e10vk
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION
Washington, D.C.
20549
Form 10-K
|
|
|
(Mark One)
|
|
|
þ
|
|
ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d)
OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
|
|
|
For the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2006
|
or
|
o
|
|
TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d)
OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
|
|
|
For the transition period
from to
|
Commission File Number 0-26946
INTEVAC, INC.
(Exact name of registrant as
specified in its charter)
|
|
|
California
|
|
94-3125814
|
(State or other jurisdiction
of
incorporation or organization)
|
|
(I.R.S. Employer
Identification No.)
|
3560 Bassett Street
Santa Clara, California 95054
(Address of principal executive
office, including Zip Code)
Registrants telephone number, including area code:
(408) 986-9888
Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the
Act:
|
|
|
Title of Each Class
|
|
Name of Each Exchange on Which Registered
|
Common Stock (no par value)
|
|
The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC
|
Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the
Act:
None.
Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known
seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities
Act. Yes o No þ
Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file
reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the
Act. Yes o No þ
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed
all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding
12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant
was required to file such reports), and (2) has been
subject to such filing requirements for the past
90 days. Yes þ No o
Indicate by a check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers
pursuant to Item 405 of
Regulation S-K
is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best
of registrants knowledge, in definitive proxy or
information statements incorporated by reference in
Part III of this
Form 10-K
or any amendment to this
Form 10-K. o
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large
accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, or a non-accelerated
filer. See definition of accelerated filer and large
accelerated filer in
Rule 12b-2
of the Exchange Act. (Check one):
Large accelerated
filer o Accelerated
filer þ Non-accelerated
filer o
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company
(as defined in
Rule 12b-2
of the
Act). Yes o No þ
The aggregate market value of voting stock held by
non-affiliates of the Registrant, as of July 1, 2006 was
approximately $360,255,541 (based on the closing price for
shares of the Registrants Common Stock as reported by the
Nasdaq Stock Market for the last trading day prior to that
date). Shares of Common Stock held by each executive officer,
director, and holder of 5% or more of the outstanding Common
Stock have been excluded in that such persons may be deemed to
be affiliates. This determination of affiliate status is not
necessarily a conclusive determination for other purposes.
On February 27, 2007, 21,378,578 shares of the
Registrants Common Stock, no par value, were outstanding.
DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE.
Portions of the Registrants Proxy Statement for the 2007
Annual Meeting of Shareholders are incorporated by reference
into Part III. Such proxy statement will be filed within
120 days after the end of the fiscal year covered by this
Annual Report on
Form 10-K.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
This Annual Report on
Form 10-K
contains forward-looking statements, which involve risks and
uncertainties. Words such as believes,
expects, plans, anticipates
and the like indicate forward-looking statements. These
forward-looking statements include comments related to
technology and market trends in the data storage, hard disk
drive and magnetic disk market; comments related to technology
and market trends in military and commercial markets for low
light sensors, cameras and systems; projected seasonality and
cyclicality in the market for our equipment products; projected
sales of hard disk drives and magnetic disks for hard disk
drives; expectations of our continued leadership position in
magnetic disk manufacturing equipment; projected customer
requirements for new capacity and for technology upgrades, such
as for perpendicular recording, to their installed base of
magnetic disk manufacturing equipment, as well as the ability of
our products to meet these requirements; expectations regarding
the extended sales cycles for our equipment and military
products; projected technology roadmaps and deployment schedules
for our military customers; discussions of expected features,
performance, costs, and competitive advantages of products we
are developing, including 200 Lean systems, LIVAR cameras and
systems, NightVista cameras, MOSIR cameras, cameras for military
head-mounted applications and commercial markets and low light
level sensors; expectations of establishing relationships with
development and distribution partners for our Imaging products;
discussions of development of manufacturing systems for entry
into the semiconductor equipment market; and discussions of the
costs of complying with government regulations. Our actual
results may differ materially from the results discussed in the
forward-looking statements for a variety of reasons, including
those set forth under Risk Factors.
PART I
Overview
We are the worlds leading provider of disk sputtering
equipment to manufacturers of magnetic media used in hard disk
drives and we are developing equipment that we plan sell to
semiconductor manufacturers. We also develop and provide leading
technology for extreme low light imaging sensors, cameras and
systems. We operate two businesses: Equipment and Imaging.
Our Equipment business designs, manufactures, markets and
services complex capital equipment which deposits, or sputters,
highly engineered thin-films onto magnetic disks used in hard
disk drives. We believe our systems represent approximately 60%
of the installed capacity of disk sputtering systems worldwide.
Our customers are manufacturers of magnetic disks for hard disk
drives, and include Fuji Electric, Hitachi Global Storage
Technologies and Seagate Technology. We believe the rapid growth
of the storage of digital data, including new consumer
applications, such as personal audio and video recorders,
emerging HDTV applications, streaming video and video game
platforms; increasing enterprise data storage requirements; the
proliferation of personal computers into emerging markets in
Asia and Eastern Europe; along with new technology advances in
the industry, provide us with a significant opportunity to sell
magnetic media manufacturing equipment. In addition, we plan to
enter the market for complex capital equipment sold to the
semiconductor manufacturing industry. The vast majority of our
revenue is currently derived from our Equipment business, and we
expect that the majority of our revenues for the next several
years will continue to be derived from our Equipment business.
Our Imaging business develops and manufactures electro-optical
sensors, cameras, and systems that permit highly sensitive
detection of photons in the visible and near infrared portions
of the spectrum, allowing imaging or analytical detection in
extreme low light situations. We develop imaging technology and
equipment for military applications. To date, our revenues have
been derived primarily from research and development contracts
funded by the U.S. government, rather than product sales.
Applications for our imaging technology include sensors and
cameras for use in extreme low light situations and systems for
positive identification of targets at long range. We also
develop and market commercial cameras and systems addressing
markets within life science, physical science, industrial
inspection and security.
Intevac was incorporated in October 1990 in California and
completed a leveraged buyout of a number of divisions of Varian
Associates in February 1991. The technologies acquired from
Varian formed the foundation for our Equipment and Imaging
businesses. Our principal executive offices are located at 3560
Bassett Street,
1
Santa Clara, California 95054, and our phone number is
(408) 986-9888.
Our Internet home page is located at www.intevac.com;
however the information in, or that can be accessed through, our
home page is not part of this report. Our annual report on
Form 10-K,
quarterly reports on
Form 10-Q,
current reports on
Form 8-K,
and amendments to such reports are available, free of charge, on
or through our Internet home page as soon as reasonably
practicable after we electronically file such material with, or
furnish it to, the Securities and Exchange Commission. The
public may also read and copy any materials we file with the SEC
at the SECs Public Reference Room at 100 F Street, N.E.,
Washington D.C. 20549. The public may obtain information on the
operation of the Public Reference Room by calling the SEC at
1-800-SEC-0330.
The SEC also maintains an Internet website (www.sec.gov)
that contains reports, proxy and information statements and
other information regarding us that we file electronically with
the SEC.
LIVAR®,
D-STAR®,
NightVista®,
200
Lean®,
and MOSIRTM, among others, are our trademarks.
Equipment
Business
Our Equipment business designs, manufactures, markets and
services complex capital equipment used to sputter thin-films of
material onto magnetic disks which are used in hard disk drives,
and equipment to lubricate those disks. Hard disk drives are the
primary storage medium for digital data. These magnetic disks
are created in a sophisticated manufacturing process involving
many steps, including plating, annealing, polishing, texturing,
sputtering and lubrication. We are utilizing our expertise in
complex manufacturing equipment to develop new products that
address semiconductor manufacturing markets.
Storage
Market Growth Drivers
Data storage requirements have rapidly increased from kilobytes
for documents, to megabytes for audio and still images, to
gigabytes for video. Hard disk drives are the primary devices
used for storing and retrieving large amounts of digital data
where re-recordable capability is necessary. We believe there
are a number of emerging trends and applications that require
cost effective storage intensive solutions.
|
|
|
|
|
New consumer electronics applications, such as digital video and
audio recorders, video game platforms, emerging HDTV
applications and streaming video.
|
|
|
|
Personal computers have evolved from devices operating simple
applications such as word processing, to powerful machines that
are capable of playing, recording and creating multimedia
content, such as images, audio and video.
|
|
|
|
Proliferation of personal computers into the emerging markets of
Asia and Eastern Europe.
|
|
|
|
Enterprise data storage requirements are increasing, as
regulations and other business factors require companies to
archive more information, such as documents and email.
Additionally, companies are transitioning from paper-based
storage to digital data-based storage and digital backup.
|
|
|
|
Certain traditional analog storage applications are
transitioning to digital hard disk-based storage. For example,
the video surveillance industry, including home security, law
enforcement, private security services, retail, transportation
and government agencies, is transitioning from analog video
tapes to digital hard disk storage.
|
As a result of these and other storage applications, TrendFocus
reported that hard disk drive shipments grew by 14.2% during
2006 to 435 million units and projects 14.4% annual growth
in hard disk drive units through 2010.
Hard
Disk Drive Market Dynamics
Areal Density Increasing. Areal density,
defined as the density of information stored on magnetic disks,
continues to increase, albeit at a slower rate than in past
years. Higher areal density allows more information to be stored
on each magnetic disk, which enables hard disk drive
manufacturers to provide greater data storage capacity at a
lower cost per gigabyte.
2
Transition from Longitudinal to Perpendicular
Recording. Historically, magnetic disk
manufacturers have been able to increase the areal density of a
disk by improving existing longitudinal recording processes, a
storage method where magnetized data bits are parallel to the
disk. In the past few years, the rate of increase in areal
density for longitudinal recording processes has slowed, as the
magnetized data bits were packed closer and closer together,
increasing instability. In order to continue increasing capacity
per disk, the magnetic disk industry has begun the transition to
perpendicular recording. In perpendicular recording the data
bits are oriented perpendicular to the disk surface, and this
approach makes it possible for the bits to be recorded at a
higher density than in longitudinal recording.
New Equipment Required for Perpendicular
Recording. The legacy equipment that magnetic
disk manufacturers purchased in the mid to late 1990s could
generally accommodate up to twelve process stations, which was
sufficient for longitudinal recording. However, disk
manufacturers need to replace or retool their existing disk
manufacturing equipment to support increasing production of
disks capable of perpendicular recording. Economically producing
disks capable of perpendicular recording may require as many as
twenty or more process stations. As a result, disk manufacturers
have been investing in new equipment, such as the 200 Lean,
since 2004. In 2007 we believe that some of our customers will
begin making significant replacements of their legacy equipment
with 200 Leans.
Consolidation of Equipment
Suppliers. Beginning in 1995, most magnetic disk
manufacturers undertook aggressive expansion plans. A reduction
in disks per drive, possible because of rapid increases in areal
density, combined with these capacity expansions, resulted in
substantial excess disk production capacity from 1998 through
2002. Even though total storage capacity of all hard disk drives
shipped increased from 1997 to 2003, disk manufacturers did not
make significant investments in disk sputtering equipment. As a
result, the supplier base of disk sputtering equipment was
reduced. Intevac and one other manufacturer now supply the
majority of disk sputtering equipment capable of economically
manufacturing media suitable for perpendicular recording.
Industry Consolidation. Two types of companies
purchase disk sputtering equipment; vertically integrated
companies that manufacture both disks and the hard drives that
use those disks, and merchant suppliers that manufacture
magnetic disks for sale to hard disk manufacturers. Both drive
and disk manufacturers were adversely affected by the
overcapacity of 1998 through 2002, and the industry underwent
significant consolidation. For instance, in 2001 Maxtor acquired
Quantums hard disk drive operations, and Fujitsu ceased
manufacturing hard disk drives for the personal storage market.
In 2002, IBM sold its hard disk drive business to Hitachi. In
2004, Showa Denko acquired Trace Storage Technology. In 2006,
Seagate completed its acquisition of Maxtor. This consolidation
substantially reduced the number of magnetic disk manufacturers
able to respond to any increasing demand for disks for hard disk
drives.
Equipment Selection Criteria. To evaluate the
performance of competing disk sputtering equipment, magnetic
disk manufacturers consider the following criteria:
|
|
|
|
|
Cost of Ownership. Cost of ownership of disk
sputtering equipment includes factors such as equipment price,
manufacturing yield, throughput, consumables cost, factory floor
footprint and uptime. A lower cost of ownership for disk
sputtering equipment is a key factor in lowering the
manufacturers product cost.
|
|
|
|
Extendibility and Flexibility. We believe
magnetic disk manufacturers need sputtering equipment that can
address the needs of their evolving technology roadmaps. This
equipment must be capable of incorporating new process steps and
new technical capabilities, including the processes needed for
producing magnetic disks capable of perpendicular recording.
Additionally, these manufacturers are improving longitudinal
processes and further developing the processes necessary for
perpendicular recording, and as a result, they demand a flexible
system that supports process reconfigurations and expansions
with a minimum of effort.
|
|
|
|
Compatibility with Existing Equipment. We
believe magnetic disk manufacturers prefer to standardize their
processes around a single disk sputtering equipment supplier.
Once a disk manufacturer has selected a particular
suppliers equipment, that manufacturer generally relies
upon that suppliers equipment and generally will continue
to purchase any additional equipment from the same supplier.
There are significant economies of scale related to the use of a
single suppliers disk manufacturing system in product
design, product qualification, manufacturing and support.
|
3
|
|
|
|
|
Long-term Commitment of Supplier. We believe
magnetic disk manufacturers need sputtering equipment suppliers
that are committed to meeting current and future technology
requirements and to supporting this equipment throughout its
useful life. As a result, magnetic disk manufacturers demand a
supplier with the stability and capability to be a long-term
technology partner.
|
Our
Competitive Strengths
We are the leading provider of disk sputtering equipment to
manufacturers of magnetic media used in hard disk drives. We
believe that our industry leadership is the result of the
following key competitive strengths:
|
|
|
|
|
Broad Installed Base with Industry Leading
Customers. Our MDP-250 disk sputtering system
gained wide acceptance in the magnetic disk manufacturing
industry and by the late 1990s was being used in the manufacture
of approximately half of the magnetic disks used in hard disk
drives worldwide. Our 200 Lean, introduced in 2003, continues
our strong industry position. We believe that there are
approximately 111 legacy MDP-250 systems and 80 next
generation 200 Lean systems currently available for use in
production and research and development applications by
customers such as Fuji Electric, Hitachi Global Storage
Technology and Seagate. We believe there is significant
potential for these customers to continue adding capacity and to
upgrade the technical capability of their installed base to
permit production of higher density disks capable of
perpendicular recording.
|
|
|
|
Technology Leadership with Modular Next Generation Advanced
Platform. In December 2003, we first delivered
our latest-generation disk sputtering system, the 200 Lean,
which provides enhanced capabilities relative to our installed
base of MDP-250 systems. The 200 Leans compact design
enables more disks to be manufactured per square-foot of factory
clean-room space. The flexible design of the 200 Lean allows
rapid reconfiguration to accommodate product changeovers and new
disk technology. The modular design of the 200 Lean also allows
disk manufacturers to add additional process stations, as
advanced magnetic disk technologies, such as perpendicular
recording, are introduced. We believe the Intevac 200 Lean
system accounts for the majority of installed production
capacity of next generation perpendicular-capable systems.
|
|
|
|
Long-Term Commitment to Hard Disk Drive
Industry. We have been a hard disk drive
equipment provider since 1991. We continue to develop new
technologies, and introduced the 200 Lean disk sputtering system
to meet the need for additional process stations necessary to
economically produce magnetic disks capable of perpendicular
recording. In addition, our headquarters and our support centers
in Singapore, China and Malaysia are located in close proximity
to many of our customers hard disk drive development
centers and manufacturing facilities.
|
Based on these competitive strengths, we believe that we are
well positioned to maintain our market leading position in the
magnetic disk sputtering equipment market.
Our
Equipment Strategy
We believe we can leverage our leadership position in disk
sputtering equipment to increase our sales to magnetic disk
manufacturers and apply our technology to new markets. The key
elements of our strategy are as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
Be a Preferred Solutions Provider in the Magnetic Disk
Industry. Our goal is to be a preferred solutions
provider to magnetic disk manufacturers. We believe that our 200
Lean provides our customers with an advanced modular platform
that can address their future disk sputtering needs. We believe
we are also the leading provider of disk lubrication equipment,
which is used to apply ultra-thin coatings of lubricant to
magnetic disks after sputtering.
|
|
|
|
Leverage Existing Technology into New
Markets. In addition to expansion within our
existing customer base, we are targeting other markets where we
can apply our expertise in complex manufacturing equipment. Our
expertise includes the ability to design and manufacture
complex, highly automated vacuum manufacturing systems. We are
currently developing a new manufacturing system that addresses
the etch segment of the semiconductor manufacturing market. We
are devoting a significant portion of our business development
and technical resources to developing this new product, and we
plan to deliver evaluation
|
4
|
|
|
|
|
units for this new system to multiple customers during 2007. We
expect our initial customers will test evaluation systems for as
long as twelve months before deciding whether to purchase
production systems. Accordingly, we do not expect to recognize
revenues from the sale of this new system until 2008.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Deliver Highest Customer Value
Proposition. Our goal is to maintain our
leadership in complex manufacturing equipment by providing
flexible, extendable equipment having the lowest cost of
ownership. For example, the 200 Leans modular design
provides customers the ability to reconfigure their disk
manufacturing systems for rapid technology shifts and evolving
technology roadmaps, and its compact footprint and increased
throughput relative to the legacy MDP-250 systems enable
increased output per square foot of factory clean-room space.
|
|
|
|
Expand Consumables, Spare Parts and Service
Offerings. We plan to increase the sale of disk
sputtering equipment consumables, spare parts and service in
order to increase our revenue opportunity per customer. This
will enable us to deepen and enhance our customer relationships.
We believe that the close proximity of our service centers in
Singapore, Shenzhen, China and Kulim, Malaysia to our
customers facilities gives us a competitive advantage. We
plan to add additional support centers as required in order to
maintain close proximity to our customers operations.
|
Our
Equipment Products
200 Lean
Disk Sputtering System
The 200 Lean is our latest generation disk sputtering system.
The 200 Lean provides significantly enhanced capabilities
relative to the installed base of approximately 111 legacy
MDP-250 systems. The 200 Lean provides higher throughput from a
smaller footprint in a flexible modular system, which enables
more disks to be manufactured per square-foot of factory floor
space, and is designed to lower overall cost of ownership.
The key features of the 200 Lean include:
|
|
|
|
|
Modular Design. The 200 Leans modular
design allows our customers to accommodate any number of disk
manufacturing process steps required by their evolving
technology roadmaps. The 200 Lean consists of a front-end
robotic module that loads and unloads disks to and from the
system, combined with any number of four-station process
modules. Typical configurations of the 200 Lean have five of
these four-station process modules, which results in systems
capable of up to 20 process steps. Additional process modules
can be easily added to already installed systems.
|
|
|
|
Easy to Reconfigure. Magnetic disk
manufacturers produce many different designs that have short
product life cycles, leading to frequent reconfiguration of disk
sputtering equipment. The mechanical design and software control
system of the 200 Lean allow rapid reconfiguration of systems by
our customers. The 200 Lean is also easily reconfigured to
process disks with glass or aluminum substrates of varying
diameters and thicknesses.
|
|
|
|
Higher Throughput with Smaller Footprint. The
200 Lean offers higher throughput (up to 800 disks per hour) and
more process stations in a more compact package than our legacy
MDP-250 system. We believe that the 200 Lean has the highest
disk throughput per square foot of factory space for a system
capable of manufacturing perpendicular media.
|
|
|
|
High Availability. The 200 Lean is designed to
operate seven days a week, 24 hours a day with high
availability. The 200 Lean can be run continuously for a week or
more between preventative maintenance cycles.
|
|
|
|
Single Disk Processing. The 200 Lean processes
each individual disk sequentially through a series of
single-disk, vacuum-isolated, process chambers.
Single-disk processing assures that each individual
disk follows an identical path through the system, which leads
to
disk-to-disk
uniformity, since each disk sees the same process conditions.
|
5
|
|
|
|
|
High-Vacuum Capability. The 200 Lean operates
at significantly better vacuum levels compared to the installed
base of MDP-250s. Better vacuum levels generally lead to
improved magnetic media performance.
|
|
|
|
Suite of Process Station Options. The 200 Lean
offers a wide range of process stations, providing capabilities
such as metal deposition, heating, cooling and carbon
overcoating onto both aluminum and glass disks.
|
DLS-100
Disk Lubrication System
Disk lubrication is the manufacturing step that immediately
follows deposition. During lubrication, a microscopic layer of
lubricant is applied to the disks surface to improve
durability and reduce surface friction between the disk and the
read/write head assembly.
The Intevac
DLS-100 is a
disk lubrication system for uniformly lubricating disks in a
temperature controlled, low vibration and contamination free
environment.
Equipment
Business Sales and Marketing
Our Equipment business sales are made primarily through our
direct sales force, although in Japan, we sell our products
through a distributor, Matsubo. The selling process for our
equipment products is a multi-level and long-term process,
involving individuals from marketing, engineering, operations,
customer service and senior management. The process involves
making sample disks for the prospective customer and responding
to its needs for moderate levels of machine customization.
Customers often require a significant number of product
presentations and demonstrations before making a purchasing
decision.
Installing and integrating new equipment requires a substantial
investment by a customer. Sales of our systems depend, in
significant part, upon the decision of a prospective customer to
replace obsolete equipment or to increase manufacturing capacity
by upgrading or expanding existing manufacturing facilities or
by constructing new manufacturing facilities, all of which
typically involve a significant capital commitment. After making
a decision to select our equipment, our customers typically
purchase one or more engineering systems to develop and qualify
their production process prior to ordering and taking delivery
of multiple production systems. Accordingly, our systems have a
lengthy sales cycle, during which we may expend substantial
funds and management time and effort with no assurance that a
sale will result.
The production of large complex systems requires us to make
significant investments in inventory both to fulfill customer
orders and to maintain adequate supplies of spare parts to
service previously shipped systems. In some cases we manufacture
subsystems
and/or
complete systems prior to receipt of a customer order to smooth
our production flow
and/or
reduce our lead time. We maintain inventories of spare parts in
Santa Clara, Singapore and other locations to support our
customers. We typically require our customers to pay for systems
in three installments, with a portion of the system price billed
upon receipt of an order, a portion of the price billed upon
shipment, and the balance of the price and any sales tax due
upon completing installation and acceptance of the system at the
customers factory. All customer product payments are
recorded as customer advances pending revenue recognition.
Equipment
Business Customers
Our disk sputtering equipment customers include magnetic disk
manufacturers such as Fuji Electric and vertically integrated
hard disk drive manufacturers, such as Hitachi Global Storage
Technology and Seagate. The majority of our customers
product development programs are located in the United States
and Japan. Our customers manufacturing facilities are
primarily located in California, China, Japan, Malaysia and
Singapore.
Our customers businesses tend to be cyclical, with their
peak sales occurring during the second half of the year. As a
result, our customers have a tendency to order equipment for
delivery and installation by midyear, so that they have new
capacity in place for their peak production period. However,
during both 2005 and 2006 our customers were capacity
constrained, demand did not follow normal seasonal patterns, and
we realized our highest revenues during the fourth fiscal
quarter.
6
Equipment
Business Customer Support
We provide process and applications support, customer training,
installation,
start-up
assistance and emergency service support to our equipment
customers. We conduct training classes for our customers
process engineers, machine operators and machine service
personnel. Additional training is also given to our customers
during the machine installation. We have a subsidiary in
Singapore and field offices in China, Malaysia and Japan to
support our customers in Asia. We are planning to add additional
support centers to maintain close proximity to our
customers factories as they deploy our systems.
We generally offer a one year warranty on our equipment. In some
cases we market extended warranty periods beyond 12 months
to our customers. During this warranty period any necessary
non-consumable parts are supplied and installed without charge.
Our employees provide field service support in the United
States, Singapore, Malaysia, China and Japan. In Japan, field
service support is also supplemented by our distributor, Matsubo.
Equipment
Business Competition
The principal competitive factors affecting the markets for our
equipment products include price, product performance and
functionality, integration and manageability of products,
customer support and service, reputation and reliability. We
have historically experienced intense competition worldwide for
magnetic disk sputtering equipment from competitors including
Anelva Corporation, Ulvac and Oerlikon, formerly Unaxis
Holdings, Ltd., each of which has sold substantial numbers of
systems worldwide. Anelva, Ulvac and Oerlikon all have
substantially greater financial, technical, marketing,
manufacturing and other resources than we do. To our knowledge,
Intevac, Anelva and Oerlikon are the only companies that have
delivered products that economically address the sputtering
requirements for manufacture of advanced perpendicular magnetic
disks. However, there can be no assurance that any of our
competitors will not develop enhancements to, or future
generations of, competitive products that offer superior price
or performance features or that new competitors will not enter
our markets and develop such enhanced products. In addition, as
we enter the semiconductor equipment market, we anticipate that
we will experience competition from competitors such as Applied
Materials, LAM Research and Tokyo Electron, Ltd.
Given the lengthy sales cycle and the significant investment
required to integrate equipment into the manufacturing process,
we believe that once a magnetic disk manufacturer has selected a
particular suppliers equipment for a specific application,
that manufacturer generally relies upon that suppliers
equipment and frequently will continue to purchase any
additional equipment for that application from the same
supplier. Accordingly, competition for customers in the
equipment industry is intense, and suppliers of equipment may
offer substantial pricing concessions and incentives to attract
new customers or retain existing customers.
Imaging
Business
Our Imaging business develops and manufactures electro-optical
sensors, cameras and systems that permit highly sensitive
detection of photons in the visible and near infrared portions
of the spectrum, allowing vision or analytical detection in
extreme low light situations. The majority of our imaging
revenue to date has been derived from contracts related to the
development of electro-optical sensors, cameras and systems and
funded by the U.S. Government, its agencies and contractors.
Imaging
Industry Overview
Imaging is the capture and display of an image by collecting
light or heat emitted or reflected from an object. Low light
imaging involves the capture and display of light at intensities
of approximately one millionth, or less, of daytime light levels.
Low light imaging technology that provides superior vision in
nighttime creates a significant tactical combat advantage.
Accordingly, the U.S. military has funded the development
of various night vision technologies, which have evolved to
todays widely deployed Generation-III night
vision tubes. Typically, Generation-III night vision tubes are
placed in front of a users eyes, like a pair of
binoculars, and produce a direct-view, green glow
image. The U.S. military is now funding the development of
compact digitally enhanced night vision goggles that incorporate
imagery from both low light and thermal sensors.
7
The commercial sector has taken a different approach to extreme
low light imaging than the military. The initial extreme low
light cameras for the commercial sector were based on charged
coupled device, or CCD, technology, which is able to directly
produce a digital output. CCD technology has been applied in a
wide variety of applications requiring low light level detection
or imaging such as astronomy, spectroscopy, life sciences and
industrial products monitoring.
As a result, two distinct forms of low light level imaging have
evolved: the Generation-III night vision tube technology
developed by the military, which provides direct-view analog
imagery; and CCD technology, which can provide digital imagery,
but is not well suited to dynamic applications.
Our
Imaging Solution
We have developed imaging technology that combines the low light
capability of Generation-III night vision technology with
silicon-based digital video technology that we believe will
enable us to provide a family of cost-effective low light
sensors and cameras. Elements of our proprietary solutions
include:
Advanced Photocathode Technology A
photocathode is a semiconductor compound with the ability to
convert light into electrons. We manufacture a family of
photocathodes designed to optimize sensitivity at specific
wavelengths ranging from the visible (0.40 microns) to the near
infrared (1.65 microns). Our photocathodes are extremely
sensitive to incoming light. Some of our detectors incorporating
such photocathodes can detect incoming light at levels of a
single photon, the ultimate level of sensitivity.
Use of Low Power CMOS Imaging Chips
Complementary Metal Oxide Semiconductor, or CMOS sensors, which
are generally lower cost and require less power than comparable
CCD sensors, have been developed for consumer imaging
applications. We have developed proprietary technologies and
capabilities to incorporate CMOS sensors into our products to
take advantage of these improvements. We have also developed
proprietary CMOS devices optimized for use in our night vision
sensors. As a result, we believe we will be able to offer cost
effective, compact, low power, extreme low light imaging sensors.
Increased Silicon Sensor Sensitivity We have
developed proprietary technology to enable CMOS and CCD sensors
to efficiently capture electrons emitted from the photocathode.
Increasing the electron capture efficiency directly increases
extreme low light imaging performance.
Compact Ultra-High Vacuum Sensor Packaging
Our compact ultra-high vacuum sensor package enables us to
combine an imaging chip with a photocathode in a thin package,
which is particularly well suited for portable applications
where size and weight are critical.
Low
Light Imaging Market Opportunity
Head Mounted Night Vision Systems
Generation-III based night vision goggles, which have excellent
extreme low light imaging performance, were widely deployed by
the U.S. military for use by soldiers during the
1990s. In 2005 the U.S. military awarded contracts
for procurement of up to $3.2 billion of Generation-III
night vision equipment over a five-year period. However, these
goggles lack video output. Additionally, potential adversaries
are now deploying Generation-II+ goggles manufactured outside
the United States with performance levels approaching that of
Generation-III. Accordingly, the U.S. Army has developed a
roadmap to maintain extreme low light imaging dominance for the
individual soldier. The roadmap includes developing the Digital
Enhanced Night Vision Goggle (DENVG), a compact head
mounted system, that integrates a visible imager, an infrared
imager and a video display. This approach allows the low light
and the infrared imagery to be viewed individually, or to be
overlaid on each other (fused) at the option of the
soldier, and also enables connectivity to a wireless network for
distribution of the imagery and other information. The
U.S. Army plans to begin production of this type of system
in 2010.
Long Range Target Identification Current
long-range military nighttime surveillance systems are based on
expensive thermal imaging camera systems, which image the
thermal profile of a target. Long-range thermal systems are
relatively large, which is a disadvantage for airborne and
portable applications. Accordingly, there is a need for a cost
effective, compact, long-range imaging solution that identifies
targets at a distance that is greater than an adversarys
detection range capability.
8
Physical Sciences Companies in the physical
sciences use extreme low light imaging to investigate the
chemistry and physics of a wide variety of substances such as
foods, medicines, materials and biological compounds. They need
wider spectral coverage, high sensitivity, increased speed and
increased resolution to increase the accuracy of their
measurements and the productivity of their measurement tools.
Life Sciences The life sciences market
focuses on increasing the understanding of biology at the
cellular level to improve health and quality of life. To image
single living cells, this market needs extreme low light cameras
that operate at speeds significantly higher than cameras that
are available today.
Our
Imaging Strategy
Collaborate with Leading Development
Organizations We collaborate with and receive
significant funding from leading government research
organizations for the development of our extreme low light
technology. These organizations strongly influence development
and procurement of advanced technologies by the
U.S. military. For example, we have collaborated with the
U.S. Army Night Vision Labs, the world leader in night
vision technology, to facilitate the development and adoption of
our night vision technology.
Become Leading Provider of Extreme Low Light Imaging Sensor,
Camera, and System Products for the Military We
are actively marketing our extreme low light imaging
technology-based products to the military.
|
|
|
|
|
Night Vision Camera Modules Our extreme low-light
sensor technology was selected in 2004 for use in a digital
head-mounted and rifle-sight system for the military of a NATO
ally. During 2006, we completed the development of a
night-vision sensor and camera module for this application and
entered into a purchasing agreement with our NATO customer to
deliver 32,000 camera modules over seven years, valued in excess
of $50 million over the term of the agreement. Orders under
this agreement may be released annually. We expect to deliver
pilot production units in 2007 and volume production units in
2008.
|
|
|
|
Digitally Enhanced Night Vision Goggles
(DENVG) We are jointly developing, with
DRS Technologies, DENVG night vision goggle prototypes for the
U.S. Army. These compact digital systems are being designed to
display the imagery from our low-light night vision sensors in
combination with imagery from DRS Technologys thermal
imaging sensors. In 2007, we expect to deliver prototypes to the
U.S. Army for field-testing and to pursue additional
contracts to fund further development of this product.
|
|
|
|
Laser Illuminated Viewing and Ranging
(LIVAR) Our LIVAR target identification
system can be used to identify targets at distances of up to
twenty kilometers and has been incorporated into
U.S. weapons development programs such as the Airborne
Laser (ABL), the Cost Effective Targeting System
(CETS), and the Long-Range Identification System
(LRID) programs. We expect to begin volume
production deliveries of LIVAR cameras late in 2007.
|
|
|
|
Intensified Photodiodes We are developing devices
that enable single photon detection at extremely high data rates
and are designed for use in target identification and other
military applications.
|
Become Leading Provider of Camera and Systems Products, based
on Proprietary Sensor Technology, to Address Emerging Commercial
Markets We are also using our extreme low-light
imaging expertise in sensor and camera technology to develop
products for commercial markets. We believe the modular design
of our camera electronics and software, coupled with use of our
proprietary CMOS chips in configurable sensors, will help
decrease development time and cost.
|
|
|
|
|
MOSIR Near Infrared Cameras We began shipping our
MOSIR line of commercial cameras during 2006. This camera
provides previously unavailable high sensitivity in the near
infrared portion of the spectrum and is well suited for
low-light spectroscopy applications. We plan to continue to
enlarge our product offerings of high-performance cameras for
physical science, life science and industrial applications
within the commercial imaging market.
|
|
|
|
Raman Spectrometers On February 1, 2007, we
completed an acquisition of the assets and certain liabilities
of DeltaNu, LLC, a company that pioneered development of
miniature Raman spectrometer systems. Raman spectroscopy systems
are used to identify materials by illuminating the material with
a laser and measuring the characteristic spectrum of light
scattered from the material. The process enables real-
|
9
|
|
|
|
|
time, non-destructive identification of liquids and solids
outside of the laboratory and is well suited to applications
such as hazmat, forensics, homeland security, geology, gemology,
medical, pharmaceutical and industrial quality assurance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Near Infrared Raman Spectrometers Raman
spectrometers typically use lasers in the visible spectrum,
which can lead to excessive background noise, or fluorescence,
as well as potential eye-safety issues. These limitations can
now be significantly reduced by using near infrared lasers in
combination with our proprietary near infrared sensor
technology. We plan to develop a new class of high-performance
Raman spectrometer systems that integrate Intevacs near
infrared sensors with DeltaNus low cost Raman
spectrometers.
|
Low Manufacturing Costs The market for our
cameras and sensors is price sensitive, and low-cost
manufacturing will be critical to the rapid proliferation of our
products. Our use of low-cost proprietary CMOS sensors and wafer
level die manufacturing, as opposed to single die manufacturing,
are elements of our strategy to reduce product cost.
Additionally, we have developed proprietary ultra-high vacuum
assembly equipment to automate the assembly of the photocathode
and the imaging device. This system is designed to decrease unit
costs by increasing throughput and improving process controls
and yields.
Imaging
Sales and Marketing
Sales of our products for military applications are primarily
made to the end user through our direct sales force. In cases
where our products are enabling technology for more complex
systems, we also sell to leading defense contractors such as
Boeing, Lockheed Martin Corporation and Northrop Grumman
Corporation. To date, the majority of our Imaging revenue has
been derived from research and development contracts, rather
than product sales. During 2006, revenue from product sales grew
to $1.7 million from $888,000 in 2005. We expect that
product sales will contribute an increasing percentage of
Imaging revenue over the next several years.
We are subject to long sales cycles because many of our
products, such as our LIVAR system, typically must be designed
into our customers products, which are often complex and
state-of-the-art.
These development cycles are often multi-year, and our sales are
contingent on our customer successfully integrating our product
into its product, completing development of its product and then
obtaining production orders for its product. Sales of these
products are also often dependent on ongoing government funding
of defense programs by the U.S. government and its allies.
Additionally, sales to international customers are subject to
issuance of export licenses by the United States government,
which cannot always be obtained.
Sales of our commercial products, which have not been
significant to date, will be made through a combination of
direct sales, system integrators, distributors and value added
resellers and can also be subject to long sales cycles.
Our Imaging business generally invoices its research and
development customers either as costs are incurred, or as
program milestones are achieved, depending upon the particular
contract terms. As a government contractor, we invoice customers
using estimated annual rates approved by the Defense Contracts
Audit Agency (DCAA). A majority of our contracts are
Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) contracts. On any CPFF
contract, 15% of the fee is withheld pending completion of the
program and DCAAs annual audit of our actual rates. The
withheld portion of the fee is included in accounts receivable
until paid.
Imaging
Business Competition
The principal competitive factors affecting our Imaging products
include price, extreme low light sensitivity, power consumption,
resolution, size, integratability, reliability, reputation and
customer support and service. We face substantial competition
for our Imaging products, and many of our competitors have
greater resources than we do.
In the military market, ITT Industries and Northrop Grumman, who
are large and well-established defense contractors, are the
primary U.S. manufacturers of image intensifier tubes used
in Generation-III night vision devices and their derivative
products. Our extreme low light cameras are intended to displace
Generation-III night vision based products, and we expect that
ITT and Northrop Grumman will continue to enhance the
performance of their products and aggressively promote their
sales. Furthermore, CMC Electronics, DRS, FLIR Systems and
Raytheon manufacture cooled infrared sensors and cameras which
are presently used in long-range target
10
identification systems, with which our LIVAR target
identification sensors and cameras compete. In the commercial
markets, companies such as Andor, E2V, Hamamatsu, Texas
Instruments and Roper Scientific offer competitive sensor and
camera products, and companies such as Ahura, B&W Tek,
Horiba Jobin Yvon, InPhotonics, Ocean Optics and
Smiths Detection offer competitive portable Raman spectrometer
products.
Manufacturing
We manufacture our Equipment products at our facilities in
Santa Clara, California and Singapore. Our Equipment
manufacturing operations include electromechanical assembly,
mechanical and vacuum assembly, fabrication of sputter sources,
and system assembly, alignment and testing. We make extensive
use of the local supplier infrastructure serving the
semiconductor equipment business. We purchase vacuum pumps,
valves, instrumentation and fittings, power supplies, printed
wiring board assemblies, computers and control circuitry, and
custom mechanical parts made by forging, machining and welding.
We also have our own small fabrication center that supports our
engineering departments and makes some of the machined parts
used in our products.
We manufacture our Imaging products at our facilities in
Santa Clara, California and Fremont, California. Imaging
business manufacturing includes production of advanced
photo-cathodes and sensors, lasers, cameras and integrated
camera systems. We make extensive use of advanced manufacturing
techniques and equipment, and our operations include vacuum,
electromechanical and optical system assembly. We make use of
the supplier infrastructure serving the semiconductor, camera
and optics manufacturing industries. In manufacturing our
sensors, we purchase wafers, components, processing supplies and
chemicals. In manufacturing our camera systems, we purchase
printed circuit boards, electromechanical components and
assemblies, mechanical components and enclosures, optical
components and computers. With the acquisition of DeltaNu early
in 2007, our Raman Spectrometer System products will be
manufactured at our facility in Laramie, Wyoming.
Intellectual
Property
We currently hold approximately 34 patents issued in the United
States and approximately 63 patents issued in foreign countries,
and have additional patent applications pending in the United
States and foreign countries. Of the 34 U.S. patents, 17
relate to our Equipment business, and 17 relate to our Imaging
business. Of the foreign patents, 30 relate to our Equipment
business, and 33 relate to our Imaging business. In addition, we
have the right to utilize certain patents under licensing
arrangements with Litton Industries, Stanford University, The
Charles Stark Draper Laboratory and Alum Rock Technology. We
hold substantial trade secrets in the Imaging area related to
photocathode fabrication and processing and to silicon chip
packaging for vacuum compatibility and high electron
sensitivity. We also have significant process integration
intellectual property related to vacuum packaging of a
photocathode and a silicon semiconductor chip.
Customer
Concentration
Historically, a significant portion of our revenue in any
particular period has been attributable to sales to a limited
number of customers. In 2006, Seagate, our Japanese equipment
distributor, Matsubo, and Hitachi Global Storage Technology each
accounted for more than 10% of our revenues, and in aggregate
accounted for 93% of revenues. In 2005, Seagate, Matsubo,
Hitachi Global Storage Technology and Maxtor each accounted for
more than 10% of our revenues, and in aggregate accounted for
90% of revenues. In 2004, Seagate and Matsubo each accounted for
more than 10% of our revenues, and in aggregate accounted for
73% of revenues. We expect that sales of our products to
relatively few customers will continue to account for a high
percentage of our revenues in the foreseeable future.
Foreign sales accounted for 90% of revenue in 2006, 71% of
revenues in 2005, and 68% of revenues in 2004. The majority of
our foreign sales are to companies in Asia or to
U.S. companies for use in their Asian manufacturing or
development operations. We anticipate that sales to these
international customers will continue to be a significant
portion of our Equipment revenues.
11
Employees
At December 31, 2006, we had 540 employees, including 157
contract employees. Of these 540 employees, 129 were in research
and development, 334 in manufacturing, and 77 in administration,
customer support and marketing. Of the 540 employees, 446 were
in the Equipment business, 58 were in the Imaging business, and
36 were in Corporate.
Compliance
with Environmental Regulations
We are subject to a variety of governmental regulations relating
to the use, storage, discharge, handling, emission, generation,
manufacture, treatment and disposal of toxic or otherwise
hazardous substances, chemicals, materials or waste. We treat
the cost of complying with government regulations and operating
a safe workplace as a normal cost of business and allocate the
cost of these activities to all functions, except where the cost
of these activities can be isolated and charged to a specific
function. The environmental standards and regulations
promulgated by government agencies in Santa Clara,
California and Fremont, California are rigorous and set a high
standard of compliance. We believe our costs of compliance with
these regulations and standards are comparable to other
companies operating similar facilities in Santa Clara,
California and Fremont, California.
Our
operating results fluctuate significantly from quarter to
quarter, which may cause the price of our stock to
decline.
Over the last 8 quarters, our revenues per quarter have
fluctuated between $10.6 million and $95.9 million.
Over the same period our operating income (loss) as a percentage
of revenues has fluctuated between approximately 23% and (41%)
of revenues. We anticipate that our revenues and operating
margins will continue to fluctuate. We expect this fluctuation
to continue for a variety of reasons, including:
|
|
|
|
|
our business is inherently subject to fluctuations in revenue
from quarter to quarter due to factors such as timing of orders,
acceptance of new systems by our customers or cancellation of
those orders;
|
|
|
|
changes in the demand, due to seasonality, cyclicality and other
factors, for computer systems, storage subsystems and consumer
electronics containing disks our customers produce with our
systems; and
|
|
|
|
delays or problems in the introduction and acceptance of our new
products, or delivery of existing products;
|
|
|
|
new products, services or technological innovations by us or our
competitors.
|
Additionally, because our systems are priced in the millions of
dollars and we sell a relatively small number of systems, we
believe that
quarter-to-quarter
comparisons of our revenues and operating results may not be an
accurate indicator of our future performance. Our operating
results in one or more future quarters may fail to meet the
expectations of investment research analysts or investors, which
could cause an immediate and significant decline in the trading
price of our common shares.
We are
exposed to risks associated with a highly concentrated customer
base.
Historically, a significant portion of our revenue in any
particular period has been attributable to sales of our disk
sputtering systems to a limited number of customers. In 2006,
one of our customers accounted for 52% of our revenues, and
three customers in the aggregate accounted for 93% of our
revenues. The same three customers, in the aggregate, accounted
for 86% of our net accounts receivable at December 31,
2006. During 2006, Seagate acquired Maxtor, which further
consolidated our customer base. Orders from a relatively limited
number of magnetic disk manufacturers have accounted for, and
likely will continue to account for, a substantial portion of
our revenues. The loss of, or delays in purchasing by, any one
of our large customers would significantly reduce potential
future revenues. The concentration of our customer base may
enable customers to demand pricing and other terms unfavorable
to us. Furthermore, the concentration of customers can lead to
extreme variability in revenue and financial results from period
to period. For example, during 2006 revenues ranged between
$49.6 million in the first quarter and $95.9 million
in the fourth quarter. These factors could have a material
adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results
of operations.
12
Our
long term revenue growth is dependent on new products. If these
new products are not successful, then our results of operations
will be adversely affected.
We have invested heavily, and continue to invest, in the
development of new products. Our success in developing and
selling new products depends upon a variety of factors,
including our ability to predict future customer requirements
accurately, technological advances, total cost of ownership of
our systems, our introduction of new products on schedule, our
ability to manufacture our products cost-effectively and the
performance of our products in the field. Our new product
decisions and development commitments must anticipate
continuously evolving industry requirements significantly in
advance of sales.
The majority of our revenues in both fiscal 2006 and fiscal 2005
were from sales of our 200 Lean disk sputtering system, which
was first delivered in December 2003. When first introduced,
advanced vacuum manufacturing equipment, such as the 200 Lean,
is subject to extensive customer acceptance tests after
installation at the customers factory. These acceptance
tests are designed to validate reliable operation to
specifications in areas such as throughput, vacuum level,
robotics, process performance and software features and
functionality. These tests are generally more comprehensive for
new systems than for mature systems, and are designed to
highlight problems encountered with early versions of the
equipment. For example, initial builds of the 200 Lean
experienced high production and warranty costs in comparison to
our more established product lines. Failure to promptly address
any of the problems uncovered in these tests could have adverse
effects on our business, including rescheduling of backlog,
failure to achieve customer acceptance and therefore revenue
recognition as anticipated, unanticipated product rework and
warranty costs, penalties for non-performance, cancellation of
orders, or return of products for credit.
We are making a substantial investment to develop a new
manufacturing system for semiconductor manufacturing. We spent a
substantial portion of our research and development costs on
this new product in 2006 and expect to increase our level of
spending on this project in 2007. Intevac has not developed or
sold products for this market previously. Failure to correctly
assess the size of the market, to successfully develop a cost
effective product to address the market, or to establish
effective sales and support of the new product would have a
material adverse effect on our future revenues and profits,
including loss of the Companys entire investment in the
project.
We are jointly developing a next generation head mounted
night-vision system with another defense contractor. This system
is planned for sale to the U.S. military and will compete
with head-mounted systems developed by our competitors. The US
military does not intend to initiate production of this system
until 2010. We plan to make a significant investment in this
product and cannot be assured when, or if, we will be awarded
any production contracts for these night vision systems.
We have developed a night-vision sensor and camera module for
use in a NATO customers digital head-mounted and
rifle-sight system. In 2006, we entered into a purchasing
agreement with our customer to deliver 32,000 camera modules
over seven years. We cannot guarantee that we will achieve the
yield improvements and cost reductions necessary for this
program to be successful. Shipments under this program are
subject to export approval from the U.S. government.
Our LIVAR target identification and low light level camera
technologies are designed to offer significantly improved
capability to military customers. We are also developing
commercial products in our Imaging business. None of our Imaging
products are currently being manufactured in high volume, and we
may encounter unforeseen difficulties when we commence volume
production of these products. Our Imaging business will require
substantial further investment in sales and marketing, in
product development and in additional production facilities in
order to expand our operations. We may not succeed in these
activities or generate significant sales of these new products.
In 2006, sales of our Imaging products totaled $1.7 million.
Failure of any of these new products to perform as intended, to
penetrate their markets and develop into profitable product
lines or to achieve their production cost objectives would have
a material adverse effect on our business.
13
Demand
for capital equipment is cyclical, which subjects our business
to long periods of depressed revenues interspersed with periods
of unusually high revenues.
Our Equipment business sells equipment to capital intensive
industries, which sell commodity products such as disk drives.
When demand for these commodity products exceeds capacity,
demand for new capital equipment such as ours tends to be
amplified. Conversely, when supply of these commodity products
exceeds demand, the demand for new capital equipment such as
ours tends to be depressed. The hard disk drive industry has
historically been subject to multi-year cycles because of the
long lead times and high costs involved in adding capacity, and
to seasonal cycles driven by consumer purchasing patterns, which
tend to be heaviest in the third and fourth quarters of each
year.
The cyclical nature of the capital equipment industry means that
in some years we will have unusually high sales of new systems,
and that in other years our sales of new systems will be
severely depressed. The timing, length and volatility of these
cycles are difficult to predict. These cycles have affected the
timing and amounts of our customers capital equipment
purchases and investments in new technology. For example, sales
of systems for magnetic disk production were severely depressed
from mid-1998 until mid-2003 and grew rapidly from 2004 through
2006. We cannot predict with any certainty when these cycles
will begin and end.
If the
projected growth in demand for hard disk drives does not
materialize and our customers do not replace or upgrade their
installed base of disk sputtering systems, then future sales of
our disk sputtering systems will suffer.
From mid-1998 until mid-2003, there was very little demand for
new disk sputtering systems, as magnetic disk manufacturers were
burdened with over-capacity and were not investing in new disk
sputtering equipment. By 2003, however, over-capacity had
diminished, and orders for our 200 Lean began to increase.
Sales of our equipment for capacity expansions are dependent on
the capacity expansion plans of our customers and upon whether
our customers select our equipment for their capacity
expansions. We have no control over our customers
expansion plans, and we cannot assure you that they will select
our equipment if they do expand their capacity. Our customers
may not implement capacity expansion plans, or we may fail to
win orders for equipment for those capacity expansions, which
could have a material adverse effect on our business and our
operating results. In addition, some manufacturers may choose to
purchase used systems from other manufacturers or customers
rather than purchasing new systems from us. Furthermore, if hard
disk drives were to be replaced by an alternative technology as
a primary method of digital storage, demand for our products
would decrease.
Sales of our 200 Lean disk sputtering systems are also dependent
on obsolescence and replacement of the installed base of disk
sputtering equipment. If technological advancements are
developed that extend the useful life of the installed base of
systems, then sales of our 200 Lean will be limited to the
capacity expansion needs of our customers, which would
significantly decrease our revenue.
Our
products are complex, constantly evolving and often must be
customized to individual customer requirements.
The systems we manufacture and sell in our Equipment business
have a large number of components and are complex, which require
us to make substantial investments in research and development.
If we were to fail to develop, manufacture and market new
systems or to enhance existing systems, that failure would have
an adverse effect on our business. We may experience delays and
technical and manufacturing difficulties in future introduction,
volume production and acceptance of new systems or enhancements.
In addition, some of the systems that we manufacture must be
customized to meet individual customer site or operating
requirements. In some cases, we market and commit to deliver new
systems, modules and components with advanced features and
capabilities that we are still in the process of designing. We
have limited manufacturing capacity and engineering resources
and may be unable to complete the development, manufacture and
shipment of these products, or to meet the required technical
specifications for these products, in a timely manner. Failure
to deliver these products on time, or failure to deliver
products that perform to all contractually committed
specifications, could have adverse effects on our business,
including rescheduling of backlog, failure to achieve customer
acceptance and therefore revenue recognition as anticipated,
unanticipated rework and warranty costs, penalties for
non-performance, cancellation
14
of orders, or return of products for credit. In addition, we may
incur substantial unanticipated costs early in a products
life cycle, such as increased engineering, manufacturing,
installation and support costs, that we may be unable to pass on
to the customer and that may affect our gross margins. Sometimes
we work closely with our customers to develop new features and
products. In connection with these transactions, we sometimes
offer a period of exclusivity to these customers.
Our
sales cycle is long and unpredictable, which requires us to
incur high sales and marketing expenses with no assurance that a
sale will result.
The sales cycle for our equipment systems can be a year or
longer, involving individuals from many different areas of our
company and numerous product presentations and demonstrations
for our prospective customers. Our sales process for these
systems also includes the production of samples and
customization of products for our prospective customers. We do
not enter into long-term contracts with our customers and
therefore until an order is actually submitted by a customer
there is no binding commitment to purchase our systems.
Our Imaging business is also subject to long sales cycles
because many of our products, such as our LIVAR system, often
must be designed into our customers products, which are
often complex
state-of-the-art
products. These development cycles are often multi-year, and our
sales are contingent on our customers successfully integrating
our product into their product, completing development of their
product and then obtaining production orders for their product
from the U.S. government or its allies.
As a result, we may not recognize revenue from our products for
extended periods of time after we have completed development,
and made initial shipments of our products, during which time we
may expend substantial funds and management time and effort with
no assurance that a sale will result.
We
operate in an intensely competitive marketplace, and our
competitors have greater resources than we do.
In the market for our disk sputtering systems, we have
experienced competition from competitors such as Anelva
Corporation, which is a subsidiary of Canon, and Oerlikon, each
of which has sold substantial numbers of systems worldwide. In
the market for semiconductor equipment, we expect to experience
competition from competitors such as Applied Materials, LAM
Research and Tokyo Electron, Ltd. In the market for our military
Imaging products, we experience competition from companies such
as ITT Industries, Inc. and Northrop Grumman Corporation, the
primary U.S. manufacturers of Generation-III night vision
devices and their derivative products. In the markets for our
commercial Imaging products, we compete with companies such as
Andor, E2V, Hamamatsu, Texas Instruments and Roper Scientific
for sensor and camera products, and with companies such as
Ahura, B&W Tek, Horiba Jobin Yvon, InPhotonics,
Ocean Optics, and Smiths Detection for portable Raman
spectrometer products. Our competitors have substantially
greater financial, technical, marketing, manufacturing and other
resources than we do. We cannot assure you that our competitors
will not develop enhancements to, or future generations of,
competitive products that offer superior price or performance
features. Likewise, we cannot assure you that new competitors
will not enter our markets and develop such enhanced products.
Moreover, competition for our customers is intense, and our
competitors have historically offered substantial pricing
concessions and incentives to attract our customers or retain
their existing customers.
We
experienced significant growth in our business and operations
and if we do not appropriately manage this growth and any future
growth, our operating results will be negatively
affected.
Our business has grown significantly in recent years in both
operations and headcount, and continued growth may cause a
significant strain on our infrastructure, internal systems and
managerial resources. To manage our growth effectively, we must
continue to improve and expand our infrastructure, including
information technology and financial operating and
administrative systems and controls, and continue managing
headcount, capital and processes in an efficient manner. Our
productivity and the quality of our products may be adversely
affected if we do not integrate and train our new employees
quickly and effectively and coordinate among our executive,
engineering, finance, marketing, sales, operations and customer
support organizations, all of which add to the complexity of our
organization and increase our operating expenses. We also may be
less able to predict and effectively control our operating
expenses due to the growth and increasing complexity of our
business. In addition, our information
15
technology systems may not grow at a sufficient rate to keep up
with the processing and information demands placed on them by a
much larger company. The efforts to continue to expand our
information technology systems or our inability to do so could
harm our business. Further, revenues may not grow at a
sufficient rate to absorb the costs associated with a larger
overall headcount.
Our future growth may require significant additional resources,
given that, as we increase our business operations in complexity
and scale, we may have insufficient management capabilities and
internal bandwidth to manage our growth and business
effectively. We cannot assure you that resources will be
available when we need them or that we will have sufficient
capital to fund these potential resource needs. Also, growth in
the number of orders received in our Equipment business may
require additional physical space and headcount, and our ability
to fulfill such orders may be constrained if we are unable to
effectively grow our business. If we are unable to manage our
growth effectively or if we experience a shortfall in resources,
our results of operations will be harmed.
Our
Imaging business depends heavily on government contracts, which
are subject to immediate termination and are funded in
increments. The termination of or failure to fund one or more of
these contracts could have a negative impact on our
operations.
We sell many of our Imaging products and services directly to
the U.S. government, as well as to prime contractors for
various U.S. government programs. Our revenues from
government contracts totaled $10.2 million,
$6.9 million, and $8.2 million in 2006, 2005, and
2004, respectively. Generally, government contracts are subject
to oversight audits by government representatives and contain
provisions permitting termination, in whole or in part, without
prior notice at the governments convenience upon the
payment of compensation only for work done and commitments made
at the time of termination. We cannot assure you that one or
more of the government contracts under which we or our customers
operate will not be terminated under these circumstances. Also,
we cannot assure you that we or our customers would be able to
procure new government contracts to offset the revenues lost as
a result of any termination of existing contracts, nor can we
assure you that we or our customers will continue to remain in
good standing as federal contractors.
Furthermore, the funding of multi-year government programs is
subject to congressional appropriations, and there is no
guarantee that the U.S. government will make further
appropriations. The loss of funding for a government program
would result in a loss of anticipated future revenues
attributable to that program. That could increase our overall
costs of doing business.
In addition, sales to the U.S. government and its prime
contractors may be affected by changes in procurement policies,
budget considerations and political developments in the United
States or abroad. The influence of any of these factors, which
are beyond our control, could also negatively impact our
financial condition. We also may experience problems associated
with advanced designs required by the government, which may
result in unforeseen technological difficulties and cost
overruns. Failure to overcome these technological difficulties
or occurrence of cost overruns would have a material adverse
effect on our business.
We may
not be successful in maintaining and obtaining the necessary
export licenses to conduct operations abroad, and the United
States government may prevent proposed sales to foreign
customers.
Many of our Imaging products require export licenses from United
States Government agencies under the Export Administration Act,
the Trading with the Enemy Act of 1917, the Arms Export Act of
1976 and the International Traffic in Arms Regulations. This
limits the potential market for our products. We can give no
assurance that we will be successful in obtaining all the
licenses necessary to export our products. Recently, heightened
government scrutiny of export licenses for products in our
market has resulted in lengthened review periods for our license
applications. Export to countries which are not considered by
the United States Government to be allies is likely to be
prohibited, and even sales to U.S. allies may be limited.
Failure to obtain, delays in obtaining, or revocation of
previously issued licenses would prevent us from selling our
products outside the United States, may subject us to fines or
other penalties, and would have a material adverse effect on our
business, financial condition and results of operations.
16
Unexpected
increases in the cost to develop or manufacture our products
under fixed-price contracts may cause us to experience
un-reimbursed cost overruns.
A portion of our revenue is derived from fixed-price development
and production contracts. Under fixed-price contracts,
unexpected increases in the cost to develop or manufacture a
product, whether due to inaccurate estimates in the bidding
process, unanticipated increases in material costs,
inefficiencies or other factors, are borne by us. We have
experienced cost overruns in the past that have resulted in
losses on certain contracts, and may experience additional cost
overruns in the future. We are required to recognize the total
estimated impact of cost overruns in the period in which they
are first identified. Such cost overruns would have a material
adverse effect on our results of operation and financial
condition.
Our
sales of disk sputtering systems are dependent on substantial
capital investment by our customers, far in excess of the cost
of our products.
Our customers must make extremely large capital expenditures in
order to purchase our systems and other related equipment and
facilities. These costs are far in excess of the cost of our
systems alone. The magnitude of such capital expenditures
requires that our customers have access to large amounts of
capital and that they be willing to invest that capital over
long periods of time to be able to purchase our equipment. The
magnetic disk manufacturing industry has made significant
additions to its production capacity in the last few years. Our
customers may not be willing or able to continue this level of
capital investment, especially during a downturn in either the
overall economy or the hard disk drive industry.
Our
stock price is volatile.
The market price and trading volume of our common stock has been
subject to significant volatility, and this trend may continue.
During 2006, the closing price of our common stock, as traded on
The Nasdaq National Market, fluctuated from a low of
$13.42 per share to a high of $30.60 per share. The
value of our common stock may decline regardless of our
operating performance or prospects. Factors affecting our market
price include:
|
|
|
|
|
our perceived prospects;
|
|
|
|
hard disk drive market expectations;
|
|
|
|
variations in our operating results and whether we achieve our
key business targets;
|
|
|
|
sales or purchases of large blocks of our stock;
|
|
|
|
changes in, or our failure to meet, our revenue and earnings
estimates;
|
|
|
|
changes in securities analysts buy or sell recommendations;
|
|
|
|
differences between our reported results and those expected by
investors and securities analysts;
|
|
|
|
announcements of new contracts, products or technological
innovations by us or our competitors;
|
|
|
|
market reaction to any acquisitions, joint ventures or strategic
investments announced by us or our competitors;
|
|
|
|
our high fixed operating expenses, including research and
development expenses;
|
|
|
|
developments in the financial markets; and
|
|
|
|
general economic, political or stock market conditions in the
United States and other major regions in which we do business.
|
In addition, the general economic, political, stock market and
hard drive industry conditions that may affect the market price
of our common stock are beyond our control. The market price of
our common stock at any particular time may not remain the
market price in the future. In the past, securities class action
litigation has been instituted against companies following
periods of volatility in the market price of their securities.
Any such litigation, if instituted against us, could result in
substantial costs and a diversion of managements attention
and resources.
17
Changes
in tax rates or tax liabilities could affect future
results.
As a global company, we are subject to taxation in the United
States and various other countries. Significant judgment is
required to determine and estimate worldwide tax liabilities.
Our future tax rates could be affected by changes in the
applicable tax laws, composition of earnings in countries with
differing tax rates, changes in the valuation of our deferred
tax assets and liabilities, or changes in the tax laws. Although
we believe our tax estimates are reasonable, there can be no
assurance that any final determination will not be materially
different from the treatment reflected in our historical income
tax provisions and accruals, which could materially and
adversely affect our results of operations.
Our effective tax rate in both 2006 and 2005 was well below the
applicable statutory rates due primarily to the utilization of
net operating loss carry-forwards and deferred credits. We are
currently projecting an effective tax rate of 32% for 2007.
Our
future success depends on international sales and the management
of global operations
In 2006, approximately 90% of our revenues came from regions
outside the United States. We currently have international
customer support offices in Singapore, China, Malaysia, Korea
and Japan. We expect that international sales will continue to
account for a significant portion of our total revenue in future
years. Certain manufacturing facilities and suppliers are also
located outside the United States. Managing our global
operations presents challenges including, but not limited to,
those arising from:
|
|
|
|
|
varying regional and geopolitical business conditions and
demands;
|
|
|
|
global trade issues;
|
|
|
|
variations in protection of intellectual property and other
legal rights in different countries;
|
|
|
|
rising raw material and energy costs;
|
|
|
|
variations in the ability to develop relationships with
suppliers and other local businesses;
|
|
|
|
changes in laws and regulations of the United States (including
export restrictions) and other countries, as well as their
interpretation and application;
|
|
|
|
fluctuations in interest rates and currency exchange rates;
|
|
|
|
the need to provide sufficient levels of technical support in
different locations;
|
|
|
|
political instability, natural disasters (such as earthquakes,
hurricanes or floods), pandemics, terrorism or acts of war where
we have operations, suppliers or sales;
|
|
|
|
cultural differences; and
|
|
|
|
shipping delays.
|
Changes
in existing financial accounting standards or practices or
taxation rules or practices may adversely affect our results of
operations.
Changes in existing accounting or taxation rules or practices,
new accounting pronouncements or taxation rules, or varying
interpretations of current accounting pronouncements or taxation
practice could have a significant adverse effect on our results
of operations or the manner in which we conduct our business.
Further, such changes could potentially affect our reporting of
transactions completed before such changes are effective. In
December 2004, the Financial Accounting Standards Board
(FASB) enacted Statement of Financial Accounting
Standards 123 (Revised 2004) (SFAS 123R),
Share-Based Payment, which replaces
SFAS No. 123 (SFAS 123),
Accounting for Stock-Based Compensation.
SFAS 123R requires the measurement of all share-based
payments to employees, including grants of employee stock
options, using a fair-value-based method and the recording of
such compensation expense in our statements of income. We
adopted SFAS 123R in the first quarter of fiscal year 2006.
In June 2006, the FASB issued Interpretation No. 48,
Accounting for Uncertainty in Income Taxes
(FIN 48). FIN 48, which was effective
January 1, 2007, clarifies the accounting for uncertainty
in income taxes recognized in
18
an enterprises financial statements in accordance with
FASB Statement No. 109, Accounting for Income
Taxes. The adoption of FIN 48 may have a material
impact on our consolidated financial position, results of
operations and cash flows.
We are
required to evaluate our internal control over financial
reporting under Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, and any adverse results from such evaluation could result
in a loss of investor confidence in our financial reports and
have an adverse effect on our stock price.
Pursuant to Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
our management must perform evaluations of our internal control
over financial reporting. Beginning in 2004, our
Form 10-K
has included a report by management of their assessment of the
adequacy of such internal control. Additionally, our independent
registered public accounting firm must publicly attest to the
adequacy of managements assessment and the effectiveness
of our internal control. Ongoing compliance with these
requirements is complex, costly and time-consuming.
We have in the past discovered, and may in the future discover,
areas of our internal controls that need improvement. During the
2004 audit, our external auditors brought to our attention a
need to increase the internal controls in certain areas of our
operation, including revenue calculations in the Imaging
business, determination of inventory reserve requirements,
approval of changes to perpetual inventory records and
segregation of duties. In 2005, we devoted significant resources
to remediation of these and other findings and to improvement of
our internal controls. Although we believe that these efforts
have strengthened our internal controls and addressed the
concerns that gave rise to the material weaknesses previously
reported by us, we are continuing to work to improve our
internal controls.
Our
dependence on suppliers for certain parts, some of them
sole-sourced, makes us vulnerable to manufacturing interruptions
and delays, which could affect our ability to meet customer
demand.
We are a manufacturing business. Purchased parts constitute the
largest component of our product cost. Our ability to
manufacture depends on the timely delivery of parts, components
and subassemblies from suppliers. We obtain some of the key
components and
sub-assemblies
used in our products from a single supplier or a limited group
of suppliers. If any of our suppliers fail to deliver quality
parts on a timely basis, we may experience delays in
manufacturing, which could result in delayed product deliveries
or increased costs to expedite deliveries or develop alternative
suppliers. Development of alternative suppliers could require
redesign of our products.
Our
business depends on the integrity of our intellectual property
rights and failure to protect our intellectual property rights
adequately could have a material adverse effect on our
business.
The success of our business depends upon integrity of our
intellectual property rights, and we cannot assure you that:
|
|
|
|
|
any of our pending or future patent applications will be allowed
or that any of the allowed applications will be issued as
patents or will issue with claims of the scope we sought;
|
|
|
|
any of our patents will not be invalidated, deemed
unenforceable, circumvented or challenged;
|
|
|
|
the rights granted under our patents will provide competitive
advantages to us;
|
|
|
|
other parties will not develop similar products, duplicate our
products or design around our patents; or
|
|
|
|
our patent rights, intellectual property laws or our agreements
will adequately protect our intellectual property or competitive
position.
|
We may
be subject to claims of intellectual property
infringement.
From time to time, we have received claims that we are
infringing third parties intellectual property rights. We
cannot assure you that third parties will not in the future
claim that we have infringed current or future patents,
trademarks or other proprietary rights relating to our products.
Any claims, with or without merit, could be time-consuming,
result in costly litigation, cause product shipment delays or
require us to enter into royalty or licensing agreements. Such
royalty or licensing agreements, if required, may not be
available on terms acceptable to us.
19
Our
success is dependent on recruiting and retaining a highly
talented work force.
Our employees are vital to our success, and our key management,
engineering and other employees are difficult to replace. We
generally do not have employment contracts with our key
employees. Further, we do not maintain key person life insurance
on any of our employees. The expansion of high technology
companies worldwide has increased demand and competition for
qualified personnel, and has made companies increasingly
protective of prior employees. It may be difficult for us to
locate employees who are not subject to non-competition and
other restrictions.
Our U.S. operations are located in Santa Clara,
California and Fremont, California, where the cost of living and
recruiting employees is high. Additionally, our operating
results depend, in large part, upon our ability to retain and
attract qualified management, engineering, marketing,
manufacturing, customer support, sales and administrative
personnel. Furthermore, we compete with similar industries, such
as the semiconductor industry, for the same pool of skilled
employees. If we are unable to retain key personnel, or if we
are not able to attract, assimilate or retain additional highly
qualified employees to meet our needs in the future, our
business and operations could be harmed.
Changes
in demand caused by fluctuations in interest and currency
exchange rates may reduce our international sales.
Sales and operating activities outside of the United States are
subject to inherent risks, including fluctuations in the value
of the U.S. dollar relative to foreign currencies, tariffs,
quotas, taxes and other market barriers, political and economic
instability, restrictions on the export or import of technology,
potentially limited intellectual property protection,
difficulties in staffing and managing international operations
and potentially adverse tax consequences. We earn a significant
portion of our revenue from international sales, and there can
be no assurance that any of these factors will not have an
adverse effect on our ability to sell our products or operate
outside the United States.
We currently quote and sell the majority of our products in
U.S. dollars. From time to time, we may enter into foreign
currency contracts in an effort to reduce the overall risk of
currency fluctuations to our business. However, there can be no
assurance that the offer and sale of products denominated in
foreign currencies, and the related foreign currency hedging
activities, will not adversely affect our business.
Our principal competitor for disk sputtering equipment is based
in Japan and has a cost structure based on the Japanese yen.
Accordingly, currency fluctuations could cause the price of our
products to be more or less competitive than our principal
competitors products. Currency fluctuations will decrease
or increase our cost structure relative to those of our
competitors, which could lessen the demand for our products and
affect our competitive position.
Difficulties
in integrating past or future acquisitions could adversely
affect our business.
We have completed a number of acquisitions during our operating
history and we recently announced the acquisition of certain
assets of DeltaNu, LLC. We have spent and will continue to spend
significant resources identifying and acquiring businesses. The
efficient and effective integration of our acquired businesses
into our organization is critical to our growth. Any future
acquisitions involve numerous risks including difficulties in
integrating the operations, technologies and products of the
acquired companies, the diversion of our managements
attention from other business concerns and the potential loss of
key employees of the acquired companies. Failure to achieve the
anticipated benefits of these and any future acquisitions or to
successfully integrate the operations of the companies we
acquire could also harm our business, results of operations and
cash flows. Any future acquisitions may also result in
potentially dilutive issuance of equity securities, acquisition-
or divestiture-related write-offs or the assumption of debt and
contingent liabilities.
We use
hazardous materials and are subject to risks of non-compliance
with environmental and safety regulations.
We are subject to a variety of governmental regulations relating
to the use, storage, discharge, handling, emission, generation,
manufacture, treatment and disposal of toxic or otherwise
hazardous substances, chemicals, materials or waste. If we fail
to comply with current or future regulations, such failure could
result in suspension of
20
our operations, alteration of our manufacturing process, or
substantial civil penalties or criminal fines against us or our
officers, directors or employees. Additionally, these
regulations could require us to acquire expensive remediation or
abatement equipment or to incur substantial expenses to comply
with them. Failure to properly manage the use, disposal or
storage of, or adequately restrict the release of, hazardous or
toxic substances could subject us to significant liabilities.
Future
sales of shares of our common stock by our officers, directors
and affiliates could cause our stock price to
decline.
Substantially all of our common stock may be sold without
restriction in the public markets, although shares held by our
directors, executive officers and affiliates may be subject to
volume and manner of sale restrictions. Sales of a substantial
number of shares of common stock in the public market by our
officers, directors or affiliates or the perception that these
sales could occur could materially and adversely affect our
stock price and make it more difficult for us to sell equity
securities in the future at a time and price we deem appropriate.
Anti-takeover
provisions in our charter documents and under California law
could prevent or delay a change in control, which could
negatively impact the value of our common stock by discouraging
a favorable merger or acquisition of us.
Our articles of incorporation authorize our board of directors
to issue up to 10,000,000 shares of preferred stock and to
determine the powers, preferences, privileges, rights, including
voting rights, qualifications, limitations and restrictions of
those shares, without any further vote or action by the
shareholders. The rights of the holders of our common stock will
be subject to, and may be adversely affected by, the rights of
the holders of any preferred stock that we may issue in the
future. The issuance of preferred stock could have the effect of
delaying, deterring or preventing a change in control and could
adversely affect the voting power of your shares. In addition,
provisions of California law and our bylaws could make it more
difficult for a third party to acquire a majority of our
outstanding voting stock by discouraging a hostile bid, or
delaying or deterring a merger, acquisition or tender offer in
which our shareholders could receive a premium for their shares
or a proxy contest for control of our company or other changes
in our management.
We
could be involved in litigation
From time to time we may be involved in litigation of various
types, including litigation alleging infringement of
intellectual property rights and other claims. For example, in
July 2006, we filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Unaxis
USA, Inc. and its affiliates Unaxis Balzers AG and Unaxis
Balzers, Ltd. alleging infringement by Unaxis of a patent
relating to our 200 Lean system. Litigation tends to be
expensive and requires significant management time and attention
and could have a negative effect on our results of operations or
business if we lose or have to settle a case on significantly
adverse terms.
Business
interruptions could adversely affect our
operations.
Our operations are vulnerable to interruption by fire,
earthquake or other natural disaster, quarantines or other
disruptions associated with infectious diseases, national
catastrophe, terrorist activities, war, disruptions in our
computing and communications infrastructure due to power loss,
telecommunications failure, human error, physical or electronic
security breaches and computer viruses, and other events beyond
our control. We do not have a fully implemented detailed
disaster recovery plan. Despite our implementation of network
security measures, our tools and servers are vulnerable to
computer viruses, break-ins and similar disruptions from
unauthorized tampering with our computer systems and tools
located at customer sites. Political instability could cause us
to incur increased costs in transportation, make such
transportation unreliable, increase our insurance costs and
cause international currency markets to fluctuate. This same
instability could have the same effects on our suppliers and
their ability to timely deliver their products. In addition, we
do not carry sufficient business interruption insurance to
compensate us for all losses that may occur, and any losses or
damages incurred by us could have a material adverse effect on
our business and results of operations. For example, we
self-insure earthquake risks, because we believe this is the
prudent financial decision based on the high cost of the limited
coverage available in the earthquake insurance market. An
earthquake could significantly disrupt our operations,
21
most of which are conducted in California. It could also
significantly delay our research and engineering effort on new
products, most of which is also conducted in California. We take
steps to minimize the damage that would be caused by an
earthquake, but there is no certainty that our efforts will
prove successful in the event of an earthquake.
|
|
Item 1B.
|
Unresolved
Staff Comments
|
None.
We maintain our corporate headquarters in Santa Clara,
California. The location, approximate size and type of facility
of our principal properties are listed below. We lease all of
our properties and do not own any real estate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Square
|
|
|
Lease
|
|
|
Location
|
|
Footage
|
|
|
Expire
|
|
Principal Use
|
|
Santa Clara, CA
|
|
|
179,583
|
|
|
Mar 2012
|
|
Corporate Headquarters; Marketing,
Manufacturing, Engineering and Customer Support for Equipment
and Imaging
|
Fremont, CA
|
|
|
9,505
|
|
|
Feb 2013
|
|
Imaging Sensor Fabrication
|
Laramie, WY
|
|
|
4,000
|
|
|
Feb 2008
|
|
Imaging Raman Spectrometer
Manufacturing
|
Singapore
|
|
|
31,947
|
|
|
Jun 2010
|
|
Manufacturing and Customer Support
for Equipment
|
Korea
|
|
|
1,558
|
|
|
May 2007
|
|
Customer Support for Equipment
|
Malaysia
|
|
|
1,291
|
|
|
Aug 2008
|
|
Customer Support for Equipment
|
Japan
|
|
|
1,507
|
|
|
Nov 2008
|
|
Customer Support for Equipment
|
Shenzhen, China
|
|
|
1,934
|
|
|
Jul 2008
|
|
Customer Support for Equipment
|
We consider these properties adequate to meet our current and
future requirements. We regularly assess the size, capability
and location of our global infrastructure and periodically make
adjustments based on these assessments.
|
|
Item 3.
|
Legal
Proceedings
|
Patent
Infringement Complaint against Unaxis
On July 7, 2006, we filed a patent infringement lawsuit
against Unaxis USA, Inc. and its affiliates, Unaxis Balzers AG
and Unaxis Balzers, Ltd., in the United States District Court
for the Central District of California. Our lawsuit against
Unaxis asserts infringement by Unaxis of United States Patent
6,919,001 which relates to our 200 Lean system. Our complaint
seeks monetary damages and an injunction that bars Unaxis from
making, using, offering to sell or selling in the United States,
or importing into the United States, Unaxis allegedly
infringing product. In the suit, we seek damages and a permanent
injunction for infringement of the same patent. We believe we
have meritorious claims, and we intend to pursue them vigorously.
On September 12, 2006, Unaxis filed a response to our
lawsuit in which it asserted non-infringement, invalidity of our
patent, inequitable conduct by Intevac, patent misuse by
Intevac, and lack of jurisdiction by the court as defenses.
Additionally, Unaxis requested a declaratory judgment of patent
non-infringement, invalidity and unenforceability; asserted our
violation of the California Business and Professional Code;
requested that we be enjoined from engaging in any unfair
competition; and requested that we be required to pay
Unaxis attorney fees. We believe such claims lack merit,
and we intend to defend ourselves vigorously.
We replied to Unaxis response on October 3, 2006,
denying the assertions of non-infringement, invalidity and
unenforceability of the Intevac patent, and denying any unfair
competition. With the approval of the Court, we amended our
complaint on February 6, 2007 to assert an additional
ground for our infringement claim and to add a
22
request for a declaratory judgment of infringement. Unaxis filed
a response on February 21, 2007, in which it repeated the
assertions of its September 12, 2006 response.
On March 9, 2007, Unaxis filed a motion requesting that the
court stay the litigation pending action by the U.S. Patent
Office on their February 27, 2007 request for a
re-examination of United States Patent 6,919,001.
Other
Legal Matters
From time to time, we are involved in claims and legal
proceedings that arise in the ordinary course of business. We
expect that the number and significance of these matters will
increase as our business expands. Any claims or proceedings
against us, whether meritorious or not, could be time consuming,
result in costly litigation, require significant amounts of
management time, result in the diversion of significant
operational resources, or require us to enter into royalty or
licensing agreements which, if required, may not be available on
terms favorable to us or at all. We are not presently party to
any lawsuit or proceeding that, in our opinion, is likely to
seriously harm our business.
|
|
Item 4.
|
Submission
of Matters to a Vote of Security-Holders
|
No matters were submitted to a vote of security-holders during
the fourth quarter of the fiscal year covered by this Annual
Report on
Form 10-K.
EXECUTIVE
OFFICERS
Certain information about Intevacs executive officers as
of March 15, 2007 is listed below:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Name
|
|
Age
|
|
|
Position
|
|
Executive Officers:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Norman H. Pond
|
|
|
68
|
|
|
Chairman of the Board
|
Kevin Fairbairn
|
|
|
53
|
|
|
President and Chief Executive
Officer
|
Michael Barnes
|
|
|
48
|
|
|
Vice President and Chief Technical
Officer
|
Kimberly Burk
|
|
|
41
|
|
|
Sr. Director, Human Resources
|
Charles B. Eddy III
|
|
|
56
|
|
|
Vice President, Finance and
Administration, Chief Financial Officer, Treasurer and Secretary
|
Ralph Kerns
|
|
|
60
|
|
|
Vice President, Business
Development, Equipment Products
|
Luke Marusiak
|
|
|
44
|
|
|
Chief Operating Officer
|
Joseph Pietras
|
|
|
52
|
|
|
Vice President and General
Manager, Imaging
|
Other Key Officers:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Verle Aebi
|
|
|
52
|
|
|
Chief Technology Officer, Imaging
|
James Birt
|
|
|
42
|
|
|
Vice President, Customer Support,
Equipment Products
|
Terry Bluck
|
|
|
47
|
|
|
Vice President, Technology,
Equipment Products
|
Timothy Justyn
|
|
|
44
|
|
|
Vice President, Manufacturing,
Equipment Products
|
Dave Kelly
|
|
|
44
|
|
|
Vice President, Engineering,
Imaging
|
Mr. Pond is a founder of Intevac and has served as
Chairman of the Board since February 1991. Mr. Pond served
as President and Chief Executive Officer from February 1991
until July 2000 and again from September 2001 through January
2002. Mr. Pond holds a BS in physics from the University of
Missouri at Rolla and an MS in physics from the University of
California at Los Angeles.
23
Mr. Fairbairn joined Intevac as President and Chief
Executive Officer in January 2002 and was appointed a director
in February 2002. Before joining Intevac, Mr. Fairbairn was
employed by Applied Materials from July 1985 to January 2002,
most recently as Vice-President and General Manager of the
Conductor Etch Organization with responsibility for the Silicon
and Metal Etch Divisions. From 1996 to 1999, Mr. Fairbairn
was General Manager of Applied Materials Plasma Enhanced
Chemical Vapor Deposition Business Unit and from 1993 to 1996,
he was General Manager of Applied Materials Plasma Silane
CVD Product Business Unit. Mr. Fairbairn holds an MA in
engineering sciences from Cambridge University.
Dr. Barnes joined Intevac as Vice President and
Chief Technical Officer in February 2006. Before joining
Intevac, Dr. Barnes was General Manager of the High Density
Plasma Chemical Vapor Deposition Business Unit at Novellus
Systems from March 2004 to February 2006. From January 2004 to
March 2004, he was Vice President, Technology at Nanosys, and
from August 2003 to January 2004, he was Vice President,
Engineering at OnWafer Technologies. Dr. Barnes was
employed by Applied Materials from April 1998 to August 2003,
first as a Managing Director and subsequently as Vice President,
Etch Engineering and Technology. Dr. Barnes holds a BS, MS
and PhD in electrical engineering from the University of
Michigan.
Ms. Burk has served as Human Resources Director
since May 2000. Prior to joining Intevac, Ms. Burk served
as Human Resources Manager of Moen, Inc. from 1999 to 2000 and
served as Human Resources Manager of Lawson Mardon from 1994 to
1999. Ms. Burk holds a BS in sociology from Northern
Illinois University.
Mr. Eddy has served as Vice President, Finance and
Administration, Chief Financial Officer, Treasurer and Secretary
since April 1991. Mr. Eddy holds a BS in engineering
science from the University of Virginia and an MBA from
Dartmouth College.
Mr. Kerns joined Intevac as Vice President, Business
Development of the Equipment Products Division in August 2003.
Before joining Intevac, Mr. Kerns was employed by Applied
Materials from April 1997 to November 2002, most recently as
Managing Director for Business Development for the Process
Modules Group. Previously, Mr. Kerns was General Manager of
Applied Materials Metal Etch Division from 2000 to 2002.
From 1998 to 2000, Mr. Kerns was Senior Director for
Applied Materials North America Multinational Accounts and
from 1997 to 1998, he was General Manager of Applied
Materials Dielectric Etch Division. Mr. Kerns holds a
BS in chemistry from the University of Idaho and a PhD in
theoretical chemistry from Princeton University.
Mr. Marusiak joined Intevac as Chief Operating
Officer in April 2004. Before joining Intevac, Mr. Marusiak
was employed by Applied Materials from July 1991 to April 2004,
most recently as Senior Director of North American Operations.
Previously, Mr. Marusiak managed Applied Materials
Field Operations in North America. Mr. Marusiak holds a BS
in electrical engineering from Gannon University and an MS in
teleprocessing science from the University of Southern
Mississippi.
Mr. Pietras joined Intevac as Vice President and
General Manager of the Imaging Business in August 2006. Before
joining Intevac, Mr. Pietras was employed by the Sarnoff
Corporation from March 2005 to July 2006 as General Manager of
Sarnoff Imaging Systems. From September 1998 to March 2005, he
was employed by Roper Scientific as Vice President, Operations.
Mr. Pietras holds a BS in Physics from the Stevens
Institute of Technology and a MA and PhD in Physics from
Columbia University.
Mr. Aebi has served as Chief Technology Officer of
our Imaging business since August 2006. Previously,
Mr. Aebi served as President of the Photonics Division from
July 2000 to July 2006 and as General Manager of the Photonics
Division since May 1995. Mr. Aebi was elected as a Vice
President of the Company in September 1995. From 1988 through
1994, Mr. Aebi was the Engineering Manager of our night
vision business, where he was responsible for new product
development in the areas of advanced photocathodes and image
intensifiers. Mr. Aebi holds a BS in physics and an MS in
electrical engineering from Stanford University.
Mr. Birt joined Intevac as Vice President, Customer
Support of the Equipment Products Division in September 2004.
Before joining Intevac, Mr. Birt was employed by Applied
Materials from July 1992 to September 2004, most recently as
Director, Field Operations/Quality North America. Mr. Birt
holds a BS in electrical engineering from Texas A&M
University.
24
Mr. Bluck rejoined Intevac as Vice President,
Technology of the Equipment Products Division in August 2004.
Mr. Bluck had previously worked at Intevac from December
1996 to November 2002 in various engineering positions. The
business unit Mr. Bluck worked for was sold to Photon
Dynamics in November 2002 and he was employed there as Vice
President, Rapid Thermal Process Product Engineering until
August 2004. Mr. Bluck holds a BS in physics from
San Jose State University.
Mr. Justyn has served as Vice President, Equipment
Manufacturing since April 1997. Mr. Justyn joined Intevac
in February 1991 and has served in various roles in our
Equipment Products Division and our former night vision
business. Mr. Justyn holds a BS in chemical engineering
from the University of California, Santa Barbara.
Mr. Kelly joined Intevac in December 2006 as Vice
President, Engineering of the Imaging business. Before joining
Intevac, Mr. Kelly was employed by Redlake MASD LLC, a
division of Roper Industries from January 2004 to December 2006,
most recently as Vice President, Engineering and Custom Service.
From November 2000 to December 2003, he was employed by Fast
Technology AG as Vice President, Engineering. Mr. Kelly
holds a BS and a MS in mechanical engineering from the
University of Michigan.
PART II
|
|
Item 5.
|
Market
for Registrants Common Equity, Related Shareholder Matters
and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities
|
Price
Range of Common Stock
Our common stock is listed on The Nasdaq National Market under
the symbol IVAC. As of February 28, 2007, there
were approximately 127 holders of record of our common stock.
Because many of our shares of common stock are held by brokers
and other institutions on behalf of shareholders, we are unable
to estimate the total number of shareholders represented by
these record holders.
The following table sets forth the high and low closing sale
prices per share as reported on The Nasdaq National Market for
the periods indicated.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
High
|
|
|
Low
|
|
|
Fiscal 2005:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
First Quarter
|
|
$
|
9.81
|
|
|
$
|
7.06
|
|
Second Quarter
|
|
|
12.00
|
|
|
|
8.42
|
|
Third Quarter
|
|
|
14.94
|
|
|
|
9.75
|
|
Fourth Quarter
|
|
|
13.95
|
|
|
|
8.88
|
|
Fiscal 2006:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
First Quarter
|
|
$
|
28.80
|
|
|
$
|
13.42
|
|
Second Quarter
|
|
|
30.60
|
|
|
|
18.86
|
|
Third Quarter
|
|
|
25.35
|
|
|
|
14.81
|
|
Fourth Quarter
|
|
|
27.94
|
|
|
|
16.29
|
|
Dividend
Policy
We currently anticipate that we will retain our earnings, if
any, for use in the operation of our business and do not expect
to pay cash dividends on our capital stock in the foreseeable
future.
25
Performance
Graph
The following graph compares the cumulative total shareholder
return on the Common Stock of Intevac with that of the NASDAQ
Stock Market Total Return Index, a broad market index published
by the Center for Research in Security Prices
(CRSP), and the NASDAQ Computer Manufacturers Stock
Total Return Index compiled by CRSP. The comparison for each of
the periods assumes that $100 was invested December 31,
2001 in our Common Stock, the stocks included in the NASDAQ
Stock Market Total Return Index and the stocks included in the
NASDAQ Computer Manufacturers Stock Total Return Index. These
indices, which reflect formulas for dividend reinvestment and
weighting of individual stocks, do not necessarily reflect
returns that could be achieved by individual investors.
COMPARISON
OF CUMULATIVE TOTAL RETURN SINCE DECEMBER 31, 2001
AMONG INTEVAC, NASDAQ STOCK MARKET TOTAL RETURN INDEX AND
NASDAQ COMPUTER MANUFACTURERS TOTAL RETURN INDEX
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
12/31/01
|
|
|
|
12/31/02
|
|
|
|
12/31/03
|
|
|
|
12/31/04
|
|
|
|
12/30/05
|
|
|
|
12/29/06
|
|
Intevac, Inc.
|
|
|
$
|
100
|
|
|
|
$
|
128
|
|
|
|
$
|
451
|
|
|
|
$
|
242
|
|
|
|
$
|
422
|
|
|
|
$
|
829
|
|
Nasdaq Stock Market Total Return
Index
|
|
|
|
100
|
|
|
|
|
69
|
|
|
|
|
103
|
|
|
|
|
113
|
|
|
|
|
115
|
|
|
|
|
126
|
|
Nasdaq Computer Manufacturers
Total Return Index
|
|
|
|
100
|
|
|
|
|
66
|
|
|
|
|
92
|
|
|
|
|
120
|
|
|
|
|
123
|
|
|
|
|
126
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
26
|
|
Item 6.
|
Selected
Consolidated Financial Data
|
The following table presents our selected financial data and is
qualified by reference to, and should be read in conjunction
with, the consolidated financial statements of Intevac,
including the notes thereto, and Managements Discussion
and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations,
each appearing elsewhere in this report.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31,
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
2003
|
|
|
2002
|
|
|
|
(In thousands, except per share data)
|
|
|
Consolidated Statement of
Operations Data:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net revenues:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Systems and components
|
|
$
|
250,158
|
|
|
$
|
130,168
|
|
|
$
|
61,326
|
|
|
$
|
27,738
|
|
|
$
|
27,625
|
|
Technology development
|
|
|
9,717
|
|
|
|
7,061
|
|
|
|
8,289
|
|
|
|
8,556
|
|
|
|
6,159
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total net revenues
|
|
|
259,875
|
|
|
|
137,229
|
|
|
|
69,615
|
|
|
|
36,294
|
|
|
|
33,784
|
|
Cost of net revenues:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Systems and components
|
|
|
151,287
|
|
|
|
87,525
|
|
|
|
45,528
|
|
|
|
19,689
|
|
|
|
20,009
|
|
Technology development
|
|
|
6,102
|
|
|
|
5,253
|
|
|
|
6,856
|
|
|
|
6,032
|
|
|
|
5,150
|
|
Inventory provisions
|
|
|
1,527
|
|
|
|
873
|
|
|
|
1,375
|
|
|
|
743
|
|
|
|
1,316
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total cost of net revenues
|
|
|
158,916
|
|
|
|
93,651
|
|
|
|
53,759
|
|
|
|
26,464
|
|
|
|
26,475
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gross profit
|
|
|
100,959
|
|
|
|
43,578
|
|
|
|
15,856
|
|
|
|
9,830
|
|
|
|
7,309
|
|
Operating expenses:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Research and development
|
|
|
30,036
|
|
|
|
14,384
|
|
|
|
11,580
|
|
|
|
12,037
|
|
|
|
10,846
|
|
Selling, general and administrative
|
|
|
22,924
|
|
|
|
14,477
|
|
|
|
9,525
|
|
|
|
8,448
|
|
|
|
7,752
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total operating expenses
|
|
|
52,960
|
|
|
|
28,861
|
|
|
|
21,105
|
|
|
|
20,485
|
|
|
|
18,598
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating income (loss)
|
|
|
47,999
|
|
|
|
14,717
|
|
|
|
(5,249
|
)
|
|
|
(10,655
|
)
|
|
|
(11,289
|
)
|
Interest income
|
|
|
3,501
|
|
|
|
1,303
|
|
|
|
634
|
|
|
|
269
|
|
|
|
284
|
|
Other income (expense), net
|
|
|
277
|
|
|
|
552
|
|
|
|
381
|
|
|
|
(1,879
|
)
|
|
|
13,187
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income (loss) before income taxes
|
|
|
51,777
|
|
|
|
16,572
|
|
|
|
(4,234
|
)
|
|
|
(12,265
|
)
|
|
|
2,182
|
|
Provision for (benefit from)
income taxes
|
|
|
5,079
|
|
|
|
421
|
|
|
|
110
|
|
|
|
38
|
|
|
|
(6,592
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income (loss)
|
|
$
|
46,698
|
|
|
$
|
16,151
|
|
|
$
|
(4,344
|
)
|
|
$
|
(12,303
|
)
|
|
$
|
8,774
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic earnings (loss) per share:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income (loss)
|
|
$
|
2.22
|
|
|
$
|
0.79
|
|
|
$
|
(0.22
|
)
|
|
$
|
(0.95
|
)
|
|
$
|
0.73
|
|
Shares used in per share
calculations
|
|
|
21,015
|
|
|
|
20,462
|
|
|
|
19,749
|
|
|
|
12,948
|
|
|
|
12,077
|
|
Diluted earnings (loss) per share:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income (loss)
|
|
$
|
2.13
|
|
|
$
|
0.76
|
|
|
$
|
(0.22
|
)
|
|
$
|
(0.95
|
)
|
|
$
|
0.66
|
|
Shares used in per share
calculations
|
|
|
21,936
|
|
|
|
21,202
|
|
|
|
19,749
|
|
|
|
12,948
|
|
|
|
15,262
|
|
Consolidated Balance Sheet
Data:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash, cash equivalents and short
investments
|
|
$
|
95,035
|
|
|
$
|
49,731
|
|
|
$
|
42,034
|
|
|
$
|
19,507
|
|
|
$
|
28,457
|
|
Working capital
|
|
|
118,061
|
|
|
|
77,353
|
|
|
|
53,100
|
|
|
|
22,638
|
|
|
|
31,309
|
|
Total assets
|
|
|
206,003
|
|
|
|
130,444
|
|
|
|
79,622
|
|
|
|
55,975
|
|
|
|
60,298
|
|
Long-term debt
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
30,568
|
|
Total shareholders equity
|
|
|
144,310
|
|
|
|
87,874
|
|
|
|
69,375
|
|
|
|
30,869
|
|
|
|
10,545
|
|
27
|
|
Item 7.
|
Managements
Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of
Operations
|
The following discussion and analysis contains
forward-looking statements which involve risks and
uncertainties. Words such as believes,
expects, anticipates and the like
indicate forward-looking statements. These forward looking
statements include comments related to our projected revenue,
gross margin, operating expense, profitability, income tax
expense, effective tax rate, capital spending and cash balances;
the adequacy of our cash balances to fund our operations;
projected volatility in our financial results; projected
customer requirements for new capacity and technology upgrades
for our installed base of magnetic disk manufacturing equipment
and when, and if, our customers will place orders for these
products; projected change from period to period in the
customers, and location of customers, that constitute the
majority of our revenues; the length of development, marketing
and deployment cycles for military customers; Imagings
ability to proliferate its technology into major military
weapons programs and to develop and introduce commercial
products; and the timing of delivery
and/or
acceptance of our backlog for revenue. Our actual results may
differ materially from the results discussed in the
forward-looking statements for a variety of reasons, including
those set forth under Risk Factors and should be
read in conjunction with the Consolidated Financial Statements
and related Notes contained elsewhere in this Annual Report on
Form 10-K.
Overview
Our operations include two businesses, Equipment and Imaging.
The Equipment business designs, manufactures, markets and
services complex capital equipment that deposits highly
engineered thin films of material onto disks used in hard disk
drives and we are developing equipment that we plan sell to
semiconductor manufacturers. Our Imaging business develops and
manufactures electro-optical sensors, cameras and systems that
permit highly sensitive detection of photons in the visible and
near infrared portions of the spectrum, allowing vision in
extreme low light situations. The vast majority of our revenue
is currently derived from our Equipment business, and we expect
that the majority of our revenues for the next several years
will continue to be derived from our Equipment business.
Equipment
Business
In the early 1990s we developed a system, the MDP-250, to
deposit magnetic films and protective overcoats onto magnetic
disks used in hard disk drives. This system gained wide
acceptance and by the late 1990s was being used to manufacture
approximately half of the disks used in hard disk drives
worldwide. In late 2003, we introduced a new system, the 200
Lean. We believe that there are a total of approximately 111
MDP-250 and 80 200 Lean systems currently available for use in
production and research and development applications at magnetic
disk and hard disk drive manufacturers worldwide. The hard disk
drive industry has gone through significant consolidation, and
there are now only seven significant manufacturers of magnetic
disks, some of whom also manufacture hard disk drives. As a
result of the small number of customers and the high average
selling price of our products, our Equipment revenues tend to be
volatile from quarter to quarter. In addition, our Equipment
business has historically been subject to capital spending
cycles. For example, in the period from 1995 through the middle
of 1998, we sold $300 million of disk manufacturing
equipment. In the period from the middle of 1998 thru 2003, our
disk equipment revenues averaged approximately $20 million
per year and consisted of the sale of a limited number of
systems, technology upgrades, parts and service for the
installed base of our systems. In 2006, our sales of disk
manufacturing equipment grew to $248 million in annual
revenues.
We believe there is significant potential for magnetic disk
manufacturers to continue adding capacity. We believe that the
introduction of high density disks based on perpendicular
recording techniques will also require disk manufacturers to
significantly upgrade the technical capability of their
installed base of manufacturing equipment to accommodate the
additional number of process steps predicted to be required by
perpendicular recording technology roadmaps.
In the past we also manufactured both deposition and rapid
thermal processing equipment used in the manufacture of flat
panel displays. In late 2002, we sold our rapid thermal
processing product line and stopped actively marketing our
deposition product line. From 2000 through 2004, cumulative
revenues from sales of flat
28
panel display manufacturing systems totaled $36.8 million.
2005 revenues included $5 million related to selling a
license to one of our flat panel patents and recognizing revenue
on the last flat panel system we shipped.
Imaging
Business
Our Imaging business develops and manufactures electro-optical
sensors, cameras and systems that permit highly sensitive
detection of photons in the visible and near infrared portions
of the spectrum, allowing imaging in extreme low light
situations. Our military products include extreme low light
sensors and cameras for use in short- to medium-range military
applications and LIVAR cameras and systems for positive target
identification at long range. The majority of the funding for
our Imaging business activities has historically been derived
from research and development contracts with the United States
Government and its contractors, with the balance being funded
internally.
Developing advanced products for the military involves long
development cycles, as products move through successive
multi-year stages of technology demonstration, engineering and
manufacturing product development, prototype production and then
product deployment. Each stage in this process requires ongoing
government funding. To date, substantially all of our Imaging
business revenues has been derived from contract research and
development, rather than product sales. In July 2002, in order
to shorten the time to market and to increase the number of
markets for our imaging products, we began to fund development
of imaging products for commercial markets. In early 2007, we
acquired DeltaNu, LLC, a manufacturer of Raman spectrometers.
Although product revenues from these activities have not yet
been significant, we expect revenues from product shipments to
significantly increase as a percentage of 2007 Imaging revenues.
Critical
Accounting Policies
The preparation of financial statements and related disclosures
in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in
the United States of America (US GAAP) requires
management to make judgments, assumptions and estimates that
affect the amounts reported. Note 2 of Notes to
Consolidated Financial Statements describes the significant
accounting policies used in the preparation of the consolidated
financial statements. Certain of these significant accounting
policies are considered to be critical accounting policies, as
defined below.
A critical accounting policy is defined as one that is both
material to the presentation of our financial statements and
requires management to make difficult, subjective or complex
judgments that could have a material effect on our financial
conditions and results of operations. Specifically, critical
accounting estimates have the following attributes: 1) we
are required to make assumptions about matters that are highly
uncertain at the time of the estimate; and 2) different
estimates we could reasonably have used, or changes in the
estimate that are reasonably likely to occur, would have a
material effect on our financial condition or results of
operations.
Estimates and assumptions about future events and their effects
cannot be determined with certainty. We base our estimates on
historical experience and on various other assumptions believed
to be applicable and reasonable under the circumstances. These
estimates may change as new events occur, as additional
information is obtained and as our operating environment
changes. These changes have historically been minor and have
been included in the consolidated financial statements as soon
as they become known. In addition, management is periodically
faced with uncertainties, the outcomes of which are not within
its control and will not be known for prolonged periods of time.
Many of these uncertainties are discussed in the prior section
entitled Risk Factors. Based on a critical
assessment of our accounting policies and the underlying
judgments and uncertainties affecting the application of those
policies, management believes that our consolidated financial
statements are fairly stated in accordance with US GAAP, and
provide a meaningful presentation of our financial condition and
results of operation.
We believe the following critical accounting policies affect the
more significant judgments and estimates we make in preparing
our consolidated financial statements. We also have other key
accounting policies and accounting estimates related to the
collectibility of trade receivables and prototype product costs.
We believe that these other accounting policies and other
accounting estimates either do not generally require us to make
estimates and judgments that are as difficult or subjective, or
it is less likely that they would have a material impact on our
reported results of operation for a given period.
29
Revenue
Recognition
Certain of our system sales with customer acceptance provisions
are accounted for as multiple-element arrangements. If we have
previously met defined customer acceptance levels with the
specific type of system, then we recognize revenue for the fair
market value of the system upon shipment and transfer of title,
and recognize revenue for the fair market value of installation
and acceptance services when those services are completed. We
estimate the fair market value of the installation and
acceptance services based on our actual historical experience.
For systems that have generally not been demonstrated to meet a
particular customers product specifications prior to
shipment, revenue recognition is typically deferred until
customer acceptance. For example, while initial shipments of our
200 Lean system were recognized for revenue upon customer
acceptance during 2004, revenue was recognized upon shipment for
the majority of 200 Leans shipped in 2005 and 2006. Most of the
systems in backlog at December 31, 2006 are for customers
where we have met defined customer acceptance levels, and we
expect to recognize revenue upon shipment for those systems.
In some instances, hardware that is not essential to the
functioning of the system may be delivered after acceptance of
the system. In these cases, we estimate the fair market value of
the non-essential hardware as if it had been sold on a
stand-alone basis, and defer recognizing revenue on that value
until the hardware is delivered.
In certain cases, we sell limited rights to our intellectual
property. Revenue from the sale of any intellectual property
license is generally recognized at the inception of the license
term.
We perform best efforts research and development work under
various government-sponsored research contracts. These contracts
are a mixture of cost-plus-fixed-fee (CPFF) and firm
fixed-price (FFP). Revenue on CPFF contracts is
recognized in accordance with contract terms, typically as costs
are incurred. Revenue on FFP contracts is generally recognized
on the
percentage-of-completion
method based on costs incurred in relation to total estimated
costs. Provisions for estimated losses on government-sponsored
research contracts are recorded in the period in which such
losses are determined.
Inventories
Inventories are priced using average actual costs, which
approximate
first-in,
first-out, and are stated at the lower of cost or market. The
carrying value of inventory is reduced for estimated excess and
obsolescence by the difference between its cost and the
estimated market value based on assumptions about future demand.
We evaluate the inventory carrying value for potential excess
and obsolete inventory exposures by analyzing historical and
anticipated demand. In addition, inventories are evaluated for
potential obsolescence due to the effect of known and
anticipated engineering change orders and new products. If
actual demand were to be substantially lower than estimated,
additional inventory adjustments would be required, which could
have a material adverse effect on our business, financial
condition and results of operation. A
cost-to-market
reserve is established for
work-in-progress
and finished goods inventories when the value of the inventory
plus the estimated cost to complete exceeds the net realizable
value of the inventory.
Warranty
We provide for the estimated cost of warranty when revenue is
recognized. Our warranty is per contract terms, and for our
systems, the warranty typically ranges between 12 and
24 months from customer acceptance. We use estimated repair
or replacement costs along with our actual warranty experience
to determine our warranty obligation. We exercise judgment in
determining the underlying estimates. Should actual warranty
costs differ substantially from our estimates, revisions to the
estimated warranty liability would be required, which could have
a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition
and results of operations.
Income
Taxes
We account for income taxes in accordance with Statement of
Financial Accounting Standard No. 109, Accounting for
Income Taxes, (SFAS 109), which requires
that deferred tax assets and liabilities be recognized using
enacted tax rates for the effect of temporary differences
between book and tax bases of recorded assets and liabilities.
SFAS 109 also requires that deferred tax assets be reduced
by a valuation allowance if it is more likely
30
than not that a portion of the deferred tax asset will not be
realized. Based on our history of losses through 2004, our
deferred tax asset was fully offset by a valuation allowance as
of December 31, 2005. During 2006, the deferred tax asset
and the related valuation allowance were both reduced due to the
usage of our remaining NOL and credit carry-forwards. As of
December 31, 2006, $4.6 million of the deferred tax
asset was valued on the balance sheet, net of a valuation
allowance of $2.8 million. This represents the amount of
the deferred tax asset from which we expect to realize a
benefit. We cannot predict with certainty when, or if, we will
realize the benefit of the portion of the deferred tax asset
currently offset with a valuation allowance.
On a quarterly basis, we provide for income taxes based upon an
annual effective income tax rate. The effective tax rate is
highly dependent upon the level of our projected earnings, the
geographic composition of worldwide earnings, tax regulations
governing each region, net operating loss carry-forwards,
availability of tax credits and the effectiveness of our tax
planning strategies. We carefully monitor the changes in many
factors and adjust our effective income tax rate on a timely
basis. If actual results differ from the estimates, this could
have a material effect on our business, financial condition and
results of operations. For example, as our projected level of
earnings increased throughout 2006, we increased the annual
effective tax rate from 3.0% at the end of the first quarter, to
8.8% at the end of the second quarter, to 10.0% at the end of
the third quarter and to 12% at the end of the fourth quarter.
The calculation of tax liabilities involves significant judgment
in estimating the impact of uncertainties in the application of
complex tax laws. Resolution of these uncertainties in a manner
inconsistent with our expectations could have a material effect
on our business, financial condition and results of operations.
Results
of Operations
Net
revenues
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31,
|
|
|
% Change
|
|
|
% Change
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
2006 vs. 2005
|
|
|
2005 vs. 2004
|
|
|
|
(In thousands, except percentages)
|
|
|
Equipment net revenues
|
|
$
|
248,482
|
|
|
$
|
129,280
|
|
|
$
|
60,490
|
|
|
|
92
|
%
|
|
|
114
|
%
|
Imaging net revenues
|
|
|
11,393
|
|
|
|
7,949
|
|
|
|
9,125
|
|
|
|
43
|
%
|
|
|
(13
|
)%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total net revenues
|
|
$
|
259,875
|
|
|
$
|
137,229
|
|
|
$
|
69,615
|
|
|
|
89
|
%
|
|
|
97
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net revenues consist primarily of sales of equipment used to
manufacture thin-film disks, and, to a lesser extent, equipment
used to manufacture flat panel displays, related equipment and
system components; flat panel equipment technology license fees;
contract research and development related to the development of
electro-optical sensors, cameras and systems; and low light
imaging products.
The increase in Equipment revenues in 2006 was the result of the
sale of forty-six 200 Lean systems, thirteen disk lubrication
systems and a significant increase in revenue from disk
equipment technology upgrades and spare parts. During 2005, we
sold twenty-three 200 Lean systems, six MDP-250 systems and
fourteen disk lubrication systems. 2005 revenues also included
$5.0 million of flat panel equipment and license sales.
During 2004, we sold eleven 200 Lean systems and two MDP-250
systems.
The magnetic disk manufacturing industry consists of a small
number of large manufacturers. In 2006 Seagate acquired Maxtor,
which further concentrates our customer base. We believe that
the majority of our active customers utilize most of their
capacity and that there is significant potential for these
customers to both continue adding capacity and to upgrade the
technical capability of their installed base to permit
production of high density disks for perpendicular recording
rather than the current longitudinal technology. We currently
have twenty-five 200 Lean systems in backlog, which are
scheduled for revenue recognition during the first half of 2007.
Imaging revenues increased by 43% to $11.4 million in 2006,
which consisted of $1.7 million of product revenue and
$9.7 million of contract research and development revenue.
The $7.9 million in 2005 Imaging revenues consisted of
$888,000 of product revenue and $7.0 million of contract
research and development revenue. The increase in product
revenue resulted from higher sales of LIVAR systems and
commercial products. The increase in contract research and
development revenue was the result of a better mix of fully
funded vs. partially funded
31
programs. The decrease in Imaging revenues in 2005 as compared
to 2004 was the result of a reduction in the level of orders
received for funded development programs. In 2007, we expect the
Imaging business revenue to grow significantly, with increases
in both contract research and development revenue and product
revenue. Although we do not anticipate our Imaging business to
be profitable in 2007, we expect the loss to be reduced from
2006. Substantial growth in future Imaging revenues is dependent
on proliferation of our technology into major military weapons
programs, the ability to obtain export licenses for foreign
customers, obtaining production subcontracts for these programs,
and development and sale of commercial products.
Our backlog of orders at December 31, 2006 was
$125.0 million, as compared to a December 31, 2005
backlog of $84.5 million. The $125.0 million of
backlog at December 31, 2006 consisted of
$119.4 million of Equipment backlog and $5.6 million
of Imaging backlog. The $84.5 million of backlog at
December 31, 2005 consisted of $81.7 million of
Equipment backlog and $2.8 million of Imaging backlog. The
increase in Equipment backlog was primarily the result of orders
for 200 Lean disk sputtering systems.
Significant portions of our revenues in any particular period
have been attributable to sales to a limited number of
customers. In 2006 sales to Seagate, our Japanese distributor,
Matsubo, and Hitachi Global Storage Technologies each accounted
for more than 10% of our revenues, and in aggregate accounted
for 93% of revenues. In 2005, Seagate, Matsubo, Hitachi Global
Storage Technologies and Maxtor each accounted for more than 10%
of our revenues, and in aggregate accounted for 90% of revenues.
In 2004, Seagate and Matsubo each accounted for more than 10% of
our revenues, and in aggregate accounted for 74% of revenues.
Our largest customers tend to change from period to period.
International sales totaled $233.4 million,
$97.5 million and $47.1 million, in 2006, 2005 and
2004, respectively, accounting for 90%, 71% and 68% of net
revenues. The increase in international sales in 2006 and in
2005 was primarily due to an increase in net revenues from disk
sputtering systems. Substantially all of our international sales
are to customers in Asia, which includes products shipped to
overseas operations of U.S. companies. Our mix of domestic
versus international sales will change from period to period
depending on the location of our largest customers in each
period.
Gross
margin.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31,
|
|
|
% Change
|
|
|
% Change
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
2006 vs. 2005
|
|
|
2005 vs. 2004
|
|
|
|
(In thousands, except percentages)
|
|
|
Equipment gross profit
|
|
$
|
97,161
|
|
|
$
|
42,623
|
|
|
$
|
15,016
|
|
|
|
128
|
%
|
|
|
184
|
%
|
% of Equipment net revenues
|
|
|
39.1
|
%
|
|
|
33.0
|
%
|
|
|
24.8
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Imaging gross profit
|
|
$
|
3,798
|
|
|
$
|
955
|
|
|
$
|
840
|
|
|
|
298
|
%
|
|
|
14
|
%
|
% of Imaging net revenues
|
|
|
33.3
|
%
|
|
|
12.0
|
%
|
|
|
9.2
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total gross profit
|
|
$
|
100,959
|
|
|
$
|
43,578
|
|
|
$
|
15,856
|
|
|
|
132
|
%
|
|
|
175
|
%
|
% of net revenues
|
|
|
38.8
|
%
|
|
|
31.8
|
%
|
|
|
22.8
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cost of net revenues consists primarily of purchased materials
and costs attributable to contract research and development, and
also includes fabrication, assembly, test and installation labor
and overhead, customer-specific engineering costs, warranty
costs, royalties, provisions for inventory reserves and scrap.
Cost of net revenues for 2006 included $428,000 of equity-based
compensation expense.
Equipment gross margin improved to 39.1% in 2006 from 33.0% in
2005. Our product mix, increased average selling prices, cost
reduction programs and increased volume all contributed to the
higher gross margin for the year. 2005 Equipment gross margin
improved over the gross margin achieved in 2004 due primarily to
lower manufacturing costs and a higher average selling price for
200 Lean systems. The flat panel manufacturing system recognized
for revenue in 2005 was originally shipped in 2003 and
contributed minimal gross profit. Equipment gross margin in 2004
was adversely impacted by costs incurred during the rapid
production, installation and
start-up of
the initial production run of 200 Lean systems, by costs for
scrap, rework and inventory obsolescence related primarily to
design changes on our 200 Lean system, and by favorable pricing
offered to our first 200 Lean customer. We expect the gross
margin for the Equipment business to improve in 2007, primarily
as a result of
32
continued cost reduction efforts undertaken on the 200 Lean
system. Gross margins in the Equipment business will vary
depending on a number of factors, including product cost, system
configuration and pricing, factory utilization, and provisions
for excess and obsolete inventory.
Imaging gross margin improved to 33.3% in 2006 from 12.0% in
2005. The increase in Imaging gross margin resulted from a
higher percentage of contract research and development revenue
being derived from fully funded contracts, favorable adjustments
related to closing out prior year government rate audits and
increased product shipments. The improvement in Imaging gross
margin in 2005 as compared to 2004 was primarily due to a
reduction in cost-shared research and development contracts.
Imaging gross margin in 2004 was negatively impacted by our
military head-mounted display development program, the initial
phase of which was partially funded by the U.S. Government
and our NATO customer.
Research
and development
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31,
|
|
|
% Change
|
|
|
% Change
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
2006 vs. 2005
|
|
|
2005 vs. 2004
|
|
|
|
(In thousands, except percentages)
|
|
|
Research and development expense
|
|
$
|
30,036
|
|
|
$
|
14,384
|
|
|
$
|
11,580
|
|
|
|
109
|
%
|
|
|
24
|
%
|
% of net revenues
|
|
|
11.6
|
%
|
|
|
10.5
|
%
|
|
|
16.6
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Research and development expense consists primarily of prototype
materials, salaries and related costs of employees engaged in
ongoing research, design and development activities for disk
manufacturing equipment, flat panel manufacturing equipment and
Imaging products.
Research and development spending increased in both Equipment
and in Imaging during 2006 as compared to 2005 and in 2005 as
compared to 2004. The increase in Equipment was due primarily to
spending on the development of a new product line to serve the
semiconductor market and, to a lesser extent, spending for
continuing development of our disk sputtering products. The
increase in Imaging was due to both spending on the design of a
proprietary CMOS sensor for use in our military low light level
cameras and spending on the development of our commercial
Imaging products. Engineering headcount has grown from 68 at the
end of 2004, to 89 at the end of 2005, and to 129 at the end of
2006. Included in research and development spending for 2006 was
$1.4 million of equity-based compensation expense. We
expect that research and development spending will increase
again in 2007 due primarily to expenditures related to our new
semiconductor equipment product line, and the addition of key
engineering personnel.
Research and development expenses do not include costs of
$6.1 million, $5.3 million, and $6.9 million in
2006, 2005, and 2004, respectively, which are related to
contract research and development and included in cost of net
revenues.
Selling,
general and administrative.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31,
|
|
|
% Change
|
|
|
% Change
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
2006 vs. 2005
|
|
|
2005 vs. 2004
|
|
|
|
(In thousands, except percentages)
|
|
|
Selling, general and
administrative expense
|
|
$
|
22,924
|
|
|
$
|
14,477
|
|
|
$
|
9,525
|
|
|
|
58
|
%
|
|
|
52
|
%
|
% of net revenues
|
|
|
8.8
|
%
|
|
|
10.5
|
%
|
|
|
13.7
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Selling, general and administrative expense consists primarily
of selling, marketing, customer support, financial and
management costs and also includes production of customer
samples, travel, liability insurance, legal and professional
services and bad debt expense. All domestic sales and
international sales of disk sputtering products in Asia, with
the exception of Japan, are typically made by Intevacs
direct sales force, whereas sales in Japan of disk sputtering
products and other products are typically made by our Japanese
distributor, Matsubo, who provides services such as sales,
installation, warranty and customer support. We also have
subsidiaries in Singapore and in Hong Kong, along with field
offices in Japan, Malaysia, Korea and Shenzhen, China to support
our equipment customers in Asia.
33
The increase in selling, general and administrative spending in
2006 was primarily the result of increases in costs related to
business development, customer service and support in the
Equipment business, legal expenses associated with the Unaxis
litigation and provisions for employee profit sharing and bonus
plans. Included in selling, general and administrative spending
for 2006 was $1.5 million of equity-based compensation
expense. Our selling, general and administrative headcount
increased from 63 at the end of 2005 to 77 at the end of 2006.
The increase in 2005 over 2004 was primarily the result of
increases in costs related to customer service and support in
the Equipment business, provisions for employee profit sharing
and bonus plans and costs related to Sarbanes-Oxley compliance
activities. We expect that selling, general and administrative
expenses will increase in 2007 over the amount spent in 2006 due
primarily to a projected increase in costs related to customer
service and support for the Equipment business, the addition of
key business development and administrative personnel and
increasing legal expenses.
Interest
income and other, net.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31,
|
|
% Change
|
|
% Change
|
|
|
2006
|
|
2005
|
|
2004
|
|
2006 vs. 2005
|
|
2005 vs. 2004
|
|
|
(In thousands, except percentages)
|
|
Interest income and other, net
|
|
$
|
3,778
|
|
|
$
|
1,855
|
|
|
$
|
1,015
|
|
|
|
104
|
%
|
|
|
83
|
%
|
Interest income and other, net in 2006 consisted of $390,000 of
dividends from 601 California Avenue LLC, $3.5 million of
interest income on investments and $113,000 in net other
expense. The increase in interest income in 2006 was driven by
higher interest rates on our investments and a higher average
invested balance. Interest income and other, net in 2005
consisted of $390,000 of dividends from 601 California Avenue
LLC, $1.3 million of interest income on investments and
$155,000 of foreign currency gains and losses and other income.
Interest income and other, net in 2004 consisted of $390,000 of
dividends from 601 California Avenue LLC, $634,000 of interest
income on investments and $46,000 of other income. We expect
interest income and other, net to increase in 2007 due to higher
interest income generated from our investments.
Provision
for income taxes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31,
|
|
% Change
|
|
% Change
|
|
|
2006
|
|
2005
|
|
2004
|
|
2006 vs. 2005
|
|
2005 vs. 2004
|
|
|
(In thousands, except percentages)
|
|
Provision for income taxes
|
|
$
|
5,079
|
|
|
$
|
421
|
|
|
$
|
110
|
|
|
|
1106
|
%
|
|
|
283
|
%
|
In 2006, we accrued income tax using an effective tax rate of
12% of pretax income. This rate is based on an estimate of our
annual tax rate calculated in accordance with Statement of
Financial Accounting Standards No. 109, Accounting
for Income Taxes. Our tax rate differs from the applicable
statutory rates due to the utilization of net operating loss
carry-forwards and deferred credits. At the end of 2006, we
reversed $831,000 of the deferred tax asset valuation allowance,
reflecting the amount of the deferred tax asset from which we
expect to realize the benefit in 2007. Our deferred tax asset of
$7.4 million is partially offset by a valuation allowance,
resulting in a net deferred tax asset of $4.6 million at
December 31, 2006. We expect our effective tax rate to
significantly increase in 2007 due to the utilization of our
remaining net operating loss carry-forwards in 2006.
For 2005, we accrued income tax using an effective tax rate of
2.5% of pretax income. Our net deferred tax asset totaled zero
at December 31, 2005, net of a $15.0 million valuation
allowance.
In 2004, we recorded income tax expense of $110,000, due
primarily to the recording of $115,000 of expense as a result of
a claim we received from the California Franchise Tax Board,
partially offset by a net credit for taxes owed by our Singapore
subsidiary. Our net deferred tax asset totaled zero at
December 31, 2004, net of a $19.9 million valuation
allowance.
Liquidity
and Capital Resources
At December 31, 2006, we had $103.0 million in cash,
cash equivalents, and investments compared to $49.7 million
at December 31, 2005. During fiscal 2006, cash and cash
equivalents increased by $24.2 million, due
34
to the cash provided by operating and financing activities,
partially offset by the net purchase of investments and fixed
assets.
Cash provided by operating activities in 2006 totaled
$55.2 million compared to $1.4 million in 2005. The
increase in cash provided from operating activities was due
primarily to the net income earned in 2006, adjusted to exclude
the effect of non-cash charges including depreciation and
equity-based compensation, and to increases in accounts payable,
accrued payroll and other accrued liabilities. Accounts
receivable totaled $40.0 million at December 31, 2006
compared to $42.9 million at December 31, 2005. The
decrease of $2.9 million in the receivable balance was due
to the year-end collection of customer advances billed in the
fourth quarter of 2006. At the end of 2005, $10.8 million
of receivables were outstanding related to products that had not
shipped. Net inventories increased by $13.1 million during
2006 due primarily to an increase in raw materials and
work-in-progress,
which will be used to support the December 31, 2006 backlog
of $125.0 million. Accounts payable totaled
$16.0 million at December 31, 2006 compared to
$7.0 million at December 31, 2005. The increase of
$9.0 million relates to the increase in inventory purchases
and the general growth of our business. Accrued payroll and
related liabilities increased by $6.3 million during 2006
due to increases in our headcount and accruals for bonuses and
employee profit-sharing. Other accrued liabilities totaled
$7.7 million at December 31, 2006 compared to
$6.9 million at December 31, 2005. The increase of
$5.1 million relates primarily to accruals for our warranty
obligations. Customer advances increased by $3.1 million
during 2006. The increase was due to advances billed or received
for orders that will be shipped during 2007.
Investing activities in 2006 used cash of $37.3 million.
Purchases of investments, net of proceeds from sales and
maturities, totaled $28.9 million. Capital expenditures in
2006 totaled $8.4 million. Our investing activities in 2005
used cash of $5.9 million as the result of the net purchase
of investments and $4.1 million in capital expenditures.
Financing activities provided cash of $6.2 million in 2006
due to the sale of Intevac common stock to our employees through
our employee benefit plans and tax benefits from equity-based
compensation. Financing activities provided cash of
$2.3 million in 2005 due to the sale of Intevac common
stock to our employees through our employee benefit plans.
We have generated operating income for the last two years, after
incurring annual operating losses from 1998 through 2004. We
expect our Equipment business to be profitable again in 2007. We
also expect to continue to invest in Imaging during 2007, but
with lower losses than in 2006.
We believe that our existing cash, cash equivalents and
short-term investments, combined with the cash we anticipate
generating from operating activities will be sufficient to meet
our cash requirements for the foreseeable future. We intend to
undertake approximately $15 million in capital expenditures
during the next 12 months.
Contractual
Obligations
In the normal course of business, we enter into various
contractual obligations that will be settled in cash. These
obligations consist primarily of operating lease and purchase
obligations. The expected future cash flows required to meet
these obligations as of December 31, 2006 are shown in the
table below. More information on the operating lease obligations
is available in Part II, Item 8, Financial
Statements and Supplementary Data.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Payments Due by Period
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
< 1 Year
|
|
|
13 Years
|
|
|
35 Years
|
|
|
> 5 Years
|
|
|
|
(In thousands)
|
|
|
Operating lease obligations
|
|
$
|
12,617
|
|
|
$
|
2,700
|
|
|
$
|
4,525
|
|
|
$
|
4,612
|
|
|
$
|
780
|
|
Purchase obligations
|
|
|
19,433
|
|
|
|
19,433
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
32,050
|
|
|
$
|
22,133
|
|
|
$
|
4,525
|
|
|
$
|
4,612
|
|
|
$
|
780
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Off-Balance
Sheet Arrangements
As of December 31, 2006, we did not have any material
off-balance sheet arrangements (as defined in
Item 303(a)(4)(ii) of
Regulation S-K).
35
|
|
Item 7A.
|
Quantitative
and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk
|
Interest rate risk. Our exposure to market
risk for changes in interest rates relates primarily to our
investment portfolio. We do not use derivative financial
instruments in our investment portfolio. We place our
investments with high quality credit issuers and, by policy,
limit the amount of credit exposure to any one issuer.
Short-term investments typically consist of investments in A1/P1
rated commercial paper, auction rate securities and debt
instruments issued by the U.S. government and its agencies.
The table below presents principal amounts and related
weighted-average interest rates by year of maturity for our
investment portfolio at December 31, 2006.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fair
|
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
Beyond
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
Value
|
|
|
Cash equivalents
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fixed rate amounts
|
|
$
|
2,680
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
2,680
|
|
|
$
|
2,680
|
|
Weighted-average rate
|
|
|
5.26
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Variable rate amounts
|
|
$
|
11,484
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
11,484
|
|
|
$
|
11,482
|
|
Weighted-average rate
|
|
|
5.25
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Short-term investments
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fixed rate amounts
|
|
$
|
55,596
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
55,596
|
|
|
$
|
55,596
|
|
Weighted-average rate
|
|
|
5.24
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Long-term investments
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fixed rate amounts
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
8,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
8,000
|
|
|
$
|
7,989
|
|
Weighted-average rate
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5.28
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total investment portfolio
|
|
$
|
69,760
|
|
|
$
|
8,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
77,760
|
|
|
$
|
77,747
|
|
Due to the short-term nature of the substantial portion of our
investments, we believe that we do not have any material
exposure to changes in the fair value of our investment
portfolio as a result of changes in interest rates.
Foreign exchange risk. From time to time, we
enter into foreign currency forward exchange contracts to
economically hedge certain of our anticipated foreign currency
transaction, translation and re-measurement exposures. The
objective of these contracts is to minimize the impact of
foreign currency exchange rate movements on our operating
results. At December 31, 2006, we had no foreign currency
forward exchange contracts.
36
|
|
Item 8.
|
Financial
Statements and Supplementary Data
|
INTEVAC,
INC.
CONSOLIDATED
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
Contents
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Page
|
|
Report of Independent Registered
Public Accounting Firm
|
|
|
38
|
|
Consolidated Balance Sheets
|
|
|
39
|
|
Consolidated Statements of
Operations and Comprehensive Income (Loss)
|
|
|
40
|
|
Consolidated Statement of
Shareholders Equity
|
|
|
41
|
|
Consolidated Statements of Cash
Flows
|
|
|
42
|
|
Notes to Consolidated Financial
Statements
|
|
|
43
|
|
37
REPORT OF
INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
Board of Directors and Shareholders
Intevac, Inc.
We have audited the accompanying consolidated balance sheets of
Intevac, Inc. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2006 and
2005, and the related consolidated statements of operations and
comprehensive income (loss), shareholders equity and cash
flows for each of the three years in the period ended
December 31, 2006. These financial statements are the
responsibility of management. Our responsibility is to express
an opinion on these financial statements based on our audits.
We conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the
Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those
standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain
reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are
free of material misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a
test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in
the financial statements. An audit also includes assessing the
accounting principles used and significant estimates made by
management, as well as evaluating the overall financial
statement presentation. We believe that our audits provide a
reasonable basis for our opinion.
In our opinion, the financial statements referred to above
present fairly, in all material respects, the consolidated
financial position of Intevac, Inc. as of December 31, 2006
and 2005, and the consolidated results of their operations and
their consolidated cash flows for each of the three years in the
period ended December 31, 2006, in conformity with
accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of
America.
Our audit was conducted for the purpose of forming an opinion on
the basic financial statements taken as a whole.
Schedule II is presented for purposes of additional
analysis and is not a required part of the basic financial
statements. This schedule has been subjected to the auditing
requirements applied in the audit of the basic financial
statements and, in our opinion, is fairly stated in all material
respects in relation to the basic financial statements taken as
a whole.
As discussed in Note 2 to the consolidated financial
statements, effective January 1, 2006 the Company adopted
the provisions of Statement of Financial Accounting Standards
No. 123(R), Share-Based Payment, applying the
modified-prospective method.
We also have audited, in accordance with standards of the Public
Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), the
effectiveness of Intevac, Inc.s internal control over
financial reporting as of December 31, 2006, based on
criteria established in Internal Control Integrated
Framework issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of
the Treadway Commission, and our report dated March 15,
2007, expressed an unqualified opinion on managements
assessment of, and an unqualified opinion on the effective
operation of, internal control over financial reporting.
San Jose, California
March 15, 2007
38
INTEVAC,
INC.
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
|
(In thousands)
|
|
|
ASSETS
|
Current assets:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents
|
|
$
|
39,440
|
|
|
$
|
15,255
|
|
Short-term investments
|
|
|
55,595
|
|
|
|
34,476
|
|
Trade and other accounts
receivable, net of allowances of $143 and $154 at
December 31, 2006 and 2005
|
|
|
39,927
|
|
|
|
42,847
|
|
Inventories, including $5,765 and
$3,464 held at customer locations at December 31, 2006 and
2005
|
|
|
37,942
|
|
|
|
24,837
|
|
Prepaid expenses and other current
assets
|
|
|
2,506
|
|
|
|
1,814
|
|
Deferred tax assets
|
|
|
3,269
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total current assets
|
|
|
178,679
|
|
|
|
119,229
|
|
Property, plant and equipment, at
cost:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Leasehold improvements
|
|
|
11,062
|
|
|
|
7,587
|
|
Machinery and equipment
|
|
|
23,926
|
|
|
|
20,834
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
34,988
|
|
|
|
28,421
|
|
Less accumulated depreciation and
amortization
|
|
|
21,442
|
|
|
|
20,441
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
13,546
|
|
|
|
7,980
|
|
Long-term investments
|
|
|
8,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
Investment in 601 California
Avenue LLC
|
|
|
2,431
|
|
|
|
2,431
|
|
Other long term assets
|
|
|
3,347
|
|
|
|
804
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total assets
|
|
$
|
206,003
|
|
|
$
|
130,444
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
LIABILITIES AND
SHAREHOLDERS EQUITY
|
Current liabilities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accounts payable
|
|
$
|
15,994
|
|
|
$
|
7,049
|
|
Accrued payroll and related
liabilities
|
|
|
11,769
|
|
|
|
5,509
|
|
Other accrued liabilities
|
|
|
6,612
|
|
|
|
6,182
|
|
Customer advances
|
|
|
26,243
|
|
|
|
23,136
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total current liabilities
|
|
|
60,618
|
|
|
|
41,876
|
|
Other long-term liabilities
|
|
|
1,075
|
|
|
|
694
|
|
Shareholders equity:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Undesignated preferred stock, no
par value, 10,000 shares authorized, no shares issued and
outstanding
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Common stock, no par value:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Authorized
shares 50,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Issued and outstanding
shares 21,188 and 20,669 at December 31, 2006
and 2005, respectively
|
|
|
99,468
|
|
|
|
95,978
|
|
Additional
paid-in-capital
|
|
|
7,319
|
|
|
|
1,187
|
|
Accumulated other comprehensive
income
|
|
|
354
|
|
|
|
238
|
|
Retained earnings (accumulated
deficit)
|
|
|
37,169
|
|
|
|
(9,529
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total shareholders equity
|
|
|
144,310
|
|
|
|
87,874
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total liabilities and
shareholders equity
|
|
$
|
206,003
|
|
|
$
|
130,444
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
See accompanying notes.
39
INTEVAC,
INC.
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS AND COMPREHENSIVE INCOME
(LOSS)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Years Ended December 31,
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
|
(In thousands, except per share amounts)
|
|
|
Net revenues:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Systems and components
|
|
$
|
250,158
|
|
|
$
|
130,168
|
|
|
$
|
61,326
|
|
Technology development
|
|
|
9,717
|
|
|
|
7,061
|
|
|
|
8,289
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total net revenues
|
|
|
259,875
|
|
|
|
137,229
|
|
|
|
69,615
|
|
Cost of net revenues:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Systems and components
|
|
|
151,287
|
|
|
|
87,525
|
|
|
|
45,528
|
|
Technology development
|
|
|
6,102
|
|
|
|
5,253
|
|
|
|
6,856
|
|
Inventory provisions
|
|
|
1,527
|
|
|
|
873
|
|
|
|
1,375
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total cost of net revenues
|
|
|
158,916
|
|
|
|
93,651
|
|
|
|
53,759
|
|
Gross profit
|
|
|
100,959
|
|
|
|
43,578
|
|
|
|
15,856
|
|
Operating expenses:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Research and development
|
|
|
30,036
|
|
|
|
14,384
|
|
|
|
11,580
|
|
Selling, general and administrative
|
|
|
22,924
|
|
|
|
14,477
|
|
|
|
9,525
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total operating expenses
|
|
|
52,960
|
|
|
|
28,861
|
|
|
|
21,105
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating income (loss)
|
|
|
47,999
|
|
|
|
14,717
|
|
|
|
(5,249
|
)
|
Interest income
|
|
|
3,501
|
|
|
|
1,303
|
|
|
|
634
|
|
Other income
|
|
|
277
|
|
|
|
552
|
|
|
|
381
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income (loss) before income taxes
|
|
|
51,777
|
|
|
|
16,572
|
|
|
|
(4,234
|
)
|
Provision for income taxes
|
|
|
5,079
|
|
|
|
421
|
|
|
|
110
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income (loss)
|
|
$
|
46,698
|
|
|
$
|
16,151
|
|
|
$
|
(4,344
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other comprehensive income, net of
income taxes:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Foreign currency translation
adjustments
|
|
|
116
|
|
|
|
(15
|
)
|
|
|
30
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total comprehensive income (loss)
|
|
$
|
46,814
|
|
|
$
|
16,136
|
|
|
$
|
(4,314
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic income (loss) per share:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income (loss)
|
|
$
|
2.22
|
|
|
$
|
0.79
|
|
|
$
|
(0.22
|
)
|
Shares used in per share amounts
|
|
|
21,015
|
|
|
|
20,462
|
|
|
|
19,749
|
|
Diluted income (loss) per share:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income (loss)
|
|
$
|
2.13
|
|
|
$
|
0.76
|
|
|
$
|
(0.22
|
)
|
Shares used in per share amounts
|
|
|
21,936
|
|
|
|
21,202
|
|
|
|
19,749
|
|
See accompanying notes.
40
INTEVAC,
INC.
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF SHAREHOLDERS EQUITY
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accumulated
|
|
|
Retained
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other
|
|
|
Earnings
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
|
Common Stock
|
|
|
Additional
|
|
|
Comprehensive
|
|
|
(Accumulated -
|
|
|
Shareholders
|
|
|
|
Shares
|
|
|
Amount
|
|
|
Paid-In Capital
|
|
|
Income
|
|
|
Deficit)
|
|
|
Equity
|
|
|
|
(In thousands)
|
|
|
Balance at December 31, 2003
|
|
|
16,953
|
|
|
$
|
50,814
|
|
|
$
|
1,168
|
|
|
$
|
223
|
|
|
$
|
(21,336
|
)
|
|
$
|
30,869
|
|
Shares issued in connection with:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exercise of stock options
|
|
|
178
|
|
|
|
856
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
856
|
|
Employee stock purchase plan
|
|
|
82
|
|
|
|
403
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
403
|
|
Secondary public offering
|
|
|
2,969
|
|
|
|
41,561
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
41,561
|
|
Foreign currency translation
adjustment
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
30
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
30
|
|
Net loss
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(4,344
|
)
|
|
|
(4,344
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance at December 31, 2004
|
|
|
20,182
|
|
|
$
|
93,634
|
|
|
$
|
1,168
|
|
|
$
|
253
|
|
|
$
|
(25,680
|
)
|
|
$
|
69,375
|
|
Shares issued in connection with:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exercise of stock options
|
|
|
358
|
|
|
|
1,856
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,856
|
|
Employee stock purchase plan
|
|
|
129
|
|
|
|
488
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
488
|
|
Compensation expense in the form
of stock options
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
19
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
19
|
|
Foreign currency translation
adjustment
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(15
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(15
|
)
|
Net income
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
16,151
|
|
|
|
16,151
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance at December 31, 2005
|
|
|
20,669
|
|
|
$
|
95,978
|
|
|
$
|
1,187
|
|
|
$
|
238
|
|
|
$
|
(9,529
|
)
|
|
$
|
87,874
|
|
Shares issued in connection with:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exercise of stock options
|
|
|
360
|
|
|
|
2,666
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,666
|
|
Employee stock purchase plan
|
|
|
159
|
|
|
|
824
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
824
|
|
Income tax benefits realized from
activity in employee stock plans
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,707
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,707
|
|
Stock-based compensation expense
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3,425
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3,425
|
|
Foreign currency translation
adjustment
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
116
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
116
|
|
Net income
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
46,698
|
|
|
|
46,698
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance at December 31, 2006
|
|
|
21,188
|
|
|
$
|
99,468
|
|
|
$
|
7,319
|
|
|
$
|
354
|
|
|
$
|
37,169
|
|
|
$
|
144,310
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
See accompanying notes.
41
INTEVAC,
INC.
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Years Ended December 31,
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
|
(In thousands)
|
|
|
Operating activities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income (loss)
|
|
$
|
46,698
|
|
|
$
|
16,151
|
|
|
$
|
(4,344
|
)
|
Adjustments to reconcile net
income (loss) to net cash and cash equivalents provided by (used
in) operating activities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Depreciation
|
|
|
2,846
|
|
|
|
2,150
|
|
|
|
2,031
|
|
Amortization of debt offering costs
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
|
|
Net amortization (accretion) of
investment premiums and discounts
|
|
|
(264
|
)
|
|
|
(55
|
)
|
|
|
233
|
|
Inventory provisions
|
|
|
1,527
|
|
|
|
873
|
|
|
|
1,375
|
|
Equity-based compensation
|
|
|
3,425
|
|
|
|
19
|
|
|
|
|
|
Deferred income taxes
|
|
|
(4,581
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tax benefit from equity-based
compensation
|
|
|
(2,707
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Loss on disposal of equipment
|
|
|
39
|
|
|
|
4
|
|
|
|
86
|
|
Changes in assets and liabilities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accounts receivable
|
|
|
2,928
|
|
|
|
(38,081
|
)
|
|
|
9,261
|
|
Inventory
|
|
|
(14,590
|
)
|
|
|
(10,354
|
)
|
|
|
(4,309
|
)
|
Prepaid expenses and other assets
|
|
|
(1,903
|
)
|
|
|
(1,661
|
)
|
|
|
161
|
|
Accounts payable
|
|
|
8,904
|
|
|
|
5,402
|
|
|
|
(1,749
|
)
|
Accrued payroll and other accrued
liabilities
|
|
|
9,762
|
|
|
|
7,645
|
|
|
|
449
|
|
Customer advances
|
|
|
3,107
|
|
|
|
19,303
|
|
|
|
(12,599
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total adjustments
|
|
|
8,493
|
|
|
|
(14,755
|
)
|
|
|
(5,060
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash and cash equivalents
provided by (used in) operating activities
|
|
|
55,191
|
|
|
|
1,396
|
|
|
|
(9,404
|
)
|
Investing activities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Purchase of investments
|
|
|
(152,280
|
)
|
|
|
(100,140
|
)
|
|
|
(45,864
|
)
|
Proceeds from sales and maturities
of investments
|
|
|
123,425
|
|
|
|
98,350
|
|
|
|
13,000
|
|
Proceeds from sale of equipment
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10
|
|
Purchase of equipment
|
|
|
(8,423
|
)
|
|
|
(4,140
|
)
|
|
|
(1,620
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash and cash equivalents used
in investing activities
|
|
|
(37,278
|
)
|
|
|
(5,930
|
)
|
|
|
(34,474
|
)
|
Financing activities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Proceeds from issuance of common
stock
|
|
|
3,490
|
|
|
|
2,344
|
|
|
|
42,820
|
|
Tax benefit from equity-based
compensation
|
|
|
2,707
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Payoff of convertible notes due
2004
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1,025
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash and cash equivalents
provided by financing activities
|
|
|
6,197
|
|
|
|
2,344
|
|
|
|
41,795
|
|
Effect of exchange rate changes on
cash
|
|
|
75
|
|
|
|
(10
|
)
|
|
|
31
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net increase (decrease) in cash
and cash equivalents
|
|
|
24,185
|
|
|
|
(2,200
|
)
|
|
|
(2,052
|
)
|
Cash and cash equivalents at
beginning of period
|
|
|
15,255
|
|
|
|
17,455
|
|
|
|
19,507
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents at end
of period
|
|
$
|
39,440
|
|
|
$
|
15,255
|
|
|
$
|
17,455
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash paid for:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
33
|
|
Income taxes
|
|
|
5,722
|
|
|
|
2
|
|
|
|
2
|
|
Other non-cash changes:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Inventories transferred to
property, plant and equipment
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
706
|
|
See accompanying notes.
42
INTEVAC,
INC.
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
|
|
1.
|
Business
and Nature of Operations
|
We are the worlds leading provider of disk sputtering
equipment to manufacturers of magnetic media used in hard disk
drives and a developer and provider of leading technology for
extreme low light imaging sensors, cameras and systems. We
operate two businesses: Equipment and Imaging.
Our Equipment business designs, manufactures, markets and
services complex capital equipment used in the sputtering, or
deposition, of highly engineered thin-films of material onto
magnetic disks which are used in hard disk drives. Hard disk
drives are the primary storage medium for digital data and
function by storing data on magnetic disks. These disks are
created in a sophisticated manufacturing process involving a
variety of many steps, including plating, annealing, polishing,
texturing, sputtering and lubrication. We are also utilizing our
expertise in complex manufacturing equipment to develop new
manufacturing products that address the semiconductor market.
Our Imaging business develops and manufactures electro-optical
sensors, cameras, and systems that permit highly sensitive
detection of photons in the visible and near infrared portions
of the spectrum, allowing vision in extreme low light situations.
The vast majority of our revenue is currently derived from our
Equipment business and we expect that the majority of our
revenues for the next several years will continue to be derived
from our Equipment business.
|
|
2.
|
Summary
of Significant Accounting Policies
|
Basis
of Presentation
The consolidated financial statements include the accounts of
Intevac and its wholly owned subsidiaries. All inter-company
transactions and balances have been eliminated.
Revenue
Recognition
We recognize revenue using guidance from SEC Staff Accounting
Bulletin No. 104, Revenue Recognition. Our
policy allows revenue recognition when persuasive evidence of an
arrangement exists, delivery has occurred or services have been
rendered, the price is fixed or determinable, and collectibility
is reasonably assured.
Certain of our system sales with customer acceptance provisions
are accounted for as multiple-element arrangements. If we have
previously met defined customer acceptance levels with the
specific type of system, then we recognize revenue for the fair
market value of the system upon shipment and transfer of title,
and recognize revenue for the fair market value of installation
and acceptance services when those services are completed. For
systems that have generally not been demonstrated to meet
product specifications prior to shipment, revenue recognition is
usually deferred until customer acceptance. In the event that
our customer chooses not to complete installation and
acceptance, and our obligations under the contract to complete
installation, acceptance or any other tasks, with the exception
of warranty obligations, have been fully discharged, then we
recognize any remaining revenue to the extent that
collectibility under the contract is reasonably assured.
Accounting Treatment for Systems. During the
period that a system is undergoing customer acceptance (either
distributor or end user), the value of the system remains in
inventory, and any payments received, or amounts invoiced,
related to the system are included in customer advances. When
revenue is recognized on the system, the inventory is charged to
cost of net revenues, the customer advance is liquidated, and
the customer is billed for the unpaid balance of the system
revenue.
In some instances, hardware that is not essential to the
functioning of the system may be delivered after acceptance of
the system. In these cases, we estimate the fair market value of
the non-essential hardware as if it had been sold on a
stand-alone basis, and defer recognizing revenue on that value
until the hardware is delivered.
Occasionally, we are asked by our customers to delay delivery of
products that they have accepted, and to temporarily hold the
product at our facility. To determine revenue recognition when
the product is not immediately
43
INTEVAC,
INC.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
shipped to the customer, we apply the criteria outlined in the
SEC Enforcement Release No. 108, which is consistent with
APB Statement 4, paragraph 150. All of the criteria
must be met in order for revenue to be recognized.
Other Systems and Non-System Revenue
Recognition. Revenues for systems without
installation and acceptance provisions, as well as revenues from
technology upgrades, spare parts, consumables and prototype
products built by the Imaging business are recognized when title
passes to our customer. Service and maintenance contract
revenue, which to date has been insignificant, is recognized
ratably over applicable contract periods or as the service is
performed.
Obligations After Shipment. Our shipping terms
are generally FOB shipping point, but in some cases are FOB
destination. For systems sold directly to the end user, our
obligations remaining after shipment typically include
installation, end user factory acceptance and warranty. For
systems sold to distributors, typically the distributor assumes
responsibility for installation and end user customer
acceptance. In some cases, the distributor will assume some or
all of the warranty liability. For products other than systems
and system upgrades, warranty is the only obligation we have
after shipment.
In certain cases, we sell limited rights to our intellectual
property. Revenue from the sale of any intellectual property
license will generally be recognized at the inception of the
license term.
Technology Development Revenue Recognition. We
perform research and development work under various
government-sponsored research contracts. Generally these
contracts are best efforts cost-plus-fixed-fee
(CPFF) contracts or firm fixed-price
(FFP) contracts. On best efforts CPFF contracts we
typically commit to perform certain research and development
efforts up to an agreed upon amount. In connection with these
contracts, we receive funding on an incremental basis up to a
ceiling. On FFP contracts we typically commit to perform certain
development and production efforts for a fixed price.
Our CPFF contracts are accounted for under ARB No. 43,
Chapter 11, Section A, which addresses
Cost-Plus-Fixed-Fee Contracts. The contracts are all cost-type,
with financial terms that are a mixture of fixed fee, no fee and
cost sharing. Revenue on these contracts is recognized in
accordance with contract terms, typically as costs are incurred.
In the event that total cost incurred under a particular
contract over-runs its agreed upon amount, we may be liable for
the additional costs.
Our FFP contracts are accounted for under
SOP 81-1
Accounting for Performance of Construction-Type and
Certain Production-Type Contracts. Revenue on FFP
contracts is generally recognized on the
percentage-of-
completion method based on costs incurred in relation to the
total estimated costs. Provisions for estimated losses on FFP
research contracts are recorded in the period in which such
losses are determined.
The deliverables under each CPFF or FFP contract range from
providing reports to providing hardware. In the majority of the
contracts there is no obligation for either party to continue
the program once the funds have been expended. The efforts can
be terminated at any time for convenience, in which case we
would be reimbursed for our actual incurred costs, plus fee, if
applicable, for the completed effort. We own the entire right,
title and interest to each invention discovered under the
contract, unless we specifically give up that right. The
U.S. Government has a
paid-up
license to use any invention or intellectual property developed
under government funded contracts for government purposes only.
In addition, we have, from time to time, negotiated with third
parties to fund a portion of our costs in return for granting
them a joint interest in the technology rights developed
pursuant to the contract.
Trade
Receivables and Doubtful Accounts
We evaluate the collectibility of trade receivables on an
ongoing basis and provide reserves against potential losses when
appropriate. Management analyzes historical bad debts, customer
concentrations, customer credit worthiness, changes in customer
payment tendencies and current economic trends when evaluating
the adequacy of the allowance for doubtful accounts. Customer
accounts are written off against the allowance when the amount
is deemed uncollectible.
44
INTEVAC,
INC.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
Included in trade receivables are unbilled receivables related
to government contracts of $1.0 million at both
December 31, 2006 and December 31, 2005.
Warranty
We provide for the estimated cost of warranty when revenue is
recognized. Our warranty is per contract terms and for our
systems the warranty typically ranges between 12 and
24 months from customer acceptance. During this warranty
period any defective non-consumable parts are replaced and
installed at no charge to the customer. The warranty period on
consumable parts is limited to their reasonable usable life. We
use estimated or replacement costs along with our actual
warranty experience to determine our warranty obligation. We
exercise judgment in determining the underlying estimates.
On the consolidated balance sheet, the short-term portion of the
warranty provision is included in Other Accrued Liabilities,
while the long-term portion is included in Other Long-Term
Liabilities.
The following table displays the activity in the warranty
provision account for 2006 and 2005:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
|
(In thousands)
|
|
|
Beginning balance
|
|
$
|
3,399
|
|
|
$
|
1,116
|
|
Expenditures incurred under
warranties
|
|
|
(3,695
|
)
|
|
|
(1,428
|
)
|
Accruals for product warranties
issued during the reporting period
|
|
|
4,354
|
|
|
|
3,422
|
|
Adjustments to previously existing
warranty accruals
|
|
|
1,225
|
|
|
|
289
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ending balance
|
|
$
|
5.283
|
|
|
$
|
3,399
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The following table displays the balance sheet classification of
the warranty provision account at December 31, 2006 and
2005:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
|
(In thousands)
|
|
|
Other accrued liabilities
|
|
$
|
4,208
|
|
|
$
|
2,705
|
|
Other long-term liabilities
|
|
|
1,075
|
|
|
|
694
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total warranty provision
|
|
$
|
5,283
|
|
|
$
|
3,399
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Guarantees
We have entered into agreements with customers and suppliers
that include limited intellectual property indemnification
obligations that are customary in the industry. These guarantees
generally require us to compensate the other party for certain
damages and costs incurred as a result of third party
intellectual property claims arising from these transactions.
The nature of the intellectual property indemnification
obligations prevents us from making a reasonable estimate of the
maximum potential amount we could be required to pay our
customers and suppliers. Historically, we have not made any
significant indemnification payments under such agreements, and
no amount has been accrued in the accompanying consolidated
financial statements with respect to these indemnification
obligations.
Income
Taxes
We account for income taxes in accordance with Statement of
Financial Accounting Standard No. 109, Accounting for
Income Taxes, (SFAS 109), which requires
that deferred tax assets and liabilities be recognized using
enacted tax rates for the effect of temporary differences
between book and tax bases of recorded assets and liabilities.
SFAS 109 also requires that deferred tax assets be reduced
by a valuation allowance if it is more likely
45
INTEVAC,
INC.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
than not that a portion of the deferred tax asset will not be
realized. Based on our history of losses through 2004, our
deferred tax asset was fully offset by a valuation allowance as
of December 31, 2005. During 2006, the deferred tax asset
and the related valuation allowance were both reduced due to the
usage of our remaining NOL and credit carry-forwards. As of
December 31, 2006, $4.6 million of the deferred tax
asset was valued on the balance sheet, net of a valuation
allowance of $2.8 million. This represents the amount of
the deferred tax asset from which we expect to realize a
benefit. We cannot predict with certainty when, or if, we will
realize the benefit of the portion of the deferred tax asset
currently offset with a valuation allowance.
On a quarterly basis, we provide for income taxes based upon an
annual effective income tax rate. The effective tax rate is
highly dependent upon the level of our projected earnings, the
geographic composition of worldwide earnings, tax regulations
governing each region, net operating loss carry-forwards,
availability of tax credits and the effectiveness of our tax
planning strategies. We carefully monitor the changes in many
factors and adjust our effective income tax rate on a timely
basis. If actual results differ from the estimates, this could
have a material effect on our business, financial condition and
results of operations. For example, as our projected level of
earnings increased throughout 2006, we increased the annual
effective tax rate from 3.0% at the end of the first quarter, to
8.8% at the end of the second quarter, to 10.0% at the end of
the third quarter and to 12% at the end of the fourth quarter.
The calculation of tax liabilities involves significant judgment
in estimating the impact of uncertainties in the application of
complex tax laws. Resolution of these uncertainties in a manner
inconsistent with our expectations could have a material effect
on our business, financial condition and results of operations.
Customer
Advances
Customer advances generally represent nonrefundable deposits
invoiced by the Company in connection with receiving customer
purchase orders and other events preceding acceptance of
systems. Customer advances related to products that have not
been shipped to customers and included in accounts receivable
were $17.1 million and $10.6 million at
December 31, 2006 and 2005, respectively.
Cash,
Cash Equivalents and Short-term Investments
Our investment portfolio consists of cash, cash equivalents and
investments in debt securities and municipal bonds. We consider
all highly liquid investments with a maturity of three months or
less when purchased to be cash equivalents. Investments in debt
securities and municipal bonds consists principally of highly
rated debt instruments with maturities generally between one and
25 months.
We account for our investments in debt securities and auction
rate securities in accordance with Statement of Accounting
Standards No. 115 Accounting for Certain Investments
in Debt and Equity Securities, which requires certain
securities to be categorized as either trading,
available-for-sale
or
held-to-maturity.
Available-for-sale
securities, consisting solely of Auction Rate Securities, are
carried at fair value, with unrealized gains and losses recorded
within other comprehensive income (loss) as a separate component
of shareholders equity. Auction Rate Securities have
long-term underlying maturities (ranging from 20 to
40 years), however the market is highly liquid and the
interest rates reset every 7 or 28 days. Our intent is not
to hold these securities to maturity, but rather to use the
interest rate reset feature to sell securities to provide
liquidity as needed. Our practice is to invest in these
securities for higher yields compared to cash equivalents.
Held-to-maturity
securities are carried at amortized cost. We have no trading
securities. The cost of investment securities sold is determined
by the specific identification method. Interest income is
recorded using an effective interest rate, with the associated
premium or discount amortized to interest income. Realized gains
and losses and declines in value judged to be other than
temporary, if any, on available for sales securities are
included in earnings. The table below presents the amortized
principal amount, major security type and maturities for our
investments in debt securities and auction rate securities.
46
INTEVAC,
INC.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
|
(In thousands)
|
|
|
Amortized Principal Amount:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Debt securities issued by
U.S. government agencies
|
|
$
|
8,000
|
|
|
$
|
10,991
|
|
Auction rate securities
|
|
|
53,595
|
|
|
|
15,000
|
|
Corporate debt securities
|
|
|
2,000
|
|
|
|
8,485
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total investments in debt
securities
|
|
$
|
63,595
|
|
|
$
|
34,476
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Short-term investments
|
|
$
|
55,595
|
|
|
$
|
34,476
|
|
Long-term investments
|
|
|
8,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total investments in debt
securities
|
|
$
|
63,595
|
|
|
$
|
34,476
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Approximate fair value of
investments in debt securities
|
|
$
|
63,585
|
|
|
$
|
34,408
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The decline in the fair value of our investments is attributable
to changes in interest rates and not credit quality. In
accordance with EITF
03-01, we
have the ability and intent to hold these investments until fair
value recovers, which may be maturity, and we do not consider
these investments to be
other-than-temporarily
impaired at December 31, 2006.
Cash and cash equivalents represent cash accounts and money
market funds. Cash balances held in foreign bank accounts
totaled $1.6 million and $1.3 million at
December 31, 2006 and December 31, 2005, respectively.
Included in accounts payable is $2.4 million and $988,000
of book overdraft at December 31, 2006 and
December 31, 2005, respectively.
Valuation
of Long-lived and Intangible Assets
We assess the impairment of identifiable intangibles and
long-lived assets whenever events or changes in circumstances
indicate that the carrying value may not be recoverable. Factors
we consider important which could trigger an impairment review
include the following:
|
|
|
|
|
significant underperformance relative to expected historical or
projected future operating results;
|
|
|
|
significant changes in the manner of our use of the acquired
assets or the strategy for our overall business; and
|
|
|
|
significant negative industry or economic trends.
|
When we determine that the carrying value of long-lived assets,
intangibles or goodwill may not be recoverable based upon the
existence of one or more of the above indicators of impairment,
we measure any impairment based on a projected discounted cash
flow method using a discount rate determined by our management
to be commensurate with the risk inherent in our current
business model.
Prototype
Costs
Prototype product costs that are not paid for under research and
development contracts and are in excess of fair market value are
charged to research and development expense.
Foreign
Exchange Contracts
We may enter into foreign currency forward exchange contracts to
hedge certain of our foreign currency transaction, translation
and re-measurement exposures. Our accounting policies for some
of these instruments are based on our designation of such
instruments as hedging transactions. Instruments not designated
as a hedge transaction will be marked to market at
the end of each accounting period. The criteria we use for
designating an
47
INTEVAC,
INC.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
instrument as a hedge include effectiveness in exposure
reduction and
one-to-one
matching of the derivative financial instrument to the
underlying transaction being hedged. Gains and losses on foreign
currency forward exchange contracts that are designated and
effective as hedges of existing transactions are recognized in
income in the same period as losses and gains on the underlying
transactions are recognized and generally offset.
As of December 31, 2006 and 2005, we had no foreign
currency forward exchange contracts outstanding.
Foreign
Currency Translation
The functional currency of our foreign subsidiaries, with the
exception of Hong Kong, is the local currency of the country in
which the respective subsidiary operates. Hong Kongs
functional currency is the U.S. dollar. Assets and
liabilities recorded in foreign currencies are translated at
year-end exchange rates; revenues and expenses are translated at
average exchange rates during the year. The effect of foreign
currency translation adjustments are included in
shareholders equity as a component of Accumulated
other comprehensive income in the accompanying
consolidated balance sheets. The effects of foreign currency
transactions are included in Other income in the
determination of net income. Losses from foreign currency
transactions were $59,000, $17,000 and $39,000 in 2006, 2005 and
2004, respectively.
Financial
Instruments
The carrying amount of the short-term financial instruments
(cash and cash equivalents, short-term investments, accounts
receivable and certain other liabilities) approximates fair
value due to the short-term maturity of those instruments.
Inventories
Inventories are priced using average actual costs, which
approximates cost under the
first-in,
first-out method, and are stated at the lower of cost or market.
Inventories consist of the following:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
|
(In thousands)
|
|
|
Raw materials
|
|
$
|
19,906
|
|
|
$
|
15,070
|
|
Work-in-progress
|
|
|
12,271
|
|
|
|
6,303
|
|
Finished goods
|
|
|
5,765
|
|
|
|
3,464
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
37,942
|
|
|
$
|
24,837
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Finished goods inventory consists primarily of completed systems
at customer sites that are undergoing installation and
acceptance testing.
Inventory reserves included in the above numbers were
$9.1 million and $11.0 million at December 31,
2006 and 2005, respectively. Each quarter, we analyze our
inventory (raw materials,
work-in-progress
and finished goods) against the forecast demand for the next
12 months. Raw materials with no forecast requirements in
that period are considered excess and inventory provisions are
established to write those items down to zero net book value.
Work-in-progress
and finished goods inventories with no forecast requirements in
that period are typically written down to the lower of cost or
market. During this process, some inventory is identified as
having no future use or value to us and is disposed of against
the reserves.
During the year ended December 31, 2006, $1.5 million
was added to inventory reserves based on the quarterly analyses
and $3.4 million was disposed of and charged to the
reserve. We also added $10,000 to inventory reserves to provide
for the loss or refurbishment of Imaging products consigned to
our customers for demonstrations.
48
INTEVAC,
INC.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
During the year ended December 31, 2005, $873,000 was added
to inventory reserves based on the quarterly analyses and
$124,000 was disposed of and charged to the reserve. We also
added $184,000 to inventory reserves to provide for the loss or
refurbishment of Imaging products consigned to our customers for
demonstrations.
Property,
Plant and Equipment
Equipment and leasehold improvements are carried at cost less
accumulated depreciation and amortization. Gains and losses on
dispositions are reflected in the Consolidated Statements of
Operations and Comprehensive Income (Loss).
Depreciation is computed using the straight-line method over the
estimated useful lives of the assets as follows:
|
|
|
Computers and software
|
|
3 years
|
Machinery and equipment
|
|
5 years
|
Furniture
|
|
7 years
|
Vehicles
|
|
4 years
|
Leasehold improvements
|
|
Remaining lease term
|
Comprehensive
Income
SFAS No. 130, Reporting Comprehensive
Income requires unrealized gains or losses on foreign
currency translation adjustments, which prior to the adoption
were reported separately in shareholders equity, to be
included in other comprehensive income. As of December 31,
2006, the $354,000 balance of accumulated other comprehensive
income is comprised entirely of accumulated foreign currency
translation adjustments.
Employee
Stock Plans
We have adopted equity-based compensation plans that provide for
the grant to employees of equity-based awards, including
incentive or non-statutory stock options, restricted stock,
stock appreciation rights, performance units and performance
shares. In addition, these plans provide for the grant of
non-statutory stock options to non-employee directors and
consultants. We also have an Employee Stock Purchase Plan, which
provides our employees with the opportunity to purchase Intevac
common stock. See Note 3 for a complete description of
these plans and their accounting treatment.
Financial
Presentation
Certain prior year amounts in the Consolidated Financial
Statements have been reclassified to conform to 2006
presentation. The reclassifications had no material effect on
total assets, liabilities, equity, net income (loss) or
comprehensive income (loss) previously reported.
49
INTEVAC,
INC.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
Net
income (loss) per share
The following table sets forth the computation of basic and
diluted income (loss) per share:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
|
(In thousands)
|
|
|
Numerator:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Numerator for diluted earnings
(loss) per share income (loss) available to common
stockholders
|
|
$
|
46,698
|
|
|
$
|
16,151
|
|
|
$
|
(4,344
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Denominator:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Denominator for basic earnings
(loss) per share weighted-average shares
|
|
|
21,015
|
|
|
|
20,462
|
|
|
|
19,749
|
|
Effect of dilutive securities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Employee stock options(2)
|
|
|
921
|
|
|
|
740
|
|
|
|
|
|
61/2% convertible
notes(1)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dilutive potential common shares
|
|
|
921
|
|
|
|
740
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Denominator for diluted earnings
(loss) per share adjusted weighted-average shares
and assumed conversions
|
|
|
21,936
|
|
|
|
21,202
|
|
|
|
19,749
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Diluted EPS for the twelve-month period ended December 31,
2004 excludes as converted treatment of the
convertible notes, as their inclusion would be anti-dilutive.
The number of as converted shares excluded from the
twelve-month period ended December 31, 2004 was 8,568. The
$1.0 million balance of the notes was repaid in March 2004. |
|
(2) |
|
Potentially dilutive securities, consisting of shares issuable
upon exercise of employee stock options, are excluded from the
calculation of diluted EPS if their effect would be
anti-dilutive. The weighted average number of employee stock
options excluded from the twelve-month periods ended
December 31, 2006, 2005, and 2004 was 426,606, 226,804, and
1,605,593 respectively. |
Use of
Estimates
The preparation of financial statements in conformity with
accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of
America requires management to make estimates and assumptions
that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities and
disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities at the date of
the financial statements and the reported amounts of revenue and
expenses during the reporting period. Actual results inevitably
will differ from those estimates, and such differences may be
material to the financial statements.
New
Accounting Pronouncements
In September 2006, the FASB issued Statement of Financial
Accounting Standards No. 157, Fair Value
Measurements (SFAS 157). SFAS 157
defines fair value, establishes a framework for measuring fair
value, and expands disclosures about fair value measurements.
The statement is effective for financial statements issued for
fiscal years beginning after November 15, 2007, and interim
periods within that fiscal year. We are currently evaluating the
impact of adopting SFAS 157.
In June 2006, the FASB issued Interpretation No. 48,
Accounting for Uncertainty in Income Taxes
(FIN 48). FIN 48 clarifies the accounting
for uncertainty in income taxes recognized in an
enterprises financial statements in accordance with FASB
Statement No. 109, Accounting for Income Taxes.
This interpretation prescribes a recognition threshold and
measurement attribute for the financial statement recognition
and measurement of a tax position taken or expected to be taken
in a tax return. FIN 48 also provides guidance on
de-recognition, classification, interest and penalties,
accounting in interim periods, disclosure, and transition.
FIN 48
50
INTEVAC,
INC.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
will be effective beginning January 1, 2007. We are
currently evaluating this interpretation, however, at the
present time we do not anticipate that the adoption of
FIN 48 will have a material impact on our consolidated
financial position, results of operations and cash flows.
In May 2005, the FASB issued SFAS No. 154,
Accounting Changes and Error Corrections a
Replacement of APB Opinion No. 20 and FASB Statement
No. 3 (SFAS 154), which requires retrospective
application to prior periods financial statements of
voluntary changes in accounting principle unless it is
impracticable to do so. SFAS 154 is effective for
accounting changes and corrections of errors beginning in fiscal
2007. We do not expect the implementation of this standard to
have a material effect on our financial position or results of
operations.
In September 2006, the SEC issued Staff Accounting
Bulletin No. 108, Considering the Effects of
Prior Year Misstatements when Quantifying Misstatements in
Current Year Financial Statements
(SAB 108). SAB 108 was issued in order to
eliminate the diversity of practice surrounding how public
companies quantify financial statement misstatements. It
requires quantification of financial statement misstatements
based on the effects of the misstatements on each of the
companys financial statements and the related financial
statement disclosures. The provisions of SAB 108 must be
applied to annual financial statements no later than the first
fiscal year ending after November 15, 2006. The adoption of
SAB 108 did not have an effect on our consolidated
financial position, results of operations and cash flows.
|
|
3.
|
Stock-Based
Compensation
|
On January 1, 2006, we adopted Statement of Financial
Accounting Standards No. 123 (revised 2004),
Share-Based Payment, (SFAS 123(R))
which requires the measurement and recognition of compensation
expense for all share-based payment awards made to employees and
directors including equity awards related to the 2004 Equity
Incentive Plan (the 2004 Plan) and employee stock
purchases related to the 2003 Employee Stock Purchase Plan (the
ESPP) based on estimated fair values.
SFAS 123(R) supersedes our previous accounting under
Accounting Principles Board Opinion No. 25,
Accounting for Stock Issued to Employees
(APB 25) for periods beginning in fiscal 2006.
In March 2005, the Securities and Exchange Commission issued
Staff Accounting Bulletin No. 107
(SAB 107) relating to SFAS 123(R). We have
applied the provisions of SAB 107 in our adoption of
SFAS 123(R).
We adopted SFAS 123(R) using the modified prospective
transition method, which requires the application of the
accounting standard as of January 1, 2006, the first day of
our fiscal year 2006. Our Consolidated Financial Statements as
of and for the twelve months ended December 31, 2006
reflect the impact of SFAS 123(R). In accordance with the
modified prospective transition method, our Consolidated
Financial Statements for prior periods have not been restated to
reflect, and do not include, the impact of SFAS 123(R).
Stock-based compensation expense recognized under
SFAS 123(R) for the twelve months ended December 31,
2006 was $3.4 million, which consisted of stock-based
compensation expense related to the grant of stock options under
the 2004 Plan and stock purchase rights under the ESPP. There
was $19,000 of stock-based compensation expense related to the
grant of stock options or stock purchase rights recognized
during the twelve months ended December 31, 2005.
SFAS 123(R) requires companies to estimate the fair value
of share-based payment awards on the date of grant using an
option-pricing model. The value of the portion of the award that
is ultimately expected to vest is recognized as expense in our
Consolidated Statement of Income over the requisite service
period using the graded vesting attribution method. Prior to the
adoption of SFAS 123(R), we accounted for employee equity
awards and employee stock purchases using the intrinsic value
method in accordance with APB 25 as allowed under Statement
of Financial Accounting Standards No. 123, Accounting
for Stock-Based Compensation (SFAS 123).
Under the intrinsic value method, no stock-based compensation
expense had been recognized in our Consolidated Statement of
Income, because the exercise price of our stock options granted
to employees and directors equaled the fair market value of the
underlying stock at the date of grant.
51
INTEVAC,
INC.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
Stock-based compensation expense recognized during the period is
based on the value of the portion of share-based payment awards
that is ultimately expected to vest during the period.
Stock-based compensation expense recognized in our Consolidated
Statement of Income for the year ended December 31, 2006
included compensation expense for share-based payment awards
granted prior to, but not yet vested as of December 31,
2005 based on the grant date fair value estimated in accordance
with the pro forma provisions of SFAS 123 and compensation
expense for the share-based payment awards granted subsequent to
December 31, 2005 based on the grant date fair value
estimated in accordance with the provisions of SFAS 123(R).
As stock-based compensation expense recognized in the
Consolidated Statement of Income for fiscal 2006 is based on
awards ultimately expected to vest, it has been reduced for
estimated annual forfeitures. SFAS 123(R) requires
forfeitures to be estimated at the time of grant and revised, if
necessary, in subsequent periods if actual forfeitures differ
from those estimates. In our pro forma information required
under SFAS 123 for the periods prior to fiscal 2006, the
Company accounted for forfeitures as they occurred.
Descriptions
of Plans
2004
Equity Incentive Plan
In 2004, our Board of Directors and our shareholders approved
adoption of the 2004 Plan. The 2004 Plan serves as the successor
equity incentive program to our 1995 Stock Option/Stock Issuance
Plan (the 1995 Plan). Upon adoption of the 2004
Plan, all shares available for issuance under the 1995 Plan were
transferred to the 2004 Plan.
Our 2004 Plan is a broad-based, long-term retention program
intended to attract and retain qualified management and
employees, and align stockholder and employee interests. The
2004 Plan permits the grant of incentive or non-statutory stock
options, restricted stock, stock appreciation rights,
performance units and performance shares. Option price, vesting
period, and other terms are determined by the administrator of
the 2004 Plan, but the option price shall generally not be less
than 100% of the fair market value per share on the date of
grant. As of December 31, 2006, 2,640,585 shares of
common stock were authorized for future issuance under the 2004
Plan. Options granted under the 2004 Plan are exercisable upon
vesting and vest over periods of up to five years. Options
currently expire no later than ten years from the date of grant.
The 2004 Plan expires no later than March 10, 2014.
During the year ended December 31, 2006, we granted 942,600
stock options with an estimated total grant-date fair value of
$10.6 million.
2003
Employee Stock Purchase Plan
In 2003, our shareholders approved adoption of the ESPP which
serves as the successor to the Employee Stock Purchase Plan
originally adopted in 1995. Upon adoption of the ESPP, all
shares available for issuance under the prior plan were
transferred to the ESPP. Our ESPP provides that eligible
employees may purchase our common stock through payroll
deductions at a price equal to 85% of the lower of the fair
market value at the beginning of the applicable offering period
or at the end of each applicable purchase interval. Offering
periods are generally two years in length, and consist of a
series of six-month purchase intervals. Eligible employees may
join the ESPP at the beginning of any six-month purchase
interval. Under the terms of the ESPP, employees can choose to
have up to 10% of their base earnings withheld to purchase our
common stock. Under the ESPP and its predecessor, we sold
158,859, 129,217 and 82,184 shares to employees in 2006,
2005 and 2004, respectively. As of December 31, 2006,
387,937 shares remained reserved for issuance under the
2003 ESPP.
During the year months ended December 31, 2006, we granted
purchase rights with an estimated total grant-date value of
$1.6 million.
52
INTEVAC,
INC.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
Impact
of the Adoption of SFAS 123(R)
The effect of recording stock-based compensation for the year
ended December 31, 2006 was as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
Stock-based compensation by type
of award:
|
|
|
|
|
Stock options
|
|
$
|
2,803
|
|
Employee stock purchase plan
|
|
|
622
|
|
Amounts capitalized as inventory
|
|
|
(69
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total stock-based compensation
|
|
|
3,356
|
|
Tax effect on stock-based
compensation
|
|
|
(403
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net effect on net income
|
|
$
|
2,953
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Effect on earnings per share:
|
|
|
|
|
Basic
|
|
$
|
0.14
|
|
Diluted
|
|
$
|
0.13
|
|
Approximately $69,000 of stock-based compensation is included in
inventory as of December 31, 2006. No stock-based
compensation was capitalized to inventory prior to our adoption
of the provisions of SFAS 123(R) in the first quarter of
2006.
Valuation
Assumptions
The fair value of share-based payment awards is estimated at the
grant date using the Black-Scholes Merton option valuation
model. The determination of fair value of share-based payment
awards on the date of grant using an option-pricing model is
affected by our stock price as well as assumptions regarding a
number of highly complex and subjective variables. These
variables include, but are not limited to, our expected stock
price volatility over the term of the awards, and actual
employee stock option exercise behavior.
In connection with the adoption of SFAS 123(R), we
reassessed our valuation technique and related assumptions. We
estimate the fair value of stock options using a Black-Scholes
Merton valuation model, consistent with the provisions of
SFAS 123(R), SAB No. 107 and our prior period pro
forma disclosures of net earnings, including stock-based
compensation expense (determined under a fair value method as
prescribed by SFAS 123). The weighted-average estimated
fair value of employee stock options granted during the twelve
months ended December 31, 2006 was $11.22 per share.
The weighted-average estimated fair value of employee stock
purchase rights granted pursuant to the ESPP during the twelve
months ended December 31, 2006 was $9.68 per share.
The fair value of each option and employee stock purchase right
grant is estimated on the date of grant using the Black-Scholes
Merton option valuation model with the following
weighted-average assumptions:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Employee Stock
|
|
|
|
Stock Options
|
|
|
Purchase Plan
|
|
|
Expected volatility
|
|
|
74.44
|
%
|
|
|
59.25
|
%
|
Risk free interest rate
|
|
|
4.68
|
%
|
|
|
4.67
|
%
|
Expected term of options and
purchase rights (in years)
|
|
|
4.71
|
|
|
|
1.92
|
|
Dividend yield
|
|
|
None
|
|
|
|
None
|
|
The computation of the expected volatility assumptions used in
the Black-Scholes Merton calculations for new grants and
purchase rights is based on the historical volatility of our
stock price, measured over a period equal to the expected term
of the grant or purchase right. The risk-free interest rate is
based on the yield available on U.S. Treasury Strips with
an equivalent remaining term. The expected life of employee
stock options represents the weighted-average period that the
stock options are expected to remain outstanding and was
determined based on historical experience of similar awards,
giving consideration to the contractual terms of the stock-based
awards and
53
INTEVAC,
INC.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
vesting schedules. The expected life of purchase rights is the
period of time remaining in the current offering period. The
dividend yield assumption is based on our history of not paying
dividends and the assumption of not paying dividends in the
future.
Stock
Plan Activity
2004
Equity Incentive Plan
A summary of activity under the above captioned plan is as
follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average Remaining
|
|
|
Aggregate
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted Average
|
|
|
Contractual Term
|
|
|
Intrinsic
|
|
|
|
Shares
|
|
|
Exercise Price
|
|
|
(Years)
|
|
|
Value
|
|
|
Options outstanding at
December 31, 2005
|
|
|
1,867,570
|
|
|
$
|
7.19
|
|
|
|
7.55
|
|
|
$
|
11,482,717
|
|
Options granted
|
|
|
942,600
|
|
|
$
|
18.13
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Options forfeited
|
|
|
(95,577
|
)
|
|
$
|
8.72
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Options exercised
|
|
|
(360,378
|
)
|
|
$
|
7.39
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Options outstanding at
December 31, 2006
|
|
|
2,354,215
|
|
|
$
|
11.47
|
|
|
|
7.93
|
|
|
$
|
34,107,462
|
|
Vested and expected to vest at
December 31, 2006
|
|
|
2,005,688
|
|
|
$
|
10.96
|
|
|
|
7.33
|
|
|
$
|
30,088,807
|
|
Options exercisable at
December 31, 2006
|
|
|
915,450
|
|
|
$
|
7.25
|
|
|
|
6.38
|
|
|
$
|
17,120,100
|
|
The aggregate intrinsic value in the table above represents the
total pretax intrinsic value, based on our closing stock price
of $25.95 as of December 31, 2006, which would have been
received by the option holders had all option holders exercised
their options as of that date.
The options outstanding and currently exercisable at
December 31, 2006 were in the following exercise price
ranges:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Options Outstanding
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted Average
|
|
|
|
|
|
Options Exercisable
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Remaining
|
|
|
Weighted
|
|
|
Number
|
|
|
Weighted
|
|
|
|
Number of Shares
|
|
|
Contractual Term
|
|
|
Average
|
|
|
Vested and
|
|
|
Average
|
|
Range of Exercise Prices
|
|
Outstanding
|
|
|
(In Years)
|
|
|
Exercise Price
|
|
|
Exercisable
|
|
|
Exercise Price
|
|
|
$ 2.63 - $ 3.51
|
|
|
294,370
|
|
|
|
5.03
|
|
|
$
|
2.72
|
|
|
|
289,703
|
|
|
$
|
2.72
|
|
$ 3.63 - $ 6.75
|
|
|
294,420
|
|
|
|
6.18
|
|
|
$
|
4.65
|
|
|
|
172,647
|
|
|
$
|
4.79
|
|
$ 7.22 - $ 7.84
|
|
|
300,900
|
|
|
|
7.88
|
|
|
$
|
7.63
|
|
|
|
33,625
|
|
|
$
|
7.65
|
|
$ 7.93 - $10.01
|
|
|
297,200
|
|
|
|
7.90
|
|
|
$
|
9.00
|
|
|
|
187,400
|
|
|
$
|
9.62
|
|
$10.69 - $15.81
|
|
|
399,575
|
|
|
|
8.31
|
|
|
$
|
13.96
|
|
|
|
232,075
|
|
|
$
|
12.76
|
|
$16.13 - $16.13
|
|
|
374,750
|
|
|
|
9.66
|
|
|
$
|
16.13
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
$16.87 - $28.55
|
|
|
393,000
|
|
|
|
9.44
|
|
|
$
|
20.99
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ 2.63 - $28.55
|
|
|
2,354,215
|
|
|
|
7.93
|
|
|
$
|
11.47
|
|
|
|
915,450
|
|
|
$
|
7.25
|
|
As of December 31, 2006, the unrecognized deferred
stock-based compensation balance related to stock options was
$9.3 million and will be recognized over an estimated
weighted average amortization period of 1.9 years. The
amortization period is based on the expected term of the option,
which is defined as the period from grant date to exercise date.
54
INTEVAC,
INC.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
2003
Employee Stock Purchase Plan
During the twelve months ended December 31, 2006,
158,859 shares were purchased at an average per share price
of $5.18. At December 31, 2006, there were
387,937 shares available to be issued under the ESPP.
Prior to
the Adoption of SFAS No. 123(R)
Prior to the adoption of SFAS No. 123(R), we provided
the disclosures required under SFAS No. 123,
Accounting for Stock-Based Compensation, as amended
by SFAS No. 148, Accounting for Stock-Based
Compensation Transition and Disclosures.
Consistent with the disclosure provisions of SFAS 148, our
net income (loss) and basic and diluted earnings per share would
have been adjusted to the pro forma amounts indicated below:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(In thousands, except
|
|
|
|
per share amounts)
|
|
|
Net income (loss), as reported
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
16,151
|
|
|
$
|
(4,344
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
Deduct: Total stock-based employee
compensation expense determined under fair value based method
for all awards, net of related tax effects
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(2,907
|
)
|
|
|
(1,378
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pro forma net income (loss)
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
13,244
|
|
|
$
|
(5,722
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Earnings (loss) per share:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic as reported
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
0.79
|
|
|
$
|
(0.22
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
Basic pro forma
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
0.65
|
|
|
$
|
(0.29
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
Diluted as reported
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
0.76
|
|
|
$
|
(0.22
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
Diluted pro forma
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
0.62
|
|
|
$
|
(0.29
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
The weighted-average fair value of stock options granted was
$6.58 and $6.19 for the years ended December 31, 2005 and
2004, respectively. The weighted-average fair value of purchase
rights granted was $5.14 and $2.95 for the years ended
December 31, 2005 and 2004, respectively. The fair value of
each option grant and purchase right was estimated on the date
of grant using the Black-Scholes Merton option valuation model
with the following weighted average assumptions:
Stock
Options
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
Expected volatility
|
|
|
92.30
|
%
|
|
|
94.62
|
%
|
Risk free interest rate
|
|
|
4.30
|
%
|
|
|
3.60
|
%
|
Expected term of options and
purchase rights (in years)
|
|
|
5.99
|
|
|
|
5.60
|
|
Dividend yield
|
|
|
None
|
|
|
|
None
|
|
Employee
Stock Purchase Plan
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
Expected volatility
|
|
|
91.74
|
%
|
|
|
95.20
|
%
|
Risk free interest rate
|
|
|
3.89
|
%
|
|
|
2.37
|
%
|
Expected term of options and
purchase rights (in years)
|
|
|
1.27
|
|
|
|
1.92
|
|
Dividend yield
|
|
|
None
|
|
|
|
None
|
|
On October 27, 2005, our Board of Directors approved
accelerating the vesting of approximately 306,000
out-of-the-money
unvested common stock options previously awarded to employees
and officers under our stock option plans. Vesting was
accelerated for stock options that had exercise prices greater
than or equal to $9.06 per
55
INTEVAC,
INC.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
share, which was the closing price of our common stock on
October 27, 2005. In connection with the modification of
the terms of these options to accelerate their vesting,
approximately $1.5 million is reflected as a non-cash
compensation expense on a pro-forma basis in accordance with
SFAS 123 in the pro-forma table above for the year ended
December 31, 2005. This action was taken to reduce the
impact of future compensation expense that we would otherwise be
required to recognize in future consolidated statements of
operations pursuant to SFAS 123R.
Credit
Risk and Significant Customers
Financial instruments that potentially subject us to significant
concentrations of credit risk consist of cash equivalents,
short- and long-term investments, accounts receivable and
foreign exchange forward contracts. We generally invest our
excess cash in money market funds, auction rate securities,
commercial paper and in debt securities of the
U.S. government and its agencies, which each have
contracted maturities of 25 months or less and an average
maturity in aggregate of one year or less. By policy, our
investments in commercial paper, auction rate securities,
certificates of deposit, Eurodollar time deposits, or
bankers acceptances are rated AAA or better, and we limit
the amount of credit exposure to any one issuer. Our accounts
receivable tend to be concentrated in a limited number of
customers. At December 31, 2006, three customers accounted
for 39%, 34%, and 13% respectively of our accounts receivable
and in aggregate accounted for 86% of net accounts receivable.
At December 31, 2005, four customers accounted for 33%,
22%, 20% and 18% respectively of our accounts receivable and in
aggregate accounted for 93% of net accounts receivable.
Our largest customers tend to change from period to period.
Historically, a significant portion of our revenues in any
particular period have been attributable to sales to a limited
number of customers. In 2006, three customers accounted for 52%,
22% and 19%, respectively of our consolidated net revenues and
in aggregate accounted for 93% of net revenues. In 2005, four
customers accounted for 41%, 24%, 14% and 11%, respectively of
our consolidated net revenues and in aggregate accounted for 90%
of net revenues. In 2004, two customers accounted for 62% and
11%, respectively of our consolidated net revenues and in
aggregate accounted for 73% of net revenues. Intevac performs
credit evaluations of its customers financial condition
and generally requires deposits on system orders but does not
generally require collateral or other security to support
customer receivables.
Products
Disk manufacturing products contributed a significant portion of
our revenues in 2006, 2005 and 2004. We expect that our ability
to maintain or expand our current levels of revenues in the
future will depend upon continuing market demand for our
products; our success in enhancing our existing systems and
developing and manufacturing competitive disk manufacturing
equipment, such as our 200 Lean; our success in developing both
military and commercial products based on our low light
technology; and our success in utilizing our expertise in
complex manufacturing equipment to develop new equipment
products for semiconductor manufacturing.
601
California Avenue LLC
In 1995, we entered into a Limited Liability Company Operating
Agreement (the Operating Agreement), which expires
December 31, 2015, with 601 California Avenue LLC (the
LLC), a California limited liability company formed
and owned by Intevac and certain shareholders of Intevac at that
time. Under the Operating Agreement we transferred our leasehold
interest in the site of our discontinued night vision business
(the Site) in exchange for a preferred share in the
LLC with a face value of $3,900,000. We are accounting for the
investment under the cost method and have recorded our
investment in the LLC at $2,431,000, which represents our
historical carrying value of the leasehold interest in the Site.
The preferred share in the LLC pays a 10% annual cumulative
preferred dividend.
56
INTEVAC,
INC.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
During 1996, the LLC formed a joint venture with Stanford
University (the Stanford JV). The Stanford JV
developed the property and has leased the property through
August 2009. The LLC is a profitable enterprise whose primary
asset is its interest in the Stanford JV. The Company received
dividends of $390,000 from the LLC in each of the last three
years. These dividends are included in other income and expense.
|
|
6.
|
Commitments
and Contingencies
|
Leases
We lease certain facilities under non-cancelable operating
leases that expire at various times up to February 2013. Certain
of our leases contain provisions for rental adjustments,
including a provision based on increases in the Bay Area
Consumer Price Index. The facility leases require Intevac to pay
for all normal maintenance costs.
Future minimum rental payments under these leases at
December 31, 2006 are as follows (in thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
2007
|
|
$
|
2,706
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2,238
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2,295
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2,302
|
|
2011
|
|
|
2,310
|
|
Beyond
|
|
|
780
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
12,631
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gross rental expense was approximately $2,726,000, $2,454,000,
and $2,550,000 for the years ended December 31, 2006, 2005,
and 2004, respectively.
Contingencies
From time to time, we may have certain contingent liabilities
that arise in the ordinary course of our business activities. We
account for contingent liabilities when it is probable that
future expenditures will be made and such expenditures can be
reasonably estimated.
On July 7, 2006, we filed a patent infringement lawsuit
against Unaxis USA, Inc. and its affiliates, Unaxis Balzers AG
and Unaxis Balzers, Ltd., in the United States District Court
for the Central District of California. Our lawsuit against
Unaxis asserts infringement by Unaxis of United States Patent
6,919,001 which relates to our 200 Lean system. Our complaint
seeks monetary damages and an injunction that bars Unaxis from
making, using, offering to sell or selling in the United States,
or importing into the United States, Unaxis allegedly
infringing product. In the suit, we seek damages and a permanent
injunction for infringement of the same patent. We believe we
have meritorious claims, and we intend to pursue them vigorously.
On September 12, 2006, Unaxis filed a response to our
lawsuit in which it asserted non-infringement, invalidity of our
patent, inequitable conduct by Intevac, patent misuse by
Intevac, and lack of jurisdiction by the court as defenses.
Additionally, Unaxis requested a declaratory judgment of patent
non-infringement, invalidity and unenforceability; asserted our
violation of the California Business and Professional Code;
requested that we be enjoined from engaging in any unfair
competition; and requested that we be required to pay
Unaxis attorney fees. We believe such claims lack merit,
and we intend to defend ourselves vigorously.
We replied to Unaxis response on October 3, 2006,
denying the assertions of non-infringement, invalidity and
unenforceability of the Intevac patent, and denying any unfair
competition. With the approval of the Court, we amended our
complaint on February 6, 2007 to assert an additional
ground for our infringement claim and to add a request for a
declaratory judgment of infringement. Unaxis filed a response on
February 21, 2007, in which it repeated the assertions of
its September 12, 2006 response.
57
INTEVAC,
INC.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
On March 9, 2007, Unaxis filed a motion requesting that the
court stay the litigation pending action by the U.S. Patent
Office on their February 27, 2007 request for a
re-examination of United States Patent 6,919,001.
Employee
Savings and Retirement Plan
In 1991, we established a defined contribution retirement plan
with 401(k) plan features. The plan covers all United States
employees eighteen years and older. Employees may make
contributions by a percentage reduction in their salaries, not
to exceed the statutorily prescribed annual limit. We made cash
contributions of $437,000, $327,000, and $280,000 for the years
ended December 31, 2006, 2005, and 2004, respectively.
Employees may choose among twelve investment options for their
contributions and their share of Intevacs contributions,
and they are able to move funds between investment options at
any time. Intevacs common stock is not one of the
investment options. Administrative expenses relating to the plan
are insignificant.
Employee
Bonus Plans
We have various employee bonus plans. A profit-sharing plan
provides for the distribution of a percentage of pre-tax profits
to substantially all of our employees not eligible for other
performance-based incentive plans, up to a maximum percentage of
compensation. Other plans award annual or quarterly bonuses to
our executives and key contributors based on the achievement of
profitability and other specific performance criteria. Charges
to expense under these plans were $8.3 million and
$3.2 million for the years ended December 31, 2006 and
2005, respectively. Charges were not material for the year ended
December 31, 2004.
Segment
Description
We have two reportable operating segments: Equipment and
Imaging. Our Equipment business designs, manufactures, markets
and services complex capital equipment used in the sputtering,
or deposition, of highly engineered thin-films of material onto
magnetic disks which are used in hard disk drives and is
developing a system for the semiconductor manufacturing market.
Our Imaging business develops and manufactures electro-optical
sensors, cameras and systems that permit highly sensitive
detection of photons in the visible and near infrared portions
of the spectrum, allowing vision in extreme low light situations.
Included in corporate activities are general corporate expenses,
less an allocation of corporate expenses to operating units
equal to 3% of net revenues. Assets of corporate activities
include unallocated cash and short-term investments, deferred
tax assets and other assets.
Segment
Profit or Loss and Segment Assets
We evaluate performance and allocate resources based on a number
of factors, including profit or loss from operations and future
revenue potential. The accounting policies of the reportable
segments are the same as those described in the summary of
significant accounting policies.
Business
Segment Net Revenues
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(In thousands)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Equipment
|
|
$
|
248,482
|
|
|
$
|
129,280
|
|
|
$
|
60,490
|
|
Imaging
|
|
|
11,393
|
|
|
|
7,949
|
|
|
|
9,125
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
259,875
|
|
|
$
|
137,229
|
|
|
$
|
69,615
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
58
INTEVAC,
INC.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
Business
Segment Profit (Loss)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
|
(In thousands)
|
|
|
Equipment(1)
|
|
$
|
52,223
|
|
|
$
|
20,413
|
|
|
$
|
(377
|
)
|
Imaging(2)
|
|
|
(4,826
|
)
|
|
|
(5,798
|
)
|
|
|
(4,114
|
)
|
Corporate activities
|
|
|
602
|
|
|
|
102
|
|
|
|
(758
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating income (loss)
|
|
|
47,999
|
|
|
|
14,717
|
|
|
|
(5,249
|
)
|
Interest income
|
|
|
3,501
|
|
|
|
1,303
|
|
|
|
634
|
|
Other income and expense, net
|
|
|
277
|
|
|
|
552
|
|
|
|
381
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income (loss) before income taxes
|
|
$
|
51,777
|
|
|
$
|
16,572
|
|
|
$
|
(4,234
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Includes inventory provisions of $1,403,000, $782,000, and
$1,263,000 in 2006, 2005, and 2004, respectively. |
|
(2) |
|
Includes inventory provisions of $124,000, $91,000, and $112,000
in 2006, 2005, and 2004, respectively. |
Business
Segment Assets
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
|
(In thousands)
|
|
|
Equipment
|
|
$
|
84,366
|
|
|
$
|
68,672
|
|
Imaging
|
|
|
7,379
|
|
|
|
7,665
|
|
Corporate activities
|
|
|
115,847
|
|
|
|
54,107
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total assets
|
|
$
|
207,592
|
|
|
$
|
130,444
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Business
Segment Property, Plant & Equipment
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Additions
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
|
(In thousands)
|
|
|
Equipment
|
|
$
|
5,702
|
|
|
$
|
2,184
|
|
Imaging
|
|
|
979
|
|
|
|
934
|
|
Corporate activities
|
|
|
1,742
|
|
|
|
1,022
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total additions
|
|
$
|
8,423
|
|
|
$
|
4,140
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Depreciation
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
|
(In thousands)
|
|
|
Equipment
|
|
$
|
1,120
|
|
|
$
|
822
|
|
|
$
|
561
|
|
Imaging
|
|
|
1,217
|
|
|
|
1,054
|
|
|
|
1,188
|
|
Corporate activities
|
|
|
509
|
|
|
|
274
|
|
|
|
282
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total depreciation
|
|
$
|
2,846
|
|
|
$
|
2,150
|
|
|
$
|
2,031
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Geographic Breakdown
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
|
(In thousands)
|
|
|
United States
|
|
$
|
12,690
|
|
|
$
|
7,773
|
|
Asia
|
|
|
856
|
|
|
|
207
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net property, plant &
equipment
|
|
$
|
13,546
|
|
|
$
|
7,980
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
59
INTEVAC,
INC.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
Geographic
Area Net Trade Revenues
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
|
(In thousands)
|
|
|
United States
|
|
$
|
26,473
|
|
|
$
|
39,754
|
|
|
$
|
22,545
|
|
Asia
|
|
|
233,158
|
|
|
|
96,694
|
|
|
|
46,452
|
|
Europe
|
|
|
244
|
|
|
|
781
|
|
|
|
618
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total revenues
|
|
$
|
259,875
|
|
|
$
|
137,229
|
|
|
$
|
69,615
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Revenues are attributable to the geographic area in which our
customers are located.
The provision for (benefit from) income taxes on income from
continuing operations consists of the following (in thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Years Ended December 31,
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
Federal:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current
|
|
$
|
9,479
|
|
|
$
|
392
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
Deferred
|
|
|
(3,750
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5,729
|
|
|
|
392
|
|
|
|
|
|
State:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current
|
|
|
2
|
|
|
|
9
|
|
|
|
115
|
|
Deferred
|
|
|
(831
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(829
|
)
|
|
|
9
|
|
|
|
115
|
|
Foreign:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current
|
|
|
179
|
|
|
|
20
|
|
|
|
(5
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
5,079
|
|
|
$
|
421
|
|
|
$
|
110
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income (loss) before income taxes consisted of the following (in
thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Years Ended December 31,
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
U.S.
|
|
$
|
51,004
|
|
|
$
|
16,319
|
|
|
$
|
(4,312
|
)
|
Foreign
|
|
|
773
|
|
|
|
253
|
|
|
|
78
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
51,777
|
|
|
$
|
16,572
|
|
|
$
|
(4,234
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The tax benefits associated with exercises of nonqualified stock
options and disqualifying dispositions of stock acquired through
incentive stock options and the employee stock purchase plan
reduced taxes currently payable for 2006 by $2.7 million.
Such benefits were credited to additional paid-in capital.
60
INTEVAC,
INC.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
Deferred income taxes reflect the net tax effects of temporary
differences between the carrying amounts of assets and
liabilities for financial reporting purposes and the amounts for
income tax purposes. Significant components of our deferred tax
assets computed in accordance with SFAS No. 109 are as
follows (in thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
Deferred tax assets:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Vacation, rent, warranty and other
accruals
|
|
$
|
2,090
|
|
|
$
|
1,581
|
|
Depreciation
|
|
|
44
|
|
|
|
1,409
|
|
Inventory valuation
|
|
|
3,135
|
|
|
|
3,893
|
|
Deferred income
|
|
|
248
|
|
|
|
544
|
|
Equity-based compensation
|
|
|
1,084
|
|
|
|
|
|
Research and other tax credit
carry-forwards
|
|
|
590
|
|
|
|
637
|
|
Federal and State NOL
carry-forwards
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6,502
|
|
Other
|
|
|
234
|
|
|
|
466
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7,425
|
|
|
|
15,032
|
|
Valuation allowance for deferred
tax assets
|
|
|
(2,844
|
)
|
|
|
(15,032
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net deferred tax assets
|
|
$
|
4,581
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As reported on the balance sheet:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current assets
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Deferred tax assets
|
|
$
|
4,488
|
|
|
$
|
4,424
|
|
Valuation allowance for deferred
tax assets
|
|
|
(1,219
|
)
|
|
|
(4,424
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net current deferred tax assets
|
|
|
3,269
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other long term assets
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Deferred tax assets
|
|
|
2,937
|
|
|
|
10,608
|
|
Valuation allowance for deferred
tax assets
|
|
|
(1,625
|
)
|
|
|
(10,608
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net non-current deferred tax assets
|
|
|
1,312
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net deferred tax assets
|
|
$
|
4,581
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The valuation allowance decreased by $12.2 million during
2006 due to the utilization of deferred tax assets and the
partial release of the allowance. The remaining valuation
allowance is attributable to deferred tax assets not realizable
for 2006.
A reconciliation of the income tax provision on income from
continuing operations at the federal statutory rate of 35% to
the income tax provision at the effective tax rate is as follows
(in thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Years Ended December 31,
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
Income taxes (benefit) at the
federal statutory rate
|
|
$
|
18,122
|
|
|
$
|
5,795
|
|
|
$
|
(1,472
|
)
|
State income taxes, net of federal
benefit
|
|
|
(539
|
)
|
|
|
6
|
|
|
|
75
|
|
Effect of foreign operations taxes
at various rates
|
|
|
(93
|
)
|
|
|
(39
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
Research tax credits
|
|
|
(2,128
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Effect of tax rate changes,
permanent differences and adjustments of prior deferrals
|
|
|
(38
|
)
|
|
|
(430
|
)
|
|
|
(1,751
|
)
|
Stock-based compensation
|
|
|
1,943
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Change in valuation allowance
|
|
|
(12,188
|
)
|
|
|
(4,911
|
)
|
|
|
3,258
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
5,079
|
|
|
$
|
421
|
|
|
$
|
110
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
61
INTEVAC,
INC.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
|
|
10.
|
Other
Accrued Liabilities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
|
(In thousands)
|
|
|
Accrued product warranties
|
|
$
|
4,208
|
|
|
$
|
2,705
|
|
Accrued taxes
|
|
|
1,533
|
|
|
|
2,000
|
|
Deferred income
|
|
|
573
|
|
|
|
1,254
|
|
Other
|
|
|
298
|
|
|
|
223
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total other accrued liabilities
|
|
$
|
6,612
|
|
|
$
|
6,182
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
11.
|
Quarterly
Consolidated Results of Operations (Unaudited)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months Ended
|
|
|
|
April 1,
|
|
|
July 1,
|
|
|
Sept. 30,
|
|
|
Dec. 31,
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
|
(In thousands, except per share data)
|
|
|
Net sales
|
|
$
|
49,620
|
|
|
$
|
59,542
|
|
|
$
|
54,829
|
|
|
$
|
95,884
|
|
Gross profit
|
|
|
17,306
|
|
|
|
21,262
|
|
|
|
23,280
|
|
|
|
39,111
|
|
Net income
|
|
|
7,011
|
|
|
|
9,333
|
|
|
|
9,013
|
|
|
|
21,341
|
|
Basic income per share
|
|
$
|
0.34
|
|
|
$
|
0.44
|
|
|
$
|
0.43
|
|
|
$
|
1.01
|
|
Diluted income per share
|
|
|
0.32
|
|
|
|
0.42
|
|
|
|
0.41
|
|
|
|
0.97
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months Ended
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
April 2,
|
|
|
July 2,
|
|
|
Oct. 1,
|
|
|
Dec. 31,
|
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
|
(In thousands, except per share data)
|
|
|
Net sales
|
|
$
|
10,605
|
|
|
$
|
30,418
|
|
|
$
|
43,507
|
|
|
$
|
52,699
|
|
Gross profit
|
|
|
1,995
|
|
|
|
9,661
|
|
|
|
13,554
|
|
|
|
18,368
|
|
Net income (loss)
|
|
|
(3,897
|
)
|
|
|
3,927
|
|
|
|
6,191
|
|
|
|
9,930
|
|
Basic income (loss) per share
|
|
$
|
(0.19
|
)
|
|
$
|
0.19
|
|
|
$
|
0.30
|
|
|
$
|
0.48
|
|
Diluted income (loss) per share
|
|
|
(0.19
|
)
|
|
|
0.19
|
|
|
|
0.29
|
|
|
|
0.46
|
|
On January 31, 2007 we completed the acquisition of the
assets and certain liabilities of DeltaNu, LLC, a Laramie,
Wyoming company specializing in small footprint and handheld
Raman spectroscopy instruments. The total acquisition price was
$6 million, with $2 million due at the close of the
acquisition and $2 million due on each of January 31,
2008 and January 31, 2009. DeltaNus business and
employees will be integrated into Intevacs Imaging
organization.
62
|
|
Item 9.
|
Changes
In and Disagreements With Accountants on Accounting and
Financial Disclosure
|
None.
|
|
Item 9A.
|
Controls
and Procedures
|
Managements
Report on Assessment of Internal Controls Over Financial
Reporting
Our management is responsible for establishing and maintaining
adequate internal control over financial reporting, as such term
is defined under
Rules 13a-15(f)
and
15d-15(f)
promulgated under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended. Our internal control over financial reporting is a
process designed to provide reasonable assurance regarding the
reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of
financial statements for external purposes in accordance with
accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of
America. Internal control over financial reporting includes
those policies and procedures that:
|
|
|
|
|
Pertain to the maintenance of records that in, reasonable
detail, accurately and fairly reflect the transactions and
dispositions of the assets of our company;
|
|
|
|
provide reasonable assurance that transactions are recorded as
necessary to permit preparation of financial statements in
accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, and
that receipts and expenditures of the Company are being made
only in accordance with authorizations of our management and
directors; and
|
|
|
|
provide reasonable assurance regarding prevention or timely
detection of unauthorized acquisition, use or disposition of our
assets that could have a material affect on the financial
statements.
|
Because of its inherent limitations, internal control over
financial reporting may not prevent or detect all misstatements
or fraud. Further, the design of a control system must reflect
the fact that there are resource constraints, and the benefit of
controls must be considered relative to their costs. As a result
of these inherent limitations in all control systems, no
evaluation of controls can provide absolute assurance that all
control issues and instances of fraud, if any, within the
Company have been detected. These limitations include the
realities that judgments in decision-making can be faulty, and
that breakdowns can occur because of a simple error or mistake.
As a result of these limitations, misstatements due to error or
fraud may occur or not be detected. Accordingly, the
Companys disclosure controls and procedures are designed
to provide reasonable, not absolute, assurance that the
disclosure controls and procedures are met. Also, projections of
any evaluation of effectiveness to future periods are subject to
the risk that controls may become inadequate because of changes
in conditions, or that the degree of compliance with the
policies or procedures may deteriorate.
In order to evaluate the effectiveness of internal control over
financial reporting, as required by Section 404 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act, management has conducted an assessment,
including testing, using the criteria in Internal
Control Integrated Framework, issued by the
Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission
(COSO). Based on our assessment using those criteria, we
concluded that, as of December 31, 2006, Intevac
Inc.s internal control over financial reporting was
effective to provide reasonable assurance regarding the
reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of
financial statements for external purposes in accordance with
generally accepted accounting principles.
Managements assessment of the effectiveness of the
internal control over financial reporting as of
December 31, 2006 has been audited by Grant Thornton LLP,
the Companys independent registered public accounting
firm, as stated in their report which is included at
page 65 herein.
Changes
in Internal Control over Financial Reporting.
During the fourth quarter of fiscal 2006, there were no changes
in the internal control over financial reporting that materially
affected, or are reasonably likely to materially affect,
Intevacs internal control over financial reporting.
63
Evaluation
of disclosure controls and procedures
We maintain a set of disclosure controls and procedures that are
designed to ensure that information relating to Intevac, Inc.
required to be disclosed in periodic filings under Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, or Exchange Act, is recorded, processed,
summarized and reported in a timely manner under the Exchange
Act. In connection with the filing of this
Form 10-K
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2005, as required
under
Rule 13a-15(b)
of the Exchange Act, an evaluation was carried out under the
supervision and with the participation of management, including
the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, of the
effectiveness of our disclosure controls and procedures as of
the end of the period covered by this annual report. Based on
this evaluation, our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial
Officer concluded that our disclosure controls and procedures
were effective as of December 31, 2006.
Limitations
on the Effectiveness of Controls
Our management, including the CEO and CFO, does not expect that
our disclosure controls or our internal control over financial
reporting will prevent all error and all fraud. A control
system, no matter how well designed and operated, can provide
only reasonable, not absolute, assurance that the control
systems objectives will be met. Further, the design of a
control system must reflect the fact that there are resource
constraints, and the benefits of controls must be considered
relative to their costs. Because of the inherent limitations in
all control systems, no evaluation of controls can provide
absolute assurance that all control issues and instances of
fraud, if any, within the Company have been detected. These
inherent limitations include the realities that judgments in
decision-making can be faulty and that breakdowns can occur
because of simple error or mistake. Controls can also be
circumvented by the individual acts of some persons, by
collusion of two or more people, or by management override of
the controls. The design of any system of controls is based in
part on certain assumptions about the likelihood of future
events, and there can be no assurance that any design will
succeed in achieving its stated goals under all potential future
conditions. Over time, controls may become inadequate because of
changes in conditions or deterioration in the degree of
compliance with policies or procedures. Because of the inherent
limitations in a cost-effective control system, misstatements
due to error or fraud may occur and not be detected.
64
REPORT OF
INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
ON INTERNAL CONTROL OVER FINANCIAL REPORTING
Board of Directors and Stockholders of
Intevac, Inc.
We have audited managements assessment, included in the
accompanying Managements Report on Internal Control Over
Financial Reporting as of December 31, 2006, that Intevac,
Inc. maintained effective internal control over financial
reporting as of December 31, 2006, based on criteria
established in Internal Control Integrated Framework
issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the
Treadway Commission (COSO). Intevac, Inc.s management is
responsible for maintaining effective internal control over
financial reporting, and for its assessment of the effectiveness
of internal control over financial reporting. Our responsibility
is to express an opinion on managements assessment, and an
opinion on the effectiveness of the Companys internal
control over financial reporting based on our audit.
We conducted our audit in accordance with the standards of the
Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those
standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain
reasonable assurance about whether effective internal control
over financial reporting was maintained in all material
respects. Our audit of internal control included obtaining an
understanding of internal control over financial reporting,
evaluating managements assessment, testing and evaluating
the design and operating effectiveness of internal control, and
performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in
the circumstances. We believe that our audit provides a
reasonable basis for our opinion.
A companys internal control over financial reporting is a
process designed to provide reasonable assurance regarding the
reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of
financial statements for external purposes in accordance with
generally accepted accounting principles. A companys
internal control over financial reporting includes those
policies and procedures that (1) pertain to the maintenance
of records that, in reasonable detail, accurately and fairly
reflect the transactions and dispositions of the assets of the
company; (2) provide reasonable assurance that transactions
are recorded as necessary to permit preparation of financial
statements in accordance with generally accepted accounting
principles, and that receipts and expenditures of the company
are being made only in accordance with authorizations of
management and directors of the company; and (3) provide
reasonable assurance regarding prevention or timely detection of
unauthorized acquisition, use, or disposition of the
companys assets that could have a material effect on the
financial statements.
Because of its inherent limitations, internal control over
financial reporting may not prevent or detect misstatements.
Also, projections of any evaluation of effectiveness to future
periods are subject to the risk that controls may become
inadequate because of changes in conditions, or that the degree
of compliance with the policies or procedures may deteriorate.
In our opinion, managements assessment that Intevac, Inc.
maintained effective internal control over financial reporting
as of December 31, 2006, is fairly stated, in all material
respects, based on Internal Control Integrated
Framework issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of
the Treadway Commission (COSO). Furthermore, in our opinion,
Intevac, Inc. maintained, in all material respects, effective
internal control over financial reporting as of
December 31, 2006, based on Internal Control
Integrated Framework issued by the Committee of Sponsoring
Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO).
We have also audited, in accordance with the standards of the
Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), the
consolidated balance sheets of Intevac Inc. as of
December 31, 2006 and 2005, and the related consolidated
statements of operations and comprehensive income (loss),
shareholders equity and cash flows for each of the three
years in the period ended December 31, 2006 and our report
dated March 15, 2007 expressed an unqualified opinion on
those financial statements.
San Jose, CA
March 15, 2007
65
|
|
Item 9B.
|
Other
Information
|
Not applicable.
PART III
|
|
Item 10.
|
Directors,
Executive Officers and Corporate Governance
|
The information required by this item relating to the
Companys directors and nominees, disclosure relating to
compliance with Section 16(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, and information regarding our code of ethics, audit
committee and shareholder recommendations for director nominees
is included under the captions Election of
Directors, Nominees, Business Experience
of Nominees for Election as Directors, Board
Meetings and Committees, Corporate Governance
Matters, Section 16(a) Beneficial Ownership
Reporting Compliance and Code of Ethics in the
Companys Proxy Statement for the 2007 Annual Meeting of
Shareholders and is incorporated herein by reference. The
information required by this item relating to the Companys
executive officers and key employees is included under the
caption Executive Officers under Item 4 in
Part I of this Annual Report on
Form 10-K.
|
|
Item 11.
|
Executive
Compensation
|
The information required by this item is included under the
caption Executive Compensation and Related
Information in the Companys Proxy Statement for the
2007 Annual Meeting of Shareholders and is incorporated herein
by reference.
|
|
Item 12.
|
Security
Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management and
Related Stockholder Matters
|
Securities authorized for issuance under equity compensation
plans. The following table summarizes the number
of outstanding options granted to employees and directors, as
well as the number of securities remaining available for future
issuance, under our equity compensation plans at
December 31, 2006.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(c)
|
|
|
|
(a)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Number of Securities
|
|
|
|
Number of Securities
|
|
|
(b)
|
|
|
Remaining Available
|
|
|
|
to be Issued Upon
|
|
|
Weighted-Average
|
|
|
for Future Issuance
|
|
|
|
Exercise of
|
|
|
Exercise Price of
|
|
|
Under Equity
|
|
|
|
Outstanding Options,
|
|
|
Outstanding Options,
|
|
|
Compensation Plans
|
|
Plan Category
|
|
Warrants and Rights
|
|
|
Warrants and Rights
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1)
|
|
|
Equity compensation plans approved
by security holders(2)
|
|
|
2,354,215
|
|
|
$
|
11.47
|
|
|
|
674,307
|
|
Equity compensation plans not
approved by security holders
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
2,354,215
|
|
|
$
|
11.47
|
|
|
|
674,307
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Excludes securities reflected in column (a). |
|
(2) |
|
Included in the column (c) amount are 387,937 shares
available for future issuance under Intevacs 2003 Employee
Stock Purchase Plan. |
The other information required by this item is included under
the caption Ownership of Securities in the
Companys Proxy Statement for the 2007 Annual Meeting of
Shareholders and is incorporated herein by reference.
|
|
Item 13.
|
Certain
Relationships and Related Transactions, and Director
Independence
|
The information required by this item is included under the
captions Certain Transactions and Corporate
Governance Matters in the Companys Proxy Statement
for the 2007 Annual Meeting of Shareholders and is incorporated
herein by reference.
66
|
|
Item 14.
|
Principal
Accountant Fees and Services
|
The information required by this item is included under the
caption Fees Paid To Accountants For Services Rendered
During 2006 in the Companys Proxy Statement for the
2007 Annual Meeting of Shareholders and is incorporated herein
by reference.
PART IV
|
|
Item 15.
|
Exhibits
and Financial Statement Schedules
|
(a) List of Documents filed as part of this Annual Report
on
Form 10-K.
1. The following consolidated financial statements of
Intevac, Inc. are filed in Part II, Item 8 of this
Annual Report on
Form 10-K:
Report of Grant Thornton LLP, Independent Auditors
Consolidated Balance Sheets as of December 31, 2006 and 2005
Consolidated Statements of Operations and Comprehensive Income
(Loss) for the years ended December 31, 2006, 2005 and 2004
Consolidated Statement of Shareholders Equity for the
years ended December 31, 2006, 2005 and 2004
Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows for the years ended
December 31, 2006, 2005 and 2004
Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements for the years ended
December 31, 2006, 2005 and 2004
2. Financial Statement Schedules.
The following financial statement schedule of Intevac, Inc. is
filed in Part IV, Item 15(a) of this Annual Report on
Form 10-K:
Schedule II Valuation and Qualifying Accounts
All other schedules have been omitted since the required
information is not present in amounts sufficient to require
submission of the schedule or because the information required
is included in the consolidated financial statements or notes
thereto.
3. Exhibits
|
|
|
|
|
Exhibit
|
|
|
Number
|
|
Description
|
|
|
3
|
.1(1)
|
|
Amended and Restated Articles of
Incorporation of the Registrant
|
|
3
|
.2(5)
|
|
Amended and Restated Bylaws of the
Registrant
|
|
10
|
.1+(1)
|
|
The Registrants 1991 Stock
Option/Stock Issuance Plan
|
|
10
|
.2+(1)
|
|
The Registrants 1995 Stock
Option/Stock Issuance Plan, as amended
|
|
10
|
.3+(1)
|
|
The Registrants Employee
Stock Purchase Plan, as amended
|
|
10
|
.4+(2)
|
|
The Registrants 2004 Equity
Incentive Plan
|
|
10
|
.5
|
|
Lease, dated February 5, 2001
regarding the space located at 3510, 3544, 3560, 3570 and 3580
Bassett Street, Santa Clara, California, as amended
|
|
10
|
.7(1)
|
|
601 California Avenue LLC Limited
Liability Operating Agreement, dated July 28, 1995
|
|
10
|
.8+(1)
|
|
The Registrants 401(k)
Profit Sharing Plan
|
|
10
|
.9+(3)
|
|
The Registrants 2005
Executive Incentive Plan
|
67
|
|
|
|
|
Exhibit
|
|
|
Number
|
|
Description
|
|
|
10
|
.10+(4)
|
|
The Registrants Executive
Incentive Plan
|
|
21
|
.1
|
|
Subsidiaries of the Registrant
|
|
23
|
.1
|
|
Consent of Independent Registered
Public Accounting Firm
|
|
24
|
.1
|
|
Power of Attorney (see
page 65)
|
|
31
|
.1
|
|
Certification of President and
Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to Section 302 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
|
|
31
|
.2
|
|
Certification of Vice-President,
Finance and Administration, Chief Financial Officer, Treasurer
and Secretary Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002
|
|
32
|
.1
|
|
Certifications Pursuant to U.S.C.
1350, adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Previously filed as an exhibit to the Registration Statement on
Form S-1
(No. 33-97806) |
|
(2) |
|
Previously filed as an exhibit to the Companys Definitive
Proxy Statement filed March 31, 2004 |
|
(3) |
|
Previously filed as an exhibit to the Companys Report on
Form 8-K
filed February 7, 2005 |
|
(4) |
|
Previously filed as an exhibit to the Companys Report on
Form 8-K
filed February 7, 2006 |
|
(5) |
|
Previously filed as an exhibit to the Companys Report on
Form 8-K
filed November 1, 2006 |
|
+ |
|
Management compensatory plan or arrangement required to be filed
as an exhibit pursuant to Item 15(c) of
Form 10-K |
68
SIGNATURES
Pursuant to the requirements of Section 13 or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly caused
this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned,
thereunto duly authorized, on March 15, 2007.
INTEVAC, INC.
|
|
|
|
By:
|
/s/ CHARLES
B. EDDY III
|
Charles B. Eddy, III
Vice President, Finance and Administration,
Chief Financial Officer, Treasurer and Secretary
(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
POWER OF
ATTORNEY
KNOW ALL PERSONS BY THESE PRESENTS, that each person whose
signature appears below constitutes and appoints Kevin Fairbairn
and Charles B. Eddy III, and each of them, as his true and
lawful
attorneys-in-fact
and agents, with full power of substitution and resubstitution,
for him and in his name, place and stead, in any and all
capacities, to sign any and all amendments (including
post-effective amendments) to this Report on
Form 10-K,
and to file the same, with all exhibits thereto, and other
documents in connection therewith, with the Securities and
Exchange Commission, granting unto said
attorneys-in-fact
and agents, and each of them, full power and authority to do and
perform each and every act and thing requisite and necessary to
be done in connection therewith, as fully to all intents and
purposes as he might or could do in person, hereby ratifying and
confirming all that said
attorneys-in-fact
and agents, or any of them, or their or his substitute or
substitutes, may lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue
hereof.
Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, this report has been signed below by the following persons
on behalf of the registrant and in the capacities and on the
dates indicated.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Signature
|
|
Title
|
|
Date
|
|
/s/ KEVIN
FAIRBAIRN
(Kevin
Fairbairn)
|
|
President, Chief Executive Officer
and Director (Principal Executive Officer)
|
|
March 15, 2007
|
|
|
|
|
|
/s/ NORMAN
H. POND
(Norman
H. Pond)
|
|
Chairman of the Board
|
|
March 15, 2007
|
|
|
|
|
|
/s/ CHARLES
B.
EDDY III
(Charles
B. EDDY III)
|
|
Vice President, Finance and
Administration, Chief Financial Officer Treasurer and Secretary
(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
|
|
March 15, 2007
|
|
|
|
|
|
/s/ DAVID
DURY
(David
Dury)
|
|
Director
|
|
March 15, 2007
|
|
|
|
|
|
/s/ STANLEY
J. HIL
(Stanley
J. Hill)
|
|
Director
|
|
March 15, 2007
|
|
|
|
|
|
/s/ ROBERT
LEMOS
(Robert
Lemos)
|
|
Director
|
|
March 15, 2007
|
69
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Signature
|
|
Title
|
|
Date
|
|
/s/ ARTHUR
L. MONEY
(Arthur
L. Money)
|
|
Director
|
|
March 15, 2007
|
|
|
|
|
|
/s/ PING
YANG
(Ping
Yang)
|
|
Director
|
|
March 15, 2007
|
70
SCHEDULE II
VALUATION AND QUALIFYING ACCOUNTS
INTEVAC,
INC.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Additions (Reductions)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance at
|
|
|
Charged (Credited)
|
|
|
Charged (Credited)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance at
|
|
|
|
Beginning
|
|
|
to Costs and
|
|
|
to Other
|
|
|
|
|
|
End
|
|
Description
|
|
of Period
|
|
|
Expenses
|
|
|
Accounts
|
|
|
Deductions - Describe
|
|
|
of Period
|
|
|
|
(In thousands)
|
|
|
Year ended December 31, 2004:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Deducted from asset accounts:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Allowance for doubtful accounts
|
|
$
|
22
|
|
|
$
|
218
|
|
|
$
|
(23
|
)
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
217
|
|
Inventory provisions
|
|
|
10,192
|
|
|
|
1,375
|
|
|
|
(121
|
)
|
|
|
1,583
|
(2)
|
|
|
9,863
|
|
Year ended December 31, 2005:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Deducted from asset accounts:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Allowance for doubtful accounts
|
|
$
|
217
|
|
|
$
|
211
|
|
|
$
|
(268
|
)
|
|
$
|
6
|
(1)
|
|
$
|
154
|
|
Inventory provisions
|
|
|
9,863
|
|
|
|
873
|
|
|
|
376
|
|
|
|
124
|
(2)
|
|
|
10,988
|
|
Year ended December 31, 2006:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Deducted from asset accounts:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Allowance for doubtful accounts
|
|
$
|
154
|
|
|
$
|
(14
|
)
|
|
$
|
3
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
143
|
|
Inventory provisions
|
|
|
10,988
|
|
|
|
1,527
|
|
|
|
(32
|
)
|
|
|
3,355
|
(2)
|
|
|
9,128
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Write-offs of amounts deemed uncollectible. |
|
(2) |
|
Write-off of inventory having no future use or value to the
Company |
71
Exhibit
Index
|
|
|
|
|
Exhibit
|
|
|
Number
|
|
Description
|
|
|
3
|
.1(1)
|
|
Amended and Restated Articles of
Incorporation of the Registrant
|
|
3
|
.2(5)
|
|
Amended and Restated Bylaws of the
Registrant
|
|
10
|
.1+(1)
|
|
The Registrants 1991 Stock
Option/Stock Issuance Plan
|
|
10
|
.2+(1)
|
|
The Registrants 1995 Stock
Option/Stock Issuance Plan, as amended
|
|
10
|
.3+(1)
|
|
The Registrants Employee
Stock Purchase Plan, as amended
|
|
10
|
.4+(2)
|
|
The Registrants 2004 Equity
Incentive Plan
|
|
10
|
.5
|
|
Lease, dated February 5, 2001
regarding the space located at 3510, 3544, 3560, 3570 and 3580
Bassett Street, Santa Clara, California, as amended
|
|
10
|
.7(1)
|
|
601 California Avenue LLC Limited
Liability Operating Agreement, dated July 28, 1995
|
|
10
|
.8+(1)
|
|
The Registrants 401(k)
Profit Sharing Plan
|
|
10
|
.9+(3)
|
|
The Registrants 2005
Executive Incentive Plan
|
|
10
|
.10+(4)
|
|
The Registrants Executive
Incentive Plan
|
|
21
|
.1
|
|
Subsidiaries of the Registrant
|
|
23
|
.1
|
|
Consent of Independent Registered
Public Accounting Firm
|
|
24
|
.1
|
|
Power of Attorney (see
page 65)
|
|
31
|
.1
|
|
Certification of President and
Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to Section 302 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
|
|
31
|
.2
|
|
Certification of Vice-President,
Finance and Administration, Chief Financial Officer, Treasurer
and Secretary Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002
|
|
32
|
.1
|
|
Certifications Pursuant to U.S.C.
1350, adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Previously filed as an exhibit to the Registration Statement on
Form S-1
(No. 33-97806) |
|
(2) |
|
Previously filed as an exhibit to the Companys Definitive
Proxy Statement filed March 31, 2004 |
|
(3) |
|
Previously filed as an exhibit to the Companys Report on
Form 8-K
filed February 7, 2005 |
|
(4) |
|
Previously filed as an exhibit to the Companys Report on
Form 8-K
filed February 7, 2006 |
|
(5) |
|
Previously filed as an exhibit to the Companys Report on
Form 8-K
filed November 1, 2006 |
|
|
|
+ |
|
Management compensatory plan or arrangement required to be filed
as an exhibit pursuant to Item 15(c) of
Form 10-K |
72