Good morning. My name is Kavita, and I will be your conference operator today. At this time, I would like to welcome everyone to the Iron Mountain Q4 Earnings Conference Call. All lines have been placed on mute to prevent any background noise. After the speakers’ remarks, there will be a question-and-answer session. [Operator Instructions] Thank you. I’ll now turn the call over to Ms. Melissa Marsden. Please go ahead.

Thank you, Kavita. And welcome everyone to our fourth quarter and year end 2014 earnings conference call. This morning, we'll hear from Bill Meaney, CEO, who will discuss highlights for the quarter and year, as well as progress towards our strategic initiatives, followed by Rod Day, CFO, who will cover financial results and updated guidance for 2015. After our prepared remarks, we'll open up the phones for Q&A. As we have done for the past couple of quarters, we have posted our earnings commentary and supplemental disclosure package on our Investor Relations page of the website at www.ironmountain.com under investorrelations/financialinformation. Referring now to page two of that supplemental package. Today's earnings call and slide presentation will contain a number of forward-looking statements, most notably our outlook for 2015 financial performance. All forward-looking statements are subject to risks and uncertainties. Please refer to today's press release, earnings commentary, the Safe Harbor language on this slide and our most recently filed annual report on Form 10-K for a discussion of the major risk factors that could cause our actual results to differ from those in our forward-looking statements. In addition, we use several non-GAAP measures when presenting our financial results. The reconciliations to these non-GAAP measures, as required by Reg G, are included in the supplemental reporting package. With that, Bill, would you please begin?

Thank you, Melissa, and good morning, everyone. Before I begin, I think, given recent new stories following on from our December announcement with respect to a proposal to acquire Recall. I think, I should just make a statement before we get into discussing our results for both the quarter and the year. We strongly believe that our acquisition of Recall would provide both companies shareholders with a unique opportunity to participate in the growth of the combined businesses with attractive growth prospects. We believe that there is significant value creation potential from such a transaction for both companies customers as well. We continue to try to figure out ways to narrow the valuation gap, but will only pursue a deal at the right price. We have nothing to report at this time. With that, let me turn to our results. We are pleased to report another quarter of strong operating performance, wrapping up an eventful year of good progress on our three-year strategic plan and our successful conversion to a REIT. During 2014, we continue to improve results in our developed markets, expanded our exposure to faster growing emerging markets and generated momentum in our emerging business segment. In addition, we expanded our REIT investor outreach and we were added to the MSCI REIT in the FTSE/NAREIT indices, inclusion in these important benchmarks is important for generating a high level -- a higher level of awareness of Iron Mountain as an attractive REIT investment. Let me now turn to financial highlights, Rod, will have more in a few minutes. On a constant dollar basis, our financial results for 2014 were right in line with our expectations. The significant strengthening of the dollar in the fourth quarter impacted our reported figures as it did for most multinational, resulting in growth in…

Thanks Bill. We continue to execute well against our strategic plan. And we're pleased with our strong operating performance for the year. Our results underscore the durability of our storage rental business and demonstrate the benefit of acquisitions we have made in emerging and developed markets. I’ll begin today with an overview of our fourth quarter and full-year financial performance, followed by an update on our outlook for 2015. I will then address our capital deployment activities and conclude with a discussion of various REIT metrics. Please note that throughout my prepared remarks, I will reference selected slides from our comprehensive supplemental reporting package, which can be found on the Investor Relations portion of our website. Turning to our financial results for the quarter and the year, let me direct you to the financial highlights on page 8. Supported by strong storage rental growth, total reported revenues were $778 million, up approximately 1% compared with Q4 of 2013 and up 5% on a constant dollar basis. For the year, total revenues grew by 3% to $3.1 billion, or by 4% on a constant dollar basis and in constant dollars at the top end of our guidance range. Adjusted OIBDA for the quarter was $220 million, compared with $195 million in 2013. For the full year, adjusted OIBDA grew by 4% to $926 million or by 5% to $934 million on a constant dollar basis. For comparison, adjusted OIBDA for 2014 included $3.5 million of costs associated with the company’s restructuring initiative. In addition, adjusted OIBDA in 2013 included $19 million in the fourth quarter and $23 million in the full year of restructuring costs. Adjusted EPS for the quarter was $0.25 per diluted share, compared with $0.21 in 2013. For full year 2014, adjusted EPS of $1.36 was within our…

Thanks, Rod. Before we move to Q&A, I’d like to summarize this morning’s key points. Our 2014 financial results were on track with our expectations prior to the impact of foreign currency and in fact revenue on a constant dollar basis was at the top end of our range. Moreover, we look for similar constant dollar growth in 2015, consistent with the three-year plan we laid out at our Investor Day nearly a year ago. Our fourth quarter operating results demonstrated the success of our initiatives to drive volume in storage rental growth in both our developed and emerging markets and we’re maintaining momentum as we move into 2015. We have attractive high return investment opportunities in all of our segments, including potential acquisitions in developed and emerging markets, and interesting initiatives to leverage our enterprise storage rent through emerging business opportunities. We are maintaining our dividend in line with the growth in operating profit, which represents an attractive yield whilst providing cash flow to fund required CapEx and a portion of our growth investment. We’ll continue to maintain our capital allocation discipline. And like most REITs, we'll look forward -- we’ll look to fund external growth with new capital after first demonstrating our ability to generate the appropriate returns. Our business is durable and predictable and is characterized by attractive fundamentals compared with self-storage and industrial property types. While FX has been a drag in the recent quarter, we also see the current FX environment has an opportunity to take advantage of the strong U.S. dollar to increase our small but growing investment in the high growth emerging markets at favorable rate. With that, Operator, we're ready to take questions.

[Operator Instructions] Your first question comes from line of Andrew Steinerman with JPMorgan.

At the internal growth in service up 3% and actually, I did catch also that, it was an easier comp? You mentioned even normalizing for the easier comp, this looks like a recovery? Could you go over some of the components of what drove a positive experience in North American service on an organic basis and looking into 2015, do you think this will be a volatile division or do you think that will be firming up?

Andrew, I think, you were slipped at the beginning. But, I think, your -- I don’t think we -- I hope we've got all of your, you are asking about the internal growth. And we called out the fact that we’re guiding for 2% to 2.5% and we had a very strong quarter. You want to understand how volatile that is and what drove the improvement. Is that correct?

On the service side of North American box

On the service side?

Yeah.

Okay. I think on the service side, I will let Rod talk you through because you also asked for the different components and I think I would say as an introductory mark before, Rod takes you through the different components of that? Because there as you know, there are multiple things in our service revenue, some of it is driven by paper prices. Some of it’s driven by the ins and outs associated with our Records Management business. There are different components that are more volatile and more in direct control of the operations. So, I think we have seen an improvement around our imaging business and paper prices and we have a new dedicated leader that’s just looking at our digital or scanning operations, so we have seen an improvement in that area. But we still see some of the underlying trends, especially in our Data Management area in terms of the some of the service associated with transport but Rod, you may want to talk about it in more detail.

Yeah. I think that’s right, Bill. The way I think about service revenue and I’m sure, I think you do as well is that service revenue that we can directly influence and this is more sort of independent, if you like from some of our core Records Management business and then there is service activity that is dependent on the activity of what’s going on within whole storage side. I think what was positive for us in Q4, we look at the first areas of the stuff that we can influence directly. We had a particularly good quarter in what we call projects. So that’s where we do specific assignments for customers to sort of help them more with Records Management issues and that was a good strong performance. In addition, we also have the benefit of a good shred performance during Q4, some of which was driven by an improved paper price that we’ve seen take-off bit in Q4. In terms of the activity associated with our records business within the RM side, although there was still a sort of modest decline, the decline is not as serious as we’ve seen. And so again, I think you know we were nervous about calling the bottom of that. But at least, it was a more favorable quarter than we’ve seen and actually follows on from Q3 in that regard. I think the contrast of that would be, as Bill said, within the DM side, we did see quite a significant drop in service activity associated with tight and sort of tight rotation. Now let’s talk about 2015. As Bill said, we’ve actually done a bit of reorganization on the service side, particularly within North America to give more focus to our scanning business and our shredding business, which I think will benefit us. And I would hope that within the RM side, although that’s probably still be continuing declines with activity associated with box, but that should be it and that would be at lower levels. But on the DM side, I do think we will continue to see quite significant reduction so. In terms of summary, in terms of the activity that we can control, I think will be -- I’m hoping for a good performance there on the stuff that is more difficult for us to control. RM more positive than it’s been. DM, I think will continue to struggle.

Okay.

The other thing I would add to that, Andrew, is on the DM side, there is a couple of initiatives that we are doing to try to mitigate that. First of all, we do have a new offering in Secure Destruction, which we are seeing, albeit off a small base but very rapid growth on that base. So, I think you'll start seeing that come through in some of the service numbers associated with the DM business. The other aspect is that we have taken a focus on maintaining and in some cases, trying to add additional volume and what we call our premium transport services around DM, which is dedicated transport. So there are couple puts and takes in initiatives that we've just started in last quarter, last year and we expect those to continue to come through. But the overall trend in DM, as it becomes more archival, like the box business. The DM business is a little bit behind in terms of the lifecycle of that.

Okay. Thank you.

Next question comes from the line of Kevin McVeigh with Macquarie.

A real nice job. Hey. Obviously, I don’t know if you can’t comment on Recall at all but they reported, they said there is further discussions, things like that. Just any update in terms of how you are thinking about that, Bill, particularly given the pullback in the Aussie dollar, does that impact, kind of the approach? And are there any milestones that as you think about the potential transaction from a timing perspective or is it just -- any update at all, if you can talk to it?

Thanks for that. I guess, Kevin, you probably expect -- I don't have much more to say than what my statement is that, we’ve obviously seen attractiveness of such a transaction, which is the reason why we put a proposal forward in December. And we look at different aspects of the business that is attracted by it. But it's really a question of whether or not we can get to a value that works for both sides. But I think I don't have any more to say than in my opening statement.

Okay. That's helpful. Hey. And just wondering, if I had a rate, it looks like on the initial ’15 guide, the internal growth was 1% to 2%. Now, we are saying two to two and a half percentage, is that right?

Say that again? I'm sorry.

I’m sorry. The internal growth overall in the 2015 guide, I thought initially was 1% to 2% and if I have it now, I think you bulk that up to two to two and a half percentage, is that right?

Yeah. I think just to be clear, there is probably a distinction between -- so if there is a distinction means total internal growth in storage, internal growth side. Bill referenced storage internal growth of being sort of 2% to 2.5%, which is kind of the number that we would expect for 2015, which is distinct from total revenue growth.

Got it. Because it seems like you are doing a really nice job there. And then just one other question in terms of -- with the drop in fuel, I know you had fuel surcharges, did that kind of work against you, so I guess it seems like the internal growth is probably even stronger than what you'd suggest if some of those surcharges were starting to runoff or Am I thinking about that incorrectly?

No, you're right actually. It does don't have an impact. It did have a relatively small impact to be honest in the backend of Q4. And it obviously doesn’t impact the EBITDA but it does impact the revenue slightly.

Okay. And then just one last and I apologize. I will get back to queue. It sounded like, Bill, you announced a major new customer. It doesn’t look like the CapEx from a racking perspective picked up. Was that a secured customer. or was that kind of an organic and any sense as to just what’s vertical that’s in?

I think you're referring to, is in relation to the Secure acquisition, I’d say it also helped us on-boarding a major new customer, is that what you are referring to, Kevin?

Yes.

Yeah. No, I think that -- well, it did help us a little bit in terms of the amount of CapEx for racking that we needed to deploy for that because we were able -- we bought Secure, they had some spare capacity in some of their other facilities, which we are able to use to onboard this new customer. So, I think that is true and that’s up in Canada.

Okay. Super. Thanks so much, nice job.

Thanks.

Thanks Kevin.

Your next question comes from the line of Andy Wittman with Robert W. Baird.

Thank you for taking my questions. I wanted to start by digging into some of the restructuring costs in fourth quarter. You may have said this on the conference call rather but I missed it. What were the restructuring costs this year and last year in 4Q specifically?

Okay.

Sorry, just want to get a sense of the comparability of the margins?

No. I got it here. So the restructuring charge for this year in Q4 was zero and for last year was $18.6 million.

Okay. So that implies that the margins are somewhat weaker here as we look at the segments, it looks like some of that was driven internationally, it looks like the guidance for next year takes a low end of the EBITDA or the OIBDA growth down a smidge? I guess, Bill, when you think about that, what’s the driver there, is that continue to be the international performance or is it something else? Could you help us understand that little bit better?

Well, I think that, if you look at our international performance is still in the range, though we said slightly below the 25% that we reported last year. But it really is dependent in terms of how we grow the emerging market portfolio, because it’s a -- it will ebb and flow as we add new countries into that portfolios. As we said before it’s -- you put something in the funnel and it grows to mimic U.S. margins, which are even much higher than the 25% that a year ago we reported in the international segment. So that will ebb and flow in that range as we actually add new investments as we build market leading positions in the various geographies on the emerging market portfolio.

Maybe, I’ll just make a comment on FX just, because that’s the difference if you’d like between the guidance, say we have approximately 40% of our revenues internationally and we’ve seen a 12% decrease in FX on those revenues across those basket of currencies, so as a kind of impacted around sort of 4%, 4.5%. So you can see that the scale of the issue if you like and that’s what’s -- that’s really the only thing that’s driven the change in guidance.

Got it. And then, just how much of the factor is pricing and I know several quarters ago now there were some large customers that you decided that wasn’t worth to loss the customer to keep down the churn, I think, that ultimately was, obviously, I think a smart decision? How much of that continued, Bill, and how much of pricing is maybe a factor in your margin performance?

It’s a good question, Andy. The pricing -- the beginning of the year, we probably weren’t as sophisticated as being into on pricing. In the middle of the year we hired a new person in-charge of pricing and we on boarded in November our new Chief Marketing Officer with that comes under. So we have seen during the course of the year being able to up our game in the pricing area. So this year, obviously, we turned around the performance in North America from a volume perspective. So that helps as well and we put those two together, which especially towards the second half of the year in terms of adding more sophistication and more horsepower in our pricing area, you put those two together and that’s why we feel pretty confident that, when we talked about internal storage revenue growth for next year in the 2% to 2.5% range. And if you recall, in quarter one last year we started off at 1.3%. So it’s been a nice trend and we've been building some momentum through the year, both on the volume side and now on the latter half of the year on the pricing side.

That’s really helpful. If I -- could you allow me one more question, I guess, this one to, Rod, on the capital structure. Debt-to-EBITDA now at 5.4 times, just wanted to get your sense of your comfort level there? I guess, last time we checked that was at the high-end or slightly above your targeted range? Is there been the change in the way you look at the range or is this really kind of staying there recognizing that you maybe able to get a lot more EBITDA, if you can come to terms with Recall, without having a lot of incremental debt, therefore taking you better into your targeted range that way? I just trying to understand, how you are thinking about that, if there's a need for fresh equity through a public offering, or if you feel like you are going to re-equitize the balance sheet through a deal and if that's, what’s preventing you from maybe reducing the leverage that way?

Actually, I don’t really want to talk about on sort of Recall and how that would may or may not impact things. Let me just talk about in isolations. I think the first point to say is that the leverage ratio of 5.4% is exactly what we predicted at our I Day presentations. So there’s actually no surprise in that. And we’ve landed in a preciosity of the point where we thought we would. But our stance is over the long-term -- a range of 4% to 5%, we think is optimal from a sort of cost of debt or cost of equity and trade off. But in terms of -- and raising any further record as Bill referenced in his remarks, we would do that on the basis of having compelling investments to make in a bid in acquisitions or in real estate in particular. Very, very common for a REIT, that’s the situation that we are in and that’s how we would look to fund things going forward.

Okay.

No, do you want to add on that, Bill?

I think that’s spot on.

That’s fine. Thanks guys for the answers.

Thanks.

Your next question comes from the line of George Tong with Piper Jaffray.

If you look at Record Management volume growth this quarter ex-acquisition, it was relatively consistent on a quarter-over-quarter basis. But if you look at the fourth quarter organic storage revenue growth, it accelerated from 2.2% to 3.5%, given the volume growth was consistent on a quarter-to-quarter basis, is the different essentially coming from stronger pricing trend?

Yes. That’s good. There was actually a slight improvement in terms of our volume growth quarter-on-quarter. But you are right and George, it doesn’t explain the full difference by any means. Two things that are going on. One, we benefit from relatively weak compared to last year because as you may recall on our earnings call this time last year, we were talking about a number, sort of pricing adjustments down with what we have to make during that period. So in a sense, the sort of the year-on-year comparison and it slightly falls. But even if you strip that out, we have seen an improvement, a disproportionate improvement relative to our volume. And that comes back to -- in terms of the overall mix price and that’s what Bill was referencing earlier in terms of our ability, if you like to get more pricing traction than we’ve been able to do and maybe earlier in the year.

Yeah. No, I think that’s right. So as you called out, we started off Q1 at a storage rental internal revenue growth of 1.4%. We ended up the year at 3.5%. As you say, even if you correct other things that Rod’s talking about, you were in the upper half of the 2s in terms of internal revenue storage growth rates. So, we've seen a really nice trend in pick up during that area. I think we also guided at the beginning of the year that we were -- we did call out that we were underperforming and we are very comfortable that we could get to the 2% to 2.5% range and we think we’ll be able to continue that momentum this year. And just to pick you up on one other thing is that, we have seen a nice progression in terms of the volume growth, the storage volume growth over the last say two years where we've gone from Q1 in 2013 in terms of internal storage volume growth before acquisitions of 1.1% net growth and we progressed up to this last quarter of 1.9% growth. So, we've seen a very nice expansion and that's really been driven by both better offense and defense in terms of retaining customers and also gaining new customers, so we feel like things are starting to come together. So, we feel pretty confident that we'll be able maintain that momentum into 2015.

Great. That’s helpful. And last quarter your C dollar OIBDA growth was indicated to be 2% to 5%, while this quarter the range was widened to 1% to 5%. Can you talk about how your views on margins have evolved over the past quarter?

Really, no material shift other than the issue of FX, as I was referencing earlier so and that's really the only change that we have to our thinking.

Okay. And then last question for me. Real estate acquisitions, I think in the past you've indicated, they will be largely funded by ATM offering, which is typical of RIETs. Can you discuss returns you’ve seen from recent real estate acquisitions you’ve done and what the plan is for 2015?

Yes. So in terms of the returns that we would expect from acquisitions, I would distinguish between acquisitions that we make in developed markets and acquisitions that we make in emerging markets. And given the sort of the risk profile within emerging markets, we look for higher returns than we would expect than in developed markets. The range that we look for is 9% to 11%, so that the -- I'm always worried about quoting averages here because each day when we look at on a case-by-case basis and risks adjusts and make sure that we’re getting good quality returns on a case-by-case basis. The average is 9% to 11% typically higher in emerging and it is easier to take lower returns in developed where it’s more predictable.

Great. Thank you.

Our next question comes from the line of Shlomo Rosenbaum with Stifel.

Good morning. Could you -- it looks to me that the service revenues -- just following up on Andrew’s question, it is better than it’s been in a very long time. Can you give us just the organic services revenue in North America in aggregate, was it positive?

The North American service revenue for the quarter, Andrew, or just for the year?

For the quarter. For the quarter.

Sorry. Yeah, definitely. On a constant currency rate, we are at 2.4% in the Records Management, which is a good performance. But we have seen a decline of 4.2% in Data Management but certainly in the North American space that was a strong -- sorry, the RIM space that was strong performances compared to where we’ve been.

If I put them together, North American general services is positive now?

Yes.

Okay. Very good. And then what’s going on in the U.S. government market. You guys added some capacity, I saw in news like a month ago. Is the government right to go after that really huge market that you guys have been talking about for years?

Yeah. Shlomo, I think it is a good question. And you probably also noticed, I think we had a press release just a couple of weeks ago that we had a new head of federal who has a wide of depth and experience in that that area. We have as you know that we invest when we can see the revenue coming. And I think we feel like we’re getting pretty close on a number of discussions with the federal government and we still see that has a very big unvented opportunity for us. So yes we are and it’s probably little bit overstated to say we’re bullish but we feel that we're building momentum in that vertical. And we’re really pleased by how fast our new leader of the federal business seems to be getting his feet under the desk.

Okay. Great. And then middle-market, any update over there in terms of kind of a strategy post the acquisition you made a little while ago?

I think that the -- on a Cornerstone acquisition, which I think you’re referring to, we talked about that we’re getting some of the D&A to go after that market. We do think that that's a real opportunity for us because as I think I’ve said before is our market share or representation in that market is almost a quarter of what it is in the large enterprise market. And that is the market that tends to have better internal growth rates among themselves and good pricing. So that is an area where we have taken some of the D&A from Cornerstone and we have some of our folks working on how to better go after that. And also the reorganization that we did a year ago is already starting to show some benefit in terms of better penetrating that market and that was breaking -- getting the feel people aligned with the local territories much tighter. So I would say we’re still in the early part of the game on that, but we're starting to see -- we definitely see the opportunity and we’re starting to slowly see some results in that area.

Okay. And this is for Rod. Just going and looking at a kind of change in the AFFO calculation. Is this $70 million that you moved out of AFFO because some focus somewhat more recurring, is that non-real estate investment correct line on slide 10?

That’s correct. That’s exactly right. And just to get a little bit history on that, we were talking to a number of REIT investors and there was kind of confusion around what’s maintenance for a company like us. So we’ve always had the real estate maintenance expense within our AFFO and following feedback, we thought it was appropriate to include this additional spend which is generally sort of recurring in nature. And therefore it gets sort of more conservative and more prudent view of what the AFFO number should be.

So is there a difference between the $70 million that came down in the $70 million to $90 million range?

So I don’t ….

In other words, if I take AFFO in the old definition to the new definition, it’s down $70 million but the range of $70 million to $90 million. Is there an improvement somewhere else?

No. No that’s the only adjustment.

Okay. Would you mind just walking us through kind of sources and uses for next year? From starting with an AFFO that should be roughly $500 million and I take kind of the midpoint of real estate investment, maintenance CapEx, business and customer acquisitions. I netted out on the $500 million and I would go to issue about negative $30 million, use about $400 million of dividends. Is there -- there is clearly you have about $600 million of liquidity, if you pulled that all with debt you kind of bump out of our debt. How should we think of it from a modeling perspective?

I think while I draw that, try my best for the case that would be long sort of detailed analysis. If we could do that offline, very happy to do that but it will take quite some time to work that through with you.

Okay. I appreciate it. I’ll take your appointment. Thank you very much.

Bye.

Your final question comes from the line of Dan Dolev for Jefferies.

My question, I won’t take step back and kind of look at the last few years and ask you if I look at the last three years you spend about all-in $1.5 billion in CapEx. And if I look at the EBITDA progression, so called since 2011, it’s down about 2.5%. So what kind of return were you aiming to get on the CapEx and why isn’t EBITDA growing if you did get return on that CapEx? Thanks.

I think that what you disentangle is Sort of what’s been going on with the some of the underlying performance of the business, certainly in the sort of ‘11 and ‘12 period and the returns that we’re getting from the CapEx that we spend. So during the sort of the ‘11 and ‘12 period, the two things were happening. And one is we had a sort of poor performance on our services side of the business but it impacts our business negatively. And the second is depending on which EBITDA you’re looking at, we’re investing in REIT costs which obviously has the benefit further down the P&L in terms of tax. And if you then just strip out the CapEx, the investments that we’ve made. The typical returns we look to get on those certainly in excess of our WAC which is 8% and obviously that will vary depending on the secured investment that we are making. But then if you sort of layer them back on top, that will then contribute in a positive way to EBITDA.

Okay. Understood.

Okay.

And one last follow up, on the dividend, you sounded a little bit more reserve, if I understood correctly on ’15 dividend? Are you still committed to $4.10 to $4.20?

I think, we are -- so the reason why we gave the -- this is a dollar guidance in the previous quarter, was really because there was so much going on with the dividend, with special projects and an E&P projects and special payments. And we are happy that we were getting questions coming in from investors because it was quite a confusing pitch. So we thought that would be helpful number to put out. Now we are through all that. We will just go, I don’t know sort of quarterly basis in terms of our per dividends payment. So, I think Bill, referenced in his remarks. Our policy like is to grow that dividends in line with our operating performance and that’s what we were doing.

Yeah. That the only I was just saying, I think, we are -- I think it’s also clear, where we are guiding now is on a per share basis and I think I kind of fumbled over cents whatever, but its $47.5 of per share is what we are guiding over and that, as Rod said, grows in line with operating income, because we are now through the project. I think, with that, I’d like to turn it back over to the operator.

And at this time, I will turn it back over to Bill Meaney for closing remarks.

Yeah. I think I have already done the remarks, Operator. So I just want to thank you all for joining us this morning for our call and we look forward to speaking to you in three months.