Thank you. Thank you all for joining this call.

I'd like to remind everyone that on today's call management will be making forward-looking statements. All statements other than statements of historical facts may be forward-looking statements.

Forward-looking statements reflect Besi's current views and assumptions regarding future events, many of which are by nature inherently uncertain and beyond Besi's control. Actual results may differ materially from those in the forward-looking statements due to various risks and uncertainties, including but not limited to factors that are discussed in the company's most recent periodic and current reports filed with the AFM.

Such forward-looking statements, including guidance provided during today's call, speak only as of this date. Besi does not intend to update them in light of new information or future developments, nor does Besi undertake any obligation to update the future forward-looking statements.

For today's call, we'd like to review the key highlights for our first quarter ended March 31st, 2026, and update you on the market, our strategy, and outlook. First, some overall thoughts on the first quarter.

Besi reported strong first quarter results and advanced packaging orders in an improving industry environment. Revenue of €184.9 million increased 28.3% versus the first quarter of 2025 due to higher shipments for high-end mobile and 2.5D AI photonics and data center applications.

Q1 '26 orders of €269.7 million more than doubled versus the first quarter of 2025 due to broad-based growth across all Besi's end-user markets, with particular strength in hybrid bonding, mobile, and photonics applications. Orders increased 7.7% versus Q4 last year, due primarily to a significant increase in bookings for hybrid bonding systems from multiple customers and end-user applications.

Increased revenue growth this quarter favorably influenced Besi's profitability. Net income rose 20.6% and 63.8% versus Q4 '25 and Q1 '25, respectively, with net margin increasing to 27.9% versus the 21.9% in the first quarter of 2025.

Improved profitability this quarter was due primarily to enhanced revenue growth, disciplined expense management, and the benefits of operating leverage in Besi's business model. We realized a gross margin of 63.5% in the first quarter this year, as increased prices helped offset increased component and energy cost inflation.

In addition, our liquidity position improved significantly, with net cash growing by 186.9% versus the fourth quarter last year to reach €103.3 million. Growth in our net cash position reflected improved profit and cash flow generation from operations of €93 million in the first quarter 2026, which more than doubled versus the comparable period of the prior year.

During the quarter, Besi repurchased for approximately €14.2 million of its shares, which brings the total purchases to €25.5 million under the current €60 million buyback program. Next, I'd like to discuss the current market environment and our strategy.

We've noticed an important improvement in market conditions since our last report, driven primarily by strong growth in AI demand and, to a lesser extent, additions to mobile and automotive capacity. The latest TechInsights forecast calls for 21% assembly market growth in '26 and 75% between 2025 and 2030.

We expect to significantly exceed such projected growth rates given our leadership position in advanced packaging and wafer-level assembly, particularly in flip chip, multi-module die attach, hybrid bonding, and next-generation TCB systems. Favorable order trends in the first quarter of this year reflect the strength of Besi's advanced packaging market position, particularly for next-generation 2.5D and 3D AI applications.

Unit orders for hybrid bonding systems more than doubled versus the fourth quarter last year and exceeded the prior quarterly peak reached in Q2 2024 with respect to total units and order value. Growth was due primarily to a larger than anticipated capacity build this quarter by a customer and, to a lesser extent, repeat orders from a memory customer for HBM applications.

In addition, we shipped two evaluation tools to a second memory customer for HBM applications and adoption increased to 20 customers overall. Progress also continued on our TC Next agenda, with two new orders received and adoption increasing to six customers.

Besi's business prospects for 2026 were also enhanced by renewed growth for high-end mobile and automotive applications in this first quarter. Our business strategy is currently focused on supporting customer adoption of our wafer-level assembly and 2.5D AI product portfolio, and ramping the supply chain and production personnel necessary to meet increased order levels.

We are also developing additional Vietnamese production capacity for mainstream assembly applications in order to free up incremental capacity in Malaysia for wafer-level assembly production. Further, Besi is increasing its service and support efforts in Taiwan and Korea in anticipation of increased hybrid bonding activities in such regions.

Our favorable outlook for hybrid bonding growth in 2026 is also supported by a series of new products and use cases announced this year for logic, memory, co-packaged optics, and consumer applications. Such announcements suggest that the pace of hybrid bonding adoption is increasing as we approach the timing for the introduction of many new AI-related products anticipated in the 2027 till 2030 period.

Now a few words about our guidance. Based on our backlog and feedback from customers, we anticipate that Besi's Q2 '26 revenue will grow by 30 to 40% versus the first quarter of this year, as strong revenue and order growth continue versus the prior-year period.

In addition, gross margins are anticipated to increase to a range of 64 to 66%. Operating expenses are anticipated to be flat to up 10% due to increased revenue and customer support activities.

As a result, we anticipate a significant expansion of our net income and profit margins relative to Q1 '26 and Q2 2025. As a result, we forecast for H1 '26 that revenue will increase by 49% versus the first half of 2025, assuming the midpoint of our second-quarter '26 guidance, with a substantial improvement in operating and net income.

That ends our prepared remarks. I would like to open the call for questions.

Operator.

Didier?

Sorry. Hi, Richard, can you hear me?

Yes, I can hear you, Didier.

All right. Sorry about this.

I thought you lost your question.

No, well, I was on mute, unfortunately. Long day.

Listen, on hybrid bonding, those orders in Q1, you mentioned that you're a bit surprised by those orders, I think. It was not really expected that they would be as significant as they were.

Does that change anything about the profile of the ramp for this year at your main customer or is that leading to higher deliveries already this year because of AP7 or just give us your thoughts on this, and then, of course, I've got follow-ups on HBM.

What is happening, you can follow easily in the bigger picture provided by Taiwan customer is that we see an acceleration in adoption of hybrid bonding and the orders scheduled for installation in the first round in AP7 has been pulled forward somewhat from Q2 to Q1. In addition, the program has been enlarged for two reasons.

One, for the overall, let's say, timeline to fill in the anticipated 100 bonders, that number we are told may be significantly higher, plus orders placed for co-packaged optics. Overall, you can say good news in acceleration of placing orders and to some extent also an outlook for increased number of bonders required.

Oh, yeah, understood. On that front, I think you mentioned in the past in previous calls that 2027, you could start to see some new AI logic customers coming on board.

Have you got sort of line of sight on that?

We all know that AMD was the first to adopt the hybrid bonding for several families, and they continue to do that. Then we also know Broadcom, and one of the positive developments was also the Apple M5.

We see broader adoption. At the same time, we've heard or we've been told roadmaps from another very big customer in the data center modules that we can expect more hybrid bonding adoption going forward.

That is why we make the statement that we see accelerated and broader adoption. Also the number of customers, remember, quarter ago it was 18, now we are at 20.

On the logic front, the adoption is broadening and increasing.

Makes sense. Thank you so much for that, Richard.

Then on the HBM front, I think you mentioned that you had repeat orders from I think a memory customer. I think that customer, if I understand correctly, was the one sort of in sort of final trial phases for HBM4E 16-high adoption, and I think it was expecting some form of results in shipping those samples to their large customer.

Is that validation of your view that HBM4E is the really insertion point for hybrid bonding? Any idea as to the volume opportunity there?

The let's say evaluation programs, the customer engagement and customer has also increased very well in this first quarter. That has resulted in several more orders, and if all goes well, that should lead to mainstream adoption for certain HBM devices.

It's still following the timeline which we have understood that this year will be a major qualification year, and then based on the success of the qualification, setting up production capabilities towards the end of this year for mainstream volume production in '27. That roadmap stands, and it's being supported ever more by orders, by publications in the public domain of the progress.

Also, one of the end customers is very clear also on their website on their adoption strategy of hybrid bonding for HBM, so that pace has picked up in the quarter.

Thank you. Just the final question.

I think last quarter you said that the rule of thumb was 150 hybrid bonding system deployed by logic customers, that would mean the TAM for HBM could be 600. Anything that would sort of make you change your view, either positively or negatively?

No, that still stands, huh? If you compare a capacity of 50 bonders for logic and you simply look at all these beautiful websites and materials about building these 2.5D modules, you can easily see a processor surrounded by three or four memory stacks, and that explains you already one ratio.

The other ratio, when you have 16 dies in a stack, you need to do that 16 times as opposed to one logic device. You need much more capacity for HBM than you need for logic, but that has always been the case.

The rule of thumb is intact and also supported by customers demonstrating capabilities. One of the interesting recent documentation from TSMC is about the advanced packaging roadmap, and I invite everyone to look at that, published on CNBC.

All right. Perfect.

Thank you so much, Richard.

Thank you, Didier.

Yes, hi there. Congrats on the strong orders and progress on hybrid bonding.

Just wanted to ask a couple of regional questions. Firstly, when we look at the regional trends, it looks like US was comparatively low relative to some other regions.

Just curious to what extent it would be reasonable to expect an increase in the coming quarters as hybrid bonding orders for logic expand beyond your Asian customer base and into the US customers. Then, secondarily, understanding on China, it looks like robust orders there.

Wondered if you could help delineate what are the key factors that were driving this. Many thanks.

Excellent. US currently at the levels where it is, remember we had a big round for the initial capacity for hybrid bonding received already about 1.5 years ago, and that capacity is being filled in, is being qualified, is being tested, and based on the results at that customer, one can expect more bonders to be required or not.

That success is depending upon customer adoption. At the same time, we have the onshoring programs, one from TSMC to the US, one from Amkor, also Micron, and if all goes well, one can expect a shift from capacity built in Asia to more capacity onshore in the next years to come.

What we heard is that in the next 2 years, 26-27, preparation, building fabs, and then as of '28, volume production. We are, of course, engaged in those programs, and timing again is according to those customers' information, volume production as of '28.

Then your second question about China, yes, there are several robust orders from Chinese-based customers. Number one what's hot is the 2.5D CoWoS-like capacity expanding, at the same time, photonics, all the pluggables, and also a recovery in modules for high-end smartphones, mobile, and carefully, tide turning for industrial automotive.

That's the picture of China. I can also share that more and more future capacities are built outside China.

You see more in Malaysia, Philippines, Thailand, and also coming up ever more strongly Vietnam. That's where we have our facility building currently tools.

By the end of this year, the first bonding system, not hybrid, but epoxy bonding. Then you see a market opening up in India.

Five major customers are setting up production capabilities for mid to lower-end devices, mostly power right now, but also modules for high-end smartphones and also other devices more in the mid-market applications. China, although you have to segment also a China local market, which is also expanding, but the non-Chinese manufacturing in China, you see a clear change to countries outside of China.

Great. Thanks.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. I just had a follow-up on the second memory customer regarding the two other evaluation tools.

Just curious around your thoughts, whether you could help us understand a bit what they're testing at this stage. Is this a full sort of tool of record type of evaluation, or is it more of focused qualification around the specific application, more configuration?

How would that conversion maybe from evaluation to pilot lines look like in terms of timeline? Thank you.

As I mentioned, the timeline is 26-27, 26 development, setting up certain pilot although small volumes, for end market qualification purposes, and then more production expected for mainstream market adoption '27 onwards.

Okay. That would be a full tool of record type evaluation, right?

Yes, of course.

Okay. Then just a second one regarding agentic AI, I think we've been hearing about agentic AI as a strong driver at the CPU level.

Just interested to hear your thoughts whether that would have a different packaging intensity versus maybe the cycle that has so far been GPU led. Also have you seen any shift in the approach of your US logic customer on advanced packaging with you in recent months?

Is that CPU angle showing up in discussions? Thank you.

No, not in those details. I can't help.

Okay. Just a final one.

I think about 6 weeks ago, there was some chatter around a potential relaxation of this JEDEC thickness standards for 20-high. They were talking about moving from 775 micron towards 8 825 or even 900.

Of course curious how do you read those discussions and has that changed the conversations you're having with your memory customers at all?

No. It does not change the advantage of using a hybrid process over a reflow process.

The benefits are more and more demonstrated that you have a faster circuitry, you need less power, and that means less heat. The only reason we understand that this height should be available is for a process for one of the three which simply requires that height.

The other two are not impacted by that change. As we said end of February already with our year-end numbers, or third week of February, and that is confirmed in the rest of this quarter, we see an increased engagement and activity and also announcements.

Again, look at the Samsung website about hybrid bonding for HBM. That has not changed the adoption base or rate of adoption because of the benefits.

Okay. Thank you.

You could also add those benefits are everyday more proven in the logic application. You see a broadening adoption, higher volumes, pulled-in capacity requirements, so that supports also the adoption of hybrid bonding in HBM stacking.

All right. Thanks for your answers, Richard.

Thank you.

Thank you, Ruben.

Hi. First off, really congrats, Richard.

I think hybrid bonding has been a 10-year work for you and for the company by now, and glad to see it's finally coming into fruition. I have a few very important clarification I want to make with you here.

You said that two evaluation units is going to a second memory customer, but I thought you already have two memory customers. Is this actually going to the third memory customer?

No, you're right. We have or we had two, one is the US and one Korean who started in a lab to develop a similar hybrid solution already 2 years ago, I think, but the change is that they have moved this to the forefront.

That customer has two applications, one is logic, the other one is HBM stacking. On the memory front, adding the third one, we now have all three who have our hybrid bonders to further evaluate and define the adoption of hybrid bonding for HBM stacking.

Got it. The timeline you provided to a previous question regarding that customer who's just took your two evaluation units, 2026 qualification, 2027 maybe transitioning to production, is that still the right timeline to think for the third memory customer who actually came in a little bit late?

The timeline is '26, and as we explained several quarters, that has not changed. The first customer aiming towards the mid of this year, June-July, and the second one a bit following behind, which could be end of Q3-Q4.

That will determine the adoption in volume for '27.

The third customer?

The third customer is ready to go, but they are all evaluating along the same, yeah, let's say parameters, huh, for one specific end customer. The whole world knows that customer has invited all three to have these hybrid bonded stacks available by the end of '26 to be used in end market applications in '27.

Thanks, Richard. That's very encouraging.

Maybe want to ask you one more question the memory evaluation in general. We know your leading foundry customer sticking with the standalone tool configuration, but what's the landscape there for your memory customers between integrated and the standalone?

Which route do you think they are going after? One of the very frequent questions I got from investors is whether there's any difference in terms of the economics, in terms of the revenue dollars you get from integrated tool setup versus a standalone?

On like-to-like basis, meaning same configuration, same customer, are there any difference? Thank you.

Excellent. Start with the dollar numbers first.

We sell bonders and K&S sells KinemX automated lines, and they both have a sales value. The extra which you have is the handshake between the bonder and the KinemX tool.

Customers currently, and we have shared that several times, and you also said that, in Taiwan still the overwhelming majority is standalone because of the initial phase where we are in. You have multiple customers, different die sizes, different process requirements, and for flexibility reasons, that customer uses standalone.

It's undisputable that in an integrated line you achieve better process requirements, particles, also timing between the steps, and the integrity overall of die-to-die and wafer-to-wafer. Those advantages are used in front end for over three decades in the so-called cluster tool concepts.

The industry is evaluating the two aspects. Number one is the hybrid bonding process, and number two, what is the best total solution to produce devices using hybrid bonding?

As we all know, the hybrid process is very sensitive to particles, zero-particle requirement. Per definition, in an automated line like the KinemX, you can achieve the best process environment specifications.

The verdict you can say in a way is, on the one hand, towards high-volume production of specific devices with minimum changeover, once you have more changeover and you require more flexibility like the Taiwanese customer, at this moment that is still in standalone. That is very likely in the future to change to an automated line concept simply because of process requirements.

For us, back to the dollars, it doesn't make the difference for the bonder. The bonder has a certain value, cost of ownership value, and that is the same standalone compared to integrated in a line.

Thanks, Richard. If you want to make a call today for HBM, is it more likely to be integrated or standalone?

Thanks. That's the last question.

Integrated, because HBM is dedicated high-volume production, and then it's more likely to do that automated than standalone.

Thanks. Appreciate all the answers.

Thanks, Charles.

Hi, Richard. Just a question on HBM again.

Can you talk about the yield numbers that you see at the moment in development and what does the end customer need to see in terms of yield before they go ahead, whether it's the memory guys or the end customer? The second question would just be, is this going to be a partial transition at HBM4E if all things go well, or would it be a wholesale transition?

I guess the reason I'm asking is because there's a lot of installed TCB capacity that the companies would continue to like to reuse. I'm just interested to think it would be a sort of binned chip, only the best chips will be hybrid bonded and the rest will be used TCB, and then maybe at HBM5 it will become a full insertion, or do you think it could be quite rapid?

Thank you.

Excellent. Thanks, Rob.

Number one, what we hear is clearly, and this is for forever, there's always a quality difference over a wafer on the certain devices. You could, like we've had historically, end up with quality classes, the highest end hybrid bonded, etc.

On your yield question, we do not receive detailed yield numbers, but what we know as a rule, if a process is not well up into the 99.9%, then it becomes an very difficult long-term perspective. Yields in interconnect are at those levels.

Where are we today? We should be able to achieve those levels.

Otherwise, it would make no sense to do these evaluations and qualifications. The confidence is certainly that we should reach those levels.

We reached them, as we all know, with logic already quite some time, where the yields are very well up in the 99.99 something percent, the hybrid bonding process can achieve that. For HBM stacking, one still has to prove that, and that's what's currently happening.

Is HBM more difficult than logic? On the one hand, you have far less I/Os, it should be more simple.

On the other hand, you have vertical stacks of 16 devices. They are per definition thinner, the process is different and, in certain ways, on the one hand easier than logic because of bond pad pitch is less critical, but on the other hand, the vertical stacking.

They both have their specific, let's say, issues to deal with. Again, coming back to why are these customers all of a sudden, and which we expected from the very beginning, putting far more effort into the adoption of hybrid bonding, is simply because the proven performance upgrades are driving that adoption by an end customer, and that's a very big customer.

Got it. Any idea when the TCB market could see a downturn because of this in memory, for example?

If you would imagine a certain volume to be produced, it will be less TC if one uses hybrid. That's an offset in the same end volume.

We should see that by the end of this year, huh? Or as we have said already in the middle of this year, we should see more confirmation from the Samsung side.

In the end, it's the number of devices produced, and whether you use process A or process B results in a different number of machines.

Got it. Thanks a lot, Richard.

Thanks, Rob.

Hi. Thanks for taking my question.

My first question is on hybrid bonding use in GPUs. The biggest GPU vendor unveiled recently some aspect of their design for their next GPU coming out in '28, saying they will use 3D stacking.

First, do you expect it to be hybrid bonded? Second, if that's the case, when do you think you will have visibility on the timing of the ramp-up?

I have a follow-up.

Excellent. That's exactly one of the major game changers, and it is forecasted to be hybrid bonded.

That all fits into the acceleration which we explained at the very beginning, anticipating on the adoption of hybrid bonding in that family of next-generation products. The timing for that then is more equipment to be ordered and installed in '27, ordered in '26, for volume production as of '28.

Great. A second one would be on the cheap-on-panel packaging.

Do you think that the shift to square panel could somewhat open new opportunities for TC Next or hybrid bonding?

The 310 by 310 panel is a very clear development coming to market also in the next year and 2 years. We already received orders for certain applications, our bonders can handle the 310 by 310.

Hybrid is a bit early, but we see it for many other applications being anticipated, because it saves quite some waste. You can expect with larger die sizes, more module type of designs, 2.5D, but even more 3D, that panel will be used as a carrier more and more.

That trend is clearly visible. We will share some more information on the Capital Markets Day or Investor Day mid-June to give you some more examples, but that is certainly happening.

Great. The last one for me, just on the cost for a change, the guidance for the next quarter is OpEx up around mid meeting a digit, significantly while sales are up 30 to 40%.

Can you share a bit more color on what you did there to maintain that kind of discipline on OpEx? That would be helpful.

Simply it's controlling cost. That's our job.

No, but there's no change as such in our structure. With increased revenue, you have an enormous operating leverage, if that is also your question.

Very clear. Understood.

Thank you, Richard.

Thank you, Martin.

Hi, good afternoon. I've got a question on photonics, actually, even before moving to co-packaged optics.

I think you're already seeing quite a wide range of applications in terms of your tools, like hybrid bonding, I think TCB, flip chip, and multi-module attach can all be involved here. In terms of sort of focusing on the near term, actually before CPO, are you already seeing more of a benefit as the market moves to silicon photonics and also and/or, I guess, higher-throughput pluggable devices?

That's my first question. Thanks.

As we have reported, started middle of last year, a significant expansion of that market segment with multiple customers building those pluggables. Also in the pluggables, you have a next generation which requires more bonding steps.

That unfolds in a very positive way for us. You see that also in the numbers and the details we provide.

You should not mix that with co-packaged optics, because that's another application and a different process. Also on that co-packaged optics, we have made significant progress and, for instance, the CPO process, we deliver the hybrid bonding for accomplishing those kind of contacts.

Also there, we will spend more details and background and development roadmaps in the Investor Day. Again, it's certainly an extension of the hybrid bonding applications into this rapidly developing market.

Helpful. Thank you.

Sorry, go ahead.

Sorry. Does that answer your question?

I had a follow-up, but I'll wait till the Investor Day then. Look forward to receiving more detail.

I want to ask my second question on order intake, which has clearly been very strong last two quarters. Know you don't really disclose a backlog, but I calculate around €400 million by March end.

That seems you could do with some digestion on the order side while still growing revenue very comfortably. However, on the other hand, I presume the backlog is for a narrower set of applications around 2.5D and hybrid bonding, while you're also now flagging mobile and automotive picking up.

Essentially, how should we think about order intake in the current quarter relative to the last two?

We mentioned continued momentum, a continuing trend. Don't forget we're in an upcycle in a market.

As long as there's no signs of satirization in the end markets, you can expect that to continue. We have been able to ramp our capacities in past upcycles significantly, 50% quarter-on-quarter.

You see that now again ramping as well. Far this quarter, we've seen no change.

That's very helpful. Thank you.

Hi, Richard, thanks for taking my question. I just had one on your service business.

You talked about raising your presence in Taiwan and Korea for your service professionals in terms of preparing for greater hybrid bonding shipments. Have you seen a pickup in recent quarters in your service revenues in 4Q and in 1Q?

How do you see that trending through this year?

Certainly. Number one, when the tide turns positively, clearly customers production lines are loading, and they need more support.

They need more spare parts, they need more service, upgrades. Then for hybrid bonding, but also for certain reflow processes, you need more specialized support to reach the 24/7 production requirements, and that simply is following a model used in front end where within 4 hours a defined list of spare parts, for hybrid bonders it's close to 900, need to be available.

That's all in place. You see a broad increase in the demand of service, spares, and retrofit kits.

That's very clear. I think in recent years, your service revenues have been a pretty stable around 15, 16% of group revenues.

As we look forward with a greater proportion of hybrid bonding in the mix and your hybrid bonding installed base growing, should we expect the service intensity to reflect more a front-end mix kind of towards 20%-ish range of group revenues? Thank you.

Absolutely. What I just explained in a few words, the level of support we have to provide to hybrid bonding front-end type of environment is significantly higher than in the back-end environment.

That 15 may very well move up towards the 18, 19, 20. For front end, it's typically somewhere between 20 and 25%.

Also, the long-term contracts in service and support are standard in front end, so that increases and changes the model altogether. Then

just last one. On a margin perspective, do you see that greater requirements being either a headwind or a tailwind to gross margins?

A tailwind, certainly a tailwind. Support is certainly, if you organize it right, of course, but that's with everything, is potentially a higher-margin business.

That's great. Thank you, Richard.

Thank you. Any further questions?

Yes, hi. Good afternoon, and congrats on the strong results.

The first question is really on capacities and lead times. In the press release today, you talk about freeing up incremental capacities in Malaysia.

Can you just disclose what your current hybrid bonding capacity is in terms of tools per month or year and where this expansion could potentially get you to? Then also if you could provide some updates on lead times for hybrid bonders now that the order momentum is picking up quite a bit.

Thank you.

We were at 15 bonders theoretically per month. That leads to about 180.

With the increase in floor space and adjusted to a model required by several customers, we can now expand that to 250 per year. That is a significant increase altogether.

You won't see that for the number of bonders produced in a year, but how typically orders are placed and expected delivery by customers with a lead time, for now the 100 nm of 6 months standard, we can satisfy any model presented to us by the big five using the current expanded capacity. On top of that, you need more people in the field to install, to support.

I mentioned earlier the spare part models supporting operations. We have put that all in place.

The infrastructure needs to be ready to support that higher volume as well. It's not just the production floor.

That is all part of our overall model, the 1.5 to 1.9 billion in the next 3 to 5 years, which is a prerequisite, the support organization for growing revenue to those levels, which is roughly 2.5 to 3 times what we have currently. For the hybrid bonders, it's significantly more.

All

right. Thank you.

The other question is mainly on EMIB from Intel. There is a bit of news flow on increased demand for Intel's EMIB packaging.

Can you just disclose what kind of relevance this business has for you and what kind of your prospects are? What do you think this could grow to in the future?

We are involved since the very beginning in placement of these EMIB modules. That could be a positive business impact, but as things with Intel develop as they do, we first need to see more evidence.

They have a significant capacity installed, which we delivered the systems placing those modules. It's good news when it increases.

That's right. Thank you.

Any next question?

Hi, Richard. Thank you for squeezing me in.

I just had one quick question on China. I know they're building out a lot of capacity at the moment on 2.5D.

I was just wondering on 3D or hybrid bonding, are you in any discussions with them about this technology? Are they indicating that they might order tools kind of in the coming years?

Would you sell to China that equipment? Thank you.

Number one, we only sell to China, and that's with any country, what we are allowed to sell. We follow very strictly the regulations, and in this case, by the US government, and we have that tested every 6 months.

We are allowed, simply with the current levels and the current ingredients in the die bonders and in the hybrid bonders, it's not much different. That is open for use in the China market currently.

There's, of course, development going on. End applications are still distant.

There could be a philosophy to use hybrid bonding in 3D stacking to lengthen the node size life, huh, to increase the performance of those devices with a 3D hybrid bonded structure. We are, of course, in development of those kinds of modules, but that is still a very early stage.

The current big market in China is 2.5D, mass reflow, flip chip for us, which we also disclosed in previous quarters, which is more or less standard equipment, but very very much advanced, huh. Our flip chip has absolutely the best cost of ownership also in China.

You can expect that they will develop certain local Chinese device structures using a hybrid process.

Perfect. Just on that, in terms of timing, is it a few years or, obviously China that they do things very quickly over there, could it be sooner than that?

As I just said, they are engaged in development, also very aggressive in a sense, in positive sense, to study carefully the benefits of a hybrid process. They are much more driving that, and it's also very easy to understand.

The world outside China is very much trying to extend the life of a mass reflow process, because we all know those processes, the hurdle to move to hybrid takes time. In China, it is more because they can overcome that they are not allowed to invest in a next generation with smaller device geometry, then to solve it using hybrid process, which could be a very significant market.

Perfect. Thank you, Richard.

Thank you, Madeleine.

Thank you all for taking the time and asking questions. You're most welcome if you need to understand some more details.

We're happy to provide. Thank you.

Bye-bye.