Good morning. I would like to welcome everyone to our Fourth Quarter 2015 Results Call. [Operator Instructions]. Maria Lee, you may begin your conference.

Thanks, Beth. Good morning, everyone and thanks for joining us. I'm joined today by our President and Chief Executive Officer Dave Nord and our Chief Financial Officer Bill Sperry. Hubbell announced its fourth quarter results for 2015 this morning. The press release and earnings slide materials have been posted to the investor 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 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.

Okay. Thanks, Maria. Thanks everybody for joining and good morning. I want to just spend a little bit of time, first off, giving some overall comments on the year and a few on the quarter and then I will turn it over to Bill for more specifics on the quarter. Certainly, we had a solid finish to the year, a year that had a lot of mixed and uncertain macro environment to deal with and a lot of that has been on the back of a real focus on execution. Our construction markets continue to grow, but we still are challenged by the oil and gas, as well as the broader industrial markets continuing to deteriorate. And the transmission and distribution markets were slower than expected throughout the year and that continued a bit in the fourth quarter. Organic growth reflected this profile. In Q1, we were up 4% organically and in Q4 we were down 3%. We expected the year to profile that way, but not necessarily to that degree. As the top line became increasingly challenged, we've continued to focus on what we can control and meeting our expectations. Our full-year EPS of $5.07 exceeded our expectations of $4.95 to $5.05 that we had provided halfway through the year. Certainly that wasn't our original expectation for the year, but navigating choppy markets and particularly some of the uncertainty and significant weakness we saw in the third quarter, we're very pleased with the ability to navigate that successfully. We continued launching and implementing actions to improve our cost competitiveness. We incurred $0.45 of restructuring related costs this year in line with our expectation. We've exited 12 facilities impacting 350 positions and a lot of that has been focused on domestic workforce, particularly the salaried workforce and even more specifically…

Thanks, Dave, very much. Good morning, everybody. Thank you all for joining us. I'm going to use the slides as we always do to help guide my comments here this morning and on page 3 of those slides, Dave just gave you the highlights of the summary of the $830 million in sales, OP margin of 14.3% and the $1.31 EPS. On page 4, we cover our sales by end market and this really helps us illustrate the bifurcated nature of our end markets and a theme that we're going to talk quite a bit about as we discuss margins which is the negative mix effect which has been impacting is all year. You can see the green arrows here between our residential and nonresidential construction markets have provided us attractive growth throughout the quarter, but the industrial markets are negative led by oil and gas and certainly seeping into the rest of the general manufacturing area. And the declines in industrial were strong enough to overcome the lift for us provided by the construction markets, so you can see the down 3% organic. We were able to offset that with three points of acquisitions and I will just give you a little bit of commentary on the acquisition program. You've got, contributing to our sales in 2015, the deals that were completed in 2014 and 2015. Over that two-year span, we have eight different contributing acquisitions, about $250 million invested over that timeframe. Those acquisitions were in both segments and across all four operating units, so a nice, broad acquisition program helping to contribute and offset that organic sales decline. On the FX side, headwind for us, this is really a sales chart, but just to comment on FX, we believe we had about a $0.20 impact on earnings…

Okay. Thanks, Bill. Certainly 2015 was a challenging year. Navigated a lot of things and it's a year we're quite frankly glad to have behind us. Let's talk about what we've got in front of us now. First let's talk a bit about the end markets and the way we see the end markets and our participation in them. I would say that overall we're a little bit cautious. A year ago we thought we were feeling good about the markets and we were surprised as they've drifted down and weakened a little bit and so we have to take that into account as we're looking at our outlook for this year. If I start on the upper right of the pie, first on the electrical transmission and distribution, that market we see still being up 1% to 2%, really no change from our last look to that with distribution flat and transmission being up. On both the resi and the non-residential construction related, those two buys together are both looking at 3% to 5%. I think certainly on the non-residential, that's down from three months ago when we were thinking it was more like 5% to 7%. I know there are a lot of reports out there that also suggest that it could be stronger, but there's also a lot of the tone and bias seems to be more concerned about the contagion, similar to what we experienced this year from the oil markets drifting into the industrial markets, does that start to impact the non-residential construction, in particular, next year. And we're trying to validate that with our channel partners, as well as third-party sources and what other market participants are saying. We hope that is conservative. I think certainly the low end of that I think is…

[Operator Instructions]. Your first question comes from the line of Rich Kwas, Wells Fargo Securities. Your line is open.

Just on the harsh and hazardous exposure, Dave, could you just update where your cost structure is, at this point? Obviously, oil has come down in terms of pricing here in the last few months and I think for I recall you were sized for a $50 environment. What's the update there?

I think we're, I would say we're $50 or below, but were not at $35 and so there is more actions to occur there. And I would say the best way to look at it is in the $0.35 that we have next year, about a third of that is still associated with actions around those businesses. Okay?

Okay. And then on the power margin, you had a very strong year, relatively speaking, fourth quarter was very good. I know you've talked about the pricing actions that helped 2015 margins and it's unlikely that margins are likely to come down. Is there any way to think about that in terms of cadence of how projects play out and what you're seeing in the underlying business?

Yes, I think, Rich, the distribution side, as you know, for us is a larger piece and tends to be, has been a little bit more stable. The transmission projects, while our sales folks and specifiers were working with our customers and we had activity, a lot of those projects got pushed out a little bit. For us, the cadence was significant deceleration during the year, driven by some of those transmission project push out. Our expectation is those projects land in 2016, but that was an underlying driver for decelerating growth rates down to flat as the year ended.

Okay. So, on the pricing front there, is that going to be, I assume that is going to be a part of the story in terms of--

Yes. I think pricing, I don't want to be misleading and say that the power segment has pricing power within the typical U.S. segment, I think that would be the wrong takeaway. You know, they were forced with FX adjusted rising costs north of the border, raised prices and were able to get some of that and to your point, how long does that hang on or does that switch or erode. It's difficult to predict, but I think you are right to say difficult to hold those margins at that level as a result.

Okay and then on the buyback of the 250, my impression was that you were going to be pretty active here once the share request got passed. Sounds like you were toward the end of the year. Should we assume this is going to be more front end loaded? I can't really measure what the bar is there in terms of EPS contribution. I don't want to get out my ruler right now, but I just wanted to get your thoughts here on, should we assume this is going to be front end loaded versus, it gives the impression that maybe it is going to be more of a gradual pace but I just want to clear that up.

I do like the image of thinking of you with your ruler on that page, but you're right that the 10b-5 allowed us to be purchasing over year-end and through January which would typically be a blacked out period. We become open market a few days from now and go restricted again in the middle of March, so, you're right to assume that we'd be able to get most of that in during the first part of the year. We've also, the bar is maybe a little smaller than you drew it, because we're assuming, you saw that we had about $50 million of CP, Rich, at year-end. We spent $130 million on an acquisition last week. We're spending actively on share repurchases and I think this could give us an opportunity to term out some of that CP, so we would expect some new interest expense next year and we've allocated a portion of that to that bar, so just as you think about the impact, we were tying some interest to that, just as we all have our rulers out on that.

Okay. Just a quick follow-up on the deal, you paid $130 million. What's the revenue contribution or was it trailing the 2015 number?

Yes. Dave talked a couple of points. So you're in the $75 million range there and a really interesting business. We had made acquisitions, for those who follow us closely, in Continental Industries, as well as a company called GasBreaker, so this is now our third acquisition in the space. And it's, as Dave said, always good to get customer feedback that they are appreciating Hubbell having a broader product range in the space. It's really an MRO-driven business where you have the specified brands and trying to help those customers keep that both resi and commercial and industrial applications there of the last mile of the natural gas distribution system. So nice product build out that we've done there over the last couple of years.

Your next question comes from the line of Nigel Coe, Morgan Stanley. Your line is open.

Just want to start off with, we all know that 4Q was weakened. We just saw the duplicate orders came out and they were horrific in December. I know January is a very minor month for the year, but anything unusual you have seen in January today?

We have not seen anything unusual, Nigel, in January, yet. It is tracking more normal than January usually does. January, as you know, has a lot of volatility, depending on what kind of actions occurred in the fourth quarter and around year-end. And we actually found that the end of the year was a little bit better from a book-to-bill than it has historically been. It's still always a low period. But it was a little bit better, so that was a positive sign for us, at least going into the year, that we weren't going to start in a big hole or that there was really some big warning signs. But that said, it's not great demand, but nothing is unusual that we're seeing yet.

That's really interesting. And then you called up the 12 facility exits through the year and I think you talked about maybe up to 30 potential actions at a time, so you're a good way through that program. Any sense on where we're in terms of square footage reduction within this restructuring program?

I think we're thinking, Nigel, there will be another four facilities that would be impacted this year. That would get you up to 16. As Dave said, I think the harsh and hazardous business still needs some investigating, so the path there continues. I think you're right, we feel like we got off to a good start, but you're right to point out there's still a lot of opportunity there for us on the square footage side.

Okay. And then just a quick one on power margins, Bill, you obviously called out the sustainability of power margins is going to be tough to maintain. Was the comment about the absolute level of margins or the rare expansion of margins?

Yes, I think the absolute level is void right now with some sticking price and some material tailwinds. And just to recall for everybody, Nigel, our power business has a lower gross margin and so therefore more material in the OP margin and so they are vulnerable to, they are vulnerable to commodity price swings. I think on our last call, we spent some time answering questions about when commodities rise, will that inflection create a problem and it feels like that question may be off the table for a while as commodities stay down and it becomes a little bit more how does price chase that? But I think your understanding of that is right, Nigel.

Your next question comes from the line of Christopher Glynn, Oppenheimer. Your line is open.

In the roughly $30 million restructuring for this year, not sure if you alluded to how to allocate that both during the year and across the segments. Maybe if you could just give some rough guidelines there to help the model out.

Yes, Chris. You're talking about for next year and we were talking about $0.35 and I don't think we would quarterize that for you. The way this past year went, we had the second and third quarters have a higher, as a head and shoulders look to the year. This year, I think, yes this year in 2016 might be a little more equal amongst the quarters. Where it gets lumpy is with some of the buildings, but I think our expectation being a little more even than last year.

And across the segments it's mostly in the electrical segment which is similar to this year. There is some in power, but it is more electrical weighted.

And just sticking with the power system margin trends. You've given a lot of color there and some good concepts to help us think about it, but if we look at margins being about flat in the fourth quarter, with the middle quarters, typically there is a seasonal step down there, so it indicates that there was actually some accelerating favorable performance there, so quarter to quarter, you know, I don't know what the price favorability movements were, but when you talk about some reversion potential there, you also have acquisition integrations. You had 4% contribution top line which were dilutive. Are we talking differences at the margin, here, in terms of the profitability indices that might come through?

Yes. I would say so. The price was a meaningful contributor. If you didn't have that, that would have had an important impact and again, the material tailwind, so to have those two things in concert, I just think and if you go back and did a histogram, I think there has been a quarter, the third quarter, a number of years ago, Chris, where we maybe had a 23% margin, so you can get these quarterly distortions and I'm pointing that out. It's a great business with nice margins, I just think it would be wrong to assume we're adding 25 basis points a year to 20% margins. I think that's not right.

And to the point of the fourth quarter being higher than maybe seasonally where you'd see a step-down, the material costs and, actually, the price, too, they were -- the favorability on a year-over-year basis increased throughout the quarters of the year. So it actually, there was more commodity tailwind in the fourth quarter than there was in the second and third.

Okay, so we will take the quote unquote warning type comments as more relative to the fourth quarter run rates than some of the other quarters. And then on the deal flow, just wondering if you could update on what the competition looks like for larger deals relative to the smaller ones? And you mentioned terming out some of the revolver potentially or the CP. Does that speak to the larger deal pipeline at all?

Yes. I think, Chris, I would say the deal pipeline is active. I would describe it as business as usual. To do eight deals over the past couple of years before Lyall, where the average deal size was kind of $30 million, that sort of deal is like business as usual. I think the ability to do those is embedded in our cash flow generation. The bigger deals, I think there is still opportunity out there. There will be things we consider, but I would say the borrowing could be done just on the basis of what we see near term in the pipeline. We don't need a big deal, I don't think, to get to that point is what I'm saying.

To term out?

Yes.

Your next question comes from the line of Jeffrey Sprague, Vertical Research Partners. Your line is open.

A couple of things, could you just run us through lighting in a little bit more detail? There were some comments there, but what did total lighting do and then what did C&I versus resi look like? And if you can update us on the performance of LED within that, that would be great.

Yes, Jeff, so the resi side of lighting for the year grew in the mid-single digits. The C&I side overall grew high single digits and the core part of that C&I was in double digits and we enjoyed attractive margin expansion in the order of magnitude of 150 basis points or so. So it was a good, solid performance by those guys and good, healthy contributions to our earnings.

And how much did the LED portion of the business grow?

The penetration rates there are up over 60% at this point, continues to outgrow the overall platform.

Okay. And when you say core C&I up double digits, you are excluding harsh and hazardous and just looking at the core commercial growth?

Yes and excluding some of the distortions we get on some of the national account business, too.

Okay. I just wanted to come back to restructuring. There's a couple of questions about that. 350 people out, some of that is headquarters, it sounds like. But even if it was all in the plants, that's like 29 people per plant. How many really small sub scale plants are there? You've obviously rolled up a lot of small businesses over time. I'd like to get a better idea of actually how far through this process you are and maybe put differently, how big of an opportunity remains to perhaps really rationalize this footprint?

Well, a couple of things, Jeff. First of all, I think you have to look at the distribution of our employee base and just under half is in low-cost country. Between China, Mexico, some higher cost international, so when we look at that 350, it is really focused on our domestic workforce largely. In particular it's focused on our salaried domestic workforce, because the hourly workforce is flexed more naturally. It actually was a big component of our salaried workforce, but still more to go. I would say sitting here today there's probably, I don't have the specific numbers, yet defined for this year, but there's probably going to be at least half that level this year as we approach salaries. And depending on, as we get into looking at some of the markets and some of the facility rationalization. Part of what we're doing with the facility rationalization, it's some onesies and twosies that you get for headcount. It's really the efficiency you get from getting out of that facility with all of the peripheral infrastructure cost, whether it is network, computers, rent and the like. There's a little bit of a trade-off there when we look at it simply on a headcount basis.

That is what I was getting at is if you were starting today with a clean sheet of paper, I would think you would have fewer larger plants that were maybe plants within a plant. You still need a lot of flexibility and you've got a lot of skus. But if you really thought about an ideal footprint, can you give us an idea of how far along you are in the process?

To an ideal footprint? We still have some ways to go to an ideal footprint. There are two key issues relative to our footprint strategy. One is the cost of exiting large facilities is pretty high and so to make sure that you can and the risks of that are equally high and so we have to make sure we're very deliberate about that and that we can do it successfully and make it economically feasible. The other is that some of the smaller plants have some really key knowledge in those plants around that production and so I can sit with my former finance hat on and say very simply we should have a third fewer plants. Until I put on my operating hat and I go out and see what they do and say, boy, that is not the easiest thing to move and boy, that's a pretty high margin product that we're serving a customer with, so not so sure we can do that. So that's the give and take that, it's there, but it takes longer to get to. Certainly we've been doing it and I think the lighting business has demonstrated, out of necessity, the need to move more aggressively and they have been doing some of that, but I think the other businesses are still evolving on that side of it and that's something were working on.

Your next question comes from the line of Steve Tusa, JPMorgan. Your line is open.

I'm not sure I picked up on it, but can you maybe just tell us what the price was revenue wise for the fourth quarter and then what you expect it to be here for the year?

Yes. The price impact on sales in the fourth quarter was roughly about a point.

A point positive?

Yes.

Okay. And then what do expect it to be for 2016?

In the range of half a point or so of negative.

Of negative? Half a point of negative. Okay.

Yes.

Got it and what are you guys, maybe just expand a bit on the verticals within non-res and what you are seeing slow the most there relative to what you'd expected three months ago.

You know, I think, Steve, we focus on the cross-section there. I don't think we feel terribly skewed one way or the other either regionally or by vertical and so I think we always frustrate everybody by not providing lots of insight into the verticals.

I will now turn the call back to our presenters for closing remarks.

All right. That concludes today's call. Thanks for joining us. Steve and I will be available following the call all day for questions. Thanks, again.