e10vk
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION
Washington, D.C.
20549
Form 10-K
|
|
|
(Mark One)
|
|
|
þ
|
|
ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d)
OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
|
|
|
For the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2005
|
|
|
or
|
o
|
|
TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d)
OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
|
|
|
For the transition period
from to
|
Commission file number 0-26946
INTEVAC, INC.
(Exact name of registrant as
specified in its charter)
|
|
|
California
|
|
94-3125814
|
(State or other jurisdiction
of
incorporation or organization)
|
|
(I.R.S. Employer
Identification No.)
|
3560 Bassett Street
Santa Clara, California 95054
(Address of principal executive
office, including Zip Code)
Registrants telephone number, including area code:
(408) 986-9888
Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the
Act:
None
|
|
|
|
|
Title of Each Class
|
|
Name of Each Exchange on Which
Registered
|
none
|
|
|
none
|
|
Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the
Act:
Common Stock (no par value)
Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known
seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities
Act. Yes o No þ
Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file
reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the
Act. Yes o No þ
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed
all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding
12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant
was required to file such reports), and (2) has been
subject to such filing requirements for the past
90 days. Yes þ No o
Indicate by a check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers
pursuant to Item 405 of
Regulation S-K
is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best
of registrants knowledge, in definitive proxy or
information statements incorporated by reference in
Part III of this
Form 10-K
or any amendment to this
Form 10-K. o
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large
accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, or a non-accelerated
filer. See definition of accelerated filer and large
accelerated filer in
Rule 12b-2
of the Exchange Act. (Check one):
Large accelerated
filer o Accelerated
filer þ Non-accelerated
filer o
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company
(as defined in
Rule 12b-2
of the
Act). Yes o No þ
The aggregate market value of voting stock held by
non-affiliates of the Registrant, as of July 2, 2005 was
approximately $120,176,000 (based on the closing price for
shares of the Registrants Common Stock as reported by the
NASDAQ National Market System for the last trading day prior to
that date). Shares of Common Stock held by each executive
officer, director, and holder of 5% or more of the outstanding
Common Stock have been excluded in that such persons may be
deemed to be affiliates. This determination of affiliate status
is not necessarily a conclusive determination for other purposes.
On February 27, 2006, 20,919,251 shares of the
Registrants Common Stock, no par value, were outstanding.
DOCUMENTS
INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE.
Portions of the Registrants Proxy Statement for the 2006
Annual Meeting of Shareholders are incorporated by reference
into Part III. Such proxy statement will be filed within
120 days after the end of the fiscal year covered by this
Annual Report on
Form 10-K.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
This Annual Report on
Form 10-K
contains forward-looking statements, which involve risks and
uncertainties. Words such as believes,
expects, plans, anticipates
and the like indicate forward-looking statements. These
forward-looking statements include comments related to
technology and market trends in the data storage, hard disk
drive and magnetic disk market; comments related to technology
and market trends in military and commercial markets for low
light sensors, cameras and systems; projected seasonality and
cyclicality in the market for our equipment products; projected
sales of hard disk drives and magnetic disks for hard disk
drives; expectations of our continued leadership position in
magnetic disk manufacturing equipment; projected customer
requirements for new capacity and for technology upgrades, such
as for perpendicular recording, to their installed base of
magnetic disk manufacturing equipment, as well as the ability of
our products to meet these requirements; expectations regarding
the extended sales cycles for our equipment and military
products; projected technology roadmaps and deployment schedules
for our military customers; discussions of expected features,
performance, costs, and competitive advantages of products we
are developing, including 200 Lean systems, LIVAR cameras and
systems, NightVista cameras, MOSIR cameras, cameras for military
head-mounted applications and commercial markets and low light
level sensors; expectations of establishing relationships with
development and distribution partners for our Imaging products;
discussions of development of manufacturing systems for entry
into new markets not previously addressed by us; and discussions
of the costs of complying with government regulations. Our
actual results may differ materially from the results discussed
in the forward-looking statements for a variety of reasons,
including those set forth under Risk Factors.
PART I
Overview
We are the worlds leading provider of disk sputtering
equipment to manufacturers of magnetic media used in hard disk
drives. We are also a developer and provider of leading
technology for extreme low light imaging sensors, cameras and
systems. We operate two businesses: Equipment and Imaging.
Our Equipment business designs, manufactures, markets and
services complex capital equipment which deposits, or sputters,
highly engineered thin-films onto magnetic disks used in hard
disk drives. We believe our systems represent approximately 60%
of the installed capacity of disk sputtering systems worldwide.
Our customers are manufacturers of magnetic disks for hard disk
drives, and include Fuji Electric, Hitachi Global Storage
Technologies, Maxtor and Seagate Technology. We believe the
rapid growth of digital data, the transition from videocassette
recorders to digital video recorders and the growth of new
consumer applications, such as personal video recorders, video
game consoles and MP3 players, along with new technology
advances in the industry, provide us with a significant growth
opportunity. The vast majority of our revenue is currently
derived from our Equipment business, and we expect that the
majority of our revenues for the next several years will
continue to be derived from our Equipment business.
Our Imaging business develops and manufactures electro-optical
sensors, cameras, and systems that permit highly sensitive
detection of photons in the visible and near infrared portions
of the spectrum, allowing vision in extreme low light
situations. We develop night-vision technology and equipment for
military and commercial applications. To date, our revenues have
been derived primarily from research and development contracts
funded by the U.S. government, rather than actual product sales.
Applications for our imaging technology include sensors and
cameras for use in extreme low light situations and systems for
positive identification of targets at long range. We also plan
to develop and market commercial products addressing markets
such as life science, physical science and security.
Intevac was incorporated in October 1990 in California and
completed a leveraged buyout of a number of divisions of Varian
Associates in February 1991. The technologies acquired from
Varian formed the foundation for our Equipment and Imaging
businesses. Our principal executive offices are located at 3560
Bassett Street, Santa Clara, California 95054, and our
phone number is
(408) 986-9888.
Our Internet home page is located at www.intevac.com;
however the information in, or that can be accessed through, our
home page is not part of this report. Our annual report on
Form 10-K,
quarterly reports on
Form 10-Q,
current reports on
Form 8-K,
and
1
amendments to such reports are available, free of charge, on or
through our Internet home page as soon as reasonably practicable
after we electronically file such material with, or furnish it
to, the Securities and Exchange Commission.
Intevac®,
LIVAR®,
D-STAR®,
NightVista®,
200
Leantm
, and
MOSIRtm,
among others, are our trademarks.
Equipment
Business
Our Equipment business designs, manufactures, markets and
services complex capital equipment used in the sputtering, or
deposition, of highly engineered thin-films of material onto
magnetic disks which are used in hard disk drives. Hard disk
drives are the primary storage medium for digital data and
function by storing data on magnetic disks. These magnetic disks
are created in a sophisticated manufacturing process involving
many steps, including plating, annealing, polishing, texturing,
sputtering and lubrication. We are also utilizing our expertise
in complex manufacturing equipment to develop new manufacturing
products that address markets outside the disk drive industry.
Storage
Market Growth Drivers
Data storage requirements have rapidly increased from kilobytes
for documents, to megabytes for audio and still images, to
gigabytes for video. Hard disk drives are the primary devices
used for storing and retrieving large amounts of digital data.
We believe there are a number of emerging trends and
applications that exploit these reduced storage costs and that
require storage intensive solutions.
|
|
|
|
|
New consumer electronics applications, such as digital video and
audio recorders, video game platforms, emerging HDTV
applications and streaming video require significant digital
data storage capability.
|
|
|
|
Personal computers have evolved from devices operating simple
applications such as word processing, to powerful machines that
are capable of playing, recording and creating multimedia
content, such as images, audio and video. These requirements
have driven demand for new personal computers and increased
capacity for data storage.
|
|
|
|
The proliferation of personal computers into the emerging
markets of Asia and Eastern Europe.
|
|
|
|
Enterprise data storage requirements are increasing, as
regulations and other business factors require companies to
archive more information, such as documents and email.
Additionally, companies are transitioning from paper-based
storage to digital data-based storage and digital backup.
|
|
|
|
Certain traditional analog storage applications are
transitioning to digital hard disk-based storage. For example,
the video surveillance industry, including home security, law
enforcement, private security services, retail, transportation
and government agencies, is transitioning from analog video
tapes to digital hard disk storage.
|
As a result of these and other storage applications, TrendFocus
reported that hard disk drive shipments grew by 25% during 2005
to 381 million units and projected a 14.4% annual growth in
hard disk drive units through 2010.
Hard
Disk Drive Market Dynamics
Areal Density Increasing. Areal density,
defined as the density of information stored on magnetic disks,
continues to increase. Higher areal density allows more
information to be stored on each magnetic disk, which enables
hard disk drive manufacturers to provide greater data storage
capacity at a lower cost per gigabyte.
Transition from Longitudinal to Perpendicular
Recording. Historically, magnetic disk
manufacturers have been able to increase the areal density of a
disk by improving existing longitudinal recording processes, a
storage method where magnetized data bits are parallel to the
disk. However, in the past few years, the rate of increase in
areal density for longitudinal recording processes has slowed,
as the magnetized data bits are packed closer and closer
together, which increases instability. In order to continue
increasing capacity per disk, the magnetic disk industry has
begun the transition to perpendicular recording. In
perpendicular recording the data bits are oriented
2
perpendicular to the plane of the disk, which enables the bits
to be recorded at a higher density than in longitudinal
recording.
New Equipment Required for Perpendicular
Recording. The equipment that magnetic disk
manufacturers purchased in the mid to late 1990s could generally
accommodate up to 12 process steps, which was sufficient to
enable improvements in areal density using longitudinal
recording. However, economically producing disks capable of
perpendicular recording may require as many as 20 or more
process steps. As a result, in order to transition to
perpendicular recording, we believe disk manufacturers will need
to replace or retool their existing disk manufacturing
equipment. In 2004, magnetic disk manufacturers began to invest
in new disk sputtering equipment, first to add additional
capacity and second to prepare for the introduction of
perpendicular recording.
Consolidation of Equipment Suppliers. The
supplier base of disk sputtering equipment has consolidated.
Beginning in 1995, many magnetic disk manufacturers undertook
aggressive expansion plans. The reduction in disks per drive
combined with these capacity expansions resulted in substantial
excess disk production capacity in the late 1990s through 2002.
Even as total storage capacity of all hard disk drives shipped
increased from 1997 to 2003, disk manufacturers did not make
significant investments in new disk sputtering equipment. As a
result, Intevac and one other manufacturer currently dominate
the market for disk sputtering equipment capable of economically
manufacturing media suitable for perpendicular recording.
Industry Consolidation. Two types of companies
purchase magnetic disk sputtering equipment; vertically
integrated companies that manufacture both disks and the hard
drives that use the disks, and merchant suppliers that
manufacture magnetic disks for sale to hard disk manufacturers.
Disk manufacturers were adversely affected by the overcapacity
of 1997 through 2002 and the industry underwent significant
consolidation. For instance, in 2001 Maxtor acquired
Quantums hard disk drive operations, and Fujitsu ceased
manufacturing hard disk drives for the personal storage market.
In 2002, IBM sold its hard disk drive business to Hitachi. In
2004, Showa Denko acquired Trace Storage Technology. In 2006,
Seagate announced it planned to acquire Maxtor. This
consolidation has reduced the number of magnetic disk
manufacturers able to respond to any increasing demand for disks
for hard disk drives.
Equipment Selection Criteria. To evaluate the
performance of competing disk sputtering equipment, magnetic
disk manufacturers consider the following criteria:
|
|
|
|
|
Cost of Ownership. Cost of ownership of disk
sputtering equipment includes factors such as equipment price,
manufacturing yield, throughput, consumable cost, factory floor
footprint and uptime. A lower cost of ownership for disk
sputtering equipment is a key factor in lowering the
manufacturers product cost.
|
|
|
|
Extendibility and Flexibility. We believe
magnetic disk manufacturers need sputtering equipment that can
address the needs of their evolving technology roadmaps. This
equipment must be capable of incorporating new process steps and
technical capabilities, including the processes needed for
producing magnetic disks capable of perpendicular recording.
Additionally, these manufacturers are improving longitudinal
processes and further developing the processes necessary for
perpendicular recording, and as a result, they demand a flexible
system that supports process reconfigurations and expansions
with a minimum of effort.
|
|
|
|
Compatibility with Existing Equipment. We
believe magnetic disk manufacturers prefer to standardize their
processes around one or two disk sputtering equipment suppliers.
Once a disk manufacturer has selected a particular
suppliers equipment, that manufacturer generally relies
upon that suppliers equipment for much of its production
capacity and frequently will continue to purchase any additional
equipment from the same supplier. There are significant
economies of scale related to the use of a single platform in
product design, product qualification, manufacturing and support.
|
|
|
|
Long-term Commitment of Supplier. We believe
magnetic disk manufacturers need sputtering equipment providers
that are committed to meeting current and future technology
requirements and to supporting this equipment throughout its
useful life. As a result, magnetic disk manufacturers
increasingly demand a supplier with the stability and capability
to be a long-term technology partner.
|
3
Our
Competitive Strengths
We are the leading provider of disk sputtering equipment to
manufacturers of magnetic media used in hard disk drives. We
believe that our industry leadership is the result of the
following key competitive strengths:
|
|
|
|
|
Broad Installed Base with Industry Leading
Customers. Our MDP-250 disk sputtering system
gained wide acceptance in the magnetic disk manufacturing
industry and by the late 1990s was being used in the manufacture
of approximately half of the magnetic disks used in hard disk
drives worldwide. We believe that there are approximately 111
legacy MDP-250 systems and 34 next generation 200 Lean systems
currently in use in production and research and development
applications by customers such as Fuji Electric, Hitachi Global
Storage Technology, Maxtor and Seagate. We believe the majority
of our customers are now utilizing most of their capacity and
that there is significant potential for these customers to add
capacity and to upgrade the technical capability of their
installed base to permit production of higher density disks
capable of perpendicular recording.
|
|
|
|
Technology Leadership with Modular Next Generation Advanced
Platform. In December 2003, we first delivered
our latest-generation disk sputtering system, the 200 Lean,
which provides enhanced capabilities relative to our installed
base of MDP-250 systems. The 200 Leans compact design
enables more disks to be manufactured per square-foot of
clean-room space. The flexible design of the 200 Lean allows
rapid reconfiguration to accommodate product changeovers and new
disk technology. The modular design of the 200 Lean also allows
disk manufacturers to add additional process steps, as advanced
magnetic disk technologies, such as perpendicular recording, are
introduced.
|
|
|
|
Long-Term Commitment to Hard Disk Drive
Industry. We have been a hard disk drive
equipment provider since 1991. We have continued to develop new
technologies and introduced the 200 Lean disk sputtering system
to meet the needs for additional process steps necessary to
economically produce magnetic disks capable of perpendicular
recording. In addition, our headquarters and our support centers
in Singapore and Shenzhen are located in close proximity to many
of our customers hard disk drive development centers and
manufacturing facilities.
|
Based on these competitive strengths, we believe that we are
well positioned to maintain our market leading position in the
disk sputtering equipment market. We believe the Intevac 200
Lean system accounts for the majority of installed production
capacity of next generation perpendicular-capable systems.
Our
Equipment Strategy
We believe we can leverage our leadership position in disk
sputtering equipment to increase our sales to magnetic disk
manufacturers and apply our technology to new markets. The key
elements of our strategy are as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
Be a Preferred Solutions Provider in the Magnetic Disk
Industry. Our goal is to be a preferred solutions
provider to magnetic disk manufacturers. We believe that our 200
Lean provides our customers with an advanced modular platform
that can address their future disk sputtering needs. We believe
we are also the leading provider of disk lubrication equipment,
the equipment that is used to apply ultra-thin coatings of
lubricant to magnetic disks after sputtering.
|
|
|
|
Leverage Existing Technology into New
Markets. In addition to expansion within our
existing customer base, we intend to target other markets where
we can apply our expertise in complex manufacturing equipment.
Our expertise includes the ability to design and manufacture
complex, highly automated vacuum manufacturing systems. We are
developing a new manufacturing system that addresses an emerging
market other than hard disk drive manufacturing equipment. We
are devoting a significant portion of our business development
and technical resources to developing this new product and we
plan to deliver the first evaluation unit to a customer by the
end of 2006. We expect our initial customers will test
evaluation systems for as long as twelve months before deciding
whether to purchase production systems. Accordingly, we do not
expect this new product to generate any revenue during 2006 and
cannot accurately predict when, if ever, it will begin to
generate significant revenues.
|
4
|
|
|
|
|
Deliver Highest Customer Value
Proposition. Our goal is to maintain our
leadership in advanced disk sputtering equipment by providing
flexible, extendable equipment with the lowest cost of
ownership. The 200 Leans modular design provides customers
the ability to reconfigure their disk manufacturing systems for
rapid technology shifts and evolving technology roadmaps. The
200 Leans compact footprint and increased throughput
relative to the legacy MDP-250 systems enables increased output
per square foot of factory clean-room space.
|
|
|
|
Expand Consumables, Spare Parts and Service
Offerings. We plan to increase the sale of disk
sputtering equipment consumables, spare parts and service in
order to increase our revenue opportunity per customer. In
addition, growing these offerings will enable us to deepen and
enhance our customer relationships. We believe the expected
revenue from these offerings will help mitigate the impact of
cyclical downturns in the disk sputtering equipment business. We
believe that the close proximity of our service centers in
Singapore and Shenzhen, China to our customers facilities
gives us a competitive advantage. We plan to add additional
support centers as required in order to maintain close proximity
to our customers operations.
|
Our
Equipment Products
200 Lean
Disk Sputtering System
The 200 Lean is our latest generation disk sputtering system.
The 200 Lean provides significantly enhanced capabilities
relative to the installed base of approximately 111 legacy
MDP-250 systems. The 200 Lean provides higher throughput from a
smaller footprint in a flexible modular system, which enables
more disks to be manufactured per square-foot of factory floor
space, and is designed to lower overall cost of ownership.
The key features of the 200 Lean include:
|
|
|
|
|
Modular Design. The 200 Leans modular
design allows our customers to accommodate any number of disk
manufacturing process steps required by their evolving
technology roadmaps. The 200 Lean consists of a front-end
robotic module that loads and unloads disks from the system,
combined with any number of four-station process modules.
Typical configurations of the 200 Lean have five of these
four-station process modules, which results in systems capable
of up to 20 process steps. Additional process modules can be
easily added to already installed systems.
|
|
|
|
Easy to Reconfigure. Magnetic disk
manufacturers produce many different designs that have short
product life cycles, leading to frequent reconfiguration of disk
sputtering equipment. The mechanical design and software control
system of the 200 Lean allows rapid reconfiguration of systems
by our customers. The 200 Lean is also easily reconfigured to
process disks with glass or aluminum substrates of varying
diameters and thicknesses.
|
|
|
|
Higher Throughput with Smaller Footprint. The
200 Lean offers higher throughput (up to 800 disks per hour) and
more process stations in a more compact package than our legacy
MDP-250 system. We believe that the 200 Lean has the highest
disk throughput per square foot of factory space for a system
capable of manufacturing perpendicular media.
|
|
|
|
High Availability. The 200 Lean is designed to
operate seven days a week, 24 hours a day with high
availability. The 200 Lean can be run continuously for a week or
more between preventative maintenance cycles.
|
|
|
|
Single Disk Processing. The 200 Lean processes
each individual disk sequentially through a series of
single-disk, vacuum-isolated, process chambers.
Single-disk processing assures that each individual
disk follows an identical path through the system, which leads
to
disk-to-disk
uniformity since each disk sees the same process conditions.
|
|
|
|
High-Vacuum Capability. The 200 Lean operates
at significantly better vacuum levels compared to the installed
base of MDP-250s. Better vacuum levels generally lead to
improved magnetic media performance.
|
5
|
|
|
|
|
Suite of Process Station Options. The 200 Lean
offers a wide range of process stations, providing capabilities
such as metal deposition, heating, cooling and carbon
overcoating onto both aluminum and glass disks.
|
Equipment
Business Sales and Marketing
Our Equipment business sales are made primarily through our
direct sales force, although in Japan, we sell our products
through a distributor, Matsubo. The selling process for our
equipment products is a multi-level and long-term process,
involving individuals from marketing, engineering, operations,
customer service and senior management. The process involves
making samples for the prospective customer and responding to
its needs for moderate levels of machine customization.
Customers often require a significant number of product
presentations and demonstrations before making a purchasing
decision.
Installing and integrating new equipment requires a substantial
investment by a customer. Sales of our systems depend, in
significant part, upon the decision of a prospective customer to
replace obsolete equipment or to increase manufacturing capacity
by upgrading or expanding existing manufacturing facilities or
by constructing new manufacturing facilities, all of which
typically involve a significant capital commitment. After making
a decision to select our equipment, our customers typically
purchase one or more engineering systems to develop and qualify
their production process prior to ordering and taking delivery
of multiple production systems. Accordingly, our systems have a
lengthy sales cycle, during which we may expend substantial
funds and management time and effort with no assurance that a
sale of one or more will result.
The production of large complex systems requires us to make
significant investments in inventory both to fulfill customer
orders and to maintain adequate supplies of spare parts to
service previously shipped systems. In some cases we manufacture
subsystems
and/or
complete systems prior to receipt of a customer order to smooth
our production flow
and/or
reduce our lead time. We maintain inventories of spare parts in
Santa Clara, Singapore and other locations to support our
customers. We typically require our customers to pay for systems
in three installments, with a portion of the system price billed
upon receipt of an order, a portion of the system price billed
upon shipment, and the balance of the system price and any sales
tax due upon completing installation and acceptance of the
system at the customers factory. All customer product
payments are recorded as customer advances pending revenue
recognition.
Equipment
Business Customers
Our disk sputtering equipment customers include magnetic disk
manufacturers such as Fuji Electric, Komag and Showa Denko and
vertically integrated hard disk drive manufacturers, such as
Hitachi Global Storage Technology, Maxtor and Seagate. The
majority of our customers product development programs are
located in the United States. Our customers manufacturing
facilities are primarily located in California, China, Japan,
Malaysia and Singapore.
Our customers business tends to be cyclical, with their
peak sales occurring during the second half of the year. As a
result, our customers have a tendency to order equipment for
delivery and installation by midyear, so that they have new
capacity in place for their peak production period. However,
during 2005 our customers were capacity constrained, demand did
not follow normal seasonal patterns, and we realized our highest
revenues during the fourth fiscal quarter.
Equipment
Business Customer Support
We provide process and applications support, customer training,
installation,
start-up
assistance and emergency service support to our equipment
customers. We conduct training classes for our customers
process engineers, machine operators and machine service
personnel. Additional training is also given to our customers
during the machine installation. We have a subsidiary in
Singapore and field offices in China and Japan to support our
customers in Asia. We are planning to add additional support
centers to maintain close proximity to our customers
factories as they deploy our systems.
6
We generally offer a one year warranty on our equipment. In some
cases we market extended warranty periods beyond 12 months
to our customers. During this warranty period any necessary
non-consumable parts are supplied and installed without charge.
Our employees provide field service support in the United
States, Singapore, Malaysia, China and Japan. In Japan, field
service support is also supplemented by our distributor, Matsubo.
Equipment
Business Competition
The principal competitive factors affecting the markets for our
equipment products include price, product performance and
functionality, integration and manageability of products,
customer support and service, reputation and reliability. We
have historically experienced intense competition worldwide from
competitors including Anelva Corporation, Ulvac and Unaxis
Holdings, Ltd., each of which has sold substantial numbers of
systems worldwide. Anelva, Ulvac and Unaxis all have
substantially greater financial, technical, marketing,
manufacturing and other resources than we do. To our knowledge,
Intevac, Anelva and Unaxis are the only companies that have
delivered products that economically address the sputtering
requirements for manufacture of advanced perpendicular magnetic
disks. However, there can be no assurance that any of our
competitors will not develop enhancements to, or future
generations of, competitive products that offer superior price
or performance features or that new competitors will not enter
our markets and develop such enhanced products.
Given the lengthy sales cycle and the significant investment
required to integrate equipment into the manufacturing process,
we believe that once a magnetic disk manufacturer has selected a
particular suppliers equipment for a specific application,
that manufacturer generally relies upon that suppliers
equipment and frequently will continue to purchase any
additional equipment for that application from the same
supplier. Accordingly, competition for customers in the
equipment industry is intense, and suppliers of equipment may
offer substantial pricing concessions and incentives to attract
new customers or retain existing customers.
Imaging
Business
Our Imaging business develops and manufactures electro-optical
sensors, cameras, and systems that permit highly sensitive
detection of photons in the visible and near infrared portions
of the spectrum, allowing vision in extreme low light
situations. The majority of our imaging revenue to date has been
derived from contracts related to the development of
electro-optical sensors, cameras and systems and funded by the
U.S. Government, its agencies and contractors.
Imaging
Industry Overview
Imaging is the capture and display of light or heat, emitted or
reflected from an object. Low light imaging involves the capture
and display of light at intensities of approximately one
millionth, or less, of daytime light levels.
Low light imaging technology that provides superior vision in
nighttime combat creates a significant tactical advantage.
Accordingly, the U.S. military has funded the development
of various night vision technologies, which have evolved through
three generations to todays widely deployed
Generation-III night vision tubes. Typically,
Generation-III night vision tubes are placed in front of a
users eyes, like a pair of binoculars, and produce a
direct-view, green glow image. The
U.S. military is now funding the development of compact
digital night vision imaging headsets that incorporate imagery
from both low light and thermal sensors.
The commercial sector has taken a different approach to extreme
low light imaging than the military. The initial extreme low
light cameras for the commercial sector were based on charged
coupled device, or CCD, technology, which is able to produce a
digital output. CCD technology relies on long exposure times for
its sensitivity, and as a result the initial cameras were used
for static applications, like astronomy. Other commercial
markets, such as metrology, life sciences and industrial process
monitoring, adopted CCD technology. However, CCD based cameras
in these applications are not well suited for dynamic
applications with motion or short measurement times.
7
As a result, two distinct forms of low light level imaging have
evolved: the Generation-III night vision tube technology
developed by the military, which provides direct-view analog
imagery; and CCD technology, which can provide digital imagery,
but is not well suited to dynamic applications.
Our
Imaging Solution
We have developed imaging technology that combines the low light
capability of Generation-III night vision technology with
silicon-based digital video technology that we believe will
enable us to provide a family of cost-effective low light
sensors and cameras. Elements of our proprietary solutions
include:
Advanced Photocathode Technology A
photocathode is a semiconductor compound with the ability to
convert light into electrons. We manufacture a family of
photocathodes designed to optimize sensitivity at specific
wavelengths ranging from the visible (0.40 microns) to the near
infrared (1.65 microns). Our photocathodes have high quantum
efficiencies (the efficiency with which incoming light photons
are converted to electrons) and are extremely sensitive to
incoming light. Some of our detectors, incorporating such
photocathodes, can detect incoming light at levels as low as a
single photon, which is the ultimate level of sensitivity.
Use of Low Power CMOS Imaging
Chips Complementary Metal Oxide
Semiconductor, or CMOS sensors, which are generally lower cost
and require less power than comparable CCD sensors, have been
developed for consumer imaging applications. We have developed
proprietary technologies and capabilities to incorporate CMOS
sensors into our products to take advantage of these
improvements. We have also developed a proprietary CMOS sensor
that is optimized for use in our night vision sensors. As a
result, we believe we will be able to offer cost effective,
compact, low power, extreme low light imaging sensors.
Increased Silicon Sensor Sensitivity We
have developed proprietary technology to enable CMOS and CCD
sensors to efficiently capture the accelerated electrons emitted
from the photocathode. Increasing the electron capture
efficiency directly increases extreme low light imaging
performance.
Compact Ultra-High Vacuum Sensor
Packaging Our compact ultra-high vacuum
sensor package enables us to combine an imaging chip with our
photocathodes in a thin package which is particularly well
suited for portable applications where size and weight are
critical.
Low
Light Imaging Market Opportunity
We are designing our imaging solutions to address next
generation military requirements and the dynamic applications of
the commercial markets.
Head Mounted Night Vision
Systems Generation-III based night vision
goggles, which have excellent extreme low light imaging
performance, were widely deployed by the U.S. military for
use by soldiers during the 1990s. In 2005 the
U.S. military awarded contracts that provide for a maximum
procurement of $3.2 billion over a five year period of
Generation-III night vision equipment. However, these goggles
are relatively large, heavy and lack video output. Additionally,
potential adversaries are now deploying Generation-II+ goggles
manufactured outside the United States with performance levels
approaching that of Generation-III. Accordingly, the
U.S. Army has developed a roadmap to maintain extreme low
light imaging dominance for the individual soldier. The roadmap
includes a transition from bulky direct-view night vision
goggles to a compact fused head mounted system,
which integrates an extreme low light camera, an infrared imager
and a video display. This approach addresses size and weight
issues and enables connectivity to a wireless network for
distribution of the imagery and other information. These
improvements need to be realized while minimizing the cost of
each soldiers system. The U.S. Army plans to begin
production of this type of system by 2010.
Military Long Range Target
Identification Current long-range nighttime
surveillance systems are based on expensive thermal imaging
camera systems, which image the thermal profile of a target.
These systems produce relatively poor resolution images since
they only measure emitted heat. Long range thermal systems are
also relatively large, which is a disadvantage for airborne and
portable applications. Accordingly, there is a need for a cost
effective, compact, long-range imaging solution that identifies
targets at a distance that is greater than an adversarys
detection range capability.
8
Physical Sciences Companies in the
physical sciences use extreme low light imaging to investigate
the chemistry and physics of a wide variety of substances such
as foods, medicines, materials and biological compounds. They
need wider spectral coverage, high sensitivity, increased speed
and increased resolution to increase the accuracy of their
measurements and the productivity of their measurement tools.
Life Sciences The life sciences market
focuses on increasing the understanding of biology at the
cellular level to improve health and quality of life. To image
single living cells this market needs extreme low light cameras
that operate at speeds significantly higher than cameras that
are available today.
Our
Imaging Strategy
Collaborate with Leading Development
Organizations We collaborate with, and
receive significant funding from, leading government research
organizations for the development of our extreme low light
technology. These organizations strongly influence development
and procurement of advanced technologies by the
U.S. military. For example, we have collaborated with the
U.S. Army Night Vision Labs, the world leader in night
vision technology, to facilitate the development and adoption of
our night vision technology.
Become Leading Provider of Extreme Low Light Imaging
Technology for the Military We are actively
marketing our extreme low light imaging technology to the
military.
|
|
|
|
|
Our extreme low-light sensor technology was selected in 2004 for
use in a digital head-mounted system for the military of a NATO
ally. Since then we have developed a high performance sensor
specifically targeted at military night vision applications.
Provided that we are able to obtain export approval from the
government for this high performance sensor, we believe our
customers system, which is targeted for deployment in
2007, will be the first digital based military head-mounted
low-light system to be deployed on a large scale.
|
|
|
|
In 2005 we entered into a joint development agreement with a
U.S. defense contractor to develop a sophisticated prototype
fused head-mounted night vision system for the
U.S. military.
|
|
|
|
Our Laser Illuminated Viewing and Ranging, or LIVAR, target
identification system can be used to identify targets at
distances of up to 20 kilometers and has been incorporated into
U.S. weapons development programs such as the Airborne
Laser (ABL), the Cost Effective Targeting System
(CETS), and the Long-Range Identification System
(LRID) programs.
|
|
|
|
Our Intensified Photodiodes enable single photon detection at
extremely high data rates and are designed for use in target
identification and other military applications.
|
Proprietary Sensor and Camera Technology to Address Emerging
Commercial Markets We are also using our
extreme low light imaging expertise to develop products for
commercial markets. We believe the modular design of our camera
electronics and software, coupled with use of our proprietary
CMOS chips in configurable sensors, will help decrease
development time and cost. We began shipping our MOSIR line of
commercial cameras early in 2006. MOSIR cameras offer previously
unavailable high sensitivity in the near infrared portion of the
spectrum and are well suited to low-light spectroscopy and
imaging applications.
Low Manufacturing Costs The market for
our cameras and sensors is price sensitive, and low-cost
manufacturing will be critical to the rapid proliferation of our
products. Our use of low-cost proprietary CMOS sensors and wafer
level die manufacturing, as opposed to single die manufacturing,
are elements of our strategy to reduce product cost.
Additionally, we have developed proprietary ultra-high vacuum
assembly equipment to automate the assembly of the photocathode
and the imaging device. This system is designed to decrease unit
costs by increasing throughput and improving process controls
and yields.
Imaging
Sales and Marketing
Sales of our products for military applications are primarily
made to the end user through our direct sales force. We also
sell to leading defense contractors such as Boeing, Lockheed
Martin Corporation and Northrop Grumman Corporation in cases
where our products are enabling technology for more complex
systems. To date, our revenue has been derived primarily from
research and development contracts, rather than actual product
sales. These
9
research and development contracts typically represent the early
phases of multi-year development programs funded by the
U.S. government and its allies.
We are subject to long sales cycles because many of our
products, such as our LIVAR system, typically must be designed
into our customers products, which are often complex and
state-of-the-art.
These development cycles are often multi-year and our sales are
contingent on our customer successfully integrating our product
into its product, completing development of its product and then
obtaining production orders for its product. Sales of these
products are also often dependent on ongoing government funding
of defense programs by the U.S. government and its allies.
Additionally, sales to international customers are also subject
to issuance of export licenses by the United States government,
which cannot always be obtained.
Sales of our commercial products, which have not been
significant to date, will be made through a combination of
system integrators, distributors and value added resellers and
can also be subject to long sales cycles.
Our Imaging business generally invoices its research and
development customers either as costs are incurred, or as
program milestones are achieved, depending upon the particular
contract terms. As a government contractor, we invoice customers
using estimated annual rates approved by the Defense Contracts
Audit Agency (DCAA). A majority of our contracts are
Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) contracts. On any CPFF
contract, 15% of the fee is withheld pending completion of the
program and DCAAs annual audit of our actual rates. The
withheld portion of the fee is included in accounts receivable
until paid.
Imaging
Business Competition
The principal competitive factors affecting our Imaging products
include price, extreme low light sensitivity, power consumption,
resolution, size, integratability, reliability, reputation and
customer support and service. We face substantial competition
for our Imaging products and many of our competitors have
greater resources than we do.
In the military market, ITT Industries and Northrop Grumman, who
are large and well-established defense contractors, are the
primary U.S. manufacturers of image intensifier tubes used
in Generation-III night vision devices and their derivative
products. Our extreme low light cameras are intended to displace
Generation-III night vision based products, and we expect that
ITT and Northrop Grumman will continue to enhance the
performance of their products and aggressively promote their
sales. Furthermore, CMC Electronics, DRS, FLIR Systems and
Raytheon manufacture cooled infrared sensors and cameras which
are presently used in long-range target identification systems,
with which our LIVAR target identification sensors and cameras
compete. In the physical and life sciences market, companies
such as Andor, E2V, Hamamatsu, Texas Instruments and Roper
Scientific offer competitive products.
Manufacturing
We manufacture our Equipment products at our facility in
Santa Clara, California. Our equipment manufacturing
operations include electromechanical assembly, mechanical and
vacuum assembly, fabrication of sputter sources, and system
assembly, alignment and testing. We make extensive use of the
local supplier infrastructure serving the semiconductor
equipment business. We purchase vacuum pumps, valves,
instrumentation and fittings, power supplies, printed wiring
board assemblies, computers and control circuitry, and custom
mechanical parts made by forging, machining and welding. We also
have our own small fabrication center that supports our
engineering departments and makes some of the machined parts
used in our products. We plan to transfer manufacturing for some
subassemblies to our Singapore subsidiary during 2006.
We manufacture our Imaging products at our facilities in
Santa Clara, California and Fremont, California. Imaging
business manufacturing includes production of advanced
photocathodes and sensors, lasers, cameras and integrated camera
systems. We make extensive use of advanced manufacturing
techniques and equipment, and our operations include vacuum,
electromechanical and optical system assembly. We make use of
the supplier infrastructure serving the semiconductor, camera
and optics manufacturing industries. In manufacturing our
sensors, we purchase wafers, components, processing supplies and
chemicals. In manufacturing our camera
10
systems, we purchase printed circuit boards, electromechanical
components and assemblies, mechanical components and enclosures,
optical components and computers.
Intellectual
Property
We currently hold 34 patents issued in the United States and 63
patents issued in foreign countries, and have additional patent
applications pending in the United States and foreign countries.
Of the 34 U.S. patents, 17 relate to our Equipment
business, and 17 relate to our Imaging business. Of the foreign
patents, 30 relate to our Equipment business, and 33 relate to
our Imaging business. In addition, we have the right to utilize
certain patents under licensing arrangements with Litton
Industries, Stanford University, The Charles Stark Draper
Laboratory and Alum Rock Technology. We hold substantial trade
secrets in the imaging area related to photocathode fabrication
and processing and to silicon chip packaging for vacuum
compatibility and high electron sensitivity. We also have
significant process integration intellectual property related to
vacuum packaging of a photocathode and a silicon semiconductor
chip.
Customer
Concentration
Historically, a significant portion of our revenue in any
particular period has been attributable to sales to a limited
number of customers In 2005, Seagate, our Japanese equipment
distributor, Matsubo, Hitachi Global Storage Technology and MMC
Technology each accounted for more than 10% of our revenues, and
in aggregate accounted for 90% of revenues. In 2004, Seagate and
Matsubo each accounted for more than 10% of our revenues, and in
aggregate accounted for 73% of revenues. In 2003, Komag,
Seagate, Lockheed Martin and Matsubo, each accounted for more
than 10% of our revenues, and in aggregate accounted for 66% of
revenues. Our largest customers change from period to period,
and it is expected that sales of our products to relatively few
customers will continue to account for a high percentage of our
revenues in the foreseeable future.
Foreign sales accounted for 71% of revenues in 2005, 68% of
revenues in 2004, and 64% of revenues in 2003. The majority of
our foreign sales are to companies in Asia or to
U.S. companies for use in their Asian operations. We
anticipate that sales to these international customers will
continue to be a significant portion of our Equipment revenues.
Employees
At December 31, 2005, we had 362 employees, including 91
contract employees, as compared to 191 employees at
December 31, 2004. Of these 362 employees, 89 were in
research and development, 210 in manufacturing, and 63 in
administration, customer support and marketing. Of the 362
employees, 265 were in the Equipment business, 59 were in the
Imaging business, and 38 were in corporate.
Compliance
with Environmental Regulations
We are subject to a variety of governmental regulations relating
to the use, storage, discharge, handling, emission, generation,
manufacture, treatment and disposal of toxic or otherwise
hazardous substances, chemicals, materials or waste. We treat
the cost of complying with government regulations and operating
a safe workplace as a normal cost of business and allocate the
cost of these activities to all functions, except where the cost
of those activities can be isolated and charged to a specific
function. The environmental standards and regulations
promulgated by government agencies in Santa Clara,
California and Fremont, California are rigorous and set a high
standard of compliance. We believe our costs of compliance with
these regulations and standards are comparable to other
companies operating similar facilities in Santa Clara,
California and Fremont, California.
Our
operating results fluctuate significantly from quarter to
quarter, which may cause the price of our stock to
decline.
Over the last 8 quarters, our revenues per quarter have
fluctuated between $52.7 million and $6.4 million.
Over the same period our operating income (loss) as a percentage
of revenues has fluctuated between approximately 18%
11
and (56%) of revenues. We anticipate that our revenues and
operating margins will continue to fluctuate. We expect this
fluctuation to continue for a variety of reasons, including:
|
|
|
|
|
delays or problems in the introduction and acceptance of our new
products, or delivery of existing products;
|
|
|
|
changes in the demand, due to seasonality, cyclicality and other
factors, for the computer systems, storage subsystems and
consumer electronics containing disks our customers produce with
our systems; and
|
|
|
|
announcements of new products, services or technological
innovations by us or our competitors.
|
Additionally, because our systems are priced in the millions of
dollars and we sell a relatively small number of systems, our
business is inherently subject to fluctuations in revenue from
quarter to quarter due to factors such as timing of orders,
acceptance of new systems by our customers or cancellation of
those orders. As a result, we believe that
quarter-to-quarter
comparisons of our revenues and operating results may not be
meaningful and that these comparisons may not be an accurate
indicator of our future performance. Our operating results in
one or more future quarters may fail to meet the expectations of
investment research analysts or investors, which could cause an
immediate and significant decline in the trading price of our
common shares.
We are
exposed to risks associated with a highly concentrated customer
base.
Historically, a significant portion of our revenue in any
particular period has been attributable to sales of our disk
sputtering systems to a limited number of customers. In 2005,
one of our customers accounted for 41% of our revenues and four
customers, in the aggregate, accounted for 90% of our revenues.
These same four customers, in the aggregate, accounted for 93%
of our net accounts receivable at December 31, 2005. During
2005, Seagate announced its acquisition of Maxtor. This
acquisition will further consolidate our customer base as they
both are included in the four customers with whom our revenues
and accounts receivable were heavily concentrated in 2005.
Orders from a relatively limited number of magnetic disk
manufacturers have accounted for, and likely will continue to
account for, a substantial portion of our revenues. The loss of,
or delays in purchasing by, any one of our large customers would
significantly reduce potential future revenues. The
concentration of our customer base may enable customers to
demand pricing and other terms unfavorable to us. Furthermore,
the concentration of customers can lead to extreme variability
in revenue and financial results from period to period. For
example, during 2005 revenues ranged between $10.6 million
in the first quarter and $52.7 million in the fourth
quarter. These factors could have a material adverse effect on
our business, financial condition and results of operations.
Our
long term revenue growth is dependent on new products. If these
new products are not successful, then our results of operations
will be adversely affected.
We have invested heavily, and continue to invest, in the
development of new products. Our success in developing and
selling new products depends upon a variety of factors,
including our ability to predict future customer requirements
accurately, technological advances, total cost of ownership of
our systems, our introduction of new products on schedule, our
ability to manufacture our products cost-effectively and the
performance of our products in the field. Our new product
decisions and development commitments must anticipate
continuously evolving industry requirements significantly in
advance of sales.
The majority of our revenues in the twelve months ended
December 31, 2005 were from sale of our 200 Lean disk
sputtering system, which was first delivered in December 2003.
When first introduced, advanced vacuum manufacturing equipment,
such as the 200 Lean, is subject to extensive customer
acceptance tests after installation at the customers
factory. These acceptance tests are designed to validate
reliable operation to specification in areas such as throughput,
vacuum level, robotics, process performance and software
features and functionality. These tests are generally more
comprehensive for new systems, than for mature systems, and are
designed to highlight problems encountered with early versions
of the equipment. For example, initial builds of the 200 Lean
experienced high production and warranty costs in comparison to
our more established product lines. Failure to promptly address
any of the problems uncovered in these tests could have adverse
effects on our business, including rescheduling of backlog,
failure to achieve customer acceptance and therefore revenue
recognition as anticipated, unanticipated product, rework and
warranty costs, penalties for non-performance, cancellation of
orders, or return of products for credit.
12
We are making a substantial investment to develop a new
manufacturing system to address applications other than magnetic
media manufacturing. We have not yet completed a fully
functional production system, and do not expect to generate
revenue from this product in the next twelve months. We spent
$6.4 million, or 44% of our research and development costs
on this new product in 2005 and expect to significantly increase
our level of spending on this project in 2006. We have not
developed or sold products for this market previously and our
knowledge of the market and its needs is limited. Failure to
correctly assess the size of the market, or to successfully
develop a product to cost effectively address the market, or to
establish effective sales and support of the new product would
have a material adverse effect on our future revenues and
profits, including loss of the Companys entire investment
in the project.
We are jointly developing a next generation head mounted
night-vision system with another defense contractor. This system
is planned for sale to the U.S. military and will compete
with head-mounted systems developed by our competitors. The US
military does not intend to initiate production of this system
until 2010. We plan to make a significant investment in this
product and cannot be assured when, or if, we will be awarded
any production contracts for these night vision systems
Our LIVAR target identification and low light level camera
technologies are designed to offer significantly improved
capability to military customers. We are also developing
commercial products based on the technology we have developed in
our Imaging business. None of our Imaging products are currently
being manufactured in high volume, and we may encounter
unforeseen difficulties when we commence volume production of
these products. Our Imaging business will require substantial
further investment in sales and marketing, in product
development and in additional production facilities in order to
expand our operations. We may not succeed in these activities or
generate significant sales of these new products. To date,
commercial sales of our commercial Imaging products have not
been significant, and we do not expect to collect significant
revenues in 2006 from deployment of LIVAR or our other Imaging
products.
Failure of any of these new products to perform as intended, to
penetrate their markets and develop into profitable product
lines or to achieve their production cost objectives, would have
a material adverse effect on our business.
Demand
for capital equipment is cyclical, which subjects our business
to long periods of depressed revenues interspersed with periods
of unusually high revenues.
Our Equipment business sells equipment to capital intensive
industries, which sell commodity products such as disk drives.
When demand for these commodity products exceeds capacity,
demand for new capital equipment such as ours tends to be
amplified. Conversely, when supply of these commodity products
exceeds demand, the demand for new capital equipment such as
ours tends to be depressed. The hard disk drive industry has
historically been subject to multi-year cycles because of the
long lead times and high costs involved in adding capacity, and
to seasonal cycles driven by consumer purchasing patterns, which
tend to be heaviest in the third and fourth quarters of each
year.
The cyclical nature of the capital equipment industry means that
in some years we will have unusually high sales of new systems,
and that in other years our sales of new systems will be
severely depressed. The timing, length and volatility of these
cycles are difficult to predict. These cycles have affected the
timing and amounts of our customers capital equipment
purchases and investments in new technology. For example, sales
of systems for magnetic disk production were severely depressed
from the middle of 1998 until mid-2003. We believe we are
currently in a strong upswing in a cycle, but we cannot predict
with any certainty how long such an upswing might last.
If the
projected growth in demand for hard disk drives does not
materialize and our customers do not replace or upgrade their
installed base of disk sputtering systems, then future sales of
our disk sputtering systems will suffer.
From the middle of 1998 until mid-2003, there was very little
demand for new disk sputtering systems, as magnetic disk
manufacturers were burdened with over-capacity and were not
investing in new disk sputtering equipment. By 2003, however,
over-capacity had diminished and sales of our 200 Lean began to
increase.
13
Sales of our equipment for capacity expansions are dependent on
the capacity expansion plans of our customers and upon whether
our customers select our equipment for their capacity
expansions. We have no control over our customers
expansion plans, and we cannot assure you that they will select
our equipment if they do expand their capacity. Our customers
may not implement capacity expansion plans, or we may fail to
win orders for equipment for those capacity expansions, which
could have a material adverse effect on our business and our
operating results. In addition, some manufacturers may choose to
purchase used systems from other manufacturers or customers
rather than purchasing new systems from us. Furthermore, if hard
disk drives were to be replaced by an alternative technology as
a primary method of digital storage, demand for our products
would decrease.
Sales of our new 200 Lean disk sputtering systems are also
dependent on obsolescence and replacement of the installed base
of disk sputtering equipment. If technological advancements are
developed that extend the useful life of the installed base of
systems, then sales of our 200 Lean will be limited to the
capacity expansion needs of our customers, which would
significantly decrease our revenue.
Our
products are complex, constantly evolving and often must be
customized to individual customer requirements.
The systems we manufacture and sell in our Equipment business
have a large number of components and are complex, which require
us to make substantial investments in research and development.
If we were to fail to develop, manufacture and market new
systems or to enhance existing systems, that failure would have
an adverse effect on our business. We may experience delays and
technical and manufacturing difficulties in future introduction,
volume production and acceptance of new systems or enhancements.
In addition, some of the systems that we manufacture must be
customized to meet individual customer site or operating
requirements. In some cases, we market and commit to deliver new
systems, modules and components with advanced features and
capabilities that we are still in the process of designing. We
have limited manufacturing capacity and engineering resources
and may be unable to complete the development, manufacture and
shipment of these products, or to meet the required technical
specifications for these products, in a timely manner. Failure
to deliver these products on time, or failure to deliver
products that perform to all contractually committed
specifications, could have adverse effects on our business,
including rescheduling of backlog, failure to achieve customer
acceptance and therefore revenue recognition as anticipated,
unanticipated rework and warranty costs, penalties for
non-performance, cancellation of orders, or return of products
for credit. In addition, we may incur substantial unanticipated
costs early in a products life cycle, such as increased
engineering, manufacturing, installation and support costs, that
we may be unable to pass on to the customer and that may affect
our gross margins. Sometimes we work closely with our customers
to develop new features and products. In connection with these
transactions, we sometimes offer a period of exclusivity to
these customers.
Our
sales cycle is long and unpredictable, which requires us to
incur high sales and marketing expenses with no assurance that a
sale will result.
The sales cycle for our equipment systems can be a year or
longer, involving individuals from many different areas of our
company and numerous product presentations and demonstrations
for our prospective customers. Our sales process for these
systems also includes the production of samples and
customization of products for our prospective customers. We do
not enter into long-term contracts with our customers and
therefore until an order is actually submitted by a customer
there is no binding commitment to purchase our systems.
Our Imaging business is also subject to long sales cycles
because many of our products, such as our LIVAR system, often
must be designed into our customers products, which are often
complex
state-of-the-art
products. These development cycles are often multi-year, and our
sales are contingent on our customer successfully integrating
our product into their product, completing development of their
product and then obtaining production orders for their product
from the U.S. Government or its allies.
As a result, we may not recognize revenue from our products for
extended periods of time after we have completed development,
and made initial shipments of, our products, during which time
we may expend substantial funds and management time and effort
with no assurance that a sale will result.
14
We
operate in an intensely competitive marketplace, and our
competitors have greater resources than we do.
In the market for our disk sputtering systems, we have
experienced competition from competitors such as Anelva
Corporation, which is a subsidiary of Canon, and Unaxis
Holdings, Ltd, each of which has sold substantial numbers of
systems worldwide. In the market for our Imaging products, we
experience competition from companies such as ITT Industries,
Inc. and Northrop Grumman Corporation, the primary
U.S. manufacturers of Generation-III night vision devices
and their derivative products. Our competitors have
substantially greater financial, technical, marketing,
manufacturing and other resources than we do. We cannot assure
you that our competitors will not develop enhancements to, or
future generations of, competitive products that offer superior
price or performance features. Likewise, we cannot assure you
that new competitors will not enter our markets and develop such
enhanced products. Moreover, competition for our customers is
intense, and our competitors have historically offered
substantial pricing concessions and incentives to attract our
customers or retain their existing customers.
We
experienced significant growth in our business and operations
and if we do not appropriately manage this growth and any future
growth, our operating results will be negatively
affected.
Our business has grown significantly in recent years in both
operations and headcount, and continued growth may cause a
significant strain on our infrastructure, internal systems and
managerial resources. To manage our growth effectively, we must
continue to improve and expand our infrastructure, including
information technology and financial operating and
administrative systems and controls, and continue managing
headcount, capital and processes in an efficient manner. Our
productivity and the quality of our products may be adversely
affected if we do not integrate and train our new employees
quickly and effectively and coordinate among our executive,
engineering, finance, marketing, sales, operations and customer
support organizations, all of which add to the complexity of our
organization and increase our operating expenses. We also may be
less able to predict and effectively control our operating
expenses due to the growth and increasing complexity of our
business. In addition, our information technology systems may
not grow at a sufficient rate to keep up with the processing and
information demands placed on them by a much larger company. The
efforts to continue to expand our information technology systems
or our inability to do so could harm our business. Further,
revenues may not grow at a sufficient rate to absorb the costs
associated with a larger overall headcount.
Our future growth may require significant additional resources
given that, as we increase our business operations in complexity
and scale, we may have insufficient management capabilities and
internal bandwidth to manage our growth and business
effectively. We cannot assure you that resources will be
available when we need them or that we will have sufficient
capital to fund these potential resource needs. Also, growth in
the number of orders received in our Equipment business may
require additional physical space and headcount, and our ability
to fulfill such orders may be constrained if we are unable to
effectively grow our business. If we are unable to manage our
growth effectively or if we experience a shortfall in resources,
our results of operations will be harmed.
Our
Imaging business depends heavily on government contracts, which
are subject to immediate termination and are funded in
increments. The termination of or failure to fund one or more of
these contracts could have a negative impact on our
operations.
We sell many of our Imaging products and services directly to
the U.S. government, as well as to prime contractors for various
U.S. government programs. Our revenues from government
contracts totaled $6.9 million, $8.2 million and
$9.4 million in 2005, 2004 and 2003, respectively.
Generally, government contracts are subject to oversight audits
by government representatives and contain provisions permitting
termination, in whole or in part, without prior notice at the
governments convenience upon the payment of compensation
only for work done and commitments made at the time of
termination. We cannot assure you that one or more of the
government contracts under which we or our customers operate
will not be terminated under these circumstances. Also, we
cannot assure you that we or our customers would be able to
procure new government contracts to offset the revenues lost as
a result of any termination of existing contracts, nor can we
assure you that we or our customers will continue to remain in
good standing as federal contractors.
15
Furthermore, the funding of multi-year government programs is
subject to congressional appropriations, and there is no
guarantee that the U.S. government will make further
appropriations. The loss of funding for a government program
would result in a loss of anticipated future revenues
attributable to that program. That could increase our overall
costs of doing business.
In addition, sales to the U.S. government and its prime
contractors may be affected by changes in procurement policies,
budget considerations and political developments in the United
States or abroad. The influence of any of these factors, which
are beyond our control, could also negatively impact our
financial condition. We also may experience problems associated
with advanced designs required by the government, which may
result in unforeseen technological difficulties and cost
overruns. Failure to overcome these technological difficulties
and the occurrence of cost overruns would have a material
adverse effect on our business.
We may
not be successful in maintaining and obtaining the necessary
export licenses to conduct operations abroad, and the United
States government may prevent proposed sales to foreign
customers.
Many of our Imaging products require export licenses from United
States Government agencies under the Export Administration Act,
the Trading with the Enemy Act of 1917, the Arms Export Act of
1976 and the International Trading in Arms Regulations. This
limits the potential market for our products. We can give no
assurance that we will be successful in obtaining all the
licenses necessary to export our products. Recently, heightened
government scrutiny of export licenses for products in our
market has resulted in lengthened review periods for our license
applications. Export to countries which are not considered by
the United States Government to be allies is likely to be
prohibited, and even sales to U.S. allies may be limited.
Failure to obtain, or delays in obtaining, or revocation of
previously issued licenses would prevent us from selling our
products outside the United States, may subject us to fines or
other penalties, and would have a material adverse effect on our
business, financial condition and results of operations.
Our
sales of disk sputtering systems are dependent on substantial
capital investment by our customers, far in excess of the cost
of our products.
Our customers must make extremely large capital expenditures in
order to purchase our systems and other related equipment and
facilities. These costs are far in excess of the cost of our
systems alone. The magnitude of such capital expenditures
requires that our customers have access to large amounts of
capital and that they be willing to invest that capital over
long periods of time to be able to purchase our equipment. The
magnetic disk manufacturing industry has not made significant
additions to its production capacity until recently. Some of our
potential customers may not be willing or able to make the
magnitude of capital investment required, especially during a
downturn in either the overall economy or the hard disk drive
industry.
Our
stock price is volatile.
The market price and trading volume of our common stock has been
subject to significant volatility, and this trend may continue.
During 2005, the closing price of our common stock, as traded on
The Nasdaq National Market, fluctuated from a low of $7.06 to a
high of $14.94 per share, and is currently trading at over
$20 per share. The value of our common stock may decline
regardless of our operating performance or prospects. Factors
affecting our market price include:
|
|
|
|
|
our perceived prospects;
|
|
|
|
hard disk drive market expectations;
|
|
|
|
variations in our operating results and whether we achieve our
key business targets;
|
|
|
|
sales or purchases of large blocks of our stock;
|
|
|
|
changes in, or our failure to meet, our revenue and earnings
estimates;
|
|
|
|
changes in securities analysts buy or sell recommendations;
|
|
|
|
differences between our reported results and those expected by
investors and securities analysts;
|
16
|
|
|
|
|
announcements of new contracts, products or technological
innovations by us or our competitors;
|
|
|
|
market reaction to any acquisitions, joint ventures or strategic
investments announced by us or our competitors;
|
|
|
|
our high fixed operating expenses, including research and
development expenses;
|
|
|
|
developments in the financial markets; and
|
|
|
|
general economic, political or stock market conditions in the
United States and other major regions in which we do business.
|
For example, in July 2004 when we announced that our gross
margin and gross revenue for the year would be under the
expectations of investment analysts, our stock price dropped by
approximately half. In addition, the general economic,
political, stock market and hard drive industry conditions that
may affect the market price of our common stock are beyond our
control. The market price of our common stock at any particular
time may not remain the market price in the future. In the past,
securities class action litigation has been instituted against
companies following periods of volatility in the market price of
their securities. Any such litigation, if instituted against us,
could result in substantial costs and a diversion of
managements attention and resources.
Changes
in tax rates or tax liabilities could affect future
results.
As a global company, we are subject to taxation in the United
States and various other countries. Significant judgment is
required to determine and estimate worldwide tax liabilities.
Our future tax rates could be affected by changes in the
composition of earnings in countries with differing tax rates,
changes in the valuation of our deferred tax assets and
liabilities, or changes in the tax laws. Although we believe our
tax estimates are reasonable, there can be no assurance that any
final determination will not be materially different from the
treatment reflected in our historical income tax provisions and
accruals, which could materially and adversely affect our
results of operations.
At December 31, 2005, due to a history of net operating
losses prior to 2005, $15 million of deferred tax assets
have been fully reserved by a valuation allowance. As a result,
we are projecting an effective tax rate for 2006 of 3%. Once we
determine that conclusive evidence exists to support an
adjustment to the valuation allowance, or we can reasonably
forecast sufficient income to utilize the deferred tax assets,
our effective tax rate will likely increase significantly. An
increase in the effective tax rate could have a material adverse
effect on our reported earnings and earnings per share.
Our
future success depends on international sales and the management
of global operations
In 2005, approximately 71% of our revenues came from regions
outside the United States. We currently have international
customer support offices in Singapore, China and Japan. We
expect that international sales will continue to account for a
significant portion of our total revenue in future years.
Certain manufacturing facilities and suppliers are also located
outside the United States. Managing our global operations
presents challenges including, but not limited to, those arising
from:
|
|
|
|
|
varying regional and geopolitical business conditions and
demands;
|
|
|
|
global trade issues;
|
|
|
|
variations in protection of intellectual property and other
legal rights in different countries;
|
|
|
|
rising raw material and energy costs;
|
|
|
|
variations in the ability to develop relationships with
suppliers and other local businesses;
|
|
|
|
changes in laws and regulations of the United States (including
export restrictions) and other countries, as well as their
interpretation and application;
|
|
|
|
fluctuations in interest rates and currency exchange rates;
|
|
|
|
the need to provide sufficient levels of technical support in
different locations;
|
17
|
|
|
|
|
political instability, natural disasters (such as earthquakes,
hurricanes or floods), pandemics, terrorism or acts of war where
we have operations, suppliers or sales;
|
|
|
|
cultural differences; and
|
|
|
|
shipping delays.
|
Changes
in existing financial accounting standards or practices or
taxation rules or practices may adversely affect our results of
operations.
Changes in existing accounting or taxation rules or practices,
new accounting pronouncements or taxation rules, or varying
interpretations of current accounting pronouncements or taxation
practice could have a significant adverse effect on our results
of operations or the manner in which we conduct our business.
Further, such changes could potentially affect our reporting of
transactions completed before such changes are effective. For
example, in December 2004, the Financial Accounting Standards
Board (FASB) enacted Statement of Financial
Accounting Standards 123 (Revised 2004)
(SFAS 123R), Share-Based
Payment, which replaces SFAS No. 123
(SFAS 123), Accounting for Stock-Based
Compensation. SFAS 123R requires the measurement
of all share-based payments to employees, including grants of
employee stock options, using a
fair-value-based
method and the recording of such compensation expense in our
statements of income. We are required to adopt SFAS 123R in
the first quarter of fiscal year 2006. The pro forma
disclosures, previously permitted under SFAS 123 and
adopted by us, no longer will be an alternative to financial
statement recognition. We have not yet determined whether the
adoption of SFAS 123R will result in amounts that are
similar to the current pro forma disclosures under
SFAS 123, but we expect the adoption to increase our cost
of revenues and operating expenses, and the adoption of
SFAS 123R could make our net income less predictable in any
given reporting period, and could change the way we compensate
our employees.
We are
required to evaluate our internal control over financial
reporting under Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002 and any adverse results from such evaluation could result
in a loss of investor confidence in our financial reports and
have an adverse effect on our stock price.
Pursuant to Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
our management must perform evaluations of our internal control
over financial reporting. Beginning in 2004, our
Form 10-K
has included a report by management of their assessment of the
adequacy of such internal control. Additionally, our independent
registered public accounting firm must publicly attest to the
adequacy of managements assessment and the effectiveness
of our internal control. Ongoing compliance with these
requirements is complex, costly and time-consuming.
In 2004, we were not able to assert, in our management
certifications filed with our Annual Report on
Form 10-K,
that our internal control over financial reporting was effective
as of December 31, 2004, as our management identified three
material weaknesses in our internal control over financial
reporting. This or any future inability to assert that our
internal controls over financial reporting are effective for any
given reporting period (or if our auditors are unable to attest
that our managements report is fairly stated or if they
are unable to express an opinion on the effectiveness of our
internal controls), could cause us to lose investor confidence
in the accuracy and completeness of our financial reports, which
could have an adverse effect on our stock price.
We have in the past discovered, and may in the future discover,
areas of our internal controls that need improvement. During the
2004 audit, our external auditors brought to our attention a
need to increase the internal controls in certain areas of our
operation, including revenue calculations in the Imaging
business, determination of inventory reserve requirements,
approval of changes to the perpetual inventory and segregation
of duties. In 2005, we devoted significant resources to
remediation of these and other findings and to improvement of
our internal controls. Although we believe that these efforts
have strengthened our internal controls and addressed the
concerns that gave rise to the material weaknesses previously
reported by us, we are continuing to work to improve our
internal controls.
18
Our
dependence on suppliers for certain parts, some of them
sole-sourced, makes us vulnerable to manufacturing interruptions
and delays, which could affect our ability to meet customer
demand.
We are a manufacturing business. Purchased parts constitute the
largest component of our product cost. Our ability to
manufacture depends on the timely delivery of parts, components,
and subassemblies from suppliers. We obtain some of the key
components and sub-assemblies used in our products from a single
supplier or a limited group of suppliers. If any of our
suppliers fail to deliver quality parts on a timely basis, we
may experience delays in manufacturing, which could result in
delayed product deliveries or increased costs to expedite
deliveries or develop alternative suppliers. Development of
alternative suppliers could require redesign of our products.
Our
business depends on the integrity of our intellectual property
rights.
The success of our business depends upon integrity of our
intellectual property rights and we cannot assure you that:
|
|
|
|
|
any of our pending or future patent applications will be allowed
or that any of the allowed applications will be issued as
patents or will issue with claims of the scope we sought;
|
|
|
|
any of our patents will not be invalidated, deemed
unenforceable, circumvented or challenged;
|
|
|
|
the rights granted under our patents will provide competitive
advantages to us;
|
|
|
|
other parties will not develop similar products, duplicate our
products or design around our patents; or
|
|
|
|
our patent rights, intellectual property laws or our agreements
will adequately protect our intellectual property or competitive
position.
|
Failure
to protect our intellectual property rights adequately could
have a material adverse effect on our business.
We provide products that are expected to have long useful lives
and that are critical to our customers operations. From
time to time, as part of business agreements, we place portions
of our intellectual property into escrow to provide assurance to
our customers that our technology will be available to them in
the event that we are unable to support them at some point in
the future.
From time to time, we have received claims that we are
infringing third parties intellectual property rights. We
cannot assure you that third parties will not in the future
claim that we have infringed current or future patents,
trademarks or other proprietary rights relating to our products.
Any claims, with or without merit, could be time-consuming,
result in costly litigation, cause product shipment delays or
require us to enter into royalty or licensing agreements. Such
royalty or licensing agreements, if required, may not be
available on terms acceptable to us.
Our
success is dependent on recruiting and retaining a highly
talented work force.
Our employees are vital to our success, and our key management,
engineering and other employees are difficult to replace. We
generally do not have employment contracts with our key
employees. Further, we do not maintain key person life insurance
on any of our employees. The expansion of high technology
companies worldwide has increased demand and competition for
qualified personnel, and has made companies increasingly
protective of prior employees. It may be difficult for us to
locate employees who are not subject to non-competition and
other restrictions.
Our U.S. operations are located in Santa Clara,
California and Fremont, California, where the cost of living and
recruiting employees is high. Additionally, our operating
results depend, in large part, upon our ability to retain and
attract qualified management, engineering, marketing,
manufacturing, customer support, sales and administrative
personnel. Furthermore, we compete with similar industries, such
as the semiconductor industry, for the same pool of skilled
employees. If we are unable to retain key personnel, or if we
are not able to attract, assimilate or retain additional highly
qualified employees to meet our needs in the future, our
business and operations could be harmed. Changes we make to our
business in response to the adoption of 123R may make this more
difficult.
19
Changes
in demand caused by fluctuations in interest and currency
exchange rates may reduce our international sales.
Sales and operating activities outside of the United States are
subject to inherent risks, including fluctuations in the value
of the U.S. dollar relative to foreign currencies, tariffs,
quotas, taxes and other market barriers, political and economic
instability, restrictions on the export or import of technology,
potentially limited intellectual property protection,
difficulties in staffing and managing international operations
and potentially adverse tax consequences. We earn a significant
portion of our revenue from international sales, and there can
be no assurance that any of these factors will not have an
adverse effect on our ability to sell our products or operate
outside the United States.
We currently quote and sell the majority of our products in
U.S. dollars. From time to time, we may enter into foreign
currency contracts in an effort to reduce the overall risk of
currency fluctuations to our business. However, there can be no
assurance that the offer and sale of products denominated in
foreign currencies, and the related foreign currency hedging
activities, will not adversely affect our business.
Our principal competitor for disk sputtering equipment is based
in Japan and has a cost structure based on the Japanese yen.
Accordingly, currency fluctuations could cause the price of our
products to be more or less competitive than our principal
competitors products. Currency fluctuations will decrease
or increase our cost structure relative to those of our
competitors, which could lessen the demand for our products and
affect our competitive position.
We may
evaluate acquisition candidates and other diversification
strategies.
In the past we have engaged in acquisitions as part of our
efforts to expand and diversify our business. For example, our
business was initially acquired from Varian Associates in 1991.
We also acquired our gravity lubrication and rapid thermal
processing product lines in two acquisitions. We sold the rapid
thermal processing product line in November 2002. We also
acquired our RPC electron beam processing business in late 1997,
and subsequently closed this business. We intend to continue to
evaluate new acquisition candidates, divestiture and
diversification strategies. Any acquisition involves numerous
risks, including difficulties in the assimilation of the
acquired companys employees, operations and products,
uncertainties associated with operating in new markets and
working with new customers, and the potential loss of the
acquired companys key employees. Additionally,
unanticipated expenses, difficulties and consequences may be
incurred relating to the integration of technologies, research
and development, and administrative and other functions. Any
future acquisitions may also result in potentially dilutive
issuance of equity securities, acquisition- or
divestiture-related write-offs or the assumption of debt and
contingent liabilities.
We use
hazardous materials and are subject to risks of non-compliance
with environmental and safety regulations.
We are subject to a variety of governmental regulations relating
to the use, storage, discharge, handling, emission, generation,
manufacture, treatment and disposal of toxic or otherwise
hazardous substances, chemicals, materials or waste. If we fail
to comply with current or future regulations, such failure could
result in suspension of our operations, alteration of our
manufacturing process, or substantial civil penalties or
criminal fines against us or our officers, directors or
employees. Additionally, these regulations could require us to
acquire expensive remediation or abatement equipment or to incur
substantial expenses to comply with them. Failure to properly
manage the use, disposal or storage of, or adequately restrict
the release of, hazardous or toxic substances could subject us
to significant liabilities.
Future
sales of shares of our common stock by our officers, directors
and affiliates could cause our stock price to
decline.
Substantially all of our common stock may be sold without
restriction in the public markets, although shares held by our
directors, executive officers and affiliates may be subject to
volume and manner of sale restrictions. In August 2005, at the
request of Redemco LLC, we registered the sale of
2,000,000 shares at any time and in any manner Redemco LLC
chooses. As of January 19, 2006, 1,968,774 of these shares
had been sold by Redemco LLC and Redemco LLC and its affiliates
still owned 1,860,226 shares. Sales of a substantial number
of shares of common
20
stock in the public market by our officers, directors or
affiliates or the perception that these sales could occur could
materially and adversely affect our stock price and make it more
difficult for us to sell equity securities in the future at a
time and price we deem appropriate.
Anti-takeover
provisions in our charter documents and under California law
could prevent or delay a change in control, which could
negatively impact the value of our common stock by discouraging
a favorable merger or acquisition of us.
Our articles of incorporation authorize our board of directors
to issue up to 10,000,000 shares of preferred stock and to
determine the powers, preferences, privileges, rights, including
voting rights, qualifications, limitations and restrictions of
those shares, without any further vote or action by the
shareholders. The rights of the holders of our common stock will
be subject to, and may be adversely affected by, the rights of
the holders of any preferred stock that we may issue in the
future. The issuance of preferred stock could have the effect of
delaying, deterring or preventing a change in control and could
adversely affect the voting power of your shares. In addition,
provisions of California law and our bylaws could make it more
difficult for a third party to acquire a majority of our
outstanding voting stock by discouraging a hostile bid, or
delaying or deterring a merger, acquisition or tender offer in
which our shareholders could receive a premium for their shares
or a proxy contest for control of our company or other changes
in our management.
We
could be involved in litigation
From time to time we may be involved in litigation of various
types, including litigation alleging infringement of
intellectual property rights and other claims. Litigation tends
to be expensive and requires significant management time and
attention and could have a negative effect on our results of
operations or business if we lose or have to settle a case on
significantly adverse terms.
Business
interruptions could adversely affect our
operations.
Our operations are vulnerable to interruption by fire,
earthquake, or other natural disaster, quarantines or other
disruptions associated with infectious diseases, national
catastrophe, terrorist activities, war, disruptions in our
computing and communications infrastructure due to power loss,
telecommunications failure, human error, physical or electronic
security breaches and computer viruses, and other events beyond
our control. We do not have a fully implemented detailed
disaster recovery plan. Despite our implementation of network
security measures, our tools and servers are vulnerable to
computer viruses, break-ins, and similar disruptions from
unauthorized tampering with our computer systems and tools
located at customer sites. Political instability could cause us
to incur increased costs in transportation, make such
transportation unreliable, increase our insurance costs, and
cause international currency markets to fluctuate. This same
instability could have the same effects on our suppliers and
their ability to timely deliver their products. In addition, we
do not carry sufficient business interruption insurance to
compensate us for losses that may occur, and any losses or
damages incurred by us could have a material adverse effect on
our business and results of operations. For example, we self
insure earthquake risks because we believe this is the prudent
financial decision based on the high cost of limited coverage
available in the earthquake insurance market. An earthquake
could significantly disrupt our operations, most of which are
conducted in California. It could also significantly delay our
research and engineering effort on new products, most of which
is also conducted in California. We take steps to minimize the
damage that would be caused by an earthquake, but there is no
certainty that our efforts will prove successful in the event of
an earthquake.
|
|
Item 1B.
|
Unresolved
Staff Comments
|
None.
21
We maintain our corporate headquarters in Santa Clara,
California. The location, approximate size and type of facility
of our principal properties are listed below. We lease all of
our properties and do not own any real estate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Location
|
|
Square Feet
|
|
Principal Use
|
|
Santa Clara, CA
|
|
|
119,583
|
|
|
Corporate Headquarters, Marketing,
Manufacturing, Engineering, Customer Support
|
Fremont, CA
|
|
|
9,505
|
|
|
Sensor Fabrication
|
Singapore
|
|
|
3,600
|
|
|
Customer Support
|
Shenzhen, China
|
|
|
1,934
|
|
|
Customer Support
|
The lease for our Santa Clara facility expires in March
2012, and the lease for our Fremont facility expires in February
2013. Our Singapore facility is currently operating on a
month-to-month
lease agreement while we look for a new facility that will allow
establishment of manufacturing operations in Singapore. The
lease for our Shenzhen facility expires in July 2006. We operate
two full manufacturing shifts. With the exception of Singapore,
we believe that we have sufficient productive capacity to meet
our current needs.
|
|
Item 3.
|
Legal
Proceedings
|
From time to time, we are involved in claims and legal
proceedings that arise in the ordinary course of business. We
expect that the number and significance of these matters will
increase as our business expands. Any claims or proceedings
against us, whether meritorious or not, could be time consuming,
result in costly litigation, require significant amounts of
management time, result in the diversion of significant
operational resources, or require us to enter into royalty or
licensing agreements which, if required, may not be available on
terms favorable to us or at all. We are not presently party to
any lawsuit or proceeding that, in our opinion, is likely to
seriously harm our business.
|
|
Item 4.
|
Submission
of Matters to a Vote of Security-Holder
|
No matters were submitted to a vote of security-holders during
the fourth quarter of the fiscal year covered by this Annual
Report on
Form 10-K.
22
EXECUTIVE
OFFICERS
Certain information about Intevacs executive officers as
of March 15, 2006 is listed below:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Name
|
|
Age
|
|
Position
|
|
Executive Officers:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Norman H. Pond
|
|
|
67
|
|
|
Chairman of the Board
|
Kevin Fairbairn
|
|
|
52
|
|
|
President and Chief Executive
Officer
|
Verle Aebi
|
|
|
51
|
|
|
President of Photonics Technology
Division
|
Michael Barnes
|
|
|
47
|
|
|
Vice President and Chief Technical
Officer, Equipment Products
|
Charles B. Eddy III
|
|
|
55
|
|
|
Vice President, Finance and
Administration, Chief Financial Officer, Treasurer and Secretary
|
Luke Marusiak
|
|
|
43
|
|
|
Chief Operating Officer
|
Other Key Officers:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
James Birt
|
|
|
40
|
|
|
Vice President, Customer Support,
Equipment Products
|
Terry Bluck
|
|
|
46
|
|
|
Vice President, Technology,
Equipment Products
|
Kimberly Burk
|
|
|
40
|
|
|
Director, Human Resources
|
Stephen Gustafson
|
|
|
34
|
|
|
Director, Imaging Operations
|
Timothy Justyn
|
|
|
43
|
|
|
Vice President, Manufacturing,
Equipment Products
|
Ralph Kerns
|
|
|
59
|
|
|
Vice President, Business
Development, Equipment Products
|
Christopher Lane
|
|
|
39
|
|
|
Vice President, New Product
Development, Equipment Products
|
Pat Leahy
|
|
|
44
|
|
|
Vice President, Engineering,
Equipment Products
|
Mr. Pond is a founder of Intevac and has served as
Chairman of the Board since February 1991. Mr. Pond served
as President and Chief Executive Officer from February 1991
until July 2000 and again from September 2001 through January
2002. Mr. Pond holds a BS in physics from the University of
Missouri at Rolla and an MS in physics from the University of
California at Los Angeles.
Mr. Fairbairn joined Intevac as President and Chief
Executive Officer in January 2002 and was appointed a director
in February 2002. Before joining Intevac, Mr. Fairbairn was
employed by Applied Materials from July 1985 to January 2002,
most recently as Vice-President and General Manager of the
Conductor Etch Organization with responsibility for the Silicon
and Metal Etch Divisions. From 1996 to 1999, Mr. Fairbairn
was General Manager of Applied Materials Plasma Enhanced
Chemical Vapor Deposition Business Unit and from 1993 to 1996,
he was General Manager of Applied Materials Plasma Silane
CVD Product Business Unit. Mr. Fairbairn holds an MA in
engineering sciences from Cambridge University.
Mr. Aebi has served as President of the Photonics
Division since July 2000. Mr. Aebi served as General
Manager of the Photonics Division since May 1995 and was elected
as a Vice President of the Company in September 1995. From 1988
through 1994, Mr. Aebi was the Engineering Manager of our
night vision business, where he was responsible for new product
development in the areas of advanced photocathodes and image
intensifiers. Mr. Aebi holds a BS in physics and an MS in
electrical engineering from Stanford University.
Dr. Barnes joined Intevac as Vice President and
Chief Technical Officer in February 2006. Before joining
Intevac, Dr. Barnes was General Manager of the High Density
Plasma Chemical Vapor Deposition Business Unit at Novellus
Systems from March 2004 to February 2006. From January 2004 to
March 2004, he was Vice President, Technology at Nanosys and
from August 2003 to January 2004 he was Vice President,
Engineering at OnWafer Technologies. Dr. Barnes was
employed by Applied Materials from April 1998 to August 2003,
first as a Managing Director and subsequently as Vice President,
Etch Engineering and Technology. Dr. Barnes holds a BS, MS
and PhD in electrical engineering from the University of
Michigan.
23
Mr. Eddy has served as Vice President, Finance and
Administration, Chief Financial Officer, Treasurer and Secretary
since April 1991. Mr. Eddy holds a BS in engineering
science from the University of Virginia and an MBA from
Dartmouth College.
Mr. Marusiak joined Intevac as Chief Operating
Officer in April 2004. Before joining Intevac, Mr. Marusiak
was employed by Applied Materials from July 1991 to April 2004,
most recently as Senior Director of North American Operations.
Previously, Mr. Marusiak managed Applied Materials
Field Operations in North America. Mr. Marusiak holds a BS
in electrical engineering from Gannon University and an MS in
teleprocessing science from the University of Southern
Mississippi.
Mr. Birt joined Intevac as Vice President, Customer
Support of the Equipment Products Division in September 2004.
Before joining Intevac, Mr. Birt was employed by Applied
Materials from July 1992 to September 2004, most recently as
Director, Field Operations/Quality North America. Mr. Birt
holds a BS in electrical engineering from Texas A&M
University.
Mr. Bluck rejoined Intevac as Vice President,
Technology of the Equipment Products Division in August 2004.
Mr. Bluck had previously worked at Intevac from December
1996 to November 2002 in various engineering positions. The
business unit Mr. Bluck worked for was sold to Photon
Dynamics in November 2002 and he was employed there as Vice
President, Rapid Thermal Process Product Engineering until
August 2004. Mr. Bluck holds a BS in physics from
San Jose State University.
Ms. Burk has served as Human Resources Director
since May 2000. Prior to joining Intevac, Ms. Burk served
as Human Resources Manager of Moen, Inc. from 1999 to 2000 and
served as Human Resources Manager of Lawson Mardon from 1994 to
1999. Ms. Burk holds a BS in sociology from Northern
Illinois University.
Mr. Gustafson has served as Director of Imaging
Operations since February 2003. Before joining Intevac in May
2002, Mr. Gustafson was employed by Applied Materials as a
Sr. Operations Manager in the Conductor Etch Organization. Mr.
Gustafson holds a BA in humanities and an MS in industrial
engineering from San Jose State University.
Mr. Justyn has served as Vice President, Equipment
Manufacturing since April 1997. Mr. Justyn joined Intevac
in February 1991 and has served in various roles in our
Equipment Products Division and our former night vision
business. Mr. Justyn holds a BS in chemical engineering
from the University of California, Santa Barbara.
Mr. Kerns joined Intevac as Vice President, Business
Development of the Equipment Products Division in August 2003.
Before joining Intevac, Mr. Kerns was employed by Applied
Materials from April 1997 to November 2002, most recently as
Managing Director for Business Development for the Process
Modules Group. Previously, Mr. Kerns was General Manager of
Applied Materials Metal Etch Division from 2000 to 2002.
From 1998 to 2000, Mr. Kerns was Senior Director for North
America Multinational Accounts and from 1997 to 1998, he was
General Manager of Applied Materials Dielectric Etch
Division. Mr. Kerns holds a BS in chemistry from the
University of Idaho and a PhD in theoretical chemistry from
Princeton University.
Mr. Lane has served as Vice President, Equipment New
Product Development since February 2006. Previously
Mr. Lane served as General Manager of the Commercial
Imaging Division. Before joining Intevac, Mr. Lane was
employed by Applied Materials from 1990 to July 2002, most
recently as Director of Engineering, CVD and Etch, in the
Conductor Etch Organization. Mr. Lane holds a BS in
mechanical engineering, an MS in engineering management and an
MBA, all from California Polytechnic State University at
San Luis Obispo.
Mr. Leahy joined Intevac in May 2005 as Vice
President, Engineering of the Equipment Products Division.
Before joining Intevac, Mr. Leahy was employed by Applied
Materials as Director of Engineering from 1996 to May 2005.
Mr. Leahy holds a BS in mechanical engineering from The
Pennsylvania State University.
24
PART II
|
|
Item 5.
|
Market
for Registrants Common Equity, Related Shareholder Matters
and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities
|
Price
Range of Common Stock
Our common stock is listed on The Nasdaq National Market under
the symbol IVAC. As of December 31, 2005, there
were approximately 216 holders of record of our common stock.
Because many of our shares of common stock are held by brokers
and other institutions on behalf of shareholders, we are unable
to estimate the total number of shareholders represented by
these record holders.
The following table sets forth the high and low closing sale
prices per share as reported on The Nasdaq National Market for
the periods indicated.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
High
|
|
|
Low
|
|
|
Fiscal 2004:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
First Quarter
|
|
$
|
17.92
|
|
|
$
|
9.86
|
|
Second Quarter
|
|
|
11.39
|
|
|
|
8.47
|
|
Third Quarter
|
|
|
9.46
|
|
|
|
3.92
|
|
Fourth Quarter
|
|
|
7.95
|
|
|
|
5.01
|
|
Fiscal 2005:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
First Quarter
|
|
$
|
9.81
|
|
|
$
|
7.06
|
|
Second Quarter
|
|
|
12.00
|
|
|
|
8.42
|
|
Third Quarter
|
|
|
14.94
|
|
|
|
9.75
|
|
Fourth Quarter
|
|
|
13.95
|
|
|
|
8.88
|
|
Dividend
Policy
We currently anticipate that we will retain our earnings, if
any, for use in the operation of our business and do not expect
to pay cash dividends on our capital stock in the foreseeable
future.
25
|
|
Item 6.
|
Selected
Consolidated Financial Data
|
The following table presents our selected financial data and is
qualified by reference to, and should be read in conjunction
with, the consolidated financial statements of Intevac,
including the notes thereto, and Managements Discussion
and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations,
each appearing elsewhere in this report.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended
December 31,
|
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
2003
|
|
|
2002
|
|
|
2001
|
|
|
|
(In thousands, except per share
data)
|
|
|
Consolidated Statement of
Operations Data:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net revenues:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Systems and components
|
|
$
|
130,168
|
|
|
$
|
61,326
|
|
|
$
|
27,738
|
|
|
$
|
27,625
|
|
|
$
|
43,599
|
|
Technology development
|
|
|
7,061
|
|
|
|
8,289
|
|
|
|
8,556
|
|
|
|
6,159
|
|
|
|
7,885
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total net revenues
|
|
|
137,229
|
|
|
|
69,615
|
|
|
|
36,294
|
|
|
|
33,784
|
|
|
|
51,484
|
|
Cost of net revenues:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Systems and components
|
|
|
87,525
|
|
|
|
45,528
|
|
|
|
19,689
|
|
|
|
20,009
|
|
|
|
30,025
|
|
Technology development
|
|
|
5,253
|
|
|
|
6,856
|
|
|
|
6,032
|
|
|
|
5,150
|
|
|
|
7,988
|
|
Inventory provisions
|
|
|
873
|
|
|
|
1,375
|
|
|
|
743
|
|
|
|
1,316
|
|
|
|
3,716
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total cost of net revenues
|
|
|
93,651
|
|
|
|
53,759
|
|
|
|
26,464
|
|
|
|
26,475
|
|
|
|
41,729
|
|
Gross profit
|
|
|
43,578
|
|
|
|
15,856
|
|
|
|
9,830
|
|
|
|
7,309
|
|
|
|
9,755
|
|
Operating expenses:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Research and development
|
|
|
14,384
|
|
|
|
11,580
|
|
|
|
12,037
|
|
|
|
10,846
|
|
|
|
14,478
|
|
Selling, general and administrative
|
|
|
14,477
|
|
|
|
9,525
|
|
|
|
8,448
|
|
|
|
7,752
|
|
|
|
6,745
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total operating expenses
|
|
|
28,861
|
|
|
|
21,105
|
|
|
|
20,485
|
|
|
|
18,598
|
|
|
|
21,223
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating income (loss)
|
|
|
14,717
|
|
|
|
(5,249
|
)
|
|
|
(10,655
|
)
|
|
|
(11,289
|
)
|
|
|
(11,468
|
)
|
Interest expense
|
|
|
10
|
|
|
|
(55
|
)
|
|
|
(1,787
|
)
|
|
|
(2,981
|
)
|
|
|
(2,912
|
)
|
Interest income and other income,
net
|
|
|
1,845
|
|
|
|
1,070
|
|
|
|
177
|
|
|
|
16,452
|
|
|
|
2,473
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income (loss) before income taxes
|
|
|
16,572
|
|
|
|
(4,234
|
)
|
|
|
(12,265
|
)
|
|
|
2,182
|
|
|
|
(11,907
|
)
|
Provision for (benefit from)
income taxes
|
|
|
421
|
|
|
|
110
|
|
|
|
38
|
|
|
|
(6,592
|
)
|
|
|
5,029
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income (loss)
|
|
$
|
16,151
|
|
|
$
|
(4,344
|
)
|
|
$
|
(12,303
|
)
|
|
$
|
8,774
|
|
|
$
|
(16,936
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic earnings (loss) per share:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income (loss)
|
|
$
|
0.79
|
|
|
$
|
(0.22
|
)
|
|
$
|
(0.95
|
)
|
|
$
|
0.73
|
|
|
$
|
(1.42
|
)
|
Shares used in per share
calculations
|
|
|
20,462
|
|
|
|
19,749
|
|
|
|
12,948
|
|
|
|
12,077
|
|
|
|
11,955
|
|
Diluted earnings (loss) per share:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income (loss)
|
|
$
|
0.76
|
|
|
$
|
(0.22
|
)
|
|
$
|
(0.95
|
)
|
|
$
|
0.66
|
|
|
$
|
(1.42
|
)
|
Shares used in per share
calculations
|
|
|
21,202
|
|
|
|
19,749
|
|
|
|
12,948
|
|
|
|
15,262
|
|
|
|
11,955
|
|
Consolidated Balance Sheet
Data:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash, cash equivalents and
short-term investments
|
|
$
|
49,731
|
|
|
$
|
42,034
|
|
|
$
|
19,507
|
|
|
$
|
28,457
|
|
|
$
|
18,157
|
|
Working capital
|
|
|
77,353
|
|
|
|
53,100
|
|
|
|
22,638
|
|
|
|
31,309
|
|
|
|
27,160
|
|
Total assets
|
|
|
130,444
|
|
|
|
79,622
|
|
|
|
55,975
|
|
|
|
60,298
|
|
|
|
60,165
|
|
Long-term debt
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
30,568
|
|
|
|
37,545
|
|
Total shareholders equity
|
|
|
87,874
|
|
|
|
69,375
|
|
|
|
30,869
|
|
|
|
10,545
|
|
|
|
1,408
|
|
26
|
|
Item 7.
|
Managements
Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of
Operations
|
The following discussion and analysis contains
forward-looking statements which involve risks and
uncertainties. Words such as believes,
expects, anticipates and the like
indicate forward-looking statements. These forward looking
statements include comments related to our projected revenue,
gross margin, operating expense, profitability, income tax
expense, effective tax rate, capital spending and cash balances;
the adequacy of our cash balances to fund our operations;
projected volatility in our financial results; projected
customer requirements for new capacity and technology upgrades
for our installed base of magnetic disk manufacturing equipment
and when, and if, our customers will place orders for these
products; projected change from period to period in the
customers, and location of customers, that constitute the
majority of our revenues; the length of development, marketing
and deployment cycles for military customers; Imagings
ability to proliferate its technology into major military
weapons programs and to develop and introduce commercial
products; and the timing of delivery
and/or
acceptance of our backlog for revenue. Our actual results may
differ materially from the results discussed in the
forward-looking statements for a variety of reasons, including
those set forth under Risk Factors and should be
read in conjunction with the Consolidated Financial Statements
and related Notes contained elsewhere in this Annual Report on
Form 10-K.
Overview
Our operations include two businesses, Equipment and Imaging.
The Equipment business designs, manufactures, markets and
services complex capital equipment that deposits highly
engineered thin films of material onto disks used in hard disk
drives. Our Imaging business develops and manufactures
electro-optical sensors, cameras and systems that permit highly
sensitive detection of photons in the visible and near infrared
portions of the spectrum, allowing vision in extreme low light
situations. The vast majority of our revenue is currently
derived from our Equipment business and we expect that the
majority of our revenues for the next several years will
continue to be derived from our Equipment business.
Equipment
Business
In the early 1990s we developed a system, the MDP-250, to
deposit magnetic films and protective overcoats onto magnetic
disks used in hard disk drives. This system gained wide
acceptance and by the late 1990s was being used to manufacture
approximately half of the disks used in hard disk drives
worldwide. In late 2003, we introduced a new system, the 200
Lean. We believe that there are a total of approximately 111
MDP-250 and 34 200 Lean systems currently in use in production
and research and development applications. The hard disk drive
industry has gone through significant consolidation, and there
are now only eight significant manufacturers of magnetic disks,
some of whom also manufacture hard disk drives. As a result of
an increasingly smaller number of customers and the high average
selling price of our products, our Equipment revenues tend to be
volatile from quarter to quarter. In addition, our Equipment
business has historically been subject to capital spending
cycles. For example, in the period from 1995 through the middle
of 1998, we sold $300 million of disk manufacturing
equipment. In the period from the middle of 1998 thru 2003, our
disk equipment revenues averaged approximately $20 million
per year and consisted of the sale of a limited number of
systems, technology upgrades, parts and service for the
installed base of our systems. In 2005 our sales of disk
manufacturing equipment grew to $124 million in annual
revenues.
We believe the majority of magnetic disk manufacturers are now
utilizing most of their capacity. We believe that the
introduction of high density disks based on perpendicular
recording techniques will also require disk manufacturers to
significantly upgrade the technical capability of their
installed base of manufacturing equipment to accommodate the
additional number of process steps predicted to be required by
perpendicular recording technology roadmaps.
In the past we manufactured both deposition and rapid thermal
processing equipment used in the manufacture of flat panel
displays. In late 2002 we sold our rapid thermal processing
product line and stopped actively marketing our deposition
product line. From 2000 through 2004, cumulative revenues from
sales of flat panel display manufacturing systems totaled
$36.8 million. 2005 revenues included $5 million
related to selling a license to one of our flat panel patents
and recognizing revenue on the last flat panel system we shipped.
27
Imaging
Business
Our Imaging business develops and manufactures electro-optical
sensors, cameras and systems that permit highly sensitive
detection of photons in the visible and near infrared portions
of the spectrum, allowing imaging in extreme low light
situations. Our military products include extreme low light
sensors and cameras for use in short- to medium-range military
applications and LIVAR cameras and systems for positive target
identification at long range. The majority of the funding for
our Imaging business activities has historically been derived
from research and development contracts with the United States
Government and its contractors, with the balance being funded
internally.
Developing advanced products for the military involves long
development cycles, as products move through successive
multi-year stages of technology demonstration, engineering and
manufacturing product development, prototype production and then
product deployment. Each stage in this process requires ongoing
government funding. To date, substantially all of our Imaging
business revenues has been derived from contract research and
development, rather than product sales. In July 2002, in order
to shorten the time to market and to increase the number of
markets for our imaging products, we began to fund development
of imaging products for commercial markets. Revenues from these
activities have not yet been significant and we do not
anticipate that they will be significant in 2006.
Critical
Accounting Policies
The preparation of financial statements and related disclosures
in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in
the United States of America (US GAAP) requires
management to make judgments, assumptions and estimates that
affect the amounts reported. Note 2 of Notes to
Consolidated Financial Statements describes the significant
accounting policies used in the preparation of the consolidated
financial statements. Certain of these significant accounting
policies are considered to be critical accounting policies, as
defined below.
A critical accounting policy is defined as one that is both
material to the presentation of our financial statements and
requires management to make difficult, subjective or complex
judgments that could have a material effect on our financial
conditions and results of operations. Specifically, critical
accounting estimates have the following attributes: 1) We
are required to make assumptions about matters that are highly
uncertain at the time of the estimate; and 2) different
estimates we could reasonably have used, or changes in the
estimate that are reasonably likely to occur, would have a
material effect on our financial condition or results of
operations.
Estimates and assumptions about future events and their effects
cannot be determined with certainty. We base our estimates on
historical experience and on various other assumptions believed
to be applicable and reasonable under the circumstances. These
estimates may change as new events occur, as additional
information is obtained and as our operating environment
changes. These changes have historically been minor and have
been included in the consolidated financial statements as soon
as they become known. In addition, management is periodically
faced with uncertainties, the outcomes of which are not within
its control and will not be known for prolonged periods of time.
Many of these uncertainties are discussed in the prior section
entitled Risk Factors. Based on a critical
assessment of our accounting policies and the underlying
judgments and uncertainties affecting the application of those
policies, management believes that our consolidated financial
statements are fairly stated in accordance with US GAAP, and
provide a meaningful presentation of our financial condition and
results of operation.
We believe the following critical accounting policies affect the
more significant judgments and estimates we make in preparing
our consolidated financial statements. We also have other key
accounting policies and accounting estimates related to the
collectibility of trade receivables, valuation of deferred tax
assets and prototype product costs. We believe that these other
accounting policies and other accounting estimates either do not
generally require us to make estimates and judgments that are as
difficult or subjective, or it is less likely that they would
have a material impact on our reported results of operation for
a given period.
Revenue
Recognition
Certain of our system sales with customer acceptance provisions
are accounted for as multiple-element arrangements. If we have
previously met defined customer acceptance levels with the
specific type of system, then
28
we recognize revenue for the fair market value of the system
upon shipment and transfer of title, and recognize revenue for
the fair market value of installation and acceptance services
when those services are completed. We estimate the fair market
value of the installation and acceptance services based on our
actual historical experience. For systems that have generally
not been demonstrated to meet a particular customers
product specifications prior to shipment, revenue recognition is
typically deferred until customer acceptance. For example, while
initial shipments of our 200 Lean system were recognized for
revenue upon customer acceptance during 2004, revenue was
recognized upon shipment for the majority of 200 Leans shipped
in 2005. Most of the systems in backlog at December 31,
2005 are for customers where we have met defined customer
acceptance levels and we expect to recognize revenue upon
shipment for those systems.
In some instances, hardware that is not essential to the
functioning of the system may be delivered after acceptance of
the system. In these cases, we estimate the fair market value of
the non-essential hardware as if it had been sold on a
stand-alone basis, and defer recognizing revenue on that value
until the hardware is delivered.
In certain cases, we sell limited rights to our intellectual
property. Revenue from the sale of any intellectual property
license will generally be recognized at the inception of the
license term.
We perform best efforts research and development work under
various government-sponsored research contracts. These contracts
are a mixture of cost-plus-fixed-fee (CPFF) and firm
fixed-price (FFP). Revenue on CPFF contracts is
recognized in accordance with contract terms, typically as costs
are incurred. Revenue on FFP contracts is generally recognized
on the
percentage-of-completion
method based on costs incurred in relation to total estimated
costs. Provisions for estimated losses on government-sponsored
research contracts are recorded in the period in which such
losses are determined.
Inventories
Inventories are priced using standard costs, which approximate
first-in,
first-out, and are stated at the lower of cost or market. The
carrying value of inventory is reduced for estimated excess and
obsolescence by the difference between its cost and the
estimated market value based on assumptions about future demand.
We evaluate the inventory carrying value for potential excess
and obsolete inventory exposures by analyzing historical and
anticipated demand. In addition, inventories are evaluated for
potential obsolescence due to the effect of known and
anticipated engineering change orders and new products. If
actual demand were to be substantially lower than estimated,
additional inventory adjustments would be required, which could
have a material adverse effect on our business, financial
condition and results of operation. A cost to market reserve is
established for
work-in-progress
and finished goods inventories when the value of the inventory
plus the estimated cost to complete exceeds the net realizable
value of the inventory.
Warranty
We provide for the estimated cost of warranty when revenue is
recognized. Our warranty is per contract terms and for our
systems the warranty typically ranges between 12 and
24 months from customer acceptance. We use estimated repair
or replacement costs along with our actual warranty experience
to determine our warranty obligation. We exercise judgment in
determining the underlying estimates. Should actual warranty
costs differ substantially from our estimates, revisions to the
estimated warranty liability would be required, which could have
a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition
and results of operations.
Results
of Operations
Net
revenues
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended
December 31,
|
|
|
% Change
|
|
|
% Change
|
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
2003
|
|
|
2005 vs. 2004
|
|
|
2004 vs. 2003
|
|
|
|
(In thousands, except
percentages)
|
|
|
Equipment net revenues
|
|
$
|
129,280
|
|
|
$
|
60,490
|
|
|
$
|
26,748
|
|
|
|
114
|
%
|
|
|
126
|
%
|
Imaging net revenues
|
|
|
7,949
|
|
|
|
9,125
|
|
|
|
9,546
|
|
|
|
(13
|
)%
|
|
|
(4
|
)%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total net revenues
|
|
$
|
137,229
|
|
|
$
|
69,615
|
|
|
$
|
36,294
|
|
|
|
97
|
%
|
|
|
92
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
29
Net revenues consist primarily of sales of equipment used to
manufacture thin-film disks, equipment used to manufacture flat
panel displays, related equipment and system components; flat
panel equipment technology license fees; contract research and
development related to the development of electro-optical
sensors, cameras and systems; and low light imaging products.
The increase in Equipment revenues in 2005 was the result of the
sale of twenty-three 200 Lean systems, six MDP-250 systems,
fourteen disk lubrication systems and an increase in revenue
from disk equipment technology upgrades and spare parts. 2005
revenues also included $5.0 million of flat panel equipment
and license sales. During 2004, we sold eleven 200 Lean systems
and two MDP-250 systems. During 2003, we sold two MDP-250
systems and recognized revenue on upgrades to five D-STAR
systems that were originally delivered in 2001.
The magnetic disk manufacturing industry has now consolidated
into a small number of large manufacturers. Early in 2006
Seagate announced its proposed acquisition of Maxtor, which will
further concentrate our customer base. We believe that the
majority of our active customers utilize most of their capacity
and that there is significant potential for these customers to
both continue adding capacity and to upgrade the technical
capability of their installed base to permit production of high
density disks for perpendicular recording rather than the
current longitudinal technology. We currently have nineteen 200
Lean systems in backlog, which are scheduled for revenue
recognition during the first half of 2006. Although future
customers orders are not guaranteed, our outlook for the
Equipment business in 2006 is positive and we expect our
revenues will grow relative to 2005.
The decrease in Imaging revenues in 2005 was the result of a
reduction in the level of orders received for funded development
programs. A number of the U.S. military programs in which
we participate have experienced delays in either
start-up or
follow-on funding. The decrease in Imaging revenues in 2004 as
compared to 2003 was primarily the result of an increase in
cost-shared development programs, especially our military head
mounted display development activities. In 2006, we expect the
Imaging business revenue to grow, with increases in both
contract research and development revenue and product revenue,
although we dont anticipate our Imaging business will be
profitable in 2006. Substantial growth in future Imaging
revenues is dependent on proliferation of our technology into
major military weapons programs, the ability to obtain export
licenses for foreign customers, obtaining production
subcontracts for these programs, and development and sale of
commercial products.
Our backlog of orders at December 31, 2005 was
$84.5 million, as compared to a December 31, 2004
backlog of $10.5 million. As of February 22, 2006, we
have announced additional orders for two 200 Lean systems. The
$84.5 million of backlog at December 31, 2005
consisted of $81.7 million of Equipment backlog and
$2.8 million of Imaging backlog. The $10.5 million of
backlog at December 31, 2004 consisted of $5.6 million
of Equipment backlog and $4.9 million of Imaging backlog.
The increase in Equipment backlog was primarily the result of
orders for 200 Lean disk sputtering systems that are scheduled
for either customer acceptance or delivery during the first half
of 2006.
Significant portions of our revenues in any particular period
have been attributable to sales to a limited number of
customers. In 2005 sales to Seagate; our Japanese distributor,
Matsubo; Hitachi Global Storage Technologies and Maxtor each
accounted for more than 10% of our revenues, and in aggregate
accounted for 90% of revenues. In 2004, Seagate and Matsubo each
accounted for more than 10% of our revenues, and in aggregate
accounted for 73% of revenues. In 2003, Komag, Seagate, Lockheed
Martin and Matsubo, each accounted for more than 10% of our
revenues, and in aggregate accounted for 66% of revenues. Our
largest customers tend to change from period to period.
International sales totaled $97.5 million,
$47.1 million, and $23.2 million in 2005, 2004, and
2003, respectively, accounting for 71%, 68%, and 64% of net
revenues. International revenues include products shipped to
overseas operations of U.S. companies. The increase in
international sales in 2005 and in 2004 was primarily due to an
increase in net revenues from disk sputtering systems.
Substantially all of our international sales are to customers in
the Far East. Our mix of domestic versus international sales
will change from period to period depending on the location of
our largest customers in each period.
30
Gross
margin.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended
December 31,
|
|
% Change
|
|
% Change
|
|
|
2005
|
|
2004
|
|
2003
|
|
2005 vs. 2004
|
|
2004 vs. 2003
|
|
|
(In thousands, except
percentages)
|
|
Equipment gross profit
|
|
$
|
42,623
|
|
|
$
|
15,016
|
|
|
$
|
7,354
|
|
|
184%
|
|
|
104
|
%
|
% of Equipment net revenues
|
|
|
33.0
|
%
|
|
|
24.8
|
%
|
|
|
27.5
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Imaging gross profit
|
|
$
|
955
|
|
|
$
|
840
|
|
|
$
|
2,476
|
|
|
14%
|
|
|
(66
|
)%
|
% of Imaging net revenues
|
|
|
12.0
|
%
|
|
|
9.2
|
%
|
|
|
25.9
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total gross profit
|
|
$
|
43,578
|
|
|
$
|
15,856
|
|
|
$
|
9,830
|
|
|
175%
|
|
|
61
|
%
|
% of net revenues
|
|
|
31.8
|
%
|
|
|
22.8
|
%
|
|
|
27.1
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cost of net revenues consists primarily of purchased materials
and costs attributable to contract research and development, and
also includes fabrication, assembly, test and installation labor
and overhead, customer-specific engineering costs, warranty
costs, royalties, provisions for inventory reserves and scrap.
Equipment gross margin improved by eight points or 33% in 2005
due primarily to lower manufacturing costs and a higher average
selling price for 200 Lean systems. The flat panel manufacturing
system recognized for revenue in 2005 was originally shipped in
2003 and contributed minimal gross profit. 2004 Equipment gross
margin was adversely impacted by costs incurred during the rapid
production, installation and
start-up of
the initial production run of 200 Lean systems, by costs for
scrap, rework and inventory obsolescence, related primarily to
design changes on our 200 Lean system, and by favorable pricing
offered to our first 200 Lean customer. This was partially
offset by higher margins on revenue from disk equipment
technology upgrades and spare parts. Equipment gross margin in
2003 was negatively impacted by poor margins achieved on the
five D-STAR disposition system upgrades recognized for revenue
and the sale of one used disk sputtering system at a reduced
price. We expect the gross margin for the Equipment business to
improve in 2006, primarily as a result of continued cost
reduction efforts undertaken on the 200 Lean system, partially
offset by the recording of stock-based compensation expense.
Gross margins in the Equipment business will vary depending on a
number of factors, including product cost, system configuration
and pricing, factory utilization, and provisions for excess and
obsolete inventory.
Imaging gross margin improved by three points or 30% in 2005 due
primarily to a reduction in cost-shared research and development
contracts. 2004 Imaging gross margin was negatively impacted by
our military-head mounted display development program. The
initial phase of this program was partially funded by the US
Government and our NATO customer. The portion of this
cost-shared program being funded by Intevac is reported in cost
of sales, and as a result, this program made a negative
contribution to gross profit in 2004. Imaging gross margin in
2003 was derived from fully funded, rather than cost-shared,
research and development contracts and from the sale of
prototype products. We expect Imaging gross margin to improve in
2006, relative to 2005, due primarily to an increase in product
revenue, partially offset by the recording of stock-based
compensation expense.
Research
and development
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended
December 31,
|
|
% Change
|
|
% Change
|
|
|
2005
|
|
2004
|
|
2003
|
|
2005 vs. 2004
|
|
2004 vs. 2003
|
|
|
(In thousands, except
percentages)
|
|
Research and development expense
|
|
$
|
14,384
|
|
|
$
|
11,580
|
|
|
$
|
12,037
|
|
|
24%
|
|
|
(4
|
)%
|
% of net revenues
|
|
|
10.5
|
%
|
|
|
16.6
|
%
|
|
|
33.2
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Research and development expense consists primarily of prototype
materials, salaries and related costs of employees engaged in
ongoing research, design and development activities for disk
manufacturing equipment, flat panel manufacturing equipment and
Imaging products.
Research and development spending increased in 2005 as compared
to 2004 in both Equipment and in Imaging. In Equipment, spending
on the development of a new product line increased
significantly, including the cost of constructing the first
engineering prototype system. This increase was partially offset
by a reduction in spending for disk sputtering equipment. The
increase in Imaging was due to spending on the design of a
proprietary CMOS sensor for use in our military low light level
cameras and spending on our commercial Imaging products.
31
Engineering headcount increased from 68 at the end of 2004 to 89
at the end of 2005. Research and development spending declined
in 2004 as compared to 2003 due to a reduction in spending for
Imaging products and flat panel manufacturing equipment,
partially offset by increased spending for the development of
disk manufacturing equipment and the initiation of a project to
develop a new Equipment product line. We expect that research
and development spending will increase significantly in 2006 due
primarily to expenditures related to our potential new Equipment
product line, the addition of key engineering personnel and the
recording of stock-based compensation expense.
Research and development expenses do not include costs of
$5.3 million, $6.9 million and $6.0 million in
2005, 2004, and 2003, respectively, which are related to
contract research and development and included in cost of net
revenues. Research and development expenses also do not include
costs of $248,000 incurred by us in 2003, and reimbursed under
the terms of research and development cost sharing agreements
related to development of disk manufacturing equipment.
Selling,
general and administrative
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended
December 31,
|
|
% Change
|
|
% Change
|
|
|
2005
|
|
2004
|
|
2003
|
|
2005 vs. 2004
|
|
2004 vs. 2003
|
|
|
(In thousands, except
percentages)
|
|
Selling, general and
administrative expense
|
|
$
|
14,477
|
|
|
$
|
9,525
|
|
|
$
|
8,448
|
|
|
52%
|
|
13%
|
% of net revenues
|
|
|
10.5
|
%
|
|
|
13.7
|
%
|
|
|
23.3
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
Selling, general and administrative expense consists primarily
of selling, marketing, customer support, financial and
management costs and also includes production of customer
samples, travel, liability insurance, legal and professional
services and bad debt expense. Domestic sales and international
sales of disk manufacturing products in the Far East, with the
exception of Japan, are typically made by Intevacs direct
sales force, whereas, sales in Japan of disk manufacturing
products and other products are typically made by our Japanese
distributor, Matsubo, who provides services such as sales,
installation, warranty and customer support. We also have
subsidiaries in Singapore and in Hong Kong, along with field
offices in Japan and in Shenzhen, China to support our customers
in Southeast Asia.
The increase in selling, general and administrative spending in
2005 was primarily the result of increases in costs related to
customer service and support in the Equipment business,
provisions for employee profit sharing and bonus plans and costs
related to Sarbanes-Oxley compliance activities. Our selling,
general and administrative headcount increased from 38 at the
end of 2004 to 63 at the end of 2005. The increase in 2004 over
2003 was primarily the result of increases in marketing and
business development headcount and Sarbanes-Oxley compliance
activities, partially offset by a reduction of surplus facility
costs being recorded in selling, general and administrative
expense. We expect that selling, general and administrative
expenses will increase in 2006 over the amount spent in 2005 due
primarily to a projected increase in costs related to customer
service and support for the Equipment business, the addition of
key business development personnel and the recording of
stock-based compensation expense.
Interest
expense
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended
December 31,
|
|
% Change
|
|
% Change
|
|
|
2005
|
|
2004
|
|
2003
|
|
2005 vs. 2004
|
|
2004 vs. 2003
|
|
|
(In thousands, except
percentages)
|
|
Interest expense
|
|
$
|
10
|
|
|
$
|
(55
|
)
|
|
$
|
(1,787
|
)
|
|
|
n/a
|
|
|
|
(97
|
)%
|
Interest expense for 2005 included $26,000 of interest we paid
related to a claim from the State of California for a portion of
income tax credits we claimed in prior years and a $38,000
refund of interest we had paid in 2002 and 2004 related to a
sales and use tax audit by the State of California Board of
Equalization (BOE). We executed a settlement
agreement with the BOE for a reduction in the amount of tax and
interest we owed compared to what we had previously paid in
response to the audit. Interest expense in 2004 and 2003
consisted primarily of interest on our convertible notes and
amortization of debt issuance costs. The decrease in interest
expense in 2004 was due to the elimination of our convertible
notes outstanding as a result of the automatic conversion of our
convertible notes
32
due 2009 in the fourth quarter of 2003 and the repayment of the
remaining $1.0 million of our convertible notes due 2004 in
March 2004. We expect our interest expense to be insignificant
in 2006.
Interest
income and other, net
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended
December 31,
|
|
|
% Change
|
|
% Change
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
2003
|
|
|
2005 vs. 2004
|
|
2004 vs. 2003
|
|
|
(In thousands, except
percentages)
|
|
Interest income and other, net
|
|
$
|
1,845
|
|
|
$
|
1,070
|
|
|
$
|
177
|
|
|
72%
|
|
505%
|
Interest income and other, net in 2005 consisted of $390,000 of
dividends from 601 California Avenue LLC, $1.3 million of
interest income on investments and $155,000 of foreign currency
gains and losses and other income. The increase in 2005 was
driven by higher interest rates on our investments and a higher
average invested balance. Interest income and other, net in 2004
consisted of $390,000 of dividends from 601 California Avenue
LLC, $634,000 of interest income on investments and $46,000 of
other income. Interest income and other, net in 2003 consisted
of $390,000 of dividends from 601 California Avenue LLC, a
$287,000 gain on the sale of the rapid thermal processing
product line, $269,000 of interest income on investments and
$72,000 of other income, partially offset by $841,000 of expense
related to the disposition of fixed assets. We expect interest
income and other, net to increase in 2006 due primarily to
higher interest rates realized on our investments.
Provision
for income taxes
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended
December 31,
|
|
|
% Change
|
|
% Change
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
2003
|
|
|
2005 vs. 2004
|
|
2004 vs. 2003
|
|
|
(In thousands, except
percentages)
|
|
Provision for income taxes
|
|
$
|
421
|
|
|
$
|
110
|
|
|
$
|
38
|
|
|
283%
|
|
189%
|
For 2005, we accrued income tax using an effective tax rate of
2.5% of pretax income. Our tax rate differs from the applicable
statutory rates due to the utilization of net operating loss
carry-forwards and deferred credits. We also recorded a $7,000
accrual related to a claim we received from the California
Franchise Tax Board for a portion of income tax credits we
claimed in prior years. Our net deferred tax asset totaled zero
at December 31, 2005, net of a $15.0 million valuation
allowance. We have substantial net operating loss carry-forwards
which can be used to limit the taxes paid in the future and to
reduce our effective tax rate to less than the statutory income
tax rates in effect.
In 2004, we recorded income tax expense of $110,000, due
primarily to the recording of $115,000 of expense as a result of
a claim we received from the California Franchise Tax Board,
partially offset by a net credit for taxes owed by our Singapore
subsidiary. Our net deferred tax asset totaled zero at
December 31, 2004, net of a $19.9 million valuation
allowance.
In 2003, we recorded income tax expense of $38,000, due
primarily to foreign tax expense on income earned by our
Singapore subsidiary. Our net deferred tax asset totaled zero at
December 31, 2003, net of a $16.7 million valuation
allowance.
Liquidity
and Capital Resources
At December 31, 2005, we had $49.7 million in cash,
cash equivalents and short-term investments compared to
$42.0 million at December 31, 2004. During fiscal
2005, cash and cash equivalents decreased by $2.2 million,
due to the net purchase of investments and fixed assets,
partially offset by the cash provided by operating and financing
activities.
Cash provided by operating activities in 2005 totaled
$1.4 million compared to $9.4 million of cash used in
2004. The increase in cash provided from operating activities
was due primarily to the net income earned in 2005. Accounts
receivable totaled $42.8 million at December 31, 2005
compared to $4.8 million at December 31, 2004. The
increase of $38.0 million in the receivable balance was due
to the significant increase in revenue in the fourth quarter of
2005 and to $10.6 million of customer advances billed for
products that had not shipped as of December 31, 2005. Net
inventories increased by $9.5 million during 2005 due
primarily to an increase in raw materials which will be used to
support the December 31, 2005 backlog of
$84.5 million. Accounts payable totaled $7.0 million
at December 31, 2005 compared to $1.6 million at
December 31, 2004. The increase of $5.4 million
33
relates to the increase in inventories and the general growth of
our business. Accrued payroll and related liabilities increased
by $3.9 million during 2005 due to our increase in
headcount and accruals related to employee benefit plans. Other
accrued liabilities totaled $6.9 million at
December 31, 2005 compared to $3.2 million at
December 31, 2004. The increase of $3.7 million
relates to accruals for our warranty obligations and to tax
related accruals. Customer advances increased by
$19.3 million during 2005. The increase was due to advances
billed or received for orders that will be shipped during 2006.
Investing activities in 2005 used cash of $5.9 million as
the result of the net purchase of investments and
$4.1 million in capital expenditures. Our investing
activities in 2004 used cash of $34.5 million including the
net purchase of $32.9 million of investments.
Financing activities provided cash of $2.3 million in 2005
due to the sale of Intevac common stock to our employees through
our employee benefit plans. Our financing activities provided
cash of $41.8 million in 2004 due to a public offering of
our common stock which raised $41.6 million and the sale of
our common stock through our employee benefit plans, partially
offset by the repayment of the remaining $1.0 million of
our convertible notes due 2004.
2005 was the first year since 1997 that we generated operating
income. We believe an upturn in demand for the type of disk
manufacturing equipment we produce is continuing, and we expect
our Equipment business to be profitable again in 2006. We also
expect to continue to invest in Imaging during 2006, but with
lower losses than in 2005.
We believe that our existing cash, cash equivalents and
short-term investments, combined with the cash we anticipate
generating from operating activities will be sufficient to meet
our cash requirements for the foreseeable future. We intend to
undertake approximately $7 million in capital expenditures
during the next 12 months.
Contractual
Obligations
In the normal course of business, we enter into various
contractual obligations that will be settled in cash. These
obligations consist primarily of operating lease and purchase
obligations. The expected future cash flows required to meet
these obligations as of December 31, 2005 are shown in the
table below. More information on the operating lease obligations
is available in Part II, Item 8, Financial
Statements and Supplementary Data.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Payments Due by Period
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
< 1 Year
|
|
|
1-3 Years
|
|
|
3-5 Years
|
|
|
> 5 Years
|
|
|
|
(In thousands)
|
|
|
Operating lease obligations
|
|
$
|
13,107
|
|
|
$
|
3,521
|
|
|
$
|
3,647
|
|
|
$
|
3,442
|
|
|
$
|
2,497
|
|
Purchase obligations
|
|
|
21,013
|
|
|
|
21,013
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
34,120
|
|
|
$
|
24,534
|
|
|
$
|
3,647
|
|
|
$
|
3,442
|
|
|
$
|
2,497
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Item 7A.
|
Quantitative
and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk
|
Interest rate risk. Our exposure to market
risk for changes in interest rates relates primarily to our
investment portfolio. We do not use derivative financial
instruments in our investment portfolio. We place our
investments with high quality credit issuers and, by policy,
limit the amount of credit exposure to any one issuer.
Short-term investments typically consist of investments in A1/P1
rated commercial paper, auction rate securities and debt
instruments issued by the US government and its agencies.
34
The table below presents principal amounts and related
weighted-average interest rates by year of maturity for our
investment portfolio at December 31, 2005.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fair
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
Beyond
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
Value
|
|
|
Cash equivalents
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fixed rate amounts
|
|
$
|
5,972
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
5,972
|
|
|
$
|
5,970
|
|
Weighted-average rate
|
|
|
4.27
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Variable rate amounts
|
|
$
|
5,123
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
5,123
|
|
|
$
|
5,123
|
|
Weighted-average rate
|
|
|
4.13
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Short-term investments
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fixed rate amounts
|
|
$
|
34,476
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
34,476
|
|
|
$
|
34,408
|
|
Weighted-average rate
|
|
|
3.71
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total investment portfolio
|
|
$
|
45,571
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
45,571
|
|
|
$
|
45,501
|
|
Due to the short-term nature of our investments, we believe that
we do not have any material exposure to changes in the fair
value of our investment portfolio as a result of changes
interest rates.
Foreign exchange risk. From time to time, we
enter into foreign currency forward exchange contracts to
economically hedge certain of our anticipated foreign currency
transaction, translation and re-measurement exposures. The
objective of these contracts is to minimize the impact of
foreign currency exchange rate movements on our operating
results. At December 31, 2005, we had no foreign currency
forward exchange contracts.
35
|
|
Item 8.
|
Financial
Statements and Supplementary Data
|
INTEVAC,
INC.
CONSOLIDATED
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
Contents
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Page
|
|
Report of Independent Registered
Public Accounting Firm
|
|
|
37
|
|
Consolidated Balance Sheets
|
|
|
38
|
|
Consolidated Statements of
Operations and Comprehensive Income (Loss)
|
|
|
39
|
|
Consolidated Statement of
Shareholders Equity
|
|
|
40
|
|
Consolidated Statements of Cash
Flows
|
|
|
41
|
|
Notes to Consolidated Financial
Statements
|
|
|
42
|
|
36
REPORT OF
INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
Board of Directors and Stockholders
Intevac, Inc.
We have audited the consolidated balance sheets of Intevac, Inc.
and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2005 and 2004, and the
related consolidated statements of operations and comprehensive
income (loss), shareholders equity and cash flows for each
of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2005.
These financial statements are the responsibility of management.
Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial
statements based on our audits.
We conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the
Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those
standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain
reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are
free of material misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a
test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in
the financial statements. An audit also includes assessing the
accounting principles used and significant estimates made by
management, as well as evaluating the overall financial
statement presentation. We believe that our audits provide a
reasonable basis for our opinion.
In our opinion, the financial statements referred to above
present fairly, in all material respects, the consolidated
financial position of Intevac, Inc. as of December 31, 2005
and 2004, and the consolidated results of their operations and
their consolidated cash flows for each of the three years in the
period ended December 31, 2005, in conformity with
accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of
America.
Our audit was conducted for the purpose of forming an opinion on
the basic financial statements taken as a whole.
Schedule II is presented for purposes of additional
analysis and is not a required part of the basic financial
statements. This schedule has been subjected to the auditing
procedures applied in the audit of the basic financial
statements and, in our opinion, is fairly stated in all material
respects in relation to the basic financial statements taken as
a whole.
We also have audited, in accordance with standards of the Public
Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), the
effectiveness of Intevac, Inc.s internal control over
financial reporting as of December 31, 2005, based on
criteria established in Internal
Control Integrated Framework issued by the
Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway
Commission, and our report dated March 10, 2006, expressed
an unqualified opinion on managements assessment of, and
an unqualified opinion on the effective operation of, internal
control over financial reporting.
/s/ GRANT THORNTON LLP
San Jose, California
March 10, 2006
37
INTEVAC,
INC.
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
|
(In thousands)
|
|
|
ASSETS
|
Current assets:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents
|
|
$
|
15,255
|
|
|
$
|
17,455
|
|
Short-term investments
|
|
|
34,476
|
|
|
|
24,579
|
|
Trade and other accounts
receivable, net of allowances of $154 and $217 at
December 31, 2005 and 2004
|
|
|
42,847
|
|
|
|
4,775
|
|
Inventories, including $3,464 and
$6,255 held at customer locations at December 31, 2005 and
2004
|
|
|
24,837
|
|
|
|
15,375
|
|
Prepaid expenses and other current
assets
|
|
|
1,814
|
|
|
|
956
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total current assets
|
|
|
119,229
|
|
|
|
63,140
|
|
Property, plant and equipment, at
cost:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Leasehold improvements
|
|
|
7,587
|
|
|
|
6,654
|
|
Machinery and equipment
|
|
|
20,834
|
|
|
|
18,216
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
28,421
|
|
|
|
24,870
|
|
Less accumulated depreciation and
amortization
|
|
|
20,441
|
|
|
|
18,874
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7,980
|
|
|
|
5,996
|
|
Long-term investments
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
8,052
|
|
Investment in 601 California
Avenue LLC
|
|
|
2,431
|
|
|
|
2,431
|
|
Other long term assets
|
|
|
804
|
|
|
|
3
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total assets
|
|
$
|
130,444
|
|
|
$
|
79,622
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
LIABILITIES AND
SHAREHOLDERS EQUITY
|
Current liabilities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accounts payable
|
|
$
|
7,049
|
|
|
$
|
1,647
|
|
Accrued payroll and related
liabilities
|
|
|
5,509
|
|
|
|
1,617
|
|
Other accrued liabilities
|
|
|
6,182
|
|
|
|
2,943
|
|
Customer advances
|
|
|
23,136
|
|
|
|
3,833
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total current liabilities
|
|
|
41,876
|
|
|
|
10,040
|
|
Other long-term liabilities
|
|
|
694
|
|
|
|
207
|
|
Commitments and
contingencies see note
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Shareholders equity:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Undesignated preferred stock, no
par value, 10,000 shares authorized, no shares issued and
outstanding
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Common stock, no par value:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Authorized
shares 50,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Issued and outstanding
shares 20,669 and 20,182 at December 31,
2005 and 2004, respectively
|
|
|
97,165
|
|
|
|
94,802
|
|
Accumulated other comprehensive
income
|
|
|
238
|
|
|
|
253
|
|
Accumulated deficit
|
|
|
(9,529
|
)
|
|
|
(25,680
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total shareholders equity
|
|
|
87,874
|
|
|
|
69,375
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total liabilities and
shareholders equity
|
|
$
|
130,444
|
|
|
$
|
79,622
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
See accompanying notes.
38
INTEVAC,
INC.
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS AND COMPREHENSIVE
INCOME (LOSS)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Years Ended
December 31,
|
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
2003
|
|
|
|
(In thousands, except
|
|
|
|
per share amounts)
|
|
|
Net revenues:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Systems and components
|
|
$
|
130,168
|
|
|
$
|
61,326
|
|
|
$
|
27,738
|
|
Technology development
|
|
|
7,061
|
|
|
|
8,289
|
|
|
|
8,556
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total net revenues
|
|
|
137,229
|
|
|
|
69,615
|
|
|
|
36,294
|
|
Cost of net revenues:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Systems and components
|
|
|
87,525
|
|
|
|
45,528
|
|
|
|
19,689
|
|
Technology development
|
|
|
5,253
|
|
|
|
6,856
|
|
|
|
6,032
|
|
Inventory provisions
|
|
|
873
|
|
|
|
1,375
|
|
|
|
743
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total cost of net revenues
|
|
|
93,651
|
|
|
|
53,759
|
|
|
|
26,464
|
|
Gross profit
|
|
|
43,578
|
|
|
|
15,856
|
|
|
|
9,830
|
|
Operating expenses:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Research and development
|
|
|
14,384
|
|
|
|
11,580
|
|
|
|
12,037
|
|
Selling, general and administrative
|
|
|
14,477
|
|
|
|
9,525
|
|
|
|
8,448
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total operating expenses
|
|
|
28,861
|
|
|
|
21,105
|
|
|
|
20,485
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating income (loss)
|
|
|
14,717
|
|
|
|
(5,249
|
)
|
|
|
(10,655
|
)
|
Interest expense
|
|
|
10
|
|
|
|
(55
|
)
|
|
|
(1,787
|
)
|
Interest income
|
|
|
1,303
|
|
|
|
634
|
|
|
|
269
|
|
Other income and expense, net
|
|
|
542
|
|
|
|
436
|
|
|
|
(92
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income (loss) before income taxes
|
|
|
16,572
|
|
|
|
(4,234
|
)
|
|
|
(12,265
|
)
|
Provision for income taxes
|
|
|
421
|
|
|
|
110
|
|
|
|
38
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income (loss)
|
|
$
|
16,151
|
|
|
$
|
(4,344
|
)
|
|
$
|
(12,303
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other comprehensive income:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Foreign currency translation
adjustments
|
|
|
(15
|
)
|
|
|
30
|
|
|
|
34
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total adjustments
|
|
|
(15
|
)
|
|
|
30
|
|
|
|
34
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total comprehensive income (loss)
|
|
$
|
16,136
|
|
|
$
|
(4,314
|
)
|
|
$
|
(12,269
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic income (loss) per share:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income (loss)
|
|
$
|
0.79
|
|
|
$
|
(0.22
|
)
|
|
$
|
(0.95
|
)
|
Shares used in per share amounts
|
|
|
20,462
|
|
|
|
19,749
|
|
|
|
12,948
|
|
Diluted income (loss) per share:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income (loss)
|
|
$
|
0.76
|
|
|
$
|
(0.22
|
)
|
|
$
|
(0.95
|
)
|
Shares used in per share amounts
|
|
|
21,202
|
|
|
|
19,749
|
|
|
|
12,948
|
|
See accompanying notes.
39
INTEVAC,
INC.
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF SHAREHOLDERS EQUITY
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accumulated
|
|
|
Retained
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other
|
|
|
Earnings
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
|
Common Stock
|
|
|
Comprehensive
|
|
|
(Accum.
|
|
|
Shareholders
|
|
|
|
Shares
|
|
|
Amount
|
|
|
Income
|
|
|
Deficit)
|
|
|
Equity
|
|
|
|
(In thousands)
|
|
|
Balance at December 31, 2002
|
|
|
12,125
|
|
|
$
|
19,389
|
|
|
$
|
189
|
|
|
$
|
(9,033
|
)
|
|
$
|
10,545
|
|
Shares issued in connection with:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exercise of stock options
|
|
|
530
|
|
|
|
2,988
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,988
|
|
Employee stock purchase plan
|
|
|
78
|
|
|
|
200
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
200
|
|
Conversion of convertible notes
due 2009
|
|
|
4,220
|
|
|
|
29,375
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
29,375
|
|
Compensation expense in the form
of stock options
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
30
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
30
|
|
Foreign currency translation
adjustment
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
34
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
34
|
|
Net loss
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(12,303
|
)
|
|
|
(12,303
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance at December 31, 2003
|
|
|
16,953
|
|
|
$
|
51,982
|
|
|
$
|
223
|
|
|
$
|
(21,336
|
)
|
|
$
|
30,869
|
|
Shares issued in connection with:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exercise of stock options
|
|
|
178
|
|
|
|
856
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
856
|
|
Employee stock purchase plan
|
|
|
82
|
|
|
|
403
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
403
|
|
Secondary public offering
|
|
|
2,969
|
|
|
|
41,561
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
41,561
|
|
Foreign currency translation
adjustment
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
30
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
30
|
|
Net loss
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(4,344
|
)
|
|
|
(4,344
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance at December 31, 2004
|
|
|
20,182
|
|
|
$
|
94,802
|
|
|
$
|
253
|
|
|
$
|
(25,680
|
)
|
|
$
|
69,375
|
|
Shares issued in connection with:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exercise of stock options
|
|
|
358
|
|
|
|
1,856
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,856
|
|
Employee stock purchase plan
|
|
|
129
|
|
|
|
488
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
488
|
|
Compensation expense in the form
of stock options
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
19
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
19
|
|
Foreign currency translation
adjustment
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(15
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(15
|
)
|
Net income
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
16,151
|
|
|
|
16,151
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance at December 31, 2005
|
|
|
20,669
|
|
|
$
|
97,165
|
|
|
$
|
238
|
|
|
$
|
(9,529
|
)
|
|
$
|
87,874
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
See accompanying notes.
40
INTEVAC,
INC.
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Years Ended
December 31,
|
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
2003
|
|
|
|
(In thousands)
|
|
|
Operating activities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income (loss)
|
|
$
|
16,151
|
|
|
$
|
(4,344
|
)
|
|
$
|
(12,303
|
)
|
Adjustments to reconcile net
income (loss) to net cash and cash equivalents provided by (used
in) operating activities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Depreciation
|
|
|
2,150
|
|
|
|
2,031
|
|
|
|
1,963
|
|
Amortization of debt offering costs
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
|
87
|
|
Net amortization (accretion) of
investment premiums and discounts
|
|
|
(55
|
)
|
|
|
233
|
|
|
|
|
|
Inventory provisions
|
|
|
873
|
|
|
|
1,375
|
|
|
|
743
|
|
Gain on sale of Rapid Thermal
Processing product line
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(287
|
)
|
Compensation expense in the form
of common stock
|
|
|
19
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
30
|
|
Loss on disposal of equipment
|
|
|
4
|
|
|
|
86
|
|
|
|
841
|
|
Changes in assets and liabilities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accounts receivable
|
|
|
(38,081
|
)
|
|
|
9,261
|
|
|
|
(8,804
|
)
|
Inventory
|
|
|
(10,354
|
)
|
|
|
(4,309
|
)
|
|
|
2,028
|
|
Prepaid expenses and other assets
|
|
|
(1,661
|
)
|
|
|
161
|
|
|
|
(152
|
)
|
Accounts payable
|
|
|
5,402
|
|
|
|
(1,749
|
)
|
|
|
1,657
|
|
Accrued payroll and other accrued
liabilities
|
|
|
7,645
|
|
|
|
449
|
|
|
|
(526
|
)
|
Customer advances
|
|
|
19,303
|
|
|
|
(12,599
|
)
|
|
|
4,473
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total adjustments
|
|
|
(14,755
|
)
|
|
|
(5,060
|
)
|
|
|
2,053
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash and cash equivalents
provided by (used in) operating activities
|
|
|
1,396
|
|
|
|
(9,404
|
)
|
|
|
(10,250
|
)
|
Investing activities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Purchase of investments
|
|
|
(100,140
|
)
|
|
|
(45,864
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
Proceeds from sales and maturities
of investments
|
|
|
98,350
|
|
|
|
13,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net proceeds from sale of Rapid
Thermal Processing product line
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
287
|
|
Proceeds from sale of equipment
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10
|
|
|
|
7
|
|
Purchase of equipment
|
|
|
(4,140
|
)
|
|
|
(1,620
|
)
|
|
|
(2,199
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash and cash equivalents used
in investing activities
|
|
|
(5,930
|
)
|
|
|
(34,474
|
)
|
|
|
(1,905
|
)
|
Financing activities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Proceeds from issuance of common
stock
|
|
|
2,344
|
|
|
|
42,820
|
|
|
|
3,188
|
|
Payoff of convertible notes due
2004
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1,025
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash and cash equivalents
provided by financing activities
|
|
|
2,344
|
|
|
|
41,795
|
|
|
|
3,188
|
|
Effect of exchange rate changes on
cash
|
|
|
(10
|
)
|
|
|
31
|
|
|
|
17
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net decrease in cash and cash
equivalents
|
|
|
(2,200
|
)
|
|
|
(2,052
|
)
|
|
|
(8,950
|
)
|
Cash and cash equivalents at
beginning of period
|
|
|
17,455
|
|
|
|
19,507
|
|
|
|
28,457
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents at end
of period
|
|
$
|
15,255
|
|
|
$
|
17,455
|
|
|
$
|
19,507
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash paid (received) for:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
33
|
|
|
$
|
1,987
|
|
Income taxes
|
|
|
2
|
|
|
|
2
|
|
|
|
2
|
|
Income tax refund
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(214
|
)
|
Other non-cash changes:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Inventories transferred to
property, plant and equipment
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
706
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
Conversion of convertible notes
due 2009 into common stock
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
29,375
|
|
See accompanying notes.
41
INTEVAC,
INC.
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
|
|
1.
|
Business
and Nature of Operations
|
We are the worlds leading provider of disk sputtering
equipment to manufacturers of magnetic media used in hard disk
drives and a developer and provider of leading technology for
extreme low light imaging sensors, cameras and systems. We
operate two businesses: Equipment and Imaging.
Our Equipment business designs, manufactures, markets and
services complex capital equipment used in the sputtering, or
deposition, of highly engineered thin-films of material onto
magnetic disks which are used in hard disk drives. Hard disk
drives are the primary storage medium for digital data and
function by storing data on magnetic disks. These disks are
created in a sophisticated manufacturing process involving a
variety of many steps, including plating, annealing, polishing,
texturing, sputtering and lubrication. We are also utilizing our
expertise in complex manufacturing equipment to develop new
manufacturing products that address markets outside the disk
drive industry.
Our Imaging business develops and manufactures electro-optical
sensors, cameras, and systems that permit highly sensitive
detection of photons in the visible and near infrared portions
of the spectrum, allowing vision in extreme low light situations.
The vast majority of our revenue is currently derived from our
Equipment business and we expect that the majority of our
revenues for the next several years will continue to be derived
from our Equipment business.
|
|
2.
|
Summary
of Significant Accounting Policies
|
Basis
of Presentation
The consolidated financial statements include the accounts of
Intevac and its wholly owned subsidiaries. All inter-company
transactions and balances have been eliminated.
Revenue
Recognition
We recognize revenue using guidance from SEC Staff Accounting
Bulletin No. 104, Revenue Recognition. Our
policy allows revenue recognition when persuasive evidence of an
arrangement exists, delivery has occurred or services have been
rendered, the price is fixed or determinable, and collectibility
is reasonably assured. On January 1, 2003, we changed our
revenue recognition policy for system orders to better conform
our revenue recognition policies to industry accounting practice
for companies selling similar equipment.
Certain of our system sales with customer acceptance provisions
are accounted for as multiple-element arrangements. If we have
previously met defined customer acceptance levels with the
specific type of system, then we recognize revenue for the fair
market value of the system upon shipment and transfer of title,
and recognize revenue for the fair market value of installation
and acceptance services when those services are completed. For
systems that have generally not been demonstrated to meet
product specifications prior to shipment, revenue recognition is
usually deferred until customer acceptance. In the event that
our customer chooses not to complete installation and
acceptance, and our obligations under the contract to complete
installation, acceptance or any other tasks, with the exception
of warranty obligations, have been fully discharged, then we
recognize any remaining revenue to the extent that
collectibility under the contract is reasonably assured.
Accounting Treatment for Systems. During the
period that a system is undergoing customer acceptance (either
distributor or end user), the value of the system remains in
inventory, and any payments received, or amounts invoiced,
related to the system are included in customer advances. When
revenue is recognized on the system, the inventory is charged to
cost of net revenues, the customer advance is liquidated, and
the customer is billed for the unpaid balance of the system
revenue.
42
INTEVAC,
INC.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
In some instances, hardware that is not essential to the
functioning of the system may be delivered after acceptance of
the system. In these cases, we estimate the fair market value of
the non-essential hardware as if it had been sold on a
stand-alone basis, and defer recognizing revenue on that value
until the hardware is delivered.
Occasionally, we are asked by our customers to delay delivery of
products that they have accepted, and to temporarily hold the
product at our facility. To determine revenue recognition when
the product is not immediately shipped to the customer, we apply
the criteria outlined in the SEC Enforcement Release No. 108,
which is consistent with APB Statement 4,
paragraph 150. All of the criteria must be met in order for
revenue to be recognized.
Other Systems and Non-System Revenue
Recognition. Revenues for systems without
installation and acceptance provisions, as well as revenues from
technology upgrades, spare parts, consumables and prototype
products built by the Imaging business are recognized when title
passes to our customer. Service and maintenance contract
revenue, which to date has been insignificant, is recognized
ratably over applicable contract periods or as the service is
performed.
Obligations After Shipment. Our shipping terms
are generally FOB shipping point, but in some cases are FOB
destination. For systems sold directly to the end user, our
obligations remaining after shipment typically include
installation, end user factory acceptance and warranty. For
systems sold to distributors, typically the distributor assumes
responsibility for installation and end user customer
acceptance. In some cases, the distributor will assume some or
all of the warranty liability. For products other than systems
and system upgrades, warranty is the only obligation we have
after shipment.
In certain cases, we sell limited rights to our intellectual
property. Revenue from the sale of any intellectual property
license will generally be recognized at the inception of the
license term.
Technology Development Revenue Recognition. We
perform research and development work under various
government-sponsored research contracts. Generally these
contracts are best efforts cost-plus-fixed-fee
(CPFF) contracts or firm fixed-price
(FFP) contracts. On best efforts CPFF contracts we
typically commit to perform certain research and development
efforts up to an agreed upon amount. In connection with these
contracts, we receive funding on an incremental basis up to a
ceiling. On FFP contracts we typically commit to perform certain
development and production efforts for a fixed price.
Our CPFF contracts are accounted for under ARB No. 43,
Chapter 11, Section A, which addresses
Cost-Plus-Fixed-Fee Contracts. The contracts are all cost-type,
with financial terms that are a mixture of fixed fee, no fee and
cost sharing. Revenue on these contracts is recognized in
accordance with contract terms, typically as costs are incurred.
In the event that total cost incurred under a particular
contract over-runs its agreed upon amount, we may be liable for
the additional costs.
Our FFP contracts are accounted for under
SOP 81-1
Accounting for Performance of Construction-Type and
Certain Production-Type Contracts. Revenue on FFP
contracts is generally recognized on the
percentage-of-
completion method based on costs incurred in relation to the
total estimated costs. Provisions for estimated losses on FFP
research contracts are recorded in the period in which such
losses are determined.
The deliverables under each CPFF or FFP contract range from
providing reports to providing hardware. In the majority of the
contracts there is no obligation for either party to continue
the program once the funds have been expended. The efforts can
be terminated at any time for convenience, in which case we
would be reimbursed for our actual incurred costs, plus fee, if
applicable, for the completed effort. We own the entire right,
title and interest to each invention discovered under the
contract, unless we specifically give up that right. The
U.S. Government has a
paid-up
license to use any invention/intellectual property developed
under government funded contracts for government purposes only.
In addition, we have, from time to time, negotiated with third
parties to fund a portion of our costs in return for granting
them a joint interest in the technology rights developed
pursuant to the contract.
43
INTEVAC,
INC.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
Trade
Receivables and Doubtful Accounts
We evaluate the collectibility of trade receivables on an
ongoing basis and provide reserves against potential losses when
appropriate. Management analyzes historical bad debts, customer
concentrations, customer credit worthiness, changes in customer
payment tendencies and current economic trends when evaluating
the adequacy of the allowance for doubtful accounts. Customer
accounts are written off against the allowance when the amount
is deemed uncollectible.
Included in trade receivables are unbilled receivables related
to government contracts of $1.0 million and $975,000 at
December 31, 2005 and December 31, 2004, respectively.
Warranty
We provide for the estimated cost of warranty when revenue is
recognized. Our warranty is per contract terms and for our
systems the warranty typically ranges between 12 and
24 months from customer acceptance. During this warranty
period any defective non-consumable parts are replaced and
installed at no charge to the customer. The warranty period on
consumable parts is limited to their reasonable usable life. We
use estimated repair or replacement costs along with our actual
warranty experience to determine our warranty obligation. We
exercise judgement in determining the underlying estimates.
On the consolidated balance sheet, the short-term portion of the
warranty provision is included in Other Accrued Liabilities,
while the long-term portion is included in Other Long-Term
Liabilities.
The following table displays the activity in the warranty
provision account for 2005 and 2004:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
|
(In thousands)
|
|
|
Beginning balance
|
|
$
|
1,116
|
|
|
$
|
534
|
|
Expenditures incurred under
warranties
|
|
|
(1,428
|
)
|
|
|
(1,024
|
)
|
Accruals for product warranties
issued during the reporting period
|
|
|
3,422
|
|
|
|
1,994
|
|
Adjustments to previously existing
warranty accruals
|
|
|
289
|
|
|
|
(388
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ending balance
|
|
$
|
3,399
|
|
|
$
|
1,116
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The following table displays the balance sheet classification of
the warranty provision account at December 31, 2005 and
2004:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
|
(In thousands)
|
|
|
Other accrued liabilities
|
|
$
|
2,705
|
|
|
$
|
909
|
|
Other long-term liabilities
|
|
|
694
|
|
|
|
207
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total warranty provision
|
|
$
|
3,399
|
|
|
$
|
1,116
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Guarantees
We have entered into agreements with customers and suppliers
that include limited intellectual property indemnification
obligations that are customary in the industry. These guarantees
generally require us to compensate the other party for certain
damages and costs incurred as a result of third party
intellectual property claims arising from these transactions.
The nature of the intellectual property indemnification
obligations prevents us from making a reasonable estimate of the
maximum potential amount we could be required to pay our
customers and suppliers. Historically, we have not made any
significant indemnification payments under such agreements, and
no
44
INTEVAC,
INC.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
amount has been accrued in the accompanying consolidated
financial statements with respect to these indemnification
obligations.
Customer
Advances
Customer advances generally represent nonrefundable deposits
invoiced by the Company in connection with receiving customer
purchase orders and other events preceding acceptance of
systems. Customer advances related to products that have not
been shipped to customers and included in accounts receivable
were $10.6 million and $16,000 at December 31, 2005
and 2004, respectively.
Cash,
Cash Equivalents and Short-term Investments
Our investment portfolio consists of cash, cash equivalents and
investments in debt securities and municipal bonds. We consider
all highly liquid investments with a maturity of three months or
less when purchased to be cash equivalents. Investments in debt
securities and municipal bonds consists principally of highly
rated debt instruments with maturities generally between one and
25 months.
We account for our investments in debt securities and auction
rate securities in accordance with Statement of Accounting
Standards No. 115 Accounting for Certain Investments
in Debt and Equity Securities, which requires certain
securities to be categorized as either trading,
available-for-sale
or
held-to-maturity.
Available-for-sale
securities are carried at fair value, with unrealized gains and
losses recorded within other comprehensive income (loss) as a
separate component of shareholders equity.
Held-to-maturity
securities are carried at amortized cost. We have no trading
securities. The cost of investment securities sold is determined
by the specific identification method. Interest income is
recorded using an effective interest rate, with the associated
premium or discount amortized to interest income. Realized gains
and losses and declines in value judged to be other than
temporary, if any, on available for sales securities are
included in earnings. The table below presents the amortized
principal amount, major security type and maturities for our
investments in debt securities and auction rate securities.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
|
(In thousands)
|
|
|
Amortized Principal Amount:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Debt securities issued by US
government agencies
|
|
$
|
10,991
|
|
|
$
|
28,017
|
|
Auction rate securities
|
|
|
15,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
Corporate debt securities
|
|
|
8,485
|
|
|
|
4,614
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total investments in debt
securities
|
|
$
|
34,476
|
|
|
$
|
32,631
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Short-term investments
|
|
$
|
34,476
|
|
|
$
|
24,579
|
|
Long-term investments
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
8,052
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total investments in debt
securities
|
|
$
|
34,476
|
|
|
$
|
32,631
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Approximate fair value of
investments in debt securities
|
|
$
|
34,408
|
|
|
$
|
32,450
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The decline in the fair value of our investments is attributable
to changes in interest rates and not credit quality. In
accordance with
EITF 03-01,
we have the ability and intent to hold these investments until
fair value recovers, which may be maturity, and we do not
consider these investments to be
other-than-temporarily
impaired at December 31, 2005.
Cash and cash equivalents represent cash accounts and money
market funds. Included in accounts payable is $988,000 and
$188,000 of book overdraft at December 31, 2005 and
December 31, 2004, respectively.
45
INTEVAC,
INC.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
Valuation
of Long-lived and Intangible Assets
We assess the impairment of identifiable intangibles and
long-lived assets whenever events or changes in circumstances
indicate that the carrying value may not be recoverable. Factors
we consider important which could trigger an impairment review
include the following:
|
|
|
|
|
significant underperformance relative to expected historical or
projected future operating results;
|
|
|
|
significant changes in the manner of our use of the acquired
assets or the strategy for our overall business; and
|
|
|
|
significant negative industry or economic trends.
|
When we determine that the carrying value of long-lived assets,
intangibles or goodwill may not be recoverable based upon the
existence of one or more of the above indicators of impairment,
we measure any impairment based on a projected discounted cash
flow method using a discount rate determined by our management
to be commensurate with the risk inherent in our current
business model.
Prototype
Costs
Prototype product costs that are not paid for under research and
development contracts and are in excess of fair market value are
charged to research and development expense.
Foreign
Exchange Contracts
We may enter into foreign currency forward exchange contracts to
hedge certain of our foreign currency transaction, translation
and re-measurement exposures. Our accounting policies for some
of these instruments are based on our designation of such
instruments as hedging transactions. Instruments not designated
as a hedge transaction will be marked to market at
the end of each accounting period. The criteria we use for
designating an instrument as a hedge include effectiveness in
exposure reduction and
one-to-one
matching of the derivative financial instrument to the
underlying transaction being hedged. Gains and losses on foreign
currency forward exchange contracts that are designated and
effective as hedges of existing transactions are recognized in
income in the same period as losses and gains on the underlying
transactions are recognized and generally offset.
As of December 31, 2005 and 2004, we had no foreign
currency forward exchange contracts outstanding.
Financial
Instruments
The carrying amount of the short-term financial instruments
(cash and cash equivalents, short-term investments, accounts
receivable and certain other liabilities) approximates fair
value due to the short-term maturity of those instruments.
Inventories
Inventories are priced using standard costs, which approximates
cost under the
first-in,
first-out method, and are stated at the lower of cost or market.
Inventories consist of the following:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
|
(In thousands)
|
|
|
Raw materials
|
|
$
|
15,070
|
|
|
$
|
5,624
|
|
Work-in-progress
|
|
|
6,303
|
|
|
|
3,496
|
|
Finished goods
|
|
|
3,464
|
|
|
|
6,255
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
24,837
|
|
|
$
|
15,375
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
46
INTEVAC,
INC.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
Finished goods inventory consists primarily of completed systems
at customer sites that are undergoing installation and
acceptance testing.
Inventory reserves included in the above numbers were $11.0 and
$9.9 million at December 31, 2005 and 2004,
respectively. Each quarter, we analyze our inventory (raw
materials,
work-in-progress
and finished goods) against the forecast demand for the next
12 months. Raw materials with no forecast requirements in
that period are considered excess and inventory provisions are
established to write those items down to zero net book value.
Work-in-progress
and finished goods inventories with no forecast requirements in
that period are typically written down to the lower of cost or
market. During this process, some inventory is identified as
having no future use or value to us and is disposed of against
the reserves.
During the year ended December 31, 2005, $873,000 was added
to inventory reserves based on the quarterly analyses and
$124,000 was disposed of and charged to the reserve. We also
added $184,000 to inventory reserves to provide for the loss or
refurbishment of Imaging products consigned to our customers for
demonstrations.
During the year ended December 31, 2004, $1.4 million
was added to inventory reserves based on the quarterly analyses
and $1.6 million of inventory was disposed of and charged
to the reserve. A system in inventory with a value of $706,000,
net of a $250,000 reserve, was transferred to fixed assets and
capitalized.
Property,
Plant and Equipment
Equipment and leasehold improvements are carried at cost less
accumulated depreciation and amortization. Gains and losses on
dispositions are reflected in the Consolidated Statements of
Operations and Comprehensive Income (Loss).
Depreciation is computed using the straight-line method over the
estimated useful lives of the assets as follows:
|
|
|
Computers and software
|
|
3 years
|
Machinery and equipment
|
|
5 years
|
Furniture
|
|
7 years
|
Vehicles
|
|
4 years
|
Leasehold improvements
|
|
Remaining lease term
|
Comprehensive
Income
SFAS No. 130, Reporting Comprehensive
Income requires unrealized gains or losses on foreign
currency translation adjustments, which prior to the adoption
were reported separately in shareholders equity, to be
included in other comprehensive income. As of December 31,
2005, the $238,000 balance of accumulated other comprehensive
income is comprised entirely of accumulated foreign currency
translation adjustments.
Employee
Stock Plans
At December 31, 2005, we had two stock-based employee
compensation plans, which are described more fully in
Note 9. We account for those plans under the recognition
and measurement principles of APB Opinion No. 25,
Accounting for Stock Issued to Employees, and
related Interpretations. No stock-based employee compensation
cost is reflected in net income, as all options granted to
employees under those plans had an exercise price equal to the
market value of the underlying common stock on the date of
grant. Compensation expense of $19,000 was recorded in net
income related to an option granted to a consultant to our Board
of Directors. Pro forma information regarding net income (loss)
and earnings (loss) per share is required by
SFAS No. 123, which also requires that the information
be determined as if we had accounted for our employee stock
options granted subsequent to December 31, 1994 under the
fair value method of this Statement.
47
INTEVAC,
INC.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
Our pro forma stock compensation expense is computed using the
Black-Scholes option valuation model. This model was developed
for use in estimating the fair value of traded options that have
no vesting restrictions and are fully transferable. In addition,
option models require the input of highly subjective assumptions
including the expected stock price volatility. Because our
employee stock options have characteristics significantly
different from those of traded options, and because changes in
the subjective assumptions can materially affect the fair value
estimate, in managements opinion, the existing models do
not necessarily provide a reliable single measure of the fair
value of its employee stock options. Beginning in the first
fiscal quarter of 2006, we will comply with
SFAS No. 123R, as discussed further in Recent
Accounting Pronouncements.
The following table illustrates the effect on net income (loss)
and 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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
2003
|
|
|
|
(In thousands, except per share
data)
|
|
|
Net income (loss), as reported
|
|
$
|
16,151
|
|
|
$
|
(4,344
|
)
|
|
$
|
(12,303
|
)
|
Deduct: Total stock-based employee
compensation expense determined under fair value based method
for all awards, net of related tax effects
|
|
|
(2,907
|
)
|
|
|
(1,378
|
)
|
|
|
(683
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pro forma net income (loss)
|
|
$
|
13,244
|
|
|
$
|
(5,722
|
)
|
|
$
|
(12,986
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Earnings (loss) per share:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic as reported
|
|
$
|
0.79
|
|
|
$
|
(0.22
|
)
|
|
$
|
(0.95
|
)
|
Basic pro forma
|
|
$
|
0.65
|
|
|
$
|
(0.29
|
)
|
|
$
|
(1.00
|
)
|
Diluted as
reported
|
|
$
|
0.76
|
|
|
$
|
(0.22
|
)
|
|
$
|
(0.95
|
)
|
Diluted pro forma
|
|
$
|
0.62
|
|
|
$
|
(0.29
|
)
|
|
$
|
(1.00
|
)
|
The fair value of each stock option is estimated on the date of
grant using the Black-Scholes option-pricing model, with the
following weighted-average assumptions for grants made in each
year:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
2003
|
|
|
|
(In thousands)
|
|
|
Dividend yield
|
|
|
None
|
|
|
|
None
|
|
|
|
None
|
|
Expected volatility
|
|
|
92.30
|
%
|
|
|
94.62
|
%
|
|
|
94.30
|
%
|
Risk free interest rate
|
|
|
4.30
|
%
|
|
|
3.60
|
%
|
|
|
1.62
|
%
|
Expected lives
|
|
|
5.99 years
|
|
|
|
5.60 years
|
|
|
|
2.22 years
|
|
The weighted-average fair value of stock options granted was
$6.58, $6.19 and $3.64 for the years ended December 31,
2005, 2004 and 2003, respectively.
On October 27, 2005, our Board of Directors approved
accelerating the vesting of approximately 306,000
out-of-the-money
unvested common stock options previously awarded to employees
and officers under our stock option plans. Vesting was
accelerated for stock options that had exercise prices greater
than or equal to $9.06 per share, which was the closing
price of our common stock on October 27, 2005. As a
condition to the acceleration of vesting, the holders of the
accelerated common stock options are required to refrain from
selling any shares acquired upon exercise before the date on
which the shares to be sold would otherwise have vested, had the
vesting of common stock options not been accelerated. This
restriction continues to apply regardless of any termination of
the optionees employment. In connection with the
modification of the terms of these options to accelerate their
vesting, approximately $1.5 million is reflected as a
non-cash compensation expense on a pro-forma basis in accordance
with SFAS 123 in the pro-forma table above for the year
ended December 31, 2005. This action was taken to reduce
the impact of future compensation expense that we would
otherwise be required to recognize in
48
INTEVAC,
INC.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
future consolidated statements of operations pursuant to
SFAS 123R, which is applicable to us beginning in the first
fiscal quarter of 2006.
The pro forma net income (loss) and net income (loss) per share
data listed above includes expense related to the Employee Stock
Purchase Plan (ESPP). The fair value of purchase
rights granted under the ESPP is estimated on the date of grant
using the Black-Scholes option-pricing model, with the following
weighted-average assumptions:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
2003
|
|
|
|
(In thousands)
|
|
|
Dividend yield
|
|
|
None
|
|
|
|
None
|
|
|
|
None
|
|
Expected volatility
|
|
|
91.74
|
%
|
|
|
95.20
|
%
|
|
|
94.00
|
%
|
Risk free interest rate
|
|
|
3.89
|
%
|
|
|
2.37
|
%
|
|
|
1.43
|
%
|
Expected lives
|
|
|
1.27 years
|
|
|
|
1.92 years
|
|
|
|
2.00 years
|
|
The weighted-average fair value of purchase rights granted was
$5.14, $2.95 and $5.24 for the years ended December 31,
2005, 2004 and 2003, respectively.
Financial
Presentation
Certain prior year amounts in the Consolidated Financial
Statements have been reclassified to conform to 2005
presentation. The reclassifications had no material effect on
total assets, liabilities, equity, net income (loss) or
comprehensive income (loss) previously reported.
Net
income (loss) per share
The following table sets forth the computation of basic and
diluted income (loss) per share:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
2003
|
|
|
|
(In thousands)
|
|
|
Numerator:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Numerator for basic income (loss)
per share income (loss) available to common
stockholders
|
|
$
|
16,151
|
|
|
$
|
(4,344
|
)
|
|
$
|
(12,303
|
)
|
Effect of dilutive securities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
61/2% convertible
notes(1)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Numerator for diluted earnings
(loss) per share income (loss) available to
common stockholders after assumed conversions
|
|
$
|
16,151
|
|
|
$
|
(4,344
|
)
|
|
$
|
(12,303
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Denominator:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Denominator for basic earnings
(loss) per share weighted-average shares
|
|
|
20,462
|
|
|
|
19,749
|
|
|
|
12,948
|
|
Effect of dilutive securities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Employee stock options(2)
|
|
|
740
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
61/2% convertible
notes(1)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dilutive potential common shares
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Denominator for diluted earnings
(loss) per share adjusted weighted-average
shares and assumed conversions
|
|
|
21,202
|
|
|
|
19,749
|
|
|
|
12,948
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
49
INTEVAC,
INC.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Diluted EPS for the twelve-month periods ended December 31,
2004 and 2003 excludes as converted treatment of the
convertible notes, as their inclusion would be anti-dilutive.
The number of as converted shares excluded from the
twelve-month periods ended December 31, 2004 and 2003 was
8,568 and 3,619,134, respectively. $29.4 million of the
notes were converted in the fourth quarter of 2003 and the
$1.0 million balance of the notes was repaid in March 2004. |
|
(2) |
|
Potentially dilutive securities, consisting of shares issuable
upon exercise of employee stock options, are excluded from the
calculation of diluted EPS if their effect would be
anti-dilutive. The weighted average number of employee stock
options excluded from the twelve-month periods ended
December 31, 2005, 2004 and 2003 was 226,804, 1,605,593 and
1,731,305, respectively. |
Use of
Estimates
The preparation of financial statements in conformity with
accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of
America requires management to make estimates and assumptions
that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities and
disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities at the date of
the financial statements and the reported amounts of revenue and
expenses during the reporting period. Actual results inevitably
will differ from those estimates, and such differences may be
material to the financial statements.
New
Accounting Pronouncements
In March 2004, the Emerging Issues Task Force (EITF)
issued EITF No.
03-01,
The Meaning of
Other-Than-Temporary
Impairment and its Application to Certain Investments,
which provides new guidance for assessing impairment losses on
debt and equity investments. The new impairment model applies to
investments accounted for under the cost or equity method and
investments accounted for under FAS 115, Accounting
for Certain Investments in Debt and Equity Securities.
EITF
No. 03-01
also includes new disclosure requirements for cost method
investments and for all investments that are in an unrealized
loss position. In September 2004, the FASB delayed the
accounting provisions of EITF
No. 03-01;
however the disclosure requirements remain effective and the
applicable disclosures have been included in our consolidated
financial statements and related notes thereto. We do not expect
the adoption of this EITF to have an effect on our financial
statements.
In November 2004, the FASB issued SFAS No. 151,
Inventory Costs an amendment of ARB
No. 43, which is the result of its efforts to
converge U.S. accounting standards for inventories with
International Accounting Standards. SFAS No. 151
requires idle facility expenses, freight, handling costs, and
wasted material (spoilage) costs to be recognized as
current-period charges. It also requires that allocation of
fixed production overheads to the costs of conversion be based
on the normal capacity of the production facilities.
SFAS No. 151 will be effective for inventory costs
incurred during fiscal years beginning after June 15, 2005.
We do not expect the adoption of this statement to have a
material impact on our financial statements.
In December 2004, FASB issued SFAS No. 123 (Revised
2004), Share-Based Payment. SFAS 123R addresses
all forms of share-based payment awards, including shares issued
under certain employee stock purchase plans, stock options,
restricted stock and stock appreciation rights. SFAS 123R
will require us to expense share-based payment awards with
compensation cost for share-based payment transactions measured
at fair value. On April 14, 2005, the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission announced a deferral of the effective date
of SFAS 123R until the first interim period beginning after
December 15, 2005. We are currently evaluating the expected
impact of SFAS 123R to our Consolidated Financial
Statements. See the Employee Stock Plan section of this
Note for information related to the pro forma effect on our
reported net income (loss) and earnings (loss) per share of
applying the fair value provisions of SFAS 123
Accounting for Stock-Based Compensation, to
stock-based employee compensation.
In March 2005, the SEC issued Staff Accounting Bulletin
(SAB) No. 107. SAB 107 provides guidance
related to share-based payment transactions with non-employees,
the transition from nonpublic to public entities
50
INTEVAC,
INC.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
status, valuation methods (including assumptions such as
expected volatility and expected term), the accounting for
certain redeemable financial instruments issued under
share-based payment arrangements, the classification of
compensation expense, non-GAAP financial measures, first-time
adoption of SFAS 123R in an interim period, capitalization
of compensation costs related to share-based payment
arrangements, the accounting for income tax effects of
share-based payment arrangements upon adoption of
SFAS 123R, the modification of employee share options prior
to the adoption of SFAS 123R and disclosures in
Managements Discussion and Analysis subsequent to adoption
of SFAS 123R. We are currently in the process of assessing
the impact of this guidance.
In May 2005, FASB issued SFAS No. 154,
Accounting Changes and Error Corrections. This new
standard replaces APB Opinion No. 20, Accounting
Changes and FASB Statement No. 3, Reporting
Accounting Changes in Interim Financial Statements.
SFAS 154 requires that a voluntary change in accounting
principle be applied retrospectively with all prior period
financial statements presented on the new accounting principle,
unless it is impractical to do so. SFAS 154 also provides
that (1) a change in method of depreciating or amortizing a
long-lived non-financial asset be accounted for as a change in
estimate (prospectively) that was effected by a change in
accounting principle, and (2) correction of errors in
previously issued financial statements should be termed a
restatement. SFAS 154 is effective for
accounting changes and corrections of errors made in fiscal
years beginning after December 15, 2005. We do not expect
the adoption of this statement to have a material impact on our
financial statements.
In September 2005, the FASB issued EITF Issue
No. 04-13,
Accounting for Purchases and Sales of Inventory with the
Same Counterparty
(EITF 04-13).
The issue provided guidance on the circumstances under which two
or more inventory transactions with the same counterparty should
be viewed as a single non-monetary transaction within the scope
of APB Opinion No. 29, Accounting for Non-monetary
Transactions. The issue also provided guidance on
circumstances under which non-monetary exchanges of inventory
within the same line of business should be recognized at fair
value.
EITF 04-13
will be effective for transactions completed in reporting
periods beginning after March 15, 2006. We do not
expect the adoption of this EITF to have an effect on our
financial statements.
Credit
Risk and Significant Customers
Financial instruments that potentially subject us to significant
concentrations of credit risk consist of cash equivalents,
short- and long-term investments, accounts receivable and
foreign exchange forward contracts. We generally invest our
excess cash in money market funds, auction rate securities,
commercial paper and in debt securities of the US government and
its agencies, which each have contracted maturities of
25 months or less and an average maturity in aggregate of
one year or less. By policy, our investments in commercial
paper, auction rate securities, certificates of deposit,
Eurodollar time deposits, or bankers acceptances are rated
AAA or better, and we limit the amount of credit exposure to any
one issuer. Our accounts receivable tend to be concentrated in a
limited number of customers. At December 31, 2005, four
customers accounted for 33%, 22%, 20% and 18% respectively of
our accounts receivable and in aggregate accounted for 93% of
net accounts receivable. At December 31, 2004, two
customers accounted for 30% and 16%, respectively of our
accounts receivable and in aggregate accounted for 46% of net
accounts receivable.
Our largest customers tend to change from period to period.
Historically, a significant portion of our revenues in any
particular period have been attributable to sales to a limited
number of customers. In 2005, four customers accounted for 41%,
24%, 14% and 11%, respectively of our consolidated net revenues
and in aggregate accounted for 90% of net revenues. During 2005,
Seagate, a customer for our disk sputtering equipment, announced
its acquisition of Maxtor, another customer for our disk
sputtering equipment. This acquisition, if approved, will
further limit the number of customers. In 2004, two customers
accounted for 62% and 11%, respectively of our consolidated net
revenues and in aggregate accounted for 73% of net revenues. In
2003, four customers accounted for 25%, 18%, 13% and 10%,
respectively, of our consolidated revenues and in aggregate
accounted for 66% of net
51
INTEVAC,
INC.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
revenues. Intevac performs credit evaluations of its
customers financial condition and generally requires
deposits on system orders but does not generally require
collateral or other security to support customer receivables.
Products
Disk manufacturing products contributed a significant portion of
our revenues in 2005, 2004 and 2003. We expect that our ability
to maintain or expand our current levels of revenues in the
future will depend upon our success in enhancing our existing
systems and developing and manufacturing competitive disk
manufacturing equipment, such as our 200 Lean, our success in
developing both military and commercial products based on our
low light and LIVAR technology, and our success in utilizing our
expertise in complex manufacturing equipment to develop new
manufacturing products that address markets outside the disk
drive industry.
601
California Avenue LLC
In 1995, we entered into a Limited Liability Company Operating
Agreement (the Operating Agreement), which expires
December 31, 2015, with 601 California Avenue LLC (the
LLC), a California limited liability company formed
and owned by Intevac and certain shareholders of Intevac at that
time. Under the Operating Agreement we transferred our leasehold
interest in the site of our discontinued night vision business
(the Site) in exchange for a preferred share in the
LLC with a face value of $3,900,000. We are accounting for the
investment under the cost method and have recorded our
investment in the LLC at $2,431,000, which represents our
historical carrying value of the leasehold interest in the Site.
The preferred share in the LLC pays a 10% annual cumulative
preferred dividend.
During 1996, the LLC formed a joint venture with Stanford
University (the Stanford JV). The Stanford JV
developed the property and has leased the property through
August 2009. The LLC is a profitable enterprise whose primary
asset is its interest in the Stanford JV. The Company received
dividends of $390,000 from the LLC in each of the last three
years. These dividends are included in other income and expense.
|
|
5.
|
Commitments
and Contingencies
|
Leases
We lease certain facilities under non-cancelable operating
leases that expire at various times up to February 2013. The
facility leases require Intevac to pay for all normal
maintenance costs.
Future minimum rental payments under these leases at
December 31, 2005 are as follows (in thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
$
|
3,521
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2,042
|
|
2008
|
|
|
1,605
|
|
2009
|
|
|
1,682
|
|
2010
|
|
|
1,760
|
|
Beyond
|
|
|
2,497
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
13,107
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gross rental expense was approximately $2,454,000, $2,550,000
and $2,940,000 for the years ended December 31, 2005, 2004
and 2003, respectively.
52
INTEVAC,
INC.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
Contingencies
From time to time, we may have certain contingent liabilities
that arise in the ordinary course of our business activities. We
account for contingent liabilities when it is probable that
future expenditures will be made and such expenditures can be
reasonably estimated.
Employee
Savings and Retirement Plan
In 1991, we established a defined contribution retirement plan
with 401(k) plan features. The plan covers all United States
employees eighteen years and older. Employees may make
contributions by a percentage reduction in their salaries, not
to exceed the statutorily prescribed annual limit. We made cash
contributions of $327,000, $280,000 and $234,000 for the years
ended December 31, 2005, 2004 and 2003, respectively.
Employees may choose among twelve investment options for their
contributions and their share of Intevacs contributions,
and they are able to move funds between investment options at
any time. Intevacs common stock is not one of the
investment options. Administrative expenses relating to the plan
are insignificant.
Employee
Bonus Plans
We have various employee bonus plans. A profit-sharing plan
provides for the distribution of a percentage of pre-tax profits
to substantially all of our employees not eligible for other
performance-based incentive plans, up to a maximum percentage of
compensation. Other plans award annual or quarterly bonuses to
our executives and key contributors based on the achievement of
profitability and other specific performance criteria. Charges
to expense under these plans were $3.2 million for the year
ended December 31, 2005 and were not material for the years
ended December 31, 2004 and 2003.
During the first quarter of 1997, we completed an offering of
$57.5 million of our
61/2% Convertible
Subordinated Notes (the 2004 Notes), with a
March 1, 2004 maturity date. Interest was payable each
March 1st and September 1st. The notes were
convertible into shares of Intevacs common stock at
$20.625 per share. Expenses associated with the offering of
approximately $2.3 million were deferred. Such expenses
were amortized to interest expense over the term of the notes.
On July 12, 2002 we completed the exchange of
$36.3 million in aggregate principal amount of our 2004
Notes for $29.5 million of our new 6
1/2%
Convertible Subordinated Notes due 2009 (the 2009
Notes) and $7.6 million in cash, including
$0.9 million for accrued interest. The 2009 Notes were
convertible, at the holders option, into Intevac common
shares at a conversion price of $7.00 per share.
$1.3 million in aggregate principal amount of the 2004
Notes remained outstanding after the closing of the exchange
offer.
In accounting for the exchange of the convertible notes, we
wrote off $0.4 million of debt issuance costs related to
the 2004 Notes, reflecting the portion of such costs
attributable to the convertible notes exchanged. The remaining
debt issuance costs were amortized to interest expense over the
remaining life of the 2004 Notes. In connection with the
exchange offer, we incurred $0.8 million of offering costs.
Of this amount, $0.2 million represented the cash portion
of the exchange offer and was expensed during the 3 months
ended September 28, 2002. The $0.6 million balance of
the exchange offering costs were amortized to interest expense
over the life of the 2009 Notes. There was no gain or loss
associated with this transaction, as $36.3 million of 2004
Notes were exchanged for $36.3 million of cash and new
securities.
During 2002, in addition to the note exchange described above,
we repurchased $0.3 million, face value, of our 2004 Notes.
The repurchase resulted in a gain of $23,000. In accordance with
adoption of SFAS No. 145, the gain on
53
INTEVAC,
INC.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
the note repurchase is included in other income and expense, net
on the Consolidated Statement of Operations and Comprehensive
Income (Loss).
On October 31, 2003, we issued a notice of automatic
conversion of our 2009 Notes pursuant to their terms.
$20.1 million in aggregate principal amount of these notes
was outstanding, which converted into 2,871,857 shares of
Intevac common stock at a conversion price of $7.00 per
share. The automatic conversion occurred on November 10,
2003. Prior to the issuance of the notice of automatic
conversion, $9.4 million in aggregate principal amount of
these notes had been tendered for conversion by the holders,
resulting in the issuance of 1,348,426 shares of Intevac
common stock.
On March 1, 2004, we paid off the remaining
$1.0 million of our 2004 Notes.
Segment
Description
We have two reportable operating segments: Equipment and
Imaging. Our Equipment business designs, manufactures, markets
and services complex capital equipment used in the sputtering,
or deposition, of highly engineered thin-films of material onto
magnetic disks which are used in hard disk drives. Our Imaging
business develops and manufactures electro-optical sensors,
cameras and systems that permit highly sensitive detection of
photons in the visible and near infrared portions of the
spectrum, allowing vision in extreme low light situations.
Included in corporate activities are general corporate expenses,
less an allocation of corporate expenses to operating units
equal to 3% of net revenues. Assets of corporate activities
include unallocated cash and short-term investments, deferred
tax assets and other assets.
Segment
Profit or Loss and Segment Assets
We evaluate performance and allocate resources based on a number
of factors, including profit or loss from operations and future
revenue potential. The accounting policies of the reportable
segments are the same as those described in the summary of
significant accounting policies.
Business
Segment Net Revenues
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
2003
|
|
|
|
(In thousands)
|
|
|
Equipment
|
|
$
|
129,280
|
|
|
$
|
60,490
|
|
|
$
|
26,748
|
|
Imaging
|
|
|
7,949
|
|
|
|
9,125
|
|
|
|
9,546
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
137,229
|
|
|
$
|
69,615
|
|
|
$
|
36,294
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
54
INTEVAC,
INC.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
Business
Segment Profit (Loss)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
2003
|
|
|
|
(In thousands)
|
|
|
Equipment(1)
|
|
$
|
20,413
|
|
|
$
|
(377
|
)
|
|
$
|
(3,993
|
)
|
Imaging(2)
|
|
|
(5,798
|
)
|
|
|
(4,114
|
)
|
|
|
(4,155
|
)
|
Corporate activities
|
|
|
102
|
|
|
|
(758
|
)
|
|
|
(2,507
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating income (loss)
|
|
|
14,717
|
|
|
|
(5,249
|
)
|
|
|
(10,655
|
)
|
Interest expense
|
|
|
10
|
|
|
|
(55
|
)
|
|
|
(1,787
|
)
|
Interest income
|
|
|
1,303
|
|
|
|
634
|
|
|
|
269
|
|
Other income and expense, net
|
|
|
542
|
|
|
|
436
|
|
|
|
(92
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income (loss) before income taxes
|
|
$
|
16,572
|
|
|
$
|
(4,234
|
)
|
|
$
|
(12,265
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Includes inventory provisions of $782,000, $1,263,000 and
$451,000 in 2005, 2004 and 2003, respectively. |
|
(2) |
|
Includes inventory provisions of $91,000, $112,000 and $292,000
in 2005, 2004 and 2003, respectively. |
Business
Segment Assets
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
|
(In thousands)
|
|
|
Equipment
|
|
$
|
68,672
|
|
|
$
|
19,407
|
|
Imaging
|
|
|
7,665
|
|
|
|
7,135
|
|
Corporate activities
|
|
|
54,107
|
|
|
|
53,080
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total assets
|
|
$
|
130,444
|
|
|
$
|
79,622
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Business
Segment Property, Plant & Equipment
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Additions
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
|
(In thousands)
|
|
|
Equipment(1)
|
|
$
|
2,184
|
|
|
$
|
1,024
|
|
Imaging
|
|
|
934
|
|
|
|
900
|
|
Corporate activities
|
|
|
1,022
|
|
|
|
402
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total additions
|
|
$
|
4,140
|
|
|
$
|
2,326
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Includes inventory transferred to fixed assets of $706 in 2004. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Depreciation
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
2003
|
|
|
|
(In thousands)
|
|
|
Equipment
|
|
$
|
822
|
|
|
$
|
561
|
|
|
$
|
456
|
|
Imaging
|
|
|
1,054
|
|
|
|
1,188
|
|
|
|
1,240
|
|
Corporate activities
|
|
|
274
|
|
|
|
282
|
|
|
|
267
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total depreciation
|
|
$
|
2,150
|
|
|
$
|
2,031
|
|
|
$
|
1,963
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
55
INTEVAC,
INC.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
Geographic
Area Net Trade Revenues
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
2003
|
|
|
|
(In thousands)
|
|
|
United States
|
|
$
|
39,754
|
|
|
$
|
22,545
|
|
|
$
|
13,133
|
|
Asia
|
|
|
96,694
|
|
|
|
46,452
|
|
|
|
23,155
|
|
Europe
|
|
|
781
|
|
|
|
618
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rest of World
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total revenues
|
|
$
|
137,229
|
|
|
$
|
69,615
|
|
|
$
|
36,294
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Our Articles of Incorporation authorize 10,000,000 shares
of Preferred Stock. The Board of Directors has the authority to
issue the Preferred Stock in one or more series and to fix the
price, rights, preferences, privileges and restrictions thereof,
including dividend rights, dividend rates, conversion rights,
voting rights, terms of redemption, redemption prices,
liquidation preferences and the number of shares constituting
any series or the designation of such series, without further
vote or action by the shareholders.
Stock
Option/Stock Issuance Plans
Our Board of Directors and our shareholders approved adoption of
the 2004 Equity Incentive Plan (the 2004 Plan) in
2004. The 2004 Plan serves as the successor equity incentive
program to our 1995 Stock Option/Stock Issuance Plan (the
1995 Plan). Upon adoption of the 2004 Plan, all
shares available for issuance under the 1995 Plan were
transferred to the 2004 Plan. The 2004 Plan permits the grant of
incentive or non-statutory stock options, restricted stock,
stock appreciation rights, performance units and performance
shares. Option price, vesting period, and other terms are
determined by the Administrator of the 2004 Plan, but the option
price shall generally not be less than 100% of the fair market
value per share on the date of grant. As of December 31,
2005, 2,200,963 shares of common stock are authorized for
future issuance under the 2004 Plan. Options granted under the
2004 Plan are exercisable upon vesting and vest over periods of
up to five years. Options currently expire no later than ten
years from the date of grant. The 2004 Plan expires no later
than March 10, 2014.
Employee
Stock Purchase Plans
In 2003, our shareholders approved adoption of the 2003 Employee
Stock Purchase Plan (the 2003 ESPP) which serves as
the successor to the Employee Stock Purchase Plan originally
adopted in 1995. Upon adoption of the 2003 ESPP, all shares
available for issuance under the prior plan were transferred to
the 2003 ESPP. Under the 2003 ESPP, we are authorized to issue
up to 358,197 shares of common stock to participating
employees. Under the terms of the 2003 ESPP, employees can
choose to have up to 10% of their annual base earnings withheld
to purchase our common stock. The purchase price of the stock is
85% of the lower of the subscription date fair market value or
the purchase date fair market value. Under the 2003 ESPP and its
predecessor, we sold 129,217, 82,184 and 77,749 shares to
employees in 2005, 2004 and 2003, respectively. As of
December 31, 2005, 146,796 shares remained reserved
for issuance under the 2003 ESPP.
56
INTEVAC,
INC.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
A summary of our stock option activity and related information
for the years ended December 31 follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
2003
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted-Average
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted-Average
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted-Average
|
|
|
|
Options
|
|
|
Exercise Price
|
|
|
Options
|
|
|
Exercise Price
|
|
|
Options
|
|
|
Exercise Price
|
|
|
Outstanding beginning
of year
|
|
|
1,712,955
|
|
|
$
|
6.04
|
|
|
|
1,426,285
|
|
|
$
|
5.26
|
|
|
|
1,850,082
|
|
|
$
|
5.02
|
|
Granted
|
|
|
644,850
|
|
|
|
8.83
|
|
|
|
618,000
|
|
|
|
8.30
|
|
|
|
259,000
|
|
|
|
8.03
|
|
Exercised
|
|
|
(357,269
|
)
|
|
|
5.20
|
|
|
|
(177,371
|
)
|
|
|
4.83
|
|
|
|
(530,248
|
)
|
|
|
5.64
|
|
Forfeited
|
|
|
(132,966
|
)
|
|
|
5.75
|
|
|
|
(153,959
|
)
|
|
|
9.29
|
|
|
|
(152,549
|
)
|
|
|
5.73
|
|
Outstanding end
of year
|
|
|
1,867,570
|
|
|
|
7.19
|
|
|
|
1,712,955
|
|
|
|
6.04
|
|
|
|
1,426,285
|
|
|
|
5.26
|
|
Exercisable at end of year
|
|
|
1,104,355
|
|
|
$
|
7.80
|
|
|
|
906,353
|
|
|
$
|
5.89
|
|
|
|
840,518
|
|
|
$
|
5.67
|
|
Weighted-average per share fair
value of options granted during the year
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
6.58
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
4.39
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
3.64
|
|
Outstanding
and Exercisable by Price Range as of December 31,
2005
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Options Outstanding
|
|
|
Options Exercisable
|
|
|
|
Number
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Number
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Outstanding as of
|
|
|
Weighted Average
|
|
|
Weighted
|
|
|
Exercisable as of
|
|
|
Weighted
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
Remaining
|
|
|
Average
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
Average
|
|
Range of Exercise
Prices
|
|
2005
|
|
|
Contractual Life
|
|
|
Exercise Price
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
Exercise Price
|
|
|
$ 2.630 - $ 3.980
|
|
|
405,900
|
|
|
|
5.83 yrs
|
|
|
$
|
2.96
|
|
|
|
304,005
|
|
|
$
|
2.91
|
|
$ 4.000 - $ 6.563
|
|
|
375,170
|
|
|
|
7.09 yrs
|
|
|
$
|
4.70
|
|
|
|
170,950
|
|
|
$
|
5.01
|
|
$ 6.625 - $ 7.840
|
|
|
390,500
|
|
|
|
8.15 yrs
|
|
|
$
|
7.53
|
|
|
|
72,350
|
|
|
$
|
7.07
|
|
$ 7.930 - $10.010
|
|
|
379,000
|
|
|
|
8.50 yrs
|
|
|
$
|
9.00
|
|
|
|
252,050
|
|
|
$
|
9.51
|
|
$10.690 - $15.500
|
|
|
304,500
|
|
|
|
8.74 yrs
|
|
|
$
|
12.61
|
|
|
|
292,500
|
|
|
$
|
12.63
|
|
$21.250 - $21.250
|
|
|
12,500
|
|
|
|
0.37 yrs
|
|
|
$
|
21.25
|
|
|
|
12,500
|
|
|
$
|
21.25
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ 2.630 - $21.250
|
|
|
1,867,570
|
|
|
|
7.55 yrs
|
|
|
$
|
7.19
|
|
|
|
1,104,355
|
|
|
$
|
7.80
|
|
57
INTEVAC,
INC.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
The provision for (benefit from) income taxes on income from
continuing operations consists of the following (in thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Years Ended
December 31,
|
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
2003
|
|
|
Federal:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current
|
|
$
|
392
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
Deferred
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
392
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
State:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current
|
|
|
9
|
|
|
|
115
|
|
|
|
2
|
|
Deferred
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
9
|
|
|
|
115
|
|
|
|
2
|
|
Foreign:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current
|
|
|
20
|
|
|
|
(5
|
)
|
|
|
36
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
421
|
|
|
$
|
110
|
|
|
$
|
38
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Deferred income taxes reflect the net tax effects of temporary
differences between losses reported and the carrying amounts of
assets and liabilities for financial reporting purposes and the
amounts used for income tax purposes. Significant components of
our deferred tax assets computed in accordance with
SFAS No. 109 are as follows (in thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
Deferred tax assets:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Vacation, rent, warranty and other
accruals
|
|
$
|
1,581
|
|
|
$
|
958
|
|
Depreciation
|
|
|
1,409
|
|
|
|
1,501
|
|
Inventory valuation
|
|
|
3,893
|
|
|
|
3,388
|
|
Deferred income
|
|
|
544
|
|
|
|
375
|
|
Research and other tax credit
carry-forwards
|
|
|
637
|
|
|
|
698
|
|
Federal and State NOL
carry-forwards
|
|
|
6,502
|
|
|
|
12,010
|
|
Other
|
|
|
466
|
|
|
|
1,063
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
15,032
|
|
|
|
19,993
|
|
Valuation allowance for deferred
tax assets
|
|
|
(15,032
|
)
|
|
|
(19,943
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total deferred tax assets
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
50
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Deferred tax liabilities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
50
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total deferred tax liabilities
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
50
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net deferred tax assets
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The valuation allowance decreased by $4.9 million during
2005 due to the utilization of net operating loss
carry-forwards. Due to the uncertainty of realizing certain tax
credits, net operating loss carry-forwards, and other deferred
tax assets, the remaining valuation allowance has not been
reduced. The Federal and State net operating
58
INTEVAC,
INC.
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
loss carry-forwards of $16.9 million and $6.8 million,
respectively, expire at various dates through 2024 and 2014,
respectively, if not previously utilized.
A reconciliation of the income tax provision on income from
continuing operations at the federal statutory rate of 35% for
2005 and 2004 and 34% for 2003 to the income tax provision at
the effective tax rate is as follows (in thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Years Ended
December 31,
|
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
2003
|
|
|
Income taxes (benefit) computed at
the federal statutory rate
|
|
$
|
5,795
|
|
|
$
|
(1,472
|
)
|
|
$
|
(4,159
|
)
|
State taxes (net of federal
benefit)
|
|
|
6
|
|
|
|
75
|
|
|
|
(434
|
)
|
Research and other tax credits
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(44
|
)
|
Effect of tax rate changes,
permanent differences and adjustments of prior deferrals
|
|
|
(469
|
)
|
|
|
(1,751
|
)
|
|
|
73
|
|
Change in valuation allowance
|
|
|
(4,911
|
)
|
|
|
3,258
|
|
|
|
4,602
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
421
|
|
|
$
|
110
|
|
|
$
|
38
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
11.
|
Other
Accrued Liabilities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
|
(In thousands)
|
|
|
Accrued product warranties
|
|
$
|
2,705
|
|
|
$
|
909
|
|
Accrued taxes
|
|
|
2,000
|
|
|
|
154
|
|
Deferred income
|
|
|
1,254
|
|
|
|
865
|
|
Accrued rent expense
|
|
|
13
|
|
|
|
377
|
|
Other
|
|
|
210
|
|
|
|
638
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total other accrued liabilities
|
|
$
|
6,182
|
|
|
$
|
2,943
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
12.
|
Quarterly
Consolidated Results of Operations (Unaudited)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months Ended
|
|
|
|
April 2,
|
|
|
July 2,
|
|
|
Oct. 1,
|
|
|
Dec. 31,
|
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
|
(In thousands, except per share
data)
|
|
|
Net sales
|
|
$
|
10,605
|
|
|
$
|
30,418
|
|
|
$
|
43,507
|
|
|
$
|
52,699
|
|
Gross profit
|
|
|
1,995
|
|
|
|
9,661
|
|
|
|
13,554
|
|
|
|
18,368
|
|
Net income (loss)
|
|
|
(3,897
|
)
|
|
|
3,927
|
|
|
|
6,191
|
|
|
|
9,930
|
|
Basic income (loss) per share
|
|
$
|
(0.19
|
)
|
|
$
|
0.19
|
|
|
$
|
0.30
|
|
|
$
|
0.48
|
|
Diluted income (loss) per share
|
|
|
(0.19
|
)
|
|
|
0.19
|
|
|
|
0.29
|
|
|
|
0.46
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months Ended
|
|
|
|
March 27,
|
|
|
June 26,
|
|
|
Sept. 25,
|
|
|
Dec. 31,
|
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
|
(In thousands, except per share
data)
|
|
|
Net sales
|
|
$
|
6,435
|
|
|
$
|
17,764
|
|
|
$
|
35,029
|
|
|
$
|
10,387
|
|
Gross profit
|
|
|
1,619
|
|
|
|
5,680
|
|
|
|
6,410
|
|
|
|
2,147
|
|
Net income (loss)
|
|
|
(3,360
|
)
|
|
|
677
|
|
|
|
1,371
|
|
|
|
(3,032
|
)
|
Basic income (loss) per share
|
|
$
|
(0.18
|
)
|
|
$
|
0.03
|
|
|
$
|
0.07
|
|
|
$
|
(0.15
|
)
|
Diluted income (loss) per share
|
|
|
(0.18
|
)
|
|
|
0.03
|
|
|
|
0.07
|
|
|
|
(0.15
|
)
|
59
|
|
Item 9.
|
Changes
In and Disagreements With Accountants on Accounting and
Financial Disclosure
|
None.
|
|
Item 9A.
|
Controls
and Procedures
|
Managements
Report on Assessment of Internal Control Over Financial
Reporting
Our management is responsible for establishing and maintaining
adequate internal control over financial reporting, as such term
is defined under
Rules 13a-15(f)
and
15d-15(f)
promulgated under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended. Our internal control over financial reporting is a
process designed to provide reasonable assurance regarding the
reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of
financial statements for external purposes in accordance with
accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of
America. Because of its inherent limitations, internal control
over financial reporting may not prevent or detect all
misstatements or fraud. Further, the design of a control system
must reflect the fact that there are resource constraints, and
the benefit of controls must be considered relative to their
costs. As a result of these inherent limitations in all control
systems, no evaluation of controls can provide absolute
assurance that all control issues and instances of fraud, if
any, within the Company have been detected. These limitations
include the realities that judgments in decision-making can be
faulty, and that breakdowns can occur because of a simple error
or mistake. As a result of these limitations, misstatements due
to error or fraud may occur or not be detected. Accordingly, the
Companys disclosure controls and procedures are designed
to provide reasonable, not absolute, assurance that the
disclosure controls and procedures are met. Also, projections of
any evaluation of effectiveness to future periods are subject to
the risk that controls may become inadequate because of changes
in conditions, or that the degree of compliance with the
policies or procedures may deteriorate.
In order to evaluate the effectiveness of internal control over
financial reporting, as required by Section 404 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act, management has conducted an assessment,
including testing, using the criteria in Internal
Control Integrated Framework, issued by the
Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission
(COSO). Based on our assessment using those criteria, we
concluded that, as of December 31, 2005, Intevac
Inc.s internal control over financial reporting was
effective.
Managements assessment of the effectiveness of the
internal control over financial reporting as of
December 31, 2005 has been audited by Grant Thornton LLP,
the Companys independent registered public accounting
firm, as stated in their report which is included at
page 62 herein.
Changes
in Internal Controls
In our Managements Report over Internal Controls, which
was contained in our
Form 10-K
for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2004, we reported
three material weaknesses and the steps we proposed taking to
remediate such weaknesses. As of December 31, 2004, we
concluded that we did not maintain effective controls over
(1) aspects of the Imaging Business, (2) approval of
inventory cycle count adjustments, and (3) documentation
related to our quarterly review and approval of excess and
obsolete inventory reserves. In the first quarter of 2005, we
began efforts to remediate the material weaknesses.
Specifically, our evaluation and remediation efforts were as
follows:
Imaging Business We determined during
the course of our year-end audit that projected, rather than
approved, billing rates were used to calculate revenue for
cost-plus-fixed-fee technology development contracts. In
addition, journal entries for revenue recognition and the
related documentation were not subjected to adequate review and
approval.
We also determined during the course of our year-end audit that
firm fixed-price technology development contracts were not being
accounted for in accordance with U.S. GAAP for firm
fixed-price contracts. This would have resulted in an
overstatement of revenue and operating profit had it not been
discovered prior to the public release of our 2004 earnings.
We also determined during the course of our year-end audit that
a receivable greater than one year old had not been reserved as
a bad debt. During the fourth quarter of 2004, we implemented a
bad debt policy that
60
required receivables aged more than one year to be fully
reserved. Our review did not include unbilled receivables and we
did not establish the appropriate bad debt reserve. This would
have resulted in an understatement of bad debt expense and an
overstatement of operating profit had it not been discovered
prior to the public release of our 2004 earnings.
To remediate this material weakness, during the first quarter of
2005, we retrained our accounting staff in proper application of
revenue recognition policies and implemented policies regarding
analyzing contracts for proper revenue recognition accounting.
We also changed our process for evaluating accounts receivable
to ensure that all balances are reviewed for collectibility on a
regular basis. During both the first and second quarters of
2005, we tested the new controls and found them to be working
effectively. We believe that this material weakness has been
remediated.
Approval of Inventory Cycle Count
Adjustments We routinely cycle count our
stockroom inventories and make corrections to our inventory
balances as a result of those cycle counts. We determined late
in 2004 that the cycle count adjustments were being made, but
without written approval by management as required by our
internal control policies. Management authorization of cycle
count adjustments is necessary to reduce the potential of an
employee using a cycle count adjustment to conceal a theft of
inventory.
To remediate this material weakness, the requirement for the
appropriate management approval of all cycle count adjustments
was re-emphasized in December 2004. During the first quarter of
2005, we tested a significant sample of the cycle count
adjustments and found them to be properly approved. We believe
that this material weakness has been remediated.
Documentation of Excess and Obsolete Inventory Reserve
Calculation Review and Approval We
determine, on a quarterly basis, the level of reserves required
related to excess and obsolete inventory. Excess and obsolete
inventory reserves are an estimate, which requires significant
judgment on the part of management. Our Chief Financial Officer
reviews and approves these estimates on a quarterly basis. Given
the significant nature of the estimate, we determined during the
course of our internal controls evaluation that improved
documentation of those reviews was needed.
To remediate this material weakness, we have documented the
management review of the quarterly excess and obsolete
calculations in the second and third quarters of 2005. We have
also performed tests over the calculations surrounding the
excess and obsolete requirements and found them to be working
properly. We believe that this material weakness has been
remediated.
We believe each of the changes discussed above is a change in
our internal controls over financial reporting which was
identified in connection with the evaluation required by
Rule 13(a)-15(d)
of the Exchange Act that occurred during our fiscal year 2005
that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, our internal controls over financial
reporting.
Evaluation
of disclosure controls and procedures
We maintain a set of disclosure controls and procedures that are
designed to ensure that information relating to Intevac, Inc.
required to be disclosed in periodic filings under Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, or Exchange Act, is recorded, processed,
summarized and reported in a timely manner under the Exchange
Act. In connection with the filing of this
Form 10-K
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2005, as required
under
Rule 13a-15(b)
of the Exchange Act, an evaluation was carried out under the
supervision and with the participation of management, including
the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, of the
effectiveness of our disclosure controls and procedures as of
the end of the period covered by this annual report. Based on
this evaluation, our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial
Officer concluded that our disclosure controls and procedures
were effective as of December 31, 2005.
61
REPORT OF
INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
ON INTERNAL CONTROL OVER FINANCIAL REPORTING
Board of Directors and Stockholders of
Intevac, Inc.
We have audited managements assessment, included in the
accompanying Managements Report on Internal Control Over
Financial Reporting as of December 31, 2005, that the
Company maintained effective internal control over financial
reporting as of December 31, 2005, based on criteria
established in Internal Control Integrated
Framework issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of
the Treadway Commission (COSO). The Companys management is
responsible for maintaining effective internal control over
financial reporting, and for its assessment of the effectiveness
of internal control over financial reporting. Our responsibility
is to express an opinion on managements assessment, and an
opinion on the effectiveness of the Companys internal
control over financial reporting based on our audit.
We conducted our audit in accordance with the standards of the
Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those
standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain
reasonable assurance about whether effective internal control
over financial reporting was maintained in all material
respects. Our audit of internal control included obtaining an
understanding of internal control over financial reporting,
evaluating managements assessment, testing and evaluating
the design and operating effectiveness of internal control, and
performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in
the circumstances. We believe that our audit provides a
reasonable basis for our opinion.
A companys internal control over financial reporting is a
process designed to provide reasonable assurance regarding the
reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of
financial statements for external purposes in accordance with
generally accepted accounting principles. A companys
internal control over financial reporting includes those
policies and procedures that (1) pertain to the maintenance
of records that, in reasonable detail, accurately and fairly
reflect the transactions and dispositions of the assets of the
company; (2) provide reasonable assurance that transactions
are recorded as necessary to permit preparation of financial
statements in accordance with generally accepted accounting
principles, and that receipts and expenditures of the company
are being made only in accordance with authorizations of
management and directors of the company; and (3) provide
reasonable assurance regarding prevention or timely detection of
unauthorized acquisition, use, or disposition of the
companys assets that could have a material effect on the
financial statements.
Because of its inherent limitations, internal control over
financial reporting may not prevent or detect misstatements.
Also, projections of any evaluation of effectiveness to future
periods are subject to the risk that controls may become
inadequate because of changes in conditions, or that the degree
of compliance with the policies or procedures may deteriorate.
In our opinion, managements assessment that the Company
maintained effective internal control over financial reporting
as of December 31, 2005, is fairly stated, in all material
respects, based on Internal Control Integrated
Framework issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of
the Treadway Commission (COSO). Furthermore, in our opinion, the
Company maintained, in all material respects, effective internal
control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2005,
based on Internal Control Integrated Framework
issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the
Treadway Commission (COSO).
We have also audited, in accordance with the standards of the
Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), the
consolidated balance sheets of Intevac Inc. as of
December 31, 2005 and 2004, and the related consolidated
statements of operations and comprehensive income (loss),
shareholders equity and cash flows for each of the three
years in the period ended December 31, 2005 and our report
dated March 10, 2006 expressed an unqualified opinion on
those financial statements.
/s/ GRANT THORNTON LLP
San Jose, CA
March 10, 2006
62
|
|
Item 9B.
|
Other
Information
|
Not applicable.
PART III
|
|
Item 10.
|
Directors
and Executive Officers of the Registrant
|
The information required by this item relating to the
Companys directors and nominees, disclosure relating to
compliance with Section 16(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, and information regarding our code of ethics is
included under the captions Election of Directors,
Section 16(a) Beneficial Ownership Reporting
Compliance, and Code of Ethics in the
Companys Proxy Statement for the 2006 Annual Meeting of
Shareholders and is incorporated herein by reference. The
information required by this item relating to the Companys
executive officers and key employees is included under the
caption Executive Officers under Item 4 in
Part I of this Annual Report on
Form 10-K.
|
|
Item 11.
|
Executive
Compensation
|
The information required by this item is included under the
caption Executive Compensation and Related
Information in the Companys Proxy Statement for the
2006 Annual Meeting of Shareholders and is incorporated herein
by reference.
|
|
Item 12.
|
Security
Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management and
Related Stockholder Matters
|
Securities authorized for issuance under equity compensation
plans. The following table summarizes the number
of outstanding options granted to employees and directors, as
well as the number of securities remaining available for future
issuance, under our equity compensation plans at
December 31, 2005.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(a)
|
|
|
|
|
|
(c)
|
|
|
|
Number of Securities
|
|
|
(b)
|
|
|
Number of Securities
|
|
|
|
to be Issued Upon
|
|
|
Weighted-Average
|
|
|
Remaining Available
|
|
|
|
Exercise of
|
|
|
Exercise Price of
|
|
|
for Future Issuance
|
|
|
|
Outstanding Options,
|
|
|
Outstanding Options,
|
|
|
Under Equity
|
|
Plan Category
|
|
Warrants and Rights
|
|
|
Warrants and Rights
|
|
|
Compensation Plans(1)
|
|
|
Equity compensation plans approved
by security holders(2)
|
|
|
1,867,570
|
|
|
$
|
7.19
|
|
|
|
480,189
|
|
Equity compensation plans not
approved by security holders
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
1,867,570
|
|
|
$
|
7.19
|
|
|
|
480,189
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Excludes securities reflected in column (a). |
|
(2) |
|
Included in the column (c) amount are 146,796 shares
available for future issuance under Intevacs 2003 Employee
Stock Purchase Plan. |
The other information required by this item is included under
the caption Ownership of Securities in the
Companys Proxy Statement for the 2006 Annual Meeting of
Shareholders and is incorporated herein by reference.
|
|
Item 13.
|
Certain
Relationships and Related Transactions
|
The information required by this item is included under the
caption Certain Transactions in the Companys
Proxy Statement for the 2006 Annual Meeting of Shareholders and
is incorporated herein by reference.
63
|
|
Item 14.
|
Principal
Accounting Fees and Services
|
The information required by this item is included under the
caption Fees Paid To Accountants For Services Rendered
During 2005 in the Companys Proxy Statement for the
2006 Annual Meeting of Shareholders and is incorporated herein
by reference.
PART IV
|
|
Item 15.
|
Exhibits
and Financial Statement Schedules
|
(a) List of Documents filed as part of this Annual Report
on
Form 10-K.
1. The following consolidated financial statements of
Intevac, Inc. are filed in Part II, Item 8 of this
Report on
Form 10-K:
Report of Grant Thornton LLP, Independent Auditors
Consolidated Balance Sheets December 31,
2005 and 2004
Consolidated Statements of Operations and Comprehensive Income
(Loss) for the years ended December 31, 2005, 2004 and 2003
Consolidated Statement of Shareholders Equity for the
years ended December 31, 2005, 2004 and 2003
Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows for the years ended
December 31, 2005, 2004 and 2003
Notes to Consolidated Financial
Statements Years Ended December 31, 2005,
2004 and 2003
2. Financial Statement Schedules.
The following financial statement schedule of Intevac, Inc. is
filed in Part IV, Item 14(a) of this Annual Report on
Form 10-K:
Schedule II Valuation and Qualifying
Accounts
All other schedules have been omitted since the required
information is not present in amounts sufficient to require
submission of the schedule or because the information required
is included in the consolidated financial statements or notes
thereto.
3. Exhibits
|
|
|
|
|
Exhibit
|
|
|
Number
|
|
Description
|
|
|
3
|
.1(1)
|
|
Amended and Restated Articles of
Incorporation of the Registrant
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3
|
.2(1)
|
|
Bylaws of the Registrant
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4
|
.4(5)
|
|
Registration Rights Agreement,
dated January 16, 2004, between the Company, Redemco, LLC
and Foster City LLC
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10
|
.1+(1)
|
|
The Registrants 1991 Stock
Option/Stock Issuance Plan
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10
|
.2+(1)
|
|
The Registrants 1995 Stock
Option/Stock Issuance Plan, as amended
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10
|
.3+(1)
|
|
The Registrants Employee
Stock Purchase Plan, as amended
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10
|
.4+(3)
|
|
The Registrants 2004 Equity
Incentive Plan
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10
|
.5(2)
|
|
Lease, dated February 5, 2001
regarding the space located at 3560, 3570 and 3580 Bassett
Street, Santa Clara, California
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10
|
.6(6)
|
|
First Amendment to Lease, dated
February 23, 2004 regarding the space at 3560, 3570 and
3580 Bassett Street, Santa Clara, California
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10
|
.7(1)
|
|
601 California Avenue LLC Limited
Liability Operating Agreement, dated July 28, 1995
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10
|
.8+(1)
|
|
The Registrants 401(k)
Profit Sharing Plan
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10
|
.9+(4)
|
|
The Registrants 2005
Executive Incentive Plan
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10
|
.10+(7)
|
|
The Registrants Executive
Incentive Plan
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
21
|
.1
|
|
Subsidiaries of the Registrant
|
|
|
|
|
|
64
|
|
|
|
|
Exhibit
|
|
|
Number
|
|
Description
|
|
|
23
|
.1
|
|
Consent of Independent Registered
Public Accounting Firm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
24
|
.1
|
|
Power of Attorney (see
page 66)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
31
|
.1
|
|
Certification of President and
Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to Section 302 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
31
|
.2
|
|
Certification of Vice-President,
Finance and Administration, Chief Financial Officer, Treasurer
and Secretary Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
32
|
.1
|
|
Certifications Pursuant to U.S.C.
1350, adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Previously filed as an exhibit to the Registration Statement on
Form S-1
(No. 33-97806) |
|
(2) |
|
Previously filed as an exhibit to the Companys Annual
Report on
Form 10-K
for the year ended December 31, 2000 |
|
(3) |
|
Previously filed as an exhibit to the Companys Definitive
Proxy Statement filed March 31, 2004 |
|
(4) |
|
Previously filed as an exhibit to the Companys Report on
Form 8-K
filed February 7, 2005 |
|
(5) |
|
Previously filed as an exhibit to the Companys Annual
Report on
Form 10-K
for the year ended December 31, 2003 |
|
(6) |
|
Previously filed as an exhibit to the Companys Annual
Report on
Form 10-K
for the year ended December 31, 2005 |
|
(7) |
|
Previously filed as an exhibit to the Companys Report on
Form 8-K
filed February 7, 2006 |
|
|
|
+ |
|
Management compensatory plan or arrangement required to be filed
as an exhibit pursuant to Item 15(c) of
Form 10-K |
65
SIGNATURES
Pursuant to the requirements of Section 13 or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly caused
this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned,
thereunto duly authorized, on March 15, 2006.
INTEVAC, INC.
|
|
|
|
By:
|
/s/ CHARLES
B. EDDY III
|
Charles B. Eddy, III
Vice President, Finance and Administration,
Chief Financial Officer, Treasurer and Secretary
(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
POWER OF
ATTORNEY
KNOW ALL PERSONS BY THESE PRESENTS, that each person whose
signature appears below constitutes and appoints Kevin Fairbairn
and Charles B. Eddy III, and each of them, as his true and
lawful
attorneys-in-fact
and agents, with full power of substitution and resubstitution,
for him and in his name, place and stead, in any and all
capacities, to sign any and all amendments (including
post-effective amendments) to this Report on
Form 10-K,
and to file the same, with all exhibits thereto, and other
documents in connection therewith, with the Securities and
Exchange Commission, granting unto said
attorneys-in-fact
and agents, and each of them, full power and authority to do and
perform each and every act and thing requisite and necessary to
be done in connection therewith, as fully to all intents and
purposes as he might or could do in person, hereby ratifying and
confirming all that said
attorneys-in-fact
and agents, or any of them, or their or his substitute or
substitutes, may lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue
hereof.
Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, this report has been signed below by the following persons
on behalf of the registrant and in the capacities and on the
dates indicated.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Signature
|
|
Title
|
|
Date
|
|
/s/ KEVIN FAIRBAIRN
(Kevin
Fairbairn)
|
|
President, Chief Executive Officer
and Director (Principal Executive Officer)
|
|
March 15, 2006
|
|
|
|
|
|
/s/ NORMAN H. POND
(Norman
H. Pond)
|
|
Chairman of the Board
|
|
March 15, 2006
|
|
|
|
|
|
/s/ CHARLES B.
EDDY III
(Charles
B. Eddy III)
|
|
Vice President, Finance and
Administration, Chief Financial Officer Treasurer and Secretary
(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
|
|
March 15, 2006
|
|
|
|
|
|
/s/ DAVID DURY
(David
Dury)
|
|
Director
|
|
March 15, 2006
|
|
|
|
|
|
/s/ STANLEY J. HILL
(Stanley
J. Hill)
|
|
Director
|
|
March 15, 2006
|
66
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Signature
|
|
Title
|
|
Date
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/s/ DAVID N. LAMBETH
(David
N. Lambeth)
|
|
Director
|
|
March 15, 2006
|
|
|
|
|
|
/s/ ROBERT LEMOS
(Robert
Lemos)
|
|
Director
|
|
March 15, 2006
|
|
|
|
|
|
/s/ ARTHUR L. MONEY
(Arthur
L. Money)
|
|
Director
|
|
March 15, 2006
|
67
INTEVAC,
INC.
SCHEDULE II VALUATION
AND QUALIFYING ACCOUNTS
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Additions (Reductions)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Charged
|
|
|
Charged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance at
|
|
|
(Credited)
|
|
|
(Credited)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance at
|
|
|
|
Beginning
|
|
|
to Costs and
|
|
|
to Other
|
|
|
Deductions
|
|
|
End
|
|
Description
|
|
of Period
|
|
|
Expenses
|
|
|
Accounts
|
|
|
Describe
|
|
|
of Period
|
|
|
|
(In thousands)
|
|
|
Year ended December 31, 2003:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Deducted from asset accounts:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Allowance for doubtful accounts
|
|
$
|
269
|
|
|
$
|
(143
|
)
|
|
$
|
6
|
|
|
$
|
110(1
|
)
|
|
$
|
22
|
|
Inventory provisions
|
|
|
9,559
|
|
|
|
743
|
|
|
|
588
|
|
|
|
698(2
|
)
|
|
|
10,192
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year ended December 31, 2004:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Deducted from asset accounts:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Allowance for doubtful accounts
|
|
$
|
22
|
|
|
$
|
218
|
|
|
$
|
(23
|
)
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
217
|
|
Inventory provisions
|
|
|
10,192
|
|
|
|
1,375
|
|
|
|
(121
|
)
|
|
|
1,583(2
|
)
|
|
|
9,863
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year ended December 31, 2005:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Deducted from asset accounts:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Allowance for doubtful accounts
|
|
$
|
217
|
|
|
$
|
211
|
|
|
$
|
(268
|
)
|
|
$
|
6(1
|
)
|
|
$
|
154
|
|
Inventory provisions
|
|
|
9,863
|
|
|
|
873
|
|
|
|
376
|
|
|
|
124(2
|
)
|
|
|
10,988
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Write-offs of amounts deemed uncollectible. |
|
(2) |
|
Write-off of inventory having no future use or value to the
Company |
68
Exhibit Index
|
|
|
|
|
Exhibit
|
|
|
Number
|
|
Description
|
|
|
3
|
.1(1)
|
|
Amended and Restated Articles of
Incorporation of the Registrant
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3
|
.2(1)
|
|
Bylaws of the Registrant
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4
|
.4(5)
|
|
Registration Rights Agreement,
dated January 16, 2004, between the Company, Redemco, LLC
and Foster City LLC
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10
|
.1+(1)
|
|
The Registrants 1991 Stock
Option/Stock Issuance Plan
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10
|
.2+(1)
|
|
The Registrants 1995 Stock
Option/Stock Issuance Plan, as amended
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10
|
.3+(1)
|
|
The Registrants Employee
Stock Purchase Plan, as amended
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10
|
.4+(3)
|
|
The Registrants 2004 Equity
Incentive Plan
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10
|
.5(2)
|
|
Lease, dated February 5, 2001
regarding the space located at 3560, 3570 and 3580 Bassett
Street, Santa Clara, California
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10
|
.6(6)
|
|
First Amendment to Lease, dated
February 23, 2004 regarding the space at 3560, 3570 and
3580 Bassett Street, Santa Clara, California
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10
|
.7(1)
|
|
601 California Avenue LLC Limited
Liability Operating Agreement, dated July 28, 1995
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10
|
.8+(1)
|
|
The Registrants 401(k)
Profit Sharing Plan
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10
|
.9+(4)
|
|
The Registrants 2005
Executive Incentive Plan
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10
|
.10+(7)
|
|
The Registrants Executive
Incentive Plan
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
21
|
.1
|
|
Subsidiaries of the Registrant
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
23
|
.1
|
|
Consent of Independent Registered
Public Accounting Firm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
24
|
.1
|
|
Power of Attorney (see
page 65)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
31
|
.1
|
|
Certification of President and
Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to Section 302 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
31
|
.2
|
|
Certification of Vice-President,
Finance and Administration, Chief Financial Officer, Treasurer
and Secretary Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
32
|
.1
|
|
Certifications Pursuant to U.S.C.
1350, adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Previously filed as an exhibit to the Registration Statement on
Form S-1
(No. 33-97806) |
|
(2) |
|
Previously filed as an exhibit to the Companys Annual
Report on
Form 10-K
for the year ended December 31, 2000 |
|
(3) |
|
Previously filed as an exhibit to the Companys Definitive
Proxy Statement filed March 31, 2004 |
|
(4) |
|
Previously filed as an exhibit to the Companys Report on
Form 8-K
filed February 7, 2005 |
|
(5) |
|
Previously filed as an exhibit to the Companys Annual
Report on
Form 10-K
for the year ended December 31, 2003 |
|
(6) |
|
Previously filed as an exhibit to the Companys Annual
Report on
Form 10-K
for the year ended December 31, 2005 |
|
(7) |
|
Previously filed as an exhibit to the Companys Report on
Form 8-K
filed February 7, 2006 |
|
|
|
+ |
|
Management compensatory plan or arrangement required to be filed
as an exhibit pursuant to Item 15(c) of
Form 10-K |