This conference call transcript was computer generated and almost certianly contains errors. This transcript is provided for information purposes only.EarningsCall, LLC makes no representation about the accuracy of the aforementioned transcript, and you are cautioned not to place undue reliance on the information provided by the transcript.
spk06: Hello and welcome to the Array Technologies first quarter 2022 earnings call. At this time, all participants are in a listen-only mode. A question and answer session will follow the formal presentation. As a reminder, this conference is being recorded. It is now my pleasure to turn the call over to Corey Mueller, Investor Relations Array. Please go ahead.
spk11: Good evening. And thank you for joining us on today's conference call to discuss Array Technologies' first quarter 2022 results. Slides for today's presentation are available on the investor relations section of our website, arraytechinc.com. During this conference call, management will make forward-looking statements based on current expectations and assumptions, which are subject to risks and uncertainties. Actual results could differ materially from our forward-looking statements if any of our key assumptions are incorrect because of other factors discussed in today's earnings press release, the comments made during this conference call, or in our latest reports and filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission, which can be found on our website, arraytechinc.com. We do not undertake any duty to update any forward-looking statements. Today's presentation also includes references to non-GAAP financial measures. You should refer to the information contained in the company's first quarter press release for definitional information and reconciliations of historical non-GAAP measures to the comparable GAAP financial measures. With that, let me turn the call over to Kevin Hostetler, Array Technologies CEO. Thanks, Cody, and good evening, everyone.
spk02: Thank you for joining us on today's call. In addition to Cody, I'm also joined by Nipal Patel, our Chief Financial Officer. I'm excited to join you on my first Array Technologies earnings call, and on day 23 as the CEO of Array. Now, there is still a lot of work I need to do and much more time to be spent with employees, customers, suppliers, and investors in order to give my full assessment on the state of the company. But I did want to provide some early observations about the company and the industry before turning it over to NIPL for a more detailed discussion of the quarter and our revised outlook for 2022. First, And I think this is critical context for everything else that is going on. My decision to come to Array was largely influenced by two fundamental factors. One, the world is transitioning to renewable energy. Combating climate change is no longer a niche pursuit by a few. It is now core to the identity of the world's largest governments, corporations, and asset managers. And there is simply no feasible way to meet the stated goals of these entities without significant increases in the amount of solar energy produced. And two, Array is positioned incredibly well to be a global leader in this solar energy transition. Array has differentiated products that more and more customers are selecting. It has the bankability of over 30 years in the industry. and has an asset-like business model that enables quick and nimble scalability. Now, I recognize these are not new statements to many of you, but I start there because despite some of the near-term challenges within our industry, when I think about the long-term horizon and companies and industries that are poised to make a lasting change in the world while at the same time driving shareholder value, Array operates in a unique space. Since joining, I have not only experienced firsthand these differentiated capabilities, but have also been able to deepen my appreciation for the complexity of the problems we are solving and the employees who are solving them. As many of you know, I have now spent decades leading engineered product companies, and I will tell you, experiences taught me if you can find a great product serving a growing and necessary market, supported by a skilled and dedicated workforce, you have the key elements of a formula to drive strong shareholder value. This being said, it's also important to realize we must execute in the near term in order to continue to build the trust of our customers and investors, which we will need for the opportunity to make that lasting change. Over the last year, an extremely volatile cost and logistics landscape coupled with an uneven and constantly shifting demand profile has made execution a bit more challenging. And let's be clear, over the next few quarters, the landscape is not going to get much easier. The ADCBD investigation has placed uncertainty around the timing of some of our projects and has vastly increased the complexity of managing our supply chain and logistics. Adding to this, the conflict in Ukraine has slowed supply chains throughout Europe, and we're seeing the direct impact of this on projects in Europe as component supplies are rerouted. While these issues will reduce our outlook for 2022, they are far from unmanageable. My experience, coupled with the steps the newly reformed senior leadership team have already taken, leave me confident we will execute on what is within our control. This includes managing not only our material and logistics costs, but also aligning our SG&A spend with changing volume levels. It also means we will need to have a laser focus on working capital management to ensure we don't incur inefficiencies as projects shift left and shift right. This near-term market uncertainty presents an opportunity for us to further differentiate ourselves from our competitors. To this end, we will focus intently on working with our customers to solve their module challenges by playing an active and flexible role in their rapid system redesign efforts all while delivering our products on time with an unparalleled customer experience. Finally, it is also an opportunity to identify and focus on customers and suppliers who are truly willing to be partners. Industry challenges like this require collaboration and a sharing of risk. We are certainly ready to do our part, and we'll be evaluating which partners are willing to do the same. Array has made a lot of progress since becoming a public company a little over a year and a half ago, but we still have room for improvement. Over the coming months, I'll continue my comprehensive review of Array's operating systems and core business processes to further identify areas in which we can drive operational efficiencies. I look forward to updating you all on the progress of my reviews in our next quarter's call. With that, I'd like to give a heartfelt thank you to the employees of Array who have been extremely welcoming and turn the call over to Nipal. Thanks, Kevin.
spk09: Speaking for the management team and employees of Array, we are excited to have you on board. I want to touch on a few topics today. First, I'll walk through the results for the quarter, which finished better than our expectations. Then I'll provide some color on ADCVD and the work we have been doing over the last few weeks in order to quantify the impact to our business. Lastly, in light of the impact we are seeing from the investigation, I will provide an updated guidance range for 2022. With that, I'll turn to slide six to discuss the quarter. Revenues for the first quarter increased 21% to $300.6 million compared to $248.2 million for the prior year period. The $301 million in revenue reflects $251 million from the Legacy Array business and $50 million from the STI business. Revenue in the first quarter of 2021 also included approximately $40 million of IPC-related orders. So, excluding those orders, our Legacy Array business is up 21% year over year. It also represents the third consecutive quarter of revenue growth and a record for a quarter without any IPC-related orders. Gross profit decreased to $26.6 million from $46.2 million in the prior year period due to the expected impacts of the lower margin backlog in the legacy array business, as well as a low margin STI project in the U.S. which had a negative impact. Gross margin decreased from 18.6 to 8.8%. Gross margin for the legacy array business was 8.5% and represents the second consecutive quarter of margin improvement as it is up 380 basis points from the fourth quarter. The SDI business had gross margin of 10.7% in the quarter, which was negatively impacted by higher labor costs in projects where it was providing the construction. This was especially true of a large project in the U.S., where it had significant construction cost overruns. Additionally, the war in Ukraine slowed supply chain availability in Europe, which necessitated a change in the location where material was procured, raising the logistics costs. Operating expenses increased to $58.7 million compared to $30.8 million during the same period in the prior year. The higher expense is primarily related to a $16.7 million increase in amortization expense related to the STI acquisition. Excluding that impact, the increase is primarily due to the addition of STI Norland in addition to higher payroll-related costs due to an increase in headcount as well as higher professional fees associated with the acquisition. These increases were partially offset by a reduction in contingent consideration expense of $3.7 million. Net loss attributable to common shareholders was $33.7 million compared to a net income of $4.6 million during the same period in the prior year, and basic and diluted loss per share were negative 23 cents compared to basic and diluted earnings per share of 4 cents during the same period in the prior year. Adjusted EBITDA decreased to $700,000 compared to $36.6 million for the prior year period. Looking at free cash flow, as anticipated, we used cash of $52.5 million in the quarter primarily due to an increase in unbilled receivables as we had a high concentration of deliveries toward the end of the quarter, which limited our ability to get them built prior to quarter end. This is not a trend we expect going forward. Overall, we were pleased with the quarter. The changes we instituted in our legacy array business are continuing to drive improvements in our profitability, and our operations team has delivered on progressively higher volumes despite a lot of project timing movement. Our recently acquired STI business did have a few cost challenges this quarter as it went through some growing pains constructing a project in the U.S., which were compounded by disruption caused by the war in Ukraine. These elevated costs will be a short-term overhang, but they are certainly addressable as we more fully integrate. Now, if we move to slide seven. When we had our last earnings call, you will remember that it was the week after the announcement of the ADCBD investigation At that time, we stated on the call, we did not have sufficient information to evaluate any resulting impact. However, since that time, there's been a lot more work done by the industry to quantify the impact of the investigation. At this point, it is inevitable that it will have an impact to the industry. As CEA recently noted in their April 26th survey, of the respondents, 83% of projects have had their current module supply either get canceled or delayed and 80% of domestic manufacturers are expecting severe or devastating impacts to their business. Unfortunately, as one of the largest domestic providers of utility-scale trackers, we are not immune to this market disruption, so we do anticipate a portion of our business will be impacted. However, that is the bad news. On a more positive side, we conducted a thorough analysis of our current order book, and at this time, we are forecasting between $225 to $250 million of revenue will be at risk due to module uncertainty. While that number is not trivial, it only represents about 15% of our previous outlook at the midpoint of $1.6 billion. Further, in recent weeks, we have seen the industry rally behind its opposition to this investigation, and we have been front and center of it. Our position is clear. We are fully supportive of a more robust domestic source of modules. However, the supply chain does not exist today. So, in the meantime, we seek a practical and stable solution for our industry. Erica Brinker, our Chief Commercial Officer, has spent much of the last few weeks meeting with legislators and administration officials, outlining that position along with many others in the industry. While there still is uncertainty as to the ultimate outcome, we are hopeful that these efforts are making a positive impact. Moving to the next slide. In light of the current expected impact, you will see our updated guidance range for 2022. You can see that we are reflecting a reduction of revenue of $200 million at our midpoint, reflecting the ADCVD risk, which was partially offset by conversion of new orders. We now expect revenue to be between $1.3 and $1.5 billion. Looking at adjusted EBITDA, As you might expect, the projects with less module certainty are those that we have signed more recently and therefore carry higher gross margins, which creates a larger drop-through impact. Further, as discussed earlier, we are also seeing some cost challenges in the STI business that will create a short-term headwind. First, there are elevated labor costs related to the construction of some of their projects, particularly a large U.S.-based project. This project was signed prior to our acquisition and is the first large project in the U.S. where STI is doing the site construction. We have already made changes to the way the company sources its labor on future projects and will evaluate in more detail whether construction is a core competency of the business. Second, the war in Ukraine has created some supply chain disruption in Europe. This has forced STI to bring materials from Asia, leading to higher logistics costs. Going forward, these elevated costs will be reflected in price increases. However, for projects currently under contract, it will create some margin compression. Taking these factors together, we are now expecting adjusted EBITDA to be between $120 million and $140 million for 2022 and adjusted EPS to be between $0.25 and $0.35 with the same share count expectations as before. We also expect the ADCBD pushouts will have a negative impact to our legacy array margins in the second quarter as several large, higher margin projects are no longer slated to be delivered. This, coupled with STI challenges, will create some downward margin pressure for the second quarter. That said, we still anticipate sequential revenue growth and sequential margin improvement in both the legacy array and STI businesses. For the quarter, we are expecting sequential revenue growth between 20% and 25% and adjusted EBITDA margin to be between 6.5% and 7.5%. Lastly, the reduction of our outlook, we've obviously considered the impact to liquidity and free cash flow. We still anticipate to produce free cash flow for the year, with the expectation still that it will be more back-half-weighted. Further, the reduced volume eases some of the peaks and troughs in our working capital, so there is a little bit of smoothing effect. However, the constant shifting of project timing will mean we have to manage our inventory levels very intently. I'll conclude by stating, while there are near-term headwinds, 2022 will still be a good operational year for us. With that, I'll turn the call over to the operator for questions.
spk06: Thank you. At this time, we will be conducting a question and answer session. If you would like to ask a question, please press star and then one on your telephone keypad. A confirmation turn will indicate your line is in the question queue. You may press star and then two if you would like to remove your question from the queue. For participants using speaker equipment, it may be necessary to pick up your handset before pressing the star keys. One moment, please, while we poll for questions.
spk01: first question is from Brian Lee of Goldman Sachs please go ahead hey guys good afternoon thanks for taking the questions and you know appreciate some of the color around the guidance update here I guess with respect to that you know first question I would have would just be around you know when you're talking to some of your customers and you've identified these projects that are you know moving out of 22 and How much, if any, visibility do you have around, you know, if these are moving into 23 first half, second half, or if these are kind of open-ended where they may actually slip into even further out years based on, you know, project development timelines? And then I think, Nipul, you mentioned some projects in the legacy array business actually moved out altogether. Could you elaborate on that? I thought that was a too cute comment, but could you elaborate on that a bit as well?
spk09: Yeah, sure. Hey, Brian. So regarding the discussion, so as we mentioned on the prepared remarks, we performed a project-by-project analysis of the order book, and we spoke with customers and independently also evaluated the model certainty. And with that, as of now, the push-outs that we see are moving into 2023. We don't have any further information at this point. And the comment I made about the Q2 margins and the push-outs is, We had some of those projects scheduled in Q2 that got pushed. Some got pushed into Q, you know, further into the year, and some got pushed into 2023.
spk01: Okay, fair enough. That's helpful. And then maybe two just kind of modeling-related questions. You know, if I look at the sort of $200 million or so in revenue that's being pulled out of the guidance for the year at the midpoint, and then I know in the press release you said that the – the EBITDA impact is higher because these are richer margin projects. It implies you're getting like a 30% EBITDA margin on the $200 million revenue or so that's being pulled out of the guide. So I guess one, is that correct? And then two, I guess what are you seeing on the incremental $200 million of bookings and awarded contracts you cited in the quarter? Is this kind of the... The level of EBITDA margin you're expecting going forward on new projects just sort of seems like a very high number, just trying to get a sense of how sustainable that 30 percent level is, just given what's implied by the push out in revenues here.
spk09: Yeah. Hey, Brian. So just a little clarification. So when we said the push out of the $200 million, that's at legacy margins. So think about low 20s. The piece that is also in there is our STI business has, as we mentioned in the prepared remarks, have a bit more higher construction costs and logistics costs. We're going to see that overhang for a couple of quarters, so impacting 2022. So the combination of the two is what brings the midpoint of that EBITDA range down.
spk01: Sorry, let me repeat myself. I was looking at... you know, what you've taken out of the guide, I guess. So some of that is just the elevated cost, but it does imply the incremental, you know, $200 million of revenue. You know, had you captured that, that was going to come in at a 30% EBITDA margin. Am I missing something there? Is there something unique about that volume of projects that is now, you know, being assumed in 23, I suppose, reaching those levels of profitability? Because it's the EBITDA delta versus the revenue delta I'm trying to get at, and it implies a pretty healthy margin profile for the amount of projects that are pushing out in the guide here.
spk09: So, you know, it's not implying anything more, so I would keep it to thinking that we're at the legacy margins of below 20% of what's pushing out 2022 and into 2023. Okay, fair enough.
spk01: I'll take it offline. And then just on the cash... Comments in the balance sheet, you know, you have $50 million of cash or so exiting Q1 here. I think the revolver's untapped. But how should we think about, you know, cash flow, it sounds like, based on your comments and also looking at seasonality. Q2 is going to be another cash burn quarter. Plans to tap the revolver, any covenants we need to be aware of, and just general thoughts around liquidity in the near term until you see better cash flow in the back half of the year?
spk09: Yeah, so you'll see we are tapped on the revolver of $52 million at Q1, you'll see, but we do have $50 million of cash on the balance sheet, just timing of that. We feel good about overall cash flow, as we mentioned in the prepared remarks. We will be cash flow positive. We're forecast to be cash flow positive for the year. Q2 is a quarter year where some of these projects that we mentioned previously have shifted out of Q2. So, you know, that kind of that peak has helped a little bit from a cash flow perspective. So we feel, you know, it'll be back half-weighted about a little bit, you know, pre-cash flow positive in Q2 and then back half-weighted to get to a total pre-cash flow positive for the year. Okay.
spk01: Appreciate it. Thanks a lot, guys.
spk06: Our next question is from Mark Strauss of J.P. Morgan. Please go ahead.
spk04: Yeah, good afternoon. Thank you very much for taking our questions. I was just hoping you could give a bit more color on kind of demand trends that you're seeing in Europe, either with the STI business or the legacy array business. We're seeing very strong import data into the European market year to date. Obviously with utility scale projects take time. So I'm just kind of curious if it's backlog or if it's pipeline or any way to quantify what you've seen in Europe year-to-date?
spk09: Yeah, so with both our U.S. and European business, we've seen strength in our bookings. As we say, our overall order book's gone up to $2 billion from what we had at year-end, so we feel strong about that, and SDI has gone up as well. We've seen that strength in both SDI businesses in both Europe and in Brazil, but Europe is as strong as, you know, kind of what you said as well there, Mark.
spk04: Okay. And then, I mean, if we think about a surge in demand in Europe, in addition to kind of pushouts from ADCVD in the U.S., kind of gearing up for arguably a very strong 2023, does that require any kind of temporary elevated investment in order to prepare investors your ability to meet that demand, those shipments in 2023?
spk09: You know, the fortunate thing is, you know, we have the asset-like model, and our supply chain is, you know, the goal is to increase our capacity to handle increases in overall demand. We feel right now, you know, we're setting that capacity up for the demand that is pushing out into 2023. Okay.
spk04: And then just real quick, lastly, this could be a A yes or no answer, but kind of getting the sense that the construction costs and everything that you're talking about, incremental expenses here, do not impact your long-term view of gross margin. So if we should still think about the legacy business being high teens, low 20s gross margin, is that still accurate?
spk09: That is accurate.
spk04: Perfect. Okay. Thank you.
spk06: My next question is from Mahit Manduloy of Credit Twist. Please go ahead.
spk07: Hey, good afternoon. Thanks for taking the questions. So just on the guidance, could you just talk about how much confidence you have for the balance of, I think the U.S. revenues at the midpoint is roughly around $750 million. So how much confidence you have on that in terms of module availability from your customers, right?
spk09: Yeah, no, we do. Based on our discussions as well as independent evaluations, we feel confident about module availability with the revised guidance that we've provided.
spk02: But I will say, this is Kevin, I just want to make sure that we're noting that that's at this point in time. We've had direct conversations with all our large customers, and this is their direct feedback to us and commitments that have been made to them for module availability. So, you know, dealing with some imperfect information from time to time. And at this point in time, we feel pretty confident.
spk07: Right. But I presume you have access to, like, the type of modules probably used in those projects, right? But could you say, like, if those modules are exempted from these investigations, or are they still at risk of potentially being reviewed later this year?
spk09: I mean, I guess what we'll say is what Kevin said is, We had discussions with customers, did our independent evaluation, and at this time, this is where we feel we've identified the risk that we know at this time based on that information, and that's why we feel comfortable with the guidance range we've provided.
spk07: And then just one last one from me. I think in the past, you kind of talked about shipping trackers as well sometimes ahead of model deliveries, which generally is a rare occurrence, but trying to understand if that's something which could help kind of bring some upside to the guidance later this year.
spk02: Thanks. We do currently have a couple of customers requesting that of us now, and we're evaluating that. Fortunately for us with our design, we have a high degree of flexibility, and for our end customers to potentially switch out similar products modules without doing major design changes. But we have customers operating in every bit of that continuum now from doing full design changes to switch out panels to asking us to construct and then at a later point in time supply the clamping systems for their module of choice, which may be in flux. So we're working really hard with our customers, direct communication on a regular basis and all along that continuum.
spk07: Gotcha, and I appreciate the response. Thanks.
spk02: I guess it should be noted that many of our customers, although the modules may be at risk in pushing out of this year, that doesn't mean they're giving up. They're still trying to find alternative supply and trying to pull and keep things into their original program dates as well. So we're certainly here and willing to support them in all of those endeavors.
spk06: My next question is from Philip Shin of Roth Capital. Please go ahead.
spk10: Hey, guys. Thanks for taking my questions. I had a follow-up on Maheep's question there on the 22 revenue guide. I was wondering if you might be able to share what percentage of that billion dollars is one domestic and two international. And then also, importantly, of the domestic revenue, what percentage of that do you think is supported by First Solar, Maxion projects, as well as Safe Harbor. Just trying to get a feel for the level of confidence you have in that billion. And if they're, again, with First Solar, Maxion, and Safe Harbor modules, then it seems like you guys are probably in a very good position there with the billion. Thanks.
spk09: Yeah. Hey, Phil. So to answer the first part of your question, of that billion that represents the legacy array portion. It's about a 90-10 split as far as domestic international. As far as the split, we haven't provided the split of that billion, or that $900 million, I guess, of the particular modules. But again, we'll go back to the discussions we had, but also the independent discussions evaluation we did of what module certainty there was. We feel good about that at this point where we feel confident enough to put the $1 billion out there as far as midpoint.
spk10: Great. Thank you, Nipal. And then coming back to the revolver, you mentioned, Nipal, that you guys pulled down $52 million in the quarter. Can you talk through how much more you can pull down without tripping Any of the covenants?
spk09: Yeah, sure. So, you know, we have a covenant that we have to be 7.1 times leverage or less. And so with the short-term kind of trailing 12-month adjusted EBITDA that we've had and we have to clear, we'll have to stay under $70 million for the very short term, probably Q2. We feel good about, you know, our cash flow here in Q2. and the options we have, you know, scenario planning we've done to get past the short term. And then after Q2, we see it opening up in the full revolver capacity being available for us.
spk10: Okay, great. Thanks. And one more here. As it relates to SDI, can you just help us understand, you were talking about these increased construction costs, but I think of you guys as, you know, selling widgets and tracker and product. So, Does STI have a business where they actually get involved with EPC as well? And just if you can give us a little bit more color on that. And sorry if I missed it, but thank you.
spk09: Yeah. So, hey, Phil, that isn't their core business, but for certain large customers, they have contracted to do the construction projects. And what drove a large portion of what drove the margin, I think, The margin lower than our expected amount for Q1 was a project in the U.S. We've been involved. They have another project in the U.S. where they've committed construction, and we've been involved. The management team is involved in helping them with their labor, choosing labor for that one. So it's not something they do as a core competency, but they have it on a couple of projects.
spk10: Okay. Appreciate all the color. Thanks.
spk06: Our next question is from Colin Roosh of Oppenheimer. Please go ahead.
spk08: Thanks so much. Guys, I want to dig into the liquidity question a little bit deeper. Can you give us a sense of how much liquidity you have right now and how much you've been able to collect out of that working capital quarter to date?
spk09: Yeah, sure. So liquidity, we have the revolver up to another $20 million on the revolver plus the cash we have on the balance sheet, as mentioned previously. We also have, if needed, we have $100 million of preferred shares that we can pull. And then, of course, as you saw, you'll see as our receivables, we have $400 million of receivables at 331 and about $200 million of payables. So that just cash sources and uses, we expect those receivables to be collected here in Q2. So we feel that that provides us enough liquidity along with the remaining revolver as well as you know, if needed, uh, potentially preferred shares.
spk08: Okay. That's helpful. And then can you, can you give us an update on any sort of efforts that you have around engineering and, uh, you know, cost out of the solutions and, and cost reduction efforts and qualification of those redesign?
spk09: Yeah, sure. So, you know, we, we continue to, um, to look at value engineering our product and taking costs out of it. Um, Nothing very specific at this point, but we continue to work with our customers on reducing the cost of install of their product. So whatever we can do on that, because that's one of the largest costs, of course, in building the solar farm. So we'll continue to help the customer with that and reduce on installing the trackers as well, the foundations and stuff. So those are the key things we're working on from an engineering innovation standpoint.
spk08: Okay. Thanks a lot, guys.
spk06: Our next question is from Keshi Harrison of Piper Sandler. Please go ahead.
spk05: Good afternoon, and thank you for taking the questions. Kevin, congrats on the new role. You made a comment in your prepared remarks about sharing risks with your customers. Could you please elaborate further on what you were referring to specifically?
spk02: Yes, so this is really about maintaining a level of flexibility for customers And what I was referencing there in particular was things such as warranty on clamps and clamp design that may be changing from the original design spec to where they find themselves needing a different clamp spec with different module choice, right? So we have customers coming to us saying, look, can you be a little bit more flexible, extend warranty on that change of design, And we'll either pay an additional money for an extended warranty or things like that. So just asking us for a little bit more flexible solutions to get through this time period. And we're certainly willing to do that only after we've done the engineering work internally to make sure that that makes sense for us to do. So it's really about, again, staying in close contact with these large customers of ours and having a degree of flexibility in working with them.
spk05: That's helpful.
spk02: We also say that extends... Yeah, so that also extends in the other direction, right, where as we have some of these large programs slipping out, ensuring that our suppliers, our vendors, are being flexible in delaying shipments and what have you and keeping it in their inventory instead of ours to help us manage working capital a little bit better. So we're looking for that flexibility in both directions, and we're behaving in a very flexible manner, our customers are, and thus far our vendors are as well.
spk05: That's helpful context and actually dovetails quite nicely into my next question, which is surrounding working capital. I think both you and Nipal mentioned it's going to be a focus here moving forward. Just looking at the day sales upstanding in 2019, 2020 relative to where it is today, it seems like day sales upstanding has increased quite a lot. over that time period. I'm wondering if something has changed in the way you collect cash from your customers today relative to 2020, and if you have the ability to return to those historical levels across the board, not just receivables, but payables and inventory days, et cetera.
spk09: Yeah, you know, the short-term answer is yes, but we feel we have the ability to give back to those cashies that The short term right now with the supply chain as it is, I'll speak of DOIs first and inventory. We've increased inventory in certain aspects in Q4 and in the Q1 to ensure that, one, the costs are higher of inventory, so there's inflation in that, but then also to buffer any supply chain issues, we've increased some safety stock to make sure we deliver on time so we don't delay project builds on the DSOs. There's a portion of that where as we were delivering items, the linearity of the deliveries kind of impacted the unbilled, which is items that we've shipped and delivered but not have gone into the billing cycle yet. The unbilled has increased, which temporarily as our shipments are getting caught up here at the end of Q1. So we feel that will burn down here in Q2 in the balance of the year and get back toward our kind of historical DSOs and DOI as we also burn down the inventory.
spk05: That's very helpful. And if I could sneak maybe just one more in. Just going back to that question on the legacy array guidance, You know, that $1 billion comparison to what you guys did last year at $850, I think last year 97% was U.S., this year 90% is U.S. So if you adjust for higher ASPs, would volumes in the U.S. be relatively flat year over year, or would they be down year over year for your legacy array U.S. business? And that's it. Thank you.
spk09: Yeah, you know, when you look at it that way, we actually see that the volumes are slightly up in the U.S. business X, any increase due to pricing. So we've actually seen it up with the $1 billion.
spk05: That's it for me. Thank you.
spk06: Our last question is from Donovan Schaffer of Norton Capital Markets. Please go ahead.
spk03: Hi. Hi, guys. Thanks for taking the question. I want to follow up asking about kind of the, you know, self-performance or doing the EPC work, SDI in Northern America. One would just be, you know, I think you mentioned that there was one other project. If you can give kind of a sense of size, you know, it could be very rough, you know, if we're talking, you know, larger than 100 megawatts, smaller than 100 megawatts, something like that. just, and if there's more beyond that, and also outside the U.S. You know, is this strictly a U.S. phenomenon where they were doing the self-performance because, you know, it's a higher-wage market, maybe they felt like they had to prove it out and execute the labor on their own, or is this something they also do in Brazil and in Europe?
spk09: Yeah, hey, Donovan, so the project is, you know, over 100,000 megawatts here in the U.S., the second project, and there's no others scheduled for the U.S., and we've assisted on that one considerably as far as ensuring the labor is at the correct cost and such, so we've helped them on that one. They do have, as mentioned earlier on the call, it's not for them, but they have projects both in Brazil and in Spain that they self-perform or install themselves, but not by any stretch. The majority of their projects is a small portion of them, and we're evaluating that.
spk03: Okay. And then for the depreciation expense that was added with the SDI in New Orleans acquisition, can you give us a sense of kind of what underlies that? You know, is that for, you know, capital equipment to be produced? tracker components? Is that, you know, the legacy amortization you guys have had was with, you know, research and development where you're no longer doing that practice of amortizing it. So is this something where, you know, there will be a reflect CapEx that is likely to be happening and continuing or is this something that's just going to kind of run off? What's kind of underlying that depreciation?
spk09: Yeah. Hey, Donovan, it's, What you see there in the prepared marks is not depreciation, it's amortization related to the acquisition. And that's amortization related primarily to backlogging customer lists. That's what makes up the $16.7 million predominantly.
spk03: My apology. Well, then last question, just in the interest of, or just sort of for my own sake, looking back, I know things have changed, but looking back at the Q2 and the Q3 decks in 21, you guys gave some helpful information around gross margins and how that would kind of be reversing. And then, of course, there was this accounting change that led to the delayed Q4, and that had some impact on gross margins. So I'm just curious if you could share for the first quarter, you know, in pretty rough terms, what kind of a gross margin would it have been under the old methodology? Is that something where you'd pick up another 1%, 2%? I'm just trying to kind of recall that and use it based on what you say to kind of look back and how that compares with what you guys were saying back then. And again, I know things have changed. You know, the whole environment has changed, but... Can you give me any indication of that?
spk09: Yeah, you know, hey, Donovan, we wouldn't have thought the margins would have changed in 2022 based on that accounting change. what we stated for the legacy array business at 8.5% is where the margins are. So we feel good about that. It's a sequential growth as we were stating. We feel, you know, we also feel that Q2 will continue that sequential margin growth. So we're staying on that trajectory of the array business recovering based on the processes we put in place.
spk03: And so if I'm hearing this right, you're saying they would have also been 8.5%. That would have also been the gross margin under the old methodology?
spk00: Yeah.
spk03: Oh, okay. All right. Thank you. That's it for me. Thank you.
spk06: Ladies and gentlemen, we have reached the end of the question and answer session. This concludes today's conference. Thank you for joining us. You may now disconnect your lines.
Disclaimer