Russell Low: Hey, Jed, it’s Russell. So I would say, I don’t think there is a significant difference between 150-millimeter and 200-millimeter or 200-millimeter and 300-millimeter. We do have significant competitive advantages in our product from the ion source technology to the wafer handling. As you know, these are brittle wafers, they are transparent, they bode very easily. But I don’t think there is any fundamental reason why a 150-millimeter and 200-millimeter tool would be different in reliability, and that’s not what we see with our tool set.
Jed Dorsheimer: Got it. Thanks. That’s helpful. One last question, Jamie, just – last quarter, the commentary, I think around book-to-bill being under 1 was that it’s an anomaly, but we have two quarters with a book-to-bill under 1. So, I am just – is there expectation that this bounces back above 1 as we look into next quarter or do you think we are kind of at this level for a little bit? How should we be thinking about the book-to-bill?
Jamie Coogan: Yes. Jed, I think that’s a good question. I know in the third quarter here, we did have some shipments in the September timeframe here that sort of helped to drive that book-to-bill a little bit below 1 from what we were otherwise expecting as we did over-perform relative to expectations for the third quarter. Given that I am still coming on Board, I might pass the rest of the question off to Doug here to respond.
Doug Lawson: Yes. So Jed, I think that’s one of the big reasons is that extra shipments at the end as was mentioned earlier, CSI is off a little bit as a result of fab utilization. So, that combination allowed us to keep the revenues where they are and – but it did affect the book-to-bill. I think the other thing to be thinking about is the fact the industry is still in a pretty big downturn. And we have had some book-to-bills that were unrealistically high probably in terms of a couple – a few quarters. So, I think it’s kind of a balance. We are working off a pretty big backlog as well, and that’s continued to stay relatively flat, so.
Jed Dorsheimer: Great. I will jump back in the queue. Thanks guys.
Operator: [Operator Instructions] And the next question comes from Tom Diffely of D.A. Davidson & Company. Tom, your line is open.
Tom Diffely: Yes. Good morning. Thank you for taking the question here. I would like to follow-up a bit on just question about the 150-millimeter, 200-millimeter. For you, is it the same tool, same tools, same margin structure kind of when you look at the two different wafer sizes?
Russell Low: So for us, so we can either ship is a 150-millimeter or 200-millimeter. We also have an upgrade kit that you can ship to the field and you can do this upgrade in the field. It doesn’t take very long to do that trend – that change.
Doug Lawson: That ends up being a good thing, Tom, for us. With sort of following on to one of the questions that Jed asked relative to 150-millimeter versus 200-millimeter fab adoption, companies are – our customers are ramping their 150-millimeter as they begin to put 200-millimeter capacity online. At some point, they will go back and they will upgrade their 150-millimeter tools to 200-millimeter, and that will generate significant CS&I upgrade revenue for us.
Tom Diffely: Okay. But how do you look at this as far as the upgrades add a lot of capacity to the industry and obviously take away some of the new system demand as well, but in general, would you consider that a net positive or a net negative?
Doug Lawson: Well, it will end up – I think it will end up being a positive actually. The upgrades are a good margin for Axcelis. They are a great benefit for the customer. Allows them to get their 200-millimeter fab up and running and then go back and be able to take down their 150-millimeter fabs and retrofit with tools that they have by whatever else is needed to support the technology that might go into the 200-millimeter version of that fab. And so in general, it will be a positive for Axcelis.
Tom Diffely: Okay. And maybe just a couple of more quick questions on the silicon carbide stuff. So, where is the industry right now as far as the transition from silicon to silicon carbide power for EVs?
Doug Lawson: Well, that’s probably a better question for some of the automakers. But the way we are seeing it in terms of tool buying behavior, it’s a mix. We see this year 60% of our revenue – around 60% of our systems revenue is coming from power as a whole, and 35% of our total systems revenue is coming from silicon carbide. So, silicon carbide is outstripping silicon in terms of implant tools by quite a bit. But there is a place for both technologies. And I think we will see the automakers settle in on where silicon carbide makes the most sense, where silicon makes the most sense. And it’s going to come down in a lot of cases to a cost and performance decision that they will be making on their cars. As the cost of silicon carbide materials come down, the cost of processing come down, the yields and so forth come up, then there is more incentive to move to silicon carbide and get that performance even on lower cost cars.
But today, probably some of the lower cost cars and plug-in hybrids and so forth are more likely to be using silicon for its cost reasons.
Tom Diffely: Okay. And then just taking it one step further, when do you think we will start to see the second generation and third generation silicon carbide chips that are a little bit more ion implant intensive?
Doug Lawson: Well, I think we are probably starting to see some of them. And I think that’s – I think that there is actually a pretty important tie between your two questions. Even if people perceive EV slowing a little bit based on some of the latest news and so forth, our customers are continuing to work on getting the cost down, the performance up, moving to that next generation that allows the automakers to be able to make the cars at a lower cost or higher performance, longer time between charges and so forth. And so I think we will continue to see the technology growth relative to that same thing with the 200-millimeter migration. That’s an important element to getting the cost down.
