Good day, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to fourth quarter and full year 2014 The Cooper Companies Incorporated earnings conference call. [Operator instructions.] I would now like to turn the conference over to your host for today, Ms. Kim Duncan, vice president of investor relations. Please proceed.

Good afternoon, and welcome to The Cooper Companies’ fourth quarter and full year 2014 earnings conference call. I’m Kim Duncan, vice president of investor relations, and joining me on today’s call are Bob Weiss, chief executive officer; Greg Matz, chief financial officer; and Al White, chief strategy officer. Before we get started, I’d like to remind you that this conference call contains forward-looking statements as defined by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, including all revenue and earnings per share guidance and other statements regarding anticipated results of operations, market or regulatory conditions, and integration of any acquisitions or their failure to achieve anticipated benefits. Forward-looking statements depend on assumptions, data, or methods that maybe incorrect or imprecise and are subject to risks and uncertainties. Events that could cause our actual results or future actions of the company to differ materially from those described in forward-looking statements are set forth under the caption Forward-Looking Statements in today’s earnings release and are described in our SEC filings, including the business section of Cooper’s annual report on Form 10-K. These are publicly available and on request from the company’s Investor Relations department. Now, before I turn the call over to Bob, let me comment on the agenda for the call. Bob will begin by providing highlights on the quarter, followed by Greg, who will then discuss the fourth quarter and full year financial results. We will keep the formal presentation to roughly 30 minutes then open up the call for questions. We expect the call to last approximately one hour. We request that anyone asking questions please limit yourself to one question. Should you have any additional questions, please call our Investor line at 925-460-3663 or email ir@cooperco.com. As a reminder, this call is being webcast and a copy of the earnings release and historical Sauflon financial information, including quarterly detail, are available through the Investor Relations section of The Cooper Companies’ website. And with that, I’ll turn the call over to Bob for his opening remarks.

Thank you, Kim, and good afternoon, everyone. Welcome to our fourth quarter and full year 2014 conference call. Let me start by saying I’m very proud of our accomplishments this year, highlighted by revenue growth of 8% and non-GAAP earnings per share growth of 14%. Fiscal Q4 was a very busy quarter, and we’ve entered into fiscal 2015 with strong momentum. I’m pleased to say we remain confident we’ll be taking market share and driving strong earnings growth in 2015 and well beyond. Before getting into the details, let me start by providing three key highlights to take away from this call. First, CooperVision posted 9% year over year pro forma revenue growth in the fourth quarter and when I refer to pro forma, I mean adjusting for currency, Sauflon, and [I me]. CooperVision also took market share in every region of the world, including the Americas. Second, we delivered $108 million of free cash flow this quarter, and we believe our free cash flow in the coming years will be stronger than we envisioned prior to the Sauflon acquisition. This is due to advantages we gained from Sauflon, which will lower future capex. Third, our fiscal 2015 guidance has been reduced but solely due to currency. If we exclude currency, we actually increased earnings per share $0.10 to reflect greater synergies from Sauflon. Our internal forecast for our outer years has also improved due to Sauflon, and we feel more comfortable with our 26%-plus operating margin target in 2018, even hurdling the significant impact of currency this year. Having said that, we can’t ignore the significant negative impact of currency to our current and future results. I’ll discuss foreign exchange and the three takeaways in more detail during the conference call. Moving to the fourth quarter highlights, on a…

Thanks, Bob, and I’m battling a little bit of laryngitis, so I apologize for my voice. Good afternoon everyone. Bob shared with you a pretty thorough review of the market and our revenue picture. As a reminder, we’ve excluded amortization from the non-GAAP numbers, and any non-GAAP comparisons year over year will reflect this. Let me start with gross margins. Looking at gross margins, in Q4 the consolidated GAAP and non-GAAP gross margins were 59.7% and 63.2% respectively, compared with 64.1% for GAAP and non-GAAP in the prior year. The main difference between GAAP and non-GAAP is related to inventory and equipment rationalization due to the Sauflon acquisition. When comparing non-GAAP gross margins this quarter to the prior year, we saw an approximate negative 160 basis point impact with FX due to the combined impact of FX on revenue as well as pound-based inventory flushing through the system. In addition, the acquisition of Sauflon had an approximate 100 basis point negative impact. These headwinds were partially offset with product mix, led by Biofinity. Full year non-GAAP gross margin finished at 64.5%, just under the 64.7% in 2013. CooperVision, on a GAAP and a non-GAAP basis report gross margin of 58.7% and 62.8% respectively versus 64% for GAAP and non-GAAP in Q4 last year. The difference between GAAP and non-GAAP is related to the Sauflon acquisition. The drop in non-GAAP gross margin, as I mentioned earlier, was due to FX, Sauflon, which had a gross margin just above 54%, partially offset by product mix, led by Biofinity. CooperVision’s full year non-GAAP gross margin was 64.5% versus 64.8% for 2013. CooperSurgical had a GAAP and non-GAAP gross margin of 64.4% and 64.9% respectively, which compares to Q4 2013 of 64.3%. In the past, we’ve not really talked about FX impact on CSI,…

Operator, we’re ready to take some questions. Thanks.

[Operator instructions.] Your first question comes from the line of Mr. Matthew O’Brien of William Blair. Matthew O’Brien: I was hoping we could start with the currency commentary, Greg, not to make you speak any more than you need to tonight, with your voice. But I just want to make sure that we flesh this out a little bit. As you mentioned, and just using some simple math, I think what you’re saying is that the 60% of revenue being OUS, your Japanese related revenue specifically, I guess $250 million-ish roughly, and so that’s coming down by about 14%, and then the other piece of the business or about $1 billion of sales, is coming down about 6%-ish related to currency. So that, together, gets you to around $100 million of the revenue reduction? Is that the right way of thinking about it?

Yeah, Matt, I think that’s the right process, and that does get you close to it. One of the things I mentioned too is it really does impact where the currency is declining. We’ve given percentages in the past, we said a 1% decline. If you look at how currency has reacted over the last couple of months, it hasn’t been a 1% decline, and it hasn’t been even across all currencies. And so you’ve seen, as an example, the yen, taking a bigger hit, and that has a bigger hit than average than if it was a euro decline. So you even saw the Russian ruble down 53%. I mean, you’ve got currencies that are really in a freefall against the dollar. Matthew O’Brien : And then if I may, with a quick follow up, on the market, I know you’re optimistic going forward, but last couple of quarters, it’s been fairly soft. With the UPP coming in and some potential for some pricing pressures from your bigger competitors, what gives you the confidence that the market’s going to remain healthy and grow 5% plus-ish, and then how do you think about your pro forma CVI growth if the market continues to be somewhat weak?

I think looking at the last 12 months, as I said, one quarter does not a trend make. The 2% was certainly soft. We had a very robust first quarter last year when you put it all together, trailing 12 months 5%, I think is pretty indicative. Keep in mind, the drivers, a lot of them are still in place, a continuation of the one-day modality in the U.S. being very robust. So I do believe the market has good legs to it, and that’s certainly been borne out the last four or five years, and I think that will continue. Relative to Cooper, while we’ve been gaining share in all regions, keep in mind probably our strong suit has been Europe, where both Clariti and MyDay are represented. In the U.S., for all practical purposes, we have only just begun. We’re in the first inning, if you will. There was somewhat of a scrambled egg we had to work with because of the weak distribution system in the fourth quarter, so that’s not indicative of where Clariti in the U.S. should end up. We’re very optimistic about Clariti’s rollout in January in the U.S. I’m proud to say that we’ve dealt with the distribution channels, and we’re now shipping out of but one warehouse in the U.S. and so we like to say one invoice, one shipment, instead of two different distribution centers and two different invoices. So I think we’ll start seeing some momentum build, particularly in the United States, with that product family.

Your next question comes from the line of Mr. Christopher Pasquale.

Bob, could you just update your thoughts on daily silicon hydrogel sales in FY15? I know you’ve had some moving pieces here with Clariti. How are you thinking about the combination of Clariti and MyDay in the coming year?

Well, we’re clearly thinking about it from a combined point of view, as opposed to each individually. So one influences the other, and we’re, obviously in the U.S., putting a lot more muscle behind Clariti and waiting until we have a more robust production support for MyDay. But also, and most importantly, even if we had plenty of MyDay, we would not attempt to do both single use products rolled out in the U.S. concurrently. So MyDay is going to continue to work Europe. Clariti is reaching from Europe, where it’s done extremely well, into the U.S. We have the capacity. We now have the distribution system. So when I look at single use one day, we’re still kind of gearing towards $175 million in total for the combined silicon hydrogel one day portfolio.

And then it seems like the solutions business has gotten tougher recently for some of your peers. Can you comment on how that piece of Sauflon performed year over year, and whether some of the weakness there changes the outlook for that piece of the business going forward?

Solutions has been pretty much a flat market since the late 90s. So there’s been no growth in the last 17 years. No reason to think there will be growth. We’re not naïve to that fact, and typically as contact lenses move from planned replacement into the one day modality, there’s even further pressure on that. Having said that, what Sauflon did very nicely is package a nice portfolio of products, leveraging some large retailers that, among other things, get into direct to consumer shipments, combination lenses, and lens care for those that are not on the daily regimen. And still, keep in mind, the majority of wearers are not on the daily regimen. So off of a small base, we think there’s something there to look at. We have yet to determine how much muscle we’ll put behind it. So think of 2015 as kind of doing our homework. But don’t expect that we’re going to rush to any rash decision in terms of minimizing that business. To your question how did it do, it kind of held its own. It was a flattish business in the quarter.

Your next question comes from the line of Mr. Larry Biegelsen of Wells Fargo.

So the 1% FX change and 12% EPS, but the $100 million reduction in the top line EPS is 6% year over year change, and that equates to $0.15. So it’s a $0.90 reduction. It’s a 1%, it’s over $0.15 based on the change, if you’re following my math. So $100 million, negative 6% year over year, and then so I’m trying to understand…

Sorry, Larry, if I could jump in, it’s Greg. We had a 10% move year over year in currencies.

Okay. I’ll go back and look at that. The $100 million change is 6% versus what you reported in fiscal 2014. So the $0.90 divided by six gives you 15% for each 1% change.

Larry, just on that point, the 10% devaluation year over year, in other words, using last year’s exchange rates thank you, would have been 10% higher, the $100 million higher. That 10% is, of course, the foreign exchange piece, and if you then say 60% of our business is outside the U.S., that’s 6% on the overall number. So I think maybe we’re saying the same thing, the six equals the six.

We can take it offline. I’m not sure I can do the math on the fly, but I’m not quite following. That’s okay. We can take it offline later. And then just one other question, the change [unintelligible] issues in the U.S., it seems like that will continue into the fourth quarter. How do you guys see that impacting you guys? Is that an opportunity for you guys?

Well, J&J has been one of the generous people in the marketplace the last couple of years, and obviously they’ve gone pretty aggressive on UPPS. Someone asked the question on UPP before. We still think that’s kind of somewhat faddish, although we’re, in the case of Clariti, going along with a decision that Sauflon made to use UPP in the U.S. Certainly, J&J has leveraged the UPP concept somewhat to their benefit on one side of the aisle, but very much to their detriment on the other side, if we compare the independent to the retailers. So they certainly have alienated the retailer. We’re still of the opinion that it’s somewhat novel but is not a long term strategy, meaning UPP is not the way the market should go. We’ll let that play out. J&J is, of course, as we look at it the next two years, they have in the one day modality, where the market is shifting from two weeks, their sweet spot. They own, for all practical purposes, ex-Avaira, they own the two-week market in the U.S. That is shifting somewhat into the monthly modality, but very much into the one day modality where J&J still gets a fair amount of business, but they’re also losing a fair amount of business. So that’s where the real game gets played, is what goes on in the one day modality in the U.S. We like our chances with ProClear one day, Clariti, and then down the road, MyDay in that space. J&J has moist, which is not bad as a non-silicon hydrogel, and we think that when someone has a choice, the eye care professional, when we look at planned replacement, 75% of the revenue dollars are in the silicon hydrogel modality. The only reason that does not also apply in the one day modality, which is now more like 15% to 16% silicon hydrogel, the only reason it’s not bigger is price point. And that’s where True Eye and Total One are on the high end of the price point, the premium price point, and that is not the average consumer, and therefore we think that’s where a lot of fair game is for our product portfolio.

Your next question comes from the line of Mr. Matt Mishan of KeyBanc.

Can you talk a little bit about the added synergies you kind of expected to see? I was a little surprised by that, because of the delay in the integration with Sauflon in the U.K.

Yeah, there was no doubt the two and a half month delay cost us, and that’s why we ended up with the 13% OI for Sauflon. And a lot of people were on planes ready to hit the go button in September when all that hit. So yeah, we lost some timing, and relative to where we’re going, on the $0.10 pickup, that really is reflected in the fact that there have been a number of things, both on their cost structure, on the manufacturing side primarily, that is driving us to be a lot more bullish. And we will make pretty good inroads into catching up on the synergy side and basically have identified more synergies than we initially thought, which led to the $0.10 pickup.

I think you said that you expect about $200 million in daily silicon hydrogel sales for 2015. Is that still ballpark, maybe $75 million MyDay, maybe $125 million for Sauflon?

I quoted last quarter, and again today, $175 million in total. We have not done the split out, because as I indicated, we’re going to be pushing Clariti, particularly in the U.S., a lot harder than MyDay, and reserving MyDay mainly for the continuation of the European rollout, for two reasons. One, we have the capacity with Clariti, and so why not put the muscle behind it. And two is we don’t want to try rolling out two silicon hydrogels at once in the U.S.

Your next question comes from the line of Mr. Larry Keusch of Raymond James.

Bob, for those of us that lived through the integration of Ocular, I recognize that Sauflon obviously is smaller, less complex, less distribution centers, less manufacturing sites, etc. But help us really understand the confidence that you have that the time that you took this quarter to deal with some of these service disruption issues are truly behind you, so that when you get going in January, you’ve got a clean slate in front of you and we’re not going to hear about it on the next quarter’s report.

Fair question, and with Ocular, for those that don’t know, it was pretty much a $400 million company buying a $330 million company. So for all practical purposes, two companies about the same size with very diverse information systems, different locations on distribution, one on the East Coast, one on the West Coast. Since we’re just starting the rollout, and the reason we kind of stopped it before it went too far in the last quarter, was it was coming out of separate distribution systems. That was in a startup mode, knowing it was going to be in a shutdown mode, which is kind of very difficult to ramp up and ramp down. And we also wanted to get it right from the point of view of the consumer, so what we did, recognizing that, is service only existing accounts without trying to roll out and create new demand that then couldn’t be met by the distribution center. Effective December 1, all inventory of contact lenses is shipped out of West Henrietta already, and it’s integrated into our system. It’s a simple product line called basically Clariti One Day, not a complicated one like Ocular had. All the private labels may have had 20 or 30 different private labels, and a lot of complexity to it. It was as complicated as Cooper in some respects, because of the private label modality, not the toric modality, if you will. But no, we feel highly confident that our systems are ready, and in the interim, we’ve been able to beef up the preparation of fitting sets that are rolling out to the field, so there’ll be a fair amount of muscle behind the product on all fronts, the fitting sets, the marketing emphasis in January, as well as what’s behind the scenes in the back office.

Your next question comes from the line of Ms. Joann Wuensch with BMO Capital Markets.

There were three explanations that you gave. One was temporary softness with Sauflon. The second one was inventory reductions. Can you remind me what that third one was that in total hit $13 million or $0.13 a share?

Yeah, it was foreign exchange impact on the fourth quarter of $3 million top line.

So the inventory reduction issue, we’ve been hearing this now a couple of times. You said, I think I’m quoting here, but you feel confident this is the last time we will be raising this issue. Is it possible that just the purchasing patterns of your end users, your vendors, has changed permanently, and therefore you’re going to be coming up against odd quarters for some time?

I think it has changed permanently, and if I kind of look at it from a three-year point of view, three years ago, we were down 20%. Last year, we were down 16%. This year, we were down 17% in days of inventory on hand. There are minimums that the distributors are allowed to have. They’re at those minimums now, so they cannot contractually go below on any extended basis. I think we’re pretty efficient, and I’ve mentioned a couple of times in the past that as an example, we ship a lot of the custom-made torics and the odd torics, the onesies and twosies, on behalf of the distributors, so they don’t have to stock it. That led to a much more efficient requirement on the distributor in terms of what they had to carry. In other words, they’re carrying the high turnover SKUs and not the slow, complex SKUs like many of the torics are. So the entire distribution channel is a lot more efficient in total, and I don’t expect that to revert back the other way. We’ve kind of got down to the floor. It took three years, and I would have said a year ago, when we had already gotten down, basically down 20, down 16, in aggregate down 36%, that would have been far enough. The reason I’m confident now is that floor, the contractual floor. If they go below where they are now, then that runs the risk of back orders and servicing the customer, and that’s kind of where we push back, if you will.

And my second question has to do with manufacturing. Back in the spring, there was a warning letter in Puerto Rico, I believe. I’m curious where that is in the process of resolution. And also, now that you’ve owned Sauflon a little bit longer, is the current thinking still to keep all of the individual manufacturing sites or are you starting to shift towards thinking about how to consolidate some of that?

The first question, on the warning letter, which came out of Puerto Rico, was issued earlier this fiscal year or early in the calendar year, I should say, and that has been removed. It has not yet been posted on the FDA site, but basically back in October the FDA cleared the warning letter. So happy to say that. Relative to consolidation, we have basically robust locations in Puerto Rico where we make over a billion lenses, well over a billion lenses, and in the U.K. Certainly, the U.K. is kind of a campus in the greater Southampton area, so that would be one site where, from a physical plant location point of view, we’ll still look at it. Hungary is in a ramp up mode, and that will continue in a ramp up mode with Clariti. And Hungary and Costa Rica are our low cost labor centers. And so we would expect to continue to ramp up and expand into Costa Rica. In the one day modality, you talk about making a lot of lenses, so I don’t see a huge amount of consolidation shutdown opportunity. We’re certainly not going to exit either Southampton or Hungary or Puerto Rico, making a billion lenses.

Your next question comes from the line of Mr. Jeff Johnson of Robert W. Baird.

Greg, let me ask one more currency question, and you know, as you go through the explanation, it all seems to kind of make sense, at least as much as it can to a simpleton like myself, but if look at fiscal 2013 and fiscal 2014, you didn’t have nearly as much of an EPS impact. 2013, you had some euro help offsetting a real big yen move, so I guess that makes sense. But in 2014, it looks like to me the euro was down 7% year over year, the yen down about 10% year over year, and yet the EPS impact was only $0.36. So again, I hear all your explanations for 2015, but kind of, you know, why a factor of 3X bigger in 2015 over 2014, when the moves in 2014 actually were pretty sizable themselves?

Yeah, Jeff, I’d have to go back and look at the detail, but one of the things to keep in mind is if you go back to, you know, when I started with the company in 2010, we were 50% U.S., 50% international, and we’ve steadily grown. In each year, we’ve grown that number. So from that perspective, we’ve had a bigger and bigger hit each year. Also, the dramatic moves, it’s not been a 1% move. And in the prior years, and again, I’d have to go back and look at 2013 to 2014, because I don’t have that with me in the room, but the yen, again, was moving, but the yen’s at 120, almost a freefall, and so that has been pretty dramatic in having an impact on where we’re going. And again, not every rate is different. The other thing is all currencies are going against the U.S. dollar. I’m not sure there’s any one that’s not. And that’s a little different than the past, where you’ve had regional moves. And you’re right, three years ago, it was the euro that hit us, then it was last year it was the yen and the euro went the other way, offsetting, and the pound has been fluctuating between $1.69 and $1.55 for I don’t know, five years or whatever. And this year was a little different. Everybody went against us. And you really saw that beginning the latter part of Q3. So I’d have to go back and look specifically, Jeff, but again, we spent some time modeling this and looking at it, and it’s definitely a painful fact. But the fact that the cost or the impact per 1% has gone up is the fact that our reach has gone up, and our growth outside the U.S. has gone up.

Yeah, Jeff, I do have the cheat sheet a little on some of that. The euro actually, as Greg alluded to, took a hit back in 2012, but actually gained slightly in 2013, and by that, I mean it went from $1.29 to $1.32. And then it went from $1.32 to $1.35 in 2014. So actually, from a full year point of view, it’s net marginally up. It is the yen that, in 2013, took the big hit, 19% down, from 79 to 94, and then this year, it’s gone from 94 to 103, down another nine. And now, of course, ever since September 4, it’s just fallen off the cliff. So in aggregate, the yen is now devalued 56% since its high point of 77 back in 2012. So the combination of not only the yen, but also the euro and then of course the pound kind of joining it, but on a six-month lag base, and actually working against us as Greg indicated in the first six months of 2015, the pound goes the wrong way even. And then it starts going favorable as becoming a part hedge. So that, combined with the fact that our business has migrated from 50% outside the U.S. to over 60% outside the U.S. is a big factor, and what used to be $0.06 is now $0.10 with a range of eight to twelve depending on where the pound is moving in that pendulum.

Your next question comes from the line of Mr. Anthony Petrone of Jefferies.

I guess just to stay on the topic of FX Bob, and just to round out that conversation would be, can you just give us a sense, again, of the Sauflon U.K. revenues and their exposure to the pound and just how that’s moving through the first half and how that plays into the equation as well?

Yeah, the Sauflon, if you will, is essentially 90-plus percent an outside the U.S. business with a lot of currency in euros, some currency and some expenses in pounds, and then of course Hungary, the plant Hungary. And I know we have that as a dollar functional currency, but for all practical purposes, it’s moving more in tandem with Europe, or not in tandem with the dollar, if you will. So Sauflon is part of the reason that we’ve moved up north of the 60% balance of U.S./non-U.S. From a manufacturing point of view, there’s somewhat the natural hedge of Hungary that comes into play, just like the natural hedge of the U.K. plant. But in terms of the revenue side, that is, where we are right now, 90% outside the U.S.

Your next question comes from the line of Mr. Steve Willoughby with Cleveland Research.

Just a quick question for you, Bob. I know you said capex would start to drop in 2016. Can you give any more color on what that might look like, and then what operating cash flow might look like given the incremental revenue and earnings from Sauflon?

You know, we guided to, or my comments are we expect north of $200 million in free cash flow next year. This year, we had, of course, $235 million, I think it was, or $236 million. So our expectation is that towards the end of 2015, as we go through the integration activity and rationalization, and recognizing that Sauflon is where our future capital requirements for growth are really going to be, the fact that they spend one third what we spend for the same production volume, if you will, makes it an attractive model. There are certain types of equipment in the CooperVision pre-Sauflon aisle, if you will, that were very expensive and rest assured, we expect to be buying a lot less $30 million pieces of equipment as has been done in the past, going forward. So that mix, particularly as we rationalize some of what’s going on with the manufacturing technologies and which products are made on which platforms, we’re highly optimistic that by the end of 2015, and moving into 2016, capital requirements will drop substantially, if for no other reason the fact that they spend one third as much for the same volume as we had been spending with the Clariti side. As far as free cash flow, post 2015, other than to say you’re going to have two drivers, one is improved operating results from the integration activity being substantially complete by the end of 2015, number one. And number two, the reduced capex should lead to very attractive improvements, both on the P&L and on free cash flow in 2016.

Your next question comes from the line of Mr. Jon Block of Stifel.

Maybe two quick ones. First one, just Bob, can you talk about how you’re doing in Europe, where you have both [unintelligible] daily lenses, MyDay and Clariti, how do you view your market share of new fits? And then the second one would be, you know, we keep on hearing from our checks and from you guys all these great things about dailies, but if you look at the growth, even on a trailing 12 month basis, dailies has gone from 12% to 10% to now 9%. So can you talk to us about what you’re seeing from sort of a unit versus price standpoint within dailies?

As far as how we’re doing in Europe, if you look at our three regions, the one that really is stellar in pro forma constant currency, in other words, what we did is adjust it as if we owned Sauflon in the prior year. That was up 13% in constant currency compared to U.S. five and Asia Pac seven. That’s where we have Clariti and MyDay both in the marketplace, and they’re basically doing stellar there. If you look at from the point of view of how are our products doing in the single use modality, you’re correct that from a CLI perspective, the market of one day worldwide last quarter was only 6%. But as I indicated, I don’t think one quarter does the trend make, and if I look at it from a 12 month point of view, it was 9%. Maybe that was the 9% you were quoting. We, on the other hand, put up 11% constant currency growth - once again, pro forma constant currency growth - this last quarter. So pretty robust there, and that kind of reflects the driver being, among other things, Clariti in the one day modality and MyDay, to a much lesser extent. And for the last 12 months, trailing 12 months, we were at 16%, likewise very robust. I think part of that 11% we had this last quarter was the fact that as far as deceleration was what was going on in the U.S., where we really didn’t have MyDay into the U.S. market. And quite frankly, Clariti did next to nothing because of some of the things I explained regarding the disruption and our decision to pretty much stop new emphasis and opening new accounts and only service the existing accounts until January. So it will start showing up post the calendar year end and we look forward to good things really after the first quarter [unintelligible] starting that process. As far as pricing, I would say overall pricing in that modality is on net, up, meaning you have the trading up phenomenon as we, particularly Total One, which is off the charts trading up. So you have ARPs migrating up for a variety of reasons. Silicon hydrogel within the one day modality space. And I don’t see any change in that. In other words, as we go from conventional hydrogel lenses to silicon hydrogel lenses, that is a trade up activity that will continue.

Ladies and gentlemen, we will now hear from Mr. Bob Weiss for closing remarks. And thank you for your participation in the question and answer session.