Seeking Alpha
We cover over 5K calls/quarter
Profile| Send Message|
( followers)  

Executives

John East – President and CEO

Dirk Sodestrom – Interim CFO and Corporate Controller

Analysts

Richard Shannon – Northland Securities

Neil Gagnon – Gagnon Securities

Brad Evans – Heartland

Actel Corporation (ACTL) Q1 2009 Earnings Call Transcript April 28, 2009 5:00 PM ET

Operator

Welcome to Actel Corporation's conference call regarding its results for the first quarter of 2009. A replay of this call will be available for one week at 1-800-642-1687, conference ID number 80686486. You can also access this call on Thomson CCBN through a link on Actel's website at www.actel.com. This call is being recorded. To ensure that the question-and-answer session proceeds in an orderly manner, participants will be returned to the queue after one question and one follow-up question.

All forward-looking statements during this call are made pursuant to the Safe Harbor provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Actual results may differ materially from those projected in the forward-looking statements. Information concerning factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those projected in the forward-looking statements are contained in Actel's most recent form 10-K or 10-Q, which is available on Actel's website. At this time, all parties have been placed on a listen-only mode. The floor will be opened for questions and comments following the presentation.

It is my pleasure to hand the floor over to your host, Mr. John East, President of Actel.

John East

Thank you, Michael. Good afternoon. I’m John East, the President and CEO of Actel. With me is Dirk Sodestrom, our Interim CFO and Corporate Controller. After Dirk reviews the results for the quarter, I’ll talk about our current business environment and give you a brief update on the status of our restructuring plans. Then we will open up the call for questions. Now I’d like to turn the call over to Dirk.

Dirk Sodestrom

Thanks, John. Before I talk about the financial details for the first quarter, let me tell you how we will provide financial information regarding the second quarter of 2009. We will give guidance on the call today. The guidance will be the company's targets for the second quarter of 2009 on sales, gross margin, operating spending, other income, tax provision, and share account. Next, we expect to provide a financial update in early June. In the absence of a material change, this will be the only financial guidance the company will give during the quarter. A replay of this call will be made available. Please access the company's website for the replay information.

Now to the financials, first quarter sales were $48.5 million, which was slightly better than the high end of revenue guidance for the quarter. This represented a decrease of 12% in comparison with the same quarter one year ago and a decrease of 8% compared with the last quarter. Revenue from flash technology based products was 24% compared with 28% last quarter.

By market segment, 7% of revenue was in communications compared with 10% last quarter. Aerospace and military was 40% compared with 41% in the previous quarter. Industrial was 37% compared with 36% last quarter. And consumer was 16% of revenue compared with 13% last quarter. Market segment numbers are based on our estimate of end uses by our customers.

Geographically, 52% of the revenue was in North America compared with 54% last quarter, 27% in Europe compared with 25% in the previous quarter, and 21% in Pan-Asia unchanged from last quarter. By channel, 67% of the revenue was through distribution compared with 70% last quarter, and 33% through OEM compared with 30% in the previous quarter.

Overall, unit shipments increased by 3% compared with last quarter and ASP decreased 13%. Net end customer bookings increased compared with the previous quarter. Overall, book-to-bill was below one. Total backlog is lower entering the second quarter of 2009 than it was entering the first quarter. Gross margin in the first quarter was 57% compared with 59% in the fourth quarter of 2008. Gross margin in the first quarter of 2009 was negatively impacted by a $1.5 million charge associated with low yield wafers.

During the first quarter of 2009, the company initiated a company-wide restructuring that reduced worldwide staff by approximately 40. This restructuring is expected to reduce operating expenses by approximately $800,000 on a quarterly basis. The company incurred cost of approximately $1.1 million in connection with this restructure.

Now I will talk about operating spending, net income, and earnings per share on a non-GAAP basis. Non-GAAP calculations exclude stock-based compensation charges, restructuring charges, acquisition-related charges, and other non-recurring items. A reconciliation of non-GAAP to GAAP statement of operations is included in our earnings release, which is posted in the Press Room of the company's website.

Operating spending for the quarter was $27.6 million or 57% of revenue as compared with $27.9 million or 53% of revenue in the fourth quarter of 2008. This spending for the first quarter of 2009 does not include $1.6 million of stock-based compensation charges, $1.1 million of cost associated with the restructuring that was implemented during the quarter, $0.6 million of charges associated with the acquisition of Pigeon Point Systems, and $0.4 million of charges associated with certain Board advisory services.

R&D spending was $15.1 million or 31% of revenue compared with $13.5 million or 26% of revenue in the fourth quarter. SG&A was $12.5 million or 26% of revenue compared with $14.3 million or 27% of revenue in the fourth quarter. Other income was $1 million compared with $1.3 million last quarter. The first quarter 2009 non-GAAP other income amount does not include a $0.7 million gain from insurance.

Non GAAP net income was $0.8 million compared with $3.3 million last quarter. Diluted share count was 26.1 million. This all resulted in earnings per share on a non-GAAP basis of $0.03 per share compared with $0.13 last quarter. Cash, cash equivalents and investments were $139.9 million at the end of the quarter, a decrease of $6.7 million from the end of the previous quarter.

Accounts receivable increased sequentially by $10.2 million to $21.8 million. DSO increased by 21 days to 41 days. Net inventory decreased sequentially by $4.6 million. Net days of inventory increased by 10 days to 246 when compared with the fourth quarter of 2008. Capital expenditures were $2.1 million during the quarter and we’ve recorded $3.3 million of depreciation. Including the effect of the first quarter 2009 restructuring, headcount decreased sequentially by 42 or 8% to 508.

Now I will give the financial outlook for the second quarter of 2009. Taking into consideration all of the information currently known by us, we are projecting revenue to be down 1% to down 7%. Gross margin is expected to be approximately 59%. Operating spending is anticipated to come in at about $28 million, which does not include a non-cash charge for equity compensation of $1.8 million. This operating expense outlook takes into consideration timing issues associated with research and development work and startup cost associated with expansions into offshore locations.

As John East will discuss later in the call, we expect to see downward trends in operating expenses during the second half of 2009 and into 2010. Other income will be around $1.2 million. The tax rate for the quarter is expected to be approximately 30%. Fully diluted share count is expected to be 26.3 million shares.

This guidance for operational expenses does not include the ongoing amortization of intangibles and deferred compensation for the Pigeon Point Systems acquisition of approximately $570,000. Thanks. And now I would like to turn the call back to John.

John East

Thanks, Dirk. First, let’s talk about Q1. As Dirk told you, our sales were down 8% from the prior quarter. We once again gained market share in the programmable space. Bookings improved considerably from the prior quarter, although they were still a bit below one to one. Bookings have been strong so far this quarter.

Now let’s move on to Q2. As Dirk also told you, our backlog entering this quarter is lower than the Q1 beginning backlog. However, our bookings in the first three weeks of Q2 are considerably above the first three weeks of January. So on balance, we are going to call the Q2 revenue at somewhere between down 1% and down 7%. To make the midpoint of that range, we will need more turns than we needed last quarter.

Now let’s talk about my overall feeling for the market. Some of our relative strength in Q1 was driven by a royalty payment from one of our partners and by particularly strong quarter by Pigeon Point Systems. We don’t expect either of those to repeat in Q2. Because of that, if we hit the midpoint of our guidance, it will mean that our silicon sales in Q2 are approximately flat with silicon sales in Q1.

That pretty well summarizes my sense of where we are in the business cycle. I think we hit the bottom this quarter. That doesn’t necessarily mean our sales will start ramping up immediately. That may or may not happen. But it is my sense that we won’t see a continuing decline in sales after Q2.

Last quarter I laid out a plan to arrive at a new financial model. Now I’m going to take you through a summary of the high points of that discussion. We determined that we will be cutting $6.5 million from our quarterly spending using Q3 2008 as the baseline. Our plan calls for completing this in a period of a little over a year. The driving factors in doing this slow instead of overnight are twofold. First, we are not planning to cut development projects that are well along, instead we will finish those projects and get the products into the market.

The second is that we need to build up our offshore infrastructure, most notably our infrastructure in India. Now, if all the cuts are below the line, you could simply cut your operating spending model by $6.5 million. However, that’s not the case. Some of the reductions will be above the line and some below. That means that some of the improvements will appear in direct margin. The way we see it today, the $6.5 million of cuts will break down to roughly $5.5 million in operating expenses and $1 million in lower manufacturing costs, which you would see as an improvement in direct margins.

So let’s do the math together. Looking at Q3 2008 OpEx on a non-GAAP basis, you will see that we spent about $29.5 million. Subtract the $5.5 million OpEx reduction and you get $24 million. So we are projecting that Q3 2010 OpEx spending will be $24 million or less.

Moving on to direct margin, you will see that we ran 58% in Q3 2008, 59% in Q4, and 57% in last quarter. By saving $1 million in our above-the-line spending, we would expect that to translate to about 2 percentage points of improvement in direct margin. Of course, with respect to direct margin, there are other factors that will play into our results. The volume and the pricing that we will be seeing in the summer of 2010 is hard to predict right now.

With respect to the totals, we mean these numbers to be firm. We expect to save $6.5 million. With respect to the quarter-by-quarter timing, the estimates had made it rough. If you do a straight line graph to try to predict our quarterly expenses, you would see that our Q1 OpEx was a little below the line and our Q2 forecast spending is right on it. In any event, however the timing plays out, we are completely committed to the overall savings. We absolutely plan to make that $6.5 million per quarter happen.

I’ll wrap up by reminding you of the difference between our old view and our new view. Our old stance was first, invest in order to reinvent ourselves; second, grow sales as fast as we could; and third, make money. We think that we have been successful in reinventing ourselves and that is appropriate to adopt the new different stance. The new stance is first, make a healthy profit; and second, grow sales.

That concludes my formal remarks. Michael, would you please open the lines for questions?

Question-and-Answer Session

Operator

(Operator instructions) Our first question comes from the line of Richard Shannon with Northland Securities.

John East

Hi, Richard.

Richard Shannon – Northland Securities

Hi, John, how are you?

John East

I’m hanging in there. Actually I was suffering from food poisoning last night. So a touch-and-go today, but you probably didn’t want all that detail. You probably just wanted me to say fine, right?

Richard Shannon – Northland Securities

I always appreciate your detail, John. Maybe that one could have been avoided, but I’ll take the good with the bad.

John East

Okay.

Richard Shannon – Northland Securities

Let’s see here. Maybe the first question – and I jumped on a little bit late, so I might have missed some detail there. But did you mention something about royalty, one-time royalty payment in the first quarter? Can you give us a little more detail on that, how much, where it came from, and was that in the consumer area that seemed to help that segment?

John East

Well, over the years we’ve had a bunch of contracts that would have paid royalties to us or did pay royalties to us. They are all under non-disclosure. And I don’t have the detail of the non-disclosure. So let me just kind of arm wave [ph] it. First of all, it’s south of $1 million, fairly well south of it. And no, it’s not in the consumer area. It’s on a contract that we now and again get royalties on. We don’t always get them, but they are not gone forever. So it’s kind of sporadic. You’ve got a follow-on?

Richard Shannon – Northland Securities

Yes. Let me – I guess just on the consumer area, looks like that was up quite nicely. I know they are kind of a smaller number, so maybe the surrounding a little bit better, but it looks like it was up sort of double-digit sequentially. Can you tell us what was going on there? And I assume that was related to flash –?

John East

Yes, it was in fact flash and it was Asian consumer. The Asian consumer is taking such a hit for a couple of quarters that was due to a little bit of a rebound, and that’s what happened. Unfortunately, this quarter some of our more base business in flash eroded. So we had a military customer in flash and we had a communications customer in flash that took less than what would be normal. So that more than erased the upside we go out of the consumer, Richard. I just you had your follow-on already. So Michael, can you take the next question please?

Operator

Your next question comes from Neil Gagnon with Gagnon Securities.

John East

Hi, Neil. Neil, I think you have the mute on.

Neil Gagnon – Gagnon Securities

Thank you. Hi, John. First question, can you give us some color on what’s going on in the mil/aero business in the first quarter and what you are expecting in the second quarter?

John East

Okay. If we looked at the overall trends, if we look at just military, I would say that I’m expecting flat-like behavior, maybe a little bent toward the upside. If we look at satellite, which I always remind people is different than military, we are looking for gains. The satellite over the last four or five years has just been a pretty steady gainer for us. And it looks to me like it’s going to continue to be for sometime anyway. Follow-on?

Neil Gagnon – Gagnon Securities

Second question, yes. Let me talk about flash. And what I’d like to know is what are the things that your flash does really well versus static.

John East

Okay. You’ve been a shareholder for so longer that (inaudible) avoid you to ask. But it’s probably a year when I went through these things every time I have a conference call. But –

Neil Gagnon – Gagnon Securities

Let’s take the latest ones that are really important.

John East

Okay. The thing, of course, we are pushing the hardest now is power. And it’s particularly good at static power. So where do you worry about static power? Well, to start out with, where you don’t worry about static power is in applications that are on all the time. So, big servers, big switches for communication systems, what have you. The kind of power they burn is not static. So it wouldn’t be that interesting to them to get the particularly low power products. But the lower static power products serve a market that we call the remote market.

Off and on I’ll go back and forth and I’ll call it remote and then I’ll call it consumer. I think today it’s easy if I talk about consumer because everybody knows what that is. But in my view, over the next five years or so, there is going to be a big growth in what I call a remote market. And the way I see it, two to four years ago or maybe a little longer than that, maybe five, ten years ago, people divided communications market up into wireline and wireless.

And I think I see the same thing happening with the rest of the world. Rest of the world is going to be comprised of applications that are sort of central, server types of applications that are plugged in. And many, many, many, if you will call them, subscriber or slave applications that are handheld. So of course, you talk about cell phones and PDAs, but you talk about also the little handheld things that they take your order with a restaurant or when you take your Rent-a-Car back and turn it in, those handheld things.

We have a lot of industrial applications for seismic things that are really low powered, a lot of industrial applications for remote control of power or remote control of water or remote control of gas lines. I could go on and on. But all of those are power applications that are typically not on all the time and they worry a lot about static power. So the second big advantage is security.

To this date, nobody has ever reverse engineered an Actel product that I’m aware of. And I think I would be aware of it. People would be letting me know. And that is particularly handy, well, everywhere, but particularly in Asian market they are versed in having a design that’s pretty easy to copy. Then, of course, we’re live on power up. We are always single chip. And the single-chipness [ph] helps a lot in this power remote market as well, because classically those applications are really smallest. You don’t have room in your little handheld, whatever it is, for a lot of components. So you really don’t want the second component that’s the boot prompt.

Also we classically have a smaller dive in the CPLDs we compete with, so we can get into a smaller packet. So I think you’ve seen we recently announced a three-by-three package. So that kind of hits the high slice I’m talking to on. You got a follow-on?

Neil Gagnon – Gagnon Securities

That’s good.

John East

Okay, thank you. Michael, you could take the next question please.

Operator

Your next question is from the line of Brad Evans with Heartland.

Brad Evans – Heartland

Good afternoon, everybody.

John East

How are you?

Brad Evans – Heartland

Good, okay, thanks. John, could you just talk about – and maybe Dirk could chime in here in terms of just the working capital and the cash balances in terms of how you see inventory and receivables play out over the next quarter or two in terms of – do you see an opportunity to drive working capitals into cash on the balance sheet here over the next question or two?

John East

We’ll divide that up. I’ll give you a couple of quickies and then I will pass it over to Dirk who has better thoughts in line. To begin with, we obviously have a lot of inventory that could be translated to cash. We took a big chunk out of it in the quarter we just finished. Unfortunately, whereas I think we continued to see declines in the inventory. I think that’s the larger one that you’re going to see on average. Part of that came from just writing off some low yield material and part of it was because of timing of when wafers come in.

If they come in probably [ph] the last day of the quarter, it makes inventory go up. If they come in the next month, it makes inventory go down. But we do believe that over a lengthy period of time we will translate that inventory into cash. And as we look at it today, the inventory is a good inventory. We will have to look every quarter and make sure we still believe it’s good, because if it’s on the books for a long time, you can start to worry. But I think that’s definitely some figure that would be turned into cash. Now let me turn it over to Dirk and he can talk about the receivables, which is another cash item – potential cash item.

Dirk Sodestrom

Yes. I think receivables went up quite a bit this quarter. That was really more driven by the unusually low balance that we had as of the end of December. We had a two-week shutdown toward the end of December. So there was no shipments and collected a lot of cash before the end of the quarter. So I think receivables right now are kind of at their normal level and wouldn’t expect them to change drastically going forward. And I think John is right, you’d probably see some small declines in inventory. But overall, CapEx, we’re not expecting to spend a lot this year. So I think there are some opportunities to grow cash, but there are going to be ups and downs with respect to the AR side of things going forward.

John East

So I hate to put a number on it, but I’d be very, very surprised if we didn’t generate a reasonable amount of cash this year. Do you have a follow-on?

Brad Evans – Heartland

I do as a matter of fact actually. If I look at the guidance you gave us, and I appreciate forward look, it looks like you should be able to get to roughly a 10% GAAP operating margin. I guess based on the cost-cutting here at around $55 million a quarter, is that about right?

John East

I had that all roughed out for the last conference call, but I didn’t believe that paperwork. But I’m thinking that what I’ve said at the last call is that the sales that were flattish with last quarter, which was 52 and some change or 53. On a non-GAAP, we wanted to get to 15%. Isn’t that, Dirk, what I said?

Dirk Sodestrom

Yes, for the third quarter of 2010.

John East

Yes. And I’m not real good at the quick translation to GAAP. So I’ll defer on that one.

Brad Evans – Heartland

That would be correct. Thank you.

John East

Okay, thank you. Michael, another question please?

Operator

(Operator instructions) You have a follow-up question from the line of Richard Shannon with Northland Securities.

John East

Richard.

Richard Shannon – Northland Securities

Hi, John. Kind of a bigger picture, longer term question on flash. Obviously you spend a very nice business for you, growing very nicely until last couple of quarters and you have obviously recently in this environment come down over the couple of quarters. Let me get your sense of what the overall design activity environment looks like for that as well as when you might see some of these designs you may have gotten over the last year, kind of kick in your production and see flash kind of get back on its secular next year on your growth trend like we’ve seen in the past.

John East

I’m happy to talk about it. That’s a question that you probably have to fight California in shooting me to shut me up. And I’m trying to figure out where to start. All right. I’ll just start with design activity with the exception of satellite market and a few military-type redesigns, not designs from start, but redesigns where they already had an Actel on the board. We really don’t get any AIC’s designs any more. So all of our activity essentially is flash.

Now, our overall design activity is off just a little bit, I would say, in proportion to the lay-offs in the industry. I think there are fewer engineers out there doing designs and little less money being spent on designs. So we look at our overall momentum and it’s off a bit, but not that much. And I attributed just to the slowdown in the industry. Now, you ask when do we start to get to pay off smaller designs (inaudible). Well, obviously we are getting some now, but the key there is what market segment is the design in.

Classically, as you know, Richard, two-thirds or more of our businesses come from military, industrial, aerospace, commercial airlines, and we wedge all those into the two categories that we call – one we call industrial and the other we call mil/aero. But that’s somewhere between two-thirds and three quarters of our business. Classically, with those kinds of designs, they will start to ramp up maybe three years, maybe four years after we win the design, sometimes sooner, but most often not. And that will get to a peak run rate six or seven years after we won the design. Now, the tricky thing there is we don’t win all the designs the first quarter we put a product out.

So if you look at a curve of Actel for just military, industrial, aerospace, that sort of stuff, and it didn’t have any consumer and didn’t have any communications in it, it would look like, gee, we put a product out, then for about three years we didn’t sell any of it. Then the sales started to come up somewhat and the sales on that product got to a peak in about seven years. Now that requires a good deal of patience to weather. And in general, we are not the most patient community. But there is a payback and that is that classically the designs in the industrial, mil, commercial airline, that sort of area, just last forever. So (inaudible) just keeps giving.

And now, where are we with respect to flash on that cycle? The first flash product that we did well with APA and it came out in the first quarter of 2002. So by that logic, we should be entering the peak year for that product family, and that was APA. The second family we put out was PA3, ProASIC3. That came out about three years ago. So if we look as an industrial, medical, military by my rule of thumb, there shouldn’t be any PA3 business yet. But it ought to be starting right away. Then the next two major families that we announced after that were IGLOO, which was about – let's say, about a year and a half ago, and nano, which was about half year ago. By any theory, those shouldn’t be developing much business yet in industrial, medical, military.

It is true, however, that in the early days of a product we’ve done fairly well in consumer. And with the last two flash families, notably IGLOO and nano, we expect to do even better than usual in consumer and in remote. And those businesses come on in a hurry and they are the ones that fill the pipeline, make the fabs run, give us some sales prior to the lengthy time that I gave you before.

And in fact, with PA3 and with IGLOO, we were starting to do really well nine months ago in China. You remember that conference call, I was ecstatic, where the orders are just poring in. And then they just ceased. And after they ceased, then they largely got cancelled. So that’s the upside and the downside of that consumer business. But still I think it’s important business for us to have. We need an opportunity to run the fab and work on the yield and get the cost down and to show some payoff, all of that we’ve done in a shorter time frame than the typical military guy would give it to you.

So I warned you, Richard, that was going to be a long answer, but I think you still have follow-on too.

Richard Shannon – Northland Securities

John, I appreciate your details though. I like it. I appreciate that. I guess the follow-on question from me would be, in your mil/aero business, people that are following the FPGA business in general listened to your two biggest competitors who have talked a lot more about the military and defense business over the last year or so. And I think Altera has even mentioned this is above 10% of their total sales. Let me get your overall view to the extent what you are competing against those two in any part of your – either anti-fuse or flash business and if you expect any increased competition going forward.

John East

Sure. So where do I start? I think I’ll start by breaking the business down. If you look at military, in particular, but to a less degree too of industrial, the business bifurcates as segments into what I’ll call a high end and low end. The low end is the place that we participate. The high end is the end that has the really high gate count products that has the DSP capability, lots of multipliers, and in some cases the serial communications channels.

And we today don’t have a product that can compete in that area. Xilinx has for a long time and recently Altera has put some products into that space. I think they haven’t designed products expressly for that space. I think they have characterized their products so that they can sell them into that space. And we don’t have such a product. We don’t really compete with them.

I think Altera is growing nicely because they pretty recently got into the market, and they started with the base of zero and that allows them to grow fairly rapidly. But I haven’t particularly seen more of them or more of Xilinx in the market when we are out trying to compete. At the low end, which is where we compete, I haven’t really seen that much change. Did I answer the question?

Richard Shannon – Northland Securities

Yes. That was helpful. I just want to make sure there wasn’t any change in the competitive dynamic. So I appreciate that, John. Thank you.

John East

Okay. I could (inaudible) a little bit before I take the next question. We characterize business in two big categories. One is industrial and one is mil/aero. But with (inaudible) initiative, gee, that was 20 years ago or so, a lot of the military guys went out and start to use industrial. So when we sell an industrial part, sometimes it’s to a military guy. And in a lot of cases when we sell a mil/aero part, it’s aero but not mil, meaning that goes to the big manufacturers of commercial airplanes where we do really well. So the dividing lines in those categories, they are actually pretty tricky for Actel or for any of our competitors. So you can get a little bit fooled by looking at those numbers. Michael, can you take the next question please?

Operator

There are no further questions at this time.

John East

Okay. Appreciate you guys joining us. I’ll look forward to seeing you same time, same place a quarter from now. Have a good day.

Operator

Ladies and gentlemen, that concludes today’s conference call. You may now disconnect

Copyright policy: All transcripts on this site are the copyright of Seeking Alpha. However, we view them as an important resource for bloggers and journalists, and are excited to contribute to the democratization of financial information on the Internet. (Until now investors have had to pay thousands of dollars in subscription fees for transcripts.) So our reproduction policy is as follows: You may quote up to 400 words of any transcript on the condition that you attribute the transcript to Seeking Alpha and either link to the original transcript or to www.SeekingAlpha.com. All other use is prohibited.

THE INFORMATION CONTAINED HERE IS A TEXTUAL REPRESENTATION OF THE APPLICABLE COMPANY'S CONFERENCE CALL, CONFERENCE PRESENTATION OR OTHER AUDIO PRESENTATION, AND WHILE EFFORTS ARE MADE TO PROVIDE AN ACCURATE TRANSCRIPTION, THERE MAY BE MATERIAL ERRORS, OMISSIONS, OR INACCURACIES IN THE REPORTING OF THE SUBSTANCE OF THE AUDIO PRESENTATIONS. IN NO WAY DOES SEEKING ALPHA ASSUME ANY RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY INVESTMENT OR OTHER DECISIONS MADE BASED UPON THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ON THIS WEB SITE OR IN ANY TRANSCRIPT. USERS ARE ADVISED TO REVIEW THE APPLICABLE COMPANY'S AUDIO PRESENTATION ITSELF AND THE APPLICABLE COMPANY'S SEC FILINGS BEFORE MAKING ANY INVESTMENT OR OTHER DECISIONS.

If you have any additional questions about our online transcripts, please contact us at: transcripts@seekingalpha.com. Thank you!

Source: Actel Corporation Q1 2009 Earnings Call Transcript

Check out Seeking Alpha’s new Earnings Center »

This Transcript
All Transcripts