Welcome, and thank you for standing by. (Operator Instructions) I would now like to turn the call over to Glen Ponczak. You may begin.

Well, good morning, everybody. And thank you for joining us. Before we get started, I would like to remind you of our forward-looking statements that the company will make statements in this presentation that are forward-looking and therefore are subject to risks and uncertainties. All statements in this presentation other than statements of historical fact are statements that are or could be deemed forward-looking statements within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. In this document, statements regarding future financial position, sales, costs, earnings, cash flows, other measures of results of operations, capital expenditures or debt levels and plans, objectives, outlook, targets, guidance and goals are forward-looking statements. Words such as may, will, expects, intend, estimate, anticipate, believe, should, forecast, project or plan, or terms of similar meaning are also generally intended to identify forward-looking statements. Johnson Controls cautions that these statements are subject to numerous important risks, uncertainties, assumptions and other factors, some of which are beyond the company's control that could cause Johnson Controls' actual results to differ materially from those expressed or implied by such forward-looking statements. These factors include the strength of the U.S. or other economies, automotive production levels, mix and schedules, energy and commodity prices, availability of raw materials and component products, currency exchange rates, and cancellations of or changes to commercial contracts, as well as other factors discussed in Item 1A of Part I of Johnson Controls' most recent Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended September 30, 2012, and Johnson Controls' subsequent Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q. Shareholders, potential investors and others should consider these factors in evaluating the forward-looking statements and should not place undue reliance on such statements. The forward-looking statements included in today's presentation are made only as of the date of this presentation, and Johnson Controls assumes no obligation, and disclaims any obligation, to update forward-looking statements to reflect events or circumstances occurring after today. Once we get started here with Alex Molinaroli, our freshly minted CEO. He will give an overview of the quarter and a little bit about as we move into 2014. He is followed by Bruce McDonald, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, who will give more in-depth review of the business results as well as an overall financial review. After that, time for questions and answers, and we will end promptly at the top of the hour. And with that, I turn it over to Alex.

Good morning, everyone. We were just commenting before we started that this is very strange, not seeing Steve Roell here. He's been doing these calls for as long as there have been calls. So we're going to try to fly without him today. And we'll have some comments about him in a few minutes. So I'm pleased to announce that we had record sales and earnings in essence, and despite all the mixed economic news around the world, and I'm pretty proud of what the team has accomplished. The North American automotive production was more positive than we thought. And the production rates for our 2013 have almost recovered to our pre-recessionary levels. The European production level was lower than prior year, but it seem to end less bad than what we though in for the third and fourth quarter. So we're hoping that means it's stabilizing. That stabilization in the second half helped us make good progress in improving our operational efficiencies and also made a lot of progress in synergy of our metals organization. We lost $200 million in Europe in the first half of the year and we had a profit in the second half. So that's a great accomplishment. The China auto production remain strong, it's upper-single digits. And in our case, we grew 20% and we did have a strong backlog. So we are gaining share in a growing market. A small component of our Building Efficiency business, the growth in the residential HVAC market was upper-single digits. And if you recall, that's a business that we focused on over the past few years, we've restructured. And even though we still are not at pre-recessionary rates, we are now generating record EBIT in that business. The commercial HVAC markets remained a real challenge in 2013.…

Thanks, Alex. And I too would like to add my best wishes to Steve. And I wish him a long and healthy retirement. I'm excited this morning really to talk about our fourth quarter business and financial results. We're extremely pleased with how we came in here for the fourth quarter. And we think we've got terrific momentum, as we go into 2014. So with our Power Solutions business on Slide 7. Here you can see our revenues were up about 9%. If you adjust out for foreign exchange and the impact of lead, our underlying sales were up about 11%. If you look at a little bit more granularly, OE volumes were up 15% in the quarter, aftermarket volumes were up 2%. You can see geographically, we talk about the unit shipments being up 5%, with 1% growth in the Americas, 11% growth in Asia and 12% growth in Europe. And I think that growth in Europe of 12%, particularly noteworthy, given the depressed market conditions there. And this really reflects the share gains that we're seeing from the European Power Solutions team. Also we've highlighted here, if you look at the high-margin AGM sales, they were up 33% in the quarter. In terms of our segment income, we had a very strong quarter. Here you see segment income of $330 million, was up 38% from last year. The results, generally speaking, were favorably impacted by the higher unit shipments, the ongoing benefits associated with in-house lead recycling, strong operational performance and the impact some of our pricing initiatives that we talked about on previous calls. I'd also point out, if you recall last year, our results were negatively impacted by both a high core collection cost, as we had to bring in additional inventory to ramp up and…

Great. Thanks, Bruce; thank, Alex. Operator, we're ready to take question.

(Operator Instructions) And our first question is from Brian Johnson with Barclays.

Just want to follow up on the battery point, because at least I was one of those who wondered if 19% is what we can start looking forward to 1Q's and 4Q's. So a couple of things. One, to what extent did you benefit from any, it doesn't look like you benefited from any seasonal restocking after two warm winters in a row in Americas. How are you kind of looking for this upcoming winter and how do orders look going into the winter?

So our team does some modeling, and they don't actually expect, unless there is some weather event that we're going to see a tremendous uptick in sales, that that we do believe that will come, but unless we get some event, we're not seeing anybody anticipate those orders. What you really saw in the fourth quarter and what we expect to continue in the first quarter is the strength in Europe, I mean which is really unbelievable. Bruce mentioned that, that you look at such a down market, we've been able to grow our share there and of course that's also where we have our AGM batteries and we get replacement for those too. So I think the numbers that we're talking about, they will be representative, but I don't think that we built anything on our plan to have extraordinary sales for the year.

And as you kind of think of that 410 basis points, you sort of back out, maybe it sounds like 70 basis points or so for the core cost last year. How would you roughly divide the rest of it between higher margin AGM business, recycling facility actually coming online and reducing your run rate, pricing increases and other factors?

I don't know that I can give you a number, but there is not one single thing that would be the overriding factor, because all those things are beneficial. Our pricing initiative, a lot of that has to do with getting our commercial terms to stick with the OEs. And that's something that we trace all year, we were able to get that recovery and that will help us going forward. The AGM business, I think you understand that 33%, you'd probably come up with some modeling and what that impact is. But we also are starting to see a more consistent benefit from our totaling arrangements, our in-house totaling. So I think that we're seeing some consistencies, but we're seeing more than anything else.

Brian, I would probably block it in a little bit more around. I mean if you recall last Q4, we were pretty disappointed with our margins in power last year. And we talked about the startup cost of the smelter and the hit that we took buying inventory in the open market to start that facility. So I would say, if you look at the rough, on a year-over-year base we're up about $90 million. I would say probably $30 million to $35 million of that delta. It would be the cost that we'd incurred last year that weren't there this year. So I'd say it's more a like a third of it.

And final question. Can you quantify what benefit, if any the LIFO to FIFO change had or is that just perspective in fiscal [indiscernible] actually? And did that have an impact at all?

When we'll get some more information out on this when we sort of finalize things, but generally speaking it's immaterial in Q1 and Q4 of this year. I'd believe in Q2, it's an income item and Q3 it's a charge and those are $0.02 or $0.03. But when you sort of take the full year impact it's less than a penny.

And the next question is from John Murphy with Bank of America Merrill Lynch.

Maybe just to follow up on the battery question. AGM obviously outperformed in the quarter for you and it looked like it was great. Just curious, if you could tell us what percentage of your total units or revenue or AGM at this point and maybe remind us generally what the delta is in the margins between AGM and your regular lead acid batteries?

If you look at on our full year basis, our unit sales is about a $135 million and the AGM is like 5% of that.

And the profitability roughly, two times, three times?

Well, we've said it's like two to three time for the margin.

Margins are like 50% higher roughly, I mean, very generally speaking.

That's not right, so net impact of 50%.

Then a second question. Alex, you seem to be going through a portfolio review here, which seems very rational given your new position. As you look at the interior business, which is coming on your radar screen, is that a business that you necessarily need to have alongside the seating business in your view? Or really could that be something that would be really separated from the run seating on a standalone basis? And then also just a question on the interiors business as well, I mean there is some antitrust stuff for some investigations going on in Europe around some price-fixing or something that is not actually completely clear get. So I was just curious if you have seen any of that as well in the interiors business?

We're not impacted by any of that investigation in our interiors business. I think that what we found when we split the seating business from the interiors business for that very reason is we learn how much they are interconnected. I think that they are only interconnected by convenience not interconnected commercial convenience, not by any other reasons. Whether we divesture that business or do something else with it, I don't think it's going to be harmed or harmful to our seating business.

I would just maybe add to that, John. If you sort of go back in time and you look at the portfolio that we have in automotive today, interiors, electronics and seating, it was really put together with a view that what we're going to see was our customers source complete interiors. And as we've talked about on previous calls, that the sourcing pattern is now much more at the component level, and not at all customers, but the total interior sourcing just has not materialized by enlarge and so they need to have those three product lines, it doesn't exist anymore.

And Bruce's point is very valid. If you think about from a customer standpoint that might have made sense for a total interiors, but the amount of complexity for a supplier to have all those products is incredibly complex.

And then just lastly, Bruce, I mean you guys are net debt to cap of 26.5%, balance sheet is in great shape. I mean what are your general targets or rules of thumb of where you want the balance sheet to be or go? And maybe, Alex, you have some different views on this or than maybe in the past as well. But just curious if there is any update there or changes or where you think you stand and where you want to be as far as capitalization?

Well, I'll comment first and then we'll see if Alex agrees. For us the thing that's important for us to maintain, investment-grade balance sheet. And so I would say we will feel uncomfortable going below BBB plus, just because in the event of a shock to the system like we saw in all '08 and '09, we want to be comfortable in that investment-grade rating, so that we can weather the storm here. But having said that we're probably seven to 10 points below where I would say it's ideal from a optimal capital structure. And that's where we are right now.

So I think we'll talk more about that in December, but we've talked about the fact that we are looking not only our capital structure, but looking across capital allocation in a very broad way. So we'll have much more to talk about in December.

And next question is from Patrick Archambault with Goldman Sachs.

I guess my main ones are on Building Efficiency. I guess the first one would be the backlog, which was down 5%. How much of that was due to some of the disruption from the government shutdown? I take it that added probably quite a bit of uncertainty. And maybe kind of tying to that question, sort of what's the prospect for that just given, what you're seeing in the order book for that to swing positively? And I have a follow-up as well.

It would be nice to blame all this on what happened in event. I think that uncertainty does not help these types of investments. And there has been uncertainty around the federal government spending, the state government funding for a long, long time. These are just events that that really are typical of the kind of things that don't help. So I wouldn't say that one event, but I think the overall uncertainty about funding of the federal government and state government is hurt. And the other thing that is hurt is in the healthcare business, which is very important part of our business, is the uncertainty about what's going to happen with our healthcare customers. What I would expect though as they sort that out, that's going to create opportunity. But unfortunately it's not sorted out yet. And so the opportunity will come, but we've got to wait for them to deal with their business issues.

And just in general, you had this very significant improvement in Global WorkPlace Solutions. Can you just remind us of what the components of margin expansion is? I mean obviously you've had significant restructuring efforts in that segment, in Building Efficiency, in general, but that seem to be having a very good impact, particularly in GWS. How much of the driver is from additional benefit from that? How much is mix, as some of the high-margin stuff rolls back on, just giving us a little bit of a roadmap?

I'll take this and Bruce can probably even give more color. We really don't have restructuring benefits, when you think about GWS at this point. But what you'll see going forward is we will see some of that as we change our operating model. And so at this point it's really been efficiencies going forward. There will be some restructuring benefit, but that restructuring benefit has to do with how we're going to change the way that we service the accounts and manage the accounts. So we put a lot more tools and rigor and operational effectiveness inside that process. In December, we'll probably outline exactly what that initiative looks like, but we've got a strong roadmap and they are executing against that. So we expect to see that improvement continue. We're hopeful that we're going to continue to talk about that in a positive way over the next few quarters.

And maybe just some comments on how do you see the mix changing, as we go forward? And is that something that's also accretive to margins?

Probably the best way to think about this one is, if you think about GWS in the past, it's been a very commercially focused organization and our structure reflects that. So we would have our business, it was tend to be broken up by vertical market, so someone wanted to [ph] charge up the financials or pharmaceuticals or whatever. And which was good, because it gave us a very strong focus on the customer. The downside to that structure was if you went, then you took a place like a lot -- let's just take London, as an example. We did not leverage our resources within let say the city of London. So we may have had staff that was sub-optimized from a utilization perspective. But if we manage them across our businesses within the same geography, we could better exploit our resources. So what we're really doing here is we want to maintain the strong commercial focus that we have in that business, but operationalize it together. The cost savings of our delivery model, scale and our purchasing by vertically integrate like self perform more. And then get some more scale and economies of scale on the utilization of our overheads, SG&A.

And a last point I'll bring on that is, when you go to an operational review for GWS today, you'll hear them talk about six sigma, lean, the types of conversation that we used to have in our execution oriented businesses. And so that's why we feel fairly confident that a lot of this is in our control.

Next question is from Rich Kwas with Wells Fargo Securities.

A question on automotive in Europe. So, Bruce, if I have my numbers right, profit for the entire segment was $13 million in the quarter, because I think it was an $81 million swing and you were at a loss of $68 million last year. Just curious, when you look at seating, what was the relative difference in profitability in Europe across the business segments when you look at electronics, interiors and seating? Just trying to understand structurally how much improvement seating saw?

We can follow that, because I don't know the specific numbers. But what I do know is our profitability was up in seating, and interiors is down and electronics, which reflects the investments that I talked about in infotainment. And the fact that our electronics business in Europe is one business that we have significant exposure to French OEs.

And while we're on the topic, you didn't ask, but I would like to make sure that the metals folks know that we really appreciate what they've done. We've turned that business now to where it's crossed over the breakeven line, at least for the quarter. So we're pretty pleased to see that that part of our business is starting to perform. So that turnaround has really made a lot of progress.

So, Alex, that's something that should provide some tailwind to seating, as we move forward in 2014, correct?

That's correct.

And then on battery, I know in the past you've talked about 8% to 10% growth over the long-term on an annual basis. With the aftermarket being as weak as it has been lately and I know you expect that to get better over time. But should we think of this as not being quite that level of growth, if aftermarket doesn't return back to mid-to-high single-digit growth? How should we think about that?

I think the law of large numbers will hurt us at some point, because we have a strong position in North America and Europe, but we're making the investments in China. We are also seeing the topline growth because of the AGM mix. So I think that it's going to move around a little bit. But I don't really change my view of the overall prospects long-term for battery. Easy for me to say, I'm not there right now.

And then the last one, first quarter guidance, does it assume any air pocket from the federal government shutdown in terms of Building Efficiency?

I think in the short-term, whether the federal government is open or closed, it's not going to impact us materially.

Our next question is from Colin Langan with UBS.

Any color, I'm just trying to understand the logic of the interiors announcement today. I know earlier you had talked about, you are looking at all your portfolio. I mean should we view that, are you still looking at the other divisions and now you feel like you've done the assessment on interiors or have you kind of concluded the other divisions and this is the only one that you're looking for strategic options for?

Well, I'm not sure you'd really expect me to answer that one completely. I think that the reason why we announced interiors now is because we have to make sure that we're able to execute on some of the opportunities. So it made sense for us to talk about it now. You see we have the impairment, as it relates to the rest of the portfolio, I would say just call it an ongoing process, not something that it's going to be an event. Obviously, we're having and it seems like an event now, but I would say it'd be more of an ongoing process for us.

I would just maybe add a little bit of color is, think about of the interiors business, I mean they've done nice job turning it around. But they are sort of sitting in a position same as we were last year with electronics. And that they've come to us and said look here is some further restructuring that we want to do, here is some increased amount of capital investment that we'd like to make, and it's not a priority for us. So given that we're constraining the capital for this business, and also given the fact there is a lot of rumors out there. We felt it is important to our people to be forthright with them about what it is that we're planning on doing. And we have talked to various people about and parties about the business, and so we rather handle the communication like this than be reactive to a leak in the future. It spuds really around the respect for our employees.

Going back to your Power Solutions that you talked about earlier, what kind of quarter-to-quarter volatility should we normally expect when we go down to Q2, Q3? Does this seem like, given the Q4 exit rate, we're almost near I think your mid-decade kind of outlook for margins with normal sort of typical seasonality?

Part of this I'm not going to be able to answer because of the accounting change. So I need to look at what impact that's going to be, because what happens is we basically run our factories, not completely at full load, but as best we can. And so it's become seasonal, because we have seasonal sales because of the nature of the business. And then we have building inventory and depleting inventory. The LIFO and FIFO change is going to impact that somehow. So I really don't know if I can answer it completely or probably less volatile, but certainly be more predictable. But one of the reasons why you saw the change between Q2 and Q3 is one of those quarters were building inventory, one of them were depleting inventory. And so for LIFO that becomes a P&L hit and for our FIFO it does not.

And just thinking about going forward, you've kind of indicated as AGM mix grows you'll see margin improvement. So that story and looking at Q4 in and of itself, if AGM is up, we should still continue to see margin expansion over the next few years, there is no reason to think that would normalize?

The one thing that I would just tell you is that we'll continue our investment in China. And as we invest in China, that's a lumpy investment and it's bringing on new clients. You don't have the absorption that you like. And so I think that that's going to be headwind for a while as it relates to our overall margins, but that's where our growth and investments will come for the future. So I think that you'll probably start hearing us as we talk about margins, there will be some impact by what pace that when we are opening plans in China that's my guess.

And just one last question. On Auto Experience or particularly around the seating side, are the major restructuring actions done or we are still going to see some sequential benefits from restructuring those things?

We'll see some sequential benefits in 2014.

Our next question is from Matt Stover with Guggenheim

Just a detailed question. Could you reiterate the order detail that you provided in the walk-through, Bruce? I didn't get quite all of it.

The order detail?

Yes.

So in Asia and North America and Europe, we're up about 5%. In Latin America, we're down 15%. Middle-East we're down 19%.

And then the second question is as I look at the sequential progression in the auto business, I know there is a lot of noise that occurs there. But was there something in particular that would affect our impression of the sequential margin, because it appeared as though you had for the revenue delta quarter-to-quarter a pretty significant decremental?

Significant decremental?

Yes, last quarter Q3 to Q4?

I can't think of anything in the fourth quarter or third quarter like some that was benefited Q3 or something that hit Q4, I can't think of anything off the top knot. But maybe we can follow-up on that, if you could share your model, maybe we can help you out.

Our next question comes from David Leiker with Baird.

A handful of detailed questions here first. Bruce, with the write-down in the asset value of the interiors business where did you write the book value down on that, what are you at?

I'd rather not say.

And then as you go through this, I mean obviously, Alex, you have got a couple of different options you can go and some of the product lines you are already starting to wind it down. If you went down the path of winding down the whole business, is that positive or negative to the profitability over time?

Well, that's a hard one to answer. I mean in the short-term, what would end up happening, David, is let's say that was with our plan. Then we could dial-back a lot of SG&A in the short-term, run out our contracts, but then we'd have a series of plant closures as program startup to rolled off. Our strategy, just by the way, I mean we're not planned on winding down the interiors business. I think we've got some ideas .We aren't saying we're exploring our strategic options and we haven't got a clue what we're going to do. We have a few ideas, some sticks in the fire, but we're not planning on shutting it down.

I mean, we would rather not even be talking about this, but as Bruce said, we need to be transparent to our employees. But I think it's very similar to electronics. Obviously, the financials aren't the same, but we run a good business. There is structurally some issues with this market and I think we're not the only ones who are suffering from it, but there is no reason for us to wind this business down, particularly as we explore options, we have multiple options.

David, maybe one other point, I mean we did mentioned in the press release, look, here is what the interior sales and earnings are. Keep in mind and you know this, but we allocate our corporate cost to our segment. So when I'm looking to do something with interiors, if I back away the corporate costs that wouldn't go with that business, it has positive earnings. So it's the external segment number maybe does a little bit of this justice in terms of what a buyer would get.

And then on the Building Efficiency side, you have the backlog there of $4.8 billion, there are some adjustments there for down 5%. If we did it apple-to-apples, what would that look like?

I think it's down to 7%.

It says divestitures and FX, yes.

I think FX wasn't -- and divestures rates where the point.

So you would have been down to 7%?

Yes.

And your orders are up and I think in the last couple of quarters you talked about, each of those stages leading to the backlog. It sounds like you are not getting things out of the pipeline into the backlog, is that what we are seeing here?

I think that everybody keeps talking about this recovery that's hasn't happened yet. And if you look at the indices, what you'll see is there is some recovery happening at the architectural level. Unfortunately, it's not happening in a lot of the markets where we have our strength, where we are the strongest in the institutional markets and that seems to be a big lager at this time, which is unusual. So as that sorts out, we'll pickup pace, but unfortunately it looks like it's a few months away at least, and so that's why we're going after a lot of these costs initiative, because we're acknowledging the position we have with our backlog.

And then the last item here is on the battery side and I'm going to pile on the margin question. I mean if you look at that business you have the assets in place for AGM and you've got the initial assets in place in China. And I don't think you are going to open another China plant for a year and a half. You've got the mix of AGM. You've got the pricing, the vertical integration. It just seems like you've got a pretty high ceiling on margins for that business from where you are today.

And then the last item here is on the battery side and I'm going to pile on the margin question. I mean if you look at that business you have the assets in place for AGM and you've got the initial assets in place in China. And I don't think you are going to open another China plant for a year and a half. You've got the mix of AGM. You've got the pricing, the vertical integration. It just seems like you've got a pretty high ceiling on margins for that business from where you are today.

Well, I think if you're asking do we think we are willing to expand our margin for Power Solutions, we would agree with you, we do. We've talked about the fact that we expect to see couple of hundred basis points more of margin expansion over the next two to three years. I think we're on track to deliver that. So we don't disagree, we are not saying we're peaked here. You're absolutely right, as AGM becomes a bigger piece of a pie that's beneficial. And as our China business, which right now losses money because of the investments that we're making as that swings into a profit, that even though it degrades day-to-day our overall margins, but the swinging from the lost to profit it helps the total.

And the timing for China during that is what?

And the timing for China during that is what?

We're looking to get close to breakeven kind of run rate by the end of next year. I think the breakeven run rate by the end of next year.

And the next question from Rod Lache from Deutsche Bank

Just to clarify one thing on the Power Solutions, certain things must have gone better than you expected late last year when you projected 200 basis points of margin expansion from 2012 to 2017. Would you agree with that and what would those items have been?

Well, I think we were saying we expect a couple of, I think 200 basis points or 250 basis points, we were saying over a three year period there, Rod. But I think we've got a bit more lift this year with the pricing that would probably be why we did better. And that somewhat we lost some of that with the fact that the after-market volumes were softer than we thought coming to this year. So those will be the two little positive and negative, but net to a positive.

And then switching to seating, you've talked a little bit about that. And obviously there has been some improvement in the metals business, which was a drag last year. Could you just tell us just from a high level, what actually has happened and what actually do you have to do going forward? I think you originally were targeting a 5% margin in metals by 2014. It sounds like you've already made some progress but there are some specific actions you still need to take?

You're right. I mean if you looked at our last analyst deck, we talked about metals being at like a 5% run rate by the end of '14. We're little bit behind that. But basically if you sort of unpack what's going on and what's driving the operational improvement here, the first and formal it's been the fact that we fixed all of our launch problems. And so for the last up until probably the early part of fiscal '13, we were lurching from problematic launch to problematic launch. And incurring cost to sort of fix it and then another launch would come up and that would be a challenge and we'd fixed that. So we've kind of been out of that mode now for two or three quarters. So I'm not saying all of our launches are perfect, but we're not having these launches that are really problematic for us. So I'd say we're back to normal mode. And if you look at our forward pipeline of the metrics that we have on programs that we're launching in the next 12, 24, 36 months, we're back to normal. So that's a great result. That's what has really driven us from the heavy losses to get to breakeven. What's in front of us? There is probably two big things. One is we still have a lot of our supply based in high-cost country and so we have work stream that moves a lot of our tools, this is largely a Europe story, Western Europe to Eastern Europe. And then probably a bigger part of the story is then the product and process standardization. And that we're really in the early innings on. And by that what I mean is if you think about JCI, KEIPER and Hammerstein, I'll just take recliners. We all had a recliner and we are standardizing on the KEIPER recliner family, and so we're going through a process of getting that recliner fitted out on our backlogs, that we can stop the product proliferation, rationalize our engineering around the 1-2b product family and then converting our manufacturing operations, so they can all manufacture the same thing. It's a lot of words, but it's can take bit of time, but it drives the big value.

The other thing that we'll see benefit from is the investments in Chin and we'll start to see that benefit. But this is a long-term fixed, I mean with the cycles of this business, we have to get these things approved and if it's mid-cycle, that's even tougher, so we'll see improvement, but it is going to take a lot of to get to our standard products.

And just to clarify, at one point, Alex, you had said or the company had said there was a bit of an offsetting trend in that division as some customers were kind of changing the way they were purchasing, moving more towards components away from systems. Is it safe to assume that that's basically kind of played out at this point and that now there is a mostly operational positive that you can affect as opposed to kind of market negatives that you have to deal with?

Well, I guess, the comment before was that we think our strategy was right. And we think our execution has been suspect and tough, but we had the right strategy. And I think that was the context of the comment. I do think our customers have picked their way and it's different in different parts of the world, but for the most part component sourcing is where our customers are going. So I guess, I would agree overall with what was your comment.

We're out of time, Alex, couple of closing remarks.

The only thing I'd like to do is first is I did say it earlier, but most importantly I want to make sure we thank our employees. Our employees have been under a lot of stress over the last couple of years as we've tried to deal with the market conditions. And we're starting to see the results and I'm very proud of what they've accomplished. And so I want to make sure I mention that. And then last we have a lot to talk about. It will be more detailed, more talks, more strategically in December. So hopefully we'll see you folks in December 18, in New York, because I think it will be a good meeting.