Good morning. My name is Terse and I will be your conference facilitator today. At this time, I would like to welcome everyone to the AAM's Third Quarter 2014 Earnings Conference Call. (Operator Instructions). As a reminder, today's call is being recorded. I would now like to turn the call over to Mr. Christopher Son, Director of Investor Relations, Corporate Communications and Marketing. Please go ahead, Mr. Son.

Thank You, Terse and good morning everyone. I would like to welcome everyone who is joining us on the call to AAM's third quarter 2014 earnings call. Earlier this morning, we released our third quarter of 2014 earnings announcement. We also filed an 8- which contains an updated -- a Form 8-K for our 2014 and 2015 outlook. You can access these announcements on the AAM.com website or through the PR Newswire services. To listen to a replay of this call, you can dial 1-855-859-2056, reservation number 34605138. A replay of this call will be available beginning at 1 P.M. today through 5 p.m. Eastern Time, November 7, 2014. Before we begin, I would like to remind everyone that the matters discussed on this call may contain comments and forward-looking statements subject to risks and uncertainties which cannot be predicted or quantified and which may cause future activities and results of operations to differ materially from those discussed. For additional information, we ask that you refer to our filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission. During this call, we may refer to certain non-GAAP financial measures. Information regarding these non-GAAP measures as well as a reconciliation of these non-GAAP measures to GAAP financial information is available on our website. Over the next several months, we will participate in the following conferences, the Barclays 2014 Global Automotive Conference in New York on November 19; the Bank of America 2014 Leverage Finance conference in Florida on December 2; and the Credit Suisse automotive conference in New York on December 4. And again in the beginning of the year at the Deutsche Bank Global Automotive Industry conference in Detroit on January 15. Finally, we’re happy to host investors at any of our facilities, so please feel free to contact either Vitalie Stelea or me to schedule a visit. With that, let me turn things over to AAM's Chairman, President and CEO, David Dauch.

Thank you, Chris and good morning to everyone. Thanks for joining us today to review AAM's financial results for the third quarter of 2014. Joining me on the call today are Mike Simonte, our Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer and Alberto Satine, AAM's Senior Vice President of our global driveline operations. To begin our discussion today, I will first provide some highlights of AAM's third quarter results, then I will review the status of some key quarterly developments before turning things over to Mike to cover more of the financial side of things. Let me first state [Technical Difficulty] financial results in the third quarter of 2014 were highlighted by strong cash flow and solid profitability driven by our continued sales growth and improvements in our operational stability and productivity. AAM's third quarter financial results include the following. First, AAM sales in the third quarter of 2014 were $950.8 million, up approximately 16% on a year-over-year basis. These are strong results when compared with an 8% year-over-year growth rate for both the U.S. SAAR and the North American light vehicle production. Second, AAM's non-GM sales increased 26.5% on a year-over-year basis to $296.8 million. The key driver that continues to support our non-GM sales growth in 2014, are the Chrysler Jeep Cherokee program and the Ram heavy duty truck pilot programs. Third, net income was $48.6 million or $0.63 per share in the third quarter of 2014. This quarter's net income represents a 54% increase when compared to last year's reported third quarter income. Fourth, EBITDA increased by $22.7 million to $136.1 million in the third quarter of 2014 as compared to $113.4 million in the third quarter of 2013. EBITDA margin was 14.3% in the third quarter of 2014 as compared to 13.8% in the third quarter…

Thank you David and good morning, everybody and Happy Halloween to those of you with trick-or-treaters at home tonight. My job today is to review the details of our financial performance in the third quarter of 2014. Let's start with sales. AAM sales in the third quarter of 2014 increased $130 million or 16% on a year-over-year basis. Sales amounted to $951 million in the quarter and that is as compared to $821 million in the third quarter of 2013. On a sequential basis, sales in the third quarter of 2014 were about flat as compared to the second quarter of 2014, up almost $4 million, but that is pretty close to flat. The year-over-year increase in AAM's third quarter sales primarily relates to strength in our two largest businesses. First, sales supporting our North American light truck business were up 18% on a year-over-year basis, driven by higher production volumes for our major North American light truck programs. Of course, what we mean here is GM's full size pickups and SUVs and Chrysler's Ram heavy duty series pickups. And second, sales in our passenger car and crossover vehicle business were up 60% versus the third quarter of 2013 and this increase is primarily due to higher sales of our EcoTrac disconnecting all-wheel drive system which is now fully launched on the all-wheel drive models of the Jeep Cherokee and Chrysler 200. This is really the fourth quarter of launch for this product we now -- we are now fully launched on this product, as David pointed out, but looking forward further extending this product to a third platform for Chrysler next year. AAM's strong position in the light truck market, as well as our increasing exposure to the all-wheel drive -- and don't forget rear wheel drive -- passenger…

Great. Thank you, Mike and thank you, David. We’ve reserved some time for some questions. I would ask that you please try to limit your questions to no more than two. So at this time, I will turn the call back over to Terse to compile the Q&A roster and begin the Q&A.

(Operator Instructions). Our first question comes from Itay Michaeli with Citi.

Wanted to ask a question in that regard, as you start to build cash here on the balance sheet, Mike, can you remind us what the target is for gross debt reduction in the next 12 to 18 months relative to perhaps building some cash on the balance sheet?

Yes. We really focus on net debt targets when we think about this opportunity we’ve generating free cash flow and moderating our debt profile. We expect to, as you know generate more than $100 million of free cash flow this year and over the two-year period 2014 and 2015, upwards of $275 million to maybe $300 million of positive free cash flow. The term loan is pre-payable with no discount and that is currently in the neighborhood of $140 million. So there is great flexibility for us if it makes sense to take that out and beginning in the first quarter of 2016, the (indiscernible) that we issued a year ago also callable so we have got lots of flexibility. But as you know, the term loan is a very low cost, flexible instrument for us. So we’re going to balance our gross debt reductions with all the other things happening in our business, including the opportunities we may have in the future to make strategic investments. And so we will focus on net debt reduction. We will be looking at targeting two times EBITDA leverage at the end of next year, that is really how we think about that at this time.

And just as a follow-up question, kind of big picture as you make the balance sheet progress, increase the R&D spend, maybe just update us on quoting activity and whether some of this progress can improve the win rates over the medium-term. And then, as you also bring your CapEx down maybe just give us an updated thought of what you think the company can grow at organically longer term as you bring the CapEx down, improve the balance sheet and step up the R&D spending?

As we have said to you guys all along, we are quoting on over $1 billion on of new business opportunity. We are going to get our fair share of that business this year as it relates to meeting our sales goal this year which will start contributing to the backlog of new business, mainly 2017 and beyond, but a little bit in that 2016 calendar year period of time and we will update our backlog in January and at the Auto Show conference. But we feel very confident with the technology that both Mike and I spoke about earlier, where we’re from a capacity utilization standpoint that there is plenty of opportunities for us to leverage the different segments that we are serving whether it be in the North American light truck, the global light truck, the rear wheel drive passenger car, the crossover vehicle business. And we’re very excited about some of the opportunities that are presenting themselves also in regards to the disconnecting all-wheel drive and even the EAM activity. So we’re very confident in regards to our ability to organically grow this business. As you all know and we have shared with you before, we are very focused in regards to capacity utilization and managing the CapEx appropriately so we can, again continue to drive free cash flow within the business. You know that we have also been growing at an accelerated rate outpacing the marketplace, that will slow down a little bit, based on us being a little bit more selective. But at the same time, as Mike and I have both imitated indicated, we are also going to balance that with some of our strategic initiatives in the future. So we’re going to balance those priorities by managing the balance sheet and managing the organic growth and also managing the strategic side of things. Mike, I don't know if there is anything else you want to comment on.

Yes, from a financial metric perspective, we have guided our CapEx spending plans down to a range of 4% to 6%. As you know to support our organic growth, we’re focused on the midpoint of that range or maybe even a little bit lower as we look to the next couple, three years. Now that level of spending -- let's say, 5% at the midpoint -- is sufficient to help grow our business organically, roughly 5% to 7%. And with the U.S. SAAR expected to trend closer to 1% growth and global SAAR expected to grow maybe 3% over the next several years, we have the opportunity to grow with that CapEx spending level at or probably higher than the unit volume growth rate in the industry. So our focus is on exactly what David said, growing the business organically, but reserving dry powder to accelerate our growth and diversification through strategic initiatives over the next several years.

Thank you. Our next question comes from Rod Lache with Deutsche Bank.

A couple of follow-ups, first of all, just to clarify, are you suggesting that the CapEx comes down to around 5% next year, so closer to $200 million versus I think you are targeting, $225 million, $226 million this year?

Yes, we will provide a lot more detail on 2015 next year, but we’ve been saying we continued to believe that we will be targeting that 5% level in 2015. And as our plans develop and other issues develop relative to the quoting activity that we have right now we will give you much more detail about that in January.

Okay. And within the $120 million of free cash flow that you are achieving this year, what is roughly your expectation for working capital usage? And can you just pass along any high level thoughts on how we should think about that going forward?

Yes. Our working capital usage and specifically for accounts receivable inventory net of our accounts payable, our terms and conditions with customers and suppliers suggest that we need about 12% of our net annual incremental sales growth to support our working capital needs. Now there are some elements of working capital outside of receivables, payables and inventory that require a little bit of extra push every once in a while. This year for example, we had a substantial amount of re-billable tooling activity. So that would not be typical trade accounts receivable activity and we do have some spare parts and repair parts that are not considered CapEx, but do show up in the balance sheet. So we may be somewhere in the range of 12% to 15% when all is said and done to support these requirements.

And declining to maybe closer to 12% or like $40 million next year?

Yes. The 12% number is a real good -- it's proven to be, over time we use it for all of our planning purposes, it has been very accurate. Again, it is just based on the days outstanding and terms of conditions on receivables and payables on our inventory turn rates. But 12% for receivables, payables and inventories is just about right and so with sales growth in the $300 million area next year, you're exactly right on.

Okay. And just lastly, I know you are going to provide your more detailed guidance in January, but just at a high level, you’re targeting $325 million of topline growth. How should we be thinking about the EBITDA leverage on that? Are there any specific items with respect to R&D spending or SG&A spending that you would want to just make us aware of at this point?

Yes very similar to the discussion we had about the progression of our EBITDA margins at the beginning of this year there have been some changes to our initial plans -- but we do expect our SG&A spending rate to increase a little bit next year. As David pointed out, we’re going to have some onetime costs and some ongoing costs to get our advanced technology development center up and running. We’re looking at the opportunities we have from an R&D spending perspective to support product development activities in particular and so we would expect our research and development spending to increase. We do expect some economics, if you will -- some inflation relative to our ongoing SG&A operations. And so these activities, we really expect some inflation there. Otherwise, as we have discussed many, many times in the past, we expect strong contributions from our North American light truck business. We do expect a lower concentration of revenues in that portion of our business that is the highest margin profile portion of our business, as you know and so we do expect some moderating EBITDA leverage over time. But we feel good about being able to sustain our EBITDA margins through 2015 and 2016 for that matter, if the North American light truck margin continues to be very strong, at very solid level in the midpoint of our long term guidance range for EBITDA very similar to the types of conversion rates we have been able to have this year.

Thank you. Your next question comes from John Murphy with Bank of America Merrill Lynch.

Just a first question, you mentioned that the mix on the GM K2XX was incredibly rich at 68% four wheel drive. Just wondering if you could remind us what your content differential is on four wheel drive versus two-wheel drive and as you have seen sort of this -- your historical performance around gas prices being incredibly low, is this kind of a mix that might stay at this level going forward? Or did this have to do with sort of just a rich mix at the launch of the SUVs?

It is certainly, the improved four wheel drive penetration is certainly impacted by a very strong performance level of the SUVs. Those products have four wheel drive take rates that are higher than the average for the program, but we’re also seeing increased demand for four wheel drive on the pickup side as the work and utility aspect of this vehicle is really emphasized by General Motors customers. The same is true by the way, for Chrysler's Ram pickup trucks and so we are seeing an increased demand for that. Gas prices probably have something to do with it, but we think it has more to do, at least on the pickup side, with the utility associated with the vehicle and the reason and the basis in which these vehicles are used. In terms of dollars and cents, what we’re talking about is the addition of a front axle and for that matter, the front aux shaft for the vehicle. So you are talking $400 to $600, depending on the size of the vehicle. And that is what is driving that content up so much.

And should we think about margins as similar with that incremental content or would they be higher on a four wheel drive system?

No, they are very similar.

And then just secondly, you look at all the innovation that you are putting out there in the market and the great wins you're getting with Chrysler and other customers. Just curious, are you replacing other incumbent suppliers on all these all-wheel drive systems? Or are you actually replacing some in-house capability at the automakers that they are just not investing in and there is just a wide open door for you here as technology advances?

First, on the Cherokee program, that was just an industry first technology. So we brought something new to the marketplace, not necessarily replacing anything, but as Chrysler brought that new vehicle out replacing an older vehicle, but totally different architecture and structure in regards to the types of products that we put forward. But the big issue here is -- there is a market out there for the conventional all-wheel drive product, but as fuel prices or emission requirements and all that are increasing and the demands are increasing, that is where we feel there is a market for disconnecting. So we think there is a market for both. At the same time, going forward in the future we think there is going to be a growing market for the electrical all-wheel drive an even the plug-in hybrid and the full electric. So we’re developing our product portfolio so we can support all the different customer requirements when it comes to passionate car applications. And then on the truck side, as we have covered with you before, we already have the most efficient axles in the marketplace today. We continue to work on light-weighting initiatives, again, mass optimization, better emission and performance-related type products and Mike highlighted some of the technology that we’re working on today. Nothing to go anything further beyond at this point in time, but things that, based on the commitment of our R&D dollars and the products, process and systems technology are going to allow us to have a very modern product portfolio as we move forward on the truck side as well. When you couple that with what we are doing on increasing our electronics capability, the Mechatronics capability to introduce sensors and actuators and motors and all that into our mechanical type products, just very well-positioned at AAM for a bright future going forward.

That is helpful and just one last quick one. On casting and forgings in the North American market, there is clearly some shortages that are starting to develop as that is a very tight point in the supply chain. Are there any issues or opportunities that you guys specifically have there in-house or with some of your suppliers?

We already have our own in-house forging operation. We’re the number one forger in North America. So we have continuity of supply protected in that respect on the forging standpoint. Clearly, we will look at other opportunities as they present themselves in the marketplace, whether they be here in North America or globally. On the casting side of things, we value the partnerships and relationships we have with our current supply base today. That supply base is growing for us on a global basis as we are growing ourselves to truly be that global company. There are some constraints of that took place, largely because of what took place back in the marketplace in 2009, but as I said, we have been able to develop a very solid and strong relationship and have long term agreements in place for those critical suppliers. And then we will continue to evaluate what we need to do for all of our commodity strategies, not just necessarily the casting side but obviously that is one that is tighter in the marketplace than some of the others. But we will continue to assess our options, whether we vertically integrate or we maintain the strategic relationships or add additional suppliers to the commodity strategies.

Thank you. Your next question comes from Joe Spak with RBC Capital Markets.

You talked very positively about EcoTrac and it sounds like that is really picking up here on Cherokee and I guess the Chrysler 200. One, first, I guess on the 200, can you confirm is that standard on everything or is that an option on that?

That is an option.

It is? And how have you seen take rates trended there recently?

In-line with what the customers have identified.

On the passenger side, all-wheel drive take rates are much lower than on the crossover side. So the bulk of sales for this product in North America support the Cherokee program.

Right, and I know that has been paired with the ZF nine-speed transmission and I think that transmission is set to go into a lot of other vehicles. So I guess I'm just curious, is it fair to assume that you can follow that transmission? Is there anything technologically that now that you have shown it could be done, that helps you win new business? And I guess I'm specifically curious because I believe ZF also has a similar or a competing technology. So wanted to get a little bit of insight into how you approach that market as you bid on business.

First thing I would say is that Chrysler partnered with us or Fiat Chrysler partnered with us because of the advanced technology in the industry -- first technology that we have. Second is our system can be paired up with any type of transmission, it doesn't necessarily have to be the nine-speed. But obviously, it is applying to that right now in regards to some of its current applications and maybe some of the future applications. We’ve clearly demonstrated the ability to make it scalable and modular to the various vehicles whether it be the 200 program like you talked about, or any other derivatives or platforms or that the Fiat Chrysler organization may look at. At the same time, we’re having discussions with multiple customers globally around the world as they are evaluating, one, either putting all-wheel drive into a program or two, switching from a conventional all-wheel drive program to a disconnecting to do deal with the fuel economy and emission type issues. So we feel very good about where we are, we continue to look on how we can modernize that technology and make it even more efficient and better packaging moving forward in light-weighting. But we’re very pleased with the offering we have in the marketplace and as I said earlier, it has been received very well as far as the Cherokee itself. And a lot of that stems from the ability that our driveline system brings to it for both the one-speed application on road or on highway versus a two-speed application which really plays to the Jeep enthusiasts and the off-road capability.

Okay. And maybe I could just ask one bigger picture question, with ZF sort of set to become a much larger company, have you seen any change in the marketplace as to their approach to the axle market? Or would you expect any change there?

Well, that is their decision. Obviously, they are a formidable and solid competitor in the marketplace today. They have got a relationship with Chrysler in regards to the previous Chrysler in-house axle operations. We respect them and their capabilities there. They have obviously, with them potentially absorbing TRW here got to reevaluate their product portfolios and their management team has to make those decisions. All we can do is react and respond to what opportunities or what challenges may present themselves in the marketplace, but we recognize them as a formidable competitor in certain areas. At the same time, we collaborate with them in other areas as it relates to integration of our products with one another.

Thank you. Your next question comes from Brian Johnson with Barclays.

A little bit of catch low housekeeping and then sort of an operational, less strategic question. On the cash flow Mike, GM noted that they paid some bills on the last Tuesday of the month and that resulted in extra outflow for that. Did you benefit from that in your cash flow and then how should we think about that modeling into fourth quarter cash flow?

Brian, absolutely. As you recall, at the end of calendar year 2013 we had the same dynamic with year-end on a Tuesday. In the first quarter and second quarter for that matter, quarter-end was on a Monday and so our cash flow in the first half of the year a little weaker because we had one fewer payment than what would normally be the case. The third quarter cash flow -- and we told you this six months ago -- would be a little stronger, and that is exactly because of what you said, quarter-end was on a Tuesday. There was about a $50 million payment on Tuesday, September 30. So, adjusted for that cash flow was still a very strong $45 million, $47 million, something like this. But you’re right on. That was an impact. Now, for the three quarters in total, we’re back to exactly what you would expect in terms of the number of weekly payments from General Motors, so no impact on the $84 million. And thinking about that through three quarters, fourth quarter year-end is on a Wednesday I think it is, so it should not have any impact on the fourth quarter of 2014.

Okay. So this payment doesn't come at the expense fourth quarter--?

No.

[Multiple Speakers] was from prior quarters. Second around cash flow, pretty big gap -- no pun intended -- between GAAP tax and cash tax.

Yes.

How long do you expect that to continue and how therefore, do we think about modeling cash flow over the next two to three years?

Okay. There are a couple reasons why we have a book and cash tax difference. But, basically, the first and most important issue was that, in the United States we have substantial in operating losses and tax credit carry forwards that provide cover here. The net operating losses will probably be used up in calendar year 2014, but we will still have credit capacity sitting behind that that will at least for the next couple, three, maybe four years, preclude us from making any material tax payments in the U.S. as we understand laws, regulations in our business today. The other element of our cash tax situation and position is the Maquiladora tax structure in Mexico. We, as many automotive companies and for that matter, many industrial companies, take advantage of that Maquiladora regime in Mexico. We benefit from tax treaties between the country of Mexico, the country of Luxembourg and the country of the United States. And of course, as long as those regulations and treaties stay in place, we would expect to have a lower cash tax provision rate than our book tax provision rate. So we do expect our cash tax provision to go up a little bit as tax holidays we enjoy in places like Thailand and China expire over the next couple of years and as we improve our profitability in Brazil. So we would probably expect our cash tax provision to ramp to about 10% versus the book tax provision of 15% to 20%.

When you say ramp, do you mean next year or do you mean over the two or three years?

Over a couple years, next year, we should be higher than we are this year in 2014, but maybe halfway from a 5% to 10%. We will see how things develop in our budgeting plans. That is what we’re currently thinking.

Okay and so, it gets to my operation question. Certainly, macro headwinds in Brazil and emerging markets in general, thinking of the GM program in Thailand is that tracking well, a little bit below plan? And are you able to make it up elsewhere in your mix, if so?

As we communicated earlier on the volumes for both those regions as far as South America as well as Thailand for the midsize pickup truck program in GM are run well below what the original plan was for those programs. Clearly, you understand the economic conditions in Brazil are weak, although working with our customer there, we do see some increasing schedules going forward in the future. In Thailand, there is less political tension in that market right now. We’re starting to see some signs of improvement, but I don't know if it will fully recover to the levels that we had originally capacitized the program for. So we’re working with our customers in regards to what do we need to do with respect to the capacity and the allocation of that capacity for future programs. We’ve adjusted both those markets to the new market demand -- or both those businesses to the new market demand. Our teams have done an outstanding job as far as managing performance and profitability there. At the same time, as we mentioned to you earlier, we have got some new programs coming into the Thailand market, that being the (indiscernible) and that we will be able to address some of those capacity shortfalls.

Thank you. Your next question comes from Brett Hoselton with KeyBanc.

Just a couple of quick questions here, I think. One, your 2015 revenue $4 billion, in prior conversations I think you kind of referred to that is at least $4 billion. Now you are saying targeting $4 billion. Am I thinking too much about this or are you thinking that maybe things have gotten just a little softer in some of your markets?

First of all, I think you are thinking too much about it. We discussed this issue at the end of the second quarter and really what we said is the $4 billion target -- and for that matter, the $500 million target that we established a few years ago which it looks like will hit this year a year early -- was intended to show that extended growth that we anticipate in our business. When it comes to specific guidance around 2015, we will be much more granular, we will talk about it in much more detail in January.

Okay and then just going to circle back to 2015 and Rod's question about EBITDA margins. You kind of gave us some of the puts and takes. My net impression is that based on your commentary over the past year or so that your margins are likely to be flat to down next year, but not necessarily materially. I'm kind of thinking mid-13% range, maybe 13% range. And I know you are not going to want to get too specific, but directionally is that kind of the idea?

Yes, absolutely. This year our quarterly EBITDA run-rate should be in the neighborhood of 13.1% the first quarter as high as 14.3%, maybe a touch higher in the second quarter. So I would expect to operate in that same area next year. But as you pointed out and I commented already, we’ve got some SG&A spending increases that we anticipate. We do expect to have a lower concentration of the North American light truck vehicle as we launch other programs in other markets and as we’ve discussed and explained ad nauseam about why, we would expect a slightly lower overall profit profile. The other element that we’re addressing -- and this is the sign of a healthy industry and it is great really -- but the fact is we do have productivity commitments to offer to our customers. We have talked about those in the past and that is an element of our profit progression as well.

Thank you. Your next question comes from Dan Galves with Credit Suisse.

I think first of all, could you just tell us if the third EcoTrac platform, the one in China for Chrysler was in the previous backlog, in terms of what you disclosed as the $1 billion?

No, it was not.

Okay, and the second question is, given that it is a pretty diverse group of launches, could you just characterize maybe the risk profile of these launches versus what you had this year, in terms of were they new facilities or existing facilities and any broad strokes of what we should be thinking in terms of project expense, launch costs and things like that?

Yes. Actually, I feel very good about where we’re from a launch readiness standpoint. All of these products are going into existing facilities so there is no brand new facilities for American Axle. Many of these plants have already received some of the capital equipment and we’re in the process of debugging this year in calendar year 2014. We will have some additional work to do in 2015 with some additional equipment coming in. But I feel very good about the leadership team in each of the regions that have responsibility for these launches. I feel exceptionally good about where we’re with our equipment suppliers in regards to getting equipment in and debugged and I also feel exceptionally good in regards to where we are working with our supply base to make sure that we don't have any constraints in the supply chain or the value chain. Clearly, any time you have a launch, you have some launch expenses or product expense that goes with that, but that is already contemplated in our financial planning. And what we ought to do is just be in a mode of executing (indiscernible) like we’ve been known to do in the past.

And just maybe a follow-up, again, this is EcoTrac program in China, are those parts going to be produced in North America and shipped or are they going to be produced domestically in China?

We’re still working that out with our customer. I'm not really at liberty to speak to that right now. But obviously in the future we prefer to localize it just to mitigate risk in the supply chain, but we will work with the customer to determine what is appropriate for both of us.

Thank you. Our next question comes from Ravi Shankar with Morgan Stanley.

One more question on free cash flow here. You look at your CapEx guidance from 6.5% of sales -- 6% of sales which from is my math about $18 million or so was about the range that the CapEx went up. So when you look at the FCF range of $80 million to $100 million before the CapEx start was that consistent with your approximately $100 million guidance previously? Or is there some kind of puts and takes on the working capital side?

I'm a little confused by your question, Ravi. What was your reference to $80 million to $100 million?

So if you look at your current FCF range of $100 million to $120 million of which about $18 million or so appears to come from lower CapEx--

No, I understand that portion.

So if you guys take the CapEx improvement out of it, that is about $80 million to $100 million and then you add the $18 million to it to get to your current range?

Yes. As you know there are many puts and takes and many variables we’ve to manage in our cash flow activity. We have guided consistently and always to $100 million in calendar year 2014. I guess that was my sensitivity to your comment about $80 million to $100 million. We do expect some benefits of lift, if you will, from the CapEx reductions. As you know, we’re working very hard to reduce costs in all areas of our business, capital included. And so that reduction in our capital spending plan reflects the fruits if you will, of the work that Alberto Satine, Mike Lynch and of course, David and I and others have done to further reduce CapEx whenever possible, still meeting our customer requirements. So there are many puts and takes. I guess that is what I will say, we targeted $100 million at the beginning of the year. We now expect to be $100 million, upwards of $120 million. And we’re targeting -- and we will be disappointed quite frankly, if we are not in the upper half of that guidance range we are talking about today.

And you mentioned earlier in this call that the combined 2014, 2015 cash flow is $275 million to $300 million which is what it was previously as well, but your 2014 is now going up by $20 million. Is that because you’re just not being specific on the 2015 or is there something out of 2014 that comes out of 2015?

We feel very good about our estimates for cash flow over these next couple of years. The yields are very high. The impact on shareholder value, debt reduction, everything else should be very positive. We will talk a lot more about 2015 in January. But, at nearly $300 million of positive free cash flow, we’re going to give each other high-fives and we are going to feel very good about that when we deliver it.

Just lastly, can you remind us what percentage of light vehicle's production printed a today is rear wheel drive and where you expect that to go in the next 3 to 5 years?

The question is what rear wheel drive in the marketplace or rear wheel drive in our portfolio?

No, in the marketplace.

We will get back to you on those details. I don't have that detail, are you speaking to the North American market?

No, global, given that you’re now effectively a global company, so.

Okay. Fair enough. I am trying to understand your question.

As far as the rear wheel drive, if you look at globalization 75% of the global vehicles are front wheel drive passenger car, roughly.

Okay and do you expect that is going to stay at that level or do you see all-wheel drive kind of taking up more share of the expense of rear wheel drive?

All-wheel drive is clearly coming into play and all-wheel drive is being introduced to front wheel drive vehicles. So the front wheel drive penetration is probably going to be in that 70% to 75% range, but at the same time you are seeing greater penetration of both front wheel drive and rear wheel drive with respect to four wheel drive and all-wheel drive as consumers want better riding, handling and traction and safety and performance. So we looked at that as a positive. Just like we are seeing on the truck side, four wheel drive is up to 68% right now. We’re also seeing, over the last seven years increasing consumer demand for all-wheel drive product. And we think we’re right in the sweet spot with the technology that we have not only developed to date, but also the technology that we are working on in the future.

Thank you. And our final question comes from Ryan Brinkman with JPMorgan.

First question is, can you share what Brazil and Thailand growth assumptions if any, are embedded in your 2015 revenue and free cash flow targets?

Listen, I want to be responsive to your question. We will address those types of details in the Detroit Auto Show discussions we have in January. We do expect some growth. As you know, in Thailand David just mentioned, we will have a new program to launch of that will be on a percentage basis, a substantial lift for Thailand. In Brazil, we’re hopeful that there is some stabilization to that economy and that our customers can meet their plan, really, for some increase in production. But I think in Brazil, it will be more incremental based on the overall macroeconomic picture and in Thailand it is going to be a little bit more step function increase for us because of the new launch.

Then, just last question on full size truck market share. I think the heavy duty Ram has done really well ever since it launched, but GM has lost some share. Is that changing, though? I think GM actually passed Ford in share for the first time since you launched [Technical Difficulty]. Do you think that is a temporary phenomenon regarding related to Ford's changeover somehow? Or could this be the beginning of a change in GM strategy to trade some price for volume which would be to your benefit?

I don't think GM is looking to give up any market share. I think GM went through a massive conversion of their full size truck product line from GMT-900 to K2XX. As we said to you, it wasn't until recently that they have got their full complement of their options and vehicle platforms available to the marketplace. During that period of time, when they were going through the conversion, Ford and Chrysler both picked up market share -- or Ram picked up market share. Ram continues to do well. At the same time, the shoe is on the other foot right now. Ford is going through their massive conversion of their F-150 program and GM and Ram continue to gain market share. So the great news is they all have exciting products out there. The other good news is that AAM has got content on those products and we hope all those customers do well and we can see the market continue to grow.

Thanks, Ryan again. And we thank all of you who participated in this call and appreciate your interest in AAM. We look forward to talking with you in the future.