Good day, everyone. Welcome to the TriMas Second Quarter 2016 Earnings Conference Call. Today's call is being recorded. And at this time, I would now like to turn the conference over to Sherry Lauderback. Please go ahead. Sherry Lauderback - Vice President-Investor Relations & Communications: Thank you, and welcome to the TriMas Corporation's second quarter 2016 earnings call. Participating on the call today are Sam Valenti, TriMas's Chairman of Board; Tom Amato, our new President and CEO; Dave Wathen, our outgoing President and CEO; Bob Zalupski, our Chief Financial Officer; and Paul Swart, our Chief Accounting Officer. Sam, Dave and Tom will discuss our CEO transition, then leave the call, at which time Bob will review TriMas' second quarter 2016 results, as well as provide an update on our 2016 outlook. After our prepared remarks, we'll open the call up for your questions. In order to assist with the review of our results, we have included the press release and PowerPoint presentation on our company website at www.trimascorp.com under the Investors section. In addition, a replay of this call will be available later today by calling 888-203-1112 with a replay code of 4304981. Before we get started, I would like to remind everyone that our comments today, which are intended to supplement your understanding of TriMas, may contain forward-looking statements that are inherently subject to a number of risks and uncertainties. Please refer to our Form 10-K for a list of factors that could cause our results to differ from those anticipated in any forward-looking statements. Also, we undertake no obligation to publicly update or revise any forward-looking statement, except as required by law. We would also direct your attention to our website where considerably more information may be found. I would also like to refer you to the appendix in our press release issued this morning or included as part of the presentation, which is available on our website for the reconciliations between GAAP and non-GAAP financial measures used during this conference call. Today, the discussion on the call regarding our financial results will be on an excluding special items basis. And at this point, I'd like to turn the call over to Sam Valenti, TriMas's Chairman of the Board. Sam?

Thank you, Sherry, and thanks for everyone taking the time to be on the call. I'd like to spend a few minutes to talk about our leadership transition. And as Sherry mentioned, later Bob will take you through the second quarter results in a normal quarterly fashion. First it's important to mention, after seven years of improving TriMas to what it is today, Dave Wathen is stepping down. You got to remember, when Dave started with the company, the stock price was only $1, we were about five-times levered and we desperately needed to improve performance, we needed a change agent. Dave got us back on track, and the company is in much better shape today as a result of his leadership. On behalf of all of us and me especially, I'd like to thank Dave for his dedication and commitment to the success of this company. And at this point I request that Dave takes some time to make some comments live to the people on the call. So Dave, please go ahead. David M. Wathen - former President, Chief Executive Officer & Director: Thanks, Sam, and good morning. I have a few comments and thanks to all of you. You likely saw the release this morning that I am stepping down from my roles at TriMas. It's a time of transition for TriMas. It makes much sense for a new leader to head the next phases of the company and it's a very good time for me to transition towards retirement. We've come a long way since when I joined TriMas at the start of 2009, when the company was quite stressed. We've modified the business portfolio with exits of businesses and strategic add-ons, improved operating performance, globalized the foot print, and given many people in the company some great opportunities to grow their careers. But, there was always more to do and the world changes constantly. Any of you have been supporters of TriMas for a long time and I think you will like the future of TriMas as the company moves forward. I'm a shareholder and intend to continue to enjoy the value creation that TriMas has demonstrated the capability to deliver. I will close with my most sincere thank you for all the support of investors, customers, suppliers and most importantly our employees. While I will miss you, I will also look back feeling like we've had a good run together and its future has many upsides. Sam?

Thanks Dave. I want the people online to know that Dave remains a friend and I am extremely appreciative of everything that he has done. We've got many, many challenges ahead of us and I want to continue to thank him, but I also want to introduce you to the new leader of TriMas, Tom Amato. We conducted an extensive search. We used an executive search firm, we used candidates from many areas, we vetted some unbelievably talented people and we feel very strongly that the most talented of their group is fortunately someone that accepted the position, Tom Amato. So the question is, why Tom? Well, Tom posses all the key qualities that are important to me and to the board. He is a proven leader. He's run a multi-billion dollar industrial business. He is a strategic thinker. He has public company experience. He is growth oriented. Has been active in business development, has an operations background. He believes in high margin businesses. He believes in leadership positions. He believes in add-on acquisitions and he believes in growth. And most importantly, he is a person of integrity and honesty. So, I would like to have Tom share a few words about himself and his initial thoughts about TriMas. Tom?

Thank you, Sam, and good morning to those on the line. I would also like to thank Dave for his dedication and leadership over the years. I want to take a few minutes and provide an overview of my background. But before I do, I want to express how excited I am to join the TriMas team and work with the Board as we navigate our future for long-term success. In many ways, this opportunity fits my definition of a dream job. I will be working with great businesses that operate under core values consistent with my own and where there are many opportunities to work with the TriMas team and shape the future. I do have familiarity with TriMas dating back nearly 20 years ago when I hired into the mergers and acquisition group of MascoTech. I just left a very large, multinational chemical company after earning an MBA from the University of Michigan. At that time, TriMas was a partially owned affiliate of MascoTech and later became a wholly owned subsidiary. Several years later, following a going private transaction with MascoTech, I was assigned to head up business development for TriMas, where I worked on initiating our separation and standalone plan and identifying acquisition targets. It was a fantastic period for me working with the TriMas portfolio of businesses with strong brand recognition, driven by technical and manufacturing competencies. I remember most of all the outstanding financial performance that TriMas portfolio of companies delivered through their market leadership positions. Shortly thereafter, however, I was pulled back up to TriMas' parent company to lead their M&A efforts. So, I spent a number of years working in the relentlessly challenging automotive industry, and in 2008, I became President and CEO of Metaldyne Corporation. This was ultimately sold in 2009 to…

Sam.

Sam.

Thank you. I look forward to everyone on the call getting a chance to talk to Tom and obviously meeting him. At this point, Dave and Tom and I are going to drop off, and you get back to business as normal. I just want to conclude by saying thanks to – thank all the people online for the time. Thank you in some cases for your patience. Thank you for understanding that we are about improvement. I look forward to the next chapter of TriMas. I look at it – from our standpoint there's an urgency to increase growth and margin and return to the shareholders. And with that I turn it back over to Bob.

Thanks, Sam, and good morning all. All of us at TriMas appreciate your time and attention and interest in our company. The remaining portion of this call is to review our second quarter results, provide an update on our end markets and how our businesses are responding, and review our earnings guidance in light of current market conditions. As Sherry noted earlier, all of my comments will be on an excluding special items basis, beginning on slide seven. Our Q2 results were solid, despite tough end market conditions. Net sales compared to a year ago declined primarily in our energy facing businesses, as might be expected, while we experienced sequential growth in packaging and aerospace. Our operating profit margin improved 180 basis points versus second quarter 2015, highlighting the benefits of our financial improvement plan and the importance of ongoing productivity projects in our business, which is even more vital in times of weak economic growth. We achieved second quarter EPS of $0.34, up 13% versus the prior year period. Turning to slide eight. With respect to external factors impacting our businesses, the update for this quarter is mostly focused on currency volatility and economic uncertainty as a result of Brexit. While longer term impacts remain to be determined, near term, a stronger dollar makes product exports more difficult, while translation impacts negatively affect sales of our packaging and energy businesses, both in Europe and the U.K. Oil prices, which exceeded $50 per barrel for a short time, are now hovering in the mid-$40s. And there are few clear demand signals that order activity in our upstream energy facing businesses will resume in a meaningful way anytime soon. On slide nine, I would like to share an update on key initiatives within each of our businesses, beginning with Packaging. We…

And we will take the first question today from Matt Koranda with ROTH Capital Partners.

Thanks guys and I just want to start off by saying all the best wishes to Dave in your next chapter and welcome Tom as well. So, just higher level strategic question to start with, wanted to get Tom's maybe initial take, he has discussed I think in the prepared remarks enhancing the future performance of the company. Just wanted to get your take on sort of, is that dependent on simplifying the portfolio in a meaningful way, or are you alluding to sort of just fundamental improvements, how do we think about sort of your approach? I just assume, just given your background, that that probably means there is going to be some portfolio changes upcoming, but wanted to get your initial take.

Hey Matt, this is Bob. In Sam's comments, he mentioned that he, Tom and Dave were dropping off the line at the conclusion of his remarks, and they're not available for questions at this time. Sherry Lauderback - Vice President-Investor Relations & Communications: There will be lots of opportunity in the future to talk with Tom and hear about his vision.

Okay. Got it. Guys, I missed that part. I thought it was just Dave dropping off. Okay. Then maybe just a couple of housekeeping things or items on the guidance, in Aerospace, with a lower revenue and margin guidance here, just from the last time you guys updated the segment guidance there, I would assume you're already factoring in lower distribution channel sales, just given the ongoing impact of BASN, but maybe if you could just give us some more granularity in terms of what changed since you last updated segment guidance that caused a lowered outlook, and just touch on margin as well, if you could.

Yes, there really were three items impacting it, Matt. Initially, while we expected front half sales of distribution customers to be down versus the prior year. We weren't expecting that to continue into the second half. And based on the order book in that business, we have fairly good visibility now, really almost for the remainder of the year. And it's clear to us that the level of order in 2016 are – in the back half are going to be lower still compared to the prior year. So that was one change. I think the second change was relative to the recovery plan at Monogram. Again our ability to ramp production in a way that would allow us to not only get back to our planned production levels originally anticipated in guidance, but to also recover the shortfall in the front half just – it proved not to be feasible. And as we worked through the details of that recovery plan, it was clear to us that the shortfall we experienced in the front half of the year from an OE perspective relative to expectations will not allow us to maintain the guidance that we had. And then the last piece is machine components. Again I would tell you that because of the longer than expected integration of the business in the front half of the year, improvements we expected both in profitability and, I'll call it, new product qualifications and the impact that that would have on sales in the back half, it kind of slid six months to the right in effect. And so we're going to see little impact of that in 2016 sales in terms of machine components. So at the end of the day, you've got impacts to operating profit from each one of those items. And if I had to bucket it roughly, probably 60% of that is attributed to the recovery plan at Monogram and the issues at Martinic, and 40% is really ascribed to the lower distribution sales revenue and the impact on product mix.

Okay. Thanks for the color on that, that's really helpful. And then just one more. In terms of the Packaging segment, noticed that growth in industrial and closures was higher relative to health, beauty and consumer products. The margin substantially better. My understanding was that those industrial margins were somewhat lower than the specialty dispensing product. I mean, can you just help us square those items on the quarter and in terms of how it fits into the outlook here?

Yeah. Actually, margins on industrial closure products are typically at or maybe even a little bit higher than the segment operating margins. And HBHC – home, beauty, healthcare – is typically at or maybe slightly less than that segment margin range. And I think in – compared to the prior year, it was a difficult comp. We had a number of customer product launches in HBHC in 2015 that did not recur yet in 2016. And so in that sense, that's sort of the push/pull in terms of the sales topline. We did see significant sequential improvement in sales in Packaging, and expect that trend to continue in the back half. And then I think the variable there really being new customer product launches that are timed for the second half of the year, do they occur as planned? And more to come on it as we move forward.

All right. Got it. Thanks for the color, and I'll jump back in queue here, guys.

We'll take the next question from Andy Casey with Wells Fargo.

Good morning, everybody, and wanted to add my good luck to Dave and everybody. Anyways, first question, Packaging revenue growth guidance, it came down a little bit, but still seems to imply a relatively sharp acceleration in the second half, around 6% to 10% versus the prior year. How visible is that? Meaning do you have the contracts in hand? And also your new margin guidance implies somewhere in the 22% to 24% margin performance in the second half. I'm wondering how we should view that by quarter if you could? Because the 6% to 10% kind of implies some degree of startup.

Yes, so I think visibility in Q3 is obviously better at this point than Q4. We expect continued improvement in sales topline activity in the current quarter. And I think the question really becomes, does that momentum carry into Q4? And do certain of the customer product launches occur as planned? We do expect some of that timing to move to the right. And therefore we've brought sales guidance down a bit. But in terms of margins, I think back half we're expecting them to be fairly consistent with where we've been over time, in that 22% to 24% range. And we raised and sort of tightened the margin guidance there, because of the stronger performance of the first half. Paul A. Swart - Chief Accounting Officer, VP & Controller: And, Andy, I guess – this is Paul. I'd add to that that also in the back half of the year, we are adding capacity as we mentioned with our new facility, to which we will have a little bit of incremental expense in the back half of the year, once that facility is up and running from a fixed cost standpoint as it leverages. As well as the mix in terms of that growth is more highly towards the specialty dispensing products than industrial. And as Bob just mentioned a moment ago, those tend to have a little bit lower than average margins, as opposed to industrial, which is a little bit above the segment average. So that's why the back half might be a little bit lower than where we were in second quarter.

Okay, thanks Paul and Bob. Second, in Aerospace, if you get those new part numbers certified, when would those start to impact the segment revenue?

We're not anticipating there to be big impact in 2016. A number of the qualifications are still in process. And there typically is a bit of a delay between that qualification and then when orders start to come into the portal.

Okay, thanks. And then lastly on the free cash flow revision, clearly net income outlook impacted that. But I'm wondering if you've also changed any of your working capital outlook? The reason I ask is the inventory relative to sales continues to remain a little bit higher than typical. And I'm wondering when you can get some of the potential cash benefit by normalizing that back to where you typically would be? Paul A. Swart - Chief Accounting Officer, VP & Controller: Yes, Andy, I think you're correct on that, in that the two businesses that may be relative to their current sales positions, the energy facing businesses are higher than you would expect relative to the inventory turns. So there isn't a significant change in our assumption relative to the rollout of that inventory, only because of where the currently depressed topline is. So I think we are making progress in those businesses to do that. It's just a little bit more gradual than we would like. So essentially the new guidance still is centered more around 100% of income, as opposed to incremental leveraging and reduction of the working capital.

Okay. Thank you very much.

And Steve Tusa with JPMorgan is next. Steve, your line is open, please go ahead or check your mute button. We're unable to hear you. Hearing no response, we'll move on to Bhupender Bohra with Jefferies.

Hey. Good morning, guys.

Good morning. Paul A. Swart - Chief Accounting Officer, VP & Controller: Hey, Bhupender.

Hey. So I just had a question on the Engineered Components business here. You talked about like the cylinder business being weak. Could you give us some color in terms of like what changed from your previous expectations in the first half like already we're looking into the second half this year, if you can just give some color?

I don't know if anything has dramatically changed from our previous views. I think what we've seen, particularly in the large high-pressure portion of the cylinder business, is weaker demand from the major gas customers, as we moved through the first half of the year. And that's a market segment that's about 60% or so of our end customer in-house sales. And typically, we would expect to have anywhere from four to six to maybe eight weeks of visibility into the order backlog. And as we move through the year, it really has gone from that four to six timeframe down to kind of more like two to four. And so, it just – it doesn't portend for a stronger back half. So as a result of that, we've continued to be fairly cautious in our sales guidance for that portion of the segment. Paul A. Swart - Chief Accounting Officer, VP & Controller: Then of course for Arrow Engine, really with where oil prices have migrated here over the last several weeks back into low to mid $40s, that certainly doesn't portend to be a good signal for increasing activity in that sector of our business.

Okay. Have you see any quoting activity, because that kind of bodes well for that particular business. I'm assuming that the inventory levels within that business on that field is not much?

It's hard to – when you say inventory, you are talking about the customer level?

Yes, I am talking about the customer level, the engine, you know the Arrow Engine inventory of the...

Yes, I don't – we haven't really seen a lot of quoting activity relative to engines. We've had a few inquiries around quick processors (43:10) and as you might expect, given continued weak oil markets, more of the activities then focus on those parts. So again, you would expect that at some point there might be a little bit of an uptick in the sales of the parts, our portion of the business. But again, there is nothing meaningful that would cause us to look at it and say that's a trend that's going to sustain or otherwise would meaningfully impact the overall results of the segment or the company.

Okay. And just lastly on the guidance here, if you look at the midpoint I think it was like $0.14, you took the numbers down. Bob, can you extrapolate like the $0.14 is towards Aerospace or anything else should go in there?

Yes. There's a lot to puts and takes, if you will, Bhupender around what's going on in each of the individual segments, and what we are doing to offset both challenges and capitalize on opportunities. But at the end of the day, as we look at where we believe Aerospace margins will fall out for the full year, it's roughly about 500 basis points, 600 basis points lower than where we had got – reduced guidance on margins back in Q1. And when you look at that change in rate and take it across the reduced sales guidance of $180 million, that roughly acts – it accounts for the change in the EPS range.

Okay, and just lastly on the financial – the restructuring plan, which you just finished, is there anything we should expect like an announcement or anything you are planning right now in the process here as you look towards like 2017, and the second half, some of the industrial markets kind of weaker, anything we should expect?

We're always looking and evaluating cost reduction opportunities in each of our businesses and at corporate. I don't think at this juncture we envision there being any significant announcements or further actions in that regard. Again, we'll continue to look at all opportunities, but I think the scope and magnitude of the financial improvement plan, while successful, probably is near the limits of what we can originally expect to do absent another step function change in end markets and sales in the businesses.

Okay. Thanks a lot. And last, convey my wished to David. Thank you.

We'll now go to Karen Lau with Deutsche Bank.

Thank you. Good morning.

Good morning, Karen.

And my best wishes to Dave as well. Good morning. Maybe start with housekeeping. So, in your free cash flow guidance, I think year-to-date you parsed out maybe $8 million of restructuring charges. Are there going to be more in the second half of the year? What would be the total number of cash restructuring charges that is excluding in your free cash flow guide? Paul A. Swart - Chief Accounting Officer, VP & Controller: There will be some more, Karen, as we wind down the Energy restructuring and as we continue the Aerospace restructuring or recovery plan. I think you'll see a lower number than you've seen in first half of the year though.

So a little bit less than $8 million?

In the back half of the year, yes.

Okay. And the guidance you provided $55 million to $65 million, that excludes all these cash restructuring charges? Paul A. Swart - Chief Accounting Officer, VP & Controller: It does, correct.

Okay, got it. And then, second question, could you give us an update on where you stand on price cost, particularly in the businesses that consume maybe more of the high commodity steel in particular? Where do you stand in price cost, and with the run up in steel prices for instance in cylinder business, do you expect that you can recoup some of these higher costs as in the second half? Paul A. Swart - Chief Accounting Officer, VP & Controller: I would tell you, Karen, in general, I don't think that steel has been a major driver relative to our topline or bottom line. Certainly we've talked previously Packaging and in Norris Cylinder business, those are two where it will be most impactful. So, as a reminder, Packaging for several of the contracts has escalator and de-escalator clauses to where that's normal course movement depending on CPI of steel. And then where they maybe have some of the other businesses, non-contractual do a very good job of being able to manage it both on the way up and on the way down. I think in our steel and our cylinder business, we have had slight price back to back, but I wouldn't say it's significant enough to – any significant effect on the topline, it's much more about the industrial market weakness as opposed to surprise. So, I think overall that isn't a significant driver of either topline or the margin movement during the quarter, nor do we expect it to be as we look at the back half.

Okay. But maybe a little bit on the topline in the Engineered Components segment. So, I mean sequentially you stepped down quite a lot. I realize the industrial market is weak. But can you speak to the Arrow Engine business, did it take another step down during the quarter, because you said – I think you guys sounded more hopeful last quarter in terms of seeing some quoting activities come back, and then I guess oil prices was relatively steady throughout the quarter, it's come back down a little bit. So, maybe talk a little bit about what you saw sequentially in...

We did expect Q2 to be sort of the low point for revenue levels within Arrow Engine. I don't know that we expected it to be down as much as it was compared to the prior year, which frankly was about 50% compared to the year ago quarter. And sequentially, it weakened. While we expected it to weaken, proportionally it was a little bit higher as I just mentioned. So, where does that go over the remainder of the year? We are not counting on any recovery in terms of sales levels at this juncture. Of course, if it occurs, that would be great. And I think we would be able to capitalize or leverage it nicely. But, oil is kind of in that low $40s and I just don't see any catalyst that's going to materially change that at least near-term. And until there is some sustained level as we've talked in the past, kind of low to mid $50s and it sustained at that level, we don't really expect meaningful activity to resume in that segment of the business.

Okay, thank you. And then, maybe lastly on the Energy segment, so if I take your updated topline guidance, I think you sort of assume sales level to remain at around Q2 level for the rest of the year. But, there has been I guess more talk on refineries maybe finally taking down some of their utilization because of high gasoline inventories and things like that. Just curious, from your vantage point, have you heard – what have you heard from your customers, do you expect more turnaround activities coming in the third quarter and fourth quarter?

Well, generally speaking, the third quarter is seasonally a higher level of turnaround activity. We haven't seen impacts to order intake yet here in the month of July, but I think more a normal timeframe we'd be starting to see something kind of in late August, September timeframe to the extent those turnarounds happen. And of course, that will extend kind of into the October-November timeframe. But generally speaking, it starts to wind down in the fourth quarter. So we're not counting on anything meaningfully different than what we've seen in the first half of the year. And again, if that does occur, we'll certainly be prepared to respond and capitalize accordingly.

Remind us how much visibility do you have typically to customer turnaround activities, do they provide you with some sort of – what's the typical lead time? How far in advance (52:10)?

On turnarounds, it's generally four to six weeks.

Okay.

That would be longer generally speaking in our newly engineering and construction, but again not a lot of new projects to speak of in that regard.

Okay. Got it. Thank you.

Next is Rudy Hokanson with Barrington Research. Rudy, your line is open. We're unable to hear you. Please check your mute button.

Okay. Thank you. Yes.

Hi, Rudy. Paul A. Swart - Chief Accounting Officer, VP & Controller: Good morning Rudy.

Good morning. My best wishes to David too and I look forward to where the company is going. My question is on the Energy sector and that is with the margin going to 3% to 6% down a little bit from the previous expectation of 4% to 6%, what kind of volume would you need to see better margins in the Energy sector or could we expect margins to improve given all that you've been working on already in 2017? Paul A. Swart - Chief Accounting Officer, VP & Controller: So Rudy, I guess, first to make sure we are clear, our previous guidance was 3% to 6%. We've now increased the bottom range to 4%, so it's not 4% to 6%.

I am sorry. Yes, I got it reversed. Paul A. Swart - Chief Accounting Officer, VP & Controller: So in terms of sequential, it actually increased from call it 2.5% in Q1 up to 4.5% in Q2. So, despite the lower 10% sequential revenue, we've actually seen the benefits of the restructuring efforts come through perhaps even a little bit stronger than we expected under the first 90 days under Marc Roberts. So, they are making that improvement. Obviously if we were to leverage the topline and get back anywhere near where maybe it had operated a year or two ago, we would expect that to leverage very nicely.

Okay. So should we presume that right now, given current volume levels, that 4% to 6% is sort of a best case range going forward?

Well, it's our guidance for the remainder of the year. Clearly, if revenues improve over time, we absolutely would expect the cost structure and other changes we've made operationally to leverage quite nicely. And longer term, I mean we have put margins in that segment at 8% to 10%. Paul A. Swart - Chief Accounting Officer, VP & Controller: And the benefits of our sourcing initiatives in terms of where we're getting product at a lower cost are not all the way through the system yet. We still have to turn through the remainder of some of the higher inventory levels that we had last year, which once those turn through, we will recognize expanded margins just on normal core sales at the current level.

Okay, that answers my question. That was my primary focus. I do have a quick follow-up question on the Packaging. How much of the product delays do you think might be related to your customers being cautious about economic growth? Have they shared that with you? Or are these things that are definitely on the books. And they can say to you, this is coming in in first quarter now instead of fourth quarter. Or are they giving you more of a signal of, we just want to hold back right now?

Yes, the visibility isn't that clear, Rudy. I think in part it has to do with economic outlook. But it also depends on how is that program moving through the marketing channels or whatever things those companies do internally as they launch these new programs. It's in part also dependent on the region of the world where the program is being launched. And again not at all of these are North American based obviously. And so there's different drivers for those versus perhaps what's happening in Asia or Europe.

Okay. Thank you very much.

We'll now go to Steve Barger with KeyBanc Capital Markets.

Hi, good morning.

Morning, Steve.

I had to hop off the call for a few minutes, but – so just let me know if this has been asked. But thinking about the new guidance of $1.22 to $1.30, what is the biggest area of sensitivity to the low end or the high end? Is it a change that you're not forecasting in the Aero segment? Or what's the big swing factor in your plan?

I think there is probably two areas. One would be the revenue levels within Packaging. And do we actually see the growth as a result of customer product launches that we're expecting principally in the back half? Or more pointedly probably fourth quarter. And then I think within Aerospace, the question there is really do we see anything further unusual activity within the distributor channel? And then obviously execution under the recovery plan. While we certainly control the latter and not the former, we've challenged ourselves to some pretty aggressive goals. And the expectation is that we will hit them. But that would be another area of potential risk to the guidance area – the guidance range.

Yeah. Thank you. And for Aero specifically, when I look at the first half of 2016 versus the first half of 2015, the decline in EBIT is almost twice the decline in revenue. How much of that year-over-year decline in EBIT is mix in the distributor issue versus the operational missteps?

From a mix standpoint, think about it as about 40% – 30% to 40% is mix/distributor related. And the remainder is the Martinic integration cost as well as the loss of both volume and profitability associated with the challenges in the Monogram side.

Got it. Thank you. And based on the plan that you've put together and understanding some of the things that you can't control on the back half, from a cadence standpoint how do you see the back half playing quarter to quarter? Is it relatively level loaded? Or is 4Q higher if those launches come through?

It's pretty consistent across the back half. I would say generally speaking, Q3 is typically a little stronger.

Right.

And I think a lot depends on, while there is some seasonality as we move from Q3 to Q4, if in fact there were some recovery, if you will, of end markets then Q4 would obviously be stronger proportionally. But at this juncture, a little bit more in Q3 than Q4.

Got it. And thanks. I'll just ask one more. When I look at slide 12 on the bridge, the FIP box is the biggest positive swing factor. Can you talk about what drove that in terms of the cost takeout? How much was variable? How much was fixed? Just trying to get a sense of permanent versus recurring. Paul A. Swart - Chief Accounting Officer, VP & Controller: Yes. So I mean round numbers, we now have completed the $22 million FIP. So in terms of a quarterly impact, because that didn't start till third quarter of last year, you're seeing all, call it, $5.25 million coming through year-over-year. So you have that. Plus, you have some incremental. As Bob mentioned earlier, we're continuously working on additional cost actions. So part of the reason why you see we're holding margin ranges in some of our other businesses, despite bringing the top line down a little bit, is additional actions that we're not calling out as part of a larger program that are also benefiting the P&L. So you've got the combination of those two things in that box.

Understood. Thanks very much for the time. Paul A. Swart - Chief Accounting Officer, VP & Controller: Thanks, Steve.

Thanks, Steve.

And we'll go to Steve – I'm sorry, Sam Eisner with Goldman Sachs. Please go ahead. Samuel H. Eisner - Goldman Sachs & Co.: Yeah. Hey, good morning, everyone. Sherry Lauderback - Vice President-Investor Relations & Communications: Good morning. Samuel H. Eisner - Goldman Sachs & Co.: And good luck to Dave. And, Tom, I guess welcome aboard. So on the – just wanted to think about Energy for a second, if look over the last three years or so, obviously I recognize what's going on in the macro. But Energy hasn't been able to generate kind of organic growth. And based on your guide here, we're now expecting 2016, again another organic decline. So I'm curious. I recognize you're taking out costs. But what are you doing to accelerate top line in that business as best you can? Maybe you can talk a little bit about kind of what you can attempt to control from a kind of revenue growth standpoint?

I would say, Sam, that when you look at current year activity, right, we're in a real tough environment. We have a new leader in that business, Marc Roberts, has been in the role for about 90 days. He is convinced that performance in terms of delivery lead times, and then obviously cost driven by manufacturing and operational efficiencies are really the key to growing the topline in that business. And because of some of the challenges we had in that area prior to his appointment, we did have a case within one customer, where we lost the business. And we think that the opposite will be true, as we continue to implement these improvements and demonstrate to our customers our capability of hitting lead times, and having on-time deliveries in the 90% plus level. So I think the focus of Marc is really around, I will call it, operational excellence and execution in terms of being able to fulfill orders, as much as anything else. And then, of course we're going to focus on mix in the sense of looking at highly engineered products that carried that little better margin, and really how do we strategically grow that segment of the business more than what we've done historically. Samuel H. Eisner - Goldman Sachs & Co.: That's helpful there, and maybe transitioning over to the Aerospace segment, given that you are now projecting about 11% to 13% operating margin, 12% at the midpoint, you guys still have targets out there roughly 25% for 2018 for operating profit margins, and that's a pretty substantial step up, 600 bps, 700 bps per year over the next two years in order to hit that. Any chance you wanted to address that right now, is that feasible, should we consider that in our expectations, or is there pressure for that account going forward?

I think obviously there is pressure to that target. We're going to be reevaluating that question as we move forward through time. I think really our current focus with the recovery plan is to get back to the levels of profitability that we have anticipated for this year, which was margins in the range of 18% to 20%. And then, as we accomplish that then we'll turn our focus to ultimately in longer term where do we think we can get the business. Samuel H. Eisner - Goldman Sachs & Co.: Got it. And then maybe just one housekeeping question here, the reduction in the corporate expense of roughly $3 million to $4 million. I recognize that $1 million of that is related to stock comp, but what's the other pieces of it, it came in a bit light of our expectations in the quarter. Thanks. Paul A. Swart - Chief Accounting Officer, VP & Controller: There is a number of different factors that came in. We can say that any of them is individually significant, but continued cost control as you would imagine given that where we are in the market conditions. Samuel H. Eisner - Goldman Sachs & Co.: I am sorry, is that just – should we expect that going forward? I mean, you are kind of doing $7 million per quarter in the first half of the year. Is that kind of the run rate, I mean would that be coming back in 2017 and 2018? Just want to have a better sense of that. Paul A. Swart - Chief Accounting Officer, VP & Controller: I think the back half as you look at the guidance is a little bit up, from where the front half is. That's more of a timing function related to tax or audit or those kinds of things when that work happens. But overall it's down from where we had guided to at the beginning of the year. Samuel H. Eisner - Goldman Sachs & Co.: Okay. Thanks.

And at this time, there is one name remaining in the roaster. And we will go back to Steve Tusa with JPMorgan. Please go ahead.

Hi, guys sorry, I was – I got several other calls this morning, so I really apologize for not being here when you first called me. Good morning. Paul A. Swart - Chief Accounting Officer, VP & Controller: Good morning.

Can you just – there has been a lot of noise out of Boeing about changing the payable terms, and from I guess daily to twice a month or something like that. Collins mentioned something about not getting paid. What are you seeing from that perspective?

We haven't seen any negative impacts relative to payment from Boeing. In fact, they are actually – we're exploring the supply chain finance program with them, which generally speaking is very favorable terms for us. So, I don't think it's going to have any impact, frankly, Steve.

Okay. And I guess just when you look out from an inventory perspective, you might have already mentioned this, but how do you think the inventory situation is in the channel right now?

Well, clearly with what we're seeing on the distributors side, the issue hasn't abated, anecdotally there was talk at the Farnborough Airshow that we might start to see this diminish as we exit 2016, the impact. That remains to be seen. I would like to think that, if in fact build rates go up in a couple of the key platforms in Boeing and Airbus at some point in 2017 that that might reverse some of that trend. But, it's inventory and channel with the distributors, but it is also action that the OEs are taking in terms of just better management of their investment in inventory and working capital, and we're seeing some impact there as well. So, it's really hard to know when they will hit that point where underlying demand in the build rates reflects itself in the demand that we see in terms of – in the channel.

Right. Okay. Thanks a lot. Best of luck.

Thank you.

And there are no other questions. So, I'd like to turn it back to Bob Zalupski for any additional or closing remarks.

So, once again thanks to all who participated in the call. And as Tom gets settled into his role as CEO, would certainly be available and plan to update you and discuss accordingly. So, thanks again for your interest in TriMas and your support.

Thank you very much. And that does conclude our conference for today. I'd like to thank everyone for your participation.