INTEST CORP - Annual Report: 2002 (Form 10-K)

From time to time, we make written or oral "forward-looking statements" within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, including statements contained in our filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission (including this Report on Form 10-K), our annual report to stockholders and in other communications. These statements do not convey historical information, but relate to predicted or potential future events, such as statements of our plans, strategies and intentions, or our future performance or goals, and can often be identified by the use of forward-looking terminology such as "believes", "expects", "intends", "may", "will", "should" or "anticipates" or similar terminology. Investors and prospective investors are cautioned that such statements are only projections. These statements involve risks and uncertainties and are based upon various assumptions. We discuss many of these risks and uncertainties under the heading "Risks That Could Affect Future Results" in "Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations," below, and elsewhere in this Report. These risks, among others, could cause our actual future results to differ materially from those described in our forward-looking statements or from our historic results. We are not obligated to update these forward-looking statements, even though our situation may change in the future.

INTRODUCTION

We are a leading independent designer, manufacturer and marketer of manipulator and docking hardware products, temperature management systems and tester interface products that are used by semiconductor manufacturers in conjunction with automatic test equipment, or ATE, in the testing of integrated circuits, or ICs. Our high performance products are designed to enable semiconductor manufacturers to improve the efficiency of their IC test processes and, consequently, their profitability. We supply our products worldwide to major semiconductor manufacturers directly and through leading ATE manufacturers. Our largest customers include Agilent Technologies, Texas Instruments, Teradyne, Cascade Microtech, Agere Systems, Electroglas, ST Microelectronics, Analog Devices and National Semiconductor.

We were incorporated in New Jersey in 1981 and reincorporated in Delaware in April 1997. We established inTEST Limited in the U.K. in 1985, inTEST Kabushiki Kaisha (inTEST K.K.) in Japan in 1987, inTEST PTE, Limited in Singapore in 1990 and inTEST GmbH in Germany in 2000. inTEST Limited designs, manufactures, markets and provides technical support for our products principally in Europe. inTEST K.K. acts as a liaison office with Japanese ATE manufacturers, and markets and provides technical support for our products in Japan. inTEST PTE, Limited designs, manufactures, markets and provides technical support to customers in Southeast Asia. inTEST GmbH provides sales and service in continental Europe for temperature management systems as well as sales and service for manipulator, docking hardware and tester interface products for selected accounts. In 1997, we completed our initial public offering. In 1998, we acquired all of the stock of TestDesign Corporation, which expanded our capabilities in the design, manufacture and marketing of tester interface products. On March 9, 2000, we acquired all of the stock of Temptronic Corporation, a designer, manufacturer and marketer of high-performance temperature management systems used in the testing of ICs, printed circuit boards and other subassemblies. On October 1, 2002, we acquired all of the stock of Intelogic Technologies GmbH, located in Rosenheim, Germany, a designer, manufacturer and marketer of manipulator and docking hardware products.

INDUSTRY

Overview

The semiconductor market has been characterized by rapid technological change, wide fluctuations in demand and shortening product life cycles. Designers and manufacturers of a variety of electronic and industrial products, such as cell phones, telecom and datacom systems, Internet access devices, computers and consumer electronics, require increasingly complex ICs to provide improved end-product performance demanded by their customers.

Semiconductor manufacturers generally compete based on product performance and price. We believe that testing costs represent a significant portion of the total cost of manufacturing ICs. As product life cycles shorten, semiconductor manufacturers are under more pressure to maximize production yields and reduce testing costs. At the same time, the growing complexity of ICs has increased the difficulty of maximizing test yields. In order to address these market trends, semiconductor manufacturers strive for more effective utilization of ATE, smaller test areas and increased wafer level testing.

The demand for new ATE and related equipment depends upon several factors, including the demand for products that incorporate ICs, the increasing complexity of ICs and the emergence of new IC design, production and packaging

- 3 -

technologies. Some of the newer IC technologies include the use of 300 mm wafers in production, system-on-a-chip, or SOC, where digital, analog and memory functions are combined on a single IC, and chip scale packaging. As a result of these and other advances, semiconductor manufacturers may require additional ATE not only to handle increases in production but also to handle more sophisticated testing requirements of ICs.

IC Test Process

Semiconductor manufacturers typically produce ICs in multiples of several hundred on a silicon wafer which is later separated or "diced" into individual ICs. Extended leads are then attached to the individual ICs, for later connection to other electrical components, before the ICs are put in a plastic, ceramic or other protective housing. This process step is called "packaging." Wafers are tested before being diced and packaged, to ensure that only properly functioning ICs are packaged. This testing step has several names including "front-end test," "wafer test" or "wafer probe." In front-end test, a piece of equipment known as a wafer prober automatically positions the wafer under a "test head," which connects electrically to a test system. Once the good ICs have been identified, they are packaged. The packaged IC also requires testing, called "back-end test," to determine if it meets design and performance specifications. Packaged ICs are placed into a machine called a handler, which then plugs the packaged ICs into an environmentally-controlled test head, which includes a test socket, for testing. "Wafer probers" and "handlers" are sometimes referred to in this Report as "electronic device handlers."

Testers range in price from approximately $100,000 to over $5.0 million each, depending primarily on the complexity of the IC to be tested and the number of test heads, typically one or two, with which each tester is configured. Probers and handlers range in price from approximately $50,000 to $500,000. A typical test floor of a large semiconductor manufacturer may have 100 test heads and 100 probers or 250 handlers supplied by various vendors for use at any one time.

Test head manipulators, also referred to as positioners, facilitate the movement of the test head to the electronic device handler. Docking hardware connects the test head to the wafer prober or handler. Tester interface products provide the electrical connection between the test head and the wafer or packaged IC. Traditionally, temperature management products are used in back-end test to allow a manufacturer to test packaged ICs under the extreme temperature conditions in which the IC may be required to operate. However, we believe that temperature-controlled testing will be an increasingly important part of front-end wafer testing as the demand for front-end testing grows.

Trends in IC Testing

Although the demand for ICs and ATE has been experiencing a severe cyclical downturn, we believe that when the cycle reverses and demand for ICs increases, the ATE industry will again be required to assist IC manufacturers not only to identify unacceptable products, but also to perform the IC test in the most efficient and cost-effective manner possible. To provide testing equipment that can help manufacturers meet this goal, the ATE industry must address the following issues:

Change in Technology. Currently, most semiconductor manufacturers use 150 mm and 200 mm wafer technology. In order to increase throughput and lower IC cost, semiconductor manufacturers will need to add 300 mm wafer production capability as existing 150 mm and 200 mm production capacity becomes more fully utilized. In addition, end-user applications are demanding ICs with increasingly higher performance, greater speeds, and smaller sizes. ICs that meet these higher standards are more complex and dense. SOC designs are likely to be more in demand in the future. These technology trends have significant implications for the IC testing process, including:

Need for Plug-Compatibility and Integration. Semiconductor manufacturers need test methodologies that will perform increasingly complex tests while lowering the overall cost of testing. This can require combining ATE manufactured by various companies into optimally performing systems. Semiconductor manufacturers have to work closely with various test hardware, software, interface and component vendors to resolve design and compatibility issues in order to make these vendors' products plug-compatible with test equipment manufactured by other vendors.

Testing Under Extreme Conditions. ICs will have to perform across a wider spectrum of temperature and environmental conditions than ever before because of the growing complexity of products in which they are deployed. Temperature testing will likely find an increasing role in front-end, wafer level testing. Creating a uniform thermal profile over much larger wafer areas represents a significant engineering and design challenge for ATE manufacturers.

- 4 -

Demand for Higher Levels of Technical Support. As IC testing becomes more complex, semiconductor manufacturers are increasingly demanding higher levels of technical support on a routine basis. ATE manufacturers must commit greater resources to technical support in order to develop close working relationships with their customers. This level of support also requires close proximity of service and support centers to customers' facilities.

Cost Reduction Through Increased Front-End Testing. As the cost of testing ICs increases, semiconductor manufacturers will continue to look for ways to streamline the testing process to make it more cost-effective. We believe that this factor will lead to more front-end, wafer level testing.

OUR SOLUTIONS

We focus our development efforts on designing and producing high quality products that provide superior performance and cost-effectiveness. We seek to address each manufacturer's individual needs through innovative and customized designs, use of the best materials available, quality manufacturing practices and personalized service. We design solutions to overcome the evolving challenges facing the ATE industry by providing the following advantages:

Scalable, Universal, High Performance Interface Technology. Our universal test head manipulators provide six degrees of motion freedom to enable a high degree of flexibility with the minimum amount of effort. As a result, our products can be used in virtually any test setting. Our manipulators have kept pace with the rapidly increasing size of test heads, which can weigh up to 3,000 pounds and which will become larger and heavier as the required level of testing sophistication increases. Our docking hardware offers precise control over the connection to test sockets, probing assemblies and interface boards, reducing downtime and minimizing costly damage to fragile components. Our tester interface products optimize the integrity of the transmitted signal between the test head and the device under test, increasing the accuracy of the test data. We believe that these characteristics will gain even more significance as testing becomes more complicated.

Compatibility and Integration. A hallmark of our products has been, and continues to be, compatibility with a wide variety of ATE. Our universal manipulators can handle test heads produced by different manufacturers. We also design and manufacture docking hardware that can be used with otherwise incompatible ATE. We believe this integrated approach to ATE facilitates smooth changeover from one tester to another, longer lives for interface components, better test results, increased ATE utilization and lower overall test costs.

Wafer Level Testing. Semiconductor manufacturers use our ThermoChuck(R) products for front-end temperature stress screening at the wafer level. This can provide significant cost savings from early identification of defective ICs that will not perform at specified temperatures thereby eliminating the costs of packaging and testing these defective ICs. ThermoChuck(R) products are capable of handling any size wafer, including a 300 mm wafer, for uniform, accurate and stable thermal testing without causing the wafer distortion that can occur as temperature changes are introduced.

Worldwide Customer Service and Support. We have long recognized the need to maintain a physical presence near our customers' facilities. We have manufacturing facilities in New Jersey, Massachusetts, California, the U.K., Germany and Singapore, and we provide service to our customers from 11 sales and service offices in the U.S., the U.K., Japan, Singapore and Germany. Our engineers are easily accessible to, and can work directly with, most of our customers from the time we begin developing our initial proposal through the delivery, installation and use of the product by our customer. In this way, we are able to develop and maintain close relationships with our customers.

OUR STRATEGY

Although demand for ICs and ATE has been experiencing a severe cyclical downturn, and much of our effort has been focused on reducing costs and conserving cash until the cycle reverses, we remain committed to our goal of being recognized in our industry as the designer and manufacturer of the highest quality products in our markets and to become a supplier for all of our customers' ATE needs, other than probers, handlers and testers. Our strategies to achieve these goals include the following:

Providing Technologically Advanced Solutions. We are committed to designing and producing only the highest quality products which incorporate innovative designs to achieve optimal cost-effectiveness and functionality for each customer's particular situation. Our engineering and design staff are continually engaged in developing new and improved products and manufacturing processes.

Leveraging our Strong Customer Relationships. Our technical personnel work closely with ATE manufacturers to design tester interface and docking hardware that are compatible with their ATE. As a result, we are often privy to proprietary technical data and information about these manufacturers' products. We believe that because we do not compete with ATE manufacturers in the prober, handler and tester markets, we have been able to establish strong collaborative relationships with these manufacturers that enable us to develop ancillary ATE products on an accelerated basis.

- 5 -

Continuing our International Expansion. Our existing and potential customers are concentrated in certain regions throughout the world. We believe that we must maintain a presence in the markets in which our customers operate. We currently have offices in the U.S., the U.K., Japan, Singapore and Germany.

Pursuing Synergistic Acquisitions. A key element of our growth strategy is to acquire businesses, technologies or products that are complementary to our current product offerings. Our TestDesign, Temptronic and Intelogic acquisitions have expanded our line of product offerings and have given us the opportunity to market a broader range of products to our customer base. We expect to make acquisitions that will further expand our product lines, enabling us to become a single source supplier to the test floor for a complete selection of equipment compatible with testers, probers and handlers of all manufacturers.


OUR PRODUCTS

We design and manufacture manipulators, docking hardware, temperature management systems and tester interface products, all of which are designed to improve the utilization and performance of ATE used by semiconductor manufacturers in the testing of ICs. Semiconductor manufacturers mainly use our primary lines of manipulators and docking hardware during back-end testing of specialized packaged ICs. They use our temperature management systems and tester interface products in both front-end and back-end testing of ICs. These ICs include microprocessors, digital signal processing chips, application specific ICs and specialized memory ICs, and are used primarily in the automotive, computer, consumer products and telecommunications industries. We custom design most of our products for each customer's particular combination of ATE. We have designed over 5,000 models, each of which is mechanically different. These models are designed to facilitate the use of one or more of over 175 different test heads with one or more of over 30 probers or 300 handlers.

Manipulator Products

We offer two lines of manipulator products. The inTEST line of manipulator products consists of the in2(R) and the in2 Pro test head positioners, which are free-standing universal manipulators. Universal manipulators can hold a variety of test heads and enable an operator to reposition a test head for alternate use with any one of several probers or handlers on a test floor. The in2(R) and in2 Pro differ from universal manipulators manufactured by our competitors due to our innovative, patented floating-head design. This design permits a test head weighing up to 3,000 pounds to be held in an effectively weightless state, so it can be moved manually or, in the case of the in2 Pro, with optional powered assistance, up or down, right or left, forward or backward and rotated around each axis (known as six degrees of motion freedom) by an operator using a modest amount of force. The same design features enable the operator to dock the test interface board without causing inadvertent damage to the fragile electrical contacts. As a result, after testing a particular production lot of ICs, the operator can quickly and easily disconnect a test head held in an in2(R) or in2 Pro manipulator and equipped with our docking hardware and dock it to another electronic device handler for testing either a subsequent lot of the same packaged IC or to test a different IC. in2(R) and in2 Pro manipulators range in price from approximately $12,000 to $159,000.

The Intelogic line of manipulator products consists of the Grizzly and Muli manipulators. The Grizzly 2000 is an automatic test-head positioning system capable of handling test heads up to 1,300 pounds. This manipulator, which also has six degrees of motion freedom, is optimized for docking with vertical plane package handlers used in back-end testing. It features a moveable-cart design to achieve a small footprint relative to the test head size. The Muli 400 and 500 manipulators are universal manipulators designed to handle test heads weighing less than 550 pounds. The up and down movement is supported by an air-pressure-based floating state technology. Grizzly and Muli manipulators range in price from approximately $12,000 to $78,000.

Docking Hardware Products

Our docking hardware products ensure proper repeatable and precise alignment of the delicate interface between the test head's interface board and the prober's probing assembly or the handler's test socket as they are brought together, or "docked." A simple cam action docks and locks the test head to the prober or handler, thus eliminating motion of the test head relative to the prober or handler. This minimizes deterioration of the interface boards, test sockets and probing assemblies which is caused by the constant vibration during testing. Our docking hardware products are used primarily with floating-head universal manipulators when maximum mobility and inter-changeability of handlers between test heads is required. By using our docking hardware products, semiconductor manufacturers can achieve cost savings through improved ATE utilization, improved accuracy and integrity of test results, and reduced repairs and replacements of expensive ATE interface products.

Our docking hardware products differ from those offered by competing ATE manufacturers by our ability to make various competing brands of test heads compatible with various brands of probers and handlers used by a semiconductor manufacturer by only changing interface boards. This is called "plug-compatibility." Plug-compatibility enables increased flexibility and utilization of test heads, probers and handlers purchased from various manufacturers. We believe that because we do not

- 6 -

compete with ATE manufacturers in the sale of probers, handlers or testers, ATE manufacturers are willing to provide us with the information that is integral to the design of plug-compatible products. Our docking hardware products range in price from approximately $2,000 to $25,000.

Temperature Management Systems

Our temperature management systems enable a manufacturer to test a semiconductor wafer or IC over the extreme and variable temperature conditions that can occur in the actual use of the electronic device containing the ICs.

ThermoChuck(R) Products: Our ThermoChuck(R) precision vacuum platform assemblies quickly change and stabilize the temperature of semiconductor wafers accurately and uniformly during testing without removing the wafer from its testing environment. Such temperatures can range from as low as -65 degrees Celsius to as high as +400 degrees Celsius. ThermoChucks(R) are incorporated into wafer prober equipment for laboratory analysis and for in-line production testing of semiconductor wafers. ThermoChuck(R) products range in price from approximately $14,000 to $105,000.

ThermoStream(R) Products: Our ThermoStream(R) stand-alone temperature management systems use a temperature-controlled air stream to rapidly change and stabilize the temperature of packaged ICs and printed circuit boards. ThermoStream(R) products provide a source of heated and cooled air which can be directed over the component or device under test. These systems are capable of controlling temperatures to within +/- 0.1 degree Celsius over a range of -80 degrees Celsius to as high as +225 degrees Celsius within 1.0 degree Celsius of accuracy. Traditionally, our customers used ThermoStream(R) products primarily in engineering, quality assurance and small-run manufacturing environments. However, increasingly, our customers use ThermoStream(R) products in longer-run production applications. ThermoStream(R) products range in price from approximately $4,500 to $40,000.

Other Temperature Management Products: We also manufacture ancillary temperature management products including temperature-controlled contact probes, temperature-controlled enclosures, and precision temperature platforms. Recent developments in wireless communications have resulted in the mounting of wireless transmitters outdoors to reduce transmission line problems. As a result, these transmitters are exposed to extreme temperature variations and require testing over the full range of temperature exposure that will be encountered. Historically, the standard approach to this type of testing has been to use conventional thermal chambers, which can require removing equipment during testing, which could potentially cause damage to the sensitive microwave cables or create erroneous measurements. Our other temperature management products can be used to provide a closed, temperature-controlled environment for temperature testing of high frequency transmitters and receivers without the need for removal during testing, eliminating the risk of damage due to interruption of the test. Other temperature management products range in price from $4,500 to $25,000.

Tester Interface Products

Tester interface products provide the electrical connections between the tester and the wafer prober or IC handler to carry the electrical signals between the tester and the probe card on the prober or the test socket on the handler. Our designs optimize the integrity of the transmitted signal which increases the accuracy of the test data. Therefore, our tester interface products can be used with high speed, high frequency, digital or mixed signal interfaces used in testing more complex ICs. Because our tester interface products enable the tester to provide more reliable yield data, our interfaces may also reduce IC production costs. We offer over 200 different types of tester interface models that we custom designed for our customers' specific applications. These products range in price from approximately $6,000 to $64,000.

Financial Information About Product Segments and Geographic Areas

Please refer to Note 4 of our consolidated financial statements included in this Report for additional data regarding each of our product segments and revenues attributable to foreign countries.

MARKETING, SALES AND CUSTOMER SUPPORT

We market and sell our products in all markets where the manufacture of semiconductors occurs. North American and European semiconductor manufacturers have located most of their back-end factories in Southeast Asia. The front-end wafer fabrication plants of U.S. semiconductor manufacturers are primarily in the U.S. Likewise, European, Taiwanese, South Korean and Japanese semiconductor manufacturers generally have located their wafer fabrication plants in their respective countries.

Manipulator, Docking Hardware and Tester Interface Products: In North America, we sell to semiconductor manufacturers principally through independent, commissioned sales representatives. North American sales representatives also coordinate product installation and support with our technical staff and participate in trade shows.

- 7 -

Our regional and account managers handle sales to ATE manufacturers and are responsible for a portfolio of customer accounts and for managing certain independent sales representatives. In addition, our account managers are responsible for pricing, quotations, proposals and transaction negotiations, and they assist with applications engineering and custom product design. Technical support is provided to North American customers and independent sales representatives by employees based in New Jersey, California, Texas and Arizona.

In Europe, Singapore and Japan, we sell to semiconductor and ATE manufacturers through our account managers. In China, Singapore, Hong Kong, Malaysia, the Philippines, South Korea, Taiwan and Thailand, we sell through independent sales representatives and distributors. International sales representatives and distributors are responsible for sales, installation, support and trade show participation in their geographic market areas.

Temperature Management Systems: Sales to ATE manufacturers are handled directly by our own sales force. Sales to semiconductor manufacturers in the U.S. are handled through independent sales representative organizations. In Singapore, Malaysia and Indonesia, our sales and service are handled through our own sales and service personnel. In the rest of Asia, our sales to semiconductor manufacturers are handled through distributors. In Europe, sales managers at our offices in Germany and the U.K., as well as regional distributors, sell directly to semiconductor manufacturers. Our distributors represent us in 30 countries. We visit our distributors regularly and have trained them to sell and service all of our temperature management products.


CUSTOMERS

We market all of our products to semiconductor manufacturers and ATE manufacturers. In the case of temperature management products, we also market our products to independent testers of semiconductors, manufacturers of electronic, automotive and aeronautical products, and semiconductor research facilities. Our customers use our products principally in production testing, although our ThermoStream(R) products traditionally have been used largely in engineering development and quality assurance. We believe that we sell to most major semiconductor manufacturers in the world.

Our largest customers include:

MANUFACTURING AND SUPPLY

Our principal manufacturing operations consist of assembly and testing at our facilities in New Jersey, Massachusetts, California, the U.K., Germany and Singapore. By maintaining manufacturing facilities and technical support in geographic markets where most of our customers are located, we believe that we are able to respond more quickly and effectively to our customers' needs. During the fourth quarter of 2002, we acquired our German manufacturing operation.

We assemble most of our products from a combination of standard components and custom parts that have been fabricated to our specifications by either third party manufacturers or our own fabrication operations in New Jersey, California and the U.K. Our practice is to use the highest quality raw materials and components in our products. The primary raw materials used in fabricated parts are all widely available. We purchase substantially all of our components from multiple suppliers. Although we purchase certain raw materials and components from single suppliers, we believe that all materials and components are available in adequate amounts from other sources.

We conduct inspections of incoming raw materials, fabricated parts and components using sophisticated measurement equipment. This includes testing with coordinate measuring machines in New Jersey, California, Massachusetts, the U.K., Germany and Singapore to ensure that products with critical dimensions meet our specifications. We have designed our inspection standards to comply with applicable MIL specifications and ANSI standards. We obtained ISO 9001 certification at our New Jersey facility in 2001 and are in the process of applying for similar certification for our California and Massachusetts operations.

ENGINEERING AND PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT

Our success depends on our ability to provide our customers with products and solutions that are well engineered, and to design those products and solutions before, or at least no later than, our competitors. As of December 31, 2002, we employed a total of 45 engineers, who were engaged full time in engineering and product development. Our practice in many cases is to assign engineers to work with specific customers, thereby enabling us to develop the relationships and free exchange of information that is most conducive to successful product development and enhancement. In addition, some of our engineers are assigned to new product research and development and have worked on such projects as the redesign of the ThermoChuck(R) and the development of several new types of universal manipulators.

Since most of our products are customized, we consider substantially all of our engineering activities to be engineering and product development. We spent approximately $5.7 million in 2002, $6.1 million in 2001 and $6.6 million in 2000 on engineering and product development.


PATENTS AND OTHER PROPRIETARY RIGHTS

As of December 31, 2002, we held 28 active U.S. patents and had pending 21 U.S. patent applications covering various aspects of our technology. Our U.S. issued patents will expire at various times beginning in 2003 and extending through 2020. We also hold foreign patents and file foreign patent applications, in each case derived from our U.S. patents, to the extent management deems appropriate.

Our policy is to protect our technology by filing patent applications for the technologies that we consider important to our business. We also rely on trade secrets and unpatentable know-how to protect our proprietary rights. It is our practice to require, as a condition of permanent employment, that all of our employees agree to assign to us all rights to inventions or other discoveries relating to our business made while employed by us. In addition, all employees agree not to disclose any private or confidential information relating to our technology or intellectual property.


COMPETITION

Our competitors include independent manufacturers, ATE manufacturers and, to a lesser extent, semiconductor manufacturers' in-house ATE interface groups. Competitive factors in our market include product performance, price, functionality, reliability, customer service, applications support, and timely product delivery. We believe that our long-term relationships with the industry's leading semiconductor manufacturers and other customers, and our commitment to and reputation for providing high quality products are important elements in our ability to compete effectively in all of our markets.

The independent manufacturers of docking hardware and manipulators that compete with us include Reid-Ashman Manufacturing and Microhandling GmbH, both of which manufacture docking hardware and manipulators. The ATE manufacturers that compete with us in the sale of docking hardware and universal manipulators include Credence Systems and Teradyne, who are also our customers.

Our principal competitors for temperature management products are Thermonics, Trio-Tech International and ERS Elektronik GmbH. The independent manufacturers of tester interface products that compete with us include Cerprobe, a division of Kulicke & Soffa, Synergetix, a division of IDI, and Xandex. ATE manufacturers that compete with us in the sale of tester interface products include Credence Systems, LTX and Teradyne.

BACKLOG

At December 31, 2002, our backlog of unfilled orders for all products was approximately $9.8 million compared with approximately $10.6 million at December 31, 2001. Our backlog includes customer purchase orders which we have accepted, substantially all of which we expect to deliver in 2003. While backlog is calculated on the basis of firm purchase orders, a customer may cancel an order or accelerate or postpone currently scheduled delivery dates. As a result, our backlog at a particular date is not necessarily indicative of sales for any future period.

EMPLOYEES

At December 31, 2002, we had 249 full time employees, including 109 in manufacturing operations, 103 in customer support/operations and 37 in administration. Substantially all of our key employees are highly skilled and trained technical personnel. None of our employees is represented by a labor union, and we have never experienced a work stoppage. We believe that our relationship with our employees is very good.

At December 31, 2002, we leased 11 facilities worldwide. During the fourth quarter of 2002, we acquired Intelogic Technologies GmbH, which has an approximately 5,000 square foot manufacturing facility in Rosenheim, Germany. We believe that we currently have adequate space to meet our current and foreseeable future needs.

The following chart provides information regarding each of our principal facilities which we occupied at December 31, 2002.

From time to time we may be a party to legal proceedings occurring in the ordinary course of business. We are not currently involved in any material legal proceedings.

On March 14, 2003, we settled and dismissed a suit we had initiated in December 2000 against Credence Systems Corporation claiming infringement of our U.S. patent number 4,589,815. Pursuant to the settlement, Credence made a cash payment to us in March 2003, and we established non-exclusive, fully paid cross-licensing agreements with respect to certain patents. In addition, Credence has agreed to utilize our manipulators with its ASL 3000 family of test systems.

No matters were submitted to a vote during the fourth quarter of 2002.

Our common stock is traded on the Nasdaq National Market under the symbol "INTT." The following table sets forth the high and low sale prices of our common stock, as reported on the Nasdaq National Market, for the periods indicated. Sale prices have been rounded to the nearest full cent.

On March 14, 2003, the closing price for our common stock as reported on the Nasdaq National Market was $3.01. As of March 14, 2003, we had 8,324,357 shares outstanding that were held of record by approximately 1,000 shareholders.

We have not paid dividends on our common stock since our initial public offering, and we do not plan to pay cash dividends in the foreseeable future. Our current policy is to retain any future earnings for reinvestment in the operation and expansion of our business, including possible acquisitions of other businesses, technologies or products. Payment of any future dividends will be at the discretion of our board of directors. In addition, our current credit agreement prohibits us from paying cash dividends without the lender's prior consent.

The following table shows the number of securities that may be issued pursuant to our equity compensation plans (including individual compensation arrangements):

The following table contains certain selected consolidated financial data of inTEST and is qualified by the more detailed Consolidated Financial Statements and Notes thereto included elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K and should be read in conjunction with "Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations" and the other financial information included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

Overview

Our business and results of operations are substantially dependent upon the demand for ATE by semiconductor manufacturers and companies that specialize in the testing of ICs. Demand for ATE is driven by semiconductor manufacturers that are opening new, or expanding existing, semiconductor fabrication facilities or upgrading existing equipment, which in turn is dependent upon the current and anticipated market demand for semiconductors and products incorporating semiconductors. The semiconductor industry has been highly cyclical with recurring periods of oversupply, which often have a severe impact on the semiconductor industry's demand for ATE, including the products we manufacture. This cyclicality has been clearly demonstrated during the past six years, with downward cycles in 1996, 1998 and 2001-2002 and up cycles in 1997 and 1999-2000.

Net Revenues and Bookings

The most recent downturn, which began during the fourth quarter of 2000, is the most severe downturn the ATE industry has ever experienced. Our consolidated quarterly net revenues declined from a peak of $24.5 million for the quarter ended September 30, 2000 to $7.0 million for the quarter ended March 31, 2002, a decline of approximately 72%. The decrease we experienced in net revenues during this period was comparable to the peak to trough differences being experienced by most of the companies in our industry. The approximate peak to trough percentage decline in quarterly net revenues by product segment was 92% in the tester interface segment (fourth quarter 2001), 75% in the positioner/docking hardware segment (fourth quarter 2001) and 63% in the temperature management segment (first quarter 2002). We believe the larger percentage decline in the net revenues of our tester interface segment was primarily due to the fact that these product sales are driven predominantly by semiconductor manufacturers' additions to production capacity, which essentially ceased during 2001. We believe the smaller percentage decline in the net revenues of our temperature management segment was the result of certain products of this segment being used in the research and product development projects of semiconductor manufacturers, which did not decline as significantly as the demand for other segments during 2001.

During the second quarter of 2002, our consolidated net revenues increased quarter over quarter for the first time since the third quarter of 2000. This trend continued in the third quarter of 2002 as our net revenues increased $2.0 million or 16% from the prior quarter to a total of $15.0 million. However, this trend reversed itself during the fourth quarter of 2002, when our consolidated net revenues declined to $12.2 million, a decrease of $2.8 million or 18%. This decline is not considered by many in the industry to be the beginning of another downturn but instead represents the continuation of the downturn which began in late 2000. The current industry consensus is that the two quarters of revenue growth during 2002 may have represented a correction of the significant under-spending that occurred in 2001 and not the beginning of the next up cycle. This view is supported by the decline in our consolidated quarterly net new orders booked ("bookings") in the third and fourth quarters of 2002. While bookings of $47.2 million for 2002 increased $4.6 million or 11% over 2001, bookings for the third quarter of 2002 declined 6% from the second quarter and bookings for the fourth quarter of 2002 declined 40% from the third quarter. These declines were accompanied by requests from some of our large customers to delay the scheduled shipment dates of units previously ordered that we had expected to ship in the first quarter of 2003. Accordingly, we currently expect our sales for the first quarter to decline from the level of the fourth quarter and to be in the range of $9.0 to $9.5 million. This decline in sales is expected to result in a net loss ranging from approximately $(0.15) to $(0.17) per diluted share in the first quarter of 2003. We cannot be sure when the current downturn will end or what the rate of increase will be when the next cyclical growth phase does occur.

Cost Containment Initiatives

In response to the severe downturn, we implemented significant cost containment initiatives during 2001 to reduce operating losses and preserve cash. These initiatives were completed in several stages as the magnitude of the downturn became more apparent throughout 2001. The most significant cost reduction was in personnel, where we reduced headcount by 38% or 144 people. In addition, we implemented a temporary 10% reduction in compensation for all worldwide employees as well as a temporary elimination of matching contributions to retirement plans for all domestic employees. Significant reductions were also made in corporate travel, advertising, professional services and supplies. The result of our 2001 cost containment efforts is reflected in the level of operating expenses, which declined from a peak of $7.3 million for the quarter ended December 31,

- 12 -

2000, to $3.8 million for the quarter ended March 31, 2002. Operating expenses increased to $4.9 million for the second quarter of 2002 and increased again in the third and fourth quarters of 2002 to $5.7 million. These increases are primarily a result of the return of certain benefits as discussed below, as well as increases in commissions and other sales related expenditures, as more fully discussed under Results of Operations.

The goal of the cost containment initiatives implemented throughout 2001 was to reduce fixed operating costs to a level which, based on our then current revenue projections, would allow us to maintain our level of cash while still continuing our research and development programs and positioning ourselves such that, as the market improved, we would be able to be a prime supplier for both new and existing technologies developed by our customers. With the increases that we experienced in both bookings and net revenues during the first half of 2002, we began to evaluate whether we could return to our employees the benefits which had been reduced or eliminated as part of our cost containment efforts. Each facility was evaluated based upon its then current and projected operations and profitability, and employee compensation and benefits were restored where it was deemed appropriate. However, when we began experiencing declines in our bookings during the third quarter of 2002, as well as customer order delays, both of which resulted in the reduced net revenues during the fourth quarter, we again temporarily eliminated employee benefits and instituted additional expense controls in certain facilities.

Given the recent declines in our bookings and projected net revenues for the first quarter of 2003, and the general uncertainty in the industry regarding when the current downturn will end, we are continuing to monitor our costs and cash balances closely. Should the current downward trend be further prolonged, we are prepared to take the actions necessary to preserve cash.

On October 1, 2002, we acquired Intelogic Technologies GmbH ("Intelogic"), a privately-held German corporation. Intelogic is engaged in the design, manufacture and sale of positioner and docking hardware products used by semiconductor manufacturers. We acquired Intelogic to obtain technologies we believe will be beneficial to the further development of our positioner and docking hardware products, as well as to gain better access to the German ATE markets, where historically we have not been successful in increasing our market share. The purchase price consisted of a cash payment of $395,000, plus transaction costs of approximately $185,000. In addition, up to 200,000 shares of our stock will be issued to the seller if certain revenue targets are achieved during 2003 and 2004. Immediately after the acquisition, we made additional cash payments of $190,000 to retire outstanding shareholder loans and bank debt. In connection with the acquisition, we recorded goodwill and other intangible assets of approximately $710,000. (See Note 3 to our consolidated financial statements.)

Customer Mix

We sell our products to both semiconductor manufacturers (end user sales) and to ATE manufacturers (OEM sales) who ultimately resell our equipment with theirs to semiconductor manufacturers. The mix of customers during any given period will affect our gross margin due to differing sales discounts and commissions. Prior to 2000, the majority of our positioner, docking hardware and tester interface product sales were made directly to semiconductor manufacturers, with sales to these end users typically in the range of 65% to 75% of our net revenues. However, since the beginning of 2000, many semiconductor manufacturers have shown a preference for purchasing from a single source the various components of the ATE (excluding temperature management systems) that they need. Typically, this source is the tester manufacturer, who manufacturers the largest and most expensive components of the ATE system. Our OEM sales as a percentage of net revenues for the years ended December 31, 2000, 2001 and 2002 were 41%, 54% and 43%, respectively, for positioner/docking hardware products and 42%, 70% and 62%, respectively, for tester interface products. The declines in the percentage of sales to OEM's in both product segments in 2002 reflects the return of demand by certain semiconductor customers who prefer to acquire their equipment directly from us. We anticipate that OEM sales as a percentage of net revenues for our positioner/docking hardware and tester interface product segments will range from 35% to 55% in future periods. In our temperature management segment, OEM sales as a percentage of net revenues were 45%, 32% and 36% for the years ended December 31, 2000, 2001 and 2002, respectively. We anticipate that OEM sales as a percentage of net revenues for our temperature management segment will range from 30% to 40%.

The impact of an increase in OEM sales as a percentage of net revenues is a reduction in our gross margin, as OEM sales have a more significant discount than end user sales. Our current net operating margins on most OEM sales for these product segments, however, are only slightly less than margins on end user sales because of the payment of third party sales commissions on most end user sales. We also expect to continue to experience demands from our OEM customers' supply line management groups to reduce our sales prices to them. This continued price pressure may have the ultimate effect of reducing our gross and operating margins if we cannot further reduce our manufacturing and operating costs.

- 13 -

We believe that purchases of most of our products are typically made from semiconductor manufacturers' capital expenditure budgets. Certain portions of our business, however, are generally less dependent upon the capital expenditure budgets of the end users. For example, purchases of certain related ATE interface products, such as sockets and interface boards, which must be replaced periodically, are typically made from the end users' operating budgets. In addition, purchases of certain of our products, such as docking hardware, for the purpose of upgrading or to improve the utilization, performance and efficiency of existing ATE, tend to be counter cyclical to sales of new ATE. Moreover, we believe a portion of our sales of temperature management products results from the increasing need for temperature testing of circuit boards and specialized components that do not have the design or quantity to be tested in an electronic device handler. We believe that this business usually is less cyclical than new ATE sales. However, during the current downward cycle we have seen our customers' orders for these types of products decline as much, or in some cases, more than the other products we offer as compared with prior periods of reduced capital spending for ATE. We attribute this in part to reductions in our customers' operating budgets combined with significant excess capacity that we believe exists throughout the industry. We believe that much of this excess capacity is the result of capital equipment purchases made during the recent, prolonged expansion in the industry, and therefore this newer equipment did not need to be upgraded or improved.

Please refer to the section entitled "Risks That Could Affect Future Results" below for a discussion of other important factors that could cause our results to differ materially from our prior results or those expressed or implied by our forward-looking statements.

Results of Operations

All of our products are used by semiconductor manufacturers in conjunction with ATE in the testing of ICs. Consequently, the results of operations for each product segment are generally affected by the same factors. Separate discussions and analyses for each product segment would be repetitive and obscure any unique factors that affected the results of operations of our different product segments. The discussion and analysis that follows, therefore, is presented on a consolidated basis for the Company as a whole and includes discussion of factors unique to each product segment where significant to an understanding of such business.

Year Ended December 31, 2002 Compared to Year Ended December 31, 2001

Net Revenues. Net revenues were $47.1 million for 2002 compared to $51.6 million for 2001, a decrease of $4.5 million or 9%. Net revenues for our temperature management segment decreased $8.5 million or 33%. This decline was offset by increases in net revenues in both our positioner/docking hardware and tester interface segments of $726,000 or 4% and $3.2 million or 55%, respectively. We believe that the significant decrease in net revenues for our temperature management segment reflects the severe cyclical downturn in demand for ATE in the industry generally and, more specifically, the demand for products used in research and product development by semiconductor manufacturers declined in 2002 compared to 2001. We believe the increase in net revenues for our positioner/docking hardware segment reflected the aforementioned increased demand we experienced for our products in the second and third quarters of 2002, due to significant under spending in 2001. We believe the significant increase in the net revenues of our tester interface segment was primarily the result of increases in market share achieved in 2002, and to a lesser extent, the increased demand for our products in the second and third quarters of 2002.

Gross Margin. Gross margin increased to 39% in 2002 from 25% in 2001. The increase in gross margin in 2002 is primarily the result of a decrease in component material costs as a percentage of net revenues which reflects lower levels of fabrication costs due to process improvements as well as the mix of products sold and, to a lesser extent, a decrease in OEM sales as a percentage of total sales in 2002 compared to 2001, as previously discussed. Significant charges for inventory obsolescence were recorded during both 2002 and 2001 as a result of the continued downturn in the industry which had caused items in our inventory to become obsolete.

Selling Expense. Selling expense was $8.5 million for 2002 compared to $8.8 million for 2001, a decrease of $276,000 or 3%. We attribute the decrease primarily to decreased commission expense due to the lower sales levels at our temperature management segment. However, this trend was partially offset by higher commissions paid on end user sales in both our positioner/docking hardware and tester interface product segments where end user sales increased in 2002 compared to 2001. In addition, salary and benefit expenditures decreased in 2002 as compared to 2001, primarily as a result of our cost containment program.

Engineering and Product Development Expense. Engineering and product development expense was $5.7 million for 2002 compared to $6.1 million for 2001, a decrease of $464,000 or 8%. We attribute the decrease primarily to reduced salary and benefit expense resulting from our cost containment program, and to a lesser extent, reduced expenditures for travel. These declines were partially offset by increased spending on product development initiatives in 2002 compared to 2001.

- 14 -

General and Administrative Expense. General and administrative expense was $5.9 million for 2002 compared to $7.9 million for 2001, a decrease of $2.0 million or 25%. We attribute the decrease primarily to the elimination of goodwill amortization in 2002, reduced salary and benefit expense and lower expenditures for travel. In addition, there were reductions in spending on professional services, outside directors' fees and data processing. The reduction in salary and benefits expense reflects the results of our cost containment program, combined with the fact that 2001 included an accrual for separation payments to a former executive of one of our subsidiaries. The reductions in all other areas, with the exception of goodwill amortization, reflect the results of our cost containment program.

Impairment of Goodwill. During the third quarter of 2001, due to the significant decline in our operations that had occurred over the preceding four quarters, we determined that an assessment of our goodwill for impairment under the provisions of Statement of Financial Accounting Standards ("SFAS") No. 121, Accounting for the Impairment of Long-Lived Assets and for Long-Lived Assets to be Disposed Of, was warranted. As a result of this assessment, we concluded that no impairment was indicated for the goodwill associated with our foreign subsidiaries; however, a $4.6 million impairment charge was recorded for the goodwill associated with TestDesign, which was the net book value of this goodwill as of that date.

In June 2001, the Financial Accounting Standards Board ("FASB") issued SFAS No. 142, Goodwill and Other Intangible Assets, which superceded the provisions of SFAS No. 121 related to the assessment of goodwill for impairment. SFAS No. 142 was effective for us as of January 1, 2002. Under SFAS No. 142, we are required to assess our goodwill for impairment at least annually, or more often if circumstances warrant. In accordance with the provisions of SFAS No. 142, we completed the first step of the transitional goodwill impairment test as well as the annual goodwill impairment test and concluded that there was no further impairment of goodwill. See Note 2 to the consolidated financial statements.

Other Income. Other income was $143,000 for 2002 compared to $551,000 for 2001, a decrease of $408,000 or 74%. The decline is primarily the result of reduced levels of interest income, due to lower interest rates, foreign exchange translation losses and reductions in the level of third party royalty income from the licensing of our intellectual property caused by the continued industry downturn.

Income Tax Benefit. Income tax benefit was $1.4 million for 2002 compared to $2.8 million for 2001. Our effective tax rate for 2002 was 83% compared to 20% for 2001. During 2002 we recorded a one-time tax benefit of approximately $750,000. This benefit resulted from our filing amended prior year returns to claim additional research and experimentation credits. During 2001 we recorded a non-tax deductible charge for the impairment of goodwill of $4.6 million.

Year Ended December 31, 2001 Compared to Year Ended December 31, 2000

Net Revenues. Net revenues were $51.6 million for 2001 compared to $87.7 million for 2000, a decrease of $36.1 million or 41%. While the positioner/docking hardware and tester interface segments' net revenues decreased $19.6 million or 49% and $8.7 million or 59%, respectively, during 2001 as compared to 2000, the net revenues for the temperature management segment decreased by only $7.8 million or 23% in 2001 as compared to 2000. We believe that the decrease in net revenues for all of our product segments reflects the severe cyclical downturn in demand for ATE in 2001 as compared to 2000. However, we attribute the smaller percentage decrease in the net revenues of our temperature management segment to continued demand for our Thermostream(R) products which partially offset the effects of the current downturn on this product segment.

Gross Margin. Gross margin decreased to 25% in 2001 from 45% in 2000. We attribute the decrease in gross margin to several factors including the $3.4 million write-down of obsolete inventory during 2001. This inventory write-down was made as a result of the continued downturn in our industry, which has caused items in our inventory to become obsolete. For our positioner/docking hardware and tester interface segments, the decline is primarily the result of a reduction in the absorption of fixed operating costs due to the significantly lower levels of revenue in 2001 compared to 2000 and an increase in component material costs as a percentage of net revenues. The increase in component material costs as a percentage of net revenues is primarily the result of an increase in OEM sales as a percentage of total sales, as previously discussed, as well as increases in the cost of aluminum which is a significant raw material component used in these products. In addition, for our positioner/docking hardware segment, the decline in gross margin is also the result of increases in fixed operating costs due to facility expansions in the U.S., the U.K. and Singapore. We believe this increased capacity adequately addressed the capacity constraints that impacted product shipments during most of 2000. For temperature management products, the decline in gross margin was the result of higher component material costs and increases in fixed operating costs. The higher fixed operating costs are due to a facility expansion in early 2001, and were partially offset by a decrease in salaries due to headcount reductions in the operations area.

- 15 -

Selling Expense. Selling expense was $8.8 million for 2001 compared to $11.7 million for 2000, a decrease of $2.9 million or 25%. We attribute the decrease primarily to decreased commission expense due to the lower sales levels. In addition, salaries, travel and advertising expenditures decreased in 2001 as compared to 2000, primarily as a result of the implementation of our cost containment program.

Engineering and Product Development Expense. Engineering and product development expense was $6.1 million for 2001 compared to $6.6 million for 2000, a decrease of $444,000 or 7%. We attribute the decrease primarily to reduced salary expense resulting from the cost containment program. In addition, our expenditures for research and development materials and travel decreased in our tester interface product segment. These decreases were offset partially by an increase in spending on third party consultants involved in various product development programs.

General and Administrative Expense. General and administrative expense was $7.9 million for 2001 compared to $7.3 million, an increase of $629,000 or 9%. We attribute the increase primarily to an increase in salary expense resulting from the accrual of separation payments relating to a prior contractual arrangement with a former executive of a subsidiary. In addition, there were increases in both legal and audit expenses. These increases were partially offset by decreases in profit-related bonuses, reductions in salaries for remaining employees, bad debt recoveries, reductions in directors' fees and reduced spending on supplies.

Impairment of Goodwill. We performed an impairment assessment of our goodwill as of September 30, 2001, due to the current industry downturn. As a result of this assessment, a $4.6 million impairment charge was recorded for the goodwill associated with TestDesign, which was the net book value of this goodwill as of that date. No impairment was indicated for the goodwill that is associated with three of our foreign subsidiaries, which had a net book value of $933,000 at December 31, 2001.

Merger-related Costs. Merger-related costs totaling $2.7 million were recorded during 2000 as a result of our merger with Temptronic Corporation. There were no merger-related costs during 2001.

Write-off of Deferred Offering Costs. During September 2000, we withdrew our registration statement for the offering of 2.0 million shares of our common stock, 1.0 million of which were to be offered by us and 1.0 million by certain of our stockholders. Approximately $415,000 of costs related to the withdrawn offering, which consisted primarily of professional fees, printing costs and roadshow costs, were expensed during the third quarter of 2000.

Other Income. Other income was $551,000 for 2001 compared to $670,000 for 2000, a decrease of $119,000 or 18%. The decrease in other income is primarily the result of the $280,000 reduction in interest income, resulting from lower average cash balances and lower interest rates. This decrease was partially offset by an increase in third party royalty income from the licensing of our intellectual property.

Income Tax Expense (Benefit). Income tax benefit was $2.8 million for 2001 compared with income tax expense of $5.2 million for 2000. Our effective tax rate for 2001 was 20% primarily as the result of the recording of a $4.6 million charge for impairment of goodwill, which is not deductible for tax purposes. The 2000 effective tax rate was 45%, primarily due to $2.3 million of non-tax deductible merger-related costs.

Liquidity and Capital Resources

Net cash provided by operations for the year ended December 31, 2002, was $2.5 million. Accounts receivable increased $1.4 million from December 31, 2001 to December 31, 2002 due to higher net revenue levels in the fourth quarter of 2002 compared to the same period in 2001. Inventories decreased $640,000, primarily as the result of the write-down of obsolete inventory in 2002. Net domestic and foreign income taxes decreased by $214,000, primarily as the result of income tax refunds received during 2002. We expect to receive tax refunds of approximately $2.1 million during 2003. Accounts payable increased $364,000 due to higher production levels during the fourth quarter of 2002 compared to the same period in 2001. Accrued expenses increased $289,000 as a result of increased accruals for employee wages, warranty expense and sales commissions offset by a reduction in the accrual for officer bonuses.

During the fourth quarter of 2002, as previously discussed, we acquired Intelogic and made cash payments totaling $580,000, including direct costs related to the transaction of $185,000. Purchases of property and equipment were $1.0 million for the year ended December 31, 2002, which consisted of $348,000 for our Temptronic facility (primarily for demonstration and quality assurance equipment), $284,000 for our Sunnyvale facility (primarily for demo, quality assurance and computer equipment) and $201,000 for our Cherry Hill facility (primarily for computer equipment and new systems software). The remaining purchases of approximately $183,000 were for computer and other equipment for our foreign operations.

- 16 -

Net cash used in financing activities for the year ended December 31, 2002 was $255,000, which primarily consisted of approximately $190,000 in repayments of long-term debt in connection with the acquisition of Intelogic. In addition, we repaid approximately $81,000 under capital lease obligations during 2002.

Our total committed contracts that will affect cash over the next five years and beyond are as follows:

Our operating results and financial condition could continue to be negatively impacted if the semiconductor industry into which we sell our products remains depressed.

The current economic downturn, combined with significant excess production capacity in the semiconductor industry, have resulted in the worst downturn the semiconductor and ATE industries have ever experienced. This climate has created significantly diminished demand for our products, excess manufacturing capacity in our plants, and the erosion of average

- 19 -

selling prices. We are uncertain how long the current downturn will last. Any further decline in our customers' markets or in general economic conditions would likely result in a further reduction in demand for our products and could harm our consolidated financial position, results of operations, cash flows and stock price. In addition, if the downturn continues for a prolonged period of time, we may be required to secure debt or equity financing, and we cannot be sure that such financing will be available when required or on acceptable terms.

Our sales reflect the cyclicality of the semiconductor industry, which causes our operating results to fluctuate significantly.

Our business depends in significant part upon the capital expenditures of semiconductor manufacturers. Capital expenditures by these companies depend upon, among other things, the current and anticipated market demand for semiconductors and the products that utilize them. Typically, semiconductor manufacturers curtail capital expenditures during periods of economic downtown. Conversely, semiconductor manufacturers increase capital expenditures when market demand requires the addition of new or expanded production capabilities or the reconfiguration of existing fabrication facilities to accommodate new products. These market changes have caused in the past, and will likely cause in the future, our operating results to fluctuate. The current cyclical downturn in the semiconductor industry has significantly reduced demand for our products. Our sales and operating results will likely continue to be negatively affected during this downturn.

Our operating results often change significantly from quarter to quarter and may cause fluctuations in our stock price.

During the last three years, our operating results have fluctuated significantly from quarter to quarter. We believe that these fluctuations occur primarily due to the cycles of demand in the semiconductor manufacturing industry. In addition to the changing cycles of demand in the semiconductor manufacturing industry, other factors that have caused our quarterly operating results to fluctuate in the past, and that may cause fluctuations or losses in the future, include:

Because the market price of our common stock has tended to vary based on, and in relation to, changes in our operating results, fluctuations in the market price of our stock are likely to continue as variations in our quarterly results continue.

If we are not able to control our operating expenses during a cyclical downturn, we may not have sufficient cash to operate our businesses.

During the current cyclical downturn, we implemented cost containment strategies with a goal of reducing our operating expenses and preserving our cash. These strategies included workforce reductions at all of our facilities worldwide, salary reductions for all employees worldwide, a temporary elimination of domestic retirement benefits and additional cost controls on other expenditures. When industry conditions improved in the second quarter of 2002, we returned salaries and benefits to their pre-downturn levels and began a program of salary increases for staff at the beginning of the third quarter. However, as discussed earlier in this report, during the fourth quarter of 2002, our revenues declined and we began experiencing operating losses again. We are currently evaluating additional cost containment strategies to further reduce operating costs. We may not be successful in reaching our goal of reducing our operating expenses sufficiently to maintain our existing cash balances and, if we are not able to control our operating expenses, they could increase and the level of our cash may not be sufficient to operate our businesses. We cannot determine with certainty that, if needed, we would be able to raise additional funding through either equity or debt financing.

- 20 -

We intend to acquire additional businesses. If we are unable to do so, our future rate of growth may be reduced or limited.

A key element of our growth strategy is to acquire businesses, technologies or products that expand and complement our current businesses. We may not be able to execute our acquisition strategy if:

Our acquisition strategy involves financial and management risks which may adversely affect our earnings in the future.

If we acquire additional businesses, technologies or products, we will face the following additional risks:

If any of the events described above occur, our earnings could be reduced. If we issue shares of our stock or other rights to purchase our stock in connection with any future acquisitions, we would dilute our existing stockholders' interests and our earnings per share may decrease. If we issue debt in connection with any future acquisitions, lenders may impose covenants on use which could, among other things, restrict our ability to increase capital expenditures or to acquire additional businesses.

Our industry is subject to rapidly evolving technological change, and our business prospects would be negatively affected if we are unable to respond to innovation in the semiconductor industry.

Semiconductor technology continues to become more complex as manufacturers incorporate ICs into an increasing variety of products. This trend, and the rapid changes needed in automatic testing systems to respond to developments in the semiconductor industry, are likely to continue. We cannot be certain that we will be successful in developing, manufacturing or selling products that will satisfy customer needs or attain market acceptance. Our failure to provide products that meet customer needs or gain market acceptance will negatively affect our business prospects.

If we are not able to obtain patents on or otherwise preserve and protect our proprietary technologies, our business may suffer.

We have obtained domestic and foreign patents covering some of our products which expire between the years 2003 and 2020, and we have pending applications for additional patents. Some of our products utilize proprietary technology that is not covered by a patent or similar protection, and in many cases, cannot be protected. We cannot be certain that:

If we cannot obtain patent or other protection for our proprietary technologies, our ability to compete in our markets could be impaired.

- 21 -

Claims of intellectual property infringement by or against us could seriously harm our businesses.

From time to time, we may be forced to respond to or prosecute intellectual property infringement claims to defend or protect our rights or a customer's rights. These claims, regardless of merit, may consume valuable management time, result in costly litigation or cause product shipment delays. Any of these factors could seriously harm our business and operating results. We may have to enter into royalty or licensing agreements with third parties who claim infringement. These royalty or licensing agreements, if available, may be costly to us. If we are unable to enter into royalty or licensing agreements with satisfactory terms, our business could suffer. In instances where we have had reason to believe that we may be infringing the patent rights of others, or that someone may be infringing our patent rights, we have asked our patent counsel to evaluate the validity of the patents in question, as well as the potentially infringing conduct. If we become involved in a dispute, neither the third parties nor the courts are bound by our counsel's conclusions.

Our business will suffer if we cannot compete successfully with manufacturers whose products are similar to ours.

We compete with numerous manufacturers, many of whom have greater financial resources and more extensive design and production capabilities than we do. Some of our principal competitors in the sale of manipulator, docking and tester interface products are Reid-Ashman Manufacturing, Microhandling GmbH, Credence Systems, LTX, Schlumberger, Teradyne and Cerprobe. Some of our principal competitors in the sale of temperature-management products are Trio-Tech International, Thermonics and ERS Elektronik GmbH. In order to remain competitive with these and other companies, we must be able to continue to commit a significant portion of our personnel, financial resources, research and development and customer support to developing new products and maintaining customer satisfaction worldwide. If we are not able to compete successfully, our business will suffer.

We generate a large portion of our sales from a small number of customers. If we were to lose one or more of our large customers, operating results could suffer dramatically.

Our ten largest customers accounted for approximately 65% of net revenues in 2002, and one customer, Agilent Technologies, accounted for 16% of our net revenues in 2002. The loss of any one or more of our largest customers, or a reduction in orders by a major customer, could materially reduce our net revenues.

If we do not continue to retain the services of key personnel, relationships with, and sales to, some of our customers could suffer.

The loss of key personnel could adversely affect our ability to manage our business effectively. Our future success will depend largely upon the continued services of our senior management and certain other key employees. We do not have employment agreements with any of our executive officers or other key employees. Our future success will depend, in part, upon our ability to retain our managers, engineers and other key employees. Our business could suffer if we were unable to retain one or more of our senior officers or other key employees.

A substantial portion of our operations exists outside the U.S., which exposes us to foreign political and economic risks.

We have operated internationally for many years and expect to expand our international operations as necessary to continue expansion of our sales and service to our non-U.S. customers. Our foreign subsidiaries generated 12% and 13% of consolidated net revenues in 2002 and 2001, respectively. Export sales from our U.S. manufacturing facilities totaled $8.1 million, or 17% of consolidated net revenues in 2002 and $8.9 million, or 17% in 2001. The portion of our consolidated net revenues that were derived from sales by our subsidiaries in the Asia-Pacific region were 7% in 2002 and 6% in 2001. Countries in the Asia-Pacific region, including Japan, have experienced economic instability resulting in weaknesses in their currency, banking and equity markets. Although the economic instability in the Asia-Pacific region has not had a material adverse effect on our order backlog, financial condition, or results of operations to date, continued economic instability could have a material adverse effect on demand for our products and our results of operations. We expect our international revenues will continue to represent a significant portion of total net revenues. To date, we have not experienced significant problems in our foreign operations. However, in addition to the risks generally associated with sales and operations in the U.S., sales to customers outside the U.S. and operations in foreign countries are subject to additional risks, which may, in the future, affect our operations. These risks include:

We conduct business in foreign currencies, and fluctuations in the values of those currencies could result in foreign exchange losses.

In 2002, approximately 2% of our net revenues were dominated in Japanese yen, approximately 3% were dominated in British pounds, and approximately 2% were dominated in Euros. Fluctuations in the values of these currencies could result in foreign exchange losses. Any strengthening of the U.S. dollar in relation to the currencies of our competitors or customers, or strengthening or weakening of the Japanese yen, British pound or Euro in relation to other currencies in which our customers or competitors do business, could adversely affect our competitiveness. Moreover, a strengthening of the U.S. dollar or other competitive factors could put pressure on us to denominate a greater portion of our sales in foreign currencies, thereby increasing our exposure to fluctuations in exchange rates. Any devaluation of these currencies would hurt our business. We do not undertake hedging activities against all of our exchange rate risk. Fluctuations in exchange rates may adversely affect our competitive position or result in foreign exchange losses, either of which could cause our business to suffer.

Exchange Rate Risk Management

We are exposed to currency exchange rate risk in the normal course of our business, primarily in our foreign operations. Our exposure results from the fact that some or all of the product sales at these operations are in one currency and inventory purchases are in another currency. In our UK operation, approximately 50% of our sales are in U.S. dollars and the corresponding inventory purchases to support these sales are in British pounds. In our Singapore operation, 100% of our sales are in U.S. dollars but some of our manufacturing costs are in British pounds and Singapore dollars. In our Japanese operation, our sales are in Japanese yen and inventory purchases are in U.S. dollars. In one of our German operations, our sales are in Euros while inventory purchases are in U.S. dollars. From time to time we employ risk management strategies, including the use of forward exchange rate contracts, to manage our exposure to exchange rate risks involving the yen, and may, in the future, use forward exchange rate contracts to manage our exposure to exchange rate risks involving the British pound, the Singapore dollar or the Euro.

Our objective in managing currency exchange risk is to minimize the impact of significant currency exchange rate fluctuations. We use forward exchange rate contracts to establish a fixed conversion rate between the Japanese yen and the U.S. dollar so that the level of our gross margin from sales in Japan is not negatively affected by significant movements in the Japanese yen to U.S. dollar exchange rate. We purchase forward exchange rate contracts on a monthly basis in the amounts management deems appropriate in light of the amount of the U.S. dollar denominated obligations of our Japanese subsidiary that are due within the month. We do not purchase forward contracts with settlement dates beyond 30 days. As of December 31, 2002, there were no forward exchange rate contracts outstanding.

It is our policy to enter into forward exchange rate contracts only to the extent necessary to achieve the desired objectives of management in limiting our exposure to significant fluctuations in currency exchange rates. We do not hedge all of our currency exchange rate risk exposures in a manner that would completely eliminate the impact of changes in currency exchange rates on our net earnings. We do not expect that the results of our operations or our liquidity will be materially affected by these risk management activities.

Interest Rate Risk Management

As of December 31, 2002, we had cash and cash equivalents of $8.1 million. We generally place our investments in U.S. Treasury obligations or money market funds backed by such investments. We have not held and do not hold any derivatives related to our interest rate exposure. Due to the average maturity and conservative nature of our investment portfolio, a sudden change in interest rates would not have a material effect on the value of the portfolio. Management estimates that had the average yield of our investments decreased by 100 basis points, our interest income for year ended December 31, 2002 would have decreased by less than $80,000. This estimate assumes that the decrease occurred on the first day of 2002 and reduced the yield of each investment by 100 basis points. The impact on our future interest income of future changes in investment yields will depend largely on the gross amount of our cash, cash equivalents and short-term investments. See "Liquidity and Capital Resources" as part of Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations.

Consolidated financial statements are set forth in this Report beginning at page F-1

None

The information required by this item will be filed not later than April 30, 2003 by an amendment to this Report or incorporation by reference to the proxy statement for our 2003 Annual Meeting of Stockholders.

The information required by this item will be filed not later than April 30, 2003 by an amendment to this Report or incorporation by reference to the proxy statement for our 2003 Annual Meeting of Stockholders.

The information required by Item 201(d) of Regulation S-K is set forth in Item 5 of this Report. The information required by Item 403 of Regulation S-K will be filed not later than April 30, 2003 by an amendment to this Report or incorporation by reference to the proxy statement for our 2003 Annual Meeting of Stockholders.

The information required by this item will be filed not later than April 30, 2003 by an amendment to this Report or incorporation by reference to the proxy statement for our 2003 Annual Meeting of Stockholders.  

CEO and CFO Certifications. Appearing immediately following the Signatures section of this Annual Report are two certifications, one by each of our Chief Executive Officer and our Chief Financial Officer (the "Section 302 Certifications"). This Item 14 of our Annual Report contains information concerning the evaluation of our disclosure controls and procedures that is referred to in the Section 302 Certifications and this information should be read in conjunction with the Section 302 Certifications for a more complete understanding of the topics presented.

Evaluation of Our Disclosure Controls and Procedures. The Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") requires that within 90 days prior to the filing of this Annual Report on Form 10-K, the CEO and the CFO must evaluate the effectiveness of the design and operation of our disclosure controls and procedures and report on the effectiveness of the design and operation of our disclosure controls and procedures.

- 24 -

"Disclosure controls and procedures" mean the controls and other procedures that are designed with the objective of ensuring that information required to be disclosed in our reports filed under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"), such as this Annual Report, is recorded, processed, summarized and reported within the time periods specified in the rules and forms promulgated by the SEC. Disclosure controls and procedures are also designed with the objective of ensuring that such information is accumulated and communicated to our management, including the CEO and CFO, as appropriate, to allow timely decisions regarding required disclosure.

Evaluation of Our Internal Controls. The SEC also requires that the CEO and CFO certify certain matters regarding our "internal controls."

"Internal controls" mean our procedures which are designed with the objective of providing reasonable assurance that (1) our transactions are properly authorized; (2) our assets are safeguarded against unauthorized or improper use; and (3) our transactions are properly recorded and reported, all to permit the preparation of our financial statements in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles. We periodically evaluate our internal controls.

Among the matters our CEO and CFO must certify in the Section 302 Certifications are whether all "significant deficiencies" or "material weaknesses" in our internal controls have been disclosed to our auditors and the audit committee of our Board of Directors. In the professional auditing literature, "significant deficiencies" are referred to as "reportable conditions" these are control issues that could have a significant adverse effect on an entity's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data in the financial statements. A "material weakness" is defined in the auditing literature as a particularly serious reportable condition where the design or operation of one or more internal control components does not reduce to a relatively low level the risk that misstatements caused by error or fraud may occur in amounts that would be material in relation to the financial statements and not be detected within a timely period by employees in the normal course of performing their assigned functions.

Limitations on the Effectiveness of Controls. Our management, including the CEO and CFO, does not expect that our disclosure controls and procedures or our internal controls will prevent all error and all fraud. A control system, no matter how well conceived and operated, can provide only reasonable, as opposed to absolute, assurance that the objectives of the control system are 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 an entity 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. Additionally, controls can be circumvented by the individual acts of some persons, by collusion of two or more people, or by management override of the control. The design of any system of controls also is based in part upon 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, a system of controls may become inadequate because of changes in conditions, or the degree of compliance with the policies or procedures may deteriorate. Because of the inherent limitations in a cost-effective control system, misstatements due to error or fraud may occur and not be detected.

CEO/CFO Conclusions about the Effectiveness of the Disclosure Controls and Procedures. Based upon their evaluation of the disclosure controls and procedures, our CEO and CFO have concluded that, subject to the limitations noted above, our disclosure controls and procedures are effective to provide reasonable assurance that material information relating to the Company and its consolidated subsidiaries is made known to management, including the CEO and CFO, on a timely basis.

Changes in Internal Controls. There were no significant changes to our internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect our internal controls, subsequent to the date of their last evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

(a)     The documents filed as part of this Annual Report on Form 10-K are:

(b)     Reports on Form 8-K

(c)     Exhibits required by Item 601 of Regulation S-K:

We are a leading independent designer, manufacturer and marketer of positioner and docking hardware products, temperature management systems and tester interface products that are used by semiconductor manufacturers in conjunction with automatic test equipment, or ATE, in the testing of integrated circuits, or ICs.

The consolidated entity is comprised of inTEST Corporation (parent) and our ten wholly-owned subsidiaries. We manufacture our products in the U.S., the U.K., Germany and Singapore. Marketing and support activities are conducted worldwide from our facilities in the U.S., the U.K., Germany, Japan and Singapore.

On March 9, 2000, we completed a merger with Temptronic Corporation ("Temptronic") whereby Temptronic was merged into one of our wholly-owned subsidiaries. We exchanged 2,046,793 shares of our common stock for all of the Temptronic common stock. Each share of Temptronic common stock was exchanged for 0.925 shares of our common stock. In addition, outstanding Temptronic stock options were converted at the same exchange ratio into options to acquire 175,686 shares of our common stock. The merger was accounted for under the pooling-of-interests method of accounting and, accordingly, our consolidated financial statements for periods prior to the merger date were retroactively restated to give effect to the merger. Upon consummation of the merger, 55,557 shares of treasury stock held by Temptronic with a cost of $224 were retired.

On October 1, 2002, we completed the acquisition of Intelogic Technologies GmbH ("Intelogic"), a privately-held German corporation which designs, manufactures and markets positioner and docking hardware products. See Note 3 for further discussion of this transaction.

Basis of Presentation

The accompanying consolidated financial statements include our accounts and those of our wholly-owned subsidiaries. All significant intercompany accounts and transactions have been eliminated upon consolidation. The preparation of financial statements in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America requires us to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities and disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statements and the reported amounts of revenues and expenses during the reporting period. Actual results could differ from those estimates. Certain of our accounts, including goodwill, inventory obsolescence write-downs, deferred income tax valuation allowances and warranty reserves, are particularly impacted by estimates.

Concentration of Other Risks

The semiconductor industry in which we operate is characterized by rapid technological change, competitive pricing pressures and cyclical market patterns. This industry is subject to significant economic downturns at various times. Our financial results are affected by a wide variety of factors, including general economic conditions worldwide, economic conditions specific to the semiconductor industry, our ability to safeguard patents and intellectual property in a rapidly evolving market and our reliance on a relatively few number of customers for a significant portion of our sales. In addition, we are exposed to the risk of obsolescence of our inventory depending on the mix of future business and technological changes within the industry. As a result, we may experience significant period-to-period fluctuations in future operating results due to the factors mentioned above or other factors.

Reclassification

Certain prior year amounts have been reclassified to be comparable with the current year's presentation.

Cash and Cash Equivalents

Short-term investments which have maturities of three months or less when purchased are considered to be cash equivalents and are carried at cost, which approximates market value.

F - 7

Trade Notes Receivable

Trade notes receivable are due from customers in Japan, have original maturities of less than four months and are non-interest bearing. Trade notes receivable were $0 and $36 at December 31, 2002 and 2001, respectively.


Credit Risks

We grant credit to customers and generally require no collateral. To minimize our risk, we perform ongoing credit evaluations of our customers' financial condition. Bad debt expense (recovery) was $(1), $(104), and $31 for the years ended December 31, 2002, 2001 and 2000, respectively.


Inventories

Inventories are stated at the lower of cost or market. Cost is determined under the first-in first-out (FIFO) method.


Property and Equipment

Machinery and equipment are stated at cost. Depreciation is based upon the estimated useful life of the assets using the straight-line method. The estimated useful lives range from three to seven years. Leasehold improvements are recorded at cost and amortized over the shorter of the lease term or the estimated useful life of the asset. Total depreciation expense was $1,917, $1,801 and $1,595 for the years ended December 31, 2002, 2001 and 2000, respectively. Expenditures for maintenance and repairs are charged to operations as incurred.


Goodwill and Intangibles

On January 1, 2002 we adopted Statement of Financial Accounting Standards ("SFAS") No. 142, Goodwill and Other Intangible Assets. With the adoption of SFAS No 142, goodwill and other indefinite life intangible assets are no longer subject to amortization. Instead, they are subject to at least an annual assessment for impairment by applying a fair value based test. Prior to January 1, 2002 we amortized goodwill on a straight-line basis over its estimated useful life of 15 years. In 2002 we completed the transitional goodwill impairment tests and the annual test required by SFAS No. 142. No impairments of goodwill were indicated based on these fair value tests.

Goodwill at December 31, 2002 and 2001 was $1,243 and $933, respectively and relates to the positioner/docking hardware segment. Changes in the amount of the carrying value of goodwill for the year ended December 31, 2002 are as follows:

There was no goodwill amortization in 2002. For the years ended December 31, 2001 and 2000, goodwill amortization was $381 and $479, respectively. The following table sets forth our results for the years ended December 31, 2002, 2001 and 2000, respectively, assuming goodwill had not been amortized.

F - 8

Prior to the adoption of SFAS No. 142, we accounted for our goodwill under the provisions of SFAS No. 121, Accounting for the Impairment of Long-Lived Assets and for Long-Lived Assets to be Disposed Of. Prior to January 1, 2002, in accordance with SFAS No. 121, we assessed our goodwill for impairment when events or circumstances so indicated. As of September 30, 2001, we performed an assessment of our goodwill for impairment due to the industry downturn ongoing at that time. As a result of this assessment, a $4,612 impairment charge was recorded for the goodwill associated with TestDesign, which was the net book value of this goodwill as of that date. No impairment was indicated for the goodwill that is associated with the acquisition of the minority interests in three of our foreign subsidiaries, which had a net book value of $933 at December 31, 2001.

As of December 31, 2002, definite life intangibles totaled $400. These definite life intangibles are the result of our acquisition of Intelogic (completed on October 1, 2002) and are being amortized over ten years (see Note 3 for more information on this acquisition). These definite life intangible assets are technology based intangibles including unpatented technology (on which a patent application has been filed) and computer software. They are allocated to the positioner/docking hardware segment. Amortization expense for the year ended December 31, 2002 was $0. Estimated amortization expense for each of the next five years is $40.

Income Taxes

The asset and liability method is used in accounting for income taxes. Under this method, deferred tax assets and liabilities are recognized for operating loss and tax credit carryforwards and for the future tax consequences attributable to differences between the financial statement carrying amounts of existing assets and liabilities and their respective tax bases. Deferred tax assets and liabilities are measured using enacted tax rates expected to apply to taxable income in the years in which those temporary differences are expected to be recovered or settled. The effect on deferred tax assets and liabilities of a change in tax rates is recognized in the results of operations in the period that includes the enactment date. A valuation allowance is recorded to reduce the carrying amounts of deferred tax assets if it is more likely than not that such assets will not be realized.

Net Earnings (Loss) Per Common Share

Net earnings (loss) per common share is computed in accordance with SFAS No. 128, Earnings Per Share. Basic earnings (loss) per common share is computed by dividing net earnings (loss) by the weighted average number of common shares outstanding during each year. Diluted earnings (loss) per common share is computed by dividing net earnings (loss) by the weighted average number of common shares and common share equivalents outstanding during each year. Common share equivalents represent stock options and are calculated using the treasury stock method. Common share equivalents are excluded from the calculation if their effect is anti-dilutive.

F - 9

A reconciliation of weighted average common shares outstanding -- basic to weighted average common shares outstanding -- diluted appears below:

For the years ended December 31, 2002, 2001 and 2000, an average of 917,050, 928,294 and 225,321 employee stock options with weighted average exercise prices of $5.81, $8.45 and $14.36, respectively, were excluded from the calculation because their effect was antidilutive. For the years ended December 31, 2001 and 2000, weighted average common shares outstanding exclude unallocated shares of common stock held by the Temptronic Corporation Equity Participation Plan ("EPP") (see Note 11).

Revenue Recognition

We recognize revenue related to product sales when the products are shipped and the customer takes ownership and assumes risk of loss, collection of the relevant receivable is probable, persuasive evidence of an arrangement exists and the sales price is fixed or determinable. Service revenues are recognized as the services are performed.

Engineering and Product Development

Engineering and product development costs, which consist primarily of the salary and related benefits costs of our technical staff, as well as product development costs, are expensed as incurred.

Product Warranties

We generally provide product warranties and record estimated warranty expense at the time of sale based upon historical claims experience. Warranty expense for the years ended December 31, 2002, 2001 and 2000 was $1,070, $1,044 and $1,102, respectively.

The following table sets forth the changes in the liability for product warranties for the year ended December 31, 2002:

Stock-Based Compensation

At December 31, 2002, we have certain stock-based employee compensation plans, which are described more fully in Note 8. We account for these plans under the recognition and measurement principles of Accounting Principles Board Opinion No. 25, Accounting for Stock Issued to Employees ("APB 25"), and related Interpretations. No stock-based employee compensation cost is reflected in the statement of operations when options granted under these plans have an exercise price equal to the market value of the underlying common stock on the date of grant.

F - 10

Prior to the merger, Temptronic had granted certain non-qualified stock options to employees which had an exercise price below the estimated fair value of Temptronic's common stock at the date of grant. For these options, compensation cost, equaling the difference between the fair market value of the underlying stock and the cost to exercise the options, was recorded as deferred compensation at the date of grant. This cost is amortized to expense as the options vest. Total compensation cost recognized for the years ended December 31, 2002, 2001 and 2000 was $16, $58 and $41, respectively.

The following table illustrates the effect on net earnings (loss) and net earnings (loss) per share if we had applied the fair value recognition provisions of SFAS No. 123, Accounting for Stock-Based Compensation, to stock-based employee compensation.

In July 2002, the FASB issued SFAS No. 146, Accounting for Costs Associated with Exit or Disposal Activities. SFAS No. 146 addresses the accounting and reporting of expenses related to restructurings initiated after 2002, and applies to costs associated with an exit activity (including a restructuring) or with a disposal of long-lived assets. Those activities can include eliminating or reducing product lines, terminating employees and contracts, and relocating plant facilities or personnel. SFAS No. 146 changes some of the criteria for recognizing a liability for these activities. It is effective prospectively beginning in 2003.

In November 2002, the FASB issued Interpretation No. 45, Guarantor's Accounting and Disclosure Requirements for Guarantees, Including Indirect Guarantees of Indebtedness of Others ("FIN 45"). FIN 45 requires that the guarantor recognize, at the inception of certain guarantees, a liability for the fair value of the obligation undertaken in issuing such guarantees. FIN 45 also requires additional disclosure about the guarantor's obligations under certain guarantees that it has issued. The initial recognition and measurement provisions of this interpretation are applicable on a prospective basis to guarantees issued or modified after December 31, 2002, and the disclosure requirements are effective after December 15, 2002 and are included above under "Product Warranties."

In December 2002, the FASB issued SFAS No. 148, Accounting for Stock-Based Compensation-Transition and Disclosure-An amendment of FASB Statement No. 123. This statement amends SFAS No. 123 to provide alternative methods of transition for a voluntary change to the fair value based method of accounting for stock-based employee compensation and amends the disclosure requirements of SFAS No. 123 to require prominent disclosures in both annual and interim financial statements about the method of accounting for stock-based employee compensation and the effect of the method used on reported results. The transition and annual disclosure provisions of SFAS No. 148 are effective for fiscal years ending after December 15, 2002. Effective January 1, 2003, we adopted the disclosure requirements of SFAS No. 148 regarding disclosure requirements for condensed consolidated financial statements for interim periods. We have determined that we will not make the voluntarily change to the fair value based method of accounting for stock-based employee compensation at this time.

On October 1, 2002, we acquired Intelogic, a privately-held German corporation. Intelogic designs, manufactures and markets positioner and docking hardware products used by semiconductor manufacturers. The transaction was structured as a purchase of 100% of the capital stock of Intelogic. The purchase price consisted of a cash payment of $395, plus transaction costs of $185. In addition, up to 200,000 shares of our stock will be issued to the seller if certain revenue targets are achieved during 2003 and 2004. These shares have been placed in escrow. Immediately after the acquisition, we made additional cash payments of $190 to retire outstanding shareholder loans and bank debt. The following is an allocation of the purchase price:

The estimated fair value of identifiable assets acquired, net of liabilities assumed, shown above includes $400 which represents definite life intangibles which will be amortized over ten years. These definite life intangibles are unpatented technology (on which a patent application has been filed) and computer software, and have been allocated to the positioner/docking hardware segment.

F - 12

We consider the various products we design, manufacture and market to form three reportable segments: positioner/docking hardware products, temperature management systems and tester interface products. The positioner/docking hardware segment includes the operations of our Cherry Hill, New Jersey manufacturing facility as well as the operations of four of our foreign subsidiaries: inTEST Limited (U.K.), inTEST Kabushiki Kaisha (Japan), inTEST PTE, Limited (Singapore) and Intelogic Technologies GmbH (Germany) which we acquired in October 2002 (see Note 3 for further information on this transaction). Sales of this segment consist primarily of positioner and docking hardware products which we design, manufacture and market, as well as certain other related products which we design and market, but which are manufactured by third parties. The temperature management segment includes the operations of Temptronic in Sharon, Massachusetts as well as inTEST GmbH (Germany). Sales of this segment consist primarily of temperature management systems which we design, manufacture and market under our Temptronic product line. In addition, this segment provides after sale service and support, which is paid for by its customers. The tester interface segment includes the operations of inTEST Sunnyvale Corp. in Sunnyvale, California. Sales of this segment consist primarily of tester interface products which we design, manufacture and market under our TestDesign product line.

We operate our business worldwide, and all three segments sell their products both domestically and internationally. All three segments sell to semiconductor manufacturers and ATE manufacturers.

Intercompany pricing between segments is either a multiple of cost for component parts or a percentage discount from list price for finished goods.

F - 14

Agilent Technologies accounted for 16% and 15% of our consolidated net revenues in 2002 and 2001, respectively. Texas Instruments accounted for 10% of our consolidated net revenues in 2002. No customer accounted for more than 10% of our consolidated net revenues in 2000.

Inventories held at December 31 were comprised of the following:

Line of Credit

As of December 31, 2002, we had a credit facility which provided for maximum borrowings of $5,000 (with a sublimit of up to $500 for letters of credit). The maximum amount available for borrowings and letters of credit at any time was subject to a borrowing base formula tied to the level of our domestic accounts receivable and inventory. According to this formula, we had $4,800 available for borrowing at December 31, 2002 ($5,000 committed amount less $200 in letters of credit outstanding). In connection with the negotiation of this facility during 2002, we granted a security interest in most of our domestic assets. To date we have not utilized this facility to borrow any funds (the only usage consists of the issuance of a letter of credit in the face amount of $200). We pay a quarterly commitment fee of 0.425% per annum of the unused portion of the facility.

The terms of the loan agreement required that we comply with various covenants including, among other things, restrictions on the minimum levels of domestic cash, stockholders' equity and EBITDA (earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization) as well as a limitation on the amount of domestic capital expenditures and a prohibition against the payment of dividends. As of December 31, 2002 we were in violation of the covenant limiting the total amount of domestic capital expenditures. We exceeded the limit by approximately $164. We requested and received a waiver of this event of default.

For the quarter ended December 31, 2002, we were also in violation of the covenant related to the minimum level of domestic EBITDA required of $370. Our actual domestic EBITDA for the quarter was a loss of approximately $425. We requested and received a waiver of this event of default. Subsequent to December 31, 2002, the minimum level of domestic EBITDA required increased to $500 per quarter. If our projections are accurate, we will not meet the minimum domestic EBITDA required for most of 2003; however, our projections also indicate that we will not need to utilize this facility for borrowing to meet our cash needs throughout 2003.

Based on these projections, we began discussions with our lender regarding modification of the facility. After considering various modifications to this facility and the related costs that would be associated with these modifications, management recommended, and the board of directors approved, a reduction of the maximum amount of borrowings available under this facility to $200 (which may be used for letters of credit). This level will allow us to continue to utilize the facility for the outstanding letter of credit, which is our only projected utilization of this facility throughout 2003. As a part of this modification, all of the aforementioned covenants were eliminated with the exception of the covenant regarding the minimum level of domestic cash. This covenant was reduced from $2,000 to $200. We will continue to pay a commitment fee for this facility in the amount of 0.425% per annum of the unused portion of the facility; however, based on our current and projected utilization of this facility, we do not expect to pay a fee in 2003. The modifications of this facility became effective on March 25, 2003. This credit facility expires on September 30, 2004.

F -15

Letter of Credit

We have an outstanding letter of credit in the amount of $200 as of December 31, 2002 and 2001. This letter of credit was originally issued in December 2000 as a security deposit under a lease, which our Temptronic subsidiary entered into for its new facility in Sharon, Massachusetts. This letter of credit expires January 1, 2004; however, the terms of the lease require that the letter of credit be renewed at least thirty days prior to its expiration date for successive terms of not less than one year throughout the entire lease term, which ends February 28, 2011.

Capital Lease Obligations

On January 31, 2001, we entered into two capital lease agreements to finance equipment purchases. The minimum lease payments under the capital leases in effect at December 31, 2002 are as follows:

The Amended and Restated 1997 Stock Plan (the "Plan") provides for the granting of either incentive stock options or non-qualified stock options to purchase shares of our common stock and for other stock-based awards to key employees and directors responsible for our direction and management and to non-employee consultants. The Plan consists of two parts: the Non-Qualified Plan (administered by our Board of Directors) and the Key Employee Plan (administered by the Compensation Committee of our Board of Directors). We have reserved 1,250,000 shares of common stock for issuance upon exercise of options or stock awards under the Plan.

No option may be granted with an exercise period in excess of ten years from the date of grant. Generally, incentive stock options will be granted with an exercise price equal to the fair market value on the date of grant. The exercise price of non-qualified stock options will be determined by either the Board of Directors or the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors. The options which have been issued under the Plan generally vest 20% one year from date of grant and 20% in each of the succeeding four years.

In connection with the merger with Temptronic, outstanding incentive and non-qualified stock options to acquire Temptronic common stock were converted into 175,686 stock options to acquire our stock at a conversion ratio of 0.925, with appropriate adjustment to the exercise price. These stock options, which are not subject to the Plan, generally vest over four to five years.

On August 16, 2002, we commenced a voluntary stock option exchange program for certain of our eligible employees and directors. Under the program, eligible employees and directors were given the right to forfeit certain outstanding stock options previously granted to them at an exercise price greater than or equal to $9.5625 per share, in exchange for the right to receive a new option to buy shares of our common stock to be granted on February 24, 2003. In total, 340,000 stock options were canceled on August 23, 2002 as a result of this program and 340,000 stock options were granted on February 24, 2003. The exchange program did not result in additional compensation charges or variable option plan accounting, as it was designed to comply with Interpretation No. 44, Accounting for Certain Transactions Involving Stock-Based Compensation. The new options had an exercise price equal to the fair market value of our common stock on the new grant date, so no compensation expense was recorded as a result of the exchange program.

F -16

The fair value for stock options granted in 2002, 2001 and 2000 was estimated at the date of grant using the Black-Scholes option pricing model with the following weighted average assumptions:

The per share weighted average fair value of stock options issued in 2002, 2001 and 2000 was $1.92, $2.91 and $8.92, respectively.

The Black-Scholes option valuation model was developed for use in estimating the fair value of traded options which have no vesting restrictions and are fully transferable. In addition, option valuation models require the input of highly subjective assumptions including the expected stock price volatility. As our stock options have characteristics significantly different from those of traded options, and as changes in the subjective input assumptions can materially affect the fair value estimate, in management's opinion, the existing models do not necessarily provide a reliable single measure of the fair value of our stock options.


The following table summarizes the stock option activity for the three years ended December 31, 2002:

The following table summarizes information about stock options outstanding at December 31, 2002:

Commitments

We lease our offices, warehouse facilities, automobiles and certain equipment under noncancellable operating leases which expire at various dates through 2011. Total rental expense for the years ended December 31, 2002, 2001 and 2000 was $2,003, $2,241 and $1,696, respectively.

The aggregate minimum rental commitments under the noncancellable operating leases in effect at December 31, 2002, are as follows:

Contingencies

As part of a prior contractual arrangement with a former executive of a subsidiary, we have agreed to provide life insurance in the amount of $300 to this former executive until he reaches the age of sixty-five. The provision of this life insurance benefit is self-insured by us. As of December 31, 2002, this individual was sixty years old.

We are subject to Federal and certain state income taxes. In addition, we are taxed in certain foreign countries. The cumulative amount of undistributed earnings of foreign subsidiaries for which U.S. income taxes have not been provided was approximately $3,003 and $3,685 at December 31, 2002 and 2001, respectively.

F - 18

Total income tax expense (benefit) was allocated as follows:

Earnings (loss) before income taxes were as follows: