Good day, everyone, and welcome to the Bruker second quarter 2014 earnings conference call. All participants will be in a listen-only mode. Should you need assistance, please email a conference specialist by pressing the star key, followed by zero. After today's presentation, there will be an opportunity to ask questions. To ask a question on the audio side, you may press star and then one. To remove yourself from the question queue, you may press star and two. Please also note that today's event is being recorded. This time, I'd like to turn the conference call over to Mr. Joshua Young. Sir, you may begin.
Thank you very much, Jamie. Good afternoon. I'd like to welcome everyone to Bruker's second quarter 2014 earnings conference call. My name is Joshua Young, and I'm the Vice President of Investor Relations for Bruker. Joining me on today's call are Frank Laukien, our President and CEO, and Charlie Wagner, Bruker's Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer. In addition to the earnings release we issued earlier today, we will also be referencing a slide presentation as part of today's conference call. The PDF of this presentation can be downloaded by clicking on the earnings release hyperlink on Bruker's Investor Relations website. During today's call, we'll be highlighting non-GAAP financial information. A reconciliation of our GAAP to our non-GAAP financial statements is included in our earnings release and in our webcast presentation. Before we begin, I'd like to make the usual safe harbor statement, which I show on slide two.
During the course of this conference call, we will make forward-looking statements regarding future events or the financial performance of the company that involve risks and uncertainties. The company's actual results may differ materially from the projections described in such statements. Factors that might cause such differences include, but are not limited to, those discussed in today's earnings release and in our Form 10-K, as well as other subsequent SEC filings. Also note that the following information is related to current business conditions and our outlook as of today, August 6, 2014. Consistent with our prior practice, we do not intend to update our projections based on new information, future events, or other reasons prior to the release of our third quarter 2014 financial results in November.
We will begin today's call with Frank providing a business summary of our second quarter performance and an update on our outlook for the second half of 2014. Charlie will then cover our financials for the second quarter in more detail. Now I'd like to turn the call over to Bruker's CEO, Frank Laukien.
Thanks, Joshua. Good afternoon, and thank you for joining us on the call today. I will begin my presentation on slide four. We faced a tough year-over-year comparison, as Q2 was a relatively strong quarter in 2013, but we were able to deliver results that were in line with our expectations. We are pleased with our growth in revenues, earnings per share, and free cash flow in both Q2 2014 and for the first half of the year. We reported $457 million in revenue during the second quarter 2014, a 1% increase from the previous year. From a market perspective, academic research remains healthy, while demand from industrial customers remains mixed. From a group perspective, BioSpin and BEST drove our revenue growth in Q2 of 2014, while our CALID Group was negatively affected by weak CAM performance and delays in our detection division.
Our BMAT Group's revenues were flat in Q2 year-over-year. We reported $0.21 in non-GAAP EPS in the second quarter of 2014, an increase of 17% from Q2 2013. Finally, we continue to make good progress on improving our free cash flow, as we generated $5 million of cash in the second quarter of 2014 after negative free cash flow in Q2 of 2013. On slide five, I show Bruker's performance through the first six months of 2014. Our operating performance was well-balanced as we drove revenue growth, higher operating margins, and improved non-GAAP EPS and higher free cash flow. Our first half 2014 year-over-year revenue growth up 4% was reasonably balanced among all three of our groups and is consistent with the original guidance that we had provided for the year. Europe and Asia drove most of the year-over-year revenue growth through the six months of 2014.
Our first half 2014 non-GAAP operating margin expanded by 50 basis points to 9.6%, compared to 9.1% in H1 2013. Our first half 2014 non-GAAP EPS was $0.32, representing 23% growth over the first half of 2013. Finally, our free cash flow improved by $71 million through the first six months year-over-year, which is a result of our focus on working capital in addition to margins and EPS. In summary, Bruker's results through the first six months of the year were solid as we demonstrated balanced operational performance with revenue growth translating into higher margins and higher non-GAAP EPS and free cash flow. Despite our good start to the year, we now expect that the second half of 2014 will be weaker than we originally projected. There are four reasons for our lower outlook in the second half.
First, we expect our CAM division results to be considerably weaker than originally anticipated due to our efforts to restructure or divest two significant product lines. Second, this will generate approximately $10 million less in revenue for Q3 of 2014 due to a delay in the customer's ability to accept delivery of our load cell pump pilot line. Third, BioSpin Group orders in the first half were weaker than anticipated. While we do foresee a meaningful pickup in BioSpin growth, order growth in the second half of the year, the later order timing results in less revenue than expected in 2014. Finally, BMAT Group orders in the first half were also weaker than expected, as we have not yet seen a meaningful acceleration in demand from our semiconductor, data storage, and other microelectronics customers.
While the majority of our reduced outlook is related to our camera structuring and planned divestitures, we are nevertheless disappointed that other factors are also contributing to our reduced outlook for the full year 2014. We are taking actions to reduce our costs and do what we can to mitigate the impact of the expected second half 2014 revenue shortfall. Please now turn to slides six and seven, where we will provide additional details about the Q2 2014 performance of our three BSI segment groups and our BEST segments, and I will also comment on their outlook for the second half of 2014. I will start with the Bruker BioSpin Group. BioSpin delivered another good quarter of mid-single-digit revenue growth, with the Americas and Asia driving this performance.
Our revenue growth in Japan benefited from installations that were being completed as a result of the previous Japanese special supplementary budget or SSB. One of the exciting developments during the second quarter of 2014 was that we completed the installation of the world's first horizontal 21 Tesla magnet for FT-ICR. This new magnet will provide researchers with the highest resolution mass spectrometry technique available to analyze complex mixtures, including applications in petroleomics, dissolved organic matter, metabolomics, top-down proteomics, and MALDI imaging. In the BioSpin Group, both our magnetic resonance spectroscopy or MRS and our preclinical imaging or PCI divisions performed well in Q2 of 2014. The PCI division reported improved performance for its molecular imaging products. As a reminder, we added these molecular imaging products to our portfolio via an acquisition nearly two years ago, and we are pleased that the performance of these products is improving.
Concerning our outlook for the second half of 2014, we now expect that our BioSpin Group will see a higher percentage of its full year 2014 new order bookings in the second half of 2014. Given the lead times required to install these products, the later order timing means that much of this revenue will shift out of 2014 into 2015. We believe that the market is healthy, given that we are expecting good growth in both revenues and bookings for the full year. I would like to now turn to our CALID Group, which reported a mid-single-digit revenue decline year-over-year in the second quarter of 2014. Our LSC division generated low double-digit growth in the quarter. One of the highlights for the division during the second quarter was the launch of our new impact II ultra-high-resolution QTOF mass spectrometer at ASMS in June.
Impact II provides industry-leading sensitivity for proteomics, biomarker research, identification of impurities, and residue screening. We have seen strong interest in impact II since its launch and are optimistic that this will be one of our faster-growing products. Our MALDI Biotyper solution continued to generate robust growth in the second quarter of 2014. With two quarters under our belt of selling a U.S. FDA-approved version of the Biotyper, we believe that we continue to be the U.S. and worldwide market leader for MALDI identification in microbiology. Another milestone for the MALDI Biotyper in the second quarter was gaining approval from the Chinese FDA. China is also an untapped and large market for us to penetrate with the Biotyper, and we saw immediate order growth towards the end of the second quarter in China. Finally, we also received regulatory approval in Brazil during the quarter.
Our CAM division posted another quarter of weak performance in Q2, and we expect to see a further slowdown in the CAM business after our restructuring announcement. With our decision to stop offering gas chromatography and gas chromatography single quad mass spectrometry systems as of July 23, 2014, we expect the CAM division's financial performance to deteriorate for the remainder of 2014 and until the divestitures and restructuring are complete. We expect that CAM's revenues in 2014 will decline by more than $20 million compared to 2013, and its non-GAAP operating loss will be a few million higher in 2014 than its full year 2013 operating loss. Nearly all of this decline will happen in the second half of this year. This is the single most material driver of our lower guidance for fiscal year 2014.
While CAM's weaker performance hurts us in the second half of 2014, we believe that we are taking the right steps to reduce CAM losses significantly in 2015 and further in 2016. In the CALID Group, our detection division continued to experience delays in obtaining German export licenses, as Germany has slowed the review and approval process for certain types of products. Since detection's revenues tend to be concentrated among a few large transactions, the continued delays had a material effect on CALID's revenue performance in both Q1 and Q2 of 2014. We were pleased that we generated very strong new order bookings in detection in the second quarter of 2014, which bodes well for 2015 and which may help us in Q4 of 2014, depending primarily on the timing of export licenses. On slide seven, I show performance of our BMAT Group, and then of our BEST segment.
The Bruker Material Groups, or BMAT's revenues, were flat in Q2 2014 year-over-year. While research and academic markets remained healthy, we have not seen the uptake in demand from semiconductor, data storage, and other microelectronics markets that we had anticipated. As a result, we are also expecting weaker than originally expected revenue and margin contributions from the BMAT Group in our second half of 2014. The flat performance of our BMAT Group is also a contributing factor to our reduced guidance for fiscal year on full year 2014. Within the BMAT Group, our nano-surface instrumentation division grew as a result of [audio distortion] portfolio for cell biology and neuroscience research. We believe that we utilize the technology leader here, and we also have a very strong IP position in this area.
We are excited to offer these unique capabilities to our cell biology customers, in addition to multiphoton and fast confocal live cell imaging. In the second quarter of 2014, our Bruker Energy and Supercon Technologies, or BEST segment, posted its second straight quarter of 12% revenue growth, and BEST also improved non-GAAP operating margins in the second quarter of 2014 if you exclude the effect of the Rosatom license revenue in Q2 of 2013. BEST has been a beneficiary of strong demand for low-temperature superconducting wire, which is used in MRI magnets, as well as for increased delivery for the ITER fusion energy research and XL large-scale scientific research projects. BEST was recently informed that the customer for the Rosatom HTS research pilot will not be able to accept delivery and installation in Q3 of 2014, even though we already have everything tested, ready, and packed for delivery.
This is disappointing as it will push approximately $10 million of revenue out of our third quarter 2014, most likely into 2014. It is not currently clear when we will be able to deliver this pilot line to Russia. This situation is a contributor to our reduced guidance for fiscal year 2014. Now, I'd like to make a few closing remarks before turning the call over to Charlie. While Bruker generated improved financial results in the first half of 2014, we understand that our lower outlook for the second half of the year, and therefore our reduced guidance for the full year 2014, is disappointing. Much of the reduced expectations for our second half of 2014 are a direct result of the major CAM restructuring and divestiture plan, which will have significant financial benefits in 2015 and beyond.
The key message that I would convey is that we are fully committed to taking the right actions to improve the long-term financial health of Bruker's business. While these decisions are difficult, you can clearly see that they are establishing the path to make our portfolio more profitable. We expect to report year-over-year improvements in our operating profitability, non-GAAP EPS, and cash flow during 2014. Our focus heading into 2015 is setting up Bruker to deliver an attractive combination of revenue growth, operating margin, EPS growth, and cash flow expansion. With that, I will now turn the call over to Charlie.
Thanks, Frank. I'll now provide some additional details on our Q2 2014 financial performance. On slide nine, I show a snapshot of our Q2 2014 non-GAAP results. Total revenues were $457 million, an increase of 1% from the second quarter of 2013. Geographically, year-over-year revenue growth in North America and Europe was mostly offset by revenue decline in Japan. Higher gross margins were offset by higher SG&A spending, as non-GAAP operating margins declined by 20 basis points year-over-year to 11.5%. Non-GAAP EPS grew approximately 17% over Q2 2013. One of the highlights for the quarter is that we continue to make good progress in lowering our working capital per dollar of revenue, as our working capital per dollar of revenue declined to $0.42 in Q2 2014, compared to $0.46 in Q2 2013. Turning to slide 10, I show the revenue bridge for the second quarter of 2014.
Reported growth of 0.6% reflected an organic revenue decline of 2.2%. We recorded a 0.5% positive effect from acquisitions. Finally, changes in foreign exchange rates increased revenues by 2.3% in the quarter. Currency had a considerable effect on both our top line and our costs in Q2. This is primarily driven by a stronger euro. The Japanese yen had less impact on our Q2 than we've seen in recent quarters, as the yen had already weakened substantially in Q2 2013. Overall, we lost approximately $0.01 in EPS from year-over-year changes in foreign exchange rates in Q2. On slide 11, I show our Q2 2014 non-GAAP operating results in more detail. Our Q2 2014 non-GAAP gross margin of 46.3% is an increase of 90 basis points on a year-over-year basis.
Our improved gross margin in Q2 benefited from a positive product mix in BioSpin, as well as improvements in BMAT margins as a result of 2013's restructuring programs. Our Q2 2014 operating expenses were higher year-over-year, as investments in SG&A were somewhat offset by lower R&D spending. Nearly $2 million of the increase in SG&A was due to changes in foreign exchange rates. The remaining increase was primarily related to spending in our Life Science and Clinical Division, primarily for our MALDI Biotyper system and for investments in corporate functions and corporate projects. Our non-GAAP operating margin of 11.5% was 20 basis points below our non-GAAP operating margin of 11.7% in Q2 2013. Below operating income, other expense improved by $5 million compared to Q2 2013 due to lower realized foreign exchange losses.
As a result, our non-GAAP EPS of $0.21 was $0.03 higher than in Q2 2013 and reflected a tax rate of approximately 30% in Q2 2014, which is in line with our expected full-year 2014 tax rate of 29%-30%. On slide 12, I show a reconciliation of our GAAP to our non-GAAP financial results for the second quarter. In Q2 2014, we excluded $17.3 million of operating costs from our non-GAAP results, which were up considerably compared to the previous year. We incurred $10.7 million of restructuring charges in the second quarter of 2014, and these charges relate to previously announced restructuring programs. After factoring in our recently announced CAM restructuring, we now expect to incur $50 million in restructuring costs during 2014, including CAM. For programs announced or to be announced in 2014, most of the run rate benefit will begin in 2015.
On slide 13, I show our revenue bridge for the first six months of 2014. Reported revenue growth of 3.9% is in line with where we expect it to be after the first six months of the year. We generated 1.9% organic revenue growth in the first half of 2014. Changes in foreign exchange rates added 1.2% to revenues, while the net impact from acquisitions and divestitures added 0.8% to our revenue growth. All three of our BSI groups generated year-over-year revenue growth in the low to mid-single digits for the first six months of the year. On slide 14, I show our operating performance through the first six months of 2014. We expanded our non-GAAP operating margin by 50 basis points year-over-year through the first half of 2014, with most of the net improvement coming from lower R&D spending.
Our lower R&D spending primarily relates to reduced investment in low -growth businesses within the Bruker portfolio. Keep in mind that changes in foreign exchange rates represent a headwind of over 100 basis points through the first six months of the year. This is primarily the result of a weaker yen versus the U.S. dollar. In the first half of 2014, we reported $0.32 in non-GAAP EPS, which represented 23% growth compared to the first six months of 2013. On slide 15, I show our non-GAAP reconciliation through the first six months of 2014. We've excluded $28.8 million of operating costs from our non-GAAP results, which was up $7.6 million compared to the first half of last year. All of this increase was driven by higher restructuring and acquisition-related costs. On slide 16, I show our balance sheet as of June 30th, 2014.
Our balance sheet continued to strengthen as we work to reduce our working capital. Working capital decreased by 4% compared to December 31st, 2013. On slide 17, I show our cash flow performance through the first six months of 2014. We recorded free cash flow of $15 million in the first six months of 2014, an improvement of roughly $71 million compared to the first six months of 2013. Improved working capital and lower CapEx spending drove the improvement. We improved our contributions in working capital by $60 million year-over-year, with the most progress being made in receivables and payables. We are beginning to see some improvements in inventory levels as well, but more focus is required to drive our inventory levels down in the second half of the year.
Our cash conversion cycle improved by seven days compared to the previous year, and that is comprised of the following: Our days of inventory outstanding were 229 days compared to 223 in Q2 2013. Our days sales outstanding were 57 days compared to 58 days last year. Finally, our days payable totaled 42 days compared to 29 days in the previous year. While our CapEx spending was also down significantly through the first six months of the year, we expect that our capital spending will accelerate somewhat in the second half of the year due to the timing of capital projects. We have now recorded four straight quarters of positive free cash flow, which is a considerable improvement from our past.
The drivers of this improvement are a higher focus on working capital from the entire organization due to changes in incentives and newly launched restructuring initiatives specifically aimed at improving working capital. Now I will turn to our financial guidance for 2014, which I show on slide 19. As Frank mentioned earlier, Bruker got off to a good start this year but is now expecting a weaker second half of 2014 than we originally anticipated. The primary reason for the reduced outlook is our CAM division. A key part of our 2014 guidance and business plan was to drive meaningful improvement in the operating performance of the CAM division. Now that we have made the decision to divest or restructure most of the assets within CAM, we need to reset our expectations for 2014, since we stopped taking orders for some of the CAM products in July.
As a result of the restructuring actions, we now expect to generate approximately $20 million less in revenue from CAM in 2014 than the original assumptions in our guidance, with nearly all of this decrease occurring in the second half of the year. In addition, we also now expect that approximately $10 million of revenue from BEST's Rosatom pilot line that was scheduled to occur in Q3 2014 will not be recognized this year. Finally, we have slightly lower revenue outlooks for our BioSpin and BMAT groups in the second half of 2014. Both businesses had lower-than-expected orders in the first half of the year. While stronger order growth is expected in both of these groups in the second half, the later order timing means that some revenues now slip into 2015.
The net result is that we now expect our revenues to be approximately flat in the second half of 2014 compared to the second half of 2013. This will result in full-year 2014 revenue growth of 1%-2%, compared to our previous guidance of growth of 3%-4%. As a result of our revised revenue outlook, we are reducing our non-GAAP EPS outlook by $0.07 and expect to be in the range of $0.78-$0.81, compared to our previous guidance of $0.85-$0.88. This guidance revision further assumes a very weak Q3 compared to Q3 2013, and a sequentially stronger Q4 2014. As a reminder, we had a very low tax rate of 20% in Q3 2013, which is also part of the year-over-year weakness we expect to see in Q3 2014.
We are making a small update to our currency assumption, as the U.S. dollar to euro rate stood at $1.37, and the yen to dollar rate at $1.01 at the end of the second quarter. I will close by stating that our reduced second half growth outlook is partly disappointing and partly just the direct consequence of our announced CAM restructuring, but we are still making good progress in transforming Bruker in 2014. We are strengthening our balance sheet and cash flow. We are taking steps to reduce the considerable margin and EPS drag created by CAM, and we are making progress improving our systems and business processes. As a reminder, we expect to reduce CAM's annual revenues by approximately $50 million-$70 million, and improve CAM's profitability by $15 million-$20 million annually once our plans are fully implemented.
With that, I would like to turn the call over to Joshua to start the Q&A session.
Jamie, please assemble the Q&A roster.
Ladies and gentlemen, at this time, if you would like to ask a question, please press star and then one on your touch-tone telephones. If you are using a speakerphone, we ask that you please pick up your handset before pressing the keys to ensure the best sound quality. To withdraw your question, you may press star and then two. Again, it is star and then one to ask a question. Our first question comes from Isaac Ro from Goldman Sachs. Please go ahead with your question.
Hi. Thanks. Good afternoon, [Ty]. I wanted to just ask a bigger picture question to both Frank and Charlie regarding the CAM restructuring. Generally speaking, I think of that business having been pretty important to the company over the last few years. Obviously, the results there were not what you wanted. So I have to imagine it was a difficult decision. Just how important is it in the grand scheme of the long-term restructuring of the company? Is this something that we can look at as a turning point that will help you guys deliver on the longer-term growth and profitability goals that you have? I am just trying to put this in context with all the decisions that have been made over the last 12 months.
This is Frank. Isaac, this is certainly one of our major decisions or the major decision. Indeed, it was a difficult decision, but I feel it is the right decision after we have really gone through a very thorough and pretty comprehensive bottom-up strategy review for the first five months of the year. As you have seen, we have been pretty judicious in our decisions. There is GC -Triple quad technology and LC -Triple quad technology that we have determined is strategically important and where we could, over time, reach satisfactory financial results, we believe. Those we will retain as our combined Bruker Daltonics mass spec division.
There were other areas where we felt that others might have a better focus or a broader set of products for trace elemental analysis, for instance, or areas where we felt that the market we were not sufficiently differentiated, and therefore, chose to either divest or discontinue and restructure some of those operations. But it is a very rational decision, obviously. I would have preferred it was 3.5 years ago, is that it did not come to that point. But it was clear that that would make sense for the business at this point. Also, as you look around Bruker elsewhere, there are so many other opportunities in many of our other divisions and groups. I think actually it will be a healthy profit in addition to what is needed on the financial side.
Great. Just a follow-up, if I could. On the overall demand outlook, it sounded like the majority of the lower revenue guidance was a function of the specific actions you are taking in CAM. Can you just maybe help us get some confidence that the overall demand outlook for the rest of the portfolio remains healthy, whether it be in terms of orders and bookings? I think this quarter, you probably did not give as much color around the order as you might have in the past. Just if you could put a minute or two of color around the demand outlook for the business in the back half of this year, that would be great.
Yeah, I feel that the demand outlook for the full year and for the back half of the year for Bruker BioSpin, for the BioSpin Group and for the CALID Group, excluding CAM, is really quite healthy. We did comment that orders and demand are not that healthy for the BMAT Group. In fact, the flat Q2 orders year-over-year are contributing to our reduced revenue expectations in the BMAT Group. Interestingly, for that group, which had a flat start and where I would say it is as much as timing, but there is a weaker demand environment than what we had anticipated, especially in the industrial and semiconductor space by the middle of this year. We do see a pickup in the second half, or we do anticipate it to pick up in the second half of the year.
I would not call the BMAT market healthy, although I do expect a sequential improvement of second half orders versus first half orders. Back to BioSpin and CALID, I think those markets are reasonably healthy, and our demand and our competitive position and demand for our products in these markets look reasonably healthy to me.
Got it. Thanks, guys.
Our next question comes from Steve Willoughby from Cleveland Research. Please go ahead with your question.
Hi. Thanks for taking my question. I was wondering if you could just help us quantify for the EPS guidance reduction, how much is related to CAM, how much is related to BEST, and how much is related to the softer orders in the two different businesses, if there's any way to kind of quantify those impacts.
Yeah, I think we outlined in our prepared comments that from a revenue reduction, revenue guidance reduction, CAM is about half of the revenue guidance reduction. It ends up being, I guess, I would describe it as a disproportionately larger share of the EPS reduction. A lot of the increased CAM losses are going to occur in the U.S., whereas we don't get a tax benefit on those losses. So the hit on EPS is disproportionately large. We do have a little bit of an impact from the other revenue reductions, but we also have some benefits. I commented on foreign exchange losses coming in lower than they did last year, at least in the current currency environment.
Think of it as a big hit from CAM on the EPS line, a smaller hit from the other pieces of the guidance reduction, with those being then partially offset by an improvement in foreign exchange losses.
Okay. Just one follow-up then. Has anything happened with CAM in the two weeks since you announced the restructuring that is different than what you had anticipated? Or you are just trying to figure out what has been going on more recently?
No. We stopped taking orders for some of the products in July. We commented on that in the script. Aside from that, no. We have conversations ongoing with folks who are potentially interested in acquiring some of the assets of the business. I have no comment at this point on whether we will be successful with those discussions, but they are ongoing. Aside from that, nothing new to report. We are just now working through the implementation of some of the decisions that we announced.
Okay, thanks very much.
Our next question comes from Brandon Couillard from Jefferies. Please go ahead with your question.
Thanks. Good morning. Or afternoon. Actually, Frank, I would be curious to hear your general thoughts on the global academic market. Sounds like your commentary is a little more constructive than what we've heard from others in the period. Just some thoughts there.
Yes, Brandon, gladly. Europe remains reasonably strong with Germany and U.K. particularly strong. Eastern Europe and Russia, very weak and nonexistent right now. The U.S. is quite strong. U.S. demand patterns this year for most of our divisions are pretty strong growth. That's the light bulb. Of course, it also comes from a weaker basis last year. Japan is quite weak, but that's because, of course, there is no special supplementary budget or only a de minimis special supplementary budget compared to a year ago. I think those are the major drivers. We think India is coming back a little bit, Brazil is coming back a little bit after a weak start to the year. But I think strong U.S., weak Japan, and overall in the aggregate, a reasonable academic, plus non-academic, plus medical research pattern, also government research.
Overall, those markets are, in the aggregate, not bad with the U.S. really being remarkably strong and Japan being weak year-over-year because of last year's SSB.
Then one for Charlie. On the balance sheet and cash flow, I guess a two-part question is: you go through this process with CAM, are there any working capital effects that we should consider in the second half of the year? What does the business look like from a working capital profile perspective if we took CAM out of it altogether?
There will be some. Obviously, there will be some impact from CAM. Probably the biggest impact will be in inventory. Whether we move forward with divestitures or ultimately with restructuring, quite a bit of inventory should come off the balance sheet. Obviously, that won't be a source of cash if we're able to achieve the divestitures. Otherwise, it would essentially be a write-down and contribute to the restructuring charges. I think there's a cleanup period that we're going to have to go through over the next six months or so that will have some impact on working capital. CAM working capital consumption, I would say, is slightly worse than the Bruker average, but not so much worse that the portfolio looks radically different without it. We're continuing to move forward with working capital reduction initiatives in every region and in every business.
As I mentioned, we've had some good success this year on the receivable side and the payable side. We had good step forward on inventory in Q1, little bit of a setback in Q2, but the focus is clearly there, and we've got a lot of programs identified to drive inventory down further towards the second half of the year.
Super. Thank you.
Our next question comes from Doug Schenkel from Cowen and Company. Please go ahead with your question.
Good afternoon. Thanks for taking my questions. I have two. First question, just some clarifying math. You reduced revenue guidance by just over $35 million at the midpoint. $10 million of this is Rosatom, $20 million of this is CAM. It looks like net of FX, you are reducing guidance for everything other than Rosatom and CAM by just over $5 million. Keeping in mind the flow of these two dynamics, Rosatom was described as a timing issue, and CAM is something that decision clearly improves the business over time. Is this math right, Charlie?
I would say the reduction is more like $40 million. Your remainder there is closer to $10 million than $5 million.
Okay. That gets me to the second question. We are talking about a $5 million-$10 million cut excluding Rosatom and CAM. Can you just explain why you seem to be emphasizing so much the challenges beyond CAM and Rosatom given this math? Really what we are talking about here is just over 30 basis points of growth, which in the grand scheme of things is a rounding error. I am just trying to get at, are there concerns about your ability to hit these numbers, and is this why you sound the way you do? Are you just continuing this trend of going out of your way to sound, I guess, to really keep expectations low?
It is a couple of things. Orders were soft in the first half, and as we commented, we are expecting a weak Q3 followed by a strong Q4. While CAM and the BEST revenue push-out contribute to the weaker second half and a weak Q3, BioSpin and BMAT also contribute to the weak Q3. We are going out of our way to signal the weak Q3 followed by a strong Q4. I think we have always tried to give pretty good color on the demand that we are seeing. Our guidance coming down from 3%-4% to 1%-2% is pretty meaningful in our eyes, and we wanted to characterize all the drivers of that.
Our next question comes from Tim Evans from Wells Fargo Securities. Please go ahead with your question.
Hi. Thank you. Frank, what are the factors that you think created the lower BioSpin orders in the first half, and how much confidence do you have that those will resolve themselves in the second half?
Yeah. Tim, we have analyzed this a little bit and to some extent, actually, the factor is almost last year. Last year, we had a bit of an unusual order pattern at BioSpin and the first time I can remember, we actually had more than half of the orders in the first half of the year. This year, I think we are closer to a more typical pattern with more than half, maybe 54%- 55% of orders in the second half of the year. We only have three years of data on that, and the rest is more experience from prior years, but we did not consolidate the data at the time. Indeed, as we were budgeting the year, we probably set that a little too even throughout the year. So our orders in the first half of the year were weaker than what we had expected in BioSpin.
We have reasonable visibility and obviously not perfect in that business, and we are pretty optimistic about orders. We have a lot of not quite orders yet, but cases that are decided. We pretty much know we are going to get these deals, but no, we do not have a written contract yet. So it is a more typical order pattern, and it is delayed compared to what they experienced last year and how we have modeled this year and how we had seen it in the bottom-up forecast for this year. In BioSpin, I would argue that these are timing issues and there is nothing really wrong with that market. The PCI markets are growing quite nicely, and the MRS markets are low to mid-single-digit growth year for the full year and then look healthy. But there is a timing issue.
BMAT, I have conceded and said that this is not just timing. The markets still are weaker there than what we had anticipated for this group.
Okay. Thank you. Are you willing to offer any more commentary on the MALDI Biotyper rollout? Should we be looking for a bolus of placements here in the second half or maybe early 2015 given the recent regulatory approvals?
I wouldn't call it a bolus, but it's steadily improving. The MALDI Biotyper certainly is seeing double-digit revenue growth, and it's growing a little bit faster in the first half of the year than what we had anticipated. I don't know that there is a bolus, but it adds up nicely, and so that's how I would characterize it.
Okay, thanks.
Once again, if you would like to ask a question, please press star and one. To withdraw your question, you may press star and then two. Our next question comes from Jon Groberg from Macquarie. Please go ahead with your question.
Thanks. Good afternoon. Charlie, how come, I guess since you guys have announced that you're exiting CAM, why wouldn't you just move that into discontinued operations?
Yeah. Jon, we're not exiting CAM entirely. Obviously, we're exiting some unprofitable product lines, and that doesn't qualify for discontinued ops accounting.
Okay. And on the Rosatom revenue, is that a function of some of the impacts of what's happening in Ukraine and some of the new rules that have been passed, or is it something else that's delaying that $10 million?
We think it is something else and not directly related. It is clearly a customer issue. They cannot presently import, and the reasons that have been cited are not directly related to the well-known crises. Given that entire background, while we hope that we can deliver it in 2015, I would have to say that it is a little bit indefinitely delayed. It may be 2015. We cannot ascertain right now if and when we can deliver this due to the geopolitical environment. It presently, as best as we can read, does not fall under any export restrictions or limitations. I think that this does not fall into any of the categories where there is additional sanctions or embargoes. It is a research product line. It does not go into certain bad sectors from the European or U.S. perspective as far as we can read this.
At this point, it is a customer issue, and it may be that the customer can sort this out. It does not seem to be primarily related to the crisis. It is a little bit murky for us to figure out how this all hangs together, quite honestly. At this point, we are ready to go, and it's s omething on trucks, and we have taken it off the trucks and put it in a warehouse. At this point, the customer cannot accept delivery and cannot import the equipment.
All right. If I could just follow up on that. Generally in Russia, are you seeing some of the impact of some of the sanctions and things going on? How is your general business in Russia outside of this particular product? Charlie, just for you seem to be going out of your way to be, I know you do not give quarterly guidance, but trying to be pretty explicit about Q3 and Q4, so would you be willing to give any more explicit guidance on what you expect for Q3 and Q4? Thanks.
Let me start with the first part of your question. Russia, there are a couple of things going on independent of Ukraine and Crimea and all of that. It turns out that there is a major restructuring in the Russian Academy of Sciences, which is the number one driver for research equipment demand. As they decentralize a little bit and give more purchasing power to their universities, which are not part of the Academy of Science system, there are delays in research orders in Russia this year, no matter what. You compound that with extreme caution by Russian industrial customers to invest in CapEx right now because they probably do not know what the economic outlook is other than it does not get better. It is a weak demand picture. It does not look like any of our products are affected. There might be certain sectors.
We are not selling much into the oil sector there. But other than that, our products are not really formally affected. But the Russian economic weakness, plus independent of all of that, a long-planned restructuring of the Russian Academy of Sciences makes for weak demand. However, there is some ongoing demand in Russia, but it is quite a bit weaker than what anybody had expected at the beginning of the year. And with that, I think part two of your question.
Yeah. Jon, not too much on the card. Q3, from a revenue standpoint, is likely to look flat year-over-year. And then keep in mind that last year we had an unusually low tax rate of 20% in the third quarter, whereas this year we are running closer to 30%.
Thanks.
Our next question comes from Derik de Bruin from Bank of America. Please go ahead with your question.
Hi, good afternoon.
Hey, Derik.
It sounds on the, you've done a better job in terms of, or a good job in terms of controlling R&D. I'm just curious, in the R&D, it's down 6% first half of the year comparison. How much of that is tied to CAM? I'm just curious in terms of, do you think where you're basically doing the R&D focus?
I think the biggest year-over-year reductions were in CAM and BEST. We've also been, I guess, more prudent with some decisions in some other business as well. Obviously, late last year, we did some right-sizing across the BMAT portfolio as well. That has got follow-on benefits into 2014. I guess the important point is it's not that we're kind of slashing 5% - 6% across the board. We're pretty selectively either reducing investments that we don't think are going to yield commercial benefits in a reasonable amount of time or in businesses that went through a kind of a right -sizing last year.
Yeah. There's a strategic process. It's also process-driven. As we have now really implemented pretty well this product life cycle process. Some projects that are smallish and don't have a good ROIC may just not be continued or may be put on ice for a year or put aside for a while or something may fail at an advanced stage, but fail well and then discontinue with further expenses for another year or two. In a way, it's a good sign of our process improvement in addition to some strategic choices where to invest and a more dynamic allocation of expense investment.
I was sort of getting at this in terms of that. That's sort of the answer I thought you were going to give. I just was curious in terms of how do you sort of think about R&D growth as we go into 2015? Are you going to keep that savings or are you going to invest it into the other projects?
Well, we're in the middle of our strategy process, which we'll finalize in September and then go into the budgeting. There's little to early for us to make any. We use the same processes and the overall strategic dynamic allocation approach that is a little bit new to Bruker in the last year, perhaps. But I cannot predict yet the results of them and the choices that we will make for 2015.
Can we think about what's going to be the impact on the gross margin for ramping down CAM? How should we sort of think about that modeling in the second half of the year? Then once again, assuming that you're divested, how should we think about the margin impact in 2015?
Quantitatively, CAM's clearly among the worst, I mean, growth margins, certainly within the BSI segment. I think it'll be more of a 2015 impact than I think. We're not quite prepared to quantify that yet for 2015.
Okay. On the BMAT business, you've stated some of the things about the semiconductor and some of the electronic spaces that you versus some of the other companies that sell to that market. I'm just curious, are you seeing anything from competition in Japan? Also, in there, you do have some of your X-ray businesses where you do have some competition from Rigaku and some of these companies. I'm just wondering, have the Japanese companies been a little bit more aggressive?
Yes, they have. The answer is correct. I mean, in X-ray business, one of its two big competitors is a Japanese company, and they're, of course, benefiting from over a year and a half, 40% lower yen versus euro in this particular case. They're trying to use that. We see it a little bit in NMR as well with JEOL. That is a contributor. Yes, clearly, it's not only that it hurts our margins for the business we get, the lower yen, but it also has those implications that you have outlined. That's correct.
Our next question comes from Ross Muken from ISI Group. Please go ahead with your question.
Hi. Good afternoon, guys. As we think about, this business has now done somewhere between, I don't know, $0.70 - $0.80 of earnings since, I think, 2010. If you think about the challenges you've faced and the efforts you've made to obviously improve the profitability and create some shareholder value here, do you feel like there are some, maybe in the more recent times since you began the restructuring, there are things that you pushed in the business, maybe that you could've phased in differently? Or maybe, you could have identified the CAM act as something that would be a challenge earlier and then focused on that. It feels like every few quarters here, something pops up that kind of resets the earnings back to a normalized rate in that sort of high $0.70s, low $0.80s.
I am just trying to get a sense for, as you kind of graded how you have done the last, I do not know, one to two years since you sort of embarked on this. Is there anything you really wish you sort of would have done differently? Is there anything, when you look at it, that probably maybe had a little bit more impact on the business than you would have thought?
Well, I feel really good about the leadership and the process changes and the transformational steps that we are taking here. Clearly in hindsight, if I could do the CAM acquisition 3.5 years, or four years ago exactly, a little more over four years ago, I would do it again, but I would be much, much more selective in the markets and product lines that we tackle. I am obviously pleased that we get the triple quad technology, and that is a really great addition and very complementary to a lot of other things we are doing. But other things were too ambitious at the time strategically, and we tried to initially, I tried to initially fix that with the more gradual restructuring, exit a site, do this, invest in R&D.
If I could do it over again, I would take the major turn, a more radical step that we are taking now, a year or two earlier, but that is simply a lesson learned. I think the other things, I think we are on track. There is a significant currency headwind that we have been facing last year that we are still facing this year. We are getting improvements in lieu of that. And there is a lot of things that are happening in restructuring and outsourcing and lean transformation that I think will have a good continued ongoing build-up of margin effect from gross profit margin and then of course also OpEx control. So there is a lot more work to be done, but I think one mistake, if you like, by not acting earlier and trying to do it more with gradual restructuring was on the CAM side.
Okay. I guess what I am trying to gauge is, Frank, what is your level of frustration with how things have transpired? I am just trying to get a sense for I know when Charlie and others came in, there was sort of a view of improving operational excellence, and this has always been a great R&D organization, and you have taken some of the working capital and we have seen some efforts done on the SG&A line. Do you feel like, when you look at sort of what has been accomplished, do you feel like, well, this is going to be a we have been telling the street this is a long-term transition.
Ultimately what has happened is sort of explainable, or do you feel like the level of frustration with sort of the lack of responsiveness of the organization, I guess, or the choppiness the business has seen at some times is kind of maybe been a little bit frustrating?
I do not get frustrated that easily, and I do know with currency and with the weakness in the BMAT sector, there are some headwinds. It is steeper uphill, at least temporarily. Some of these things also do not last forever. We will not be in industrial or semiconductor low points forever. Although it has taken longer, and that is somewhat frustrating, I agree. I feel good about the steps that we are taking, and I think we are taking the right steps, and I think the team is also actually reasonably upbeat. I think there is some improvements in the markets that we are seeing. I think we are excited about our products. I think we are excited about the transformation, the outsourcing. I think we are taking the right steps.
I do agree that in CAM now that, well, it is not done yet, now it is being implemented, but now that the fundamental decision is there, that should have been done at an earlier stage. Of course, that is where the benefit of hindsight and the clarity after the decision.
Our next question comes from Dan Leonard from Leerink. Please go ahead with your question.
Frank or Charlie, it's unclear to me what CAM profitability is going to look like after the restructuring. Is CAM still going to be losing money?
Dan, on a direct basis, CAM is going to be close to breakeven immediately after the restructuring activities are done. The reason we worded the profitability improvement the way we did is because there's an amount of fixed costs essentially that are Bruker infrastructure, G&A, offices, et cetera, that are allocated on CAM right now that don't kind of easily go away as a result of this restructuring. The profitability of CAM improves quite a bit, but it's going to need to continue to improve even beyond the end of these restructuring efforts.
Got it. Charlie, do you expect to conclude the CAM divestitures or wind downs by the end of 2014? Or could any of this activity bleed into 2015?
No, it could bleed into 2015. Keep in mind that financially, obviously, we have a great incentive to go as fast as possible, but we're dealing with employees, and we're dealing with customers in particular, who need to know what the future holds for them in terms of service and support for instruments that they've purchased. Believe me, we're going to go as fast as we possibly can. But there are some employee and customer considerations, and then also we're trying to work some divestiture transactions as well. All of those things could result in some of this work spilling over into 2015. But clearly, we're going to go as fast as we can.
I think the bulk of the restructuring and the restructuring charges will be in the second half of 2014.
Yes. Should be.
Got it. Thank you.
Our next question comes from Dan Arias from Citi. Please go ahead with your question.
Afternoon. Thanks for fitting me in. Frank, within CAM, I am just thinking about the stuff that you are keeping there. You made a comment on triple quad, so hoping maybe you can just give an update on how uptake has been there since the launch of the EVOQ systems.
Right. We are keeping basically the LC technology, which we do not use as to be an LC company, but to build LC-MS systems. That we did not even mention, because that has already been integrated fully in a way, so there is no further restructuring to be done there. And the triple quad, both GC and LC -Triple quad. I think since our launch of the EVOQ series of LC -Triple quad, I think we got a nice market, a small market, foothold, I would say. But I think I am really pleased with how this product has become stabilized in terms of, it is really a robust product. It has great hardware, great source technology. So I think the productivity of these products and the customer acceptance, by and large, has been really quite good. When you get into a completely new field like this, you expect to have some teething problems.
We had some, but overall, I think we have overcome those. I think we have a small but satisfied customer base now that will provide good word of mouth and references and follow-on orders. We are now getting into the phase where we are looking at more workflow and applications-driven development. There is always incremental improvements on the hardware. Of course, software development never ends. But I think there is a lot of market and workflow, vertical markets, if you like, that we are now pursuing, where we think we will also get even more differentiation in certain vertical segments. So I am pleased with that. It is a good fit with everything else we are doing with high-resolution, accurate mass, QTOF, and other systems. So that is a really good fit.
Got it. Okay. Just to go back to the Biotyper, curious if you are seeing uptake from the community hospital setting as well as some of the larger academic centers. Then maybe just on the menu or comment on the current thought in terms of timing for getting gram positive and yeast approval. Thanks.
Yes. Community hospitals, no, not in this country at this point, but in Europe, in some countries, we really are at that level, where much smaller hospitals than we had perhaps ever anticipated, just need their own MALDI Biotyper because it's becoming a standard of care. In the U.S., we're not at that level yet. It's too early. The market penetration's beginning, and predictably so, with the larger hospitals. And of course, also others, like regulators and pharma companies and other types of customers. U.S. FDA claim two, we're in clinical trials, and we would hope to have that second claim before the end of the year.
Thank you.
Our next question comes from Tycho Peterson from JP Morgan. Please go ahead with your question.
Hey, thanks. A question on spending on SG&A in particular. You guys were up $6 million sequentially. I think, Charlie, you said $2 million of that was FX, and a lot of the rest was related to the MALDI Biotyper. So can you maybe just talk about were there some upfront costs that you embedded here, and should you start to see a little bit more SG&A leverage in the back half of the year? Then as we think about MALDI Biotyper, there's obviously a lot of competitors trying to come in with culture-free methods. So if you could just maybe touch on the competitive dynamic, that would be helpful.
Sure. On spending, the year-over-year increase, Q2 last year, I would say, was exceptionally low. Sequentially low, but we are up about $6 million in SG&A. In addition to currency change year-over-year, sequentially, Q2 is a very heavy period for trade shows. Bruker was represented at a lot of trade shows and did a lot of marketing in Q2, a lot of that related to life science and the MALDI Biotyper, but not exclusively that. Marketing and trade shows in general were up quite a bit in Q2. Then, as I mentioned, there has been some spending in rounding out our corporate infrastructure and some of the projects we have ongoing around some of our systems and some of that hit in the second quarter as well.
I would simply add, they are all correct, obviously, and I would add that the regulatory part and the regulatory spending on MALDI Biotyper in multiple countries for multiple claims, that is clearly increasing. But it is a well worthwhile investment. This is a good growth margin product, and it probably has very good growth. Large on tap markets and further legs as we add additional capabilities to the base platform.
Can you touch on the competitive dynamics as well, Frank, for MALDI Biotyper, as you think about some of the new systems coming to market?
Well, having been at recent conferences, I did not see any change in the competitive dynamics. We believe we continue to, if anything, extend the capabilities and performance gap, which I think positions us to be an overall leader in the capabilities of that solution for MALDI identification and increasing yields of work in progress, also for selected antibiotic susceptibility assays. I think our competitive position has been improving, and I think commercially, I think we continue to be the market leader in just about any country or in just about any region in the world that I am aware of where we have data. I think, I feel very good about our competitive position for this product.
Then last quarter, you had called out the pricing dynamic, I think lower pricing for certain products. Can you maybe just touch on the impact on pricing in the quarter and what you are embedding for the back half of the year?
I think the pricing discipline that we are, I think, is taking hold. In certain areas in the early end of the year or of the last year, we did see some pricing pressures in the industrial areas where demand had been weaker. In some of the industrial areas, demand has picked up. It is just in microelectronics in particular, it has not picked up. Microelectronics, including data storage and semiconductor. There is some pricing discipline. There are new features where we try to get higher average selling prices and better gross margins. The biggest driver of pricing pressure, perhaps, is the lower end.
Our next question comes from Amanda Murphy from William Blair. Please go ahead with your question.
Hi, it is actually [JP] in for Amanda. I just had a quick one on, if you could talk about maybe outside of the CAM restructuring, how the other operational improvements are going.
Yeah, they're going well. We're making progress there. The LSC division is doing a lot of the high-level assembly outsourcing of some of its multi-pump product line, and that's going very well. There are a lot of things that you've got to get right, and so far we haven't had any supply issues, and the quality is there, so we're pleased with that. That sets up nicely for one of our larger product lines. Bruker BioSpin, sorry, with a lot of their electronics, connectics, as they call it, and other outsourcing where a major supplier had been picked already last year. It's now really something like a six-quarter project to transfer more and more subunits over to that major supplier contract manufacturer. That's all pretty much going according to plan. There are many other initiatives in each and every division.
Every division has outsourcing and lean projects. Not all of them are as visible and as large, but they're all making good progress on that. So actually, I'm pretty pleased with these things, in addition to the major CAM restructuring piece. I think we're really on track, and we're executing, and we have more projects for the year and more projects for next year. So I think it's a good, healthy, ongoing process with steady progress.
Our next question comes from Bryan Brokmeier from Maxim Group. Please go ahead with your question.
Hi, good afternoon. You mentioned this CAM utilized some of the corporate offices, and other G&A of the business. Beyond that, I guess I'm thinking of manufacturing facilities and sales force. How integrated was CAM with the rest of the business?
Yeah. Manufacturing, not really at all. It's got its own location. You recall that we actually closed a CAM manufacturing facility last year. I think there it's pretty separable. From a sales force standpoint, also pretty separable, but again, keep in mind that we're keeping the triple quad products, so some of the CAM sales force is going to be staying with us and continuing to grow that product line. Overall, I think the direct cost in sales and marketing, manufacturing, even in overhead to some extent, there's a large chunk that is very easily separable and identifiable. The amount that's allocated and not separate is proportionately relatively small, but harder to eliminate.
Okay. Also, you expect the CAM division to be around breakeven. Will margin expansion come from growing the new smaller CAM business? What are the next steps to further improve that division profitability?
We're restructuring the factory and the location. We're consolidating factories with our other larger Bruker Daltonics factories. There will be factory footprint consolidation, and we also expect to gain a lot of efficiency there. Plus further redesign to cost and taking out some expensive components. It's driven by design, but from the R&D department, and it's also by further restructuring of the piece that we do keep and footprint consolidation.
Our next question comes from Sung Ji Nam from Cantor Fitzgerald . Please go ahead with your question.
Hi, thanks for the questions. Frank, you talked about some competitive dynamics, I think for BMAT and maybe Biotyper as well, but was curious about what you're seeing for BioSpin or other Daltonics, in terms of competitive dynamics.
Sung Ji. BioSpin, you are all aware that in preclinical imaging and MRI, there is less competition than there was in the past that has been announced and well-publicized. The same is true for the ultra-high field segment of the NMR market, which may only be 10% of the NMR market, but it does help. I think in the overall NMR market, I think it is, at least outside of Japan, I think it is a more rational market where everybody, all public companies, they want to have decent growth margins and the overall margin, operating margin improvement. So I think it is rational competition. And in Daltonics, I believe a similar trend by and large with very capable competitors all having some new products. We are pretty excited about what we launched this year. And either in microbiology with the MALDI Biotyper system or elsewhere, I think, companies are primarily focused on profitable growth.
Nothing unusual there in the competitive dynamics, I would say. It is a vigorous competition with capable competitors, but I do not think there is anything. The AXS piece and a little bit of the BioSpin currency piece, I think that is maybe the area that I have highlighted as a negative. But I think the rest is actually the ones that I did not mention are, I think are reasonable competitive dynamics and reasonable pricing discipline by and large.
Our next question comes from Peter Lawson from Mizuho Securities. Please go ahead with your question.
Frank and Charlie. Ex CAM and BEST, would you have lowered the guidance for the BioSpin BMAT, or would that have been captured in the prior guidance?
I think for BioSpin and BMAT, we would have had to bring down the guidance a little bit as well, obviously, to a much lesser extent.
Even [ex that] BEST Rosatom business, just for the BioSpin and BMAT, would that not have been captured in prior guidance?
No. Listen, we talked about the reduction in guidance on the revenue line is roughly half CAM, and then you have the BEST component. The remainder is a mix of puts and takes, right? The biggest negative that we talked about is the timing of demand in BioSpin and BMAT. There are some positives that offset some of that partially. So in this hypothetical example, if all the other issues or other adjustments didn't need to be made, would we reduce it for BioSpin and BMAT alone? We would, yes.
Okay. Then the CAM contribution and impact on revenues and EPS in 2013, what was that? Can you give us a picture of what organic and EPS growth would look like ex CAM?
Well, we can't do that reconciliation right now.
Got you. Okay. Thank you.
Our next question comes from Paul Knight from Janney Capital Markets. Please go ahead with your question.
Hi, guys. It's actually Bryan Kipp on behalf of Paul. Thanks for taking the questions. Just two quick ones. I think you highlighted 200 - 250 people on reduced employee side in CAM in context with the $50 million - $70 million in reduction, which suggests 50% - 70% reduction. How is that? Is that about the same? Is that in that same range or is it a little bit less there?
I'm sorry. You're going to have to repeat the question. I didn't understand.
Okay. The $100 million in reduction overall, or the $100 million in CAM revenues last year, you're citing $50 million - $70 million in reduction—
Yes.
—from the divestitures.
Yep.
You also mentioned in your Form 8-K release that you are going to reduce headcount by approximately 200 - 250 people. Is that equitable to the reduction in revenues, or is it a little bit less? I know you kind of alluded to keeping some people online, but just kind of want to get some color there.
Yeah. Okay. I see. It is a little bit less, I would say, proportionally a little bit less. The restructuring charges are, I would say, disproportionately larger because there are a lot of non-personnel costs that we are anticipating in the restructuring charges, including facility leases, fixed asset, and inventory write-downs as well. So those restructuring charges are not solely for employee costs.
Mm-hmm. Yeah. Perfect. The other one—
It is not far from out of line, about 2/3 of the revenue and about two-thirds of the employees. I mean, it is more or less in line.
Okay. I was just kind of thinking in context with the down the road as well, if there is additional leverage in that side. Appreciate it. The other one, just another quick one on BioSpin. I know you guys have alluded to back half order growth of probably 50%-55%. Can you give some visibility there? Because I know
Oh, sorry. No, as the percentage of our orders, we expect more than half, more than 50% in the second half. We did not say 50% order growth, so if that was misunderstood. Last year, it turns out we had more than 50% of our orders in the first half, which was actually the unusual year at BioSpin. Normally, more than 50% of the orders come in the second half.
Ladies and gentlemen, at this time, we have reached the end of the allotted time for today's question and answer session. I would like to turn the conference call back over to Joshua Young.
Thank you, Jamie. Thank you for joining us this evening. We encourage you to visit us at our headquarters in Billerica, Massachusetts. Thank you for your attention, and have a nice day.
Ladies and gentlemen, that does conclude today's conference call. We would like to thank you for attending. You may now disconnect your telephone lines.