Welcome to MasTec fourth quarter 2008 earnings conference call, initially broadcast on March 3, 2009. Let me remind participants that today’s call is being recorded. At this time, I would like to turn the call over to you Mark Lewis, MasTec’s Vice President of Investor Relations. Please go ahead sir.

Thank you good morning. Welcome to MasTec 2008 fourth quarter earnings conference call. The following statement made pursuant to the Safe Harbor for forward-looking statements described in the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. In these communications, we may make certain statements that are forward-looking such as statements regarding MasTec’s future results, plans, and anticipated trends in the industries where we operate. These forward-looking statements are the company’s expectations on the day of the initial broadcast of this conference call and the company will make no effort to update these expectations based on subsequent events or knowledge. Various risks, uncertainties, and assumptions are detailed in our press releases and filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Should one or more of these risks or uncertainties materialize or should any of our underlying assumptions prove incorrect, actual results may differ significantly from results expressed or implied in these communications. In addition, we may use certain non-GAAP financial measures in this conference call. A reconciliation of any non-GAAP financial measures not reconciled in these comments to the most comparable GAAP financial measure can be found in our earnings press release or on the Investor Relations section of the website located at www.mastec.com. With us today, we have Jose Mas, our President and Chief Executive Officer and Bob Campbell, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer. The format of the call will be opening remarks and analyses by Jose followed by a financial review from Bob. These discussions will be followed by our Q&A period and we expect the call to last approximately 45 minutes. Jose?

Thank you, Mark. Good morning and welcome to MasTec’s fourth quarter and year end 2008 conference call. First, some fourth quarter financial highlights. Revenue for the quarter was $414 million, up 51% year-over-year and the highest revenue quarter in the company’s history. Earnings were $0.29 per share prior to a deferred payment to our previous CEO. This represents a 164% increase in EPS year-over-year. Revenue for the year was $1.379 billion and earnings were $0.96 per share. 2008 was an important year for MasTec. I’ve been very vocal over the past year and a half on our focus on accountability and margin improvement. Early on, we deployed better tools for measuring and tracking performance and we’ve seen the positive results of this effort in 2008. Productivity enhancement continues to be our greatest tool for margin expansion opportunity and we will remain focused on that objective. Our diversification efforts which commenced almost two years ago have also had a significant positive impact on MasTec. Altering our revenue mix, and margin profile and more importantly our positioning within the markets we serve. MasTec today is a very different company than just 18 months ago. We are now working for some of the strongest companies, serving some of the fastest growing segments of our economy. With the continued expansion of our electrical transmission and pipeline construction capabilities, our wireless capabilities and our position as one of the leading contractors serving the alternative energy markets, we are well positioned to take advantage of all of the significant growth opportunities in these markets. These are some of the most challenging economic times in our country’s history. Fortunately, MasTec is in a privileged position, capable of weathering the storm and prepared to be an active and contributing participant in those industries that will lead America’s economic…

Thank you, Jose and good morning. As Jose mentioned, we had a terrific fourth quarter and frankly a terrific 2008, and we expect 2009 to be another excellent year for MasTec. My financial highlights are as follows. Q4 revenue was up 51%, it was led by growth in our utilities markets, where revenue more than doubled; Q4 was a record quarter, our highest revenue quarter ever and our best fourth quarter ever in terms of net income. Our customer concentration and diversification continues to improve. DirecTV was down to 29% of total revenue for Q4 that compares to 44% a year ago and a peak of 47% in Q1 2008. We only had one month of Wanzek revenue in Q4, but on a pro forma basis, with Wanzek, revenue included for all three months of the quarter. The DirecTV concentration would have been down to 24%. The reduction in customer concentration is caused by the growth in wind farm, natural gas and wireless revenue. Q4 G&A expense as a percent of revenue continued its downward trend it was 5.6% for Q4, versus 6.6% last year. Q4 EPS was $0.26 per diluted share, compared to $0.11 last year, so we more than doubled the prior year quarter just as we did for Q3 and we had one unusual item negatively impacting Q4. We took a $0.04 per share charge for the retired CEO’s final compensation payment. The majority of the charge was non-cash. Our full-year 2008 numbers were also very good. Revenue was up 33% for the year and reached record levels as did net income. Continuing operation to EPS was $0.97 for 2008, compared to a pro forma $0.67 last year. The 2007, pro forma backs out the $39 million legacy litigation charge to be operationally comparable. 2008 was a…

(Operator Instructions) Your first question comes from Alex Rygiel - FBR Capital Markets.

Couple of questions; first is there anything to learn as it relates to the mix in backlog, is that any different than maybe the historical trends in revenue?

No with the exception, Alex, we are obviously in a lot of new businesses so the new businesses are pretty represented at percentage of that revenues. So it’s pretty close to the percentage of the revenues of the business. Not huge shifts from a backlog versus where we saw them from a revenue perspective.

Noting that Tetra Tech was a large wind customer, can you give us additional color on possibly what the customers were underneath the Tetra Tech umbrella? How you expect that relationship to develop over the coming years?

As we look at our wind business in both the Wanzek transaction and our original entry into the wind side. We are going see a lot of customer rotations. So, you are going to have a lot of customers that have a significant number projects, one year and they may or may not have a significant number of projects the following years. So, as we look at our business model you are going to see a lot of wind developers or GC’s come in and out of that top ten quarter-to-quarter depending on what they have going on. I think Tetra Tech’s been pretty vocal about the jobs that they were doing for Pacific Corp. So, we were obviously supporting them on those jobs, but I think over the course of the next couple of years, you are going to see a lot of new names and old names come back and forth in and out of that top ten.

Staying on the wind topic, since the passage of the stimulus bill; how have your conversations changed with your wind customers? Do they seem more excited? Are they letting out bids?

Yes, we’ve seen a dramatic increase in activity, obviously the end of last year and beginning of this year. Activity was slow, for lots of reasons, many of which we laid out today. Slightly before the stimulus package was passed and the initial drafts were out there, we saw a dramatic increase in our customers reaching out to us both in terms of getting pricing, getting a feel for projects in different geographies and what pricing would look like in those. So, there’s no question that in the last six to eight weeks we’ve seen a dramatic shift in the activity.

We expect to get our fair share of projects. Obviously, we are smaller in that arena than others, but we expect to be a participant and we expect to be a participant in Texas as well as a couple of other geographies. ,: We expect to get our fair share of projects. Obviously, we are smaller in that arena than others, but we expect to be a participant and we expect to be a participant in Texas as well as a couple of other geographies.

Your next question comes from Michael Novak - Frontier Capital.

My first question is the incremental $5 million in amortization associated with Wanzek, I assume that’s your amortizing the backlog. So, how quickly would you expect that to burn off?

There is two and three calculations in the intangible backlog, that’s one and it burns off, basically over a year or two over the duration of the backlog, but in addition to that, we generally have things like trade names and customer relationships that may be amortized over 10 to 15 years. So, one part of it does draw off rather quickly and I think there is a table in the 10-Q that shows $9 million for ‘09 and only roughly $7 million for 2010 and then after that it drops off, it continues to drop off.

Then Jose, when would you expect the least interest and activity that everybody is talking about in the wind industry to start to translate to increase business levels?

I think two things, Mike. One is; I think you’re going to see a lot of projects that were in process that will be sped up. So, in other words, a lot of people were holding back on projects to see what the stimulus did and how they could best angle themselves to get as much out of the stimulus as possible. In those cases, we’ve actually already been awarded projects, since the passage of the stimulus bill. In terms of really seeing enhanced activity across the Board with new projects, the bidding activity, aside from just the RFQ’s and pricing, actual bids and negotiations are underway and we think we’re going to see awards shortly.

Have you included the impact of that in your guidance or would you say that your guidance was sort of steady state of the business prior to the stimulus bill passing?

No, I think that when we did our guidance, we did not include the stimulus. The stimulus wasn’t even on the Board, when we originally issued guidance. I think that we’re not anticipating in our guidance a dramatic increase in activity levels. Obviously, there are a number of projects that we expect to do in 2009 based on what our customers have told us for months. There is no question that those projects even though, we think that would have happened anyway are going to be helped by the stimulus. So obviously, normal activity is included in our guidance, but enhanced activity based on the additional work that the stimulus brings is not necessarily in our guidance today.

Could you talk a little bit about from a geographical perspective the positioning of Wanzek, which is stronger in the upper Midwest versus the Texas market and your opportunity to improve their positioning in the Texas market going forward?

Yes, just a couple of points. I think A, we feel that we can do a project anywhere in the United States and do it effectively, efficiently and perform at a high level for our customers. So, I think that’s the most important point. We think we can do work anywhere, but there is no question that historically, Wanzek has had a better reputation or more of a reputation as being in Northern Midwest contractor than they have is being a Southern contractor and what we’re seeing in the wind industry today is a shift, where the projects are going. So historically, Texas has been by far the largest producer of wind because of the very public transmission issues that they have in Texas a lot of developers are now moving their ‘09 and ‘10 plans out of Texas and into other areas, which happen to benefit Wanzek in a greater way because of their strong reputation in some of those markets. So there’s no question that’s going to have a positive impact on us, but our challenge is really going to be positioning all of MasTec in a way where wind developers across the country feel that we are a viable alternative to do their projects.

Your next question comes from Liam Burke - Janney Montgomery Scott.

Jose, Bob pieced together between the income statement, your working capital and capital budget, a fairly strong free cash flow profile for 2009. What would be the priorities based on your current outlook for the uses of that cash?

Well, first it feels great to be in that position. Second, I think as we look at the end of 2007 going into 2008, we knew that we had a tall order. We knew the things that we wanted to accomplish. We knew the businesses that we wanted to get into and we knew that to achieve our goals. We’re going to have to be acquisitive, which we obviously were in 2008 and I think we did it very successfully. At the end of 2008 going into 2009, obviously I think we’re in a very different position where the deals that we made, the acquisitions that we made have really positioned us for some what we think are some fantastic organic growth opportunities, which we’re really going to develop and hopefully execute on it. So, we go into ‘09 with different priorities. We go into ‘09 knowing that we don’t necessarily have to do acquisitions, knowing that we’re going to build a nice war chest. Also knowing, we really there is no debt to pay off because there is no maturity. So, with the exception of our normal course equipment financing, all of our debt doesn’t mature for years. We don’t envision ourselves paying the debt off early. So, we are going be in a very privileged position of generating cash and having a cash balance that’s growing. I’d say that in 2009 we are going to be very opportunistic, so to the extent that we think that there is any deal out there that really benefit the company and put us in a different strategic position. In terms of an industry that we want to go after or an industry that we want to continue to grow into. We will look hard, but I think we are not in a position where we have to do something. We’re in a position where, we can really be choosy and do nothing if we want or ultimately do something because it’s just such a great deal.

Your next question comes from Eric Kainer - ThinkEquity.

As far as Wanzek in the fourth quarter, it sounded like that did roughly a $130 million of pro forma, obviously $26 million round up in your income statement. What should we expect that will add on a quarterly basis for OpEx?

So just to clarify that number Eric, the Wanzek did about a $100 million in the fourth quarter. So, obviously $26 million the MasTec reported and between the months of October and November, they did roughly 75. Wanzek as Bob stated, is seasonal. So, if you’re able to see Wanzek’s historical results, you’ll see that they actually have a very slow first quarter, mildly picking up in Q2 with a very strong Q3 and Q4. Just to put it in perspective, in their Q3 of 2008 they did roughly a $150 million in revenue. So, there is no question that it’s a seasonal business. It’s seasonal because of the geographies they’ve traditionally covered and one of our challenges is going to be to make them less seasonal and really try to get them to pick up more work to have stronger Q1s and Q2s, but I think as you look at the business, it’s going be a slow Q1, modestly picking up in Q2 and then extremely strong third and fourth quarters. With third quarter being their highest revenue quarter of the year and I think that’s a lot to do with their geography.

I’d assume though that the OpEx is relatively more consistent quarter-to-quarter. Should we expect that effectively the operating margins and the gross margins are maybe a little bit higher than historic MasTec we going to back in to the OpEx number then?

Obviously, we’ve published our results separately, so you can see that. There is no question that their margin profile is better than historical MasTec numbers. I do think that their margin trends though do follow their seasonality of their business. Q1 is a difficult quarter for them, while Wanzek was obviously accretive for us, even in the month of December. As we look at Q1, Wanzek’s actually a little bit diluted to earnings. So, as we look at the year again, the mix is going to follow, Q1 will be weaker, as Q2 goes in and they really starts to ramp up margins get significantly better, Q3 margins get even better and they actually have very good margins in Q4 as well.

On wireless, obviously it sounds like you’re queuing for a lot of growth there although, obviously of to a slower first quarter. I think we’ve heard that from all the guys who are exposed to wireless construction. Have you picked up contracts with any other service providers outside of AT&T there that are of a material level?

We do to work for other customers, not necessarily. Obviously, AT&T is going to be a big customer of us in the wireless sector. So, at this point no one customer really makes up a material number. Although, we expect that and hope that will change. We stated today, we picked up eight states for AT&T. Obviously, their CapEx numbers are very public and I think one of the positive trends that we will see in the industry is that the big players are going to continued invest heavily in their wireless network; as those are really the assets that are growing for them from both the revenue stream and income stream. So, we think we’ve got significant geography. We think we’ve got a fantastic geography based on customers and trends. So, we think that we’ve said in the past we expect that business to do well over $200 million in 2009. We sat with our customers, gone through their budget and our expectation continues to be that we will do well over $200 million in 2009.

Your next question comes from John Rogers - D. A. Davidson.

Couple of things, first of all, Bob did you say what total D&A was expected to be for 2009? I’ve got the depreciation numbers and or the amortization number.

Yes, just give me a second and I’ll give you a good estimate of that.

Do you have another question?

Yes and then the second thing is, can you give us a sense of the backlog $1.7 billion? How that’s broken down between wind, gas and some of the wiring structure?

John, we haven’t broken it out. What I can do is, try to take you through time of where that’s historically been. If you look at Q4 of ‘07, it was roughly $1.3 billion, it stayed pretty steady throughout the first quarter, second quarter and third quarter of ‘08 at roughly $1.4 billion and it’s obviously $1.7 billion at the end of the year. Some of it is obviously driven, if you look at the growth from Q3 to Q4, obviously we made the Wanzek acquisition in that period. So, I think that’s a significant piece of that increased level, but I don’t think there has been much of a change in the mix of our backlog from where it’s been historically and from where our revenues are as a percentage of total revenues for each business.

The ‘09 depreciation should be in the range of $35 million to $38 million based on the CapEx that I talked about and just as a point of information that was $25 million for the actual for ‘08.

Okay and then $9 million in amortization?

Correct. Up from about a little under $4 million in ‘08.

Okay, sorry back to the backlog for a second. I guess what I’m trying to understand a little bit is just the relative risks that are contained in there. I mean, is it fixed price contracting or is it all the materials plus on some of these larger projects? What’s kind of your margin risk exposure there?

Yes, so what we include in backlog are in our MSA contracts, we take a look at where we currently are in that business and where we expect revenues to be over the 12 and 18 month period. So, if we see revenues declining, obviously the backlog relative to that contract reduces. We include all project revenue for those projects in which we have a signed contract. We do not take a lot of material’s risk. We almost don’t take any material risk. We bid for a project. We give our customers a price for that material. We backstop it with whatever material vendor is providing that material. So we don’t have, especially in our bigger contracts, we don’t have long open ended contracts that are exposed to changes in material prices. If you look at even at our project work both in the natural gas pipeline and even the wind sector; we don’t have multi-year projects. We don’t have projects where we are going to be on the same project for two to three years and are susceptible to a lot of changes in the environment. Most of our work is short-term, in six months or less. Some of the wind projects go on to 9 to 12 months, but that’s really our longest project is still probably under 12 months in any given period of time.

Okay and in terms of pricing pressure in those markets? Some other contractors have talked about the increased price pressure, pushback over to fixed price contract. Have you seen any of that?

We haven’t. There is no question that; in general write a lot of prices have come down from a material perspective. So, as you’re contracting new work, from an owner’s perspective, the prices are coming down that’s absolutely true, because a lot of the raw material’s prices have come down. From a labor perspective, we haven’t seen significant pricing pressure and each business is different. So, we are not going to say we haven’t seen any because we’ve seen some, but for the most part prices have held pretty steady.

Your next question comes from Simon Leopold - Morgan Keegan.

Thank you. I wanted to see, if you could just clarify first off the expectations for the basic and diluted share count for the first quarter?

The share count at year-end, the actual share count was 75,000,455. That’s the basic and I think for the fourth quarter, we had 744,000 shares of common stock equivalence in the diluted calculation and then if converted on the Wanzek convertible note is 4,583,000 shares relating to that and then anything else would be an increase in the stock price causing common stock equivalence to go up or any exercise of stock options.

I wanted to take a look at what’s going on in gross margin. In the fourth quarter it was a bit lighter than we would have expected particularly given low fuel prices. Just wondering if you could talk to what’s going on with gross margin particularly around utilization of your staff and how that might jump around relative to revenue and sort of new seasonality? Thanks.

Simon, at the end of the day we talked about, the last couple of years about the real focus point for our business and the way we manage the business really comes down to operating income and pretax income. I think as we look at the different businesses that we’ve acquired, the gross margin profile is actually extremely different. If you look at our SG&A has comedown nicely over the last couple of years that has to do with some businesses that also have very low SG&A rates. So, thus on a lower gross margin rate they’re still making very attractive pretax margins. So, I think that at the end of the day we’ve laid out for two years now what we think are very achievable targets from the pretax income perspective of 6% to 8%. We continue to strive to achieve that, part of that will continue to come from scale and part of that will obviously come from productivity gains that will show up in the gross margin line.

But, is it fair to assume a similar gross margin in Q1 versus Q4 even though the revenue was down?

I think as you look at historically Q1 had the lowest gross margin of the year. I think that is probably continues to be a fair assumption. If you look at the first quarter of last year, SG&A was obviously a lot higher than SG&A will be in the first quarter of ‘09. So, while pretax margins will be somewhat similar. So, we’re probably expecting a slight dip in gross margin, Q1much like what you saw in Q4.

Great and just one last one. You gave us I think some helpful insight to understand the seasonal patterns, of Wanzek and Nsoro and if I just layer this on top of your full year guidance, it sounds like you’re anticipating roughly $1.2 billion in the second half of the year. Just want to make sure I’m thinking about, how you are discussing these trends correctly? Thanks.

Roughly those numbers are close. I think if you look at where we would have been in fourth quarter with the Wanzek revenues added it was nearly $500 million. We expect this fourth quarter of 2009 to be actually stronger than the fourth quarter of 2008. I think the picture in the third quarter would have been significantly higher. Our third quarter revenues were roughly $400 million. We said the Wanzek’s were roughly $150 million. So, that was about $550 million. So, on a pro forma basis we were close to a $1.1 billion this year in 2008. So, I think as you directionally look at 2009 that’s roughly in the ballpark.

Your next question comes from Penny Alexandra- Pritchard Capital Partners.

I have a question for you on the pipe side of the business. With natural gas prices where they are, what do you see in that segment? What do you hear from clients in the new gas shale plays? Do you see new demand out there or demands is deteriorating?

There is no question, even late last year going into this year activity had slowed in the pipeline business. Surprisingly, very similar to the wind business over the course of the last couple of weeks, we’ve actually seen a lot of increased activity in terms of new projects both going in for proposals and bids and negotiations, a lot of them related to the new shale plays, so we’re seeing most of that work continues to be around the new shale’s, which is where we’ve done all of our work historically. We went into 2009 with some very nice backlog in that business, but there is no question that business has become more challenging as natural gas prices continue to fall. We continue to be a very strongly about that business long term. We think that business will rebound nicely as the year progress, but it was a slower start to 2009 and we are seeing recently in a last couple of weeks in a lot of enhanced activity in that marketplace.

That concludes the question-and-answer session. At this time, I will turn the conference back over to Jose Mas, for closing remarks.

Again I’d like to thank you for your participation on today’s call and I look forward to talking again on our first quarter call. Thank you.

That does conclude today’s conference call. We thank you for your participation.