Good day, and welcome to the American Woodmark Corporation Fourth Quarter Conference Call. Today's call is being recorded. The company has asked us to read the following Safe Harbor Statement under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. All forward-looking statements made by the company involve material risks and uncertainties and are subject to change based on factors that may be beyond the company's control. Accordingly, the company's future performance and financial results may differ materially from those expressed or implied in any such forward-looking statement. Such factors include, but are not limited to, those described in the company's filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission and the annual report to shareholders. The company does not undertake to publicly update or revise its future -- excuse me, forward-looking statements even if experience or future changes make it clear that any projected results expressed or implied therein will not be realized. At this time, I would like to turn the call over to Glenn Eanes, Vice President and Treasurer.

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to this American Woodmark conference call to review the results of our fourth fiscal quarter and full year results for fiscal year ended April 30, 2012. Thank you for taking time to participate. Participating on the call today from American Woodmark will be Kent Guichard, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer; and John Wolk, Chief Financial Officer. John will begin with the review of the quarter and the year, concluding with an outlook on the future. After John's comments, Kent and John will be happy to answer your questions. John?

Thank you, Glenn. This morning, we released the results of our fourth quarter of fiscal year 2012 that ended on April 30, 2012. Our earnings release contained the following highlights. Net sales for the fourth quarter were $136.2 million, representing a 10% increase over the prior year's fourth quarter. Net loss excluding restructuring charges was $2.3 million or $0.16 per diluted share, including the impact of a write-down of slow-moving inventory related to the re-layout of the company's manufacturing plants of $0.7 million after tax. Excluding this item and the restructuring charges, the net loss was $1.6 million or $0.11 per diluted share. The prior year's fourth quarter net loss of $3.4 million or $0.24 per diluted share included the impact of 2 items: an adverse tax basis adjustment of $1.4 million and a net of tax gain of $0.6 million from the sale of a previously closed manufacturing plant. Excluding these 2 items, the prior year's fourth quarter net loss was $2.6 million or $0.18 per diluted share. So exclusive of unusual adjustments and restructuring charges, the net loss improved by approximately $1 million or 39% from prior year levels. For the entire fiscal year ended April 30, 2012, net sales were $515.8 million, up 14% over prior year. Net loss excluding restructuring charges was $10.8 million or $0.76 per diluted share compared with the net loss of $20 million or $1.40 per diluted share in the prior year. Excluding the items I just described, net loss excluding restructuring charges and unusual items improved from $19.2 million in the prior year to $10.1 million in fiscal year 2012. Last December, we announced several restructuring items to reduce the company's manufacturing capacity and cost structure. These items included permanently closing 2 manufacturing plants, placing a previously closed plant up sale…

[Operator Instructions] And we'll go first to David MacGregor with Longbow Research.

I guess a few questions here. First of all, I wonder if you could just talk about the revenue growth. You're up 10%, 9.7%. Can you just break out the volume versus price mix?

Yes, that was primarily volume, as it's been all year, but there was a little bit of mix that helped the net price [ph] realized.

Okay. And I guess you made the distinction between multifamily and single-family. I know you've always historically been kind of a business targeting the single-family. Is there a plan in place to develop a multifamily product offering?

Yes, this is Kent. The historical definitions of single and multi are starting to blur a little bit because of attached housing, whether it's townhouses or other types of developments. To us, it's not so much product line. You can get into some elements of multi-unit housing that are HUD-related or have other specific requirements. But generally speaking, the product line that we would put in place isn't any different. It's just a question of targeting and putting together service platforms that kind of go after that unique segment of the market. So from that standpoint, there isn't anything that we have to do really on the product side to participate more in that. We are participating more, again, in the sense of townhomes and those types of things. If it continues, and as Jon mentioned, we had kind of a pretty good increase in the building activity along about February going into March and early April. And talking with our single-family customers, they expect a reasonably decent year, particularly as we look forward to the next 6 months. So on the new-construction side of our business and our capacity over that period to actually deliver our product on the service platform, we think that we're going to have to kind of a full plate, quite frankly, to keep up with our single-family partners and are not at this time looking to do any more than we would normally or are already doing through channels with the multifamily.

So if I understand you correctly, you've got product. It's probably the low-end Timberlake product, the Value Builts. But you need distribution. Is that what it would require is an investment in distribution, the sales force, feet on the street?

There's a little bit of that, because it is a very unique -- you're dealing with a different group of people when you do that. You're dealing with more of the big GCs. You may be dealing with architects. So you're a different part in the process to get your product in there. Once you get it in there, going into a single-family home logistically is very different than going into a high-rise with -- pick your number of units, 20, 30, 100 units, whatever it is. So that's the real difference. It's up front -- the effort and the involvement up front in terms of getting into development, getting into plans, working with the architect and the GC. And then on the back end, there are some very different service requirements, because you're not pulling up to just a street address with a house on it. You're going into a construction site that is many floors and has many different units on it.

I mean, you're sitting there with a large amount of cash. There are people out there that specialize in multifamily and have a strong presence in that niche. Would you ever consider an acquisition to establish a presence there?

No, not really. And then again, when you get to your point that when you start to break down that market, there are certain segments of the market that even longer term, we just don't think is a great fit for us. The ones that we do think are a fit we're trying to get through, through some of our existing channels. But as I went back and mentioned, for that element of our product line and our capacities that make the product that generally goes in a new construction, in dealing -- in talking with our current partners of single-family homes, we think that our effective capacity over the next 6 months, maybe a year, is going to be -- all of it is going to be needed to service our existing single-family customers.

And we'll go next to Sam Darkatsh with Raymond James.

This is Josh filling in for Sam. I just wanted to dig into the gross margin a little bit more. You mentioned several items that had an effect in the quarter. Could you give us a sense of how those broke down or which ones were bigger or smaller effects?

The 2 biggest ones were the inventory write-down and then the transitional impacts from closing the 2 facilities and moving work around.

Okay. And do you expect that there will still be a headwind from the restructuring and inefficiencies in the coming quarter, or is that pretty much past?

Well, as I said in my comments, we do expect that we'll get about 2/3 of the benefit from the transition during the first quarter, so that would imply that we do still impact -- expect some lingering efforts. As I also mentioned, one of the plants was closed during the month of May, so the transition was continuing into the early part of the first quarter.

Okay. And then you talked about the promotions a little bit. I just want to make sure I understand. You said there was more promotional activity year-over-year, but it was down sequentially, correct?

It was actually up a little bit sequentially, and it was up year-over-year. It's down from a couple of quarters ago, and we're trying to drive it downward. But we're certainly subject to market forces.

So you would say the trend is towards more promotional going into the fiscal year '13, then?

No, I would -- I mean, I think you've got some, and what Jon's talking about, it's hitting the quarters. If you've kind of start to just look at it over time, over selling seasons and those types of things, we really saw the latest big increase really happen 1.5 years ago. It was in the fall of 2010 when some of the competitors in the marketplace really kind of increased it. Since that time, in and out, it's been relatively flat. Again, we and our competitors make choices about when you're in and when you're not in, so it can impact different quarters in different ways. What I would kind of say is that the promotional level on the remodel side has been relatively flat since the big increase you saw about 1.5 years ago. We don't see it at this point getting a lot worse in the marketplace, but we also don't see it getting any better. It's kind of steady state.

Just a quick detail question. I noticed a fairly substantial increase in your payables and accrued expenses. Is that due to the raw material inflation, or is there something else there?

No, it's just timing.

And we'll go next to Robert Kelly with Sidoti.

In your prepared remarks, you ran through some items as far as drag on the gross margin. And I thought you said, was it the transitional impact was 40 basis points or the promotional expenses was 40?

Promotional. Promotional expenses, yes.

And did you quantify the transitional impact?

No.

Is the expectation for F'13 that you continue to see a similar level of promotional expense? Or the fact that you see price mix getting slightly better, are you counting on the promotional environment to get a little bit -- or to ease a little bit?

No, our assumptions are what's kind of inherent. And Jon's comments is, we expect the promotional activity to kind of, again, continue for what it's been for the last 1.5 years, thereabouts. Again, you'll get some ebbs and flows depending on timing and when our customers close out their promotions. It is a very promotionally driven environment. And so you get a disproportionate amount of your order rate in the last, literally, 24 to 48 hours of closing out promotions. And so if a promotion rolls from one quarter to another and depending on how that rolls through your system, it can have a significant impact. So you may, quarter-to-quarter, see some changes, but we think that next year, we'll probably going to be about level in terms of what we -- we're currently running.

Okay. And then as far as the price mix commentary being positive or slightly positive for your fiscal '13, is that because the builder thesis is picking up? How do we think about that?

Well, I think it just goes in the mix, and our product of mix -- in our product mix, whether it's the new stuff that we are introducing or the way that you actually put incentives out there for the customer, we think that encourages a richer mix of product, either in going up price points or putting more features and options within the product. The other thing that we are seeing that has started to reverse, and we [ph] do it on both sides, but we have started to see is that the consumers that are active are buying a richer mix. So we're seeing the square footage, for example, in new construction, the square footage is starting to increase again, not by a lot, but the square footage of a new -- the average new house has been going down for several years. It's starting to go back up again, and that's kind of a reflection of the people that are active in the marketplace. They're out there because they want to either buy a house or redo their kitchen. They do have some resources. The consumers that are -- we'd like more of them out there. There aren't enough that are active. But the ones that are active are not as budget-constrained or maybe as budget-conscious as they were a couple of years ago. And so when we are selling a kitchen, whether it's new construction or remodel, we're getting more features and options, more upgrade price points. In terms of doors, they may go from a veneer door to a solid door. They may put a premium finish on it. And so the actual consumer that's active is buying a richer mix.

Okay. That's encouraging. And then just one point on the balance sheet. The inventory number for the past 2 quarters is one of the lowest we've seen in years, and the benefits from your logistic and plant closure actions have really yet to be felt yet. I mean, should we assume this type of term rates inventory actually get better as the actions are implemented?

I think you can assume that inventory turns will sort of level out at the level that we're at right now. It's possible we could have incremental improvement from here, but I think it's safe to assume that we're in this range.

But this rate is where we should be. Okay.

And we'll go next to Morris Ajzenman with Griffin Securities.

A follow-up to the question you've been getting here on the gross margins, particularly in this fourth quarter. You reported 12.7%, and then you highlighted impacting -- it was impacted by inventory write-downs as well as inefficiencies from the company's restructuring efforts. Can you give us some handle on what that 12.7% would have been on a pro forma basis, on a clean basis? And then secondly, your gross margins I think for the full year were 12.9%, and you all guesstimated and you gave us a number there earlier that in fiscal '13, revenues are unchanged. You should be close to a breakeven level, whatever. Can you guys give us some sort of handle on what sort of gross margins assuming the same competitive landscape remains that gross margins can improve to?

Yes, Morris, we haven't given specific guidance for the fiscal year '13, and we don't intend to do that. But I think that if you run the math, you can probably derive that. In terms of the fourth quarter gross profit, we did call out and quantify the specific impact of the inventory write-down. The transitional costs were a little bit harder to measure. They hit us in a few different areas, so we haven't specifically quantified or called that out. So no, I don't have that for you.

Okay. One last question. Based on the plant closures here, you said you could increase sales ultimately by 50%, which means capacity utilization is probably about 65% or thereabouts currently. If that's correct, what sort of incremental operating margins can you get as your capacity utilization increases?

Well, again, for competitive reasons, we're not going to provide -- not going to guide to that. But I think as a guide, you could look back to historical performance where we've levered sales and probably get a pretty decent idea. The other thing I'd say is that because we have made some efficiencies into the system, we should do a little bit better than that going forward.

And we'll take our next question from Peter Lisnic with Robert W. Baird.

I guess, first question, if you could just refresh us on capital allocation priorities and strategies. Any change in how you're thinking about the dividend given the balance sheet being in good shape and the cash flow you're generating and then how buyback might fit in as well?

No, really no change from a couple of quarters ago when we announced it. I think there still is significant uncertainty out there in the world. We all read, obviously, the papers every day, and you can start in Europe and come this way. Most recently, probably the one [indiscernible] this week was the jobs report. So there's still a tremendous amount of uncertainty out there. As Jon mentioned, we do think that the market will improve slightly in fiscal '13. Our primary improvement is going to be coming from the cost actions that we took, the restructuring actions. So we're not out of the woods yet from a market standpoint. And because of that, the rationale that led us to spend the dividend, I think, is still there. I don't think that that's changed much. In terms of the buyback, again, as we said, when we get to the point, any point where we feel that we do have some cash that's excess related to not only our plans, but the potential for downside in the marketplace, and the prices where we think it's attractive on behalf of the shareholders, then we'll go out and we'll use some of the authorization that we have. But that's kind of a long way of saying really no change from where we were a couple of quarters ago.

Okay. That is perfect. And then Jon, just quick -- couple of quick ones on cash flow. Any sort of pension funding required for '13? And then, I may have missed it, but the CapEx outlook for '13 would be helpful as well.

Yes, Pete. We expect that the CapEx requirements or funding will probably go up about $3 million to $4 million. And the pension funding requirement will increase by about $4 million above what we funded in fiscal year 2012.

So it's an incremental $4 million on top of the $3-ish million or so in the '12?

Yes, we resumed funding as the fiscal year was rolling in. About halfway through, we really started funding that again pursuant to the schedule, so it will be a full year of funding in '13 versus a partial year in '12.

Okay, got you. And then on the selling and marketing as a percentage of sales, that took a pretty nice step down in the fourth quarter to 10.4%, according to my math. Just wondering kind of how that layers into the fiscal '13 outlook? I mean, in the past, you've had numbers that are closer to 10 or below 10. Presumably you'll get some restructuring savings to drive that number lower in '13, but can you give us a sense as to what the -- have you hit a new -- sort of a new level on that selling and marketing area, more efficient on that front? And just kind of where that might shake out over the longer term would be helpful.

Well, I think that the way that we're looking at this is that over time the business in a decent market, in a more typical market, we'll be able to pull gross margins north of 20%, and we should be able to approach an operating margin of about 10% or so. That will take a bit of time to get there, but we feel we've got the capability to do that. So I think you'll continue to see leverage on the sales or the SG&A line, as you say, partially due to the restructuring and, hopefully, partially due to some additional sales leverage.

And so we should see those restructuring savings come through both on COGS -- or gross profit, I should say, and that selling and marketing line. Is that safe to say?

That's right.

[Operator Instructions] We'll go next to Dennis McGill with Zelman & Associates.

This is Scott Rednor on for Dennis. I was just hoping you could give us an update on your initiatives in the dealer channel and if you guys think that will be evident to the investment community in your fiscal 2013 outlook.

Yes, our initiative continues there. We've kind of continued to refine and expand that model that we have. We now have a sales presence in most states, certainly the top 40 SMSAs, and are in the process of signing up dealers. As we look at '13 again and start to build critical mass, we think it will be noticeable, and we anticipate that we'll start to talk about it in, certainly, Jon's prepared remarks and maybe be able to share a bit more with you in any questions. In terms of magnitude of it, we think in terms of top line as we get through the year that it's probably going to be worth a couple of points, thereabouts, and will start to favorably impact as we kind of roll down through the income statement. But we think as we get -- certainly by the end, second half of '13, with our momentum in signing up new dealers and picking up business, that will actually start to move the needle on the top line.

Okay. And that would be embedded right now in the guidance that you provided?

Right.

Yes, kind of right now, it's kind of embedded in Jon's comments on remodel, which is what it is. I mean, it's virtually all remodel.

Got it. Great. And then just secondly for Jon, what was the motivation behind the credit amendment yesterday? You guys pretty much don't need the extra cash. But just hoping you could take us through your thoughts there.

Well, unrestricted, though, is better than restricted, right? That's the motivation.

And we'll go next to Jeff Matthews with RAM Partners.

I just wondered if you could comment on any incremental changes in the cost outlook on raw materials.

Yes, we're -- it has been kind of ebbing and flowing. I would say that the inflationary pressure we're getting on most of our raw materials is not as intense as it was, say, in the fall. I think a lot of that is petroleum-based. We've seen a lot of pressure come off the petroleum side, so whether it's finishing materials or other things where petroleum is actually an element to the product. Or it's just the transportation of moving this stuff around. So I would say that that's -- now versus where we were 6 months ago, that's probably the big difference is that we've seen pressure come off transportation in terms of diesel and other transportation costs and anything that actually has petroleum-based kind of input into the material that we use. Having said that, the pressure that's still out there, the supply-demand pressure, as Jon mentioned, on several of our significant categories, the underlying inflationary pressure is still there. It's still there on hardwood lumber. A lot of the logs in America are going overseas, particularly to the Far East, which has created kind of a supply-demand imbalance, particularly in a couple of species. We're seeing it on particleboard, as Jon mentioned, we're seeing it on plywood, and we're seeing it on some other categories. So it hasn't gone away. I think we're kind of in a little bit of a lull. And again, I think it's driven almost exclusively by the drop in petroleum.

And we'll go again to David MacGregor with Longbow Research.

Yes. If I could follow up on the raw material question, how much forward visibility do you have right now?

In terms of raw materials?

Yes.

Well, it depends on the material that we buy. For example, on lumber, we're out there in the green. We're vertically integrated, so we're out there in the green markets. We're pretty close to actually the logs. Other stuff is, obviously, down the line. But generally speaking, I would say that our window is probably 60 to 120 days, depending on the actual material and our conversations with our vendors. Again, sometimes they don't have information to pass through to us because of the chain all the way back to somebody cutting a tree down or pulling a material out of the ground. But generally speaking, we see inflation come in, again, on the category 60 to 120 days out.

Okay, good. The last question. Just more sort of a high-level question, but I guess going back a couple of years when we -- it's sort out of the downturn was really for us, [ph] there had been an upturn in refacing of cabinets as a sort of a consumer trend. And I was just wondering if you could update us on what you're seeing there. Is that really dying down now and people are coming back to the market for new cabinets, or is that still a competitive issue for you?

Well, I'm not sure. I mean, I may disagree a bit with your premise. I'm not sure how much of the market that ever took. I mean, I think it's one of those things that for a certain consumer in the right place, in the right frame of mind, with everything lining up, that it probably makes sense. But it's never been a big piece of the market. It's always been a relatively small piece of the market. It's one of those things that kind of gets its share for those unique consumers because of the limitations of not being able to change the configuration of the kitchen and several other things. So I may disagree again with your premise a little bit that it was ever -- ever got to the point where it was taking a significant amount of share as it related to the industry. It gets its share because, again, there are some consumers out there that, that is just the right fit for them. But we don't see it, in terms of our overall business, we don't really see it as a competitive threat. It's a different kind of consumer. And we don't really compete with the refacing industry for most of our volume.

And as that concludes today's question-and-answer session, I'd like to turn the conference back over to management for any further comments.

Since there are no additional questions, this does conclude our call. And I'd like to take time to thank you again for participating on this call. Speaking on behalf of the management of American Woodmark, we appreciate your continuing support. Thank you. Have a good day.

And that concludes today's presentation. We thank you again for your participation.