Good day ladies and gentlemen and welcome to the Ford Motor Company first quarter earnings conference call. (Operator Instructions) I would now like to turn the presentation over to Lillian Etzkorn, Director of Investor Relations. Please proceed.

Thank you, Pat and good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to all of you who are joining us either by phone or webcast. On behalf of the entire Ford management team, I would like to thank you for spending time with us this morning. With me this morning are Alan Mulally, President and CEO and Don Leclair, Chief Financial Officer. Also in the room are Peter Daniel, Senior Vice President and Controller; Neil Schloss, Vice President and Treasurer; Mark Kosman, Director of Accounting; and K.R. Kent, Ford Credit CFO. Before we begin, I would like to review a couple of quick things. A copy of this morning’s earnings release and the slides that we will be using today have been posted on Ford’s investor and media websites for your reference. The financial results discussed herein are presented on a preliminary basis. Final data will be included in our Form 10-Q for the first quarter. Additionally, the financial results presented here are on a GAAP basis and in some cases on a non-GAAP basis. The non-GAAP financial measures discussed in this call are reconciled to their GAAP equivalents as part the appendix to the slide deck. Finally, today’s presentation includes some forward-looking statements about our expectations for Ford’s future performance. Actual results could differ materially from those suggested by our comments here. Additional information about the factors that could affect future results are summarized at the end of this presentation. These risk factors are also detailed in our SEC filings including our annual, quarterly and current reports to the SEC. With that, I would now like to turn the presentation over to Alan Mulally, Ford’s President and CEO.

Thanks, Lillian and good morning to everyone. We’ll begin on slide 2 by reviewing the key financial results for the first quarter. Don will take us through the details and provide our outlook, and then I’ll come back and wrap up before we take your questions. But first, I want to extent our condolences on behalf of the entire Ford team to the family of Geoff Polites who passed away over the weekend. Geoff spent a total of 38 years as a dedicated Ford employee and dealer. As CEO of Jaguar-Land Rover, Geoff was instrumental in turning Jaguar-Land Rover back to profitability and steering it through the pending sale of the business to Tata Motors. We will miss Geoff. Now, because Jaguar-Land Rover is held for sale, we’re excluding its results from continuing operations in 2008, although they are included in the 2007 data. As shown at the top of this slide, vehicle wholesale last quarter were over 1.5 million units, down 119,000 from the same period in 2007. This reduction includes 68,000 Jaguar-Land Rover and Aston Martin units, and 51,000 at other operations. Ongoing company revenue was $39.4 billion. Excluding Jaguar-Land Rover revenue was up slightly with favorable exchange offset by lower volume and lower net pricing. Pre-tax results from continuing operations were a profit of $736 million, an improvement of $669 million from the same period in 2007. This included about a $900 million improvement in automotive operations profits, partially offset by lower profits at Financial Services. Our first quarter net income was $100 million, including $416 million of pre-tax special charges. As we ended the quarter with $28.7 billion of gross cash, down $6.5 billion from year-ago levels, this reduction was part of our plan and largely reflects implementation of the initial part of our VEBA agreement…

Thanks, Alan. Let’s go on to slide 7, which provides a few details on the first quarter. Starting at the lower left our net income for the quarter was $100 million and our net income included taxes in areas outside of the US where we were profitable, as well as minority interests in profitable affiliates. Adjusting for these items leaves a first quarter pre-tax profit of $320 million and these results include pre-tax charges for special items of $416 million, which we will cover. Excluding these special items we recorded a first quarter pre-tax operating profit of $736 million; that’s up $669 million from a year ago. In most of the following slides we’ll focus on these pre-tax operating results. Slide 8 covers our special items, which were a pre-tax loss of $416 million. This included a $223 million charge associated with separation programs in North America, largely related to the hourly separation programs in the US and associated curtailments to our benefit plans. In addition, we’ve taken $108 million charge related to the reduction of our dealer base, including a write-off associated with our investments in US dealerships. We also recorded a $70 million charge as a result of the restructuring of our investment at Ballard which we announced in November of last year. Additional charges in the first quarter totaled $13 million which were largely related to personnel reductions in Ford Europe and in Asia Pacific. Given the pending completion of the sale of Jaguar-Land Rover, we are treating their results entirely as a special item because they are no longer a part of our ongoing operations. At the end of the fourth quarter, we classified our Jaguar-Land Rover operations as held for sale and at that time, our book value of Jaguar-Land Rover approximated the net cash…

Thank you Don. Slide 33 provides our assessment of where we stand on achieving our key business metrics and financial goals. The profit improvements we have seen in our ongoing automotive operations, $1.2 billion this quarter and over $3 billion last year, largely from our restructuring efforts and our strong flow of new products coming later this year, give us added confidence that we will meet our 2009 profitability targets in spite of the economic conditions worse than we initially envisioned. I want to emphasize that we are committed to returning to profitability in 2009 and we see achievement of our 2008 cost reduction as a key element in that plan. We will continue to focus on cost reductions in 2009, and the full benefits of the UAW agreement should be achieved in 2010. We expect our US market share to be in the low end of the 14% to 15% range and we are still planning to be in the range of $12 billion to $14 billion cash outflow for 2007 to 2009 to fund operating losses and the restructuring of our business. Now on to slide 34 which summarizes the four key priorities of our plan. One thing I’m sure you noticed by now is our plan is unchanged. Results this quarter are encouraging, and although the quarter included some one-off items, the underlying business is improving. We remain cautiously optimistic despite the external difficulties; our plan is working. Our initial quality continues to improve it is now among the best in the business. The restructuring in North America is taking hold and our product pipeline is full. We are particularly encouraged by the outstanding performance in South America and Europe. In the past several years we have substantially restructured these businesses and the flow of new products that customers truly want and value has been accelerated. We believe this is an indication that our efforts to leverage Ford’s global assets across the world will bear fruit. As we look forward to the balance of the year and next, we have many great new products ready to come to the market. These include the new Ford Flex, the F-150, and the Lincoln MKS here in the US and the new Ford Kuga and Fiesta in Europe, with the Fiesta coming soon thereafter into China and the rest of our markets around the world. The external environment certainly is challenging and we have been adapting and we have been taking, and will continue to take, the actions to stay on our plan. Now we would like to take your questions.

Thank you Alan. Ladies and gentlemen we are going to start the Q&A session now. We have about 50 minutes for the Q&A. We will begin with questions from the investment community and then take questions from the media, who are also in the call. In order to allow as many questions as possible within our timeframe, I ask that you keep your question brief so that we don’t have to move callers along after a couple of minutes. So, with that may we please have the first question?

Your first question comes from the line of John Murphy - Merrill Lynch.

I just wanted to focus on the cost side first. I just think about the cost savings in the first quarter, just trying to parse that out a little bit better. First, was there any recognition of savings from the 4,200 workers that were bought out in the first quarter?

No.

Was there any recognition of OPEB savings in the first quarter and what was that amount, if there was?

Well, not OPEB savings from the UAW agreement, no.

So that hasn’t been recognized yet.

Right.

On the material cost reductions, those are the things that ramp up through the course of the year, but you’re launching the F-150, which typically would have a big increase in material costs. Should we think about that as sort of a net neutral as we go through the year, the F-150?

If you look at slide 17 those cost reductions are on that third line. See where it says material cost reductions? That kind of goes across. And that should just about get us, that 0.3 running rate should get us right in there for what we show for the balance of the year. Now, the increase for the F-150, to the extent there is any, will be right in that 0.5 which is on that first line, on the product adds, if that’s helpful..

So the two of those are netted together. Okay, that’s great.

Right.

And then also on D&A in the quarter, it looked like D&A was down $264 million year over year. Is that something we should expect to continue and what was the big driver of that?

Well, as I mentioned the big causal factor for that is last year we had accelerated the depreciation of the plants we were going to close, so that when we did close them there was no write-off and that’s just how the accounting rules work. Now that those plants are closed, we won’t have that much drag from the accelerated depreciation. I don’t think we will see quite that much depreciation good news throughout the year.

How should we think about that in the full year, because not $1 billion for the year, what would you ballpark that at?

No just think about half that for the full year.

Okay, so almost $500 million year-over-year?

Maybe a little more than half a billion. How’s that?

Alan, just on the product side, I am trying to focus on the revenues here. You are introducing the Fiesta in the US in a couple of years. Transit Connect sounds like it’s coming here. Are there any other big opportunities you see from global product, particularly from Europe where you have some pretty good product to drive revenue in North America, where you might be able to fill in some gaps or become more efficient on the revenue line?

You bet. Well clearly on the smaller and the medium-sized cars and utility, the vast majority of those are moving to global platforms. So we’ll continue when it make sense, not to short cycle where it doesn’t make sense but we pretty much have laid the plans in place to get to all of those global platforms over the next few years and then we’ll do the minimum amount of change on top of that for the unique areas around the world, the unique markets. But we feel really good about the plans that Derrick and the rest of the team have put together to leverage these global assets worldwide. It will essentially be all of the vehicles in the small and medium size.

This is more of a hypothetical question on the product side. If we think about the Ford and Lincoln product lineup and the good, better, best strategy that’s sort of always been the theory in the industry would you feel confident that Ford and Lincoln on its own, outside, not including Volvo, would give you enough products to work the consumer through that good, better, best strategy?

Absolutely. I would maybe suggest that a refinement to that is that, I think that maybe in the past when we’ve had all of the other brands that we had more of a strategy of being competitive. I think that going forward now with a full product line under the Ford brand, small, medium and large; cars, utilities and trucks, you’re going to see us move to we’ll have an attitude of best-in-class in each one of those segments. When we leverage the Ford assets around the world, so that we get the value of the volume and the quality that goes along with that, I think it’s going to really, really help us provide a much better portfolio and a value proposition to our customers.

Your next question comes from the line of Rod Lache - Deutsche Bank.

I was hoping we could talk a little bit about the cost savings, which clearly accelerated. You had a negative $200 million on the cost in auto in Q4; and it was a positive $1.2 billion in Q1. Specifically, how much was the commodity hedging gain in Europe? You said it was 250 in North America. Can you also give us the historical adjustment to the warranty for the quarter? You had some something in excess of the period costs in Europe, it looks like.

Yeah, both of those, Rod, were about 100.

100 for commodity hedges in Europe?

About 100 on the commodity hedging in Europe and about 100 on the prior period warranty adjustments.

The commodity outlook does reflect some intensifying headwinds. There’s been a lot of talk about steel recently, surcharges and that sort of thing. Could you just give us an update on what your thoughts are relative to what steel is doing, and how that is going to be managed? What kind of impact do you see going forward?

Well, certainly steel prices have been going up and we can read all about that in the newspapers. But for the most part, we have contracts with the major mills in most regions of the world and so we tend to see the changes in steel prices in kind of a step function.

So, you are not seeing any anything like a surcharge in excess of what your contractual pricing is at this point?

No.

Can you just lastly, just talk about the strategy for getting 20% of the workforce to the lower wages? It does look like the take rate on the initial round of buyouts is lower than maybe some had expected. What happens from here to get to that kind of number?

I think our fundamental strategy is to size our production to the demand and the changing model mix. At this time we don’t have any more plans for a company-wide buyout, but clearly plant by plant and vehicle by vehicle, we will size that production capacity to that demand. So, we’ll continue to be taking actions on all of our fixed cost following that strategy.

Can you do that outside of just the voluntary buyouts that you’ve been doing so far? What other options can you pursue?

We will work all of the elements of the fixed costs, because the number one thing as we’ve talked about is to size the production to the real demand.

Your next question comes from the line of Brian Johnson - Lehman Brothers.

A question for Alan around page 17, but more around the business and operational strategy as opposed to the details of the numbers. If you compare the $3 billion goal for ‘08 and $5 billion over the time period, where you are on it now in terms of where it’s going to come from versus what you might have been thinking say at this point last year, what are the major puts and takes? Underneath that is how have you compensated for the rising costs of commodities in some of these products? Was that in your thinking or have you gone and found other cost reductions to offset some of that?

You bet, an important question. That’s why we really want to keep grounding all of us on the data that we are showing on chart 17. Clearly, what’s new for us going forward has been the material cost reductions, because that’s tougher and the commodity prices, but also it means that we have now moved even faster on taking out more of the structural costs. So I think overall clearly it’s a more challenging environment than when we laid out the plan. But, again our fundamental approach is to size the business to the real demand and get back to profitability, and that step of removing the $5 billion out of the fundamental cost structure in ‘08 is clearly the most important first step this year.

Are you saying that material cost reductions are more than you would have looked at or thought was possible maybe a year, year-and-a-half ago?

Less, lower.

Lower.

That’s why we have increased our efforts on the rest of our structural costs.

Given the lower take rate on attrition and the pace of employees being divested, where are you getting the offset to that in structural costs? Or increase that target?

Well it also includes the employees also. We are just not going to do it with a company-wide buyout, but plant by plant and vehicle by vehicle, we’ll continue to reduce the employment accordingly and the rest of those structural costs. But, we’re just not going to do an employee-wide buyout anymore.

Would that mean additional capacity reductions or shift idlings?

Yes, and employment reductions.

Your next question comes from the line of Himanshu Patel – JP Morgan. Himanshu Patel – JP Morgan: I want to go back to Rod’s question. On the attrition program given the now weaker industry volume, just conceptually does it make sense to not exercise the lower wage portion of the union contract now? Would you rather just not replace anyone in the system and just reduce overall headcount, is kind of what I’m getting at. Is that how we should think about how Ford would use the attrition program?

That’s step one. And clearly the highest priority is to size it to the current demand, and also to be looking ahead at these increasing headwinds. I think that over time then as we stabilize and the economy comes back then that’s going to be a chance for us to really take advantage of the opportunities for employment and lower rates. Himanshu Patel – JP Morgan: Right. Alan, the contract is a four-year contract, obviously. Would you envision getting at least 20% of the workforce down to the lower wage rate by the end of the contract or would you be fine that not happening as long as overall headcount was going down?

I think that would be something that we will give you further guidance going forward; I think it’s little too early to tell that. The most important thing right now as we’ve talked about, is to get us sized to this real demand and get stabilized and then it’s just all going to be a plus after that. Himanshu Patel – JP Morgan: Staying on North America net pricing was negative $300 million, I think it was to the tune of positive $1 billion in each of the last two quarters of 2007. I think the comparison year-over-year for Q1 was actually pretty easy as well. Did something sharply deteriorate on the net pricing side, or does this have something to do with fleet mix or any of that, that could be influencing that number?

It’s mainly due to the fact that the economy is softening, demand is weakening and the incentive level really across the board in the industry has increased, plus we ran a slightly higher mix of leasing in the first quarter that has a little higher incentive level attached to it. Himanshu Patel – JP Morgan: So would you expect net pricing, Don, to kind of stay at this rate for the next few quarters or was this abnormally weak?

I’d say that we expect net pricing to be tough for the year. I don’t want to give an estimate for the balance of the year, but we expect it to be tough while the economy continues to slow. As it picks up, which we hope it will do some time but we are not sure when, we expect those pressures to abate somewhat. Himanshu Patel – JP Morgan: Can I shift gears to Europe? You had a $700 million profit there and it sounds like there was $300 million are one-time funding between warranty and mark-to-market gains on commodity hedges. I mean even if you back that out, you did north of a 4% pre-tax margin in Europe this quarter. That’s clearly fairly high relative to anything you’ve done in the past decade. Is this sort of the new starting point? Should we think about mid single-digit margins in Europe for the foreseeable future?

Well, as we said back in January, we’ll be disappointed if Ford Europe doesn’t do better this year than last year and the first quarter is a strong indicator. As Alan said, we’re really pleased with how things are going in Ford Europe and we think it’s an indication of what happens when you do aggressively restructure and do accelerate the flow of products. The reason we are encouraged by that is first we’re doing well in Europe but it’s a good sign for us as we bring the products across and leverage the assets. So we’re really pleased with how things are going in Ford Europe, a lot more new products coming this year as well.

Your next question comes from the line of Chris Ceraso - Credit Suisse.

A few short-answer questions. First on the steel contracts, Don, are those annual? Will these open up at the end of the year?

They do vary and they vary by region. Generally they are about a year, but they don’t all start on January 1. There is a step function throughout the year and the timing and the amounts vary, depending on whether you are North America, Europe or Asia, South America.

What about the North America one?

I think for competitive reasons we’d really rather not comment on the specifics at any one steel company or region or anything.

The $12 billion to $14 billion full-year cash burn, does that include the $4.5 billion that goes into the VEBA that went in the first quarter?

No, and that was 12 to 14 over three years.

Right.

Right.

So, that does not include the $4.5 billion.

Does not, correct.

Alan, I know you’ve been talking, hammering on this point for a long time about simplification of components and streamlining and so forth.

Encouraging.

Encouraging. Has that started to show up in any of the numbers yet? Is any of that in these material cost numbers or the structural cost numbers, or is that still something that you are going to see down the road?

Just a little bit, because your real opportunity is, as you know, with the development of the new vehicles. I am really encouraged by the efforts; we’ve included the dealers with us as well as product development, as well as our suppliers, and we just see a tremendous opportunity to simplify these vehicles and package the vehicles with the options that customers really want, with and take all that complexity and the hassle out of it. You can just imagine what that’s going to mean to the cost structure inside Ford, as well as throughout our supplier base. It’s a big element of Jim and Derrick’s plan, having it driven from the market and then drive it all the way through to the suppliers. So we’ll start seeing the benefit of that next year, and then more and more each year thereafter, especially with each of the new model inductions because you get a real chance to make a significant step improvement in that complexity reduction.

Don, can you put a number around how much of the inventory build helped in the quarter? You mentioned that a couple of times in terms of why Q1 was a little bit stronger.

No, I would rather not because that’s too close to telling you what our margins are by vehicle line. But, it was a 32,000 increase during the quarter, and 34,000 on a year over year.

What about the change in incentive accounting? You mentioned this on the last call, was that a factor in helping or hurting the results in Q1?

No it wasn’t.

What are you thinking now in terms of the timing of recognizing on the P&L the benefit from the healthcare deal in 07? Is it still third quarter ‘08?

We’re not sure. As far as it looks now we’re on track to achieve what we need as far as court approval and all the documents and the proceedings are occurring as we thought and I guess we have no real update now, other than that.

Your next question is from the line of Peter Nesvold - Bear Stearns.

If I just take a step back at this point, because I think a lot of the details have been covered here, I certainly agree with your point that US auto sales are getting weaker here not stronger, and it does seem that there are couple of hundred million dollars of benefits from warranties in the quarter. But I’m struggling to understand why don’t you exit this year profitable in North America if you’ve got the 150 launch, if you got the healthcare deal at your back and if you’ve got more headcount reductions coming?

Well, the trajectory that we laid out in the plan has us getting back to profitability in ‘09, as we’ve talked about, and the progress in ‘07 and ‘08 are tremendous improvements in the fundamentals. As we talked about, we have the one-offs in the first quarter, and also the slowing industry throughout the rest of this year. I think with the cost reductions we have in place, we are going to be able to achieve the $5 billion. It’s a major improvement on our plan to make the improvement we are making in ‘08 on the way to profitability in ‘09. So, I think it’s about right at this point, Peter.

I think the trajectory is even stronger than what you’re outlining here. Am I unreasonable to anticipate that you could actually exit this year by fourth quarter profitable in North America, and then certainly full year in 2009?

Certainly our goal is to be profitable in 2009 for the full year. I think the best way to think about the progress that we are making in North America is to think not about the absolute amounts but to look at the improvement each quarter. What’s happening now is the business is improving fundamentally underneath and that’s being masked in part by some of these one-offs but importantly by the slowing economy. I mean the industry volumes are sharply lower than they were a year ago, and the mix is tough and working against us in raw materials prices. Despite those tough external conditions the business is getting better. I think the thing to focus on is the year-to-year improvement each quarter as the business gets better, despite the challenging external environment.

Your next question comes from Jonathan Steinmetz - Morgan Stanley.

I know you like to do a walk year on year but if we can think a little bit sequentially versus Q4. I am still in North America trying to understand this a little better. It looks like you went up by around $1.5 billion pre-tax. The volume seems to explain maybe $300 million, $400 million, and I guess the commodity hedging maybe a few hundred million, but it seems like there is the better part of a billion that’s hard to reconcile. I’m just wondering Don maybe or Alan if you could talk about what items may have affected that sequentially, since there was pretty limited restructuring sequentially?

Okay. That’s true there was but there is actually a lot going on there. As you say, the volume and the mix was a not a big contributor but there was a lot on the cost reduction side, and that includes material costs. We had some warranty adjustments at the end of last year, and then when you compare those to the start of this year, there are some things that are seasonal in nature that tend to make the fourth quarter worse than the first quarter. Those would include things like we generally do a lot of advertising towards the end of the year. Just the fact that we draw down our inventories at the end of the year and we don’t do that so much at the end of the first quarter. All those contribute, as it’s mainly on the cost side and as you say, the volume and mix was not an important contributor. Does that help?

Yes it helps. Let me switch to Ford Credit. How do we take your comments on it? Are you saying there will be no dividend this year, or just a reduced dividend, or it’s wait and see?

I think its wait and see. We had no dividend in the first quarter and the way things look right now, I’d be surprised if we have a dividend in the second quarter. But, it’s too early to say there will be no dividend for the full year, and we’re just doing this to be cautious.

Lastly, maybe Alan on Volvo, you had about a $150 million loss, if I pro forma things for the OPEB deal as well as some of the cash burn here, you could be reasonably net debt, have a reasonable net debt position as a company. It’s not something that you guys seem to relish and it’s not a big profit contributor and it might fit better elsewhere. Are you thinking about that as a source of liquidity or are you still looking to turn that around internally?

Our priority now is to improve the business dramatically.

Your next question will come from the line of Mark Warnsman - Calyon.

Regarding exchange, do you see the US dollar remaining weak on a sustained basis, first? Second, is it correct to assume that you’ll continue to look to match your cost and revenue basis by currency? Following on to that, to what extent do you see a weak dollar impacting your sourcing pattern on both sides of the Canadian border, the Volvo footprint, and then ultimately how you are factoring exchange into the One Ford strategy?

That’s a lot to try and remember but I’d say that if you start off, we are projecting the dollar relative to the yen and the euro and the pound to be generally in line with most external observers, at least through the end of this year or early next year. Our plan is to, where it makes sense, to produce where we sell. Now that doesn’t apply to every single part of the business. I am not going to comment about the US-Canada sourcing right now.

Regarding the American Axle strike, have you seen changes in the market dynamic for full size pickups and SUVs and has it had an impact, either positive or negative, on your business?

I assume you mean the American Axle has affected of some of our competitors’ production and have we seen an effect in the market because of that? I’d say no. No, we haven’t.

Your next question will come from the line of Patrick Archambault - Goldman Sachs.

I just wanted to see if you could provide a little bit more color on Financial Services on slide 28. I understand that a lot of these headwinds are very dependent on the overall credit market, but could you try and give us a sense of what here might be one-time in nature and what might be sustained headwinds throughout the balance of the year?

Well that’s an interesting question and I think a tough one. If you just take it one step at a time on the financing margin, I think the rates, base rates are low in the US; that’s by policy, and we’ll have to wait and see how that goes. I think that will change as the economy changes, and the spreads, or the pricing of credit risk, that’s a function of how things go in the credit markets. The things that are happening to us, that are affecting our results importantly, aside from that, are really in two areas. One of them is the auction prices for large pickups and large SUVs, and those are going down and that’s related to gasoline prices. We have a forecast on gasoline prices as does everyone else, and we think we have a good forecast for where that’s going to come out, but we’ll have to wait and see. That’s affecting how we value our lease portfolio as well as our credit losses, because it makes each repossession more expensive. The thing that’s not recurring is last year’s one-time restructuring costs, which were largely in the first quarter and that we’re now beginning to see the full benefit of the operating cost improvements that are related to that restructuring. Does that help?

Moving to slide 25, on the automotive cash flow in terms of the changes in working capital, other timing differences, does that include adjustments for non-cash things like the fair value adjustments for FX and hedging, and if that is in that bucket, can you give us a sense of what’s really just simple working capital and what is just add-back of non-cash cost saves?

Let me see if I can help you there. Those loan revaluations were about $300 million, the hedges were a similar amount. We had cash taxes in there of $200 million and then timing differences on marketing and warranty accruals were about $0.5 billion. Working capital is actually favorable, and there is a whole host of other things that offset that.

That’s helpful color. Lastly, just to push the steel issue a little further, there are reports of one of your competitors in negotiations with Nippon Steel for some kind of a surcharge. Is this something that you are in talks with and would consider, or can you say that absolutely this is something that’s not going to happen until contracts reprice?

I think it’s best if we don’t comment on that for competitive reasons. What I will say is that a part of what Alan described earlier about trying to communize and make global our efforts in product development and purchasing is that we will be seeking to have more common specifications of steel across the world which will help our steel suppliers, as well as help ourselves have sensible discussions with them. We have some work to do within our own operations to improve our ability to have lower steel costs.

Ladies and gentlemen, we will now take questions from the media.