Good afternoon, my name is Dihana and I will be your conference operator today. At this time I would like to welcome everyone to the Tessesra's First Quarter 2008 Earnings Conference Call. All line has been placed on mute to prevent any background noise. After the speakers remark there will be a question-and-answer session. (Operator Instructions). Thank you. Mrs. Shilton you may begin your conference.

Thank you, Dihana, and good afternoon, everyone. Thank you for joining us for the Tessera Technologies first quarter 2008 earnings conference call. This call is being broadcast live over the internet. A webcast replay will be available at tessera.com for 90 days after the call. In addition, a telephone replay of this call will be made available for 48 hours beginning approximately two hours after the completion of this call. To listen to the replay in the US, please dial 800-642-1687, and internationally, dial 706-645-9291. The access code is 43493004. I will now read a short safe harbor statement. During the course of this conference call, management may make projections or other forward-looking statements, which are made pursuant to the safe harbor provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Forward-looking statements involve risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ significantly from those projected. You are cautioned not to place undue reliance on the forward-looking statements, which speak only as of the date of this release. A detailed discussion of the material factors that may cause results to differ from the statements made can be found, for example, in the Risk Factors sections of Tessera's filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission, including its annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31.2007. On the call today from management are Bruce McWilliams, Tessera's Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer, Charlie Webster, Chief Financial Officer. and Scot Griffin Senior Vice President and General Council. During this call today, management will discuss certain non-GAAP financial measures for comparison purposes only, and they will be using non-GAAP numbers in their prepared remarks. The non-GAAP amounts of cost of revenues; research and development; selling, general and administrative expenses; net income; and earnings per share do not include the following stock based compensation, acquired intangible amortization charges, charges required in process research and development and non cash tax expense. Management believes the non-GAAP amounts provide a more meaningful comparison measure of quarter-over-quarter and year-over-year financial performance. Please refer to the company's first quarter 2008 earnings press release and to the company's website for reconciliation of non-GAAP measures to GAAP. After management's opening remarks, we will open the call to your questions. So that management is able to respond to as many of you as possible, please restrict yourself to an opening and a follow-on question. Please re-enter the queue if you have additional questions. And with that, I'll turn the call over to Bruce.

Thank you, Moriah. Today's consumer demand demands greater functionality and even smaller devices. Tessera develops, integrates and licenses technologies that help companies meet the demand for smaller, faster, and more feature-rich electronic products. We provide a broad range of miniaturization solutions from advanced packaging and interconnect to consumer imaging, which are widely adopted in high- growth markets, including consumer, computing and wireless communications. Our total revenue for the first quarter of 2008 was $59.4 million up 27% compare to last years first quarter and 12% compare to the previous quarter. Royalties and license fees of 50.2million increased 34% compare to last years first quarter and 10% over the prior quarter. Revenue for the quarter was driven by DRAM and wireless unit growth that came in higher than expected and greater than anticipated license-related revenue. We continue to expand our product offerings in consumer imaging, from image sensor packaging and wafer level optics to algorithms for auto focus, zoom, red-eye reduction and face tracking. We believe these complementary technologies are ideal for the next generation of digital cameras, especially those used in wireless, laptops, toys, security and automotive applications. Now let me take you through our business. Our chip scale packaging business remains strong. Increasing amounts of memory per unit in both computing and consumer devices is driving broader usage of CSP in a wide range of applications. This generates sustained unit growth across our diverse customer base. We believe our research and development and packaging and interconnect positions us well to participate in important industry trends. For example, our MicroPILR technology enables finder pitch interconnect and addresses the demand for higher IO packages with reduced form factor. We continue to drive manufacturing infrastructure high-yield, low-cost supply of package substrates and printed wiring boards that leverage the benefits of our MicroPILR…

Thank you, Bruce. Before I review our detailed financials for the quarter, please note that Tessera's non-GAAP results do not include stock-based compensation, charges from the amortization of acquired intangibles, acquired in-process R&D and non-cash tax expense. Also, starting in 2008, past production payments will only include settlement payments from new license agreements; and the adjustments from current licensees, such as the results of royalty audits, will be included in royalty and license fees. To help you better understand our results we have included a detailed reconciliation between our GAAP and non-GAAP numbers in both our earnings release and on our website. Now turning to the first quarter results let me take you through the details. First quarter total revenue was 59.4 million up 27% year-over-year including royalties and license fees of 50.2 million up 34% year-over-year. Product and service revenue was 9.1 million. Royalty and license revenue fully met our expectations on solid unit growth in our address full markets and included a favorable royalty adjustment from one of our current licensees. In the fourth quarter of 2007 DRAM units grew 5% sequentially bringing full year 2007 unit growth to 50% over 2006. The wireless industry December quarter was stronger with sequential unit growth of roughly 15%. Products and service revenue was higher than we expected due to strong shipments of microoptics to the photolithography, photonics, and communications industries. Now let me review expenses. Total GAAP expenses, which, as a reminder, include cost of revenues and litigation, were $54 million. Stock-based compensation expense was $4.5 million. Amortization of acquired intangibles was $2.3 million. In addition, during the quarter we also recorded a one time charge of 2.5 million for in-process R&D associated with the acquisition of FotoNation. Subtracting these items total non-GAAP operating expense was 44.7 million. Litigation expense…

Thank you, Charlie. I want to thank you all for your continued interest in Tessera. We are very pleased with our strong first quarter results. We remain confident about our long term growth and our return on the investment from our research and development activities as well as our efforts to defend our intellectual property. We recognize short term there maybe variables that can impact our legal activities. However, we are back on track in the ITC and remain bullish about our ability to prevail. Through successful resolution of our ITC actions and the arbitration's with Amkor we believe we will capture the bulk of the CSP market that uses Tessera's technology. This will drive very strong long term growth in our core business. We have assembled a broad platform of imaging technologies with the most recent addition being the sophisticated digital still camera imaging technologies such as red eye reduction and face tracking. With this robust integrated cost effective and easy to use platform we are uniquely positioned to be the solution of choice for the next generation of digital cameras in markets including wireless automotive and security. As a result we believe we will exceed 100 million in consumer imaging revenue by 2010 and firmly believe long term we can grow this business to be a size as large if not larger than our current core business. We are excited about the growth opportunities that lie ahead for us in all of our businesses and I look forward to sharing our success with you in the future. I would now like to turn the call over for questions.

(Operator Instructions) Your first question comes from the line of Brett Hodess.

First quickly can you repeat what the litigation was in the quarter? I didn't quite catch it?

Sure Brett. It was 24.2 million.

24.2 million, okay. A couple of questions. First, on the licensing for the consumer imaging business, you mentioned that you thought and would get some more licenses this quarter. Do you get -- are you figuring in the license fees when you give the revenue guidance? Is that a piece of that? And in the second half of the year, you mentioned that you start to script production in the fourth quarter. Would you actually start to get revenues off that in the fourth quarter? Or would that be delayed until first quarter -- would there be a similar lag of a quarter or so?

Hey Brett, Bruce. There are some optics licensing deals in Q2. It's a smaller portion of our revenue. But, and often these things have some milestones associated with them, so it's not all recognized at one time. And fourth-quarter production is really pilot production. And as always, our revenues are one quarter in arrears.

Okay. And then the other question, on the legal front, if you could -- is there any indication when the stayed ITC wireless case -- when they will have a date for you for that to go back to trial?

This is Scot Griffin. No, there's not at this point in time. The parties have conferred with Judge Essex's chambers and the staff counsel also have weighed in. So we have all sort of made our request as to the timing, and we're just waiting for the judge to report back to us.

Well and he hasn't given you any timeframe at which they will report back?

No, he has not.

Okay. Thank you.

Your next question comes from the line of Jesse Pichel.

Good afternoon. Was the royalty adjustment mentioned result of an audit? And minus that adjustment, would the royalties still have grown?

Hi, Jesse. This is Charlie. Yes, our TCC or CSP royalties were -- fully met our expectations. That is to say, they grew quarter over quarter. And the royalty adjustment is one of actually a broad category of adjustments that occur to us fairly frequently. We get customers sometimes ticking revenues down; sometimes they come up. It depends on their calculations. The key thing for us is, again, TCC royalties were very strong end of the fourth quarter. They look strong again seasonally into the second quarter and our confidence is pretty high as the year progresses.

And typically Q2 is weak quarters for you seasonally, and yet you are guiding up. And I'm wondering have you received all of or a good portion of your royalty reports for Q2, which gives you confidence in your guidance? Or if not, what are you basing that upward revision on?

Again, we do have more visibility than most firms in that we recognize revenue in arrears. And by the time of this call, we have a portion of shipment reports from our customers. So our confidence is pretty firm on that level. Again, we also see unit-based growth across a diverse array of markets. And many of them are non U.S in terms of our both PCs, notebooks, and handset growth, is all driven principally outside the U.S., and we see stronger growth dynamics there.

Could you disclose any 10% customers in the quarter?

We had two and at this point, we don't give them out by name, but you will see them in our Q, which will be out on the 9 of May.

And Shellcase, we were expecting Shellcase to ramp significantly in the second half '08 relative to the first half. And I'm wondering, do you still expect that to occur?

Jesse, maybe I'll take that. It's Bruce. Shellcase is an important piece of our business in that it fits in nicely with our wafer-level camera and other things. It's substantially up from where we bought it, but I don't think that by itself, will be that material. It's more an important piece of our revenue. And so I don't think that's going to drive a significant portion of our growth in the second half of the year.

And my last question for modeling purposes, has the DDR2 portion of your royalty and licensing fees exceeded the royalties and licensing fees for your core NOR and DSP business at this point?

We have not provided that degree of visibility, Jesse, but DDR2 is definitely slowing a little bit and we are seeing the early traction of DDR3.

I am sorry, not DDR2 and 3, yes. The DDR business relative to the NOR and DSP business is the DDR business greater?

Yeah, I think it's definitely bigger.

Yes. It's definitely a larger portion than non-DRAM which -- non-DRAM includes NOR as well as other logic chips like DSP and baseband chips.

Great. That's helpful. Thank you very much.

One last comment there, Jesse that that of course is the subject of the ITC Wireless case and should we be successful as we hope and expect our share there could climb very substantially and with it for royalties.

And could you just lastly discuss how much is left on your buyback and what's your strategy there at this level?

Yeah, I mean, the buyback authorization was $100 million, so we have a considerable amount of headroom. I would say we are continuously looking at the best uses of our shareholder capital and we will keep reviewing it. I would say we are very excited about our consumer optics business. We have made, as you know, four acquisitions and I think we are confident that we can continue to find new opportunities of that nature going forward, so we will just have to see.

Thank you very much.

Thanks.

Your next question comes from the line of Raj Seth.

Thank you. Just a couple of quick ones. You mentioned Charlie I think your expectation for the year was 10% growth in the wireless business, 20 for DRAM. You also mentioned that increasing penetration of CSP into a lot of the target application. In general, do you have a way to think about how much of excess of the growth of the unit poles to which were attach you would expect to grow based on the increased penetration into some of that markets?

I think with respect to the core CSP business, I think the two proxies of DRAM grow to 20%, about half of total growth is in licenses and wireless growing at 10%. Those are pretty good guide posts. On the handset unit growth, what we are seeing of course is more dynamism, more rapid growth in emerging markets those are typically lower CSP intensive. So I wouldn’t say it's a huge kicker to growth there in the near future, I think the imaging business has an opportunity to add considerably there because our suite of products is positioned and I think I will turn this one over to Bruce but a range of price points ranging from showcase image sensor packaging to run design to algorithm to improve the image quality and as attach rates for camera modules in the wireless devices continue to climb, we see a compounded annual growth rate in camera modules in wireless devices of more than 20%. So that’s a strong market that we are pushing into.

And then I know you have it historically broken out your revenues by product segment, but any guidance you can give on roughly how much today comes from an accumulative sense obviously about half -- I mean historically half the service revenues, but how much from the consumer optics business today is built into the numbers?

We haven't given that guidance, but I think Bruce mentioned in the last call that last year the consumer optics business was in the order of 30 to 40 million in total revenues.

Right. I think this year it will in the $50 million range with a bigger growth in the tail-end.

Great. And one last one for Scot. Scot, do you necessarily go back before judge Essex in the ITC or is that also up in the air?

That’s our assumption based on everything that we have heard thus far, I suppose it's a possibility that we might go in front of another judge, but for now we are assuming judge Essex.

Great. Thanks very much.

Your next question comes from the line of Arnab Chanda.

Hi. This is Steve Zane for Arnab. I have a question on the acquisition of the pens from Kronos. That seems to be a little bit different from what you guys were doing recently. Can you give us a little more color on why you guys made the acquisition and when you guys will see revenues?

Yes. The FotoNation the OEMs like Nokia and so forth, they want to put more and more features into their cameras, things like face tracker, red eye reduction and it turns out if you bundle all of these things together like zoom and our optimal focus, the net gate count is less because say if you have a need a frame buffer or one of these things for both of them, they are not in separate parts, so it's more cost-effective plus we believe people want a single place to come to get the complete solution. Furthermore, we are interested in driving a higher total royalty per camera by delivering more value. So we looked at all of the different place and the space and FotoNation has a I believe something like 90% of the penetration for the red eye removal and digital still cameras and a lot of penetration in face tracker. So in our view that’s a very challenging market. The quality has to be very good to prevail in that market. So we saw them as a natural choice and we also believe they have very strong IP in this area.

Sorry. I was actually asking about Kronos, your micro-cooling technology?

You are asking about -- Kronos, I thought you said FotoNation. Yeah, Kronos, this is a new technology that allows you to move air around by ionize the air and then electrostatically move it with alternative fields so you can cool every bit as good as with the fan but with no moving parts, we believe the cost will be equal or lower so reduce noise and we think longer term even more effective and I think cooling is one of the biggest challenges in the electronics industry as they want to pack things in smaller and smaller footprint. So we had been working in research in this area. We again surveyed everything out there. We decided this was the best solution for the future. We acquired that technology, the patents and few people and we are investing in that area.

Okay. Any timeline on getting revenues from this area?

I think these things usually take a couple of years. We have a small early prototype but you got to get it adopted into the OEMs qualified infrastructure, but I think you could start to see it within maybe 18 months to two years.

Okay. Are there any other areas that you guys are looking to acquire? I mean, it still seems like you are pretty loaded with cash and other than a share repurchase, it doesn’t make sense especially in this environment to actually keep all on the balance sheet?

Well, we are constantly looking to have a group that does nothing but this, but again we are very selective. We generally don’t like large acquisitions, we like things that are emerging, so they likely have fundamental IP and things that are synergistic with what we know how to do. Cooling was a natural choice because it relates closely to packaging and likewise FotoNation we would have never made that acquisition in the very beginning but as we got into these things like Eyesquad, it was a natural add-on. So we continuously look. We think actually this kind of model makes a lot of sense for us because it's unlikely that organically you can continue to have revolutionary breakthroughs and IP business relies on those kinds of breakthroughs and we would like to look throughout the world for the best new things and that are synergistic of where we didn’t.

Great thank you.

Your next question comes from the line of Kevin Vassily.

Thank you for taking my question. First, wanted to ask about the reexamination process right now. What, if anything, do you guys expect in the near-term in terms of kind of further actions or announcements out of the PTO? Particularly in regard to the 490 patent, which I think got that action -- closing action not too far back?

Okay this is Scott. With respect to the 409 action, we are in the eighth step of a 26-step process. The examiners are considering what to do in view of the comments that they receive from both Tessera and SPIL to the action closing prosecution. There are two options that the examiners have. First, they can decide to reopen prosecution and go back and look at the arguments, and this is precisely what we have requested them to do. Alternatively, they could certify this for appeal, which would allow Tessera to go ahead and file an appeal in front of the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences. While we are hopeful that we will be able to get the prosecution reopened, it is our assumption, just in terms of preparing for everything, that we will be appealing this to the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences. Now the problem that we have is that there's no deadline for the examiner to come out with their comments as to what they're going to do. Basically at this point in time, I can't -- we can't not say or predict what they're going to say and when they are going to say it. All we can say is that we are prepared in either event and if we have to appeal, we look forward to doing that.

Okay. A couple of follow-ones on that. So, if they decide not to reopen prosecution, is there something specific that they would necessarily say to signal that? Or does it kind of float out there and you have to push the kind of appeal agenda to these guys?

What would happen if they decide to make the action final is they would issue a right of appeal notice; and that would give us typically 30 days to a month in which to file an appeal to the Board of patent appeals and interferences.

Okay. And at that point, you are able -- you have the right to have that appeal heard if they give you that notice? Is that right?

That’s correct

Okay. Do you have any way of expediting the appeal process?

This is where we kind of get into some peculiarities of the re-exam process. The only time -- there's really no deadlines that are placed on the examiners or on the board. Of the few appeals -- of the few re-exams, inter-party re-exams have gone through appeal you can't determine anything in terms of what the timeframe is and whether you can expedite it or not. So I guess that's a very long way of saying I don't think we have an opportunity to expedite the process. I think that's the answer.

Okay. Question actually for Charlie on the legal side. Since you're not going to give guidance anymore going forward, but will talk about it kind of after the fact, is there any way you can maybe put some boundaries on certain things for us? Like for instance, you mentioned in Q1 you have two simultaneous trials being prepared for, Amkor and the ITC. Is it fair to say for Q2 then that the bulk of costs associated with arbitration are behind you? You've got some interval costs associated with the briefs you need to file and in there. But just for our kind of purposes, is that a fair way to think about the Amkor piece?

This is Scot, and that's correct. That's a fair assessment of the arbitration.

Okay.

Kevin, the only thing I would add is, as I mentioned in my comments, it's a combination of concerns that we have about the litigation guide. Happy to break it out for you and we will retrospectively. But not only is there a lot going on, a lot that we cannot control. For example we don't know exactly when the trial is going to be reset and so forth.

Right.

And secondly, putting numbers out there is frankly -- we don't believe the long term interest of our shareholders. We think the long term ROI to the dollars are terrific and that’s what we are focused on.

Right okay. That’s all my questions thank you.

Thanks.

Your next question comes from the line of Bennett Notman.

Looks like receivables ticked up a little bit in the quarter. Could you just talk of about what might be going on there?

Hi Bennet. I am sorry you're cracking a little bit could you say again?

It appears that receivables ticked up a little bit in the quarter and I was just wondering what was driving that.

No particular important underlying there. Our receivables and working capital is excellent. Our DSO's are in the 30 to 45 range. We obviously had a higher business over the quarter so we had $59 million worth of revenues that’s probably the biggest factor.

Okay and then what was the CapEx number in the quarter if you gave that?

CapEx in the $2 to $3 million range per quarter. It’s ticking up a little bit for us with our activities in digital optics and the wafer level optics business.

All right great. That was it thank you.

Okay thanks.

Your next question comes from the line of C.J. Muse.

You can hear me?

Yes.

Good thank you for your taking my question. I guess to follow up on a previous question were you gave guidance for digital optics and thank you for that. I guess I am trying to get a better view for the overall non DRAM and wireless business. So if you were to strip up both of those royalty streams what kind of revenues could we look for from the rest of your business in 2008? Can you give us kind of a ballpark range?

So to clarify C.J. you are saying take DRAM out of the mix and use CSP wireless plus consumer imaging?

No take DRAM and wireless out so if we get the emerging digital optics plus the legacy digital optics plus service.

Yeah. So basically roughly all of our new business which we are calling imaging technologies is in the neighborhood of 50 million. We haven't given annual guidance but you could kind of its at least going to be something in the neighborhood of double what our first two quarters are. So you get the sense that about 20% or something of our revenues is our new stuff. And I think you will see over time that becoming more and more dominant. But I do expect to see a lot of growth in our core business as well but it somewhat a function of how we do on our ability to defend our IP.

Maybe I could ask another way. When you look at the product and service line item in 2007 lets say how much of that was related to wireless and DRAM versus digital optics? I guess how should we think about that in '08?

Yeah really in products and services line C.J. you have two things. One is the sale of micro-optics and the second has been our government funded R&D. Government funded R&D has been declining and we see it doing so even more steeply actually into the forward quarters. So the guide I gave you for Q2 of about $7 million is mostly micro-optics and that’s a good rough sense for that business probably moving on into the year. That help you.

That’s helpful. And I guess secondly you told us the cash tax. Give us a GAAP tax rate?

The GAAP tax rate for the period was 73% it was obviously higher than our normal level of about 43 to 45 on a couple of factors. First was of course lower net income. Secondly we had an IP R&D charge in process R&D and third we have some expenses that are non-deductible in our off shore activities. As I have said before those are absolutely expected and expected to turn around predictably as this year progress and we think that the off shore activities will be a source of real tax efficiency for us.

And going forward for the rest of 2008 how should we think about the GAAP tax rate?

You know again little hard to call for the rest of '08 at this point. Same main drivers of how much activity and expense we have offshore versus onshore. I would say probably into Q2, the tax rate is probably going to be still fairly high. Though I continue to focus folks on the cash tax rate, which, this quarter was only $1.4 million. It will be on the order 3 next quarter and probably stays in that range for the next several quarters.

Okay and last question for me, what was the royalty adjustment amount?

We didn't break that out, C.J., but we did emphasize that TCC, CSP current existing royalties were really strong over the period. Our products and services was strong. And actually our licenses and royalties from FotoNation were at the higher end of our expectations. So that should help you a bit.

Got it. Thank you.

Thanks.

Your next question comes from the line of Hans Mosesmann

Charlie, on that last question, can you look at it this way or answer it such that without the adjustment in Q1 for that royalty, that one time, will the licensing and royalty be up in Q2?

No. I mean, it's, historically, Q2 has been a flattish to up 1 or 2% we see a similar dynamic here. Maybe a little bit more strength thanks to DRAM.

Okay, so flattish flat to normal?

Yeah.

Okay, then one last question because I think everybody has done a pretty good job of asking most of the questions. The 20% DRAM unit growth for '08 that is based on what kind of a bit unit growth for DRAMs or the DRAM industry if you have that data?

Yeah, we don't actually track bit growth. I did in my prior life. The key issue for us is units rather than bits. Bit growth historically has been in the 36%, rate. But again, that's not the most important metric for us. It really is units. The biggest issue for 2008 is the strong capacity that's being brought online over the last several years. We see it continuing. We're starting to see some slowdown in CapEx, but that's going to take some while before that slows units that are still coming out of assembly lines very quickly. So our confidence in the unit-based growth rate here in '08 is strong. And even when we look out into '09, as Bruce mentioned in his comments, we see increasing memory intensively per device, such that DRAM longer-term unit growth is probably in the 15 to even 20% range.

Very well, thank you.

Thanks.

And now final question comes from the line of Eric Solomon.

Thanks for taking my question today. Most of the questions that I had have already been answered. But I did want to get a bit more color about the competitive environment for the wafer level cameras. I noticed that Uptina had also made a product announcement, maybe another company as well. What do you feel your competitive position is against those companies?

We are in active discussions with most all of these companies. Generally we're getting good reception from them. I believe we have, first of all, the strongest IP position in this area, and from what I can see, we are the furthest along in both yields and I believe we have the lowest cost solution.

Okay, thanks that helpful. And just one kind of housekeeping thing. With the cash on your balance sheet, is there anything I should know there about auction rates? Is that an issue for you?

Yeah, hi this Charlie. We have about $24 million worth of auction rate securities. We continue to watch them carefully. But we are fairly comfortable right now. They are all AAA credits. They are senior debt and they keep paying interest. So we are distinguishing between liquidity, which is low and credit, which we think is high, and feel comfortable at the present time.

Great. Thanks very much.

Thanks.

And this concludes our Q&A session would now like to turn the conference back to our presenters for closing remarks.

Thank you, again, for your support and we look forward to talking to you again next quarter. Thank you.

Thank you for participating in today's teleconference. This concludes today's call. You may disconnect at this time. Copyright policy: All transcripts on this site are the copyright of Seeking Alpha. However, we view them as an important resource for bloggers and journalists, and are excited to contribute to the democratization of financial information on the Internet. (Until now investors have had to pay thousands of dollars in subscription fees for transcripts.) So our reproduction policy is as follows: You may quote up to 400 words of any transcript on the condition that you attribute the transcript to Seeking Alpha and either link to the original transcript or to www.SeekingAlpha.com. All other use is prohibited. THE INFORMATION CONTAINED HERE IS A TEXTUAL REPRESENTATION OF THE APPLICABLE COMPANY'S CONFERENCE CALL, CONFERENCE PRESENTATION OR OTHER AUDIO PRESENTATION, AND WHILE EFFORTS ARE MADE TO PROVIDE AN ACCURATE TRANSCRIPTION, THERE MAY BE MATERIAL ERRORS, OMISSIONS, OR INACCURACIES IN THE REPORTING OF THE SUBSTANCE OF THE AUDIO PRESENTATIONS. IN NO WAY DOES SEEKING ALPHA ASSUME ANY RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY INVESTMENT OR OTHER DECISIONS MADE BASED UPON THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ON THIS WEB SITE OR IN ANY TRANSCRIPT. USERS ARE ADVISED TO REVIEW THE APPLICABLE COMPANY'S AUDIO PRESENTATION ITSELF AND THE APPLICABLE COMPANY'S SEC FILINGS BEFORE MAKING ANY INVESTMENT OR OTHER DECISIONS. If you have any additional questions about our online transcripts, please contact us at: transcripts@seekingalpha.com. Thank you!