Good morning, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to Ritchie Bros. Q3 2014 Earnings Conference Call. [Operator Instructions] I would like to remind everyone that this call is being recorded on Tuesday, November 4, 2014. I would now like to turn the conference over to your host. Please go ahead.

Thank you, Chris, good morning, everyone, and thanks for joining us on our fiscal third quarter 2014 earnings conference call. Discussing Ritchie Bros. performance today are Ravi Saligram, Chief Executive Officer; and Rob McLeod, Chief Financial Officer. The following discussion will include forward-looking statements as defined by SEC and Canadian rules and regulations. Comments that are not a statement of fact, including projections of future earnings, revenue, gross auction proceeds and other items such as our potential addressable market, are considered forward-looking statements and involve risks and uncertainties. The risks and uncertainties that could cause our actual, financial and operating results to differ significantly from our forward-looking statements are detailed in our SEC and Canadian Securities filings available on the SEC and SEDAR websites as well as rbauction.com. Our definition of gross auction proceeds may differ from those used by other participants in our industry. It is not a measure of financial performance, liquidity or revenue and is not presented in our statement of operations. Our third quarter results were made available earlier this morning. We encourage you to review our earnings release, MD&A and financial statements, which are available on rbauction.com and will be available on EDGAR and SEDAR shortly. I'll now turn the call over to Ravi Saligram, Chief Executive Officer.

Thanks, Jamie, and thanks to everyone, for joining us on our earnings call today. As you're all aware, I've spent a better portion of my time since starting at Ritchie Bros., hearing from all stakeholders of the company, including our employees, customers both large and small, past partners, and of course, shareholders and prospective investors. It has been a very informative and productive process and has provided me with very valuable feedback and insights about what's working at Ritchie Bros. and where there are opportunities to improve. I'll first discuss key learnings from my 100 day listening tour and initial analysis of the company, as well as some of my overarching priorities for the company. I will then discuss our near-term focus and some high-level components of our longer-term strategy. Ritchie Bros. has many outstanding capabilities and qualities. These are things that we do exceptionally well, we're absolutely committed to, and we will reinforce going forward. Most importantly, we have an outstanding core auction business with a value proposition that our customers embrace and appreciate. The quality of the service we offer differentiates us and is recognized by our customer base. It is a solid model and one that continues to have significant run rate ahead of it. We have exceptional operational competencies, particularly as it relates to the integration of our physical auction sites and Internet bidding. Our brand reputation is strong with both existing consignors and buyers where we do business, and especially strong in Western Canada. We have truly loyal customers. Our sales teams have unrelenting conviction in our auction model and have developed deep trusted and long-standing relationships with many of our customers. They view us as a trusted adviser when they're transacting an equipment and also as a window into current equipment demand and pricing…

Thank you, Ravi. I'll take a few minutes to discuss our earnings results and then I'll provide an update on our operations and I'll end with our outlook. As you saw from our September auction metrics disclosure, we achieved record third quarter GAAP this year of $887 million. This is 12% higher than Q3 last year. We were also very pleased to have hit over $4 billion in gross auction proceeds for the 4 quarters trailing Q3 this year. This is the first time Ritchie Bros. has achieved over $4 billion and a new milestone for the company. Net earnings attributable to shareholders during the third quarter were $9.3 million or $0.09 per diluted share, a 43% decrease from the same quarter last year. As discussed in this morning's press release, this includes $5.1 million of net charges attributable to land sales and real estate asset write downs. Specifically, there was a $3.4 million pretax gain on the sale of our former auction site in Grand Prairie, Alberta and an $8.1 million noncash impairment charge on our land and building in Narita, Japan. We conducted a strategy and auction site performance review in Q3 related to our Japan auction site, which indicated that these assets were impaired. As a result of this and other indicators, we recognized an impairment loss in quarter 3 to record the assets at their recoverable amounts. At this point in time, we have not made a final decision about the future of these assets. On an adjusted basis, excluding these 2 real estate items, the company generated $14.5 million of net adjusted earnings or $0.13 per diluted share, a 9% decrease compared to $15.9 million of adjusted net earnings in the third quarter last year. The decrease in year-over-year adjusted earnings was due primarily to…

Thank you, Rob. I now have been at Ritchie Bros. for over 4 months. And every city I go to, and every auction site, I've been welcomed by an immensely proud team of Ritchie Bros. employees. Across our platform, our team recognizes what makes Ritchie, a true leader in our space and fervently believes in the same values instilled by Dave Ritchie years ago in putting the customer first and doing what's right. The contract here is strong and resilient. But what impressed me most, in fact, most surprisingly, was the openness to change and evolution of the firm. In fact, our upper-middle management, be they regional sales managers or regional operating managers or marketing managers, they are hungry for change. They are winners and want to win. In all my interactions and as recently indicated by an internal staff survey we conducted, our employees expect and desire ongoing growth, development and progress at the company, and this gives me absolute confidence that our teams will better execute strategies going forward. I look forward to discussing our long-term strategy with you in detail on January 12. In closing,. I want to take this opportunity to personally thank every customer, shareholder and prospective investor I've met who shared candidly back to me about our business. Your opinions and suggestions have been highly valuable and have been heard, and have provided me with many different perspectives of how to shape our strategy going forward. I'd also like to thank all Ritchie Bros. employees for their ongoing commitment and openness to change. Your feedback and insights will continue to be instrumental as we embark on the next phase of Ritchie Bros. evolution. There are tremendous opportunities ahead for our company, and I look forward to sharing our progress with you in the coming months and years. With that, I'd like to open the line for questions from analysts and our institutional investors. [Operator Instructions] As a reminder, details about our long-term strategic road map will be made available on our January 12 Investor and Analyst Day in New York. I will do my best to answer questions about these high-level focus areas today, but please understand that it may be difficult for me to discuss some activities at detail -- in detail at this time. Operator, Chris?

[Operator Instructions] Your first question is from Nate Brochmann, William Blair. Nathan Brochmann - William Blair & Company L.L.C., Research Division: I just wanted to talk a little bit, and I know, like you like said, a lot of this is early, but one of the interesting things is Ritchie Bros. does have this strong culture as you alluded to and maybe it was directed at certain things and needs to be a little bit redirected at some others and certainly sounds like the shakeup is kind of a little bit of the way to go. But how do you approach, and how do you think that you'll approach it going forward in terms of retaining that culture while moving forward in some of these new areas?

Nate, thank you for that. Look, I think our culture is a terrific culture and very much fits with my leadership style and values. I love the passion of our employees. To me, when we have done our internal surveys in the field, the level of engagement and commitment of our employees is off the chart. And that is something I want to preserve, build on and use as a great strength. So the key is the one most -- biggest ingredients for our people is they want to win. And we have 45 years of growth, earnings growth, revenue growth, our market cap went up, and the last 5 years have been stagnant. And our people want to be winners. So I think, I have spoken either one-on-one or in groups to more than 200 of our employees. And we did a [indiscernible] survey with more than 700 people in our group and they really want to find how we evolve the culture, how we evolve our strategies, because the world is not sitting still. The world is changing and we need to evolve things. And they're ready. Our employees are greatest asset. They want to take the challenge. They need someone, and the executive team is going to be really critical here that we as a team need to lay out the direction, provide the concrete steps and allow them to execute. They are hungry for change. They want to drive it. But look, we're not going to throw the baby out with the bath water. Our biggest strength is our positive culture. And I am the guardian of the culture as is my team, and we will do everything not only to preserve it but foster it and evolve it to a great new level. Nathan Brochmann - William Blair & Company L.L.C., Research Division: That makes sense. Just a second one, and I won't ask any specific details because I'm sure we'll hear about that in January, but do you have kind of in the back of your head a rough timeline already developed in terms of obviously, we are going to have a little bit of some upfront overhead costs before we get some of these initiatives really rocking and rolling to produce some positive results. But do you have a time frame in terms of when that might be that initial ramp period? And over what period some of these new initiatives will evolve? Or is it a little bit too early for that?

Nate, let me give you my first attempt at that. Look, let's be specific about -- the real win here is going to be the 3 things that I talked about. How do we reintegrate growth and revenues and earnings? So -- and how do we improve and increase cash flow? Our cash flow characteristics, my God, given the other companies have worked, this is amazing where you actually have in some places. It's just the capital characteristics where you produce more cash flow than your net income. It's just terrific. So I think we need to keep driving that. And I think that's what our shareholders see as a positive, and getting our entire general management structure focused not just on the P&L but cash flow. The second is improving our capital allocation, and making sure we get that ROIT or RONA. RONA is an easier thing to explain for our business operators, and how do you get that? And third piece is efficiency. And the efficiency has 2 components. One is, the whole aspect of sales productivity. Rob mentioned how we've improved this year on a 12-month basis. But on a 5-year basis, our productivity can still be improved. We've been adding sales people, but I want us to really have that pay off. The last one is cost containment. Look, the first step is not, in this company, to me, I don't believe and I've worked in companies like my previous one, where it was all about cost, cost, cost, but sailing our way to prosperity is not the unlocking key here to shareholder value, but I'm very cognizant over the last 5 years, that our overhead, the SG&A, has grown faster than revenues. And we can't let that to continue go on forever. But in the short term, we need to make the appropriate investments. And our IT systems, we have some really poor legacy systems. And once we get better systems, automatically, we don't need to do so many things manually. So I think it will be able -- over a period of time. But I'm very cognizant of it and we'll take the next 3 steps over time to get that. But my first focus really is on earnings -- revenue and earnings growth, on really capital allocation, capital structure and then the efficiency, primarily focused on sales productivity.

Your next question is from Bert Powell, BMO Capital Markets.

Ravi, a lot of stuff done in fairly short order here and a lot to digest. I want to go to a comment you made with respect to organizational silos and that being a driver for you for moving to more of a decentralized approach, and one of the things you said in the press release was, meet local customer needs. Was this change really driven off of customers saying it's frustrating to deal with Ritchie Bros.? Or were not being -- they're not being responsive? Or is this more an internal driver for this kind of change?

It is very much an internal driver. Our customers hear, but to me, the customers have spoken to everything we see. The customers who actually transact with us, be they consignors, be they buyers, their loyalties is off the charts. And this is a highly brand loyal business for those stuff we have. The issue we have is really in the future, how do we become more customer-centric? We are very strong in customer service. But I see that there is a continuum of where customer service goes beyond being customer-centric and capitalizing on that great brand loyalty we have. But many of our customers, either current or people that are not today transacting with us, have different occasions, different needs. And so it's how do you take a more outside-in where we are tailoring our offerings. But I think the silos are really an issue internally. Our customers think that our people are hugely responsive. And that doesn't manifest itself. Our issues are more about creating a better connection between a headquarters and field. I think our field people are hugely dedicated. Their engagement levels are fantastic. But I think, over time, we have become a bit more bureaucratic and we've lost that connection. And I think I want us to be, ultimately: Our business is all about what happens. Our product is the auctions today. Our product is what happens on our website at EquipmentOne. How do we get our management to really feel the pulse of the customer every day versus sitting in an ivory tower? And hence, the regional focus is, the closer you are to the action and where you are sensing it, meeting with customers and driving the business, having the fire on your belly to drive that, that's what I want to see.

Okay. Second question I wanted ask was on M&A. Do you -- are there things where you think you need to spend capital today to get to where you want to go in the future? And I'm thinking of things along the lines of feeding into your commentary around analytics. Or is that something that's just in the future when we think about different channels, and supporting those channels, we would look at M&A? So I want to differentiate between what's gating today to achieve your objectives versus what is going to be kind of more future-perspective M&A to support the strategy.

Bert, my view -- and I'll have a better view on this when we speak in January, but I'll give you sort of a first impression. My first impression would be utilizing capital that really accelerates our current core business model. And look, as I mentioned, we have strengthened the construction sector. But we actually have a lot of opportunity in transportation, a lot of opportunity in oil and gas, a lot of opportunity in the ag business. And there are other a lot of regional and local companies that make you beachheads. And this is not foreign to Ritchie. In Canada, for instance, way back when we bought All Peace, and that really gave us a great leg in agricultural business from which we have built that foundation. In the U.S., we bought Forke Brothers, and that gave us a great foundation. So we need beachheads in new sectors that are still within our core wheelhouse, and that's where I see greater opportunities in the short term. So rather than something which is really futuristic, I would have more of a near-term focus on the core, which allows us to be a catalyst to trigger growth that we can build and bring all our core resources and sales force against as opposed to something which is very distant in the future.

Your next question is from Yuri Lynk, Canaccord Genuity.

[Audio Gap] the context of improving return on invested capital, and you...

Yuri, sorry, I think we've missed your few words. Would you mind repeating it, please? Sorry.

Yes. Just when you think about improving return on invested capital, I'm just wondering how you think about the current 44 permanent auction sites and specifically some of the individual sites in Europe, in the Middle East and Asia, and then more broadly, your idea of owning all of this real estate versus potentially leasing it.

Yes. Yuri, thanks for that. Look, I think this is clearly one of the key focus areas given my experience in multi-unit businesses. We have to be very granular about site-by-site returns, site-by-site economics and start really getting into it. We need to -- we are going to start putting in a framework on how we look at that, because we have some great sites that perform extremely well, such as Edmonton. And where we didn't put a lot of capital, we invest at the right time, and then we've built up the business, so it gives you tremendous ROI. On the other hand, we have got some sites like Atlanta, which are not giving us the kind of returns that we want to, even though we've been there for some time. So one of the clear mandates for each of our presence, and then that will be cascaded down to a lower level, is to improve those returns on those assets. And we are going to be very open-minded to a view that not every site has to be owned. And as we go forward, we are going to look at leases in fact in the U.K, in Donington. One of the reasons why that site very has a strong return is because we have done at a lease. Other things, we are going to be open-minded to: In Edmonton, for instance, it's public knowledge. We have put up certain amount of excess land, which is quite valuable near the airport, up for sale, because we've done a very good review. And it's very important to preserve that. That's such a flagship site. So we've kept what we need for the site. But when we've kept land, rather than thinking that we are in the real estate business, we've…

It did. Very helpful. And second, why the U.S. market? You were very clear in your prepared remarks that this was going to be the focus geography. I mean, beyond the obvious that you've already got a network established there and similar culture, I mean, anything else you can share with us as to why you're so clear on that being the best opportunity for growth over, say, a South America or Europe or another region?

Yuri, I think, great question. So one of the things that in my listening to the constant question I heard from our investors, and they always use the old telegraphic example of Texas versus Alberta; and the whole GDP, when you do the ratios, the U.S. -- any U.S. business, regardless of its sector, the view is it should be anywhere from 4x are 10x the size of Canada. So to me, it was fairly curious that for us, it was maybe kind of 1.3x, 1.4x U.S. versus Canada. Clearly, we've done an amazingly great job in Canada. So I had a team actually start doing an analysis of Texas versus Alberta. We have just initiated the analysis. We had a preliminary look at it. And it was very clear that some of the things that are coming out because at first, some of the views are, "Hey, there is greater competition in the U.S. versus Canada," which is true, "Alberta is better developed versus Texas, " et cetera. But I think, as we have sort of started getting into it, we've actually found some critical factors that are being employed in Canada that have not been in Texas, for instance, in Alberta versus Texas, Alberta, our ag business is far more developed. How we deploy [indiscernible] business is far more developed. We -- so I think, as we have got granular, I will talk more about this on Investor Day, I think that there is a lot of potential. Just I think the U.S. market has a lot of potential. We have the sites. We have the footprint. We have the people. We just need to improve our productivity. But I think we've also, unlike Canada where we have developed the brand and built the awareness, we don't have…

Your next question is from Craig Kennison, Robert W Baird. Craig R. Kennison - Robert W. Baird & Co. Incorporated, Research Division: First, maybe you could address how much leverage you might be willing to take on the balance sheet, given your strong cash flow.

Craig, I think, I would prefer to defer that question to January. I'm not trying to duck it. We are very cognizant that we have a strong balance sheet. We're very cognizant that we need to figure out ways of optimizing it. And as I've said in my remarks, we will declare a clear -- a crystal-clear capital structure policy, which will include a specific answer to your question. Today, we are not prepared to deal with that. But it is very much on our radar. And in January, you'll have your answer. Craig R. Kennison - Robert W. Baird & Co. Incorporated, Research Division: Okay, I'm sure I can wait till January. And then also, could you address what high-level changes you are making to the compensation structure? You mentioned some changes there as well.

Okay. Craig, let me just go back to your first question for a second. I was not trying to be in any way minimize your issue or -- but rather than giving you a half-baked answer right now, I think it's important because that's so important for us that we need to think it through. As you can see, I've been somewhat busy in the last 4 months in trying to get, first, the people issues sorted out. And I very much intend to give you and our shareholders a very specific answer to that. So I'm not trying to minimize your comment or be flippant about it, but I think it's better for us to give you a very well-thought-out answer, which is clear in January. So let me go back to your question on compensation issues. At this point, I do feel that, look, whether it's our executive compensation or our sales force compensation, as I've looked at it, my first blush is it's quite complicated. It's not as easy to understand. It is also not unifying against critical performance metrics. So once I -- as I have a new CHRO in place, this is something a priority for us to get right and [indiscernible] to that is to make sure that the compensation drives the behaviors that we want to drive. We are also getting -- we are doing work on sales force productivity and finding out what are the right incentive measures to drive. So this is an issue which is work in progress, but clearly one that we want to tackle. And at least, I'll have a further update on it. Whether I'll be -- we'll be would be able to actually get everything sorted out for 2015, I am not sure, because this takes time. And when we do it, again, it takes time to cascade all of this. But it is definitely an important area for me to -- for us to address.

Your next question is from Ben Cherniavsky, Raymond James.

Well, it sounds like you've been busy and you've learned a lot in your 100 days. So well done. I mean, we've talked before and you're pretty familiar with my view. So it sounds to me like you've sort of come into alignment with at least what I think some of the issues have been. I'm curious, though, with respect to what you're doing with the management structure and your design to decentralize decisions and those sorts of things, which I agree I think are important and were probably lacking, I think, in terms of the culture having been too centralized over time, but how do you balance what you've done with trying to prevent sort of too much -- maybe too much management? I mean, I look at it and I -- it looks to me like you've put a whole new layer of mid-management into the business where, at the same time, you're trying to avoid the increase in overhead and SG&A. So this sounds like you're laying some foundations. You're making some investments. But it will presumably cost you some money upfront. And if that is the case, can you help us understand what the near-term implications might be to SG&A and earnings that might be helpful just to sort of set that stage for that as you look to 2015 presumably being a bit of a transition year?

Yes, Ben, it's -- first of all, thank you and everyone else, all our investors and shareholders and analysts who provided me with their perspectives. To me -- look, on the whole overhead side. And to me, the structure, if you have the right leaders, and you have the right structure and the right strategy, and we start getting focused execution, I think we'll start making good progress. This is sort of the first step. And I felt that's a very important step to take. This is -- I view this as a marathon, not a sprint. And so they will be steps along the way that we will look at all issues. I think I've mentioned earlier on that we need to make certain investments so that the payoff is longer term. I completely get that our overheads, our SG&A has grown up in the past. And I am cognizant of it. We are doing this very deliberately. I can't give you visibility today only because it's work in progress. But I wanted to galvanize the organization to get ourselves going on the 3 strategic pillars I talked about. And without this, all the organization and executives at the helm, I felt we couldn't drive it. So we can't give you a specific answer to guide you on 2015, but that's going to be work in progress and we will have better, a little bit more informed view by the time we get together in January. So -- but, look, I think this -- I feel confident -- and I am not a big believer in layers and layers of management. I believe in flat organizations. But it's getting the right form right leaders, it's much better to get -- fewer heavy hitters at the top who really are great leaders, who inspire organizations and drive things, than having multiple layers. So you are seeing the first step. We need to let this play out.

But is it reasonable then to assume -- I mean, there's no reason why this would not increase your admin and management costs for next year, correct?

In the short term, Ben, it may. And so we are going to work that. But this -- to me, this is a longer-term win here, some short-term investment to get the longer-term payoff. But we're not talking hockey stick where you've got to wait many years. So this is very much a short-term investment. But I don't want to get into the logic of what you're saying is fine. But at this point, I'm not trying to get into guidance for 2015.

But you will help us -- when you get better understanding of that, you will help us with some numbers there?

Indeed. Indeed.

Okay, I will look forward to that. So many other questions, but I guess I'll just keep it to the 2, as you've requested. The decision in the write-down you've taken in Japan, and then you've moved someone over there. And you've talked yourself about the glamour of international markets versus the ability to execute and so forth. I mean, Japan being probably one of the most glaring examples of where you just didn't get the traction off your investment -- of course, it's easier to get your return on assets up, if you write the assets down; but I mean, why wouldn't you just maybe walked away from a yard like that? Or is that something that maybe not Japan per se it only comes to mind because of the write-down, but sounds to me like you still -- that still may be in the cards that you're willing to get smaller in some cases in order to drive the focus and the returns higher?

Hey, Ben. It's Rob. Yes, the write-down in Japan was really based on a review of our activities there and the recognition that we really need a new strategy in Japan, and that strategy in Japan may or may not include those assets and how we utilize them. And that's one of the reasons why having a new leader in Asia, in Kieran, although be based in Japan, he is also looking after Southeast Asia, Australia and China because he has the familiarity with Japan. So that -- the strategy for Japan is still in progress, but it's a recognition that it's likely a different strategy for Japan than what it has been before.

And what would that be if it's different?

I mean, it couldn't be a -- depending on if you want to use the assets in Japan or not, originally, Japan was a -- just like China, originally it was an export market only. We didn't actually hold auctions there. We could hold auctions in a different format than we are holding them right now. We could look at, potentially, joint ventures in there. There is many different options. And as I say, the strategy hasn't been finalized.

What about just walking away from it for the time being?

Walking away from...

Yes, I mean, just clarify what you've done with the write-down of these assets. I'm not sure if I totally understand what -- you haven't sold them.

Correct.

So what did the write-down? What triggered the write-down?

Sorry. Yes, what triggered the write-down was our review in quarter 3 of the performance of the site and the assets as well as the strategic review. And the conclusion of the strategic review is the current strategy, the current operation isn't performing as it needs to be; and therefore, we need to change our strategy; and therefore, is there an impairment in those assets.

So, Ben, let me just add some color, which is less about the write-down but we are trying to take this. So the reason for the appointment of Kieran is really an Asia-Pacific agreement. And we could have based him in China. We could have based him in Singapore. But really, to me, the fact that we've got -- yes, he has got the capabilities of understanding that market. We need to come to a view on where we are going to be in Japan. Now just because I've said the U.S. is #1 priority, it doesn't mean we wish away the rest of the world. And because we are -- We are there in many places. We've got assets. We've got to be deliberate. We -- if -- we are going to look at Japan with a very cynical view of what is the future there. And once we decide what the future is, we'll come to the appropriate conclusions. But this is, I think, sending someone as knowledgeable about the marketplace and understanding how the dynamics are there will help us get through whatever is the right and appropriate future strategy for Japan as well as for Asia Pacific. But I think that it's just -- to me, the write-down is the first-step of facing reality there of where we are, and we will continue on that path.

No, I appreciate that. And I agree that you don't want to, by focusing on the U.S, walk away from the rest of the world. But at the same time, I don't think you can take on the whole world and be focused and impactful. And so I'm just wondering how your strategy evolves as to where exactly you want to focus your energies and your resources. And Japan just seemed to me to be one of those that wasn't working so, but -- listen we can continue that debate offline. It sounds like it's a strategy in evolution still.

I think, Ben, the comment is: look, at this point, when I talk about the U.S. is our #1 focus, or looking at U.K. or Germany, I want us to focus on our existing geographies as opposed to go on a worldwide spree of putting flags on maps. That is very clear. Second, where we do have sites, where we do have resources, like we have a very successful Australian company, we need to continue to build on that. We have got an emerging thing in China. When I talk about priorities, though, lot of my time and our resources of management team is not going to be spent in talking a lot of our China. Instead, I think we are going to focus more on the U.S. But it doesn't mean we can wish away everything and just put all your eggs in one basket. We have to drive as much for the short team as for the long term.

Your next question is from Scott Schneeberger, Oppenheimer. Scott A. Schneeberger - Oppenheimer & Co. Inc., Research Division: The -- have 2 questions. I'll ask them quick. The first is, Ravi, what's your take on the competitive landscape in your first few months? And how that's going to affect your decisions going forward?

So, Scott, thank you. Look, I think, like any business, we've got to -- to me, the beauty of the Ritchie model, if you just define it as just auctions and unreserved, and there's a real moat around it. And given that we do $4 billion-plus-or-so in GAAP, and you look at a lot of our competitors, they're 1/10 of that; and so clearly, our operational competency is all the infrastructure we've built helps us and that's the beauty of this model. Having said that, and based on my 35 years of experience, you never, never underestimate competition and never get complacent. And so to me, the other part of it is, given all the opportunities, you're [indiscernible] direct competitors as well. Whether it's online, whether it is classified, whether it is dealers who have their own sales force, there are a lot of occasions. So the question is, where do you want to focus? So the key for us is: not getting complacent, making sure we are in touch with the changes going on in the marketplace and evolving our model and our channels. That's why I said it is about geographies, it's about sectors, it's about channels, and services. So those are the 4 revenue drivers. And competition is different if you think about those in each area. So on one hand, we may be very strong in construction. But while we may be selling a lot of trucks in the transportation side, we know there are other competitors who have a good reputation there. So we need to keep addressing that. So I never take competition lightly, but I'm also very pleased that we have a solid foundation and a moat in our cash flow characteristic, which allows us of the drivers to -- for instance, our balance sheet helps us with underwritten business, which I think plays to gives us competitive advantage. Scott A. Schneeberger - Oppenheimer & Co. Inc., Research Division: Great. And then, Rob, on -- just addressing Slide 9, you've touched a little bit of average age of assets sold. The curve looks a little bit different this year than recent years. Could you just address what you see through those 2 leads there?

Yes, it's a slightly different less busy slide than the one that we had before. But it tells the same story, and that story is that the average of age what we're selling is getting slightly younger, which is good and which is what we expected, and also that we didn't expect it to change from a headwind to a tailwind right away. So that's in our comments where we say that the headwind is dissipating. So it is what we are -- it's a same story as what we were talking about, just slightly different format.

Your next question is from Neil Frohnapple, Longbow.

Ravi, you talk about driving improved performance at EquipmentOne through greater integration with the core auction business. Can you just provide some more color on what this could look like? Do you plan on rolling out training to all of your current territory managers? Will you look to hire a separate sales force? I mean, could you just elaborate on those comments a little bit?

Sure, I'll give you a quick color and then we'll talk more in January. To me, the first place that it starts is emotional integration. But we've had a very passionate culture, which has -- there has been a lot of fervor about our unreserved model. So EquipmentOne -- and it's not the fact that it's online, but it's where there's more control for our customers was sort of quite the opposite of what Ritchie has built its reputation on. And when we bought it, I think -- regrettably, I think we did execute in a manner where we brought the rest of the organization along and emotionally integrated this. So forget about physical integration, even emotional prospect. Because the unreserved model, as I've now met with a lot of salespeople and our customers, is a difficult model, because you are telling someone to really give up control. What you are assuring is certainty of sale. And we've sold against all other models. And our salespeople have become brilliant at this and I completely salute them and applaud them. So when we bring in a new model, which is atypical [ph] to what we do. There is definitely a case of [indiscernible]. So what we've got to do -- and the interesting thing as I mentioned in my prepared remarks, as we have sold it through our strategic accounts team, really the segmentation of customers here is as much based on occasion and need, and the same customer may need both models, and our customers are saying, "Guys, this is not a betrayal -- E-ONE is not a betrayal of your unreserved model." And there are many times they can coexist. So I think it's starting with creating, changing the paradigms. What I'm delighted is as I've talked to our salespeople and as I go into the balance of the organization, they want it. They are ready for it. And they're asking for it. And we kind of have kept it separate. So what we need to do is find the right way of integrating it. Now we can't just sort of completely unleash it and have ways where our core business gets affected. So we are going to launch a series of pilots on how different regions on different models, and we'll have a, I think, a little bit more color on this. So -- but the first start is, "Hey, that EquipmentOne is a viable force to get our people to say that it really Ritchie now has 2 models and facing that reality and then just going forward with it." So I am quite bullish that we can execute, really, Ritchie now has 2 models, and so it's now a matter for the leadership team to figure out the right way to do it.

Great. And then can you provide some color on what we can specifically expect at the Investor and Analyst Day on January? I mean, clearly, you'll probably provide more color around some of the strategic pillars you've laid out today. But will you provide an update on capital allocation and capital structure? And should we expect you guys to provide initial 2015 guidance then?

For sure, we are going to talk to you about capital allocation and capital structure and give some views and some policies, because we've already started work on that and thinking that through. And by that time, we should be ready to do that. In terms of 2015 guidance, Rob, do think we'll be ready? I will defer that to you.

High-level guidance, yes, would be available.

Jamie, one more question.

Your next and last question is from Ross Gilardi, Bank of America.

Ravi, just as a follow-up to that last question. I mean, obviously, you've accomplished a lot in a short period of time. But you've only got a couple of months to the Investor Day, and now you're conducting a search for a new CFO. So just so we have our expectations set properly, is there any realistic way you're going to be in a position to quantify your return on capital structure and capital allocation target in January? Or should we expect these to be softer financial targets for the next 12 months until you get a new CFO fully up and running?

Ross, I think that's a great comment. What I would like to do is, just to moderate, and we will have strategically -- and look, Rob and I are working extremely well and we've been chatting with the board already about these issues. So we can definitely give you, I think, a conceptual view and a policy. I don't know how well we can quantify numbers to you in terms of the greater beyond. But definitely, you'll get a sense for how do we want to optimize our balance sheet, how do we want to look at capital structure. Some of the questions asked, I think Yuri asked, "Hey, what sort of debt-to-EBITDA ratio would we consider looking at?" Those sorts of issues, I think we would like to -- I think we'll at least have a point a view on that so as you start getting a sense from where we plan to go versus where we are today.

Okay. That's helpful. And then just my last question. It's just more on kind of current trends and what you're seeing. So the reaffirmation of your GAAP guidance implies a big deceleration in GAAP in the fourth quarter. I mean, would you characterize that as more of an auction timing issue? Are you seeing deceleration in the market? And kind of related to that. I mean, used construction equipment prices remain very strong, and I'm very interested to get your best explanation of what's driving that. I mean, are you seeing smaller rental companies or other buyers buying more used Tier 3 equipment at your auctions in lieu of buying more expensive Tier 4 product. Anything around that topic would be really helpful.

Rob?

Hey, Ross, the guidance in the range of $4.1 billion of GAAP for the full year obviously reflects our belief of what's going to happen in quarter 4. It's, of course, we're being -- we only have so much visibility there we're just -- and our visibility to the biggest selling period in the quarter, which is the first couple of weeks of December. And we had quarter 4 less year, which was the beginning of the accelerated growth in GAAP. And so that's been taken into account as well. But so far, we're tracking well in quarter 4 compared to quarter 4 last year. So we're optimistic at that in the range of $4.1 billion. And on equipment pricing, yes, we would agree that the equipment pricing is probably pretty stable compared to quarter 2 of this year. But as we've mentioned before, pricing is up quarter 2, quarter 3 this year versus last year. And that is -- presumably reflects the demand in the marketplace because it's no longer the issue of out of sync supply and demand on new equipment driving up used equipment pricing, so it is literally the demand in the marketplace for that used equipment.

Okay. Just related to that, just lastly. I mean, are you seeing anything interesting with equipment flows vis-à-vis kind of Tier 3 versus the new Tier 4 equipment, from a buyer or seller standpoint?

We don't see any -- well, we don't have any information that would indicate a trend on that, but also we are not necessarily always privy to the motivation of our consignors or really of our buyers of why they're transacting. Perhaps, some of the motivations may be that transition from Tier 3 to Tier 4, but it's not a clear trend.

Steve, did you have any color at all on that last comment?

No, Ravi. Rob nailed it for sure. I mean, there is -- the amount of Tier 4 stuff we're seeing is very limited, and lots of questions in the eyes of the sellers and the buyers in the marketplace. But unfortunately, we just haven't had enough of it for anything to look like a trend yet. So I'm sure there's stuff in the future. But right now, as Rob commented, it is what it is.

Okay. So I think, at this point, I'd like to conclude our conference, and we look forward to meeting you all in January. Again, to manage expectations, this is -- we're going to give high-level direction of where we are, but on each of the 3 pillars that we talked about, so at least you start getting a sense for how are we aiming to drive shareholder value and color on each one of these. And as we keep working this, I feel very good about the direction we are in, and we will try to add a little bit more color when we meet in person. Thank you very much indeed in onwards and upwards.