e10vq
UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, DC 20549
FORM 10-Q
(MARK ONE)
|
|
|
þ |
|
QUARTERLY REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 |
For the quarterly period ended July 3, 2010
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)
|
|
|
Delaware
|
|
94-3125814 |
(State or other jurisdiction of
|
|
(IRS Employer Identification No.) |
incorporation or organization) |
|
|
3560 Bassett Street
Santa Clara, California 95054
(Address of principal executive office, including Zip Code)
Registrants telephone number, including area code: (408) 986-9888
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. þ Yes o No
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its
corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted
pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (§232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months
(or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit and post such files). o Yes o No
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated
filer, a non-accelerated filer, or a smaller reporting company. See the definitions of large
accelerated filer, accelerated filer and smaller reporting company in Rule 12b-2 of the
Exchange Act. (Check one):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Large accelerated filer o
|
|
Accelerated filer þ
|
|
Non-accelerated filer o
|
|
Smaller reporting company o |
|
|
|
|
(Do not check if a smaller reporting company) |
|
|
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of
the Act). o Yes þ No
On August 3, 2010, 22,430,470 shares of the Registrants Common Stock, $0.001 par value, were
outstanding.
PART I. FINANCIAL INFORMATION
Item 1. Financial Statements
INTEVAC, INC.
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
July 3, |
|
|
December 31, |
|
|
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
|
(Unaudited) |
|
|
|
(In thousands) |
|
ASSETS
|
Current assets: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents |
|
$ |
26,807 |
|
|
$ |
17,592 |
|
Short-term investments |
|
|
|
|
|
|
6,000 |
|
Trade and other accounts receivable, net of allowances of $55 at
July 3, 2010 and $133 at December 31, 2009 |
|
|
63,583 |
|
|
|
44,756 |
|
Inventories |
|
|
42,551 |
|
|
|
19,100 |
|
Prepaid expenses and other current assets |
|
|
7,595 |
|
|
|
6,687 |
|
Deferred income tax assets |
|
|
1,326 |
|
|
|
1,515 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total current assets |
|
|
141,862 |
|
|
|
95,650 |
|
Property, plant and equipment, net |
|
|
11,927 |
|
|
|
12,351 |
|
Long-term investments |
|
|
61,632 |
|
|
|
66,249 |
|
Goodwill |
|
|
7,905 |
|
|
|
7,905 |
|
Other intangible assets, net of amortization of $1,526 at July
3, 2010 and $1,248 at December 31, 2009 |
|
|
3,258 |
|
|
|
3,537 |
|
Deferred income taxes and other long-term assets |
|
|
15,571 |
|
|
|
17,686 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total assets |
|
$ |
242,155 |
|
|
$ |
203,378 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
LIABILITIES AND STOCKHOLDERS EQUITY
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current liabilities: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accounts payable |
|
$ |
16,173 |
|
|
$ |
4,701 |
|
Accrued payroll and related liabilities |
|
|
7,737 |
|
|
|
2,784 |
|
Other accrued liabilities |
|
|
15,328 |
|
|
|
11,104 |
|
Customer advances |
|
|
14,502 |
|
|
|
13,180 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total current liabilities |
|
|
53,740 |
|
|
|
31,769 |
|
Other long-term liabilities |
|
|
766 |
|
|
|
252 |
|
Stockholders equity: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Common stock, $0.001 par value |
|
|
22 |
|
|
|
22 |
|
Additional paid-in capital |
|
|
136,834 |
|
|
|
134,071 |
|
Accumulated other comprehensive loss |
|
|
(2,066 |
) |
|
|
(1,828 |
) |
Retained earnings |
|
|
52,859 |
|
|
|
39,092 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total stockholders equity |
|
|
187,649 |
|
|
|
171,357 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total liabilities and stockholders equity |
|
$ |
242,155 |
|
|
$ |
203,378 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Note: Amounts as of December 31, 2009 are derived from the December 31, 2009 audited consolidated
financial statements.
See accompanying notes to the condensed consolidated financial statements.
3
INTEVAC, INC.
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three months ended |
|
|
Six months ended |
|
|
|
July 3, |
|
|
June 27, |
|
|
July 3, |
|
|
June 27, |
|
|
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
|
(Unaudited) |
|
|
|
(In thousands, except per share amounts) |
|
|
Net revenues: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Systems and components |
|
$ |
63,967 |
|
|
$ |
8,981 |
|
|
$ |
92,878 |
|
|
$ |
17,658 |
|
Technology development |
|
|
4,631 |
|
|
|
3,337 |
|
|
|
8,862 |
|
|
|
6,968 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total net revenues |
|
|
68,598 |
|
|
|
12,318 |
|
|
|
101,740 |
|
|
|
24,626 |
|
Cost of net revenues: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Systems and components |
|
|
36,425 |
|
|
|
5,758 |
|
|
|
52,327 |
|
|
|
11,815 |
|
Technology development |
|
|
3,139 |
|
|
|
2,047 |
|
|
|
5,901 |
|
|
|
4,033 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total cost of net revenues |
|
|
39,564 |
|
|
|
7,805 |
|
|
|
58,228 |
|
|
|
15,848 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gross profit |
|
|
29,034 |
|
|
|
4,513 |
|
|
|
43,512 |
|
|
|
8,778 |
|
Operating expenses: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Research and development |
|
|
7,011 |
|
|
|
7,385 |
|
|
|
13,555 |
|
|
|
15,415 |
|
Selling, general and administrative |
|
|
7,558 |
|
|
|
5,394 |
|
|
|
14,125 |
|
|
|
11,103 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total operating expenses |
|
|
14,569 |
|
|
|
12,779 |
|
|
|
27,680 |
|
|
|
26,518 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income (loss) from operations |
|
|
14,465 |
|
|
|
(8,266 |
) |
|
|
15,832 |
|
|
|
(17,740 |
) |
Interest income and other, net |
|
|
72 |
|
|
|
228 |
|
|
|
463 |
|
|
|
658 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income (loss) before income taxes |
|
|
14,537 |
|
|
|
(8,038 |
) |
|
|
16,295 |
|
|
|
(17,082 |
) |
Provision for (benefit from) income taxes |
|
|
2,200 |
|
|
|
(3,551 |
) |
|
|
2,528 |
|
|
|
(6,822 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income (loss) |
|
$ |
12,337 |
|
|
$ |
(4,487 |
) |
|
$ |
13,767 |
|
|
$ |
(10,260 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income (loss) per share: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic |
|
$ |
0.55 |
|
|
$ |
(0.20 |
) |
|
$ |
0.62 |
|
|
$ |
(0.47 |
) |
Diluted |
|
$ |
0.54 |
|
|
$ |
(0.20 |
) |
|
$ |
0.60 |
|
|
$ |
(0.47 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted average common shares outstanding: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic |
|
|
22,286 |
|
|
|
21,930 |
|
|
|
22,241 |
|
|
|
21,906 |
|
Diluted |
|
|
22,931 |
|
|
|
21,930 |
|
|
|
22,953 |
|
|
|
21,906 |
|
See accompanying notes to the condensed consolidated financial statements.
4
INTEVAC, INC.
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Six months ended |
|
|
|
July 3, |
|
|
June 27, |
|
|
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
|
(Unaudited) |
|
|
|
(In thousands) |
|
Operating activities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income (loss) |
|
$ |
13,767 |
|
|
$ |
(10,260 |
) |
Adjustments to reconcile net income (loss) to net cash and cash
equivalents provided by (used in) operating activities: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Depreciation and amortization |
|
|
2,922 |
|
|
|
2,578 |
|
Equity-based compensation |
|
|
1,583 |
|
|
|
2,709 |
|
Deferred income taxes |
|
|
2,094 |
|
|
|
(3,771 |
) |
Loss on disposal of equipment |
|
|
122 |
|
|
|
|
|
Changes in operating assets and liabilities |
|
|
(20,396 |
) |
|
|
(988 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total adjustments |
|
|
(13,675 |
) |
|
|
528 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash and cash equivalents provided by (used in) operating activities |
|
|
92 |
|
|
|
(9,732 |
) |
Investing activities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Purchases of investments |
|
|
(2,999 |
) |
|
|
(14,982 |
) |
Proceeds from maturities of investments |
|
|
13,200 |
|
|
|
6,500 |
|
Purchases of leasehold improvements and equipment |
|
|
(2,342 |
) |
|
|
(1,453 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash and cash equivalents provided by (used in) investing activities |
|
|
7,859 |
|
|
|
(9,935 |
) |
Financing activities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net proceeds from issuance of common stock |
|
|
1,231 |
|
|
|
513 |
|
Repayment of note payable |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(2,000 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash and cash equivalents provided by (used in) financing activities |
|
|
1,231 |
|
|
|
(1,487 |
) |
Effect of exchange rate changes on cash |
|
|
33 |
|
|
|
(57 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net increase (decrease) in cash and cash equivalents |
|
|
9,215 |
|
|
|
(21,211 |
) |
Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of period |
|
|
17,592 |
|
|
|
39,201 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents at end of period |
|
$ |
26,807 |
|
|
$ |
17,990 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
See accompanying notes to the condensed consolidated financial statements.
5
INTEVAC, INC.
NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
1. Basis of Presentation and Significant Accounting Policy
Basis of Presentation
In the opinion of management, the unaudited interim condensed consolidated financial
statements of Intevac, Inc. and its subsidiaries (Intevac or the Company) included herein have been
prepared on a basis consistent with the December 31, 2009 audited consolidated financial statements
and include all material adjustments, consisting of normal recurring adjustments, necessary to
fairly present the information set forth therein. These unaudited interim condensed consolidated
financial statements should be read in conjunction with the audited consolidated financial
statements and notes thereto included in Intevacs Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year
ended December, 31, 2009 (2009 Form 10-K). Intevacs results of operations for the three and six
months ended July 3, 2010 are not necessarily indicative of future operating results.
The preparation of financial statements in conformity with accounting principles generally
accepted in the United States of America requires management to make judgments, estimates and
assumptions that affect the amounts reported in the financial statements and accompanying notes.
Actual results could differ materially from those estimates.
Revenue Recognition
In 2009, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) issued amended revenue recognition
guidance for arrangements with multiple deliverables and certain software sold with tangible
products. This new guidance eliminates the residual method of revenue recognition and allows the
use of managements best estimate of selling price (ESP) for individual elements of an
arrangement when vendor specific objective evidence (VSOE) or third party evidence (TPE) is
unavailable. Intevac implemented this guidance prospectively beginning in the first quarter of
fiscal 2010 for transactions that were initiated or materially modified during fiscal 2010. The
implementation of the new guidance had an insignificant impact on reported net sales as compared to
net sales under previous guidance, as the new guidance did not change the units of accounting
within sales arrangements, and the elimination of the residual method for the allocation of
arrangement consideration had an inconsequential impact on the amount and timing of reported net
sales.
In 2010, the FASB issued guidance for the milestone method of revenue recognition. Under the
milestone method, consideration earned from achievement of the milestone is viewed as being
indicative of the value provided to the customer through either (1) the efforts performed or (2) a
specific outcome resulting from the performance to achieve that specific milestone. Under the
milestone method, contingent arrangement consideration earned from the achievement of a milestone
is recognized in its entirety in the period in which the milestone is achieved. Under this new
method of accounting, a milestone must be substantive before the method can be applied; that is,
at the inception of the arrangement there is a substantial uncertainty about the achievement of the
milestone, substantive effort is required to achieve the milestone, and none of the payment for the
milestone is refundable. Intevac implemented this guidance prospectively beginning in the first
quarter of fiscal 2010 for transactions that were initiated or materially modified during fiscal
2010. Implementation of this new guidance had an insignificant impact on reported net sales as
compared to net sales under previous guidance.
Intevac recognizes revenue when persuasive evidence of an arrangement exists, delivery has
occurred and title and risk of loss have passed to Intevacs customer or services have been
rendered, the price is fixed or determinable, and collectibility is reasonably assured. Intevacs
shipping terms are customarily FOB shipping point or equivalent terms.
6
INTEVAC, INC.
NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)
Intevacs revenue recognition policy generally results in revenue recognition at the following
points: (1) for all transactions where legal title passes to the customer upon shipment, Intevac
recognizes revenue upon shipment for all products that have been demonstrated to meet product
specifications prior to shipment; the portion of revenue associated with certain
installation-related tasks is deferred, and that revenue is recognized upon completion of the
installation-related tasks; (2) for products that have not been demonstrated to meet product
specifications prior to shipment, revenue is recognized at customer acceptance; and (3) for
arrangements containing multiple elements, the revenue relating to the undelivered elements is
deferred until delivery of the deferred elements. When a sales arrangement contains multiple
elements, Intevac allocates revenue to each element based on a selling price hierarchy. The selling
price for a deliverable is based on its VSOE if available, TPE if VSOE is not available, or ESP if
neither VSOE nor TPE is available. Intevac generally utilizes the ESP due to the nature of its
products. In certain cases, technology upgrade sales are accounted for as multiple-element
arrangements, usually split between delivery of the parts and installation on the customers
systems. In these cases, Intevac recognizes revenue for the relative sales price of the parts upon
shipment and transfer of title, and recognizes revenue for the relative sales price of installation
services when those services are completed. Revenue related to sales of spare parts is generally
recognized upon shipment. Revenue related to services is generally recognized upon completion of
the services. In addition, Intevac uses the installment method to record revenue based on cash
receipts in situations where the account receivable is collected over an extended period of time
and in managements judgment the degree of collectibility is uncertain.
Intevac performs research and development work under various government-sponsored research
contracts. Revenue on cost-plus-fee contracts is recognized to the extent of costs actually
incurred plus a proportionate amount of the fee earned. Intevac considers fixed fees under
cost-plus-fee contracts to be earned in proportion to the allowable costs actually incurred in
performance of the contract. Revenue on fixed-price contracts is recognized on a milestone method
or percentage-of-completion method of contract accounting. For contracts structured as milestone
agreements, revenue is recognized when a specified milestone is achieved, provided that (1) the
milestone event is substantive in nature and there is substantial uncertainty about the achievement
of the milestone at the inception of the agreement, (2) the milestone payment is non-refundable,
and (3) there is no continuing performance obligations associated with the milestone payment. Any
milestone payments received prior to satisfying these revenue recognition criteria are deferred.
Intevac generally determines the percentage completed based on the percentage of costs incurred to
date in relation to total estimated costs expected through completion of the contract. When
estimates of total costs to be incurred on a contract exceed estimates of total revenue to be
earned, a provision for the entire loss on the contract is recorded in the period the loss is
determined.
2. New Accounting Pronouncement
In January 2009, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) issued Release No. 33-9002,
Interactive Data to Improve Financial Reporting. The final rule requires companies to provide
their financial statements and financial statement schedules to the SEC and on their corporate
websites in interactive data format using the eXtensible Business Reporting Language (XBRL). The
rule was adopted by the SEC to improve the ability of financial statement users to access and
analyze financial data. The SEC adopted a phase-in schedule indicating when registrants must
furnish interactive data. Under this schedule, Intevac will be required to submit filings with
financial statement information using XBRL commencing with its July 2, 2011 quarterly report on
Form 10-Q. Intevac is currently evaluating the impact of XBRL reporting on its financial reporting
process.
7
INTEVAC, INC.
NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)
3. Inventories
Inventories are stated at the lower of average cost or market and consist of the following:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
July 3, |
|
|
December 31, |
|
|
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
|
(In thousands) |
|
Raw materials |
|
$ |
20,204 |
|
|
$ |
10,147 |
|
Work-in-progress |
|
|
11,349 |
|
|
|
4,421 |
|
Finished goods |
|
|
10,998 |
|
|
|
4,532 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
42,551 |
|
|
$ |
19,100 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Finished goods inventory consists primarily of completed systems at customer sites that are
undergoing installation and acceptance testing.
4. Equity-Based Compensation
At July 3, 2010, Intevac had equity-based awards outstanding under the 2004 Equity Incentive
Plan (the 2004 Plan) and the 2003 Employee Stock Purchase Plan (the ESPP). Intevacs
stockholders approved both of these plans.
The 2004 Plan permits the grant of incentive or non-statutory stock options, restricted stock,
stock appreciation rights, performance units and performance shares. During the three months ended
July 3, 2010, Intevac granted 507,500 stock options with an estimated total grant-date fair value
of $3.3 million. Of this amount, estimated awards of $769,000 are not expected to vest. During the
six months ended July 3, 2010, Intevac granted 595,000 stock options with an estimated total
grant-date fair value of $4.0 million. Of this amount, estimated awards of $964,000 are not
expected to vest.
The ESPP provides that eligible employees may purchase Intevacs 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. During the six
months ended July 3, 2010, Intevac granted purchase rights with an estimated total grant-date fair
value of $48,000.
8
INTEVAC, INC.
NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)
Compensation Expense
The effect of recording equity-based compensation for the three and six months ended July 3,
2010 and June 27, 2009 was as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months Ended |
|
|
Six Months Ended |
|
|
|
July 3, 2010 |
|
|
June 27, 2009 |
|
|
July 3, 2010 |
|
|
June 27, 2009 |
|
|
|
(In thousands) |
|
Equity-based compensation by type of award: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stock options |
|
$ |
836 |
|
|
$ |
1,105 |
|
|
$ |
1,299 |
|
|
$ |
2,217 |
|
Employee stock purchase plan |
|
|
109 |
|
|
|
216 |
|
|
|
233 |
|
|
|
450 |
|
Amounts released to cost of sales |
|
|
21 |
|
|
|
(9 |
) |
|
|
51 |
|
|
|
42 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total equity-based compensation |
|
|
966 |
|
|
|
1,312 |
|
|
|
1,583 |
|
|
|
2,709 |
|
Tax effect on equity-based compensation |
|
|
(309 |
) |
|
|
(382 |
) |
|
|
(502 |
) |
|
|
(786 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net effect on net income (loss) |
|
$ |
657 |
|
|
$ |
930 |
|
|
$ |
1,081 |
|
|
$ |
1,923 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Valuation Assumptions
The fair value of share-based payment awards is estimated at the grant date using the
Black-Scholes 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 expected term of the awards,
and actual employee stock option exercise behavior.
The weighted-average estimated value of employee stock options granted during the three months
ended July 3, 2010 and June 27, 2009 was $6.46 per share and $3.95 per share, respectively. The
weighted-average estimated value of employee stock options granted during the six months ended July
3, 2010 and June 27, 2009 was $6.79 per share and $2.47 per share, respectively. The
weighted-average estimated fair value of employee stock purchase rights granted pursuant to the
ESPP during the six months ended July 3, 2010 and June 27, 2009 was $4.78 and $2.60 per share,
respectively. No purchase rights were granted under the ESPP during either the three months ended
July 3, 2010 or June 27, 2009. The fair value of each option and employee stock purchase right
grant is estimated on the date of grant using the Black-Scholes option valuation model with the
following weighted-average assumptions:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months Ended |
|
Six Months Ended |
|
|
July 3, 2010 |
|
|
June 27, 2009 |
|
|
July 3, 2010 |
|
|
June 27, 2009 |
|
Stock Options: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Expected volatility |
|
|
67.87 |
% |
|
|
68.82 |
% |
|
|
67.94 |
% |
|
|
67.15 |
% |
Risk free interest rate |
|
|
1.61 |
% |
|
|
2.23 |
% |
|
|
1.73 |
% |
|
|
2.00 |
% |
Expected term of options (in years) |
|
|
4.5 |
|
|
|
4.3 |
|
|
|
4.5 |
|
|
|
4.5 |
|
Dividend yield |
|
None |
|
|
None |
|
|
None |
|
|
None |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Six Months Ended |
|
|
July 3, 2010 |
|
|
June 27, 2009 |
|
Stock Purchase Rights: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Expected volatility |
|
|
55.48 |
% |
|
|
82.23 |
% |
Risk free interest rate |
|
|
0.44 |
% |
|
|
0.9 |
% |
Expected term of purchase rights (in years) |
|
|
0.75 |
|
|
|
2.0 |
|
Dividend yield |
|
None |
|
|
None |
|
9
INTEVAC, INC.
NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)
The computation of the expected volatility assumptions used in the Black-Scholes calculations
for new grants and purchase rights is based on the historical volatility of Intevacs 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 term 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 equity-based awards and
vesting schedules. The expected term of purchase rights represents the period of time remaining in
the current offering period. The dividend yield assumption is based on Intevacs history of not
paying dividends and the assumption of not paying dividends in the future.
As the equity-based compensation expense recognized in the Condensed Consolidated Statements
of Operations is based on awards ultimately expected to vest, such amount has been reduced for
estimated forfeitures. Forfeitures were estimated based on Intevacs historical experience, which
Intevac believes to be indicative of Intevacs future experience.
5. Goodwill and Purchased Intangible Assets, Net
Goodwill and indefinite-life intangible assets are tested for impairment on an annual basis or
more frequently upon the occurrence of circumstances that indicate that goodwill and
indefinite-life intangible assets may be impaired. In the fourth quarter of fiscal 2009, Intevac
performed its annual impairment analysis and the results of the analysis indicated that Intevacs
goodwill and purchased intangible assets with an indefinite useful life were not impaired. At July
3, 2010, Intevac had a total of $7.9 million of goodwill and $120,000 of indefinite-life intangible
assets. At July 3, 2010, all goodwill is attributed to the Intevac Photonics segment.
Total amortization expense of finite-lived intangibles for the three and six months ended July
3, 2010 was $139,000, and $278,000 respectively. As of July 3, 2010, future amortization expense is
expected to be $275,000 for the remainder of 2010, $541,000 for 2011, $541,000 for 2012, $541,000
for 2013, $363,000 for 2014 and $878,000 thereafter. Intangible assets by segment are as follows:
Equipment: $2.2 million and Intevac Photonics: $1.0 million.
6. Warranty
Intevac provides for the estimated cost of warranty when revenue is recognized. Intevacs
warranty is per contract terms and for its systems the warranty typically ranges between 12 and 24
months from customer acceptance. For systems sold through a distributor, Intevac offers a 3 month
warranty. The remainder of any warranty period is the responsibility of the distributor. 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 lives.
Intevac uses estimated repair or replacement costs along with its historical warranty experience to
determine its warranty obligation. Intevac generally provides a twelve month warranty on its
Intevac Photonics products. The provision for the estimated future costs of warranty is based upon
historical cost and product performance experience. Intevac exercises judgment in determining the
underlying estimates.
On the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets, 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 expense associated with product warranties issued or adjusted is
included in cost of net revenues on the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations.
10
INTEVAC, INC.
NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)
The following table displays the activity in the warranty provision account for the three- and
six-month periods ended July 3, 2010 and June 27, 2009:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three months ended |
|
|
Six months ended |
|
|
|
July 3, |
|
|
June 27, |
|
|
July 3, |
|
|
June 27, |
|
|
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
|
(in thousands) |
|
Beginning balance |
|
$ |
1,854 |
|
|
$ |
1,463 |
|
|
$ |
1,602 |
|
|
$ |
1,695 |
|
Expenditures incurred under warranties |
|
|
(523 |
) |
|
|
(423 |
) |
|
|
(1,114 |
) |
|
|
(759 |
) |
Accruals for product warranties
issued during the reporting period |
|
|
1,589 |
|
|
|
147 |
|
|
|
2,353 |
|
|
|
448 |
|
Adjustments to previously existing
warranty accruals |
|
|
66 |
|
|
|
(4 |
) |
|
|
145 |
|
|
|
(201 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ending balance |
|
$ |
2,986 |
|
|
$ |
1,183 |
|
|
$ |
2,986 |
|
|
$ |
1,183 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The following table displays the balance sheet classification of the warranty provision
account at July 3, 2010 and at December 31, 2009:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
July 3, |
|
|
December 31, |
|
|
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
|
(In thousands) |
|
Other accrued liabilities |
|
$ |
2,220 |
|
|
$ |
1,550 |
|
Other long-term liabilities |
|
|
766 |
|
|
|
52 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total warranty provision |
|
$ |
2,986 |
|
|
$ |
1,602 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7. Guarantees
Officer and Director Indemnifications
As permitted or required under Delaware law and to the maximum extent allowable under that
law, Intevac has certain obligations to indemnify its current and former officers and directors for
certain events or occurrences while the officer or director is, or was serving, at Intevacs
request in such capacity. These indemnification obligations are valid as long as the director or
officer acted in good faith and in a manner the person reasonably believed to be in or not opposed
to the best interests of the corporation and, with respect to any criminal action or proceeding,
had no reasonable cause to believe his or her conduct was unlawful. The maximum potential amount of
future payments Intevac could be required to make under these indemnification obligations is
unlimited; however, Intevac has a director and officer insurance policy that mitigates Intevacs
exposure and enables Intevac to recover a portion of any future amounts paid. As a result of
Intevacs insurance policy coverage, Intevac believes the estimated fair value of these
indemnification obligations is not material.
Other Indemnifications
As is customary in Intevacs industry, many of Intevacs contracts provide remedies to certain
third parties such as defense, settlement, or payment of judgment for intellectual property claims
related to the use of its products. Such indemnification obligations may not be subject to maximum
loss clauses. Historically, payments made related to these indemnifications have been immaterial.
8. Cash, Cash Equivalents and Investments
Cash and cash equivalents are comprised of short-term, highly liquid investments with original
maturities of 90 days or less from the date of purchase. Investments are comprised of both
available-for-sale securities, which are recorded at estimated fair value, and held-to-maturity
securities, which are carried at amortized cost. Unrealized gains
11
INTEVAC, INC.
NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)
and losses associated with Intevacs available-for-sale investments, if any, are reported in
stockholders equity. Included in accounts payable is $1.5 million and $722,000 of book overdraft
at July 3, 2010 and December 31, 2009, respectively.
The table below presents the estimated fair value or amortized principal amount and major
security type for Intevacs investments:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
July 3, |
|
|
December 31, |
|
|
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
|
(in thousands) |
|
Carrying value: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Short-term investments-U.S. treasury bills |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
6,000 |
|
Long-term investments-Auction rate securities (ARS) |
|
|
61,632 |
|
|
|
66,249 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total investments in debt securities |
|
$ |
61,632 |
|
|
$ |
72,249 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Approximate fair value of investments in debt securities |
|
$ |
61,632 |
|
|
$ |
72,249 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As of July 3, 2010, financial assets measured utilizing Level 1 inputs were valued based on
quoted market prices in active markets for identical securities and included money market funds in
the amount of $6.1 million and U.S. treasury bills in the amount of $6.0 million.
As of July 3, 2010, Intevacs investment portfolio included $65.8 million par value in ARS.
All of the ARS are student loan structured issues, where the loans have been originated under the
U.S. Department of Educations Federal Family Education Loan Program. The principal and interest
are 97-98% reinsured by the U.S. Department of Education and the collateral ratios range from 102%
to 115%. Securities with a par value of $54.0 million are rated AAA/Aaa, securities with a par
value of $8.8 million are rated AAA/A3 and a security with a par value of $3.0 million is rated
AAA/Baa3. These investments have experienced failed auctions beginning in February 2008. The
investments in ARS will not be accessible until a successful auction occurs, they are restructured
into a more liquid security, a buyer is found outside of the auction process, or the underlying
securities have matured.
As of July 3, 2010, there was insufficient observable market information for the ARS held by
Intevac to determine the fair value. Therefore Level 3 fair values were estimated for these
securities by incorporating assumptions that market participants would use in their estimates of
fair value. At July 3, 2010, the fair value of the ARS was estimated at $61.6 million based on a
valuation by Houlihan Smith & Company, Inc. using discounted cash flow models and management
applying internal analysis to the valuation. The estimates of future cash flows are based on
certain key assumptions, such as discount rates appropriate for the type of asset and risk, which
are significant unobservable inputs. Some of these assumptions included credit quality,
collateralization, final stated maturity, estimates of the probability of being called or becoming
liquid prior to final maturity, redemptions of similar ARS, previous market activity for the same
investment security, impact due to extended periods of maximum auction rates and valuation models.
These securities are classified as long-term assets, as management believes that the ARS market
will not become liquid within the next year. Potentially, it could take until the final maturity of
the underlying notes (ranging from 21 years to 37 years) to realize these investments recorded
values.
Management believes that the impairment of the ARS investments is temporary, primarily due to
the government guarantee of the underlying securities and Intevacs ability to hold these
securities for the foreseeable future. Management believes that it is more likely than not that it
would not be required to sell these securities before the recovery of their par amounts. A
temporary impairment charge results in an unrealized loss being recorded in the other comprehensive
income component of stockholders equity. Such an unrealized loss does not reduce net income for
the applicable accounting period, because the loss is not viewed as other-than-temporary. The
factors evaluated to differentiate between temporary and other-than-temporary include the projected
future cash flows, credit ratings actions, and assessment of the credit quality of the underlying
collateral. Factors considered in
12
INTEVAC, INC.
NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)
determining whether a loss is temporary include length of time and the extent to which the
investments fair value has been less than the cost basis, the financial condition and near-term
prospects of the issuer, including any specific events which may influence the operations of the
issuer, and Intevacs intent and ability to retain the investment for a period of time sufficient
to allow for any anticipated recovery of fair value. As of July 3, 2010, management has no reason
to believe that any of the underlying issuers of Intevacs ARS or their insurers are presently at
risk or that the underlying credit quality of the assets backing Intevacs ARS has been impacted by
the reduced liquidity of these investments. As of July 3, 2010, based on the Level 3 valuation
performed, Intevac determined that there was a temporary decline in fair value of its ARS of $4.1
million.
On March 19, 2009, Intevac filed a statement of claim under the Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority dispute resolution process against Citigroup Inc. and Citigroup Global Markets, Inc.
(collectively, Citigroup) with respect to alleged fraud and market manipulation by Citigroup
related to ARS. The statement of claim requested that Citigroup accept Intevacs tender of its ARS
at par value and that Intevac receive compensatory, consequential and punitive damages and costs
and expenses. Citigroup responded denying Intevacs claims. The arbitration proceedings were
completed on June 10, 2010. On June 29, 2010, Intevac received a favorable ruling from
the arbitration panel whereby Citigroup was ordered to rescind the sale of the $54.8 million par
value in outstanding ARS investments. On July 27, 2010, Intevac received $54.8 million from the
repurchase of the securities by Citigroup at par including interest and will recognize the reversal
of a $3.3 million temporary impairment charge in other comprehensive loss in the third quarter of
fiscal year 2010.
The following table presents the changes in Level 3 instruments measured on a recurring basis
for the three and six months ended July 3, 2010 and June 27, 2009. Investments in ARS are Intevacs
only Level 3 instruments and are classified as available-for-sale with changes in fair value
recorded in equity.
Changes in Level 3 instruments (in thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three months ended |
|
|
Six months ended |
|
|
|
July 3, |
|
|
June 27, |
|
|
July 3, |
|
|
June 27, |
|
|
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
|
(in thousands) |
|
Beginning balance |
|
$ |
65,329 |
|
|
$ |
66,961 |
|
|
$ |
66,249 |
|
|
$ |
66,328 |
|
Net unrealized gains
(losses) included in
other comprehensive
loss |
|
|
253 |
|
|
|
2,626 |
|
|
|
(417 |
) |
|
|
3,359 |
|
Redemptions at par |
|
|
(3,950 |
) |
|
|
(3,400 |
) |
|
|
(4,200 |
) |
|
|
(3,500 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ending balance |
|
$ |
61,632 |
|
|
$ |
66,187 |
|
|
$ |
61,632 |
|
|
$ |
66,187 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
9. Borrowing Facility
On March 5, 2008, Intevac entered into an agreement with Citigroup for a secured revolving
loan facility. This loan facility could be terminated at the discretion of Citigroup and amounts
outstanding were payable on demand. It was secured by Intevacs ARS held at Citigroup.
Approximately $18.3 million of credit was available pursuant to the loan facility at July 3, 2010.
The interest rate on the loan facility was prime minus 1.5 percent. No amounts were outstanding
under this credit facility at July 3, 2010. This borrowing facility was terminated upon the
rescission of the ARS sale discussed above.
13
INTEVAC, INC.
NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)
10. Other Comprehensive Loss
The components of accumulated other comprehensive loss, at July 3, 2010 and December 31, 2009
were as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
July 3, |
|
|
December 31, |
|
|
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
|
(In thousands) |
|
Accumulated net unrealized holding
loss on available-for-sale investments,
net of tax |
|
$ |
(2,676 |
) |
|
$ |
(2,405 |
) |
Foreign currency translation gains |
|
|
610 |
|
|
|
577 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total accumulated other comprehensive loss |
|
$ |
(2,066 |
) |
|
$ |
(1,828 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The changes in the components of comprehensive income (loss) for the three and six month
periods ended July 3, 2010 and June 27, 2009 were as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three months ended |
|
|
Six months ended |
|
|
|
July 3, |
|
|
June 27, |
|
|
July 3, |
|
|
June 27, |
|
|
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
|
(In thousands) |
|
Net income (loss) |
|
$ |
12,337 |
|
|
$ |
(4,487 |
) |
|
$ |
13,767 |
|
|
$ |
(10,260 |
) |
Unrealized holding gains (losses) on
available-for-sale investments, net of
taxes |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(Increase) decrease in unrealized
holding losses on available-for-sale
investments |
|
|
253 |
|
|
|
2,626 |
|
|
|
(417 |
) |
|
|
3,359 |
|
Income tax benefit (expense) |
|
|
(89 |
) |
|
|
(918 |
) |
|
|
146 |
|
|
|
(1,175 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
164 |
|
|
|
1,708 |
|
|
|
(271 |
) |
|
|
2,184 |
|
Foreign currency translation gains (losses) |
|
|
13 |
|
|
|
221 |
|
|
|
33 |
|
|
|
(148 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total comprehensive income (loss) |
|
$ |
12,514 |
|
|
$ |
(2,558 |
) |
|
$ |
13,529 |
|
|
$ |
(8,224 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
11. Net Income (Loss) Per Share
The following table sets forth the computation of basic and diluted income (loss) per share:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three months ended |
|
|
Six months ended |
|
|
|
July 3, |
|
|
June 27, |
|
|
July 3, |
|
|
June 27, |
|
|
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
|
(In thousands) |
|
Numerator: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Numerator for
diluted earnings
per share income
(loss) available
to common
stockholders |
|
$ |
12,337 |
|
|
$ |
(4,487 |
) |
|
$ |
13,767 |
|
|
$ |
(10,260 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Denominator: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Denominator for basic earnings per share
weighted-average shares |
|
|
22,286 |
|
|
|
21,930 |
|
|
|
22,241 |
|
|
|
21,906 |
|
Effect of dilutive securities: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Employee stock options (1) |
|
|
645 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
712 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dilutive potential common shares |
|
|
645 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
712 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Denominator for diluted earnings per share
adjusted
weighted-average shares and assumed conversions |
|
|
22,931 |
|
|
|
21,930 |
|
|
|
22,953 |
|
|
|
21,906 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
14
INTEVAC, INC.
NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Potentially dilutive securities, consisting of shares issuable upon exercise of employee stock
options, are excluded from the calculation of diluted EPS when their effect would be anti-dilutive.
The weighted average number of employee stock options excluded for the three-month periods ended
July 3, 2010 and June 27, 2009 was 1,555,343 and 3,240,360, respectively, and the number of
employee stock options excluded for the six-month periods ended July 3, 2010 and June 27, 2009 was
1,354,985 and 2,560,645, respectively. |
12. Segment Reporting
Intevacs two reportable segments are Equipment and Intevac Photonics. Intevacs chief
operating decision-maker has been identified as the President and CEO, who reviews operating
results to make decisions about allocating resources and assessing performance for the entire
Company. Segment information is presented based upon Intevacs management organization structure as
of July 3, 2010 and the distinctive nature of each segment. Future changes to this internal
financial structure may result in changes to the reportable segments disclosed.
Each reportable segment is separately managed and has separate financial results that are
reviewed by Intevacs chief operating decision-maker. Each reportable segment contains closely
related products that are unique to the particular segment. Segment operating profit is determined
based upon internal performance measures used by the chief operating decision-maker.
Intevac derives the segment results from its internal management reporting system. The
accounting policies Intevac uses to derive reportable segment results are substantially the same as
those used for external reporting purposes. Management measures the performance of each reportable
segment based upon several metrics, including orders, net revenues and operating income. Management
uses these results to evaluate the performance of, and to assign resources to, each of the
reportable segments. Intevac manages certain operating expenses separately at the corporate level.
Intevac allocates certain of these corporate expenses to the segments in an amount equal to 3% of
net revenues. Segment operating income excludes interest income/expense and other financial charges
and income taxes according to how a particular reportable segments management is measured.
Management does not consider impairment charges and unallocated costs in measuring the performance
of the reportable segments.
The Equipment segment designs, develops and markets manufacturing equipment and solutions to
the hard disk drive industry and offers high-productivity technology solutions to the photovoltaic
(PV) and semiconductor industries. In 2009, the Equipment segment began offering
high-productivity thin film solar cell manufacturing equipment to PV cell manufacturers.
Historically, the majority of Intevacs revenue has been derived from the Equipment segment and
Intevac expects that the majority of its revenues for at least the next several years will continue
to be derived from the Equipment segment.
The Intevac Photonics segment develops compact, cost-effective, high-sensitivity
digital-optical products for the capture and display of low-light images and the optical analysis
of materials. Intevac provides sensors, cameras and systems for government applications such as
night vision and long-range target identification and for commercial applications in the
inspection, law enforcement, scientific and medical industries.
Information for each reportable segment for the three and six months ended July 3, 2010 and
June 27, 2009 is as follows:
15
INTEVAC, INC.
NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)
Net Revenues
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three months ended |
|
|
Six months ended |
|
|
|
July 3, |
|
|
June 27, |
|
|
July 3, |
|
|
June 27, |
|
|
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
|
(in thousands) |
|
Equipment |
|
$ |
60,028 |
|
|
$ |
6,066 |
|
|
$ |
85,585 |
|
|
$ |
12,184 |
|
Intevac Photonics |
|
|
8,570 |
|
|
|
6,252 |
|
|
|
16,155 |
|
|
|
12,442 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total segment net revenues |
|
$ |
68,598 |
|
|
$ |
12,318 |
|
|
$ |
101,740 |
|
|
$ |
24,626 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating Income (Loss)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three months ended |
|
|
Six months ended |
|
|
|
July 3, |
|
|
June 27, |
|
|
July 3, |
|
|
June 27, |
|
|
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
|
(in thousands) |
|
Equipment |
|
$ |
16,776 |
|
|
$ |
(5,659 |
) |
|
$ |
20,656 |
|
|
$ |
(12,470 |
) |
Intevac Photonics |
|
|
(1,441 |
) |
|
|
(1,399 |
) |
|
|
(2,625 |
) |
|
|
(2,620 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total income (loss) from segment operations |
|
|
15,335 |
|
|
|
(7,058 |
) |
|
|
18,031 |
|
|
|
(15,090 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unallocated costs |
|
|
(870 |
) |
|
|
(1,208 |
) |
|
|
(2,199 |
) |
|
|
(2,650 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income (loss) from operations |
|
|
14,465 |
|
|
|
(8,266 |
) |
|
|
15,832 |
|
|
|
(17,740 |
) |
Interest income and other, net |
|
|
72 |
|
|
|
228 |
|
|
|
463 |
|
|
|
658 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income (loss) before income taxes |
|
$ |
14,537 |
|
|
$ |
(8,038 |
) |
|
$ |
16,295 |
|
|
$ |
(17,082 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total assets for each reportable segment as of July 3, 2010 and December 31, 2009 are as
follows:
Assets
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
July 3, |
|
|
December 31, |
|
|
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
|
(in thousands) |
|
Equipment |
|
$ |
102,154 |
|
|
$ |
61,136 |
|
Intevac Photonics |
|
|
27,549 |
|
|
|
25,529 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total segment assets |
|
|
129,703 |
|
|
|
86,665 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash, cash equivalents and investments |
|
|
88,439 |
|
|
|
89,841 |
|
Deferred income taxes |
|
|
15,962 |
|
|
|
18,056 |
|
Other current assets |
|
|
5,149 |
|
|
|
5,171 |
|
Common property, plant and equipment |
|
|
2,269 |
|
|
|
2,802 |
|
Other assets |
|
|
633 |
|
|
|
843 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Consolidated total assets |
|
$ |
242,155 |
|
|
$ |
203,378 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
13. Income Taxes
Intevacs effective income tax rate for the three and six months ended July 3, 2010 was 15.2%
and 15.3%, respectively. Intevacs effective income tax rate for the three and six months ended
June 27, 2009 was 44.2% and 45.9%, respectively. Intevac adjusts its effective income tax rate each
quarter to be consistent with the estimated annual effective income tax rate. The effective income
tax rate differs from the applicable statutory rates due primarily to the utilization of deferred
and current credits, the effect of permanent differences and the geographical composition of
Intevacs worldwide earnings. Intevacs effective income tax rate is highly dependent on the
availability of tax credits and the geographic composition of Intevacs worldwide earnings.
16
INTEVAC, INC.
NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)
Intevac enjoys a tax holiday in Singapore through the tax years ending in 2015. The tax
holiday provides a lower income tax rate on certain classes of income and the agreement requires
that certain thresholds of business investment and employment levels be met in Singapore in order
to maintain this holiday.
During the first quarter of 2009, Intevac established an additional valuation allowance to
fully reserve its California state deferred tax assets due to the impact of California tax
legislation that was enacted in February 2009. This additional valuation allowance decreased the
income tax benefit by $1.0 million. Intevac recognized the effect of the change in valuation
allowance as a discrete item during the period.
Intevac is subject to income taxes in the U.S. federal jurisdiction, and various states and
foreign jurisdictions. Tax regulations within each jurisdiction are subject to the interpretation
of the related tax laws and regulations and require significant judgment to apply. With few
exceptions, Intevac is not subject to U.S. federal, state and local, or international jurisdictions
income tax examinations by tax authorities for the years before 2004. The Company currently has a
California income tax examination for fiscal years ended 2005, 2006 and 2007. In 2009, the Internal
Revenue Service conducted a field review of the fiscal year 2008 tax return and the examination is
pending approval from the U.S. Joint Committee on Taxation. Presently, there are no other active
income tax examinations in the jurisdictions where Intevac operates.
14. Contingencies
From time to time, Intevac may have certain contingent liabilities that arise in the ordinary
course of its business activities. Intevac accounts for contingent liabilities when it is probable
that future expenditures will be made and such expenditures can be reasonably estimated.
17
|
|
|
Item 2. |
|
Managements Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of
Operations |
This Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q 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 Intevacs
shipments, projected revenue recognition, product costs, gross margin, operating expenses, interest
income, income taxes, cash balances and financial results in 2010 and beyond; projected customer
requirements for Intevacs new and existing products, and when, and if, Intevacs customers will
place orders for these products; Intevacs ability to proliferate its Photonics technology into
major military programs and to develop and introduce commercial imaging products; the timing of
delivery and/or acceptance of the systems and products that comprise Intevacs backlog for revenue;
legal proceedings; and internal controls. Intevacs 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 in other documents we file from time to time with the Securities and
Exchange Commission, including our Annual Report on Form 10-K filed on February 26, 2010, and our
periodic Form 10-Qs and Form 8-Ks.
Overview
Intevac provides manufacturing equipment and solutions to the hard disk drive industry and
offers high-productivity and inspection solutions to the photovoltaic (PV) and semiconductor
industries. In 2009, Intevac announced a high-productivity thin film solar cell manufacturing
system for PV applications, LEAN SOLAR, and began offering equipment to PV cell manufacturers.
Intevac shipped the first LEAN SOLAR system to a customer in the second quarter of 2010. In 2010
Intevac also began offering inspection equipment to PV cell manufacturers. In the semiconductor
market, Intevac stopped offering its Lean Etch product and refocused its efforts on a wafer
handling platform solution and in the second quarter of 2010 introduced Continuum, a
high-productivity wafer handling system. To date, Intevac has not yet recognized any revenue from
shipments of its semiconductor and PV products. Intevac also provides sensors, cameras and systems
for commercial applications in the inspection, medical, scientific and security industries and for
government applications such as night vision and long-range target identification. Intevacs
customers and potential customers include manufacturers of hard disk drives, semiconductor chips
and wafers, and PV cells as well as medical, scientific and security companies, law enforcement and
the U.S. government and its contractors. Intevac reports two segments: Equipment and Intevac
Photonics.
Product development and manufacturing activities occur in North America and Asia. Intevac has
field offices in Asia to support its equipment customers. Intevacs equipment and service products
are highly technical and, with the exception of Japan, are sold primarily through a direct sales
force. In Japan, sales are typically made by Intevacs Japanese distributor, Matsubo.
Intevacs results are driven primarily by worldwide demand for hard disk drives, which in turn
depends on end-user demand for personal computers, enterprise data storage, personal audio and
video players and video game platforms. Intevacs business is subject to cyclical industry
conditions, as demand for manufacturing equipment and services can change depending on supply and
demand for hard disk drives, semiconductors, and other electronic devices, as well as other
factors, such as global economic conditions and technological advances in fabrication processes.
18
The following table presents certain significant measurements for the three and six months
ended July 3, 2010 and June 27 2009:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three months ended |
|
Six months ended |
|
|
July 3, |
|
June 27, |
|
|
|
July 3, |
|
June 27, |
|
|
|
|
2010 |
|
2009 |
|
% Change |
|
2010 |
|
2009 |
|
% Change |
|
|
(in thousands, except percentages and per share amounts) |
|
Net revenues |
|
$ |
68,598 |
|
|
$ |
12,318 |
|
|
|
456.9 |
% |
|
$ |
101,740 |
|
|
$ |
24,626 |
|
|
|
313.1 |
% |
Gross profit |
|
$ |
29,034 |
|
|
$ |
4,513 |
|
|
|
543.3 |
% |
|
$ |
43,512 |
|
|
$ |
8,778 |
|
|
|
395.7 |
% |
Gross margin percent |
|
|
42.3 |
% |
|
|
36.6 |
% |
|
6 points |
|
|
42.8 |
% |
|
|
35.7 |
% |
|
7 points |
Net income (loss) |
|
$ |
12,337 |
|
|
$ |
(4,487 |
) |
|
|
375.0 |
% |
|
$ |
13,767 |
|
|
$ |
(10,260 |
) |
|
|
234.2 |
% |
Earnings (loss) per
diluted share |
|
$ |
0.54 |
|
|
$ |
(0.20 |
) |
|
|
370.0 |
% |
|
$ |
0.60 |
|
|
$ |
(0.47 |
) |
|
|
227.7 |
% |
Financial results for the second quarter and first six months for fiscal 2010 improved as
Intevacs Equipment customers took delivery of systems to increase their production capacity in
response to growing demand for digital storage. Net sales increased during the second quarter and
first six months of fiscal 2010 primarily due to higher equipment sales to disk manufacturers and
increased Intevac Photonics technology development contracts and product sales. Net income for the
second quarter and first six months of fiscal 2010 increased compared to the same periods in the
prior year due to higher net sales, partially offset by higher selling, general and administrative
expenses, and higher income tax expense. The increase in selling, general and administrative
expenses was a result of profit sharing and bonus accruals as the Company resumed recording
variable compensation expenses as a result of its return to profitability.
Although hard drive customers are continuing to take delivery of capacity systems, Intevac
expects its Equipment revenue for the third quarter of 2010 to be down from the second quarter of
2010 due to a lower level of shipments. Intevac expects Intevac Photonics revenues in the third
quarter of 2010 to increase from the second quarter of 2010 as Photonics continues to increase its
product shipments, and penetrate new major military program opportunities.
Intevacs trademarks, include the following: 200 Lean®, AccuLuber, Continuum,
DeltaNu®, EBAPS®, ExaminerR, I-Port, LEAN SOLAR, LithoPrime, LIVAR®,
MicroVista®, MOSIR®, NanoVista, NightVista®, Night Port, and RAPID-ID.
Results of Operations
Net revenues
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three months ended |
|
|
Six months ended |
|
|
|
July 3, |
|
|
June 27, |
|
|
|
|
|
July 3, |
|
|
June 27, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
% Change |
|
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
% Change |
|
|
|
(in thousands, except percentages) |
|
|
Equipment |
|
$ |
60,028 |
|
|
$ |
6,066 |
|
|
|
889.6 |
% |
|
$ |
85,585 |
|
|
$ |
12,184 |
|
|
|
602.4 |
% |
Intevac Photonics |
|
|
8,570 |
|
|
|
6,252 |
|
|
|
37.1 |
% |
|
|
16,155 |
|
|
|
12,442 |
|
|
|
29.8 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total net revenues |
|
$ |
68,598 |
|
|
$ |
12,318 |
|
|
|
456.9 |
% |
|
$ |
101,740 |
|
|
$ |
24,626 |
|
|
|
313.1 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net revenues consist primarily of equipment sales used to manufacture thin-film disks, and, to
a lesser extent, related equipment and system components; contract research and development related
to the development of electro-optical sensors, cameras and systems, low-light imaging products and
table-top and handheld Raman instruments.
Equipment revenue for the three and six months ended July 3, 2010 increased over the same
periods in the prior year as a result of higher sales of disk sputtering systems, technology
upgrades and spare parts. During the second
19
quarter of 2010 Intevac recognized revenue on twelve
200 Lean systems, disk equipment technology upgrades and
spare parts. During the second quarter of 2009 Intevac recognized revenue on one AccuLuberTM
system, disk equipment technology upgrades and spare parts. Equipment revenue for the six
months ended July 3, 2010 included revenue recognition for fourteen 200 Lean systems, upgrades and
spare parts. Equipment revenue for the three and six months ended June 27, 2009 did not include any
200 Lean systems. Demand for hard disk drives is expected to increase driven by the need for
corporations to replace and update employee computers, increased information technology spending,
growth in digital storage and the proliferation of personal computers into emerging economies.
Intevac believes that due to delayed spending during the recent economic downturn, increased demand
for hard drives and technology transitions, the hard drive industry will need to add capacity to
meet increased production requirements.
Intevac Photonics revenue for the three and six months ended July 3, 2010 increased over the
same periods in the prior year which was the result of increased contract research and development
work and increased product sales. Intevac Photonics revenues for the three months ended July 3,
2010 consisted of $4.6 million of research and development contract revenue and $3.9 million of
product sales as compared to $3.3 million of research and development contract revenue and $2.9
million of product sales for the three months ended June 27, 2009. Intevac Photonics revenues for
the six months ended July 3, 2010 consisted of $8.9 million of research and development contract
revenue and $7.3 million of product sales as compared to $7.0 million of research and development
contract revenue and $5.5 million of product sales for the six months ended June 27, 2009. The
increase in product revenue resulted from higher sales of digital night-vision camera modules,
systems and commercial products. The increase in contract research and development revenue was the
result of a higher volume of contracts. Intevac expects that in 2010, Intevac Photonics revenues
will grow driven by government spending as well as growth in commercial products. Substantial
growth in future Intevac Photonics revenues is dependent on proliferation of Intevacs technology
into major military programs, continued defense spending, the ability to obtain export licenses for
foreign customers, obtaining production subcontracts for these programs, and development and sale
of commercial products.
Intevacs backlog of orders at July 3, 2010 was $113.8 million, compared to $73.8 million at
December 31, 2009 and $44.0 million at June 27, 2009. The $113.8 million of backlog at July 3, 2010
consisted of $90.9 million of Equipment backlog and $22.9 million of Intevac Photonics
backlog. The $73.8 million of backlog at December 31, 2009 consisted of $57.5 million of
Equipment backlog and $16.3 million of Intevac Photonics backlog. Backlog at July 3, 2010
included fourteen 200 Lean systems as compared to ten at December 31, 2009 and five at June 27,
2009.
International sales increased by 931.9% to $60.8 million for the three months ended July 3,
2010 from $5.9 million for the three months ended June 27, 2009 and by 559.4% to $77.9 million for
the six months ended July 3, 2010 from $11.8 million for the six months ended June 27, 2009.
International sales include products shipped to overseas operations of U.S. companies. The increase
in international sales was primarily due to an increase in net revenues from disk sputtering
systems, upgrades and spare parts. Substantially all of Intevacs international sales are to
customers in Asia. International sales constituted 88.6% of net revenues for the three months ended
July 3, 2010 and 47.8% of net revenues for the three months ended June 27, 2009. International
sales constituted 76.6% of net revenues for the six months ended July 3, 2010 and 48.0% of net
revenues for the six months ended June 27, 2009. The mix of domestic versus international sales
will change from period to period depending on the location of Intevacs largest customers in each
period.
20
Gross profit
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three months ended |
|
Six months ended |
|
|
July 3, |
|
June 27, |
|
|
|
July 3, |
|
June 27, |
|
|
|
|
2010 |
|
2009 |
|
% Change |
|
2010 |
|
2009 |
|
% Change |
|
|
(in thousands, except percentages) |
|
Equipment gross profit |
|
$ |
26,963 |
|
|
$ |
2,379 |
|
|
|
1,033.4 |
% |
|
$ |
39,415 |
|
|
$ |
4,207 |
|
|
|
836.9 |
% |
% of Equipment net revenues |
|
|
44.9 |
% |
|
|
39.2 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
46.1 |
% |
|
|
34.5 |
% |
|
|
|
|
Intevac Photonics gross
profit |
|
$ |
2,071 |
|
|
$ |
2,134 |
|
|
|
(3.0 |
)% |
|
$ |
4,097 |
|
|
$ |
4,571 |
|
|
|
(10.4 |
)% |
% of Intevac Photonics net
revenues |
|
|
24.2 |
% |
|
|
34.1 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
25.4 |
% |
|
|
36.7 |
% |
|
|
|
|
Total gross profit |
|
$ |
29,034 |
|
|
$ |
4,513 |
|
|
|
543.3 |
% |
|
$ |
43,512 |
|
|
$ |
8,778 |
|
|
|
395.7 |
% |
% of net revenues |
|
|
42.3 |
% |
|
|
36.6 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
42.8 |
% |
|
|
35.6 |
% |
|
|
|
|
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.
Equipment gross margin was 44.9% in the three months ended July 3, 2010 compared to 39.2% in
the three months ended June 27, 2009 and was 46.1% in the six months ended July 3, 2010 compared to
34.5% in the six months ended June 27, 2009. The higher gross margin was due primarily to higher
revenues and higher factory utilization, partially offset by changes in product mix. Gross margins
in the Equipment business will vary depending on a number of factors, including product mix,
product cost, system configuration and pricing, factory utilization, and provisions for excess and
obsolete inventory.
Intevac Photonics gross margin was 24.2% in the three months ended July 3, 2010 compared to
34.1% in the three months ended June 27, 2009 and was 25.4% in the six months ended July 3, 2010
compared to 36.7% in the six months ended June 27, 2009. The decrease in gross margin resulted
primarily from higher costs, as Intevac Photonics ramps to high-volume production of its digital
night-vision camera module for a NATO customer, lower margins on development contracts and
increased warranty provisions.
Research and development
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three months ended |
|
Six months ended |
|
|
July 3, |
|
June 27, |
|
|
|
July 3, |
|
June 27, |
|
|
|
|
2010 |
|
2009 |
|
% Change |
|
2010 |
|
2009 |
|
% Change |
|
|
(in thousands, except percentages) |
|
Research and
development expense |
|
$ |
7,011 |
|
|
$ |
7,385 |
|
|
|
(5.1 |
)% |
|
$ |
13,555 |
|
|
$ |
15,415 |
|
|
|
(12.1 |
)% |
% of net revenues |
|
|
10.2 |
% |
|
|
60.0 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
13.3 |
% |
|
|
62.6 |
% |
|
|
|
|
Research and development spending decreased in both Equipment and Intevac Photonics during the
three and six months ended July 3, 2010 as compared to the three and six months ended June 27,
2009. The decrease in Equipment spending was due primarily to a reduction in spending on
semiconductor products, offset by increased investment in photovoltaic development. The decrease in
Intevac Photonics research and development reflected decreased spending for sensor yield
improvements, sensor development and digital night vision goggle development. Research and
development expenses do not include costs of $3.1 million and $5.9 million for the three and six
months ended July 3, 2010 respectively, or $2.0 million and $4.0 million for the three and six
months ended June 27, 2009, respectively, which are related to Intevac Photonics contract research
and development and included in cost of net revenues.
21
Selling, general and administrative
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three months ended |
|
Six months ended |
|
|
July 3, |
|
June 27, |
|
|
|
July 3, |
|
June 27, |
|
|
|
|
2010 |
|
2009 |
|
% Change |
|
2010 |
|
2009 |
|
% Change |
|
|
(in thousands, except percentages) |
|
Selling,
general and
administrative
expense |
|
$ |
7,558 |
|
|
$ |
5,394 |
|
|
|
40.1 |
% |
|
$ |
14,125 |
|
|
$ |
11,103 |
|
|
|
27.2 |
% |
% of net revenues |
|
|
11.0 |
% |
|
|
43.8 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
13.9 |
% |
|
|
45.1 |
% |
|
|
|
|
Selling, general and administrative expense consists primarily of selling, marketing, customer
support, financial and management costs. The increase in selling, general and administrative
spending in the three and six months ended July 3, 2010 compared to the three and six months ended
June 27, 2009 was primarily the result of bonus and profit sharing accruals and legal expenses
associated with the auction rate securities (ARS) arbitration, offset in part by lower
equity-based compensation expense.
Interest income and other, net
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three months ended |
|
Six months ended |
|
|
July 3, |
|
June 27, |
|
|
|
July 3, |
|
June 27, |
|
|
|
|
2010 |
|
2009 |
|
% Change |
|
2010 |
|
2009 |
|
% Change |
|
|
(in thousands, except percentages) |
|
Interest
income and other,
net |
|
$ |
72 |
|
|
$ |
228 |
|
|
|
(68.4 |
)% |
|
$ |
463 |
|
|
$ |
658 |
|
|
|
(29.6 |
)% |
Interest income and other, net consists primarily of interest income on investments and
foreign currency gains and losses. The decrease in interest and other income in the three and six
months ended July 3, 2010 resulted from lower average invested balances, lower interest rates and
fluctuations in foreign currency gains and losses.
Income tax provision (benefit)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three months ended |
|
Six months ended |
|
|
July 3, |
|
June 27, |
|
|
|
July 3, |
|
June 27, |
|
|
|
|
2010 |
|
2009 |
|
% Change |
|
2010 |
|
2009 |
|
% Change |
|
|
(in thousands, except percentages) |
|
Income tax
provision (benefit) |
|
$ |
2,200 |
|
|
$ |
(3,551 |
) |
|
|
162.0 |
% |
|
$ |
2,528 |
|
|
$ |
(6,822 |
) |
|
|
137.1 |
% |
Intevacs effective income tax rate for the three and six months ended July 3, 2010 was 15.2%
and 15.3%, respectively. Intevacs effective income tax rate for the three and six months ended
June 27, 2009 was 44.2% and 45.9%, respectively. Intevac adjusts its effective income tax rate each
quarter to be consistent with the estimated annual effective income tax rate. The effective income
tax rate differs from the applicable statutory rates due primarily to the utilization of deferred
and current credits, the effect of permanent differences and the geographical composition of
Intevacs worldwide earnings. Intevacs effective income tax rate is highly dependent on the
availability of tax credits and the geographic composition of Intevacs worldwide earnings.
Intevac enjoys a tax holiday in Singapore through the tax years ending in 2015. The tax
holiday provides a lower income tax rate on certain classes of income and the agreement requires
that certain thresholds of business investment and employment levels be met in Singapore in order
to maintain this holiday.
During the first quarter of 2009, Intevac established an additional valuation allowance to
fully reserve its California state deferred tax assets due to the impact of California tax
legislation that was enacted in February 2009. This additional valuation allowance decreased the
income tax benefit by $1.0 million. Intevac recognized the effect
22
of the change in valuation
allowance as a discrete item during the period.
Intevac is subject to income taxes in the U.S. federal jurisdiction, and various states and
foreign jurisdictions. Tax regulations within each jurisdiction are subject to the interpretation
of the related tax laws and regulations and
require significant judgment to apply. With few exceptions, Intevac is not subject to U.S. federal,
state and local, or international jurisdictions income tax examinations by tax authorities for the
years before 2004. The Company currently has a California income tax examination for fiscal years
ended 2005, 2006 and 2007. In 2009, the Internal Revenue Service conducted a field review of the
fiscal year 2008 tax return and the examination is pending approval from the U.S. Joint Committee
on Taxation. Presently, there are no other active income tax examinations in the jurisdictions
where Intevac operates.
Liquidity and Capital Resources
At July 3, 2010, Intevac had $88.4 million in cash, cash equivalents, and investments compared
to $89.8 million at December 31, 2009. During the first six months of 2010, cash and cash
equivalents and investments decreased by $1.4 million due primarily to investments in working
capital and purchases of fixed assets, partially offset by net income and cash received from the
sale of Intevac common stock to Intevacs employees through Intevacs employee benefit plans.
Cash, cash-equivalents and investments consist of the following:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
July 3, |
|
|
December 31, |
|
|
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
|
(In thousands) |
|
Cash and cash equivalents |
|
$ |
26,807 |
|
|
$ |
17,592 |
|
Short-term investments |
|
|
|
|
|
|
6,000 |
|
Long-term investments |
|
|
61,632 |
|
|
|
66,249 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total cash, cash equivalents and investments |
|
$ |
88,439 |
|
|
$ |
89,841 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating activities generated cash of $92,000 during the first six months of 2010 and used
cash of $9.7 million during the first six months of 2009. The increase in cash generated by
operating activities was due primarily to the increase in net income, offset by increased working
capital during the first six months of 2010.
Accounts receivable totaled $63.6 million at July 3, 2010, compared to $44.8 million at
December 31, 2009. The increase of $18.8 million in the receivable balance was due to invoicing on
increased customer shipments. Total net inventories increased to $42.6 million at July 3, 2010,
compared to $19.1 million at December 31, 2009 primarily as a result of increased business levels.
Accounts payable increased to $16.2 million at July 3, 2010 compared to $4.7 million at December
31, 2009 in line with increased manufacturing activities. Accrued payroll and related liabilities
increased by $5.0 million during the six months ended July 3, 2010 primarily related to bonus and
profit sharing accruals. Customer advances increased by $1.3 million during the first six months of
2010, as new advances received from Intevacs customers were higher than liquidations related to
revenue recognition.
Investing activities in the first six months of 2010 generated cash of $7.9 million. Proceeds
from maturities of investments, net of purchases of investments totaled $10.2 million. Capital
expenditures for the six months ended July 3, 2010 were $2.3 million.
Financing activities generated cash of $1.2 million in the first six months of 2010 from the
sale of Intevac common stock to Intevacs employees through Intevacs employee benefit plans.
As of July 3, 2010, Intevacs available-for-sale securities represented $65.8 million par
value of ARS, less a temporary valuation adjustment of $4.1 million to reflect their current lack
of liquidity. Management believes that the impairment of the ARS investments is temporary. Due to
current market conditions, these investments have experienced failed auctions beginning in
mid-February 2008. These failed auctions result in a lack of liquidity in the securities, but do
not affect the underlying collateral of the securities. Intevac does not anticipate that any
potential
23
lack of liquidity in these ARS will affect its ability to finance its operations and
planned capital expenditures. Intevac continues to monitor efforts by the financial markets to find
alternative means for restoring the liquidity of these investments. These investments are
classified as non-current assets until Intevac has better visibility as to when their liquidity
will be restored. The classification and valuation of these securities will continue to be reviewed
quarterly. During the first six months of 2010, $4.2 million of ARS were redeemed at par.
As described in Note 8 of Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements, at July 3,
2010, the fair value of the ARS was estimated at $61.6 million based on a valuation by Houlihan
Smith & Company, Inc., using discounted cash flow models and applying managements internal
analysis to the valuation. The estimates of future cash flows are based on certain key assumptions,
such as discount rates appropriate for the type of asset and risk, which are significant
unobservable inputs. As of July 3, 2010, there was insufficient observable market information for
the ARS held by Intevac to determine the fair value. Therefore Level 3 fair values were estimated
for these securities by incorporating assumptions that market participants would use in their
estimates of fair value. Some of these assumptions included credit quality, collateralization,
final stated maturity, estimates of the probability of being called or becoming liquid prior to
final maturity, redemptions of similar ARS, previous market activity for the same investment
security, impact due to extended periods of maximum auction rates and valuation models.
On March 19, 2009, Intevac filed a statement of claim under the Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority dispute resolution process against Citigroup Inc. and Citigroup Global Markets, Inc.
(collectively, Citigroup) with respect to alleged fraud and market manipulation by Citigroup
related to ARS. The statement of claim requested that Citigroup accept Intevacs tender of its ARS
at par value and that Intevac receive compensatory, consequential and punitive damages and costs
and expenses. Citigroup responded denying Intevacs claims. The arbitration proceedings were
completed on June 10, 2010. On June 29, 2010, Intevac received a favorable ruling from the
arbitration panel whereby Citigroup was ordered to rescind the sale of the $54.8 million par value
in outstanding ARS investments. On July 27, 2010, Intevac received $54.8 million from the
repurchase of the securities by Citigroup at par including interest and will recognize the reversal
of a $3.3 million temporary impairment charge in other comprehensive loss in the third quarter of
fiscal year 2010.
Intevac entered into a line of credit with Citigroup under which approximately $18.3 million
was available at July 3, 2010. This borrowing facility was terminated upon the rescission of the
ARS sale discussed above.
Intevac believes that its existing cash, cash equivalents and investments will be sufficient
to meet its cash requirements for the foreseeable future. Intevac intends to undertake
approximately $6 to $7 million in capital expenditures during the remainder of 2010.
Critical Accounting Policies and Estimates
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. Intevacs significant
accounting policies are described in Note 1 to the consolidated financial statements included in
Item 8 of Intevacs Annual Report on Form 10-K filed on February 26, 2010. 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
Intevacs financial statements and requires management to make difficult, subjective or complex
judgments that could have a material effect on Intevacs financial conditions and results of
operations. Specifically, critical accounting estimates have the following attributes: 1) Intevac
is required to make assumptions about matters that are highly uncertain at the time of the
estimate; and 2) different estimates Intevac could reasonably have used, or changes in the estimate
that are reasonably likely to occur, would have a material effect on Intevacs financial condition
or results of operations.
Estimates and assumptions about future events and their effects cannot be determined with
certainty. Intevac bases its 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 Intevacs operating environment changes.
These changes have historically been minor and have
24
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 section below entitled Risk
Factors. Based on a critical assessment of Intevacs accounting policies and the underlying
judgments and uncertainties affecting the application of those policies, management believes that
Intevacs consolidated financial statements are fairly stated in accordance with US GAAP, and
provide a meaningful presentation of Intevacs financial condition
and results of operation.
In 2009, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) issued amended revenue recognition
guidance for arrangements with multiple deliverables and certain software sold with tangible
products. This new guidance eliminates the residual method of revenue recognition and allows the
use of managements best estimate of selling price (ESP) for individual elements of an
arrangement when vendor specific objective evidence (VSOE) or third party evidence (TPE) is
unavailable. Intevac implemented this guidance prospectively beginning in the first quarter of
fiscal 2010 for transactions that were initiated or materially modified during fiscal 2010. The
implementation of the new guidance had an insignificant impact on reported net sales as compared to
net sales under previous guidance, as the new guidance did not change the units of accounting
within sales arrangements and the elimination of the residual method for the allocation of
arrangement consideration had an inconsequential impact on the amount and timing of reported net
sales.
In 2010, the FASB issued guidance for the milestone method of revenue recognition. Under the
milestone method, consideration earned from achievement of the milestone is viewed as being
indicative of the value provided to the customer through either (1) the efforts performed or (2) a
specific outcome resulting from the performance to achieve that specific milestone. Under the
milestone method contingent arrangement consideration earned from the achievement of a milestone is
recognized in its entirety in the period in which the milestone is achieved. Under this new method
of accounting a milestone must be substantive before the method can be applied; that is, at the
inception of the arrangement there is a substantial uncertainty about the achievement of the
milestone, substantive effort is required to achieve the milestone, and none of the payment for the
milestone is refundable. Intevac implemented this guidance prospectively beginning in the first
quarter of fiscal 2010 for transactions that were initiated or materially modified during fiscal
2010. Implementation of this new guidance had an insignificant impact on reported net sales as
compared to net sales under previous guidance.
As a result of implementing the above new accounting guidance, during the first fiscal quarter
of 2010, Intevac revised its critical accounting policy for Revenue Recognition. The revised
policy is provided below.
Revenue Recognition
Intevac recognizes revenue when persuasive evidence of an arrangement exists, delivery has
occurred and title and risk of loss have passed to Intevacs customer or services have been
rendered, the price is fixed or determinable, and collectibility is reasonably assured. Intevacs
shipping terms are customarily FOB shipping point or equivalent terms. Intevacs revenue
recognition policy generally results in revenue recognition at the following points: (1) for all
transactions where legal title passes to the customer upon shipment, Intevac recognizes revenue
upon shipment for all products that have been demonstrated to meet product specifications prior to
shipment; the portion of revenue associated with certain installation-related tasks is deferred,
and that revenue is recognized upon completion of the installation-related tasks; (2) for products
that have not been demonstrated to meet product specifications prior to shipment, revenue is
recognized at customer acceptance; and (3) for arrangements containing multiple elements, the
revenue relating to the undelivered elements is deferred until delivery of the deferred elements.
When a sales arrangement contains multiple elements, Intevac allocates revenue to each element
based on a selling price hierarchy. The selling price for a deliverable is based on its VSOE if
available, TPE if VSOE is not available, or ESP if neither VSOE nor TPE is available. Intevac
generally utilizes the ESP due to the nature of its products. In certain cases, technology upgrade
sales are accounted for as multiple-element arrangements, usually split between delivery of the
parts and installation on the customers systems. In these cases, Intevac recognizes revenue for
the relative sales price of the parts upon shipment and transfer of title, and recognizes revenue
for the relative sales price of installation services when those services are completed. Revenue
related to sales of spare parts is generally recognized upon shipment. Revenue related to services
is generally recognized upon completion of the services. In addition, Intevac uses the installment
method to record revenue based on cash receipts in situations where the account receivable is
collected over an extended period of time and in managements judgment the degree of collectibility
is uncertain.
25
Intevac performs research and development work under various government-sponsored research
contracts. Revenue on cost-plus-fee contracts is recognized to the extent of costs actually
incurred plus a proportionate amount of the fee earned. Intevac considers fixed fees under
cost-plus-fee contracts to be earned in proportion to the allowable costs actually incurred in
performance of the contract. Revenue on fixed-price contracts is recognized on a milestone method
or percentage-of-completion method of contract accounting. For contracts structured as milestone
agreements, revenue is recognized when a specified milestone is achieved, provided that (1) the
milestone event is substantive in nature and there is substantial uncertainty about the achievement
of the milestone at the inception of the agreement, (2) the milestone payment is non-refundable,
and (3) there is no continuing performance obligations associated with the milestone payment. Any
milestone payments received prior to satisfying these revenue recognition criteria are deferred.
Intevac generally determines the percentage completed based on the percentage of costs incurred to
date in relation to total estimated costs expected through completion of the contract. When
estimates of total costs to be incurred on a contract exceed estimates of total revenue to be
earned, a provision for the entire loss on the contract is recorded in the period the loss is
determined.
For further information about Intevacs other critical accounting policies, see the discussion
of critical accounting policies in Intevacs 2009 Form 10-K. Management believes that there has
been no significant change during the three and six months ended July 3, 2010 to the items
identified as critical accounting policies in Intevacs 2009 Form 10-K except as set forth above.
|
|
|
Item 3. |
|
Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk |
Interest rate risk. Intevacs exposure to market risk for changes in interest rates relates
primarily to its investment portfolio. Intevac does not use derivative financial instruments in
Intevacs investment portfolio. Intevac places its investments with high quality credit issuers
and, by policy, limits the amount of credit exposure to any one issuer. Investments typically
consist of 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 Intevacs investment portfolio at July 3, 2010.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fair |
|
|
2010 |
|
2011 |
|
2012 |
|
Beyond |
|
Total |
|
Value |
|
|
(in thousands, except percentages) |
Cash equivalents |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fixed rate amounts |
|
$ |
6,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
6,000 |
|
|
$ |
6,000 |
|
Weighted-average rate |
|
|
0.06 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Variable rate amounts |
|
$ |
6,139 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
6,139 |
|
|
$ |
6,139 |
|
Weighted-average rate |
|
|
0.11 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Long-term investments |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fixed rate amounts |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
65,750 |
|
|
$ |
65,750 |
|
|
$ |
61,632 |
|
Weighted-average rate |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1.70 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total investment portfolio |
|
$ |
12,139 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
65,750 |
|
|
$ |
77,889 |
|
|
$ |
73,771 |
|
At July 3, 2010, Intevac held investments in ARS. With the liquidity issues experienced in
global credit and capital markets, Intevacs ARS have experienced multiple failed auctions. Intevac
continues to earn interest at the maximum contractual rate for each security. The estimated values
of the ARS held by Intevac are no longer at par. As of July 3, 2010, Intevac had $61.6 million in
ARS in the condensed consolidated balance sheet, which is net of a temporary unrealized loss of
$4.1 million. Management believes that the impairment of the ARS investments is temporary,
primarily due to the government guarantee of the underlying securities and Intevacs ability to
hold the ARS for the foreseeable future. Management believes that it is more likely than not that
it will not be required to sell the ARS before the recovery of their par amount. The unrealized
loss is included in other comprehensive loss.
26
Intevac continues to monitor the market for ARS and consider its impact (if any) on the fair
market value of its investments. If the current market conditions continue, or the anticipated
recovery in market values does not occur, Intevac may be required to record additional unrealized
losses or record an other-than-temporary impairment charge in 2010.
Based on Intevacs ability to access its cash, its expected operating cash flows, and other
sources of cash, Intevac does not anticipate that the lack of liquidity of these investments will
affect Intevacs ability to operate its business in the ordinary course.
Foreign exchange risk. From time to time, Intevac enters into foreign currency forward
exchange contracts to hedge certain of its 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 Intevacs operating results. At July 3, 2010, Intevac had no
foreign currency forward exchange contracts.
|
|
|
Item 4. |
|
Controls and Procedures |
Evaluation of disclosure controls and procedures
Intevac maintains 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 the
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-Q for the
quarter ended July 3, 2010, 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 Intevacs disclosure
controls and procedures as of the end of the period covered by this quarterly report. Based on this
evaluation, Intevacs Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer concluded that our
disclosure controls and procedures were effective as of July 3, 2010.
Attached as exhibits to this Quarterly Report are certifications of the CEO and the CFO, which
are required in accordance with Rule 13a-14 of the Exchange Act. This Controls and Procedures
section includes the information concerning the controls evaluation referred to in the
certifications, and it should be read in conjunction with the certifications for a more complete
understanding of the topics presented.
Definition of disclosure controls
Disclosure Controls are controls and procedures designed to ensure that information required
to be disclosed in our reports filed under the Exchange Act, such as this Quarterly Report, is
recorded, processed, summarized and reported within the time periods specified in the Securities
and Exchange Commissions rules and forms. Disclosure Controls are also designed to ensure that
such information is accumulated and communicated to our management, including the CEO and CFO, as
appropriate to allow timely decisions regarding required disclosure. Our Disclosure Controls
include components of our internal control over financial reporting, which consists of control
processes designed to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of our financial
reporting and the preparation of financial statements in accordance with generally accepted
accounting principles in the U.S. To the extent that components of our internal control over
financial reporting are included within our Disclosure Controls, they are included in the scope of
our quarterly controls evaluation.
Limitations on the effectiveness of controls
Intevacs management, including the CEO and CFO, does not expect that Intevacs Disclosure
Controls or Intevacs 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
27
of fraud, if any, within Intevac 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.
Changes in internal controls over financial reporting
There were no changes in our internal controls over financial reporting that occurred during
the period covered by this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q that have materially affected, or are
reasonably likely to materially affect, Intevacs internal control over financial reporting.
PART II. OTHER INFORMATION
|
|
|
Item 1. |
|
Legal Proceedings |
From time to time, Intevac is involved in claims and legal proceedings that arise in the
ordinary course of business. Intevac expects that the number and significance of these matters will
increase as Intevacs 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. Intevac is not presently a party to any lawsuit or proceeding that, in
Intevacs opinion, is likely to seriously harm Intevacs business.
On March 19, 2009, Intevac filed a statement of claim under the Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority dispute resolution process against Citigroup Inc. and Citigroup Global Markets, Inc.
(collectively, Citigroup) with respect to alleged fraud and market manipulation by Citigroup
related to auction rate securities. The statement of claim requested that Citigroup accept
Intevacs tender of its auction rate securities at par value and that Intevac receive compensatory,
consequential and punitive damages and costs and expenses. Citigroup responded denying Intevacs
claims. The arbitration proceedings were completed on June 10, 2010. On June 29, 2010,
Intevac received a favorable ruling from the arbitration panel whereby Citigroup was ordered to
rescind the sale of the $54.8 million par value in outstanding ARS investments. On July 27, 2010,
Intevac received $54.8 million from the repurchase of the securities by Citigroup at par including
interest.
The following factors could materially affect Intevacs business, financial condition or
results of operations and should be carefully considered in evaluating the Company and its
business, in addition to other information presented elsewhere in this report.
The industries we serve are cyclical, volatile and unpredictable.
The majority of our revenue is derived from the sale of equipment used to manufacture
commodity technology products such as disk drives, and our target new markets include other
commodity technology markets including semiconductor wafer fabrication equipment and photovoltaic
(PV) cell manufacturers. This subjects us to business cycles, the timing, length and volatility
of which can be difficult to predict. When demand for commodity technology products exceeds
production capacity, then demand for new capital equipment such as ours tends to be amplified.
Conversely, when supply of commodity technology products exceeds demand, then demand for new
capital equipment such as ours tends to be depressed. 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, followed by a
28
downturn in the cycle in late 2007 which continued through 2009. The
number of new systems delivered declined sequentially in 2007, 2008 and 2009. We cannot predict
with any certainty when these cycles will begin or end.
Our equipment represents only a portion of the capital expenditure that our customers incur
when they upgrade or add production capacity. Accordingly, our customers generally commit to making
large capital expenditures, far in excess of the cost of our systems alone, when they decide to
purchase our systems. The magnitude of these capital expenditures requires our customers to have
access to large amounts of capital. The magnetic disk and semiconductor manufacturing industries
have from time to time made significant additions to their production capacity. Our customers
generally reduce their level of capital investment during downturns in the overall economy, or
during a downturn in their industries.
We must effectively manage our resources and production capacity to meet rapidly changing
demand. Our business experiences rapid growth and contraction, which stresses our infrastructure,
internal systems and managerial resources. During periods of increasing demand for our products, we
must have sufficient manufacturing capacity and inventory to meet customer demand; attract, retain
and motivate a sufficient number of qualified individuals; and effectively manage our supply chain.
During periods of decreasing demand for our products, we must be able to align our cost structure
with prevailing market conditions; motivate and retain key employees and effectively manage our
supply chain.
Sales of our equipment are primarily dependent on our customers upgrade and capacity expansion
plans and whether our customers select our equipment.
We have no control over our customers upgrade and capacity expansion plans, and we cannot be
sure they will select, or continue to select, our equipment when they upgrade or expand their
capacity. The sales cycle for our equipment systems can be a year or longer, involving individuals
from many different areas of Intevac and numerous product presentations and demonstrations for our
prospective customers. Our sales process also commonly includes production of samples,
customization of our products, and installation of evaluation systems in the factories of our
prospective customers. We do not enter into long-term contracts with our customers, and until an
order is actually submitted by a customer there is no binding commitment to purchase our systems.
Intevac Photonics business is also subject to long sales cycles because many of its products,
such as our military imaging products, often must be designed into the customers end 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.
Sales of new manufacturing systems are also dependent on obsolescence and replacement of the
installed base of our customers existing equipment with newer, more capable equipment. If upgrades
are developed that extend the useful life of the installed base of systems, then we tend to sell
more upgrade products and fewer new systems, which can significantly reduce total revenue. For
example, some of our 200 Lean customers continue to use legacy systems for the production of
perpendicular media, which delays the replacement of such systems with new 200 Lean systems.
Our 200 Lean customers also experience competition from companies that produce alternative
storage technologies like flash memory, which offer smaller size, lower power consumption and more
rugged designs. If alternative technologies, such as flash memory, replace hard disk drives as a
significant method of digital storage, then demand for our hard disk manufacturing products would
decrease.
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. This
concentration of customers can lead to extreme variability in revenue and financial results from
period to period.
29
Industry consolidation can limit the number of potential customers for our products. For
example, Seagate acquired Maxtor in 2006, Western Digital acquired Komag in 2007, and Toshiba
acquired Fujitsus hard drive business in 2009. The concentration of our customer base may enable
our customers to demand pricing and other terms unfavorable to Intevac, and makes us more
vulnerable to changes in demand by a given customer. Orders from a relatively limited number of
manufacturers have accounted for, and will likely continue to account for, a substantial portion of
our revenues. The loss of one of these large customers, or delays in purchasing by them, could have
a material and adverse effect on our revenues.
Our growth depends on development of technically advanced new products and processes.
We have invested heavily, and continue to invest, in the development of new products, such as
our 200 Lean Gen II system, our semiconductor products, 200 Lean systems for PV applications and
our digital night-vision products. Our success in developing and selling new products depends upon
a variety of factors, including our
ability to: predict future customer requirements, make technological advances, achieve a low total
cost of ownership for our products, introduce new products on schedule, manufacture products
cost-effectively including transitioning production to volume manufacturing; commercialize and
attain customer acceptance of our products; and achieve acceptable and reliable performance of our
new products in the field. Our new product decisions and development commitments must anticipate
continuously evolving industry requirements significantly in advance of sales. In addition, we are
attempting to expand into new or related markets, including the semiconductor market for wafer
fabrication equipment, and the PV market. Our expansion into the PV market is dependent upon the
success of our customers development plans, some of which are start-ups and in their preliminary
stages of development, as well as their ability to raise capital to fund their future development
and capacity expansion. To date Intevac has not received revenue from our semiconductor or PV
manufacturing products. Failure to correctly assess the size of the markets, to successfully
develop cost effective products to address the markets or to establish effective sales and support
of the new products would have a material adverse effect on future revenues and profits.
Rapid technological change in our served markets requires us to rapidly develop new
technically advanced products. Our future success depends in part on our ability to develop and
offer new products with improved capabilities and to continue to enhance our existing products. If
new products have reliability or quality problems, our performance may be impacted by reduced
orders, higher manufacturing costs, delays in acceptance and payment for new products and
additional service and warranty expenses.
Our operating results fluctuate significantly from quarter to quarter, which can lead to
volatility in the price of our common stock.
Our quarterly revenues and common stock price have fluctuated significantly. We anticipate
that our revenues, operating margins and common stock price will continue to fluctuate for a
variety of reasons, including: (1) changes in the demand, due to seasonality, cyclicality and other
factors in the markets for computer systems, storage subsystems and consumer electronics containing
disks our customers produce with our systems; (2) delays or problems in the introduction and
acceptance of our new products, or delivery of existing products; (3) timing of orders, acceptance
of new systems by our customers or cancellation of those orders; (4) new products, services or
technological innovations by our competitors or us; (5) changes in our manufacturing costs and
operating expense; (6) changes in general economic, political, stock market and industry
conditions; and (7) any failure of our operating results to meet the expectations of investment
research analysts or investors.
Any of these, or other factors, could lead to volatility and/or a rapid change in the trading
price of our common shares. 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 Intevac, could result in substantial costs and diversion of
management.
The liquidity of our auction rate securities is impaired, which could impact our ability to
meet cash requirements and require additional debt financing.
At July 3, 2010, we held auction rate securities (ARS) with a par value of $65.8 million.
The market for these securities had historically been highly liquid, even though the ARS that we
hold have underlying maturities ranging
30
from 21 to 37 years. The liquidity was achieved through
auctions, which occurred every 7 or 28 days depending on the security, in which the interest paid
on each security was reset to current market rates. We never intended to hold these securities to
maturity, but rather to use the auction feature to sell the securities as needed to provide
liquidity. Since February 2008, all of these ARS have failed auction. The ARS will continue to be
illiquid until a successful auction process is reinstated, they are restructured into a more liquid
security, or a buyer is found outside of the auction process. We do not know when, or if, this will
occur. All of the auction rate securities held by us are student loan structured issues, originated
under the U.S. Department of Educations Federal Family Education Loan Program with principal and
interest 97% 98% reinsured by the U.S. Department of Education. As of July 3, 2010, all of these
securities are currently rated investment grade but there is no assurance that these ratings will
continue in the future. As of July 3, 2010, securities with a par value of $54.0 million are rated
AAA/Aaa, securities with a par value of $8.8 million are rated AAA/A3 and a security with a par
value of $3.0 million is rated AAA/Baa3. These securities are classified as long-term investments
and we recorded an impairment charge of $4.1 million. If: (1) the issuers of the ARS are unable to
successfully resume auctions; or (2) the issuers do not redeem the ARS; or (3) a liquid market for
the ARS does not develop; or (4) the U.S. Department of Education fails to support its guaranty of
the obligations; or (5) these or any other valuation metrics or processes change, then Intevac may
be required to further adjust the carrying value of the ARS and/or record an other-than-temporary
impairment charge. On March 19, 2009, Intevac filed a statement of claim under the Financial
Industry Regulatory Authority dispute resolution process against Citigroup Inc. and Citigroup
Global Markets, Inc. (collectively, Citigroup) with respect to alleged fraud and market
manipulation by Citigroup related to ARS. The statement of claim requested that Citigroup accept
Intevacs tender of its ARS at par value and that Intevac receive compensatory, consequential and
punitive damages and costs and expenses. Citigroup responded denying Intevacs claims. The
arbitration proceedings were completed on June 10, 2010. On June 29, 2010, Intevac
received a favorable ruling from the arbitration panel whereby Citigroup was ordered to rescind the
sale of the $54.8 million par value in outstanding ARS investments. On July 27, 2010, Intevac
received $54.8 million from the repurchase of the securities by Citigroup at par including interest
and will recognize the reversal of a $3.3 million temporary impairment charge in other
comprehensive loss in the third quarter of fiscal year 2010.
Adverse economic conditions and volatility and disruption of the capital and credit markets may
negatively impact our revenues and our ability to access financing.
Economic conditions worldwide have contributed to decreased spending by our customers and a
slowdown in the hard disk drive industry. These factors have adversely impacted our operating
results in prior periods, including most recently during fiscal 2009, and have caused us to be
cautious about our future outlook. Although macroeconomic and global market conditions improved in
the latter half of 2009 and the first half of 2010, our customers continue to remain cautious as it
relates to the sustainability of the recovery. Negative macroeconomic and global recessionary
factors, further volatility or disruption in the capital and credit markets or further uncertainty
or weakening in key markets could negatively impact spending for our products and may materially
adversely affect our business, operating results and financial condition.
In addition, while we intend to finance operations with existing cash, cash flow from
operations and, if necessary, we may require financing to support our continued operations. Due to
the existing uncertainty in the capital and credit markets, our access to capital may not be
available on terms acceptable to us or at all.
We may be subject to additional impairment charges due to potential declines in the fair value of
our assets.
As a result of our acquisitions, we have significant goodwill and intangible assets on our
balance sheet. We test goodwill and intangible assets for impairment on a periodic basis as
required, and whenever events or changes in circumstances indicate that the carrying value may not
be recoverable. The events or changes that could require us to test our goodwill and intangible
assets for impairment include: a reduction in our stock price, and as a result market
capitalization, changes in our estimated future cash flows, as well as changes in rates of growth
in our industry or in any of our reporting units. In the fourth quarter of 2008, we recorded an
impairment charge of $10.5 million for goodwill due to a decline in our market capitalization and
certain purchased technology intangible assets due to lower revenue expectations in light of
current operating performance and future operating expectations. We will continue to evaluate the
carrying value of our remaining goodwill and intangible assets and if we determine in the future
that there is a potential further impairment in any of our reporting units, we may be required to
record
31
additional charges to earnings which could materially adversely affect our financial results
and could also materially adversely affect our business. See Note 5. Goodwill and Purchased
Intangible Assets, Net in the Notes to the Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements for
additional information related to impairment of goodwill and intangible assets.
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 Anelva
Corporation, a subsidiary of Canon, which has sold substantial numbers of systems worldwide. In the
market for semiconductor equipment we are attempting to enter a market with several large
established competitors including Brooks Automation and Genmark Automation as well as competition
from internally developed products at Applied Materials and Tokyo Electron. Intevac is attempting
to enter the PV equipment market, and faces competition from large established competitors
including Veeco Instruments, Centrotherm Photovoltaics, Von Ardenne and cell module manufacturers
that are internally developing manufacturing equipment that may be sold externally in the future.
In the market for our military imaging products we experience competition from companies such as
ITT
Industries and Fairchild Imaging. In the markets for our commercial imaging products we compete
with companies such as Andor, Dalsa, E2V, Hamamatsu, Texas Instruments and Roper Industries for
sensor and camera products, and with companies such as Ahura, B&W Tek, GE Security, Horiba-Jobin
Yvon, Ocean Optics, Renishaw, Thermo Scientific, and Smiths Detection for Raman spectrometer
products. Our competitors have substantially greater financial, technical, marketing, manufacturing
and other resources than we do, especially in the semiconductor equipment market where we have not
previously offered a product. We cannot ensure that our competitors will not develop enhancements
to, or future generations of, competitive products that offer superior price or performance
features. Likewise, we cannot ensure 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 may not be able to obtain export licenses from the U.S. government permitting delivery of our
products to international customers.
Many of our products, especially Intevac Photonics products, require export licenses from
U.S. government agencies under the Export Administration Act, the Trading with the Enemy Act of
1917, the Arms Export Act of 1976 or the International Traffic in Arms Regulations. These
regulations limit the potential market for some of our products. We can give no assurance that we
will be successful in obtaining all the licenses necessary to export our products. Heightened
government scrutiny of export licenses for defense related products has resulted in lengthened
review periods for our license applications. Exports to countries that are not considered by the
U.S. government to be allies are likely to be prohibited, and even sales to U.S. allies may be
limited. Failure to obtain export licenses, delays in obtaining licenses, or revocation of
previously issued licenses would prevent us from selling the affected products outside the United
States and could negatively impact our results of operations.
The Intevac Photonics business is dependent on U.S. government contracts, which are subject to
fixed pricing, immediate termination and a number of procurement rules and regulations.
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. 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, particularly given the U.S. governments recent focus
on spending in other areas. Sales to the U.S. government and its prime contractors may also be
affected by changes in procurement policies, budget considerations and political developments in
the United States or abroad. For example, if the U.S. government is less focused on defense
spending or there is a decrease in hostilities, demand for our products could decrease. The loss of
funding for a government program would result in a loss of future revenues attributable to that
program. The influence of any of these factors, which are beyond our control, could negatively
impact our results of operations.
A significant portion of our U.S. government 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, reduced
32
production volumes, 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 could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations.
Generally, government contracts 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 ensure 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 ensure 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 ensure that we, or our customers, will continue to remain in good standing as
federal contractors.
As a U.S. government contractor we must comply with specific government rules and regulations
and are subject to routine audits and investigations by U.S. government agencies. If we fail to
comply with these rules and regulations, the results could include: (1) reductions in the value of
our contracts; (2) reductions in amounts
previously billed and recognized as revenue; (3) contract modifications or termination; (4) the
assessment of penalties and fines; and (5) suspension or debarment from government contracting or
subcontracting for a period of time or permanently.
Changes to our effective tax rate affect our results of operations.
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 effective tax rate could be affected by: (1) changes in tax laws; (2) the allocation of
earnings to countries with differing tax rates; (3) changes in worldwide projected annual earnings
in current and future years: (4) accounting pronouncements; or (5) changes in the valuation of our
deferred tax assets and liabilities. Although we believe our tax estimates are reasonable, there
can be no assurance that any final determination will not be different from the treatment reflected
in our historical income tax provisions and accruals, which could result in additional payments by
Intevac.
We booked a significant tax benefit in both 2009 and 2008 based on managements belief that we
could both carryback losses to years Intevac paid income taxes and carryforward tax credits to
future years where we would generate taxable income. Intevac will need to generate approximately
$45 million of taxable income in order to realize the Federal deferred tax assets recorded as of
July 3, 2010. If our expectations of future income are incorrect, we could be required to establish
a valuation allowance against some or all of the deferred tax assets.
Our success depends on international sales and the management of global operations.
The majority of our revenues come from regions outside the United States. Most of our
international sales are to customers in Asia, which includes products shipped to overseas
operations of U.S. companies. We currently have manufacturing facilities in California, Wyoming and
Singapore and international customer support offices in Singapore, China, and Malaysia. We expect
that international sales will continue to account for a significant portion of our total revenue in
future years. Certain of our suppliers are also located outside the United States.
Managing our global operations presents challenges including, but not limited to, those
arising from: (1) global trade issues; (2) variations in protection of intellectual property and
other legal rights in different countries; (3) concerns of U.S. governmental agencies regarding
possible national commercial and/or security issues posed by growing manufacturing business in
Asia; (4) fluctuation of interest rates, raw material costs, labor and operating costs, and
exchange rates, including the weakening relative position of the U.S. dollar; (5) variations in the
ability to develop relationships with suppliers and other local businesses; (6) changes in the laws
and regulations of the United States, including export restrictions, and other countries, as well
as their interpretation and application; (7) the need to provide technical and spares support in
different locations; (8) political and economic instability; (9) cultural differences; (10) varying
government incentives to promote development; (11) shipping costs and delays; (12) adverse
conditions in credit markets; (13) variations in tariffs, quotas, tax codes and other market
barriers; and (14) barriers to movement of cash.
33
We must regularly assess the size, capability and location of our global infrastructure and
make appropriate changes to address these issues.
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 agreements and other
restrictions.
The majority of our U.S. operations are located in California where the cost of living and of
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 industries such as the
hard disk drive, semiconductor, and solar industries
for skilled employees. Failure to retain existing key personnel, or to attract, assimilate or
retain additional highly qualified employees to meet our needs in the future, could have a material
and adverse effect our business, financial condition and results of operations.
We are dependent on certain suppliers for parts used in our products.
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 subassemblies 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, increased costs to expedite deliveries or develop alternative
suppliers, or require redesign of our products to accommodate alternative suppliers. Some of our
suppliers are thinly capitalized and may be vulnerable to failure given recent economic conditions.
Our business depends on the integrity of our intellectual property rights.
The success of our business depends upon the integrity of our intellectual property rights,
and we cannot ensure that: (1) 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; (2) any of our patents will not be invalidated, deemed unenforceable, circumvented
or challenged; (3) the rights granted under our patents will provide competitive advantages to us;
(4) other parties will not develop similar products, duplicate our products or design around our
patents; or (5) our patent rights, intellectual property laws or our agreements will adequately
protect our intellectual property or competitive position.
From time to time, we have received claims that we are infringing third parties intellectual
property rights or seeking to invalidate our rights. We cannot ensure 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.
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 March 2009,
Intevac filed a statement of claim under the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority dispute
resolution process against Citigroup with respect to alleged fraud and market manipulation by
Citigroup related to ARS. The statement of claim requested that Citigroup accept Intevacs tender
of its ARS at par value and that Intevac receive compensatory, consequential and punitive
34
damages
and costs and expenses. Citigroup responded denying Intevacs claims. The arbitration proceedings
were completed on June 10, 2010. On June 29, 2010, Intevac received a favorable ruling
from the arbitration panel whereby Citigroup was ordered to rescind the sale of the $54.8 million
par value in outstanding ARS investments. On July 27, 2010, Intevac received $54.8 million from the
repurchase of the securities by Citigroup at par including interest. Litigation is expensive,
subjects us to the risk of significant damages and requires significant management time and
attention and could have a material and adverse effect on our business, financial condition and
results of operations.
Difficulties in integrating past or future acquisitions could adversely affect our business.
We have completed a number of acquisitions during our operating history. For example, in 2007,
we acquired certain assets of DeltaNu, LLC and certain assets of Creative Display Systems, LLC and
in 2008 we acquired certain assets of OC Oerlikon Balzers Ltd. We have spent and may continue to
spend significant resources identifying and pursuing future acquisition opportunities. Acquisitions
involve numerous risks including: (1) difficulties in integrating the operations, technologies and
products of the acquired companies; (2) the diversion of our managements attention from other
business concerns; and (3) the potential loss of key employees of the acquired companies. Failure
to achieve the anticipated benefits of the prior and any future acquisitions or to successfully
integrate the operations of the companies we acquire could have a material and adverse effect on
our business,
financial condition and results of operations. Any future acquisitions could 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 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.
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 detailed disaster recovery
plan. Despite our implementation of network security measures, our tools and servers may be
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 or 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, 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 business interruptions, but there is no
certainty that our efforts will prove successful.
35
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
effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting.
We have completed the evaluation of our internal controls over financial reporting as required
by Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. Although our assessment, testing, and evaluation resulted
in our conclusion that as of December 31, 2009, our internal controls over financial reporting were
effective, we cannot predict the outcome of our testing in future periods. Ongoing compliance with
this requirement is complex, costly and time-consuming. If: Intevac fails to maintain effective
internal control over financial reporting; our management does not timely assess the adequacy of
such internal control; or our independent registered public accounting firm does not deliver an
unqualified opinion as to the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting, then
we could be subject to: restatement of previously reported financial results, regulatory sanctions
and a decline in the publics perception of Intevac, which could have a material and adverse effect
on our business, financial condition and results of operations.
|
|
|
Item 2. |
|
Unregistered Sales of Equity Securities and Use of Proceeds |
None.
|
|
|
Item 3. |
|
Defaults upon Senior Securities |
None.
|
|
|
Item 4. |
|
(Removed and Reserved) |
|
|
|
Item 5. |
|
Other Information |
None.
|
|
The following exhibits are filed herewith: |
|
|
|
Exhibit |
|
|
Number |
|
Description |
|
|
|
23.2
|
|
Consent of Independent Valuation Firm |
|
|
|
31.1
|
|
Certification of President and Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to Section 302 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. |
|
|
|
31.2
|
|
Certification of Executive 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. |
36
SIGNATURES
Pursuant to the requirements 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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
INTEVAC, INC.
|
|
Date: August 3, 2010 |
By: |
/s/ KEVIN FAIRBAIRN
|
|
|
|
Kevin Fairbairn |
|
|
|
President, Chief Executive Officer and Director
(Principal Executive Officer) |
|
|
|
|
|
Date: August 3, 2010 |
By: |
/s/ JEFFREY ANDRESON
|
|
|
|
Jeffrey Andreson |
|
|
|
Executive Vice President, Finance and Administration,
Chief Financial Officer, Treasurer and Secretary
(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer) |
|
37