Welcome to The Brink’s Company’s Fourth Quarter 2016 Earnings Call. Brink’s issued a press release on fourth quarter results this morning. The company also filed an 8-K that includes the release and the slides that will be used in today’s call. For those of you listening by phone, the release and slides are available on the company’s website at Brinks.com. At this time, all participants are in a listen-only mode. A question-and-answer session will follow the formal presentation. [Operator Instructions] As a reminder, this conference is being recorded. Now for the company’s Safe Harbor statement. This call and the Q&A session will contain forward-looking statements. Actual results could differ materially from projected or estimated results. Information regarding factors that could cause such differences is available in today’s press release and in the company’s most recent SEC filings. Information presented and discussed on this call is representative as of today only. Brink’s assumes no obligation to update any forward-looking statements. This call is copyrighted and may not be used without written permission from Brink’s. It is now my pleasure to introduce your host, Ed Cunningham, Vice President of Investor Relations and Corporate Communications. Mr. Cunningham, you may begin.

Thank you, Denise. And good morning, everyone. Joining me today are CEO, Doug Pertz; and CFO, Ron Domanico. This morning, we reported results on both the GAAP and non-GAAP basis. The non-GAAP results exclude certain retirement expenses, reorganization and restructuring costs, acquisitions, dispositions, and tax rate adjustments. In addition to these items, our non-GAAP results exclude Venezuela, due to a variety of factors, including our inability to repatriate cash, Venezuela’s fixed exchange rate policies, continued currency devaluations, and the difficulties we face operating in a highly inflationary economy. We believe the non-GAAP results make it easier for investors to assess operating performance between periods. Accordingly our comments today including those referring to our guidance will focus primarily on non-GAAP results. A summary reconciliation of non-GAAP to GAAP results is provided on Page 4 of the earnings release and more detailed reconciliations are provided in the release, and the appendix to the slides we’re using today, in this morning’s 8-K filing, and on our website. Page 9 of the press release provides a summary of several outlook items, including guidance on revenue, operating profit, earnings per share, and adjusted EBITDA. I’ll now turn the call over to Doug.

Thanks, Ed. Good morning, everyone, and thanks for joining the call. This morning, we reported much improved fourth quarter and full-year results, ending 2016 on a very positive note that strongly supports our trajectory for 2017 and beyond. Fourth quarter non-GAAP earnings grew 58% from $0.55 per share to $0.87 per share. Operating profit for this quarter was $77 million of 71% on an organic basis with an operating margin of 10% versus 6.6% in the fourth quarter 2015. Revenue for the quarter grew 10% on an organic basis helping support our 6% organic growth rate for the full-year. I'm especially pleased to report that the strong performance was partially driven by continued profit improvement and revenue growth in the US, along with improved results or both rev and margins in Argentina, Mexico and Asia. In Mexico, fourth quarter revenue and profit growth was driven primarily by continued growth in the retail sector with and customers. In the US, operating profit for the quarter was $8 million compared to a slight loss in the fourth quarter 2015. US revenue and profit benefitted from the previously announced sale of several 100 cash recyclers to a large retailer. In addition to an initial sale and installation revenue, this new business will also provide a stream of high margin recurring revenue in 2017 and future years. Looking ahead, we expect positive US year-over-year comparisons in 2017 and beyond, driven by our investments in new trucks and other strategic initiative. It's important to note that the fourth quarter is typically our strongest in most countries including the US, with the first half of the year typically the weaker part of the year. For example, our country wide operating margin in the fourth quarter up 10% compared with a full-year margin of 27.1%, clearly demonstrating…

Thanks Doug and good day everyone. Please direct your attention to slide 10 where I will discuss our non-GAP revenue. Adjusting for ForEx and the businesses we exited, revenue in the fourth quarter increased from $695 million in 2015 to $768 million in 2016; an organic increase of 10%. Latin America driven by Chile and Argentina and the US all delivered double-digit organic growth. The growth in the US was primarily due to sales of onsite cash recycling services to a national retailer which Doug already mentioned. Asia, Brazil and Mexico all grew organically in the mid to high single-digit range. EMEA grew 3%. Canada was flat. And France decreased 3% due to the loss of an airport guarding contract in early 2016. ForEx in the fourth quarter was $29 million unfavorable versus the same period last year, driven primarily by devaluation in Argentina and Mexico partially offset by stronger EI in Brazil. This positions reflect the previously announced exits from Ireland and Russia. For the year, revenue increased organically by $167 million or 6% to $2.9 billion. The organic growth rate of 6% is 100 bps better than the 5% we included in our full-year outlook at the end of the third quarter. All segments except Europe and France grew organically. Latin America up 25% followed by Brazil in payment services at a 11% and the other segments in the low to mid-single digit range. Year-to-date, ForEx was $198 million unfavorable as on average the US dollar strengthened against most currencies. In 2017, we expect revenue growth from price and volume increases in Latin America, Brazil and Mexico and volume growth in the United States from our increased focus on sales especially around our CompuSafe retail solution and mid-tier banks. Turing to slide 11. Fourth quarter 2016 non-GAAP operating…

Thanks, Ron. In summary it was a good quarter and a good year with solid and accelerating growth. For the year, EPS was up 30.0%, organic operating profit was 43% growth and 30% 43% growth with an operating margin of 7.1%, that's 180 basis points improvement. Organic revenue grew by 6% and adjusted EBITDA with $333 million. As a new management team, one of our goals is to build confidence among investors. Our 2016 operating profit and earnings came in well ahead of our guidance and we expect further improvement in 2017. With our guidance for 2017, organic revenue growth of 6%. And after taking to account and overcoming FX related profit headwinds of $15 million, operating profit is expected to be between $230 million and $240 million with an operating margin approaching 8%. Adjusted EBITDA is expected to be in the $370 million to $380 million range, and that's before any acquisitions. We built an historical and future earnings growth rate in excess of 20%. Brink's is currently trading at just over a seven times trailing adjusted EBITDA and a forward multiple of about 6.3 times; both well below our peers as Ron suggested. We have a strategic plan in place and a strong team that is ready in execution mode. Several of our strategic initiatives are starting to produce results in the US and other countries. And there is more to come including additional internal initiative and potential acquisitions designed to drive revenue and profit growth over the next three years. We look forward to sharing the details of our plans and our three-year financial targets on March 2nd. Let's open up for call.

Thank you, sir. [Operator Instruction] And your first question will come from James Clement of Macquarie. Please go ahead.

Doug, Ron, Ed, good morning and thanks in the best to taking my questions.

Thank you.

Doug, I just want to be real clear about something, the 245 to 255 of EPS non-GAAP EPS guidance 2017 that is inclusive of a $0.18 per share headwind from currency. Is that correct?

That's correct. So, what we are doing is trying to reset based on FX at the end of the year, end of 2016, because we saw the additional FX headwinds in the latter part of the particular that provided us the reset for the FX at the end of the year and this number includes that which we stated both on a EPS basis, well, our EPS operating margin basis as well as EPS basis. So that's correct.

All right. And then question on Mexico if I could. Big organic increase in operating profit in the fourth quarter. Have you already reset some of your labor cost that you discussed or is that still to come in 2017?

Jamie, part of that was the Mexican government approved a diesel fuel credit but it was a small portion. As you insinuated, a lot of the improvement was from changes that have been underway in the last few months specially on the labor side.

So I would actually Jamie say that part of it was that but a very relatively small part of that usually part of it is, it's a stronger fourth quarter plus you saw there was good revenue growth and that adds to obviously a better margin in the quarter, but we are just starting to this year implement the changes in the labor structure and the optimization of the routes and we should see this year and in next year both 2017 and 2018 substantial improved margins as result of those changes. And I will continue revenue growth on the retail side.

Gentlemen thanks very much for your time as always.

Thank you James.

The next question will come from Ashish Sinha of Gabelli & Company. Please go ahead.

Hi. Thank you for taking my questions. I had a few, myself. Starting with the U.S. the strong organic growth you posted in the fourth quarter. I just wanted to dig a little bit deeper on it. And since we're speaking about that, I just had a clarification on CompuSafe versus cash recyclers. And is my understanding correct that they are two different products. CompuSafe is a slightly more advanced than a typical cash recycler. And if so, could you talk about the difference in the economics of both of these products, and if there is any cannibalization threat? Thank you.

Yes. It is very good question and I think that's something on March 2nd we should provide a lot more detail and background on it, maybe even have one there. Actually the – if you take a look at the continuum of retail offerings that we offer and the industry offers, I would start off with a safe, that is relatively what we call maybe a dumb safe. And that's it's just a safe without the interconnects, without the monitoring, without the ability to know how much the balances are, without the ability to give automatic credit etcetera, more of a dumb safe cheaper low end of it. Next in the continuum would be what we call CompuSafe which is really the modern day smart safe and that would be what we think as a opportunity for significant growth and obviously what our competitor has been doing a very good job of selling in the marketplace as well. At the further end of that, and at a higher cost is the recycler that is generally used in a more sophisticated setting where they actually recycle cash within the store or the retail operation. So it sells at a much higher price maybe a price point as closer to $40,000 to $50,000 - $60,000 and is a more sophisticated piece of equipment probably offering more ability to reduce headcount and cost savings as compared to the smart safe or the CompuSafe that's closer to the $5000 range. So the combination and there are differences, we were talking about a large sale in the fourth quarter we announced that at the end of at the third quarter conference call for a large retail chain that we are very pleased to finalize that, and that will provide us fairly significant ongoing what we call ongoing high margin recurring revenue streams similar to but at a higher level, a different scale if you will as compared to the CompuSafe, which again provide the same sort of thing. A typical CompuSafe is sold with a five-year recurring revenue stream associated or payments for the services that include CIT money processing and the monitoring and the cost of the financing of the safe. Does that help?

Yes that's helpful and in terms of the economics, customer can essentially either buy it or leave it from you. Is that how it works?

Yes that is how it works although our primary offering is the offering of a full monthly payment over five year period of time that includes the combination of the financing cost of the -- effectively it's a -- it could be active -- or it could be we buy it and it's CapEx for us, or we finance it through a lease and then we just effectively back-to-back the payments on it and we make the money off the payments. We then have maintenance that goes along with that. But we have the other services too. It's monitoring of the equipment. It's the guarantee of instant daily credits. We also guarantee any risk associated with losses. So those are all packed pieces of a package that are much different than if they just buy the safe and handle it themselves. And then again obviously it's packaged together with our CIT and money processing services.

So if you could give us a ballpark of what are we looking at in terms of dollars per month if somebody was to go for CompuSafe versus a recycler?

I will give you range, but I don't really want to have a specific, but look for something in the $4500 to $5000 a year on the revenue streams associated with a CompuSafe and anywhere from $18,000 to $20,000 a year for a high end recycler.

Understood. Thank you very much.

The next question will be from Jeff Kessler of Imperial Capital. Please go ahead.

Thank you. Can you talk about what additional services you've been able to provide to both Canada and Mexico that would help them to stay if you are trying to get a, if you want to say a North American wide strategy. Will CompuSafe and cash recycling services be added to those offerings? And one truck or one person trucks be added to those offerings in spots, particularly because there is no, you've got a significant competitor in Mexico, you've got a significant competitor in Canada. To what extent can you go to make yourselves more efficient, but also to what extent can you go to unify or take the United States as a petri dish, so to speak, and bring that into the adjacent countries?

Yes. So that's a multi-prong question. I’ll start off by kind of dissecting it by country maybe a little bit. We have talked about the structural differences in both Mexico and Canada, heavier in Mexico than Canada. So while we are say in the U.S. there aren't really major structural differences between us and the rest of the industry. It's a difference of strategy and just difference of investment and just in terms of execution of that strategy in the U.S. And now we are changing our strategy in the U.S. The execution of the investment and that's what's going to make the difference in the U.S. And CompuSafe is a key piece of this. The retail portion of our strategy in the U.S. is the key piece of this, obviously recyclers will be helping be similar to CompuSafe as a component of that as well. In Mexico, there is a structural difference and we are modifying that structural difference from the labor standpoint and that structural chain that we are making there is similar to the marketplace with our largest competitor in Mexico. So we are very pleased that we are able to work with our unions and our employees to accomplish that and move that forward and that's where we are going to be starting to see the benefits of this year and in the future years. Along with that includes optimization of routes and operational structures and also the reduction in some routes in the number of crew on our trucks as well. So it's a combination of all those things on an operational basis, that will yield significant improvements in our cost structure because the structural changes versus competition in Mexico that are already in place with the competitor. Now augmenting that is what we saw…

Okay. One other quick question and that is use of technology whether it is in anti-counterfeiting technology or whether it's in geo-location technology, to what extent have you been able to -- this has been around the ages for a while now, and I am waiting to hear you have to walk before you can run, the question is how far have you begun to penetrate geo-location marking not just parts in Europe but actual bills perhaps in the United States, things like that that will make your trucks more efficient and reduce cargo loss.

Yes there is actually two different areas you are looking at the risk and the how we track and monitor the risk associated with that. We are looking at that as an initiative but it's too early to release what we can where we will go with that on an economic basis. The second piece of that is the telemetries and the geo-tracking of our trucks. That will be part of what we do and we are rolling out across the border especially in our new trucks and our new IT systems, but that will be part for the safety of our liability but more importantly for the safety of our people and then the management and the efficiency of our route. That will tie in then with both the telemetries on our trucks and the U.S. will tie both in with the optimization of our routes, which are challenge and our desire and our objective is to do that on a dynamic basis which is be markedly different from what we have been doing in the past. And then also be able to use the telemetric information to maximize our operations efficiencies and minimize our cost of our fleet.

Have you had any test yet to show exactly how much improvement in margin or just route efficiency you can get with this technology yet?

Yes but it's premature to really talk about it yet.

Okay. All right. Okay. Thank you very much. Appreciate it.

Yes, thank you.

[Operator Instruction] The next question will come from Wayne Archambo of Monarch Partners. Please go ahead.

Yes good morning. You talked in the prepared remarks about with the cash flow you're generating, potential investments in other businesses. It crossed my mind in any terms of any M&A activity. Have you considered outside acquisitions. And if you do, what would the criteria be and what type of businesses would you be interested in?

Good question Wayne, and we not only consider but we are aggressively putting together backlog of deals that hopefully we will be able to start executing on this year. Priority strategy wise, we would primarily be first priority in our core business and in current geographic locations. We all think those would offer us the ability to garner the highest number of synergies and the best return and best post synergies mobile. Second, it would be in our industry around that new geographies and so forth and that would include some of our [BGS] markets as well as our core cash businesses in geographies. And then second to that would be adjacent businesses that would help support and grow some of our other businesses. So you can think through geographically where we are positioned and how that -- how we are approaching some of that backlog and where we are going after that. I did say in my remarks and I think this is what I was trying to drive that maybe I will go a little bit deeper on this is that we are number one, in three of our top ten markets. We are number two, strong number two, I would suggest in seven of those ten markets. That number two position I think positions us such that we have the ability to do acquisitions in those markets and it also provides us a better opportunity versus a number of players to do those acquisition but it probably also gives us if we do those acquisitions the ability to garner greater synergies and margin improvements than the much smaller competitors that would be beneath our number two positions. So I think we are well positioned, because we are in so many relatively large markets. We are obviously the larger player than anybody else is I said 50% larger than anybody else in the global basis to leverage that use our balance sheet that's relatively under levered at this point in time to really start implementing that strategy.

Could you think we can expect some activity this year sometime or?

Ron?

Yes.

Okay.

Clearly it's a change in focus from where we were before and to be quite blunt if you look at the industry, our competitors have been growing their business through acquisition. And at least recent times we have not as much as we probably could or we should specially with our balance sheet. So it's a very I think important part of the overall piece of our strategy for growth.

All right. Very good. Thanks guys. Thank you.

And the next question will be a follow-up from James Clement of Macquarie. Please go ahead.

Yes. Good morning again gentlemen.

Hi.

As we enter a new reporting year, obviously you all inherited this quarterly reporting format with all of the information. Do you think this is the right way to be disclosing information and reporting earnings, or might we see some changes this year?

Jamie, we’ve been looking at that since actually before we arrived when we were doing our diligence and it appears that the company has a lot more segments than other companies of our size and complexity. And I am not sure that that complexity adds clarity for investors, so we have been working together to determine if there is a better way to report our earnings. If we consolidate segments, which is probably the direction we are leaning toward, we would certainly disclose the performance of units within those segments that materially impact the performance of the company in our dialog on these calls and other communications. But I believe that our filings including today's press release are exceptionally long and complicated and we also had the incremental value that we would be able to communicate with a simpler structure.

Is this something that you follow-up on March 2?

Yes. Yes. Absolutely.

Okay. Then I will let it go with that. Thanks very much.

Thanks. Yes.

And ladies and gentlemen, this will conclude the question and answer session. The conference has also now concluded. Thank you for attending today’s presentation. You may now disconnect your lines.