% of the production capacity we have available to us today, so bottom line, we maintain our $150 million target in revenue for 2026, and we maintain our EBITDA target margin of 30% with this revenue. Okay, so NTI remains fully funded to execute on the current business plan that we talk about. We look at this in three ways. First and foremost, as Carl mentioned, accelerate growth. We are leveraging our success in the industrial market. We are diversifying our sales to achieve that. And we're creating designated sales teams to tackle those opportunities. Secondly, we are aligning our costs with revenue, so costs won't grow with revenue.
Our hiring and growth and scale-up requirements will be aligned to how we see the transition of the parts over the year. Of course, we're always looking at operating cost discipline and maintaining discipline in our operating costs. We're introducing different measures to improve the efficiency. For example, today we have about one and a half operators on a machine when it's running. We're looking at implementing a multi-machine operation where you have one operator managing four machines at the same time when they're running. That should bring down significantly the cost of operations. Lastly, we maintain financing flexibility. We're evaluating working capital financing sources, and we're looking at how to use working capital financing to invest in the growth throughout 2025 and into 2026. We do expect $13 million in proceeds from the upcoming warrant exercise as well.
So as of the end of the third quarter, we have $20 million of cash in the bank. We're burning about $2.3 million a month today. We expect that to come down over 2025 as our sales increase, as our sales volumes increase. We still expect to be cash flow break-even by 2026. And we're fully funded with the warrants fully exercised. Okay. I'm going to ask Carl to come back and close out the presentation. Thank you.
So since there are no more slides, we are well positioned for the growth that we've described. We have patents. We have access to the markets. We have specifications in place. We've demonstrated that the business plan works by pulling in defense work when the commercial work that we had planned did not materialize. We were able to bring in additional work at a lower annual recurring value. But the model works. Having specifications in place allows the flexibility of the supply chain. We have 200 patents. We have installed capacity. We are ready to go. Thank you.
Thank you very much for the presentation. I think we'll move over to Q&A. So I'll ask all three of you to come up to the stage. And we'll start with any questions from the audience. So please raise your hand. Then state your full name and then your question.
Thank you. So trying to understand the guidance for 2026, 200 unique parts, if I remember correctly, you have now about 60. How many of these 140 new unique parts need to be qualified, need to go through programs? Or is this sort of already done and you can start scaling towards those?
So depending on the mix, for example, on the industrial side, there has been, in our experience, very little on the qualification of the parts. They accept the material properties. We demonstrate it once it's a fairly quick process. On the commercial aerospace side, all of the OEMs are moving towards a qualification by a family of parts. For example, we'll have a single preform that will turn into seven individual part numbers and become seven parts. That gets qualified once. As we stay within the qualification requirements, do change as you go up to the most critical parts. You would want that. But we are qualified right now within Airbus to a very substantial level. So the qualification requirements that we've been through carry us through on new parts in that same level. It's a complicated answer because it changes by industry and by criticality of the part.
But for now, I would say we have demonstrated qualification and passed qualification for what we think is the level of parts that we'll be receiving in the next tranche of parts from Airbus. We've passed that hurdle so that qualification should be quicker. And I'm not sure that cleared it up for you, but we do have a handle on how we're transitioning parts.
I'm Frederik Thornholst, and I'm just trying to understand a little bit your business model and your guidance for the future, so regarding the revenues, do you have any backlog, or can you explain a little bit of how those revenues that you guide for will end up in your profit and loss?
You want to do it?
Sure. I can. Thank you for the question, Frederik, so the way to understand the backlog is when we have transitioned 54 parts into serial production, that gives us a very predictable revenue stream because we know the volume that's forecasted out for those aircraft. So let's say you have transitioned a part on the 787 program, so that one part, so we know that they today make six aircraft a month, or sorry, five aircraft a month. By 2026, the target is 10 aircraft a month, so by 2026, we know if 10 aircraft a month, that one part, we know that that one part will be produced and delivered. 10 pieces will be produced and delivered every month to that, so the goal is to build the unique parts transition into production that builds the 2026 revenue guidance.
So when you transition a part, you understand what the backlog is already with those parts. So that's how you should look at the backlog for parts. I'll give you another example. With the semiconductor trays, the NXT trays for Hittech that we deliver to them, we now make 15 trays a month and deliver 15 trays a month to Hittech. So those two part numbers, those are two part numbers, and we produce 15 of those a month and deliver them. So we understand the backlog from that perspective. So that's how we build the backlog is when we guide towards the number of part transitions and the ARR is to give you a flavor of how the backlog builds with the transition of parts.
When is that firm backlog? Are you guiding on other customers' guidance, or is it a firm contract?
Yeah. So for the seven parts that we have had in production on the 787 program with Boeing since 2017, that is firm locked in. So we know the backlog for that. So we have a visibility on firm orders anywhere from six months to 12 months out. The 2026 is, as you say, a forecast based on the production schedules and the volumes that our customers have provided us. So we continuously talk to our customers about their forecast so that we can plan our forecast accordingly with theirs.
Just for the avoidance of doubt, if I may call, this logic applies also to parts that have not been transitioned, right? Backlog can be understood in the context of production and planning and ARR, but it's also an even more substantial backlog that is on its way through transition, right? Because that's, as Carl also explained, that process also needs to be managed quite well. Keep in mind, we invest in transition, but so does our customers. We want to make sure that that development pipeline or that development backlog is also managed in a good way. Very specific. These are campaigns, parts, programs. You can break it down in many different ways, all with, I would say, pretty good visibility, right? This is not a top-down high-level type of approach.
This is a fairly significant bottom-up approach with identified parts if you want to think about backlog as parts on its way into transition.
Just one last question. Your production capacity, you double your production, let's say, almost every year. So what is the concern, the limitation on the production capacity in that production? Is there any bottleneck, anything to be worried about?
If I may. So we have installed capacity. We have qualified machines by our suppliers. In anticipation of additional work from Airbus, we are increasing the number of machines that they have authorized us. You have to go through a little qualification piece with that. With Boeing, we have in excess of 10 machines that have been qualified for them. With Northrop Grumman, we have six machines that are qualified for their activity. We have no restrictions on the industrial side. There's no individual qualification of machine required for that. So we have removed, I think, the production constraints that go with this forecast.
Last one for me as well, trying to understand your financial flexibility so the parts you have now in production, probably ramping up next year, will those alone lead you to cash flow neutral, or do you need to add extra parts to get to those cash flow neutral statements?
Yeah. Thank you. So the parts that we have that have transitioned into production, the 60 parts by the end of the year, they will generate, give or take, between $10-$15 million in annual recurring revenue in recognized revenue in 2025. We do need to transition the additional parts that Carl talked about from the Airbus Wave 3 in 2025 in order to reach the target of, well, in ARR of $70-$90 million, but also to reach additional revenue to get to cash flow break-even. So we are dependent on those high-volume parts as we go into 2025.
We also have additional parts.
I think the question was, do we need additional parts as well, and the answer is yes, but we've identified those, as you described, the bottom-up approach to looking at our forecast and demand that we've worked with our customers, so we have the parts, the 60 parts. We know in general terms the Wave 3 parts and that transition, and we have parts that we're targeting above that. That's how we get to the 200 parts in serial production in 2025 over the 60 we're at now.
My name is Marius. You announced that you anticipated 60 products by the end of the year, but now I understood that the Wave 3 got delayed, but all of a sudden, you're up to 54. Does that mean that when Wave 3 comes into place, that this will be a bigger jump than the 60 pretty quickly?
When we go under contract for the Wave 3 parts, yes. We won't just get to 60. We pulled in defense parts into 2024. The additional parts we get from Airbus are expected to be lumpy, a larger package that will carry us beyond the 60 parts. Yeah.
The second question is that I know you have been working on movable parts in engine. I mean, because that's probably the biggest market on aerospace when you get into that market. How is that developing? And the reason I'm asking is on the ASML, the trays you make, they are under very, what should I call it, high vibration, etc. So that should also qualify for the engine. So how is that developing?
So engine manufacturers are tier one to the OEMs making the platforms. You take the production rate and you multiply it by either two or four because of the number of engines. It is attractive. We will not, with our process, be making blades for engines. We will be making supports for engines and parts that go around the engine case and support the engine to the airplane. Our process is not suitable for interior spinning parts of the airplane. Although we have demonstrated, as you point out, high vibration environments with Pratt & Whitney a few years ago, we did demonstrate that we could take a machined out of our deposited material, a turbine blade, and spun it at 14,000 RPM with very good results from that demonstration program. However, typically, that's not where we get our best economic performance.
Any more questions from the audience? No, I guess we'll move on to the webcast. We have a couple of questions here. Am I correct in seeing that revenue outlook for 2025 was revised higher from $50 million to $70-$90 million? I think it's in terms of ARR outlook.
Sorry, could you repeat the question for me?
Am I correct in seeing that revenue outlook or ARR outlook for 2025 was revised higher from $50 million to $70-$90 million?
Yeah, so previously, we haven't really guided to a 2025 ARR number. But this guidance kind of indicates two things. Firstly, it indicates the shift of the $50 million ARR that we talked about in the first half report to 2025. So as we go into 2025, we know that we have $50 million ARR from the parts that are specifically targeted and forecasted. When we look at the additional work that we're bringing in with Airbus, Boeing, and now with industrials as well, that's what gives us the range of $70-$90 million in ARR for 2025.
Thank you. Could you give some more color on what type of parts the new defense parts are?
Yeah. So the parts in the commercial aerospace side are structural components. They are typically not visible to you as a passenger, but they're the structure behind in Airbus's case, for example, around the cargo doors, those kinds of critical parts. We are engaged with landing gear manufacturers, looking at specific parts in the landing gear that are titanium. And we are qualified with who they supply their parts to. So we are targeting landing gear in 2025 specifically.
I do believe that the question was specific on defense, right?
Oh, on defense, it is, again, structural components. There's very little difference between the application of our technology between defense and commercial. The biggest difference, of course, is production rates.
In terms of your 2026 revenue target, how much is stemming from Boeing and how much is stemming from Airbus, and if these companies are experiencing further issues or delays, how will this change your targets?
Yeah, thank you. So firstly, we don't guide to specific customer, the weight of the parts in the portfolio by specific customer. So I'm going to try to answer this question in a little bit of a different way. So by 2026, we expect 40% of our revenue to be driven from commercial aerospace, 35% from industrial, and 20% from defense and development programs. That's broadly the makeup of our 2026 revenue profile. The second part, sorry, can you repeat the second part of that question?
If either Boeing or Airbus experience more problems, would that delay the target?
Right. So we're always exposed to that risk in terms of the commercial aerospace OEMs running into trouble. The one mitigation that we have to that is that there is an order backlog for these commercial aerospace OEMs. So they do have to deliver aircraft to those. So we are exposed to their problems. But what we see is that the way they're sorting out the problems this year and next year, it sets them up, and the industry consolidation really helps them set up for delivery of aircraft that they need to meet as well to meet their numbers. So we are absolutely exposed to them, but we also do believe that they are a robust organization, both of them, to manage through these crises.
How confident are you in achieving both your near-term target, 2024, and 2026 revenue target? In your view, what are the largest risks for not reaching your ARR and revenue target in 2026?
So we are very confident. Just this year, the transition of defense products, when there's no hurdle like a strike or unknown production rate issues, we're able to pull parts forward because we offer value and we are a great second source for forging. That's a key thing for the commercial side, being a second source to be able to provide parts. We see production lines growing, 200 aircraft a year the next two years. Consolidation and increased production improves their reliance on Norsk Titanium's RPD process for additional forging equivalent parts. So the trouble they're having now as they sort that out will direct, I believe, commercial aerospace to our products just so that they can meet their own production goals.
Let's move on. The Boeing 787 and Airbus A350 are two of the platforms today with the highest share of aluminum in terms of weight. Boeing's 777, which is under development and planned to go into service in 2026, has even higher titanium weight. Is NTE engaging with Boeing to also supply components for the 777?
Make sure everybody's set on the question. A350 and 787 drive titanium usage in the marketplace. The 777 also has titanium. We are providing quotes and bidding on parts for the 777 at this time.
Thanks. And then two questions on titanium. How exposed is Norsk to titanium wire prices during the multi-year serial production contracts, e.g., due to further supply challenges globally and U.S. tariffs on raw materials?
We use two basics, titanium sheet for substrate, and we use titanium wire. Our titanium wire is primarily sourced for commercial aerospace in the United States. We have fixed contracts with our supplier so that we have a clear path for the wire we're using. For industrials, some of our wire comes from lower-cost sources other than the U.S. We have a clear path for meeting the demand for that. On the substrate side on commercial, we work with the OEMs. They maintain a large buffer inventory to make sure that we have access to the substrate we need. We've already used that avenue during some gaps that were for titanium plate. It's in the OEM's interest to maintain that buffer so that they can hand or allocate to their supply base when necessary. Thanks.
And then we have, I guess you partly answered the next question, but I will still read it out. In your first half 2024 report, you stated work is ongoing to diversify your titanium sources. Can you give an update on this and which sources you're looking at?
Without being very, very specific, we have qualified a low-cost supplier. It's a Chinese source. They are producing wire that meets our quality requirements. We will use that for industrial applications. The requirement for grade five still remains for the commercial aerospace side. So between our source of low-cost wire and our U.S. domestic supplier, we have resources necessary to meet our sales forecast.
What is the current status on qualifying Norsk for delivering parts in Inconel 625 for the U.S. Navy?
We have a contract to develop that material. We are delivering the first parts for their evaluation, their test blocks, test parts. We will complete shortly a parameter evaluation that's necessary to show that we can produce complex parts for that application. That application of Inconel is not just for the Navy. Inconel is used in oil and gas and other industries. So for us, this is a funded development that will have broad application.
Okay. One last question from the web. Will you say the current problems in the commercial aerospace strengthen the long-term value proposition for Norsk?
Could you repeat that question?
Would you say the current problem in the commercial aerospace would strengthen the long-term value proposition for Norsk?
Make sure I've got the mic on. So the problems they're having with supply chain and their desire to increase production rate do increase the value proposition that we provide. We have the ability to vary demand to supplement via second source or even a primary source with flexibility to increase production rate rapidly on our side, which is not the case for typical forging suppliers.
That's all the questions for today. Well, one more.
That is not quite all the questions for today.
Just a quick question. I saw that the Chinese were not accepted. I mean, they had to force the papers or whatever with the quality of their titanium. And also, I think the same happened with Italians to the aerospace industry.
That was the same issue.
Same story.
It was the same story. Same continuation. That was the situation.
How is that? Have you seen any effect of that already or not?
No, no, no. When that story came to light, which was, I think, last February, certainly our customers made inquiry about how we know our traceability. That material came from a jobber, if that's a familiar term. It's not a primary source. It's someone who bought and then resold on the market. We do not do that. We go direct to the foundry that is providing the material to us. We have visited every source that we use, and we maintain traceability all the way through from the heat lot that the ingot is produced to the batch of wire that is produced.
But for those that you have said, affected you positively in the fact that they know that you are an American producer and that you are using titanium from the United States?
It really hasn't because that's what they knew us to be and expected in the first place. Yes.
Any further questions?
No.
I think that will conclude today's presentation, so thank you to all three of you, and thank you for everyone that was listening in. Thank you.
Thank you all.