Good day, everyone, and welcome to today's TriMas Fourth Quarter and Full Year 2016 Earnings Conference Call. Just as a reminder, today's call is being recorded. At this time, I would like to turn the conference over to your host for today, Ms. Sherry Lauderback. Please go ahead, ma'am.

Thank you, and welcome to the TriMas Corporation fourth quarter and full year 2016 earnings call. Participating on the call today are Tom Amato, TriMas' President and CEO; and Bob Zalupski, our Chief Financial Officer. Tom and Bob will review TriMas' fourth quarter and full year 2016 results, as well as provide details on our 2017 outlook. After our prepared remarks, we will open the call up for your questions. In order to assist with the review of our results, we have included a press release and PowerPoint presentation on our company website, 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 1865483. 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 the results to differ from those anticipated in any such forward-looking statements. Also, we undertake no obligation to publicly update or revise any forward-looking statements 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 a 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 excluding special items basis. At this point, I'd like to turn the call over to Tom Amato, TriMas' President and CEO.

Good morning and thank you, Sherry. We believe 2016 is best described as a transitional year for TriMas. I joined the company nearly six months ago, and immediately dove into some issues that were impacting a few of our larger businesses. During my first 100 days, I began assessing the in-place business model and overall strategy the management was employing to drive long-term performance for our shareholders. There were many aspects of our TriMas in our family of businesses that were solid, which I've reported on during prior calls. However, it was clear that some changes needed to be made, and we made them. For example, we implemented a new operating and financial review model and initiated deeper and more frequent engagement with our businesses. This approach provided the platform to better communicate what we expect in value with our wider leadership team. We used data trends and transparency to promote a high sense of urgency. This resulted in a number of decisive actions taken, many of which we took in the fourth quarter. We made changes to our organization and leadership, not just within our businesses, but also eliminated redundancy at the shared service and corporate level. We redefined the TriMas business model, I'll talk further about that in a bit, to provide clarity on our priorities and better focus the organization. We've initiated strategic reviews with each of our businesses to ensure we are taking the necessary steps, whether it be expanding into new product lines with current or new customers to accelerate growth or turning current performance around, all to create value for our shareholders. The redirection above provided tangible results. For example, there was solid cash conversion in 2016, allowing net debt to be reduced by $46 million. Operating margin percentage was slightly up despite lower…

Thank you, Tom, and good morning. I will begin my comments by providing a brief summary of our fourth quarter results on slide 8. As Sherry noted earlier, all of my comments will be on an after special items basis. As expected, we faced continued top-line pressures during the quarter related to weakness in our industrial end market, in addition to the ongoing impact of reduced oil production activity. While these end market challenges impacted our results, we believe these demand levels are beginning to stabilize and that our cost savings initiatives have mitigated a significant portion of the impact of the sales decline. We reported fourth quarter net sales of $185.5 million, a decrease of nearly 4% compared to fourth quarter 2015. Organic growth, primarily in our Packaging segment and approximately $1.4 million of sales growth from the Q4 2015 Aerospace acquisition was more than offset by the extended weakness in the oil and gas and industrial end markets and a $2.8 million impact of unfavorable currency exchange. As Tom mentioned, our fourth quarter results were also impacted by the pre-tax, non-cash goodwill and indefinite-lived intangible asset impairment charges of $98.9 million in our Aerospace segment, which are reported as special items. As previously disclosed, our Aerospace segment, most notably the Allfast business, has experienced lower sales levels to distribution customers as a result of inventory levels and channel and air frame manufacturers' efforts to reduce order lead times, as well as their investment in inventory more generally. While this has resulted in reduced sales levels over the past 18 months, it has also had a significant impact on margin levels as certain of these products historically commanded premium margins. We have also experienced scheduling and production challenges in our Monogram business, which also resulted in significantly lower margins…

Thank you, Bob. Let's now turn to slide 19. As we take a look at consolidated TriMas for 2017, we are forecasting revenue growth in the 2% to 4% range and diluted EPS in the range of $1.35 to $1.45 per share. In addition, we have targeted our free cash flow to be more than 100% of net income. We are working on and making progress towards improving our forecasting models and, as such, anticipate improving our flexibility to quickly adapt to market changes to take advantage of opportunities or protect our plant as the case may be. While we expect full year revenue and EPS growth of over 2016 levels, we are expecting relatively flat performance in the first quarter as compared to Q1 2016. We expect the Q1 margins in our Energy and Aerospace segments will be higher than Q1 2016 levels and will improve throughout 2017. These improvements are expected to be offset by the impact of weaker industrial markets, which were stronger during the first several months of 2016. Now turning to slide 20. We are forecasting our interest expense to be largely in line with 2016. Capital expenditures to approximately 4% of sales with the majority of that investment being allocated to our Packaging segment, tax rate in the 30% to 32% range, obviously not adjusted for any changes that may occur with U.S. corporate tax rates and cash corporate expenses in the 2.7% range. Turning to slide 21. As we look to our near-term focus for the first half of 2017, we will continue to support actions to drive growth in our Rieke and Norris Cylinder businesses, where we enjoy favorable return on net assets. Also, we will continue to seek to drive turnaround plans within our Aerospace and Energy segments to best position…

Thank you. We'll go first to Matt Koranda, ROTH Capital.

Good morning, guys. Question on...

Hi, Matt.

Good morning, Matt.

Good morning, guys. Question on the Aerospace segment. I think that 4% to 6% sales growth seems to imply that we're going to see either pretty strong growth in the OE channels or we're lapping the distribution channel destocking issue once and for all. So, just wanted to get a little bit more color on sort of the inputs to that outlook?

Matt, I would tell you it's function of build rates as well as the current order backlog that we have. Despite some of the challenges we experienced in 2016, the order intake remains very good. And the backlog, at least in the last couple of months, or order intake as it relates to distribution customers, appears to be stabilizing. So, I think to the extent that trend continues, we can migrate towards the higher end of that range, to the extent it gets soft, softer or deteriorates, that probably puts us at the lower end of the range.

On margins in that segment? So, it looks like physical inventory adjustments and delivery penalties start to roll off right away. But you did mention there's still going to be a drag from kind of burning down past due units in the first quarter. So, what does that translate to in terms of operating profit margin early on? If you could help us out with that. And then, what does the cadence of improvement look like during the remainder of 2017? And where do you think we exit 2017 on a run rate basis?

Yeah. I would say that in terms of run rate, in terms of the operating margins, if you think about it, a year ago, we were probably 8% in first quarter. It's obviously not going to be at that level, but it's not going to be at the 16% level that we had in Q3 of 2016 either. So, I would look for sort of just modest improvement, probably in the low-double digits as we enter Q1 and looking for that to improve as we progress through the year.

Yeah. I mean, we have still a number of what I would call off standard and operational hurdles to clear through. We have a lot of activity underway on the factory floor, we expect as we go through the first half and get into the second half. Once we get – I tried to highlight this a little bit in my comments, once we get a manufacturing plant that is not performing up to its capability, once we get that stabilized, then we can start to drive out some of the off standards, and then take that second and third derivative of improving efficiency further. We expect to be at that point, as we get through the year and certainly going into 2018 to really drive the Aerospace business performance. But as Bob mentioned earlier, we're very pleased in going into the year with a little wind in our sales, in terms of order backlog and continued solid order intake.

Okay. That's helpful, guys. Maybe just one more on Engineered Components. I think the commentary had said something about flat sales in oil and gas, so I assume all of the improvement is essentially coming from Norris year-over-year in the sales outlook there. How much of that 2% to 5% year-over-year improvement I think comes from units versus steel pricing and sort of the pass-through you may get there? Just want a little color on that.

Yeah. It's predominantly unit sales – additional unit sales.

All right. Got it. I will jump back in queue, guys. Thank you.

Up next from Deutsche Bank, we'll go to Karen Lau.

Hi, Karen.

Hi. Good morning, everyone. So maybe I'll start with a provocation. So, you mentioned in the press release customer contractual adjustments in Aerospace. Are you referring to the $1.2 million of penalty in the quarter?

Yeah. There were two items that made up that adjustment, Karen. Part of it was a favorable settlement and a rebate from a year ago that did not recur, that was, call it 40% of that number and then the residual was the claim for late delivery penalties that we ultimately settled in fourth quarter with the customer.

Okay. Is that a one-off issue, or are there going to be some implication on future pricing and future contract as well?

We expect it to be a one-off issue.

Okay. Got it. And then on distribution, so, you mentioned you saw some stabilization and better orders on the Aerospace distribution channel. I think one of your major distribution customers talked about investing more in inventory this coming year. I was wondering, are you already seeing that impact and is what you're seeing pertains to that particular customer, or are you seeing in broader terms, in the distribution area, inventory in the channel starting to pick up.

Yeah. I would not necessarily correlate it to whatever that specific customer said around their investment and inventory level. It's a little bit of a challenge in Q4, in particular to sort out what might be seasonal impact versus not. So, we're looking towards Q1 as really the better indicator of whether or not distribution order patterns are going to return what we would view as a more typical or normal level. Still early days, and so we're not ready to conclude on that question, but we are encouraged by some of the order intake that we're seeing.

Okay. Got it. And then, maybe another housekeeping for Bob. Could you remind us then in – within Energy, the $19 million of restructuring charges you realized for the year, is that primarily cash cost, and what kind of restructuring numbers are you expecting for this coming year?

Well, from a – let's see here, in terms of cash cost versus non-cash, we're roughly dealing with – probably two-thirds of that is cash, and a lot of it has to do with the restructuring of the footprint-related severance, et cetera. There will likely be some spillover in 2017 as we finalize and exit certain locations, but it's really facility and severance-related as opposed to ongoing restructuring costs of what I'll call the core business.

Okay. So, we should expect that number to be much lower in 2017?

Yes. Absolutely. Not just in Energy, but as you look across the...

All of the companies at TriMas.

Okay. Got it. And then, maybe just one last one for Tom. You have the opportunity to look at the Energy business with a fresh pair of eyes. What's your thoughts on the longer-term structure of that business? Because I think over the past few years, there's been investment in sourcing raw materials from India and you have established some manufacturing in Mexico. And, obviously, now, we have a lot of noise regarding the border tax and things like that. What's your view on the longer-term structure of that business?

Great question, Karen. Look, we have spent a lot of time, and personally I've spent a lot of time looking at that business. I've used this statement as I've talked to investors that trapped within our Energy businesses is a fine business, we just need to find it. And I do believe that, and I think that we're really focusing where we want to manufacture and sell the breadth of our footprint, in that a business will be smaller, but indeed I think it will perform better. So, I do see us as largely a North American/U.S. provider of gaskets. It's not a bad time actually to be – to have that characterization description with the resurgence that's taking place in the States. And then where we participate and are active overseas or in other parts of the world, they're going to be pretty focused and in areas where we know we have a unique advantage or some type of differentiating factor, and we know where those parts are around the world. And that's where we continue to invest and support our customers.

Okay. Got it. Thank you.

And next we'll go to Bhupender Bohra of Jefferies. Please go ahead. Your line is open.

Hi. Good morning, guys.

Hello, Bhupender.

Good morning.

Hey. Just focusing on the last question here, the Energy business. If we look at the guidance, how should we think about like the first half and the second half? It seems like we are still going to face some crisis like in the first quarter maybe or the first half. Are we thinking, like, the – I don't know, if you want to give any number like in the second half growth how the cadence of the growth should be for the year?

Well, Bhupender, as you know, we – that business is largely dependent on turnaround activity. Turnarounds tend to be more focused in second quarter and then kind of late third quarter, early fourth quarter. So, you're going to see sort of a sine wave, if you will, as we move through the year with lower margin performance in first quarter that we expect to increase in Q2. It'll drop down a little bit as we move through Q3 and then increase kind of in that October – November timeframe until it settles out obviously on the full-year run rate.

Okay. Got it. And then thinking about like historically you guys have said that this business to be kind of a double-digit margin business, but are we thinking that in 2018, or do you think if the Energy business comes back pretty more than what you are expecting in your numbers, you could actually do double-digit here?

Well, clearly we could gain from, as we improve and adapt the business, become more flexible and nimble. If the markets come back, then we will gain nicely from operating leverage, and I would expect the pull through to be very nice for the Energy business, and that actually applies to a few of our other businesses as well.

Okay. And lastly on the Packaging business, I just wanted to get a sense of the new programs, which got pushed out from the second half last year and I think, Bob, you just talked about the – some of the new programs, which is built in the guidance here. Any color on where those programs, your customers thinking about opening new plants, or where they are linked, basically those programs are?

Well, no additional capacity beyond what we've already talked about. The – those plans were largely put in place during 2016 as we moved through the year. We are in the vestiges of final ramp-up of the San Miguel facility, which will supply one of those customer products. And then, beyond that though, it's the toolings in place and it's just a matter of producing and ramping to customer demand. So, we do expect that to occur as we exit Q1 here and then increase as we move through 2017.

Okay. The reason I asked because the fourth quarter was pretty strong like in Packaging, right? I mean, if you look at organic excluding the FX, I think you were pretty much close to like 10% sales growth, I guess, on an organic basis?

Yeah. The organic growth in fourth quarter was strong. Part of that was because the prior year quarter 2015 was much softer than what would be typical. So, while we're certainly encouraged by that near double-digit increase in organic growth that isn't something that necessarily will be a trend that continues.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

From Barrington Research, we'll hear next from Rudy Hokanson. Please go ahead. Your line is open, Rudy.

Thank you.

Good morning, Rudy.

I wanted to – good morning. I wanted to go back and drill down a little bit more on the Energy side. You've talked a lot about restructuring your footprint. But as I understood it, one of the difficulties in the past was that, in the product mix, the cost structure of the more commodity-type products and the focus of the company historically been on products that, a number of years ago, were focused on refiners that were taking heavier crude or more specialty-type crudes. And maybe this is too specific, but I'm just wondering, as you're looking at where your product line goes going forward and looking at the global mix of crude and the cost structure of your products, can you maybe elaborate on what you see happening there and what you've been doing in terms of improving the profitability of Energy for the marketplace today?

Well, I may have a challenge with that question, given some of the linkage to maybe prior conversations, but I would say look – this. Look, we have essentially a new operating team in place in our Lamons business, and they are doing all the right things. They have respected some of the concepts from the past, but they looked at the data that exist today, perhaps through a different lens and they look at their cost structure to make things. And there's been a lot of – I won't go into too much detail, but there's been a lot of preconceived notions about the past on the cost of certain products. And we're finding that we can make certain things much less expensive than we originally believed as a team before they came on and they showed and we've gone through the data. As we've focused our product line now, clearly, we're going to focus on the areas where we make something, the areas where we can make it better than – cheaper than purchasing it. And then, where we ship our products to, look, right now, the petrochemical industry is a big part of our focus, as crude and various crude refinery is on a little bit of the lighter side. And, that's why – and as we look at the cost structure for our business overall and look at the strips of that, we believe that it's not necessarily, the product line that is creating the biggest issue for us, but it's how we get the product to a customer and where we go, and that's been our focus at least over the past six months since I've come to the company.

So, if I can just restate what you said at the end there, is that logistics have become a greater focus than they were previously for the Energy sector – Energy segment for TriMas?

Yeah, well, I would maybe use a different word than logistics because when I hear the word logistics, I think of the transportation. It's our physical – it's the whole physical infrastructure from the time that we make something at one of our plants to where and how we get it to the customer. We have a sizeable distribution network. We're looking at that and that's expensive and we have to assess which distribution locations are indeed performing well that requires a different set of KPIs. And much of the work that we've done in the past six months, some of the things we've announced, and you could see it coming through in terms of our notices, have related to streamlining and becoming more efficient from the point at which we make something to how we go about and market it and get it to the customer, and that's more than just logistics. It involves our network system.

Okay. Thank you very much. That answers my question.

Thank you.

We'll go next to Rajat Gupta of JPMorgan.

Hi. Thanks for taking my question. Just a question...

Hi, Rajat.

Just a question, I mean, just given the chatter around border tax under the new administration, can you give us a sense of your net import or export position as a percentage of sales? And then, how much flexibility will you have to move some of the facilities back to the U.S.?

Let me take the question in reverse order. As far as flexibility goes, we have flexibility because we have a large footprint in the states, and where we have overseas production. I would say that our – the amount that we import is not significant overall to our sales. I get this question occasionally, and on the – we're probably exporting, perhaps more...

It's probably less than 5%...

Yeah.

...in terms of total sales of the company.

It's not something I worry about for TriMas. I actually think that there are certain parts of our business, and I won't get into that now, that could benefit from a little help.

Got it. So, the imports is less than 5% of sales, right? Is that correct?

Certainly under 10%.

I'm sorry. I mean...

The export.

Export. Yeah. Export is under 10%.

Got it. And just you talked about deemphasizing some product lines into 2017. Could you give us a sense of the revenue and EPS impact in doing that?

Sure. I think, we actually – it's not quite product lines we're deemphasizing. It's perhaps regions, and it's in – it's on slide 18.

Predominantly in our Energy Lamons business.

Got it. Got it. Okay. That's it. Thanks for taking my question.

Thank you.

We'll go next to Chris Laserinko of Wells Fargo. Please go ahead.

Hey, guys. On for Andy Casey this morning. Congratulations on rounding out the year. Just had a couple of quick housekeeping items. I wonder if you could give me some color on inventory levels by segment, and where they reside relative to distributor inventories. Most of what we're hearing from our proprietary channel checks is that distribution arms for various businesses in general industrial seemed to be at the lowest point that they can get and look to do some restocking this year. Just wondering if you're hearing some of the same statements by business?

I don't know that we're hearing precisely that same positive news.

Well, we welcome the news.

We welcome it certainly. But if you go by segment, really taking first Packaging and Norris Cylinder, kind of, combined. Both of those businesses turn inventory very quickly. Typically, it's a month or less on hand. So, we don't really concern ourselves too much with our inventory levels vis-à-vis distributors. It's all about getting product to the customer when ordered. As it relates to Aerospace and Energy, that's where we're a little longer in inventories. And there's clearly going to be a concerted effort on the Aerospace side of things through better production efficiency and more timely delivery bring those inventory levels down. Energy, I think, is a little bit more related to demand. Certainly, the team there is focused on reducing inventory, but they sort of run into some top-line weakness that has impacted our ability to burn through that. And that with Arrow Engine being a parts business, obviously, it has a very long sale – or a burn down cycle given current demand levels. I do think even though there's been some uptick in oil prices and some resumption of oil production activity, we haven't yet seen it in the Aero business because there's a supply of engines and/or parts out there that were maybe mothballed at the bottom of the cycle. So, I think there is some opportunities there as we move through 2017 for some of that normal demand to return as stocks at distributors are sort of liquidated.

Okay. Thanks. And in the guidance, the interest expense, you mentioned was relatively flat year-over-year, $13 million to $15 million despite the reduction. Just wondering how you're getting to those costs.

Well, currently, we expect there to be rising interest rates and then also, well, our – the majority of our Term Loan A structure is fixed through swaps. Those swap rates are higher than current LIBOR plus spreads. So, that's really what's driving it.

Okay. And if I could sneak just a last question there. The free cash flow guidance, just wondering if you could give us some color on cadence through the year and how you look at spending CapEx through the next four quarters and specifically the components of the guidance, what measure is that free cash flow due to kind of better than initially expected order growth or managing of working capital items?

Well, regarding the first question in terms of seasonality or flow, typically quarter one will be the lowest and then it's likely a use given working capital requirements and/or capital investment that's currently on the board, but then we would expect it to be a bit more ratable over the remainder of the year. Relative, I think your second question was relative to the performance in the current year, was that what you asked? What was driving it?

Yeah.

Yeah. So, really, there was two elements. One was on the working capital front compared to 2015, there was a fairly sizeable working capital use whereas in the current year, it was negligible increase. So, that was one of the drivers. And then, secondly, on cash taxes, significantly lower in 2016 versus 2015, and some of that is timing and certainly we don't expect that to recur in the current year. So, that's why we expect to probably see cash flow down a little bit from the guidance we currently have out there or the guidance that we have for 2016, excuse me.

Okay. Thank you, guys, very much.

Thank you.

We'll go next to Samuel Eisner of Goldman Sachs. Please go ahead. Samuel H. Eisner - Goldman Sachs & Co.: Yeah. Good morning, everyone.

Hi, Sam. Good morning.

Good morning, Sam. Samuel H. Eisner - Goldman Sachs & Co.: Just going through your guidance here, just kind of if I roll up everything that you guys have guided to, let's start in Packaging, it seems like at the midpoint of your Packaging guidance, you're basically guiding for flat profits year-over-year, assuming a 3% top line, and a 23.5% profit margin. Is that the right way to think about the business? I mean, it's obviously your most profitable and certainly the largest driver of profit. So, the fact that that's not growing profits year-over-year, is that arguably conservatism? I mean, how should we think about kind of view your initial guidance here?

Yeah. I would tell you it's a little bit of conservatism, and the idea that as you ramp some of this new capacity, it's really a question of timing of – the cost will hit. We know when the costs hit, that's fairly predictable. It's a question of does the revenue from the product sale sort of align equally. And clearly, as we get to full run rates, I think you see that equation sort of balance out and we would expect to benefit from that on a go forward basis, Sam. But given the number of new products that are ramping particularly in the first half of the year, obviously we're incurring the cost before we see the revenues. Samuel H. Eisner - Goldman Sachs & Co.: Got it. That's helpful there. And maybe transitioning over to Aerospace kind of along the same lines here. It seems like your implied incrementals in that segment are north of 90%. I think at the midpoint of your guidance are around $8 million of profit improvement. So, is there a way to better understand what the drivers are of that $8 million? I mean, obviously you're calling for an inflection. Certainly there are some additional costs embedded in 2016, but just can you help us understand because it is about 45% of the overall kind of EBIT growth that you're guiding to for the year.

Yeah, I mean a lot of it is the difficult actions that we've taken in 2016 starting to come through in terms of our manufacturing performance and it's going to occur. We expect it to occur throughout the year, and when I look at 2016 for Aerospace, stepping back from the financials, with so much going on, it was hard to get a good quality number out of 2016. And when we look and break it down by plant and where we should go, and the opportunities exist for us, a lot of it is driven by the actions that we've taken already and the actions that are underway right now. And, Bob, do you want to add to it beyond that?

No. I think it's a lot of the off-standard cost going away. Anytime you get into a past due situation or you're scheduling is such that we're not able to get the product through the facility, you might end up at the end of the month shipping what you expected, but at the margin levels that are significantly less than you would if you had an efficiently smoothly running plant. So, a lot of the change starting with the Monogram business and now looking clearly at Mac and machine components is how do we improve that plant floor productivity, that plant floor efficiency so that to achieve an equal number of unit of production, we're doing it with a cost structure that's much improved.

Yeah. I would say also one of the observations I felt when I got here was, there was a keen sense of capturing the sales, getting the sales out. Well, to do that, some of the plants that we're talking about were what I call bumping and grinding their flow to get parts out the door in the best way, in the most efficient way of scheduling. And I started to talk to – if you talk to anybody in the Aerospace business, they've heard me talk about units, I said put sales aside for a little bit, just get things through the plant better, quicker, faster, cheaper and the sales will come. And indeed, in one of our plants that have adapted this mantra, they're seeing the benefit of that. Unfortunately, it takes time. Right? You have a few months or perhaps a quarter or few quarters where to get things back in balance, back under control, you have to go through a period of, as Bob said, a number of off-standard costs. So, it is a bit cultural in terms of thinking and what we prioritize and that's where going back to my comments about the TriMas business model, we have now a platform of communicating with our businesses and our plants and our operating personnel on what we value, and that will help us drive the performance that we expect into 2017. Samuel H. Eisner - Goldman Sachs & Co.: Maybe, Tom, just one last one for you there. Definitely appreciate the color. When you look across the portfolio, there have been questions in the past regarding the overall structure of the portfolio. Can you may be comment maybe about is everything meeting your internal rate of return? Historically you let people think about 10% as kind of the breakeven point regarding ROIC? Maybe you can talk a little bit just about kind of looking at the portfolio and any potential changes that might come about. Thanks.

Great. Is that a question? Samuel H. Eisner - Goldman Sachs & Co.: Yes.

All right. So, great question. Indeed, we are looking at the portfolio, as you mentioned, and what is in place now internally, and I hope to share with our investors and analysts later in the year our internal criteria. But clearly, some of our businesses and some of our products within businesses are meeting our expected RONA. RONA and ROIC correlate. It's easier for us on a business unit or divisional level to talk about RONA than ROIC. But some do not, and where they do not, we are assessing the plans that we have in place to seek to achieve the desired RONA level. And if there is a pathway to get there, great. If not, we're going to re-question those types of businesses fitting within the TriMas family of businesses. So the good news is internally – again, going back to the TriMas business model – all of our wider operating team, they know what it takes to be a successful business within TriMas. That has been largely redefined, and I think folks are fairly receptive, understand it, and they're taking the actions of putting the steps in place to make sure we drive our businesses to meet or exceed those levels. But great question. And that is very much something we talk about quite a bit at TriMas. Samuel H. Eisner - Goldman Sachs & Co.: Got it. Well, we'll stay tuned. Appreciate it.

Thank you.

Steve Barger of KeyBanc Capital Markets has our next question.

Hi, guys, good morning.

Good morning, Steve.

Hi, Steve.

I want to follow-up on Packaging. You took restructuring charges in the segment in each quarter of 2016, and the exclusions grew in magnitude sequentially to 230 basis points in 4Q. So I'm looking at the op margin guidance slide and the Packaging range of 23% to 24%, and that column has a caveat of excluding more special items. So, first question, what would that margin guidance for Packaging be on a more GAAP basis?

I mean the costs that are included in non-recurring for Packaging, Steve, are largely related to the ramp up of the San Miguel facility and the shutdown and the severance costs associated with the Mexico City plant that it's replacing.

Which is now up...

So can you quantify that? Does 23% to 24% become 22% to 23% and is it 100 basis points...

But we don't have any...

Well, we're not expecting any non-recurring cost in 2017 related to Packaging. So the guidance that we have out there is the guidance we have out there.

Okay. No. That's good. The column says excluding special items and it doesn't say which segment that has. So you're saying no special items in that guidance for 2017?

Right.

Okay, perfect. And you're guiding free cash flow that's expected to exceed 100% of 2017 net income, but again that also excludes special items. So what's the expected impact of specials in free cash flow this year?

Some of that's going to depend on how quickly we're able to exit certain of the facilities in Energy. I would say there's probably $5 million or thereabouts that are going to be cash related in 2017.

Okay. $5 million for the full year...

$5 million to $6 million, something like that. And, look, as we move through the year and we get better visibility on actual exit from these facilities, we'll update that accordingly.

Good. And last question. I'm sorry if I missed this. I had to jump off the call for a minute. Did you say what the tax strategy was in 4Q that drove the lower tax rate?

It was, generally speaking, a transfer pricing related and involved our Packaging business, which is clearly the most global in how profits are allocated across that platform.

Okay. Thank you.

We'll go to Gautam Khanna of Cowen and Company. Please go ahead.

Good morning, Gautam.

Yeah, thank you. Good morning. So I wanted to just ask about whether you started to see any impacts from declining Boeing 777 production rates on your fastener order intake?

Well, I think in the aggregate, we're seeing our order intake for our Aerospace and particularly our fastener business, I call it solid to robust. Our orders are good. By product line, sure, some of the specific airliners that are not being built as much will be impacted, but we're seeing pickups that are more than offsetting that at the moment. I said it earlier, I'll say it again. I'm pretty pleased that we're going into 2017 with a little wind in our sails in Aerospace in terms of our backlog and orders we have on the books. That being said, we've got to continue to work extra hard in making sure that our manufacturing operations can get products through quickly, seamlessly, and profitably so we can take advantage of this time in Aerospace.

Okay. And last year you had mentioned, a couple quarters ago, the Boeing Min/Max reduction under the Basin Program (1:06:31). And I'm wondering, so has that completely abated now, so you're back to kind of shipping in line with their underlying consumption, so that there's no continued OEB (1:06:42) stock? I understand the distributor issue but just (1:06:46)?

We're still working with any respected customer shipment programs and it is up to us. I call this interface issues. It's up to us to adapt to customer interface changes and issues and make sure we adapt our production capabilities accordingly. And the only thing I will say is I studied that when I came to TriMas. Yeah, that was a disruption that occurred, but what compounded the issue further was how we reacted on the factory floor. I'm confident today that these types of programs or any other program that may come down the pike would be one that we would carefully work through, use the lessons of the past, lessons learned, make sure we adapt accordingly, so we can handle and support many of our customer initiatives.

Okay. But your original point that Min/Max reduction, the flow-through of the volume reduction has mostly abated, so the OE business is also starting to improve in terms of the order book, not just the distributors which do a lot of the aftermarket but...

Yeah. I'm not sure if I'm going to answer this question. I'm not sure if you're asking us about the actual interface. But I would say that we are working through those types of order supply program much smoother than we were several months ago. And I expect that as we go through the year, it will be just normal course of action for us.

Okay. Thank you very much.

Thank you.

And it appears there are no further questions, at this time, I would like to turn the conference back over to our speakers for any additional or closing remarks today.

Thank you, everyone. I really appreciate your time this morning. I really look forward to updating you at our next earnings call. Have a great day.

Thank you.

And ladies and gentlemen, that does conclude today's conference. We thank you all for joining.