AngioDynamics Inc (ANGO) 2013 Q3 法說會逐字稿

Good day, ladies and gentlemen. And thank you for standing by. Welcome to the AngioDynamics third quarter fiscal 2013 financial results conference call. During today's presentation, all participants will be in a listen-only mode. Following the presentation, the conference will be opened for questions.

(Operator Instructions)

This conference is being recorded today, Monday, April 8, 2013, and I would now like to turn the conference over to Mr. Bob Jones. Please go ahead, sir.

Thank you, operator. Welcome everyone, and thank you for joining us for the AngioDynamics conference call this afternoon to review the financial results for the fiscal 2013 third quarter, which ended on February 28, 2013. The news release is available on AngioDynamics' website at AngioDynamics.com. A replay of this call will be archived on the Company's website.

Before we get started, during the course of this conference call the Company will make projections and forward-looking statements regarding future events, including statements about revenue and earnings for fiscal 2013. We encourage you to review the Company's past and future filings with the SEC, including without limitation, the Company's forms 10-Q and K which identify specific factors that may cause the actual results or events to differ materially from those described in forward-looking statements. Finally, during the question-and-answer period today, we would like to request each caller to limit themselves to two questions, and encourage callers to re-queue to ask additional questions. We appreciate everyone's cooperation with this procedure. With that, I would like to turn the call over to Joe DeVivo, Chief Executive Officer.

Thank you, Bob, and welcome everyone to our third quarter conference call. As you all know, we've preannounced our third quarter financial results in early March, as our global sales came in well below the expectations that management set. I'll open up today giving you my view, and then turn it over to Mark for a review of our financial results in more detail, and we'll share with you our perspectives on the quarter, as well as outlook for the fourth quarter. We of course are going to save anything regarding 2014 for the fourth quarter call that occurs in the August time frame. So my comments today will be brief, as this is really a follow-on the prior call, and I'll save more detail for whatever Q&A you wish to have.

The third quarter was very challenging from a sales perspective, as it was significantly less than what our expectations were. The greatest contributor to our shortfall in my view after having some more time to dial into it was the disruption that we've seen in our US sales force. We simply underestimated the time it would take to find the cadence of our new business. We made significant change to our go-market strategy, which not only impacted our customer relationships, but also internal relationships between sales management and the field. Each of our three organizations worked hard to learn new products and new territories, and in many ways we've made significant progress.

Despite these near term growth challenges, we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that AngioDynamics is fundamentally a much stronger Company today than it was a year ago. Last year we faced numerous product recalls and regulatory issues. Our oncology business was reeling on the heels of losing our LC Beads, and our vascular portfolio was subscale, having limited growth drivers. Since then we've made significant progress in improving our quality and regulatory situation, organizing ourselves into the three distinct businesses, and have a shot at growth in the future.

Financially, we're stronger as well. In last year's third quarter we posted $0.24 per share adjusted EBITDA performance, while this year factoring in dilution from the transaction, it's $0.37 per share, a 60% improvement per share. Also our cash generation's up 47% year-over-year. Strategically, we have significantly broadened our Vascular Access portfolio to compete more effectively with GPOs and IDNs. We've also added long-term growth drivers in BioFlo, AngioVac and Microsulis that will help us refuel our growth engine in the coming years. Moreover, we're generating greater cash flow, and as I mentioned, our adjusted EPS outside our amortization expenses than we did a year ago.

While there's very stiff competition, we believe we can compete and win. Today, these new products contribute less than 20% of our total sales and don't yet move the needle. We know that these growth rates will improve, and as they improve the overall Company growth will be pushed higher. We're excited about the market response we've received in our growth initiatives. As I mentioned on our last call, our BioFlo PICCs represented over 10% of our overall PICC sales already, and we firmly believe that our acquisitions and investments position us to become a more competitive force in our market that we serve, and we're committed to delivering the top line and bottom line growth for our investors that we've established. I've met with our teams. I know what we need to do, and we are generating our plans that are going to create a greater focus, accelerate our growth drivers faster, and intent on closing the fourth quarter to have a better year in '14. So with that, I'd like to turn it over to Mark Frost, our Chief Financial Officer. Mark?

Thank you, Joe, and good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. As you can see from our earnings release, our net sales were in line with our prerelease announcement on March 7. We did deliver better results than expected on adjusted earnings, EBITDA, and cash. Overall, as Joe has commented, our key growth drivers performed well in the quarter, and we are focusing on stabilizing our core business. I'll start my discussion with third quarter net sales. Comparison of the year-over-year net sales performance is adjusted to include sales from Navilyst and exclude LC Beads' net sales from last year's financial results. We have provided this analysis at the product line level in a schedule with the financial tables at the back of the release.

All net sales numbers I am providing are on a pro forma basis. We spent significant time last call explaining our shortfall in growth, so I'm going to be more limited in my revenue comments. Global net sales for the third quarter decreased 2% compared to the prior year. The peripheral vascular business decreased 4% year-over-year, caused primarily by lower cardiology procedures, competitive pressures in fluid management, and VenaCure EVLT, where we saw lower elective procedures and some competitive impact, with an added comment that last year's quarter benefited from the strong launch of the 1470 laser. In Vascular Access, revenues also declined 4%. However, we did meet our expectations in ports and dialysis, but a lack of [PICC] location and a continuing sales learning curve negatively impacted our PICC growth.

Oncology surgery net sales increased by 10%, but below our expectations, caused primarily by capital delays in NanoKnife. In the quarter, pricing was relatively stable as average selling prices across the Company was essentially unchanged from a year ago. We saw neutral pricing in peripheral vascular, some modest pressure in US ports and dialysis catheters, and strength in US oncology. From a geography perspective, US decreased 5%, while the international markets grew 10%. The international results were below our expectations, caused in part by capital delays. As I said on the last call, we believe this is a bit of an anomaly, and expect the growth to improve from third quarter results.

Continuing down the income statement for the quarter, gross profit totaled $41.2 million, or 50.5% of sales. Excluding the acquired inventory step-up, Q3 adjusted gross margin was 51%. During the quarter, we reset our plant production, which moderated the negative impact of lower volume. However, we will incur some of the unabsorbed cost variances in the fourth quarter. Turning to expenses, operating expenses totaled $41.1 million, including $5.2 million of acquisition and restructuring items, of which $1.6 million is associated with the Navilyst, Vortex, and Microsulis acquisitions. An additional $1.6 million related to our write-off of the Benefit Renal Therapy product line, as well as $1 million for one-time legal costs related to our Bard case, and $0.9 million associated with closing our UK Cambridge site.

In addition, we recorded a benefit in the quarter of approximately $1.6 million, reflecting a reduction in accrued compensation based on our results being below plan year-to-date. Now, the GAAP loss per share was $0.03, while pro forma EPS was $0.08 per share, which was above our pro forma expectations of $0.04 to $0.06. We anticipated initially a $0.06 to $0.07 hit from lower revenue margin, offset in part by OpEx actions of $0.02 to $0.03 within the quarter. The accrued compensation benefit brought us to $0.08 for the quarter. Year-to-date, our pro forma EPS was $0.28 compared to $0.19 in the prior year. The reconciliation items are detailed in the GAAP to non-GAAP schedules included in the release.

Our EBITDA results were also stronger than expected as well, coming in at $6.5 million or $0.19 a share versus $0.4 million or $0.02 a share in the prior year. For the year, we generated $24.2 million, or $0.69 per share, versus $13.8 million, or $0.55 a share. Adjusted EBITDA was $12.7 million, or $0.37 a share, versus $6.1 million, or $0.24 a share, a 54% per share improvement over prior year results. Again, a detailed reconciliation is provided in our news release.

Now, despite the revenue challenges, we generated $10 million of operating cash flow in the third quarter, driven by strong operational financial discipline. This compared with $6.8 million of cash flow last year. During the quarter, we used $11 million to acquire Microsulis and their microwave technology. We ended the quarter with $18.8 million in cash and investments, and $144.4 million of debt outstanding. Also of note on the balance sheet, we increased our contingent liability since quarter two by about $13.8 million, primarily reflecting the potential earn-out contingency from the Microsulis acquisition. In addition, we were able to maintain flat inventories compared to the end of the second quarter, despite the volume impact, because of my earlier comments adjusting production within the quarter. We expect to reduce inventory in the fourth quarter.

I'll now turn to a discussion of our guidance for fiscal 2013. As you can see from our news release, we have lowered our full year expectations from 4% growth to 2% lower net sales at the midpoint for the year. This implies $85 million to $89 million revenue in the quarter, or a potential decline of 3% to 8% compared with last year's fiscal fourth quarter. The quarterly guidance is based on the explanation provided at our last call, that we would expect quarter three results to improve by one, four additional days; two, continued strong performance from our growth drivers, AngioVac, BioFlo, and Microwave; and three, improved international results. The range is wider for the quarter because of capital implications and the uncertainty in EVLT. An important point for our lower growth in the fourth quarter is we closed the Navilyst acquisition in the prior year fourth quarter, which meant both sales forces were pushing hard on the revenue front, making the prior year comparable more challenging.

Now, on the earnings front, we are estimating $0.32 to $0.35 adjusted EPS for the year, and $0.04 to $0.07 in the fourth quarter. We are anticipating sequential improvement from quarter three, but we do not expect the accrued compensation benefit to repeat, and gross margins are being dampened by absorbing some negative variances from volume reduction in our second half plan. We also are guiding to a wider range than usual, because of potential mix implications and its impact on our gross margins. We do expect EBITDA and cash to continue to demonstrate improvement as we carefully manage the business. With that, I'll turn the call back to Joe for his final comments.

Thanks, Mark. So in conclusion, we've made some bold moves. Some of them have paid off, and others have yet to. But we're confident we have the right strategic plan to be successful. We're very committed to re-establishing our momentum, and getting the Company back to a growth track. We have the pieces in place to deliver improved sales growth and higher levels of profitability. We believe in our strategy, and with Mark at the helm, we'll do a better job of protecting the trajectory of our progress. Now it's simply a matter of execution, as it's always been, and we'll continue to work hard to meet the goals that we've laid out for you. With that, we can open it up for questions. Operator?

Thank you, sir.

(Operator Instructions)

And our first question comes from the line of Jayson Bedford with Raymond James. Please go ahead.

Good afternoon. Thanks for taking the questions, guys.

Hey, Jayson.

Just to start, I guess on the access side. I think you mentioned that ports and dialysis kind of met expectations. It looks like they were down combined about 3%, 3.5% in the quarter. Is this kind of your expectation for these buckets of business here, until you get BioFlo and other products in the fold?

Yes, it's close to expectation. I think dampening it a little bit, Jayson, is some of the sales learning curve we're having with the attrition we've had in sales force. We would expect to do a little better than that in the future. Certainly the big ramp won't happen until we get BioFlo onto both our ports and dialysis products.

What's the time line on that?

Well, the regulatory filings are due during the summer. So our hope is by the end of first quarter, beginning of second quarter that we would have regulatory approval and commercial launch in those products.

Yes, right now our dialysis products are ahead of the ports. We're hoping sometime in July, everything goes to plan, to receive the dialysis clearance, and a couple months later for ports.

Any change in terms of the timing on tip location, or any update there?

The only update is our partner still goes back and forth with the FDA on questions. The first quarter's still a possibility, but it may push into second. That's probably as best I can give you.

Then lastly from me, and I'll get back in queue. Any way you can either talk about the contribution from Microsulis in the US, and then just kind of bigger picture, the new users that are coming onboard, do they expand the base, or are these current RF users looking to make the transition to microwave?

I think in the near term it's about converting either competitive microwave business, which exists, both Covidien and a start-up company do have some microwave share in the US. It's about converting out microwave share, and then it's -- second of all it is -- there are many RF customers in the entire RF market who are looking at where microwave might be an improvement for them, or may create another arrow in their quiver. We do see people, some people switch wholesale to microwave.

Some people add it in for certain ablations, but other particular ablations they'll use RF. And the marketplace is growing between 5% and 10% as the overall market dynamic. So it's something where our RF business has been flat in the US. It's been under pressure. While we've won some business, we've been just -- we've been attriting, due to microwave. This now gives us the ability to get back into the overall thermal ablation growth part of the business, and so I think there's opportunity to grow, and converting our own customers, but more importantly converting out in competitive microwave and also competitive RF.

Got you. Thanks for the answers.

No problem.

Our next question comes from the line of Tom Gunderson with Piper Jaffray. Please go ahead.

Hi, good afternoon. So just a couple of quick ones, guys. Jayson asked about ports and dialysis on the PICC sales. I know you've said this 10% number before for BioFlo, but that's still impressive, given the environment that's out there. Can you give us a little more color on that? And Joe, where do you think that levels out over the next two to three years as a percentage?

Well, we're not charging that much more premium for BioFlo, and BioFlo is -- I think we're charging just about a 15% premium over standard PICCs. And I think as time goes on, we would be intent to have virtually 100% of our PICC business convert over to BioFlo. It's not -- we're not niching it and increasing the price so high that you have to be selective with patients, and so far we've seen accounts who have converted to BioFlo just convert to it lock, stock, and barrel. So on an account-by-account basis, it's 100% conversion over. And we would hope to get the whole product line there. It's frustrating at this stage, because anecdotally we see the results.

It's going to take a year to get into peer-reviewed publication, clinical trial results, if not a little bit longer, to where we can stand on top of peer-reviewed prospective data that shows a substantial improvement in clinical outcomes. What we see anecdotally on a site-by-site basis is not so, and so we don't see in that three-year time frame any reason, once the appropriate clinical data is out and people see how well a product works, and when we've gotten over that threshold and the time it takes to get there, I wouldn't see anything in our portfolio not being BioFlo.

Got it. Thanks. Good answer. And then just a couple of housekeeping. Our biggest delta on the income statement for Q3 was on tax rate. Maybe it's in the release and I missed it, but could you repeat or give me what you're expecting the tax rate to be going forward?

Yes, the tax rate, because of being so close to breakeven on some of the quarters, will probably be about 39%, 40% on an adjusted basis for the year, Tom.

Okay.

Hopefully that will go down next year.

Plenty of room for it.

Yes. Again, that's also on the P&L. I mean, from a cash perspective --

Right.

All of our NOLs and other tax benefits, we're not paying tax. From a cash -- that's why we're testing a market on the -- whether or not we use an adjusted EPS that takes amortization out, and also looking at ways to bring more cash metrics into our valuation, because our non-cash GAAP is completely irrelevant to the cash generation of the business.

Got it. Thanks. My last question is on the medical device tax. You're one of the first to report in calendar year, at least partial for you guys, of '13. Is that, I don't want to say going smoothly. Is it going as expected, and is it anywhere close to being sort of old news for you now, or is it still --

It's pretty much getting close -- I think every -- you had a few vendors, Tom, try to test the waters and charge you actually, the tax, and we said no, just like our customers have said no, and I think that's fully working its way through the system now. I think everybody knows what the running rate -- the run rate rules are.

Got it. Okay. Thank you.

Our next question comes from the line of Jason Mills with Canaccord Genuity. Please go ahead.

Thanks for taking the questions. Can you hear me okay?

Yes, Jason. How are you?

Great. Good morning, or good afternoon. Joe, first starting with the fluid management business, you mentioned some competitive issues. Could you talk about pricing in that area, as well as your product pipeline and what you think your ability to combat pricing may be, if in fact you're seeing it out there in the marketplace? Just in generally speaking, what you're expecting out of your fluid management business, and as you enter fiscal 2014?

Thank you for the questions, Jason. First off, starting out 2014 and going forward, our view on fluid management is it becomes a very strategic business for us when we get into automated power injection, as we mentioned at our analyst call. That, as each day goes by, is seemingly a smarter and smarter decision. We're excited about the growth we can get in that segment. Between now and then, we've not performed admirably since the transaction. It's been a lot of learning curve for the sales force with all the change. From a pricing perspective, on existing accounts we're basically zero. We haven't seen a lot of price on the existing account base, but to the extent that that we've lost some share, it's purely been based upon competitive price, and as we go after new business, the new business pricing is very, very low.

We have to be very aggressive to convert that business out. So we definitely are in a price game within that segment. We're not seeing a lot of marking down the existing business, but of course to the extent that there's share decline, it's based upon pretty significant price competition. We know that as we are competing, we are getting more aggressive. We may see a bit of price erosion as we get more aggressive defending our base business. I don't think we were as in tune in the first couple of quarters, and we did lose some share, and the bleed-through of that share comes through very clearly in the third quarter, but the team is, I think, much more stable on the business now.

Our quarter-to-quarter ADS is much more stable than it was, and even though the year-over-year looks like junk, the quarter-to-quarter is pretty flat. So, A, as we go forward, we will see some pricing compression because we are going to allow ourselves to lose the share we lost in the first half of the year. B, we will allow ourselves to become more price aggressive as there is many new account opportunities, and we will compete for it, and if we're going to be forced to play in the price game, we'll have to play in that until we have new technology that lets us shift the whole dynamic.

Great. Thanks for that perspective, Joe. Let's stick there for a second. Is the fluid management business, is it conducive to bundling, and can you give us sort of an objective viewpoint of your portfolio relative to your competitors' portfolio, if in fact it is conducive, that business, to bundling, where you maybe have advantages or disadvantages when it comes to competing with the entire sort of portfolio that goes into the account, with fluid management as a big piece there?

Our view is we don't have portfolio issues. We match up very well. We actually are, historically have been virtually the creator and the market leader of this segment with NAMIC, and had always been perceived as being a much higher quality side. The business has devolved into being very commoditized and price sensitive. So the competitive advantages are not as important as they once were. So we just simply have to be more price competitive. And yet, when it gets to competitive bidding, we will be competitive. And it's -- we don't think it's a portfolio issue. We think we have what we need to sell. We just need to have salespeople who are more comfortable in their seats, understand the technology, and have the relationships, and as we compete for new business, we'll be as aggressive as we need to be. We've been doing a pretty good job operationally taking costs out of the Company and costs out operations, and we see we have a runway to do that. We're not going to lack in our ability to compete.

Super. And then last question from me, in terms of free cash flow, what will be -- I'm sorry if I missed it -- your free cash flow guidance for this year, and sort of as you move into next year, you don't have so many moving parts. What could we think about fiscal '14 free cash flow being, insofar as you're willing to kind of give us directionally a range at this point?

Sure, Jason. I would say for fourth quarter we should slightly improve on the free cash flow. Our CapEx is running a little higher. And that should moderate and as we drive, get more revenue growth and less one-off items, I would say -- I can't give you really a number for '14, but it should be ahead of the run rate that we're running at right now. And should improve as we go through each quarter.

What's your free cash flow year-to-date, again?

Well, for the last quarter, it was roughly about $8 million, when you take out the CapEx. $7.5 million.

Super. Thanks, guys.

(Operator Instructions)

Our next question comes from the line of Charles Croson with Sidoti & Company. Please go ahead.

Hi, guys. Thanks for taking the questions. Can you hear me okay?

Yes, Charles, thank you.

Great. Thanks. Just a couple quickies here. Most of my questions have been asked. Can you remind me what -- why you think the international side, in terms of the lower growth than you expected, is an anomaly in terms of the capital component, and then I guess, just overall, if that could -- you could add some clarity, that would be helpful.

Well, one data point's not a trend. We've had a lot of success internationally over the last eight quarters. While they grew 10%, which is still admirable, it wasn't anywhere near to the expectation. We've done a deep dive with the international group, and they've identified a significant pipeline of opportunities. They've committed to a number in the fourth quarter. And unless they don't deliver on those commitments, I have no reason to not believe where they think the business is.

They do -- we've already seen some NanoKnife sales already in the fourth quarter, which usually doesn't happen so soon. And so -- which is obviously some spillover from the prior quarter that didn't get closed. So they're calling for it. It's not -- they definitely are feeling environmental pressures and global economic pressures, but also they have a clear line of sight on what their opportunities are, and they're calling for it. So one data point is not a trend line. If all of a sudden they don't live up to their commitments in this quarter, then we'll have a different view. But as of right now, they're definitely calling for a bit of a recovery in the fourth quarter.

Okay. That's helpful. Thanks, Joe. Next question, then, is on the tip location, and we might have gone over this a couple times now, but obviously that's hurting you guys in terms of selling some of the vascular products. Can you just kind of remind me, can nurses just use their other tip location technology with BioFlo, or is the competitors, are they just bundling their products in there, and that's just making it more difficult for you to sell your product?

Well, Teleflex is, [Vasino] is an open system, and so yes. So accounts, if they wish, can use the Vasino system with our BioFlo, and we do have several accounts, even some pretty prominent accounts, who do do that. It's not optimal for us. And there are -- it causes definitely some challenges in account management. As far as Bard is concerned, Bard sells their stylet with their PICC, and so in order to use the Bard system, they can use it with ours, but you'd have to burn their PICC, which is not economically viable, and that's why they do it. They create an artificial bundle for their tip location device. We actually have -- we're evaluating BioFlo in many accounts, and they do throw away the Bard PICC and use our BioFlo, and during those evaluation period, but again, it's not a long-term, sustainable model. We're hoping to get our own system.

Okay. All right, that's very helpful. Just one last quick one. On R&D, it was a little bit lower than we were expecting. Is this kind of a level we should model going forward, or is this just a slightly lower quarter?

Charles, it's a slightly lower. It will go up to more where it was in the second quarter, in the fourth.

Okay. All right, that's helpful. I'll hop back in the queue then. Thanks again.

Thank you.

Next question comes from the line of Larry Haimovitch with HMTC. Please go ahead.

Good afternoon, gentlemen.

Hey, Larry.

Hey, Larry.

Several of my questions were answered, but a couple I wanted to pose. One, I didn't hear much, and maybe I missed it on IRE. Did you provide any update? If you didn't, could you provide a bit of an update for us on IRE, in terms of the FDA progress, et cetera.

We still have he very active dialogue with FDA. We met with them last quarter. They gave us some very specific areas that they would like to see, and we're working on providing them that data. I think that sometime in the fourth quarter we'll have another conversation, showing them where we are to try to still get a pancreas IDE approved. I'm out of the guessing or the predicting game, Larry, but we're making steady progress. We've dug a hole for ourselves in the past. We got too far ahead of ourselves. Now we're doing the work with a much better line of communication than we've ever had with FDA, and a clear line of sight of what we think they would like to see from us to move forward. So we're actively compiling the type of information they want to see to give us approval for a pancreas IDE.

That's your sole focus right now, is get -- that's the IDE you're shooting to get first?

For the US right now, our sole focus is getting the pancreas IDE. I will say that our international team has made a tremendous amount of progress recently in prostate ablation. There's seemingly -- the EAUA just occurred, or the EUA just occurred, and there's a lot of talk on localized treatment of cancer within the prostate, and a lot of activity in several sites in looking at NanoKnife as a much safer way of treating a focal lesion. Historically, it's always been you treat the prostate. Where now some of the trend is, we're being more aggressive in treating the actual lesion. NanoKnife seems to be a little bit of a darling in that trend that's occurring. So we're in a wait-and-see. But three NanoKnifes last quarter were sold to urologists, and we're seeing kind of an accelerating interest in the urology community in nano.

As we're seeing a little bit of a pause on pancreas, because we do need to get this IDE approved. It means a lot to a lot of people to get that date out. We are seeing kind of a bit of an organic pull in the urology community, which is having us dust off our US IDE, which we may revisit, given that trend going back into the IDE for prostate. We originally didn't feel it was the best use of resources because, and there was a significant amount of other therapies, as you know, Larry, that treat the prostate, and we wanted to go where to where we could have the greatest unmet clinical need in pancreas, which fundamentally is still the right decision, but what's happening, from what we're seeing, is a bit of a move away from radical prostatectomy. We're seeing a desire for more energy sources to treat a smaller areas of the prostate, and NanoKnife fits that bill. So we might be onto something that can be beneficial.

And is there any issue on reimbursement, Joe, when patients are being treated for prostate cancer with IRE?

Well, we're talking right now international. I mean, we have reimbursement issues everywhere, since we don't have specific clearance, as you know, in the US. That is one of the areas that we're not seeing this huge inflection in revenue, because that area is -- until we get a specific clearance, it is very difficult for us to get a reimbursement code. We are seeing internationally there's, as you know, in prostate there's a very strong private pay in prostate, and that -- it might be something that could be a benefit. Now, the other part of it is, our European team has met with a couple of the large markets that are interested where we have clinicians in doing prostate, and they are talking to the local authorities about what we would need to do to get reimbursement.

Yes, and then on the laser therapy side, I heard a quick comment, I didn't catch much of the color on it, though. What is the color on that part of the business, Joe?

What color do you want, Larry?

Well, in terms of the growth or lack of growth, the competitive environment, et cetera, et cetera?

Well, we're trying to diagnose the delta between the business. I think we have that, we currently have that product in our peripheral vascular portfolio which has our fluid management business in AngioVac. I'll state the fluid management business has been a bear to get on top of, and it's been a lot of activity, and I think it's taken some focus from our sales force off of the EVLT. So we simply have to -- that's one of the issues that we're dealing with, with all the change in the sales force, is getting our focus back and our trajectory up. We also didn't feel in the beginning of the year, even in our existing accounts that procedures were simply slower. Does that provide you the color you're looking for?

Yes, that's great. I'll see you in New Orleans later this week.

Sure.

Thank you, Joe.

Yes.

(Operator Instructions)

Our next question comes from the line of Charles Haff with Craig-Hallum Capital Group. Please go ahead.

Hi. Thanks for taking my questions. I thought that maybe the oncology number was a little bit better than the prerelease number that you put out there, and peripheral vascular was a little bit lower. Is that correct? And if so, what was the reason for the delta?

Charles, I don't recall -- that was a week after we closed the quarter. I don't recall that we broke it out specifically. I think we just gave the overall top line number. So this would be the first time that we're going into the --

Yes, we just focused on the difference in expectations the last call, Charles. We didn't give specific numbers.

Okay. Sounds good. And then you mentioned that there was some uncertainty around EVLT, and that's why you kind of bracketed the guidance with a little bit wider range than you typically do, and you answered the previous questioner by saying that refocusing the sales force is maybe the reason. Are there any other reasons for why you're a little bit less sure about EVLT going into next quarter?

Well, right now this is usually the time of year where EVLT really strengthens, with weather and the procedures, it is a very seasonal procedure. And we had a very weak start, and a very weak third quarter in that category. It is a bit of a challenge for us to decipher the self-inflicted wounds versus the market dynamics. We don't want it to be too tight a range. We want to see how the organization performs and what happens in the marketplace in the fourth quarter. Our sales force has been through a lot. And even though they've called for some pretty high numbers and we've consecutively missed them, it's difficult at times to differentiate.

I think that the most conservative thing for us to do is just to look inside and say, we've asked for a lot of change in a very difficult environment within -- with historically some very well-entrenched sales people, and with all the change created, swim lanes for competitors to cause some difficulty. When we look at fluid management, we see a reduction in overall cardiology procedures, it's difficult to know how much is self-inflicted, how much is market. When we look at EVLT, we're trying to figure out the same. Normally, fourth quarter is an incredibly strong EVLT quarter. I think we're doing a little better than last quarter so far, even though I shouldn't talk about fourth quarter. I think it's kind of relevant, as we're going through all these changes. We want to keep a wide range, because it's just not as clear as to how much is self-inflicted and how much is environmental.

Okay, great. My last question is on the IDN side. Should we be thinking about other IDN wins as you move forward, or could this be just kind of a one-off, which what you've shown in the last couple of quarters here?

No, I think that's core to our strategy, Charles. The thing is, is that these contracts don't come up every quarter. A lot of these contracts take -- there's cycles in which you compete, and I think to the extent that new ones come up, as we go through that process, it is a part of, a very core part of our strategy. It's just one that's going to take years to develop, not quarters. But we do -- one of the first IDNs that we had the opportunity to bid on when it was a wide open opportunity, we did win that opportunity. And as new opportunities come up, there's a couple of big contracts coming up this summer that we're going to have opportunities to sit with those IDNs and GPOs, and there will definitely -- we will be at the table in a way that we were never before. But that's -- you measure that in years, Charles, and it takes time for that to manifest. But it's core to our strategy, and no one will be as well-poised to compete with the market leader as ourselves.

Okay. Great. Thanks for taking my questions.

Thank you for them.

Our next question comes from the line of Robert Goldman with CLK. Please go ahead.

I apologize for the background noise. Can you hear me okay?

We hear you just fine, Bob.

Yes. So just two questions. Could you tell us the year-on-year decline in the accrued compensations cost that you mentioned? And could you give us the change in dollar sales for NanoKnife in the quarter year-over-year?

I think our NanoKnife sales were up, I think $700,000, year-over-year. I think it's a delta of $2 million to $2.7 million, if that's correct, Mark. Correct me, that's from memory.

Right.

The sales force, I don't have the year-over-year delta, because unfortunately it seems like almost every third quarter around here we take our bonus accrual away. So I don't have what we had in the third quarter of last year, but as Mark had highlighted, this quarter it was $1.6 million.

Right.

Okay. You do single out, thought, a compensation cost as a source of the above expected earnings in the quarter.

No, it won't be -- Bob, it will not be the reason for the improvement. The improvement will be because of the stronger revenue. It won't repeat, was the point I was trying to make.

That's the first three quarters of our accrued compensation taken out. So it doesn't recur.

I see. It did not impact, though, the third quarter?

We had had a benefit in the third quarter from that.

Right, and can you quantify that benefit?

Yes, it was about $0.03, $0.04. I said $1.6 million. That was the benefit.

Okay, good.

If you look at the transcript, Bob, you'll see he clearly laid it out there for you. So you can see those numbers. If you have any questions, please give us a call, and we'll go through the details with you later.

Okay. Perfect. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Bob.

Our next question is a follow-up question from the line of Jason Mills with Canaccord Genuity.

Mark, just two housekeeping items on the P&L. Going back to the tax rate and Tom's question, in the footnotes of your guidance it assumes 36 million diluted shares outstanding and 37% tax rate. I thought I heard something else to Tom's -- as the answer to Tom's question.

Yes. it is 37%. It's not 39%. I said 39%.

so 37% for the quarter, and that will average out to 37% for the year?

Correct. Yes, there you go. You got it.

That's helpful. And then as you look at the middle of the P&L for the fourth quarter, obviously the R&D was down considerably in the quarter. How should we think about the sequential trends there, and then generally speaking for OpEx in the fourth quarter?

You're going to have a little bit of a pop back up, like R&D will probably be more close to second quarter. So you're going to have -- that will be more the run rate I would expect, is closer to the second quarter run rate.

And then a natural step-up, given revenue step-up in the SG&A line, so it'll be probably --

A little bit. We are doing a few things, but yes, it should be a little bit of a step-up.

Super. Thanks. Appreciate it.

I'm showing no further questions in the queue. Mr. DeVivo, please go ahead.

Okay, [Veralmo]. Thank you very much for joining us. We hope our -- it won't be a practice to have two conference calls per quarter. I take the expectations that we set for the year, and the expectations we set for the quarters before, personally. It was -- I most certainly feel it was my error in being excited about our future. Our excitement about our future is no different than it was before. It's just we realize there's a hell of a task at hand getting the organization to build momentum again. We compete against some pretty formidable competitors who have definitely taken the opportunity of our change, but we also believe that the growth drivers we have and the strategy we have in place will be effective. The comparables for this third quarter that we're just speaking about, and also next fourth quarter will be very difficult comparables, because we had two entrenched organizations driving to some pretty big plan. When you look at the third and fourth quarter year-over-years, they'll be ugly. But when we get to first quarter '14, we'll be apples-to-apples as from a cost of the organization from the overall structure of the organization, will be very apples-to-apples. Our year-over-year comparisons will be more normalized, and we'll be able to grow from those levels. We should have anticipated the disruption and the challenges in revenue, but as we also identified, the cost savings, the earnings power of the business, the cash generation of the business has never been stronger. How strong we are within our operations in quality and our ability to do the right things by FDA, are orders of magnitude better than they've ever been. This Company is stronger and more capable, with more growth opportunities than ever. So we can lament my mistakes in setting expectations, and we can lament where we are at the moment, but we won't be here for long. Thank you for your attention.

Ladies and gentlemen, this does conclude our conference for today. Thank you for your participation. You may now disconnect.