科磊 (KLAC) 2017 Q2 法說會逐字稿

Good afternoon.

My name is Marianna, and I will be your conference Operator today.

At this time.

I would like to welcome everyone to the second-quarter FY17 earnings conference call.

All lines have been placed on mute to prevent any background noise.

After the speakers' remarks, there will be a question-and-answer session.

(Operator Instructions)

Thank you, I would now like to turn the call over to Mr. Ed Lockwood.

You may begin your conference.

Thank you, Marianna.

Good afternoon, everyone, and welcome to our conference call.

Joining me on our call today are Rick Wallace, our President and Chief Executive Officer, and Bren Higgins, our Chief Financial Officer.

We're here to discuss second-quarter results for the period ended December 31, 2016.

We released these results this afternoon at 1.15 PM Pacific Time.

If you haven't seen the release, you can find it on our website at www.KLA-Tencor.com.

A simulcast of this call will be accessible on demand following its completion on the Investor Relations section of our website.

Today's discussion of our financial results will be presented on a non GAAP financial basis unless otherwise specified.

A detailed reconciliation of GAAP to non-GAAP results can be found in today's earnings Press Release on KLA-Tencor's IR website.

There you'll also find a calendar of future investor events, presentations, and conferences as well as links to KLA-Tencor's SEC filings including our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended June 30, 2016.

In those filings, you'll find descriptions of Risk Factors that could impact our future results.

As you know, our future results are subject to risks.

Any forward-looking statements, including those we make on this call today, are subject to those risks, and KLA-Tencor cannot guarantee those forward-looking statements will come true.

Our actual results may differ significantly from those projected in our forward-looking statements.

With that, I'll turn the call over to Rick.

Good afternoon, everyone.

Today, I'm pleased to announce that can KLA-Tencor's business continues to perform at a very high level, and we delivered another outstanding result in the December quarter exceeding our guidance for shipments, revenue, and non-GAAP diluted earnings per share for the period.

In addition, new orders topped $1 billion for the first time in Q2 reflecting KLA-Tencor's market leadership and the critical role process control plays in enabling our customers success at the leading edge and in legacy nodes.

For the full year, in calendar 2016, KLA-Tencor grew revenue 14% compared to mid- to high single-digits growth for the wafer fabrication industry.

Our exemplary performance both in the December quarter and for the full year in 2016 is the result of KLA-Tencor's market leadership and coupled with our record backlog of over $1.6 billion sets the stage for another year of strong top line and earnings growth for the Company in calendar 2017.

As our record order and backlog numbers demonstrate, KLA-Tencor is experiencing unprecedented levels of demand in our end markets, particularly in foundry and memory.

Memory was notably strong in the December quarter driven by both DRAM and 3D NAND investments in Korea where we are experiencing higher adoption of bear wafer inspection along with thin film and critical dimension measurement solutions as a result of more films being deposited in vertical memory.

KLA-Tencor's growth and market leadership is fueled by the successful execution of a product strategy that is focused on differentiation and intersecting market needs with a portfolio of complimentary solutions.

This ongoing investment innovation and technology leadership helped to drive these strong results in 2016 and is a critical component for our long-term growth strategies.

For example, KLA-Tencor's two latest broadband plasma optical inspection platforms, Gen 4 and Gen 5, together address the most challenging defect detection issues for development and capacity monitoring applications of current and Next-Generation devices in the marketplace today.

We are now on our fourth major product upgrade for the Gen 4 optical inspection platform with multiple tools placed in every advanced production fab in the marketplace.

And, one of the key highlights of the year in 2016 was the successful launch of Gen 5, our new flagship broadband plasma inspection platform.

Gen 5 is being deployed by customers to address early yield learning and engineering analysis applications for advanced optical lithography design rules and for EUV development.

Calendar 2016 was a record year for the broadband plasma product family, and we see momentum continuing through 2017.

In addition to supplying wafer inspection capability for EUV layers, KLA-Tencor is also playing a critical role in reticle inspection for EUV.

Our customers are relying on us as a trusted partner to enable success of the important technology transition to EUV, a move that will allow for lateral scaling and more economical device road maps at the leading edge.

The new challenges inherent to EUV-specific process control applications such as mask inspection, reticle requalification, and scanner control -- just to name a few -- present new market opportunities that we believe KLA-Tencor is uniquely positioned to address, given our market and leadership in technology.

EUV promises to be a positive catalyst for growth at the advanced process control market and for KLA-Tencor.

So, to summarize, KLA-Tencor's December quarter and calendar 2016 results demonstrates our strategies are working and the Company is operating from a position of strength as we venture into another year of expected strong growth and earnings generation.

Given a business model that consistently delivers superior operating leverage, ranking KLA-Tencor among the top tier of leading semiconductor Companies, and with our strong leadership position in each of the most critical process control markets, the stage is set to build on the momentum of calendar 2016 and deliver what we plan to be another exciting year in 2017.

We believe KLA-Tencor is well positioned to successfully execute our strategies and meet our -- or exceed our long-term revenue growth objective of 5% to 7% in 2017 in what is expected to be another year of solid growth for the wafer fab equipment market.

Now, turning to the guidance for the March quarter.

Q3 shipments are expected to be in the range of $850 million to $930 million.

Revenue for the quarter is expected to be in the range of $860 million to $920 million with non-GAAP diluted earnings in the range of $1.42 per share to $1.62 per share.

I will now turn the call over to Bren Higgins for his comments.

Bren?

Thanks, Rick.

Good afternoon, everyone.

As Rick highlighted in his opening remarks, the December quarter represented another outstanding period of financial performance and operational execution for KLA-Tencor.

Shipments, revenue, and non-GAAP diluted earnings per share each finished above the range of guidance in the quarter.

This result was driven by strong demand across our product portfolio with particular strength in our flagship wafer and mask inspection product lines as well as solid execution and cost Management in our manufacturing and service operations.

Revenue was $877 million in the December quarter.

Non-GAAP diluted earnings per share was $1.52 and would have been $1.57 per share at the 21% guided tax rate.

GAAP earnings per share was also $1.52, too.

In our press release, you will find a reconciliation of GAAP to non-GAAP diluted earnings per share.

With the exception of when I explicitly refer to GAAP results, my commentary will be focused on the non-GAAP results which exclude the adjustments covered in the press release.

Now, turning to highlights of the December quarter demand environment.

Although we are no longer guiding quarterly orders, we will continue to share our perspective on the quarterly -- current quarterly end market demand picture to give investors insight into industry trends and KLA-Tencor's performance.

We eventually plan to provide end market mixed detail for shipments results and guidance and expect to have that information available once we complete an upgrade of our internal analysis systems some time in the coming few quarters.

At that time, all end market customer mix, business segment, and regional breakdowns will be provided on a shipment basis.

In the interim, we will continue to provide additional detail on order mix by end market.

New orders in the December quarter were approximately $1.1 billion.

Memory was 61% of new orders and in line with our forecast for the quarter.

Demand was roughly evenly split between DRAM and NAND.

We are currently modeling memory orders to be 34% of the total in the March quarter.

Foundry was 37% of new system orders in December, also as expected, and foundry is forecasted to grow to 63% of orders in March.

We are currently modeling solid growth in foundry orders in the first half of calendar 2017 fueled by 10-nanometer production and 7-nanometer development for multiple foundry customers and by continued investment in legacy technology nodes.

Logic was 2% of new system orders and is currently forecasted to be at a comparable level in the March quarter.

In terms of the approximate distribution of orders by product group for the fourth quarter, wafer inspection was 45% of new system orders.

Patterning was 35%.

Patterning includes orders from our reticle inspection business.

Service was 18%, and non-SEMI was approximately 2%.

New orders in the first half of calendar year 2017 are expected to be roughly flat compared with the second half of calendar 2016.

Total shipments were $887 million in the quarter and just above the guided range for the quarter of $800 million to $880 million.

Looking forward, we are modeling March quarter shipments to be approximately flat at the midpoint compared with December and be in a range of $850 million to $930 million.

Our current build plans are supporting quarterly shipment levels at or around $900 million for the next few quarters.

Turning now to the income statement.

As I mentioned in my highlights, revenue was $877 million in December finishing above the range of guidance.

We expect revenue to be in the range of $860 million to $920 million in the March quarter.

Non-GAAP gross margin was 63.8% and a new quarterly record for the Company.

The better-than-modeled gross margin performance in December was largely a function of strong product mix on the incremental revenue delivered in the quarter and operating leverage in our manufacturing and service operations.

We expect gross margin to be in the range of 62% to 63% in the March quarter, down slightly versus the December quarter due principally to the mix of products we plan to revenue in the quarter.

Going forward, we expect to deliver gross margin results 200 basis points above our published business model targets due to a number of factors including product positioning, new product introduction execution, and cost management.

We are currently forecasting gross margins in calendar 2017 to be approximately 62%, plus or minus 50 basis points.

Total non-GAAP operating expenses were $221 million, flat compared with September, and non-GAAP operating margin was 38.6%.

We are modeling operating expense levels of between $220 million and $225 million in the March quarter and in a range of $900 million and $920 million for the full year in calendar 2017.

Given our gross margin expectations, we continue to deliver operating margins at the upper end or above our published model for the foreseeable future.

Our non-GAAP effective tax rate was 23.5% in the quarter, above our previously guided long-term planning rate of 21%, reflecting the higher mix of revenue from products manufactured in the US and other discrete items impacting the tax rate.

We are planning for this product mix trend to continue through calendar 2017 which will put some pressure on the tax rate.

You should assume a 22% tax rate going forward for modeling purposes.

Finally, net income for the December quarter was $238 million, and we ended the quarter with 157 million fully diluted shares outstanding.

I'll turn now to highlights from the balance sheet and our cash flow statement.

Cash and investments ended the quarter at $2.6 billion, an increase of approximately $100 million compared with the September quarter.

Cash from operations was $222 million in the quarter, and free cash flow was $214 million.

In December, we paid an aggregate of $85 million in regular quarterly dividends and dividend equivalents for fully vested restricted stock units and made a supplemental payment of $40 million towards our outstanding term loan.

To date, the total amount of payments of principal on our term loan have amounted -- has amounted to approximately $254 million since it was added in the December quarter of 2014.

In conclusion, KLA-Tencor's results in December reflect our market leadership, the critical nature of process control and our customers' growth strategies at the leading edge and in legacy design rules, and our industry-leading business model.

This, coupled with almost $1.1 billion in new orders in the December quarter, position the Company for strong relative growth versus the wafer fab equipment market in calendar year 2017.

Current forecasts are for the wafer fab equipment market to grow mid-single-digits in 2017.

Against this industry backdrop, we are modeling the Company's revenue to grow slightly better than the broader market.

This performance demonstrates the Company's market leadership, the strong customer acceptance of a portfolio solutions addressing the most critical yield requirements at the leading edge, and our operational core competencies.

Given our record backlog and expectations for new orders, KLA-Tencor is well positioned for another year of solid growth in 2017.

With that, to reiterate our guidance for the March quarter is shipments in the range of $850 million to $930 million, revenue between $860 million and $920 million, and non-GAAP diluted EPS of $1.42 to $1.62 per share with GAAP EPS of $1.40 to $1.60 per share.

This concludes our remarks on the quarter.

I will now turn the call back over to Ed to begin the Q&A.

Okay.

Thank you, Bren.

At this point, we would like to open up the call for questions, and we once again request that you limit yourself to one question and one follow-up given the limited time we have for today's call.

Feel free to re-queue for your follow-up questions, and we'll do our best to give everyone a chance to participate in today's call as time permits.

Marianna, we are ready for the first question.

(Operator Instructions)

Your first question comes from the line of Tim Arcuri of Cowen and Co.

Thank you.

Rick, I wanted to get a sense of -- obviously, memory orders were really, really strong in the quarter.

You had talked about that being the case.

Is that more cyclical?

Or, is there something secular going on?

I'm particularly asking about 3D NAND because it seems like you maybe are preparing a new solution that's going to help improve yields there?

So, I'm sort of wondering what your outlook generally is for how your exposure is going to grow in memory?

Thanks.

Thanks, Tim.

We've had some success recently with 3D NAND.

I think, both in terms of existing products, which we're finding more application as our customers -- first, the technology is being more broadly deployed by our customer base.

And, the second is some of the yield challenges they are facing.

We think later in the calendar year we'll actually have more offerings to support 3D NAND.

So, we think if we execute properly, by the end of 2017, we should have a larger adoption of inspection in 3D NAND.

We think that there's an upside to our current levels of concentration now.

Thanks for that.

And then, Bren, a question for you.

Everybody else likes to put up these financial models and link their revenue to wafer fab equipment.

I know it's a little harder for you because it depends on mix, but if WFE is going to be $37 billion, yesterday Lam talked about that.

Can you talk a little bit -- can you try to map for us WFE, or your revenue relative to WFE?

It seems like if you don't gain any share at all -- it seems like you could do $3.7 billion pretty easily in a $37 billion environment.

So, I'm wondering if you can map revenue -- your model to WFE?

Thanks.

Tim, it's a good question.

As we look at calendar 2017, we think WFE is probably up somewhere in the mid-single-digits.

When we do our math, we end up somewhere around $36 billion.

Against that backdrop, as I said in the prepared remarks, we think that we should do better than the broader market.

So, somewhere in a high single-digit growth rate versus calendar 2016.

We feel pretty good about that.

I also said in the prepared remarks that over the next few quarters we expect that we'll be shipping consistently in and around $900 million.

I think as we get further out into the second half of the year through December -- I've got pretty good visibility to my build plans through September, and as we get to December we'll see how the second half order book ultimately fills out.

But, I think we're in a position for a good year, and I think depending on how the second half plays out particularly around December, the numbers that you're mentioning aren't inconceivable to see if that were to play out that way.

But, I think as of now as I said based on a mid-single-digit-type growth rate, we think we should do better than the broader industry for a second consecutive year.

Okay.

Thank you.

Your next question comes from Farhan Ahmad of Credit Suisse.

Hi.

Thanks for taking my question.

My first question is on EUV.

Rick, you mentioned that you're seeing good activity for Gen 5 being deployed both for OPC and EUV development.

Can you talk about what progress you are seeing there, and how far along do you think you are in the qualification process?

And, is that something that can materialize in 2018 in a meaningful way?

Farhan, thanks.

Yes, EUV, we've had some momentum based on the fact that there's more activity going on in the development now at multiple places, multiple sites for our customers.

And also, the fact that Gen 5 is now out and being deployed especially in the area of qualifying the images that are being printed by EUV lithography.

I also mentioned that in mask we have some success with the 6xx platform that we have serving the EUV mask qualification market, and we think that as the activity continues to pick up on EUV that that part of our business should grow over the next couple of years.

With the expectations of high volume manufacturing of EUV by 2019 or 2020, we'll continue to see ramping of those capabilities, and we'll move from characterization to be more part of the production flow as we get into those out-years.

We should see adoption of things like Gen 5 especially in the back end of the line supporting the ramps -- middle end and back end of the line supporting ramps as EUV comes into production.

Thank you.

And then, one question on the 3D NAND product that you mentioned for back half of the year.

Could you give us some sense of how big is the growth opportunity for you in 3D NAND?

Maybe just in terms of what portion of the market do you address currently, and what sort of opportunity the new products can bring?

Well, Farhan, I think you know we've talked about essentially memory being at about 50% the adoption rate of foundry in terms of process control adoption.

However, it stands to grow faster in many respects for two reasons.

One, it looks like there's more capability certainly that we can bring to solve some existing problems that people are not using process control to solve right now and that I think we can grow that adoption.

So, we think that the adoption rate -- or the process control intensity grows in 3D NAND depending on how much ongoing investment there is that sets that market size.

But, we think it can contribute to our overall outperformance of the industry.

3D NAND -- recently process control intensity has kind of mapped to what 2D planar was as some of the complexity of the process is being understood by our customers.

So, for us, there's not really a big difference in process control intensity for planar versus 3D NAND as 3D NAND is actually picking up for us as we go forward.

Got it.

Thank you that's all I had.

Thank you.

Your next question comes from Harlan Sur of JPMorgan.

Good afternoon and congratulations on the solid results and record bookings.

On the profitability profile, assuming you slightly outgrow the WFE market this year that would imply roughly $3.5 billion in revenues.

You drove 38% operating margins in December.

38% operating margins implied within your guidance in March.

You've given us your views on gross margins for the year and your level of OpEx which would imply operating margins in that 36% to 37% range.

In the last earnings call, you talked me down to a level of 35%-ish.

But, should we expect 36% to 37% operating margins on the parameters that you just gave us today?

Is that the right way to think about it?

Harlan, it's Bren.

In the prepared remarks, I wanted -- as we head into a New Year is to give a little bit more perspective on how we're sizing the business.

We've been doing, obviously, a lot of work on our strategic planning so we've got a deeper view and understanding of the mix of business going forward around certain products.

And, of course, the backlog at the level does give us pretty good visibility as we move through the year.

So, I wanted to go ahead and provide some of that information.

I think the numbers that you're coming up with seem to make sense based on the numbers I provided.

I think in terms of how we're sizing the business, I don't see how that changes very much going forward.

Significant swings would cause it to go up and down, but in terms of where we're at today versus what we expect -- I don't think that will change all that much.

Gross margin is always a little bit -- with a business like ours and the mix of products we have -- depending on the mix of products can have some influence on gross margin both directions.

But, the way you're thinking about it I think makes sense, and given the funnel and where we're loaded today, I feel pretty comfortable with the guidance I provided.

Great.

Thanks for the insights there.

You had a record year FY16 from China.

Seems like there's more China domestic foundry spending coming online this year.

Question is, is China still a tail wind for KLA this calendar year?

And, even though these are more legacy-type nodes like 20-nanometers -- are these guys still tending to buy up the stack and purchasing your latest Gen 4 tools which we obviously know have the richer ASPs?

They're investing for not only the nodes that they are starting on, but they're also trying to invest to be able to migrate those nodes as they go forward.

They expect to continue to migrate their design rules down so the answer is yes.

They are not buying Gen 5, but they are buying -- we're seeing Gen 4 purchases.

And also, I think, for the metrology challenges they feel like they are going to face, we're having pretty good penetration there so we feel good about China.

As it goes forward, it feels pretty sustainable based on the conversations we're having with customers and the success we've had to date there.

Thank you.

Harlan, the other thing I would add is the second half of 2016 was a little bit slower in China so there was some digestion.

But, as we look at calendar 2017 from an order perspective, I think China -- indigenous China or native China business will be up pretty significantly from what we experienced in 2016.

To Rick's point, across a number of nodes and very foundry-logic centric.

Don't expect to see much memory investment in 2017.

I think that's more of an 2018 event.

But, we think China is one of these factors of why we think, at least for us, as we look at foundry business into 2017 that we've got an up profile from not just the diversity of other customers investing at the leading edge but what's happening here.

Great.

Thank you very much.

Your next question comes from Edwin Mok of Needham & Company.

Hi, thanks for taking my questions.

First question I have is on your mask inspection product.

You talk about how as customers [ramp] EUV you are seeing some demand for the 666 product.

I'm curious, is there a way for us to think about that?

[Talking] about how many [chews] they are shipping this year, and is there a way to think about how much capacity the customer would need as they take these EUV tools?

Well, historically, there's been a ratio of about -- we used to model about 10 scanners for a reticle tool, but sometimes that could be front-end loaded when there is -- we are doing development work.

Part of what's interesting about the scanners is a lot of the scanners that are in the field today weren't driving much capacity because I don't think they were really pushing designs very much on the EUV capabilities.

We're seeing more advanced designs now on EUV.

So, I do think that if we go back to that ratio, that's not a bad model even though we aren't at wavelength with this reticle tool it does seem to be tracking relatively consistent with that.

Okay.

Actually, that's helpful color there.

And then, another question I have is one of your peers yesterday talked about a bigger falloff in the WFE in the second half of this year, and they associated with being more front-end loaded on spending.

I'm curious, are you seeing the same trend in the industry?

Do you expect similar trend for your shipments for this year?

Yes, I think the second half looks maybe marginally weaker from a shipment perspective than the first half.

We're talking about a very low, single-digit percentage today so that could change pretty quickly.

I don't see it as a pronounced shift.

And then, when I look through to revenue, I think revenue is half-to-half in terms of how I'm modeling today with the WFE assumptions I talked about earlier somewhat flattish.

I don't think it's a significant downtick, and I think a lot of it also depends on what happens in the second half of the year around some of these other the timing of some of these other investments.

I think 7-nanometer development could be a wild card for us that could strengthen into the second half, and we just don't have a lot of visibility into some of that incremental business yet.

Great, thank you.

Your next question comes from Steven Chin of UBS.

Hi.

Thanks for taking my question.

This is Neil on for Steve.

I actually have a question on image sensor customers.

We've seen some higher equipment sales than in the past.

I'm wondering if you're seeing anything with customers that can give us some sort of outlook on sales to image sensor customers?

Image sensor, is that what you're asking?

Yes.

I'm sorry, your voice broke up a bit.

We have had good participation from, in general I think about the IoT, the automotive markets -- image sensor is kind of in that category of IoT stuff.

That's actually been pretty good for us.

Often what we see there is, if you think about Gen 4 it's more like in the inspection product line it might be Gen 3 products supporting that.

But, it's relatively episodic so you'll get somebody that's investing for a particular capacity demand.

So, we can't count on it every year, but it's actually been pretty good business when it comes along, and I think we work closely with those customers to support them when they are bringing out new technology so that's been a steady part of our business over the last couple of years.

Thank you and one follow-up.

Another trend we've been seeing is higher customer demand for 200-millimeter equipment.

Can you talk about maybe the mix that 200-millimeter equipment makes up for your sales?

And, maybe comment on this type of services revenue that you get for 200-millimeter customers?

Yes, I think that one of the surprises I'd say for the last several years is the fact that 200-millimeter, two things have happened.

One, those fabs are being extended longer and so what we're seeing is part of the supporting those customers is our service business grows.

And, we would have expected in a general transition to be down almost zero in terms of percent of 200-millimeter, and I'd say probably it's 5% to 10% of our business in systems now can be approaching 200.

There are also some older fabs on 300 so I kind of look at it more as the lagging technology.

But, yes, there's business in the 200-millimeter that continues to get developed.

They aren't very big purchasers of capital, but there are often KLA-Tencor tools there.

Part of our business there is upgrading capability and supporting them as they go forward.

Thank you.

Your next question comes from, I apologize.

(Operator Instructions)

Your next question comes from Patrick Ho of Stifel Nicolaus.

Thank you very much.

Rick, a big picture question.

The last time you -- when we went through the industry ramp of 28-nanometers, you saw a large buying spree particularly from the leading edge.

But, one that also continued for several years.

As we begin this transition to 10- and 7-nanometers, what is your perception of that node and could it be as large as the 28-nanometers which will give you not only a near-term boost but also one that's more sustainable.

It certainly feels that way.

When we talk to customers, there are now multiple customers that are playing at seven nanometers and really no significant buys for seven right now.

There's 10-nanometer buys that are going to be applied to 7 later.

So, I think we're early days on seven, but it does feel like there will be a wave of multiple players trying to pursue that node.

It's very hard for us to size it in general, but our customers seem very enthusiastic because it's a node that gives both performance and also economics value to our customers.

And, there are multiple designs being started on seven so we feel pretty good about the extendability of that node and the support for our business as we go forward.

Great.

That's helpful.

And maybe, Bren, in terms of OpEx going forward, I think in your prepared remarks you talked about some of the new opportunities and some investments particularly as EUV gets more traction with customers out in the field.

How do we look at overall R&D spending as it relates to EUV versus what you presented in your long-term model.

Well, we're absolutely investing more.

As you look at the numbers that are provided in the prepared remarks, we do think given the revenue level we have, we think the opportunities that are out there -- there is an opportunity for us to invest in some of these capabilities.

Not just in the EUV, but Rick talked about 3D NAND earlier so there's some opportunities there.

In terms of EUV, there is some work going on, but as we've said -- and I'm sure Rick can add more to this.

But, as we've said over the last couple of years or so, that any substantial investments to support EUV at least around the reticle side of things that we would be looking for customer participation just due to the business model dynamics there.

But, in terms of being able to drive higher levels of sensitivity through our product portfolio to be able to address what should be good opportunities for linear scaling again in an EUV environment, we're continuing to invest as we always have to deliver that capability.

Great, thank you.

Your next question comes from Atif Malik from Citigroup.

Hi.

Thanks for taking my question, and good job on the results and guide.

Rick, if I look at the size of the GPUs, the graphic processors, they're about 2x to 5x bigger than an A10 application processor.

Are you seeing demand for your tools increase as there are intrinsically lowers yields on bigger die sizes -- the penetration of high performance computing and the gaming?

Great question.

We're, I think, in the early days of some of those designs playing out at 10-nanometers.

Certainly, the adoption level of process control at 10-nanometers in support of those new GPUs is higher than it has been at prior nodes.

The question will be what happens when those ramp in terms of does the intensity come back to more historic numbers.

I think that will depend a lot on the customers actual experience in terms of how they perform and what kind of yield they get.

But, to your point, intrinsically there's more value and more challenge associated with getting the larger die to yield so we wouldn't be surprised if there was more support.

Certainly, there are more applications being applied to try to make sure that those designs work.

That is more work going on with the customers.

So, we think there is good opportunity, but it's still relatively early to know how the story plays out in terms of total adoption.

In our planning, just so you understand, in our business that Bren has laid out, we're not assuming the adoption goes up.

We're assuming that would be upside to our plan.

And then, as a follow-up, you mentioned that you can help improve the device yields in 3D NAND.

Can you just tell us in basic terms what are the issues on 3D NAND yields for customers?

Well, I think the most basic way to think about it is if you think about the way these structures are built and you're going vertical versus what was horizontally shrinking.

Now, you aren't shrinking as much, but you're going deeper.

There's a lot of ways that those materials will break down under the stress of manufacturing so you'll get defects that would be part-way down or all the way down the stack and for customers it's very hard to see those.

It's very hard to understand how to improve the process.

So, part of what happens is they have to go through destructive -- that is, electrical test or other means of de-processing the wafers to identify the problems.

If we can visualize that for them in the fab which is a different kind of inspection challenge, it allows them to have faster corrective action to get the yields ramped up.

So, it's not so much a size of a defect problem, it's the depth of the defect problem.

And, that's where we've had to modify some of our technology to support that because as long as we've been in the industry, it's about finding smaller defects not necessarily these very high aspect ratio defects.

Your next question -- your final question comes from Medhi Hosseini from Susquehanna.

Good afternoon.

This is Bill Grinstead in for Medhi.

Just a question on reuse -- equipment reuse as one of your customers migrates from 16-nanometer to 10-nanometer, what kind of impact do you think that could have?

Well, from 16 to 10, virtually no reuse.

That was more of a dynamic we saw from 20 to 16.

So, you have new tool sets.

You have more complicated patterning challenges in FinFET.

So, you have a change in lithography, and you have a change in the back of the line, too.

Those are all new tools.

Customers are always trying to optimize their capital, and so to the extent they can always reuse tools or any time they can they will try.

We think going forward from 10 to 7 there could potentially be some.

We've tried to model that in to how we think about it so that's modeled in how we've outlined the financial performance for the next few quarters.

But, I think that that -- I think we feel pretty comfortable that what we experienced at 20 to 16-14 was a bit unique, and we won't see that going forward.

Even from 10 to 7, you've got taller FinFETS.

You've got new materials in the back end.

You've got complicated multi-patterning techniques.

Very significant process window challenges.

We think that there's a lot of additive opportunities there, and as we introduce new products, customers will quickly try to take up that capability and try to improve their costs, too.

So, I think that the new product cadence helps insulate from some of that as well, and I think the challenges going forward are going to be pretty tough.

Got it, thank you.

There are no further questions at this time.

I will turn the call back over to the presenters.

Thank you, Marianna, and on behalf of everyone here I'd like to thank you all for joining us on the call today.

An audio replay of today's call will be available on our website shortly following the call, and we look forward to speaking to you all soon.

Thank you.

This concludes today's conference call.

You may now disconnect.