Good afternoon, and welcome to First Solar's Third Quarter 2015 Earnings Call. This call is being webcast live on the Investors section of First Solar website at firstsolar.com. At this time all participants are in listen-only mode. As a reminder, today's call is being recorded. I would now like to turn the call over to Steve Haymore from First Solar Investor Relations. Mr. Haymore, you may begin.

Thank you. Good afternoon, everyone, and thank you for joining us. Today the company issued a press release announcing its preliminary financial results for the third quarter of 2015. A copy of the press release and the presentation are available on the Investor section of First Solar's website at firstsolar.com. With me today are Jim Hughes, Chief Executive Officer and Mark Widmar, Chief Financial Officer. Jim will provide a business and technology update, then Mark will discuss our third quarter preliminary financial results and provide updated guidance for 2015. We will then open up the call for questions. Most of the financial numbers reported and discussed on today's call are based on U.S. generally accepted accounting principles. Please note this call will include forward-looking statements that involve risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from management's current expectations. We encourage you to review the Safe Harbor statements contained in the press release and the slides published today for a more complete description. It's now my pleasure to introduce Jim Hughes, Chief Executive Officer. Jim? James Alton Hughes - Chief Executive Officer & Director: Thanks, Steve. Good afternoon and thank you for joining us today. As indicated in our press release, we have issued preliminary financial results for the third quarter while we completed an analysis of a discrete income tax matter related to a foreign tax jurisdiction. While Mark will discuss this matter in more detail later I wish to emphasize that this matter does not have any adverse impact of the ongoing operations of the company. We are working towards a full and timely resolution of the issue. Now let me turn to an update on the business and the outstanding performance of this past quarter. In the third quarter, we had tremendous execution across…

Thank you. Our first question comes from Vishal Shah with Deutsche Bank.

Yeah, hi. Thanks for taking my question. Great progress on the bookings and the cost front. You guys talked about 1-plus gigawatts of bookings beyond 2016. Can you maybe just talk a little bit about how you think the margins and the backlog would look like beyond 2016? Given the efficiency improvement, can you maintain 15%-plus margins in the Systems business beyond 2016 or not? Thank you. James Alton Hughes - Chief Executive Officer & Director: Yeah, Vishal, I think I made the comment that while we're getting increasing confidence with respect to volumes, I think it's still a little early for us to have a firm view on margins. And primarily because with respect to the Systems business, that's going to be dependent upon ultimate realization of those projects, which is going to depend upon the relevant discount rates and/or cost of capital. And with the dislocation we've seen in markets recently, I think my frank view is that through the end of this year there's going to be a degree of uncertainty on that. So I don't think we would want to comment. I think as we move into 2016, the capital markets should calm down and we should begin to get some visibility into where those discount rates are going to end up and that will give us better visibility into the margins on the Systems business. Mark R. Widmar - Chief Financial & Accounting Officer: The other thing I would say, Vishal, is that the portion of that business on the Systems side, those that are projects that have CODs that are towards the latter part of this decade, which we've demonstrate with our past that when we are able to get control of assets with long-dated contracting periods like that with PPAs that are off into the horizon, that we've been able to increase significant value over that horizon as it relates to benefits that we've seen through introduction of our technology and other enhancements that we've made. So we feel confident with the large long-term margin capture that we'll capture on those assets. It's just a matter of, as Jim indicated, understanding how cost of capital evolves and how things in the market evolve over the next year or so. We'll probably get a better picture for how we've realized margin on those assets out further in the decade. James Alton Hughes - Chief Executive Officer & Director: Could we move to the next call?

Our next question comes from Ben Kallo with Robert W. Baird. Ben J. Kallo - Robert W. Baird & Co., Inc. (Broker): Hey, guys. Congrats on the quarter. A couple questions. First on the YieldCo front, how are you guys viewing the YieldCo at the current price? What can you do to support it? Second, some people will say Stateline helped you in this quarter and the cost cutting is done. Can you just talk about what more you can do to expand margin going forward? And I'll leave it there. Thanks, guys. Mark R. Widmar - Chief Financial & Accounting Officer: Yeah, Ben. It's Mark. I'll take the YieldCo question and let Jim take the Stateline question. From YieldCo's standpoint, as we said on the 8point3 call a month or so ago, is both sponsors at this point in time are committed to the dropdowns that we would envision in the first half of 2016. We've also indicated that we do not have a need to raise capital at this point in time. We've left enough capacity in 8point3 to manage those anticipated dropdowns with the revolver, the late draw on the term loan plus the accordion features that we have embedded in the term structure. So what I would say we're still moving forward and we believe we'll be able to drop down those assets to create the right value equation to the sponsors and create accretion to 8point3. We'll continue to evaluate how the equity trades over time and we'll continue to assess how we would structure assets beyond, say, the first half of 2016. As we said before, we may look to put leverage on these assets, which would then allow us to create a levered yield to the 8point3 shareholder that is accretive. So there's…

We'll hear next from Paul Coster with JPMorgan.

Yes, I have two questions unrelated. I'll just throw them in at the same time. The first one relates to the business you're starting to see in the Southeast and particularly U.S. projects that you might be seeing post 2016. What's driving it? Is it state level RECs? Is it renewable portfolio spend? Is it fuel replacement? Is it some combination of all of the above? And then the other question is you're obviously taking a break on upgrading the capacity because you're fully deployed. Does this also mean that we see a sort of break in the progress in terms of energy efficiency? Will you at the end of the hiatus come back and there'll be a step improvement in line efficiency at that point? James Alton Hughes - Chief Executive Officer & Director: So I'll tackle the first – the Southeast. I think there's a broad set of reasons. It has less to do with state RECs and more to do with cost structures getting down to a point where they represent a compelling value within the energy mix in that part of the country. As I've consistently said, there is a broad awakening on the part of utilities to the value that solar represents, and in particular as they look forward to the Clean Power Plan, as they look forward to constraints on the ability to operate existing coal plants or construct new coal plants, they see an increasing shift towards natural gas and accordingly a significant exposure to natural gas commodities. And while natural gas is very, very inexpensive today, everybody remains cautious and worried about future increases in that commodity. So it's broadly the ability to diversify their generation mix into a technology that is cost effective and affordable in the context of today's prices…

Our next question is from Krish Sankar with Bank of America Merrill Lynch.

Yes, hi. Thanks for taking my question. Two quick ones. Good job on execution and numbers for the quarter. I'm just wondering, the focus to go more international, is it part of the reason because the development landscape has cooled off a bit in the U.S.? And if so or if not so, what is the primary reason? And what kind of returns or margin should you expect on these international projects? James Alton Hughes - Chief Executive Officer & Director: The reason for going international is that the last two and half decades that I've spent in the power industry have taught me that the power industry tends to be cyclical on a regional basis. Oftentimes those cycles tend to be non-correlated, and if you want to build a smooth, steadier business profile, you need to participate in multiple geographies, multiple economies, so that you have the ability to shift to whatever happens to be the area of greatest need. So it says less about the U.S. and more about the desire to grow, the desire to diversify the markets in which we can play. It also speaks to the fact that as our product has improved, as our efficiency has improved, as our spectral response has improved, we're just increasingly competitive across a broader set of geographies and that makes it possible for us to go out and compete in these geographies. So it's not one single discrete reason. It's part of a broader strategy to build what we believe will be a robust, growing, and steady business in the future. Mark R. Widmar - Chief Financial & Accounting Officer: And I think just the other question you had on the returns, I look at it as a portfolio. So every region, every market has its own unique, I'll call it, margin entitlement for solar in general in terms of what it's competing against in terms of alternative sources of energy, other dynamics around how competitive our technology may be in a specific market given hot climate conditions, given humidity, given spectral response, given fuse lite (37:51). So if you look at it from a portfolio standpoint and you'll find in some markets the returns that we would see are a multiple higher than what we would see here in the U.S. In some markets they may be lower than what we see in the U.S., but on average, I would say that we're finding very robust returns that are comparable and generally could be stronger than U.S. Again, you have to look at it on a market-by-market basis, though

Thank you, Mark.

Next is Jon Windham with Barclays.

Hey, guys. Thanks for taking (38:26). Just quickly, I don't want to put words in your mouth, but I think you had raised 2015 EPS guidance by about $1.00 and you said $0.35 of that was related to operational efficiency and cost-cutting. Am I right to assume that the other $0.65 is related to Stateline? Mark R. Widmar - Chief Financial & Accounting Officer: No, so what that is the other – and it's actually $0.60. I think we said approximately $1.00. I think the actual midpoint is probably $0.95. But $0.60 is the end-of-life obligation liability change. So it's based off a change in estimate. If you tax effect that benefit, it's around $0.60. The other $0.35 is just true operational performance. About $0.20 or so, $0.25 of it sits up in cost of goods sold as we're seeing continued improvements around costs per watt. Our engineering, EPC business and our overall ability to drive costs of our balance of system is improving better than we had anticipated, and then as Jim indicated, we're increasingly focused on managing our operating expenses. So we brought that down by another $0.10 or so. So it's a combination of great performance around manufacturing, EPC and then managing our operating expenses.

Maybe if I can ask... Mark R. Widmar - Chief Financial & Accounting Officer: Sorry, we lost you.

Next we'll hear from Sven Eenmaa with Stifel. Sven Eenmaa - Stifel, Nicolaus & Co., Inc.: Hi. Thanks for taking my question and congratulations on a very strong quarter. First I wanted to ask in terms of the commercial and industrial markets, what are you seeing there or what are the prospects there for you guys in 2016 and 2017? And second, in terms of your cost roadmap towards $1 a watt, what are the biggest levers here beyond the module cost reductions? James Alton Hughes - Chief Executive Officer & Director: First, on the commercial and industrial front, we do have some customers that are integrators and developers that will use our modules on commercial and industrial rooftops. It's not a gigantic focus, but there are some volumes. I think on ground-mount commercial and industrial, we see a robust set of opportunities. It's very hard for us to differentiate in the sales chain with a lot of our developers between utility direct purchases and purchases that are bilateral to commercial and industrial customers. Those two business classes look and feel exactly the same to us, there's not a big distinction. But we know there is a fair bit of it out there in the contracts that have been booked and signed recently. In terms of what levers do we pull other than the module, it's the balance of System. And it's all aspects of the balance of System from the structures to materials to material costs, to the means and methods of construction. When you look across labor and materials, they are both significant contributors to the balance of System cost. And we're spending a lot of time and effort on reducing labor, not just in terms of labor rate, but actually changing the means and methods of construction to reduce the number of actions and amount of time it takes to install, and reducing materials on the rest of the balance of Systems. So it's all about the balance of System when you get past the module. Mark R. Widmar - Chief Financial & Accounting Officer: I think the other thing to point out in that regard, though, is that the balance of System is synergistic to the module. So as we drive up the efficiency of the module effectively, it reduces the variable balance of System that is needed to install every megawatt of energy that we put into the system. So you can't look at them in isolation. As we continue to drive efficiency up, it will naturally drive down the balance of System costs, and that will help us move towards the cost roadmap that we've laid out.

Our next question is from Patrick Jobin with Credit Suisse. Maheep Mandloi - Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC (Broker): Hi. This is Maheep on behalf of Patrick. A quick question on third-party sales for systems and modules. With more supply of projects seeking third-party buyers instead of being dropped down into YieldCos, has pricing dynamics deteriorated in the last few months for you? James Alton Hughes - Chief Executive Officer & Director: Clearly there's a number of YieldCos that have indicated that at this point in time that they don't anticipate being aggressive or acquisitive in looking for projects. In some cases, they've indicated it could be over in the next year, it could be longer. But we have historically not sold to YieldCos or traditional tax equity structures. We've chosen to partner strategic with tax capacity. And so I would say that part of the market is still very robust, as you can see with our ability to sell down Stateline with Southern. Now what that means, though, is that more and more people will be looking to try to engage with the Dominions, the Southerns, the Berkshires, you can go on down the line, because they may be the most active buyers in the market. And what position of strength that we're in is that we have very strong relationships with a number of those parties. They obviously love the First Solar brand, they love the First Solar relationships, the level of comfort. And so I'm sure that there will be some impact in the market. I think we're in a fortunate position because we have very strong relationship with a number of those parties. But the other thing I would say is that these assets are very attractive. There's a number of parties that want to have solar assets, long-dated contracted assets with investment-grade counterparties, and the ability to acquire – or what will come to market in 2016 relative to potentially what could be in the market in 2017 and 2018 is there's a window that may be closing in terms of the number of projects that can be acquired. And I would expect at least a lot of our traditional buyers, strategic with tax capacity, it will be very aggressive throughout 2016.

We'll hear next from Julien Dumoulin-Smith with UBS.

Hi. Good afternoon. James Alton Hughes - Chief Executive Officer & Director: Hey, Julien.

Hey. So perhaps first quick question. As you think about the international mix here, can you comment about module versus self-developed projects, particularly in the new geographies and how you think about the incremental margin on those geographies? I know you got at that a little bit before. But are you thinking about these, have you've added new contracts as being truly development opportunities? Or for the most part should we be thinking about, especially India, as more of a module or Module Plus kind of opportunity? And then perhaps as a second unrelated question, I'll throw it out there now, the Southeast activity, et cetera, how much of that is PPP driven? And how much of an overhang is the early action credit being all the way out in 2020 limiting procurement? I just wanted to get your thoughts on that. James Alton Hughes - Chief Executive Officer & Director: So let's step back to development on the international side. So we look at each market discretely. One of the I think learnings over the last several years is that you cannot generalize about even within the same region, even neighboring countries, oftentimes you can't generalize about what the business mix for us is going to look like. So the way we think about development is, if we do development, we want to get paid for it, and when we say that, what that means is, is that we want to earn a return that's above and beyond whatever we believe the margin or Module Plus type of entitlement would be, if we're going to engage in the development process. And there are markets where we go and we see the opportunity to get paid for being a developer. And there are markets where we absolutely do not see…

Next we'll hear from Brian Lee with Goldman Sachs.

Thanks. Thanks, guys. This is Hank (49:25) on for Brian. My question was around nat gas prices and the trend we've seen in the recent months. How is that impacting the pricing discussions that you're having with customers for U.S. projects that could be potentially 2017 or 2018? I think there's a belief that PPA prices might go up in 2017 with the IDC, but what does lower gas do to that? Thanks. James Alton Hughes - Chief Executive Officer & Director: Quite frankly, the front-month of natural gas doesn't really enter into the discussions. All of our conversations in the U.S. are 25-year – between 15-year and 30-year PPAs. So the utilities are looking in their integrated resource planning at their long-term curves, and I don't think their longer-term analysis has changed. If you assume that these low prices are going to pull rig counts down, when you look at the production cost and stack up the basins against that production cost, I think everybody gets to the same kind of levels when you get out 5 years to 10 years, and that is the point on the curve that is more impactful. If you got to a position in the United States where people believe that $2.50 gas prices were going to be the norm for the next 15 years, then I think that might change the discussion. But I don't think that's what people have in their mind at this point.

Our next question is from Mahesh Sanganeria with RBC Capital Markets.

Hi. This is Sean He for Mahesh. Thanks for taking my question. On the Stateline project sales, I just wonder because we look across some other transactions Southern company has done, typically they require majority stake and take all the tax equity benefit. I just wonder if it's the same arrangement, maybe you can share more details on the transaction? And then as a follow-up, the minority interest in Stateline project, is this your plan to be dropped down to 8point3? Mark R. Widmar - Chief Financial & Accounting Officer: The way we structured Stateline is very comparable to the way that we structured some of our other assets where we sold the majority interest. So the structure is the same. Again the tax attributes are being monetized, 51% of the cash flows go with the majority owner, and then the 49% of the cash flows would come to First Solar, and again that's over the flip horizon, after the flip horizon that the tax and the cash are split the same way. At this point in time, Stateline is a (51:59) asset for 8point3 and we anticipate to achieve COD for Stateline in Q3 of 2016. We'll continue to evaluate the market, assuming the market economics makes sense and clearly that would be the intent of what we would do is we would drop Stateline into 8point3.