Good day, ladies and gentlemen, and thank you for standing by. Welcome to the AngioDynamics Fourth Quarter 2012 Earnings Conference Call. [Operator Instructions] This conference is being recorded today, July 12, 2012. I would now like to turn the conference over to Mr. Bob Jones. Please go ahead.

Thank you, operator, and welcome to the AngioDynamics conference call to review the results of the fiscal 2012 fourth quarter and full year ended May 31, 2012. As Joe DeVivo has just had mentioned, we have sent the news release to the wire services and is in process of being distributed. But in the interest of time, we didn't want to begin the call. This call is being broadcast live with accompanying presentation -- slide presentation, which are now available on the AngioDynamics' website. A replay of the call will also be archived on the company's website. To access both the live webcast and the archived replay, including the presentation slides, please go to the Investors section under Events and Presentations. If you are listening by telephone, to view the slide presentation, navigate to the live webcast as noted and choose the no audio slides only option to view the slides in conjunction with the live conference call. Before we get started, during the course of this conference call, the company will make projections and forward-looking statements regarding future events, including statements about revenue and earnings for fiscal 2013. We encourage you to review the company's past and future filings with the SEC, including, without limitation, the company's forms 10-Q and 10-K, which identify specific factors that may cause actual results or events to differ materially from those described in forward-looking statements. Finally, during the Q&A period today, we'd like to request each caller to limit themselves to 2 questions and encourage callers to re-queue to ask additional questions. We appreciate everyone's cooperation with this procedure. Now I'd like to turn the call over to Joe DeVivo, President and Chief Executive Officer.

All right, guys. Well, thank you for joining us today. We don't have no idea why it's not -- the release is not across the wire. There's nothing unusual. So aside from the fact that it's not across. But we have a really detailed presentation for you, really detailed slides that we'll go through, the business and growth rates, et cetera, et cetera. So we think it's worth not waiting for it to see why the wire service hasn't put it across. We have a lot of tables and reconciliations and maybe they have some formatting issues. But just so you know right now, there's nothing abnormal, there's nothing with the business. Everything is fine. Actually, everything is great. Let me go through and talk to you and start my prepared remarks. So with that. So good afternoon, and welcome to our fourth quarter and fiscal year-end 2012 Conference Call. With me on this call is Joe Gersuk, our CFO. I'll first provide some highlights of the fiscal year, and then Joe will provide details on the financial results for the quarter and for the year. Before taking questions, I want to take the opportunity to take with you our vision and outlook for fiscal '13 and beyond. Before I get into that, I just want you to know this call is really intended to communicate with detail our strategy and the components which will drive our growth. It'll be a more thorough presentation than the past, given the importance of the acquisition of Navilyst and the first view as to how we look like a consolidated organization. So we'd appreciate your attention and also, we appreciate your patience as we provide you with a lot of great information. Today, it's a new day for AngioDynamics. We are bigger, stronger,…

Thank you, Joe, and good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. We closed the fiscal year with solid fourth quarter top line performance, reporting a 3% net sales growth, inclusive of the Navilyst contribution following the closing of the acquisition on May 22. To measure the underlying condition of the business, we exclude the $4.8 million Navilyst contribution, as well as the $8.2 million in LC Bead sales a year ago, to arrive at a 10% growth rate for our core business in the quarter. At the same time, we acknowledged a 10% growth rate as compared to a weak fourth quarter performance a year ago. So while we do not suggest that our underlying business is growing at a 10% rate, as we exit fiscal '12, there are a number of strengths evident this quarter which fuel our optimism entering the new fiscal year. These include the laser vein ablation business, with strong double-digit growth in unit volumes and dollar sales of our 1470 lasers and procedure kits. We believe we have a sustainable competitive advantage in the vein ablation market based on the strength of our product line, our sales force that is highly skilled in selling the laser solution and excellent marketing programs, which support and help grow profitable physician practices. Secondly, NanoKnife is back in the U.S. market and delivered $2 million in sales in the 6 weeks it was available for shipment in the U.S. Worldwide NanoKnife sales were $4.1 million in the quarter, as a total of 8 hospitals became commercial sites and 7 generators were purchased. We ended the fiscal year with a total of 52 commercial revenue sites, which we define as the hospital that has purchased NanoKnife products in the past 6 months. Our optimism for NanoKnife is fueled by recent publications that…

Thanks, Joe. And everybody, just so you know, the release did cross the wire. It is sitting there. I'm sorry, I don't know why it was delayed. But it is what it is. The results and the message are all the same. So now I'm going to take a little bit of time to look forward. Our mission is to become a world-class medical device company, delivering innovative solutions to our customers in Peripheral Vascular, Vascular Access and Oncology/Surgery, while delivering to investors growth, both top line and bottom line, minimum of 10% to 15%, respectively. We will grow in each one of our franchises through research and development, business development and clinical development of data to prove that our technologies are cost effective and clinically valuable. Each business has their investment area, which will drive future growth for the company. For Peripheral Vascular, we are actively developing an automated Fluid Management system to reignite our market-leading Fluid Management business. We are executing on a comprehensive Venous strategy, as much of the growth in new innovations we believe will occur on the Venous side Peripheral Vascularly over the next 5 years. We have active programs in thrombus management in both thrombolysis, as well as thrombectomy, and are actively reviewing plans for next generation of venous ablation to augment our market-leading EVLT laser system. For vascular access, it's BioFlo, BioFlo, BioFlo. I'll review the technology in more detail in a moment, but we intend to make BioFlo a cornerstone for us, and it's the closer we've reviewed technology its one of the gems that come out of this transaction. We are also actively pursuing a tip location technology, which is needed in the marketplace, and we look forward to communicating our progress soon. Through the oncology franchise, our top priority is…

[Operator Instructions] Our first question comes from the line of Jayson Bedford with Raymond James. Jayson T. Bedford - Raymond James & Associates, Inc., Research Division: I apologize if this is in the release or the PowerPoint. But when I look at the $360 million to $363 million in fiscal '13 revenue guidance, how much is Navilyst and how much is kind of core AngioDynamics?

We haven't -- we don't have any way to really break that out. And I think it's relatively -- that's going to be very difficult to break out.

Yes, there are elements of the business, there are crossing, right? There's port to ports and PICCs and dialysis products and some products or lines will be rationalized. We really are looking at the business and totality, of course. Certainly, the Oncology/Surgery number is a pure legacy Angio business. But the other two really are going to reflect some dynamics as to how the businesses are being combined. So we don't think of it as being particularly relevant, respectfully.

You could see on Slide 10, in 2012, obviously what the contribution is. But yes, to Joe's point, because so many product lines are going to be rationalized and winners and losers, and moving one from left to right, it's not going to be a true indication of -- and we're not, we have internally, we are -- that's not how we're tracking, that's going forward. Jayson T. Bedford - Raymond James & Associates, Inc., Research Division: Okay. I guess, so when I look at the $0.49 to $0.51 in EPS, I guess, it's not right to ask about the implied accretion from Navilyst, similar answer?

Yes, really, I mean, the business is really completely combined. We view it as a single business entity, if you will, with complete integration throughout the organization and virtually all functional areas. So it just isn't really able to discreetly segregate it out, and we're not even going to try to do that.

You saw that consolidated pro forma was about at $0.27. You saw that with beads, I think, with beads, it's at $0.43, but we don't have any beads anymore. So you get to pull all that out. And when you do, you get that number. And so when you start from scratch to roll the businesses out, you take all the cost out that we committed to, it gets to that $0.49 to $0.50. And we have a significant amount of amortization -- $17 million of amortization in there. Without amortization, it's $0.80. So that's how we look at it.

As well, I'd just say, that the -- for example, I mean, we'll run with a single combined sales force in the U.S. and it's a little bit of a different approach overseas. But so it really is fully integrated from an operating expense structure. And although we certainly will maintain and understand what our separate gross profit margins are on all of our product lines. But in terms of bottom line performance, it really is just a fully integrated enterprise. Jayson T. Bedford - Raymond James & Associates, Inc., Research Division: The $5 million to $7 million in cost savings, what's left to do on that, in terms of being able to realize that $5 million to $7 million and in which line item do you think we'll see those savings?

So much of what has been done has been the sales and marketing consolidation of the business. And then beyond that, there's been some affected already in G&A, and some in R&D and a minimal amount in the operations or the cost of goods sold activities. And as we think about it going forward, our whole plan deals lightly with the cost of goods sold area, working on the Quality Call to Action and other programs. But the balance of what is yet to be achieved will be done on the operating expense side over the course of the year. But we've accomplished already the lion's share of that $5 million to $7 million range that we spoke about. Jayson T. Bedford - Raymond James & Associates, Inc., Research Division: Okay. So is it fair to say you've basically already cut out, let's call it net $4 million of the $5 million to $7 million already?

At least that amount. Jayson T. Bedford - Raymond James & Associates, Inc., Research Division: Okay. Then just the last question would be, the EBITDA guidance, it looks like $44 million to $45 million. For some reason, I remember $60 million numbers thrown out? What's the delta between the 2?

Well, it's the GAAP versus the non-GAAP. So the adjusted non-GAAP would be the $60 million to $61 million. And the difference between the 2 would be the $16 million worth of cost associated with the transaction and the various items that are detailed in Footnote C of the guidance table in the release.

Yes, that's not a change. We've always -- when we put the $60 million out, that was net items that we have experience to go through the integration. And even at that time, when that number was out, we didn't fully have a hard number as to what those one-time charges would be. So nothing's changed to our guidance.

And our next question comes from the line of Brooks West with Piper Jaffray.

Joe, did I hear you correctly, that you said the BioFlo product is going to be the singular product that will get Angio to 10% top line growth?

I believe when we launched BioFlo in PICCs, ports and dialysis, our Vascular Access business will be a 10% grower.

The Vascular Access, but not the whole company?

Our Vascular -- yes -- no, that's why I broke out each of the businesses individually, where the contribution growth rates are. Right now, in general, the Vascular Access business can be said to be a bit of a lagger to the overall growth, because we have an EVLT in the Peripheral Vascular business and the NanoKnife in the Oncology business. That growth driver in Vascular Access will be BioFlo, once we get it approved.

Okay. And then, any update on the FDA approval timeline there? And then I wanted to get your thoughts on the Teleflex Semprus BioSciences acquisition. I've got a couple more behind that.

Well we think, in this environment, it's very difficult to give an FDA timeline. We think we're nearing the end. We hope we are. And we hope it's in the early part of '13 that we'd be able to get that clearance and then we have to go through all the process of launch and whatnot. That's what our hope is. We don't believe we're early in the process. We definitely think we're late in the process. We just can't predict when it'll occur.

In the early part of calendar '13 or fiscal '13?

Fiscal. It's just what we hope, Brooks, I really don't know. Well, we think we're at the end, but we're not there yet.

Okay. And then thoughts on the Semprus BioSciences?

Great validation for BioFlo. Great validation for the Navilyst deal, makes our Navilyst deal look cheap.

Do you have a sense, though, from, I mean, if your technology guys looked at it in terms of comparability to BioFlo?

Yes, we -- our, actually -- interestingly enough, our team's seen it and the Navilyst team, prior to the deal has seen it, and was not an option that we chose. Let me just let you know, I'm not saying anything bad about it. It's probably great, but we're thrilled with what we have.

Let me -- 2 other areas, if I could. I just wanted to explore a little bit the thought process on going straight to pivotal on NanoKnife versus doing the safety study. I guess what gives you confidence in your interaction with the agency? That they're going to be comfortable in the safety profile? And just a little bit more on that thought process, and maybe an updated longer-term timeline there.

Well, I mean, given the amount of time that technology's been on the market, and given the peer review data and other experiences that exist, it's our view that safety is not the primary issue. And we think that the marketplace would dramatically benefit from the type of trial that would compare NanoKnife to the standard of care. So it's a proposal that we're making, and we hope they agree with it. But we get so many questions as to what our strategy is that we felt we wanted to tell you what our strategy was.

I appreciate that.

Brooks, we got to get moving. We have a lot of other people on line, can we get one more?

Yes, it's just quarterly cadence with Navilyst on board. And should we -- is that kind of typical seasonality for business? Or any changes there?

Yes, for us, as you know, first quarter is very light, given the summer months. So it's kind of even in our press release I think there is a footnote, which kind of goes through a 23%, 25%, 25%, 27% type of waiting. So we're not going to be giving quarterly guidance, but I mean, those numbers probably just did. But we want to just give the annual guidance. But the first quarter always is a slow quarter, just because of the months that fall into that fiscal calendar.

Our next question comes from the line of Matt Hewitt with Craig-Hallum.

Thanks for the very detailed update and progress that you've made so far. My first question, could you update us on NanoKnife? As far as the remediation was concerned, it was going to take some time to get the systems that are in the field, get the new software uninstalled, and get it back into the customer's hands. Could you update us where you are in that process?

Yes, I don't have the exact numbers in front of me. But in the quarter, we -- I think it was near the end of April when we released the software. For the new systems that we shipped in the quarter, we were able to upgrade the software. But with the 40 accounts, I'd probably say, we got to more than half of them. And we're, I don't think there's that many left now. I think we've probably gotten to all of them now. And we didn't ship needles to anyone who didn't have an upgrade. So I think the team has responded unbelievably well, and I think the business rebounded very well because we told him how long it would be, it was that time. So everyone dealt with it, and so now they're back up and doing procedures.

All right, that's great. And then just, I guess, my follow-up. With the Supreme Court ruling here a few weeks ago, med device companies are now faced with a 2.3% device tax, assuming that everything stays in place. Have you started the discussions with your team on how you plan to address that starting next year?

Those right now are internal discussions. I mean, right now, it's purely a part of our plan. It's part of our guidance. It's -- we have it as an expense item in the second half of our fiscal year in all of our numbers. We know we're going to have to pay it. I guess there the big elephant in the room is, are we going to be able to pass it on. And I don't think we know that yet. We're already dealing in an environment of significant pricing compression and a lot of competition. So we'll see. But I don't think we haven't come to a conclusion, Matt.

And our next question comes from the line of Charles Croson with Sidoti & Company. Charles Croson - Sidoti & Company, LLC: Just a few questions then, here. Starting with BioFlo. I mean, you talked a lot about how this is going to be a game changer. But can you go towards more the market opportunity that you see there in terms of numbers, I'm sorry.

Well, I mean, the PICC market. I don't have the exact market number for -- the PICC had $400 million market growing 9%. One where we are lagging the market right now. We don't have the tip location technology, which is definitely meaningful. And of course, we don't have a coating, which we think, or a solution right now in thrombolysis, which we think is also meaningful. So given the -- how novel this technology is, and how valuable it will be across the entire portfolio, we most certainly, and given also how well it works on the bench and now to our, I don't want to say surprise, but it's -- when you see the type of clinical benefit and customers unsolicited turning to us with their experiences in that theater like the one I just showed, it tells you that you have something. And if you go and you identify, what with the cost of occlusion is, in the hospital, what the cost is of delivering TPA [ph], what the costs is of a BTG. For these devices, the market is substantial if we get this in the market and we execute. So it most certainly can be a growth driver beyond the 10%. And it's -- that growth is not about the fact that we're just going to catch someone else's wave. That growth is, we believe we will be taking market share. Charles Croson - Sidoti & Company, LLC: Okay, okay, that's helpful. And then, if I heard this correctly, you're not including that in the F 2013 guidance, is that right?

No, because we don't have an FDA approval right now. We have, of course, BioFlo revenues in Canada, but it's in a small base. We are starting the process of the European launch. And so, those numbers are in, but we think the fastest and the largest opportunity is in the U.S. and that would really power the business, and that's not in there, of course, because we don't have any approvals. Charles Croson - Sidoti & Company, LLC: I see. And then just one, tailing off on that one last thing then. So we could definitely see some upside in F 2013? And then just looking kind of at your estimates here for 10% growth in the Vascular side, and getting numbers anywhere from $6 million to $10 million or so, just doing a quick check. So is that kind of how you guys are looking at it? Or would you be able to -- is that asking too much in terms of numbers?

Well, it all depends on when in the year, Charles, we get that approval and how quickly we can get it. If you got it tomorrow, I'd feel pretty comfortable with those numbers. If they got it in 6 months, it's going to be whatever it is to ramp it up. But a lot of people have questions whether we have growth drivers in this business. We've gone, in this call, we believe, above and beyond to be transparent, to show you our businesses, to show you what's growing and also to give you some of our strategy. And we'll see on a quarter-over-quarter basis, we'll report these numbers, in general. And we'll keep score. We think we're going to deliver. I feel very good with the organization, and the quality of our teams. And the BioFlo, there's a lot of things we don't control. And so we can't predict what we don't control. But what we do control is the information that we've provided you today, Charles.

And we have a follow-up question from the line of Jason Mills.

If I was away and someone asked about this, please just cut me off, but let's start with your largest business, the Fluid Managing business. I think, when you did the acquisition with Navalyst, you talked about how soon the, the prior owner of that business, is that at loss some share there. It seems like you are expecting to gain some of that back. But maybe you sort of juxtapose your current guidance, I think, we'll see immediate growth in Fluid Management with what the opportunity is, with respect to what was lost in that business during the stewardship of the previous owner.

Well, it's a very mature business, and it's a very price sensitive business. And to be quite honest with you, in our view today, it was not as much of a focus as it should have been with the prior owners. It's a great franchise and a great brand. And we think, it was growing 1% in their hands. And we think with our additional energy, with the amount of additional sellers that are going to be with the business and also, with the quality of our international organization, we just simply think in 2013, with basic blocking-and-tackling, we're going to grow a little bit faster. But we are excited about 2% or 4%? No. But we're going to invest. We have some programs now for some line extensions and some new additions to the Fluid that really wasn't funded before that we're going to make sure is a priority. We have potentially in '14 or '15, a desire to launch a fully automated system, and enter that part of the market. So -- and also, we have very strong relationships in IR and in vascular surgery that I think the prior management didn't spend time in with this product. So I'm not blown away by 2% to 4%, but we think that we are going to get the business on a good footing, and then with that momentum and some new product launches, to drive market share gains in 2014.

So it being your largest business and then also having a goal of growing total top line growth 10% at some point, it begins hard, obviously, as you mentioned, if that's a low single-digit grower or so. I'm just trying to get a sense for whether or not the Fluid Management business, longer-term, do you see it is a core franchise? Or is this a build and potentially divest it type of business longer-term, or is it too early to tell at this point?

Well, no, it's a core franchise. And it's a core franchise because it's right in the sweet spot of our business. I would never have purchased Navilyst for the Fluid Management business as a standalone satellite that didn't have any synergy to my company. But this gives us critical mass to really rationalize our sales channels. You rewind 6 months ago, 9 months ago, 1 year ago, and the biggest frustration is that we have this very diluted channel. We have all these call points for one seller, And we can't go deep anywhere. Now Fluid Management, it is, and like example I gave you, and I can -- I have e-mails here that I can read off success stories already, where, an AngioDynamics rep who really didn't have that much access into the cath lab, now walks in with a major Fluid Management business, and they're opening up their bag as if these old products are new products. So the value for us is core. The NAMIC brand for us is core. And we can't look at the value of the NAMIC business based upon its growth alone. We have to look at it based upon what it can do for the other parts of our business. It's going to accelerate our EVLT growth. It's going to turn around. I mean, our core products, angiographic products, our thrombolysis products were orphans because so many of those procedures were leaving the IR suite, and they were draining. These were negative growth product lines. So now they have an opportunity and a whole new life because our channel is rationalized. That's what I want -- you guys -- I've mentioned it over and over again that we didn't buy Fluid Management, the only asset of Fluid Management in its isolation on…

That's a very robust answer. I have just one final one for Joe Gersuk. Just on the cadence of the gross margins as you go through the year. Appreciate the guidance for the year. But how should we sort of think about it, first quarter through fourth quarter?

Yes, so 52 to 53 for the full year. But the QCTA costs, of which there's a couple of million dollars in the course of the year, but most of that will be spent in the first half of the year and then heaviest of all, in the first quarter of the year. So it's likely to be low 52s to start off the year and then rising over the course of the year.

And our next question comes from the line of Robert Goldman with CL King & Associates. Robert M. Goldman - CL King & Associates, Inc.: A couple of questions on the numbers. On the numbers, it looks like your non-GAAP operating profits in the quarter were down about 3%. If we take out the penny from Navilyst, a penny per share, it looks like the non-GAAP, non-Navilyst operating profits would be down a little bit more than 10%. Perhaps you could speak to my number crunching if it got it right or wrong. And if I got it right, why the weakness in the core business?

So the, it would be $0.09 a share, x Navilyst, right? Robert M. Goldman - CL King & Associates, Inc.: No, I'm looking at the operating profits, Joe. And I've got a separate question, I might as well ask a separate question, that it looks like your non-GAAP tax rate in the fourth quarter was about 16%, down from about 35% in the prior year. Maybe you could speak to that too, if I got it right. And if so, why the decline on the tax rate? So it's 2 questions. It looks to me like the non-GAAP, non-Navilyst operating profits were down in excess of 10%, but the tax rate was halved versus the prior year.

Okay. So on the reconciliation of the operating income on Page 8 of the release, would show you the reconciliation of operating income to the non-GAAP, right? So you'd have essentially flat year-over-year, right, $4.247 million to $4.281 million. And you see that, then the reconciling items that would get you to those figures from the GAAP numbers. So that answers that one. And the tax rate, I think there's just a massive complexity associated with the tax calculation that's intertwined with the acquisition and the acquisition transaction fees and various other factors. So there's -- I just would say it's significantly complex, and I apologize that I can't give you a better answer than that. Robert M. Goldman - CL King & Associates, Inc.: If I could then just follow up. Accepting, Joe, what you said on Page 8, that the non-GAAP operating profits were sort of flat.

Right. Robert M. Goldman - CL King & Associates, Inc.: Take out the Navilyst component, then the operating profits look like they would be down 5%, 6%, 7%.

Yes. Robert M. Goldman - CL King & Associates, Inc.: Am I looking at that correct?

No, but let that but -- I don't have it in front of you, but the, our revenue at the end of the year with beads, if you're going to include that, was like $56 million -- $57 million at the end of fiscal '12, and that included beads. So you can't -- year-over-year, yes, we lost beads and lost that $50 million of contribution, and we've known that for about 6 months. Robert M. Goldman - CL King & Associates, Inc.: Okay, it's the beads. Okay, that explains that.

Yes, beads coming out of the business.

Yes, pure NGO, we unfortunately are not -- we can't wait until we anniversary this damn deal and all the bead stuff, by check they're talking about beads. But I know it's so confusing, Robert, and I'm very sorry for that. We tried really hard, in the releases to try to break all this stuff out. We don't really see a reduction in our overall profitability aside from a kajillion onetime events, which I can't wait until we get all -- we resort the deal, we get all these one-time events, we get rid of bead revenue. We get rid of all this transaction costs and we just grow our business. But it's a much better business today that it's ever been. Robert M. Goldman - CL King & Associates, Inc.: No, it's helpful. And then tax rate, Joe, just finally, given the fourth quarter was complex, but a low tax rate. What's that tax rate guidance for 2013?

It's 37%.

And our next question comes from the line of Larry Haimovitch from HMT.

Couple of quick questions. One was just asked. The tax rate, what, Joe Gersuk, are you using for guidance for cash flow? And then what should we think of as a fully diluted number of shares outstanding?

So no specific guidance for cash flow from operations. It's a complex number. So we limit this guidance to the EBITDA figure there, which is, in some ways, is a proxy for cash.

And what's the EBITDA number for the year in your forecast?

$60 million to $61 million on a non-GAAP basis and $44 million to $45 million on a GAAP basis. And then with respect to shares outstanding, about 36 million would be a good figure to use.

Okay. And the cash flow number is closer to the GAAP or the non-GAAP number, Joe? In other words, $60 million is non-GAAP, $60 million, and it's $44 million, I think, you said was GAAP. What -- is the cash flow number -- which was -- which is the cash flow number correspond better to?

Closer on the GAAP, on the GAAP figures. But again, we aren't going to offer guidance on cash.

Great. But it's reasonable, just based on what you said that cash flow should be, I must say, just picking a ballpark number somewhere in the $45 million to $50 million area, without -- I'm not trying to get a specific, exact number. Just trying to get a real ballpark.

Larry, it's really, it's affected by all of the one-time expenses in the year. That's why we went with the -- to show the EBITDA number on a non-GAAP basis. Even if you saw in 2012, all the one-time expenses and all this other stuff, it's a tough number right now to peg, we think it's a very strong cash generating business off of that $60 million EBITDA, but we still have all these, all the one-timers that make it difficult to phase the cash flow.

Well, that's why I asked the question is precisely because of what you said, which is, you've always been a very good cash flow generating company. It's obviously one of the real strengths of the company, and it gives you a lot of flexibility to pay down your debt, buyback stock, do acquisitions, et cetera. So that's why I was trying to get a better handle on it.

Right. Yes, absolutely. And all of our assumptions haven't changed. We still will be a great cash flow generating company. You just got to get past all of these ebbs and flows of our one-timers and hopefully, one day, I'd love to be able to get into an earnings call and just talk about GAAP.

And Joe, well either Joe, the presentation you made today was terrific in terms of the slides. Did I understand you to say you're going to continue to go through that level of detail either on a quarterly or annual basis?

Yes, it's my intent to be transparent with the business. The more I speak with investors, Larry, the more people just don't understand. And they don't see what our growth drivers are, or there's a couple of lines that are weighing on the business. For me right now, I don't care what the competition does. If they want to know our numbers, they know our numbers. It's not going to affect me in the marketplace. I'm going to do whatever I can right now to be transparent, because I want our investor base to measure our progress for what it is, both good and bad, and be able to hopefully, as we start delivering and things start clicking up, you get to see it more transparently. So it's my intent to run a transparent business and see and deliver something very similar to this.

And we have a follow-up question from the line of Robert Goldman with CL King & Associates. Robert M. Goldman - CL King & Associates, Inc.: Just 2 other little details. First, the guidance of $0.49 to $0.51, Joe, does that include the amortizations?

Yes, it does. Robert M. Goldman - CL King & Associates, Inc.: Okay. And on NanoKnife, did you say the number of systems placed in the quarter? Or could you tell us that?

Yes, we did have that. We indicated that there were -- 8 hospitals became commercial sites this quarter and 7 generators were purchased. And then we ended the fiscal year with 52 commercial sites, which we defined as a hospital that has purchased products from us in the past 6 months. Robert M. Goldman - CL King & Associates, Inc.: And then would you care to say what the number of procedures were with NanoKnife in the quarter?

No, we don't have them. There are more and more procedures that are done without any of our people involved at the time of the procedures. So it's just impossible to tell.

And we have no further questions. I'd like to turn it back over to Mr. DeVivo. Please go ahead.

Okay. Well, I know this is a long call. Sorry that the release got hung up in the beginning. But as you see, the results are the results. I feel we have an organization today, especially in our sales and marketing organization that's delivering for us now very consistently. I'm very pleased with our U.S. and our international leadership. I think they are predicting the business well, developing talent well and growing well. I believe we've integrated the businesses quite well in the early part because we became very decisive in our integration planning and very decisive out of the gate. Our sales force has their plans and know what they need to do for the year. Our marketing teams are deployed. Our Quality Call to Action continues as we elevate and improve our overall operations. Everything's going. And it's not easy, but everything is going because we have a great team and we are executing. And it's one of the main focuses that I have as the CEO of this company, is to get to a consistent level of execution, which we are getting there toward, and to minimize the surprises and to deliver value for all of you. We appreciate your attention on this call. And we will continue to update you and hopefully, deliver for in the future. So thank you.

Ladies and gentlemen, that does conclude the AngioDynamics Fourth Quarter 2012 Financial Earnings Conference Call. Thank you for your participation. You may now disconnect.