Good afternoon, everyone, and welcome to the First Solar's Fourth Quarter 2015 Earnings Call. This call is being webcast live on the Investors section of First Solar's website at firstsolar.com. At this time, all participants are in a listen-only mode. As a reminder, today's call is being recorded. I would now like to turn the call over to Steve Haymore from First Solar Investor Relations. Mr. Haymore, you may begin.

Thank you. Good afternoon, everyone, and thank you for joining us. Today, the company issued a press release announcing its financial results for the fourth quarter and full year 2015. A copy of the press release and the presentation are available on the Investors section of First Solar's website at firstsolar.com. With me today are Jim Hughes, Chief Executive Officer; and Mark Widmar, Chief Financial Officer. Jim will provide a business and technology update; then Mark will discuss our fourth quarter financial results and provide updated guidance for 2016. We will then open up the call for questions. Most of the financial numbers reported and discussed on today's call are based on U.S. generally accepted accounting principles. Please note this call will include forward-looking statements that involve risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from management's current expectations. We encourage you to review the Safe Harbor statements contained in the press release and the slides published today for a more complete description. It's now my pleasure to introduce Jim Hughes, Chief Executive Officer. Jim? James Alton Hughes - Chief Executive Officer & Director: Thanks, Steve. Good afternoon and thank you for joining us today. 2015 was another remarkable year for First Solar, and we finished the year with strong operational and financial results. Slide 4 highlights some of the outstanding achievements from this past year. First, on the strength of our research and development efforts, we have continued to be the driving force in the advancement of CadTel solar technology. In the first half of 2015, we set cell efficiency and module efficiency records of 21.5% and 18.6% respectively. The cell record at that time represented the eighth substantial update to our record cell roadmap since 2011, and the record module efficiency placed us in a…

We'll take our first question from Paul Coster with JPMorgan.

Thank you for taking my question. You're operating at 100% utilization rate. You're intentionally pushing projects out into 2017. Can you give us some sense as to whether you're leaving money on the table intentionally, turning down business, and what your visibility into 2017 is starting to look like? James Alton Hughes - Chief Executive Officer & Director: We're not turning down very much business. The ability to push projects out has given us a little more flexibility in terms of available supply. And we continue to be very encouraged by the overall activity levels and the booking activity we're seeing or the near-term possibility of bookings that we're seeing with respect to 2017.

We'll take our next question from Vishal Shah with Deutsche Bank.

Yeah, hi. Thanks for taking my question. Hello? James Alton Hughes - Chief Executive Officer & Director: We're here.

Okay. Wanted to just better understand your guidance in terms of what you're assuming for line upgrades and whether your previous guidance of 16.2% efficiency for the full year still holds? And also what kind of expectations you have for bookings for the full year 2016? Thank you. Mark R. Widmar - Chief Financial Officer & Director: So, Vishal, on the efficiency, we – as we indicated we're at – right now at 16.2%. We'll finish the quarter at 16.3%. We'll ramp that up as we progress through the year towards our lead line of 16.4%. So as we indicated in prior calls, we are intentionally looking to optimize throughput and as a result of that we'll see less impact through our efficiency roadmap this year. So would we expect to see the 16.4% trend higher as we exit the year? Yes. It won't – but obviously clearly not to the order of magnitude that we saw in 2015, which basically represented 160 basis points improvement year-on-year. But as we've said before, we have a very competitive module right now. It's mid-16% efficiency with the energy yield that we capture through a temperature coefficient and spectral response. We're very happy with the competitiveness of our module. As it relates to bookings, bookings will continue to reflect ourselves and relative to our opportunity in our pipeline that we've identified. We're very happy with the growth that we've seen, now with over 20 gigawatts. We're happy with the 400 or so megawatts that we booked since the last call, and a very good mix, not only between system and modules, but between U.S. and international. So again, as Jim indicated in his comments, the sales team is doing an outstanding job leveraging the core capabilities and competitiveness of our technology.

And we'll take our next question from Brian Lee with Goldman Sachs. Brian K. Lee - Goldman Sachs & Co.: Hey, guys. Thanks for taking the questions. Just had two quick ones. On the 3 gigawatts that you added to the bookings opportunity since the last call I've seen are mostly from the U.S., as you acknowledged. Can you talk to what's really changed since the ITC was extended? Are these new projects coming into the mix? Are these projects that were sort of on the fence already and you see more viability now with the ITC in place? And then relating to that, what sort of visibility just on lead times would you say you have for turning these opportunities into bookings in 2016 and 2017? James Alton Hughes - Chief Executive Officer & Director: So the – it's a combination of a variety of those factors. The resolution of the ITC, I think more than anything else it's not any particular outcome with respect to the ITC. It's – but it's removing the overhang of uncertainty and allows people to run their models and be deterministic about what the financial conditions that they're going to be developing projects in. So it's allowed us to advance some of our own projects. It's allowed customers to advance their projects. It's firmed up what the financial environment looks like. The competitive environment has improved a little bit versus, let's say, 18 months ago. So it's a whole variety of factors. It's also a broadening of demand. So we are seeing utilities express a desire to begin to participate in solar on a broader basis. We've had some very large customers that we've dealt with for quite a few years now, but we're adding to the customer set, and we're getting inbound inquiries and seeing RFPs from other utilities. We're also seeing new developers come into the marketplace that are in new service territories that we've not seen activity before. So it's the cumulative effect of a fairly broad set of circumstances. It's not one single thing that triggered it. It's very broad and across the board.

And we'll take our next question from Sven Eenmaa with Stifel. Sven Eenmaa - Stifel, Nicolaus & Co., Inc.: Yes, thanks for taking my question. I'd like to ask regarding mostly 2017. How do you think about the domestic versus international mix in that year, and how much of that will be kind of self-developed versus module/module plus sales? James Alton Hughes - Chief Executive Officer & Director: So I think it's a little early for us to have specific visibility. We have ample opportunity sets in both markets. I think that we will see a larger contribution from the U.S. versus what we would've thought, let's say, 9 months to 12 months ago, as a result of the ITC extension and the firming of demand. But it's a bit of a horse race. We've got lots of opportunities and lots of customers and it's going to be a case of who gets their stuff out there opportunities over the finish line first with economics that look interesting. So it's a large opportunity set chasing a finite volume. So that's kind of the circumstance you want to find yourself in. So I think there are some very big opportunities, both in the U.S. and internationally that could dramatically impact what that mix looks like. And I think it's still a little early for us to have precise visibility into how those big opportunities are going to play out, and both in terms of do they get across the finish line, and then two, some of them have uncertainty as to timing whether they would be a 2017 impact or potentially a later impact than that. So it's a little too early. All I can tell you is we've got lots going on, both internationally and in the U.S.

And we'll take our next question from Philip Shen with ROTH Capital Partners.

Hi. Thanks for taking my questions. With the OpEx guidance being maintained at $380 million to $400 million, and with the ITC extension, can you speak to how much of your resources you're moving back to the U.S., and can you quantify the degree of international projects you may be leaving on the table or pushing out? James Alton Hughes - Chief Executive Officer & Director: So, we're not changing our resource allocation at all. We've built, over the last several years, with a focus on reigning in OpEx and being a very lean low cost operation. We've also intentionally structured our operations so that we can leverage growth and future opportunities off of a given level of OpEx. We've spent a lot of time, debate, head-knocking internally over how do we build an organization and how do we structure the business we are pursuing from a strategic standpoint so that we can leverage against that OpEx level. And the way the organization has been built with the shared service centers we've built in some of our international locations, those resources and those centers can cost effectively support our operations whether they are in the U.S. or whether they are in almost any jurisdiction around the world. And so that gives us greater flexibility and relieves us of the need to redeploy resources. So, we try to centralize certain resources in shared resource centers and centers of excellence that can be deployed anywhere, and then we have local resources that are focused, and we structure both of those activities so that they can be leveraged against greater opportunities without having to add to OpEx. So, the proof that our efforts and concepts are working is the fact that we've been able to shift gears through this sort of changing market cycle without having to retool the organization. And it's given us – it's demonstrated that we built what we intended to build – which is a highly flexible, highly responsive organization that can adapt to changing markets and circumstances very quickly.

We'll take our next question from Patrick Jobin with Credit Suisse. Patrick S. Jobin - Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC (Broker): Hi. Thanks for taking the questions. Sorry to beat this to death here, just want to go back on 2017, if I can. Jim, I think you mentioned previously, the mix pressures moving away from systems in 2017. But with these two projects pushing out in the late stage opportunity set, mainly U.S. driven, potentially hitting 2017, should we think about that as no longer being a pressure or drag? Or could it be more of a positive element? And then just a follow-up item. You mentioned the competitive landscape has improved, so I guess some of the bids from a year ago or so, that were pretty aggressive that perhaps might not get finished, are you sensing any opportunity to kind of be the rescue provider or potentially rebidding some of those contracts as near term opportunities for you? Thanks. James Alton Hughes - Chief Executive Officer & Director: First, let's talk about the mix in 2017. I would say with the ITC extension, it does increase the addressable opportunities set on the system side within 2017. In addition, I think in certain markets such as Japan internationally we have a pretty solid systems opportunity set that is addressable in 2017. So, it's not a dramatic shift but there have been some increase in the relative weight of the two, I would say. In terms of rebidding assets or capturing stress in the marketplace, we've looked at a lot of stuff. I think that the final stories have yet to be told in terms of the resolution of some of the assets in the marketplace. And I think we are also taking a very cautious approach to how much risk we're willing to take on board, particularly how much counterparty risk we're willing to take on board. We have a lot of high-quality opportunities and I think we've, quite candidly, backed away a little bit from chasing stuff that's going to require us to take a bunch of risk. I think we're just continuing to execute down the path we were on and feel like that we can generate an outstanding shareholder result. That doesn't mean we won't be opportunistic and that doesn't mean that we won't see things. We're just taking a cautious approach.

We'll take our next question from Stephen Byrd with Morgan Stanley. Stephen Calder Byrd - Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC: Hi. Good afternoon. James Alton Hughes - Chief Executive Officer & Director: Good afternoon. Stephen Calder Byrd - Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC: I wanted to just talk broadly about, as you compete day-to-day against other players, you're obviously making really strong improvements in your products' competitiveness, but of course, the competition is trying not to stand still as well. I'm wondering if you can speak to trends in terms of the competitiveness that you're seeing for your product versus others. Are you seeing the, call it, the all-in economic value proposition for your product increasing in terms of its benefit relative to peers? Or are you seeing the competition remains intense and other products are nipping at your heels? At a high level, can you speak to overall competitiveness? James Alton Hughes - Chief Executive Officer & Director: Sure. So, there's absolutely no doubt that the competition doesn't sit still. And they're endeavoring to improve their product at the same time as we are. However, if you go back to late 2012 through today, the rate of change of our efforts versus the competition is clearly significantly higher. And this is something we'll spend some time on at the Analyst Day. But we have clearly been improving the relative value proposition, improving the margin entitlement, improving yields, energy density across all markets and we've been doing so at a higher rate of change than our competition. I can't speak to what they're going to do in the future, but we believe that we have a lot of opportunity in front of us in terms of continuing to drive our roadmap. And we'll talk a lot about that at our Analyst Day.

We'll take our next question from Krish Sankar with Bank of America Merrill Lynch.

Thank you for taking my questions. Two quick ones. One is, Jim, if you look at the utility scale market in the U.S., or especially where you guys are targeting, the PPA prices have come down over the last several years. In California and Nevada we're hearing like $0.04 a kilowatt hour PPA rates. Do you think that's at a floor level for PPA, or do you think there's more downside to these pricings? And the second follow-up is, out of your 20.3 gigawatt pipeline, how much of that is modular? Thank you. James Alton Hughes - Chief Executive Officer & Director: So on the PPA pricing, I don't think we're at a "floor level". What you have to bear in mind is there's two primary components that drive that pricing, and one is the capital cost of the project itself. And that's both the module, the balance of system and the development costs which includes land, interconnect permitting costs, et cetera. The other is the cost of capital, and that's the return demanded by the debt and equity investors in the project. There's no reason to believe that cost roadmaps are not going to continue to decrease as we move forward in the future. Now, I do think you will see some tendency to asymptote a little bit. I'm not sure the rate of change will be what it was several years ago. But there will continue to be benefits moving forward. What is harder to predict is, where are the capital markets going, what is the required rates of return on the part of investors, and when there's going to be. And that's a little more of a crystal ball type of exercise. But if you assume constant capital cost, then there's no reason to believe that PPAs would be at a floor. And then on the mix of that, I don't believe we've ever shared the mix on that opportunity set. So can't comment on that.

We'll take our next question from Edwin Mok with Needham & Company. Edwin Mok - Needham & Co. LLC: All right, thanks for taking my question. So, Jim, just following up on that question with your answer regarding the cost of capital, obviously, we've seen like increased cost, cost of capital in the energy space in general. How do you guys think about that in terms of running your business and how that impact, and specifically in certain parts of solar, it seems like cost of capital has gone up pretty fast. Have you seen more competitors try to go into the utility scale as a result of that? And then just quickly any update on the TetraSun? Thank you. James Alton Hughes - Chief Executive Officer & Director: So in terms of the way we think about it, we have always had a very deep pool of investors that we have tapped or to monetize the assets. Those investors' expectations in terms of return, we've seen variations over time, but the amplitude of those variations has been relatively mild. And we've also always been relatively conservative in terms of what we've baked into our modeling in terms of what we could achieve in the marketplace. So the way we think about it is, it's obviously a critical element to our development process and so we spend a lot of time making sure we are in touch with the market, making sure we are in touch with our customers, making sure we have a sense of what's happening out there. And we certainly recognize it as an exposure if we didn't pay close attention to it. But we feel like, and we've demonstrated over the last several years, that we understand the market and we know how to price our products so that we have the ability to monetize effectively. So, it's sort of, yeah, it's a big issue and it's a big risk, but that's core to succeeding in our business. And so managing that risk and understanding that risk is core to what we do. And there was a second question...

TetraSun. James Alton Hughes - Chief Executive Officer & Director: Oh, TetraSun. We'll have more comments about TetraSun at Analyst Day.

And we'll take our final question from Colin Rusch with Oppenheimer. Colin Rusch - Oppenheimer & Co., Inc. (Broker): Thanks so much, guys, for sneaking me in here. Can you talk a little bit about your pricing power in the market right now with both the module and module plus products as you see the efficiency improvements? And then could you just also give us the delta on underlying cost of capital assumptions on the guidance that you just provided? Mark R. Widmar - Chief Financial Officer & Director: So as it relates to pricing power, it all relates to energy density. And then what we have been trying to communicate over the last few calls, and we've demonstrated the advantage that we have not only here in 2015, but where we are going into 2017 and beyond. And obviously we are pricing forward with that type of advantage. So when you think about the spectral response advantage, the temperature coefficient advantage and – which ultimately drives to an energy density advantage in the upwards of high-single to low double-digit advantages, right? So we have quite a bit of pricing power relative to the technology. We have the advantage of the First Solar bankability and strength and the quality and reliability, and the willingness to stand behind our product over the long run. So I think that does translate into significant value in the marketplace. As it relates to the second – the last question Steve, I'm trying to remember the last question.

In terms of cost of capital. James Alton Hughes - Chief Executive Officer & Director: Cost of capital. Mark R. Widmar - Chief Financial Officer & Director: Yeah, the cost of capital assumptions, we're not going to get into specifics around that. It varies by region. So as we think about what our cost of capital assumption is in Japan, it's dramatically different than what it is in the U.S., which is dramatically different than what it is in India. I wouldn't say that we're assuming any significant changes relative to current environment. We believe it will be relatively stable, maybe slightly higher in some regions. But we don't go into the specifics of what that assumption is by region.