Good afternoon, everyone, and welcome to the First Solar's Fourth Quarter and Full Year 2017 Earnings Call. This call is being webcast live on the Investor section of the First Solar's website at firstsolar.com. At this time, all participants are in a listen-only mode. As a reminder, today's call is being recorded. I would now like to turn the call over to Steve Haymore, First Solar Investor Relations. Mr. Haymore, you may begin.

Thank you, Ashley. Good afternoon, everyone, and thank you for joining us. Today, the company issued a press release announcing its fourth quarter and full year 2017 financial results. A copy of the press release and associated presentation are available on the Investors section of First Solar's website at investor.firstsolar.com. With me today are Mark Widmar, Chief Executive Officer; and Alex Bradley, Chief Financial Officer. Mark will begin by providing a business and technology update. Alex will then discuss our financial results for the quarter and provide updated guidance for 2018. We will then open the call up for questions. Most of the financial numbers reported and discussed on today's call are based on U.S. Generally Accepted Accounting Principles. In the few cases where we report non-GAAP measures, such as free cash flow, adjusted operating expenses, adjusted operating income or non-GAAP EPS, we have reconciled the non-GAAP measures to the corresponding GAAP measures at the back of our presentation. 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 today's press release and presentation for a more complete description. It's now my pleasure to introduce Mark Widmar, Chief Executive Officer. Mark?

Thanks, Steve. Good afternoon and thank you for joining us today. I'll begin today by briefly discussing some of our 2017 key accomplishments which are highlighted on slide 4. In the year that began with a great deal of uncertainty, with anticipated industry excess capacity leading to bearing module ASP projections, coupled with the challenges that came with our Series 6 transition, I am pleased with our focus, execution and ability to exceed our earnings and cash flow commitments for the year. 2017 was a record year with net bookings of 7.7 gigawatts DC, with Series 6 representing 2.6 gigawatts DC of the bookings. Contracting this business is an outstanding accomplishment and provides improved clarity to ramp and grow our Series 6 production over the coming years. In addition to strong bookings in the U.S., we saw strength in international markets led by Australia, Japan, India and Europe, where we booked over 1.7 gigawatts. While strong demand in China and the 201 trade case in the U.S. helped to firm up the macro environment, our collaborative approach to working with customers and the progress we've made towards the launch of our Series 6 module were key contributors to achieving this record bookings. O&M bookings were also strong last year as we added nearly 2.9 gigawatts of projects, bringing our total O&M fleet under contract to 8.5 gigawatts. Notably, nearly two-thirds of the megawatts booked were in projects where we were not the developer. Successfully winning O&M on projects not developed by First Solar opens our addressable market, which helps create scale for O&M business and thereby enhances our competitive position. Our operating fleet continues to perform at the highest level with effective availability of 99.6% in 2017. There were also a number of notable achievements in our technology, manufacturing and…

Thanks, Mark. Turning to slide 9, I'll begin by discussing our fourth quarter operational highlights. Keep in mind that the metrics provided are reflective of Series 4 manufacturing only. Module production increased slightly in the fourth quarter to 532-megawatts DC, a 1% increase from Q3. Compared to the fourth quarter of 2016, production is lower as a result of ramping down certain Series 4 lines in Ohio and Malaysia to make way for Series 6 production. Capacity utilization, which makes adjustments for the lines taken out of service, was 99%. Our fourth quarter fleet and best line conversion efficiency were unchanged versus the prior quarter at 17%. This will be the last quarter we report Series 4 efficiency since it will remain relatively unchanged going forward. And in future quarters, as Series 6 enters production, we will modify the operational metric to provide the most relevant information. I'll next discuss some of the income statement highlights for the fourth quarter on slide 10. This will include some non-GAAP measures such as adjusted operating expenses, adjusted operating income, non-GAAP earnings per share and free cash flow. And please refer to the appendix to the earnings presentation for the accompanying GAAP to non-GAAP reconciliations. Net sales in the fourth quarter were $339 million, a decrease of $748 million compared to the prior quarter. The expected decrease in net sales was due to both lower systems and third-party module sales. Systems project sales are much higher in Q3 due to the initial revenue recognition of the California Flats and Cuyama Projects. For the second phase of California Flats as well as other development projects that are scheduled to reach COD in 2018, which are optimized to Series 6 modules, there was minimal systems activity in Q4 of 2017. Projects such as Rosamond and…

Thank you. And we will take our first question from Brian Lee with Goldman Sachs. Please go ahead. Brian Lee - Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC: Hey, guys. Can you hear me?

Yeah. We hear you, Brian. Brian Lee - Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC: Sorry about that. Yeah. Just maybe first one for you, Mark. I thought the commentary around the development project pipeline, it sounds like you'd seen some better momentum. So, do you still see the 1 gigawatt baseline being the right target for 2018 and maybe, more importantly, for 2019 or should we be expecting some upside to that level at this point?

Yeah. Brain, the way I'd look at it, let's hold kind of the gigawatt view at this point in time. We internally are continuing to pursue all opportunities that we can in enhancing the systems pipeline. Whether it's development PPAs, whether it's utility-owned generation, whether it's working with large C&I customers, I'm happy with momentum that we're seeing right now. We're also starting to see – the announcement we had with APS on the PV plus storage, we're seeing a lot more of that opportunity in the marketplace right now. So, I think, there is a tremendous amount of momentum moving in that direction that we're very well-positioned and we have a pretty robust pipeline of projects that we're pursuing. I think what the best thing to do is right now is while we may be tilting to move above that number over the horizon, I think, let's stay at the 1 gigawatt and we'll continue to update you on our progress as we move forward.

And we'll take our next question from Philip Shen with ROTH Capital Partners. Please go ahead.

Hey, Mark, Alex. Thanks for the questions. First one here is on ASPs. We've heard some chatter that you may be trying to increase ASPs on existing bookings post-201. Module pricing is up incrementally following the tariffs. Do you have any wiggle room in your contracts to increase your ASPs for your 7.7 gigawatts of bookings through year-end 2017 or are they locked in? And also, does your 1.3 gigs in 2018 year-to-date reflect any of the higher pricing that the market has experienced? Secondarily, we're also hearing that there may be some additional Series 6 capacity coming available for customers. Is this primarily due to the additional Vietnam facility you talked about in December or are you contemplating yet another capacity expansion? I know you have a lot on your new plate with launching five facilities over three years but what would it take to add yet another gigawatt of capacity sometime in the next couple of years? Is that even realistic?

Yeah. So on the ASP – sorry, that first, let me – again the way we've structured our contracts, that 7.7 gigawatt that you referenced, they were firm, legally enforceable obligations between both counterparties. So those ASPs were firm fixed price ASPs in both directions. So there is no room to move relative to that and we're very happy with how we contracted that volume. So it's always one of those things you could look back in hindsight and say should you have done anything differently. I'm very happy with what we did. I think we did everything we should have and we did the right thing and best positioned us not only to best serve the needs of our customers but to enable the company to continue to grow. As it relates to the 1.3 gigawatts that we booked since the beginning of the year I mean clearly the business that has not been booked in the 1.3 is a carry forward as we started beginning of this year with a clarity around the 201 case. We engage the market and we get market prices at that point in time. So is there room potentially around Series 6 in particular to get maybe slightly better ASPs than we would have recognized previously and then in the 7.7 gigawatts or I guess the 2.6 that we booked the Series 6 last year? Clearly, there is always that opportunity but again it's a balanced take around how we engage with our customers from that perspective. But it's always we want to make sure that we're giving them the best quality, best technology, enable them to be successful and to make sure we're getting a fair value for the technology that we're providing. As it relates to the Series 6 capacity, there…

And we'll take our next question from Paul Coster with JPMorgan.

Hi. Good evening. This is Mark Strouse on for Paul. Thanks for taking our questions. So, regarding the revised revenue outlook for 2018, can you provide a little bit more color how much of that was driven by the timing of the international project versus the Section 201, the increase in Series 4 production?

Yeah. The increase is probably about $150 million rollover from the India assets. So you're going to see a relatively small piece come from the again relatively small added capacity that we're putting on into Perrysburg, the majority coming from the rollover of those India assets.

And we'll take our next question from Colin Rusch with Oppenheimer. Colin Rusch - Oppenheimer & Co. Inc.: Thanks so much. Can you clarify how much of the bookings happened after the 201 decision was laid out? And then also if you could give us an update on where we're at in terms of the historical storage solutions that you've been working on and working with partners on?

So I mean if you think about the actual – I guess the President made his final decision on 201 was at the end of January. So I guess if you really look at the timeline we're about a month – less than a month I guess from when that actual final decision was made. We had a significant amount of momentum going into the bookings, even before the announcement from the final decision. Clearly, there was indication of potential impact around the 201 case. Tariffs were being proposed by the Commissioners to the President. So there's been indication in the marketplace, stronger indications as we progressed through the second half of 2017 clearly. And as we indicated as well even in our mid-to-late stage pipeline, we've got over a gigawatt of basically negotiated volume that sits within that pipeline, just to various CPs (41:24). So what I would say is if you look at the profile of the bookings as they've evolved, let's say, from the middle of 2017 through today as well as plus what's in our mid-to-late stage pipeline, as we continue to move across that continuum, clearly, the indication, the overhang or the concern I guess maybe is a better way to say it of the impact of 201 continue to increase over that horizon. But the other thing I want to make sure is clear is we said this before. We have engaged our customers and we've done this in a risk sharing approach. And we have not tried to do anything that would be opportunistic or to create some form of windfall benefit to First Solar. We look at this overall industry as having tremendous growth and potential. It is a marathon. It is not a sprint. We want to have long-term relationships with our customers. We'll treat them fairly and we'll continue to give them the best technology in the industry and provide the best power plant solutions and maintaining those power plant solutions over their anticipated lifecycle. So, that's how we're thinking about kind of our customer engagement model and not to try to do something that will be short-term, opportunistic to adversely impact our long-term relationships.

And we'll take our next question from...

I'm sorry. I think there was one other question on PVS. I'm sorry. I just want to make sure I got that one as well. Look, I think the deal that we've done with APS, I think, it's unique in the fact that – and different than anything else that has been done so far. The PPA with APS is for 100% of the battery components of the energy generation. It's all for power that'd be delivered in the early evening hours. It was part of an all resource RFP, where we competed head-to-head with mainly gas peakers. They were looking for generation that was going to be dispatched in the, call it the, 3:00 to 8:00 or even after 8:00 P.M. type of window. So, that we're generating the PV during the day. We're storing the energy in the batteries. And then we're dispatching in a point in time of when there's the greatest need for that energy, in the evening hours. And so that's creating a completely different value proposition and kind of the changing the game around what are the fundamental economics of solar. It's not just looking at the power generation during the middle of the day. It's saying what can we do to create enhanced value by having truly reliable, dispatchable, controllable solar in the evening hours. So, I think that more and more utilities will continue to evaluate what we've done there. I think you'll see more momentum. We are continuing to see a tremendous amount of interest from our customers around thinking about storage. And whether it sits today as part of the power plant or to look at the long-term optionality around how to integrate storage at some future date that creates optionality that they may want to take advantage of in the future, especially in markets where the solar penetration is much lower than it is say in California or even here in Arizona. But it's those types of kind of forward-looking and thought leadership kind of value proposition that we're able to create with our customers. And I think there will be a lot of interest and people wanting to learn more about what we've done with APS, and we're already getting some inquiries from customers.

And we'll take our next question from Jeff Osborne with Cowen & Company. Jeffrey Osborne - Cowen & Co. LLC: Hey. Good afternoon. A two part question. So I think at the Analyst Day you talked about 13.75 gigawatts of cumulative shipments between 2018 and 2020. I guess you've got 9.1 gigawatts of that booked now. Where does that go with the Ohio decision that you made? And then also, I think, it was buried in the footnotes, but can you just touch on the 700-megawatts of de-bookings that you saw during the year?

Yes. So, right now, the way I would look at the – if we look at the decision that we're going to continue to run two lines in Perrysburg, at this point in time, think of it as it's a commitment for this year. So there's another call it couple hundred megawatts that we would – in the supply plan relative to what we would have said in the Analyst Day. We will continue to evaluate that production as we exit this year. Do we continue to run it into 2019? Do we carry it into 2020? If we did it across all three years and you're talking in the range of about 600-megawatts, if we chose to do that. So that's – just think of it right now 200-megawatts, that's what we're committing to. We'll continue to evaluate when we make a decision to run that production longer than that. Relative to the 700-megawatts of de-bookings, the largest one that we had during the year was a project which went by a couple different names, either Tribal Solar or Fort Mojave, depending on – I'm not sure exactly how we called it in our SEC filings. So that was a PPA that we had with a California utility. And because of various reasons of viability around that project we ended up terminating that PPA. So that was a piece. And then there was a handful of module agreements that we entered into – almost framework agreements that, as we looked at the viability of those framework agreements relative to incremental demand that we were seeing in the marketplace for our Series 4 product, there was agreement between both parties that we terminated those framework agreement. So that's really what makes up the de-bookings that we highlighted in the footnote.

And we will take our next question from Vishal Shah with Deutsche Bank.

Thanks for taking my question. Mark, can you maybe talk about the margin guidance? Is it just Series 4 or is it something else that's driving the margin outlook for this year? And also relative to the 201 case announcement, have you seen any change in pricing for your products? Has prices gone down or up relative to what you guys were looking at late last year? And then as far as the 8point3 announcement goes, you guys at the time made some comments around a challenging outlook for the utility scale power market, just in terms of the forward pricing, et cetera. So what's your sense of how the margins in the utility scale market are looking right now relative to with the time of the Analyst Day? Thank you.

Yeah. I'll answer the 201 and then Alex can take the question on margin and 8point3. One thing that I want to go back to, the one question around the de-bookings, I want to make sure that it's clear that those de-bookings were bookings that we had in our backlog. Actually, in one case, those booking came in, I think, in 2015. The Tribal Solar I think was around 2015. The other framework agreements were 2016, okay. They had nothing to do with any of the contracts that we have entered into in 2017. So as we've made comment that those are firm enforceable obligations with penalties, liquidation damages associated, these de-bookings had nothing to do with that because I know we continue to get asked the question, are these truly enforceable contracts? And I don't want the conclusion to be it's all de-bookings. So this is an indication those truly were non-enforceable contracts. Nothing, nothing that was de-booked had anything to do with anything we recognized in 2017. These were all much older contracts from that standpoint. As it relates to the 201 case, Vishal, as I tried to indicate before, we're trying to find a way that we can find a win-win for our customers. We want to make sure that their projects are viable, that we're getting fair value for the technology. It also allows us to be somewhat selective with who we choose to engage with in highly creditworthy type of counterparties and others. So we can be more selective from that perspective and giving the best technology that enables their business model which obviously enables ours as well. And the other thing is we're booking as we indicated – if you look at the mid-to-late stage pipeline, our bookings profile that's out in 2020 and really almost towards the end of 2020 and even into 2021, those are somewhat uncharted territory for us. So, for me to tell you what that pricing looks like relative to before and after the 201, it's hard for me to give you a line-of-sight for that, because that momentum has only started to happen over, I would say, the last quarter or so. So you can't really indicate – move it one way or the other, because we're largely sold out through 2018, 2019 and into the first half of 2020 right now. So our bookings opportunities are much further out in the horizon. What I'll tell you is that when I look at the ASPs that are out there, relative to our roadmap of Series 6 and where we're going with that technology, I'm pleased. I think it aligns up with all of our expectations in that regard. So I'll let Alex answer the other two.

Yeah. So, Vishal, regarding the margins, I mean the margin profiles that we gave in our Analyst Day, I think, still holds. So, what you're seeing perhaps a slight increase in margin for this year is a function of some of the systems projects that we have. We're still pleased with where the margins are in the Series 4 products, which are in line with what we guided to in December. Around 8point3 and the challenging outlook potentially of the utility scale market, I'd say, look, as Mark mentioned in his prepared remarks, we ran a very comprehensive process, over 130 potential buyers contacted. And while we clearly would have liked to have got to a better outcome in terms of price, we do believe it's the best that are out there in the market. But it's a little bit different from how we look at a future utility scale deal. So, there's a bit of a difference in that situation. At the time we were out marketing 8point3, you had – NRG Yield was also in the market which added a little bit in terms of a less competitive situation. You'd always rather have less assets rather than more in the market at the same time. We also had the Southern Company that owned the majority interest in a lot of the projects in 8point3, were out marketing a piece of their broader solar portfolio at the same time. 8point3 has minority ownership in some of the projects and therefore that's different to a buyer who can (51:58) purchase a new project outright and have a controlling interest. You also have a mix of utility scale as well as there is REDI and C&I projects in that portfolio. The capital structure of 8point3 today had non-amortizing debt, so that was actually replaced in time as amortizing as you sold that portfolio. The asset level structures were already in place around the tax equities, less flexibility for a new buyer there, and there is also some less flexibility around providing on the (52:24) value stream to buyers around O&M, for instance. When I think about the result of 8point3 relative to I think about the viability of the ongoing utility scale business, I think, there are clearly some differences there which give me comfort that although clearly we would prefer a higher number on 8point3 relative to where we ended up, it doesn't give me significant doubts around our ability to successfully monetize our existing utility scale portfolio at the margins that we've guided to.

And we will take our last question from David Katter with Baird. Please go ahead. Tyler Charles Frank - Robert W. Baird & Co., Inc. (Private Wealth Management): Hi, guys. This is Tyler Frank. I was hoping if you can discuss how we should think about margins over the longer-term. Since you have the contracts already locked in and I assume prices and if things go to plan with your cost roadmap, should we expect margin expansion going into 2019 and 2020, based off all the information you have today?

Yeah. So, Tyler, there is a lot of moving pieces in there and I'm not going to give you kind of a margin range. But what I'll say is, look, as we move forward, when we transition everything in the Series 6 as an example, we eliminate the form factor delta and the higher BoS cost, right. So now we've got a product that is a form factor equivalent and BoS neutral, right, potentially advantaged depending on the application and with an energy yield advantage. So, that creates a tremendously competitive product that as we move from 4 into 6 would give us an opportunity to see gross margin expansion. There's no doubt about that. In terms of what does that profile look like, there is still way too many moving pieces at this point in time to represent that. But the other thing I want to make sure that we've highlighted this in the Analyst Day, is the – if we're talking gross margin versus op margin, I think, op margin. And if we can manage to scale against our fixed cost structure, we're going to see very strong contribution margin leverage against a fixed cost structure through OpEx that's going to drive op margin expansion. So, growth and scale will be more impactful as it relates to op margin expansion, per se, than just the transition from 4 to 6 and whether or not where my ASP versus cost entitlement is around Series 6. That's going to be a critical enabler but equally if not – and like I said probably more importantly it's going to be our ability to scale against our fixed cost to drive op margin expansion.

And this concludes our question-and-answer session for today and also ends the First Solar conference call. We thank you all for your participation and you may now disconnect.