Good morning and welcome to the Visteon Third Quarter 2011 Earnings Call. All lines have been placed on mute to prevent background noise. As a reminder, this conference call is being recorded. Before we begin this morning’s conference call, I’d like to remind you that this presentation contains forward-looking statements within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995.Forward-looking statements are not guarantees of future results and conditions, but rather are subject to various factors, risks, and uncertainties that could cause our actual results to differ materially from those expressed in these looking statements. Please refer to the slide entitled 'forward-looking information for further information. Presentation materials for today’s call were posted to the company’s website this morning. Please visit www.visteon.com/earnings to download the materials if you have not done so already. I would now like to introduce your host for today’s conference call, Mr. Chuck Mazur, Vice President, Investor Relations for Visteon Corporation. Mr. Mazur, you may begin. Chuck Mazur – Vice President, Investor Relations: Thank you (Brandy). Good morning and thank you for joining us for Visteon’s Third quarter 2011 earnings call. Brandy mentioned I’m Chuck Mazur the new Vice President Investor Relations and I look forward to working with all of you and we’ll be available for follow–up questions after this call. As Brandy also mentioned our presentation materials have been posted to the Investor Relations section of the website. Today’s presenters are Don Stebbins, Chairman and CEO and President and Marty Welch Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer. Following the formal presentation, we will open up the line to take your questions. With that, I would like to turn the call over to Don. Don Stebbins – Chairman and Chief Executive Officer and President: Thanks Chuck and good morning everyone. During today’s…

(Operator Instructions) And your first question comes from the line of Colin Langan of UBS. Colin Langan – UBS: Good morning.

Hi Colin. Colin Langan – UBS: I know you just said you wouldn’t comment on the recent news, but any color on your priority in terms of the segments in your long-term view, and any update on your interest in the other 30% of Halla? Is that something that your -- has changed? I think, in the Frankfurt show, you indicated maybe you wouldn't be willing to use any cash at this point in time?

Guys I think the I’ll follow on Marty’s comment that we won’t specifically comment but we have been I think pretty clear in terms of or other comments in terms of remaining convinced that portfolio optimization is an important part of the Visteon story in terms of maximizing shareholder value. And that in either scenario either we’re acquiring or divesting we certainly will remain disciplined and thoughtful throughout that process and our expectation is that we’re going to be a leader in our product groups and if there’s not a clear path to that leadership and that’s built from a customer view point as well as from a return profile then we’ll certainly move to help that business. Colin Langan – UBS: Okay. And I guess any color, Marty, in terms of your -- how maybe you'll do things differently, in terms of you taking over as CFO?

As I’ve got you know I’ve been in the middle of my third week so getting to know the team here we have really excellent finance team here and a lot of good operators like I tell you there’s a lot of focus on the operating side on a net cost performance metric and people are working really hard. So we’re going to continue to be very open and tell people what we’re doing and try to move the company forward. Colin Langan – UBS: And -- and any color on why you went -- brought you over to this job -- I mean, since the press release didn’t really provide any details and then what sort of attracted you to the Company?

Well I’ve a history in the auto industry and spent 10 years at Chrysler, and in the past I was the CFO of Federal-Mogul. And so I know the space, I wasn’t specifically looking for another full time job but it kind of came at me and I had a couple of sessions with Don and the opportunity it looked very intriguing and so I guess in a real sense I was recruited. Colin Langan – UBS: Okay. I guess more on the quarter. Why the strategic action with Duckyang. I mean, why the sale of that --part of that interest?

Yeah this is a transaction that we’ve been working on for five or six months or so and just given the way the business is constructive it’s not advantageous for us to have to consolidate it. Colin Langan – UBS: Okay.

I think are aware its significant amount of pass–through business and so it’s really not been advantage to us to consolidate that entity. Colin Langan – UBS: So when this comes out, does that mean the Interiors margin will look a little bit better for what’s remaining?

Yes absolutely. Colin Langan – UBS: Okay. But this would also mean that your mix, in terms of being 58% Asia of that still goes well I guess the 58% will stay the same – but the consolidated mix will go down once this is taken up – this is all Asia, that’s right?

That’s correct. Colin Langan – UBS: Okay. And can you actually provide color on your exposure to the ones I know if there was kind of volatile this quarter, I thought it’d be a bit more of an issue, I mean, it seems like there’s more headwind in Climate?

Great so. What happens is we’re little out of balance on the line cost base and Climate is – is heavily (warned) but when you get over to the sales side a meaningful amount of the sales are in dollars or in euro. So you don’t get the exact matching when the – when it then wand moves, contrast that with our euro situation where we are much more in balance with cost and revenue. Colin Langan – UBS: Okay. And what I mean, any sort of ratio between the cost and the sales difference?

So the revenue a portion of the revenue in Climate its not in one its probably about a third. Colin Langan – UBS: Okay. Just one last one. The – you didn't change your guidance today, and even though your numbers came in a little bit better than expected. Particularly in terms of sales is the deconsolidation of Duckyang part of why sales guidance didn't change since revenues actually seems to come into this side, what factor is given a pretty strong (indiscernible)?

Right so as we look at Q4 okay when I have the two months less of Duckyang in there but you also have the impact of the floods in Thailand also that we see softening in South America specifically at one of the plants one of the four plants as has been shutdown for a significant portion of Q4. We also see softening in India and in China. So as we look for the next couple of months here it’s a fairly uncertain environment in terms of production which is why we didn’t move up to sales line. Colin Langan – UBS: All right, thank you very much.

Your next question comes from the line of John Murphy with Bank of America/Merrill Lynch. John Murphy – Bank of America/Merrill Lynch: First question, on page six, you’re showing a pretty good ramp–up in new business wins. I’m just curious, as we think about that in -- in two factors. I mean first, I mean obviously, your emergence has given you a little bit more credibility sort of maybe credibility or attractiveness to -- to your customers, so it sounds like that’s helping out. But sort of the second factor is there’s a lot of speculation in the market and in the -- in the industry that the Company could be – parts of the Company could be sold off. I’m just curious as you’re going to market with your customers, how those two factors really play out, and as you’re going to market with those customers to win new business, is it specifically through Halla, specifically through Duckyang, or is it -- are you going to market with those guys with your customers as Visteon?

In terms of I guess I’ll specifically address kind of the Halla and Duckyang those two businesses from how we operate that with respect to the customers they predominately handle to Korean customer base solely. And then so if we were to I want to use the Climate example to call on another customer Volkswagen that would be a Visteon relationship and then we would decide whether or not if we won the business whether or not it would be produced in a quote on quote Halla facility or a Visteon facility and how the engineering community would breakdown etcetera, etcetera. So the customer interface with Halla and with Duckyang is predominately on the Korean OE side. A border question I think what you have is two things that oppose each other with same respect is that certainly the balance sheet the Visteon has an entity that’s going to continue the ability for us to put our global footprint and our engineering and technology (audio gap) and that shows and the backlog certainly the press report Visteon being broken up or being sold only hurts that ability to win new business. John Murphy – Bank of America/Merrill Lynch: Okay, that – that’s very helpful. And if we were to think about I apologize if there’s a little bit of speculation -- but if you were to think about Halla being fully owned by Visteon, meaning you buy this 30%, would that, do you think change your go-to-market strategy that you just mentioned of Halla being the face with – with Hyundai and Kia, or would that relationship shift towards Visteon going to market to Halla – I mean to Hyundai and Kia? I mean would you still be able to keep the same relationship setup the same way it is right now if you owned that additional 30%?

Regardless of the ownership whether its 70 or 51 or 100 the relationship that Halla has with Hyundai, Kia is outstanding and we would make no move again regardless of the ownership we would make no move to change that. John Murphy – Bank of America/Merrill Lynch: Okay, thank you. And also on the Duckyang, the portion that was sold there, why was it only – only a portion? I mean if it sounds like its pass-through sales, there’s not a lot of great profit being booked there the returns are – sound like they are on the low side. I mean, why not sell that entire part, I mean the entire business that you own at Duckyang and is that something that’s strategic and how helpful in your relationship with the Korean manufacturers just in total? I am just trying to understand why it was only a partial sale?

Two things one its it is important to do to the Korean customer base and then secondly its important to the Global Interiors business again I think as many of the customers many of the suppliers probably talked about their more and more global platforms and the ability to have a base in Korea that could help follow so to speak the green customers around the world is important. John Murphy – Bank of America/Merrill Lynch: Okay. Then just lastly on Europe, what do you think your flexibility is to respond to potential shifts in Europe. And obviously the concern is that Europe could potentially drop –off a cliff, down another 10% or 15% on volumes, not saying that’s what you’re saying, but in case there was a real downdraft in volumes in Europe, what’s your ability to respond? Where are you on capacity utilization right now do you have a lot of temp workers that you could pull-off the lines to really mitigate some of the pressure there just trying to understand Europe?

Yeah and then we’re not calling as we mentioned we’re calling for the drop–off the cliff in Europe but understand that it is a possibility. I think we have done a very good job in terms of as we’ve ramped up over the past 18 months or so to do as much of that with a temporary workforce as we could. We’ve not named the specific percentage because it varies greatly between each plant. So I mean it would come down to kind of a program–by–program analysis but I think we’ve done a pretty job there certainly we do have some many Western European plants that as you know are more difficult and that’s where we’ve tried to hire temp workers for the increases in volumes. John Murphy – Bank of America/Merrill Lynch: Okay great. Thank you very much.

Yeah thanks John.

Your next question comes from the line of Kirk Ludtke with CRT Capital Group. Kirk Ludtke – CRT Capital Group: Good morning, everyone.

Yeah Kirk. Kirk Ludtke – CRT Capital Group: I was wondering we could if maybe you could expand on the net cost performance line. And it looks like it was if I add all of the segments up, it was a negative $9 million in the quarter, but year-to-date it’s a negative $62 million. And I’m just curious if -- if there’s any more color you can provide and if you think this – what this is attributable to and if and if there is – this could turn out to being positive at some point in the future?

Historically if you look over the past few years that cost performance has been a positive for us. This year we’ve run into a few issues one being commodity cost increases and the recoveries so historically we recover somewhere in the neighborhood of 70%. We’re recovering a little bit less than that. And certainly the magnitude of the commodity cost increases has been larger so the absolute dollar impact has been greater. In addition to that as I think we’ve talked about on the previous calls the pricing pressure has been higher this year than historical norms would indicate and so that also is a significant contributing factor to the negative cost performance Kirk Ludtke – CRT Capital Group: Okay. So the -- the commodity costs, I would guess maybe next year, could be a tailwind. Is that possible?

It is possible we actually as we look at the fourth quarter we think that net cost performance will be slightly positive. Kirk Ludtke – CRT Capital Group: Okay. And then shifting gears back to the fourth quarter guidance. It looks like you’re forecasting a use in the fourth quarter, a use of cash in the fourth quarter. And I was just curious, usually you generate cash in the fourth quarter and I was curious as to what that was that attributable to?

Right so there is a some significant payments that are in the plan and continuing to pay–down the restructuring liabilities and those things they have to do with when settlements are made on the various Chapter 11 claims and so forth and so I actually directly related operations I was actually cash provided from working capital the main operations in the fourth quarter. Kirk Ludtke – CRT Capital Group: And okay now I – okay I remember now. So Chapter 11 claims, do you have a sense for how much those are in the fourth quarter?

I do not I would I would kick it back to we’ll get back to on it.

Chuck we get back to on it. Kirk Ludtke – CRT Capital Group: Now I remember there was some restructuring that got pushed back as well is that still we get.

Yeah I think as we mentioned last quarter we made pretty difficult decision to close one of our. facilities in Spain and in the second quarter we took a charge for the – for the minimum, statutory minimum amount of severance now we’re still in our forecast and in our guidance we have assumed that we come to a resolution with the Spanish unions their and pay-out those sums. Kirk Ludtke – CRT Capital Group: Okay, great, I appreciate that. And it looks like, it looks like the third-party forecasters are still looking for production to be up sequentially in North America and Europe. It sounds like – it sounds like maybe you’re thinking they might be ahead of themselves.

I think our assumption is that North America would be up Europe is going to be slightly down and then again I would some of that we maybe a little bit harder to hit and that given where our programs are etcetera but again and I would think that Asia would be up and South America would be somewhat flattish. Kirk Ludtke – CRT Capital Group: Okay, I appreciate it. Thank you very much.

All right. Thank you.

(Operator Instructions) Your next question comes from the line of Himanshu Patel with JPMorgan. Himanshu Patel – JPMorgan: Hi good morning guys.

Good morning Himanshu. Himanshu Patel – JPMorgan: Just I a few questions Don I wanted to go back to the summer Analyst Day that you guys held a few months ago. Two points from that event I wanted to follow-up on. You guys had mentioned that it seemed like there was an operational integration effort going on between Yanfeng and the consolidated Interiors business, or at least you had hoped to commence that. I’m curious, have you made progress on that, and is that still a strategy you guys are pursuing?

It is there strategy that we are perusing and there have been a number of meetings among the leadership of Yanfeng as well as leadership of Visteon Interiors consolidated so to speak. Himanshu Patel – JPMorgan: Okay. And then at that meeting, I think, it was the first time you guys publicly mentioned that, it would ultimately perhaps make sense to own all of Halla, for a lot of the reasons we’ve talked about. I’m just curious, can you help us think through the variables behind that decision and in particular I wanted to understand, is that a decision that is entirely under Visteon’s control or are there exogenous dating events that may prevent the timing of when that happens, whether it’s customer considerations or Korean takeover laws or whatever it may be?

In terms of the control of the decision it would be a Visteon decision. And certainly the financing markets and those types of things will play into that decision. But in terms of and I think you have to be quite respectful of any customer relationship issues again from our perspective, in answer to John’s question earlier and if we were to buy the 30% or if we stroll down to 51% it doesn’t really matter regardless the relationship has been built over many, many years with the Halla team and so I would never move to change that. In terms of how we go about it again it is significant use of capital and so it we way the various alternatives against the benefits that we would obtain by owing the other 30%. Himanshu Patel – JPMorgan: And that’s still acquisitions, internal investments, and buyback, in that order?

I would say internal acquisitions internal capitals financing the two other significant items on the play. Himanshu Patel – JPMorgan: Okay, great. And then, I can’t refuse but ask, but on the recent press release around the CFO change, you guys obviously paid that sort of one-off random comment about retaining financial advisers. I’m just curious, what was the thinking behind the timing of that announcement?

Well, a couple of things first I would say that different firms bring different skill sets to the table so as we looked at it adding Goldman to the advisors table brings expertise of a large global investment bank with significant capital market expertise and experience that we thought we could benefit from. Understand that it’s a bit unusual in terms of putting that information into a press release but it something that we’ve received a lot of questions on and so rather than do it kind of on a one-off basis we thought we would put in the press release and that comment also holds for the corporate governance items I know it’s a little but unusual to put that out in a public announcement but again the investors that we talked on a daily basis had some questions about that. So we utilized that press release timing to do that. Himanshu Patel – JPMorgan: And is the scope of assignments between Rothschild and Goldman entirely separate?

No I would say that the work that they both do overlaps and certainly there’s some work that Rothschild given the history that we’ve had with them I would call them – call it their work. So to speak and then Goldman will have their own work to do as well. Himanshu Patel – JPMorgan: Okay, great. Couple of housekeeping items, could you guys give us some color on pension performance year-to-date?

This is Michael Lewis. Himanshu, starting with the pension as we talked about before is that the way things are typically done January timeframe, we have been watching performance of our asset in those classes particularly in U.S. and as we mentioned in entire conversations within our asset class groups we have a strategy to mitigate the duration between the asset classes between assets and liabilities. So although we haven’t publicly announced but we are on returns we are happy with the performance of the asset class we continue to watch the variables in terms of the discount rates and the strategy we have to build those assets, to pass those cash flows. So I think from our perspective our strategy is still the right strategy to have, we continue to watch and continue to monitor looking forward in terms of in terms of the unfunded issues with our clients. Himanshu Patel – JPMorgan: And just a related question on that. Be I -- I know there’s a GAAP measurement date, and kind of a I guess a (Investor) funding measurement date for minimum funding calculation purposes. Are they both December 30 for you guys, or is the funding date October 1?

We have two we have an October date and January date. Himanshu Patel – JPMorgan: Okay, great, that’s all I had. Thank you, guys.

Thanks Himanshu.

Your next question comes from the line of Joe Stauff with Susquehanna. Joe Stauff – Susquehanna: Hey, good morning. Thank you. Don, the exercise obviously is going on from all investors, in terms of your portfolio, and as you think about your global portfolio, can you expand -- you had mentioned, in response to an earlier question, can you just outline basically the pros and cons of both having a global footprint in this business versus having what is obviously a more -- or a smaller, or regionally focused presence? Just kind of outline the reasons why you think you should be global versus again, in a scenario going forward, where you trim up maybe some of the regional parts of your portfolio?

Yeah I think that is very most basic level. The customers in the number of cases and you can click many of the customers be it Japanese, Korean, European North American or souring programs on a global basis. And the reason they are doing that is because its mostly advantageous to them obviously in terms of their cost performance and the business that they can give out to the supply base. So there are a number of programs where when you go in the customer is asking you okay for my European production sites where will you manufacture for my North American production sites, where will you manufacture etcetera. So to be excluded just because we’re a regional player it doesn’t seem to be the right strategy from our perspective especially given the fact that we have a significant footprint around the world today. And especially given that one of the advantages to Visteon is that we have a footprint in the growth markets and that we’ve been there for an extended period of time. And its not a situation where in most cases there is a the rare instance but most cases we have a facility in the country or in the region where the OE’s is going to be or is located today. Joe Stauff – Susquehanna: Got it. And is there I guess any guess or parameters you can give us with respect to the response thing the number of RFPs going forward, in theory, that you could be excluded from because you don’t have a global footprint is x? Is there, would you be willing to give us an estimate or some level parameters with respect to that?

If I knew I would be happy to give it to you. That’s something we can take a look at, I don’t have that knowledge today. So I would be happy to do some more comment. Joe Stauff – Susquehanna: Okay, great. And just one follow-up relative to the earlier pension question. Have you guys ever provided the sensitivity associated with the expected returns that you have for that portfolio, and let’s say for every 1% under or over, what it means for the unfunded balance?

Hey Joe this is Michael Lewis again. We have provided sensitivity on accounting basis for instance for 25 basis point on the U.S. plan for a change in that discount rate it would be about $50 million change in unfunded position. But again that can be used as a parameter for the U.S. plan on an accounting basis relative to my other comments about how we use the assets and liabilities and funding itself we experience and life would be different because of how we are using our strategy on the viability and the duration action between the assets and liabilities. So while there’s an accounting sensitivity provided the funding itself its going to be a little bit different and keep in mind that any of the funding changes will also be amortized over time. Joe Stauff – Susquehanna: It’s always nebulous, but I’ll ask the question nonetheless. Thanks you guys, thanks a lot, guys.

Thanks Joe.

(Operator Instructions) Your next question comes from the line of Richard Haydon with Yield Capital Richard Haydon – Yield Capital: ?:

No it was not. Richard Haydon – Yield Capital: Okay so, okay that’s t the first. And second, the negative expected $6 billion hit in Thailand in the fourth quarter, what level of profitability is that an EBITDA number, or is it some other number?

Yes it’s a EBITDA number. Richard Haydon – Yield Capital: Okay. Thank you.

Welcome.

And there are no further questions at this time sir. Don Stebbins – Chairman and Chief Executive Officer and President: Thank you very much, we appreciate it we’ll be around to answer to any other questions you have throughout the day. Thanks (Brandy).

Thank you, sir. Ladies and gentlemen, this concludes today’s conference call. Thank you for your participation. We now disconnect at this time.