Good day everyone and welcome to the Hubbell Incorporated Second Quarter 2014 Earnings Conference Call. Today’s conference is being recorded. I’d now like to turn the conference over to Jim Farrell. Please go ahead, sir.

Good morning, everyone, and thank you for joining us. I’m joined here today by our Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer, Dave Nord; and our Chief Financial Officer, Bill Sperry. Hubbell announced its second quarter results for 2014 this morning. The press release and earnings slide materials have been posted to the Investors section of our website at www.hubbell.com. Please note that our comments this morning may include statements related to the expected future results of our company and are, therefore, forward-looking statements as defined by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Therefore, please note the discussion of forward-looking statements in our press release and consider it incorporated by reference into this call. In addition, comments may also include non-GAAP financial measures. Those measures are reconciled to the comparable GAAP measures and are included in the press release and the earnings slide materials. Now let me turn the call over to Dave.

Thanks, Jim. Good morning, everybody. Hopefully you had a chance to see our press release and the company document in the slides. I am happy to be reporting our results for the quarter, it sales up 7%, acquisitions contributing 5% of that, quite an improvement from what we call three months ago that we were reporting on a very slow and cold start. Demand is improved nicely in most of our markets, non-residential to modest improvement still with biased toward renovation market not as strong and improvement as we would like and many expect but continue with improvement and will take it as it comes. I think the residential market, we were cautious going in and I think that caution was well advised as we have seen some weakening in that but we are still growing, still very well positioned. Our industrial business was mixed with Harsh & Hazardous a little bit better than our high voltage test business, still struggling a bit. And the positive side the utility spending, did continue to improve from the slow start and so we feel a little better about that. On the margin side, nice improvement – continued improved on the margins with 30 basis point improvement up to 16.8% attributable to ongoing productivity initiatives as well as some lower facility closure cost that we incurred in the first half of the last year but a little bit of the mix – unfavorable mix that we have been talking about and we continue to face. In the second quarter, we closed two acquisitions. Revenue contribution of about $45 million, one is in lighting, small one in power and would also closed another small deal earlier this month really in the Harsh & Hazardous electrical connectors business. So we have now invested nearly $150…

Thanks, Dave and good morning everybody, thank you for joining us. I am going to use the slide to the Dave’s reference to guide my comments and I will be referencing those page numbers as we go along here. Staring on page 3, with our summary of what was a quite solid financial performance for Hubbell. The sales up 7%, two comments I think about sales, the first is organic growth of 2% sounding quite modest is actually a nice sequential compare versus the first quarter where we really had flat organic volume so an interesting sign of market pick up there. I think secondly the acquisitions contributing 5%, that really comes from seven different investments we have made over the past 12 months and that seems like a good amount of deal of activity for us but what I particularly like how that spreading around our portfolio. So of those seven, three are in power systems and two within lighting platform and two within electrical system and that's a good sign I think of our business model that work when the organic markets are modest and I think we can put some inorganic growth bring that to the table. On the operating margin are 16.8% up 30 basis points, improvement from productivity continues to be very important contributor to our margin story, we’ll show you the CapEx implication later but we need to continue to invest to get that productivity and Dave commented that some of the less favorable product mix that needed to explore a little bit later (inaudible) and I agree with Dave’s comment of 10% growth at the EPS fine and attractive, demonstrating good operating leverage at $1.51 of EPS. On page 4, we discussed our end-markets and again I think if you look at our…

Okay. Great. Thanks Bill. So you have gotten a good sense of where we have been, what we have accomplished. So let me give you sense of where we see things going on at least for the rest of this year. First on page 18, little discussion on our outlook for the end market themselves, and I’ll start up on the upper right side, the utility side. We see that growing at flat to 1% as market and you recall at the end of the first quarter, we had an outlook that was flat and we were concerned about as we watching those order rates because of the weather. I think that's moved from cautious, we recall in May, based on the order rates we moved it to confident at flat, not terrible exciting but certainly a lot better for us and I think I would characterize this as continued improvement but cautious about improvement, certainly the utilities have been spending. Some of that is attributable to pent up demand, some of it is attributable to their improved profitability and they saw in the first quarter from the meter spinning but I think I saw some data recently that underline electric demand has dropped back down and so there is volatility there but we are cautiously optimistic that that's going to continue to improve. On the residential side, we started the year with about 10% growth different from a year ago when that was viewed to be low, we said that that may turn out to be high and I think we are starting to see some of those signs particularly on the single-family. We still feel good about our position, our business but certainly that market is a little bit softer as the year has progressed and so we…

Yes, I think it's worth commenting a little bit on the shape of the rest of the year. I think that Dave referenced some of pricing challenges. We had a price cost tailwind for the first half of the year as you all know, very hard to sustain that, we tend to think during the year that tends to be flat so that feels like they could create some headwind for us and in the mix side I think could be felt particularly in Q3 we have both high voltage as well as some of them in fact that the commercial constructions businesses of ours can be a little bit lower margin amongst our portfolio against a pretty sweep mix of business we had last Q3, just to remind everybody that. last year’s Q3 was a 100 basis point improvement upon the prior year and that creates a pretty tough compared to try to continue to extend on so the 20 to 30 basis point guide suggests from where we are at half time essentially a flat second half on margin and I would say meeting our Q3 margins of last year that should be pretty tough to do. So I think the shape of the second half of the year feels a little bit influenced by some of those factors which I just wanted to add. So, I think that would conclude our prepared remarks and happy to turn it over to you all for some Q&A.

(Operator Instructions). And first we’ll go to Christopher Glynn with Oppenheimer. Christopher Glynn – Oppenheimer: Thanks, good morning.

Good morning, Chris. Christopher Glynn – Oppenheimer: Hi Dave. The question on lighting talking about aligning some of the cost structure there, I think one of you competitor sort of adding structural cost with the growth opportunities from the technology changes in the industry, can you kind of talk about what the tradeoffs are there?

Yes, I mean part of the challenge is balancing where you need to add structural cost where you need to make the investment particularly when you look at product innovation, LED engineering and that capability. So that’s going to continue and that’s necessary but it’s not necessarily complementary to improving margin. So you better then look at the other side of the equation which is where your cost structure and particularly your fixed cost structure and there’s a lot of that in our facilities, we have done but certainly a lot more opportunity for productivity initiatives to be addressed more aggressively with some incremental investment that might be necessary. I think for example you have seen the benefit of that on the power side where we’ve had improved margins significant contribution from productivity initiatives from investments that have been made over the last several years that we are starting to realize. So I keep (inaudible) credit for continuing to deliver but some of that investment that we made when he was divisional president and the Bill probably was running the business. So we have examples internally where we make the investment, sometimes when you can afford it, sometimes when I think in the lighting business because of the dynamics that exists in that market and the change that we are taking more aggressive look at thing that we might just need to do in the shorter term for the benefit of the longer term. Christopher Glynn – Oppenheimer: Thanks that helpful. And on the price, so we see a little pressure at power systems. Is that kind of a stable sort of pressure or something that you think could accelerate?

I think Chris, it feels between those two I describe it as stable. I think it's existed there and it alters between when on a big project you have to get competitive and that alternates between them more blanket and stock could just flow and whether you have to be competitive there. So I would say it feels like a competitive industry right now where price I think utilities are facing the reasonable amount of challenges in their own business and they are looking for as cost competitive product as they can get. Christopher Glynn – Oppenheimer: Okay. So it sounds to me like it might be a little bit more mix between project and stock than kind of comparable price decline, is that fair?

I describe it as competitive I would say and that you need to show up for the quality product at a good price you know every day. Christopher Glynn – Oppenheimer: Okay. Thank you.

Rich Kwas with Wells Fargo Securities. Rich Kwas – Wells Fargo Securities: Hey good morning everyone. I just wanted to drill down a little deeper on the lighting. When you look at LED, are the LED margins still comparable to traditional lighting margins at this point?

Yeah I would say that for us historically they have been rich and I think there is some of the most recent adaption has been in product areas that are taking what were traditional fluorescent products in transitioning those into the newer technologies and I think that's where Dave’s comment about industry needs to focus hard on getting the full value of that product priced into it as oppose to merely trying to match the price of the legacy technology. So I think it's a function of some of the more recent adoptions and it has been in that kind of product area that has made the compares more challenging. Rich Kwas – Wells Fargo Securities: And is that more just like competitive strategy by other players out there in your view?

Yes, I think that's where the market in those product lines.

So I think that Rich, (inaudible) light there, if you walked around light where you could see why there is so much excitement around the industry, a lot of new products but you also – it’s clear that while there is a few of us in the room who have very strong positions as evidenced by simply the four space and some great product, there is more almost an unlimited number of new entrance who are trying to take advantage of the changing technology as an opportunity and I think that's created more competitive pressure than we have normally seen. So it's not, again attributed to any one player but it's more of a broad market dynamic that we are going to walk our way through. Rich Kwas – Wells Fargo Securities: Okay. And then on M&A so the frequencies picked up the size per deal though is still kind of within the range of what you typically do. How would you characterize the landscape among the other larger players out there with how they are competing for deals particularly as you look at potentially move up to scale in size.

Yes I think it would be difficult for us to comment on other people's pipelines. I would say that our activity feels reasonably robust Rich and I think you are right to characterize the sizes as what we would call average or typical to what Hubbwell has been doing I think this last $160 million we invested at around eight times so I’d also say it's been at typical valuations that we are used to but certainly between strategics and product equity buyers, there is certainly lot of interest out there and we are trying our best to get out there and build relationships with sellers and make some of those transactions happen. Rich Kwas – Wells Fargo Securities: Okay. So incrementally the bigger sort of deals are still -- it sounds like a little more of a challenge for you to compete on?

Yes, I just say they are less frequent in our conversations and I think it would be right to suggest that as you got bigger, multiples -- you would have to expect the multiples who would probably pick up any sympathy with that size which I would expect would be right there. Rich Kwas – Wells Fargo Securities: Okay. And just last one from me with the McGraw-Hill data that was out in the second quarter for non-resi suggest a pretty nice uptake in starts and Dave you talked about smaller projects driving the chart here leading the chart here, and large project still somewhat tapped. What do you make of the macro data out there in terms of starts activity I know if you provide any color just around, you comments on smaller projects versus larger projects and what you are seeing in terms of conversion, potential conversion of larger project as we move to the next 6 to 12 months?

Well, I mean I think that you know there is still caution out there when you are looking at the big projects. There is funding consideration for sure but there is also underlying demand, you can look at a lot of – some of the commercial office space in certain markets and how that's being absorbed or not absorbed. So I think that's where some of the caution is and slow recovery on the larger projects. The smaller ones are, they are a lot easier to execute and execute that completed in a timely fashion while the market is still strong. So I think that’s where – my view is that's where the while the bias is to the smaller projects. But we are keeping at it and we would expect that that we are going to see more activity with – well I don't disagree with a lot of that leading indicators would suggest that there is an improvement that's coming. We all know though that has been kind of the story for the last couple of years and it keeps sliding to the right and we just – I am going to wait and see and ready to go. Rich Kwas – Wells Fargo Securities: Okay. Got it. Thank you. Operator Thank. We will put Nigel Coe with Morgan Stanley.

Hey good morning guys. It's Trueon (9ph) for Nigel. I just wanted to ask about month-over-month cadence, you guys mentioned how things played out from the beginning of 2Q to the end of the quarter. What kind of trends are you seeing so far in July?

Yeah I think True, we finished June with 10% growth in orders which is pretty strong especially after disappoint May and July I would say has started off reasonably okay. I would describe it as having the easy compare for us but between the backlog that we built in 2Q and the order pattern that we are seeing late June and into July, I think that's really the backbone in buttressing Dave’s comment about how we are feeling from confidence perspective on some of the volume assumptions.

Okay. Thanks. And then I don't want to press too hard but I just wanted to dive a little bit into the fiduciary settlement for the trustees. Has there been any change or more activity on your end just as far as conversations with the corporate trustee or the beneficiaries themselves or do you have any sense for whether or not you think this could be a potential occupational impact to either the business or the outlook, or even A class shares?

True, as I mentioned I mean it was the transfer as a result of a legal settlement. We approach all of our shareholders as I have talked about in the past, we brought ourselves in transparency with our shareholders. We are available to answer any questions. We try to keep ourselves in the market to make sure that we are sharing our perspective on our strategic election and our execution against that. I think that the market has generally welcomed that. But we don't -- at the same time; we don't talk about what individual conversations exist with shareholders to the extent they do.

Right. Understood. Thanks guys.

Next we will go to Noelle Dilts with Stifel.

Thanks. Good morning. First I just wanted to dig into the utility market a bit more hoping you could talk a little bit about what you are seeing in distribution versus transmission and even the international markets. And our work actually suggest that we could see an improvement in large project spending and next year 2015 in the U.S., I am curious with consistent with your expectations.

So Noelle, specific to the quarter, we characterize T&D as flat. I would say the T portion of that was down but I would also say that that was more timing related. I think what our folks are saying is affirming of the second half on the T side. And as you look out into ’15 I would agree with the theses that transmission spending will remain sort of at these high levels but that will translate to modest growth. On the distribution side you have heard Dave and Bill talk about will talk about how we saw a rebound coming on off of the weakness of Q1 as the meters were spinning we saw electricity demand increase and we did see a pickup in spending into the second quarter, the question is what is that look like going forward given electricity demand an unknown, so on balance I think we’re more comfortable with the 0 to 1 and we think that that sort of suggest a little improvement second half versus first.

And then anything notable going on in international?

International is mixed, I mean we have a fairly sizeable business in Brazil that has had some hard times, they are seen a little bit on the T side not as much on the distribution side but we’re certainly looking to expand in another geographies and so on balance I would call it flattest slightly up.

Okay and my second question is really just looking at this gulfstream, petrochem opportunity and some of the industrial spending we think it happen over the next few years just curious to know your thoughts on capitalizing on that opportunity that’s what you are seeing but I’m curious to see your comments there.

I’m sorry the question was around petrochem opportunity?

Yes, just a kind of gulf coast CapEx if we do see this huge build out cycle happening down in the gulf coast, I guess if you are seeing some opportunity there, how you think if you are doing anything to kind of capitalize on that opportunity, on the Harsh and Hazardous side.

Yes, so for the Harsh and Hazardous business phases of there, one of our acquisitions this year is right in the middle of what you are describing, so it’s obviously a trend that we like, we feel we are well positioned for. And we think we are the worthy of investment, yes we agree with your view.

Okay, thanks.

[Operator Instructions] Moving onto Mike Wood with Macquarie. Mike Wood – Macquarie Research: Hi, thank you. Congratulations. Can you give us some more color around your second half of margin commentary, just to better quantify for us the impact of price cost versus productivity in the second half or if you could give us the first half benefit from price cost given that you said you expect the full year to be flat?

Yes, Mike I was just giving some color and texture around the fact that we had some contributions from price cost productivity in the first half and as we talked with you and everyone we are always assuming over the course of the year that stays neutral. And so I am suggesting that could be headwind in the second half and then I am just trying to call your attentions specifically to 3Q look how sweet the combination of mix and price cost was in Q3 last year that drover 100 basis points gone up and those margins and if you looked on two year improvement basis, it's hard to lap 100 and do better than that given some of those dynamics. So I was just trying to give a little of that flavor. Mike Wood – Macquarie Research: Okay. Great. And just in terms of follow-up, you had some recent organizational changes mainly the chief growth officer with Bill probably to help facilitate with larger deals. I am just curious if you could comment in terms of your either progress or frustration there in terms of getting some larger deals closed and if you pipeline at all has changed since you last updated us at the Analyst Day.

Okay. Yeah, well Mike I think that you know Bill has been in that role for six months now. I will tell you that he has been very active, very proactive and there is a lot of forming that's involved in that and really long way from harvesting anything but I think certainly is opening up some possibilities and some of the dialogs and conversations that as I have said earlier this year I mean I would expect that pipeline of possibilities as we move through the year to increase. Now that’s a low base of zero to one so maybe there is two or three as the year progresses. But that the more opportunities we have, double – look at the possibilities and likelihood of closing one. So I think that that's all been very positive. We will see. We will see. Mike Wood – Macquarie Research: Thank you.

We take a follow-up question from Christopher Glynn with Oppenheimer Christopher Glynn – Oppenheimer: Yeah. I was just wondering if inventory purchase accounting in the quarter was worth calling up the impact.

Yes I would include that in our commentary Chris that acquisitions were hurting OP margin and that includes some of the acquisition counting that writes up inventories. That that tends to burn off after a quarter or two but it does and that first year of us owning it, they not really trying cranking at full margin yet, so that’s a pretty consistent across our portfolio of our activity you can see (inaudible) initially they can drag margins down but they can become contributors in your Q3 and that that pattern where is typical and we continue experience that. Christopher Glynn – Oppenheimer: Alright, thanks.

We have no further questions. I’ll now turn the call back over to our speakers for any additional or closing remarks.

Okay, well this concludes today’s call. I’m certainly available in case anyone has any follow-up questions and once again thank you all for taking the time to join us this morning.

This does conclude today’s conference. We thank you for joining us.