MACOM Technology Solutions Holdings, Inc. (MTSI) 2015 Q4 法說會逐字稿

Good afternoon and welcome to the M/A-COM Technology Solutions' FY15 fourth-quarter financial results conference call.

午安，歡迎參加 M/A-COM Technology Solutions 2015 財政年度第四季財務業績電話會議。

(Operator Instructions)

（接線員指示）

As a reminder, this conference call is being recorded today, Tuesday, November 17, 2015.

提醒各位，本次電話會議將於今天（2015 年 11 月 17 日，星期二）錄音。

I will now turn the call to Leanne Sievers of Shelton Group the Investor Relations agency for M/A-COM. Leanne, please go ahead.

現在我將把電話交給 M/A-COM 投資人關係代理機構 Shelton Group 的 Leanne Sievers。Leanne，請開始。

Good afternoon and welcome to M/A-COM Technology Solutions' FY15 fourth-quarter earnings conference call. I'm Leanne Sievers, Executive Vice President of Shelton Group, M/A-COM's Investor Relations firm.

午安，歡迎參加 M/A-COM Technology Solutions 2015 財政年度第四季財報電話會議。我是 Shelton Group 執行副總裁 Leanne Sievers，Shelton Group 為 M/A-COM 的投資人關係公司。

With us today are M/A-COM's President and Chief Executive Officer, John Croteau and Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, Bob McMullan. If you've not received a copy of the press release, you can obtain a copy at M/A-COM's website at www.MACOM.com under the Investor Relations section.

今天與會者包括 M/A-COM 總裁暨執行長 John Croteau，以及資深副總裁暨財務長 Bob McMullan。若您尚未收到新聞稿，可至 M/A-COM 網站 www.MACOM.com 的「投資人關係」專區取得。

Before I turn the call over to Mr. Croteau, I'd like to remind our listeners that Management's prepared remarks and answers to your questions contain forward-looking statements, which are subject to risks and uncertainties. Because actual results may differ materially from those discussed today, M/A-COM claims the protection of the Safe Harbor for forward-looking statements contained in the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, and refers you to a more detailed discussion of risks and uncertainties that could result in those differences and M/A-COM's filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission, including its current report on Form 8-K filed today and quarterly report on Form 10-Q filed on August 12, 2015. Any forward-looking statements represent Management's views only as of today, November 17, 2015, and M/A-COM assumes no obligation to update these statements in the future.

在我把電話交給 Croteau 先生之前，我想提醒各位聽眾，管理層的事先準備發言以及對各位問題的回答包含前瞻性陳述，並受風險與不確定性影響。由於實際結果可能與今日討論內容有重大差異，M/A-COM 主張適用《1995 年私人證券訴訟改革法》所載之前瞻性陳述「安全港」保護，並請各位參閱可能導致差異之風險與不確定性的更詳細說明，以及 M/A-COM 向美國證券交易委員會（SEC）提交的文件，包括今日提交的 Form 8-K 當前報告，以及 2015 年 8 月 12 日提交的 Form 10-Q 季度報告。任何前瞻性陳述僅代表管理層截至今日（2015 年 11 月 17 日）的觀點，M/A-COM 不承擔日後更新此等陳述之義務。

The Company's press release and Management's statements during this conference call will include discussion of certain non-GAAP measures and financial information. These financial measures and a reconciliation of GAAP to non-GAAP results are provided in the Company's press release and related current report on Form 8-K, which was filed with the SEC today and can be found at the Investor Relations section of M/A-COM's website. For those of you unable to listen to the entire call at this time, a recording will be available via webcast for 30 days in the Investor Relations section of M/A-COM's website.

公司新聞稿以及管理層在本次電話會議中的發言將包含對若干非 GAAP 指標與財務資訊的討論。這些財務衡量指標以及 GAAP 與非 GAAP 結果之調節表已載於公司新聞稿及相關的 Form 8-K 當前報告中；該報告已於今日向 SEC 提交，並可於 M/A-COM 網站的「投資人關係」專區查閱。若各位目前無法收聽完整會議，網路直播的錄音將於 M/A-COM 網站「投資人關係」專區提供 30 天。

And now, I'll turn the call over to M/A-COM's President and CEO, John Croteau. John, please go ahead.

現在，我將把電話交給 M/A-COM 總裁暨執行長 John Croteau。John，請開始。

Thank you, Leanne. Welcome, everyone and thanks for joining us today.

謝謝你，Leanne。歡迎各位，感謝今天加入我們。

I'll begin today's call with an overview of our fourth quarter results for FY15 and then turn the call over to Bob McMullan, our CFO, who will review our financial performance in further detail. I'll then conclude today's prepared comments by providing a summary of our execution during the quarter followed by guidance for the fiscal first quarter of 2016.

我將先概述我們 2015 財政年度第四季的業績，接著把電話交給我們的財務長 Bob McMullan，由他更詳細地說明財務表現。之後我將以本季執行情況摘要作為結語，並提供 2016 財政年度第一季的展望指引。

Straight to the results, I'm pleased to report that for our fiscal fourth quarter, after closing the divestiture of the Automotive business to Autoliv, revenue was $112.6 million, gross margin was 57.4% and net income $18.8 million, or $0.34 earnings per diluted share. Looking at our end markets, Networks grew 7% sequentially on the back of strong demand for our optical products, mainly 100G for long haul and metro networks and lasers in the access market. Multi-Market was flat quarter on quarter with POS and OEM demand for our catalog products effectively flat sequentially.

直接看結果，我很高興報告：在完成將汽車事業出售給 Autoliv 的交易後，我們 2015 財政年度第四季營收為 1.126 億美元，毛利率為 57.4%，淨利為 1,880 萬美元，稀釋後每股盈餘為 0.34 美元。就終端市場而言，受惠於我們光學產品的強勁需求（主要為長途與都會網路的 100G，以及接取市場的雷射），網路（Networks）業務較前一季成長 7%。多元市場（Multi-Market）則與前一季持平，POS 與 OEM 對我們型錄產品的需求在季比上基本持平。

Moving over to aerospace and defense, during the quarter, we realized growth from our previously mentioned airborne defense radar program. However, this was more than offset by pushouts in legacy ground-based radar and satellite communication programs. All in all, we had another solid quarter of growth with particular strength in our break-out optical business, which more than offset unanticipated weakness in aerospace and defense.

再看航太與國防方面，本季我們先前提及的機載防禦雷達專案帶來成長。然而，該成長被既有地面雷達與衛星通訊專案的延後（pushouts）所抵銷。整體而言，我們又交出一季穩健的成長，其中以我們突破性的光學業務表現尤為強勁，足以抵銷航太與國防領域未預期的疲弱。

Let me now turn it over to Bob to review our fiscal fourth-quarter financials in further detail.

接下來我把電話交給 Bob，請他更詳細地說明我們 2015 財政年度第四季的財務狀況。

Thank you, John, and good afternoon, everyone.

謝謝你，John，各位午安。

During the course of my comments as well as those made by John, all income statement amounts and percentages will be discussed on a non-GAAP basis and are provided to enhance the understanding of our core operating performance. A reconciliation of each figure to the most comparable GAAP measure is included in today's earnings press release. Also, with the sale of our Automotive business to Autoliv in August, all historical numbers I discuss today exclude the Automotive business now treated as a discontinued operations. As this is our fiscal fourth quarter and fiscal year-end, my comments will be on the quarterly results followed by the fiscal year.

在我以及 John 的發言中，所有損益表金額與百分比將以非 GAAP 基礎討論，旨在增進各位對我們核心營運表現的理解。各項數字與最可比 GAAP 指標之調節已包含於今日的財報新聞稿中。此外，由於我們於 8 月將汽車事業出售給 Autoliv，我今天所討論的所有歷史數字均排除汽車事業；該事業現已列為停業單位（discontinued operations）。由於這是我們的財政第四季與財政年度期末，我的說明將先談季度結果，接著談全年度。

Revenue was $112.6 million representing a sequential increase of 3.2% compared to reported revenues of $109.1 million in the prior quarter and an increase of 19.9% compared to $93.9 million in the fiscal fourth quarter of 2014. Revenue by end markets were Networks, $79.3 million, or 70.4%, A&D $18.7 million, 16.6%, and Multi-Market $14.6 million and 13% of total revenues. Gross profit in the fiscal fourth quarter was $64.6 million, or 57.4% of revenues, compared to $63.3 million, or 58% of revenues in the prior quarter, and $54.5 million, or 58% in the fiscal fourth quarter of 2014. The gross margin decline sequentially of 600 basis points was the result of slightly different product mix.

營收為 1.126 億美元，較前一季報告營收 1.091 億美元季增 3.2%，並較 2014 財政年度第四季的 9,390 萬美元年增 19.9%。按終端市場劃分之營收為：網路（Networks）7,930 萬美元，占 70.4%；航太與國防（A&D）1,870 萬美元，占 16.6%；多元市場（Multi-Market）1,460 萬美元，占總營收 13%。2015 財政年度第四季毛利為 6,460 萬美元，毛利率為 57.4%，相較前一季毛利 6,330 萬美元、毛利率 58%，以及 2014 財政年度第四季毛利 5,450 萬美元、毛利率 58%。毛利率季比下降 60 個基點，係由於產品組合略有不同所致。

Operating expenses in the fiscal fourth quarter, total were $38.4 million, up 2.4% compared to $37.5 million in the prior quarter, and up 11.6% compared to $34.4 million in the prior year's quarter. Research and Development expense for the fiscal fourth quarter was $19.3 million. This compares to R&D expense of $19.3 million in the prior quarter and $18.1 million in the fiscal fourth quarter of 2014. R&D as a percentage of revenue represented 17.1% in the fiscal fourth quarter compared to 17.7% in the previous quarter and 19.3% in the prior year's quarter.

2015 財政年度第四季營業費用合計為 3,840 萬美元，較前一季的 3,750 萬美元增加 2.4%，並較去年同期的 3,440 萬美元增加 11.6%。本季研發費用為 1,930 萬美元；相較前一季研發費用 1,930 萬美元，以及 2014 財政年度第四季的 1,810 萬美元。研發費用占營收比重在本季為 17.1%，相較前一季為 17.7%，去年同期為 19.3%。

Selling and general and administrative expenses for the fiscal fourth quarter were $19.1 million. This compared to SG&A expense of $18.2 million in the prior quarter and $16.3 million in the prior year's quarter. SG&A as a percentage of revenue represented 17% in the fiscal fourth quarter compared to 16.7% in the previous quarter and 17.4% in the prior year's quarter. The increase sequentially was due to higher variable compensation.

2015 財政年度第四季銷售、一般及行政費用（SG&A）為 1,910 萬美元；相較前一季 SG&A 費用 1,820 萬美元，以及去年同期的 1,630 萬美元。SG&A 占營收比重在本季為 17%，相較前一季為 16.7%，去年同期為 17.4%。季比增加主要係因變動薪酬較高所致。

Income from operations was $26.2 million, or 23.3% of revenue. This compares to $25.8 million, or 23.6% of revenues in the prior quarter, and $20 million, or 21.3% of revenues in the prior year's quarter. Operating margin in the fiscal fourth quarter was down 300 basis points from the fiscal third quarter due to higher variable compensation expense in the fiscal fourth quarter.

營業利益為 2,620 萬美元，占營收 23.3%。相較前一季為 2,580 萬美元、占營收 23.6%，以及去年同期為 2,000 萬美元、占營收 21.3%。本季營業利益率較財政第三季下降 30 個基點，係因本季變動薪酬費用較高所致。

Adjusted EBITDA was $29.9 million, up from $29 million in the prior fiscal quarter, and up from $23.2 million in the year's prior quarter. Interest expense was $4 million in the fiscal fourth quarter, compared to $4.1 million in the fiscal third quarter, and down slightly from $4.1 million in the prior year's quarter.

調整後 EBITDA 為 2,990 萬美元，高於前一財政季度的 2,900 萬美元，也高於去年同期的 2,320 萬美元。本季利息費用為 400 萬美元，相較財政第三季為 410 萬美元，亦較去年同期的 410 萬美元略為下降。

Turning to income taxes, our effective income tax rate for the fiscal fourth quarter was 15%. The sale of the Automotive business did generate a taxable gain for federal income tax purposes and combined with our taxable earnings anticipated for FY15, reduced by our net operating losses and carry-forwards, resulted in a $21 million tax payment in our fiscal fourth quarter. Based on our current view of international versus domestic revenue, we see 15% as our normalized rate through FY16.

談到所得稅，本公司 2015 財政年度第四季的有效所得稅率為 15%。出售汽車事業確實就聯邦所得稅目的產生應稅利得，並結合我們對 2015 財政年度預期的應稅盈餘（扣除淨營運虧損及可結轉項目後），使我們在財政第四季支付了 2,100 萬美元的稅款。基於我們目前對國際與國內營收占比的看法，我們預期 15% 將是延續至 2016 財政年度的常態化稅率。

Our fiscal fourth quarter net income was $18.8 million and $0.34 per diluted share, compared to fiscal third quarter net income of $18.4 million and $0.33 per diluted share, and net income of $13 million and $0.27 per diluted share in the prior year's quarter. This represents EPS growth of 3% sequentially and 21.4% year-over-year. The share count used to compute EPS was 55 million shares in the fiscal fourth quarter, 55.2 million shares for the fiscal third quarter, and 48.9 million shares in the fiscal fourth quarter of 2014.

我們 2015 財政年度第四季淨利為 1,880 萬美元，稀釋後每股盈餘為 0.34 美元；相較財政第三季淨利 1,840 萬美元、稀釋後每股盈餘 0.33 美元，以及去年同期淨利 1,300 萬美元、稀釋後每股盈餘 0.27 美元。這代表每股盈餘季增 3%，年增 21.4%。用於計算每股盈餘的股數為：本季 5,500 萬股、財政第三季 5,520 萬股，以及 2014 財政年度第四季 4,890 萬股。

For the fiscal year ended 2015, revenue was $420.6 million, growing 24.4% over FY14 revenue of $338.1 million. Gross margin expanded 320 basis points to 57.5% from 54.3% in FY14. EPS grew to $1.28, a 40.7% from $0.91 in FY14.

截至2015會計年度，營收為4.206億美元，較FY14營收3.381億美元成長24.4%。毛利率較FY14的54.3%擴大320個基點至57.5%。每股盈餘（EPS）成長至1.28美元，較FY14的0.91美元成長40.7%。

We generated $111 million of adjusted EBITDA in the FY15, up from $75.7 million, or 46%. In summary, revenue grew 24.4%, gross margins expanded 320 basis points to 57.5%, closing in on our target of 60%, and we delivered 40.9% EPS growth.

FY15我們創造了1.11億美元的調整後EBITDA，高於7,570萬美元，增幅為46%。總結而言，營收成長24.4%，毛利率擴大320個基點至57.5%，逐步接近我們60%的目標，且我們實現了40.9%的EPS成長。

On a GAAP basis, cash flow from operations for FY15 was $33.7 million. This includes the cash use of $14.6 million noted on the statement as prepaid retention, an increase in the current asset account related to the BinOptics employee retention plan funded as part of the original acquisition payment of $230 million.

按GAAP基礎計算，FY15營運活動現金流為3,370萬美元。其中包含財報中列示為「預付留任金」的1,460萬美元現金使用，該項為與BinOptics員工留任計畫相關的流動資產科目增加，此留任計畫係作為原始收購對價2.30億美元的一部分而提供資金。

Adding this acquisition-related amount and $5.6 million for associated transaction fees, adjusted cash flow from operations would be $48.3 million. The difference between net earnings of $68.1 million and the adjusted cash flow from operations of $48.3 million was the use of cash to an increase in working capital in line with our growing revenues and business.

若加回這筆與收購相關的金額以及560萬美元的相關交易費用，調整後營運活動現金流將為4,830萬美元。淨利6,810萬美元與調整後營運活動現金流4,830萬美元之間的差異，主要來自因營收與業務成長而使營運資金增加所致的現金使用。

Turning to the balance sheet, at the fiscal quarter end, our cash and short-term investments were approximately $161.9 million, outstanding long-term debt was $343.5 million, and we had $130 million in credit availability. Accounts receivable of $84 million compares to $77.1 million at the end of the prior quarter and $62.3 million at the end of the year-ago quarter.

轉到資產負債表，截至該會計季度末，我們的現金及短期投資約為1.619億美元，未償長期負債為3.435億美元，且我們有1.30億美元的可用授信額度。應收帳款為8,400萬美元，較上一季度末的7,710萬美元及去年同期季度末的6,230萬美元增加。

Day sales outstanding were 67.9 days compared to 64.3 days at the end of the prior fiscal quarter and 59.8 days at the end of the year-ago quarter. Inventory was $79.9 million, compared to $82.2 million in the prior quarter, and $71.5 million in the year-ago quarter. Inventory turns were 2.4 times compared to 2.2 times in the prior fiscal quarter, and 2.9 times in the year-ago quarter.

應收帳款週轉天數（DSO）為67.9天，較上一會計季度末的64.3天及去年同期季度末的59.8天增加。存貨為7,990萬美元，較上一季度的8,220萬美元下降，但高於去年同期季度的7,150萬美元。存貨週轉率為2.4次，較上一會計季度的2.2次提高，但低於去年同期季度的2.9次。

Capital expenditures in the fiscal fourth quarter were $5.8 million, or 5.1% of revenue, compared to 18% of revenues in the fiscal third quarter, and 6.1% of revenues in the FY14 fourth quarter. Total capital expenditures for FY15 were $38.3 million, compared to $17 million for FY14. The increase was due to the purchase of our Lowell facility for approximately $8.3 million and approximately $12 million for the expansion of laser capacity in Ithaca and Lowell.

會計第四季度資本支出為580萬美元，占營收5.1%，相較之下會計第三季度占營收18%，FY14第四季度占營收6.1%。FY15全年資本支出合計3,830萬美元，較FY14的1,700萬美元增加。增加主要因以約830萬美元購置我們的Lowell廠房，以及約1,200萬美元用於擴充Ithaca與Lowell的雷射產能。

Depreciation expense on property and equipment for the fiscal fourth quarter was approximately $3.8 million, $3.3 million in the prior quarter and $3.2 million in the prior year's quarter. Depreciation expense was $14.1 million for FY15, compared to $12.6 million for FY14.

會計第四季度不動產及設備折舊費用約為380萬美元，上一季度為330萬美元，去年同期季度為320萬美元。FY15折舊費用為1,410萬美元，較FY14的1,260萬美元增加。

I'll now turn the call back over to John who will provide additional color on our fiscal fourth quarter and our business outlook for the FY16 first quarter.

接下來我把電話交回給John，他將就我們會計第四季度表現以及FY16第一季度的業務展望提供更多說明。

Thanks, Bob.

謝謝你，Bob。

This quarter we began to unveil progress that we made in realizing the potential of our third major secular growth driver, active antenna arrays. Moving forward, we believe that active antennas can deliver M/A-COM substantial short, medium, as well as long-term growth potential, consistent in magnitude with our other two secular growth drivers, optical and GaN. In addition, earlier today, we announced the tuck-in acquisition that we believe will complement and accelerate our success in 100G optical, an already proven area of growth and profitability.

本季度我們開始揭示在實現第三個主要長期結構性成長驅動因素——主動式天線陣列——潛力方面所取得的進展。展望未來，我們相信主動式天線可為M/A-COM帶來可觀的短期、中期以及長期成長潛力，其規模與我們另外兩個長期結構性成長驅動因素（光學與GaN）一致。此外，今天稍早我們宣布了一項補強式收購，我們相信此舉將補足並加速我們在100G光學領域的成功——該領域已被證明具備成長性與獲利能力。

First, let me address our progress with active antenna arrays. Working collaboratively with MIT Lincoln Labs, we've moved the Empire platform from successful field trials to commercial reality, including the receipt of our first production order for a full-scale civil radar implementation. We recently announced relationships and endorsements with the likes of the FAA, NOAA and DARPA, which we believe will lead to both civil and defense radar deployments through the latter part of the decade.

首先，我想談談我們在主動式天線陣列方面的進展。我們與MIT Lincoln Labs協同合作，已將Empire平台從成功的實地測試推進到商業化落地，包括取得我們第一筆用於全尺寸民用雷達導入的量產訂單。我們近期也宣布與FAA、NOAA及DARPA等機構的合作關係與背書，我們相信這將在本十年後期帶動民用與國防雷達的部署。

Further, as many of you know, we've been working with MIT Lincoln Labs for over seven years on tile-based radar systems. This approach enables rapid design and deployment of active antennas with as much as a five times cost reduction to the radar sensor arrays. That's more than 80% cost down, as estimated by MIT Lincoln Labs versus traditional radar and antenna technology. We believe this tile-based approach has the potential to drive a dislocation in the way radar systems will be designed and constructed moving forward, propelling empire technology towards mainstream adoption and deployment.

此外，許多人都知道，我們與MIT Lincoln Labs在以「拼磚式（tile-based）」雷達系統上合作已超過七年。此方法可快速設計與部署主動式天線，並可使雷達感測器陣列成本降低最多達五倍。根據MIT Lincoln Labs對比傳統雷達與天線技術的估算，這相當於成本下降超過80%。我們相信這種拼磚式方法有潛力在未來改變雷達系統的設計與建造方式，推動Empire技術走向主流採用與部署。

To frame the business opportunity, single program awards could be up to $100 million wins for M/A-COM. Our tile products are already part of active competing bids in such programs today. First applications beginning ground based civil and defense radar systems and will expand to airborne and seaborne radar platforms. Once awarded, these programs tend to be highly predictable, long-term and stable revenue drivers.

為了界定商機，單一專案的得標金額對M/A-COM而言可能高達1億美元。我們的tile產品目前已納入此類專案的競標提案中。初期應用將從地面式民用與國防雷達系統開始，並將擴展至空載與海載雷達平台。一旦得標，這些專案通常具有高度可預測、長期且穩定的營收驅動特性。

To put this in context, our current catalog A&D business is on the order of $80 million annually. Single program awards of tile-based radar systems can be up to $100 million and M/A-COM is positioned to compete in dozens of domestic and international defense and civil programs through the latter part of this decade. Moving forward, you'll hear us refer to this new tile-based antenna business using the acronym and trademark SPAR, which stands for scalable planar arrays.

作為對照，我們目前的航太與國防（A&D）型錄業務年規模約為8,000萬美元。拼磚式雷達系統的單一專案得標金額可高達1億美元，而M/A-COM在本十年後期有能力參與數十個國內與國際的國防及民用專案競爭。展望未來，你們會聽到我們以縮寫與商標SPAR來稱呼這項新的拼磚式天線業務，SPAR代表可擴展平面陣列（scalable planar arrays）。

SPAR tiles are RF sub assemblies containing antenna elements, gas and GaN semiconductors, transmit and receive modules, and analog beam forming functions, which together form the basic building block for active electronically scanned antenna or AESA radar systems. SPAR tiles enable the transition from cumbersome brick architectures to a more efficient planar approach. Leveraging M/A-COM's commercial manufacturing and antenna expertise, we anticipate that SPAR tiles will help drive cost efficiencies that will propel planar arrays to mainstream adoption and deployment.

SPAR tiles為射頻（RF）次組件，包含天線元件、砷化鎵（GaAs）與氮化鎵（GaN）半導體、發射與接收模組，以及類比波束成形功能，這些共同構成主動式電子掃描天線（AESA）雷達系統的基本構建單元。SPAR tiles可促成從笨重的「磚塊式」架構轉向更高效率的平面化方法。憑藉M/A-COM的商用製造能力與天線專業，我們預期SPAR tiles將有助於推動成本效率，進而促使平面陣列走向主流採用與部署。

Given this context, you can understand why we believe that active antennas will be a fundamental and profound growth driver for M/A-COM for many years to come. We've established yet another leadership position, addressing a major industry trend that plays directly to our long-term competitive strengths and core competencies.

在此背景下，你們可以理解為何我們相信主動式天線將在未來多年成為M/A-COM一項根本且深遠的成長驅動因素。我們再次建立了領先地位，切入一項重大的產業趨勢，而這正好契合我們長期的競爭優勢與核心能力。

Now let me touch briefly on our GaN status. We remain on track with our process qualification and customer adoption timeline leading to mainstream GaN adoption in 4G/LTE base stations in 2016. Last quarter, our team delivered our top target customers power amplifier designs that fully meet performance targets, that will lead to mainstream displacement of incumbent LDMOS technology. This quarter, we began sampling and qualifying material produced using our high-volume supply chain. We expect this will ultimately deliver the highest performing as well as the lowest cost solutions available.

接著我簡要談談我們的GaN進展。我們的製程認證與客戶採用時程仍按計畫推進，目標是在2016年於4G/LTE基地台實現GaN的主流採用。上一季度，我們的團隊向最重要的目標客戶交付了功率放大器設計，完全符合性能目標，並將促成對既有LDMOS技術的主流替代。本季度，我們開始提供樣品並對使用我們高產量供應鏈所生產的材料進行認證。我們預期這最終將帶來市場上性能最高且成本最低的解決方案。

Turning to optical, our business in long-haul and metro was up very strong sequentially as we begin to see the effect of metro deployment's ramp. Our laser business was also up strong sequentially and remains supply constrained for the foreseeable future. However, we remain cautious on growth for the next quarter due to traditional seasonality and continued supply constraints as Lowell comes online after the first of the new year.

轉到光學業務，隨著都會網部署加速的效應開始顯現，我們在長途與都會網的業務較前一季大幅成長。我們的雷射業務也較前一季強勁成長，且在可預見的未來仍受供給限制。不過，基於傳統季節性因素，以及在Lowell於新年後上線前仍存在的供給限制，我們對下一季度的成長仍保持審慎。

Now, onto our acquisition, this afternoon, we announced the acquisition of FiBest, a leading supplier of 100 gig optical sub assemblies. This is a tuck-in acquisition valued at approximately $60 million and delivering $25 million trailing 12-month revenues. This move is consistent with our philosophy of pouring it on in areas of already proven breakout growth, in this case optical.

接著談我們的收購案：今天下午，我們宣布收購FiBest——一家領先的100G光學次組件供應商。這是一項補強式收購，估值約6,000萬美元，過去12個月營收為2,500萬美元。此舉符合我們的理念：在已被證明具備爆發式成長的領域加大投入，本案即為光學。

Starting at 100G, but especially at 200G and beyond, optical packaging technology becomes a significant factor in determining the performance, power efficiency, and cost structure of an optical transceiver. We believe that acquiring FiBest will allow M/A-COM to assume a commanding position targeting mainstream 100G optical adoption and data centers.

從100G開始，尤其在200G及更高世代，光學封裝技術將成為決定光收發器性能、功耗效率與成本結構的重要因素。我們相信收購FiBest將使M/A-COM在鎖定主流100G光學採用與資料中心市場方面取得具主導性的地位。

A secondary benefit, with a strong organizational foundation and presence in Japan, we believe that FiBest will help unlock what was previously a largely untapped $500 million market for our RF and microwave components. Similar to how BinOptics and Mindspeed opened up the Chinese market for M/A-COM's growth and global expansion, we expect FiBest will do the same for us in Japan.

其次，憑藉其在日本強健的組織基礎與據點，我們相信FiBest將有助於開啟先前多數尚未開發、規模達5億美元的RF與微波元件市場。類似於BinOptics與Mindspeed如何為M/A-COM的成長與全球擴張打開中國市場，我們預期FiBest也將在日本為我們帶來同樣的效果。

In total, acquiring FiBest makes M/A-COM unique and enhances our strategic value in the eyes of our customers worldwide. In everything from indium phosphide to silicon germanium, lasers to sub assemblies, access and fibers of a home to long haul and metro networks, and explosive growth potential in data centers, we now have all of the requisite technology, products and packaging that can enable our customers to achieve their most ambitious goals. For these reasons, you'll understand why we're bullish on our optical growth potential for many years to come.

總體而言，收購 FiBest 使 M/A-COM 具備獨特性，並在全球客戶眼中提升了我們的策略價值。從磷化銦到矽鍺、從雷射到子組件、從接取與光纖到長途與都會網路，以及資料中心的爆發性成長潛力，我們如今擁有所有必要的技術、產品與封裝能力，能協助客戶達成其最具雄心的目標。基於這些原因，您也能理解為何我們對未來多年光學業務的成長潛力抱持樂觀態度。

In summary, I'm proud of our execution by our team as a whole. Delivering strong organic growth despite tough market headwinds, complemented by our ability to put the proceeds of the sale of the Automotive business to good work, we hope to further accelerate growth in M/A-COM's shareholder value.

總結來說，我為整個團隊的執行力感到自豪。在艱困的市場逆風下仍交出強勁的有機成長，再加上我們能有效運用出售汽車業務的所得款項，我們希望進一步加速提升 M/A-COM 的股東價值。

Now, moving over to guidance, we'll guide this quarter without the contribution of FiBest, although we do expect it to close this quarter. For the fiscal first quarter ending January 1, 2016, M/A-COM expects revenue to be in the range of $110 million to $114 million, adjusted gross margin is expected to be between 58% and 60%, and adjusted earnings per share between $0.37 and $0.40 on an anticipated 56 million diluted shares outstanding.

接著談到財測，我們本季的指引將不包含 FiBest 的貢獻，儘管我們預期本季會完成交割。對於截至 2016 年 1 月 1 日的 2016 財年第一季，M/A-COM 預期營收介於 1.10 億至 1.14 億美元；調整後毛利率預期介於 58% 至 60%；在預估稀釋後流通股數 5,600 萬股的情況下，調整後每股盈餘預期介於 0.37 至 0.40 美元。

I'd like to close today's scripted remarks by thanking the team for another quarter of solid execution. Operator, you can now open the call to questions.

在結束今天的預先準備發言前，我想感謝團隊本季再次展現穩健的執行力。接線員，現在可以開放提問。

Thank you.

謝謝。

(Operator Instructions)

（接線員指示）

Our first question is from Blayne Curtis of Barclays. Your line is open.

我們的第一個問題來自 Barclays 的 Blayne Curtis。您的線路已開通。

Hey, guys, thanks for taking my question. Just a couple. John, in the outlook you mentioned that Networks may have some seasonality. Just curious by segment, are they all expected to be down and if any are down more than others?

嗨，各位，謝謝讓我提問。我有幾個問題。John，在展望中你提到 Networks 可能有一些季節性。想請教按部門來看，是否預期都會下滑？如果會下滑，是否有哪一些下滑幅度會比其他更大？

Hi, Blayne. Good question. So in the December quarter, what we've seen given the fact that a lot of our Networks business is over in Asia, there tends to be a fair bit of stick handling of customer inventories at the end of the year, end of the calendar year. We've seen that for the past few years and that kind of contributes to our caution over there. We've also seen an element of seasonality last year with the PON business and now we have both lasers as well as drivers, laser drivers and TIAs in PON. So that's really the source of our caution. There isn't anything beyond that to the first approximation.

嗨，Blayne。好問題。就 12 月季度而言，我們看到由於我們相當一部分的 Networks 業務在亞洲，年底、也就是曆年年末，客戶庫存往往會有相當程度的調整與控管。過去幾年我們都看到這種情況，這也是我們在那邊較為審慎的原因之一。去年我們也在 PON 業務看到一些季節性，而現在我們在 PON 既有雷射，也有驅動器、雷射驅動器以及 TIA。這就是我們審慎的主要來源。除此之外，初步來看沒有其他特別因素。

And then you talked about the SPAR opportunity, obviously quite huge in terms of dollar amounts. Is there a way to think about how that revenue -- how many years that revenue would unfold over? And then, if you can talk about you said you're in the bidding process, how competitive -- how many parties are you bidding against and what's the right timeline to think about any early contributions there?

另外你談到 SPAR 的機會，顯然以金額來看非常龐大。有沒有方式可以理解那筆營收會在多少年內逐步展開？還有，你提到你們正在投標流程中，競爭態勢如何——你們大概在跟多少家競標？以及應該用什麼時間軸來看可能的早期貢獻？

Another great question. The way to think about it is there is a small number of primes, defense primes bidding on programs. One of those is very deep into adoption of the SPAR tiles. They are actively bidding programs. Some of these programs are actually being awarded for production beginning this year.

又是一個很好的問題。可以這樣理解：參與這些專案投標的主承包商（primes）數量不多，都是國防主承包商。其中一家已非常深入地採用 SPAR 磚塊（tiles），並且正在積極投標相關專案。有些專案其實已開始授標，並將於今年開始量產。

So none of those are landed yet, so we can't say that we have revenue contribution this year, but given the magnitude of single wins, if one of those gets landed then it can obviously, have substantial impact sooner rather than later. But I would say that it's really -- the near-term contribution is before SPAR tiles, it's in the airborne defense program, which is actually beginning to ramp starting last quarter. When the SPAR stuff picks up, it's going to pick up in a big way.

因此目前還沒有任何一個案子真正落袋，所以我們無法說今年就會有營收貢獻；但考量單一得標的規模，如果其中一個案子落袋，顯然可能在不久的將來就帶來相當可觀的影響。不過我會說，真正的近期貢獻在 SPAR 磚塊之前，而是在機載防務專案上，該專案其實從上一季開始就進入爬坡。等到 SPAR 的部分起來時，會以很大的幅度起來。

Just finally, for Bob, you mentioned a negative mix in the September quarter on gross margin but then December it seems you have a nice tailwind. So what are the moving pieces there driving the uplift in gross margin?

最後一個問題給 Bob，你提到 9 月季度毛利率受到不利產品組合影響，但到了 12 月看起來又有不錯的順風。那麼推動毛利率上升的變動因素有哪些？

It's very hard to pinpoint exactly, Blayne. We ship about 2,000 products in a quarter and a little mix here, a little mix there on the final outcome can -- is not a big -- I said 300 basis points but it was really 30 basis points difference, so -- or I said 600 versus 60 basis points, my error. It really isn't that great a difference. It's just a slight mix change.

Blayne，這很難精準指出。我們一季大約出貨 2,000 項產品，這裡一點組合、那裡一點組合，對最終結果的影響可能就會——其實不是很大——我說 300 個基點，但其實差異是 30 個基點，所以——或者我說 600 對 60 個基點，是我口誤。差異真的沒有那麼大，只是些微的組合變化。

Thanks, guys.

謝謝，各位。

Thank you. Our next question is from Gabriela Borges of Goldman Sachs. Your line is open.

謝謝。下一個問題來自 Goldman Sachs 的 Gabriela Borges。您的線路已開通。

Great. Thanks so much for taking my question. I was hoping you could help us understand with all of the growth drivers of the business for FY16, how should we think about the medium-term top line growth rate for the Company either in absolute terms and maybe as a function of the industry, whatever you're willing to share?

太好了。非常感謝讓我提問。我希望你們能協助我們理解：在 2016 財年業務有這麼多成長驅動因素的情況下，我們應該如何看待公司中期的營收成長率？不論是以絕對值，或相對於產業的角度，任何你們願意分享的都可以。

Excellent question. So let me share with you the way we're thinking about growth on a forward-looking basis. We've got a core RF microwave business which continues to grow. It grew year on year. In fact, it grew actually quarter on quarter sequentially last quarter. So it's a very healthy foundation, which I would describe it as the traditional growth approach, as measured in percent which would be market growth on the order of 5%, plus incremental share gains. And then, layered on top of that is the optical growth and that is -- I think last year, optical grew 50% year on year. So that's really a hyper growth contributor.

很棒的問題。我來分享我們對未來成長的思考方式。我們有核心的 RF 微波業務，持續成長；它年對年成長，事實上上一季也呈現季對季的連續成長。因此這是一個非常健康的基礎，我會把它描述為傳統的成長方式，以百分比衡量，大致是約 5% 的市場成長，再加上額外的市占提升。然後在此之上疊加的是光學成長——我想去年光學年對年成長了 50%。因此那是一個超高速成長的貢獻來源。

So when we talk about the GaN stuff kicking in sometime in 2016, likewise active antenna arrays, you'd similar have hyper growth haired on top of that base. You back in, if you look at each one of these growth drivers literally, and we modeled this out very carefully, each of those could arguably double the size of our Company within three years, on the outside five years. So we could double, triple, or quadruple if we bat 1,000 on those three secular growth drivers. It's more time dimensionally three to five years integer multiples rather than percentage for the hyper scale stuff.

因此當我們談到 GaN 的部分在 2016 年某個時間點開始發力，同樣地，主動式天線陣列也會在這個基礎之上疊加類似的超高速成長。若把這些成長驅動因素逐一回推——我們已非常仔細地建模——每一項都可以說在三年內（保守則五年內）讓公司規模翻倍。因此如果我們在這三個長期結構性成長驅動上都能完全命中，我們可能翻倍、三倍，甚至四倍。對於這類超規模成長，與其用百分比描述，更像是在三到五年的時間維度上，以整數倍數來呈現。

That's helpful. Thank you. And maybe as a follow-up on the planned acquisition of FiBest, I think one of the points in the press release was a potential inflection in demand in 2017 time frame. Maybe help us understand given that 2017 is still a little ways out, what are the risks to hitting those milestones? And what are the key milestones that have to be hit in order to achieve that inflection in demand and how you feel the Company's positioned competitively speaking? Thank you.

這很有幫助，謝謝。再追問一個關於計畫收購 FiBest 的問題：我記得新聞稿中有一點提到 2017 年左右需求可能出現拐點。能否協助我們理解，既然 2017 還有一段時間，達成那些里程碑的風險是什麼？以及要達成需求拐點，關鍵里程碑有哪些？另外從競爭角度來看，你們覺得公司的定位如何？謝謝。

Another great question. So FiBest comes at 100 gig, 100G as well as 200 and 400 primarily from the telecom background with customers like Fujitsu and Huawei and Alcatel-Lucent. The reason why we acquired that, it's a very healthy business, they're growing, growing on the same kind of scale as we are top line.

又是一個很好的問題。FiBest 主要來自電信背景，涵蓋 100G，以及 200 和 400，客戶包括 Fujitsu、Huawei 和 Alcatel-Lucent。之所以收購它，是因為這是一個非常健康的業務，他們正在成長，營收成長的規模與我們相近。

The real play is in data centers. One of the things we saw is we now have 100% semiconductor content in the 100 gig optical subsystem, all the analog, laser, Photonics content. But we saw the packaging as the last piece to complete that puzzle and it really has a significant impact on the cost performance and power consumption of the overall solution. So as that comes together, in fact those designs are I believe completing this quarter, so it's not a forward-looking bet but I should say FiBest was a customer of ours as a Tosa Rosa supplier. It's really that inflection point depends upon when and how big 100 gig takes off and obviously, how well we do.

真正的重點在資料中心。我們看到的一件事是：在 100G 光學子系統中，我們現在擁有 100% 的半導體內容，包含所有類比、雷射、光子（Photonics）內容。但我們也看到封裝是完成這個拼圖的最後一塊，而它對整體解決方案的成本效能與功耗有顯著影響。因此當這些整合到位時——我相信這些設計會在本季完成——這並不是一個前瞻性的賭注；我也應該說 FiBest 原本就是我們的客戶，作為 TOSA/ROSA 供應商。真正的拐點取決於 100G 何時、以及以多大規模起飛，當然也取決於我們做得多好。

I think we've established a preeminent position given the cost structure and performance of all that semiconductor content. We believe we're second to none for each of that but then wrapping that up and being able to put that in the optical subassembly and further refinement of that component set solution really positions us well to ride that data center wave. Which frankly, is integer multiples if not orders of magnitude bigger than what we've addressed so far which is long-haul and now, the early stages of metro adoption. So that's very explosive, the real dependency is on how big and how quickly that market develops. For that reason, we say 2017.

我認為，憑藉所有這些半導體內容的成本結構與效能，我們已建立起領先地位。我們相信在每一項上都不輸任何人；而把這些整合封裝、能夠放入光學子組件，並進一步精煉這套元件組合解決方案，確實讓我們具備良好條件去乘上資料中心的浪潮。坦白說，這個市場以整數倍數、甚至可能以數量級來看，都遠大於我們迄今所涵蓋的長途市場，以及目前都會網路採用的早期階段。因此這非常具有爆發性；真正的依賴因素在於該市場發展的規模與速度。基於這個原因，我們才會說是 2017 年。

That's very helpful color. Thanks very much.

這些補充資訊非常有幫助。非常感謝。

You're welcome.

不客氣。

Thank you. Our next question is from Vivek Arya of Bank of America. Your line is open.

謝謝。下一個問題來自美國銀行（Bank of America）的 Vivek Arya。您的線路已開通。

Thank you. First question, John, maybe just overall demand environment. If you could give us some color as to how much is your exposure to the China market, whether it's in the networking or the multi-market segment? And are you seeing trends there still a little bit on the weaker side? Are they stabilizing or how should we think about what your exposure is to that market where there are a lot of concerns about growth?

謝謝。第一個問題，John，可能想先談整體需求環境。你能否提供一些背景，說明你們對中國市場的曝險有多大，無論是在網路（networking）或多元市場（multi-market）部門？你們是否仍看到那邊的趨勢偏弱？是在趨於穩定，還是我們應該如何看待你們對該市場的曝險，畢竟外界對成長有很多疑慮？

Great question. So a large part of our transactional revenue is now in China. I would point out, though, the bulk of that demand is actually in other parts of the world. China now supplies a very large majority of equipment and component manufacturing, feeding into those networks markets.

問得很好。我們相當大一部分的交易型營收現在是在中國。我也要指出，不過，那些需求的主要來源其實是在世界其他地區。中國現在供應了絕大多數的設備與零組件製造，並輸入到那些網路市場。

So the exposure, we do have some exposure on the fiber to the home PON deployments that are in China right now. That's a healthy piece of our PON business. That is rock solid stable and if anything, growing for at least another two years. So there's no indication whatsoever of any impairment on that market.

所以就曝險而言，我們確實在中國目前的光纖到府（FTTH）PON 部署上有一些曝險。那是我們 PON 業務中相當健康的一塊。那部分非常穩定，如果說有什麼變化，反而是在至少未來兩年持續成長。因此完全沒有任何跡象顯示該市場有任何受損。

The other slight exposure that we had was on wireless back-haul and then fiber back-haul and that is markedly improving. There are clearer signs of orders are coming in, recoveries happening. How much of that we capture in December versus the March quarter, is the only remaining question. But there's no question that's coming back.

另外一個我們先前略有曝險的部分是在無線回傳（wireless back-haul）以及光纖回傳（fiber back-haul），而那部分正在明顯改善。訂單回流、復甦正在發生的訊號更清楚了。我們能在 12 月季還是 3 月季承接到多少，這是唯一剩下的問題。但毫無疑問，那部分正在回來。

And then second question is, if you could also give us a sense for how large is the optics business today and what importantly, is the mix between 40 gig and 100 gig? Where does that go and what are the ASP implications of that shift?

第二個問題，如果你也能讓我們了解目前光學（optics）業務有多大，以及更重要的是 40G 與 100G 的組合占比如何？未來會如何變化？而這種轉換對 ASP（平均售價）有什麼影響？

Sure. So I would say optical overall, if you include everything from access, fiber to the home, the lasers and the back-haul as well as long-haul and metro line drivers and everything we do, cross point switches that we sell into optical, it's about 45% of our revenues; so it's substantial. And the reason why it's that big, frankly, is it is growing.

當然。我會說光學整體而言，如果把接取端、光纖到府、雷射、回傳，以及長途（long-haul）與都會（metro）線路驅動器（line drivers）和我們做的所有產品都算進來，還有我們賣到光學領域的 cross point switches，大約占我們營收的 45%；所以比重很大。而坦白說之所以這麼大，是因為它正在成長。

There's chunks of that business that are growing multiple double digits quarter on quarter. So it's truly a breakout for us. I would genuinely say there isn't a single piece of what I just described that we would describe as below our corporate operating model in terms of gross margin and operating margins. So it's not only a high growth but it's a very favorable margin business for us.

其中有些業務區塊是以每季對每季多個雙位數的幅度在成長。所以對我們來說確實是突破性的成長。我真心會說，我剛描述的任何一個部分，就毛利率與營業利益率而言，都沒有低於我們公司整體的營運模型。因此它不只是高成長，對我們而言也是非常有利的高毛利業務。

Got it. And then lastly, maybe Bob, how should we think about the milestones to generating free cash flow on a more consistent basis? Is it a certain revenue level where we should start modeling free cash flow right at a certain level? Do you have any specific targets around that? Any color would be helpful. Thank you.

了解。最後一個問題，可能請教 Bob，我們應該如何看待更穩定地產生自由現金流（free cash flow）的里程碑？是否在某個營收水準之後，我們就應該開始在模型中假設自由現金流在某個水準上出現？你們是否有任何具體目標？任何補充說明都很有幫助。謝謝。

Right. So going through our cash flow from operations on a GAAP basis as I mentioned in my scripted remarks, the $15 million approximately of the prepaid retention program we put in place for the management team and employees of BinOptics, that actually came out of the $230 million of proceeds. If they leave and don't realize the benefit of staying with M/A-COM for example, that actually defaults to the previous shareholders.

好的。就 GAAP 基礎下的營運現金流而言，如同我在事先準備的發言中提到的，我們為 BinOptics 的管理團隊與員工所設立的預付留任計畫（prepaid retention program）約 1,500 萬美元，實際上是從那 2.30 億美元的交易所得中支付的。舉例來說，如果他們離職、未能實現留在 M/A-COM 的留任利益，那筆款項實際上會回到先前的股東。

It's a nuance in accounting, GAAP accounting, that it's a current asset that makes it go through cash flow from operations. As we have transactional expenses, we do have some use of cash that isn't aligned to the cash flow of the business per se and as we do have some synergies and some other integration costs, that as well, reduces cash flow from operations on a GAAP perspective.

這是會計上的一個細節、GAAP 會計的細節：它被列為流動資產，因此會透過營運現金流呈現。當我們有交易相關費用時，確實會有一些現金使用並不完全與企業本身的營運現金流對齊；同樣地，當我們有一些綜效與其他整合成本時，從 GAAP 的角度也會降低營運現金流。

But as we move forward here, big change with respect to the accounting that washed that deferred revenue through the balance sheet and that's behind us, we should come closer to non-GAAP earnings as we go through FY16 as we sit here today based upon what we see today. If we do another large transaction or other tuck-in transactions, there may be some synergies or integration costs or transaction costs that basically are outside of operations that reduce cash flow from operations.

但往前看，先前那項把遞延收入（deferred revenue）在資產負債表上沖洗（washed through）的會計變動已經過去了；因此在 FY16 期間，基於我們目前所見的情況，我們的表現應該會更接近非 GAAP 盈利。如果我們再做一筆大型交易或其他補強型（tuck-in）交易，可能會有一些綜效、整合成本或交易成本，基本上屬於營運之外的項目，會降低營運現金流。

Is there a certain level, Bob, at which we should think that free cash flow will X percent of sales? I understand the business is going through a transformation, but is there a target that you have in mind?

Bob，有沒有某個水準，讓我們可以認為自由現金流會是營收的 X%？我理解公司正在轉型，但你心中是否有一個目標？

Well, Vivek, it's really from the other perspective. We are projecting growth in revenues and so we have as we've said before, we have deferred to carrying inventory to be in a position to meet turns business and opportunistic business that exists because we have products. When you also look at some of the market in the past, some of that inventory levels are also driven by supply constraints where our partners have longer lead times because of their load from many other customers. That really hasn't had a material effect other than us increasing our inventories.

嗯，Vivek，其實要從另一個角度看。我們正在預測營收成長，因此如同我們之前說過的，我們選擇持有庫存，以便能夠滿足周轉型（turns）業務與因為我們有產品而出現的機會型業務。同時回頭看過去市場的情況，有些庫存水位也受到供應限制所驅動：因為我們的合作夥伴因為其他許多客戶的需求負載而交期更長。這並沒有造成其他重大影響，除了讓我們增加庫存。

So as we -- these growing markets as we anticipate demand, as inventory grows, it's really a function of the difference in many ways between the cash generated by the balance sheet, EBITDA for example, and our decision to make investments in working capital. We can scale that back as visibility of business is clearer to us overall for the longer term. So it's not so much a level of business. It's more of where we want to make the investment from a working capital perspective. That is the majority of the change here.

因此，隨著這些成長市場、我們預期需求、庫存增加，很多時候它其實是資產負債表所產生的現金（例如 EBITDA）與我們決定投入營運資金（working capital）之間差異的函數。當我們對長期整體業務的能見度更清楚時，我們可以把這部分縮減。所以重點不在於某個業務規模門檻，而更在於我們從營運資金角度想投入多少。這是這裡變化的主要原因。

As you know also, we tax effect at 15% to get a normalized run rate. Sometimes in cash flow from operations on the GAAP basis, that also penalizes cash flow from operations because we're basically not doing anything and it's balance sheet changes and current assets that affect use of capital, use of cash. So some of it's accounting, but more of it is transactional expenses and our decision to invest in working capital.

你也知道，我們以 15% 的稅率做稅負影響（tax effect），以得到常態化的運行水準。有時在 GAAP 基礎的營運現金流中，這也會對營運現金流不利，因為我們基本上沒有做什麼，而是資產負債表變動與流動資產影響了資本使用、現金使用。所以部分是會計因素，但更大部分是交易費用，以及我們投資營運資金的決策。

Thank you.

謝謝。

Thank you.

謝謝。

(Operator Instructions)

（接線員指示）

Our next question is from Harsh Kumar of Stephens. Your line is open.

下一個問題來自 Stephens 的 Harsh Kumar。您的線路已開通。

Hi, guys. Couple of questions. My first one is it seems like Bob, there are two moving parts. There is the legacy ground-based business which I think in the press release you said is off a little bit. And then I think I also heard you talk about the Networks piece, particularly maybe some seasonality in the optical side. I'm curious what is the magnitude of each of those if one's larger than the other, equal size, any color?

嗨，各位。我有幾個問題。第一個是，看起來 Bob，有兩個變動因素。一個是傳統的地面（ground-based）既有業務，我想你們在新聞稿中說它略有下滑。然後我也聽到你談到網路（Networks）這一塊，特別是光學端可能有一些季節性。我想了解這兩者各自的量級如何？是否一個比另一個大、或差不多？能否提供一些說明？

I'm sorry, I didn't quite follow the -- are you talking about the effects last quarter or the forward-looking?

抱歉，我沒有完全理解——你是在問上季的影響，還是前瞻性的？

No, the effects going forward.

不是，是往後的影響。

I would say the lumpiness in our traditional catalog transistor business, the radar, is really a quarter to quarter effect. We can't affect our Asian or European customers who are deploying or doing retrofits of old radar systems. It's just lumpy and that's the way it kind of is. It's on the order of a few million a quarter. And we've had up quarters, surprisingly. I think last quarter, previous quarter was an up quarter. So it's kind of hard to predict, bouncing around. On the seasonality, I'm sorry, the other aspect of the question was the seasonality in optical?

我會說，我們傳統型錄電晶體（catalog transistor）業務、也就是雷達（radar）那塊的波動性，主要是季對季的影響。我們無法左右亞洲或歐洲客戶在部署或翻新（retrofits）舊雷達系統的節奏。它就是不均勻（lumpy），大致就是這樣。量級大概每季幾百萬美元。我們也曾有意外的高峰季；我想上一季、前一季就是高峰季。所以很難預測，會上下波動。至於季節性——抱歉，你問題的另一部分是光學的季節性嗎？

Correct, that's right, yes.

對，沒錯，是的。

It's really, what we've seen in previous years and it looks like the behavior is similar, is our customers especially over in China where a lot of our business is transacted right now, manage inventories down at the end of the year. As I understand it, personal incentive rewards are given for year-end inventories. From a demand standpoint, it's seasonal.

基本上，我們在過去幾年看到的情況、而且看起來行為也類似的是：我們的客戶，特別是在中國（我們目前很多業務交易都在那裡），會在年底把庫存降下來。據我了解，年終庫存水位會影響個人激勵獎酬。就需求而言，這是季節性因素。

Not end market demand necessarily, although we have seen an element of that previous last year in PON. That was our first year with Mindspeed in the portfolio for instance. Now we doubled that down. Now we have a big position in lasers as well. So you could have that effect. And traditionally, we could offset that or previous quarters, we could offset that with strong growth in other parts of our optical business.

不一定是終端市場需求，雖然去年在 PON 我們確實看到一些那樣的因素。舉例來說，那是我們把 Mindspeed 納入產品組合的第一年。現在我們又加碼了；現在我們在雷射方面也有很大的布局。所以你可能會看到那種影響。傳統上，我們可以用光學業務其他部分的強勁成長來抵消，或在前幾季我們能夠抵消。

But this quarter right now, we're tapped out from a supply standpoint. If you remember double capacity in the first half of the year and then by January next year have Lowell online which at least doubles capacity yet again. It's just the December quarter, that capacity hasn't come on so we're kind of tapped out from a supply standpoint.

但就目前這一季而言，從供應角度我們已經滿載了。如果你記得，我們在上半年把產能加倍，然後到明年一月讓 Lowell 上線，至少再把產能加倍一次。只是 12 月這一季，那些產能還沒上來，所以從供應面來看我們有點到頂了。

John, very helpful. That was very helpful. So it doesn't sound like you've seen anything specific in the marketplace. Sounds like it's just your expectation of managing inventory down. Is that fair for me to think from that angle and you guys maybe not having the supply? Is that the larger issue?

John，很有幫助，真的很有幫助。所以聽起來你們並沒有在市場上看到什麼特別的狀況；比較像是你們預期客戶會把庫存降下來。從這個角度理解、再加上你們可能供應不足，這樣想合理嗎？哪一個才是更大的問題？

I would say they're equal.

我會說兩者差不多。

Okay.

好的。

We just can't supply more units in this particular quarter. The March quarter, it's basically unbounded. And then the other thing is just caution from a demand standpoint that kind of pushing customers to sustain inventory levels at the end of the year is something that we don't really choose to do. Other people do it. We don't.

我們在這個特定季度就是無法供應更多的單位。3 月季度基本上是沒有上限的。然後另一點是，從需求面的角度我們只是保持謹慎——在年底推動客戶維持庫存水位這件事，不是我們真正會選擇去做的。別人會做，我們不會。

I'm hearing you talk about long-haul optical after a long time. In the past, you always said the big driver, at least in front of your eyes, was the access site. But this press release, also your commentary is talking a little bit more about long-haul optical. Is there something you're starting to see along with maybe the return of the base station market that's making you more optimistic, John?

我很久沒聽到你談長途光學了。過去你總是說最大的驅動因素——至少在你眼前看到的——是接入端。但這份新聞稿以及你們的評論也多談了一些長途光學。John，是不是你開始看到一些跡象，再加上基地台市場可能回溫，讓你更樂觀？

As I mentioned previously, we have seen some unanticipated orders come in for back-haul related business. Unquestionably there's signs of life there. And again, the real issue is race against time because here we are mid-November. So to capture additional orders and turn them this quarter, there's limited ability. That's really the only issue there.

如我先前提到的，我們看到一些與回程（back-haul）相關業務的、原本未預期的訂單進來。那裡毫無疑問有復甦的跡象。再說一次，真正的問題是與時間賽跑，因為現在已經是 11 月中旬了。所以要拿到額外訂單並在本季完成交付，能力是有限的。那裡唯一的問題就是這個。

On the other side of things, to be clear, and I had it in the scripted remarks, the strongest sequential growth we saw last quarter was in our long-haul and metro drivers. The lasers were up and up strong sequentially, but the real blow-about and we believe we're beginning to see the impact of metro deployments driving demand. If that's the case, that can continue through the next year very nicely because the reports we've seen is up through the middle part of the year only about 3%, certainly less than 5% of metro deployments were at 100 gig.

另一方面，為了說清楚——我在事先準備的講稿裡也提到了——我們上季看到最強的季對季成長是在長途與都會網（metro）的驅動因素上。雷射的季對季成長很強、而且持續走高，但真正的亮點是我們相信開始看到都會網部署帶動需求的影響。如果是這樣，這個趨勢在明年可以很漂亮地延續，因為我們看到的報告顯示，截至年中，都會網部署中只有約 3%，肯定不到 5%，是 100G。

So the transition to 100 gig in the metro space is just in the early stages. As that ramps to 50%, for instance in long-haul over 50% of the cords are 100 gig, there's a lot of runway there. And we think metro's probably 2X minimum if not 4X the size of long-haul.

所以，都會網領域向 100G 的轉換才剛在早期階段。當它提升到例如 50% 時——而在長途網中，超過 50% 的連線已是 100G——這裡還有很長的成長跑道。我們認為都會網的規模至少是長途網的 2 倍，甚至可能是 4 倍。

Understood. Very helpful again. Then, I think you talked a little bit about loosely on GaN on silicon timing. I think you mentioned 2016. Maybe if you were more specific I missed it. John, could you maybe try to pin this down a little bit more? You're getting close to the finish line there with production orders. Should we be thinking first half or second half or any kind of granularity would be great?

了解。再次非常有幫助。接著，我想你稍微提到 GaN on silicon 的時程，你好像提到 2016 年。也許你有更具體的說法我漏聽了。John，你能不能把這個再釘得更清楚一點？你們已經接近拿到量產訂單的終點線了。我們應該想成是上半年、下半年，或任何更細的時間粒度都很好。

In terms of a material inflection point in our revenue, the contribution would be in the second half. Simply because until you reach qualification, customers aren't going to award programs and those don't magically start instantaneously. The reason why we remain cautious on making any sort of investor commitments in the second half, is until those customer decisions are made, they're not made.

就我們營收出現實質拐點而言，貢獻會在下半年。原因很簡單：在通過認證（qualification）之前，客戶不會授予專案，而那些專案也不會憑空立刻啟動。我們之所以對在下半年做任何投資人承諾仍保持謹慎，是因為在客戶做出決策之前，決策就是還沒做出來。

That said, our entire qualification timeline, we are definitely absolutely on track. There were giant milestones that we accomplished this quarter, where now customers have been delivered fully operational power amplifier designs that meet every target specification they've given to us and they have nodded their heads in approval and basically opened up programs across multiple platforms. So, we have the full target right before us to execute to. And I've said it before and I'll say it again, until we pass qual, we have not passed qual. That's the reason why we maintain the caution.

話雖如此，我們整個認證時程絕對、確實都在軌道上。本季我們達成了重大的里程碑：我們已交付給客戶完全可運作的功率放大器設計，符合他們給我們的每一項目標規格；他們也點頭認可，並且基本上在多個平台上開啟了專案。所以，我們面前有非常明確的目標要去執行。我以前說過、我再說一次：在我們通過認證之前，我們就還沒通過認證。這就是我們維持謹慎的原因。

That's fair, guys. Great. Thank you.

這很合理，各位。很好。謝謝。

You're welcome.

不客氣。

Thank you. Our next question is from Tore Svanberg of Stifel. Your line is open.

謝謝。下一個問題來自 Stifel 的 Tore Svanberg。您的線路已開通。

Thank you. A few questions. First of all on the BinOptics business, I just want to understand the moving parts there. You were ramping capacity. Did you get -- did you have some contribution from that capacity already or is the main contribution coming in the first half of next year?

謝謝。我有幾個問題。首先關於 BinOptics 業務，我想了解其中的變動因素。你們一直在提升產能。那麼——你們是否已經從這些產能得到一些貢獻，還是主要貢獻會在明年上半年出現？

No, I mean, the sequential growth on our laser business was close to 10% sequential. It was a very nice, strong sequential growth. That's after what we had originally done. I think you can go on our investor site. We've got a slide, if I remember, slide 6 or 8 in our slide deck, that showed the actual doubling of capacity through the first half of the year. So that's another 9% on top of what that original doubling occurred.

不，我是說，我們雷射業務的季對季成長接近 10%。這是非常不錯、很強的季對季成長。這是在我們原先所做的之後。我想你可以到我們的投資人網站上看，我記得在簡報的第 6 或第 8 頁有一張投影片，顯示上半年實際把產能翻倍。所以這是在原先翻倍之後再增加的另外 9%。

On a forward-looking basis, right now that 9% is pretty much tapped out for the factory in Ithaca, New York. That was the original BinOptics factory. The next inflection point in terms of supply, which we remain supply constrained, not demand constrained, that comes on after the first of the year in January in our Lowell factory. And at that point, it's basically unconstrained from a supply standpoint. But we just got to pause here because we've pretty much tapped out Ithaca.

從前瞻角度來看，目前這 9% 對於我們紐約州伊薩卡（Ithaca）的工廠幾乎已經用滿了。那是原本的 BinOptics 工廠。下一個供應面的拐點——我們仍然是供應受限，不是需求受限——會在年初之後、也就是 1 月於我們的洛厄爾（Lowell）工廠出現。到那個時點，從供應角度基本上就不再受限。但我們得先在這裡停一下，因為伊薩卡幾乎已經被我們用到極限了。

Very good. And then on the FiBest business, just looking at the website, they're only talking about 10 gig products. I assume obviously, they have some new products in the pipeline. But how should we think about their ramp into 100 gig and especially if you think about the $25 million they have in revenue today, I assume that's all 10 gig?

很好。接著關於 FiBest 業務，我看他們網站只在談 10G 產品。我想他們顯然有一些新產品在開發中。但我們應該怎麼看他們往 100G 的爬坡，尤其如果你考慮他們目前約 2,500 萬美元的營收，我假設那全部都是 10G？

I wouldn't say it's all, but I'd say the majority of the revenue on a backward looking basis probably 90% is in the past would have been 10 gig. I believe this quarter is a transition. I should point out I don't think they've updated their website in at least nine months, I'm not sure they're really a commercial supplier in that respect. But anyway, I believe about 90% this quarter coming in, is in 100 gig.

我不會說全部都是，但我會說從回顧的角度看，過去營收的大多數——大概 90%——會是 10G。我相信本季是一個轉換期。我也要指出，我不認為他們至少有九個月沒有更新網站了，我不確定他們在那方面是否真的是商業供應商。不過無論如何，我相信本季進來的約 90% 會是 100G。

Okay.

好的。

They've made that transition to their telecom business.

他們已經在其電信業務上完成了那個轉換。

Got it. And then last question for Bob. CapEx, it kind of doubled year over year FY15 over FY14. How should we think about CapEx in 2016, especially in light of capacity uptakes and also the progress for acquisitions?

了解。最後一個問題給 Bob。資本支出（CapEx）在 FY15 相較 FY14 似乎年增翻倍。你們怎麼看 2016 年的 CapEx，尤其考量產能提升以及併購進展？

The spending, the capital investment for BinOptics and the laser business has been made. So there's a small parts in fill-in. As we sit here today, we would say looking forward, our traditional model of 4% of revenues maybe increases slightly to 5% outside of an occasional special thing when an acquisition may drive or something else like that's not really visible today.

BinOptics 與雷射業務的支出、資本投資已經完成。所以只剩一些小的補強。以我們目前的狀況來看，往前看，我們傳統的模型是營收的 4%，可能會略微提高到 5%，除非偶爾有特殊事項，例如併購帶動，或其他目前還看不太到的事情。

I'd point out that we had an opportunity to purchase our building at very favorable terms and that's critical to our ability to control our destiny longer term. So that was sort of an exception on top of the BinOptics investments last year. So about 5% is our normalized model for CapEx.

我也要指出，我們有機會以非常有利的條件買下我們的建物，這對我們長期掌控自身命運的能力至關重要。所以那算是一個例外，疊加在去年 BinOptics 的投資之上。因此，約 5% 是我們 CapEx 的常態化模型。

Very helpful. Thank you very much.

非常有幫助。非常感謝。

Thank you. Our next question is from Steve Smigie of Raymond James. Your line is open.

謝謝。下一個問題來自 Raymond James 的 Steve Smigie。您的線路已開通。

Great. Thanks a lot, guys. So was hoping you could talk a little about how fast your laser business could grow in calendar 2016, if you were able to fill all the past capacity you planned to build out this year? So assuming demand was there, how fast could the laser business grow?

太好了。非常謝謝，各位。我希望你們能談談，如果你們能把今年計畫擴建的既有產能都填滿，2016 年曆年你們的雷射業務能成長多快？也就是假設需求存在，雷射業務能成長多快？

I don't want to sound smug but if we were to sell every element of capacity we have, it would probably grow 1,000%. The factory in Lowell is in order of magnitude larger in equipment capacity than Ithaca. So, it's the reason why I say -- we said doubling in capacity by the first of the year.

我不想聽起來很自滿，但如果我們把所有產能的每一個元素都賣出去，可能會成長 1,000%。洛厄爾工廠在設備產能上比伊薩卡大一個數量級。所以這就是我說——我們說到年初產能翻倍的原因。

Once we're in Lowell, it's basically unlimited, which is key because from unit volume standpoint, data centers could absolutely consume a sizable chunk of that. Whether it's 10-fold or more or less, remains to be seen. But I think the first approximation was the way to think about it is infinite supply for the foreseeable two or three years.

一旦我們進入洛厄爾，從供應角度基本上就是無上限，這很關鍵，因為就單位出貨量而言，資料中心絕對可以消化其中相當大的一部分。究竟是 10 倍還是更多或更少，還有待觀察。但我認為第一近似的思考方式是：在可預見的未來兩到三年，供應是無限的。

On the $100 million wins potentially on an active antenna side, how would that revenue play out? You win the contract? Is it rolled out over 10 years? You have a certain number of radars you're building out? How does that work out?

關於主動天線（active antenna）端可能拿到的 1 億美元訂單，那個營收會怎麼實現？你們贏得合約後，是分 10 年攤開？你們要建置一定數量的雷達？這是怎麼運作的？

So a particular radar system from what we've seen on the defense side, the programs that we've been exposed to are typically three-year buildouts, sometimes five-year buildouts. The civil programs, they're talking about a whole wholesale upgrade of the weather and air traffic control radar system in the US. That would be hundreds of millions of dollars of opportunity to us over decades, literally.

就我們在國防端看到的特定雷達系統而言，我們接觸到的專案通常是三年的建置期，有時是五年的建置期。民用專案方面，他們談的是對美國的氣象與空中交通管制雷達系統進行全面升級。那對我們而言將是數億美元的機會，而且是以數十年為期，真的是數十年。

That's not imminent in the next year or so, but when that happens, we're very well-positioned and it's transformative from a Company standpoint. But I would say there are some programs in the $20 million, $30 million range on the defense side, some that are $100 million and I know of at least one that's over $200 million. Again, the buildouts, I would say would average three to five years.

這在未來一年左右不會立即發生，但一旦發生，我們的布局非常到位，從公司角度來看將具有變革性。不過我會說，在國防端有一些約2,000萬美元、3,000萬美元規模的專案，也有一些是1億美元的，而且我知道至少有一個超過2億美元。同樣地，這些建置我會說平均需要三到五年。

Revenue recognition, Steve, is on a shipment basis and title transfer, just as any other component we ship today.

Steve，營收認列是以出貨為基礎並在所有權移轉時認列，就跟我們今天出貨的任何其他元件一樣。

Okay. And then on the FiBest stuff, can you talk about the product a little bit more? Is it -- again, just look at the website, it's not clear. Is it they're just doing the package or are they doing a complete transceiver? So they're buying components from everybody else and then packaging and then selling that? Or is the revenue more on packages alone?

好的。那關於FiBest的部分，你能再多談一點產品嗎？是不是——我再說一次，只看網站不太清楚。他們是只做封裝，還是做完整的收發器？也就是他們向其他供應商採購元件，然後封裝再拿去賣？還是營收主要只來自封裝本身？

The simplest way to think about it is the packaging option. We've got all the semiconductor content that goes in those transmit and receive optical subassemblies. To us, it's packaging. It's high-value add packaging because when you talk about the lens assembly for these complex optical devices at 100 gig and beyond, that has a big impact on the performance and power consumption and the overall solution. It has a lot to do with IP around alignment of the light sources and so on.

最簡單的理解方式就是把它視為封裝選項。我們擁有那些發射與接收光學子組件中所包含的所有半導體內容。對我們而言，這就是封裝。這是高附加價值的封裝，因為當你談到100G及以上這些複雜光學裝置的鏡頭組裝時，它會對效能、功耗以及整體解決方案產生很大影響。這也與光源對準等相關的智慧財產（IP）密切相關。

But let me emphasize something. We are not making an integration play to transceivers. That is the opposite direction of the way other people are going. That is in our opinion, a low-value add, Asian commodity play. We're remaining a component supplier and whether people want to use our subassemblies or just our components, frankly, we don't care. It's all good business to us. I would say that having the packaging capability allows us to improve and refine the quality of our solutions at a component level. So when this is not an integration play, it's really a packaging option.

但我想強調一點：我們不是要往收發器做整合。那是其他人正在走的相反方向。在我們看來，那是低附加價值、以亞洲為主的商品化玩法。我們仍然是元件供應商，客戶要用我們的子組件或只用我們的元件，坦白說我們都不在意；對我們而言都是好生意。我會說，具備封裝能力讓我們能在元件層級提升並精進解決方案的品質。所以這不是整合策略，而是真正的封裝選項。

Okay. Great. Last question is just on the aerospace and defense side. What would be the breakout at this point between aerospace versus defense and how do you think about that as we think about the next few years as you've got a bunch of these pretty sizable programs ramping up?

好的。很好。最後一個問題是關於航太與國防端。目前航太與國防之間的占比大概如何？以及當未來幾年有一批相當可觀的專案開始放量時，你們怎麼看待這個組合？

The A&D business today and looking backwards, is profoundly different than what we talked about on a go-forward basis. Looking backward, we have a catalog of diodes and transistors and we sell them by frequency bands and there are bands that are used both for civil and defense purposes. So it's literally -- by the way, they go into customers who have both civil and defense divisions. So it's effectively impossible to really quantify civil versus defense usage other than a rough cut of how much of our customer's business is that way. And the last time we looked it was about 50/50. So I think that's probably a fair assessment going back.

目前的航太與國防（A&D）業務，以及回頭看過去，與我們談到的未來方向有著根本性的不同。回顧過去，我們有一套二極體與電晶體的型錄，並按頻段銷售；而這些頻段同時用於民用與國防用途。所以實際上——順帶一提，它們也會賣給同時擁有民用與國防事業部的客戶。因此，除了用一個粗略方式看客戶業務中有多少屬於那一類之外，幾乎不可能真正量化民用與國防的使用比例。我們上次檢視時大約是50/50，所以我認為回頭看這應該是合理的評估。

Going forward, these large programs are things like our peers have had and captured during the days when M/A-COM was owned by Tyco and they didn't really care to invest in aerospace and defense programs. Now as we capture these, they're large chunks, very predictable, very reliable, long-term programs, all the nice characteristics that we talk about in traditional M/A-COM business. It's just literally, in order of magnitude bigger than our A&D business looking back.

往前看，這些大型專案類似於我們同業在過去曾經擁有並拿下的那些——當年M/A-COM隸屬Tyco時，他們並不太願意投資航太與國防專案。現在我們在拿下這些專案時，它們是很大塊、非常可預測、非常可靠的長期專案，具備我們在傳統M/A-COM業務中常談到的所有優點。只是就量級而言，遠遠大於我們回顧過去的A&D業務。

Going forward, Steve, it's easier. The MPAR program is obviously, a civil aeronautic deployment. As we get certain programs, if they allow us to, we can identify whether they're defense, military, versus civil applications.

往前看，Steve，這就比較容易了。MPAR專案顯然是民用航空的部署。當我們取得某些專案時，如果對方允許我們揭露，我們就能辨識它們是國防、軍用，還是民用應用。

Okay. Great. Thanks a lot, guys.

好的。很好。非常感謝，各位。

Thank you. Our next question is from Harsh Kumar of Stephens. Your line is open.

謝謝。下一個問題來自Stephens的Harsh Kumar。您的線路已開通。

Hi, guys. Thanks for the opportunity for a follow-up. John, I was wondering if you could talk about who do you see in the optical space as your primary competitors? Who do you run into for the most part? And also, I've heard a few tidbits about the cost advantage that BinOptics products or your product has over the competition. Wondering if you could elaborate that a little bit?

嗨，各位。謝謝讓我追問。John，我想請你談談在光學領域你們主要的競爭對手是誰？你們大多會遇到哪些對手？另外，我也聽到一些關於BinOptics產品或你們產品相較競品具有成本優勢的消息，想請你再多說一點？

Sure. So depending on the product category, we have a totally different set of competitors. For instance, our high performance analog stuff, which came over from Mindspeed tends to compete more with SemTech. The traditional competitors for our long-haul business, compound semi stuff, Qorvo at one time had a substantial business. I'm not sure what they have left at this point.

當然。依產品類別不同，我們面對的是完全不同的一組競爭對手。比如說，我們的高效能類比產品（從Mindspeed併入的）通常更多是與SemTech競爭。至於我們長途傳輸業務的傳統競爭對手、化合物半導體相關產品，Qorvo曾經有相當可觀的業務；我不確定他們目前還剩下多少。

We have Inphi that tends to try to compete. They tend to do a very good job with transimpedance amplifiers whereas we tend to do a great job with line drivers, our modulator drivers. And from an overall TAM standpoint, the drivers are more like 80%, 10% on the receive side on transimpedance amplifiers.

我們也會遇到Inphi，他們傾向於嘗試競爭。他們在跨阻放大器（TIA）方面做得很好，而我們在線路驅動器、也就是調變器驅動器方面做得很出色。從整體可服務市場（TAM）的角度來看，驅動器大概占80%，接收端的跨阻放大器大概占10%。

And then, when we talk about lasers, if you remember, was Mitsubishi and CyOptics, the CyOptics division of Avago. So it's really -- there's no one who really transcends all of those things. I would say, Avago, when we talk about data centers, I would say would have the strongest position and is a great Company I like to compete with.

再來談到雷射，如果你還記得，過去是三菱以及CyOptics（Avago旗下的CyOptics事業部）。所以——其實沒有任何一家能在上述所有領域都全面跨足。我會說，談到資料中心時，Avago的地位最強，而且是一家很棒、我也喜歡與之競爭的公司。

From the cost benefit I was referring more to the laser side.

我剛剛提到的成本效益主要是指雷射那一端。

Oh, yes, sorry I missed the question. The etched facet technology, if you remember when we picked up BinOptics last year, it's transformative. A lot of the lasers supplied into the market are using decades old cleaved facet technology and what BinOptics did was a venture capital funded startup that developed etched facet technology which is a wafer scale process. Very familiar to what semiconductor guys do, like us, in the compound semiconductor world.

喔，是的，抱歉我漏掉了這個問題。你如果記得我們去年收購BinOptics，他們的蝕刻端面（etched facet）技術具有變革性。市場上許多供應的雷射仍使用數十年前的劈裂端面（cleaved facet）技術；而BinOptics是一家由創投資助的新創，開發了蝕刻端面技術，這是一種晶圓尺度（wafer scale）的製程。對我們這種在化合物半導體領域的半導體公司來說，這非常熟悉。

I think I calculated at the time of the acquisition, it was minimally a factor of two better cost advantage of BinOptics versus their competition. Competition being CyOptics and the publicly stated financials at that time. Since that time by doubling capacity, you get a proportional reduction in cost structure and as we go into Lowell, it's again, from 3-inch to 4-inch, higher yields.

我記得在收購當時我算過，BinOptics相較競爭對手至少有兩倍的成本優勢。所謂競爭對手是指CyOptics，以及當時公開揭露的財務數據。自那之後，透過把產能加倍，你會得到相應的成本結構下降；而當我們搬到Lowell時，又會從3吋提升到4吋，良率更高。

We have several integer multiples of cost advantage where it's the reason frankly, and the most price sensitive part of the laser world in PON, fiber to the home access, it's very much a consumer market, we are above arguably, ending up well above our target financial model. So you can imagine whether you're talking about wireless back-haul, fiber back-haul or even data centers, the cost advantage can really be brought to bear.

我們擁有數倍等級的成本優勢；坦白說，這也是為什麼在雷射領域中最價格敏感的PON（光纖到府接取）市場——它非常偏消費性市場——我們的表現可以說遠高於我們的目標財務模型。所以你可以想像，不論是無線回傳、光纖回傳，甚至資料中心，這個成本優勢都能真正發揮作用。

Got it. Understood, guys. Thank you very much.

了解。明白了，各位。非常感謝。

You're welcome.

不客氣。

Thank you. And our next question is a follow-up from Tore Svanberg of Stifel. Your line is open.

謝謝。下一個問題是Stifel的Tore Svanberg的追問。您的線路已開通。

Thanks. Just two quick follow-ups. First of all, how should I think about the profitability profile of the SPAR antenna business?

謝謝。兩個簡短追問。第一，SPAR天線業務的獲利能力輪廓應該怎麼看？

It's consistent with our financial model on a go-forward basis out of the gate.

從一開始就與我們未來的財務模型一致。

Okay. Very good. And then how should we think about OpEx in the December quarter? I think maybe, we talked about somewhere around $35 million, $36 million when we exclude the Automotive business. So is that the good starting point?

好的，很好。第二，12月季度的營業費用（OpEx）應該怎麼看？我想我們可能談過在排除車用業務後大約是3,500萬到3,600萬美元左右。所以這是個好的起點嗎？

So we did in total $38.5 million in operating expenses. As we've talked about in the past, our fourth quarter is the settlement of a lot of variable compensation, so that can trend down as much as $2 million. So it's in between $36.5 million and $38.5 million overall.

我們總計的營業費用是3,850萬美元。正如我們過去提到的，第四季會結算許多變動薪酬，因此可能會下降多達200萬美元。所以整體會落在3,650萬到3,850萬美元之間。

Okay. Perfect. Thank you very much.

好的。完美。非常感謝。

You're welcome.

不客氣。

Thank you. At this time, I see no other questions in queue. I'd like to turn it back to Mr. Croteau for any closing remarks.

謝謝。目前我看到隊列中沒有其他問題。我想把時間交回Croteau先生做結語。

Thank you, Operator. Before closing out today's call, please note that we'll be attending the Goldman Sachs conference this Thursday in New York, the Barclays conference December 9, in San Francisco, and the Needham conference January 12 to 14, in New York. To request a meeting with Management, please e-mail us at IR@MACOM.com. With that, I'd like to wish everyone a happy holiday season and a healthy and prosperous new year. Operator, you may now disconnect the call.

謝謝您，接線員。在結束今天的電話會議前，請注意我們本週四將在紐約出席高盛（Goldman Sachs）會議；12月9日在舊金山出席巴克萊（Barclays）會議；以及1月12日至14日在紐約出席Needham會議。如需與管理團隊安排會議，請寄電子郵件至IR@MACOM.com。最後，祝大家佳節愉快，並祝新的一年健康、順遂、繁榮。接線員，您現在可以中斷通話。

Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for your participation in today's conference. This concludes your program. You may now disconnect. Everyone have a great day.

謝謝。各位女士、先生，感謝您參與今天的會議。以上為本次節目內容。您現在可以中斷連線。祝大家今天愉快。