Good day and welcome to the Coeur Mining First Quarter 2017 Financial Results Conference Call. All participants will be in listen-only mode. [Operator Instructions]. After today's presentation, there will be an opportunity to ask questions. [Operator Instructions]. Please note, this event is being recorded. I would now like to turn the conference over Courtney Lynn, Vice President of Investor Relations and Treasurer. Please go ahead.

Thank you and good morning. Welcome to Coeur Mining's first quarter earnings conference call. Our results were released after yesterday's market close, and a copy of the press release and slides for today's call are available on our website. Before we get started, I would like to remind everyone that our press release and some of our comments on the call may include forward-looking statements from which actual results may differ. Please review the cautionary statements included in our press release and presentation as well as the risk factors described in our 10-Q and latest 10-K. I'll now turn it over to Mitch Krebs, President and Chief Executive Officer.

Thanks, Courtney, and good morning, everybody. Thank you for joining our first quarter earnings call. The first quarter results we issued yesterday reflect a solid start to the year. Revenues rose nearly 30% to $206 million and we reported over $31 million of free cash flow. Adjusted EBITDA was $57 million which was up 29% from the fourth quarter and up 51% over the last year's first quarter. You may recall we had a substantial amount of metal sales that carried over into the first quarter which gave our first quarter result of boost and we also completed the sale of the Joaquin project in Argentina during the first quarter. Operationally, the first quarter should be our lightest quarter of the year as Palmarejo mining rates continue decline and as Rochester and San Bartolomé recover from poor weather conditions during the first quarter. That set our all in sustaining cost declined again down another 6% to $13.66 per ounce. Slide 7 shows our cost performance going back to 2014. We ended the first quarter with $210 million in cash nearly $15 million higher than at year-end. A year ago we had net debt of approximately $340 million and now that number is close to zero. We're now seeing the benefits of this drastically reduced debt balance with interest expense down over 70% over the past year and a half to just $3.6 million in the quarter. Slide 8 as a good job of showing the progress on the balance sheet and this reduced interest expense going back. With the balance sheet now in good shape and the Company generating strong cash flow. We're well positioned to deliver high quality growth for Palmarejo this year. From Rochester starting next year and then from Kensington starting in 2019 with the cumulative cash…

We will now begin the question-and-answer session. [Operator Instructions] Our first question will come from Mark Mihaljevic from RBC. Please go ahead.

Good morning guys.

Hi, Mark.

Couple questions for me. So first off, I guess with the Q1 results, you expect to have pretty good gains relative to that for the rest of the year, but your AISC was already about $0.70 below the low end of guidance. So just wondering how much of that is just a bit of timing related to sustaining capital that you expect to trend upwards versus how much has just been you guys delivering a bit ahead of plan on the cost side of things?

Yes, I think where we are relative to our guidance after one quarter is not a bad place to end the year if we can manage to do that. I do think sustaining CapEx will increase in the second and third quarters of the year as the summer season heads and we're able to do more works, especially places like Kensington. So you'll probably see a little bit of a higher sustaining capital component to our AISC, but I think on the cost applicable to sales per ounce that that component of volume costs should continue to decline. As I think through each mine, Wharf is likely to see continued lower costs like we saw on the first quarter. Kensington's are likely to come down. Rochester's are likely to come down as we go through the year and then Palmarejo, as they keep accelerating mining rigs though should come down. So I think we'll see lower CAS per ounce costs, but maybe a slightly higher contribution to all-in cost from sustaining capital that will pick up.

Okay. Then switching on Palmarejo mining costs, I guess where do you see them settling once you're at the full bore, you've gone them down to about $37 on the underground mining side. So do you still see some gains as Independencia ramps up to full production?

Frank, I'll take a first crack and then you can fill in any blanks I have. On an underground mining cost per ton basis running below $40 is pretty day good. And I wouldn't expect to see that number decline much or any further really what we'll see is probably a pickup, we'll definitely be seen a pickup in the total tons, mine and process, where we'll likely see a little bit of pick up or further reduction in the per ton costs would be on the processing and then on the G&A side on a per ounce basis. Those costs should go down a bit more. I think our objective has been to get our all-in costs there, Palmarejo into the single digits. So that's kind of where we're shooting to get the cost structure there at Palmarejo, which will largely be driven by the all the higher throughput and spreading those higher tons over that large fixed cost component of our cost there. Frank, anything to add?

Yes, a little bit I guess. Mark, obviously we're very pleased with the results we saw in the first quarter. I think has looking forward I suspect that costs stabilize in the range of $40 to $45 per metric ton, which is still a very good cost. We're mining using 22 methods, long haul [surfing] and longitude in a mining is a little bit more expensive than the long haul just due to the massive tonnage if you drop per - you have been operating period of time, but on a weighted basis, $40, $45 where I'll see it stabilizing.

Okay. Thanks I guess sticking with Palmarejo now obviously the 2017 outlook has or would imply that you will be mining above reserve grade especially on the gold side of things. So just wondering if you had some longer-term outlook there for how long it would take or how long you'd be able to stay above reserve levels?

I am here is a short-term benefit that we're very happy to take here in the first quarter, some variations in our modeling between model grades for gold and what we're actually seeing a bit of a positive reconciliation, but over time you know the goal as these balance out might be positive or negative I think that's the kind of performance we'll see we're not banking on those that kind of result every quarter for the rest of the year.

Okay. And then shifting gears to the exploration side of things. First, the La Preciosa is a program however the results compared relative to your expectations on that 25,000 year drill program?

Hans you want to take that?

Hi, this is Hans Rasmussen, Senior VP of Exploration. The results are in line with what we expected modeling looks to be in line with what we had to a prior resource model their? The revised PEA is going to tell us how and where we're going to mine. So that's what we're basically pushing toward right now. To another no surprises which is good and but it's fairly interesting looking new way of looking at the project with smaller higher grade underground as well as some small open pits.

Okay.

Frank Hanagarne, you want added that?

Well, I guess you know like my conscious said Mark, the drilling has been targeted in the market very much lives in the bottom of that resource. It's done a lot of confirm and provide a lot of additional data to help refine the next version of mine plan that we develop or developing now. The model over model comparisons that we've done or taken over the last year, year and half they're coming back very close to each other very good sign. And our labs there's a small amount of drilling that's going to be done to complete the program in total and we're looking for some crossing structures that are in the upper horizons that may provide a few ounces to support some of the stripping that will be necessary open pit scenario at the top. So that's kind of where we're at.

Okay. Thanks those are very helpful. And I guess last one for me. And again probably for Hans again anything interesting on that - on the Greenfield's efforts you've been doing has anything kind of fit your interest that you've seen so far?

Well the program is definitely accelerated and we're spreading our risk between Canada the Great Basin and Mexico, which is actually a more focused effort than you've seen in the past with Coeur all the way to Argentina at one time. So within the focused exploration program we do see some exciting new projects that we will signed up and took private placement into and these will be our pipeline to the future as far as you know drill results and things that are showing some upside I can't comment on that right now, but you'll see as we generate some news flow later on anything comes out of that program will definitely new make it newsworthy. Because the main thing as we've expanded our footprint and we've diversified our approach to exploration to where we're now investing in high quality project generators in the business as well as high quality assets that we see as we are looking in the street jurisdictions.

Okay. Thanks. That's it for me.

Thanks Mark.

Our next question will come from Chris Thompson of Raymond James. Please go ahead.

Good morning, guys. I got a couple of questions to we are just start off with these inventories again and I'm just referring to I guess I think it's Page 6 of your presentation here. So if you look at the balance I guess between ounces produce and ounces sold it looks like for the Q4 you had a effectively a gross of looks like 1.4 million ounces in the inventory and we saw that reverse, but more than reverse I guess and the Q1? Can you just sort of comment on that and what sort of - what's the normal, what can we anticipate as far as run rate by way of inventories here?

Hi Chris, it's Peter. I think as we alluded to it at the end of Q4, we did have built finished goods, silver and gold inventories for a number of reasons across the sites. Certainly at the end of Q1 that accessed inventory, finished goods inventory was sold off as well as kind of managing our sales through the quarter and especially at quarter end pretty aggressively. So I would say finished goods inventories at the end of Q1 are a good representation for the BTUs as you're comparing production against sales on a go forward basis across the platform.

Okay, great. So I guess what you're implying there is as long as we don't have any sort of hold up by way of the overall shipments, we can basically model sales on production right?

That's exactly and certainly very much an issue as you probably recall at the end of Q4 was weather issues et cetera. So we can't account for those, but as a sort of overriding assumption in terms of how we are managing the business it is to maximize sales.

Thank you for that. Peter, just I guess moving on very quickly to Palmarejo, can you give us a sense or just remind us I guess full ramp up, what are we looking for when all underground deposits are fully ramped up by way of ton per day figures, and give us a sense of timeline, again just remind us for that?

Independencia, we are targeting 1,400 to 1,500 tons per day by the end of the year. First quarter results are pretty much on pace with our internal plans that Independencia, so pleased with that. Guadalupe, we're currently operating comfortably around an average of 2,500 tons per day. We will push for incremental gains on that, but that is pretty close to the target that we had expected to achieve throughout this year.

Great. Thanks. And Frank, what you have on the line there, I mean the gold recoveries at Palmarejo are pretty great I guess in the Q1, are they sustainable of these levels?

Yes. I still think you'll see a variation of a percent or two up or down or below that like from 89% to 91% I believe is what we ended in the first quarter. We're very happy with how that changes that we've made there performing on gold. We've seen silver recovery dropped down about 2% over the course of the last 12 months was to do with manganese it's in one of the ore sources in the Independencia mine, but working on that I'm confident, we'll get that - should see good silver as well going forward and ranges that we've seen like over the last five quarters.

Great. Thank you for that. And then just I guess finally just looking at I guess strip waste, waste oil strips at Wharf and Rochester. Could you give a sense of what those strips are now and do you see any variances in that for the remainder of the year?

Yes. In the first quarter at Wharf it was just a bit below 4 to 1 strip ratio, over the life I think we're at averaging 4.3 to 1. And at Rochester, it will range between 0.3 and 0.5 to 1 for the life of the mine.

Great. Okay, guys. Thank you very much.

Thanks Chris.

Our next question will come from Joseph Reagor of ROTH Capital Partners. Please go ahead.

Thanks guys for taking the questions. Once the stuff I would have touched on, sorry have been hit on by some of the other guys, but just thinking more big picture you generated $45 million, $50 million in cash this quarter assuming gold and silver prices stay pretty steady, you could continue to do something similar to that going forward. Are you guys considering eventually putting some of this money into debt repayment, I know you don't have as much of a burden is used to also, what you guys looking at on the M&A front. Are there opportunities to pick up an asset maybe potentially in the U.S. and some more NOLs up, any color you can give there?

Yes, sure. I'll take that. It's Mitch, Peter if I miss anything step in, in terms of balance sheet and we're pretty comfortable with what we have there with I think $178 million left of those seven and 78 nodes. Pay down is probably not something that's high on our list. If we could refinance that at some point and kick out the maturity and pick up some coupon reduction that's something we're keeping an eye on. I guess I turned more when we think about capital allocation and relative rates of return and continuing to reinvest this free cash flow in to this platform of assets that we have that still have a lot to give us in terms of returns and cash flow and growth, and mine extensions, life extensions, so funding more drilling, funding more things like development underground at Jualin, and underground development that several different opportunities to further extend and expand Palmarejo. Those are all again not flashy, but very solid return low risk capital allocation decisions and let's see how this PEA, La Preciosa also turns out. If there's a project that looks like it has some legs there that we can be building in the near medium term. How great would that be for the equity of the business to be able to fund that out of cash on hand and free cash flow that we're generating. So hard to apologize for keeping large cash balance. It keeps our flexibility to do a lot of different things. We would rather be patient and smart and deliberate about that. So that's what we're doing. In terms of M&A, yes anything we obviously like any company always says to that question, we're looking at things all the time, our criteria are probably not that dissimilar…

Okay. And then you mentioned some weather issues that Rochester and San Bartolomé. Do you think either one of the rollover of the impact of that into Q2 maybe particularly Rochester with lead cycles and I'm guessing the weather might have impacted the rate what you stacked the pad?

I would say that the second quarter at Rochester will be better than the first quarter, but the third quarter will be better than the second quarter. So it's - there will be a little bit of that hangover effect from - for the exact reason that you mentioned there Joe just leach curves. I think Bolivia will also see the same kind of thing. Second quarter will be better than the first quarter, but all things being equal. Third quarter and fourth quarters will be better than the second quarter, takes a little bit of time to get things back up to that run rate, but I think in both cases we're comfortable with full-year guidance. San Bartolomé is probably more likely to be at the low end of that that range. But yes, I think we'll see second quarter of both of those mines better but even better in the second half.

Okay. And obviously with better production we should expect costs to come back down at those two mines?

That's right yes, we expect that in both cases.

Okay. Thank you.

Okay. Thanks Joe.

Our next question will come from Michael Dudas of Vertical Research Partners. Please go ahead.

Good morning gentlemen and Courtney.

Hi, Mike.

Hi.

First question Mitch can be elaborate little more detail on your thoughts on the adding exploration less capital being spend up with Joaquin, Kensington?

Yes, I'll start there Frank and Hans fill in the blanks, but what we've done there Mike is make a couple of decisions earlier in the year. One is we drove an exploration drift higher up in the development of Joaquin. That will accelerate some additional drilling allow us to set ups drilling stations there sooner than what we thought in between that and then put in some drills on surface to test kind of the extension potential of Joaquin we thought made a lot of sense so that we can end the year as we start mining at Joaquin with a larger reserve capable of supporting sustained you know 350 to 500 ton a day mining rates out Joaquin going forward. We have developed ourselves to the middle part of Joaquin the number of feet that we had been planning to develop was to go all the way down to the very bottom of Joaquin and then start mining that way back up. But what we've been able to do by reconfiguring that and for the biggest reason of doing that was to start drilling down there as well and so by driving that drift higher up it allowed us to kind of cut back on the number of feet of development which is giving us some of that capital savings that were then taking and reapplying toward these drilling efforts to hopefully expand the size of Joaquin. And Frank anything to add to that?

Hi, this is Hans. What this is really a follow-up to what we had going in 2015 with some good offset hits on going forward of Joaquin and Mitch want to start earlier this year and decided with the operations team and exploration team up there to accelerate make this year the year for Kensington and Joaquin. So in 2015 we had about a 1000 feet strike new drill hole to find in what they in for. And so we're going to test that extension and hopefully come up with a resource by the end of the year with two rigs active from surplus all year. The caveat I would like to throw in there too, is that we're not only going to test being sold, but there's a van that's below van four, called van five, it's 500 feet below - and based on five holes that were drilled in 2014 and then got the results back in early 2015, the thickness in grade look exactly the San Jose for us. So this is something that we're also test with a few of these holes and give a feeling for what the growth upside might by for Jualin moving forward. So it's a big year for Jualin and it was a big decision to allocate that much money to drilling up there, but it will come back and give us a lot of benefits I think at the end of the year.

I think that sounds very well. Thanks for the build on that. My follow-up Mitch is, I think about Preciosa for the third quarter at least announcement on [indiscernible] comes up with. Can you remind us what internally you are going to think about relative - lead to the term silver prices, gold price, byproduct thinking about how the parameters will be for early go, no go decision and is capital cost or the size of capital cost are something that also take into consideration despite the fact we've got a great job getting the balance sheet in place to do something?

Yes. I can give you some broad brush strokes there and some concepts. Obviously a lot of those details will still need to be worked through as we progress on the PEA and hopefully straight into a feasibility study, but the rate of return for us looking forward on a project like that would have to be at least 15% in terms of kind of an internal hurdle rate. What we would like to see there is the capital in that feasibility study that was completed in 2014 was something like $330 million and that won't fly. So we're looking at a number that would be dramatically lower than that. Timing wise, when you think about where we are with San Bartolomé being probably three years of remaining mine life maybe even best case. So San Bartolomé is kind of our highest cost mine, it's our shortest mine life and it's probably the least attractive jurisdiction where we have an operation. And as I think about La Preciosa being potentially on a track to be a nice replacement/enhancement in our portfolio assuming San Bartolomé goes away. About the same time you could see La Preciosa coming on with maybe a similar production rate, but lower cost, longer life, obviously better jurisdiction and with a lot of potential I think to expand that mine life through further drilling. To me that would be just a terrific swap that would end up with the company having longer mine lives and even lower costs. So that's at least kind of conceptually how I think about it. Hans or Frank anything you guys would like to add from a planning or exploration perspective.

I agree the timing is favorable to what's happening at San Bartolomé. We're doing the - where we can come up with it, deliver the project at a lower capital costs.

It sounds like a reasonable part and I think everybody agree except the blooming government on that swap idea. Thank you.

Thanks Mike.

[Operator Instructions] Our next question will come from Brett Levy of Loop Capital. Please go ahead.

Hey, guys solid quarter. You've got result to the point that as you said your balance sheet is an asset at this point, you've got cash above $200, debt above $200 and LTM EBITDA above $200. You've said historically that kind of one times leverage is your target, which raises the possibility that you could kind of double your amount of debt and do a number of things that might include a large one time dividend, a large share repurchase it sounds like you've got some CapEx in mine. Can I ask - would you sort of one more time if you're looking at something that might be either a dividend or a share buyback is that on the table since I think you like the assets you have it doesn't look like it's going to cost that much on the CapEx line to ramp up the various projects you outline? And then if you are looking at an asset, would it be sort of within that one times leverage range, pro forma and would it ideally be a producing asset on day one? So it's kind of like only about each of the three options, dividend, share buyback type of property you're looking for as people show you various things in the M&A market?

I'll tack of your balance sheet questions. Brett, it's Peter. Our intention is around one times total leverage. We don't have any plans at this point to take share buybacks dividends recaps et cetera. It's kind of stayed the course. As Mitch referenced earlier on the call, we certainly - we consider - we find those volumes at opportune moment to extend maturity and obtain a lower coupon. So that's something about continued to consider going forward. But we're still course in terms of managing things et cetera and in terms of your M&A question, Mitch I hope you could comment on that.

As it fair to say, it depends. We would and I think actually on the fourth quarter conference call, we talked a little bit about sort of our comfort level of using the balance sheet to fund an acquisition of producing asset, depending on what that asset look like. Yes, I could see as going down that path and maintaining the kind of parameters, Peter just laid out in terms of the total debt-to-EBITDA number. I wouldn't say anything has to be producing day one, but when we think about non-producing assets, we start internally and think first about the La Preciosa, since we already have a project that's not in production and could be a CapEx requirement. Let's see where we end up on that PEA before we go out and load up on other development projects that have a CapEx requirement. That said there are some development stage assets out there sitting inside companies that are fully funded. They have the cash on the balance sheet sufficient to put the mine into production and that we look at that a little bit differently I think. But for us it's more about over the long-term can an asset be the kind of quality mine that the quality contributor to the portfolio that we're looking to add.

All right, thanks very much guys.

Thanks Brett.

Thank you.

Having no further questions, this will conclude our question-and-answer session. I would like to turn the conference back over to Mitch Krebs for any closing remarks.

Okay. Well, we appreciate everyone's time this morning. Thank you for all the questions. I want to thank everybody here at the Company for their continued commitment and hard work and we look forward to speaking with you all again in July to talk about our second quarter results. So thanks again and have a good day.

The conference has now concluded. Thank you for attending today's presentation. You may now disconnect your lines.