x
DWDM

Infinera Revenues, Losses Widen

Executives at Infinera Corp. (Nasdaq: INFN) used their debut earnings call to preach the benefits of measuring "invoiced shipments," instead of revenues, when looking at the company.

The company reported net losses of $26.1 million, or $1.10 per share, on revenues of $58.4 million in the second quarter. That compares with losses of $19.8 million, or $2.62 per share, on revenues of $49.2 million the previous quarter. (See Infinera Reports Q2.)

For its second quarter in 2006, Infinera incurred losses of $18.2 million, or $3.23 per share, on revenues of $4.1 million, according to its SEC filings.

On a pro forma basis, Infinera beat analysts' expectations. It reported a pro forma profit of 4 cents a share. Analysts were expecting a pro forma loss of 11 cents per share, according to Reuters Research .

"Invoiced shipments," which Infinera describes as the revenues it really collected during the quarter, were $69 million, outpacing analysts' expectations of $61.4 million. The trick is that Infinera spreads the revenues of each sale across multiple quarters. So its GAAP revenue number will usually be lower than its "invoiced shipments" -- and that gives analysts an idea of what's to come in the months ahead.

Alongside its earnings, Infinera reported a contract with Cox Communications Inc. to build a nationwide transport network. That's a job separate from some metro DWDM work Infinera said it had previously won with Cox. (See Cox Picks Infinera.)

But despite having grabbed Cox along with some 30 other customers, Infinera so far has taken in the most money from Level 3 Communications Inc. (NYSE: LVLT), one of its investors. And its invoiced shipments, while steady, haven't yet grown past the $70.5 million reported in the fourth quarter of 2006.

For its third quarter, which ends in September, Infinera says it expects invoiced shipments of $68 million to $72 million. Analysts were expecting $64.1 million.

That quarter will include some new deployments, Infinera expects, some of which might not get invoiced until the fourth quarter. Included in the deployment mix will be some metro wins for the 19-inch chassis that Infinera announced in June. (See Infinera Spews News.) All told, Infinera thinks it will report a per share loss of between 0 and 2 cents.

Shares of Infinera rose $1.20 (5.3%) to $24.00 in early after-hours trading.

— Craig Matsumoto, West Coast Editor, Light Reading

brick&mortar 12/5/2012 | 3:04:23 PM
re: Infinera Revenues, Losses Widen I thought the whole reason for the "funny" financials was centered around software support contracts that [might last as long as five years and] INFN was trying to recognize as revenue now.

Granted I work in this space and compete with INFN occasionally, but in doing so I see the CAPEX for their DWDM hardware to be extremely low, while the OPEX (including fees paid for warrenty or support) to be quite high. They often win or lose deals as a result of either circumstance.

For instance the 12,000 mile network they referenced on their conference call, about which several analysts queried the monetary value -- recieving no answer... this could sell for an initial hardware cost in the $7-15 million range. Not sure if this represents any actual positive margin. The profit is intended to come from annual hardware support and software license fees, and is usually termed for five or more years. Again I think the "soft" part of their financials is the recognition of all or part of this revenue in the current quarter.

This is dangerous accounting for two reasons. One, (credited to an earlier posting) one has no idea of the cost ot provide this kind of support. Two, these contracts are usually discounted later, say in year two or three as a practice of winning other new business. Either scenario would require a restating of past financials (something INFN actually did before their actual IPO).

I am not discounting their different approach to DWDM and how it can be better in some applications of 10G transport. I am concerned about the flexibility of this solution in metro applications when carriers need to transport ITU signals between adjacent routers or other ITU capable devices. Also not much said on the call about 40G...

Again, my opinion is biased. I chose not to work for this company. I just wanted to bring the conversation back to what I thought this was supposed to be about. Questions on accounting, and viability of a new technology.
howsweetitis 12/5/2012 | 3:04:26 PM
re: Infinera Revenues, Losses Widen My first and last message...

Having worked at Lightera in mid 1998 through the Ciena acquisition in March 15th of 1999 through 2001 to then jump over to Infinera in late 2001 (retired about 1 year ago) I can tell you that the Infinera story is indeed compelling. The folks I worked with at Lightera early on were fantastic and incredible co-workers. However the technologists at Infinera have truly cracked the Holy Grail. Core Director was a great product at the time and is probably the thing that saved Ciena from going under in 2001-2003. Infinera however will not be acquired in my opinion and here's why. The brain trust on the PIC side is enormously talented and rare. If they were acquired the brain drain would put Infinera in serious peril. If any one heard the CC call with Infinera last week the lack of questions from the Wall Street community is simple. Infinera is so far out ahead of everyone from a technology side many don't know what to ask. Infinera is a company that was created from the effect of the PEREFECT STORM that was 2001-2002 when thousands of people were laid off from Telecom, available, and hand picked talent that created what is now Infinera. Sort of a once in a lifetime creation. I am just humbled by the fact that the last 8 years of my career were shared with some of the greatest and talented folks in Silicon Valley. GOOD LUCK Infinera.
douggreen 12/5/2012 | 3:04:26 PM
re: Infinera Revenues, Losses Widen First, why did the CIena/Lightera aquisition work:

1.Lightera product was needed due to the adoption of DWDM. Could go into an entire story, but suffice it to say that the product was needed and they were way ahead of the rest on delivery. It represented near term positive earnings for Ciena.
2.Customers were the same customers, and often even the same groups within the customer, as the DWDM products. It was a natural fit for the account management teams. Half of the Lightera management team were defectors from Ciena anyway.
3.Ciena was financially strong enough to swallow Lightera without choking on it.

I can't see this kind of scenario playing out (yet) with Infinera (as the aquirer). Actually, I see this scenario possibly playing out with Infinera being aquired.

Alcalu needs some kind of story to tell Wall Street about how they are going to stop their tailspin. Hmmm... just don't take payment in AlcaLu stock. Trust me on this one.
rahat.hussain 12/5/2012 | 3:04:27 PM
re: Infinera Revenues, Losses Widen Doug -

Good posts, both. Especially the first one where you subtly point out that it is really scenario #2 that is unfolding ;-)

Re: acquisitions, many of the suggestions I had made would give INFN a revenue stream, a customer base, and a "close-to-breakeven" product addition.

Apart from which specific company they should acquire, the question is which area they should move into. For example, CIEN, then a WDM transport vendor, ventured into the world of cross-connect/switching with the Lightera acquisition.

What's INFN's next best step? If they moved into some of the WDM acquisitions, it immediately negates their OEO marketing story. Ethernet play may be too huge for them to gobble right now. But they do need some expansion into service interfaces, and low-bit-rate cost-optimized solutions.

odo

[Another poster from the past, but with a new userid]
douggreen 12/5/2012 | 3:04:27 PM
re: Infinera Revenues, Losses Widen First of all, Infinera needs to be careful to maintain focus on their core business. Aquisitions will not help if they take their eye off the ball with their own products.

IF they consider aquisitions, then they would need to buy near term revenue streams, not development projects or product lines that are cash flow negative and will be for the forseeable future... and especially not ones that require a seperate sales force and overhead structure. Remember, they are trying to grow revenue and improve profitability.

Not to say that I wouldn't have a bus dev team working on strategies for the future if I were in charge, but to swallow another operational entity at this stage would require a LOT of payback for me to take the risk.
douggreen 12/5/2012 | 3:04:27 PM
re: Infinera Revenues, Losses Widen Talk about a poster coming back from the dead :)

So Phil, what questions should you be asking regarding Infinera becoming the next Ciena?

I will take it for granted that they have a technology advantage, and lets assume for a moment that they will continue in the lead for the forseeable future.

Remember, the equipment cost and the specific role of the product is only one aspect of what the customers are looking for. Although they are deeply concerned with capital cost, they spend more on operational expense and support personel. For them to add a new type of equipment, especially from a seperate vendor from whom they buy nothing else and have no experience with, they either need to have one of two situations:

1. A DESPERATE need for the equipment (people lying awake at night worrying about how they are going to solve the problem that ONLY this startup can solve... see Ciena's original product.) 2.Financial considerations that have the carrier make money buy buying the product whether they use it in their network or not... see a long list of products bought by Qwest and L3 from companies where either the execs or company itsself owned stock and made more on stock appreciation than they spend on the equipment.

I'll assume for the time being that you are looking into situation number one... is there a real growing market. Back to the questions to ask:

1. Who is lying awake at night worrying about the problem that only Infinera can solve? Even if they are not willing to talk about Infinera, they should be talking about the problem.
2. If they do desperately need Infineras product, how much of it do they need before the problem is solved? How much is in the budget for this year and next?
3. Can they solve the problem, even at greater expsense, with a traditional vendors product? Better to spend twice or even three times as much with a solution with less overhead and risk. However, if function, space, power, etc. constrain the solution to ONLY Infinera, thats a story.

As far as expanding market, Ciena had the luxury of a huge market for their original product, one that could generate literally billions in revenue per year at the time. It took well over 5 years for them to break into any new product areas with any level of success, and that was through the aquisition of Lightera...but they had the deep pockets to afford a few screwups.

One more point... early at Ciena the CFO spent a lot of time "explaining" to the market analysts how you couldn't measure Cienas lumpy revenue like you could a traditional company's revenue. Didn't work then, won't work now. Right or wrong, managing revenue streams is part of what it means to be a PUBLIC company.
DCITDave 12/5/2012 | 3:04:30 PM
re: Infinera Revenues, Losses Widen re: "Rather than write articles about finance because you have a deadline to make, why not tell us all how Infinera is going to achieve that particular feat of business vision without crashing and burning?"

Excellent assignment (and a great post in general). We had to cover the finance side stuff (if only because it's so odd), but rest assured we'll get back to figuring out where Infinera's catching on fire in the market.

ph
rahat.hussain 12/5/2012 | 3:04:30 PM
re: Infinera Revenues, Losses Widen So let the dialogue begin - who would INFN acquire?

- Ethernet play: ATRICA, ANDA, HATTERAS?
- Metro WDM: BTI, MERITON, ADVA (why not?)?
- Others (aggregation): TURIN?

odo
hyperunner 12/5/2012 | 3:04:31 PM
re: Infinera Revenues, Losses Widen Hi Phil,
Wow, has it been that long? Yup, that tends to tie in with when I moved back here from the UK. Not that there's been much to post about in that time other than "X lays off another Y employees".

My opinion of Infinera?

They give a damn good presentation. Their customers seem to love them, and that comes from a mixture of what I've seen in the press and comments by friends in those companies.

They are genuinely different. They called it "a contrarian approach" in the slideware, and that appeals to the old fart in me who likes a bit of variety in his life. So I can see why Tier 1's havn't bought yet - they make sheep look like independent thinkers! And I don't see Infinera claiming OSMINE compliance, do they? But I'm not a fan of Tier-1s. I can see why it's important to sell to them, but they are a bitch to deal with - we are both suppliers and customers for Tier-1s.

Do they have a sustainable business? Gosh, I have no idea. And despite the "authoritative" opinions expressed on this board I suspect nobody here or in Light Reading can really give an "informed" opinion. This is a technology publication. What I do think is that this "ratable revenue" issue will continue to dog them because some people (naming no names) get confused when they aren't "like Ciena".

Technology edge. Yes. They are years ahead. And nobody is close to catching them as far as I can see. And by the way, the opposition is very, very scared of them. Their sales guys have trotted through our place in recent months, and it's clear that all the old established boys in suits are looking to Infinera as the one to beat.

Next Ciena? Heck, I hope they do better than that :-) Seriously, this is a very complex question. If you want a worthless opinion, here goes...

Infinera is kicking ass in a limited market right now, and that's long haul transmission. They have no metro or CWDM capability, and no packet switching on their switches. To keep up the rate of revenue growth they've shown to date, they need to increase their addressable market size. That means EITHER internal development OR acquisition. Both of those choices have risks associated with them, and that sounds like a job for investigative journalism!

Now we're on to more familiar Light Reading territory. Rather than write articles about finance because you have a deadline to make, why not tell us all how Infinera is going to achieve that particular feat of business vision without crashing and burning?

hR.
DCITDave 12/5/2012 | 3:04:33 PM
re: Infinera Revenues, Losses Widen re: "Gee, standards have sure dropped."

Back to topic for a sec, hyperunner.

I note that Infinera's IPO prompted you to end a two-year posting hiatus, which is pretty cool.

But I've yet to get a sense of your opinion of the company. Do you think they have a sustainable business? Big technology edge? Is this the next CIEN or something even bigger?

DCITDave 12/5/2012 | 3:04:33 PM
re: Infinera Revenues, Losses Widen Good post.

re: "Compare them with the sewer pit that is Yahoo."

Yahoo's an excellent example. Everyone says they hate it. Yet everyone checks it when their stock gets a haircut.

re: "Anonymity is the bane of any message board."

It is. But we've sometimes had some great news tips come from anon posters.

ph

Mark Sebastyn 12/5/2012 | 3:04:34 PM
re: Infinera Revenues, Losses Widen LR message boards are better than average. Compare them with the sewer pit that is Yahoo. People will tell you they never read them but they are lying... when a stock drops 10% and it is unexplained it is the first place most people look.

You would be shocked at how many large investors read and regularly participate in these forums. They, of course, would never admit it. I have no such shame.

We recently 'took private' a message board from Yahoo (TXCC, a very good forum BTW) to exclude idiots and ass clowns.

http://www.nyquistcapital.com/...

The result has been very positive. Anonymity is the bane of any message board.

http://www.vitesseinvestor.com... is another good example of a well moderated board. Bob Chapman, the 2nd largest investor in the company reads it regularly and probably participates as well.
hyperunner 12/5/2012 | 3:04:34 PM
re: Infinera Revenues, Losses Widen LOL,

That's a good one Craig. So you're passing off a sensationalist headline as being you a "tough guy"? Please. Go out and buy a Hummer or something.

And Phil is now trying to pass off another ill judged remark by insulting readers?

Am I imagining this? Hang on, let me check the URL. Is this a trade publication or the WWF bulletin board?

Gee, standards have sure dropped.

hR.
Pete Baldwin 12/5/2012 | 3:04:35 PM
re: Infinera Revenues, Losses Widen Food fight!

Well, you're not going to like my take, but here it is: All I did here was to *not* write a fawning, gushingly positive story -- and some readers have chosen to interpret that as an attack. Reminds me of the Apple cult in the '90s.

Now, if you'll pardon me, I have an appointment to kick some ass at the biker bar by the wharf. It's a tough life.
ninjaturtle 12/5/2012 | 3:04:35 PM
re: Infinera Revenues, Losses Widen Phil would you like me to come to your swank offices where all this hard hitting reporting takes place. Then you and the swearing, high tempered Craig can assault me. Then I will become the EDITOR of LightReading and drive it into the ground after all law suits clear. Oh yeah, you and Craig will have new roommates called BUBBA and SMASHMOUTH. Sounds like your kind of crowd anyways so you should feel right at home. Unfortunately I hear the food sucks. So let me know what times work for you guys and I will put in my Blackberry.

Kind Regards and see you soon,

XOXOXOX
DCITDave 12/5/2012 | 3:04:35 PM
re: Infinera Revenues, Losses Widen Look, I am an unprofessional. And I don't appreciate attacks on my reporters from the likes of ninjas, turtles, and especially not ninjaturtles.

The truth is, Craig made do it. He swears like a sailor and has a horrible temper. I was rude, but I was just protecting you from Craig.

ph
twill009 12/5/2012 | 3:04:36 PM
re: Infinera Revenues, Losses Widen I enjoy LR and i generally like irreverence, but i thought that was an unprofessional response. Rather than tell a reader to "suck it", it would have been better to say "I am editor and think the article was balanced and presented the facts fairly."
Must've been a late night for Phil or something.
Stevery 12/5/2012 | 3:04:36 PM
re: Infinera Revenues, Losses Widen "Anyway, I AM the editor of Light Reading, and you can suck it."

What an extreme statement, using extreme language, that is extremely unlikely to be found in any other trade rag.

Which of course is just one of the reasons I keep reading LR. This page view is for you, Phil!

[Steve raises pilsner glass, full of coffee at this hour, in Phil's general direction.]
hyperunner 12/5/2012 | 3:04:37 PM
re: Infinera Revenues, Losses Widen Gosh Phil,

"Anyway, I AM the editor of Light Reading, and you can suck it."

ninjaturtle was certainly over-reacting in his/her post, but were you drunk when you wrote that?

Is this your approach to encouraging mature comments on these boards? I'm genuinely shocked by your statement (maybe I should get out more instead of staring at these OSS screens all day).

hR.
chophopper 12/5/2012 | 3:04:38 PM
re: Infinera Revenues, Losses Widen > ROCK ON PHIL

Jeez, engineers are dorks.
ninjaturtle 12/5/2012 | 3:04:39 PM
re: Infinera Revenues, Losses Widen Hey Phil... I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're 12 years old. Keep up the great work at LightReading.
meaty_urologist 12/5/2012 | 3:04:39 PM
re: Infinera Revenues, Losses Widen For the guy in msg#20, Stevery, who had a brain fart when he tried to calculate cash burn & induced a similar brain fart in msg#22 lcdflr:

You should look at the press release and see that $30.9 million of the cash from the IPO was used to pay off loans (as seen in the section on cash flow statement from financing). As you would expect, a company with ample cash will pay down loans if doing so is in the companyGÇÖs interest. If looking to see whether the operations are generating cash or burning cash, you need to focus on the GÇ£Cash flow from operationsGÇ¥ section.
In the past 6 months, InfineraGÇÖs operations have generated $6.21 Million in cash flow --much different from your statement. This company has really come a long way. Just a short time ago people said Infinera could never make the PIC, could never get enough yield, would run out of money, would find no one to buy their systems, could not generate cash from operations, etc. All those claims have come out false. Great to see Infinera have calculated the same item analysts track (non-proforma earnings), and have earned a +$0.04/sh when analysts had expected -$0.11/sh [a $0.15/sh positive surprise] for their first quarter as a public company. Congrats to those involved. Keep up the good work.
meaty_urologist 12/5/2012 | 3:04:39 PM
re: Infinera Revenues, Losses Widen as you may have guessed I meant to type "non-GAAP proforma earnings" and not "non-proforma earnings"
Mark Sebastyn 12/5/2012 | 3:04:40 PM
re: Infinera Revenues, Losses Widen ROCK ON PHIL
DCITDave 12/5/2012 | 3:04:40 PM
re: Infinera Revenues, Losses Widen re: How long before the gap between their costs and competitions costs closes? Any Tier 1 wins?

Great questions. Hopefully we'll find out soon.
litereading 12/5/2012 | 3:04:40 PM
re: Infinera Revenues, Losses Widen BTW - The Street wasn't very impressed today with their earnings announcement. Wonder why?
Stevery 12/5/2012 | 3:04:40 PM
re: Infinera Revenues, Losses Widen My guess is INFN offered L(3) free SW upgrade for 5 yrs or free training in excess of an insignificant amount ...

Your scenario might be right, but I think the bigger worry is: L(3) owns a chunk of infn, so the purchase is not an arm's length relationship.

Even if you believe that their "ratable revenue" is not a arbitrary work of fiction, then notice that their present gross margin is with the vast majority of revenue coming from a customer who receives a stock multiple on the cost of buying a system.

Oddly, I couldn't find that as risk factor in their 10Q. Hope Milberg-Weiss notices too.



litereading 12/5/2012 | 3:04:41 PM
re: Infinera Revenues, Losses Widen My guess is INFN offered L(3) free SW upgrade for 5 yrs or free training in excess of an insignificant amount (as interpreted by acctg guidelines) or both, or committed to a future feature. Extended warranty by itself, under SAB104 would not cause revenue deferral. They probably got some bad acctg advice, which may be why the CFO at the time is their former CFO. Then, QIV of last year, with a plan to go IPO in 1H '07, they renogtiated to a one year term, which allows them to recognize the revenue on initial system sales ratably over one year. Now, I wonder, how much price concession did they give L(3) to get them to re-nog that term (an remember, L(3) had INFN warrants).

INFN use of "invoice shipments" is intended to show investors revenue growth and a GM in a more acceptable range. But... as the SEC warns, be cautious of pro-forma... They state they sell initial systems below cost, their revenue (as they measure it using invoiced shipments) is flat for three quarters, L(3) is 50% (what if they build out and stop ordering?),Operations is not yet generating cash (very key indices as mentioned earlier), and they spend a high % of revenue on R&D to stay ahead of competition (40G/100G?). How long before the gap between their costs and competitions costs closes? Any Tier 1 wins? Is a $250M-$300M/yr concern sufficient to support +$20/share price (what would they have to earn to achieve a PE ration of say 20:1)?

Just rambling, sorry...
lcdfbr 12/5/2012 | 3:04:41 PM
re: Infinera Revenues, Losses Widen So they lost ~ $0.25/share in cash over two quarters. The GAAP loss for the latest quarter was 26 million, about 2x the cash burn rate. Do people know the specific areas what the additional losses are classified as?
hyperunner 12/5/2012 | 3:04:41 PM
re: Infinera Revenues, Losses Widen Jeez, I know it was a long post and you probably lost the will to live halfway thru, but I did try to explain that here:

http://www.lightreading.com/bo...

This was presented to us by Infinera sales pukes a few months ago. I get the impression it's something they have to deal with regularly.

What are they different from other companies? If you want my personal guess, I'd say a rogue salesguy offered Level 3 a 5 year S/W warranty to seal the deal, and now the company is reaping the consequences. Remember Level 3 still represents a big chunk of the companys business so it might explain how a mistake on a single deal could cause such a mess.

hR.
DCITDave 12/5/2012 | 3:04:41 PM
re: Infinera Revenues, Losses Widen re: "Craig are you a reporter or an investor that wants to short Infinera. What a terrible and totally bias article. You should go back to the Wal-Mart School of Journalism and learn how to report news. If I were the editor for Light reading you'd be fired tonight."

ninjaturtle, I haven't seen a post like that since the Corvis board petered out.

Anyway, I AM the editor of Light Reading, and you can suck it.

ph
DCITDave 12/5/2012 | 3:04:42 PM
re: Infinera Revenues, Losses Widen re: "That means the company can just load gear onto a delivery truck, put a bill in the mail and call it revenue. That approach is very susceptible to channel stuffing, especially when the company's largest customer is a related party (Level 3 is a shareholder)."

Excellent points. Next thing you know they'll start doing vendor financing for cash-poor carriers, too.
Stevery 12/5/2012 | 3:04:42 PM
re: Infinera Revenues, Losses Widen Does anyone know what their current cash balance is and how it is trending?

Cash balance = $197M
In the past six months, they've burned $21M.

(They started the year @28M, sold $190M worth of stock, and presently have $197M.)
twill009 12/5/2012 | 3:04:42 PM
re: Infinera Revenues, Losses Widen Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others.
-- Groucho Marx
tmc1 12/5/2012 | 3:04:42 PM
re: Infinera Revenues, Losses Widen No one is talking about why they might want to recognize revenue over a longer period the way a SW company might and not like any other HW company in their space. I am guessing it might help smooth out the numbers and allow them to maintain the stock price until all of the insiders are able to sell (6 month lockout, etc.). It could just be that I don't trust VCs and others of their ilk. It would be interesting to see if other HW startup companies start to do this.
lcdfbr 12/5/2012 | 3:04:42 PM
re: Infinera Revenues, Losses Widen Since they are nearly cash-flow positive, what are the major concern about the GAAP loss? To what degree does the GAAP (or pro forma) numbers physically affect the company compared to the cash flow? Does anyone know what their current cash balance is and how it is trending?
Thanks for all the replies.
twill009 12/5/2012 | 3:04:42 PM
re: Infinera Revenues, Losses Widen INFN was slightly cash flow negative during the June quarter, as you can see here:
http://www.infinera.com/pdfs/p...
twill009 12/5/2012 | 3:04:42 PM
re: Infinera Revenues, Losses Widen What is the definition of pro forma? It is essentially this: "we pick and choose what to include and what to exclude according to whatever we feel is right". No standard. Arbitrary. The rules can even change quarter to quarter, if the company so chooses.
It is especially suspect in this case, where pro forma uses "invoiced shipments" for revenue. That means the company can just load gear onto a delivery truck, put a bill in the mail and call it revenue. That approach is very susceptible to channel stuffing, especially when the company's largest customer is a related party (Level 3 is a shareholder).
If you have a deep understanding of the company's business and an even deeper trust of management, fine. After all of the lessons of the last bubble, just don't ask the rest of us to accept things without some healthy skepticism.
hyperunner 12/5/2012 | 3:04:43 PM
re: Infinera Revenues, Losses Widen Hi lcdfbr,
I'm not an accounting expert, so take this with a pinch of salt (and a dash of pepper too if you like) :-)

GAAP regulations have tightened up since Enron and Worldcom. Auditors are getting pretty finicky about what really counts as revenue, and the gap (pun intedned) between GAAP and pro forma has increased.

In the case of a product shipment, you need to ship the product, invoice the customer, and get paid by that customer before you can recognise revenue.

HOWEVER. If the product has a warranty associated with it, then you need to be able to provide some kind of evidence that the thing isn't going to break down, and the customer just throws it back at you, demanding their money back.

Most hardware warranties are pretty short. Anything from 90 days to a year. From the presentation that Infinera gave to my company back in March it seems they've been shipping product since 2004, and so they have good evidence (VSOE) that the boxes don't catch fire or explode within the hardware warranty period.

But I think the catch with Infinera is that some of their warranties apply to the system software, and for some reason these are much longer - somebody mentioned 5 years (this is REALLY unusual by the way)?

Infinera does not have VSOE established for a 5 year warranty, and because it's system software it means that the customer could potentially throw the whole thing (hardware AND software) back if they prove there is a fault in the software.

So Infinera is only allowsd to report some percentage of the money they have received from customers as GAAP revenue.

OK, so the Wikipedia article you quoted implies that pro forma revenues have been overly optimistic in the past. I think that's a fair judgement. Historically, software companies sold at very high margins and through a long value chain (ie. through distributors, retailers, etc.). And software goes out of date real quick - look how cheap you can buy Windows XP these days.

The supply chain partners are allowed to claim back some of the revenue they give to the manufacturer in these cases (under stock rotation agreements). But the manufacturer may have already declared this revenue. You see the problem?

I guess what you have to ask is how likely it is that this would happen to a company like Infinera? My guess is zero. All the folks I know who are using this gear absolutely love it.

hR.

hyperunner 12/5/2012 | 3:04:43 PM
re: Infinera Revenues, Losses Widen Stevery,
I wouldn't have fired Craig at all, I would have just told him to stick to technology topics.

Just curious as to what part of the accounting you feel is in need of ridicule?

Maybe I can simplify it a bit...

- The GAAP accounting numbers don't look very good

- Pro forma numbers look a lot better, but they're not allowed to use those as GAAP because they don't have VSOE established yet

- Infinera has reported GAAP numbers, and completely separately has reported pro forma numbers. They spent a bunch of time on the conf call explaining the difference between the two, and why they feel the pro forma number give a more accurate representation of the true state of the business.


Let me ask you this. If Infinera had only reported GAAP numbers yesterday, and then at some point next year (or whenever they establish VSOE), they suddenly take a huge pile of previously pro forma revenue and report it as GAAP revenue, I suppose you'd be one of the first people to criticise them for sandbagging?

And the VSOE isn't for hardware. It's because their software warranties are so long.

Oh, and by the way - wake up!

hR.
hyperunner 12/5/2012 | 3:04:43 PM
re: Infinera Revenues, Losses Widen Gosh dujac2006, I'm feeling really bad about about that earlier post. OK, OK, I'll tell you who I am, my real name is Aden...but wait! Craig has posted a new article on Infinera. Let's see if this is a bit less slanted...

"Infinera's making more money than you think..."

Hmmm. No, it was pretty clear the first time I think. According to GAAP (where they're not allowed to recognise a whole bunch of revenue they already invoiced and have been paid for) they're making a loss. But they were pretty clear in pointing out the difference on the conf call. Did you bother listening to the conf call Craig? Or did that pesky deadline get in the way? Just read the press release maybe? Soooo much easier that way.

"So much else about Infinera Corp. (Nasdaq: INFN - message board) was a mystery for so long -- why not its accounting methods, too?"

Gosh, that DOES sound scary! Oh wait, you mean that you don't understand what pro forma accounting means compared to GAAP accounting? OK, now I see what the mystery is. It's like the mystery of why you're allowed to report on stuff like this.

"It all comes down to a bit of magic known as Vendor Specific Objective Evidence (VSOE) -- an agreed-upon value for goods and services."

OK, so if it's agreed upon, why do you refer to it as magic? VSOE is accounting practice, it's not something that Infinera management has dreamed up you know.

"There's nothing wrong with Infinera doing things this way, but it does look funny considering hardware peers like Ciena Corp. (Nasdaq: CIEN - message board) don't go through the same kind of accounting calisthenics."

Well, I guess that's probably something (I'm just guessing here, but I'm feeling good about it) to do with the fact that they've been in business long enough to establish VSOE. Gosh, not quite so mysterious now eh? Do you really think the Infinera beancounters WANT to do "accounting calisthenics"? OK, they're beancounters so maybe they do. And they're Californian beancounters so maybe they even enjoy calisthenics.

Maybe Infinera management should use simpler words in the next conf call for all the technology reporters who decide to write articles about financial results :-)

hR.

Stevery 12/5/2012 | 3:04:44 PM
re: Infinera Revenues, Losses Widen
One poster would have fired Craig for writing such a bearish article?

fwiw: I would have fired him for not ridiculing the accounting like it REALLY needed to be ridiculed.

Which probably puts Craig's article into the range of middle of the road.

C'mon, VSOE for hardware? That's just throwing easy fish to the lawyers. But most insider stock sales will have already taken place by then, so no worries.

Wake me up when they've started generating cash flow.
twill009 12/5/2012 | 3:04:44 PM
re: Infinera Revenues, Losses Widen I think the article was not overly bearish. Infinera has highly unusual accounting (name two other companies that report "invoiced shipments") and it would be irresponsible for LR to gloss over that fact.

Accounting rules are sometimes arbitrary and debatable, but one thing is usually telling: cash flow from operations. INFN had slightly negative cash from operations in the quarter, and has only had one positive quarter in its history. Without positive cash flow, the company will need to keep returning to the capital markets for funding.

I hear good things about management's technical know-how, but it remains to be seen whether there is a sustainable business here.
ninjaturtle 12/5/2012 | 3:04:44 PM
re: Infinera Revenues, Losses Widen I still stand by my position... Prior to the Infinera IPO everyone and their uncle assumed INFN would be a huge flop. As it turns out all those negative comments blew up in their faces. Out of the entire tech IPOs this year INFN by far has the most potential. Craig, I believe, and only you will know, was trying to cater to those many negative readers of the past. These writers must get paid by the numbers of discussion responses they get on their articles. So why not continue the negative spin from the CC. It will bring out the naysayers. I just don't think it makes for good reporting here or in any reporting format. The press loves to seize the opportunity to spin the negative. That is what sells. We live in a very "bash the guy down" world and this is what we are teaching out children? Sorry I am not playing into that game. If you donGÇÖt think INFN is a good investment then donGÇÖt buy it. I bought AAPL back in December 06GÇÖ for $79. If I listened to all the shorts on the Yahoo message board on how AAPL would be a $40 stock I wouldnGÇÖt have made the serious $$$ I have made on that stock. I still hold AAPL and will until next year when they come out with blow out Christmas season numbers. But between now and then I am sure there will more shorts pounding their fists on the table convinced AAPL is a $50 stock. I agree but after a 1 for 4 stock split.
dujac2006 12/5/2012 | 3:04:45 PM
re: Infinera Revenues, Losses Widen With all due respect to the management at Light Reading, this message board is merely a gathering point for a bunch of negative don't-have-a-life types who are out to spew poison right and left. How often does one see constructive and useful comments? It's all about dirt and it is downright disgraceful.

I think it is time for Light Reading to reconsider its policy of the message board. Either get rid of it, or insist on disclosing the true identify of those who post so that people like "ninjaturtle" aren't hiding behind their shell and spewing personal attacks against a respectable and respectful person like Craig. Why don't you critique what he had to say rather than attacking him?

I know what some of our are thinking: Don't read! Of course, I don't have to read and neither do you. But if we wrote constructively, we just might read more, and more will read too.

Ugh!
lcdfbr 12/5/2012 | 3:04:45 PM
re: Infinera Revenues, Losses Widen As I am not very sure of the different types of accounting principles, can anyone clarify the differences in the Infinera numbers? Does the pro forma pro profit mean they are cash positive?

According to Wikipedi:

There was a boom in the reporting of pro forma results starting in the late 1990s, with many dot-com companies using the technique to recast their losses as profits, or at least to show smaller losses than the GAAP accounting showed. The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission requires publicly traded companies in the United States to report GAAP-based financial results, and has cautioned companies that using pro forma results to obscure GAAP results would be considered fraud if used to mislead investors.

Critics note that pro forma numbers always look more profitable than GAAP numbers, and state that many companies intentionally use pro forma results in order to mislead investors into believing the company is in much better financial shape than it is; that there is no defined meaning or accounting standard for "pro forma" and that it is therefore impossible to make an "apples to apples" comparison between companies with pro forma results in the way that GAAP accounting allows; and that most "unusual events" reported as such are part of the ordinary course of business and should be reported as such.
hyperunner 12/5/2012 | 3:04:45 PM
re: Infinera Revenues, Losses Widen ninjaturtle,

Try the decaff dude! But you have a point.

In his defence, I have to say that Craig Matsumoto has two disadvantages when it comes to a story like this. One, he's not a financial analyst. Two, he works for an organization that tends toward negative and sensationalist headlines.

I can picture Craig thinking up the headline for this story...gee should it be "Losses widen" or "Revenue soars"? Why look on the bright side when you work for Light Reading? And why bother to try and understand the difference between GAAP and pro forma when you have a dealine to meet?

Actually I thought of a third reason. Craig is from a components background and that likely explains the way he jumped on the "lumpy revenue" comment as though its news to anyone that Infinera deals tend to be big.

It makes me glad I didn't invest in INFN now because the share price is very much affected by this kind of uninformed reporting.

hR.
Mark Sebastyn 12/5/2012 | 3:04:46 PM
re: Infinera Revenues, Losses Widen Ninja:

Your comments are non-constructive and ridiculous.

Craig wrote a piece that reflected some critical thinking on his part that results in healthy skepticism. This is what reporters should do - challenge statements made by companies - not simply transcribe them.

There is no fair and balanced news. There is no independence, lack of bias, and neutrality in the world. All media is editorial. Critical thinking is a must when reading anything. Get used to it, teach your children well, and embrace the conflict.
tmc1 12/5/2012 | 3:04:46 PM
re: Infinera Revenues, Losses Widen ninja-turtle,

you go girl!

I have to say. I was at a tier 3/4 SP customer last week and they were really impressed with the infinera product and it sounded like they were going to use it for metro/regional transport.
ninjaturtle 12/5/2012 | 3:04:46 PM
re: Infinera Revenues, Losses Widen Craig are you a reporter or an investor that wants to short Infinera. What a terrible and totally bias article. You should go back to the Wal-Mart School of Journalism and learn how to report news. If I were the editor for Light reading you'd be fired tonight.
Pete Baldwin 12/5/2012 | 3:04:47 PM
re: Infinera Revenues, Losses Widen Couldn't squeeze this in by deadline, but - the largest customer (probably Level 3) represented 48% of invoiced shipments, vs. 57% the previous quarter.

The CFO said margins could get up to 50%, but for now they're in the 35-37% range -- ALU territory!

CFO also gave a warning that sales are going to be lumpy. I'm still curious how investors will react if and when that first bad lump hits ... even if they believe in Infinera long-term, it might be an excuse for a selloff.
HOME
Sign In
SEARCH
CLOSE
MORE
CLOSE