NXP Semiconductors N.V. — 2024 Q1
Transcript
Each turn shows the speaker, their inferred role, the section, and that turn's net sentiment (×1000).
Hello, and thank you for standing by. Welcome to NXP's First Quarter 2024 Earnings Conference Call. [Operator Instructions] I would now like to turn the call over to Jeff Palmer, Senior VP of Investor Relations. You may begin.
Thank you, Towanda, and good morning, everyone. Welcome to NXP Semiconductor's first quarter earnings call. With me on the call today is Kurt Sievers, NXP's President and CEO; and Bill Betz, our CFO. The call today is being recorded and will be available for replay from our corporate website.
Thank you, Jeff, and good morning, everyone. We appreciate you joining the call this morning. Beginning with quarter 1, revenue trends in all our focused end markets were in line with the midpoint of our guidance. NXP delivered quarter 1 revenue of $3.13 billion, essentially flat year-on-year. Non-GAAP operating margin in quarter 1 was 34.5%, 30 basis points below the year ago period and 60 basis points above the midpoint of our guidance.
Thank you, Kurt, and good morning to everyone on today's call. As Kurt has already covered the drivers of the revenue during Q1, and provided our revenue outlook for Q2. I will move to the highlights. Overall, the Q1 financial performance was good. Revenue was in line with the midpoint of our guidance range, with non-GAAP gross margin slightly above the midpoint of our guidance, while inventory in the distribution channel continues to remain below our long-term target.
[Operator Instructions] Our first question comes from the line of Vivek Arya with Bank of America Securities.
For the first one, Kurt, I think you gave a very clear explanation of kind of the cautious optimism around Automotive in the second half of the year. My question is kind of a more medium- to longer-term question. In the past, you gave a 9% to 14% growth target for your Automotive business. And since then, a lot of things have changed, right, with the slowdown in EVs and inflation and all those other things. What is the right way to think about NXP's long-term Automotive growth prospect? What's -- is it a simple formula that connects production growth to your sales growth targets?
Yes. So first of all, let me augment what you said, the cautious optimism, which I expressed for the second half is not limited to Automotive. It is important to note that, that cautious optimism for second half growth over first half is actually across the company. It's very broad-based. It's across distribution and direct and it is across all of our segments.
Got it. And then, Kurt, kind of a more near-term or sort of just calendar '24 question on your Automotive business. So last year, your Auto sales grew about 9%, about in line with Auto production, right? So despite better pricing, i.e., you somewhat undershipped. What is the assumption for the entirety of calendar '24 because your Auto sales seem to be declining sequentially in Q2. So is the assumption that they pick back up and they do better than production in the back up? Just what is kind of the puts and takes for how you're thinking about Automotive for the entire year?
Yes. Look, indeed, you had it quite right for last year. The 9% growth of Automotive revenues was actually in a very strong SAAR year. I think the SAAR last year was something in the order of almost 10% growth year-on-year, so spectacularly high. And indeed, NXP did increase price from a corporate total company perspective by 8%. So yes, we totally undershipped already last year, which is -- which was part of the soft lending strategy, which we are pursuing. So we think we have already started to correct the Automotive revenue and the inventory situation in the direct customers since mid of last year and in the distribution channel already way back because we number went above 1.6. Now when you think about this year, Vivek, it is indeed -- the macro is a little different. The latest S&P numbers would suggest a 0% SAAR for this year and a bit of a moderation in the EV penetration.
Our next question comes from the line of Ross Seymore with Deutsche Bank.
Kurt, I want to get into a little bit of the increased comfort that apparently you're feeling with the desire to start refilling the channel. I know you did a little bit of it in the first quarter, but the second quarter, it seems like your optimism has increased a little bit sequentially, even despite the Automotive side being guided down. And I know you went through each of the segments specifically. But if you step back at a higher level, what's giving you the confidence? What's improved to give you the confidence to fill the channel?
Yes. So first of all, Q1, honestly, the 1.6, and you are right, we came from 1.5 in Q4. It's just been hovering around 1.5 and 1.6. It's very hard to keep this strictly to one number. So I'd say Q1 wasn't really intentional. It's just -- if you look back over the past, I don't know, 12 quarters, we've always been jumping up and down between 1.5 and 1.6. Quarter 2, yes. This is intentional. So we want to try to get it to 1.7 for the exit of quarter 2. And indeed, it is based on growing still cautious optimism for the second half. Now what is giving us that optimism.
I guess since you mentioned the Impinj side, Bill, you're doing a great job on the OpEx. You came in below your guide in the first quarter. The second quarter, you included, you said a $15 million payment for that. Can you just give us an idea of, one, is that Impinj payments a onetime deal, and so it goes away after this quarter? And then more importantly, what are your thoughts on the OpEx side of things? If the optimism on the revenue side is increasing, should we expect the OpEx to increase with variable comp or any of those sorts of drivers?
Sure. Let me break those 2 apart. So the agreement that we have with Impinj is the annual cross license, which will impact us on a go-forward basis, about $15 million in the second quarter and it rose slightly, but that could stop any time in the future once we have the work around complete. And again, I don't know exactly the exact timing, but that's something that we're pursuing internally. Related to our OpEx, clearly, you can see we're somewhat out of model in Q2, but that's really driven by our annual merit increases. So we have a combination of both those impacts occurring in Q2, the $15 million plus the annual merit increases. But what's offsetting some of that impact is also our proactiveness on our expense controls and you saw that in Q1 as well and some lower variable compensation.
Our next question comes from the line of C.J. Muse with Cantor Fitzgerald.
I guess first question on gross margins. If I take into account the change in the depreciation on equipment, you're essentially pro forma guiding gross margins flat. And I guess -- I would have thought maybe you would have had a little bit of a [ kit ] from the channel refill as you take it one more month. And so I guess if you can kind of comment what might be an offset there.
Yes. You're right. So obviously, if you adjust for the accounting, basically, we're kind of flattish guiding to flat and again, it's within our plus or minus 50 basis points, I'm not really that good for $3 million or 10 basis points. But again, there's all sorts of puts and takes in that, and part of the reason for the useful life, I would say, accounting change. As you know, every year, we have to go look at this from accounting and related to this specific topic, there was a number of factors considered, which includes the NXP product life cycle, age of tools and the market analysis. And this is something that we just how to go do, and we did it.
Excellent. And then a question for Kurt. As you look back to the COVID period and kind of the initiation of NCNR programs, it sounds like that has really been at the most senior levels with you and focused on volume, not price. I'm curious, just as you look forward, how did that kind of help nurture your customer relationships? And what potential benefits might you see ahead as we progress into a world where NCNRs are no longer part of the business?
Yes. A couple of considerations here, C.J. The one is just to remind everybody our NCNR programs have ended with the calendar year '23. So since January 1, there is nothing anymore under any NCNR program. However, I would very strongly say, and I pointed out because I know that some industry peers had very different opinion on this. The way how we had our program was actually good. I would do it again. It did help because, in our particular case, it did put us closer together and we learned much earlier about over inventory build because there was an agreement underneath, which forced the customer to the table to tell us that things would be running too high if we don't jointly try to correct and that is the reason why we undershipped already all of last year in Automotive. And I think I started to speak about this in the Q1 earnings call already last year that there was first signs of building inventory with Tier 1 Automotive customers.
Our next question comes from the line of Chris Danely with Citi.
Kurt, just, I guess, a longer-term question on the Automotive end market. What are your thoughts on the relative growth rates of hybrids versus EVs? And then also, it seems like BYD has been a little bit better than Tesla this year. Do you expect those 2 trends to continue? And then what are the impacts, if any, to NXP? Or does it not matter?
These are interesting questions, Chris, which we also think about very hard. Let me try and dissect it. The one is -- and I think I said this in my prepared remarks earlier, the xEV, so if you combine hybrids and battery electric vehicles, continues to grow pretty well. And -- but that is carried by China. And the reason why many media headlines suggest it is not going well is that Europe and the U.S. are actually quite small in xEVs. To be more specific, if you take the total xEVs worldwide, only 12% of those are in the U.S. and 24% are in Europe while China holds 44% and BYD indeed is a big part of that. And that China 44%, Chris, is growing this year according to S&P by 27% in volume.
Great. And then just a quick follow-up for Bill. Bill, you said your utilization rates are going to remain kind of flattish in the second half of the year. What would be the catalyst to take them higher? Would it be some sort of inventory days level or even better demand outlook or some combo of both? Can you share what would be a catalyst for higher utilization rates?
You're correct. It's the combo of both. As you can imagine, right now, we're at the high end of our model when we look what's in the channel, what do we have on hand. So -- and then we're trying to balance that, stage it appropriately for that second half growth. So it's balancing at quarter-for-quarter, but we want to make sure we continue to do the right thing here and keep inventory in check. And some of that inventory of the 144 days is coming from the fact related to the revenue drop-off from Q4 and so revenue cost is probably impacting that drop by about 14 days. And then we actually decreased their inventory dollars in the quarter by about 2 days or $32 million.
Our next question comes from the line of Gary Mobley with Wells Fargo Securities.
Kurt, you seem to be implying that the second half revenue is about 12% higher than the first half or in dollar terms, about $750 million higher. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I would imagine the majority of that delta is inventory restock direct in through distribution. But maybe you can give us a sense of the magnitude of the impact from improving end demand or seasonality there?
Yes. First of all, no, that's not what I said. What I said is that the second quarter is guided at $3.125 billion, so you can calculate the first half revenue. And then I said that the full year is somewhere between modestly down to modestly up. And very importantly, I want to stress that, that growth in the second half over the first half is not just coming from the channel.
Okay. Just a quick follow-up for Bill. You did a good job of highlighting the increased depreciation schedule for 5 years to 10 years on internal front-end equipment. What does that do for the long-term capital intensity for the overall company?
No change. Our current view is our CapEx is to spend 6% to 8%. Again, this is really accounting change that we just dealt with it and moved on.
Our next question comes from the line of Stacy Rasgon with Bernstein Research.
For the first one, I also wanted to sort of revisit the second half ramp. So it does seem clear if the full year is flat, plus or minus, you're up decent double digits half over half. Does that start in Q3? Like is Q3 above seasonal to get us there? Like how would you -- I guess, sitting where we are right now, how would you sort of characterize likely Q3 seasonality versus what you've seen historically?
Stacy, we really can't go there. I mean I'm already leaning out of the window here with giving kind of a directional full year guidance, which we thought is useful given the dramatic cycle we are all going through. But now calling it into Q3 and Q4 separately, I'm sorry, we don't provide that. So it is for the full year. And honestly, it's also hard to say, Stacy, because you know that inventory digestion is not an actual sheet. I mean this is a number of customers. Each of them has their own dynamic, has moving targets. So things could be settled earlier could be set a little later and calling that exact by the quarter end is virtually impossible.
Okay. So I mean -- so maybe to take that point and maybe step out a little more. So on Autos, last year, you've already sort of indicated that you undershipped last year, you had strong pricing and you didn't -- you actually underperformed the market last year. So if you actually started under shipping last year, why are you still in an inventory correction now? Like so this is like 6 quarters.
Because we wanted to spread this out, Stacy, that was the whole idea. I think last quarter, we discussed about our understanding of that so-called soft landing strategy for NXP. Our whole target was to actually have not a sharp peak to trough in Automotive because there would be a bad impact on our factories and Bill would come back with heavy underloading and negative margin impact. So the idea was to spread this over a longer period of time, which is why we started early but didn't want to overdo it in any given quarter. So say we started in Q3 last year for the direct side of Automotive. And obviously, it goes at least until the end of the second quarter of this year. So that would be a full year of correction on the direct side, maybe a little bit spreading into the third quarter.
Got it. So is it demand getting worse now? Or is it just your inventory behavior taking a harder line on inventories because it does feel like the general trajectory is getting worse over the last quarter and Q4, Q1, Q2.
No, it's really the inventory. We don't see -- I mean, you have to take the offset from the SAAR, Stacy. I said earlier that last year, of course, there was a SAAR growth of 10%, this year, it is flat. That is a -- if you compare like-for-like, then that makes this year, of course, a less positive environment from a macro perspective. But everything else, which is the company specific positions we have, which is the content increase, which is offered by the industry per se, and the pricing, which is also flat for us this year is totally in place. So no, it's just inventory.
Our next question comes from the line of Joshua Buchalter with TD Cowen.
Congrats on results. For my first one, I think there's a perception out there that there's a line draw to draw between software-defined vehicles and EVs and then it's much more difficult to do in SPV architecture on an ICE engine. Maybe you could spend a minute or 2 talking about what you're seeing from your customers? I mean, is there a big correlation between that digital architecture change versus electric vehicles because they're rearchitecting and what are you seeing on ICE engines for a software-defined vehicle?
Yes. I would say no. Fundamentally, the concept of a software-defined vehicle, which is actually moving a lot of performance parameters from hardware to software and creating much more flexibility is completely independent of what kind of powertrain it has. Now the matter of the fact is, however, that all OEMs, I know, are extremely busy with developing electric powertrain-based new vehicles. And for most of them, it is actually the core of their activity going forward.
Appreciate the color there. And maybe for Bill. As you just paid down the $1 million note in March, I think you don't have anything to do for over a year now and only $500 million next year. In the passing of NXP has been more aggressive utilizing the balance sheet. And I think your past target was 2x levered. Can you maybe talk about how you're thinking about utilizing the balance sheet and the capital returns here?
Yes, sure. So again, Josh, no change to our capital allocation strategy. If I just look back over the last 3 years, we returned $8.4 billion or 107% of our free cash flow last trailing 12 months, it's below 100% because we retire that debt that you just mentioned. And so that's about 82%. And in the past quarter, we did 90%. So I think we did take the opportunity to deleverage the company. We looked at our gross leverage metric, and it was at 2.1x, now that 1.9. Clearly, with the credit rating agencies and [ sweet stocks ] below 1.5. If we look at -- we're going to continue actively buying back our shares. We think it's a great use of our cash. We have approximately $1.1 billion left on a board authorization plan of buybacks this year.
Towanda, we'll take one more question here today.
Our final question comes from the line of Chris Caso with Wolfe Research.
I wonder if you could talk a little bit more about the China for China manufacturing strategy that you've spoken to in the past. I mean I guess in one point, how that protects the business in China? And then secondly, what margin implication that may have if you change that manufacturing strategy going forward?
Yes. Chris, that's indeed a very -- that's a very important point. There is a clear ongoing and I'd say, increasing requirements from our Chinese customers in Automotive and beyond to go for localized manufacturing. We are pursuing this quite forcefully. We have chosen the Nanjing factory of TSMC, which happens to host the 16 FinFET, 16-nanometer technology, which is the core of our microprocessors for Automotive. We are working with SMIC, which we have done historically outside of Automotive and continue to do so outside of Automotive. And we just ended up choosing a third foundry partner, which I'm not going to name here, but a third foundry partner for the analog mixed signal space in order to produce our products in China for China.
Yes, I do. And if I could follow up also with China from a competitive standpoint regarding what they could actually produce. And you've addressed it from a manufacturing standpoint and putting you on an equal cost base with them. What do you think about the capabilities of some of these local players? Obviously, there's an imperative in time to try to bring as much content locally as possible. Do you see the competitive threat rising in terms of the capabilities of some of the local players that could be a factor going forward?
Look, Chris, in principle, and that's an overriding statement, we are always paranoid about competition because I've learned in my career in this industry, you better be paranoid at all times because it keeps you hot to run successfully against competition. actually, in that particular case, we see 2 areas where China is very, very busy from a local competition perspective. One is power discretes, especially for Automotive and that ranges all the way from IGBTs MOSFETs to silicon carbide. We just observed that for us, it doesn't matter since you know that this is not part of our portfolio. But that's something where it appears they actually make quite good progress.
Ladies and gentlemen, this concludes today's conference call. Thank you for your participation. You may now disconnect.