e10vq
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 June 30, 2007
|
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
incorporation or organization)
|
|
(IRS Employer
Identification No.)
|
3560 Bassett Street
Santa Clara, California 95054
(Address of principal executive
office, including Zip Code)
Registrants telephone number, including area code:
(408) 986-9888
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed
all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding
12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant
was required to file such reports), and (2) has been
subject to such filing requirements for the past
90 days. Yes þ No o
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large
accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, or a non-accelerated
filer. See definition of accelerated filer and large
accelerated filer in
Rule 12b-2
of the Exchange Act. (Check one):
Large accelerated
filer o Accelerated
filer þ Non-accelerated
filer o
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company
(as defined in
Rule 12b-2
of the
Act). Yes o No þ
APPLICABLE
ONLY TO CORPORATE ISSUERS:
On August 3, 2007, 21,540,539 shares of the
Registrants Common Stock, no par value, were outstanding.
PART I. FINANCIAL
INFORMATION
|
|
Item 1.
|
Financial
Statements
|
INTEVAC,
INC.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
June 30,
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
|
(Unaudited)
|
|
|
|
(In thousands)
|
|
|
ASSETS
|
Current assets:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents
|
|
$
|
30,442
|
|
|
$
|
39,440
|
|
Short term investments
|
|
|
74,993
|
|
|
|
55,595
|
|
Trade and other accounts
receivable, net of allowances of $152 and $143 at June 30,
2007 and December 31, 2006
|
|
|
38,981
|
|
|
|
39,927
|
|
Inventories
|
|
|
27,870
|
|
|
|
37,942
|
|
Prepaid expenses and other current
assets
|
|
|
2,044
|
|
|
|
2,506
|
|
Deferred tax assets
|
|
|
4,100
|
|
|
|
3,269
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total current assets
|
|
|
178,430
|
|
|
|
178,679
|
|
Property, plant and equipment, net
|
|
|
15,004
|
|
|
|
13,546
|
|
Long-term investments
|
|
|
12,000
|
|
|
|
8,000
|
|
Investment in 601 California
Avenue LLC
|
|
|
2,431
|
|
|
|
2,431
|
|
Goodwill
|
|
|
5,434
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other intangible assets, net of
amortization of $153
|
|
|
247
|
|
|
|
|
|
Deferred income taxes and other
long term assets
|
|
|
3,497
|
|
|
|
3,347
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total assets
|
|
$
|
217,043
|
|
|
$
|
206,003
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
LIABILITIES AND
SHAREHOLDERS EQUITY
|
Current liabilities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Notes payable
|
|
$
|
1,945
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
Accounts payable
|
|
|
9,815
|
|
|
|
15,994
|
|
Accrued payroll and related
liabilities
|
|
|
8,541
|
|
|
|
11,769
|
|
Other accrued liabilities
|
|
|
7,467
|
|
|
|
6,612
|
|
Customer advances
|
|
|
15,387
|
|
|
|
26,243
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total current liabilities
|
|
|
43,155
|
|
|
|
60,618
|
|
Other long-term liabilities
|
|
|
934
|
|
|
|
1,075
|
|
Long-term notes payable
|
|
|
1,853
|
|
|
|
|
|
Shareholders equity:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Common stock, no par value
|
|
|
101,346
|
|
|
|
99,468
|
|
Additional paid in capital
|
|
|
10,825
|
|
|
|
7,319
|
|
Accumulated other comprehensive
income
|
|
|
364
|
|
|
|
354
|
|
Retained earnings
|
|
|
58,566
|
|
|
|
37,169
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total shareholders equity
|
|
|
171,101
|
|
|
|
144,310
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total liabilities and
shareholders equity
|
|
$
|
217,043
|
|
|
$
|
206,003
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Note: Amounts as of December 31, 2006 are derived from the
December 31, 2006 audited consolidated financial statements.
See accompanying notes.
2
INTEVAC,
INC.
AND
COMPREHENSIVE INCOME
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months Ended
|
|
|
Six Months Ended
|
|
|
|
June 30,
|
|
|
July 1,
|
|
|
June 30,
|
|
|
July 1,
|
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
|
(Unaudited)
|
|
|
|
(In thousands, except per share amounts)
|
|
|
Net revenues:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Systems and components
|
|
$
|
69,603
|
|
|
$
|
56,843
|
|
|
$
|
143,196
|
|
|
$
|
104,917
|
|
Technology development
|
|
|
2,502
|
|
|
|
2,699
|
|
|
|
5,283
|
|
|
|
4,245
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total net revenues
|
|
|
72,105
|
|
|
|
59,542
|
|
|
|
148,479
|
|
|
|
109,162
|
|
Cost of net revenues:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Systems and components
|
|
|
39,808
|
|
|
|
35,838
|
|
|
|
81,937
|
|
|
|
67,178
|
|
Technology development
|
|
|
1,383
|
|
|
|
1,909
|
|
|
|
2,890
|
|
|
|
2,861
|
|
Inventory provisions
|
|
|
87
|
|
|
|
533
|
|
|
|
43
|
|
|
|
555
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total cost of net revenues
|
|
|
41,278
|
|
|
|
38,280
|
|
|
|
84,870
|
|
|
|
70,594
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gross profit
|
|
|
30,827
|
|
|
|
21,262
|
|
|
|
63,609
|
|
|
|
38,568
|
|
Operating expenses:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Research and development
|
|
|
9,648
|
|
|
|
6,290
|
|
|
|
21,840
|
|
|
|
11,851
|
|
Selling, general and administrative
|
|
|
7,839
|
|
|
|
5,004
|
|
|
|
15,352
|
|
|
|
10,118
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total operating expenses
|
|
|
17,487
|
|
|
|
11,294
|
|
|
|
37,192
|
|
|
|
21,969
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating profit
|
|
|
13,340
|
|
|
|
9,968
|
|
|
|
26,417
|
|
|
|
16,599
|
|
Interest income and other, net
|
|
|
1,538
|
|
|
|
729
|
|
|
|
2,858
|
|
|
|
1,327
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income before income taxes
|
|
|
14,878
|
|
|
|
10,697
|
|
|
|
29,275
|
|
|
|
17,926
|
|
Provision for income taxes
|
|
|
3,326
|
|
|
|
1,364
|
|
|
|
7,878
|
|
|
|
1,582
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income
|
|
$
|
11,552
|
|
|
$
|
9,333
|
|
|
$
|
21,397
|
|
|
$
|
16,344
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other comprehensive income:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Foreign currency translation
adjustments
|
|
|
(11
|
)
|
|
|
34
|
|
|
|
10
|
|
|
|
63
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total comprehensive income
|
|
$
|
11,541
|
|
|
$
|
9,367
|
|
|
$
|
21,407
|
|
|
$
|
16,407
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic income per share:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income
|
|
$
|
0.54
|
|
|
$
|
0.44
|
|
|
$
|
1.00
|
|
|
$
|
0.78
|
|
Shares used in per share amounts
|
|
|
21,396
|
|
|
|
20,987
|
|
|
|
21,345
|
|
|
|
20,910
|
|
Diluted income per share:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income
|
|
$
|
0.52
|
|
|
$
|
0.42
|
|
|
$
|
0.97
|
|
|
$
|
0.75
|
|
Shares used in per share amounts
|
|
|
22,146
|
|
|
|
21,972
|
|
|
|
22,167
|
|
|
|
21,883
|
|
See accompanying notes.
3
INTEVAC,
INC.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Six Months Ended
|
|
|
|
June 30,
|
|
|
July 1,
|
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
|
(Unaudited)
|
|
|
|
(In thousands)
|
|
|
Operating activities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income
|
|
$
|
21,397
|
|
|
$
|
16,344
|
|
Adjustments to reconcile net
income to net cash and cash equivalents used in operating
activities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Depreciation and amortization
|
|
|
2,187
|
|
|
|
1,240
|
|
Inventory provisions
|
|
|
43
|
|
|
|
555
|
|
Equity-based compensation
|
|
|
2,739
|
|
|
|
1,180
|
|
Loss on disposal of equipment
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5
|
|
Changes in operating assets and
liabilities
|
|
|
(9,127
|
)
|
|
|
(3,584
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total adjustments
|
|
|
(4,158
|
)
|
|
|
(604
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash and cash equivalents
provided by operating activities
|
|
|
17,239
|
|
|
|
15,740
|
|
Investing activities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Purchases of investments
|
|
|
(71,661
|
)
|
|
|
(81,303
|
)
|
Proceeds from maturities of
investments
|
|
|
48,200
|
|
|
|
70,550
|
|
Acquisition of DeltaNu LLC, net of
cash acquired
|
|
|
(5,803
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
Purchases of leasehold
improvements and equipment
|
|
|
(3,406
|
)
|
|
|
(2,196
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash and cash equivalents used
in investing activities
|
|
|
(32,670
|
)
|
|
|
(12,949
|
)
|
Financing activities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net proceeds from issuance of
common stock
|
|
|
1,861
|
|
|
|
2,223
|
|
Issuance of notes payable
|
|
|
3,798
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tax benefit from equity-based
compensation
|
|
|
767
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash and cash equivalents
provided by financing activities
|
|
|
6,426
|
|
|
|
2,223
|
|
Effect of exchange rate changes on
cash
|
|
|
7
|
|
|
|
52
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net increase (decrease) in cash
and cash equivalents
|
|
|
(8,998
|
)
|
|
|
5,066
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents at
beginning of period
|
|
|
39,440
|
|
|
|
15,255
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents at end
of period
|
|
$
|
30,442
|
|
|
$
|
20,321
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Supplemental Schedule of Cash
Flow Information
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash paid for:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income taxes
|
|
$
|
6,544
|
|
|
$
|
2,723
|
|
See accompanying notes.
4
INTEVAC,
INC.
|
|
1.
|
Business
Activities and Basis of Presentation
|
We are the worlds leading provider of disk sputtering
equipment to manufacturers of magnetic media used in hard disk
drives and a developer and provider of leading technology for
extreme low light imaging sensors, cameras and systems. We
operate two businesses: Equipment and Imaging.
Our Equipment business designs, manufactures, markets and
services high-productivity manufacturing systems. We are the
leading supplier of capital equipment used in the sputtering, or
deposition, of highly engineered thin-films of material onto
magnetic disks, which are used in hard disk drives. Hard disk
drives are the primary storage medium for digital data and
function by storing data on magnetic disks. These disks are
created in a sophisticated manufacturing process involving a
variety of steps, including plating, annealing, polishing,
texturing, sputtering and lubrication. We are developing
products for semiconductor manufacturing. In July 2007 we
announced our new Lean Etch semiconductor
manufacturing system for the dielectric etch market.
Our Imaging business develops, manufactures and markets
high-sensitivity imaging products and miniature Raman
instruments. We provide sensors, cameras and systems for
military applications such as night vision and long-range target
identification and we provide cameras and Raman spectrometers to
the industrial, physical science and life science markets.
Most of our revenue is derived from our Equipment business, and
we expect that the majority of our revenues for at least the
next several years will continue to be derived from our
Equipment business.
The financial information at June 30, 2007 and for the
three- and six-month periods ended June 30, 2007 and
July 1, 2006 is unaudited, but includes all adjustments
(consisting only of normal recurring accruals) that we consider
necessary for a fair presentation of the financial information
set forth herein, in accordance with accounting principles
generally accepted in the United States of America
(U.S. GAAP) for interim financial information,
the instructions to
Form 10-Q
and Article 10 of
Regulation S-X.
Accordingly, it does not include all of the information and
footnotes required by U.S. GAAP for annual financial
statements. For further information, refer to the Consolidated
Financial Statements and footnotes thereto included in our
Annual Report on
Form 10-K
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2006.
The preparation of financial statements in conformity with
U.S. GAAP requires management to make estimates and
assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and
liabilities and disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities
at the date of the financial statements and reported amounts of
revenue and expenses during the reporting period. Actual results
inevitably will differ from those estimates, and such
differences may be material to the financial statements.
The results for the three- and six-month periods ended
June 30, 2007 are not considered indicative of the results
to be expected for any future period or for the entire year.
Intevac®,
LIVAR®,
D-STAR®,
Lean
Etchtm
and 200
Lean®
are trademarks of Intevac, Inc.
Historically, a significant portion of our revenues in any
particular period has been attributable to sales to a limited
number of customers. Our largest customers tend to change from
period to period.
We evaluate the collectibility of trade receivables on an
ongoing basis and provide reserves against potential losses when
appropriate.
|
|
3.
|
New
Accounting Pronouncements
|
In February 2007, the FASB issued Statement of Financial
Accounting Standards No. 159, The Fair Value Option
for Financial Assets and Financial Liabilities
Including an amendment of FASB Statement No. 115
5
INTEVAC,
INC.
NOTES TO
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
(SFAS 159). SFAS 159 permits entities to
choose to measure many financial instruments and certain other
items at fair value. The fair value option established by
SFAS 159 permits all entities to choose to measure eligible
items at fair value at specified election dates and report
unrealized gains and losses on items for which the fair value
option has been elected in earnings at each subsequent reporting
date. SFAS 159 is effective for fiscal years beginning
after November 15, 2007. We are currently evaluating the
impact of adopting this standard.
In September 2006, the FASB issued SFAS No. 157,
Fair Value Measurements. SFAS 157 defines fair
value, establishes a framework for measuring fair value, and
expands disclosures about fair value measurements. The statement
is effective for financial statements issued for fiscal years
beginning after November 15, 2007, and interim periods
within that fiscal year. We are currently evaluating the impact
of adopting SFAS 157.
In May 2005, the FASB issued SFAS No. 154,
Accounting Changes and Error Corrections a
Replacement of APB Opinion No. 20 and FASB Statement
No. 3 (SFAS 154), which requires retrospective
application to prior periods financial statements of
voluntary changes in accounting principle unless it is
impracticable to do so. SFAS 154 is effective for
accounting changes and corrections of errors beginning in fiscal
2007. The implementation of this standard did not have a
material effect on our financial position or results of
operations.
Inventories are priced using average actual costs, which
approximate costs under the
first-in,
first-out method, and are stated at the lower of cost or market.
Inventories consist of the following:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
June 30,
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
|
(In thousands)
|
|
|
Raw materials
|
|
$
|
17,361
|
|
|
|
19,906
|
|
Work-in-progress
|
|
|
8,311
|
|
|
|
12,271
|
|
Finished goods
|
|
|
2,198
|
|
|
|
5,765
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
27,870
|
|
|
$
|
37,942
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Finished goods inventory consists primarily of completed systems
at customer sites that are undergoing installation and
acceptance testing.
Inventory reserves included in the above balances were
$7.6 million and $9.1 million at June 30, 2007
and December 31, 2006, respectively. Each quarter, we
analyze our inventory (raw materials,
work-in-progress
and finished goods) against the forecasted demand for the next
12 months. Raw materials with no forecasted requirements in
that period are considered excess and inventory provisions are
established to write those items down to zero net book value.
Work-in-progress
and finished goods inventories with no forecast requirements in
that period are typically written down to the lower of cost or
market. During this process, some inventory is identified as
having no future use or value to us and is disposed of against
the reserves.
6
INTEVAC,
INC.
NOTES TO
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
The following table displays the activity in the inventory
provision account for the six-month periods ending June 30,
2007 and July 1, 2006:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Six Months Ended
|
|
|
|
June 30,
|
|
|
July 1,
|
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
|
(In thousands)
|
|
|
Beginning balance
|
|
$
|
9,128
|
|
|
$
|
10,988
|
|
New provisions in cost of sales
|
|
|
43
|
|
|
|
555
|
|
New provisions for refurbishment
of consigned products
|
|
|
23
|
|
|
|
7
|
|
Disposals of inventory
|
|
|
(1,636
|
)
|
|
|
(2,058
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ending balance
|
|
$
|
7,558
|
|
|
$
|
9,492
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5.
|
Stock-Based
Compensation
|
At June 30, 2007, we had stock-based awards outstanding
under the 2004 Equity Incentive Plan (the 2004 Plan)
and the 2003 Employee Stock Purchase Plan (the
ESPP). Our shareholders 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 six months
ended June 30, 2007, we granted 175,000 stock options with
an estimated total grant-date fair value of $2.3 million.
Of this amount, we estimated that the stock-based compensation
for the awards not expected to vest was $625,000.
The ESPP provides that eligible employees may purchase our
common stock through payroll deductions at a price equal to 85%
of the lower of the fair market value at the beginning of the
applicable offering period or at the end of each applicable
purchase period. 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
June 30, 2007, we granted purchase rights with an estimated
total grant-date value of $158,000.
Compensation
Expense
The effect of recording stock-based compensation for the three-
and six-month periods ended June 30, 2007 and July 1,
2006 was as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months Ended
|
|
|
Six Months Ended
|
|
|
|
June 30,
|
|
|
July 1,
|
|
|
June 30,
|
|
|
July 1,
|
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
Stock-based compensation by type
of award:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stock options
|
|
$
|
1,169
|
|
|
$
|
552
|
|
|
$
|
2,314
|
|
|
$
|
896
|
|
Employee stock purchase plan
|
|
|
214
|
|
|
|
167
|
|
|
|
427
|
|
|
|
283
|
|
Amounts capitalized as inventory
|
|
|
(68
|
)
|
|
|
(24
|
)
|
|
|
(72
|
)
|
|
|
(56
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total stock-based compensation
|
|
|
1,315
|
|
|
|
695
|
|
|
|
2,669
|
|
|
|
1,123
|
|
Tax effect on stock-based
compensation
|
|
|
(290
|
)
|
|
|
(61
|
)
|
|
|
(718
|
)
|
|
|
(99
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net effect on net income
|
|
|
1,025
|
|
|
|
634
|
|
|
|
1,951
|
|
|
|
1,024
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Effect on earnings per share:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic
|
|
$
|
0.05
|
|
|
$
|
0.03
|
|
|
$
|
0.09
|
|
|
$
|
0.05
|
|
Diluted
|
|
$
|
0.05
|
|
|
$
|
0.03
|
|
|
$
|
0.09
|
|
|
$
|
0.04
|
|
7
INTEVAC,
INC.
NOTES TO
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
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
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 June 30, 2007 and
July 1, 2006 was $11.49 per share and $15.93 per share,
respectively. The weighted-average estimated value of employee
stock options granted during the six months ended June 30,
2007 and July 1, 2006 was $13.35 per share and $12.65 per
share, respectively. The weighted-average estimated fair value
of employee stock purchase rights granted pursuant to the ESPP
during the six months ended June 30, 2007 and July 1,
2006 was $10.54 and $5.16 per share, respectively. No purchase
rights were granted under the ESPP during either the three
months ended June 30, 2007 or July 1, 2006. 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
|
|
|
|
June 30,
|
|
|
July 1,
|
|
|
June 30,
|
|
|
July 1,
|
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
Stock Options:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Expected volatility
|
|
|
68.30
|
%
|
|
|
81.71
|
%
|
|
|
67.93
|
%
|
|
|
77.91
|
%
|
Risk free interest rate
|
|
|
4.67
|
%
|
|
|
5.09
|
%
|
|
|
4.59
|
%
|
|
|
4.88
|
%
|
Expected term of options (in years)
|
|
|
4.4
|
|
|
|
5.8
|
|
|
|
4.5
|
|
|
|
5.0
|
|
Dividend yield
|
|
|
None
|
|
|
|
None
|
|
|
|
None
|
|
|
|
None
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Six Months Ended
|
|
|
|
June 30,
|
|
|
July 1,
|
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
Stock Purchase Rights:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Expected volatility
|
|
|
63.48
|
%
|
|
|
61.47
|
%
|
Risk free interest rate
|
|
|
4.84
|
%
|
|
|
4.64
|
%
|
Expected term of purchase rights
(in years)
|
|
|
1.5
|
|
|
|
0.5
|
|
Dividend yield
|
|
|
None
|
|
|
|
None
|
|
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 our stock price,
measured over a period equal to the expected term of the grant
or purchase right. The risk-free interest rate is based on the
yield available on U.S. Treasury Strips with an equivalent
remaining term. The expected life of employee stock options
represents the weighted-average period that the stock options
are expected to remain outstanding and was determined based on
historical experience of similar awards, giving consideration to
the contractual terms of the stock-based awards and vesting
schedules. The expected life of purchase is the period of time
remaining in the current offering period. The dividend yield
assumption is based on our history of not paying dividends and
the assumption of not paying dividends in the future.
As the stock-based compensation expense recognized in the
Condensed Consolidated Statement of Operations is based on
awards ultimately expected to vest, such amount has been reduced
for estimated forfeitures. Statement of Financial Accounting
Standards No. 123(R) requires forfeitures to be estimated
at the time of grant and revised, if necessary, in subsequent
periods if actual forfeitures differ from those estimates.
Forfeitures were estimated based on our historical experience,
which we believe to be indicative of our future experience.
8
INTEVAC,
INC.
NOTES TO
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
Stock
Plan Activity
2004
Equity Incentive Plan
A summary of activity under the above captioned plan is as
follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted
|
|
|
Remaining
|
|
|
Aggregate
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average Exercise
|
|
|
Contractual
|
|
|
Intrinsic
|
|
|
|
Shares
|
|
|
Price
|
|
|
Term (years)
|
|
|
Value
|
|
|
Options outstanding at
December 31, 2006
|
|
|
2,354,215
|
|
|
$
|
11.47
|
|
|
|
7.93
|
|
|
$
|
34,107,462
|
|
Options granted
|
|
|
175,000
|
|
|
$
|
23.52
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Options forfeited
|
|
|
(78,966
|
)
|
|
$
|
17.98
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Options exercised
|
|
|
(184,564
|
)
|
|
$
|
6.45
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Options outstanding at
June 30, 2007
|
|
|
2,265,685
|
|
|
$
|
12.59
|
|
|
|
7.51
|
|
|
$
|
20,551,997
|
|
Vested and expected to vest at
June 30, 2007
|
|
|
1,871,807
|
|
|
$
|
11.98
|
|
|
|
7.27
|
|
|
$
|
18,015,062
|
|
Options exercisable at
June 30, 2007
|
|
|
834,513
|
|
|
$
|
8.71
|
|
|
|
5.66
|
|
|
$
|
10,514,679
|
|
Available to grant at
June 30, 2007
|
|
|
1,090,336
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The aggregate intrinsic value in the table above represents the
total pretax intrinsic value, based on our closing stock price
of $21.26 as of June 29, 2007, which would have been
received by the option holders had all options holders exercised
their options as of that date.
As of June 30, 2007, the unrecorded deferred stock-based
compensation balance related to stock options was
$8.7 million and will be recognized over an estimated
weighted average recognition period of 1.6 years. The
recognition period is based on the vesting period of the option.
2003
Employee Stock Purchase Plan
During the six months ended June 30, 2007,
39,069 shares were purchased at an average per share price
of $17.17. At June 30, 2007, there were 348,868 shares
available to be issued under the ESPP.
As of June 30, 2007, the unrecorded deferred stock-based
compensation balance related to purchase rights was $935,000 and
will be recognized over an estimated weighted average
recognition period of 0.6 years. The recognition period is
based on the expected term of the purchase right, which is
defined as the period from grant date to expiration of the
offering period.
On January 31, 2007, we completed the acquisition of the
assets and certain liabilities of DeltaNu, LLC
(DeltaNu) for a total purchase price of
$6 million. The purchase price was comprised of
$2 million cash due at the close of the acquisition and
$2 million due on each of January 31, 2008 and
January 31, 2009, which is in the form of a note. DeltaNu
is a Laramie, Wyoming company specializing in small footprint
and handheld Raman spectrometry instruments. We believe that the
combination of DeltaNus miniature Raman spectrometer
designs with our capabilities in near-infrared sensors will
enable a new class of portable instruments with greatly enhanced
chemical detection capabilities.
We accounted for the acquisition as a taxable purchase
transaction and, accordingly, the purchase price has been
allocated to tangible assets, liabilities assumed, and
identifiable intangible assets acquired based on their estimated
fair values on the acquisition date. The excess of the purchase
price over the aggregate fair values was recorded as goodwill.
The fair value assigned to identifiable intangible assets
acquired is determined using the
9
INTEVAC,
INC.
NOTES TO
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
income approach, which discounts expected future cash flows to
present value using estimates and assumptions determined by
management. Purchased intangible assets are amortized on a
straight-line basis over the respective useful lives. Our
allocation of the purchase price is summarized below (in
thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
Net liabilities assumed, net of
cash of $4
|
|
$
|
(31
|
)
|
Goodwill
|
|
|
5,434
|
|
Backlog
|
|
|
120
|
|
Trademarks/Names
|
|
|
120
|
|
Customer relationships
|
|
|
60
|
|
Non-compete agreements
|
|
|
100
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
5,803
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The $5.8 million allocated purchase price consists of
$2.0 million paid in cash, $3.7 million in notes
payable (present value at January 31, 2007) and
$87,000 in acquisition-related expenses. The estimated useful
economic lives of the identified intangible assets acquired are
two years for the customer relationships and non-compete
agreements and approximately four months for the backlog. The
trademark/names asset has an indefinite life. Future
amortization of the identified intangible assets will be
$193,000 in 2007, $80,000 in 2008 and $7,000 in 2009.
The results of operations for the acquired business have been
included in our condensed consolidated statements of operations
for the period subsequent to our acquisition of DeltaNu.
DeltaNus results of operations for periods prior to this
acquisition were not material to our condensed consolidated
statement of operations and, accordingly, pro forma financial
information has not been presented.
We provide for the estimated cost of warranty when revenue is
recognized. Our warranty is per contract terms and for our
systems the warranty typically ranges between 12 and
24 months from customer acceptance. During this warranty
period any defective non-consumable parts are replaced and
installed at no charge to the customer. The warranty period on
consumable parts is limited to their reasonable usable lives. We
use estimated repair or replacement costs along with our
historical warranty experience to determine our warranty
obligation. We exercise judgment in determining the underlying
estimates.
On the condensed consolidated balance sheet, the short-term
portion of the warranty provision is included in other accrued
liabilities, while the long-term portion is included in other
long-term liabilities. The expense associated with product
warranties issued or adjusted is included in cost of net
revenues on the condensed consolidated statement of income.
The following table displays the activity in the warranty
provision account for the three- and six-month periods ending
June 30, 2007 and July 1, 2006:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months Ended
|
|
|
Six Months Ended
|
|
|
|
June 30,
|
|
|
July 1,
|
|
|
June 30,
|
|
|
July 1,
|
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
|
(In thousands)
|
|
|
Beginning balance
|
|
$
|
5,229
|
|
|
$
|
3,573
|
|
|
$
|
5,283
|
|
|
$
|
3,399
|
|
Expenditures incurred under
warranties
|
|
|
(1,189
|
)
|
|
|
(720
|
)
|
|
|
(2,424
|
)
|
|
|
(1,844
|
)
|
Accruals for product warranties
issued during the reporting period
|
|
|
674
|
|
|
|
1,102
|
|
|
|
1,748
|
|
|
|
2,077
|
|
Adjustments to previously existing
warranty accruals
|
|
|
(156
|
)
|
|
|
89
|
|
|
|
(49
|
)
|
|
|
412
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ending balance
|
|
$
|
4,558
|
|
|
$
|
4,044
|
|
|
$
|
4,558
|
|
|
$
|
4,044
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10
INTEVAC,
INC.
NOTES TO
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
The following table displays the balance sheet classification of
the warranty provision account at June 30, 2007 and at
December 31, 2006:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
June 30,
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
|
(In thousands)
|
|
|
Other accrued liabilities
|
|
$
|
3,624
|
|
|
$
|
4,208
|
|
Other long-term liabilities
|
|
|
934
|
|
|
|
1,075
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total warranty provision
|
|
$
|
4,558
|
|
|
$
|
5,283
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We have entered into agreements with customers and suppliers
that include limited intellectual property indemnification
obligations that are customary in the industry. These guarantees
generally require us to compensate the other party for certain
damages and costs incurred as a result of third party
intellectual property claims arising from these transactions.
The nature of the intellectual property indemnification
obligations prevents us from making a reasonable estimate of the
maximum potential amount we could be required to pay our
customers and suppliers. Historically, we have not made any
significant indemnification payments under such agreements, and
no amount has been accrued in the accompanying consolidated
financial statements with respect to these indemnification
obligations.
9. Cash,
Cash Equivalents and Investments in Debt Securities
Our investment portfolio consists of cash, cash equivalents and
investments in debt securities and municipal bonds. We consider
all highly liquid investments with a maturity of three months or
less when purchased to be cash equivalents. Investments in debt
securities and municipal bonds consist principally of highly
rated debt instruments with maturities generally between one and
25 months.
We account for our investments in debt securities and auction
rate securities in accordance with Statement of Accounting
Standards No. 115 Accounting for Certain Investments
in Debt and Equity Securities, which requires certain
securities to be categorized as either trading,
available-for-sale or held-to-maturity. Available-for-sale
securities, consisting solely of Auction Rate Securities, are
carried at fair value, with unrealized gains and losses recorded
within other comprehensive income (loss) as a separate component
of shareholders equity. Auction Rate Securities have
long-term underlying maturities (ranging from 20 to
40 years), however the market is highly liquid and the
interest rates reset every 7 or 28 days. Our intent is not
to hold these securities to maturity, but rather to use the
interest rate reset feature to sell securities to provide
liquidity as needed. Our practice is to invest in these
securities for higher yields compared to cash equivalents.
Held-to-maturity securities are carried at amortized cost. We
have no trading securities. The cost of investment securities
sold is determined by the specific identification method.
Interest income is recorded using an effective interest rate,
with the associated premium or discount amortized to interest
income. Realized gains and losses and declines in value judged
to be other than temporary, if any, on available-for-sale
securities are included in earnings. The table below presents
the amortized principal amount, major security type and
maturities for our investments in debt securities and auction
rate securities.
11
INTEVAC,
INC.
NOTES TO
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
June 30,
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
|
(In thousands)
|
|
|
Amortized Principal Amount:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Debt securities issued by the US
government and its agencies
|
|
$
|
12,000
|
|
|
$
|
8,000
|
|
Auction rate securities
|
|
|
72,000
|
|
|
|
53,595
|
|
Corporate debt securities
|
|
|
2,993
|
|
|
|
2,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total investments in debt
securities
|
|
$
|
86,993
|
|
|
$
|
63,595
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Short-term investments
|
|
$
|
74,993
|
|
|
$
|
55,595
|
|
Long-term investments
|
|
|
12,000
|
|
|
|
8,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total investments in debt
securities
|
|
$
|
86,993
|
|
|
$
|
63,595
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Approximate fair value of
investments in debt securities
|
|
$
|
86,983
|
|
|
$
|
63,585
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The decline in the fair value of our investments from the
principal amount is attributable to changes in interest rates
and not credit quality. In accordance with
EITF 03-01,
we have the ability and intent to hold these investments until
fair value recovers, which may be maturity, and we do not
consider these investments to be other-than-temporarily impaired
at June 30, 2007.
Cash and cash equivalents represent cash accounts and money
market funds. Cash balances held in foreign bank accounts
totaled $1.5 million and $1.6 million at June 30,
2007 and December 31, 2006, respectively. Included in
accounts payable is $2.3 million and $2.4 million of
book overdraft at June 30, 2007 and December 31, 2006,
respectively.
The following table sets forth the computation of basic and
diluted earnings per share:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months Ended
|
|
|
Six Months Ended
|
|
|
|
June 30,
|
|
|
July 1,
|
|
|
June 30,
|
|
|
July 1,
|
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
|
(In thousands)
|
|
|
Numerator:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Numerator for diluted earnings per
share income available to common stockholders
|
|
$
|
11,552
|
|
|
$
|
9,333
|
|
|
$
|
21,397
|
|
|
$
|
16,344
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Denominator:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Denominator for basic earnings per
share weighted-average shares
|
|
|
21,396
|
|
|
|
20,987
|
|
|
|
21,345
|
|
|
|
20,910
|
|
Effect of dilutive securities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Employee stock options(1)
|
|
|
750
|
|
|
|
985
|
|
|
|
822
|
|
|
|
973
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dilutive potential common shares
|
|
|
750
|
|
|
|
985
|
|
|
|
822
|
|
|
|
973
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Denominator for diluted earnings
per share adjusted
|
|
|
22,146
|
|
|
|
21,972
|
|
|
|
22,167
|
|
|
|
21,883
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Potentially dilutive securities, consisting of shares issuable
upon exercise of employee stock options and weighted-average
unamortized compensation expense, are excluded from the
calculation of diluted EPS when their effect is anti-dilutive.
The weighted average number of employee stock options excluded
for the three-month periods ended June 30, 2007 and
July 1, 2006 was 455,217 and 196,000, respectively, and the
number of |
12
INTEVAC,
INC.
NOTES TO
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
|
|
|
|
|
employee stock options excluded for the six-month periods ended
June 30, 2007 and July 1, 2006 was 352,534 and
196,640, respectively. |
Segment
Description
We have two reportable operating segments: Equipment and
Imaging. Our reportable segments are business units that offer
different products and are each managed separately, under the
direction of our Chief Executive Officer. Our Equipment business
designs, manufactures, markets and services high-productivity
manufacturing systems used in the sputtering, or deposition, of
highly engineered thin-films of material onto magnetic disks,
which are used in hard disk drives and is developing products
for semiconductor manufacturing. In July 2007 we announced our
new Lean Etch semiconductor manufacturing system for
the dielectric etch market. Our Imaging business develops,
manufactures and markets high-sensitivity imaging products and
miniature Raman instruments. We provide sensors, cameras and
systems for military applications such as night vision and
long-range target identification and we provide cameras and
Raman spectrometers to the industrial, physical science and life
science markets.
Included in corporate activities are general corporate expenses,
less an allocation of corporate expenses to operating units
equal to 3% of net revenues. Assets of corporate activities
include unallocated cash and short-term investments, deferred
income tax assets and other assets.
Segment
Profit or Loss and Segment Assets
We evaluate performance and allocate resources based on a number
of factors, including profit or loss from operations and future
revenue potential. The accounting policies of the reportable
segments are the same as those described in the summary of
significant accounting policies.
Business
Segment Net Revenues
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months Ended
|
|
|
Six Months Ended
|
|
|
|
June 30,
|
|
|
July 1,
|
|
|
June 30,
|
|
|
July 1
|
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
|
(In thousands)
|
|
|
Equipment
|
|
$
|
68,519
|
|
|
$
|
56,465
|
|
|
$
|
140,965
|
|
|
$
|
104,038
|
|
Imaging
|
|
|
3,586
|
|
|
|
3,077
|
|
|
|
7,514
|
|
|
|
5,124
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
72,105
|
|
|
$
|
59,542
|
|
|
$
|
148,479
|
|
|
$
|
109,162
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Business
Segment Profit & Loss
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months Ended
|
|
|
Six Months Ended
|
|
|
|
June 30,
|
|
|
July 1,
|
|
|
June 30,
|
|
|
July 1,
|
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
|
(In thousands)
|
|
|
Equipment
|
|
$
|
15,842
|
|
|
$
|
10,974
|
|
|
$
|
30,831
|
|
|
$
|
19,454
|
|
Imaging
|
|
|
(1,515
|
)
|
|
|
(1,159
|
)
|
|
|
(3,115
|
)
|
|
|
(3,028
|
)
|
Corporate activities
|
|
|
(987
|
)
|
|
|
153
|
|
|
|
(1,299
|
)
|
|
|
173
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating income
|
|
|
13,340
|
|
|
|
9,968
|
|
|
|
26,417
|
|
|
|
16,599
|
|
Interest income and other, net
|
|
|
1,538
|
|
|
|
729
|
|
|
|
2,858
|
|
|
|
1,327
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income before income taxes
|
|
$
|
14,878
|
|
|
$
|
10,697
|
|
|
$
|
29,275
|
|
|
$
|
17,926
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
13
INTEVAC,
INC.
NOTES TO
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
Business
Segment Assets
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
June 30,
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
|
(In thousands)
|
|
|
Equipment
|
|
$
|
71,944
|
|
|
$
|
84,366
|
|
Imaging
|
|
|
15,143
|
|
|
|
7,379
|
|
Corporate activities
|
|
|
129,956
|
|
|
|
114,258
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
217,043
|
|
|
$
|
206,003
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The portion of our long-lived assets maintained outside of the
United States is immaterial.
Geographic
Area Net Trade Revenues
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months Ended
|
|
|
Six Months Ended
|
|
|
|
June 30,
|
|
|
July 1,
|
|
|
June 30,
|
|
|
July 1,
|
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
|
(In thousands)
|
|
|
United States
|
|
$
|
8,941
|
|
|
$
|
8,073
|
|
|
$
|
15,941
|
|
|
$
|
16,629
|
|
Asia
|
|
|
63,068
|
|
|
|
51,452
|
|
|
|
132,072
|
|
|
|
92,516
|
|
Europe
|
|
|
96
|
|
|
|
17
|
|
|
|
466
|
|
|
|
17
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
72,105
|
|
|
$
|
59,542
|
|
|
$
|
148,479
|
|
|
$
|
109,162
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
International revenues include products shipped to overseas
operations of U.S. companies.
For the six months ended June 30, 2007, we accrued income
tax using an effective tax rate of 26.9% of pretax income. This
rate is based on an estimate of our annual tax rate calculated
in accordance with Statement of Financial Accounting Standards
No. 109, Accounting for Income Taxes. Our
effective tax rate is highly dependent on the availability of
tax credits and the geographic composition of our worldwide
earnings. Our deferred tax asset is partially offset by a
valuation allowance, resulting in a net deferred tax asset of
$5.4 million at June 30, 2007.
For the six months ended July 1, 2006, we accrued income
tax using an effective tax rate of 8.8% of pretax income. Our
tax rate differed from applicable statutory rate due to the
utilization of net operating loss carry-forwards and deferred
credits.
We adopted the provisions of Financial Accounting Standards
Board (FASB) Interpretation Number 48,
Accounting for Uncertainty in Income Taxes,
(FIN 48) on January 1, 2007. As required
by FIN 48, which clarifies SFAS No. 109,
Accounting for Income Taxes, we recognize the
financial statement benefit of a tax position only after
determining that the relevant tax authority would more likely
than not sustain the position following an audit. For tax
positions meeting the more-likely-than-not threshold, the amount
recognized in the financial statements is the largest benefit
that has a greater than 50 percent likelihood of being
realized upon ultimate settlement with the relevant tax
authority. At January 1, 2007, we applied FIN 48 to
all tax positions for which the statute of limitations remained
open and determined there are no material unrecognized tax
benefits as of that date. In addition, there have been no
material changes in unrecognized benefits since January 1,
2007. As a result, the adoption of FIN 48 did not have a
material effect on our financial condition, or results of
operation.
We are 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, we
are no longer subject to U.S. federal, state and local, or
non-U.S. income
tax examinations by tax authorities for the years before 2000.
14
INTEVAC,
INC.
NOTES TO
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
The Company recognizes interest and penalties accrued related to
unrecognized tax benefits in the provision for income taxes for
all periods presented, which were not significant.
From time to time, we may have certain contingent liabilities
that arise in the ordinary course of our business activities. We
account for contingent liabilities when it is probable that
future expenditures will be made and such expenditures can be
reasonably estimated.
On July 7, 2006, we filed a patent infringement lawsuit
against Unaxis USA, Inc. and its affiliates, Unaxis Balzers AG
and Unaxis Balzers, Ltd., in the United States District Court
for the Central District of California. Our lawsuit against
Unaxis asserts infringement by Unaxis of United States Patent
6,919,001, which relates to our 200 Lean system. Our complaint
seeks monetary damages and an injunction that would bar Unaxis
from making, using, offering to sell or selling in the United
States, or importing into the United States, Unaxis
allegedly infringing product. We believe we have meritorious
claims, and we intend to pursue them vigorously.
On September 12, 2006, Unaxis filed a response to our
lawsuit in which it asserted non-infringement, invalidity of our
patent, inequitable conduct by Intevac, patent misuse by
Intevac, and lack of jurisdiction by the Court as defenses.
Additionally, Unaxis requested a declaratory judgment of patent
non-infringement, invalidity and unenforceability; asserted that
Intevac violated the California Business and Professional Code;
requested that we be enjoined from engaging in any unfair
competition; and requested that we be required to pay
Unaxis attorney fees. We believe such claims lack merit,
and we intend to defend ourselves vigorously.
We replied to Unaxis response on October 3, 2006,
denying the assertions of non-infringement, invalidity and
unenforceability of the Intevac patent, and denying any unfair
competition. With the approval of the Court, we amended our
complaint on February 6, 2007 to assert an additional
ground for our infringement claim and to add a request for a
declaratory judgment of infringement. Unaxis filed a response on
February 21, 2007, in which it repeated the assertions of
its September 12, 2006 response.
On May 21, 2007, the Court granted Unaxis request to
stay the litigation pending reexamination of United States
Patent 6,919,001, after the U.S. Patent Office granted
Unaxis February 27, 2007 reexamination request and
issued an initial office action rejecting the claims of the
patent. The Court also ordered the parties to file a joint
report every 120 days to keep it informed of the
reexamination status. Intevac had no input to the initial
determination by the U.S. Patent Office.
On June 20, 2007, we filed a reply to the initial office
action in reexamination. Our reply addresses the rejections of
the original claims and proposes amended claims that we believe
are supported by the original patents specification.
Unaxis has the opportunity to respond, after which the
U.S. Patent Office will consider both parties
submissions. During the reexamination process, the patent
remains valid.
During the six-month period ending June 30, 2007, we sold
stock to our employees under Intevacs Equity Incentive and
Employee Stock Purchase Plans. A total of 223,000 shares
were issued under these plans, for which Intevac received
$1.9 million.
|
|
15.
|
Financial
Presentation
|
Certain prior year amounts in the Condensed Consolidated
Financial Statements have been reclassified to conform to 2007
presentation. The reclassifications had no material effect on
total assets, liabilities, equity, revenue, net income or
comprehensive income as previously reported.
15
|
|
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 our shipments, projected
revenue recognition, product costs, gross margin, operating
expenses, interest income, income taxes, cash balances and
financial results in 2007; projected customer requirements for
our new and existing products,, and when, and if, our customers
will place orders for these products; Imagings ability to
proliferate its technology into major military weapons programs
and to develop and introduce commercial imaging products; and
the timing of delivery
and/or
acceptance of the systems and products that comprise our backlog
for revenue; legal proceedings; and internal controls. Our
actual results may differ materially from the results discussed
in the forward-looking statements for a variety of reasons,
including those set forth under Risk Factors and in
other documents we file from time to time with the Securities
and Exchange Commission, including Intevacs Annual Report
on
Form 10-K
filed in March 2007,
Form 10-Qs
and
Form 8-Ks.
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. Our significant accounting policies
are described in Note 2 to the consolidated financial
statements included in Item 8 of our Annual Report on
Form 10-K.
Certain of these significant accounting policies are considered
to be critical accounting policies, as defined below.
A critical accounting policy is defined as one that is both
material to the presentation of our financial statements and
requires management to make difficult, subjective or complex
judgments that could have a material effect on our financial
conditions and results of operations. Specifically, critical
accounting estimates have the following attributes: 1) We
are required to make assumptions about matters that are highly
uncertain at the time of the estimate; and 2) different
estimates we could reasonably have used, or changes in the
estimate that are reasonably likely to occur, would have a
material effect on our financial condition or results of
operations.
Estimates and assumptions about future events and their effects
cannot be determined with certainty. We base our estimates on
historical experience and on various other assumptions believed
to be applicable and reasonable under the circumstances. These
estimates may change as new events occur, as additional
information is obtained and as our operating environment
changes. These changes have historically been minor and have
been included in the consolidated financial statements as soon
as they become known. In addition, management is periodically
faced with uncertainties, the outcomes of which are not within
its control and will not be known for prolonged periods of time.
Many of these uncertainties are discussed in the section below
entitled Risk Factors. Based on a critical
assessment of our accounting policies and the underlying
judgments and uncertainties affecting the application of those
policies, management believes that our consolidated financial
statements are fairly stated in accordance with US GAAP, and
provide a meaningful presentation of our financial condition and
results of operation.
We believe the following critical accounting policies affect the
more significant judgments and estimates we make in preparing
our consolidated financial statements. We also have other key
accounting policies and accounting estimates related to the
collectibility of trade receivables and prototype product costs.
We believe that these other accounting policies and other
accounting estimates either do not generally require us to make
estimates and judgments that are as difficult or subjective, or
are less likely to have a material impact on our reported
results of operation for a given period.
Revenue
Recognition
Certain of our system sales with customer acceptance provisions
are accounted for as multiple-element arrangements. If we have
previously met defined customer acceptance levels with the
specific type of system, then we recognize revenue for the fair
market value of the system upon shipment and transfer of title,
and recognize revenue for the fair market value of installation
and acceptance services when those services are completed. We
estimate the fair market value of the installation and
acceptance services based on our actual historical experience.
For systems that have generally not been demonstrated to meet a
particular customers product specifications prior
16
to shipment, revenue recognition is typically deferred until
customer acceptance. For example, while initial shipments of our
200 Lean system were recognized for revenue upon customer
acceptance during 2004, revenue was recognized upon shipment for
the majority of 200 Leans shipped in 2005, 2006 and 2007 to
date. Most of the systems in backlog at June 30, 2007 are
for customers where we have met defined customer acceptance
levels, and we expect to recognize revenue upon shipment for
those systems.
In some instances, hardware that is not essential to the
functioning of the system may be delivered after acceptance of
the system. In these cases, we estimate the fair market value of
the non-essential hardware as if it had been sold on a
stand-alone basis, and defer recognizing revenue on that value
until the hardware is delivered.
In certain cases, we sell limited rights to our intellectual
property. Revenue from the sale of any intellectual property
license will generally be recognized at the inception of the
license term.
We perform best efforts research and development work under
various government-sponsored research contracts. These contracts
are a mixture of cost-plus-fixed-fee (CPFF) and firm
fixed-price (FFP). Revenue on CPFF contracts is
recognized in accordance with contract terms, typically as costs
are incurred. Revenue on FFP contracts is generally recognized
on the percentage-of-completion method based on costs incurred
in relation to total estimated costs. Provisions for estimated
losses on government-sponsored research contracts are recorded
in the period in which such losses are determined.
Inventories
Inventories are priced using average actual costs, which
approximate
first-in,
first-out, and are stated at the lower of cost or market. The
carrying value of inventory is reduced for estimated excess and
obsolescence by the difference between its cost and the
estimated market value based on assumptions about future demand.
We evaluate the inventory carrying value for potential excess
and obsolete inventory exposures by analyzing historical and
anticipated demand. In addition, inventories are evaluated for
potential obsolescence due to the effect of known and
anticipated engineering change orders and new products. If
actual demand were to be substantially lower than estimated,
additional inventory adjustments would be required, which could
have a material adverse effect on our business, financial
condition and results of operation. A cost-to-market reserve is
established for
work-in-progress
and finished goods inventories when the value of the inventory
plus the estimated cost to complete exceeds the net realizable
value of the inventory.
Warranty
We provide for the estimated cost of warranty when revenue is
recognized. Our warranty is per contract terms and for our
systems the warranty typically ranges between 12 and
24 months from customer acceptance. We use estimated repair
or replacement costs along with our actual warranty experience
to determine our warranty obligation. We exercise judgment in
determining the underlying estimates. Should actual warranty
costs differ substantially from our estimates, revisions to the
estimated warranty liability would be required, which could have
a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition
and results of operations.
Income
Taxes
We account for income taxes in accordance with Statement of
Financial Accounting Standard No. 109, Accounting for
Income Taxes, (SFAS 109), which requires
that deferred tax assets and liabilities be recognized using
enacted tax rates for the effect of temporary differences
between book and tax bases of recorded assets and liabilities.
SFAS 109 also requires that deferred tax assets be reduced
by a valuation allowance if it is more likely than not that a
portion of the deferred tax asset will not be realized. Based on
our history of losses through 2004, our deferred tax asset was
fully offset by a valuation allowance as of December 31,
2005. During 2006, the deferred tax asset and the related
valuation allowance were both reduced due to the usage of our
remaining NOL and credit carry-forwards. As of December 31,
2006, $4.6 million of the deferred tax asset was valued on
the balance sheet, net of a valuation allowance of
$2.8 million. This represents the amount of the deferred
tax asset from which we expect to realize a benefit. We cannot
predict with certainty when, or if, we will realize the benefit
of the portion of the deferred tax asset currently offset with a
valuation allowance.
17
On a quarterly basis, we provide for income taxes based upon an
annual effective income tax rate. The effective tax rate is
highly dependent upon the level of our projected earnings, the
geographic composition of worldwide earnings, tax regulations
governing each region, net operating loss carry-forwards,
availability of tax credits and the effectiveness of our tax
planning strategies. We carefully monitor the changes in many
factors and adjust our effective income tax rate on a timely
basis. If actual results differ from the estimates, this could
have a material effect on our business, financial condition and
results of operations. For example, as our projected level of
earnings increased throughout 2006, we increased the annual
effective tax rate from 3.0% at the end of the first quarter, to
8.8% at the end of the second quarter, to 10.0% at the end of
the third quarter and to 12% at the end of the fourth quarter.
Similarly, as we reduced our projected level of earnings for
2007, we decreased our effective tax rate at the end of the
second quarter of 2007 to 26.9% from 31.6% at the end of the
first quarter of 2007.
The calculation of tax liabilities involves significant judgment
in estimating the impact of uncertainties in the application of
complex tax laws. Resolution of these uncertainties in a manner
inconsistent with our expectations could have a material effect
on our business, financial condition and results of operations.
Results
of Operations
Three
Months Ended June 30, 2007 and July 1,
2006.
Net
revenues
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Change Over
|
|
|
|
Three Months Ended
|
|
|
Prior Period
|
|
|
|
June 30,
|
|
|
July 1,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
Amount
|
|
|
%
|
|
|
|
(In thousands, except percentages)
|
|
|
Equipment net revenues
|
|
$
|
68,519
|
|
|
$
|
56,465
|
|
|
$
|
12,054
|
|
|
|
21
|
%
|
Imaging net revenues
|
|
|
3,586
|
|
|
|
3,077
|
|
|
|
509
|
|
|
|
17
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total net revenues
|
|
$
|
72,105
|
|
|
$
|
59,542
|
|
|
$
|
12,563
|
|
|
|
21
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net revenues consist primarily of sales of equipment used to
manufacture thin-film disks, related equipment and system
components, flat panel equipment technology license fees,
contract research and development related to the development of
electro-optical sensors, cameras and systems and low light
imaging products.
Equipment revenues for the three months ended June 30, 2007
included revenue recognition for twelve 200 Lean systems, and a
significant quarter over quarter increase in revenue from disk
equipment technology upgrades and spare parts. Revenue for the
three months ended July 1, 2006 included revenue
recognition of eleven 200 Lean systems and seven disk
lubrication systems. We expect Equipment revenues in the second
half of 2007 will be significantly lower than the comparable
period of 2006, due to a slowdown in orders for new 200 Lean
systems.
Imaging revenue for the three months ending June 30, 2007
consisted of $2.5 million of research and development
contract revenue and $1.1 million of product sales. Revenue
for the three months ended July 1, 2006 consisted of
$2.7 million of contract research and development revenue
and $378,000 of product sales. Product revenue included
contributions from our new DeltaNu subsidiary, which was
acquired on January 31, 2007. Substantial growth in future
Imaging revenues is dependent on proliferation of our technology
into major military weapons programs, the ability to obtain
export licenses for foreign customers, obtaining production
subcontracts for these programs, and development and sale of
commercial products.
Our backlog of orders at June 30, 2007 was
$57.5 million, as compared to $125.0 million at
December 31, 2006, $92.8 million at March 31,
2007 and $96.2 million at July 1, 2006. The decrease
in backlog during the quarter was primarily the result of the
recognition for revenue of twelve disk sputtering systems while
orders for only two systems were received. Our outlook for
orders for new systems over the remainder of 2007 has been
negatively impacted by Western Digitals announced
acquisition of Komag and the use of legacy systems for the
production of first generation perpendicular media. We include
in backlog the value of purchase orders for our products that
have scheduled delivery dates. We do not recognize revenue on
this backlog until we have met the criteria contained in our
revenue recognition policy, including customer acceptance of
newly developed systems.
18
International sales increased by 23% to $63.2 million for
the three months ended June 30, 2007 from
$51.5 million for the three months ended July 1, 2006.
International revenues 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, disk equipment technology upgrades and spare
parts. Substantially all of our international sales are to
customers in Asia. International sales constituted 88% of net
revenues for the three months ended June 30, 2007 and 86%
of net revenues for the three months ended July 1, 2006.
Gross
margin
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months Ended
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
June 30,
|
|
|
July 1,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
% Change
|
|
|
|
(In thousands, except percentages)
|
|
|
Equipment gross profit
|
|
$
|
29,433
|
|
|
$
|
20,528
|
|
|
|
43
|
%
|
% of Equipment net revenues
|
|
|
43.0
|
%
|
|
|
36.4
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
Imaging gross profit
|
|
$
|
1,394
|
|
|
$
|
782
|
|
|
|
78
|
%
|
% of Imaging net revenues
|
|
|
38.9
|
%
|
|
|
25.4
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
Total gross profit
|
|
$
|
30,827
|
|
|
$
|
21,262
|
|
|
|
45
|
%
|
% of net revenues
|
|
|
42.8
|
%
|
|
|
35.7
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
Cost of net revenues consists primarily of purchased materials
and costs attributable to contract research and development, and
also includes fabrication, assembly, test and installation labor
and overhead, customer-specific engineering costs, warranty
costs, royalties, provisions for inventory reserves and scrap.
Cost of net revenues for the three months ended June 30,
2007 and July 1, 2006 included $120,000 and $93,000,
respectively, of equity-based compensation expense.
Equipment gross margin improved 43.0% in the three months ended
June 30, 2007 from 36.4% in the three months ended
July 1, 2006. The increase in gross margin was due
primarily to cost reduction programs and product mix. We expect
the gross margin for the Equipment business in 2007 to be better
than 2006, primarily as a result of continued cost reduction
efforts undertaken on the 200 Lean system. Gross margins in the
Equipment business will vary depending on a number of factors,
including product mix, product cost, system configuration and
pricing, factory utilization, and provisions for excess and
obsolete inventory.
Imaging gross margin improved to 38.9% in the three months ended
June 30, 2007 from 25.4% in the three months ended
June 30, 2006. The increase in gross margin resulted
primarily from higher margins on development contracts and
favorable adjustments related to contract closeouts. We expect
Imaging gross margin in 2007 to improve over 2006, due primarily
to an increase in both product revenue and revenue from fully
funded research and development contracts.
Research
and development
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months Ended
|
|
|
Change Over
|
|
|
|
July 1,
|
|
|
July 2,
|
|
|
Prior Period
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
Amount
|
|
|
%
|
|
|
|
(In thousands, except percentages)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Research and development expense
|
|
$
|
9,648
|
|
|
$
|
6,290
|
|
|
$
|
3,358
|
|
|
|
53
|
%
|
% of net revenues
|
|
|
13.4
|
%
|
|
|
10.6
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Research and development expense consists primarily of prototype
materials, salaries and related costs of employees engaged in
ongoing research, design and development activities for disk
sputtering equipment, semiconductor equipment and Imaging
products. Research and development expense for the three months
ended June 30, 2007 and July 1, 2006 included $448,000
and $328,000, respectively, of equity-based compensation expense.
19
Research and development spending increased in Equipment during
the three months ended June 30, 2007 as compared to the
three months ended July 1, 2006, while spending in Imaging
was flat quarter over quarter. The increase in Equipment was due
primarily to spending on the development of our Lean
Etchtm
product line to serve the semiconductor market and, to a lesser
extent, spending for continuing development of our disk
sputtering products. Engineering headcount increased from 107 at
July 1, 2006 to 133 at June 30, 2007. We expect that
research and development spending will increase from 2006 to
2007 due primarily to expenditures related to our new
semiconductor equipment product line and the addition of key
engineering personnel.
Research and development expenses do not include costs of
$1.4 million and $1.9 million for the three-month
periods ended June 30, 2007 and July 1, 2006,
respectively, which are related to contract research and
development and included in cost of net revenues.
Selling,
general and administrative.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Change Over
|
|
|
|
Three Months Ended
|
|
|
Prior Period
|
|
|
|
June 30,
|
|
|
July 1,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
Amount
|
|
|
%
|
|
|
|
(In thousands, except percentages)
|
|
|
Selling, general and
administrative expense
|
|
$
|
7,839
|
|
|
$
|
5,004
|
|
|
$
|
2,835
|
|
|
|
57
|
%
|
% of net revenues
|
|
|
10.9
|
%
|
|
|
8.4
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Selling, general and administrative expense consists primarily
of selling, marketing, customer support, financial and
management costs and also includes production of customer
samples, travel, liability insurance, legal and professional
services and bad debt expense. All domestic sales and
international sales of disk sputtering products in Asia, with
the exception of Japan, are typically made by Intevacs
direct sales force, whereas sales in Japan of disk sputtering
products and other products are typically made by our Japanese
distributor, Matsubo, who provides services such as sales,
installation, warranty and customer support. We also have
offices in China, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, and Singapore to
support our equipment customers in Asia. Selling, general and
administrative expense for the three months ended June 30,
2007 and July 1, 2006 included $748,000 and $274,000,
respectively, of equity-based compensation expense.
The increase in selling, general and administrative spending in
the three months ended June 30, 2007 as compared to the
three months ended July 1, 2006 was primarily the result of
increases in costs related to business development, customer
service and support in the Equipment business and legal expenses
associated with the Unaxis litigation. Our selling, general and
administrative headcount increased from 66 at July 1, 2006
to 95 at June 30, 2007. We expect that selling, general and
administrative expenses will increase in 2007 over the amount
spent in 2006 due primarily to a projected increase in costs
related to customer service and support for the Equipment
business, the addition of key business development and
administrative personnel and increasing legal expenses.
Interest
income and other, net
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Change Over
|
|
|
|
Three Months Ended
|
|
|
Prior Period
|
|
|
|
June 30,
|
|
|
July 1,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
Amount
|
|
|
%
|
|
|
|
(In thousands, except percentages)
|
|
|
Interest income and other, net
|
|
$
|
1,538
|
|
|
$
|
729
|
|
|
$
|
809
|
|
|
|
111
|
%
|
Interest income and other, net consists primarily of interest
and dividend income on investments and foreign currency gains
and losses. The increase in the three months ended June 30,
2007 was driven by higher interest rates on our investments and
a higher average invested balance. We expect interest income and
other, net to increase in from 2006 to 2007 due to a higher
average level of investments.
20
Provision
for income taxes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Change Over
|
|
|
|
Three Months Ended
|
|
|
Prior Period
|
|
|
|
June 30,
|
|
|
July 1,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
Amount
|
|
|
%
|
|
|
|
(In thousands, except percentages)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Provision for income taxes
|
|
$
|
3,326
|
|
|
$
|
1,364
|
|
|
$
|
1,962
|
|
|
|
144
|
%
|
For the three months ended June 30, 2007, we accrued income
tax using an effective tax rate of 22.4% of pretax income. This
rate is based on an estimate of our annual tax rate calculated
in accordance with Statement of Financial Accounting Standards
No. 109, Accounting for Income Taxes. Our
effective tax rate is highly dependent on our projected level of
earnings, the availability of tax credits and the geographic
composition of our worldwide earnings. Our deferred tax asset is
partially offset by a valuation allowance, resulting in a net
deferred tax asset of $5.4 million at June 30, 2007.
For the three months ended July 1, 2006, we accrued income
tax using an effective tax rate of 12.8% of pretax income. Our
tax rate differs from the applicable statutory rates due to the
utilization of net operating loss carry-forwards and deferred
credits.
Six
Months Ended June 30, 2007 and June 1,
2006.
Net
revenues
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Change Over
|
|
|
|
Six Months Ended
|
|
|
Prior Period
|
|
|
|
June 30,
|
|
|
July 1,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
Amount
|
|
|
%
|
|
|
|
(In thousands, except percentages)
|
|
|
Equipment net revenues
|
|
$
|
140,965
|
|
|
$
|
104,038
|
|
|
$
|
36,927
|
|
|
|
35
|
%
|
Imaging net revenues
|
|
|
7,514
|
|
|
|
5,124
|
|
|
|
2,390
|
|
|
|
47
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total net revenues
|
|
$
|
148,479
|
|
|
$
|
109,162
|
|
|
$
|
39,317
|
|
|
|
36
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The increase in Equipment revenue was the result of higher sales
of disk sputtering systems, disk equipment technology upgrades
and spare parts. We recognized revenue on twenty-five 200 Leans
systems in the six months ended June 30, 2007. The increase
in Imaging revenues was the result of both increased contract
research and development work and a 153% increase in product
sales.
International sales increased by 43% to $132.5 million for
the six months ended June 30, 2007 from $92.5 million
for the six months ended July 1, 2006. The increase in
international sales was due to higher shipments of disk
sputtering systems, disk equipment technology upgrades and spare
parts to customers in Asia. International sales constituted 89%
of net revenues for the six months ended June 30, 2007 and
85% of net revenues for the six months ended July 1, 2006.
International revenues include products shipped to overseas
operations of US companies.
Gross
margin
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Six Months Ended
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
June 30,
|
|
|
July 1,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
% Change
|
|
|
|
(In thousands, except percentages)
|
|
|
Equipment gross profit
|
|
$
|
60,778
|
|
|
$
|
37,297
|
|
|
|
63
|
%
|
% of Equipment net revenues
|
|
|
43.1
|
%
|
|
|
35.8
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
Imaging gross profit
|
|
$
|
2,831
|
|
|
$
|
1,319
|
|
|
|
115
|
%
|
% of Imaging net revenues
|
|
|
37.7
|
%
|
|
|
25.7
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
Total gross profit
|
|
$
|
63,609
|
|
|
$
|
38,568
|
|
|
|
65
|
%
|
% of net revenues
|
|
|
42.8
|
%
|
|
|
35.3
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
21
Gross margin in Equipment for the six months ended June 30,
2007 increased relative to the comparable 2006 period primarily
due to cost reduction programs, increased volume and product
mix. The increase in Imaging was primarily a result of higher
margins on development contracts and favorable adjustments
related to contract closeouts. Cost of net revenues for the six
months ended June 30, 2007 and July 1, 2006 included
$293,000 and $139,000, respectively, of equity-based
compensation expense.
Research
and development
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Change Over
|
|
|
|
Six Months Ended
|
|
|
Prior Period
|
|
|
|
June 30,
|
|
|
July 1,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
Amount
|
|
|
%
|
|
|
|
(In thousands, except percentages)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Research and development expense
|
|
$
|
21,840
|
|
|
$
|
11,851
|
|
|
$
|
9,989
|
|
|
|
84
|
%
|
% of net revenues
|
|
|
14.7
|
%
|
|
|
10.9
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Research and development spending increased in both Equipment
and in Imaging during the six months ended June 30, 2007 as
compared to the six months ended July 1, 2006. The increase
in Equipment was due primarily to spending on the development of
our Lean
Etchtm
product line to serve the semiconductor market and, to a lesser
extent, spending for continuing development of our disk
sputtering products. The increase in Imaging was due primarily
to spending on the development of our commercial Imaging
products. Research and development spending for the six months
ended June 30, 2007 and July 1, 2006 included $950,000
and $532,000, respectively of equity-based compensation expense.
Research and development expenses do not include costs of
$2.9 million in both of the six-month periods ended
June 30, 2007 and July 1, 2006 related to Imaging
contract research and development. These expenses are included
in cost of net revenues.
Selling,
general and administrative
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Change Over
|
|
|
|
Six Months Ended
|
|
|
Prior Period
|
|
|
|
June 30,
|
|
|
July 1,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
Amount
|
|
|
%
|
|
|
|
(In thousands, except percentages)
|
|
|
Selling, general and
administrative expense
|
|
$
|
15,352
|
|
|
$
|
10,118
|
|
|
$
|
5,234
|
|
|
|
52
|
%
|
% of net revenues
|
|
|
10.3
|
%
|
|
|
9.3
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The increase in selling, general and administrative expense for
the six months ending June 30, 2007 was primarily the
result of increases in costs related to business development,
customer service and support in the Equipment business, legal
expenses associated with the Unaxis litigation and provisions
for employee profit sharing and bonus plans. Included in
selling, general and administrative spending for the six months
ended June 30, 2007 and July 1, 2006 was $1,427,000
and $452,000, respectively, of equity-based compensation expense.
Interest
income and other, net
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Change Over
|
|
|
|
Six Months Ended
|
|
|
Prior Period
|
|
|
|
June 30,
|
|
|
July 1,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
Amount
|
|
|
%
|
|
|
|
(In thousands, except percentages)
|
|
|
Interest income and other, net
|
|
$
|
2,858
|
|
|
$
|
1,327
|
|
|
$
|
1,531
|
|
|
|
115
|
%
|
Interest income and other, net in both 2007 and 2006 consisted
primarily of interest and dividend income on investments. The
increase in the six months ended June 30, 2007 was the
driven by higher interest rates on our investments and a higher
average invested balance.
22
Provision
for income taxes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Change Over
|
|
|
|
Six Months Ended
|
|
|
Prior Period
|
|
|
|
June 30,
|
|
|
July 1,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
Amount
|
|
|
%
|
|
|
|
(In thousands, except percentages)
|
|
|
Provision for income taxes
|
|
$
|
7,878
|
|
|
$
|
1,582
|
|
|
$
|
6,296
|
|
|
|
398
|
%
|
For the six months ended June 30, 2007, we accrued income
tax using an effective tax rate of 26.9% of pretax income. This
rate is based on an estimate of our annual tax rate calculated
in accordance with Statement of Financial Accounting Standards
No. 109, Accounting for Income Taxes.
For the six months ended July 1, 2006, we accrued income
tax using an effective tax rate of 8.8% of pretax income.
Stock-Based
Compensation
During the three and six months ended June 30, 2007, we
recorded stock-based compensation expense related to stock
options of $1.2 million and $2.3 million respectively.
As of June 30, 2007, the unrecorded deferred stock-based
compensation balance related to stock options was
$8.7 million and will be recognized over an estimated
weighted average amortization period of 1.6 years.
The compensation cost associated with the employee stock
purchase plan for the three and six months ended June 30,
2007 was $214,000 and $427,000 respectively. There were
39,069 shares purchased under the employee stock purchase
plan during the six months ended June 30, 2007.
Approximately $72,000 and $69,000 of stock-based compensation
was capitalized as inventory at June 30, 2007 and
December 31, 2006, respectively.
Liquidity
and Capital Resources
During the first six months of 2007, cash and cash equivalents
decreased by $9.0 million, from $39.4 million at
December 31, 2006 to $30.4 million as of June 30,
2007.
Operating activities provided cash of $17.2 million during
the six months ended June 30, 2007. The cash provided from
operating activities was due primarily to net income, adjusted
to exclude the effect of non-cash charges including depreciation
and equity-based compensation, and to a decrease in inventories.
This was partially offset by decreases in customer advances and
accrued payroll. Accounts receivable totaled $39.0 million
at June 30, 2007, compared to $39.9 million at
December 31, 2006, a decrease of $0.9 million. Net
inventories decreased by $10.0 million during the six
months ended June 30, 2007 due to a reduction in material
receipts and production levels in anticipation of a slower
second half of 2007. Accounts payable decreased
$6.2 million to $9.8 million at June 30, 2007.
The decrease was a result of the lower level of material
receipts in the quarter. Accrued payroll and related liabilities
decreased by $3.2 million during the six months ended
June 30, 2007 due primarily to bonuses and profit sharing
payments. Other accrued liabilities totaled $7.5 million at
June 30, 2007 compared to $6.6 million at
December 31, 2006. The increase of $0.9 million is due
primarily to income tax accruals. Customer advances decreased by
$10.9 million during the six months ended June 30,
2007, due to the number of systems shipped and accepted during
the first six months of the year.
Investing activities in the first six months of 2007 used cash
of $32.7 million. Purchases of investments, net of proceeds
from sales and maturities, totaled $23.5 million and our
acquisition of DeltaNu, LLC used cash of $5.8 million
during the first half of 2007. Capital expenditures for the six
months ended June 30, 2007 were $3.4 million.
Financing activities provided cash of $6.4 million during
the six months ended June 30, 2007 due primarily to the
issuance of $3.8 million in notes payable related to the
acquisition of DeltaNu, LLC. We also sold $1.9 million of
Intevac common stock to our employees through our employee
benefit plans and recognized $767,000 in tax benefits from
equity-based compensation.
23
We have generated operating income for the last two years, after
incurring annual operating losses from 1998 through 2004. We
expect our Equipment business to be profitable again in 2007. We
also expect to continue to invest in Imaging during 2007, but
with lower losses than in 2006.
We believe that our existing cash, cash equivalents and
short-term investments, combined with the cash we anticipate
generating from operating activities will be sufficient to meet
our cash requirements for the foreseeable future. We intend to
undertake approximately $7.0 million in capital
expenditures during the remainder of 2007.
Contractual
Obligations
In the normal course of business, we enter into various
contractual obligations that will be settled in cash. These
obligations consist primarily of operating lease and purchase
obligations. The expected future cash flows required to meet
these obligations as of June 30, 2007 are shown in the
table below.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Payments Due by Period
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
< 1 Year
|
|
|
1 3 Years
|
|
|
3-5 Years
|
|
|
> 5 Years
|
|
|
|
(In thousands)
|
|
|
Operating lease obligations
|
|
$
|
11,108
|
|
|
$
|
2,244
|
|
|
$
|
4,659
|
|
|
$
|
4,063
|
|
|
$
|
142
|
|
Purchase obligations
|
|
|
9,204
|
|
|
|
9,204
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
20,312
|
|
|
$
|
11,448
|
|
|
$
|
4,659
|
|
|
$
|
4,063
|
|
|
$
|
142
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Item 3. Quantitative
and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk
Interest rate risk. Our exposure to market
risk for changes in interest rates relates primarily to our
investment portfolio. We do not use derivative financial
instruments in our investment portfolio. We place our
investments with high quality credit issuers and, by policy,
limit the amount of credit exposure to any one issuer.
Short-term investments typically consist of investments in
commercial paper, auction rate securities and debt instruments
issued by the US government and its agencies.
The table below presents principal amounts and related
weighted-average interest rates by year of maturity for our
investment portfolio at June 30, 2007.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fair
|
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
Beyond
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
Value
|
|
|
Cash equivalents Fixed rate amounts
|
|
$
|
13,894
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
13,894
|
|
|
$
|
13,894
|
|
Weighted-average rate
|
|
|
5.28
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Variable rate amounts
|
|
$
|
5,434
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
5,434
|
|
|
$
|
5,434
|
|
Weighted-average rate
|
|
|
5.23
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Short-term investments Fixed rate
amounts
|
|
$
|
74,993
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
74,993
|
|
|
$
|
74,993
|
|
Weighted-average rate
|
|
|
5.24
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Long-term investments Fixed rate
amounts
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
6,000
|
|
|
$
|
6,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
12,000
|
|
|
$
|
11,990
|
|
Weighted-average rate
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5.23
|
%
|
|
|
5.29
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total investment portfolio
|
|
$
|
94,321
|
|
|
$
|
6,000
|
|
|
$
|
6,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
106,321
|
|
|
$
|
106,311
|
|
Due to the short-term nature of our investments, we believe that
we do not have any material exposure to changes in the fair
value of our investment portfolio as a result of changes in
interest rates.
Foreign exchange risk. From time to time, we
enter into foreign currency forward exchange contracts to
economically hedge certain of our anticipated foreign currency
transaction, translation and re-measurement exposures. The
objective of these contracts is to minimize the impact of
foreign currency exchange rate movements on our operating
results. At June 30, 2007, we had no foreign currency
forward exchange contracts.
24
Item 4. Controls
and Procedures
Evaluation
of disclosure controls and procedures.
We maintain a set of disclosure controls and procedures that are
designed to ensure that information relating to Intevac, Inc.
required to be disclosed in periodic filings under Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, or Exchange Act, is recorded, processed,
summarized and reported in a timely manner under the Exchange
Act. In connection with the filing of this
Form 10-Q
for the quarter ended June 30, 2007, as required under
Rule 13a-15(b)
of the Exchange Act, an evaluation was carried out under the
supervision and with the participation of management, including
the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, of the
effectiveness of our disclosure controls and procedures as of
the end of the period covered by this quarterly report. Based on
this evaluation, our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial
Officer concluded that our disclosure controls and procedures
were effective as of June 30, 2007.
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 Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (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
Our management, including the CEO and CFO, does not expect that
our Disclosure Controls or our internal control over financial
reporting will prevent all error and all fraud. A control
system, no matter how well designed and operated, can provide
only reasonable, not absolute, assurance that the control
systems objectives will be met. Further, the design of a
control system must reflect the fact that there are resource
constraints, and the benefits of controls must be considered
relative to their costs. Because of the inherent limitations in
all control systems, no evaluation of controls can provide
absolute assurance that all control issues and instances of
fraud, if any, within the Company have been detected. These
inherent limitations include the realities that judgments in
decision-making can be faulty and that breakdowns can occur
because of simple error or mistake. Controls can also be
circumvented by the individual acts of some persons, by
collusion of two or more people, or by management override of
the controls. The design of any system of controls is based in
part on certain assumptions about the likelihood of future
events, and there can be no assurance that any design will
succeed in achieving its stated goals under all potential future
conditions. Over time, controls may become inadequate because of
changes in conditions or deterioration in the degree of
compliance with policies or procedures. Because of the inherent
limitations in a cost-effective control system, misstatements
due to error or fraud may occur and not be detected.
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, our internal control over financial reporting.
25
PART II. OTHER
INFORMATION
Item 1. Legal
Proceedings
Patent
Infringement Complaint against Unaxis
On July 7, 2006, we filed a patent infringement lawsuit
against Unaxis USA, Inc. and its affiliates, Unaxis Balzers AG
and Unaxis Balzers, Ltd., in the United States District Court
for the Central District of California. Our lawsuit against
Unaxis asserts infringement by Unaxis of United States Patent
6,919,001, which relates to our 200 Lean system. Our complaint
seeks monetary damages and an injunction that would bar Unaxis
from making, using, offering to sell or selling in the United
States, or importing into the United States, Unaxis
allegedly infringing product. We believe we have meritorious
claims, and we intend to pursue them vigorously.
On September 12, 2006, Unaxis filed a response to our
lawsuit in which it asserted non-infringement, invalidity of our
patent, inequitable conduct by Intevac, patent misuse by
Intevac, and lack of jurisdiction by the Court as defenses.
Additionally, Unaxis requested a declaratory judgment of patent
non-infringement, invalidity and unenforceability; asserted that
Intevac violated the California Business and Professional Code;
requested that we be enjoined from engaging in any unfair
competition; and requested that we be required to pay
Unaxis attorney fees. We believe such claims lack merit,
and we intend to defend ourselves vigorously.
We replied to Unaxis response on October 3, 2006,
denying the assertions of non-infringement, invalidity and
unenforceability of the Intevac patent, and denying any unfair
competition. With the approval of the Court, we amended our
complaint on February 6, 2007 to assert an additional
ground for our infringement claim and to add a request for a
declaratory judgment of infringement. Unaxis filed a response on
February 21, 2007, in which it repeated the assertions of
its September 12, 2006 response.
On May 21, 2007, the Court granted Unaxis request to
stay the litigation pending reexamination of United States
Patent 6,919,001, after the U.S. Patent Office granted
Unaxis February 27, 2007 reexamination request and
issued an initial office action rejecting the claims of the
patent. The Court also ordered the parties to file a joint
report every 120 days to keep it informed of the
reexamination status. Intevac had no input to the initial
determination by the U.S. Patent Office.
On June 20, 2007, we filed a reply to the initial office
action in reexamination. Our reply addresses the rejections of
the original claims and proposes amended claims that we believe
are supported by the original patents specification.
Unaxis has the opportunity to respond, after which the
U.S. Patent Office will consider both parties
submissions. During the reexamination process, the patent
remains valid.
Other
Legal Matters
From time to time, we are involved in claims and legal
proceedings that arise in the ordinary course of business. We
expect that the number and significance of these matters will
increase as our business expands. Any claims or proceedings
against us, whether meritorious or not, could be time consuming,
result in costly litigation, require significant amounts of
management time, result in the diversion of significant
operational resources, or require us to enter into royalty or
licensing agreements which, if required, may not be available on
terms favorable to us or at all. We are not presently party to
any lawsuit or proceeding that, in our opinion, is likely to
seriously harm our business.
Item 1A. Risk
Factors
Demand
for capital equipment is cyclical, which subjects our business
to long periods of depressed revenues interspersed with periods
of unusually high revenues.
Our Equipment business sells equipment to capital-intensive
industries, which sell commodity products such as disk drives.
When demand for these commodity products exceeds capacity,
demand for new capital equipment such as ours tends to be
amplified. Conversely, when supply of these commodity products
exceeds demand, the demand for new capital equipment such as
ours tends to be depressed. The hard disk drive industry has
historically been subject to multi-year cycles because of the
long lead times and high costs involved in adding capacity, and
to
26
seasonal cycles driven by consumer purchasing patterns, which
tend to be heaviest in the third and fourth quarters of each
year.
The cyclical nature of the capital equipment industry means that
in some years we will have unusually high sales of new systems,
and that in other years our sales of new systems will be
severely depressed. The timing, length and volatility of these
cycles are difficult to predict. These cycles have affected the
timing and amounts of our customers capital equipment
purchases and investments in new technology. For example, sales
of systems for magnetic disk production were severely depressed
from mid-1998 until mid-2003 and grew rapidly from 2004 through
2006. The number of new systems delivered and scheduled for
delivery in 2007 is lower than the number of systems delivered
in 2006, which may indicate a slowing in the cycle or a downturn
in the market. We cannot predict with any certainty when these
cycles will begin and end.
If the
projected growth in demand for hard disk drives does not
materialize and our customers do not replace or upgrade their
installed base of disk sputtering systems, then future sales of
our disk sputtering systems will suffer.
From mid-1998 until mid-2003, there was very little demand for
new disk sputtering systems, as magnetic disk manufacturers were
burdened with over-capacity and were not investing in new disk
sputtering equipment. By 2003, however, over-capacity had
diminished, and orders for our 200 Lean began to increase.
Sales of our equipment for capacity expansions are dependent on
the capacity expansion plans of our customers and upon whether
our customers select our equipment for their capacity
expansions. We have no control over our customers
expansion plans, and we cannot assure you that they will select
our equipment if they do expand their capacity. Our customers
may not implement capacity expansion plans, or we may fail to
win orders for equipment for those capacity expansions, which
could have a material adverse effect on our business and our
operating results. In addition, some manufacturers may choose to
purchase used systems from other manufacturers or customers
rather than purchasing new systems from us.
Sales of our 200 Lean disk sputtering systems are also dependent
on obsolescence and replacement of the installed base of disk
sputtering equipment. If technological advancements are
developed that extend the useful life of the installed base of
systems, then sales of our 200 Lean will be limited to the
capacity expansion needs of our customers, which would
significantly decrease our revenue.
Our customers have experienced competition from other companies
that produce alternative storage technologies like flash memory,
where increased capacity, improving cost, lower power
consumption and performance ruggedness have resulted in
competition with lower capacity, smaller form factor disk drives
in handheld applications. While this competition has
traditionally been in the markets for handheld consumer
electronics applications like personal media players, these
competitors have recently announced products for notebook and
enterprise compute applications. If alternative technologies,
such as flash memory, replace hard disk drives as a primary
method of digital storage, demand for our 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. In 2006,
one of our customers accounted for 52% of our revenues, and
three customers in the aggregate accounted for 93% of our
revenues. The same three customers, in the aggregate, accounted
for 86% of our net accounts receivable at December 31,
2006. During 2006, Seagate acquired Maxtor, and in June 2007,
Western Digital announced the acquisition of Komag. This
consolidation in the industry limits the potential customers for
our products. Orders from a relatively limited number of
magnetic disk manufacturers have accounted for, and likely will
continue to account for, a substantial portion of our revenues.
The loss of, or delays in purchasing by, any one of our large
customers would significantly reduce potential future revenues.
The concentration of our customer base may enable customers to
demand pricing and other terms unfavorable to us. Furthermore,
the concentration of customers can lead to extreme variability
in revenue and financial results from period to period. For
example, during 2006 revenues ranged between $49.6 million
in the first quarter and $95.9 million in the fourth
quarter. These factors could have a material adverse effect on
our business, financial condition and results of operations.
27
Our
operating results fluctuate significantly from quarter to
quarter, which may cause the price of our stock to
decline.
Over the last 10 quarters, our revenues per quarter have
fluctuated between $10.6 million and $95.9 million.
Over the same period our operating income (loss) as a percentage
of revenues has fluctuated between approximately 23% and (41%)
of revenues. We anticipate that our revenues and operating
margins will continue to fluctuate. We expect this fluctuation
to continue for a variety of reasons, including:
|
|
|
|
|
changes in the demand, due to seasonality, cyclicality and other
factors, for computer systems, storage subsystems and consumer
electronics containing disks our customers produce with our
systems; and
|
|
|
|
delays or problems in the introduction and acceptance of our new
products, or delivery of existing products;
|
|
|
|
our business is inherently subject to fluctuations in revenue
from quarter to quarter due to factors such as timing of orders,
acceptance of new systems by our customers or cancellation of
those orders;
|
|
|
|
new products, services or technological innovations by our
competitors or us.
|
Additionally, because our systems are priced in the millions of
dollars and we sell a relatively small number of systems, we
believe that quarter-to-quarter comparisons of our revenues and
operating results may not be an accurate indicator of our future
performance. Our operating results in one or more future
quarters may fail to meet the expectations of investment
research analysts or investors, which could cause an immediate
and significant decline in the trading price of our common
shares.
Our
long-term revenue growth is dependent on new products. If these
new products are not successful, then our results of operations
will be adversely affected.
We have invested heavily, and continue to invest, in the
development of new products. Our success in developing and
selling new products depends upon a variety of factors,
including our ability to predict future customer requirements
accurately, technological advances, total cost of ownership of
our systems, our introduction of new products on schedule, our
ability to manufacture our products cost-effectively and the
performance of our products in the field. Our new product
decisions and development commitments must anticipate
continuously evolving industry requirements significantly in
advance of sales.
The majority of our revenues in both fiscal 2006 and fiscal 2005
were from sales of our 200 Lean disk sputtering system, which
was first delivered in December 2003. When first introduced,
advanced vacuum manufacturing equipment, such as the 200 Lean,
is subject to extensive customer acceptance tests after
installation at the customers factory. These acceptance
tests are designed to validate reliable operation to
specifications in areas such as throughput, vacuum level,
robotics, process performance and software features and
functionality. These tests are generally more comprehensive for
new systems than for mature systems, and are designed to
highlight problems encountered with early versions of the
equipment. For example, initial builds of the 200 Lean
experienced high production and warranty costs in comparison to
our more established product lines. Failure to promptly address
any of the problems uncovered in these tests could have adverse
effects on our business, including rescheduling of backlog,
failure to achieve customer acceptance and therefore revenue
recognition as anticipated, unanticipated product rework and
warranty costs, penalties for non-performance, cancellation of
orders, or return of products for credit.
We are making a substantial investment to develop our new Lean
Etch system for semiconductor manufacturing. We spent a
substantial portion of our research and development costs on
this new product in 2006 and expect to increase our level of
spending on this project in 2007. Intevac has not developed or
sold products for this market previously. Failure to correctly
assess the size of the market, to successfully develop a cost
effective product to address the market, or to establish
effective sales and support of the new product would have a
material adverse effect on our future revenues and profits,
including loss of the Companys entire investment in the
project.
We are jointly developing a next generation head mounted
night-vision system with another defense contractor. This system
is planned for sale to the U.S. military and will compete
with head-mounted systems developed by our competitors. The US
military does not intend to initiate production of this system
until 2010. We
28
plan to make a significant investment in this product and cannot
be assured when, or if, we will be awarded any production
contracts for these night vision systems.
We have developed a night-vision sensor and camera module for
use in a NATO customers digital head-mounted and
rifle-sight system. In 2006, we entered into a purchasing
agreement with our customer to deliver 32,000 camera modules
over seven years. We cannot guarantee that we will achieve the
yield improvements and cost reductions necessary for this
program to be successful. Shipments under this program are
subject to export approval from the U.S. government.
Our LIVAR target identification and low light level camera
technologies are designed to offer significantly improved
capability to military customers. We are also developing
commercial products in our Imaging business. None of our Imaging
products are currently being manufactured in high volume, and we
may encounter unforeseen difficulties when we commence volume
production of these products. Our Imaging business will require
substantial further investment in sales and marketing, in
product development and in additional production facilities in
order to expand our operations. We may not succeed in these
activities or generate significant sales of these new products.
In 2006, sales of our Imaging products totaled $1.7 million.
Failure of any of these new products to perform as intended, to
penetrate their markets and develop into profitable product
lines or to achieve their production cost objectives would have
a material adverse effect on our business.
We may
not be successful in maintaining and obtaining the necessary
export licenses to conduct operations abroad, and the United
States government may prevent proposed sales to foreign
customers.
Many of our Imaging products require export licenses from United
States Government agencies under the Export Administration Act,
the Trading with the Enemy Act of 1917, the Arms Export Act of
1976 and the International Traffic in Arms Regulations. This
limits the potential market for our products. We can give no
assurance that we will be successful in obtaining all the
licenses necessary to export our products. Recently, heightened
government scrutiny of export licenses for products in our
market has resulted in lengthened review periods for our license
applications. Export to countries, which are not considered by
the United States Government to be allies, is likely to be
prohibited, and even sales to U.S. allies may be limited.
Failure to obtain, delays in obtaining, or revocation of
previously issued licenses would prevent us from selling our
products outside the United States, may subject us to fines or
other penalties, and would have a material adverse effect on our
business, financial condition and results of operations.
Our
products are complex, constantly evolving and often must be
customized to individual customer requirements.
The systems we manufacture and sell in our Equipment business
have a large number of components and are complex, which require
us to make substantial investments in research and development.
If we were to fail to develop, manufacture and market new
systems or to enhance existing systems, that failure would have
an adverse effect on our business. We may experience delays and
technical and manufacturing difficulties in future introduction,
volume production and acceptance of new systems or enhancements.
In addition, some of the systems that we manufacture must be
customized to meet individual customer site or operating
requirements. In some cases, we market and commit to deliver new
systems, modules and components with advanced features and
capabilities that we are still in the process of designing. We
have limited manufacturing capacity and engineering resources
and may be unable to complete the development, manufacture and
shipment of these products, or to meet the required technical
specifications for these products, in a timely manner. Failure
to deliver these products on time, or failure to deliver
products that perform to all contractually committed
specifications, could have adverse effects on our business,
including rescheduling of backlog, failure to achieve customer
acceptance and therefore revenue recognition as anticipated,
unanticipated rework and warranty costs, penalties for
non-performance, cancellation of orders, or return of products
for credit. In addition, we may incur substantial unanticipated
costs early in a products life cycle, such as increased
engineering, manufacturing, installation and support costs, that
we may be unable to pass on to the customer and that may affect
our gross margins. Sometimes we work closely with our
29
customers to develop new features and products. In connection
with these transactions, we sometimes offer a period of
exclusivity to these customers.
Our
sales cycle is long and unpredictable, which requires us to
incur high sales and marketing expenses with no assurance that a
sale will result.
The sales cycle for our equipment systems can be a year or
longer, involving individuals from many different areas of our
company and numerous product presentations and demonstrations
for our prospective customers. Our sales process for these
systems also commonly includes production of samples,
customization of our product and installation of evaluation
systems in the factories of our prospective customers. We do not
enter into long-term contracts with our customers and therefore
until an order is actually submitted by a customer there is no
binding commitment to purchase our systems.
Our Imaging business is also subject to long sales cycles
because many of our products, such as our LIVAR system, often
must be designed into our customers products, which are
often complex state-of-the-art products. These development
cycles are often multi-year, and our sales are contingent on our
customers successfully integrating our product into their
product, completing development of their product and then
obtaining production orders for their product from the
U.S. government or its allies.
As a result, we may not recognize revenue from our products for
extended periods of time after we have completed development,
and made initial shipments of our products, during which time we
may expend substantial funds and management time and effort with
no assurance that a sale will result.
We
operate in an intensely competitive marketplace, and our
competitors have greater resources than we do.
In the market for our disk sputtering systems, we have
experienced competition from competitors such as Anelva
Corporation, which is a subsidiary of Canon, and Oerlikon, each
of which has sold substantial numbers of systems worldwide. In
the market for semiconductor equipment, we expect to experience
competition from competitors such as Applied Materials, LAM
Research and Tokyo Electron, Ltd. In the market for our military
Imaging products, we experience competition from companies such
as ITT Industries, Inc. and Northrop Grumman Corporation, the
primary U.S. manufacturers of Generation-III night vision
devices and their derivative products. In the markets for our
commercial Imaging products, we compete with companies such as
Andor, E2V, Hamamatsu, Texas Instruments and Roper Scientific
for sensor and camera products, and with companies such as
Ahura, B&W Tek, Horiba Jobin Yvon, InPhotonics,
Ocean Optics, and Smiths Detection for portable Raman
spectrometer products. Our competitors have substantially
greater financial, technical, marketing, manufacturing and other
resources than we do. We cannot assure you that our competitors
will not develop enhancements to, or future generations of,
competitive products that offer superior price or performance
features. Likewise, we cannot assure you that new competitors
will not enter our markets and develop such enhanced products.
Moreover, competition for our customers is intense, and our
competitors have historically offered substantial pricing
concessions and incentives to attract our customers or retain
their existing customers.
We
experienced significant growth in our business and operations
and if we do not appropriately manage this growth and any future
growth, our operating results will be negatively
affected.
Our business has grown significantly in recent years in both
operations and headcount, and continued growth may cause a
significant strain on our infrastructure, internal systems and
managerial resources. To manage our growth effectively, we must
continue to improve and expand our infrastructure, including
information technology and financial operating and
administrative systems and controls, and continue managing
headcount, capital and processes in an efficient manner. Our
productivity and the quality of our products may be adversely
affected if we do not integrate and train our new employees
quickly and effectively and coordinate among our executive,
engineering, finance, marketing, sales, operations and customer
support organizations, all of which add to the complexity of our
organization and increase our operating expenses. We also may be
less able to predict and effectively control our operating
expenses due to the growth and increasing complexity of our
business. In addition, our information technology systems may
not grow at a sufficient rate to keep up with the processing and
information demands
30
placed on them by a much larger company. The efforts to continue
to expand our information technology systems or our inability to
do so could harm our business. Further, revenues may not grow at
a sufficient rate to absorb the costs associated with a larger
overall headcount.
Our future growth may require significant additional resources,
given that, as we increase our business operations in complexity
and scale, we may have insufficient management capabilities and
internal bandwidth to manage our growth and business
effectively. We cannot assure you that resources will be
available when we need them or that we will have sufficient
capital to fund these potential resource needs. Also, growth in
the number of orders received in our Equipment business may
require additional physical space and headcount, and our ability
to fulfill such orders may be constrained if we are unable to
effectively grow our business. If we are unable to manage our
growth effectively or if we experience a shortfall in resources,
our results of operations will be harmed.
Our
Imaging business depends heavily on government contracts, which
are subject to immediate termination and are funded in
increments. The termination of or failure to fund one or more of
these contracts could have a negative impact on our
operations.
We sell many of our Imaging products and services directly to
the U.S. government, as well as to prime contractors for
various U.S. government programs. Our revenues from
government contracts totaled $10.2 million,
$6.9 million, and $8.2 million in 2006, 2005, and
2004, respectively. Generally, government contracts are subject
to oversight audits by government representatives and contain
provisions permitting termination, in whole or in part, without
prior notice at the governments convenience upon the
payment of compensation only for work done and commitments made
at the time of termination. We cannot assure you that one or
more of the government contracts under which our customers or we
operate will not be terminated under these circumstances. Also,
we cannot assure you that we or our customers would be able to
procure new government contracts to offset the revenues lost as
a result of any termination of existing contracts, nor can we
assure you that we or our customers will continue to remain in
good standing as federal contractors.
Furthermore, the funding of multi-year government programs is
subject to congressional appropriations, and there is no
guarantee that the U.S. government will make further
appropriations. The loss of funding for a government program
would result in a loss of anticipated future revenues
attributable to that program. That could increase our overall
costs of doing business.
In addition, sales to the U.S. government and its prime
contractors may be affected by changes in procurement policies,
budget considerations and political developments in the United
States or abroad. The influence of any of these factors, which
are beyond our control, could also negatively impact our
financial condition. We also may experience problems associated
with advanced designs required by the government, which may
result in unforeseen technological difficulties and cost
overruns. Failure to overcome these technological difficulties
or occurrence of cost overruns would have a material adverse
effect on our business.
Unexpected
increases in the cost to develop or manufacture our products
under fixed-price contracts may cause us to experience
un-reimbursed cost overruns.
A portion of our revenue is derived from fixed-price development
and production contracts. Under fixed-price contracts,
unexpected increases in the cost to develop or manufacture a
product, whether due to inaccurate estimates in the bidding
process, unanticipated increases in material costs,
inefficiencies or other factors, are borne by us. We have
experienced cost overruns in the past that have resulted in
losses on certain contracts, and may experience additional cost
overruns in the future. We are required to recognize the total
estimated impact of cost overruns in the period in which they
are first identified. Such cost overruns could have a material
adverse effect on our results of operation and financial
condition.
Our
sales of equipment products are dependent on substantial capital
investment by our customers, far in excess of the cost of our
products.
Our customers must make extremely large capital expenditures in
order to purchase our systems and other related equipment and
facilities. These costs are far in excess of the cost of our
systems alone. The magnitude of such capital expenditures
requires that our customers have access to large amounts of
capital and that they be willing
31
to invest that capital over long periods of time to be able to
purchase our equipment. The magnetic disk and semiconductor
manufacturing industries have made significant additions to
their production capacity in the last few years. Our customers
may not be willing or able to continue this level of capital
investment, especially during a downturn in the overall economy,
the hard disk drive industry, or the semiconductor industry.
Our
stock price is volatile.
The market price and trading volume of our common stock has been
subject to significant volatility, and this trend may continue.
Over the last 12 months, the closing price of our common
stock, as traded on The Nasdaq National Market, fluctuated from
a low of $14.69 per share to a high of $30.57 per share. The
value of our common stock may decline regardless of our
operating performance or prospects. Factors affecting our market
price include:
|
|
|
|
|
our perceived prospects;
|
|
|
|
hard disk drive market expectations;
|
|
|
|
variations in our operating results and whether we achieve our
key business targets;
|
|
|
|
sales or purchases of large blocks of our stock;
|
|
|
|
changes in, or our failure to meet, our revenue and earnings
estimates;
|
|
|
|
changes in securities analysts buy or sell recommendations;
|
|
|
|
differences between our reported results and those expected by
investors and securities analysts;
|
|
|
|
announcements of new contracts, products or technological
innovations by us or our competitors;
|
|
|
|
market reaction to any acquisitions, joint ventures or strategic
investments announced by us or our competitors;
|
|
|
|
our high fixed operating expenses, including research and
development expenses;
|
|
|
|
developments in the financial markets; and
|
|
|
|
general economic, political or stock market conditions in the
United States and other major regions in which we do business.
|
In addition, the general economic, political, stock market and
hard drive industry conditions that may affect the market price
of our common stock are beyond our control. The market price of
our common stock at any particular time may not remain the
market price in the future. In the past, securities class action
litigation has been instituted against companies following
periods of volatility in the market price of their securities.
Any such litigation, if instituted against us, could result in
substantial costs and a diversion of managements attention
and resources.
Changes
in tax rates or tax liabilities could affect future
results.
As a global company, we are subject to taxation in the United
States and various other countries. Significant judgment is
required to determine and estimate worldwide tax liabilities.
Our future tax rates could be affected by changes in the
applicable tax laws, composition of earnings in countries with
differing tax rates, changes in the valuation of our deferred
tax assets and liabilities, or changes in the tax laws. Although
we believe our tax estimates are reasonable, there can be no
assurance that any final determination will not be materially
different from the treatment reflected in our historical income
tax provisions and accruals, which could materially and
adversely affect our results of operations.
Our effective tax rate in both 2006 and 2005 was well below the
applicable statutory rates due primarily to the utilization of
net operating loss carry-forwards and deferred credits. We are
currently projecting an effective tax rate of 26.9% for 2007.
32
Our
future success depends on international sales and the management
of global operations
In 2006, approximately 90% of our revenues came from regions
outside the United States. We currently have international
customer support offices in Singapore, China, Malaysia, Korea
and Japan. We expect that international sales will continue to
account for a significant portion of our total revenue in future
years. Certain manufacturing facilities and suppliers are also
located outside the United States. Managing our global
operations presents challenges including, but not limited to,
those arising from:
|
|
|
|
|
varying regional and geopolitical business conditions and
demands;
|
|
|
|
global trade issues;
|
|
|
|
variations in protection of intellectual property and other
legal rights in different countries;
|
|
|
|
rising raw material and energy costs;
|
|
|
|
variations in the ability to develop relationships with
suppliers and other local businesses;
|
|
|
|
changes in laws and regulations of the United States (including
export restrictions) and other countries, as well as their
interpretation and application;
|
|
|
|
fluctuations in interest rates and currency exchange rates;
|
|
|
|
the need to provide sufficient levels of technical support in
different locations;
|
|
|
|
political instability, natural disasters (such as earthquakes,
hurricanes or floods), pandemics, terrorism or acts of war where
we have operations, suppliers or sales;
|
|
|
|
cultural differences; and
|
|
|
|
shipping delays.
|
Changes
in existing financial accounting standards or practices or
taxation rules or practices may adversely affect our results of
operations.
Changes in existing accounting or taxation rules or practices,
new accounting pronouncements or taxation rules, or varying
interpretations of current accounting pronouncements or taxation
practice could have a significant adverse effect on our results
of operations or the manner in which we conduct our business.
Further, such changes could potentially affect our reporting of
transactions completed before such changes are effective. In
June 2006, the FASB issued Interpretation No. 48,
Accounting for Uncertainty in Income Taxes
(FIN 48). FIN 48, which was effective
January 1, 2007, clarifies the accounting for uncertainty
in income taxes recognized in an enterprises financial
statements in accordance with FASB Statement No. 109,
Accounting for Income Taxes. We adopted FIN 48
in the first quarter of fiscal year 2007.
We are
required to evaluate our internal control over financial
reporting under Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, and any adverse results from such evaluation could result
in a loss of investor confidence in our financial reports and
have an adverse effect on our stock price.
Pursuant to Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
our management must perform evaluations of our internal control
over financial reporting. Beginning in 2004, our
Form 10-K
has included a report by management of their assessment of the
adequacy of such internal control. Additionally, our independent
registered public accounting firm must publicly attest to the
adequacy of managements assessment and the effectiveness
of our internal control.
We have completed the evaluation of our internal controls over
financial reporting as required by Section 404 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. Although our assessment, testing,
and evaluation resulted in our conclusion that as of
December 31, 2006, our internal controls over financial
reporting were effective, we cannot predict the outcome of our
testing in future periods. If our internal controls are
ineffective in future periods, our financial results or the
market price of our shares could be adversely affected. We will
incur additional expenses and commitment of managements
time in connection with further evaluations.
33
Our
dependence on suppliers for certain parts, some of them
sole-sourced, makes us vulnerable to manufacturing interruptions
and delays, which could affect our ability to meet customer
demand.
We are a manufacturing business. Purchased parts constitute the
largest component of our product cost. Our ability to
manufacture depends on the timely delivery of parts, components
and subassemblies from suppliers. We
obtain some of the key components and sub-assemblies used in our
products from a single supplier or a limited group of suppliers.
If any of our suppliers fail to deliver quality parts on a
timely basis, we may experience delays in manufacturing, which
could result in delayed product deliveries or increased costs to
expedite deliveries or develop alternative suppliers.
Development of alternative suppliers could require redesign of
our products.
Our
business depends on the integrity of our intellectual property
rights and failure to protect our intellectual property rights
adequately could have a material adverse effect on our
business.
The success of our business depends upon integrity of our
intellectual property rights, and we cannot assure you that:
|
|
|
|
|
any of our pending or future patent applications will be allowed
or that any of the allowed applications will be issued as
patents or will issue with claims of the scope we sought;
|
|
|
|
any of our patents will not be invalidated, deemed
unenforceable, circumvented or challenged;
|
|
|
|
the rights granted under our patents will provide competitive
advantages to us;
|
|
|
|
other parties will not develop similar products, duplicate our
products or design around our patents; or
|
|
|
|
our patent rights, intellectual property laws or our agreements
will adequately protect our intellectual property or competitive
position.
|
We may
be subject to claims of intellectual property
infringement.
From time to time, we have received claims that we are
infringing third parties intellectual property rights. We
cannot assure you that third parties will not in the future
claim that we have infringed current or future patents,
trademarks or other proprietary rights relating to our products.
Any claims, with or without merit, could be time-consuming,
result in costly litigation, cause product shipment delays or
require us to enter into royalty or licensing agreements. Such
royalty or licensing agreements, if required, may not be
available on terms acceptable to us.
Our
success is dependent on recruiting and retaining a highly
talented work force.
Our employees are vital to our success, and our key management,
engineering and other employees are difficult to replace. We
generally do not have employment contracts with our key
employees. Further, we do not maintain key person life insurance
on any of our employees. The expansion of high technology
companies worldwide has increased demand and competition for
qualified personnel, and has made companies increasingly
protective of prior employees. It may be difficult for us to
locate employees who are not subject to non-competition and
other restrictions.
Our U.S. operations are primarily located in
Santa Clara, California and Fremont, California, where the
cost of living and recruiting employees is high. Additionally,
our operating results depend, in large part, upon our ability to
retain and attract qualified management, engineering, marketing,
manufacturing, customer support, sales and administrative
personnel. Furthermore, we compete with similar industries, such
as the semiconductor industry, for the same pool of skilled
employees. If we are unable to retain key personnel, or if we
are not able to attract, assimilate or retain additional highly
qualified employees to meet our needs in the future, our
business and operations could be harmed.
Changes
in demand caused by fluctuations in interest and currency
exchange rates may reduce our international sales.
Sales and operating activities outside of the United States are
subject to inherent risks, including fluctuations in the value
of the U.S. dollar relative to foreign currencies, tariffs,
quotas, taxes and other market barriers, political
34
and economic instability, restrictions on the export or import
of technology, potentially limited intellectual property
protection, difficulties in staffing and managing international
operations and potentially adverse tax consequences. We earn a
significant portion of our revenue from international sales, and
there can be no assurance that any of these factors will not
have an adverse effect on our ability to sell our products or
operate outside the United States.
We currently quote and sell the majority of our products in
U.S. dollars. From time to time, we may enter into foreign
currency contracts in an effort to reduce the overall risk of
currency fluctuations to our business. However, there can be no
assurance that the offer and sale of products denominated in
foreign currencies, and the related foreign currency hedging
activities, will not adversely affect our business.
Our principal competitor for disk sputtering equipment is based
in Japan and has a cost structure based on the Japanese yen.
Accordingly, currency fluctuations could cause the price of our
products to be more or less competitive than our principal
competitors products. Currency fluctuations will decrease
or increase our cost structure relative to those of our
competitors, which could lessen the demand for our products and
affect our competitive position.
Difficulties
in integrating past or future acquisitions could adversely
affect our business.
We have completed a number of acquisitions during our operating
history and we recently announced the acquisition of certain
assets of DeltaNu, LLC. We have spent and will continue to spend
significant resources identifying and acquiring businesses. The
efficient and effective integration of our acquired businesses
into our organization is critical to our growth. Any future
acquisitions involve numerous risks including difficulties in
integrating the operations, technologies and products of the
acquired companies, the diversion of our managements
attention from other business concerns and the potential loss of
key employees of the acquired companies. Failure to achieve the
anticipated benefits of these and any future acquisitions or to
successfully integrate the operations of the companies we
acquire could also harm our business, results of operations and
cash flows. Any future acquisitions may also result in
potentially dilutive issuance of equity securities, acquisition-
or divestiture-related write-offs or the assumption of debt and
contingent liabilities.
We use
hazardous materials and are subject to risks of non-compliance
with environmental and safety regulations.
We are subject to a variety of governmental regulations relating
to the use, storage, discharge, handling, emission, generation,
manufacture, treatment and disposal of toxic or otherwise
hazardous substances, chemicals, materials or waste. If we fail
to comply with current or future regulations, such failure could
result in suspension of our operations, alteration of our
manufacturing process, or substantial civil penalties or
criminal fines against us or our officers, directors or
employees. Additionally, these regulations could require us to
acquire expensive remediation or abatement equipment or to incur
substantial expenses to comply with them. Failure to properly
manage the use, disposal or storage of, or adequately restrict
the release of, hazardous or toxic substances could subject us
to significant liabilities.
Future
sales of shares of our common stock by our officers, directors
and affiliates could cause our stock price to
decline.
Substantially all of our common stock may be sold without
restriction in the public markets, although shares held by our
directors, executive officers and affiliates may be subject to
volume and manner of sale restrictions. Sales of a substantial
number of shares of common stock in the public market by our
officers, directors or affiliates or the perception that these
sales could occur could materially and adversely affect our
stock price and make it more difficult for us to sell equity
securities in the future at a time and price we deem appropriate.
Anti-takeover
provisions in our charter documents and under Delaware law could
prevent or delay a change in control, which could negatively
impact the value of our common stock by discouraging a favorable
merger or acquisition of us.
Our certificate of incorporation authorizes our board of
directors to issue up to 10,000,000 shares of preferred
stock and to determine the powers, preferences, privileges,
rights, including voting rights, qualifications, limitations
35
and restrictions of those shares, without any further vote or
action by the shareholders. The rights of the holders of our
common stock will be subject to, and may be adversely affected
by, the rights of the holders of any preferred stock that we may
issue in the future. The issuance of preferred stock could have
the effect of delaying, deterring or preventing a change in
control and could adversely affect the voting power of your
shares. In addition, provisions of Delaware law and our bylaws
could make it more difficult for a third party to acquire a
majority of our outstanding voting stock by discouraging a
hostile bid, or delaying or deterring a merger, acquisition or
tender offer in which our shareholders could receive a premium
for their shares or a proxy contest for control of our company
or other changes in our management.
We
could be involved in litigation
From time to time we may be involved in litigation of various
types, including litigation alleging infringement of
intellectual property rights and other claims. For example, in
July 2006, we filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Unaxis
USA, Inc. and its affiliates Unaxis Balzers AG and Unaxis
Balzers, Ltd. alleging infringement by Unaxis of a patent
relating to our 200 Lean system. See Part II, Item 1
of this
Form 10-Q
for further information regarding this lawsuit. Litigation tends
to be expensive and requires significant management time and
attention and could have a negative effect on our results of
operations or business if we lose or have to settle a case on
significantly adverse terms.
Business
interruptions could adversely affect our
operations.
Our operations are vulnerable to interruption by fire,
earthquake or other natural disaster, quarantines or other
disruptions associated with infectious diseases, national
catastrophe, terrorist activities, war, disruptions in our
computing and communications infrastructure due to power loss,
telecommunications failure, human error, physical or electronic
security breaches and computer viruses, and other events beyond
our control. We do not have a fully implemented detailed
disaster recovery plan. Despite our implementation of network
security measures, our tools and servers are vulnerable to
computer viruses, break-ins and similar disruptions from
unauthorized tampering with our computer systems and tools
located at customer sites. Political instability could cause us
to incur increased costs in transportation, make such
transportation unreliable, increase our insurance costs and
cause international currency markets to fluctuate. This same
instability could have the same effects on our suppliers and
their ability to timely deliver their products. In addition, we
do not carry sufficient business interruption insurance to
compensate us for all losses that may occur, and any losses or
damages incurred by us could have a material adverse effect on
our business and results of operations. For example, we
self-insure earthquake risks, because we believe this is the
prudent financial decision based on the high cost of the limited
coverage available in the earthquake insurance market. An
earthquake could significantly disrupt our operations, most of
which are conducted in California. It could also significantly
delay our research and engineering effort on new products, most
of which is also conducted in California. We take steps to
minimize the damage that would be caused by an earthquake, but
there is no certainty that our efforts will prove successful in
the event of an earthquake.
Item 2. Unregistered
Sales of Equity Securities and Use of Proceeds
None.
Item 3. Defaults
upon Senior Securities
None.
36
Item 4. Submission
of Matters to a Vote of Security-Holders
Our annual meeting of shareholders was held May 15, 2007.
The following actions were taken at this meeting:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Abstentions
|
|
|
|
|
|
Affirmative
|
|
|
Negative
|
|
|
Votes
|
|
|
and Broker
|
|
|
|
|
|
Votes
|
|
|
Votes
|
|
|
Withheld
|
|
|
Non-Votes
|
|
|
(a)
|
|
Election of Directors
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Norman H. Pond
|
|
|
17,711,149
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,578,154
|
|
|
|
2,093,525
|
|
|
|
Kevin Fairbairn
|
|
|
18,338,660
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
950,643
|
|
|
|
2,093,525
|
|
|
|
David S. Dury
|
|
|
18,341,787
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
947,516
|
|
|
|
2,093,525
|
|
|
|
Stanley J. Hill
|
|
|
18,341,787
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
947,516
|
|
|
|
2,093,525
|
|
|
|
Robert Lemos
|
|
|
17,829,673
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,459,630
|
|
|
|
2,093,525
|
|
|
|
Ping Yang
|
|
|
17,829,573
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,459,730
|
|
|
|
2,093,525
|
|
(b)
|
|
Proposal to approve the
reincorporation of the Company from California to Delaware by
means of a merger with and into a wholly owned Delaware
subsidiary
|
|
|
14,734,284
|
|
|
|
1,621,571
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,933,448
|
|
(c)
|
|
Proposal to approve an amendment
to the 2004 Equity Incentive Plan to increase the number of
shares reserved for issuance thereunder by 900,000 shares
|
|
|
12,846,633
|
|
|
|
3,431,595
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3,011,075
|
|
(d)
|
|
Ratification of Grant Thornton LLP
as independent public accountants for the fiscal year ending
December 31, 2007
|
|
|
19,230,987
|
|
|
|
50,988
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7,328
|
|
|
|
Item 5.
|
Other
Information
|
None.
Item 6. Exhibits
The following exhibits are filed herewith:
|
|
|
|
|
Exhibit
|
|
|
Number
|
|
Description
|
|
|
31
|
.1
|
|
Certification of President and
Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to Section 302 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
|
|
31
|
.2
|
|
Certification of Vice President,
Finance and Administration, Chief Financial Officer, Treasurer
and Secretary Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002
|
|
32
|
.1
|
|
Certification Pursuant to U.S.C.
1350 adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes- Oxley
Act of 2002
|
37
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 9, 2007
|
|
By: /s/ KEVIN
FAIRBAIRN
Kevin
Fairbairn
President, Chief Executive Officer and Director
(Principal Executive Officer)
|
|
|
|
Date: August 9, 2007
|
|
By: /s/ CHARLES
B. EDDY III
Charles
B. Eddy III
Vice President, Finance and Administration,
Chief Financial Officer, Treasurer and Secretary
(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
|
38
Exhibit
Index
|
|
|
|
|
Exhibit
|
|
|
Number
|
|
Description
|
|
|
31
|
.1
|
|
Certification of President and
Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to Section 302 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
|
|
31
|
.2
|
|
Certification of Vice President,
Finance and Administration, Chief Financial Officer, Treasurer
and Secretary Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002
|
|
32
|
.1
|
|
Certification Pursuant to U.S.C.
1350 adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes- Oxley
Act of 2002
|