John Roush
Analyst · CJS Securities. Your line is open
Thank you, Robert. Good morning, everybody. We are glad you can join us today. So I’m certainly happy to report that GSI got off to a strong start in 2015 with a very good Q1. Our end markets and customer demand were better than we had anticipated, and we executed very well across the company during the quarter. Thus, we delivered revenue and profitability that exceeded our own expectations. Robert will comment on the numbers in more detail on his section, but I’ll briefly summarize on things. Q1 revenue came in at $94.6 million, which was up 20% year-over-year on a reported basis with organic growth at 9%. Q1 GAAP earnings per share was $0.10 and adjusted EPS was $0.20, with adjusted EBITDA at $14.3 million, up 26% versus last year. All of these figures were above both our own guidance and analyst consensus. From a demand perspective, we were pleased to come in at the $94.6 million revenue, which was several million dollars higher than we had expected. There were several main drivers of that good performance. First, the Precision Motion business was stronger than we had forecasted. We saw an acceleration of customer demand for both optical encoders and precision motors, in terms of design wins as well as order volumes from existing customer programs. For us having both the motor and the encoder now makes us a more interesting supplier and a technology partner for many OEMs, and it also enables us to make joint approaches to customers to increase content when the customer had been buying only one of the technologies from us in the past. The second area of upside for us was the medical market. On our last earnings call, we had commented that there was a general slowing of medical equipment orders last year from around Labor Day through the end of the year. We knew from our customer feedback that this would recover in 2015. But indications were that Q1 would still be fairly slow with recovery really taking hold in Q2. I think the good news for us was that, the recovery started gaining some momentum as Q1 progressed with weekly or monthly delivery quantities at some of the medical customers rising throughout the quarter. For the most part revenue in the medical market still was slightly down on a year-over-year basis in Q1, but it was definitely better than we had expected. Robotic surgery and patient monitoring were areas where we saw recovery in the quarter. Also within the Lasers segment, demand strengthened during the quarter and sales exceeded our own internal forecasts and the ophthalmic OCT application was one of the key drivers. As a company, we also had a good quarter in Q1 from an orders perspective. The overall book-to-bill ratio for GSI was 1.08, with all three of the reporting segments above 1. Q1 tends to be a strong booking quarter for us, as at least some of the OEMs will place blanket orders for the full-year. I’ll say that this customer order pattern is diminishing over time, as more and more OEMs operate on shorter lead-times, but in any case Q1 was strong for us with orders. And this puts us in a good position to deliver strong results in Q2 and beyond. So I’m pleased to see the stronger demand across the company and the numbers certainly bear that out. I would make the point that in several instances shipments that we had expected to land in Q2 were actually pulled into Q1 by our customers. 9% organic growth is not necessarily the level we would view as sustainable for GSI at this point. So we think it makes sense to look at the first-half in aggregate, and on that basis revenue performance would be consistent with our mid-single-digit organic growth expectation. From a strategic perspective we made some important progress in Q1. We closed the Applimotion acquisition in February and this has proved to be a good move for us. As a reminder, Applimotion does very high-performance motors and precision motion subsystems in many of the same applications where we play with the MicroE optical encoder technology. We have brought the two teams together under common leadership and they’re already collaborating on a number of programs. The Applimotion founders have strong reputations for developing robust technology solutions using some of the most demanding applications out there, such as battery production for electric vehicles, surgical and industrial robotics, endoscopic surgery, EUV lithography, and balloon-based Internet services. The integration process is going well and the acquired business is run-rating above our expectations, so we’re very pleased with the Applimotion acquisition thus far. We also recently announced the divestiture of JK Lasers for over $31 million to Trumpf. As you know the JK business encompass our fiber laser program, as well as some legacy product lines such as lamp pumped and DC CO2 laser sources. We feel good about the valuation we got for a business that was growing top line but was not really contributing to the bottom line. Over the last several years, we were able to successfully advance the technology to a point where we could win meaningful OEM programs and demonstrate the viability of our technology, such that the value to a large player like Trumpf was significant. In the end, the high-power fiber laser materials processing application of JK did not have synergy with our other product lines, sales channels or infrastructure. So selling the business and redeployment the capital into our core businesses was definitely the right move for us. At this point, I like to provide some commercial updates on our progress around the company, beginning with the Precision Motion segment. In Q1 we had 24% year-over-year sales growth, driven by the Applimotion acquisition, as well as new programs in our optical encoder product line, which also had over 20% sales growth in the quarter. MicroE’s growth was driven by strong demand in robotic surgery, wire bonding and other advanced industrial applications. The Applimotion acquisition, if viewed on a standalone basis for the entire quarter regardless of the particular period of our ownership, that business would have had low teens organic growth in Q1. And also achieves strategic design wins in battery production equipment for electric vehicles, Wi-Fi systems for commercial aircrafts and balloon-based Internet services. Our Q1 sales of air bearing spindles were down mid- to high-single-digits versus a year ago, primarily due to the strengthening US dollar versus the pound and the euro. The Precision Motion segment book-to-bill ratio was 1.14 for the quarter, so we are expecting this segment to see a sequential increase in demand in Q2. So turning to the Laser Products segment, which remains the largest of the three, revenue increased 7% year-over-year in Q1. JK Lasers was included in the reported results for all of Q1, but the growth rate wouldn’t materially change if you exclude JK. Our CO2 laser product line had another strong quarter in Q1, with sales up mid to high single-digits versus a year ago, with book-to-bill at 1.07. Coding applications drove much of the growth as demand increased meaningfully at all of our major OEMs. And just to remind all of you, when we refer to coding, this is laser marking of variable information such as date codes on food beverage and pharmaceutical packaging, mostly on plastics and other organic materials. Demand from converting applications using the higher power range of our CO2 offering up into the low hundreds of watts, was also strong within the quarter. In Q1 we closed on nine new CO2 design wins with OEM customers and applications like the ones I just mentioned. In our laser, scanning and beam delivery product line, revenue growth of mid-high single-digits versus a year ago was strong performance for us and book-to-bill ratio was 1.05. We saw the same robust growth in the coding applications that we saw in CO2 laser sources. As I mentioned a few minutes ago, ophthalmic OCT orders improved in the medical market as well for our scanning business, delivering mid-teen year-over-year growth and we secured a significant new swept-source OCT win with a leading medical OEM that will be worth over $1 million in sales on an annual basis beginning sometime later this year. I’ll also note that scanning orders from medical OEMs and other applications such as ophthalmic surgery, digital radiology and microscopy declined year-over-year within the quarter. As the recovery in hospital capital spending for many technologies remains uneven. Our scanning orders from OEMs in laser additive manufacturing and converting, showed significant growth for the quarter, which helped to offset some of the residual weakness in medical applications. Now I’ll comment on our Medical Technologies segment. As I mentioned earlier, the medical market was very slow for us in the later part of 2014. And we had expected Q1 2015 to remain slow with gradual recovery thereafter. But in fact we did get some recovery in Q1. It wasn’t all the way to where we wanted it to be or where we saw year-over-year growth, but demand was higher than we had anticipated in a number of cases. Segment revenue increased 39% on a reported basis, driven mainly by the fourth quarter impact of JADAK acquisition which closed in March of 2014. The segment organic growth was a single-digit decline in the quarter but it was better than our internal forecasts as I said. Medical segment book-to-bill ratio was 1.05. During Q1, we consolidated our medical thermal printers product line, a legacy GSI business line, under the leadership of JADAK, primarily due to the overlapping application base of the two business lines. This enables us to gain greater leverage in the medical cross-selling process. In Q1, we identified over $1 million of new business potential through the cross-selling of our thermal printers and our JADAK Auto-ID technologies to common customers. We had 11 new design wins in the quarter in the JADAK business highlighted by our first ever design win for a Bluetooth enabled RFID program for a diagnostic imaging X-ray system. The program is on a fast-track market launch with the customer and could potentially result in production revenues in late 2015, but if not, in early 2016. In the NDS business, revenue was down versus a year ago, but book-to-bill was 1.08 in the quarter, as a number of the recent new product launches begin to make an impact on the business. It’s clear to us, based on our conversations with OEMs and with hospital administrators that the electronic health records mandate did in fact impact hospital spending patterns in 2014. As I indicated, we do expect continued recovery across our medical end-market throughout 2015. Given the uncertainty around the timing and the magnitude of those dynamics, we’re taking a cautious approach to our forecast. And we expect a modest sequential improvement in the medical business in Q2. So moving on from the segments, I want to reflect a bit on the ongoing strategic transformation of GSI over the last several years. If we go back to the beginning of 2012 as a reference point, since that time we have divested six separate businesses and closed on three acquisitions. The divestitures represent about 30% of the run rate revenue we had at the beginning of 2012 and the acquisitions would represent over 40% versus that base. Our medical revenue was now 45% of the company total versus a little over 10% at the beginning of 2012. So this has really been a significant transformation of GSI that we’ve achieved over the last several years. At this point, we feel we have a strong portfolio. We’re happy to go to battle with what we have. Going forward, we are really focused on building out now from where we are. We are playing in two major verticals, medical equipment and advanced industrial technology equipment. We have three major product technology platforms: Laser Products; Precision Motion; and our Medical segment, which you could really think of as an imaging and visualization technologies product set. It’s really all about capturing and displaying images of things, mostly in the medical market but these technologies can also serve the industrial markets. So the way the company is constructed, all three of the product platforms can ultimately address both the medical and the industrial verticals. The fact is we see strategic growth opportunities in both verticals and all three product areas. We’re making organic investments in all of them. We also continue to pursue additional acquisitions that will strengthen our market and technology positions in all of these areas. At this point we’re engaged in conversations with a number of prospective acquisitions that include properties in the laser space and precision motion, as well as in the imaging and visualization-based medical technologies. These targets are all private companies. The discussions are ongoing, but they’re good prospects for us to get some additional things done this year and more beyond that, so stay tuned for future developments. From an operational standpoint, as I look across the company, overall performance was solid. Our factories executed well, particularly from a tactical standpoint. On-time delivery to customers improved from both Q4 and year ago levels in most of our factories. Quality metrics such as yield, scrap and customer returns also improved in most cases. There were no instances where operational constraints prevented shipments or impacted our quarterly revenue. That’s a meaningful progress for GSI. This is the first quarter since I’ve been here as CEO where we did not leave revenue on the table due to operational execution challenges. We also had good gross margin across the board. In Q1, we expanded adjusted gross margin by 170 basis points year-over-year with most of our factory seeing the same trend. Part of that was the conversion of the volume increases we saw but part was the real benefit we are seeing from the lean projects we have done in the past year, which are helping us primarily within the laser business and we are now extending that into another areas of the company. We recently held lean events at the CO2 production site during the course of Q1 and we recently held a major lean event here in the Bedford headquarters, a focus on the production sales for our small size scanning galvanometer product line, which makes up over 70% of our galvo unit volume. Last year, we set up lean cells for our large galvo production. And though we faced some disruption and margin impact at the time, we ultimately learned a great deal and are getting very good results from those projects, and we are now able to put those insights to good use as we roll out the lean cells for small galvo production. There certainly are areas we can and need to improve in our operational performance. First, I’ll note the relative immaturity of our capabilities. Those of you who followed companies that embrace lean principles and continuous improvement know that this is really a journey, it’s a marathon, not a sprint. The culture, capabilities, and the tools, of lean and of strategic sourcing need to become a way of life. Finding low hanging fruit and getting immediate benefit is a good thing, but it doesn’t really help that much if you can’t hold the gains and sustain the improvements over time. At GSI, we have had initial successes, but we haven’t yet proven we can repeat and sustain the impact of those. The other issue for us is that our operational planning processes are not yet fully mature, which means we face challenges when volume is ramping up, particularly with direct material procurement. On the positive side, we have implemented a spend analytics tool, which basically tracks all of our material spending by commodity, vendor and price. This is a big benefit for us in identifying and prioritizing our opportunities to leverage or buy across the company and generate productivity savings. That’s going to be a big benefit for us in driving the productivity going forward. But the challenge we faced in Q1 was different, it was in our SIOP process, which is really what we call sales, inventory and operational planning. This is the process of forecasting our demand, both the quantity and the mix of end items, and then translating that into the direct material and the labor capacity requirements we need to have in place in our factories. We generally get the labor side close enough, but that’s only 10% to 15% of our product cost. Direct material planning is really more challenging for us, as that represents at least 70% of our cost. When we’re seeing volume increases, particularly when they’re backend loaded within the quarter, the reaction across our factories tends to be to drive excess material at, “a very safe level,” to protect the revenue. In fact, we succeeded in doing exactly that, which is one of the reasons why we didn’t revenue on the table. So in one sense it’s a good thing, but this approach all too easily results in a miss on inventory. And that’s what happened to us in Q1, where we exceeded our own inventory target by about $2 million. We have implemented a robust SIOP process across all of our factories. To me, it’s really just a matter our team is gaining more experience and more comfort with that process, more cycles of learning so to speak. So going forward, we can make better decisions when we are driving the direct material requirements. There are a lot of positives here, so I definitely view our operational capability and maturity as an upside for the company. It’s something we are very committed to and we are doing the right thing, as we were still early days in this journey, so it’s important to keep that in mind. So with all of that, I’d like to now turn it over to Robert to provide more details on the financial performance. Robert?