Memory tends to be lower voltage. And I’ll tell you what, let me just cover that rather than let me say. So we have been having discussions with respect to some memory folks related to both the new Auto Aligner as well as our long-term roadmap. And I always allude to that sometime on these calls. Again, investors in Aehr test are can be confident that we have oars in the water and are working towards long term goals of being in memory. Memory makes sense for wafer level burn-in. NAND is easier and closer. DRAM there’s a path to wafer level burn-in. We have and can share our opinions with people about how to get there using some design for test methodologies that we can provide our opinions on to help the DRAM guys get there as well. That’s going to take longer and time, but personally, at some point out, you know, whether it’s the end of the decade or what, I can see companies getting there and we want to be their partner.
Jed Dorsheimer: Thanks. That’s helpful. I’ll jump back in the queue. Thanks, guys.
Gayn Erickson: Okay.
Operator: [Operator Instructions] The next question comes from Larry Chlebina with Chlebina Capital. Please go ahead.
Gayn Erickson: Larry is clearly — Larry, are you there?
Larry Chlebina: Yeah, I’m there. Gayn, you started to answer my question, my primary question, when you might have an evaluation tool to since you have a fully automated machine now, it seems like one of these memory guys might be interested in evaluating it for future fabs?
Gayn Erickson: I agree. If I were a memory guy, I would want to evaluate our tool as well. So that is something that is important to us. I often tell people, be careful, don’t assume, we’re going to be having revenue anytime immediately, but it is absolutely something that we are that we’re working towards. And for sure, our new WaferPak automated Aligner is a key piece of that. And we did get feedback from multiple memory companies on that configuration and its capability. I will share that with you. So I’m very for people that know me or have seen the picture of me smiling next to it before we shipped the first one. It’s a passionate project for me and this team is very, very proud of that. So I’ll leave it at that, Larry.
Larry Chlebina: All right. Good. Well, I’ll leave it at that also. But, hey, great guide. I appreciate how you did that. I think it makes sense. And having seen the full automation, I completely agree with you. I think it’s a fantastic offering. So, hey, great job. Take care of you guys.
Gayn Erickson: Thank you. Thank you, Larry.
Operator: [Operator Instructions]
Gayn Erickson: Last call, folks. All right, operator, then. Are there no other calls?
Operator: Yeah, we have one more. The next question comes from Tom Diffely with D.A. Davidson. Please go ahead.
Tom Diffely: Yeah, good afternoon. I appreciate the chance to ask a question. I was curious about the leverage in the model itself and maybe this is a question for Ken, but I think in the past you talked about roughly a $30 million breakeven and then a 45%, 50% drop through thereafter. A lot’s gone on over the last year. So I’m curious if you can give us an update on that now?
Ken Spink: Yeah, I’d be happy to chat with you about it. Yeah, I think the number that you were talking about when I spoke previously was $36 million number and said [indiscernible] for every incremental dollar fell to the bottom line. And if you actually followed and compared to our revenue number that we came in at $65 million, it was within like $100,000 of that model. So I was pretty excited. And thank you very much for asking. We’re going to incur some significantly higher expenses in this upcoming year. And just from a model standpoint, you know, our gross margin standpoint, you could see us ranging from anywhere from a 49% to 52% margin plus very similar to what we’ve recognized in the past. However, because and I think Chris could probably touch more on this is we’re moving to a [indiscernible] holding company, a significant amount of cost associated with the G&A.
