Greetings, and welcome to the Greif Fourth Quarter 2013 Earnings Conference Call. [Operator Instructions] As a reminder, this conference is being recorded. It is now my pleasure to introduce your host, Ms. Deb Strohmaier, Vice President of Corporate Communications. Thank you, Ms. Strohmaier. You may begin.

Thank you, Manny, and good afternoon. As a reminder, you may follow this presentation on the web at greif.com in the Investor Center, under Conference Calls. If you don't already have the earnings release, it is also available on our website in the Investor Center. We are on Slide 2. The information provided during this morning's call contains forward-looking statements. Actual results or outcomes may differ materially from those that may be expressed or implied. Some factors that could cause the results or outcomes to differ are on Slide 2 of this presentation, in the company's 2012 Form 10-K and in other company SEC filings, as well as the company's earnings news releases. This presentation uses certain non-GAAP financial measures, including those that exclude special items, such as restructuring, timberland gains, noncash long-lived asset impairment charges and other unusual charges and EBITDA. EBITDA is defined as net income plus interest expense net, plus income tax expense, less equity earnings of unconsolidated subsidiaries net of tax, plus depreciation, depletion and amortization expense. Management of the company uses the non-GAAP measures to evaluate ongoing operations and believe that these non-GAAP measures are useful to enable investors to perform a meaningful comparison of current and historical performance of the company. All non-GAAP data in the presentation are indicated by footnotes. Tables showing the reconciliation between GAAP and non-GAAP measures are available at the end of this presentation and in the fourth quarter and fiscal 2013 earnings release. Giving prepared remarks today are, in order of speaking, David Fischer, President and CEO; and Corporate Controller, Ken André. I will now turn the call over to David.

Thank you, Deb. Good afternoon. I am now on Slide 3. I am proud to report that in fiscal 2013, several of our business units achieved world-class safety status, which is defined as an index of less than 1.0 based on the industry standard measurement of medical case rate. Our Flexible Products segment reported a 0.41 medical case rate, while the Asia-Pacific region achieved 0.77 and our Rigid business in the U.S. Southwest achieved a rate of 0.4. 8 out of our 11 plants in the Southwest region had 0 medical cases. CorrChoice and our Massillon mill also achieved a world-class status medical case rate of 1.0 or less. We continue to remind our employees that our goal is 0 incidents in the workplace. Greif's consolidated medical case rate for fiscal 20,013 -- 2013 decreased to 1.47 from 1.56 a year ago. In short, employees are safer and our efforts have the additional benefit of avoiding millions of dollars of medical expenses each year. Please turn to Slide 4. I am pleased to report our fourth quarter operating results benefited from positive volume improvements in our Rigid Industrial Packaging and Paper Packaging segments, a 16% increase in gross profit dollars and the highest quarterly gross profit margin in 3 years and slightly lower SG&A expenses compared to 1 year ago. In fiscal 2014, we will focus on continued emphasis on safety in all of our facilities and work-related activities; further progress on reducing operating working capital and increasing our cash flow; increasing integration levels, capacity and product differentiation efforts in Paper Packaging; implementing more Greif Business System initiatives to improve performance; and finally, additional restructuring of selected geographies and assets that persist with unacceptable results. Please turn to Slide 5. The Rigid Industrial Packaging segment's operating performance was substantially above…

[Operator Instructions] Our first question is from Phil Gresh of JPMorgan. Phil M. Gresh - JP Morgan Chase & Co, Research Division: I got a couple of questions. One, I was wondering if you could give us your thoughts around what free cash flow might look like in fiscal '14, and just kind of run through the pieces of that, CapEx, working capital, whether you might have any difference between booked and cash taxes, just kind of walk us through that.

Certainly. Ken? Kenneth B. André: Sure. Yes. And before I start, I just want to make a correction. When I gave the guidance, I've mentioned that the timberland transaction would be included in the guidance. It should be excluded from the guidance. So the $20 million or $0.20 a share is excluded from the guidance of $500 million -- $490 million to $540 million. Kenneth B. André: So if -- as far as 2014 cash flow, if we look at the EBITDA of $490 million to $540 million, we expect CapEx in the range of about $153 million, which is slightly higher than this year. Interest payments of around $89 million, which is fairly consistent. Cash tax payments would be a bit higher at $80 million. And working capital, although it's our goal to be neutral, we also have to recognize that some of our raw material costs may be increasing and the general level of sales activity will be increasing. So although we'd like to hold that to 0, we have a range of 0 to a use of $35 million, which would give us a free cash flow range in the $133 million to $218 million range. Phil M. Gresh - JP Morgan Chase & Co, Research Division: Okay. And within the CapEx, how much is there for the expansion project in Paper Packaging? Kenneth B. André: There's 2 modest expansion programs included in that CapEx for approximately $25 million in the coming year. The 2 include the expansion for the Riverville shoe press operation. And also we were happy to report that we were the bid winner for an expansion with the Saudi Aramco-Dow joint venture called Sadara in Saudi Arabia. We're the sole -- going to be the sole supplier of steel drums to that operation. And that expansion is also included in that $25 million increment. Phil M. Gresh - JP Morgan Chase & Co, Research Division: Okay. And then on the containerboard, the guidance for the Paper Packaging segment, you said near 2013 levels. So I guess you're implying slightly down, but I guess I'm a little confused because I think you should have maybe, I don't know, $20 million to $30 million of carryover benefits from the prior price increase, I believe, so maybe you could just help me understand that. What kind of headwinds are you expecting that you would see next year?

Part of the challenge is that the 1 million tons of new capacity that's being announced in the United States is in the Northeast predominantly. And that's in our basket of OCC and fiber. So we're uncertain as to the impact that would have as that new capacity comes on relative to the growth of the overall market and how that's absorbed, number one. Number two, it's hard to say what OCC is going to do next year. There's been several forces in the past 24 months that have made that swing up or down, China being one of those in their offtake, local consumption based upon the paper activities and also with local production based upon the macro environment. So there's a little bit of uncertainty for us around raw material feedstock on OCC and the impact of these new competitors coming in. Phil M. Gresh - JP Morgan Chase & Co, Research Division: Okay. So it doesn't sound like you're worried about pricing, per se, it's more on input cost?

Predominantly, we're largely -- we're highly integrated in our own system and with our independent customers, so the base market doesn't have perhaps as much impact on us as others. And we're small in scale and we're in a differentiated niche, so we're not worried so much about where the price goes. It's more input cost and availability of raw materials as these new capacities come on. Phil M. Gresh - JP Morgan Chase & Co, Research Division: Okay. Last question, David, just bigger picture. How do you think about -- today, how do you think about the margin potential of the Rigid and Flexible packaging businesses? Obviously, you talked about kind of coming up short of your expectations so far in Flexibles. But how do you think about both of those businesses, maybe on a 3-year basis at this point?

So let me take those separately, please. In the Rigid side, one of the outputs of the economic downturn several years ago and the second dip in Europe, one of the outputs of that has been curious for me. And that is, we have a wider spread of performance in our Rigid assets around the world, meaning that there's a group of underperformers that went into the tail. And on the other end, there's a group of high performers. But the spread between the 2 has widened significantly over the last couple of years. So as I think about it, I think from where we are today, regardless of what happens in the global economy, we have a responsibility to cease and desist or improve rather quickly some of the low performers or, let's say, cut off the tail, if you will, of the underperformers to boost our overall margins. I think as demand picks up, that will have -- or if the global economy continues to recover, that will have a positive impact as we slowly increase capacity utilizations. But we have some responsibility within our own gift, if you will, to improve those margins a little bit more rapidly than what the market would normally allow. And in the Flexible side, it's like, this is not -- it may come across as an excuse and it's not. But if you take a look at the base business of what we purchased and the assets that we run, the margins in that business for FPS have largely returned to the starting point for when we got into the business on an EBITDA basis, let's say, high-single digits. The drag we have on FPS and the thing that, I think, has hurt us is the fact that we have some of these underutilized capacities around the world, which have kind of stuck in a Catch-22 situation. They're not operating at a high enough capacity utilization to be contributors and yet we had invested heavily in them along the way, expecting the market to recover. Those poorly performing assets have to be addressed and addressed rather quickly so that the base business can get on with its return to a growth trajectory and improve margins. So I think it's unfortunate for us, the drag from those facilities has been large enough to mask the base business. And so by addressing those pretty aggressively here in the first part of 2014, I think we stand a chance to improve our lot in that business.

The next question is from Ghansham Panjabi of Robert W. Baird. Mehul M. Dalia - Robert W. Baird & Co. Incorporated, Research Division: It's actually Mehul Dalia sitting in for Ghansham. Just wondering if you can update us on the competitive landscape in the Rigid business across the various geographies? I know you mentioned competition intensified last quarter. And relatedly, how does Mauser's rumored potential sale change the competitive dynamic for Greif?

I have to take those in 2 segments as well. So on the competitive front, we see a kind of a continuation of what we did last quarter. I don't know if it was the expectation that the year was going to be a stronger macroeconomic growth year or not. That didn't materialize for the third straight year in a row. That got people thinking that they needed to be more aggressive in their own self-help agenda, if you will, to increase their profitability via volume. Or if it was the impact of a downturn in the food market, not only in the Middle East, Europe and North America simultaneously, which is not a typical event for all of this to turn down at the same time and then the scramble for volume that caused that competitive intensity to pick up. I wouldn't call it -- maybe perhaps as in quite as intense as the last, let's say, 30 to -- 3 months to 6 months, but it has not subsided markedly. So it's still very intense. And I think with capacity utilizations down around the world, we might live in that environment for a while and that's one of the other drivers for us to close underperforming assets and increase our own capacity utilizations around to help out on the margin side. So on a macro basis, I would say, it's maybe slightly better, but not markedly better. And your second part of your question was, again, remind me? Mehul M. Dalia - Robert W. Baird & Co. Incorporated, Research Division: Mauser's rumored potential sale, how that changes the landscape.

Yes. So it's hard to say if the rumors are valid or not from our vantage point. Over the past 3 to 5 years, Greif's been rumored to buy Mauser at least 4 or 5 times. This one does, in fact, seem to be a little bit more substantive. The fact that Reuters picked it up and there's some bankers talking about it. Clearly, they have their own buyout PE house, so eventually, they're going to come to the market. It is a question of who buys them and how they view that investment and the return on that investment to dictate how the competitive landscape may or may not change with that. Clearly, I think, eventually, there's going to be a transaction. We watch and monitor it very closely. And we'll just have to see what develops as either they get more serious and it becomes more real or the rumor fades like they have in the past. And I really can't tell at this moment. Mehul M. Dalia - Robert W. Baird & Co. Incorporated, Research Division: Makes sense. And just as a follow-up. Would you be able to walk us through volume trends in the quarter by region and end market?

Certainly. For the first time in a while, I'm happy to say, as a general context of the year, volume year-over-year was up for all of our SBUs, not great in all SBUs, but up. And that's an unusual position for us to be in. So we're very happy with that macro context when you look at our portfolio. Looking more specifically, I'll look at the volume comparison first versus the same time period last year and then I'll cover this quarter versus last quarter. So if you take a look at the same time period as last year, in North America, Rigid business was off about 4%. This was driven by the very weak Ag season, not only in Florida, but also in California and a few spots in between. That was the only area versus same time period as last year that was down in EMEA or Europe. Our Rigid business was up about 2%. In Asia-Pacific, it was up about 8%. Latin America, up about 9%. And that 9% factor reflects 2 things: One, the resurgence of excellent management on our part leading that business down there, but also the strong Ag Chem season that developed in the last 90 days. And then our accessories business, which I don't usually comment about specifically, it was up versus prior year about 4% from a few line extensions and also servicing external customers, signaling that perhaps the market was strengthening a little bit, at least in this time period. When you take a look at our current quarter versus the last quarter. And just recall that our fourth quarter is typically a declining market because of seasonality for us. Versus the third quarter, we were off about 4% in North America. In Europe, we were off about 7%. In Asia-Pacific, surprisingly, we were still up about 2%. Latin America, off about 4% and flat for our accessories business. So I hope that gives you some flavor of what's happening around the world in those specific geographies and in all of our markets combined.

The next question is from Chris Manuel of Wells Fargo.

So a couple questions for you. One, I wanted to ask or circle on a little bit on the cash flow that kind of you spit out. And I'm looking at your bridge from last year and specifically, I think working capital was slated to be a modest use of cash, but ended up being kind of north of -- by the math you show in the front of your press release, closer to $100 million or so. What happened towards the end of the year that made that swing so significantly, number one; and then, two, I mean, I guess given the outlook that you gave for next year, it's permanently in there. It's not a temporary one-time swing. Could you maybe give us a color there first? And then I just have a couple of follow-ups. Kenneth B. André: Okay, sure. Chris, this is Ken. If you remember after last quarter, we did put a bridge out there that I think you were referring to. And so I'll walk you through the differences there. We had talked about a GAAP EBITDA for the year of $475 million to $500 million. If you look at the actual, excluding impairment charges and the timberland gain, we were at the upper end of that at $498 million, so pretty much in line. Our CapEx spending was a little bit higher. We had expected about $125 million and the actual came in at about $136 million. There's quite a number of growth projects, as you know, going forward. And so I think, overall, that's going to be a positive thing for the company. Interest payments, we're pretty much spot on. We had expected $85 million and they were $86 million for the year. Cash tax payments, similarly, we expected $75 million, they were $74 million. We did dig ourselves a pretty deep hole early in the year on working capital with a significant increase. And although we did work that down a little bit in Q4, we had expected that to work itself down to a net use of between $10 million and $45 million. And we didn't make that target, we were above $80 million there. I think some of the reasons we had talked earlier in the year about several inventory consignment programs that were ended. That led to an increase in working capital, but had a positive impact on the earnings of the company. We also had the benefit of the containerboard price increases on the Paper Packaging business results, but of course, their inventory and their accounts receivable, they increased in dollar terms, although in day terms, they stayed consistent. So overall, we did fall short of the goal that we had set that we had communicated to you at the end of Q3 of between $145 million and $205 million and came in with a free cash flow on this basis of $123 million.

And so, Chris, just to add a little bit of color. We gave you kind of an egg basket of things that affected us. We have to do a better job. We fully realize that on execution in operating working capital. That's part of management's personal goals going into 2014. Number one, the slowdown in the food season didn't help us at all either with the consumption of material on hand, particularly towards the end of the year as well. But one of the things that I think concerns, at least me the most, is the fact that we have a lot of working capital tied up in some of these underperforming assets, so we kind of get a double whammy and we have assets that don't perform very well and they have long supply chains to get, in many cases, not all, but in many cases to get some to these more, let's say, off-the-beaten-path countries that we operate in around the world. So when you have boats on the water to supply either resin or steel and they have an asset that's underperforming, it kind of puts kind of a bright light on that asset to get either fixed or off the schedule to improve our operating working capital to be where it needs to be.

All right, that's helpful. And one quick follow-up within there is, can you quantify what the -- for us, what the earnings benefit was from the consignment element just so we understand what is the nonrecurring piece for next year? Kenneth B. André: Let me look into that and I'll let Bob Lentz get back to you on that one.

Okay. That would be helpful.

It would be small. It would be relatively small, but we'll come up with a more calculated number.

Okay. The next piece I kind of want to look at maybe is kind of thinking of it by business units and approach the business that way. And I know that this is maybe a difficult way to look at it, but if we kind of look at what you did generate this past year in free cash flow, the paper business and timber business would've been more than your hole and significantly more. So if we kind of then think through some of the other businesses that on a net basis may be consuming cash, I know you mentioned some specific assets that seem to have stuff trapped or seemingly must be growing it, can you talk through, I think, of your other kind of 5 business segments, Flexibles, blending, filling, closures, recon, FIBC and the base drum business, which -- I guess that's 6 -- which are generating cash and which are consuming cash, does that makes sense?

I don't think we break down that kind of detail at that level of our businesses, Chris. But they're aggregating this way anyway.

Well, okay, so let me approach then from a little different direction yet. As you're looking at and evaluating -- I mean, in your press release, you indicated there's some underperforming business units or components that you'd look at for review or if possible take actions in, I mean, could some of that potentially include divestitures?

Absolutely. I think we put it into our non-core assets. So we have a strong initiative to not only look at the underperforming assets, to fix or close or exit them, but also where appropriate and available to us, to divest those to use that cash flow to pay down debt. And that is a concerted effort going into 2014.

Okay. So there are some specific ones that are maybe cash challenged that you'd take a look at. Would you -- and maybe you already just kind of answered this portion of the question, but do you anticipate that, that would provide you cash proceeds or might there be some cost expenses to actually sever those pieces of business that are bleeding cash?

I would say, a minimum net proceeds of cash should -- for 2014 should be $50 million. And I would say an aspirational goal would be more like $100 million. And when you consider, it may sound like a lot, but when you consider that just on the Rigid side of the business, we have over a couple of hundred sites around the world, a rooftop consolidation and/or divestiture of ones that aren't core to our long-term mission should be able to generate that type of cash proceeds for debt reduction.

The next question is from Adam Josephson of KeyBanc.

David, you mentioned, in response to Phil's question earlier that you think the drag in -- in the Containerboard business next year would mostly come on the input cost side rather than from pricing, if I heard correctly, so I'm just trying to tie it together. So do you still expect to get most of the leftover, $20 million to $30 million from the April price increase, but you think that could be partly, if not fully, offset by higher input cost, even though OCC prices are declining, at least they did this month. Is that correct? Or is there some competitive pressure that you think will adversely affect pricing, along with the potentially higher input cost?

Well, let me talk in terms of margins for just a second. So we, in the fourth quarter, we achieved all-time record. We finally got the full input and achieved all-time record margins in the business. We're still running strong because of our very small nature in the industry and niche participation with independent customers. We were run pretty hard. So I'm not thinking there will be a huge volume change year-over-year, maybe some incremental. And when I say incremental, maybe 1% capacity creep type on our system before some of our bigger capacity expansion ideas are -- excuse me, projects come to fruition in mid-2015. So I'm not thinking volume is going to change, largely. In our marketplace, where we work very closely with our customer base to talk about and handle pricing that fits their capabilities to absorb and we don't believe that we will have a difficult time either passing through higher OCC costs, but -- in the event they shoot back up. But we also worry about OCC availability and what that will do to our input cost and with 1,000 -- or sorry, 1 million metric tons coming on largely disproportionately, coming into our footprint, we do have a concern about those input costs going up. But as far as margin managing, I don't see them changing dramatically year-over-year, from where they are, let's say fourth quarter.

Okay. Second question, obviously, in recent years, you've made significant investments in the Flexible and Rigid Industrial Packaging businesses and now you're expecting some higher restructuring charges in some of those businesses, while simultaneously making a significant investment in your containerboard mill. Does this represent a shift in your focus in any way from Industrial Packaging to Containerboard? Or where should we expect most of your earnings to come from in the years to come? And should it roughly resemble what it was this year? Or should more and more of it come from containerboard? I mean, what you think in future years.

I think if you looked at what's happened in the industry and I'm only a distant observer, who's 2% of the market, the industry in the Containerboard industry has clearly gone under a fairly radical change in the last 24 months. I don't think that's going to rapidly change, in terms of the market attractiveness. We have started in 2009, our Efficient Frontier strategy, meaning we have a very clear line of sight on both our mill systems on what capacity they should be at, that is optimized for their structural footprint. We had 11 projects identified in 2009 and we've completed 9 of those 11 with 2 remaining. And the 2 remaining, one of those is our largest 1, which is the addition of a shoe press in Riverville that we've talked about. So I think we have a clear line of sight to improving our EBITDA for that business by about 15% over these next 30 months. If the structure and current economics prevail during that period of time, we can increase our EBITDA by about 15%. So yes, there's somewhat of a disproportional investment in paper right now because of its attractiveness, but it's up to a limit. And at that point, I think you're going to see the improvement in our EBITDA have to come from our Rigid business. It has to come with continued macroeconomic recovery, but also our self-help actions about improving the drag on the business with underperforming assets or mediocre performing assets, which are keeping the average for the business down. So when you look at our expansion in the Middle East, you should also expect us to shut or close underperforming assets elsewhere in the world and release the working capital. And if we own that facility, the building capital for most sites to higher production, higher productive assets in operations around the world.

And just 1 last 1 on the mineral rights issue. Obviously, you mentioned that you're evaluating opportunities to use a portion of the timberlands to, I think, unlock the value of the mineral rights, you said. Can you give us any sense of the potential financial opportunity in that regard, relative to your previously estimated value for your total land holdings of roughly $550 million?

It's tough to say because we're at such an early phase on that, Adam. We don't know much about minerals or mineral extraction, but we know enough that rather than just leasing our property out and letting somebody else drill or -- and pay us royalties, that perhaps, at least on a certain proportion, which is not the entire footprint for sure, but a certain proportion of it that is the most attractive mineral basin, it might be better for us to team up with a strategic partner and share in that risk and reward as we go forward. That strategic partner, or partners, are doing their homework in terms of mineral founding and chart analysis and whatever other exploration tools they use, to determine the best place to start an expansion. They're going to come back to us during this fiscal year and propose specific projects to us. And at that point in time, we'll have a database that says, here's what we're doing, here's what might be possible. But yes, this is very unpredictable and early in the process, when you're getting into a brand-new area that you're -- basically fell in your lap after owning these properties for decades.

No, sure. And I guess that the same answer would apply to a question about EBITDA. So if I were to ask you how much could EBITDA grow by in the years to come, based on these opportunities you have at your disposal, would -- could you hazard a guess? Or it's just too unfair?

I would really be risking a true guess at this point in time. All I can say is that we're intrigued. I wouldn't say we're excited, but we're certainly intrigued, as choosing the best path for shareholders or whether or not leasing out the mineral rights and letting somebody else take the drilling risk, or us taking that on with a strategic partner and doing it ourselves makes the most sense. And right now, there's some work to be completed on that with a strategic partner. And when we get some clarity on that, we'll be happy to share it.

The next question is from Steve Chercover of D.A. Davidson. Steven Chercover - D.A. Davidson & Co., Research Division: I'm just trying to actually calibrate just what the earnings potential of Rigid Industrial Packaging is now. Several years ago, you were closer to $300 million. I think you even beat that in 2008. And presumably, you've improved the business with some of the IBCs, but you've also shrunk it. So if the economy wasn't going at, to use your words, a snail's pace or in slow-motion, what do you think that can do?

I think, if you look back, the '08 is one of our peak years when demand was extremely robust and fairly predictable. From that base, first of all, we can do so much with a self-help agenda to get back to that peak and we will do those activities in 2014. But the macroeconomy's going to have to pick up for us to get that type of demand profile. And from that basis point, we expect at least a couple of percentage points of EBITDA margin above that period of time is well within our grasp of earnings profile in the coming time period. I'd hate to put a specific time period on it. Every time I try to forecast it, that the world is going to continue to get better, it proves that I'm wrong, because there'll be some macroeconomic activity. But from '08, with the new products and trimming off the poor performing assets, we believe another 2% on EBITDA margin across the envelope should be attainable. Steven Chercover - D.A. Davidson & Co., Research Division: And the restructuring of the portfolio, putting things into different buckets hasn't changed that potential, it's still got a $300 million from the EBIT level, correct? The $300 million?

I'm sorry, I didn't answer the question. Steven Chercover - D.A. Davidson & Co., Research Division: If you can still be in -- have access to $300 million, when the economy is doing better?

Yes. Steven Chercover - D.A. Davidson & Co., Research Division: It does seem that you're being relatively conservative, both on paper, although I don't want to be a blind bull. But I should also think that Rigid would have more potential in 2014, unless you're expecting actually another horrible agricultural season.

I don't know how to -- what to expect on Ag. All I can say is that, for the last decade anyway, we've never seen the Ag season turn down in all 3 of our important regions, not a 1. So that would be highly unusual, for that to do that. That would be a first that I can remember for -- in 2 years in a row, #1. Number 2, it all depends on what happens. We have a clear line of sight of the things that we have in our control, to go improve and we're going to do that. But this is the third year in a row now, where at the beginning of the year, our customer base, our bankers and ourselves talk ourselves into the latter half of next year will be better. And it didn't come to pass for the last 3 years. So I'm very hesitant to say that there's more in the tank for Rigid, without knowing where the macroeconomy's going to go. Steven Chercover - D.A. Davidson & Co., Research Division: Yes, I know, it sounds like being a [indiscernible]. Now on Flexible, I understand you're going to take some serious action and it seemed like such a great adjacent substrate, but is it possible that it just doesn't work? And how long will you tolerate the performance there?

I'm pretty confident it's going to work. And it is a great adjacent substrate that our customers, particularly our large international customers, are finding great value in us bringing to them along with our other packaging officers -- offerings, sorry. So I highly doubt, at least in my tenure, that we would be giving up on it. But we do have to fix our missteps of the past and our overreaching expansion agenda, so that the base business can get to a profitability and a base, performance base that we can once again grow from. It doesn't help that these packages that we produce are not long travelers, if you will. It's not a -- it does happen, but it's not as common as steel drums or IBCs that they get put on ocean going freight and go for an export-type business and being 75% or 80% tied to the Western European market, where local consumption is still considerably off from where it originally was and hasn't rebounded. I mean, when you see Western Europe numbers, at least the ones I look at, from our customer base, that are getting better, it's largely either driven by the German pet chem companies that have natural gas pipelines into their big, integrated facilities at low cost, or it's export based for other regions of Western Europe. So our footprint isn't conducive to a big macroeconomic recovery or exporting of those products out of those regions. So we have to get our act together to expand in the other geographies much better and I think you'll see the actions we have lined up. We'll show a committed effort to improve it. Steven Chercover - D.A. Davidson & Co., Research Division: Great. And last question, I promise. Your prior CFO discussed a strategy to reduce SG&A by, I think, 200 basis points towards 8%. Can you give us a progress report there, please?

Yes, thanks for asking. So we're about 10 months now into our -- and this isn't the only initiative -- we're about 10 months into our global ERP project, maybe 11. It's going well. We -- during the past quarter, have added Hungary in the shared service platform that we're introducing to Europe, into that mix. Our implementations are on track and we're happy with the results on them. That global ERP is a real big enabler for us to achieve that 200 basis points across the portfolio. In addition to that, for 2014, we've taken a pretty strong push on the corporate budgeting process and reducing corporate shared service and supporting groups' budgets to the businesses, down in advance of that ERP system. So we're not just waiting on that implementation to get after it, but we're going to have to have, not only some of the expenses come out of the denominator, but we also have to have some sales pickup, just get that percentage down on a macro basis. So thanks for that question.

We have time for one more question. It comes from the line of Mark Wilde of Deutsche Bank.

I've actually got a little more than one, but we'll -- try to make these fast. First, can you give us some sense of what the benefit was in 2013 from broadening the IBC base out, producing those in more locations, and kind of what type of delta we might have in 2014?

Yes. Thanks for that question. So it's tough to say what -- I just don't know, off the top of my head, what the absolute delta is on the IBC product line. But I can tell you this, we're now up to 13 lines around the world that are being either already installed, or are going, in process. We're well past the tipping point, with only a couple of substance remaining. Global operating rigs, last time I looked, were somewhere around 60% for us, but that's at average across those lines and they vary across the globe. But that's up markedly. So I think '13 was actually a tipping point, where the investment was starting to pay off and we're starting to see more benefit from that. But we're up to about 1 million units. And if you average all across the globe, you end up with about $160 million in sales or so, or $170 million in sales. So around $160, $170 a unit for those 1 million units. And we're the third player coming into this market. And we have a very large footprint across the world in steel drums, having IBCs coming along with that offering to our international customers is very important to them. So we get that 60% utilization up to more like 80% by the end of 2014. You're going to see the investments start to really make a difference in our earnings.

So just, Dave, just to kind of -- if you're going to 60 to 80, just working in rough numbers, that sounds like you think you can do something in the range of an incremental 300,000 units. Is that about right?

Yes, it's rough numbers.

Okay, that's helpful. The second thing, I just wondered on these review of the underperforming business, we can all...

Mark, just so you know what I'm talking about, that would be a run rate by the end of next year, not applying to all of 2014. That's as we fill up those capacities as they come online. And for the ones that are online, we fill up. So just to be clear.

Okay. In terms of the underperforming businesses, we can all see, kind of the overall flexibles this year. I just wondered if you could put a little more color on some of the areas where you really, you're having to take a hardest look at business right now.

Well, it's geographically fairly dispersed, actually across the world. There are more of them outside the United States than in. Obviously, some of those, in those outlying regions, are smaller markets. And if you think of it in terms of numbers out of a couple -- a little more than a couple of hundred sites you're talking about, 10 to 15 sites that are in question for us in 2014, that are either going to have to get their act together and be, not just better, but at a return that we're proud of. And if they can't get there, we'll be looking to either shutter them, move the equipment, or sell them to a local competitor.

Okay. And I noticed that one of the write-down areas was in the fiber hub in KSA and I know that you had gone into that fiber hub in a smaller way than you'd initially planned. So can you just update us on sort of what the current kind of strategy and thinking is around that fiber hub? Is it -- you've gone in smaller and now you've done a write-down on it.

Yes, yes. And the fiber hub is clearly in question of how to either fill it up and get it at scale, or if we can't do that and, can't get some help from our supply base over there, exit that longer term and go back to the base business footprint, which is a very viable footprint for the capacity and the sales that we currently have. But we're kind of stuck in a Catch-22 situation there, that we built a very nice facility, state-of-the-art, we built it on the, one of the best ports in the world and now sales has lagged so much from our expansion efforts that it's very difficult to get out of that Catch-22. And because of that forecast and the fact that we're not at scale, we don't get the kind of discounts that we would enjoy at a high -- much higher run rate from our local supply base there, we had to take the asset impairment, which basically equates, coincidentally, to about the engineering value of the building, not the building itself. So we're in a tough quandary there, in terms of volume and volume output for a hub that would -- should be well on its way into the second phase of expansion at this point in time. And that's a key topic for us to tackle with our JV partner here in the coming weeks.

Okay. And Dave, in Flexibles, initially, you talked about getting this business to about $1 billion in revenues a while you back. You trimmed that, I think, to $750 million. Is that $750 million still a good target in your mind?

I think it's going to take some time, Mark. And it all depends on what we do with a couple of these what I call, laggard or underperforming assets that I mentioned earlier, Morocco, the Ukraine and KSA hub, to come up with a quantitative goal. I think there's significant expansion still available to us, once we get, again, the base right and the base solid to go into our other markets that we're hardly participating in right now, North America being the big one, Latin America, Russia and, to a lesser extent, Southeast Asia.

Okay. And I can assume, just as I recall, a strategy that of the KSA and Morocco are kind of intertwined because I think you were going to produce, kind of fiber and fabric there and then that was going to Morocco for selling?

Yes.

Yes, okay. And then finally, Ken, just a -- from a -- to make sure we're clear about the guidance target, that $490 million to $540 million of EBITDA, does that exclude restructuring and then exclude other special items? Kenneth B. André: That includes restructuring and special items. It only excludes the timberland gains.

Okay. All right. And just ballpark, do you have any view of what restructuring is likely to look like for next year? Kenneth B. André: Very hard to estimate, but we're thinking in the range of about $25 million.

Again, that is all the time we have for questions. I'll just turn the floor back over to management for any additional remarks.

Okay. I'm on Slide 14. Our fourth quarter results included improved operating performance in Rigid Industrial Packaging and record results in Paper Packaging. During fiscal 2014, we will continue to emphasize safety in all of our facilities. While global market conditions are gradually improving, the recovery remains uneven, we plan to implement additional restructuring activities for select geographies and assets that have persisted with unacceptable results. In Paper Packaging, we will increase integration levels, capacity and product differentiation to serve our customer base. The Greif Business System continues to be a powerful integration and cost savings tool to create an unlock value. Reducing working capital and increasing cash flow are key priorities for 2014. Deb will now provide final instructions for the call.

Thank you, David. A replay of this conference call will be available in approximately 1 hour on the company's website at www.greif.com, in the Investor Center. We appreciate your interest and especially your participation this afternoon. This concludes our call and you may now disconnect your lines. Goodbye.

Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, this concludes today's teleconference. You may disconnect your lines at this time. Thank you for your participation.