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.
first time we've done this as a fireside. You've been CEO for about six months. What have you learned? What are your priorities? You know, how do you think about sort of Navitas 2.0?
Yeah, as Joe said, I've been now the CEO for the company for the last six months. The first thing I've learned is, and I think we all see it, is the size of the opportunity. Okay. You know, the high power market, AI data center, grid infrastructure, and other market are moving to much higher level of power and density and efficiency, which we have never seen before. It was very clear for me that we had to pivot the company to mobile. That came and drove some of the pivot we've done, which mobile was historically the where the focus and the revenue of the company was, and I wanted to pivot that even quicker.
The other thing I've learned, which was not clear to me before I joined, is the importance of the grid. Okay, you heard me talking about the grid.
Yeah.
Everybody talks about AI data center, which is very important, right? Without a change of the grid infrastructure, you cannot enable the size and the magnitude of the AI data center rollout that we're gonna see in the future. Last thing I've learned is the importance of where we're coming from. You know, we talk about Navitas 2.0. I'm gonna give you a bit of a sense of the priorities we have. 2.0 doesn't mean 1.0 didn't matter. Okay. You know, in 1.0, we pioneered GaN in the mobile space.
Mm-hmm
... which was really kind of taking the mobile chargers to much higher power. We've learned a lot about this, and we apply this learning into the data centers and other application. We had a very kind of very specific, high reliability SiC technology. Now as we take it to much higher voltage for the grid, we can fully replace that. In terms of priorities, we use when I rolled out the new strategy of the company, I used four pillars, which I'm gonna keep using in the future to give kind of investors a bit of consistency on how we make progress. Number one is the market focus. I'm gonna come to that in a second. Number two is, you know, the technology innovation and technology enablement.
Three is operation efficiency, of course, financial discipline. Market focus. I talked about the four market we go after, okay? AI data center, grid infrastructure, performance computing, which is not to be ignored, and industrial electrification, right? When we guide our Q1 and close our Q4, I said that the revenue of mobile was now less than 25% of the company, high power is now the majority of the company. As we're gonna grow throughout 2026, the growth will come from high power, and mobile will go down to an insignificant level. That's something we are focused on in 2026 to make sure that we pivot every resource we have in the company. Every dollar we spend is on the high power, of course, we have to pivot the revenue.
Number two is technology, innovation and enablement to the customer, right? 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 system. Okay. We've introduced a 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? Operation 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 on. I'm sure you have question about this. This is very important. Last but not least, it's my eyes on getting this company profitable, okay?
To be profitable, you have to grow the top line and of course, grow the growth margin, which we will do with the mix, but keep the OpEx in a controlled way, right? Those are kind of the priorities. That's what defines 2.0. 2.0 is clarity what we go after, those four markets, clarity who we are. We're a GaN and a high voltage SiC company. It's how we do it. We do it speed because the customers we talk to, they want everything by yesterday. Capitalizing on the 1.0 and all the experience we have to deliver value to the customers.
The first indication of how decisive you are is this decision to exit mobile so quickly. Like, was it tempting at all to sort of hang-- It's been clear for a while that there are headwinds in that market, but is it tempting to hang on to that revenue and use it for gross profit generation, or what led you the decision to do it that way?
I would lie if I would tell you that on day one, we made the decision to move that fast. Very quickly, what I did when I joined the company, the first thing I did is take my backpack and go around the world, meet our employees and our customers. Everybody told me the same. They said, "We need GaN because we can't do the AI data center without GaN." Okay. Particularly the 800 volt DC. We need the grid, and we need high voltage SiC. We talked about that. We need it yesterday. We're a small company, every cycle we spend on mobile, every cycle we re-replace ourselves with a new mobile without innovation, which is just basically, you know, keeping what we have, was a waste of engineering cycle.
The decision was, we're gonna pivot faster. That's why we kind of slashed the outlook. Today I look back, this is what? six months ago.
Mm-hmm.
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 2026. People ask me, what is the French English meaning of insignificant? I say less than 10%.
Okay.
That's in my in my language translation.
Translation. Yeah.
That's a translation. What it means is it doesn't make or break the company. The most important is the engineering and the time we spend. We flipped the company. By moving over mobile, the entire team is now obsessed and focused on getting the roadmap, 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 skill. I would tell you, Joe, was like doing it in a smooth way would have been missing the opportunity of growing faster than out of the gate. It's proven by the guide to Q1.
Yeah.
Q1 is up, okay? It's all driven by high power.
You're now in a position where you can grow potentially each quarter this year. you know, your confidence around that, and I think, you know, the company had a history of sort of having a tough time hitting expectations, you know, your thoughts around that going forward?
I mean, first of all, we're not in the business of guiding multiple quarters.
Yeah.
We guided the Q1, you know, we're in a quiet period, but what I would say today is we are confident in our guide, and very confident in our guide. We also said that we gonna 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. We're confident in that. Why we're confident? Number one is mobile gives you four weeks visibility if you're lucky, okay? High power gives you a multiple weeks and longer visibility. The customers we're dealing with now are giving you kind of midterm to longer term visibility. We have backlog in place for Q2, you know, and we know what Q2 is gonna look like. That's Number one.
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. You know, an anchor is gonna go down. You can scream as hard as you want, it's gonna go down, right? There were so many cycles trying to save the mobile soldier, and that was very hard. I think that led to the miss.
Mm.
Always trying to think we're gonna 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, so on the right thing to do. I'm confident we are not gonna give a model to 2027 before later this year, but we iterate our messaging in the last two earnings, okay. We're gonna grow quarter-over-quarter throughout 2026. 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.
You've given us a SAM, a 2030 SAM, I think $3.5 billion unless that's changed across the four markets. Can you give us an overview of your comfort level around that sizing? Pretty big number for a company your size.
Well, you know, what is interesting is when I talk to many investors, they tell me I undercalled the SAM. Because, you know, rightfully so, some of our competitors, they call for $5 billion, okay, wide bandgap SAM, in the four market we're talking about. For me, I don't want to spend too much time on it. For $3.5 billion or $5 billion, you know, it 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, 2/3 of that is AIDC and infrastructure or grid infrastructure. You know, computing is gonna be $400 million. It's good business.
We'll talk about that later. Industrial will be another $600. 2/3 of that SAM is those two market. 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 why grid is.
We talked about upgrading grid, right? Edison would come back today, would see the same transformers that 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 GW of AI data center in the next five years with the grid we have today. For me, AI data center and grid, it's the same thing. It's inside data center or outside of data center.
Mm-hmm.
The other thing that is an important takeaway is, 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 counter intuitive. You asked me what I've learned. This is something I've learned. Like, I didn't expect that when I came on board. 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, you know, 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.
Today you have in a traditional AI architecture, you have to convert high voltage AC to DC. Today 50 volt, tomorrow 800 volt, right? That is AC-DC, either inside data center or as what they call the sidecar. That needs SiC. Okay? 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. There is a growth with the AI going. What's happening is today, everybody ship 5 kW, 8 kW, maybe 12 kW type of PSUs. In six-nine months, we're gonna be on 30 kW type of PSUs. As you get more power inside the same rack, you cannot just increase number of PSUs.
The content per kiloW is not linear. If you think about a couple of dollars of SiC content in a 5 kW PSUs, you're talking about $200 per kW of SiC content.
Mm-hmm.
In a 30 W PSU. That drives SiC growth. Of course, the grid. What is the other 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. SiC is half of the SAM in 2030, the grid restructure is just the beginning. This is going to be. Think about AI being a five years to ten years build-out. Grid is a 50 years build-out. For me, and that came to me as a surprise, is SiC has a long leg.
Mm.
Because of the grid infrastructure as well, and playing on both sides, inside and outside data center.
How, you know, there are a lot of competitors in each silicon carbide and gallium nitride. There's a smaller subset that have both, you know, and there's obviously relevant ones, but how important is it an advantage to have both of those technologies?
First of all, you know, I've been in 25 years plus in semiconductor. I always believe it's better to give the customer a choice.
Mm-hmm.
Than projecting your own religion. I hear. Two years ago, people said, "GaN is not gonna make it in data center." Oops, okay. That was the wrong call.
Yeah.
People said, "It's gonna be a SiC play." Oops, okay. It's a GaN play. People said, "Well, SiC has no market outside of EV." Oops, okay. My point is, we don't know what the customer wants. I don't want to push SiC because I have SiC.
Yeah.
I don't want to push GaN because I have GaN. We go to customer and say, "What do you want?" That drive a completely different conversation. If I come to you, Joe, and say, "What do you want? I have both," that drive a different conversation than if I come and say, "Well, I have water, so you better drink water," right?
Mm.
For me, this is very good to have both. That's number one. We are not, you know, challenged to be religious, okay? Number two is it's a continuum. You know, you can look at grid, which is how you convert hundreds of what? hundreds of volts of AC into 50 volt or even 800 volt DC. 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.
Mm.
They all talk to each other. I think NVIDIA in particular has driven a complete ecosystem to make sure that you have to think about this as a continuum, right? It's the same power chain. I think both is actually very helpful. As you said, there are not many vendors.
Yeah.
That have both. In particular, the ultra high voltage SiC. You know, SiC, I know SiC had bad press, okay, because of the EV and.
Yeah.
It's, you know, it's hard to make money...
Yeah.
In the low voltage SiC. That's why we don't participate. It's a different game to do 1.2 kV, 1.7 kV, or even 2,000-3,000 volts SiC for the grid. It's a different sport. I think both is actually helpful.
Okay, great. 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, you know, the focus around 800 volt?
Everybody wants to talk about AIDC, right?
Yeah.
I'm surprised you start with that. As I said, there is Everybody talks about this change, which is the 800 volt HVDC.
Mm-hmm.
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 or the TPU?" I said, "It's not about the TPU-
Okay.
The XPU. It's about the rack." 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.
Mm-hmm.
When you get to a point where you're comparing 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. The whole system doesn't work, and you have less space. The number one big transition is the transition to Kyber.
Mm-hmm.
For NVIDIA or any form of high-density rack XPU. I say XPU because we talk about GPU, but you can talk about TPU and any form-
Sure.
Any form of XPU, right? That's one. That will drive the 800 volt all the way down to GPU. Here you basically convert the grid to 800 volt DC. That's the entrance into data center. Then you go all the way in. You can go to 50 volt first. Maybe you go down to 6 volts later, okay? Maybe you go all the way down to 6 volt because it's obvious less conversion means less loss.
Mm-hmm.
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.
Mm.
AC to DC. Two ways to do that. One is through the grid upgrade, which is the SSTs and all the things we're gonna talk about. The other one is what some of the hyperscalers have called to replace the PSUs, the sidecar, 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?
Mm-hmm.
It's both. The 800 volt HVDC is a GaN play, in my opinion.
Mm-hmm.
The PSU is a SiC play. That's for data center, right?
If you're me, how do you pick winners? There's 14 suppliers to NVIDIA power supply business on 800 volt. You know, how do we go about what are the milestones along the way that shows that Navitas is gonna play there?
First of all, revenue is the source of truth, okay?
Yeah.
That's how I grew up in my 25 years. You're never gonna hear me talking about pipeline, what I call monkey money, right?
Thank you, yeah.
Because on Saturday when I go and do grocery shopping, they only take dollars, okay? They don't take pipeline. You know, outlook, revenue guide, this is what matters. You're right. How do we know are we gonna win business? 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, I respect everybody. They say, "We're gonna have GaN." Okay, you're gonna have GaN, the customers need GaN today.
Mm-hmm.
I'm now leading 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 gonna develop a new super high voltage SiC. We have it today. You know, validating that it works helps when you have it today.
Yeah.
-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 gonna take high temp, low temp, they're gonna go all the corners. That's validating that the device works. Then you have to go to rack-level validation, okay? Which is not like device level, but rack level. Then you get to supply chain and where you produce, and do you have, like, a reliable multi-source, you know, good tier one, tier two OSATs and foundry. It's a multi-step approach. People ask me, "When do we have the ChatGPT moment of Navitas that you have one, you know, 800 volt DC?" I said, "We're gonna see it in the order book." It's hard to tell you when-
Mm.
By the way, it's not me who's gonna comment. It's the hyperscalers and the OEM, right? I don't like, you know, long-term planning like this.
Yeah.
about business. 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.
Yeah.
It's not as simple to drive than silicon. We are helping customers. When we released the 800 volt, 50 volt board a few weeks ago, which was the highest efficiency at 10 kW. This is to help customers. This was done with an hyperscaler to help customers to see how to do it, right? If you've never done that before, good luck.
Mm.
Okay? That's, that's my point.
Yeah. Okay. You mentioned the similarities between grid infrastructure and AI. Can you talk about that opportunity as well?
Yeah. The similarity is what's driving the use case.
Mm-hmm.
Okay? I joke or I mention Edison. If he would come back and look at the grid today, it's the same grid we had 50, 100 years ago. It's 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. The why they are drilling is because the AI is the use case. EV was not even the use case-
Mm.
Okay, to change it. AI is the use case. You cannot deploy remotely half of what we're trying to deploy with the. 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.
Okay.
We'll come to U.S.-centric and CEO U.S. and national security. Europe, energy is very regulated. Okay? U.S. is deregulated or more less regulated. I think, you know, the hyperscalers are involved in how, you know, the grid gets redefined. I talked about necessity being the force of nature, okay? You know, if you have to change the grid. I think we see an acceleration of investment, development of Battery Energy Storage System, okay, which is gonna 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, you know, huge stadium level type of thing. We see megaW chargers and DC-to-DC converters.
See many application, and they need super high voltage SiC. Okay? This is SiC. You don't go there with silicon.
Mm-hmm.
Okay? You don't even go there with your 650 volt-.
Yeah.
SiC that you use in an EV, right? That doesn't make the cut. What is interesting is those guys are moving super fast. You're gonna see interesting step. You're gonna see first couple of megaW SSTs bundle with battery energy systems. You see high single-digit megaW type of SSTs coming up. As I said, it's gonna take two, three, four decades before every transformer that we hear blowing up every other day in San Francisco.
Yeah.
, is gonna be replaced.
Yeah. Yeah. 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?
Yeah. Catch-all is a bit of, you know, it's not dismissive, but.
No, I don't.
I see, I see what you mean.
I don't intend it to be dismissive.
I don't know. I always use it with my team.
Yeah.
My team say, "Don't say it's a catch-all." The reason why we call it industrial is it's a mixed bag of many applications.
Yeah.
Okay? 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 gonna be more efficient," but nobody cared. Now this is table stakes. We have customers doing pumps. They want to get next level of efficiency. We have customers doing high power converters. They want to be more efficient. It's almost like the energy has become the currency, like, one of our, you know, famous leader in the Bay said, that woke up everybody and says, "You cannot continue to waste power." How do you waste power? Is heat. How do you basically get it out? By being efficient. The table stake has moved. You know, being 90% efficient is not good enough.
Mm-hmm.
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? They come and say, "Oh, we need to use 64 GaN in this super high power, couple of kiloWs type of pumps," right? 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 is it reliable? It's difficult to implement. They're not ready. They could get done with silicon, and now I think this is changing, right? I think that's what's happening.
Okay, great. 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 asks me that question, okay. First of all, I would say you're right, but we'll deal with that in the future. In 2030, the SAM that we talked about, $3.5 billion, computing is $400 million.
Mm-hmm.
Doesn't make or break the company. In short term, and I think in the next three-four years, what we see is. 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 gonna carry a 250 W-300 W charger made of silicon.
Yeah.
I mean, we all got used to carry those big bricks, but it's painful.
Mm-hmm.
Those are 100, 200 W, 250 W chargers. It's not gonna work at 250. Customer we talked to, they want 250, 300, 350 W.
Mm-hmm.
That just enough to drive the move to GaN. What drove the commoditization of mobile? Mobile was good up to a point where the customers say, "Okay, I have a 100 W charger. It's small enough. I don't want it smaller. I don't want it to be higher power, so it's gonna be cheaper.
Mm-hmm.
Computing is not at that place. Today, when we do a 250 W charger, they say, "Okay, can you do 350 in the same footprint?" Now they say, "Can you make it smaller?" 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 three, four years when every charger out there is tiny and then we'll see commoditization. I don't think it's relevant today.
Yeah.
Be able to do it. It was basically a call I made. I said, we're not just gonna talk about how big things are gonna be in the future. As long as we can make good money at good margin and we serve customer innovation with GaN, why not?
Mm-hmm. Okay, great. Your long-term growth rate, you've talked about sort of a 60%-75% SAM growth. If I have the numbers right, I know they've changed a little bit. Is that kind of in the right ballpark, and how are you framing that opportunity?
Yeah. It's the right ballpark. You know, 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. Well, $3.5 billion is big.
Yeah.
For me, it doesn't matter, okay? It's gonna 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 a SAM, people ask me, "Why do you call SAM and not TAM?" I said, "The reason why I exclude TAM is I exclude EV.
Mm.
I exclude mobile. I don't want to confuse anybody. I mean, the SiC TAM-
Yeah.
Today is in the $6+ billion. Remove EV, low voltage industrial for SiC, you're down to the hundreds of million. 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 in 2030. Same with GaN. You know, we were walking away from mobile. I'm not gonna include mobile in the SAM.
Yeah.
That would be misleading.
Yeah.
We don't want to support EV with GaN. I mean, GaN will have a life in EV, mostly in OBC. You know, no offense to anybody in EV. It's, we have customers in EV today that we support, and we're gonna continue to support them.
Yeah.
It's not where I put the R&D because it's a long to revenue. What I would say is the pain to revenue ratio is very high. Too high.
Mm.
I think we have our hands full, okay? We just remove that from the SAM, and that gives team the clarity of what we go after.
Okay. Great. You mentioned on the supply side, you know, 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?
You know, 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. You know, I took the job. A week later, I was in Taipei, or in [Chun-Tien meeting at TSMC. 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 the technology to GF.
Mm.
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 of customer. We'll continue that, okay? We don't want to create more disruption for the customers. This is a big business we go after. It requires scale. It requires eight-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. We quickly met with Tim and his team. They have GaN capabilities. They have GaN technology. They invested in GaN. We have, you know, long experience in process, in device, in application, in systems.
Combining both was, for us, the best thing of, you know, accelerating GaN production in the U.S. That's why we called it a strategic partnership. It's not a buzzword. We call it a technology partnership more than a manufacturing partnership, right? You know, there's no direct flight between my site and Burlington, but there's a lot of back and forth between the two sites. 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 gonna get samples, what they're gonna get. We're gonna be in production next year. You know, you always look at what are the best decision you've made, right? You—
Yeah.
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, okay?
Yeah.
I feel like it's gonna be giving U.S. foundry to U.S. like we have in SiC, okay?
Yeah.
For Tim and his team have a great team and a great fab.
Well, Tim will be here on this exact stage tomorrow, we will have a conversation about it.
I can look for him.
Yeah, I will. Maybe we could pause there and see if there's questions from the audience. No? 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 know, you have this narrower focus now. How do you pursue those opportunities?
I mean, you know, Avnet and Wintec