Good day, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the Second Quarter 2008 DineEquity Earnings Conference Call. My name is Grace Sand [ph] and I'll be your coordinator for today. At this time, all participants are in a listen-only mode. We will be facilitating a question-and-answer session toward the end of today's conference. (Operator instructions) As a reminder, this conference is being recorded for replay purposes. I would now like to turn the presentation over to Ms. Stacy Roughan. Please proceed.

Good morning and thank you for participating on DineEquity's second quarter 2008 conference call. Today with us from management are Julia Stewart, Chairman and CEO, and Tom Conforti, CFO. Before I turn the call over to Julia and Tom, let me remind you of our Safe Harbor regarding forward-looking information. Today, management may discuss information that is forward-looking and involves known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors, which may cause the actual results to be materially different than those expressed or implied in such statements. We caution you to evaluate such forward-looking information in the context of these factors, which are detailed in today's news release as well as in our most recent Form 10-Q filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission. In addition, DineEquity disclaims any intent or obligation to update these forward-looking statements. In conjunction with our prepared remarks today, we have prepared or/and provided additional information on our IR Web site at dineequity.com for your viewing. The document can be found under the calls and presentation section of the IR site, which is posted as supporting material for today's webcast. If you haven't already done so, we encourage you to download the deck. Additionally, on this call we may refer to certain non-GAAP financial measures. These non-GAAP financial measures are described in our news release today, which is also available on our Web site. Now I would like to turn the call over to Julia Stewart.

Thanks, Stacy, and good morning everyone. Today, Tom and I will first walk through the details of our second quarter performance and update you on our strategies to revitalize and restructure the Applebee's business. We also intend to provide perspective on previously disclosed information concerning certain debt covenants. We've got a lot to cover today with regard to Applebee's, but I first want to start off with the continued strong results of the IHOP business. IHOP performed well in this second quarter 2008 given a challenging consumer environment with system-wide same store sales growing in line with our expectations at 2.6% for the second quarter 2008 and a strong 3.2% performance year to date. The IHOP team is delivering on all fronts. Our strong limited time offers, continued strength of our Come Hungry, Leave Happy advertising campaign, new promotional events, and PR activities around IHOP's 50th birthday celebration have brought our marketing efforts to a whole new level this year. We are also focused on driving meaningful operational improvements system-wide as measured by IHOP's AB operator and restaurant rating systems. Franchisees continue to execute their remodels in a timely manner. The system should be completely remodeled by the end of 2009. In addition, franchisees are developing new restaurants in the numbers and time frames expected. With 15 IHOPs open during the quarter, one of which was in Mexico City, representing IHOP's second restaurant opening in Mexico. Additionally, just last week, we appointed Des Hague as President of IHOP. With Des's leadership, we plan to build upon IHOP's strategy as we optimize the performance of our brand. IHOP's success is the result of the focused execution of our core marketing, operations, and development strategies. I want to thank IHOP's management team, all of our employees, and each franchisee for their extraordinary…

Thanks, Julia, and good morning everyone. I would like to quickly walk through our financial performance for the second quarter 2008 focusing our discussion around the key performance measures of our business and touch on our debt covenants. Our second quarter results reflect the strong performance of our core IHOP franchising business and the addition of Applebee's franchising businesses. This produced $39.5 million increase in franchise operations profitability, primarily due to a full quarter's recognition of Applebee's franchise operations process and 9.1% increase in IHOP franchise operations product. EPS for the quarter was impacted by a one time non-cash impairment charge of $41.1 million associated with the sale-leaseback of Applebee's Company-owned restaurant properties. All of the parcels involves in the transaction were assigned an estimated fair value as part of the purchase price allocation at the time of our acquisition of Applebee's. Since that time, we noted deterioration in the real estate and credit markets between the date of the purchase price allocation, which was November 29, 2007, and the June 17, 2008 sale-leaseback transaction date. We ultimately concluded that the estimated fair value of the real estate determined in the purchase price allocation was reasonable and appropriate as of the time of the acquisition, and that the decline in value related to market events subsequent to the acquisition date. This decision resulted in an impairment charge as opposed to an adjustment to the allocated purchase price. Again, this was a non-cash charge. Our decline in EPS exclusive of one time charges was impacted by an increase in interest expense to $51.6 million during the quarter, primarily due to Applebee's debt. Approximately $9.8 million of this interest expense was non-cash, primarily associated with financing related costs. Going forward, we will also be recognizing the expense associated with the sale-leaseback transactions…

Thanks, Tom. So I want to say clearly that based on our current plans, we fully expect to remain in compliance with these debt covenants. As Tom noted, we are meeting our current consolidated leverage and DSCR test, and expect that will continue to be the case as the consolidated leverage test covenant for the IHOP securitization reduces to 7.5 times this November. Looking ahead, the consolidated leverage ratio covenant and the IHOP securitization reduces to 7 times in November 2009. Based on current plans related to refranchising and the performance of Applebee's Company restaurant business, which are the key drivers of this leverage ratio, we expect to remain in compliance. Our base plan calls for refranchising approximately 190 Applebee's restaurants in 2009. Prospective buyers have expressed interest in every Company market and we are in various stages of negotiation for each of these markets. In addition, we expect to deliver modest same store sales growth next year, which will enable us to improve the performance of Company-operated Applebee's. However, our margin of error to be below this 7 times level in November 2009 is tighter than we might like. As a result, we have already begun the process to increase our financial flexibility. There are several steps we are currently evaluating. First, there are opportunities to enhance our EBITDA performance, including cost reductions that are within our control. To size it for you, each $7 million of increased EBITDA represents an approximate 10 basis points improvement in our leverage test. Secondly, we might seek a covenant amendment to provide us with more financial flexibility. And third, under the documents for both of the securitization transactions, we have the option, but not the obligation to use free cash flow to make capital contribution to the securitization subsidiaries, which we could…

(Operator instructions) And your first question comes from the line of Steven Rees of JPMorgan. Steven Rees – JPMorgan: Hi, thanks. Just on the restaurant level margin performance in the quarter and the expectations going forward, the actual food and labor components were less than I would have thought given all the initiatives you are working on. Can you just talk about what opportunities you see in the second half of this year to drive food and labor improvement, and then tie that to some of the recent changes you made in your bonus program, how you expect that to help going forward?

Sure, I'm going to answer the last part first, which is the change in the bonus program happened at the end of first quarter. And so as I said in my prepared comments, I think – in third and fourth quarter you'll see the impact of that. So, for the full year we believe that will make a difference in our Company-operated margin. So, that's on the whole full year basis of the whole issue with the bonus. The change in hourly benefits would be effective quarter four and the two quarters impact of the manager bonus programs really are sort of a full year offset. The biggest other changes that we are looking at is in the managing of comps and discounts, continues to be an area of opportunity for us, and that's the plan. And then if you think about the full year, clearly one of the issues we described is that we are promoting value-oriented messages on television, which has the opportunity to raise our food costs slightly, but of course you are banking on increased traffic and sales. So, it's a bit of a mix, if you will, and that's what we're looking for, for the full year. So, I would say managing comp and benefits, also the hourly labor piece. We think we've got an opportunity in hourly labor and I think that has a lot to do with bringing people in at a lower level, so the full year mix has an opportunity for increase. And then Tom, did you want to add anything on the –?

Just a couple of items, Steve, that we are taking on the food side related to chicken and the preparation of some of our ribs and how they're cooked. And so that we think that will have appositive impact on food costs. One other things that you should bear in mind is you are doing quarter-to-quarter comparisons for the rest of the year, there will be no preopening expense this year. That was included in the Company as we're not opening additional Company stores, and as Julia said in her prepared comments, last year's third and fourth quarter at Applebee's, the promoted items had very high food cost components to it. And so we think the comps will improve in the third and fourth quarter as well. Steven Rees – JPMorgan:

We are currently evaluating our total refranchising proceeds expectations and we'll give you the update as soon as it's prudent. I would suggest closer to the end of the year when we are in a better position, but our 190 is currently the plan for 2009. As I said earlier, it really depends on where you sell which market, and that I think we’ll be in a much better position to share that with you towards the end of the year. It really has everything to do about which market you sell, as you saw from the prepared comments today, right, with the markets we're looking to sell this year. Steven Rees – JPMorgan: And then just finally you had mentioned, I guess, the lack of a value message in the second quarter for the traffic declines, but yet it was – the three-course combo, which I think is a good value. So, how are you thinking about value going forward? Does it need to be a national price point? Does it have to be All You Can Eat? Does it need to be discounted? So, what changes are we going to see in value in the second half?

So, that's really a good comment. So, I think there's three components. I think from a marketing perspective in this kind of a environment, the one thing you need to be sensitive about is continuing to repeat an existing message. And although three-course combos is a great idea, we've done it before, and so I think in this environment, repeating existing promotions is tenuous at best, and I think that's a learning we had out of three-course combos. So, that's one lesson. And I think the second and third lesson is making it as aggressive and as big and bold as you can, which without giving away competitive information, that's what we are aiming to do. And I think giving the maximum value that you can to a consumer, which remember isn't just about price point, it's about service platform as well. So, all those things combined is what we are looking at. As I said in my prepared remarks, really for the first time since I can remember, one of the great things about what we have coming up is we actually tested it with television in some of these Company markets and one franchise market. So, it gives me a bit of insurance if you will, that we are doing the right thing. Steven Rees – JPMorgan:

Thank you.

The next question comes from the line of Rachael Rothman of Merrill Lynch. Rachael Rothman – Merrill Lynch: Hi, guys.

Hi.

Good morning, Rachael. Rachael Rothman – Merrill Lynch: Can you talk a little bit about, you mentioned the controllables and taking a look at the controllables in an effort maybe to get some more wiggle in your covenants. Are you talking specifically about G&A or can you talk a little bit about what you are thinking in terms of where you could save?

Rachael Rothman – Merrill Lynch: Great. And then just to follow up, I know you guys are reducing the targeted proceeds this year for the refranchising. When we think about the full three years, is this just a timing issue in terms of the units that you are selling? – Or should we think about the total proceeds being reduced commensurate with your reduction in your '08 outlook?

Yes, it's a great question, Rachael. As I said, I think we will be in a much better position to give you the total franchising proceeds expectations and an update later this year when we are in a better position and we have taken a full view of what we have got, and what we have sold and what we haven't sold. So, I think it's a timing issue and you've got to give us a little bit of time and I think we will be in a much better position to give you a full look at all the restaurants that we are selling. As I think about what we are selling the balance of the year, it's lowering the number, right? So, then we have to look at the balance of our portfolio and where we will be. And again, it's really a timing issue in terms of, I'll feel a lot better and I think all of us will and by giving you all a number once we have gotten through this year.

Rachael, and just to add on to Julia's comments. The reduction this year in proceeds guidance is totally market specific, and so it should not be reflective of a larger comment on proceeds over the three years. However, there is work to be done as Julia said. Rachael Rothman – Merrill Lynch: Great. And then –

If you ask me that question at the end of the year, I will be in a much better position. Rachael Rothman – Merrill Lynch: Okay, thanks. The lower cash flow from operations guidance, I think you guys gave a comment about increased tax obligations. Can you just clarify for us what that means a little bit?

Sure. Rachael, when we – there are three items that are driving that tax impact on cash from operations. Number one, the gain on the sale-leaseback, we are going to have to pay those tax obligations over the next couple of quarters. Of course, we are not going to be able to recognize them on our books until all the transactions are done. Second, impact is the impairment effect and the $40 million impairment effect increases our deferreds another $16 million as well. Now, offsetting some of that is an item that we raised when we announced the sale-leaseback transaction, and that is because we were able to retire $350 million worth of the funded debt, we were able to recognize on a tax basis, a benefit of around, I think it was around $12 million. And so when you add up all of those numbers, the impact on cash from operations was negative by some $40 million plus. However, offsetting that is higher cash earnings than previous forecasts that we had. I also want to point out one other thing as it relates, Rachael, to lowering our cash from operations. I think it's important that everyone understand this, that is, while we have lowered our cash from operations guidance for the year by about $10 million, one of the effects that's taking place is taking place within cash from financing activities. And that is that the money that is earmarked for the payment of those taxes on sale-leaseback are already captured in our restricted cash number. And so that restricted cash number is coming down by a considerable amount of money. So, the net-net effect of all of those factors, cash from operations being lowered for the factors that I identified by $10 million, the guidance. But when you consider the fact that restricted cash is being freed up to the tune of about, I think $25 million to $30 million so the net-net cash available is not being impacted in a negative way. And I'm not sure that I just didn't add a whole bunch of complexity to it, but I thought it was important to mention, we are going to talk increasingly about the release of restricted cash as we transform this business as a source of cash flow for the Company. Rachael Rothman – Merrill Lynch: Okay, great, and then just a bigger picture question on the franchised unit growth at Applebee's. I guess that would indicate that the franchisees are still fairly optimistic about the longer-term outlook of the brand. Can you talk about maybe what the pipeline of unit openings looks like for '09, and whether or not people are still committed to growth within the Applebee's brand?

Well, two things. The short answer is, I'll be in a better position to answer that, again, toward the end of '09, I mean, excuse me, end of '08, the end of this year. We have certain people who have development agreements and they are meeting those development agreements, but we said at the beginning of the year or I said that I knew that the development would slow a little bit, and that was okay. I anticipated that. I think we knew that was going to be the case. I'm all right with that because I think it's more important that we reenergize the brand and get our foot in. So, we said from the very beginning that I think half our growth right now is coming from international in Applebee's, half our growth is coming domestically. I'm okay with that. I think as we start to turn the brand, you will see the growth gear backup again, and we have talked about that very openly with the franchisees. But the actual numbers for '09, Rachael, again ask that question at the end of the year as we do the whole guidance issue and we will bring that to the forefront. But we knew going in that there would be a slowing this year, and we predicted that, and we managed accordingly. Rachael Rothman – Merrill Lynch: Perfect. Thank you very much.

Your next question comes from the line of Bryan Elliott of Raymond James. Bryan Elliott – Raymond James: Good morning, couple of questions. One, first, let me follow up with Tom on the discussion on the cash flow from ops. Maybe it would be helpful to talk about the changes, the deltas in the context of the publicly available components of cash flow from ops. And it sounds like the public statement format, and it sounds like there's been a significant swing in deferred taxes and on the quarter to date cash flow, I guess second quarter deferred taxes was the use of cash north of $30 million. So, maybe what is a decent range for that full year deferred tax change as a use of cash and we all can plug that into our models. And also if you could give us an update of what you are thinking about, the net working capital requirement on a full year basis within that cash flow from ops umbrella?

Bryan, I would be glad to give directional guidance on the questions. I think what I did on Rachael's question is lay out what the components are and I talked about $40 million to $50 million increase in deferred taxes for the year. Offsetting that in part is higher cash earnings associated with the timing of our refranchising because the more – the longer we keep restaurants, the more cash earnings we generate on an operating basis. So, that's working in our favor. I mentioned the point that happens in financing that increasingly and I'm going to introduce this over the next two quarters. Increasingly we need to keep an eye on restricted cash, and as we transform the business and refranchise the business, increasingly that restricted cash becomes a source of cash flow. It doesn't happen in cash from operations. It's down to cash in financing, but as time goes on, Bryan, we will begin to cultivate that source of cash. On working capital assumptions, there are two or three – two areas of leakage and working capital this year. One we have described previously, which was accounts payable. At the end of 2007, Applebee's had built up a big payables level as we were entering a new year. Some of that stuff was one time, and then another item that is leakage on working capital is other accrued expenses, and what's driving that largely is that the deferred comp program that existed earlier at Applebee's has gone away. And so those are two of the areas of leakage on the plus side. Prepaid expenses are a source as are tax receivable – the cash inflow on tax refunds has been stronger this year. So, some of this stuff is situational, Bryan, and it doesn't lead to a rule of thumb that one might employ going forward. But I guess those are some of the major contributors to overall cash from operations or leakage from cash from operations this year. Bryan Elliott – Raymond James: So, if I heard you right, did you say that the deferred tax number would be a $40 million use of cash for the full year?

Bryan Elliott – Raymond James:

Yes. Bryan Elliott – Raymond James: It’s – I just wondered there's 74 stores essentially given the 26 that were already closed. Of those 74, you've mentioned their lower cash flow margin. I wondered if that's because they're disproportionately recent sale-leasebacks or if they're – I guess the question is how many of those 70 stores roughly are in the 180 store sale-leaseback you just did and therefore carry a really high rent burden?

Bryan, let me just try to recalibrate. The 70, 80 stores include the 41 stores we announced from California and Nevada, the three stores for Delaware and then some 30 to 40 stores that we contemplate closing by the end of the year. Okay? Bryan Elliott – Raymond James:

Not closing, selling.

Bryan Elliott – Raymond James:

s: Bryan Elliott – Raymond James: Placing on the sale up [ph].

The answer to your – I think you asked me two questions. One, you had asked how many of them are sale-leaseback properties, and we think the number is around 20 units to 30 of the units will be sale-leaseback properties. But I think the real question you were asking us was, is that the reason why proceeds are coming down? And the answer to that is no. Bryan Elliott – Raymond James:

That's correct. Bryan Elliott – Raymond James: They are below average profit margin on an EBITDAR basis at the restaurant level?

No, the reason that we have characterized them as such is because they are lower sales levels than the average Applebee's Company-store sales level. Bryan Elliott – Raymond James: Got it. Okay, very good. Thank you.

Your next question comes from the line of Tom Forte of Telsey Advisors. Tom Forte – Telsey Advisors: Julie, hi. From a competitive landscape point of view, I wanted to know, you touched on this earlier but I wanted to do a bit of a compare and contrast [ph]. When you think of the promotional environment for both Applebee's and for IHOP and emphasis on value, are you seeing a big difference in how your competitors are behaving?

So, at IHOP if you think about it, it really is a value message, right? We give people a reason to visit with a special item that is, may be some part of our existing menu with a twist or a spin. So, the Discover America Pancakes for the summer, probably one of the more difficult promotions we have ever done at IHOP creating nine new pancakes, but it's existing pancakes with a little bit of a twist, right. And so when you think about the competitive landscape at IHOP, many folks now because we have been so successful at IHOP are trying to steal shamelessly for us, coming up with some version of something similar. And so you are seeing that a lot more deeper discount if you might say in the competitive landscape at IHOP, but I think that's because you've got inherent value played into IHOP every day. So, you might see more aggressive competitive landscape on the IHOP side just when you think about where IHOP is today with its value message. On the Applebee's side, you are seeing a lot of aggressive value messaging for the competitors both nationally and regionally, and I think that has a lot more to do with the dinner gate park and trying to make certain they expose as much aggressive valuing as humanly possible. And although I didn't mention it very much, this whole notion of car side to go has been interesting because it's the one area of the business where we are seeing people maybe either leave us to go to fast food or see us in the fast food arena because it's not so much the price point, it's the occasion, right? If you are not picking it up at Applebee's at car side, you may…

Your next question comes from the line of Robert Goch [ph] of MAC Capital. Robert Goch – MAC Capital: Hi, good morning.

Hi.

Hi, Robert. Robert Goch – MAC Capital: Just a question on the margin improvement at Applebee's, keeping the range of 150 to 200 BIPS. But if I heard it right, 70% of that is from both the depreciation and the accounting issue surrounding the rental expense. Is it fair to assume that there's going to be 30% of that is only going to be cash improvement on the margin?

Robert Goch – MAC Capital: Right. So, I believe that when you laid out a strategy to improve the performance in these units it was able to sell them at a higher price to franchisees especially given the market conditions. And I was just wondering how does that cash margin improvement change the 30% of the 150 to 200 cash margin improvement change that? And just as a follow up on that, Julia you just mentioned capital spending and perhaps that Applebee's maybe has been under spending on CapEx. When franchisees are looking at the economics of purchasing one or more restaurants, how does that enter into the calculus?

So, at the beginning – so, let me try to answer. I think that's a two part question. So, at the beginning of the year we said we were slowing down refranchising because we wanted to give Company operations a bit of an opportunity to improve their sales and profit, which in turn we might take some of that benefit, apply it to refranchising. I think as the year has progressed, some of that has come to fruition, some of that hasn't. We continue to refranchise. We continue to believe that's the right thing to do, and if you think about refranchising, it's existing franchisees or new franchisees who are buying into the whole notion that we are going to reenergize this brand and this business, and that absolutely positively the future is bright. That's why they are buying in because it's the opportunity on the backend to make those improvements. So, I would say it's steady as she goes with what we said we were going to do. We did slow it down at the very beginning, but I think we have been very clear on this call. We are currently going to guide to 100 restaurants will be sold this year, 190 in '09, and business as usual. If we can get some of that profit and bring that to the bottom line, terrific, but we are going to continue as business as usual. So, I think that's the point. As it relates to CapEx, I don't think I made a mention of capital. So, if you can repeat your question that might be helpful to me. Robert Goch – MAC Capital:

No, no, Robert, give me a second. I just need to consult with someone.

And Robert, while he's doing that, I think what you were referring to in my last comment was about development and the franchisees developing. I think that's what you were referring to, and the franchisees have the wherewithal. As you recall, these are 42 franchisees who are – have large business, and so they have always been developing historically at a rate closer to 70 to 100 a year. So that rate has somewhat slowed, but they absolutely have the wherewithal to continue the development. I think they just want to make certain it's the right box and in the right environment. But I don't think that will be an issue once the reenergizing takes place. I think that may be what you were referring to. Robert Goch – MAC Capital: Thank you.

Sorry, Tom?

Yes, Robert, let us get back to that specific question. We think that the number, that's interest expense, right. So, Robert let us get back to you on the number because obviously it'll be variable over time. So, let us get back to you on the numbers. Stacy do you have his contact information? Okay. We may have to issue an (inaudible) make it available to everyone. Okay. Good question, Robert.

Your next question comes from the line of Bryan Elliott of Raymond James. Bryan Elliott – Raymond James: Just a quick clarification and then a question. In my earlier question we talked about the break out of the stores that you've identified that will be refranchised, and I think the residual after the closure in California, the pending closures in California and Nevada, three in Delaware was like 30 to 40 roughly over the balance of this year. Is that correct?

It's 60 stores, Bryan.

Now what's your question? Bryan Elliott – Raymond James: The question relates to how many are going to be sale-leaseback? You said 20 to 30 would be stores that will just say are sale-leasebacks, and that's 20 to 30 of that 30 to 40, correct? In other words, not California and not Nevada, those were not sale-leaseback?

That is correct. You're absolutely correct. Bryan Elliott – Raymond James: Okay, okay. All right, and then also a question, the news is just hitting –

Hey, Bryan, let me pull you back. I didn't answer the question appropriately. The 23 of the 60, right, because the number of units we are shooting for are 100 units. We currently have around 44 with the markets we have identified. So, 23 units of the 60 or so units that we expect to refranchise in the balance of the year, 23 of the 60 are anticipated to be fortress properties, 20 to 25.

Right, so none of the California or Nevada have any sale-leaseback.

And neither are the Delaware.

We're all on the same page. Bryan Elliott – Raymond James: Okay, very good. And apparently it's just hitting the wires that Bennigan's has shut down. I believe it's as much as an 800 store chain. I haven't verified that yet. I wondered if you might have with you any competitive set information or trade area information, and wondering how many of those Bennigan's stores might be within a three-mile radius of Applebee's. And I guess IHOP would benefit as well.

I don't have that information at my fingertips, but we do have that information and I can absolutely get that to you. Bryan Elliott – Raymond James:

We just saw the same thing. Bryan Elliott – Raymond James:

Thank you.

Your next question comes from the line of Clint Clark of Ironwood Equity. Clint Clark – Ironwood Equity:

Sure. We do not comment inner-quarter, so I can't comment on July comps, but I can tell you in terms of commodities. So let's talk about the fact that Applebee's has about 90% of its products under contract, the big items, beef, pork, poultry, seafood, dairy, soybean oil, and IHOP has about 65% to 70% of its large items similar under a pricing arrangement. And in particular where IHOP's got contracts is about 25% of the business in eggs and pancake mix, which is critical. So, if you think about it, most of those contracts will be coming up, or those pricing arrangements for both brands will be coming up in the next 6 to 12 months. And so our thought process is to work hard for those that are coming up this year to put as long a term a contract as we can in place. However, as I’ve mentioned in previous calls, we are working very hard with the team from IHOP's franchise community and a team from Applebee's franchise community to put together a procurement coop. And so the thought process is, those contracts, those arrangements would be transferred over to the coop in early '09 as they format that, which hopefully shall give them even longer-term cover if you will, as exposed to – as opposed to exposure. So, the intention is to keep the large majority of those contracts in place, right. So, the large majority of the business is under contract. Many of them come up in the fall or early '09 and our thought process is to keep those under contract and then as they switch over, they would go over to the coop. So, currently we feel pretty good about where we are. Certainly they're seeing some contracts that are either monthly or quarterly where we've had to take an increase. And the big issue, really, is on fuel escalators, right, which is common in the distribution agreements. That's the area where people are looking for, the distributors are looking for relief because of fuel costs. That's been an ongoing issue that we have been dealing with throughout the year. But I feel good about where we are and the fact that we are going under – we are under contract for most of it and then clearly working those contracts through for '09 and transferring those to the procurement coop which is currently slated to be live and doing all the work in January of '09. Clint Clark – Ironwood Equity: Terrific. Thank you.

And this ends the Q&A session of today's conference. I will now turn the call back over to Ms. Julia Steward for closing remarks.

So, thank you all very much for today. Hopefully the call helped clarify, and if you have any questions or concerns, be sure and give Tom, or I, or Stacy a call. Thanks so much for joining us.

Thank you for participation in today's conference. This concludes the presentation and you may now disconnect.