Good morning, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the EnPro Industries’ Fourth Quarter 2014 Results 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 will now turn the call over to Mr. Dan Grgurich, Director, Investor Relations and Corporate Communications. Please go ahead, sir.

Thank you, Sally. Good morning, and welcome to EnPro Industries quarterly earnings conference call. I’ll remind you that our call is being webcast at enproindustries.com, where you can find the slides accompanying the call. Steve Macadam, our President and CEO; and Alex Pease, Senior Vice President and CFO will begin their review of our fourth quarter performance and our outlook in a moment. But before we begin, I will point out that you may hear statements during the course of this call that express belief, expectation or intention as well as those that are not historical fact. These statements are forward-looking and involve a number of risks and uncertainties that may cause actual events and results to differ materially from such forward-looking statements. These risks and uncertainties are referenced in the Safe Harbor statement included in our press release and are described in more detail along with other risks and uncertainties in our filings with the SEC, including the Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2013, and the Form 10-Q for the quarter ending June 30, 2014. We do not undertake to update any forward-looking statements made on this conference call to reflect any change in management’s expectations or any change in assumptions or circumstances on which such statements are based. You should also note that EnPro owns a number of direct and indirect subsidiaries. From time to time, we may refer collectively to EnPro and one or more of its subsidiaries as we, or to the businesses, assets, debts or affairs of EnPro or a subsidiary as ours. These and similar references are for convenience only and should not be construed to change the fact that EnPro and each subsidiary is an independent entity, with separate management, operations, obligations, and affairs. I want to remind you that…

Thank you, Dan. Before we discuss the quarter's results, I want to touch briefly on the transition in CFO responsibilities that we announced yesterday. Alex has been a very valuable member of the EnPro executive staff for the past four years. His efforts have supported improvements in our strategic direction, our capital structure, our organizational efficiency, and we truly appreciate all he has done. Alex will continue as our CFO through the end of March, and he will be with the company through the end of May to ensure a smooth transition. And though he is leaving EnPro for an exciting opportunity that’s not yet public, we will continue to count Alex as a friend and wish him well in this next phase of his career. At the same time, we are pleased to announce that Milt has agreed to step into the CFO's role. His long association EnPro first as an advisor and then as a senior member of our executive team for the past 10 years gives him invaluable knowledge of our company, our strategies, and our markets. The Board of Directors and I are confident that he is the best choice to be our next CFO. Many of you already know Milt, and I'm sure he is looking forward to meeting more of you in the coming months as time and circumstances allow. Now let's talk about the fourth quarter. I'm pleased to report significant growth in sales and adjusted earnings compared to the fourth quarter of 2013. Net sales increased by 15% over the fourth quarter of 2013, despite a 2.5% drag caused by impacts of foreign exchange translation. Power Systems following a strong third quarter had a good fourth quarter due to revenues from several completed contract engine shipments and strong aftermarket's parts and service.…

Thanks, Steve. Before I comment on the quarter I want to thank Steve for his kind words. It’s been a privilege to be a part of the EnPro family for the past four years. And I look forward to staying in contact with my many friends here. My new situation is not yet public, but I’m excited with this next step in the trajectory of my career. Until my departure I’ll continue to get my full attention to my responsibilities CFO and to helping Milt in the transition to the CFO seat. As Steve mentioned, on a GAAP basis our fourth quarter sales of $316.4 million were up about $41 million or 15% from the same period of 2013, led by a significant increase in Power Systems of $31 million due to high engine revenues as longer sales of parts, service, and engine upgrades solutions. Also in sealing products, sales were up about $12 million mostly due to heavy-duty truck parts volume. By geography, we saw moderate organic growth of about 3% in Europe, driven by improvements in demand for our high-performance seals, bearings and compressor products partially offset by softer demand in Germany and the UK for our industrial seals. Excluding FME, organic growth in North America was 7% with good improvement in the heavy-duty truck nuclear and aerospace market. Our refinery and petrochemical markets in North America have been slower than expected as uncertainty related to recent has led to more cautious spending in these markets. Gross profits for the quarter were $20.1 million or 23% higher than in the fourth quarter of 2013 and gross profit margins increased to 33.5% from 31.1%. Favorable volume and a stronger mix of higher margin parts and service revenues of Power Systems were the key contributors to the margin improvement. SG&A…

Thanks, Alex. That wraps up our review of the fourth quarter of 2014. So let's look at the outlook for our markets. I will start with the challenges and end with the opportunities. The first challenge we see is the effect of recent reduction in foreign currency exchange rates; the Euro is the most meaningful to us, as we traditionally have over a fourth of our business in Europe. The translation impact of current exchange rates versus average rates in 2014 would adversely affect sales and segment earnings by approximately $50 million and $5 million respectively. In addition, questions remained about the economic outlook for Europe, given the short cycle nature of our business. We don’t have clarity on Europe for the full year. If industrial production slows in Europe, demand for our products there will also likely decline. However, the weaker Euro could provide a boost to the European economy, and European exports continuing our parts. The foreign exchange situation and conditions in Europe primarily affect our sealing products and engineered product segments. Second is the current price of oil, while much of our oil and gas business is related to the regular maintenance cycles of our customers and less sensitive to the fluctuation in oil prices, a cut back seen in drilling rates and new pipeline projects impact the consolidated Garlock operations and CPI, and to a lesser extent, Technetics Group. At CPI, the situation is leading us to take additional actions to right-size the business. So that it will be profitable at the lower level of demand, while maintaining our service levels to our customers. Offsetting these concerns, OEM order activity remains firm in our semiconductor, aerospace, and trucking markets. And we have a healthy backlog in order rate and power systems. We are cautiously optimistic that the automotive and general industrial OEM markets will remain strong as consumers benefit from lower gasoline prices and improving U.S. economy. Likewise, the demand for aftermarket parts looks strong in heavy-duty trucking, and in both marine and commercial engine markets. As you know, power system engine sales have been fairly lumpy from year-to-year. However, assuming there are no demand interruptions like we had with sequestration in 2013, which carried over into early 2014, we expect our power system segment to have another good year in 2015. With potential upside if we're able to capitalize on our re-entry into commercial power markets through our new partnership with MAN that we announced last year. Overall, we feel good about 2015, with a strong balance sheet, greater clarity on capital allocation, continued progress in resolving our legacy asbestos issue, and with both near-term and long-term benefits from our strategic growth initiatives, we are confident in driving growth in the value of EnPro. We will now open the line for your questions.

[Operator Instructions] Your first question comes from the line of Jeff Hammond with KeyBanc Capital Markets. Your line is open.

Hey, good morning, guys.

Hey, Jeff.

Hey, Jeff.

So, if we can just -- I think you have a number of one-time items and disruptions in 2014, I guess most notably the Stemco Distribution Center, can you maybe just walk through what those were collectively, and how much of that you'd expect to go away and not be replaced with other kind of investments?

Yes, you want to look at the full year, Jeff?

Yes.

Yes. So the full year, the Stemco Distribution Center was somewhere between $2 million and $5 million.

Okay. And then were there some other investment spending…

So let me go through on real quick here. I'm sorry; I gave you the wrong number. And the Stemco Distribution Center net was about $1 million. That was for the quarter. I'm going through the full year. Yes, okay, all right. So the Stemco -- sorry, I was looking at the wrong spreadsheet, Jeff; I apologize. So for the full -- I'm giving you full year numbers; so for the Stemco Distribution Center it was $4.8 million. We had inventory adjustments year-over-year, I'm going to compare year-over-year; we had $0.2 million more in '14 than we had in '13. We had a bad debt accrual incremental $1.2 million. We had severance expense of $1.8 million incremental. And we had a year-over-year change in R&D of $8.7 million; much of that will continue as we continue with the OP development program. Then in 2013 for the full year, if you recall, we had a combination of $2.4 million for the earn-out credit in sealing products that we reversed. That was an earn-out for an acquisition we did earlier. And we had $2.4 million benefit from R&D subsidy that also hit in 2013. So neither of those -- so total of $4.4 million, neither those repeated in 2014. And then we had a $1.2 million R&D tax adjustment in engineered products in 2014, and we had some early retirement cost for a program back in 2013 that we did also at Power Systems. Okay? So if you -- and then the restructuring delta was actually lower. So we had lower restructuring costs in 2014 than we did in 2013 to the tune of about $2.4 million. So if you add up that entire amount, you get pretty close to $17 million to $18 million, actually, exactly $17.9 million, up incremental, one-time differences in '14 compared to '13. Now, I would caution you though that some of those will continue, and we will have others like we are working on restructuring more in CPI, that will happen in Q1 and we will continue with the R&D costs with the OP 2.0 and in other businesses we've had. Most of the increase has been with Fairbanks, but not all, as we continue to focus on trying to develop new products and grow our markets. The Stemco Distribution Center is behind us, and the consolidation of the facilities in the U.K. for Garlock is also substantially complete. So that was part of the restructuring in '14. Is that what you wanted?

Yes, yes, that's perfect. So it seems like of this $18 million, maybe $8 million or $9 million of the R&D continues and maybe some other stuff, but at least $5 million to $10 million go away?

Yes, it's probably accurate. That's probably good guess.

Okay. Okay, and then just on Power Systems, it sounds like you expect another good year. I'm just trying to fine-tune that a little bit, just given the strength in the fourth quarter. So maybe just walk through what you are seeing for schedule for ship avails '15 versus '14, what the order rates tell you, and then any kind of contribution you expect to get from this EDF contract, which I think is on a percentage of completion basis?

It is right now on percent completion, but there is not going to be a ton of activity in 2015 in terms of shipments. We are still building on the qualification engine. And then we have to actually run and test the qualification engine for EDF for quite some time, and mostly actual shipments of that will come later of the production engines. But look, we will have three completed contract engines that will probably shift in Q2 this year, however, two of those are the Shaw MOX engines for the nuclear reprocessing facility in Savannah River. And you will recall back in 2013, I think it was in the third quarter, but I can't remember; I believe it was '13 that we took a hit on those because we realized that we priced them too low and they are actually going to be negative margin. And so we booked that reserve back in 2013. So the two Shaw MOX engines -- excuse me, are basically breakeven margin. Now here’s the best way to look at it if you ask me, if you take the last three years of FME and you averaged all three years that might be a pretty decent guess, because '13 was so polluted with -- yes, '13 was so polluted with sequestration and it affected '12. We've been talking about this for a long time, but since the sequestration was all -- in the press and obviously the military knew about it in late 2012, they ordered parts ahead of time, right. And then in '13 it just shut off, and then in early '14 it kind of carried over and we started getting -- we got orders -- orders in the first half of the year were great, but we didn’t get much sales until it was second half of the year. So you got to kind of levelize all three years with respect to FME. But we expect to be in that neighborhood.

Okay, perfect. Thanks, guys.

Yes.

Your next question comes from the line of Todd Vencil with Sterne, Agee. Your line is open.

Hi, thanks a lot. Good morning.

Good morning, Todd.

Alex, congratulations on whatever you are working up; we will miss you, but welcome to Milt, if he is listening in.

Yes, he's here.

Steve, thanks for the clarity, by the way, on the capital allocation. I think it's well thought out and well laid out in the slide deck and I know a lot of people have been asking you for that, so good job on putting that in there and on the clarity. Can you talk about capacity utilization across your businesses, where you feel like it is, where you feel like it's going to go, and then what we can think about in terms of incrementals from volume coming back in the various places?

Yes, I think we have plenty of capacity in every segment, in every business, within every segment, Todd. I think there are pockets of de-bottlenecking that we need to do at the product level. I'm thinking of actually within the recent Fabrico acquisition and Technetics; that gives us a -- Fabrico acquisition just gives us a ton of capability, and we’re pretty excited about it. That business was owned by a private equity shop before and really didn’t make some of the investments in de-bottlenecking certain product line capacities that we think we’re going to be able to do really, really well with, but that’s not going to -- that’s not a huge amount of money in terms of capital. So cash, I mean if we could make a lot of product in Power Systems, we can make a lot of more products in just about every sector in sealing, and really the same thing in engineered products. So I mean I'd still put the capacity utilization, I mean we could continue to grow without doing de-bottlenecking for the next several years. So I don't know what I would even estimate the number at, but it's got to be lower than 70%, if you'd average it across all product lines, and a lot of -- I mean we do -- there's a job shop type arrangement for our facilities, and many of them run one or one and a half shift so even two shifts, because it's engineered products. So we're not a high volume sell it at any price kind of company. So our constraint is very, very rarely on the capacity and production side. It's on, quite frankly, winning new business, new contracts with customers, it’s the development, it's the applications engineering, responsiveness, it's identifying the right opportunities where we can add value with our customers, and that's what we work on. That's why you will see over the past couple of years and why Alex mentioned last year, our investment in customer-facing resources, I mean we call it "Sales," but the truth is it's a combination of sales, applications engineering, product engineering, those kinds of things. I mean it's our ability to work with end users whether their OEMs or any aftermarket to engineer our solutions for their particular application. That's what we do. So that's what to constraint and bottleneck is for us, not really on the production side. And that's also why our leverage -- our operating leverage through selling more product is always been and it continues to be so attractive. When we sell incremental product, we typically bring a lot to the bottom line, and it varies whether it's gaskets within Garlock or obviously custom designed high-performance metal fields from the Technetics Group or whether it's GGB bearings or whether it's Stemco product, but I would say on average for the company it's probably, what would you say, Alex, 50%?

Incremental, 50%.

Yes. That will be my guess, Todd.

Got it.

Steve has pointed obviously, I mean it depends highly on what products you are talking about, somewhere a lot higher, frankly which is why the mix effect is so big, but yes.

So we are making good progress, Todd. I mean it's never as quick and -- it's never as easy as this treat seems to believe it is and it's never as quick for sure, but we're making good progress. I mean we track very rigorously the product pipelines, not something we could do three or four years ago, we track new customer gains, not something we could do three or four years ago. We know now better and much better where to add incremental -- what I call "Commercial units," which is really a combination of sales and applications engineering. We know much better where to add that. That's going to yield incremental return. We've been adding resources internationally. And so we are making progress. And I realized that everyone on the call, I realized that our earnings had been fairly choppy for the last really two years partly because we are trying to get this company positioned to grow. We've encountered and undergone a lot of restructuring and severance costs and facility consolidation. We will have more in CPI, but that's about it. And we've been investing in ERP systems, because these assets as I think everyone knows for years and years and years before the last five years just didn’t invest in that kind of thing, those kind of legacy businesses, they were pretty much unorganized, didn’t share data, didn’t have good systems, didn’t -- weren’t able to track what they were doing. We've been investing in those, and we've only got one business left to get done, we got some -- we still finished -- we will be finishing up with Technetics and the tail end of GGB this year, and we still have Stemco in front of us but that's it and we've made significant investments there. So we are really excited, starting to utilize those, and unfortunately we also had some accounting clean up to do, which we talked about a lot in the second quarter, which is just due to the fact that we haven't had that kind of system support that we needed overall in the year. So, Todd, I'm very encouraged about EnPro and the position we have to be able to grow in our markets.

Good, good, and yes, I mean, you're right. You guys have done a ton of work over the past few years. Switching gears on you to strategy and M&A, can you remind us -- and obviously, you have bought a couple things. You sold something. As you think about making more acquisitions and other strategic changes, how are you thinking about criteria for those in terms of -- obviously, the business fit is pretty clear, but I'm thinking specifically can you update us on the financial criteria and how you look at them?

Well, look, Milt is here, so he can help me with this. our historic -- if you go back a number of years before the current market dynamics, at least since I've been which will be seven here and a month. I think our average is somewhere between 7 and 7.5 times earning pre-EBITDA multiple, pre -- any synergies, pre -- what we’re going to do with the business kind of all that trailing basis and pre-tax benefit as you know we usually -- we try all the time to buy assets. So we get a tax benefit. And that has been just under a turn advantage. It's been like 0.8 times. If you take that --low, mid 7 times, you can really drop it down to a mid to high from 6.5 to 7 times net of tax benefit. And frankly, if you look at Fabrico and ATDynamics and you average -- weighted average those based on the size of any investment, they’re also in that range. Now, we had to buy equity in both cases, so we didn’t get the tax benefit. But they’re still in that range. We don’t have any intension of paying more for acquisitions even though everyone believes the current market and probably is frothy, and it’s because of the nature of the kind of acquisitions we do and how we go after them and who owns them today, and most of them don’t participate in a don’t sell their businesses through what I would describe as a "Hard auction." Sometimes there’s a -- sometimes its competitive with one or two other parties, but -- and that’s the strategy we’re going to continue with I’d say unless and until we see something larger that's attractive that still either a fit or close fit. Milt, you want to add anything to that.

One thing I would add is that clearly we got through these cycles in M&A market. Multiples are pretty high right now. It somewhat mirrors where the stock market is, and as well as the activity among private equity buyers with low interest rates. So we have seen some upward move in the market on multiples. We’ll respond to something that’s very strategic. We’re still going to be looking very hard at those opportunities. That’s all I think that I would add. I think there’s a good argument too that for us as a corporate buyer, low interest rates, our cost -- effective cost capital is lower too than ones plus. So when we look at the returns, we’re low to moderate a little bit given the environment that we’re in. So that’s the only other think that I would add.

Let me just say one more thing just to make sure everybody understand this. Our acquisition program is strategically-driven. In other words, we don’t approach it as or we’re going to look at acquisitions and those that are attractive and figure out how to fit those into our portfolio. We start with the business strategy at the business level and understand where and how we want to grow; what geographic areas do we want to penetrate deeper, what end use markets do we want to penetrate deeper, what products do we want to add to our portfolio, and what advantages do those give the base business. And then we go from there and try to find opportunities that make sense. So it’s really completely driven from the strategy perspective. So I just wanted to make sure everybody understand that. We want to be aggressive on that front. But it’s not like we feel like we got a big pot of money that we have to go spend on acquisitions. We want to grow the company in a way that makes the most sense for our shareholders and that’s what we’re focused on.

That’s perfect. Thank you, guys.

Okay.

[Operator instructions] Your next question comes from the line of Joe Mondillo with Sidoti & Company. Your line is open.

Hi, everyone, good morning.

Morning, Joe.

Hi, Joe.

So I have a couple of follow-up questions from some of the earlier questions. One, related to these one-time items, Steve, it sounds like we're getting a lot closer to a structural foundation where maybe we are not going to see as many of these sort of items that you list. How close are we there? Then if you don't see any volume growth -- once you get to the sort of ideal structural position where we are not seeing these, if you don't see any volume growth, what kind of an operating margin type of a company is this from where we are now?

Actually, Joe I’d rather address that in the investor day we have coming up where we can look at that specific segment-by-segment and get in to it more detail.

Okay.

If you don’t mind, but I do -- look, we have a company that’s got 60 plus locations around the world. We compete in multiple geographies. We compete with six operating companies underneath three segments. Well, I hope we don’t have quite as many one-time issues and events. Things come up that we have to deal with, and that’s why we try to really focus everybody on adjusted earnings and then explain what these things are. But I’d like to say that we’re not going to have issues pop up. I think I’m confident that we’re much more stable than we were because when we go in and fix something we do it, we fix the root cause and we put systems in place, so it doesn’t pop up again. But it’s unrealistic of me to expect that issues won’t happen because markets are dynamically developed. We have to respond. Opportunities come up. We have to address those. So these "One-time" things that we went through, many of them -- management, if you will, initiate them, right? R&D expense, investments in sales, resources, and earn-out reversals, I mean we -- because of the nature what we buy one of the reasons we’re able to keep multiples low for acquisitions is lot of times the owner-operator comes to work for us and we’re able to offer an attractive earn-out to keep their head in the game and make the all valuation makes sense, and that is a pretty attractive -- makes us a pretty attractive acquirer well. We’re not always going to be right on this earn-out. So they’re going to go one way or another for us. And as you know we always have to accrue it to the maximum amounts. So that kind of stuff is going to continue to happen to us over times. So I don’t think we’re ever going to be like a Fortune 10 company that’s able to smooth these kinds of things over their entire business quarter-to-quarter.

Right, was the 18 million -- was that an abnormally high compared to last several years?

Yes, of course, I think Jeff’s math to get it to what we’re looking at was pretty good; at least how I think about it.

Okay, in terms of the capital allocation, I just had a clarification the debt to EBITDA of two times, is that including GST or not including?

Well, it’s kind of tricky for us, right, because that’s kind of a grey area. That’s why I tried to describe it as both the short-term and long-term target. The short-term target of two times is only on EnPro consolidated and reported, excluding the GST inter-company note.

Okay.

So that’s the near-term target. As we approach confirmation and get a better sense of when will we actually be able to reconsolidate GST, then it obviously includes the entire company, net of what we have to ultimately contribute in the trust and have it ultimately get set up. So there’s a bit of grey area that’s going to evolve over time. I actually don’t anticipate it being a step change, right, because of the closer. That’s why even though we have had -- as I think Todd mentioned a lot of people asking about our capital allocation strategy, the fact of the matter is it just hasn’t been clear because of this -- because of the ACRP until we got the Judge’s ruling, until we follow the plan and then we went out and raised money last fall and immediately went into a quiet period of the tender offer for the convert. And then we were in an extended quiet period because we were in deep and intense negotiations with both the asbestos claimant’s committee and the FCR which took months until we finally concluded, and our best course of action was to agree to second amended plan with the SCR, which we followed in January, and then of course we were in the earnings blackout period of time. And so, our Board of Directors just met yesterday and the day before for our regular quarterly board meeting and decided to implement our buyback, but as a public company obviously we are not allowed to initiate the buyback when we got material amount public information, which we essentially had for the last six or seven months, because of these different factors. So we've kind of always known where we are going, to be honest with you. And it's just taken us a while to get clear of these other things so that we could make all that public.

Okay. And then, just in terms of the debt calculation, is there anything weird in terms of the way you calculate that to get to the two times calculation?

No; other than the exclusion of the inter-company note.

Right, okay.

Okay.

Okay. Just one or two other questions; GST, I missed your commentary on the business. I am just trying to understand where we are at with GST. You saw a little bit of topline growth, but the margin declined significantly. I know you've had some ups and downs in terms of a competitor coming offline two years ago and then coming back online again. Where are we with that and how do we look at the margin that we saw in the fourth quarter going forward?

Yes, I think that's another good case where you could take '13 and '14 and average them, and you would be pretty close.

Okay. So we should see some improvement on '15, you would say?

Yes.

And what would be the driver behind that given maybe some of the pressures?

No, my belief is just return to more of a normal mix than we saw in the fourth quarter.

Okay. Are you saying the average between the fourth quarter of '14 and fourth quarter 'f '13…

No, no, no. I was saying the full year.

Okay. And so what were the reason for us to see, because I would expect the top line could be a little pressure, maybe with the oil and gas, or I wouldn’t expect a ton of leverage through growth from the top line, I would think. So what would cause the margin to expand?

We see a little bit better top line for GST. It's not going to be huge, but -- and you are right, they do have FX headwinds, they do have a little of oil and gas headwinds, but there is also a lot of -- there is positive things for GST as well. So I think it's going to be -- well, our hope is it's going to be a little bit stronger, and return to kind of what we would call "Normal margins," which the fourth quarter we are not. That was a…

Right. So to get to low 20s, is that mostly a leverage type thing or is there a product mix potentially…

I don’t think we will get quite to low 20s, I think -- because that's what we saw on '13, and I think we were pretty transparent that was a bit of -- there were a bunch of unusual things. I think we're going to be in the high teens range.

Okay. And then just lastly; I wanted to see what you thought acquisitions would contribute to the top line for '15, referring to the ones that you've already made.

Yes. Well, net of the GRT sales, right, because you got to remember we sold the business out of sealing and we've added two businesses to sealing. Alex, you know what that is? So that the GRT sale to the year, that's about $30 million, $31 million of top line impacts, so you have to net that out, and then the combination of Fabrico and ATD…

Sixty.

$60 million in top line.

Okay. So, net 30. Okay. Okay, great. Thanks.

Okay.

Your next question comes from the line of Gary Farber with C.L. King. Your line is open.

Yes, thanks. Good morning. Just a couple of questions; can you speak to your R&D expenditures, how you expect that to manifest itself on a revenue perspective? Over what time do you think that will become more visible? Then can you also speak to your upcoming analyst day, how, if anything, it will be different than prior years and what our expectations should be for that day?

Well, let me take the second half first, Gary, which -- good morning; we are not going to spend a lot of time on the asbestos case. So previous analyst days that was a fairly significant focus, I don’t really anticipate talking about that because we are going to talk about the business. So that's going to be I think the biggest difference. And your question about R&D, I think -- I don’t know, I'm not an expert. Our budget is going to be pretty much in line with last year and maybe a little bit more.

Yes, we're going to spend the same. So if you break down the R&D spend year-to-date in terms of kind of incrementals '14 over '13, within the sealing products segment you're looking at about 3.5 million, 3.4 million incremental; '14 over '13 I would anticipate that to continue. We are making a lot of investments both in Stemco and Technetics, primarily a lot of the investments in Technetics around the aerospace business and the semiconductor businesses that we are building out. As you know, those are longer cycle plays, so you probably don’t see a revenue impact from that until probably into 2016, maybe beyond. Within engineered, the incremental R&D was just about 2 million, 1.9 million; '13 over '14, a lot of that is focused on GGB as we are looking at basically new, more advanced materials for the plane bearings. Again, those are going into new platforms. So it's longer dated. And then the real bulk of the spend in R&D was in Power Systems. So that was an incremental 3.4 million this year. It's actually going to be north of that next year. And that's for the OP 2.0, which has substantial revenue, but again probably won't see the payout from that until 17, '18 realistically. Does that help?

Yes, that helps. But just one another question; on your R&D spend, shall we expect that the emphasis or wins will be more with new customers or sort of getting more footprint with existing customers?

I think it's both, actually. I think we are doing a lot of development in Technetics with existing customers. And so, that's we call it "R&D," but it's really more application, advanced application development with hand-in-hand with customers. On the other hand -- with current customers; on the other hand, the FME OP 2.0 would be all new customers. So I would say if you look at the whole portfolio, my guess is probably about 50-50.

Okay, thanks. And just one last one; does this -- this big uplift in R&D, does that change your sales approach or go-to-market approach at all?

Not really.

No. Okay, thanks.

Yes.

Thank you. Mr. Grgurich, I will now turn the call back over to you.

Okay. Well, thank you all for joining us this morning. If you have additional questions, you can call me at 704-731-1527. Have a good day.