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

Executives

Ken Oshman - Chairman & Chief Executive Officer

Chris Stanfield - Executive Vice President & CFO

Analysts

Bill Gibson - Nollenberger Capital

Michael Carboy - Signal Hill

Andrew Holm - Dougherty and Company

Mark Gross - GGS Capital

Bud Leedom - Global Hunter Securities

Michael Carboy - Signal Hill

Echelon Corporation (ELON) Q1 2008 Earnings Call Transcript May 12, 2008 2:00 PM ET

Operator

Good day everyone and welcome to the Echelon’s quarter two full results conference call. Today’s conference is being recorded.

At this time, I would like to turn the call over Ken Oshman. Please go ahead, sir.

Ken Oshman

Hello everyone. Thank you very much for joining our call today. This is Ken Oshman, Chairman and CEO of Echelon, and I’ll be joined on the call today by Chris Stanfield, our CFO. But let me remind you before we begin that during this presentation, representatives of Echelon may make statements relating to our business outlook, future financial and operating results, accounting matters and overall future prospects.

These forward looking statements are based on certain assumptions and are subject to a number of risks and uncertainties. We encourage you to read the risks described in our press releases dated April 30th, 2008 and today, as well as in out SEC reports including our Q1 2008 report on Form 10-Q and our 2007 report on Form 10-K for more complete disclosure of the risks and uncertainties related to our business.

The financial information presented in this call reflects estimates based on information that’s available to us at this time. Actual results could differ materially. Echelon undertakes no obligation to update or revise these forward looking statements.

Even though its been only three weeks since our last call, it has been quite a three weeks of us at Echelon, filled with some tremendous lows and some soaring highs. The low point of course was the death of Bea Yormark, our President and Chief Operating Officer.

Bea was a sort of person that had some much energy and determination, that was so full of life and joy that it seems to me and all those knew her that there was no obstacle, which she couldn’t overcome. Sadly, we were all wrong. She is a great loss to Echelon, not just because of her extraordinary talents as a business leader, but even more so because of her loss as a person. Bea touched the lives of everyone she knew in ways that were genuine, human, and sincerely caring. While her life was far too short, she lived everyday to the fullest and we’re all richer for having known her. Bea was also someone who loved to celebrate and we did just that this past week as Echelon celebrated its 20-year anniversary with a briefing for press, analysts and partners. We were lucky to have three terrific speakers and visionaries join us, Mike Markkula, Echelon’s Founder and Co-Founder of Apple, Scott McNeilly, Sun Microsystems Co-Founder and Chairman, and Jim Rogers, the CEO of Duke Energy. It was a celebration not just of looking back at all that’s been accomplished over the last 20 years, but also a celebration looking forward to all the great things that will be accomplished in the future.

We also held our worldwide developers conference this past week, a chance for our engineers and customers to meet and educate each other about our products and their applications. I always find events like this re-energizing. It’s great to see the enthusiasm and hear about all of the innovative things our customers are doing.

Before I turn the call over to Chris for him to talk about our results and detailed guidance. I’d like to spend a minute talking about our revenue guidance and NES backlog, which I know is something you are all very interested in. As you saw in our release, our revenue guidance remains where it has been from the first of the year. Many of you have asked us why we remain confident in the NES number when based on project announcements, the backlog seems low. This is certainly a reasonable question because compared to this time last year where we thought we had 90% of our second half NES guidance in backlog, we have much less in backlog now.

I say we thought we had 90% of backlog last year, because as I explained in our Q4 conference call last year, while we did achieve our revenue guidance for the year, it was not comprised the accounts we thought it would be. As it turned out, some of what we thought was going to be in revenue in 2007 moved into 2008 and some large projects that were not in our forcasts came in instead. This is just the nature of our NES business and it will continue to be this way for a long time. Until NES is a much more mature and larger business, we expect it will be lumpy and difficult to predict. Some projects will stretch out due to weather, logistics and so on. And other projects will happen sooner that we expect. We think that providing electric utilities with the infrastructure to create smart grids represents an enormous opportunity for Echelon and that we’re in a great position with our industry leading NES system. So we’re happy to accept the uncertainty that comes along with the opportunity.

Before turning back to our guidance for this year, our guidance is our best let me just start fresh, excuse me. So turning back to our guidance for this year, our guidance is our best estimate of what we believe we’ll do for the year. It’s not guaranteed even if it’s in backlog, as last year illustrates. We need to book and ship a large part of our revenue between now and the end of year. We’ve identified the accounts that we must book and we were very focused on. In addition, there are other opportunities we’re working on but not counting on that could further increase our revenue for the year. We face the wonderful prospect of large orders and the lumpiness that they bring with them. We’re very confidence that we will win the business we’re working on and doing so is our top priority. After that, while we were more than happy to begin building a large backlog for 2009, our goal is to work as hard as we can to smooth out the lumps and keep what we expect to be this year’s revenue in this year.

Now I’ll turn call over to Chris for a more detailed breakdown on our performance at this past quarter and our outlook going forward.

Chris Stanfield

Thank you. First I would like to comment on some of the items in the financial statements incorporated in today’s press release. They are different from what we’ve historically presented. Beginning with the balance sheet, property and equipment net now includes the net book value of the cost paid by our landlord to construct our headquarters facility here in San Jose. Echelon is the deemed owner of these buildings for accounting purposes only and retains no legal ownership of them. The net book value of our headquarter facilities was $12.5 million and $11.8 million as of December 31st, 2007 and as of March 31st, 2008, respectively.

Turning to liabilities, we now have occurred a long term lease financing obligations associated with our head count facilities that we are deemed to own. The current portions of these financing obligations about to $2.9 million and $3 million as on December 31st,2007 and March 31st, 2008, respectively. The long-term portions of these amounts are $13.2 million and $12.4 million as of December 31st, 2007 and as of March 31st 2008 respectively.

Turning to the income statement, we have a new line item there as well, interest expense on our lease finance obligation. This line reflects the portion of our monthly rent payment that is now classified as interest expense. With the restatements now behind us, I would like to confirm the cumulative affects the modifications we have made to our prior year financial statements. Through December 31st 2007, we have now reported approximately $2 million additional non-cash, equity compensation expense and approximately $2.9 million of additional expenses associated with our corporate headquarters facilities. As both the stock compensation of lease accounting issues don’t change the total amount of expense to be reported, but do change the timing of when expenses to be recognized. The net affect of these restatements was to accelerate the recognition of $4.9 million that would have otherwise been reported in future periods.

Now turning to our first quarter results and guidance. All references to non-GAAP amounts exclude non-cash expenses related to stock-based compensation. We previously discussed the reasons for the greater than anticipated revenue for Q1 2008 during our Investor Call on April 30th which were related to the timing of customer acceptance.

Our Non-GAAP gross margin for Q1 2008 was 35.8% or 1.9 percentage points lower than our February guidance. This difference was largely due to greater than anticipated one-time costs associated with our transition between contract manufacturers.

Non-GAAP operating expenses for Q1 2008 were $16.7 million or $800,000 lower than our February guidance. Approximately one-third of this favorable variance was due to how monthly rent payments are now made to our landlord, are being classified in our income statement. Where as these amounts were previously included in operating expenses, a portion of it is now attributed to interest expense on our lease finance obligation. The remaining improvement in the first quarter operating expenses is largely due to timing differences. In other words expenses we had originally expected to record in the first quarter will now likely occur later in the year.

Interest and other income was $659,000 or $641,000 lower than our February guidance. About half of this variance was due to lower than anticipated interest income and the other half was due to unrealized currency translation losses on inter-company short-term receivable balances. Overall the non-GAAP net loss per share was $0.09 or $0.01 per share better than our February guidance.

Now turning to future guidance, I discussed revenue guidance for the second quarter and full year 2008 on our call on April 30th. The guidance remains unchanged. I also highlighted three areas in that call that we saw as creating a challenging environment for us in the reminder of the year. I would like to comment a bit more on each of these.

First, in cost of goods sold, we are experiencing both direct and indirect cost pressures resulting from a variety of issues, including unfavorable exchange rates, increased commodity prices, greater than anticipated manufacturing variances and overhead, and increased one-time costs associated with our transition between contract manufacturers. On April 30th, we stated that we expected these cost pressures to reduce our overall gross margins for the year by one to three percentage points. Today we updated our non-GAAP gross margin guidance for the full year 2008 with an estimate of 38.9%, which is 1.8 percentage points lower than our February guidance.

Second, in our operating expenses, we faced two issues. The weak dollar and the additional general and administrative costs associated with the restatement of our historical financial statements. We had expected these issues to increase the full year operating expenses by $1 million to $1.5 million. Today, we updated full year non-GAAP operating expense guidance $69.5 million, or $500,000 more than our February guidance. However this increase would have been $1.5 million except for the fact that approximately $1 million of the monthly rent payments made to our landlord will now be reported as interest expense on our lease financing obligation.

Third, we expect our interest income for the year would decrease by approximately 50% from the $5 million we estimated at the beginning of the year. This anticipated decrease was the combined result of recent actions taken by the Federal Reserve to reduce short-term interest rates coupled with changes we’ve made to our investment policy guidelines to help ensure capital preservation. Today we updated our full year net interest and other income guidance to $1.5 million. This further reduction reflects approximately $1 million of payments made to our landlord that will now be reported as interest expense on lease finance obligation.

For Q2 2008, we expect to generate a non-GAAP loss per share of approximately a $0.11 and a GAAP loss per share of $0.21. For full year 2008, we expect to generate a non-GAAP earnings per share of $0.01 and a GAAP loss per share of $0.35 based upon on the equivalent shares of 45 million and 41.5 million shares respectively. This represents a reduction on our full year non-GAAP earnings per share of $0.15 or $6.9 million. This reduction was foreshadowed on our April 30th update call and is comprised of approximately $3.1 million for the cost of goods issues, $1.5 million for the operating expense issues and $2.5 million for the lower than anticipated interest income, all of which is slightly offset by $200,000 reduction in our anticipated income tax provision.

I will now turn the call back to Ken.

Ken Oshman

Thanks Chris. So we are happy to get through with that unfinished business and on to running the company. We would be happy to spend a few minutes trying to answer any question any one has.

Question-and-Answer Session

Operator: [Operator Instructions]. Our first question is from Bill Gibson with Nollenberger Capital.

Bill Gibson – Nollenberger Capital

Yeah, first just a little bookkeeping item, Chris. I noticed that cash flow from operations, the restatement of the numbers improved a little and I would have expected just the opposite, with reduction to net income from the additional charges. Can you walk me though what’s going on there?

Chris Stanfield

Sure. Well first of all remember that the additional interest expense is going to go down in financing.

Bill Gibson – Nollenberger Capital

Okay, right.

Chris Stanfield

Okay. And remember that the stock based compensation is non-cash.

Bill Gibson – Nollenberger Capital

Okay. And then secondly, just a general question, Ken. At your anniversary, which was quite a get together, I know that I was speaking to the Enel representative and he shared with me that they thought the savings from the project would be much more or much higher than what they previously disclosed publicly, he wouldn’t give out that point. But does that play a large role when you’re talking to other utilities or are they pretty much already bought off on the cost savings?

Ken Oshman

First of all, that's good news. I’m happy to hear that Enel thinks saving even more than they thought they had. I think they had been talking about like a four-year pay back. Now they are must be talking about even better than that which is extraordinary for a utility investment. A lot of the pay back is hard to quantify until you actually go do it and so utilities are quite conservative about how they will calculate their paybacks. So it’s a very, very nice thing to have but most utilities come out of the calculation saying the pay back is not very good. And so the reason they are doing it is they are buying this equipment is because of the added services they can provide because of the energy they can help save and a wide variety of other things that make it attractive to them to pursue the whole investment in the first place. Having said that, as we have always said, their utilities can get an eight-month pay back because of theft and their utilities they can get a tremendous pay back just because of improved operations. And I think all utilities will find that these systems save them a lot of money. Having said that, in North America many of utilities claim they have already implemented in a, let me say a haphazard, I don't mean that negative, but in a bits and pieces way they have implemented some of the cost savings things over the last five to ten years with multiple systems doing multiple rather than one single low cost system. It just varies from utility from utility to utility. It's always good for utilities to think they are going to save money.

Bill Gibson Nollenberger Capital

Okay thanks again Ken

Ken Oshman

Sure.

Operator: And we'll move next to Michael Carboy with Signal Hill.

Michael Carboy - Signal Hill

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Ken, there has been some talk within the house minority regarding pushing toward more demand response, more smart metering, are you beginning to see any of those initiatives or thought being mirrored in any of the utility discussions. Has there been a particular change in tempo or pace here in the past couple of months as we have gotten in to a more vigorous debate on energy and legislative policy?

Ken Oshman

That's hard to answer. We certainly see more activity in the U.S. than there was. I don't think utilities respond too tremendously to national legislation, but much more to local regulation. And while the national legislation may add some incentive, I don't think it's going to be the primary driver for what utilities do. I think one of the best drivers in the world is Duke Energy. I mean these guys have got it, I mean they are all about the idea that they are going to make money by selling less energy rather than more energy and they are very focused on that and they got their regulators very focused on that. When they can prove they are doing that, that's going to have a more of an impact on utilities around the U.S. and around the world than legislation.

Michael Carboy - Signal Hill

To that end, could you elaborate a little bit on what experience Duke has had so far, in terms of where they are in their pilot program roll out?

Ken Oshman

Well, they are doing very well. The first pilot has been installed and is going well and they are installing more things right now. They are in the early stages of gathering data and understanding how everything is going to go. So far everything I hear is very positive.

Michael Carboy - Signal Hill

Okay and Chris, if I may pose one here for you. With regard to the non GAAP expenses that I see detailed on page 8 of the press release, going forward for the year should we assume sort of similar proportional distributions throughout the income statement as we do our non-GAAP modeling?

Chris Stanfield

That's a good question. I have not done that. I think that's the best you can assume is that it will be as we've previously disclosed.

Michael Carboy - Signal Hill

Okay. Thanks. I will hop back in queue.

Operator

Our next question comes from Andrew Holm with Dougherty and Company.

Andrew Holm - Dougherty and Company

Good morning guys. First of all Chris, can we just touch on the gross margin? In Q1, how much of an impact was that inventory buy back from switching manufacturers?

Chris Stanfield

Well it was more just some costs that arose from all of that. That was the reason for the 1.9%. That's on the order of $650,000

Andrew Holm - Dougherty and Company

Okay. Then if we look sequentially from Q1 to Q2, it looks like we are going to be down in revenue by roughly $3 million and our gross profits going to go up $400,000.Can you give me a little bit better of an understanding on what is going to drive that?

Chris Stanfield

Well, the biggest the biggest factor is just the proportion of NES business. The NES business, as we have discussed has lower gross margins than the LWI business and our product line I should say. As the LWI product line becomes a higher percentage of total revenues, that has an affect on our margins and also obviously we don't intend to repeat the cost that we just talked about in Q1.

Andrew Holm - Dougherty and Company

Okay. Do you guys have any updates on the number of pilots that you are included in?

Chris Stanfield

No, really I am sorry to say, I don't have any update. We are involved in pilots we have no idea about, through our partners that are working on little pilots of 1000 meters, or as small as maybe500 meters and as large as 2000 meters. So we don’t actually no what our partners use meters for. They just buy inventories from us and they use it. So we don’t track every pilot. We do track things as they get closer and closer to completion and as they might turn into development and deployments. And we do, ofcourse track as many pilots as we have time for about. But its one of the main things, that one of our main selling approaches to this market is the idea that we sell through VARS value added resellers, who are good with the local markets here, good with the local utilities, they understand and have work with those utilities from many years. And so that is absolutely an amplification of our market presence, which we desperately need, being a fairly small company and a company that has not been in the utility business for the last 50 years but our VARS have. And so that is our approach and we depend on the very much, we are very lucky to have some great partners.

Andrew Holm - Dougherty and Company

Thank you.

Ken Oshman

You’re welcome.

Operator

Our next question comes from Mark Gross with GGS Capital.

Mark Gross – GGS Capital

Thank you and good morning gentlemen. I am most interested in NES visibility and NES gross margin not surprisingly. First, NES visibility; Chris indicated last call that first half guidance of $37.5 million is booked or on order, timing issues not withstanding. That leaves $72.5 million for the second half. What percent of that is on order, and of the remainder I appreciate the uncertainty, but are you anticipating mainly one or two large orders that we should hear about rather soon, or lots of smaller orders that will be spread out over the reminder of the year. Any additional color would be most welcome.

Ken Oshman

I tried to answer that with about as much as I have to say on this subject. We have, I can add however a little bit of focus, that we on a routine basis just get small orders that we book and ship and I don’t even know about them and that’s sort of a run rate of business that is not in backlog and that happens and will continue to happen. And additionally we focus on those orders that we, especially for the second half, we are focused on those orders that we believe are mature enough in our pipeline that they will use products that we have in production that they will be quickly shippable and that will happen and those vary in size, let me just say from orders for 50,000 meters to orders for 150,000 meters. So there is all pretty decent size orders, but there are a number of them and that’s what we are focused on.

Mark Gross – GGS Capital

Okay, but in February we were told that 30% of the guidance, the NES guidance for the year was pursuant to orders and it will be nice to have some sort of an update on that. How much you see there booked or pursuant to orders for the year now?

Chris Stanfield

I don’t know that number, but answer is that we don’t have a lot of our second half revenue in backlog at this point. I think I said that several times.

Mark Gross - GGS Capital

Okay. Secondly, NES gross margin. Previously we have been given sort of a target range of 35 to 45%..With another quarter under your belts, can you estimate when you think we will be in that range. And also can you verify that the Enel gross margin is above that range?

Chris Stanfield

This is Chris. I’m going to start and hand it to Ken. I would call your attention to what I talked about on April 30th and then I repeated again today about the cost pressures in the business in terms of commodity prices currencies etc. That is an adverse change that we see. Now I will hand it to Ken.

Ken Oshman

So now business is really, in our view, lineworks infrastructure business. It is not smart grid infrastructure in the sense that our NES product line, if that helps you. And the gross margins are more like lineworks infrastructure that they are NES.

The second thing is that our gross margins are going to improve for a variety of reasons and they have been hit negatively for another set of reasons, negatively as Chris told you, because of currency, the weak dollar, the cost of commodities and so on. I believe it’s accurate to say that our labor content for example, which is something that we can design to be better and better, through the design of products is continuing down and our commodity content is continuing down. But having said that, the commodities themselves are going up, so we are not at 35 to 45% at the present time of course, as is obvious from our numbers and I don’t think we will be for the rest of this year. I’m hopeful that next year we will be most of the business that we are currently shipping and that we expect to ship this year is going to be our generation 2.0 meters. We will just began shipping or we have began shipping 3.0 meters but we will ship more gen 3.1 meters in the beginning of the back of this year we expect. Those who will be better margins in our current 2.0 meters. But we will ship 2.0 meter this year the bulk of our business I think 2.0 meters, I’m not sure if that’s true, Chris is that right. Yeah, okay so those are not costs to these meters. Next year I think there are combination of things that should move our revenues higher margins closer to the 35 to 45% range that we are. First of all we will probably will be almost totally converted to 3.0 generation products expect for a few countries where our 2.0, where we are have not homologated and have not gotten approval for those meters early enough tohave significant impact on those orders. But in June we will be converted to our 3.0 and 3.1 meters by next year, so that will be goodness. I also expect that our efficiencies will continue to improve and so I think we’ll get into the range of 35% for sure by next year.

Mark Gross - GGS Capital

That was very helpful, thank you. One last quick question, regarding the meter related equipment and software that you've been providing, is any of that being used outside of Italy?

Ken Oshman

Its all being used in Italy, we believe that the present time we are happy to work with them to use it in other places, in particular Spain, but we haven't got on the point yet.

Mark Gross - GGS Capital

Okay thanks very much.

Ken Oshman

Sure.

Operator

We will hear next from Bud Leedom with Global Hunter Securities.

Bud Leedom - Global Hunter Securities

Hi, good morning. Just a following up a little bit more on the backlog there. Clearly as you said, there may be some projects that you’re unaware of,. I would assume that you are working on that you may be unaware of. It's safe to assume that those replace small projects. Is it possible too, that you may actually start larger projects before there are actually announced just to give you a little bit more clarity on the comfort of your NES full year revenue estimates?

Ken Oshman

Yes, I think its absolutely true that we start projects that are not announced, before they are announced, simply because often the contract process which we would not announce anything until we are basically through with the contract process. The contract process can go on for weeks and even months after it's a done deal. So we start things sometimes before we announce them. That's a good question. I should have said that some time in that last 20 calls.

Bud Leedom - Global Hunter Securities

Okay. And then just a one update on the Telvent analyst day, I think they characterized the Vattenfall project as complete. And I think that there was some question as to whether there was another 200,000 generator option on that. From your standpoint, is that project complete or is there still some further work that could be done? And if it is complete, has that fallen say in the last couple of quarters there?

Chris Stanfield

This is Chris, let me just start out and I will throw it to Ken. The original project had about 300,000 meters and then had four options of 400,000 meters each. And we have shipments under that, under the third option that are occurring in this quarter. It wasn't complete as of March 31st from our perspective

Bud Leedom - Global Hunter Securities

Okay. Thanks very much.

Chris Stanfield

Sure

Operator: We have a follow up question from Michael Carboy - Signal Hill

Michael Carboy - Signal Hill

Thank you. Let me come back to the issue of gross margin and the transition with the contract manufacturers. Chris and Ken, how much of this increased cost of goods sold that you're talking about there in terms of material, raw materials, inflation and so on. Do the contract vendors believe that they may be able to mitigate. Can they get you any particular advantage through some bulk purchasing, or is it really just a function of improved manufacturing efficiency and yields that drives down margin margin, drives down costs?

Chris Stanfield

Right, I think its what Ken said. What you have is that you have two things that are happening. You have our engineers doing things to reduce the costs of our products in an environment in which commodity prices remain flat and currencies remain flat. But what happened is with those two things have gone against us. And so that is what has produced the pressure. What we do, as you know, when we build our forecast together is we actually build in terms of shipping a certain kind of meter to a certain customer. And we have costs for those meters and that's what is reflected in the guidance that we have provided. So at this time obviously we have to takedown our gross margin guidance because we believe those cost pressures, and also those currency pressures are severe, but and in terms of the currency, you are better judge than I, in terms of when the United States dollar will begin to recover.

Ken Oshman

Having said that, this is Ken, I will just add that you were really asking what are contract manufacturers could do for us I think?

Michael Carboy - Signal Hill

Yes

Ken Oshman

And so I would add to that, right now we are in a semi-startup phase with two tier one contract manufactures, Jabil and Flextronics. It’s really new thing for them to be building our meters in high volume. But they are superstar contract manufactures. We had a fine high quality contract manufacturer before but not the first tear contract manufacturer. So we’ve got two things that I think are going to affect our costs by this transition. The first is that early days they have got to find out what this is going to cost them? They haven’t done this yet that many. They haven’t built a million meters yet. So they will get very comfortable with that overtime and that will drive down costs additionally from where they start. I definitely except that will happen. And they’ll learn how to do it better and better and we’ll shown them how to do it better and better. And so there will be efficiencies that are not evident to those guys day one, as they begin production. The second thing is that they definitely have better purchasing power than our previous manufacturer. And we think that will show itself overtime and our ability to purchase, not only commodities but also ICs and other less commodity like parts of our metering products and our concentrated products overtime. And then finally, we actually think these guys are very good at running a manufacturing operation. And we expect that will help us reduce our own overhead costs as we have less work to do to ensure that they can do their work. So I think we’ve got good things going for us. It will take some time to prove that to ourselves and to the world but I think they are good. They just haven’t really kicked in yet.

Michael Carboy - Signal Hill

If I can, may be just follow up on that. If you think about the first two items which you mentioned and that is that there is certainly a learning curve as the contract manufacturers figure out how to build things, how to provision for them as cheaply as possible, not to mention build them as cheaply as possible. And you’ve mentioned just generalbroader purchasing power, if you had that think about the two, margin improvement, how do you separate the two between purchasing power and operational/scale leverage.

Ken Oshman

We do that because we know everyone of their costs. We know what’s happening in everything, ff that’s your question. If your question is how much of the improvements are going to be from one and how much from the other, that’s a hard one to predict.

Michael Carboy - Signal Hill

Is it was 50-50 split, 60-40?

Ken Oshman

I think that much of the improvement sadly will be in better operating efficiencies. And I say sadly because I wish that we’ve could get around the fact that commodities costs more than they used to. But we will be around the fact that we have better operating efficiencies, we have better through-put, we have much less fall out, we have better yield on the manufacturing lines, and our calibration times, and our verification times, and so on continuing down. I think those are the things that going to have the bigger impact. Having said that, if copper were to drop a dollar or two a pound, that would be a pretty good help right now.

Michael Carboy - Signal Hill.

Okay, terrific. Thank you very much.

Ken Oshman

Okay.

Operator: And you have no further questions in the queue. I’d like to turn the conference back to our speaker for additional or closing remarks.

Ken Oshman

Thank you very much everyone for tuning in today. We will be back with our results for Q2 in, I don’t know, a month, or two, or three, I guess. Thank you very much. Bye, bye.

Operator: That conclude today’s conference and thank you for your participation. Have a great day.

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: Echelon Corporation Q1 2008 Earnings Call Transcript
This Transcript
All Transcripts