Great, thanks everybody. Can you hear me? Yeah, we're good. Everybody, I'm Joe Moore, again, Morgan Stanley Semiconductor Research. Very happy to have the executive team from onsemi, Hassane El-Khoury, CEO, and Thad Trent, CFO. So I wonder if you guys could just start out. You know, you've overseen a pretty big transformation. This company has much higher profitability than we had seen historically. You're going even through a period of low utilization now, and you're maintaining those margins. Can you talk about what you did to get us to this point? And then we'll go into some of the details.
Sure. The last couple of years, you know, we've been dealing with a lot of things. Obviously, we've had the height of the pandemic, which saw a lot of shortages that we were able to support customers. So we took the opportunity to accelerate the transformation. So some of the components that we've done is, one, we walked away from a lot of the business that you typically would see as commodity, where our focus right now on our portfolio is being able to extract the value and therefore the customers to see value. If customers don't see value in the product, that's a product that we're not gonna continue, number one, to support, and two, to invest R&D dollars in. So we went through a very big, large portfolio focus, portfolio rationalization.
Following that, once you have the right portfolio, then you go and, "Okay, what is the manufacturing footprint that we need to support that growth though?" And due to that, we ended up divesting four subscale, and acquiring a 12-inch fab. So again, a mix shift, a more, healthy 12-inch. I guess I get the microphone.
Yeah, I think it's coming in and out.
All right. So divesting the four subscale fabs put us in a position today that with the utilization being in the mid-60s%, it doesn't have the same fixed cost absorption that we need to have. And that lifted the margin to, what you said, the mid-40s%. So a lot of it is execution, a lot of it is portfolio, and a lot of it is product focus. To put it all in perspective, the mid-60s% utilization that we are seeing today, the last time we saw that was in 2020, and at that time, the margin was at 30%. So we're already at the same utilization rate, however, our margin is holding up in the mid-40s%, which is the floor that we've set a while back.
Great. And it has been impressive, definitely. Maybe we could walk through some of the, the drivers of the product transformation that you talked about, starting with Silicon Carbide. You know, you've had a really good progression there. I think, you know, up about 4x last year to $800 million. You talked about growing 2x to market rate this year. I know the year didn't end quite the way you wanted to, but can you just talk generally to your progress with Silicon Carbide?
Yeah, you know, when we started on the Silicon Carbide journey, we've had a few guiding principles and a few things that we've been very consistent about, and one is: you're only going to win in Silicon Carbide when you have the best technology. And we define technology as being the devices and the packaging, because both together, when you're talking about high-power devices, you have to be very competitive on the efficiency side, that's the device, and you have to be able to get the heat off the device, that's the package. That's what allowed us to win most, and if not all, of the designs at OEMs. And because of that superior performance, both on device and package, and therefore system-level performance translating to the OEM, we're able to capitalize on that, and you've seen the growth at 4x.
And to put it in perspective, the growth, the 4x from $200 million to over $800 million that we saw from 2022 to 2023, is the highest growth percent in the industry and the highest dollar growth of all our peers. So it is not just because the market is a, you know, hot market or a growth market. We capitalize on the technology, we've increased share, and we went from number six to number two. That's the momentum that's gonna carry us forward as megatrend of electrification continues in the future.
Yeah, maybe you could talk to megatrend a little bit. You know, as we've sort of seen sentiment fade a little bit on EVs in the U.S. , our Automotive team is pretty negative on that, but we're also seeing a very significant investment in China in EV. There continues to be a lot of momentum. Can you talk about those different forces, and is this an inevitability that down the road, internal combustion engines kinda fade away as part of the mix?
Yeah, and that, that's the, I guess, to, to define megatrend, you know, you're not going to draw a straight line, to get from where we are to where I would say the market is gonna take us. So let's talk about where the market is and why this is megatrend that we're investing in, and why it's not really a short term. And in my view, short term, you know, 2024, 2025 is kind of a short term. The investment thesis is a much longer view here. Why do we feel that? The penetration rate, you know, think about it, at the end of the decade, is going to be, you know, maybe 50%. Okay, we can argue maybe it's 2032, not 2030.
Regardless, it's only gonna be halfway there by the end of this decade. So you have a runway of a decade- plus. So that's the investment, that's megatrend that you're going into. Now, is it inevitable? Yes. Is it going to be lumpy on the way there? Yes. What we're dealing with today is what I call a negative catalyst, meaning, okay, there's a price point disadvantage of EVs today. A lot of people are not going to write a check for $100,000 for an EV, and with the rates where they are, there's an affordability thing. That doesn't mean EVs are not going to remain the wave of the future of mobility.
What needs to happen is the positive catalyst, which is a different price point or optionality, where if you have a $30,000-$40,000, maybe $50,000 vehicle, you're more likely to make the jump to EV. If you have better battery technology that allows fast charging, that is a positive catalyst. You know, the last few years, we've had positive catalysts in electrification, where-
Mm-hmm.
It was ahead of what we thought EVs are gonna be. Now, it's slightly below what we thought. The positive catalyst is gonna push it above what we thought. That's that lumpiness, but the trajectory is up and to the right still.
Okay, great. And then your commentary of growing 2x the market growth this year, can you talk about the gating factors there? 'Cause it seems like you're supply constrained, so you're constrained more by supply rather than demand growth, but you're also talking in terms of demand growth. Like, 2x demand growth would be great, don't get me wrong, but just trying to understand how we should think about the upside and downside to that.
Yeah. Our supply is, I guess, intentionally tied to the demand.
Mm-hmm.
Meaning we're not installing supply or capacity unless we see credible demand. So by definition, we're always supply constrained, or we're always sold out, if I look at it the other way, because we're doing brownfield investment. And brownfield investment, in our view, is one, the most reactive to market. We don't have to build a $5 billion shell and then work for the next five to six years, dealing with the ups and downs in order to fill it while you're dragging margins down. What we do is we have a brownfield footprint.
Mm-hmm.
Within that same footprint, we will increase capacity as we need it. Therefore, you don't see that large impact for us on utilization from outlook in the market, and, you know, call it 2024 and 2025. In 2024, t he designs are qualified, customers are ramping. The primary question is: Is the end demand going to materialize the way we expected? There is no designs that we have to win now-
Mm-hmm
... to make 2024. It's all done.
Mm-hmm.
We know exactly what everybody needs, and we're already starting to work on that. Right now, RFQs or engagements and design wins that we're doing are primarily, we're talking 2027, 2028. That's how far visibility we have.
Okay, great. And one of the dynamics in Silicon Carbide is ramping your own internal substrates through the GTAT acquisition. You got to your milestones there of majority output by the end of last year. Where are you going forward? It seems like, you know, you're always gonna have some that's outsourced. How do you think about that balance?
Yeah, our view has always been, we're not gonna be 100% insourced. We're going to be, think about it, 70%- 80% internal. That leaves about 20 %- 30% outside, and we think that's a good mix in order to get a quick ramp or, you know, flex capacity externally, rather than having to install capacity internally for a peak or a ramp. We can fluctuate, and we can modulate externally for what we need while we maintain our internal capacity or our internal substrate manufacturing fully utilized. That's a good, good mix for us historically in other technologies, but also it gives us a market read of what's going on out there. You know, what is the quality of the substrate in the merchant market?
Is that going to be different? So it gives us a read versus, you know, heads down, only internal. So we're not blind to kind of the world around us, but we still believe vertical integration is a competitive advantage. One, from a supply assurance from a customer side, we are able to give the supply assurance that customers do need. And two, unfortunately, in the short term, you have the geopolitical risk-
Mm-hmm
... where you can talk about substrate sourcing in China, but if that's your only source or a primary source, you're not adding a lot of comfort to an OEM in Europe or an OEM in, in North America because of geopolitical uncertainty. So you have to overcome these two hurdles, and we believe a mix of internal-external services that.
Great. And my last Silicon Carbide question, I mean, you mentioned China. A lot of the EV momentum has shifted to the Chinese OEMs. You've talked about having LTAs with four of the top five, I believe, is the right number. You know, how do you see that opportunity for onsemi and do you worry about, over time, losing market share to Chinese device suppliers?
So I look at—so you're right, a big opportunity in China. If you look at percent penetration and units, the biggest market is in China. We talked about Silicon Carbide, you know, 50% is Asia. That's, you know, China, Korea. That's for us.
Mm-hmm.
So it is a big focus because that's where the market is today. Over time, you know, I don't worry about, you know, the share loss or design loss because it's China. That's not... You know, we look at China, and we look at design wins, whether it's China or Europe or North America, exactly the same way. You're only gonna win if you have the better technology, whether it's against a European peer, whether it's against an American, or whether it's against a domestic Chinese. Because, you know, people think about, "Oh, well, if it's gonna be available in China, it's gonna be cheap, it's gonna be commoditized." Okay, well, if it's commoditized, then it doesn't really matter because that's-- we're not gonna play there.
Mm-hmm.
Therefore, if you tell me it could be commoditized, then you're not adding value, then it's not a business that's gonna drive the margin, regardless of what your cost structure is. Therefore, our focus is: How do we add value?... When we talk about, you know, competitive advantage on technology, what does that translate to for everybody here? We talk about percent efficiency. You say, "Okay, well, great, that's a data sheet or a number on a PowerPoint." Percent efficiency in a car, if I give a customer 5%-10% efficiency gain on a Silicon Carbide module, that same OEM can get 5%-10% less battery volume in the vehicle. Battery is the biggest dollar content for a car. 5%-10% benefit on a price of a battery because of lower volume while maintaining the range is a, it's a given.
Yeah.
We're not talking about the price of Silicon Carbide at that point.
Mm-hmm.
We're talking about how can we get more efficiency, so they can save it on the battery? As long as that's the formula that we use to win an end market and a design, it doesn't matter where the competition is coming from. That's, at the end of the day, how we win in Europe and how we win in North America.
You're gonna get wins where the market's evolving, not yet.
That's right.
Yeah. Okay, maybe if we could talk about the non-Silicon Carbide portion of your business on the auto side. You guys had signaled some weakness in the automotive business about a quarter ago. I think that's becoming increasingly a consensus. So you were kind of early to see that. Can you talk about that? What's your visibility on how long that might last?
Yeah, you know, we've always said our LTSAs provide us a phone call. You know, as soon as the customer is going to see some softness or some changes in the demand environment, we're gonna get the phone call. Because it's legally binding, they don't wanna be stuck with inventory. We don't want them stuck with inventory, so we're gonna get the call. That happened, just to rewind further than last, you know, Q3, Q4, we saw the industrial softness because of LTSAs in end of 2022.
Mm-hmm.
Then it took about six months for people, you know, middle of 2023, for people to start talking about how industrial is getting soft. Fast forward to Q3, I talked about, you know, we're starting to see softness in I called the European Tier 1 at the beginning-
Mm-hmm
... 'cause they, from a market share perspective, they're a big indicator, for me, of a worldwide auto, demand picture. And of course, at the time, if you remember, everybody's like: "No way, automotive is still gonna grow. It's gonna grow next year." And then fast forward to CES, all the pre-announcements started and all the guide downs. So we did see it earlier. What does that mean, for us is, the LTSAs work, and customers see those, as strategic because we are working constructively with all of them. Where do we see that moving forward? That really depends on, demand.
At this point, yeah, there's some inventory digestion, call it in the current quarter, maybe next quarter, but it's more of a demand picture at this point, because inventory, whether it's elevated or not, is purely a denominator of what the demand is gonna do.
Yeah. And there was a notion, it never really came from you guys, but from others, that the autos, OEMs would direct Tier 1s to build large buffer stocks, large safety stocks of inventory. You know, you've been pretty consistent that the LTAs are designed so that people don't need to do that. But that idea seems to be fading a little bit anyway. So, you know, do you think that people will run with... You know, we had two years of very severe shortages that were very impactful. It seems logical to run with a little bit more inventory, but do you think that's just not happening?
So it's a, I would say, bimodal bifurcation here. That is still what the OEMs want. However, if you look at the financial situation of a lot of the Tier 1s, it's thin margin, and therefore, you can't carry a lot of inventory, right? So when things are tough and demand is slow, you're not gonna trap your cash in inventory, so they're reducing inventory. The issue with that is that's exactly what happened when COVID hit. You know, COVID hit, demand went down, everybody drained the inventory to a subscale level, and they struggled with the way up. However, OEMs learned a very big lesson. Our LTSAs today are, most of them, directly with the OEM, which means there is no juggling in between. We do the juggling. It's not a juggler upon a juggler.
Yeah.
We get the numbers from the OEMs. We will challenge the numbers with the OEM, and then the OEM will do either a direct or a directed buy. Directed buy meaning, "Hey, Mr. OEM, you tell me, who do you want me—which Tier 1 you want me to ship to?" But the OEMs are seeing inventory levels getting drained below critical levels.
Okay
... at the Tier 1s, and they're starting that dialogue, either directly with the Tier 1 or directly with us, to not let it happen. Because they understand when the demand signals happen, we're six months away.
Yeah.
Congratulations, we're back to where we were in 2021.
So you think, so in Q1, you're relatively, you're shipping kind of to end demand. And so the question from here is a function of that end demand, is that right?
So no, Q1 is not end demand. We're still draining-
Still draining
... in Q1. What we talked about on last call, Thad mentioned, you know, we talk about normalization. So we're not planning on a recovery in the second half of the year, but more of a normalization of demand.
Okay.
It's not in the first, and it's not in Q1.
Yeah. Okay. Okay, great. And then, can you talk about some of the other growth markets in autos? You know, image sensors is a big one that you guys have focused on. Can you talk about your progress there?
Yeah. So, for ADAS, obviously, we have a leadership position with our image sensor. That here, the growth is stemming from a couple of things. One is penetration of ADAS in general vehicles. So more and more vehicles have, we call, you know, call it Level 2+, autonomy. Therefore, you need camera or image sensor content. But within that, you have an ASP uplift... as we migrate from, call it an average of one to three megapixel cameras, and you go more into the 8-megapixel camera, that is an ASP uplift. That's over a 2x ASP uplift just by doing a one-to-one swap with higher resolution. So that's already. So our revenue in 8-megapixel in Q4 doubled year-on-year.
Wow.
So you're starting to see that uplift. So the growth is coming from these two areas. We'll continue to innovate, we'll continue to introduce, you know, competitive products that's specifically tailored to automotive, to capture the content and capture the technology uplift, as those cameras get adopted in more vehicles.
Great. So can you talk about pricing in the automotive market? Is this an area where you talked about getting out of lower margin commodity businesses? Was some of that in autos, and what do you see going forward? Do you see, you know, in markets like sensors or power, more pricing aggression?
Yeah, some of it was in automotive.
Mm-hmm.
But most of it was in non-auto, and we, because it's not a, it wasn't a market driven or a product driven, necessarily. Some of it was market driven, back to the value.
Yeah.
You know, if, if a consumer company doesn't really care about the value we provide from a power device, they're not gonna put the value nor pay for it. But the value in automotive can be extracted, and we're able to do that. Moving forward, however, most of our revenue is tied in LTSA, and that's both volume and pricing.
Yeah.
Look, the conversation is not about pricing.
Yeah.
You know, we're having a lot of dialogue about LTSA, about relief on, price on, volume-
Yeah
... because of end demand. And those are dialogues, of course, we're very open to, 'cause it's not to our advantage to kind of blindly ship to, because, you know, the bills will come due.
Yeah. Yeah.
So you want to be as close to demand as possible, but it's not a pricing discussion. Because we made the commitment to support the customer, and the customer made the commitment to pull. The other thing is, you know, we can talk about pricing, but pricing in general has not come down.
Yeah.
You know, and talk about energy, talk about wages, talk about all the things that went up during COVID, has not really come down.
Yeah.
I would also point to, you know, when we talked about exiting that business, we planned on exiting $800 million-$900 million over a three-year period.
Yeah.
To date, it's been $475 million. So we haven't exited what we thought. You know, we priced ourselves out of that market-
Yeah
... but the fact is, pricing isn't sensitive and those customers aren't leaving. Today, that business is all at favorable margins.
Yeah.
So we're gonna stop talking about exits. It's good business, we're keeping it at this point. But if, if the pricing was soft, those customers would've found another supplier.
Yeah. So maybe talk to that dynamic a little bit. I mean, you've this has been a big element of the margin improvement that you guys have seen, and now you're kind of signaling, "Hey, we're not walking away from it anymore 'cause it's just good margin business." You know, any prospect that that could change? I mean, you thought it was a business that would fluctuate a year ago. You know, why wouldn't it kind of get, if we get, through a protracted downturn, start to see that?
Well, if it's, we would've seen it accelerate.
Mm-hmm.
Right? You know, even in the fourth quarter, we didn't meet or even come close to kind of what we thought. So in an environment where we talk about, you know, a lot of companies that could support it, have underutilization. So they're very likely that they could have already-
Mm-hmm
... dropped the price to get the revenue-
Mm
... because we've been very public about our position, yet that didn't happen. You know, I can posture what the reason is, but there's value. You know, maybe it's not a value where the product sees value, but there is a value for onsemi shipping that. Customers get it when they need to. They don't have to worry about it. It's high-quality product. So when some of these products is, you know, call it $0.05. Okay, let's say we doubled it to $0.10 in a $300-
Mm.
It's gonna cost them $1 million to change. Why change and go to potentially another risky supplier that has bad quality and jeopardize the business?
Mm-hmm.
Again, it goes back to customers perceive the value, and therefore, they pay for it.
So you kind of priced it to value-
That's right
... and then maybe it's, you're surprised how much of it's sticky, and-
That's right
The limit. Yeah.
That's right. And as long as we don't need that capacity for something else, it's good business at favorable margin.
Yeah. Yeah, but you're gonna stay pretty, disciplined about the margins of the business?
Absolutely.
Absolutely.
Absolutely.
We will not chase that down-
Yeah
... if it does get soft somewhere. Absolutely.
Yeah. Okay.
We have. You know, back to the first question.
Yeah
We have rationalized our footprint, manufacturing footprint. In order when we are where we are today, we are very disciplined in no more fab fillers.
Yeah.
That's how margin gets degraded, and there's no recovery. 'Cause if you degrade it on the way down with fab filler, you already set the price and the value-
Mm
... of your products.
Yeah.
We changed the footprint of the company from a manufacturing side, so we don't have to do that.
Great, that makes sense. So I'll come back to the gross margins, but maybe you could talk to industrial a little bit. You mentioned you guys were earlier to see weakness there. You know, what are you seeing now? And are you seeing... You know, there's Silicon Carbide in that market, too. Can you talk about, you know, what you're seeing in power in the industrial market as well?
Yeah. So in industrial market, you know, we did see the softness. We took utilization down early in 2023. And really, we haven't talked about industrial kind of changing because it's been in our guidance, been in our outlook. So when a lot of our peers are talking about, you know, kind of peak to trough, and within a quarter, and we don't see it, it's not because we're blind to it, it's because we saw it before and it's already in our baseline. However, if you look at overall industrial for onsemi, the results are more muted. Because within industrial, we do have a lot of strength and growth. So in industrial, we have, you know, we talked about the megatrend in automotive.
There's the megatrend in industrial for energy storage system or renewable energy. And the categories are energy storage systems. You have a charging infrastructure, and you have a renewable itself. And I'm talking not the residential, which impacted a lot of my peers, but more on the commercial and utility scale renewable. So these two categories have lifted our industrial result. I mean, that business for the last two years have grown 60%-70% year-on-year for two years.
Wow!
So the softness in industrial is still there, but it's kind of muted by stellar growth in that business. We have the medical business that's also seen a lot of growth within the industrial. So net-net, if you look at our industrial result at the top line, it's more muted than some of our peers because we do have a unique position of growth within the megatrends.
I mean, if you aggregate industrial across all of my coverage, we've seen, you know, I would argue, the worst inventory correction that we've ever seen. I mean, you had worse numbers in 2001 and 2009, but there was demand destruction on a much bigger scale. Whereas, you know, we're almost this week now, and, and it's all inventory. So it feels like it should be due for a decent snapback when we get to the other end of it.
That's, you know... You hear a lot of, you know, some of my peers when they talk about, you know, what, what their views on 2024. Let me give you my view-
Sure
Before I venture in talking, if it's due for a snapback. The view and what we're managing the company is there's no recovery in 2024.
Okay.
Let me, because I'd rather be wrong that way-
Yeah
than plan for a recovery and be wrong the other way.
Yeah.
Because planning for kind of a no recovery in 2024, we manage, we're very disciplined and very cautious about managing inventory, managing utilization, and managing the expectation. If we're wrong and there's a recovery, utilization goes up, revenue goes up, margin goes up, profit goes up. It's all head—it's all tailwind in this case. If we sit here and are planning on a recovery because it's, you know, it's due or the model says so, and it doesn't happen, now I have elevated inventory-
Mm-hmm
... and I still have to take utilization down. That's not a position we want to be in. So our approach is we're going to be more disciplined in our view of the market. We will react much faster to an uptick in the market rather than have to snap back-
Yeah
If we didn't get it right.
Yeah, I mean, that makes sense to me. I mean, it is also true, though, that your visibility is always worse at the bottom. Like, it could get better quickly, but you're ready to adapt to that if it does.
That's right.
Yeah. Okay, that makes a lot of sense. Maybe if you could talk to the financials a little bit, that in terms of gross margins, where you are today with the utilizations that you have, I would assume that gives you a lot of confidence in hitting your longer term targets when that utilization comes back up. But can you talk to that generally?
Yeah. So 2024 is all about utilization.
Yeah.
Our utilization is mid-60s%. As Hassane said earlier, I think it's worth repeating. The last time we were at mid-60% utilization was in 2020, and the gross margin was 30%.
Yeah.
We're currently there, and we're holding a mid-40% gross margin. That's our floor on margin. We believe we can hold it. So if you think about where we go from here, our target's 53% long-term.
Yeah.
You know, in 2022, we were at 49%. So you got utilization, which will be a nice tailwind when the market starts to recover or normalize. So you think about every point of utilization, it's 15 basis points of gross margin improvement. We have the East Fishkill fab that we acquired, where we got the surprise on the cost structure there. We'll have that under control by the time we exit 2024. That's about 200 basis points currently dilutive to the company. And then we've exited the, or divested the four fabs, and we'll start to monetize those starting in 2025. It's about $160 million on an annualized basis that starts to hit the P&L as we move that production in-house. So we leverage that fixed cost.
So once we start producing those in-house, you start to see that $160 million start to kick in. We'll start to see that in 2025 and beyond. And then anything that we have in R&D today, in development, is at or above the corporate target. So longer term, we feel really good. You start adding those things up, you start getting pretty, pretty close to that, that 53% target.
Everything you're developing now is above 53%?
That's the goal.
Yeah. And then from that, yeah, I know you over the course of last year, you had start-up expense in Silicon Carbide, which I appreciate you never tried to strip it out of your numbers. So, you know, where are you now with that? I mean, you're kind of growing at more of a rate that's-
Yeah, yeah, we're, you know, at the corporate average at this point-
Okay
-with Silicon Carbide, right? So we had that headwind in 2020-
Yeah
... now we've mitigated that. And, you know, we'll be adding some capacity in 2024 for the 2025 growth. So we'll probably be kind of running at that, at that level for most of 2024.
Okay. Is there still some benefit to migrating to the GTAT substrate within that Silicon Carbide?
Sure. Anytime we're going to internal substrates, it's favorable for margin.
Yeah.
Absolutely.
Okay. Okay, and then last question, before I turn to the audience, maybe if you could talk to CapEx? You know, where you guys sit, I mean, obviously, utilization is pretty low, but you're also talking about a bunch of factory consolidation, things like that. Where do you stand on spend?
Yeah. So in you know, we'd laid out in 2023 a plan where we would be high teens for a couple of years in terms of capital intensity. We were at 19% last year. We said that, because we're performing so well in Silicon Carbide, we actually taken that down in 2024.
Mm-hmm.
So we're in the low teens. That's the target. Our long-term model is 11%.
Right.
So we've narrowed in on that, you know, a couple of years earlier than planned. The reason for that is obviously Silicon Carbide is performing well. But when we think about bringing capacity on for Silicon Carbide, it's a very capital-light structure-
Yeah
Because our fabs are already 6 in and 8 in qualified, so we've got those up and running. And if you think about on the substrate side, it's a retrofit to the current furnaces. So it's not like we've got to go break ground on new facilities and bring equipment in. It's actually a retrofit. And so we can modulate that very carefully, depending on how the market develops as well. So we can de-risk the business on that side as well. So we feel really good about where we are on the capital and the investment on that side of the house. These are all brownfield investments, so it's about 40% cheaper than doing a greenfield investment.
Yeah. Yeah, that's great. All right, good. Do we have any questions from the audience? Maybe just last question from me then. Is there anything from a growth standpoint that you're excited about that you'd want to talk about that I didn't bring up?
Yeah. So I briefly—I'm gonna give a little hint on the mixed-signal analog. You know, I briefly talked about it on the last call. Sudhir did a great job presenting it in Analyst Day, which is a market expansion that we're doing. It is a new technology platform that we're introducing. And to put it in focus, it's more of a cross-selling opportunity of the mixed signal. So don't think about going after kind of mixed-signal analog as a whole, but next to every Silicon Carbide MOSFET or an IGBT, there's a driver, there's a controller. Having these mixed-signal analog products jointly sold or jointly paired with our Silicon Carbide is a high attach rate. That's the opportunity that we're going after.
The benefit for a customer, because you say, "Okay, great. Well, if you have it, why would the customer change?" Having our driver, for example, paired with our Silicon Carbide, you're able to drive the Silicon Carbide switch much differently and extract even more efficiency back to the savings on the battery. So it is a system-level benefit. That's the cross sell. I'm very excited about that. We announced it in Analyst Day, and where we sit today, we've already sampled products. So it's a very, I guess, benchmark-setting development timeline. So I'm very excited. I'm very proud of the team for having done it so quickly to be able to sample customers now, and that's gonna proliferate, and you'll hear more about it through 2024.
Yeah. Okay. Exciting stuff. All right, good. Well, we'll wrap it up there. Hassane, thanks so much.
Absolutely. Thank you.
Thanks, Joe.