Good morning, everyone. Happy Valentine's Day. Sorry about the technical difficulties, but it sounds like we've got them sorted out. Okay, great. So welcome to our Annual Investor Meeting. Joining me here today, you know at least a couple of these guys, so Jeremy Smeltser, our Chief Financial Officer, and Ryan Taylor, who manages Investor Relations...

I'm going to manage the audio right now. If you guys don't mind turning off your BlackBerrys or iPhones. There's a little bit of feedback going through the webcast. Thank you very much.

It helps to have a multitalented guy on your team. And then Zac Gordon who is our VP of Finance who many of you have not met, but you'll get to know Zac very well. So before we begin, let me point out the cautionary language regarding forward-looking statements. In the Appendix, we have provided reconciliations for all non-GAAP financial measures referenced here today. Looking at the agenda for this morning. I'll begin with a brief summary of the key messages in today's presentation and then review our long-term strategy. Jeremy will provide a detailed analysis of our Q4 and full year 2012 results, as well as our 2013 guidance. He will also discuss our financial position and capital allocation plans for the year. So beginning with our key fourth quarter results. We reported revenue of $1.4 billion, up 14% year-over-year and slightly better than we had targeted. Segment income was $174 million, up 8% year-over-year and at the high end of our target range. As we expected, ClydeUnion's operating performance improved significantly in Q4. ClydeUnion reported $176 million of revenue with operating margins increasing to over 10%. The acquisition of ClydeUnion was $0.19 accretive to earnings per share in Q4 and modestly accretive to the full year EPS. Our earnings from continuing operations included a $5.19 noncash impairment charge related to our Thermal segment, primarily reflecting the continued challenging dynamics in the global power generation market. Excluding these charges, Q4 adjusted EPS was $1.57. During the quarter, we also completed the sale of Service Solutions for $1.15 billion. We recorded a gain on this sale of $313 million or $6.32 per share. Shortly after receiving the sale proceeds, we completed the balance of the capital allocation actions that we had announced in 2012. We paid down $450 million of…

Thanks, Chris. Good morning, everyone. I will begin with a review of Flow's financial performance. For Q4, Flow reported $728 million of revenue, up 29% over the prior year period. This was driven by revenue from acquisitions of $168 million, a 30% increase. Analyzing the year-over-year organic performance, it is important to point out that in Q4 2011, we recognized $17 million of revenue related to a higher-margin nuclear squib valve project. This headwind contributed to a modest organic decline in revenue in Q4 of 2012. Year-over-year revenue in Asia Pacific increased, driven by execution of large dairy projects in our food and beverage business. And in the U.S., we continue to see strong component growth, most notably from sales of pipeline valves into the oil and gas market. This growth was partially offset by organic revenue declines in Europe. Flow's segment income increased 6% over the prior year to $91 million. Segment margins were 12.5%, including 50 points of dilution in ClydeUnion. Core margins were 13%. This was down from the prior year due to the organic revenue decline in Europe, as well as the increased mix of lower-margin food and beverage system revenue. Q4 2011 margins also benefited from the nuclear squib valve revenue. Looking at Flow's results on a sequential basis. Revenue increased $80 million or 12% from Q3 to Q4. The increased revenue at ClydeUnion contributed a little more than 1/2 of the sequential growth. We also experienced sequential growth across each region of the world. The ending backlog was $1.36 billion, down 5% from Q3. This was due to the large sequential revenue increase, as well as continued disciplined order acceptance at ClydeUnion. We also experienced customer delays on order placement for some large OE oil and gas projects. Overall, Flow experienced good order momentum…

Thanks, Jeremy. So in summary, our fourth quarter was the strongest financial quarter of the year, highlighted by sequential revenue growth and margin improvement across all 3 segments. We completed the sale of Service Solutions, as well as our previously communicated share repurchase and debt reduction plans. Building on these capital allocation actions, we plan to invest an additional $450 million of capital into voluntary pension funding and share repurchases. We believe these actions will generate a solid return on investment and will increase earnings per share by $0.30 in 2013 and by $0.50 on an annualized basis. Our EPS guidance range for 2013, again, is $4.60 to $5.10 per share, and we believe our future earnings potential is stronger than it's ever been. We've significantly transformed SPX and expanded our business into higher-growth markets with attractive growth prospects and higher-return profiles. Our long-term strategy is centered on expanding our Flow platforms, and we believe there are attractive growth opportunities in all 3 of Flow's key end markets. Going forward, we plan to continue to execute a strategy that has made us successful while maintaining the financial discipline that we have demonstrated in the past. And we have significant liquidity to continue building a stronger SPX and to add customer relevance in our strategic end markets. So that concludes our presentation. At this time, we'll be happy to take your questions. And as a courtesy to our webcast listeners, we ask that you please wait for a microphone before asking the question. Charles Stephen Tusa - JP Morgan Chase & Co, Research Division: Yes. Just on the year, the price in medium duty for transformers was basically 0, or is it still negative for the full year?

I'm sorry, can you say again? Charles Stephen Tusa - JP Morgan Chase & Co, Research Division: Price in medium-duty transformers, was it still -- was it 0 for the year or was it still negative?

It's basically flat, yes.

Flat, yes. Charles Stephen Tusa - JP Morgan Chase & Co, Research Division: Okay, basically flat. And then the core margin in Flow continues to disappoint. You guys talked about the mix. I mean, when does that start to get better? And are you at a consistent run rate of mix, or can you start to see -- I mean, you're remodeling some pretty decent improvement in the core for next year. So what are the dynamics there?

Yes. Well, we had a significant increase in -- significant growth in our systems businesses as we indicated in the presentation today, Steve. That has had a dilutive impact. I think there's opportunity for that to improve. We think the long-term target margins we have out there for our Flow segment are correct and we think that's where the business is heading. We're looking for another 250 points of margin improvement in ClydeUnion this year. So we think that as the business transforms, and it has transformed over the last 3 years for the larger system component in the business, that has been dilutive and will always be dilutive to the component part of our business, but I think there's an opportunity to improve those margins and we believe we will.

And I think, Steve, if you look at the 130 to 180 points expected for 2013, about 1/2 of that is from the core and it's from exactly the things that Chris was talking about. In particular, in Europe where do you remember in the first half of 2012, we struggled with core margins. That's improved steadily in the second half of the year and we expect that to continue. Charles Stephen Tusa - JP Morgan Chase & Co, Research Division: Okay. And then we haven't talked to you guys in a while, but you guys kind of went radio silent there. Why did you make the decision to shift from normal operating procedure like the last couple of years you've done an investor meeting then you get us down here, and it seems like this is basically -- we report the results, we do a little bit of investor day. There's also very, very little detail around Thermal and Industrial relative to prior presentations. So I'm just curious as to what the decision was behind the scenes as far as the significant changes here. And then if you could just talk to the future strategic merit of having those businesses where it doesn't really seem like you're going to building those out or invest in those.

Yes, sure. With respect to the first question, in terms of merging the meetings, I think that's a result of our process improving, and we're closing the year and having that date move up. And we were getting to a point where the time between where we gave guidance and we actually reported results was compressing. It made sense to us, I think, and we think, frankly, easier for you to combine those meetings and put them all in one, so that we're not giving you guidance and then weeks later coming out and talking about last year results. So I think it makes sense to do that. Our goal is to continue to improve that process, so I think we can compress it even further, and that's a challenge we've got internally. With respect to less focus on Thermal and Industrial, more than anything, Steve, I mean, that's just a reflection of where the portfolio has transformed. I mean, we've been very, very direct and transparent about our focus on growing the Flow business, and we've been consistent about that. So it now accounts for more than 1/2 the company's total revenue. And I think over time, regardless of what happens to the other businesses in the portfolio, Flow, I think you should assume, will continue to become a larger part. That is not a -- that's not some tacit commentary on the rest of our businesses. They're clearly important. We clearly continue to invest in those businesses. As we look at the total portfolio going forward, what I've told you guys in the past is that, that portfolio review is a dynamic process and we have made some key decisions in terms of assets that we've divested since I've been in this job as well as the acquisitions…

I think the recovery slope, Julian, is still very similar. I think it's very difficult, obviously, for us to make an accurate prediction in terms of price infections in that business. I think the situation is quite similar. I think there's incrementally more capacity in the market because the few U.S. players in medium power that have traditionally played in that market, I think, have all added some capacity. But I don't believe that's so much the issue. I think it's the pace of recovery in electricity demand, which I think reflects the pace of recovery in the economy and particularly with respect to the housing market. So it's interesting, though, when you look back at the last recovery cycle, there is a bit of a -- there was a bit of a hitch in terms of that cycle returning as we did the same thing that we're doing now, and I think that is being disciplined about opportunities that we go after and I think we need to do that. But we're quite confident that the demand is there, the dynamics are strong. And with each passing year, the age dynamic gets even more critical. So we're happy that we made investment that we did when we made that investment. We think it's a great business. And we think going forward, we will see recovery in that business. And I think that's a medium-term issue. But it's just -- it's difficult to predict. We are encouraged in terms of the volume we've seen. Revenue was up 30% last year. For more than the last 1.5 years, we've seen a nice continued build in the orders. And so we know it's there. And the commentary we get out of the utilities would support that. So it's coming. It's -- and I think we're well positioned and probably better positioned this time around than we were last time to get more of that recovery when it comes. Julian Mitchell - Crédit Suisse AG, Research Division: And just on the Thermal business, does the guidance reflect the fact that maybe exiting this year, these sales are maybe flat, or do you kind of assume that year-on-year sales are down every quarter this year?

In Thermal? Julian Mitchell - Crédit Suisse AG, Research Division: Yes.

No, with the exception of burning off the South Africa backlog, year-to-year we believe it is flat and essentially has been for the last 2 years.

Yes, I think the range would assume for the core outside of South Africa, it's flat to slightly down from a revenue perspective in 2013. Julian Mitchell - Crédit Suisse AG, Research Division: And just lastly within the Flow business. You talked about systems, and obviously you have a lot of strength on the equipment side. What are your thoughts on the control kind of layer within Flow overall, sort of control software, this sort of approach in addition to systems and the equipment you have and then you'd offer kind of everything to the customer?

Look, I think the attractive thing about that platform broadly, and as I mentioned in my comments, particularly about the industrial flow end markets, is that there are many different directions you can take that business and many of them are attractive. And I think many of them are logical, either vertical extensions of where we are or logical vertical app -- excuse me, horizontal applications of where we are in terms of looking for adjacent applications for technologies that we have, that we can improve, that we can expand through innovation and through acquisitions. So our original investment thesis in that business going back to when I came in this job at the end of 2004 was we were quite excited about the opportunities to consolidate in that industry and to grow this into a world-class Flow business. And I think we've made great strides doing that, but I think there's a lot still to be done.

I want to go back to Steve's second question related to what might be the dynamic process of the portfolio review and some of the radio silence we went through in December. So it was some pretty specific media speculation about an acquisition and maybe some comments around that. But more specifically, there seemed to be a disconnect between what the investors and analysts were expecting in terms of either growth by acquisition versus what look like -- would have been a large acquisition for SPX. So can you comment the extent on the thought process on the portfolio and specifically about what that disconnect was between what investors were thinking versus what the implications of that deal would have been?

Well, there's no disconnect in our strategy. I mean, our strategy has been consistent and we reiterated that strategy again today. And so hopefully, what we've established over the last 8 years is a consistency -- a strategic consistency in terms of what we want to do and we've talked ad nauseam about that and the discipline around how we do it. I can't comment and won't comment with respect to any particular rumor that's out there. If you're a consolidator in the flow space and there are deals going on, it's almost a given that our name is going to get mentioned in the mix and we're never going to comment on that kind of speculation. I'll tell you what I've told you guys always: Believe it when you hear it from us, right? And I think -- and I hope that you know me and this team well enough that what we've done in the past should be a good roadmap to what we're going to do in the future in terms of consistently developing that strategy in Flow and exercising that same capital allocation discipline around how we do it. And I think as we grow, as we manage our liquidity, we are better able to continue that process going forward. So nothing at all has changed with respect to our strategy and discipline. And look, it's unfortunate when rumors are out there, but no reasonable person who stands in this position is going to comment on that and it just makes no sense to do that.

Sure, I understand that entirely. And perhaps, you can never time these things exactly right, but had you had this meeting this morning, and given the kind of emphasis about the Flow opportunity, maybe that would have been less of a disconnect. All right, so a separate unrelated question, but on the Flow side, on the dairy contract in Shanghai. Very interesting, the comments about you want to do more of these systems projects and develop that installed base. The 28% that your content take us out the next several years, what's that right number? And if you get there just on white space with new products, but where do you optimize -- you're never going to go do the installations, but how do you optimize what that percentage content should be?

Well, I think the percentage content will vary -- could vary materially depending on the actual application. And our strategy in terms of building out our systems capabilities has to be focused on the go-forward aftermarket and service opportunity. That's a large part of the strategy. And so whether it's 20%, 25%, 30% or greater, I think the more significant issue is what kind of an aftermarket service opportunity does that create for us as we go forward. I think as we mature in that business and as we extend our technical and engineering capabilities in that business, I think we'll be in a position to be very thoughtful about which of those opportunities that we go after, so that the OE or the system opportunity is consistent with the aftermarket strategy within that business. And so it's not so much about what the percentage is. I think it's more about what opportunity does that present going forward. I think theoretically, you could have a system designed and built by us that has a much higher percentage, but has perhaps a less attractive aftermarket down the road. So all those things have to be taken into consideration. We're a new player in that world. We've been very successful in terms of putting those pieces together so that we can successfully compete and get those opportunities around the world. I think as we mature in that business, I think you'll continue to see us be more thoughtful about those opportunities. And back to Steve's question, I think that'll have an impact on how profitable that platform gets. And so a lot of credit to Don and his team. They have grown very rapidly over the last 5 years in that business. They've done a spectacular job with all the challenges. We would all like the integration of those acquisition opportunities to be more linear. It involves people and customers and markets and challenges. And so it seldom plays out exactly like you would like to. But over time, I think we've got a pretty good track record of having those things play out pretty well, and I think we'll continue to get better at it. Nigel?

Chris, you've talked about this transformer cycle in [indiscernible] the last cycle. The contraction and lead time, is that normal? Did that happen last cycle? And has that pushed out the price recovery somewhat given that the market [indiscernible]?

In answer to your first question, if you look closely at how that last cycle played out, as I described it, there was a hitch in the recovery cycle when we look at our business. And that, I think, reflected our discipline about not getting over our skis in terms of pacing the recovery. I think there's a similar dynamic going on now, but understand that times are not ever completely the same. But I think that the opportunity for this recovery to be extended, given one, the severe age of the infrastructure and given the reliability standards and fines that have been imposed, I think, will be significant. I mean, for whatever it's worth, my theory is that if you even see incrementally higher growth in economies, in the U.S. economy, which will pull more electricity demand, I think that incremental growth can be a significant catalyst to accelerating recovery in there, but I don't know that for sure. But I believe that when I look at the data in the industry and when I look at the age dynamics and when you put that all together with the utility commentary around the need to invest, it sort of makes sense.

Agreed. Moving to ClydeUnion. ClydeUnion had a big pickup in revenues from 3Q to 4Q. Is that normal? Is that normal seasonality for that business?

There is seasonality in the ClydeUnion revenue profile. That was a terrific quarter that I think reflects the hard work and focus that Don and his people had put on that business in terms of improving throughput in the business. That said, there's still a lot of work to be done there, and it's -- but we clearly are on the right path. But I think as you look at that business going forward, the profile in terms of revenue quarter-by-quarter is not dissimilar than what you should expect going forward.

Yes, and I think Q4 weighted to the year is probably what we should expect to see going forward. It is a heavier revenue quarter, and thus, as a reminder, you should expect to see a step-down from Q4 to Q1. Typically, that's driven in that business, if you look historically over the last 4 years, by an increase in aftermarket, which did happen this time. But we also had higher throughput on the OE. And so the mix didn't change dramatically. It was really just about the absolute volume of revenue driving the margin improvement.

Can I ask one more, maybe to Jeremy, on pension.

Sure.

So the 50/50 [ph] mix that makes sense. Has that condition already happened? Do you get the benefit as of 1 January 2013?

We do not. That'll happen around the end of Q1, maybe the beginning of Q2.

But you get the benefit as of 1 January, can you back date that?

No, we don't, no. That's why that's part of the -- as we've said, combined their $0.30 benefit to this year and the 50% benefit on annualized. That's coming both from the annualized benefit of share repurchases and the pension.

And that 50% fully funded, I think.

Yes, basically fully funds the U.S. qualified plans, which is consistent with where we're at in the U.K. as well, the 2 primary kind of areas to fund.

Okay. And just one quick one on the share repurchase. Have you considered doing an ASR?

All the potential vehicles for share repurchases are on the table. We've modeled it this way because we think this makes the most sense for now. If we changed our minds on that or come up with an approach where we want to split that, we'll announce it then we'll talk about the impact to that. The flexibility is nice as we think about where we are at in the beginning of the year as it relates to timing and volumes. So that's why we've announced it the way we have, but we'll evaluate as we go.

David Rose with Wedbush Securities. Quick question, a couple questions on ClydeUnion. Can you provide a little bit more granularity for us in terms of the margin improvement coming from your cost containment versus the backlog? And then in terms of the guidance, how that reflects -- have that backlog, the low-margin backlog working through is in the guidance. And then I have one more follow-up after that.

Okay, sure. So first on the cost side, we've probably taken about $5 million of costs out of the business, so you think about Q4 compared to Q1, a little over $1 million of cost savings is a way I would think about it and the way I would model it going into next year, so kind of a half-year benefit of that $5 million likely falling in 2013. On the revenue side, there were about $140 million of loss and no margin contracts in the acquired backlog. We've recognized about $100 million of that revenue, so there's an additional $40 million to $50 million or so in 2013 that we expect to execute on.

Okay. And then going through the margin step-up. There's clearly seasonality in your business, but you have a big leap from your first quarter segment margins through the average for the year. So beyond the ClydeUnion benefit, can you also walk us through perhaps some other Lean initiatives, give us some specific examples of what you plan to execute on for 2013.

Well, as it relates to 2012, to start, in differential as the year progressed, I mean, the key drivers there are our typical aftermarket seasonality and the legacy flow businesses is skewed to Q4, and that's budgetary for a lot of our customers. We also really struggled -- as I mentioned earlier, we struggled with margins in Europe in aggregate in the first half of the year, particularly Q1. We just improved as we've gone on. I think what I would expect to see is continued lumpiness in ClydeUnion's performance based on mix, which we'll talk about each quarter as we report it looking backwards. And then year-over-year, I would expect good improvement in the core businesses in the first half from the European challenges we experienced in the first half. So again back to the question I answered earlier, 130 to 180 points of margin improvement for the whole segment, about 1/2 from ClydeUnion, about 1/2 from the legacy businesses in total.

Just for the 1Q guidance, having a little bit of trouble reconciling that. I mean, you've got a lower tax rate. I mean, you've got a tax benefit as well in there. You've got lower share count. You did $0.15 last year. That stuff kind of gets you $0.12, $0.15 on its own. That gets you to $0.30. And then with the businesses, ClydeUnion was losing money last year. And I think you were absorbing some of the costs from the large transformers in your Industrial business. And I mean, Thermal did a 3% margin, which is hardly a barnburning. So what -- within the core business, you're already kind of $0.30 on a nonfundamental basis or I'm missing anything in nonfundamentals, what within the core business is deteriorating that much to get you to this $0.20 to $0.30 range for the first quarter?

Yes. So I mean, Q1 EPS obviously last year was pretty noisy. So there's a lot of different numbers out there for it. I tend to focus on segment income as it relates to driving the earnings year-over-year. And it's flattish to up slightly, which is going to be, from what we expect today, Flow up and Thermal and Industrial actually down year-over-year despite the challenging Q1 margins last year in Thermal. And that's based on the mix that we currently expect to execute on in Q1. And then in Industrial, in the communications businesses, we had a great contract in Q1 last year that executed. It isn't repeating, so it's a bit of headwind for the quarter. Not so much for the year, but for the quarter.

Okay. So Thermal will lose money in the first quarter, you think?

I don't expect that it will, no.

Nigel?

Just a follow-up on Steve's question there. I mean what can you do to preserve profitability? And so I understand the competitive challenge in that market, pricing pressures and things like that. But what can you do to kind of control your [indiscernible]?