Good morning, everyone, and welcome to today's Bruker's Third Quarter 2013 Earnings Conference Call. [Operator Instructions] Please note, today's event is being recorded. At this time, I'd like to turn the conference call over to Mr. Joshua Young. Sir, please go ahead.

Thank you very much, Jaime. Good morning. I'd like to welcome everyone to Bruker's Third Quarter 2013 Earnings Conference Call. My name is Joshua Young, and I am Vice President of Investor Relations for Bruker. And joining me on today's call are Frank Laukien, our President and CEO; and Charlie Wagner, Bruker's Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer. In addition to the earnings release we issued this morning, we will also be referencing a slide presentation as part of today's call. The PDF of this presentation can be downloaded by clicking on Bruker's investor relations website or by accessing the file through the audio webcast player. During today's call, we will be highlighting non-GAAP financial information. A reconciliation of our GAAP to our non-GAAP financial statements is included in our earnings release and in our webcast presentation. Before we begin, I'd like to reference Bruker's Safe Harbor statement, which I show on Slide 2. During the course of this conference call, we will be making forward-looking statements regarding future events or the financial performance of the company that involve risks and uncertainties. The company's actual results may differ materially from the projections described in such statements. Factors that might cause such differences include but are not limited to those discussed in today's earnings release and in our Form 10-K, as well as other subsequent SEC filings. Also note that the following information is related to current business conditions and our outlook as of today, November 1, 2013. Consistent with our prior practice, we do not intend to update our projections based on new information, future events or other reasons prior to the release of our fourth quarter and full year 2013's results. We will begin today's call with Frank providing a business summary of our Q3 2013 and year-to-date performance. Charlie will then cover our financials for the third quarter and talk in more detail about our updated guidance for the full year. Now I'd like to turn the call over to Frank Laukien.

Thanks, Joshua. Good morning and thank you for joining us on the call today. I will begin the presentation on Slide 4. Q3 was a challenging quarter for Bruker as both our top line performance and operating profitability were well below last year's results and fell short of our own expectations in the quarter. We reported revenues in the third quarter of 2013 of $439 million, which represented a 2% decline from Q3 2012. Organically, our revenues declined 2.4% in Q3. Our performance was driven by 3 key factors. First, our BMAT Group revenues declined in the low single digits year-over-year due to continued weakness in industrial markets, particularly in the Asia Pacific region. Second, our BioSpin revenues declined in the mid single digits year-over-year as flat NMR revenue was offset by a double-digit decline in our preclinical imaging division. Finally, our BEST segment revenue was down by 23% in Q3 year-over-year due to the impact of the Rosatom license, which increased revenue and associated operating income by approximately $16 million in Q3 of 2012. As a result, the majority of our year-over-year decline in our Q3 2013 non-GAAP operating margin was related to the impact of the Rosatom license. Finally, our non-GAAP EPS of $0.20 in Q3 2013 was $0.08 below our non-GAAP EPS of $0.28 in Q3 2012. Adjusted for Rosatom, our non-GAAP EPS was roughly flat in the quarter. So to summarize our performance in Q3. Heading into the quarter, we were already experiencing weakness in our BMAT Group due to soft industrial markets. We expected that we would be able to offset this weakness with strength from our other businesses, in particular our BioSpin Group. However, this strength did not materialize in Q3, and it became clear that improvement in demand from our industrial customers would…

Thanks, Frank. I'll now provide some additional details on Q3 and our 2013 year-to-date performance before providing our financial outlook for the remainder of the year. On Slide 11, I show a snapshot of our Q3 2013 non-GAAP results. Total revenues declined by 2% from the third quarter of 2012, totaling $439 million in Q3 of 2013. Our non-GAAP operating income declined 32% in the quarter, with a substantial portion of this decline coming from the year-over-year differences in the timing of Rosatom revenue and a weaker Japanese yen in 2013. Our non-GAAP EPS was $0.20 in Q3 2013, representing a 29% decline from our EPS in the year-ago third quarter. Finally, we had a positive free cash flow of $28.3 million in the third quarter, $47 million better than our free cash flow in Q3 2012. Turning to Slide 12, I show the revenue bridge for the third quarter. Our organic revenues declined by 2.4% in the third quarter, but excluding the impact of the 2012 Rosatom license revenues, year-over-year organic revenue growth would have been approximately 1% in Q3 2013. For the first time in the past 6 quarters, we saw positive impact from changes in foreign exchange rates, which had a positive 0.5% contribution to revenue growth during the quarter. Strengthening euro was the primary driver of this impact. On Slide 13, I show our Q3 2013 non-GAAP operating results in more detail. Our Q3 2013 non-GAAP gross margin of 45.1% is a decrease of 310 basis points on a year-over-year basis. Approximately 200 basis points of this decline is related to the year-over-year difference in Rosatom license revenue and approximately 80 basis points of the decline is related to the weaker Japanese yen. Our SG&A and R&D spending continue to be reasonably well controlled but represent…

Thank you. Jaime, please assemble the Q&A roster.

[Operator Instructions] Our first question comes from Isaac Ro from Goldman Sachs.

Was wondering, Charlie, if you could maybe talk a little bit more through how you're looking at the operating expense structure of the company. It looks like, this year, if we'd put all the various updates here and the guidance into context, that you guys will finish OpEx pretty close to flat year-on-year. And I'm wondering, if we consider the inflationary pressures in the business, is it fair to say that, given the cost restructuring you're doing, that next year could be similarly flat? Or is it too early to talk a little bit about the 2014 OpEx? Because it just seems like you guys have really made a lot of changes that have not yet really fully manifested in the P&L.

Isaac, I'd say the last part of your statement there is right, and it relates to what Frank mentioned. We are making a lot of changes this year, management changes but also just significant changes in the way we measure and manage the company. That has translated into, I would say, much better accountability and control for OpEx, and I think that does show in the numbers right now. That will continue to have a benefit as we move into 2014. It is too early for us to be commenting on 2014 at this point. Obviously, we're counting on this year's restructuring actions to have a clear and measurable benefit in next year's results. And we'll be looking for additional actions to take next year that will benefit future years, but at this point, it's a little too early for us to call that. We need to obviously get through the fourth quarter here. We've been struggling with a little bit of -- struggling with visibility a little bit this year, obviously, so we're going to hold off on talking about 2014 until we get to our Q4 earnings release in February.

Sure. That's understandable. And if I can just follow up with a question on guidance. As you pointed out, you're -- start a little bit with visibility, there's been a pretty material reduction from your initial 2013 guidance at the end of last year. And I'm wondering if you could talk a little bit philosophically about how -- your vision to the way you guys talk about guidance, what's the biggest thing that's changed? How are you guys trying to handicap the visibility differently than you -- now versus maybe 9 months ago?

So Isaac, this is Frank. I think one general item that will occur also going forward even as we have better systems is, is due to the large ticket items that we do sell in a number of our divisions, there is inherently a certain degree of variability in our revenue. And of course, that falls through to the bottom line, not as much as what we have experienced this year. I think we can improve on that with better systems. And the second point I'd like to make is that really the -- it's primarily driven by our BMAT Group. We -- while we're seeing some gradual improvement in second half, anticipated orders in the BMAT Group over the first half, it's not a strong rebound in industrial demand and with a particularly noticeable delay in the microelectronics, semiconductor data storage, clear delays by several quarters, of the pickup, as well as a declared delay by the industry leaders of the 450 millimeter transition. So those are -- so some inherent variability, which we've experienced this year. We think we can reduce that, but it will still be higher than probably for some other peer companies with lower average selling prices. And then primarily looking at the BMAT Group in Q4, that's what has modified our outlook.

Isaac, what I would add is, obviously, we've reduced our guidance this year, so there's -- that's clear. If you go back earlier in the year and think about the color commentary we gave. We clearly gave our guidance, we gave hard numbers, but then we gave some color commentary around that. And what we said throughout the year was that we were counting on a strong Q4 to help us deliver that guidance. And within that, we were counting on an upturn in the industrial markets served by the BMAT Group. So we -- I think we're thoughtful enough when we gave the guidance. We were counting on that happening. Clearly, we're a little bit off in our expectation of that happening, and that really is the explanation for why we have a different outlook now with only 90 days to go in the year.

The next question comes from Brandon Couillard from Jefferies.

Frank, in the BMAT division, clearly, demand was weaker than expected, but could you elaborate on your visibility there? I mean, it sounds like orders in the industrial category did improve sequentially and year-over-year. But how should we think about that segment going into next year?

Brandon, it -- we have reasonably good quarterly visibility in that group. Actually, they've done a good job organizationally in giving us improved visibility. We don't like necessarily the visibility they've given us for Q4 because it implies a double-digit revenue decline year-over-year. Of that group, the BMAT Group, in particular, the AXS and BNS divisions, the 2 large divisions in that group, also had very, very strong Q4s last year, so it's a bit of a tough comparison. But overall, the outlook for that for next year, I'd prefer to comment when we give -- when we update you in mid-February or so on our Q4 results. There is indeed a slight improvement. Second half bookings that we anticipate for the second half of this year are up sequentially. So there is -- but it's too early to declare, "Okay, there's a turnaround in full swing." We were a little bit encouraged by the AXS. It was a little bit more positive in Q3 in terms of bookings and outlook than what we had seen in Q2, but it's just too early to say that's a trend.

And then, Charlie, on the free cash flow front. Glad to see the working capital continued to come down, pretty nice job on the conversion in the third quarter, but how should we think about free cash flow conversion going into next year? Do you think you'll be able to approach something like 90% to 100% of net income? And then just to clarify, the $15 million to $20 million of savings is incremental on top of '13, correct?

Yes. So the $15 million to $20 million of savings, right, is incremental to 2013. I think we started the year with an estimate of $10 million exiting this year. We've now bumped that to $15 million to $20 million total heading into '14. On working capital, again too early to comment on 2014 guidance, but we are starting to see some improvement. I'm certainly starting to see some improvement in the way management of our various businesses approaches the inventory subject. We're starting to see some reduction and new trends in inventories and NOM [ph] inventories and now are starting to make changes to supply chain organizations, which should have an impact on production planning with -- in raw materials. And so this stuff takes a little while to materialize because you have to have the right organization in place to drive it and then you need to bleed down, work down your excess inventories, and we're doing that. But I'd say we're starting to turn the corner there. As you head into next year relative to this year, then we should be seeing some inventory improvement. As I mentioned in my prepared comments, CapEx is coming down. Overall, we're setting up for better cash flow going forward, but at this point, I can't comment on the order of magnitude of that.

Our next question comes from Tycho Peterson from JPMorgan. Tycho W. Peterson - JP Morgan Chase & Co, Research Division: Maybe just starting off with one of these pressure points you called out in the quarter, the molecular imaging business. You had just acquired this at the end of '12. Maybe just talk about what went wrong in the pre-deal analysis. And now that you own it, where do you see that business bottoming out, I guess?

Tycho, this is Frank. We are actually seeing some year-over-year growth in that business compared to the revenue that it had under its previous ownership. But the -- transitioning that business from Connecticut to Massachusetts and eliminating that site, which has occurred now, and ramping up the global distribution for that business is taking us somewhat longer. So I think it's more the rate of -- it's not so much the overall analysis but -- of where we can take this business, but it is certainly taking us longer, in particular in view of this business -- is one of the businesses that clearly is and has been seeing weaknesses in its U.S. demand, presumably from sequestration. Some of our other bigger ticket items in NMR have not seen that much and have had good bookings, actually, in the U.S. this year. But the molecular imaging business has seen weakness in demand throughout the year, including and in particular the United States. We have now made the transition. We have now moved the team and have set it up in here in our main facility in Billerica. And I think, well, we can see a -- we'll be seeing a gradual ramp-up, but I think the initial projections also by the team that we had acquired were somewhat too optimistic, at least in the rate of change and the rate of improvement. Tycho W. Peterson - JP Morgan Chase & Co, Research Division: Okay. And then Charlie, in your comments, you talked about lower pricing for certain products. Can you maybe just talk about the overall price effect on revenues and margins for the company?

Yes. I mean, it's -- we've commented all year, I would say, on some price erosion in the BioSpin business, and that's really always intending to reference there. I can't give you a precise number on the pricing impact. I think it's mixed, right? We're innovating and introducing new products. Obviously, we're seeing some improved pricing associated with better value in those products. But we have commented throughout the year about pricing in the BioSpin backlog not being as solid as in past years given competitive pressures over the last 18 to 24 months. So we still got some of that coming through. But overall, I'd say pricing has been mixed across the businesses. Really, the only reference point there is the BioSpin business.

And maybe the addition on that is that, of course, some of our pricing tends to be in local currency, so clearly, in Japan, we quote and sell in yen. It's well-known that the yen came down very rapidly last winter basically. But of course, we've also seen some reduction in the Australian and the Brazilian and the Indian currencies throughout the year, which are also affecting pricing to some extent in those markets. Tycho W. Peterson - JP Morgan Chase & Co, Research Division: Okay. And then, Frank, lastly, you talked about a muted industrial recovery and a 9 to 12 month delay in the semiconductor demand. Should we be thinking about a return to more normalized growth rates coming toward the second half of next year? Just trying to kind of gauge where you think things starts to kind of turn?

I would not necessarily say that but I'm also not giving you the alternative answer yet. When we give 2014 outlook and guidance in February, I think we'll give you a better answer, but I'm not necessarily saying that any recovery is delayed to the second half of 2014. So let -- we prefer to update you on that in February when we give our Q4 results and our 2014 guidance.

Our next question comes from Jon Groberg from Macquarie.

Charlie, just I'm going to -- number one question is on the kind of the additional cost saves. So I just want to kind of clarify where we're at and what that means for 2014. So sounds like you feel like you've achieved most of the $10 million initially for 2013. So are we kind of at that run rate in this quarter, and then it's -- it would be an additional $5 million to $10 million in 2014, right?

Yes, mostly right. So we've -- in the initial $10 million, we've completed most things and/or are on track to have them completed, say, by the beginning of the year. As Frank pointed out, we've had a little bit of slippage within the year with some of the outsourcing programs, but nothing exceptional so -- but the run rate, I would say, for '14 is that $10 million, those actions are in pretty good shape. And then in addition, associated with the rightsizing in the BMAT group, we intend to drive another $5 million to $10 million. Again, those actions are already underway and should be mostly implemented in Q4 just given the timing of some of the headcount reductions being in Europe. It takes a little bit longer to work through that. Some of that might move into Q1 or even nearly part of next year, hence, the range of sort of $5 million to $10 million on that one.

So I guess when would you be expecting to be at kind of your run rate savings of all those initiatives in 2014, is that by Q2?

It's certainly by Q2, yes.

Okay. And then on -- can you just maybe -- I think you talked a little bit about visibility, but how far away are you and kind of what kind of investments still need to be made where you can start to know, if not on a daily, on a weekly basis kind of where you stand at from a sales standpoint and kind of how the quarter is shaping up.

Jon, daily to weekly, we're a long way from that, honestly. To have that kind of visibility requires a pretty tightly integrated global ERP System. We'd be a long way from that. And honestly, for our business, given the heavy focus on instrumentation and capital equipment sales daily to weekly isn't necessarily how the business is run. I was certainly used to that kind of visibility in -- at Millipore, a more consumables-oriented business, where you could look at daily run rates and trending and that does make sense. Not that I wouldn't like the capability, but we don't necessarily manage day-to-day, week-to-week here. But nonetheless, the general point around visibility, it's a function -- certainly, systems play a role in that, but I would say another big part of that is the way that the sales, the global sales and service organizations are managed, and that's obviously something that we're going through -- transition on this year, seeing strengthening in commercial capabilities around the company, strengthening of management processes around the company, and that even in the absence of systems should lead to more reliable forecasting and better visibility going forward. But obviously, we're just in the kind of the early stages of driving that change in behavior.

So even weekly or so, what would be an optimal outcome for you kind of over the next year or so from a visibility standpoint? I mean, I think, you're still -- if I'm not mistaken, I think you're still -- it's kind of a month after or so that the quarter ends before you can really know what the revenues are going to be. I mean, is there -- if it's not to the degree that it was at Millipore, is there an optimal outcome that we should be kind of expecting over the next year from a visibility standpoint?

Yes, it's not quite accurate that it takes us a month to figure out what our revenues are. We know what the revenues are pretty relatively soon after the quarter closes or after a month ends. But I'd say the monthly cadence, getting on a better monthly cadence and starting to make operational improvements to our revenues aren't so loaded to the end of the quarter. Again, that's always going to happen a little bit in a capital equipment business like this one, but we're working hard to push installations earlier in the quarter and kind of smooth out that revenue profile, so that in month 1 and month 2, we have more of the quarter completed and we're not waiting for the last 2 weeks. And when you get to the last 2 weeks, if you have 1 or 2 surprises, it can be material. So as Frank commented, we won't be able to completely eliminate variability. I think it's to some extent inherent in a business like this. But if we can get on a healthier monthly operating cadence with good sales and order visibility on a monthly basis, I think that would be a really good improvement.

And our next question comes from Ross Muken from ISI Group.

This is Vijay for Ross Muken. And I guess my first one was a big picture, Frank, and I guess you've touched on this in your prepared remarks, talking about sort of divesting non-core assets. And do you feel like just given the underperformance in some of the smaller business units, is there a reason to believe that maybe you could take further actions, divest that non-core business segments? And if that is the case, if you do feel like asset complexity needs to be reduced, what areas would those be?

Vijay, thank you. It's actually some of the larger divisions in the BMAT group, the BNS and the Bruker AXS divisions that particularly saw the demand picture being weak in 2013 and not picking up much in the second half of 2013. So rightsizing the OpEx structure and fixed cost in those businesses is the answer. There is no thought whatsoever in divesting any of that or anything like that. There's room for further outsourcing in those businesses, as well as all of our businesses. There's room elsewhere for further fixed cost and OpEx reductions as well, not only in the BMAT group. I think those are the things that we're -- that we will be talking about and that we're analyzing at this point.

Great. And maybe just a follow-up to that, Frank, was as you sort of embark on these organizational changes and restructuring, do you feel like just given the revenues have been stressed in the near term, taking these restructuring actions at this period, could that stress the company at this point or do you feel like you're in a good place even with the revenue sort of being a little unclear at this point?

Well, I think it's a secondary effect. Of course, when the management team is looking a lot at restructuring and outsourcing, it absorbs some management and organizational bandwidth granted. And yes, a few things in Q3 simply in the last couple of weeks, some things that revenue that we were hoping for the sites weren't quite ready or the installation couldn't get fully done, but so those are -- they're not -- I agree those effects are there, but I don't think they're the big drivers. It's really, clearly, the -- yes, the year-over-year comparison at BEST, the particular circumstances in the preclinical imaging division that we explained, and the weaker recovery or very gradual recovery in industrial markets and some push out in semiconductor and microelectronics.

Our next question comes from Derik De Bruin from Bank of America Merrill Lynch.

It's Raphael, in for Derek. Frank, in your prepared remarks, you mentioned that BioSpin bookings were up in the high single digits. Also mentioned that some booking transferred to other businesses such as the detection and microelectronics business. But perhaps, can you just make broader comments regarding the backlog in booking levels for the -- as well as the anticipated duration for the 3 main Bruker groups, as you get a better sense of the trends and how you see these bookings unfolding in the near term?

Yes, high level, well, our backlog is still around $1 billion. So healthy backlog, continued healthy backlog. Book-to-bill ratio in Q3 was just below 1, and so, yes, you are right in the BioSpin business and in both in the MRI, which had the revenue weakness in Q3, but year to date, the bookings had really been excellent. It's just not a lot of big systems that we -- that some will go into Q4 and some will simply go into 2014 because customer sites -- when customer sites are not ready, we just can't deliver and get revenue recognition. And indeed, also in the NMR business and in the EPR business, which is a smaller business that the Street probably has less focus on, there have been nice bookings year-to-date and the growth in the mid to high single digits. So that bodes well, but it's offset by weaknesses elsewhere. I mean, if you look at the Bruker, even the Bruker BEST, had its own comparability issues because of the license, but underneath that comparability issue, it had pretty good growth year-to-date. And the more life science and more academically-oriented CALID and B Bio groups had mid-single-digit growth year-to-date in the first 9 months. Any particular quarter is more simply variability sometimes, but year-to-date, it's meaningful. Whereas our BMAT group has more of an industrial focus, it also has some academic customers, of course, but more of an industrial focus. And they are down mid-single digits year-to-date. And they are also, because of the very strong Q4 of last year and because of the gradual recovery in the industrial markets predicting being very cautious and conservative -- and correctly so for Q4. So that is an average picture for Bruker, but it really is a fairly different picture if you look at B Bio, CALID, and BMAT, and BEST just had comparability issues, but underneath, it's actually growing and it's also growing its bottom line, it now has emerging profitability besides Rosatom.

Our next question comes from Steve Willoughby from Cleveland Research.

I was just wondering, the incremental restructuring that you announced today, is that stuff that you already had planned for 2014 and you're just pulling ahead? Or is that new things that you're just implementing right now?

We had planned to implement a lot of that already in 2013 to have it effective as early as possible in 2014 because some of it also occurs in Europe. It won't all be effective January 1. Some of it, as Charlie had said earlier, will come in through in Q4. Some of it will come in Q1. So those are things that we had been looking for, basically, in our strategy process, and it is somewhat coincidental timing, and of course, gets accelerated a little bit, but these things had been in the planning stages already. And then, clearly, we -- so it's not directly a result of this weaker Q3. It is something that we had been planning for already, and of course, with anything, we've accelerated that based on Q3 and our Q4 outlook.

Okay. And then just secondly, the progress that you're making in the CAM business, how would you evaluate that versus your expectations at this point in the year?

Okay. Not quite to expectations in CAM. Bookings and revenue are growing so that's good. We -- at the beginning of the year, we underestimated a little bit how quickly we could get the restructuring done and move the factory and then either to outsourcing partners in Asia or the U.S. and/or to our now 1 site, 1 CAM site in Fremont. So for instance, in Q3, it turned out we had the Fremont GC factory ramping up, but we still had the European Dutch GC factory running at the same time. So in some ways, not only were some of the savings delayed. We actually doubled up in some of the expenses for a few months in order to manage the transition. So having said that, we're encouraged by the competitive and growth outlook of this business. The applied markets also are recovering a little bit, but we are not going to fully reach our goal of cutting the losses in half in the CAM business. We're making significant improvements in profitability, but we're making -- the improvements are coming a little bit more slowly than what we had expected at the beginning of the year.

Our next question comes from Doug Schenkel from Cowen and Company.

So quarter-to-quarter, revenue volatility is not really anything new for you guys, and while the revenue performance is disappointing, I don't think most on the line would view this as all that shocking. And to be fair, given your high capital mix, this isn't necessarily a unique dynamic or a dynamic that's unique to you guys. That said, the focus, moving forward, for many investors is really going to be on the pace of operating improvement, and clearly, you've got a lot of questions about this already. So I apologize if I'm going to ask a couple more. So over the course of today, many of us on this call, we're going to be updating our forecast for next year, and my guess is most of us are going to end up forecasting revenue growth at somewhere in the low-single-digit to mid-single-digit growth range. So what will be expectation for slightly higher revenue, number off of the 2013 base? You're going to have about $20 million in operating savings via restructuring versus 2012. As you talked about on this call, working capital is improving. You're not going to have the tough Rosatom comp next year. FX presumably is not going to be as much of a headwind as it has been this year, keeping in mind what you talked about just with the yen. And you're going to be into really well into year 2 of your organizational and operational change initiatives and not to mention CAM continues to improve slowly but surely. So with all that in mind, my questions are, why wouldn't gross margins get back at least to 2011, if not, 2012 levels? And why won't operating margin expand at a pretty good rate? And this isn't really a 2014 guidance question. It's a question intended to assess where you are in turning this business around operationally as we stand today because it does seem like these initiatives should start to materialize at the operating line next year in a potentially pretty robust way, and that's really the only way for us on the outside to assess your progress and success. So any thoughts you have on these dynamics and questions would be appreciated, and if you can also talk about your plans and progress you're making with the ERP?

So I think there's a lot to agree with in what you said. We're not counting on another $30 million headwind from the yen next year. The Rosatom comp gets easier. We are hoping that the BMAT comp gets easier. So I think there are quite a few headwinds we're dealing with this year that we wouldn't expect to repeat next year, but of course, we don't know that and may not know that for some time. The restructuring activities will absolutely have a positive impact next year, but it's obviously, it's way too early for us to comment. The -- we are clearly driving for operating margin expansion next year, and we've been setting a foundation for that this year. Would have hoped that some of that benefit could have come through, but the year is just not working out that way. So that's going to continue to be the focus going forward. I think we've taken enough actions to start to drive us in that direction. That said, our profitability is going to be a function of a number of different factors next year. Clearly, the saving's factor in, but as we pointed out, we're making investments in other places, building our supply chain capabilities, building our commercial capabilities. And I think the last part of your question there was around IT, and so there are, I think, investments to make sure that our profitable growth is sustainable going forward as well. So I'm just not ready to sort of net that all out, but clearly, we're looking for a stronger '14 than we're having in '13. As regards IT, we've been working hard all year on implementing a new financial system. We will expect to go live with that early next year. And then, as it relates to more fundamental ERP changes, we do have a team that has been launched now, looking essentially at kind of a gap analysis around what are the capabilities we need out of our ERP platform, what do we have, how do we close those gaps in segments of the business over a multiyear period of time. So we're not yet actually making changes to the ERP, but we're preparing to make changes to the ERP beginning next year, and I think that's something we'll be able to guide on in February as well just generally speaking how many years we think it will take and some sense of what we think it will cost. But clearly, that's going to be a key part of our 2014 initiatives as well.

And our next question comes from Dan Leonard from Leerink Swann.

I have a follow-up to an earlier question on CAM. I guess for the CAM business, do you need further volume growth to get to breakeven or with all of the restructuring you've taken in the closure by year end, does that get you to breakeven in that business even on flat volume?

That's a good question. We're modeling modest further volume growth. We're not modeling something -- if we get more, that's great, but I think the way the distribution organization and service organization is set up, even though we cut costs there quite a bit where it seemed prudent, we're counting on modest volume improvements, along with restructuring and outsourcing steps that we have taken to bring it to breakeven, and eventually, to profitability.

Got it. And then my follow-up question, does your new guidance, you think, adequately incorporate any impact to the U.S. government shutdown, and then I also -- PerkinElmer talked about some issues with export licenses in ICP-MS as a result of that shutdown. You guys offer those product, but I'm not sure specific part of your business. So do you think you have all these factors incorporated?

We did, indeed. Export license with ICPMS, we couldn't get any. We couldn't -- nobody responded. So that shutdown, but I think the duration of the shutdown was such that we can catch up in Q4 even though there were a couple of weeks when we just couldn't move anything, but I think that is adequately reflected in our guidance for the fourth quarter as well as -- I don't think there were any other material effects. There was a big concern about the liquid helium situation, but that got resolved in the last minute or actually after the last minute by our government, as you probably all realized, in early October.

And our next question comes from Dan Arias from UBS.

Frank, just to go back to preclinical, anything notable for you in terms of the competitive dynamic or your geographic mix? It sounds like the state of the market there is maybe a little bit different than what we've heard already.

Yes. So I'll give you a little bit more color. As I said, even though there was revenue weakness in Q3, our core preclinical MRI business and the new MPI, Magnetic Particle Imaging business, that comes out of that core development, had good orders in the first 9 months of the year. It's likely to have a decent Q4, but quite a bit of it, these systems simply are not -- they cannot be installed this year. The customer sites aren't ready, so that yea, good, we carry some backlog into 2014. Our micro-CT business, the SkyScan acquisition, if you recall in Q1 of 2012, solid performance for most of the year, so really nothing remarkable there. They're doing well. And indeed, the molecular imaging business, which is PET SPECT CT, there is a lot of confusion in that market at the recent world molecular imaging conference. The previous market leader in preclinical PET SPECT CT has announced that within 1 year or 1.5 years, they intend to stop that production. So right now, I think customers are just really basically reassessing that market. Our interpretation is that has led to a little bit of maybe not complete freeze, but a little bit of wow, let's reassess what's going on or how do we do preclinical PET SPECT CT in the future, and I think we may benefit from that going forward as the -- when the market leader drops out. A, it's a declining market, but B, it's also the market leader drops out eventually, and so there's more room for us, but it hasn't immediately yielded Q3 orders or revenue. And in optical molecular imaging, there, we've really just really have seen funding pressure, plus moreover, we have our internal issues of having to relocate that group, which has now happened, and we're now reestablished and restaffed that group here in Massachusetts. So one factory less in that preclinical imaging business, but there, it's really been a demand driven. Demand has been weak for us in molecular imaging throughout the year, and we don't expect a pickup til really next year. 3 different stories all within preclinical imaging, and I apologize, but that's actually the real color.

And then I guess, Charlie, given what's been talked about here, can you -- can I ask you to just sort of crystallize for us how far away you believe you are at this point from having solidified your outsourcing plans, not necessarily really executing on it, but more just in terms of knowing what it is that you want to be internal versus external.

We've made good progress on that at the Bruker BioSpin Group. They've made some further decisions and finalized some further contracts with certain contract manufacturers in Q4 for more outsourcing. Early in the year, into Q1, we had already outsourced most of our Swiss electronics business to Zollner [ph], and we actually did that as a divestiture that happened all on 1 cutoff date, whereas now, we're going into more traditional outsourcing contracts where a lot of our electronics then gets transferred over the next 4 to 6 quarters to the chosen outsourcing partners. We've also made very good progress at the CAM division, actually, in outsourcing more of our GC production. So we didn't transfer everything from the Netherlands to Fremont, California, 1 to 1, but quite a bit of that also went to our outsourcing partner in Asia in this particular case. And at the same time, we started outsourcing the basic assembly and subunits and enclosure assembly of our quadruple mass specs to an outsourcing partner in California. So a lot has happened on that. There's more ideas that are coming out of our strategy process in the various divisions, and we'll probably give you an update on that when we discuss Q4 results and 2014 outlook. So a lot of progress, a lot in motion, and not only in motion, but now also signed and ready to go, but when you sign one of these outsourcing contracts and you have many, many different electronics modules, it's literally 12 to 18 months until that process is then all at your outsourcing partner, and there's more to be done in the other divisions.

And our next question comes from Amanda Murphy from William Blair. Amanda Murphy - William Blair & Company L.L.C., Research Division: I had another question on the operational side of things. So I appreciate all the color you've given on expectations for cost savings next year. I guess I'm curious, what is there left in terms of low hanging fruit? So in other words, should we assume that anything you do kind of from this point on from a cost savings perspective other than what you've outlined is really going to flow through the P&L in 2015 at this point or is there still opportunity in '14?

Yes, Amanda, it's -- as I've described this, I think, throughout the year, this is going to be a gradual continuous improvement. The part of the, I think, the strength, part of the challenge of Bruker is that we've got a very diversified portfolio, a number of businesses, a number of locations, and so by definition, it means we can't pull one lever and make things improve. Again, obviously, the benefit of that is we've got some portfolio spread where we also don't have concentrated risk. So what we're during right now is what we did heading into '13 was establish a set of initiatives to complete in '13 that would benefit '14. We're now looking at a set of initiatives for '14 that would benefit '15. There's always some chance that things we'll accomplish next year will benefit next year. It's not simply that we're always doing things that only pay off 1 year ahead. Clearly, the rightsizing that we're doing in the BMAT business right now is a decision that we accelerated in the second half of this year and is going to have a benefit into next year that wasn't fully contemplated at the start of this year. So think of it as kind of waves of improvement, I guess. To some extent, I suppose it's fair to say that some of the earlier improvements are lower hanging fruit, but we're making fundamental changes to the way we manage our sales force, fundamental changes to our supply chain practices, fundamental changes around our locations. And so we do feel that for a number of years, we're going to be able to deliver improvements, and we need to start to show that in 2014.

And our next question comes from Sung Ji Nam from Cantor. Sung Ji Nam - Cantor Fitzgerald & Co., Research Division: So Frank, you talked about further diversifying your end market exposure and was wondering if you could maybe comment on kind of what are some near-term targets there and whether or not you guys can do that organically or do you see more opportunities for partnerships or leveraging maybe acquisitions there as well?

Well, really, no news here, other than the acquisition of the Prairie Technologies, which gets our BNS division into cellular analysis, into cellular fluorescence microscopy, which has -- that gets us into a new market with an acquisition. With the 2 acquisitions we did last year in preclinical imaging, we're very deliberately focusing on having a broader, and in fact, the broadest portfolio of instrumentation in preclinical imaging to go beyond the MRI, preclinical MRI market, where we were strong already. And I think the other stories are not new, but they are ongoing with our CAM division, obviously, a big push into the applied markets, with some clinical opportunities there as well. For our triple quad business, primarily a push into the LC triple quad markets. With our Detection business, we've spent a lot of recent years developing the tools to not only do chemical and radiological detection, but also explosive detection, which is obviously a very big market with some new challenges which have led to new technological opportunities, the explosives detection. And last but not least, the big push into, although somewhat delayed right now, big push into microelectronics and semiconductor of our BMAT group. So we had a lot of important strategic early wins and validations, but the industry transitioned to 450-millimeter, and the recovery of the industry in general, including also data storage, has been delayed a little bit. So those are not new stories. That was more of a recap of some of the adjacent markets that we're getting into.

Our next question comes from Bryan Brokmeier from Maxim Group.

Frank, you mentioned -- you again mentioned the strong growth for the Biotyper, but are you seeing any negative impact on orders or on revenue for the Biotyper due to the FDA approval for one of your competitor's products, and is there any update on your FDA approval?

We haven't seen any significant effect on that in Q3. If you recall, we also filed a little bit later than our competitor who has now received the first claim. Now that we've seen their regulatory strategy, once they got this claim approved, we also noticed that our regulatory approach is -- and the way where the claims we're pursuing is really different from the way they're doing it. But nonetheless, congratulations. They already have the FDA clearance for that. We hope to get that within months. We're having very good constructive discussions with the FDA, but of course, we cannot predict what their final reply and/or approach will be or if they have further questions for us. So it's a good constructive process. It's moving at a crisp pace, but it's difficult to predict timing and outcome.

Our next question comes from Peter Lawson from Mizuho.

Charlie, I wonder is there any ability to break down that miss on a revenue basis from, say, between microelectronics, semiconductor, data storage and then the preclinical imaging?

Peter, are you talking about the quarter?

Yes, and then, I guess, for the guidance as well, if there's any way of breaking it down, quantifying it or qualifying it in any sense?

If you look at the quarter, I suppose it's probably 75% BMAT, 25%, other. If you look at the guidance adjustment, I would tell you that it's largely based on the BMAT weakness in Q4 that we see. Again, as Frank commented, we were hoping that some of our other businesses could perform above expectations to offset that a little bit. Right now, we don't think that's going to be the case. So I think it's largely the change in our view or the timing of any improvement in semiconductor and microelectronics and industrial markets.

So the industrial is not only Semicon and microelectronics. It also includes metals, metals processing, foundries, all the way to natural resources, minerals and mining, all the way to cement, quality control. All of these areas are -- have an anemic recovery. None of them are very strong at this point.

And our next question comes from Tim Evans from Wells Fargo Securities.

Frank, from a geographical perspective, I believe you called out APAC as being a particularly weak area. Can you just talk about what some of your customers over there are telling you and what it looks like on the ground over there right now?

A lot of the industrial base manufacturing base is over there, so the industrial weakness, of course, not surprisingly, is a little bit more pronounced in APAC, also even more so in the microelectronics concentration of that industry is very strongly in Asia Pacific. And so when there are delays in semicon or data storage, sometimes, it's big U.S. companies, but often, their production or sites are in Asia Pacific. So that's -- otherwise, the geographic trends, I mean, Europe is a little bit better than what most people had expected, and we've always been a little bit more optimistic on Europe, and that seems to be panning out. U.S. sequestration does have an effect even more so on the smaller $50,000 to $250,000 research items that academic customers would like to buy and then have a tougher time getting funding. And yes, industrial weakness invariably relates to being -- having a stronger geographic component from Asia Pacific.

Our next question comes from Paul Knight from Janney.

Frank, you talk about outsourcing, but is there any long-term plans to manufacture in the emerging markets, therefore, getting that tax rate lower and other benefits?

In emerging markets, there is a lot of manufacturing for Bruker, but we don't necessarily own those factories, and so no, there is no near-term plan to get a Singapore manufacturing and tax rate as an example, and our finance team is obviously looking at gradual improvements in our tax rate, but it's not due to a wholesale transfer of manufacturing to emerging markets.

And our next question comes from Chris Sassouni from Eagle Asset Management.

So just wondering during this whole restructuring process, Charlie, was wondering if you could speak a little bit about what changes you have made to the planning process or whether there really haven't been many changes made.

Sure. Actually, we've -- I'd say we've made quite a few improvements this year. This year, I'd say we greatly formalized the strategic planning process. Obviously, planning has always occurred, but we've put it on a common timetable this year and really drove, I would say, a higher quality of planning from the spring through the early fall, and that's led to a series of discussions across our entire portfolio about actions and initiatives for next year and beyond. So I think that, that's a good improvement. That's kind of tougher to see probably from the outside, but I think it's resulting in better discussions around how to manage our businesses more tactically and short term. We have strengthened the -- kind of the quarterly management processes around business reviews and forecasting. Again, the discipline now is starting to become more routine. Obviously, we are struggling with visibility, which means kind of the quality of some of the forecast information we're looking at, at least, when you break it down into 90-day increments isn't where we'd like it to be. But I would have to say that from my perspective, I'm seeing better quality discussions. And now with the changes in management that Frank has talked about, I see an intense focus on getting better control over the business and more reliable forward visibility. And obviously, that's not just for the benefit of us giving guidance. Better forward visibility gives us a better chance to plan our resource allocation, to plan our production so that it matches up with our sales forecast. There's a lot of operational benefit that comes from better visibility aside from just managing guidance. So it's in the best interest of all our businesses to continue driving in that direction, and I see good steps being taken this year.

This is Frank. I'll chime in with one more sentence. I can see a hugely -- I'm very pleased -- it's a hugely improved process. The entire strategy process, strategy planning, the budgeting process, all the way to the incentives and compensation is now far more integrated and an aligned process than what we've ever had. So there is very significant process improvement. I'm very pleased with that.

Okay. And then just, if you could just quantify this for me in terms of visibility, if you were to just use a scale of 1% to 100%, 100% being optimal visibility as you could get with the business that you have, where are you at right now in visibility? Is it 50%, 70%, 80%? Where are you?

Somewhere in the middle.

It's a tough question to answer. Obviously, I think that our 12 month visibility is clearly better than our 90 day visibility. And even though we've adjusted guidance this year, the order of magnitude of the adjustment is not quite the same as the order of magnitude of variability we see from quarter-to-quarter. So we're more positive about kind of a rolling 12 months view and still have a lot of room for improvement around a shorter-term view. That probably seems a little counterintuitive. You think you should have better visibility over things that are near term, but given the nature of our business and the size of some of the revenue events, that's not necessarily the case.

And ladies and gentlemen, we've reached our allotted time limit for questions for today's conference. I'd like to turn the conference call back over to Mr. Joshua Young for any closing remarks.

Thank you for joining us this morning. For those of you interested in meeting with Bruker, we will be presenting at the Crédit Suisse Healthcare Conference and the Goldman Sachs Mid-Cap Conference in November and the JPMorgan's Mid-Cap and ISI Mid-tools Conferences in December. We also invite you to visit us at our offices in Billerica, Mass. Thank you for your attention, and have a nice day.

Ladies and gentlemen, that does conclude today's conference call. We do thank you for attending. You may now disconnect your telephone lines.