Thank you very much, and good morning shareholders. Thank you all for joining us today for our FY26 results presentation.

As usual, I'm joined by our CFO, Brett Coventry, as well as by our CPO, Kim Borland. FY26 was another strong year for Chrysos.

We delivered at the upper end of our guidance, processed record sample volumes, expanded our contracted fleet, and strengthened the operating platform that supports our next stage of growth. I'll begin with the highlights and the progress we've made in expanding PhotonAssay globally.

Brett will then take you through the financial results, before I return to cover our growth opportunity and the outlook for FY27. Slide 4, please, operator.

FY26 has been another year of strong adoption of our PhotonAssay technology, and we continue to demonstrate our ability to grow revenue faster than cost at scale. Revenue increased 33% to $88.1 million, and EBITDA increased 68% to $27.2 million, with the EBITDA margin expanding from 24% in FY25 to 31% this year.

We continue to generate cash flow, with $17.9 million net inflow for the year, supporting our ongoing growth. Operationally, we finished the year with 46 deployed units, with the addition of seven units and the decommissioning of one unit during the year.

Despite deploying less units than we had targeted for FY26, our fleet processed 11.3 million samples during the year, which is an increase of 67% over FY25. Our growth is well supported by the growing fleet, but also by materially higher utilisation of that fleet.

An important achievement of FY26 was our growth in contracts, both in number of leases, but also in the quality of those leases. We signed 24 new lease agreements during the year and a further four post-period, taking our total contracted units to 87.

These new leases provide the foundation for a more aggressive deployment program in FY27, and I'm pleased to announce that we are currently deploying six units concurrently, with some of those to pass site acceptance testing imminently. Next slide, please, operator.

This chart captures the acceleration we've seen in PhotonAssay adoption. Quarterly sample volumes have continued to set records.

Monthly throughput moved above 1 million samples in March and has remained above that level each month since, with a further record of more than 1.1 million samples achieved in July. That volume growth increased AAC to 29% of FY26 revenue, compared with 15% in FY25.

MMAP continues to provide the contracted base, and higher customer activity flows through as additional revenue. The current gold market is supportive, but the most important point is the continued conversion of customer workflows to PhotonAssay and the increasing use of our deployed capacity.

Slide 6, please, operator. Sample growth is now running ahead of fleet growth.

Over the last two years, quarterly volume has increased from around 1.3 million samples to more than 3.1 million. Over the same period, hub laboratory utilisation increased from 41% in FY25 to 59% in FY26.

APAC is the most mature region at 79% utilisation. The Americas and EMEA also improved and still have meaningful capacity available to support further growth.

We're also increasing capacity within the existing fleet. Software and operating upgrades are delivering a 10 to 20% improvement in throughput with minimal capital cost.

Several of our units are now repeatedly operating above nameplate capacity. This allows us to grow revenue and unit returns without relying only on new deployments.

Slide 7, please, operator. We deployed seven units during FY26 and decommissioned one unit, taking the fleet to 46 units across 34 active sites at year-end.

Those deployments broadened our customer and geographic base. Three units were deployed with ALS across Australia and Canada.

Our first South American unit was deployed with Bureau Veritas in Chile. A new Canadian hub has been established with MSALABS.

We deployed to the Norseman Gold Mine with Intertek, and we completed our first next-generation XN unit with SGS in Perth. Contracting was particularly strong.

We signed 24 lease agreements during the year and four more after year-end, taking the contracted fleet to 87 units. We're expanding our relationships with each of the major laboratories while building a stronger direct-to-mine pipeline with Newmont, Allied Gold, Acrux, Alkane, Pantoro, and other miners.

We're focused now on manufacturing, deploying, and bringing those contracted units online. Slide 8, please, operator.

Our sales strategy remains deliberately two-pronged. Hub and spoke laboratories provide broad access to local miners and explorers.

Our laboratory partners market PhotonAssay into those regions, while our sales and technical teams work with miners to increase adoption and move more sample types onto the units. Direct-to-mine deployments create deeper customer relationships and give us access to samples across exploration, mining, and processing.

They also establish a strong reference point for adoption across a miner's broader portfolio. The two channels reinforce each other: the laboratories' broad market access, minesite deployments demonstrate the operational value, and high utilisation in both instances improves unit economics and supports further adoption.

Over to you, Brett.

Thanks, Dirk. Slide 10, please, operator.

Revenue for the year was $88.1 million, up 33% on FY25's $66.1 million. That growth continues to be driven by the expanding deployed fleet and materially higher utilisation across it, reflecting ongoing global adoption of PhotonAssay and the elevated industry activity.

Looking at the regions, APAC was the largest contributor to FY26 growth, up 70% to $39 million, driven by three new units and an $11.4 million increase in additional assay charges. The Americas were up 28% to $23.4 million as the installed base scaled, and EMEA was up 4% to $25.8 million, consolidating two years of substantial growth.

International revenue rose 14% to $49.2 million and now represents 56% of group revenue. More than half our revenue comes from outside APAC, which validates the global rollout strategy.

Group revenue has almost doubled since FY24 from $45.4 million to $88.1 million on an increasingly diversified geographic base. Next slide, please.

This continues to be one of the most important graphs in the deck because it shows the forecastable underlying revenue generated by minimum monthly assay payments. MMAP was up to $62.5 million for the year, up 12% on FY25, and made up 71% of the revenue.

It scales directly with the deployed unit base and gives us a contracted revenue floor. Additional assay charges were $25.5 million, up 153% on FY25's $10.1 million, and now represent 29% of revenue against 15% last year.

A growing contracted base with a combined increasing AAC contribution. Next slide, please.

This year represents a clear step change in profitability. Revenue increased 33% to $88.1 million, while EBITDA increased 68% to $27.2 million, with the EBITDA margin expanding from 24 to 31%.

The highlight for me is that revenue growth has materially outpaced expense growth. Operating expenses of $39.6 million grew just 18%, well below the 33% revenue increase, and fell around 52% to 45% of revenue.

That is a global platform that we've built now delivering leverage. Gross profit was up 32% to $66.8 million, with margins steady as PhotonAssay costs broadly track revenue.

PhotonAssay operating expenses of $21.3 million were up 36%: fleet maintenance of $11.4 million and direct operating labor of $9.9 million, reflecting a larger fleet and record activity levels. The direct costs held broadly stable around 24% of revenue.

Depreciation and amortisation of $21.4 million increased in line with the expanding fleet, which you would expect as the capital investment translates into revenue-generating assets. Given the ongoing strong operation of our maturing fleet, we've taken the opportunity to reassess the useful life of our operating fleet, and reassessed that to be 15 years for the PhotonAssay units rather than the previous 10.

Below EBITDA, we delivered a statutory net profit of $1.8 million. Next slide, please.

It's worth spending a moment on currency because the reported numbers absorbed a real headwind. FY26 guidance was set in August 2025 on constant currency assumptions, with approximately 55% of group revenue exposed to non-AUD currencies.

On those August 2025 assumptions, the results equate to approximately $91 million of revenue and 30.2 of EBITDA. We absorbed around $3 million of revenue and EBITDA headwinds.

Even after absorbing that, we delivered at the upper end of both guidance ranges, with revenue of $88.1 million against the 80.9 $80 to $90 million guidance, and EBITDA of 27.2 against the $20 to $27 million of guidance. Underlying performance was ahead of guidance, and we actively managed the exposure through the year.

Next slide, please. This slide is the unit economics underneath the growth.

We've sustained gross profit margins of between 70-80% across FY24 through to FY26, and margins held firm even as direct employee costs absorbed short-term incentives at full achievement versus partial achievements in prior years. Cost control continues to be supported by the hubbing strategy and bringing more maintenance in-house, which reduces our reliance on third parties.

Revenue per unit remains underpinned by MMAP, with an FY26 MMAP exit rate of $65.9 million, and the additional assay charges per unit more than doubled over the year on broader industry activity and growing adoption. The five units installed in May and June of FY25 ramped up through the year, and several previously underperforming units are now at or above their committed MMAP volumes, which opens up further AAC upside.

Next slide, please. With that growth, our cash flow continues to improve, reflecting higher EBITDA and better cash conversion.

Operating cash flow was $17.9 million for the year, up 103% on FY25's $8.8 million. The working capital outflow more than halved from 29.8 to $14.5 million.

We invested $36.3 million in growth capital expenditure on the global fleet expansion, which is the core driver of future recurring revenue. With total capital expenditure of 41.

41 million, including 0.6 of sustaining capex and around $4.1 million on R&D. Overall, we are seeing a growing unit base translate into increased cash generation.

Next slide, please. Chrysos' balance sheet remains strong and well positioned to support continuing growth.

Net assets of $197 million, broadly unchanged from the previous year. We also finished the year with total assets of $306.5 million and $25.9 million of cash.

The main movement in our non-current assets, which increased to 20 $228.2 million as we continued to expand our PhotonAssay fleet. Let's move to the next slide and talk about the increased debt facility.

During the period, we refinanced our corporate facilities with a new 3-year $200 million syndicated facility, provided by three domestic financiers. This is a deliberate shift away from the asset-based financing to a corporate-style structure, giving us far greater operational flexibility, improved pricing, and better covenant package.

Proceeds were drawn to extinguish the existing asset-based facility, but it did overall add $105 million of funding headroom, and I'd note that reflects the lenders' confidence in the customer base and our long-term contracted revenue. The $140 million undrawn supports manufacturing and global deployment of PhotonAssay units through FY27 and beyond, and underpinning our return to target manufacturing cadence of 18 units a year.

Over to you, Dirk.

Thank you, Brett. Slide 19, please, operator.

We're now engaged with 80% of the world's top 20 gold producers. During FY26, Northern Star became the first mining customer to use PhotonAssay as its primary analytical technique across all of its major sites, which sits within those top 20.

It's an important demonstration of portfolio-wide adoption and one that we're working hard to repeat with our other mining customers. We established our first operating presence in South America with Bureau Veritas in Chile, deployed the first XN unit with SGS in Perth, and continued to build the Newmont relationship under the master services agreement signed last year.

Each of these milestones is useful on its own. Together, they show that PhotonAssay is moving from individual deployments toward broader acceptance globally across both miners and laboratories.

Slide 20, please, operator. Our objective remains to become the world's leading provider of innovative assay services and technologies, starting with the conversion of major gold mining projects to PhotonAssay.

The addressable market is approximately 610 sites, made up of around 200 hub laboratory opportunities and 410 direct minesite opportunities. We currently operate 46 units across 34 active sites, representing around 8% market share by deployed units.

That leaves substantial room to grow within customers we already serve, as well as through new customers and new regions. Our lease model supports that growth by reducing the customer's upfront investment, aligning our revenue to sample activity, and providing long-term contracted earnings with utilisation upside.

Slide 21, please, operator. Our opportunity is global and widely distributed, which is why the network we have built is important.

PhotonAssay now has a presence in every target region and is supported by major global laboratory partners. Our first deployment with Bureau Veritas in Chile has established a South American beachhead, with a further contract signed with BV for Peru and another for Mexico since year-end.

We do not need to build a large standalone footprint in every market. Strategic hubs, established partners, and a global service capability allow us to serve the market while retaining operating synergies and strong unit margins.

Our next phase is to deepen those regional positions and convert the contracted pipeline into an increasingly dense operating network. Slide 22, please, operator.

Gold remains our core market and our primary focus, but the same platform can support additional elements and applications. We already provide commercial analysis for gold, silver, and copper.

Non-gold volumes increased 83% over the last 18 months, demonstrating that customers are beginning to use PhotonAssay for these alternative analyses. Near-term development is focused on improving customer outcomes at operating mines, supported by concurrent moisture analysis and solution analysis, and we continue to develop additional applications enabled by tuning the energy output of the linac.

Our strategy extends our installed platform and has the potential to increase revenue per sample, broaden sample volumes, and deepen the value we deliver to our customers. Slide 23, please, operator.

There are three drivers behind our multi-year outlook. First, fleet growth.

The contracted book and deployment pipeline support a material increase in the installed base over the next three years, and during that period we intend to double our deployed units. Second, resilient demand.

Customer activity remains elevated, while the structural conversion to PhotonAssay and expansion into additional applications support continued sample growth. Third, lower earnings volatility.

An increasing share of our volume is linked to mine production rather than exploration, and MMAP continues to provide a contracted revenue floor. Over time, a larger fleet, maturing utilisation, and production-linked volumes create a durable earnings base as Chrysos scales.

Through to slide 25, please, operator. FY26 has reduced a number of the execution risks that previously sat in front of our growth plans.

We enter FY27 with 87 contracted units, six units already deploying, and stronger visibility over the deployment pipeline. The existing fleet is also maturing.

We've achieved record sample volumes, four consecutive months above 1 million samples, and more recently, 1.1 million samples during July. We've demonstrated that we can lift throughput through software and operating improvements.

Finally, the platform supporting that growth is stronger. Manufacturing cadence is now back to 18 units per year, funding capacity has increased, the next generation of PhotonAssay is progressing, and our global deployment capability has expanded.

That provides a stronger base for FY27 than that with which we entered FY26. Slide 26, please, operator.

This slide provides a snapshot of where the fleet sits today, both for deployed units, but also those that are pre-deployment. Since our May trading update, we've manufactured five more units, deployed a further two, and signed four additional contracts.

We now have 59 manufactured units, 46 deployed units, and 87 contracted units. Nine units are available across pre-shipping, shipping, and awaiting installation, with a further six currently being deployed.

One Ghanaian unit, Obuasi, has been demobilised and has been redeployed to Morocco. The important change is the movement of units towards site and installation.

We have the funding, manufacturing capability, and contracted demand. The focus for FY27 is to deploy against that demand while maintaining discipline around costs.

Slide 27, please, operator. We're pleased to provide our FY27 guidance.

For revenue, our guidance range is from $108 million to $118 million, an uplift of 28% at the midpoint. For EBITDA, our guidance range is from $35 to $42 million, which is an uplift of 42% at the midpoint.

As we did last year, we provide guidance at constant currency, and this slide outlines the currency assumptions used. Slide 28, please, operator.

To summarise, FY26 was a strong year for Chrysos. Revenue increased 33% to $88.1 million and EBITDA increased 68% to $27.2 million.

We finished the year with 46 deployed units, signed 24 new lease agreements, and processed record sample volumes, up 67%. We also strengthened the balance sheet and funding position to support a return to our target manufacturing cadence of 18 units per year.

Most importantly, the business is becoming more mature. Growth is broadening across customers and regions, utilisation is contributing more meaningfully, and our contracted pipeline provides better visibility into future deployments.

We remain focused on execution: building units, deploying them efficiently, supporting our customers, and converting the significant market opportunity that's in front of us. Slide 30, please, operator.

Thank you for your time today. We're pleased with the progress that we've made during FY26 and confident in the platform that we've built for FY27 and beyond.

Brett and I will now take questions.

Hi, Dirk and Brett. Can you hear me okay?

Josh, good day.

Good day. Good day.

Hey, first question just on guidance. As we do usually, can you just run through what the expectations are versus sort of current operating conditions for guidance, and what you're assuming for, for example, AAC into next year as well.

Some of the operational sort of metrics that you're thinking about that gets you at the middle and the top of the bottom of the ranges. Thank you.

Obviously, we have a deployment cadence that we're thinking of, and that's, as we've spoken about, you can see where we're starting with the six units currently deploying, how we see them rolling out over the year, and that's the first thing. Obviously, that going to plan is how we've thought about the guidance, and then the industry staying roughly in line with its current operating.

Obviously, we've done the last five months in a row over a million samples, not seeing any alteration there, obviously neither increase or decrease, but that would put us at the midpoint, obviously then making assumptions around if the industry continues to grow, and you can see in our deck the utilisation across our fleet where there's opportunity for that, but also if it declined, that would take us top or bottom, and then, obviously, deployments if they go faster or slower is the key flex factors in that, all at that constant currency. Did you want to add into that?

All good.

That's great. Also, you did mention some of the upgrades, and as you'd said, you've got some of the units that are tracking above nameplate capacity.

Could you talk us through, are there many of the existing units that are running at capacity that are going through upgrades, or are expected to go through certain upgrades that could increase that capacity over this year as well, over '27?

Great, great, great question. We've obviously focused in the last 12 months upgrading the units that are running up towards capacity.

When you see Australia sitting there up at 80-odd percent utilisation, you can imagine that we're spending a fair bit of time getting those units upgraded to get that extra 10-15% through those units. A fair amount of the fleet is now upgraded.

We're probably talking about half of the fleet is upgraded with those software upgrades. There's a bit of room to go, but, yeah, that gives you a bit of an indication of where we are at the moment.

Got it. Okay.

No, that's really helpful. Do you think is there an expectation or demand that the rest of those might be upgraded with those software and other upgrades across this year?

Is that how we should think about it?

Certainly. Over time, we look to roll all of those upgrades across the entire fleet, but I would caution that that doesn't necessarily mean that we expect all of our units to be running at 100 or 110% capacity.

Of course.

Of course. A comfortable capacity for us is in that sort of 70 to 80%.

Yep.

Yep. No, that makes sense.

Perfect. Then just another question as well in terms of the D&A side of things.

Maybe, Brett, could you just run through that, because I guess there's a couple of implications of the D&A. Maybe you could run through how we should expect it.

Are we reading that that's a $9 million reduction, or is it $9 million reduction on what you would expect it have otherwise to be? Maybe just a little bit more color on that.

Then in our models, a lot of us look at replacements of linear accelerators, for example, after 10 years, things like that. Should we be thinking about expanding that out to 15 years as the modeling is now suggested?

Yes, thanks Josh. Let's start with the depreciation piece.

Yes, that is the $9 million depreciation is our expectation of savings on the existing fleet for next financial year, there would be a reduction in the depreciation cost for next financial year of that $9 million across the fleet. Then going forward, you'd have a useful life of 15 years for the assets we're deploying.

Then, as we think about those, the linear accelerator replacement, that would be thinking about that being around the 15 years. We're not seeing any signs of impairment or anything else at this point in time, but we're also, we're still getting towards our 10, 15 years.

We're still challenging that as we go through, but that's kind of where we're pushing that thought process out to if at all.

That's really helpful. I'll give someone else a chance.

That's great. Thank you very much, guys.

Appreciate it.

Thanks, Josh. Appreciate it.

Hi, Dirk and Brett. Thanks for taking my questions and congrats on a strong update.

Just two questions from me. Firstly, are there any learnings, perhaps over the last 12 to 18 months, around unit deployments to help deliver a more consistent and improved cadence going forward?

That's a great question, Joseph. Thanks for that one.

That's yours.

Look, I think we're constantly learning, and you're at the mercy of what the contracted base looks like. Something that I commented on earlier in this update is it's not just the number of units that we have in our contracted pipeline, it's the strength of those contracts or counterparties.

As we've come through the 24 additional units and then the four post-period, those are all very, very strong contracts. At the same time, we are seeing ongoing deployment of the units that we already had signed up.

There's a couple of MSALABS units that have been deployed. There's also recently released by Paragon, one of our larger customers that hasn't deployed all of their units, they've just released to market that they're expecting McEwen to take on more units onto their minesites.

Those are the types of things that we see driving some of the historic contracts. For the newer contracts, it really comes down to the strength of those and the strength of the counterparties.

We're pretty excited with how that book is starting to look. The addition of nine ALS units last year, three SGS, two BV, one Intertek, these are all the biggest names in the industry.

That should help us to get away from site-readiness challenges. Also, the bigger that that contracted book is, the more we're in a position where if a customer isn't ready for delivery, we can instead deploy that unit to an alternative location.

I think there's some learnings that we've had on the ground, but more importantly, it's the strength and breadth of that contracted book.

Yep. Thanks, Dirk.

Is there any color you can provide on leads for new lease agreements? Understand conditions are quite favorable on the ground with respect to exploration activity.

Are you seeing that supporting discussions with, say, new and existing clients now compared to, say, six months ago?

We've always talked about our dual channel to market. One being through the laboratories and one being directly to the miners.

I think the pathway to the miners is largely non-cyclical. Irrespective of kind of where we are in the mining cycle, we're out there pounding the pavement, we're talking to miners, we're converting miners over time.

What we do see then is a cyclicality in the laboratory space. To your point, right now we're seeing increased sample volumes going through labs.

We're seeing labs looking at building capacity around the world. Certainly, we want to be a part of that.

Again, I come back to my comment just before about the laboratory contracts that we've signed up in the last 12 months. One of the pieces in there that again we're quite excited about is the breadth at which, for example, ALS is rolling out PhotonAssay.

Growing not just the number of units in regions that are already using PhotonAssay, but growing us into regions that haven't had PhotonAssay exposure before. Certainly from our side, may the good times continue with exploration.

The things that are really in our control are those minesite deployments, the ongoing development of applications for those miners, and even being able to have those miners telling the story of their adoption to other miners. For those on the call who haven't seen it, jump on our LinkedIn, jump on our website.

We've just done a really exciting campaign with OceanaGold, where we've interviewed a number of their operators at the minesite talking about their adoption. That complements what we've done previously with Ravenswood.

We also have Nevada Gold Mines, the biggest gold miner in the world, talking at a conference in September, October as to their adoption of the technology. Then this ongoing halo effect really just allows us to continue to drive that adoption and continue to get new lease agreements signed.

Great. Thanks.

Thanks, Dirk. Just maybe lastly, I know you spoke about getting that manufacturing cadence up to 18 units.

Is there a timeline on that ramp-up and is it dependent on new lease agreements throughout FY27?

It's probably more dependent on the lease agreements through FY26. The turnaround time to ramp up is around about 12 months.

You can kind of read the tea leaves here that sometime in the last six months, we put the foot on the accelerator building back towards that 18 units. You couple that with our strategy here of doubling the number of units deployed over the coming three years, so that gives you quite a nice cadence in that 15 or so per year and one extra that starts to again, read the tea leaves and you can build the models from that.

Great. Thank you.

Thanks.

Hey, guys. Hope you can hear me.

Lindsay.

Lindsay.

Hey. Couple of maybe definitional questions.

This deployment call it timeline you give us, we've got six units installing and five awaiting installation. My reading on that, I know this might be perfect science, but should we assume something like the six should be deployed in roughly a quarter, and the additional five awaiting installation should be deployed in six months, something like that?

Is that the best way to think about it, that you're looking at maybe 11 deployments over the next six months? Or tell me where that thinking is wrong.

It's a nice way to think about it. Again, I'm always cautious around guidance on the units.

From our perspective, we want to deploy units as quickly as we can, as quickly as the customers are ready to deploy them. The piece there that is in our control is the manufacturing of those units and transportation, etc., etc.

We have a very firm definition of what we consider to be deploying, which is unchanged for the last sort of five years, which is really when we've got boots on the ground, we're bolting the units to the floor, and we're putting these units together. Generally, it's taking us about 7 to 8 weeks to get a unit up and running.

The six that we've said are deploying should all be operating at most 8 weeks from now. As to the other ones that are the nine that are sitting there as the pre-ship, the shipping, or the awaiting installation, really what we're saying is we are ready to go, and then we're working with each of our customers on when their site is ready to start installation of those units.

It's not really answering the question, but this is where we're trying to provide that sort of longer-term guidance to say we intend to double the fleet over the coming three years. Then really these nine units that are sitting there, we aim to get out as quickly as possible, but we're not really providing a timeline around it.

No, that's helpful. I got the six units in eight weeks out of you, so that's good.

Then if I look beyond those initial 11, you've got another four that are either shipping or pre-ships, but then it looks like there's 28-ish that have either been signed and not yet manufactured. I'll tie this into a capex question.

It looks like your capex stepped down a lot second half versus first half. Presumably because you might be pre-ordering a lot of this stuff.

How do we think about one, your capex in the next let's say 12 months, and two, tying that into the manufacturing piece? How quickly are you going to look to turn these figures around?

Are you going to manufacture 18 units as fast as you can, or is there enough in the pipeline that you'll probably slowly manufacture those? Just those two questions, please.

Capital commitments, you can see in there increased to $114 million, which gives that visibility to around 81 get to max 81, which is the unit number 81 effectively has been ordered out to in long lead-time items. We've set out in the back of this deck, as we have in previous decks, the spend profile of when we spend that money to have a unit deployed.

I think we have 87 contracts signed now, obviously 81 ordered out to full units, and then we've got the long lead-time pieces. As we deploy from here, obviously we start to incur those further cash spends.

We've obviously got the commitments now, and that's the profile that we'd see going forward in terms of paying for those units as we deploy them. You could think about them across, obviously we have some favorable terms as we ordered them, but we would pay for them across the time as we deploy them going forward.

We've got significant lead-time items ordered now to make sure that we are able to fulfill that doubling of the fleet over the next 3 years.

Is that help? Okay.

That's useful. That's helpful.

All right. I'll change tack a little bit.

Just on these utilisation stats you've given us by geography are interesting, and I think you could take a glass half-full or glass half-empty read. The glass half-full read would be the Americas and EMEA have some catching up to do, and maybe we could assume that utilisation improves in those jurisdictions.

Obviously, the flip side is maybe APAC's overearning, and utilisation comes down with softer trends. Maybe, why don't you just pass those two thoughts and help us understand where you think steady-state utilisation lands and why such a difference between the regions?

There's always going to be a difference in the regions with respect to adoption of the technology. I think that we are continuing to see in all of the locations that we operate in, there's a time to move toward adoption.

Australia, kind of empirical evidence is that a few of the laboratories are now running more PhotonAssays than they are fire assays. We are actually becoming that dominant technique in Australia.

We're still a ways off that in these international regions. As we do become the dominant technique, we would expect to see those utilisations grow.

It does get a little bit confusing when you consider that these units are in all sorts of different locations. You can imagine that something like Perth and Kalgoorlie are quite for a small region, it has a lot of gold.

Where we deploy into other places around the world, you may not have quite as prolific gold mining region around the units. I know there's some really good analysts yourself included, Lindsay, where you're kind of looking at where the physical units are around the world.

Then that starts to give you an indication of is there enough gold around it to be running it toward the up end of capacity. I commented to Josh's question before that a comfortable capacity for us is somewhere between 70 and 80, but realistically, we can earn decent returns on these the whole way down to 40, 50, even 30 depending on pricing and location.

The real focus for us is on that revenue per unit, and we're intending to keep that in that same sort of ballpark of where we are, with the idea that you can have upside with respect to growing sample volumes, further applications, moving into different analytes as well, the copper, silver, and where we go beyond that as well. Again, not sort of a definitive answer to the question, but it effectively means in those locations where we have lower utilisation, there is opportunity to grow adoption without deploying more capital.

In Australia, where we're running toward the upper end of utilisation, you would need to be deploying more units to be able to support the industry.

Okay. No, I think that maybe just ask slightly a different way.

You answered the question, but I suppose when looking at the difference in utilisation, one reading would be to your point, it's a mix difference, depending on where the unit's located. It sounds like there's obviously a piece of that.

Also, EMEA and the Americas could structurally go up just over time, due to you're helping educate them, [unclear]...

Absolutely. Maturing markets.

...

comfortable with the machine. That's what I was trying to get at.

It's not that APAC comes down, it's that the others potentially go up over time. All right, cheers.

Yep, and we're certainly in a position that we can support that.

Yep. Perfect.

All right, that's it for me. Thanks, guys.

Thanks, Lindsay.

Hi Dirk. Can you hear me?

Got you, Jules. Good.

Just a question. You've mentioned a couple of things.

The quality of the contract book now relative to sort of previous years, deploying six units is a good start to the year. You've just said then that you intend to keep revenue per unit sort of where it is now.

I know within the guidance there is an assumption around the deployment cadence through the year, but is there any reason just given you've got that strong contract book that the deployment schedule first half, second half, it should be fairly even, I would think, or am I sort of reading that wrong and there still is a stronger sort of second half, and a lot's got to go right to sort of deliver against that midpoint of your guidance?

No, look, you're probably right there. There's no reason to assume that it's going to be a particularly heavily weighted back end.

We're really trying to provide the building blocks now for the models. We've talked about an upper capacity for manufacturing of the 18 per year, a three-year target of 46 units, doubling our fleet.

That gives you a kind of average 15 per year, max 18 per year. With respect to where they land during the year, it really comes back to when are the customers ready to receive them.

You've obviously got six up front. If we said that for the year, to use 15-ish as the number, the six up front, to get to half that number, we would only need to deploy three more in the first half.

We are ready. We have units.

They're either on the water or at site between those nine units that are either pre-shipping, shipping, or at site ready for installation. I think an assumption of more or less the same number per half would be fine.

Yep. Okay.

Really helpful sort of providing that longer-term view on the business around sort of doubling the installed base. I guess the question is why now?

Are you sort of providing this? What are you seeing in the business now that's different to the past that you sort of go, 'Hey, we're going to start talking about it, two or three years out as to where we think it's going?'

Just interested in that sort of change there.

Probably two things. One is our maturity as a business, and I guess the viewpoint from the investor side.

The thing that I wouldn't want to see is we're deploying six units right now, first quarter is going to be six units, great, let's multiply that by four because there's four quarters in a year, and then everyone puts their models of 24 units per year in perpetuity, and the DCF models kind of double. It's just trying to provide that this is our best visibility of what we see in the market at the moment, coupled between our ability to deploy, our customer demand, and our manufacturing capacity, and trying to kind of balance those.

I think the other thing is that we need to keep in mind that 10 10 years ago, we didn't exist. We have had an industry adopt our technology phenomenally quickly for something that is a very different way to what the industry has done historically.

That broad adoption that we've seen particularly accelerating in the last say 24 months, where we've got all those major laboratories, we've got those major miners adopting the technology, really does give us that sort of long-term direction toward becoming the dominant gold analysis technique. For those on this call that have followed along for a long time, I've constantly said our plan is to get to global domination with this technology, and we've got every confidence that we will do it.

I think as you've then got more and more of these labs and these big miners using it, endorsing it, and for the labs in particular, marketing it for us, we're on that journey. It's trying to provide a little bit more as we get more transparency and visibility going forward, just providing that through to yourselves as well.

Excellent. Maybe just one if I could, to Brett.

Brett, you made a comment there that the global platform is delivering leverage now. I guess we can sort of back out the implied cost base that you've guided to now for FY27.

Just more stepping back from that, where do you start to see that sort of global platform having been built out now for the business, and when the sort of incremental costs are really just around above your gross margin line, just the maintenance costs and things like that, when we've got that footprint established? Are we sort of close to that, or is it still a couple of years away, or how should we think about that?

We haven't forecast a step change that happens tomorrow at this point in time, Jules. I think we're thinking about it that we have a goal to continue to grow revenue with a mind to costs obviously increasing at a much slower rate.

We continue to think about how we do things better across the globe, and how our teams function, and we deliver our compliance and operating requirements as best we can going forward without actually continuing to have to scale that cost. Putting a target, future EBITDA or there's going to be a cliff that we just drop off it, I think it's just going to continue to be a continued improvement in those EBITDA margins as we roll forward.

That's how we're thinking about growing the business at this point in time.

I guess just to add to that is that disciplined growth. This year, we are going into somewhere in the order of 10 new countries for deployments supported by the major laboratories and major miners.

It's making sure that even as we do that, we are building that revenue at a significantly sort of slower rate than we build our costs. You can see that as it comes through in the EBITDA and revenue guidance, where we've got an increasing revenue uplift in the order of 28% and an increasing EBITDA uplift in the order of 42%, if we take the midpoints of guidance.

Yeah. Got it.

All right. Thank you very much.

Thanks, Jules. Thank you.

Good morning. Thank you for what I think was a very comprehensive presentation.

I've got two questions. First question is: is anyone else doing this sort of stuff?

In other words, have you got any competition from other technology companies?

Look, great question. We have a free field to roll out this technology.

We're always conscious that we were a left-market entrant. There may be something out there at some stage that comes in to compete with us, which is one of the reasons why we think of growth being part of strategy.

By the time anyone develops something that could compete with us, we want to make sure that we have dominant market share, and then they're working to displace PhotonAssay rather than fire assay. Step back a few things to kind of how's our adoption working.

We are better in practically every way to fire assay in normal ore grade ranges, and fire assay is a requirement for the industry. Effectively, you can't operate without analysis.

We're coming in with this better technology in every way, and we're charging a competitive rate. We're 10 years into that journey, and we're at 8 at 8% market share.

I think there's a long way to run for us. I think anyone else coming in, we want to make sure they're competing with our technology rather than fire assay.

You're working in a conservative industry where it takes people a long time to change anyway. Probably a longer answer to your question rather than just to say no, we're not really seeing anyone else in this space.

We've got patents that cover us around the world. We're probably more concerned about someone coming in with something that we've never thought of before, but we keep a fairly close watch on the industry as to whether anything will end up competing with us.

Thanks. The second question, as you described earlier, this year's result was a step change on last year, the company is profitable, and the cash flow is looking very, very much improved.

Can we expect some dividends in the second half of this financial year?

Oh, definitely not. Look, come back to unit economics for a second.

Our goal really is around that growth is part of our strategy, because we've got this free run of the industry, we want to make sure that we become the dominant player. Each unit costs around about $4 million Aussie to build.

We ship out around 10% of spares as well. If we're rolling out 15 units in the year, you can multiply 15 by 4.4 and you get an indication of the amount of money that we spend on new units that are going out.

Flip that around, we had $17.9 million cash flow this year, or we had an EBITDA of $27 million, and again, you come back to the cost to build a unit. That means that we're rolling out somewhere between five and seven units from cash flow.

If we're going out now to build 46 units over the next 3 years, we need to fund that as we go. At some stage, if we slow growth or stop growth of new units, immediately the company starts to spin off cash flow, there would definitely be a piece there of moving toward dividends or something like that.

The true cash flow positive inflection point happens at some stage, but based on how quickly we grow. For example, if we grew at six units per year, yes, we would probably be dividend paying by next year or second half.

If we're growing at 15 per year, then that inflection point is a little bit down the path.

Thank you for that.

Cool.

Hey guys, just a quick one. Just on that deployment slide, could you just reconcile with the units manufactured at 59 and then deployed at 46, and then looking in the pipeline, you've got obviously six being installed, five awaiting install, and then three and one pre-ship and shipping?

I've got 15 there, but then 13 as the difference between the two up top. If you could just walk through that.

That is a great question.

We're just having a look at the slide. [laughter] ...

taking a look at the slide. All right, sorry.

Can you say that again? Which number are you trying to reconcile?

We've got manufactured up top is now 59, and then deployed 46. Then if you work through down the bottom, you got 46 deployed, and then add the six for installing gets you to 52, add five for install 57, then 58, then 61 versus the 59 up top?

I think you'll find that it's not including the pre-ship. It's 46 + 11 takes you to 57, 58, 59.

The shipping to site, awaiting installation, installing, deployed, redeployments is 59, and then we've got the pre-ship or stored.

Yeah. All right.

That's helpful, thank you. That's all for me.

Welcome.

Thank you, Sarah, and thank you everyone for attending today. I appreciate all the insightful questions.

Look forward to providing you with further updates throughout the coming year.