Good morning. Welcome to the Cemex Fourth Quarter 2015 Conference Call and webcast. My name is Sylvia, and I'll be your operator for today. At this time, all participants are in a listen-only mode. Later, we will conduct a question-and-answer session. [Operator Instructions] Our hosts for today are Fernando Gonzalez, Chief Executive Officer; and Maher Al-Haffar, Executive Vice President of Investor Relations, Communications and Public Affairs. And now, I will turn the conference over to your host, Fernando Gonzalez. Please proceed.

Thank you, operator, and good day to everyone. Thank you for joining us for our fourth quarter 2015 conference call and webcast. We will be happy to take your questions after our initial remarks. 2015 was a challenging year with China slowdown on the oil price decline, adversely affecting many of our markets, gearing to lower government spending, especially on infrastructure and ultimately to weaker economic growth. The financial markets have also been impacted significantly by divergent monetary policies in developed markets, leading to an unprecedented appreciation of the US dollar versus most of our currencies, particularly in Mexico and Colombia and hurting corporate earnings across many industries. Despite this challenging environment, we were able to deliver strong underlying operational and financial results, while remaining focus on the variables that we control. Our volumes increased in our core businesses. Our prices in local currency terms increase as well, reflecting the implementation of our pricing strategy and exceeding input cost inflation. Overall, our cost increases were contained, as we deliver on our cost reduction program of $150 million and benefited from operating leverage in several markets. As a result of our favorable volumes and price performance, during 2015 we increased sales by 5% on a like-to-like basis. Since prices increase more than our cost and we had a favorable operating leverage in many of our markets, we increased EBITDA by 9% like-to-like and generated a 1.1 percentage point improvement in EBITDA margin. Lastly, net income for the year was $75 million and was positive for the first time in six years. We expect to continue this positive performance for our shareholders for years to come. Like many companies, our operating EBITDA was negatively impacted by the unprecedented strength of the US dollar. The FX impact on our EBITDA during 2015 was…

Thank you, Fernando. Hello, everyone. It is important to note that in our fourth quarter report, the results of our Croatian operations for 2014 and 2015 have been reclassified as per IFRS accounting standards and are now reflected in a discontinued operations line item in our financial statements. Our net sales and operating EBITDA on a like-for-like basis, increased by 2% and 7% respectively during the quarter. There was higher like-for-like EBITDA contribution from Mexico, the U.S. and the Northern Europe and Asia regions. Our operating EBITDA margin during the quarter increased by almost 1 percentage point. Full year EBITDA margin is the highest since 2008. This margin expansion reflected better prices and volumes, as well as greater operating efficiencies. As Fernando mentioned during the quarter, we continued to see the effect of the appreciation of the U.S. dollar versus some currencies in our markets. The full year FX impact on our EBITDA was about $317 million excluding about $85 million of the effective dollarized cost in our operations. If we include this effect on cost, the increase in like-for-like EBITDA would have been about 12%. Of the full year FX impact on EBITDA about 40% was related to the Mexican Peso, 30% to the Columbian Peso, and 20% to the euro and euro like currencies. Our increase in prices during the year in countries that have been impacted by FX volatility, adjusted for the effect of variable cost and freight rate increases has offset close to three quarters of the adverse FX impact. Cost of sales plus operating expenses as a percentage of net sales declined by 1.1 percentage points during the quarter. Our kiln fuel and electricity bill on a per-ton-of-cement-produced basis declined by 10% during the fourth quarter and by 6% in 2015. During the quarter, our…

For 2016, we expect consolidated cement volumes to grow in the low-single digits, while ready-mix and aggregate volumes should grow in the mid-single digits from last years levels. Regarding our cost of energy on a per-ton-of-cement-produced basis, we expect a 10% reduction from last year's levels. Guidance for total CapEx for 2016 is about $700 million, this includes $450 million in maintenance CapEx, and 250 million in strategic CapEx. Regarding working capital, we anticipate the working capital investment during this year to be flat, to marginally higher. We expect cash taxes for 2016 to be under $400 million. We also anticipate a reduction in financial expenses for this year of about $50 million. Based on these expectations and despite continue FX volatility, we expect our EBITDA in U.S. dollar terms to grow this year. In closing, I want to emphasize that we continue to see profitable demand growth throughout our portfolio. We have delivered strong results during 2015 despite headwinds cause by currency fluctuations and volatility in the financial markets. Our EBITDA margin during the year was the highest since 2008. We also had the highest free cash flow levels since 2009, reflecting our initiatives to reduce financial expenses and improve working capital translating into record low 20 working capital days. We deliver on the targets we provided at the beginning of 2015. We reduced cost and expenses, improved working capital and lower financial expenses. We also sold assets and reduced debt. For this year, we are setting new targets to respond to the continued volatile environment and further booster our road to investment grade. First, we are announcing a cost and expense reduction target of $150 million. Second, we expect free cash flow initiatives of $200 million, our guidance for our free cash flow items reflects this initiatives. Third, we are targeting to pay between $500 million and $1 billion of debt this year, and up to $2 billion by the end of 2017. And fourth, we expect to sell assets for $1 billion to $1.5 billion in the next two years. Thank you for your attention.

Before we go into our Q&A session, I would like to remind you that any forward-looking statements we make today are based on our current knowledge of the markets, in which we operate and could change in the future due to a variety of factors beyond our control. In addition, unless the context indicates otherwise, all references to pricing initiatives, price increases or decreases refer to our prices for our products. And, now, we would be happy to take your questions. Operator?

[Operator Instructions] Your first question comes from Ben Theurer from Barclays.

Hi. Good morning, Fernando. Good morning, Maher. So, first of all, congratulations on those results.

Thanks.

I actually have a couple of questions, so one operationally in the U.S. more on the pricing. So we've seen a minor decrease on a sequential basis fourth quarter versus third quarter on cement prices. Just my suspicion is that because of the mix shift in the different regions, if you could clarify that quickly where that sequential decline is coming from? And then, looking into 2016, you said already you're looking for price increases in January-April. But are you also targeting something for July-October, as you've done in some years, like just in order to push further on the pricing side in order to implement the value before volume strategy? That would be question number one.

Yes. Thanks, Ben. I'll take the answer. First, very quickly for the first part of the question, it is a geographic mix that is translating that and primarily Texas essentially having had higher prices because of the oil component of it. In terms of the pricing increases, the pricing increases that were announced last year for January of this year affected roughly half of our markets. That's Colorado, Florida, Midwest and Southeast. That's half of our volumes, I should say. And we had fairly good reception to those pricing increases. Roughly, two-thirds of the affected markets experienced about a 70% plus realization, which is very good. In Florida, unfortunately, we got less pricing traction. Florida is about a third of the affected markets, and there we had somewhere around 35% realization. Now, of course, we will continue – in the case of Florida, we will continue with our very strong and focused efforts to execute our pricing strategy. In April, obviously, the April increases, we will discuss those when that happen. Second round pricing frankly, I mean, we haven't announced it. It's questionable, but we're certainly evaluating the conditions right now.

Okay. Perfect. Thanks for that. And then just a question on free cash flow outlook and, clearly, two things that are, to some sort of related to your target for over $200-million improvement in free cash flow in 2016. So, number one, you had a tremendous improvement on the working capital cycle. You've mentioned down to 20 days now from the 27. Actually, there was a bigger reversal. So we're very positive in 2015. So how many – so how much room do you think you're still having within improvements on working capital and where is that – where was that mainly coming from? Was that an improvement in the U.S. where we know it was used to be in the past little bit weaker and what's the outlook on that? And then second one of the initiatives what I've realized is your lowering by about €100 million maintenance CapEx, question here is that 100 million reduction on maintenance CapEx, is that temporarily because you don't sense you have to go through that maintenance in 2016 and is likely to revert in following years? Or has that to do that you just can save money because of the asset divestments you have especially in Europe and the Mediterranean region? Thanks.

Let me start with the – why is that we believe that we can enhance the free cash flow for 200 million this year. It will come mainly because of an increased – an expected increase of our non-productive asset sales. It will also come to some extent because of reduction we mention of about $50 million of financial expense. There will be some taxes lower also compared to last year and on CapEx, we're expecting like 50 million less compare to last year. So, that will make about $200 million now. And on CapEx and the amount of CapEx maintenance or strategic, we feel comfortable with amount we have. From year-to-year, we can increase or decrease it slightly, but I don't – I think the current amount again is sustainable with some variations, slight variations in the near future. Now regarding the possibility of continue improving working capital, well, let me put it this way. I think in 2014, we were very happy with the new record of 27 days and as far as I understand is the lowest in the industry or one of the lowest. And last year we even improved that to 20 days. Can that be improved materially in 2016? I think the answer is yes. And improvement will mainly come from the U.S. and Mexico. When you count the working capital in Cemex and you look at Mexico and the U.S, we have higher investment in working capital in those countries compared to other. So, the incentive – I mean the initiative to continue improving it will allow us to continue optimizing the investment in working capital in 2016. Now is that going to provide a large amount of free cash flow compared to last year? I don't think so. That is not the reason why – or not the main component of the $200 million we think we can increase.

Okay. Perfect.

As commented, we will have either flat or an investment in working capital this year.

Okay. Perfect. Thank you very much for clarification. And once again congratulations.

Thank you.

Thank you. Operator?

Your next question comes from Adrian Huerta from JPMorgan.

Hello.

And your next question comes from Dan McGoey from Citigroup.

Good morning, gentlemen. Congratulations on the results. Two questions from me. If I could ask on the U.S., the margin, the EBITDA margin in the U.S. 17.9%, was particularly strong for the fourth quarter. The pricing up only, I guess, you would say about 3% in volumes. But I am wondering with 17.9% margin in U.S. in the fourth quarter, if you could talk a little bit about, what helped that margin and then outlook for 2016? And then, secondly, Fernando your comment on the asset divestiture program, I think it was the new target of $1 billion to $1.5 billion over the next 1.5 years. Can you give us an update on how far you are through the original program and whether or not this would be in addition to that $1 billion to $1.5 billion which was outlined previously?

Sure. Let me start with the asset divestment question. In February 2015, we announced divestment in the range of $1 billion to $1.5 billion in the period of 18 months, that means June 2016. In 2015, we successfully divested close to $700 million. So what we are doing today is increasing the amount of assets to be divested meaning that the new $1 billion to $1.5 billion in the next two years are on top of the $700 million that we have already sold. So that will make a total of $1.7 billion to $2.2 billion at the last year up to 7 to 17. Now we have several business units and non-productive assets in a divestiture process in February last year. So I feel kind – I feel confident that we will manage to divest – what is missing for the new target or what is missing for the 2015 target. As you can imagine, the volatility and current conditions in the market are not necessarily the best conditions in order for divest. So we don't – we are going to divest but we are not in the position to divest at – on convenient prices. So we are doing that. We have shown that it can be done even in the moments with uncertainty and on investors and we will continue doing it this year.

Okay. And when we say non-productive, can we take that to mean basically non-EBITDA contributing at this point?

Exactly, exactly. It could be real estate and other investments that from time to time we get, because our business activity and we proactively divest in those. In the last few years, we normally divest from $150 million to $250 million of those type of assets.

Got it.

And Dan on the questions on the U.S., yes, I mean, going forward – first, I mean, maybe going back to kind of what was driving it. The important driver there was pricing that was roughly 2 percentage points improvement and you had volumes 1.4 percentage point improvement, and then you had, obviously, some variable cost inflation, bringing it down and there were some other items, which took us to close to about 18%, which represented about a 3% percentage points improvement. Obviously, we continue to benefit from operating leverage. Operating leverage, I believe for the quarter was more than 50%. And many of our markets continue to have low capacity utilization. So going forward frankly, we definitely look forward to expansion of the EBITDA margin in the U.S., driven by really three factors. Number one, especially in 2016, we are not going to have the big oil headwind that we had in 2015. So that should translate to expansion of the margin. The other component is that we do expect to continue to see growth in markets that have lower capacity utilization in the system, which means you're going to get a bigger kick of operating leverage. So essentially, you have operating leverage, lower capacity utilization markets and then the absence of the oil headwinds. So, all those three should continue to have positive impact on our EBITDA margin into 2016. I don't know if that addresses the question.

It does. Great. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Thanks.

Operator?

And your next question comes from Vanessa Quiroga from Credit Suisse.

Hello, good morning and Fernando, Maher, thanks for the call. My question is probably more specific for Fernando. Fernando during your mandate and since you've progressed your position, there has been a big emphasis in reaching investment grade faster for Cemex, microeconomics and market volatility having felt. What if this volatility continues if currency weakness lasted for longer, or a U.S. slow down prevented Cemex to grow in EBITDA in dollar terms going forward, what else could Cemex do to reduce debt faster than $1 billion per year?

Well, thanks for your question Vanessa. What can I say? To start with – as we have said 2014 and 2015, which is the first couple of years of, in my new position, having EBITDA neutral. I mean EBITDA has really not grown. An even with EBITDA not growing we have managed to reduce to more than – to slightly more than $2 billion of debt. What if – the economic contest continue been above the same. Well, let me start by saying that I don't believe that the current economic conditions for 2016 will have a negative impact the size of last year. For sure the dollar might continue been very strong, but I – very hard to believe that it will continue getting stronger as much as it was last year. So we will not have remembered the amount that we mention on FX impact for last year in EBITDA is just this $300 million. So we might have an additional impact on FX this year, because of – when you compare the aspect that the FX for this year compared to the average FX of last year, but not as much as that amount. So I feel confident that, EBITDA this year will grow. Now what else can we do? At this point in time, we – to start with – we are confirming our objective of being focused on gaining back our investment grade. And that's a way to say that we are – our interpretation is that there is a way to create value for our shareholders, needed a change in our capital structure. And we are focused on doing that. Given that the EBITDA has been flat, we are helping ourselves with asset divestments and another different options, we have evaluated that is the way to go. It is working. It worked last year. As in mentioned that our several units or businesses that were in the process of divesting, we think that it's going pretty well and so we are confident that we will continue divesting assets at reasonable prices. So for the time being that will continue, being the strategy. Now if everything fails, if – well, we will see, but so far, we think that we – that the way we are – the strategy we are following it is working, again. We believe that the strategy, the business model and the specific actions we are taking are working.

Thank you for that color, Fernando. Could we probably change a little bit more to the operations in the U.S. given then a situation or risk of further slowdown in China deceleration, can you remind us of that barriers to entry for China imports today in the U.S. and if there has been an important change given M&A accruing recently in the region? Thanks.

Well, as you know Vanessa, the U.S. is little-by-little is getting to a point in which most of capacity – cement capacity is utilized. I mean it's not spread at all over the country, but in some parts it's already high and getting higher, the markets continue increasing. And as you know the U.S. is a country that traditionally, let's say, before the 2007 crisis, was – what we call a structural importer out of the 120 million or 130 million tones the U.S. was consuming before the crisis about 25 million were imported. So, what we have been seeing during 2015 perhaps even since second half of 2014 is that imports started increasing in the U.S. little-by-little. Now, most of imports in the U.S. are done by local producers, most of facilities, most of permits, most of integrated value chains are owned and managed by local producers. So far, even before the crisis and currently I do believe that inputs will follow the logic of local producers instead of, let's say, independent traders that might have different economic views or objectives. So, I don't see a major impact; let's put it that way, because of inputs. The inputs in the U.S. are needed at certain, let's say, on top of 100 – between $100 million and $110 million of consumption that inputs are needed and they will come.

Thank you very much for your answers Fernando.

More than welcome.

And your next question comes from Gordon Lee from BTG.

Yes, hi, good morning, gentlemen. Thanks for the call.

Good morning.

Two quick questions both related to the balance sheet. The first, just reading sort of the footnotes in the release, the section on the Mexican tax reform. I see that it looks like you significantly reduced the tax liability, depending tax liability from back taxes, is that correct and could you just maybe walk us through how that occurred and what depending liability is and when you would expect that to pay that? And then just the final question, just following up on your comments in terms of the use of cash and the pay down of the convert. What would be a normal sort of run rate cash level for you sort of once you pay down this debt and that's just obviously for purposes of computing the leverage ratio going forward? Thank you.

Okay. Gordon, just on the tax change. First, just to kind of reiterate the guidance for the year, we're guiding just slightly under $400 million in taxes. And that includes taxes that are payable under the consolidation regime. Now, what happened is that under the Tax Reform Laws of 2016 that were approved in 2016. There are two important changes that took place in that regime. Number one was, allowing the use of tax loss carry forwards at a punitive rate to the fees tax obligations that were assessed under the consolidation regime. And the punitive rate, meaning, I believe it was almost a two to one. In other words, you need to use, twice as much tax laws carry forwards for every dollar of liability under the tax consolidation regime, that, that was in place. And so we took advantage of that. The other component of the Tax Reform is that there were certain deductions that were disallowed under the consolidation regime, that were then later determined to be inappropriate. We think, we believe and they were that was changed. And we are talking specifically about the intercompany dividends element. So the combination of those two translated to a reduction in that amount from a little bit 1 billion to the 226 that we have with the – what I believe a similar payments schedule as the original amount that we had outstanding under the consolidation regime, which translates to somewhere around $40 million to $50 million payments per annum. And Gordon, I am sorry, did you have another – was the – the other question was the cash, the cash balance...

Basically just to understand, I mean, obviously I know you are accumulating cash now to pay for the convert in a couple of month's time or a month's time. But, my question is, because the leverage ratios are calculated on a gross basis as we sort of model for the leverage ratio going forward, obviously, to ensure that you are in compliance with the covenants. My question was what would be on the normal circumstances a cash level that you would be happy with running the operations at, if you weren't paying up cash to deal with maturities?

Well, just to start with – just to be sure on the calculations. Cash does not go into funded debt calculation. It is total debt minus converts, and some other adjustments that is not included. Now, currently cash balances we can run with less than previously because of the committed credit facility. Now, on the other hand cash needs are – because of our cash cycle, and the cash needs are different, I will say they are larger during the first half and then lower during the second half. But if what you want is let say a range of cash needed in average is between $300 million perhaps $400 million.

Perfect. That's exactly what I need. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Gordon.

More than welcome.

Thank you.

And your next question comes from Yassine Touahri from Exane BNP Paribas.

Yes. Good morning. A couple of questions, first the question on the U.S., so I think you mentioned a couple of markets being impacted by your January price increase that's Colorado, Florida and the Midwest. I just want to know how much – what's the proposition of this market as a percentage of your U.S. sales? And then the other question is what proposition of your U.S. sales – what is proportion of the market, in which you have announced price increase in April?

Yes. Hi, Yassine. The amount – the markets that were affected by the January pricing increase, which again just to repeat for clarity sake are Colorado, Florida, our Midwest markets and our South East markets, which, of course, would – including Florida as I mentioned. The combined volumes from these markets are 50% of our volume in the U.S. market. And roughly two-thirds of that affected amount, so two thirds of the 50% actually achieved a pricing realization of close to 70%. And April – the April pricing increase, which affects California and Texas and other unaffected markets represents the other 50%. California and Texas just by themselves are roughly around 45% of their volumes.

And another question the deliver of the price increase was it something like $10, $15, what's the average price increase?

Well, we announced mid-teens, low to mid-teens and now, of course, we – that's what we announced, but obviously since we're not interested in the case of – I mean we are not willing to impact our market position. Clearly what happens is that prices will tend towards the – whatever is the lowest clearing price. And so you know that there would be some adjustments obviously in different markets.

But if I understand what you mentioned is that in January, prices would have increased by a bit more than $7 in Colorado and the Midwest and a bit more than a $4 in Florida, is that the correct way to understand what you said?

Yes, I would say probably a little bit higher in the Midwest and in the – yes, I would say, a little bit higher than that. And Florida is pretty close. It's a little bit higher than the number that you are coming up with, with around five to six bucks.

Okay. That's very clear. And then I would have another question on your pricing strategy in Mexico and Columbia. I think you are forecasting slight volume growth in those two markets in 2016, do you expect to grow with the market or will you continue to focus on pricing?

Sorry, just to clarify Yassine, you said flat for 2016?

No, no, you are taking slight volume growth, I understand in Mexico and Columbia in mid single digit, low single digit volume growth and I just wanted to understand what is going to be your pricing stability, you want to grow with the market or will you continue to focus on pricing?

Well, on market growth and our growth we are expecting mid single digit, low to mid single-digit. And our expectation is to grow according to the market. I mean if the question is referred to the impact on our pricing strategy, I think – and as you can imagine, our pricing strategy is like the one we started mid last year. It takes time. It – and in our opinion is all being in the right direction. So, we do and as you know we already announced price increases in Mexico in January for both bulk and bag [ph] so we do expect for prices to increase and for us to grow at least at the same pace than the market.

And Yassine if I could just add to that perspective okay I mean the volumes – the volume growth by the industry in Mexico was quite encouraging for 2015. It was almost closed to – we guestimate, we have to wait and see how everybody else does, but we guestimate that it's growing in the high single-digit, which is an important multiple of GDP closed on between two and a half to three times GDP growth in 2015. And frankly we may see a drop in that ratio to GDP, but the expectation for GDP in Mexico for 2016 is somewhere around 3% and even it if deteriorate little bit less than that, the multiple is continuing to be certainly higher than one, right? So, in Mexico, we solidly expect kind of the mid-single-digit growth in volumes just to put into perspective, okay.

Okay. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Operator?

Our next question comes from Jorg Friedemann from Goldman Sachs.

Thank you very much. Congratulations for the results.

Thank you.

I have two questions. First coming back to the effect of the New Mexican tax regime that you mentioned already. I am intrigued by the guidance of lower than $400 million of cash taxes this year. So – and coming from the fact that you paid over $350 million of cash taxes in Mexico in 2015. And you just, guided for something around 40 million to 50 million, if I am not mistaken. So could you elaborate further if there is room for your cash taxes this year to be under $400 million or maybe even below $300 million to $100 million or if we are losing something else may be an increasing tax effect in other countries that you are, you are at. And then I come to my next question. Thank you.

Okay. Let me start by saying that Maher already explained that the tax reform is benefiting us in a significant way that has been already explained, because it allows the tax reform. It’s allows us to use the tax loss carry forwards, to sell the tax consolidation regime at a discount factor. So that has been already commented.

Yes.

Now the direct answer to your question is that if the $400 million could be lower? The direct answer is, yes. It is a possibility. Now as you might have seen in previous years, there are several uncertainties in our tax planning scheme. So early in the year we prefer to give an amount that will be adjusted, let's say favorable – favorably. We don't want to provide much lower guidance just to find out mid-year that we need perhaps to make higher payments in taxes. So for the time being we feel comfortable with this guidance that it might be lower than the 400 but definitely there is the possibility of yes been much lower. But too early – too early to say.

No, that's perfect. I just found I know too conservative given the potential for decline in cash taxes that you could have in Mexico just that. But – going to my second question, I know that this is strategic CapEx guidance of $250 million, so just wondering, if this would come from already announced projects such as Colombia, if there is any missing investments to be done maybe even Tepeaca if you want to restart that process or if we could expect new announcements in the near future? Thank you.

No, we – there are not new strategic CapEx that we have not, let's say described before. Most of the expenditure is related to our Colombian plant. There is also some amount in aggregate reserves, we – every year we do invest – an amount this year it might be between $30 million and $40 million in aggregate reserves. And there are still some expenditures, for instance, in the case of the petcoke project in Egypt, so this year there is a small amount, but still – it still counts as one of the strategic projects. And our projects in Mexico in Tepeaca and the Philippines this year will not require significant amount of CapEx. We are going through the – all the engineering phase. And in the case of the Philippines, we will be using some equipment that we'll have available from other projects. So I don't think there will be any significant requirement from this expansion projects for this year.

Perfect. But I now this Tepeaca project should be still count, that given the current market condition I know this would be expected for the next two, three years?

Sorry, can you repeat the question?

Yes, just if you – given market conditions in the Mexico and overall market conditions, if this expansion is still on?

It is still on, but as I mention it will not require a significant CapEx this year. We have not – let's say we have not cancelled the project if that is the question. We have not cancelled the project in Tepeaca. We have not cancelled the one in the Philippines.

Perfect. Okay, great. Thank you very much.

Thank you.

And the next question comes from Jon Brandt from HSBC Securities.

Hi. Good morning. Fernando. Good morning, Maher. My first question is related to the oil price and I know you said you were expecting the cost of energy on a per ton basis to fall by about 10%. I am wondering if you could elaborate on that a little bit. I mean is there a one country or one region that will – we will be able to take advantage of, although lower oil and energy prices are disproportionally to the others. Does this include distribution and ready-mix expenses which I would assume would be more advantageous than in the U.S.? And then the secondly, just a question on refinancing, I know you are paying off the convertibles in March. I am wondering if you are expecting or wanting to go to the credit market to refinance any securities if it makes sense to do that. I know you still have some high coupon debt out there. So if you could maybe touch on that little bit as well? Thank you.

Sure. Let me start with energy. As we mentioned we do expect savings of about $100 million that's about 10%, that's the 10% we mentioned. And as you know the fuels we use are petcoke, coal and alternative fuels. There are some others, but mainly these are the fuels. The country that is going to reduce the cost of fuel significantly is Egypt, as we mentioned in 2016, given that we are starting using our petcoke grinding mill and Assiut doing the Mazout, which is a fuel oil that is more expensive. We will save 40 out of the 100. So if you are looking for a specific entry where these savings are going to occur that's Egypt. And again, it's mainly because of the switching from this fuel oil to petcoke. And then there is a reduction that is spread at all over the cement businesses because the price of petcoke is lower than last year. There was not – we didn't see a direct relation of the reduction in oil prices compared to coal and petcoke compares more to coal than to anybody else, but it is already happening. So, coal and petcoke have been reducing prices and as you know, by now we have made all the contracts for the year. So, we would be saving, let's say, around on top Egypt – on top of the 40 million from Egypt, 60 million into rest of the countries. Now, this is part of our 150 million plan reduction in our cost structure. And I think it is quite secure, meaning, in the sense that these are prices already contracted, and they should happen and they should – as we advanced during the year.

Okay. And then I don't know if you had any – so maybe I'll address the bond question. I mean, clearly – I mean, I don't need to tell you that the high yield market has been quite impacted – negatively impacted in the U.S. by what's happening in the energy and mining sectors. As you know, energy and mining represent almost the third of the U.S. high yield market and that is the market that we trade in and that we raise capital in mostly I would say. So, that market has widened quite a bit, in fact spreads have gone up by almost quite a bit let say close to 30%, 40%. So, today, as we sit here, we don't see a lot of opportunities of doing things. But, of course, we're always monitoring the markets. And we hope that things will stabilize and normalize down to where we were prior to the last say 12 months, when those markets widen quite a bit. Now, this year, we do have $1.2 billion of callable bonds. Three bonds actually that are callable in April, June and – so – there is an opportunity there, but we have to see if it make sense. In terms of total opportunity to reduce our funding cost, we have $2.8 billion of bonds that are in excess of 9% coupon. So that's clearly, an opportunity, if you take a look at our cash cost of debt today it's slightly under 6%. So, there is clearly, as we get better conditions in those markets and we are able to take advantage of the opening of the markets. There is clearly an opportunity to reduce our interest expense further. And we will do that as I said in the initial remarks.

Okay. And just the follow-up on the energy prices, the cost of energy, the reduction that you're expecting that does not include distribution expenses, is there a potential savings there and I'm thinking more from the U.S. side?

Yes.

And does that help impact margins in the fourth quarter in the U.S.?

Yes. It's not in – distribution expenses are not included, and it might be – it will depend on what happens during the year. But it might be – there might be additional savings on that part in countries where there is a free market for this type of fuels.

Okay. Was there a big impact from lower oil prices on distribution and expenses in the U.S. in 4Q?

I mean, there was an impact, but I wouldn't say it was an outsized impact. We didn't – it doesn't move that quickly. And it's because, obviously, we're talking about refined products, and there is definitely a benefit there but not particularly outsized impact in the fourth quarter. But for the full year...

Okay.

...it was a big number, I mean, throughout the system and, as Fernando stressed, in markets where there is free markets for those fuels like the U.S., like Europe, like parts of Asia, the Philippines, for instance. So does that – I don't know if that addresses the second part of the question.

Yes. Yes. No, that's helpful. Great. Thank you.

We have time for one more question. That question comes from Lillian Starke from Morgan Stanley.

Hi. Thank you for taking my call. I just wanted to follow up on the three drivers that you mentioned that could extend margins in the U.S. When you say that we will not see the big headwind this year, obviously, that I expect you make it in reference to the volume pressure in cement markets or maybe [indiscernible], more specifically. Would you say that as you go forward, I mean, to compensate for that, simply the fact that you're seeing volume recovering in other markets or I just want to understand what would be the benefit of not having the oil headwinds? Is this simply a driver of demand or is there something else? And the other question that I had is – are you importing into the U.S. from any other markets at this moment or not? I mean, do you prefer rather to move the volume around within the country first?

Okay. Well, thank you for the two questions. For the first question, oil well cement volumes dropped by more than 60% in 2015. I think we are around 65%. So we think we pretty much bottomed out. As you know, that market is highly correlated to oil well – oil rig counts. And you could monitor that, but there have been relatively reasonable amount of stability. Now, to your question, are there other markets that are offsetting that? And the answer is yes. I mean, today, if you take a look at – California is now almost the size of Texas in terms of volume consumption, and that's growing very nicely. Florida is getting there in terms of proportionality, and that's also growing very nicely actually. And there are other markets that are doing very well. So, in that respect, we think that – could we see more impact in Texas? I mean, it could be. But I mean, in Texas, there are many [indiscernible] to further negative impact of the economy, because of the oil market. As you know, last year, there was a particular law that was initiated that transferred some money out of an oil rainy day fund. They transferred about $1.7 billion into the highway fund or highway trust for the state. A lot of that amount was not spent last year, so that's likely to be spent this year and beyond. We expect a similar amount – not a similar amount, a slightly lesser amount to be transferred this year. So we have some very good support on the infrastructure side, and the other thing is that there has been taxing events at the local level again to support projects in the infrastructure side. And then, the most important thing that we need to remember in Texas that despite all of this activity, the market is sold out and it's actually continuing albeit at a much lesser amount continues to transport cement from other markets, neighboring markets into the state. So, in reality, the negative impact of loosing those volumes at the margins from the oil well, the impact on EBITDA has been limited. And if we take a look at what happened to transportation cost in the US, that's more than offset the loss of volume. Now, in terms of...

Okay. Perfect.

In terms of imports, I mean, we take a look at a system basis and we do sometimes move cement volumes from neighboring areas, but there are no big imports coming from across oceans that is meaningful. And I don't know if we mentioned this in the call, it's very important that 97%, 98% of the imported cements into the U.S. has been brought in by producers, which is – that's very favorable as well. I mean we don't see that frankly changing. As Fernando said, the infrastructure, the market access and all of that is really – is in the hands of the local producers and it's difficult to see that changing very quickly in the near future.

Okay. Perfect. Thank you very much.

Great. Thank you.

I would now like to turn the call over to Fernando Gonzalez for closing remarks.

Thank you very much. And in closing, I would like to thank you all for your time and attention. And we look forward to your continued participation in Cemex. Please feel free to contact us directly or visit our website at anytime. Thank you and good day.