Cirrus Logic Inc (CRUS) 2019 Q1 法說會逐字稿

Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for standing by. Welcome to the Cirrus Logic First Fiscal Year 2019 Financial Results Q&A Session. (Operator Instructions).

As a reminder, this conference call is being recorded for replay purposes. I'd now like to turn the conference over to Mr. Thurman Case, Chief Financial Officer. Mr. Case, you may begin.

Thank you, and good afternoon. [Joining me on the call is] Jason Rhode, Cirrus Logic's President and Chief Executive Officer; and Chelsea Heffernan, our Director of Investor Relations.

Today, we announced our financial results for the first quarter fiscal year 2019 at approximately 4:00 p.m. Eastern. The Shareholder Letter discussing our financial results, the earnings press release, including a reconciliation of non-GAAP financial information to the most directly comparable GAAP information, along with the webcast of this Q&A session are all available at the company's Investor Relations website at investor.cirrus.com.

This call will feature questions from the analysts covering our company as well as questions submitted to us via e-mail at investor.relations@cirrus.com. Please note that during this session, we may make projections and other forward-looking statements that are subject to risks and uncertainties that may cause actual results to differ materially from projections. By providing this information, the company undertakes no obligation to update or revise any projections or forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new developments or otherwise.

Please refer to the press release issued today, which is available on Cirrus Logic website and the latest Form 10-K and 10-Q as well as other corporate filings made with the Securities and Exchange Commission for additional discussion of risk factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from current expectations.

Now I'd like to turn the call over to Jason.

Thank you, Thurman. Before we begin taking questions, I'd like to make a few comments. For a detailed account of our financial results, please read the Shareholder Letter posted on our Investor Relations website.

Cirrus Logic's Q1 FY '19 revenue was $254.5 million, above the high-end of guidance. GAAP loss per share was $0.07, and non-GAAP earnings per share was $0.28.

During the quarter, the company continued to gain momentum in Android devices as several OEMs launched new smartphones and wireless headset products that utilize our technology. Design-in activity across our portfolio was robust in Q1, and we continued to execute on the strategic initiatives that we believe will position the company for future growth.

We expect more end products to come to market over the next 12 months, expanding our business with existing mobile customers as well as adding new leading OEMs.

We are encouraged to see the accelerating demand for user experience-driven features across our target markets, including flagship and mid-tier smartphones, advanced mobile accessories and connected devices in the home. As these devices have become an integral part of our daily lives, consumers expect continuous improvement with regard to performance, security and battery life. This is pushing OEMs to continue to add new features, more intelligence and make devices aware of the users' environment and intent, all of which play extremely well into Cirrus Logic's core competencies of complex analog mixed-signal and low-power signal processing.

With the diversified product portfolio that addresses a wide range of performance and cost requirements, the company expects to capitalize on increasing demand for innovative audio and voice solutions as well as adjacent opportunities, including haptics, all of which, we believe, will contribute to the company's continued success, including our ability to return to growth in FY '20.

Before we begin the Q&A, I would also like to note that while we understand there is intense interest related to our largest customer, in accordance with our policy, we do not discuss specifics about our business relationship.

Operator, we are now ready to take questions.

(Operator Instructions) Your first question comes from Matt Ramsay with Cowen.

Jason, maybe you could talk a little bit about, I mean, there's obviously a lot of moving parts in the supply chain, et cetera, and you go to the sort of transitional period with your largest customer around this time of year. But maybe you could talk a little bit about what drove the upside to the guidance in.

(technical difficulty)

quarter. If there were, obviously, the percentage of revenue to Apple, you guys disclosed, but maybe you could just kind of just walk us through what went a little bit differently in the quarter than you guys had expected 3 months ago with some of the moving parts. And then I have a follow-up.

Well, I mean, at the end of the day, what drives end demand is kind of out of our control. I think at the beginning of any given quarter, what we're in is, long sense, determined, and so it's just a question of how many our customers end up shipping or building ahead, and if we get good forecast. But honestly, forecasting demand for the kind of products we're in is tricky and challenging and we do -- our customers do their best and give us their best information, and then we do the best we can do to interpret it. And frankly, we put a pretty conservative slant on that in most cases. So it's a challenge in a lot of quarters. You might think, well, okay, backlog. You could just ratio that, the end result. The reality is it's very often the case that we come in to the quarter with, in absolute dollars, potentially even more than what we end up shipping or even at or near the end of -- the upper end our guidance range, and we just have to kind of back into what we think it will really be based on historical trends. So there's a lot of moving parts to it. We try to be really conservative. If you look at the past, I don't know, we charted up -- pretty recently, charted up the last 40 quarters' worth of history and it supports

(technical difficulty)

try to be very conservative. We probably beat -- well we beat far often -- far more often than we miss. Most of the time where in the -- somewhere within the range -- ideally within the mid- to upper end of the range. But we don't have perfect visibility in any given quarter about what people are going to end up taking. It's also the case that a good 10% or so just due to natural dynamics of the way the business flows. More than 10% of the quarter is usually in the last week of the quarter, and so any movement in orders or timing from a customer, kind of, can have a pretty significant swing as it relates to your models in particular. Doesn't have anything to do with the health of the company or business, but it can move expectations from a financial perspective pretty significantly. So the net is, I guess, I hesitate to say this because

(technical difficulty)

but I think at the end of the day, people sold a little more stuff than we had sort of expect to go on in.

(technical difficulty)

That's a helpful indication because I think we've -- that indicates that we obviously had some challenges in terms of demand from some of our customers kind of around the end of the last calendar year and then the first part of this year, and so that -- things picking back up seems to indicate that we've seen the trough of that and

(technical difficulty)

Got it. Got it. That's helpful. Just as a sort of unrelated follow-up, I mean this -- I noted in the Shareholder Letter sort of momentum and the fact that you guys are now shipping the 55-nanometer amp parts into Android world. I guess, an update on the progress there and what -- how broad the traction can be? And how quickly the ramp of that product can be? And I guess, related to that, the Qualcomm-NXP merger obviously didn't happen now and it's been sort of going on for a long period of time. And question -- some of the questions that we got, I don't know, 12, 18 months ago about a large codec customer or competitor merging with a large amp competitor and how that would affect your business. Obviously, that's not going to happen now, so just any comments there in context to the amplifier business that seems to be taking off.

Sure. Yes, I mean, so the 55-nanometer amp product, that team -- we're pretty well accustomed to our engineering teams just knocking the cover off the ball, and they've done that to a pretty extraordinary level with this product both -- it's kind of 2 variants of the same product for audio and haptic. The premise of that device, it's the first device where we really directly targeted it at the Android ecosystem and targeted it to be easy to design in, in that particular category of customers. So it's much more easy to deploy broadly than the previous architecture we've had on our amplifiers because of the integrated DSP. And as I said, both the product development team as well as the marketing and business folks just did a great job of anticipating what the market was going to need. And then also, the flying circus that you referenced certainly has had customers in an uncertain position relative to some of our

(technical difficulty)

open the doors right when we had the exact right part to slide in with. So we think we can support that part very broadly. We've already -- there's already teardowns out there showing and shipping in very important mid-tier devices that we care about. We are having great conversations with the who's who list in China as well. So we're very excited about the opportunities for that part. As it relates to the competitive landscape, the M&A, on-again-off-again world, we need a good strategy that's going to be successful regardless it always helps when our competitors hobble themselves by entertaining -- by tying themselves together in a three-legged race, but we think we've got a good strategy that will survive the competition no matter how they manage to tie themselves

(technical difficulty)

Your next question comes from Charlie Anderson with Dougherty & Company.

Jason, I know last quarter you guys had talked about a 10% decline for the year. I wonder if there's any update to that number, and I know you're also talking about growth. In fiscal '20, I wonder if you want to add any more additional commentary beyond just growth, if there is any quantitative commentary there. And then I've got a follow-up.

Sure. I mean, not much of an update on either one. Our general practice is to guide the quarter, and we really like to stay away from providing formal guidance for the year. But as they related to coming into this fiscal year, looking at where everybody's models were and what our expectations were, it was very possible that people would be off in both magnitude and polarity of things. So we don't want -- when we have a pretty good sense that we are going to be that far off, we want to provide a better direction than that. So and then hopefully, people understand that in circumstances like that where we do give something directional like, say, minus 10%, the fact that we're not giving a range implies there should be some pretty large error bars around the expectations that we have for that time frame. So we don't really have an update given that. We don't think there's any disconnect that is of that order. This is all dominated, of course, by the relative degree of success our customers see.

(technical difficulty)

the largest ones that have an impact on us are still to come in the second half of our fiscal year and even at the very end of the fiscal year, which can and frequently does change our outlook up or down. So given that this uncertainty is in front of us, we'd just encourage investors to be conservative in their assumptions whenever they're making financial models around our outlook. And so as far as FY '20, on the other hand, that's a little -- it's also difficult to pin down in terms of a number. Again, it hinges on customer success and all various trade wars and other geopolitical entertainment that we can't control. But it is a year where we do expect content gains with existing customers and additional success with new customers. So on a like-for-like basis, we have remained optimistic about our growth outlook in that time frame. So hopefully that helps.

Your next question comes from Tore Svanberg with Stifel.

So, Jason, in this sort of a world with less buttons, you seem to be emphasizing haptics much more than ever before. Can you maybe talk a little bit about what type of opportunity do you have there? I mean, are we talking about 1 or 2? Or will over time, will there be opportunities for multiple haptics?

Sure. Yes, I mean, it is an exciting -- it's an exciting application for us, both financially as well as just philosophically. It's a great job by the team of taking some technology that we are already really good at with respect to the audio amplifiers and finding new applications and new ways to reuse that existing technology right in the same box we're already shipping in, which is a great way to grow your business. So it's a nice job by the team of executing some textbook marketing. As it relates to -- I was being more bullish. We've not been in that space for very long, and this really marks the first time we've had the right device to take to the Android community and enable them to achieve kind of a really crisp, low-latency synthetic button press, where we could -- to your point, people are absolutely very focused on removing buttons for reasons of reliability and space on a screen in any number of varieties of goodness that comes with removing physical buttons. We certainly see a market where -- I mean, everybody that makes a handset seems to want to move in that direction. There is -- it does add cost versus having a traditional buzzy vibration motor, and I know a lot of them -- it's not that often that I play with Android handsets. And one I have recently, I was pretty surprised by the level of gimmicky look and feel that the lack of mechanical buttons in those cases had, and that's due to they're using 10-year-old technology with buzzy vibration motors. So we think it's a massively more compelling experience to have a proper haptic engine in there. The -- it does add a little bit of expense, but for the folks that are really trying to make a premium product, having one, and then to your other point, in the long run, having more than one in there makes sense if you're really trying to create a compelling tactile experience.

Very good. And as my follow-up, I also noticed you chose the word advanced mobile accessories. Just want to try to understand more what you mean by that. I mean, obviously, you have

(technical difficulty)

And AMC-specific device with the battery pack, and that really kind of constrains the cost as well as the end applications and, ultimately, the volume that people are going to ship. And when you remove that constraint by going to a full digital wired headset via USB-C or that other one, then you've got access to power in the headset without including the battery and that will, for a relatively low amount of cost, allow people to try other things out, gesture recognition or various different fitness options. And then as a lot of that is true in the wireless space as the level of power comes down that we can enable with our DSP capability along with our amplifiers and other products that are relevant. For those applications, we just think it takes the headset innovation, also in noise cancellation but in addition to it. So I think that's

(technical difficulty)

going for there.

Your next question comes from Blayne Curtis with Barclays.

Just a couple here. Just going back to the fiscal year guidance. If you look at the first half, it's down about 22% Android revenue. I think it's the lowest ever. And to get to minus 10%, you then have to have the second half flat to up. So I'm just trying to understand what I'm missing in that math. And I think in the Shareholder Letter, you also mentioned, I think you called the older headset revenue as the headwind as well, which if that's the largest customer would be 75% of revenue with a headwind. So can you just help me with this math? And why minus 10% is the right number?

Well, okay. So previous commentary inclusive, we're not offering you 10% as the year. You can model that however you like or even in the current quarter. 10% is a directional thing. We think it was reasonable when we gave that. It's certainly still in the realm of possibility. We do -- we've said we expect content gains with existing customers, particularly towards the tail end of the fiscal year, so that's a part of where that guidance comes from. But there are some decent error bars around we're saying. As it relates to the headset comment, I think that is largely speaking to something that's already been pretty widely rumored. I think you're familiar with that one that we just want to acknowledge and incorporate in that in the current quarter outlook that we just provided.

And then just, actually, something else

(technical difficulty)

Sure, yes. I mean, the devices were shipped in the day. An increasing number of -- increasing amount of the things that we're in are Bluetooth headsets and we see good opportunity to continue to grow there. I think I know the blog or whatever it was that was circulating a week or so ago that I always wonder what the origin of those things are. So to put a fine point on it, our excitement around fiscal '20 is driven by content gains with existing customers. We see great opportunities to ship in the form factors that we've not been in before. That is part of why we're excited about FY '20. The details of that particular headset rumor seems to be made up of I have no idea what or where they came from. There was not a lot in that report that seemed right. But hopefully that doesn't take away from the fact that there are things that we expect to make meaningful gains on in the FY '20 time frame, where we are shipping the new form factors. But the details of that one, both magnitude and type were pretty far off the mark.

Your next question comes from Adam Gonzalez with Bank of America Merrill Lynch.

So it sounds like you're being a little conservative on OpEx in the near term. Just wanted to know what's a good way of think about that longer term and if the near-term reduction perhaps signals reduced confidence and a meaningful pickup in top line growth in the fiscal '20.

No, I mean, I think what we're trying to tell you, it's always difficult when we write these letters to be Reg G-complaint. But if you read that paragraph very carefully, which was how it was written, we are telegraphing that GAAP OpEx would be down. That's driven largely by amortization of acquired intangibles. The remainder of the actual spending on people and R&D and that sort of thing is flattish. Obviously, it's kind of lumpy as you move through quarters, but it's intended to be flat. We are still hiring. We're just being very careful about that. Our variable compensation plan is well designed, so that when we're having years like where we're not -- like this one, where we're not growing, it doesn't pay-off very well. And that has a natural ability to kind of scale our OpEx and is helpful in that regard. So whenever things are tight, you look a lot more carefully at all expenses. But first and foremost, we managed the company for a very long time, and we're heavily investing in the areas where we think we'll derive our growth going forward. So yes, I would not interpret it that way.

Got it. And then just a follow up on voice biometrics initiative. Just any update there, time to the first design win and perhaps when we can start to see some material revenues.

Yes, I mean, that's still one of the ones that's further out on our growth strategy, but it is incredibly compelling. We continue to make progress on it, we definitely demonstrated that we can achieve fingerprint-grade security via a voiceprint, if you will. Working through the challenges of that with customers. There's lots of things that are complex just about the evaluation and then about the process of which customer would like to do what. So it's still moving. It's still out there little ways further. No real projections at this time. I wouldn't build up any real elaborate financial models around it in the next 12 months or so, but it's something that we're -- it's one of the things that we're most excited about in the company, and we think it's just absolutely pivotal to being able to turn all these voice interfaces that are becoming so prevalent into a real tool instead of a toy. Until you're comfortable that at a financial institution or a company like ourselves, that you can give your voice assistant access to read your e-mail, then in my opinion, it's kind of a novelty. And as soon as you're able to do that, it becomes a real powerful tool. So that's what we're trying to enable. There's lots interest in it from our customers, both from a headset perspective and increasingly outside of handsets in the connected home-type applications as well. It dovetails real nicely. There's a section in the strategy portion of the Shareholder Letter that talks about what we call the intelligent edge, which is something that we think is actually driven and enabled and increased by the prevalence of cloud computing and the amount of microphones that are out there beaming data off to the cloud. That creates an incredible set of opportunities for us to do local processing in the device, whether it's something as complicated as voice biometric or just very low-power always-on to something in the middle like far field, beamforming or some combination of all those things, the need for that type of application and that type of technology is increasingly driven by a lot of these cloud applications for voice-type services. So anyway, still very excited about really all of our opportunities in voice. Key among them, voice biometric.

(Operator Instructions) The next question comes from Christopher Rolland with Susquehanna International.

Back to amps again and your optimism around haptics, do you expect haptics or stereo speakers to be a bigger driver for you guys for 55-nanometer amps? And I think you said that haptic drivers could be a $450 million TAM. Is that right? And how do the speakers compare?

Let's see. So I don't know how to handicap the race between haptic versus stereo for the 55-nanometer amp. They're both big opportunities for us. We see an increasing percentage of the opportunities that we're targeting that are stereo, audio in nature, that actually plays to the strengths of our solution because if you're going to put 2 of them down, then obviously power as well as area and costs also matter even more. And then also because of the way we created the part, the signal processing that's incorporated inside actually helps the 2 amplifiers play nice together in terms of brown-out the battery and not blowing out the speaker and so forth. So increasing percentage of our opportunities for stereo going forward. And as far as haptics is concerned, I don't know what you get when you multiply the whole market by, say, $0.50. But that, as it relates to the part of the market that's ever going to be willing to spend the money to add that, that's kind of the number you end up with. It's a large market. It's all incremental opportunity for us in the Android space. And so whether it's.

(technical difficulty)

or somewhere thereabouts, it's clearly large relative to the (technical difficulty)

an area where

(technical difficulty)

Okay. And then revenue from your non-biggest customer is down 21%, if I'm doing the math right year-over-year. So as we look year-over-year, what's going well for you kind of in that camp? And then what accounts for the drop as well?

Well, yes, this -- the non-largest customer. I think a large part of that is, frankly, our second largest customer. That's an account that has obviously got some challenges going on. Outside of that, we're actually doing quite well in the Android space. And with the full road map of smart codecs, with the increasingly relevant amplifier product line, that's where we're spending our time. We're turning up in more teardowns, we're now shipping in all 3 of the top 3 handset manufacturers, which is new news, I think. So we're extremely excited about that. I think every marketing textbook would agree that it's probably a read good sign for where we're headed. So it is challenging given the way we break out our numbers to really kind of understand the story behind that, but I think it'll be -- become more clear where we're having success in Android over the next 9 to 12 months as some of the other stuff we're working on comes to the fold.

(Operator Instructions) There are no further questions from the phone call at this time. I turn the call now back to Chelsea Heffernan.

Thank you, operator. There are no additional question, so I'll turn the call over to Jason.

Okay. Thank you, Chelsea. In summary, we are pleased with our momentum this past quarter, and we remain focused on the execution of our product road map, expanding our customer base and capitalizing on increasing demand for compelling audio and voice components. In addition, the company is dedicated to developing a broader portfolio of products that address new requirements, which we believe will add incremental content opportunity over the coming years and contribute to our continued success. I would also note that we will be presenting at the Oppenheimer Conference in Boston on August 7 and the KeyBanc Conference in Vail on August 13. Live webcasts of these events will be available at investor.cirrus.com. If you have any questions that were not addressed today, you can submit them to us via the Ask the CEO section of our investor website. I'd like to thank everyone for participating today. Goodbye.

This concludes today's conference. You may now disconnect.