General Dynamics Corporation (GD) Q3 2012 Earnings Report, Transcript and Summary

Good day, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the Q3 2012 General Dynamics Earnings Conference Call. My name is Grant, and I'll be your event operator for today. [Operator Instructions] As a reminder, this call is being recorded for replay purposes. And now, I would like to turn the call over to Ms. Amy Gilliland, Staff Vice President of Investor Relations. Please proceed.

Thank you, Grant, and good morning, everyone. Welcome to the General Dynamics Third Quarter Conference Call. As always, any forward-looking statements made today represent our estimates regarding the company's outlook. These estimates are subject to some risks and uncertainties. Additional information regarding these factors is contained in the company's 10-K and 10-Q filings. And with that, I'd like to turn the call over to our Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Jay Johnson.

Thank you, Amy. Good morning, everyone. General Dynamics' third quarter sales totaled $7.9 billion, up modestly from last year's third quarter on strong Aerospace volume. Operating earnings were $905 million, while earnings per share from continuing operations were $1.70 on a fully diluted basis. Third quarter free cash flow after capital expenditures was $594 million, nearly 100% of earnings from continuing operations. This result is particularly strong given the $321 million of pension contributions we made in the quarter. Year-to-date, free cash flow conversion is a healthy 90% of earnings from continuing operations. And I expect the fourth quarter to be another strong cash quarter. In terms of capital deployment, we remain cautious given the unprecedented uncertainty in the coming months caused by the threat of sequestration. For that reason, we did not repurchase any shares this quarter and may not do so until we see more clearly what happens at the start of 2013. We did take advantage of opportunities to deploy $261 million this summer to enhance our defense portfolio with 4 bolt-on acquisitions. These new businesses, which I will detail later in my remarks, better position each of our 3 defense segments for significant future opportunities. In addition to these accretive acquisitions, our multi-year Gulfstream campus investment project continues. Year-to-date, we've returned approximately 70% of free cash to shareholders through share repurchases and dividends. Orders this quarter were the strongest of the year, driven by improved award activity at Aerospace and IS&T. At the end of the quarter, backlog was $51.5 billion; while total estimated contract value, which includes backlog in the value of unexercised options in IDIQ contracts, stood at $77.5 billion. Let me briefly address what we're experiencing in today's aerospace and defense environment. Defense bottom line upfront. There's been very little change to the…

Thank you, Jay, and good morning. I would like to cover a few miscellaneous financial items before the question-and-answer period. First, net interest expense was $39 million for the quarter. Based on our current net debt position of $900 million, we expect net interest expense of approximately $155 million for the full year. Next, the effective tax rate. The effective tax rate was 31.2% for the first 9 months compared with 30.6% for the same period of 2011. For 2012, we expect an effective tax rate of slightly less than 32%, rising slightly over 2011's rate at 31.4% due to the less income from international locations, where the tax rates are lower, and the exploration of the R&D tax credit here in the U.S. Finally, during the quarter, we contributed approximately $321 million to our pension plans. To date, this year, we have contributed approximately $430 million to our plans, with full year funding expectation of $500 million. Amy, that concludes my remarks, and I'll turn it to you for the Q&A.

Thanks, Hugh. I'd like to highlight that a summary of the guidance provided this morning will be posted on our website, alongside the webcast link. [Operator Instructions] And Greg, could you just please remind participants how to enter the queue?

[Operator Instructions] Your first question comes from the line of Robert Stallard from Royal Bank of Canada.

Jay, I'd like to follow up on your question that you felt that the uncertainty about the outlook held you back from buying back shares this quarter, yet you still felt confident enough to make a series of acquisitions. And I could wonder how you could contrast those 2 decisions.

Well, I think I've been fairly consistent in saying that one of the things we're trying to do right now is shepherd our cash, and I'm trying to provide my successor with as much cash as I can. So why the acquisitions? I said before, and I'll repeat it here, that we always are looking for acquisitions that make sense for our businesses. And when you take a longer view of what these acquisitions can provide, it takes you through the trough we're dealing with here into another space where we believe these things, as I said in my remarks, will give us significant opportunities. They weren't -- they were priced right when they come to market. You got to take them if you want to build that business, and that's exactly what we did in all 4 cases. So it's setting them up for longer-term opportunities, and we felt that was appropriate.

But isn't there a possibility these assets might have been cheaper if you'd waited maybe a few more months, 6 months, perhaps, until the sequester kicks in?

Well, maybe, maybe not, or they may not have been there. So they made sense for us at the time and we took them with no apologies.

Our next question comes from the line of Carter Copeland from Barclays.

And Jay, just want to wish you all the best as you I'm sure do something that's not just sitting around, but not doing what you're doing today. So all the best from all of us. I had a quick question and just a clarification on something you said earlier. I think you recall the big contract that Vangent has with CMS is in recompete. I wondered if you might update us on where that stands and what the expectations are for award and what sort of impacts that may have. And then a clarification of your comments on Abrams sort of short-term, long-term and as you think about the Lima facility. Is it correct to assume that since you had committee support and were operating under a CR, this is a sort of wait and see what happens with the election and the budget outlook before we know, ultimately, what will happen with that program?

Okay. The latter first. As I said, we're fairly confident -- well, let me back up. The ECP1, as it is called, which I alluded to in my remarks, the long-term Abrams R&D contract, was very important to lock down, if you will, the long view on the Abrams. So we'll be working that on the engineering development side as we approach the 2017 time frame. But in the interim, as I said, it's really important to keep that facility in the industrial base intact, if you will. The 2012 budget supports Abrams through 2013, and what we believe will come out of the 2013 budget will push that out, at least, another year. That's kind of -- so are we taking it a year at a time in this instance? Absolutely. But we're all sight-lining to the 2017 longer view. So we're confident with the support we have, and so that will work itself out here in the coming months, okay? In addition to that, and recall I believe we've talked about this before, but we have international work that also will reside at that facility with the Moroccan tanks, which we expect the order by the end of the year or shortly thereafter, and we've got the Israel Namer Merkava hulls. We've got the Egyptian kits. So we've got a number of international programs that work through that facility as well. So our view is that, that we're getting the requisite support we need, and we'll do everything we can to keep that facility very functional for, as we've discussed many times, it's actually more about the supply chain than it is about General Dynamics with the 560-some suppliers that are tied to the Lima facility that we cannot afford to lose. So that, I think, perhaps answers the tank. The Vangent beneficiary call center, I believe I'm correct here, and Amy nods her head, that this will take place now next year. So we continue to work, we continue to execute, but the contract recompete will be at some point in 2013, which is a change. They pushed it out, but we continue to work since we're the incumbent.

Our next question comes from the line of Doug Harned from Sanford Bernstein. Douglas S. Harned - Sanford C. Bernstein & Co., LLC., Research Division: I was interested on Gulfstream. When you talk about the G650 and the fact that your backlog extends 5 years out, could you just refresh us on the rate plans for that? Because what I'm trying to understand is when you look at that 5-year backlog, what would lead you to raise rate? Is that limited by demand, limited by operational considerations? How do you look at that?

I mean, I guess, my answer, serious answer would be kind of all of the above. But we have -- as I mentioned, we continue to take orders for the 650. We're working through the production side now to get entry into service in the coming weeks. So we're hitting our battle rhythm or our flow, if you will. And as I said many times, the production, the delivery schedule, if you will, of record has 24 green deliveries this year and adding nominally 10 to 15 a year for the next few years with completion deliveries at 17, 33 and 33. Now I've just mentioned the 17 will change a little bit because of the lateness of the type certification. But nonetheless, the point is, that's the program of record, if you will. To change that, to wick it up, based on the demand, based on the 5-year backlog is certainly something we are desirous of doing, but we're not going to turn the rheostat up until we've hit, as I call it, our battle rhythm, and we're just not there yet. Douglas S. Harned - Sanford C. Bernstein & Co., LLC., Research Division: It looks like -- I mean, certainly, internally, you would have the capability to do that. And I just was trying to understand if you saw -- sort of what time frame you might see supply chain limitations? Or when could the flexibility occur to take that rate up?

I mean, my view of that is probably if you look at what we've got now and the work that's taking place to complete the airplanes that have been green delivered and to get the flow going, okay, because of the late type certification, my sense of that is it will take probably another year or so to work that flow out smoothly and then, again, hit what I would call a steady production rate that's -- that then is capable of being accelerated.

Our next question comes from the line of David Strauss from UBS.

Jay, best of luck to you. If I look at Combat and the backlog, if I just look at what has been historically a backlog-to-sales ratio there, it's run well above one. If you look at the backlog today in the sales, say, it's right around one, which would seem to imply, obviously, you've talked about orders that could come through, through the rest of the year, but would seem to imply what could be a significant drop off still to come over the next 12 to 18 months. Could you just address that, Jay, and what we might be looking at Combat here over the near-term?

Yes, I mean, look, I'm not going to try to project the 2013 plan for Combat because we -- that's what's being worked right now as is our methodology every year. But the comment I'd make ties back to what we were talking about earlier with Abrams. We've got -- we know domestically, and I mentioned this in my remarks, what's the size and shape of the force ultimately going to be as things get re-cocked here as a function of the Afghanistan return and the reshape based on sequestration or no, and all of these things get sorted out. So how that force shapes itself will have impact on Combat quite obviously. So domestically, it comes down to the Stryker, which we talked about. Abrams, which we've talked about. It comes down to ground combat vehicle. It comes down to AMPV replacements, things like that, that will -- were an integral part of either competing for or are already doing all of those things. How that shapes itself is yet to be determined. We're confident in the longer view, as I said earlier, on Abrams. Stryker, we've got work to do, but we're very encouraged by the exchange program of the double-Vs, as I mentioned in my remarks. And we're fairly confident that they're going to continue converting -- we will continue converting flat bottoms to double-Vs. But the long-term opportunity on the domestic side will become more granular, I would say, frankly, within the next 6 to 8 months as we determine what's going to happen at the end of the year or the start of 2013. The international space, though, is really significant business for us. And as you've heard me say before, the projections there increased that as a part of combat's portfolio going forward. Both tanks, Light Armored Vehicles -- and those are the 2 primary movers, no pun intended, but we've got between the Middle East, Morocco, Israel, the Canadian LAV program, there's significant opportunities there for us going forward. So combat's going to have, as I mentioned before, we're integral to the force. We'll stay integral to the force. Exactly how that shapes itself will be determined, I think, in the coming months and year.

And on 650, do you expect to have any completed deliveries this year? And can you give us a little bit more color on exactly what's going on there?

Sure, yes. I mean it won't be 17. It will be slightly less than that, but yes, we will have 650s delivered here within the next few weeks. I think the first 2 pilot classes, or the first 1 for sure is done. So then you have to go -- there's more to do with the FAA, you got to get certificate of airworthiness for each of the aircraft. So we're marching along smartly, but yes, indeed, we'll be delivering aircraft here within weeks. Anxious to do it.

Our next question comes from the line of George Shapiro from Shapiro Research.

I was wondering if you'd give a little more clarity on what R&D -- how much lower R&D or higher R&D was this year versus last year. And also sequentially, just so I can get a feel for, how much that hurt the operating margin. And also, was the completions business worse than the second quarter in terms of its loss? And how did it compare year-over-year, because I know it lost money last year as well.

Yes, I think my answer to the latter is, I think, it was about the same, pretty nominally close at least. That's off the top of my head, George. Your R&D question, it's interesting. If I look at the stream of R&D at Gulfstream across the year, it sounds like the way I described the backlog at the Marine group. It's very lumpy, and that's exactly what this is. And, oh, by the way, it just happens that the year-ago quarter and the sequential quarter were the lumpiest. So it just -- what can I do? That's just the way it hit. And almost by a factor of like 3.5 or 4:1. So it just -- that really is it. I mean, the margin impact derives -- there's a little bit, as I think I said in my remarks, that you could attribute to jet absorption costs but -- and some for liquidated damages, but that's in the noise, quite honestly. It really is the R&D and it's purely a function of the comparators.

Okay. And I wondered if I could get one last one in here. If you took out the 650, was the book-to-bill for the other planes, the 550, 450, at 1 or above 1, because you had mentioned the backlog was 18 months and, I think, in previous times, you said 18 to 24 months. So was looking for some clarity on that.

Yes, I mean, I'll put it this way, and you know I always -- I look at it in backlog months as you just described. And we really are kind of closer to the 18 side of it right now. But I'm not that concerned, I'm not concerned at all about that, but it's interesting. We expect, as I mentioned in my remarks, back to my favorite word today, lumpy, but we expect some multi-aircraft orders that were there last year about this time that haven't manifested themselves this year at this time, which will help put that backlog out even further. But I'm very comfortable kind at the 18-month point right now. And we're selling the mix of aircraft. I mentioned this was a great orders quarter for us, the mix of aircraft covered the spectrum of all of them, really, but almost equally weighted in the 450, 550, 650, 280, and a little lighter on the 150. So that's a good story as far as I'm concerned.

Our next question comes from the line of Ron Epstein from Bank of America Merrill Lynch.

In your prepared remarks, you mentioned that it's taking longer for deals to close in the global environment, it's a little bit different. I mean, can you give some color on that, right, because I guess globally corporate profits are pretty good, right? And it seems like North America is getting a little bit better. If you can just give some more detail maybe just around the broad business jet environment.

Yes, I mean, North America has been very -- is very strong this year. And we're at about -- let me, okay, we're at about 59%, I believe I said, of the backlog for this year-to-date is North American. So the pent-up demand in North America is being serviced. Within that, I should add, consistent with earlier comments I've made, that the Fortune 500, as part of that, is back, which is, I think, very good for everyone. We are seeing internationally, if you look at the whole backlog, backlog writ large, it's still about 60% international, okay? I was talking about 2012's inject into that. 60% international, but it's fair to say that we're seeing, not surprisingly, less activity in Europe and less activity in Asia Pacific believing that to be, frankly, I think, tied to things like the government transition in China and just some slowness in bringing orders to the fore. We anticipate, as I said in my remarks, getting several multi-aircraft orders out of the international space in the coming months. So the dialogue and the interest level is still there. It's the translation into orders that's not occurring. And as I think, maybe we mentioned in the last call, there's also -- in the financing world, there seems to be more of a requirement, if you're going to finance your aircraft, that you have to get the financing locked in before you order the aircraft, which wasn't the case in earlier times. So that's going to -- those are the big points.

Okay. And then can I ask just a follow-on, on defense, if that's okay. When you look at the current budget environment and all the uncertainty, I mean, maybe I'll put you on the spot, right? What do you think the odds of sequestration actually playing through are? And I mean, how do you think about that when you plan for the company?

I wouldn't even place that bet with your money, Ron. You just -- I mean, there is no one on earth who can answer that question with any precision right now. As I mentioned in my remarks, there's a lot of activity and chatter and handwringing and concern and angst, you pick the word, but until we sit down as a government and decide we're going to solve this before the 2nd of January, 2013, it's the law of the land, and it will execute. So planning for that is very difficult, as I mentioned. So our team, I'm sure, is working with Phebe to develop the plan for 2013 based on all the information we have at our disposal. And then you have to be prepared, I think, to be able to stay agile enough to re-cock if you have to. And what that means right now, nobody really knows. So you've heard me talking, I think I said it in my remarks this morning, it's still about, for us, you prepare for that strange outcome that nobody can define just a few months ahead by staying agile, staying lean, cutting cost and not losing your discipline in terms of your ability to execute. And then you're as prepared as anybody can be, and that's what we are.

Our next question comes from the line of Jason Gursky from Citi.

Jay, best of luck to you as well. One question on -- just a clarification, and then one on the IS&T business. On the clarification point, the guidance, I just want to make sure, includes the charge that you took in IS&T this quarter?

Affirmative.

I'm sorry?

That's affirmative.

Okay, great. And then on IS&T, lots of commentary here, the charge being related to a specific program, you also made some commentary about maybe you need some changing strategy or approach to the IS&T business. Can you just give us a sense of whether this changing strategy is going to have an impact on revenues as well as margins? Because it sounds like, from a margin perspective, it's going to have a positive impact, but the revenue outlook on this kind of changing tack wasn't quite as clear.

Well, the write-down didn't have to do with a specific program, if that's what you're alluding to. I mean it was -- we're moving out of that commoditized, ruggedized computer business and putting our efforts where it makes more sense for our customers right now. That was a business that was driven by price with lots of big competitors and frankly, it's not a space we need to stay in. That's what that was all about. The top line impact of all of that, I think, been reflected in our results over the last year or so. So I don't see any strategic shift other than what I've just described there.

Okay. So what was the revenue run rate of that business that you're now exiting?

We don't even -- I don't even break it down that way.

Okay, so not material.

Our next question comes from the line of Joe Nadol from JPMorgan. Joseph B. Nadol - JP Morgan Chase & Co, Research Division: Jay, on the Aerospace margins, I hear you on the lumpiness of the R&D. It strikes me that, that's probably lumpiness of the offsetting supplier contributions rather than your engineering spend. And so...

That's affirmative. That is correct, Joe. Joseph B. Nadol - JP Morgan Chase & Co, Research Division: And so the question is, since that's probably fairly predictable, it's contractual, and you have your R&D plan set looking forward, can you give some color on the profile, is it going to look more like Q2 or more like Q3? Have we ended some chain of payments, or any kind of color you can provide on that?

I'm smiling because I wish it were so in terms of the predictability of the supplier launch assistance, as we call it, but it isn't really that predictable. So I don't have a stream I can give you except to say that our R&D investment is, as you well know, is constant and committed, and they feed into that at varying intervals and we just saw 2 big lumps, the comparators this time. But I don't have a stream out ahead of me that I can describe for you today. There will be more, obviously, as we go, and we're always in product development. So targeting 2% to 3% of Gulfstream sales and -- as our benchmark. Joseph B. Nadol - JP Morgan Chase & Co, Research Division: And that's for a net R&D?

Affirmative. Joseph B. Nadol - JP Morgan Chase & Co, Research Division: Okay. And then just on the 550, 450 rate, you're at the lower end of your -- but confident, like you say, in orders coming. If those orders don't come, would there be any consideration to lowering that rate of 80 aircraft? Or are you just lock set, no problem at all for 2013 right now?

No. Well, first of all, we haven't -- we're not giving 2013 guidance. But in general terms to your point, we're not going to keep producing airplanes if we don't have the demand for them. I mean, we believe the demand will be there, and so we rate to that. But we don't keep the rate going if the demand isn't there. So but I'm very confident in both the 450 and the 550. I'd say 2013 looks pretty good. I'm just not prepared, and it's not fair, frankly, to Phebe, for me to say, Well, here's what I think it's going to be in numbers. We're just not there yet. But I anticipate -- when I listen to the earnings call next time, I anticipate hearing that the Gulfstream projection is a good one.

And I think we have time for just one more question this morning.

Okay, thank you, Amy. Our final question, then, comes from the line of Heidi Wood from Morgan Stanley.

So Jay, I'm going to add my sentiments for good luck to you as well. A question I have is on IS&T. I was wondering if you could give us some -- flesh out a bit kind of the color that you're seeing on contract terms and margin outlook? And how should we think about the trends that you see emerging ahead sort of division by division, if you don't mind, putting a finer point on it. Just again, I know you don't want to provide guidance, but just so we can kind of think about it looking ahead, most competitively vulnerable division that you have?

Well, let's take a whack at it this way, Heidi. We've got -- the most impact we're seeing right now is in the short cycle businesses, a.k.a. IS&T. That's a blinding flash of the obvious. But in point of fact, within that, you recall earlier discussions, we talked about the mix within IS&T, and the service mix has increased from, my memory thinks maybe it was in the 20%, 20s back some couple 3 years ago is now almost half of IS&T's business. So there's a margin reality that's attached to that. Oh, by the way, our IS&T folks in that space have done a tremendous job of executing at good profitability. But that's a reality that's there, okay? There's more service work. The tactical communications business, which is significant for us, most out of our C4 Systems business, I alluded to it I think once or twice in my remarks, but what we're seeing there now, all of a -- not all of a sudden, we're finally getting the volume coming back to us, but the mix within that volume is less on the higher margin encryption type products and more on more moderate margin things. But we do have the franchise programs in there. WIN-T and JTRS, which have taken perhaps longer than originally anticipated. But in both cases, those franchise programs are building now and, within the next year, will build even further. So we're very encouraged for that, and that will be significant business going forward for C4 Systems, but for IS&T and General Dynamics. So we've had -- we've seen award delays, I've talked about that. We've seen descoping. We've seen a lot of the lowest price technically acceptable, which is, in Jay Johnson's opinion, not very helpful to anybody in the long term, but -- and then we've seen increased competition. So those are all factors that are upon the IS&T world. The long-term view for IS&T, for us, is a very healthy one. They are just a short-cycle business, the most impacted by kind of where we are in the world right now, dealing with what's right ahead of us in the next 6 months.

And thank you for joining our call today. If you have additional questions, I can be reached at (703) 876-3748. Have a great day.

Thank you for your participation in today's conference. This concludes the presentation. You may now disconnect. Have a good day.