Good morning, and welcome to our review of Visteon's performance for the fourth quarter and full year of 2013. (Operator Instructions) Today we are pleased to be presenting to an audience of Investors in New York City. Before we begin, I would like to remind you this presentation contains forward-looking statements within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Forward-looking statements are not guarantees of future results and conditions but rather are subject to various factors, risks and uncertainties that could cause our actual results to differ materially from those expressed in these statements. Please refer to the slide entitled forward-looking information for further information. A webcast to this earnings conference and the presentation material is posted on the Investors section of visteon.com. Please visit our website to download the material if you have not already done so. And with us today are Tim Leuliette, Visteon's President and Chief Executive Officer; and Jeff Stafeil, Visteon's Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer. We appreciate your interest in our company and for taking the time to join us to review our performance in the fourth quarter and full year of 2013. Under the format of today's meeting, those here in the audience with us will have an opportunity to ask questions after Tim and Jeff's remarks. Again, thank you for joining us and now I will turn it over to Tim.

Thank you, Bob. And, again, let me extend my welcome to all of you here and on the phone. Obviously, as you have seen this is not our typical earnings call format. As we sit here in New York, we decided to combine our investor call with investor day to take you through our technology. It's a unique opportunity here because as we look out and you will basically see what we had taken to Las Vegas for our Consumer Electronics Show, as well as all the HVC technology that we have bought to you with not just ourselves but with the engineers and the technicians and the leadership of the product groups to explain them to you. As we do this format today, we will go through the earnings, focus on '13, give some '14 guidance. Then you are going to tour these products and see and listen to the presentations and listen to the people who develop. We will also speak a bit about how legislation is impacting our portfolio. We will also talk about how the impact of the two recent announcements we have made on OpenSynergy and Autonet, those relationships, how that impacts our future. And then we will step back here after the presentations and take you through how that builds to 2017 story. I am very pleased and very happy to have you here, but also as a result of reaching out to you and coming to New York, we have the opportunity today as we look at the invitation list who has accepted to join us, is that we will have over half of the ownership of Visteon here today. And that represents a great opportunity to have that one-on-one and that interface with such a large group of the investment community. So…

I will begin my comments on slide 13 of the material. Here we present our key financial metrics for full year 2013 compared to 2012. As we had explained on previous calls, our financial results are impacted by a number of items that makes year-over-year comparisons difficult. The adjusted financial information presented on this slide excludes these items and represents how we manage the business internally. As non-GAAP financial measures, this adjusted financial information is reconciled to U.S. GAAP financials in the attached appendices on pages 30 to 32. 2013 was a strong year for Visteon as we meaningfully improved versus prior year on all our key financial metrics, driven by strong performance in our core operating businesses, climate and electronics. Note that on this page we have excluding nearly $500 million of gains related to the YFV transaction in all of these measures. On this page we also show our old and new definitions of adjusted EBITDA for your reference. Our old calculations result in $704 million of adjusted EBITDA while our new definition yields $600 million. The difference between the two is that our new definition does not include equity income or non-controlling interest. Given the sale of our YFV business, we opted to change our definitions to be more consistent with our peers. That’s said, we will focus on our old definition of adjusted EBITDA throughout this presentation and we will begin using the new definition when we report our first quarter results. I will cover all these metrics in more detail on the following pages. Turning to Slide 14. I will discuss the impact of the YFV transaction on our 2013 results. In November, we increased our ownership in Yanfeng Visteon Electronics, YFVE, and thus began to consolidate its results. It's impacted both our November and…

Thank you, Tim and Jeff. We will now open up the floor for Q&A from our audience. If you have a question please raise your hand. When I call on you, please stand and a microphone will be brought to you. Please state your name, company and then your question. This will ensure everyone on the webcast can hear the questions as well. Your question, Ryan.

Thank you. Ryan Brinkman from J.P. Morgan. On, I think it was Slide 6 of your presentation, you mentioned that HVCC has a strong balance sheet and no net debt. Can you talk about maybe what the optimal capital structure is for HVCC? And then also what opportunities, strategic or otherwise, are afforded to you by having that strong balance sheet?

Yes, the debt of HVCC is something that we look at quite frequently. It's a strong cash flow producer. If you look at the company, it historically pays a strong dividend. It increased its leverage a little bit with the transaction to buy our climate businesses a year ago. But it continues to pay down that debt, forecast would show it would continue to do so. Putting debt there is something that we continue to explore. Putting whether that debt comes in the form of an acquisition or increasing leverage with some sort of share buyback or other program, or things that we continue to explore. But our plans aren't definitive on that at the moment.

One of the things, just to expand upon that, is that as we have said before there is some opportunity to -- first of all, we don’t want to put cash on the balance sheet and let it sit there. I mean nobody wants to do that. The question is taking that cash off or chasing ownership etcetera. Right now, we have a difficult time putting cash to work and buying stock back already. What I don’t want to do is do anything to bring more cash back that puts a burden on our cost or reduction in earnings power of HVCC, while it just sits as cash on our balance sheet. So we are balancing that but I am sure overtime we all share the same objective that is, there should be leverage on HVCC and we don’t want to put a lot of cash on the balance sheet. So given those goals, let's let the year evolve and see where we lead [ph].

Okay, thanks. And then maybe just a follow-up on HVCC. You guide to, I believe a 7% revenue CAGR through 2017 there, which is several percentage points stronger than light vehicle production. Are there any scenarios you can imagine under which revenue could grow potentially even faster, for example, if some of this European refrigerant legislation were to break your way in Europe, would that benefit you within that timeframe or is that a little bit longer term?

I can see scenarios where the revenue would be higher in '16, '17 based upon legislative, or like take the European issue. The R744 decision will be made some time this year. That could impact, ultimately, the R744 cadre of opportunities. Could amount somewhere between $300 million to $500 million for this company at the end of the decade. And the question is, when do we participate and if we participate at what ramp up. When we look at the marketplace and when you go through the technologies today, you will see that there are legislative pressures to bring, to add more content for us. So I am sitting here today saying I feel more upside than downside in the revenue stream, but events have to unfold. And right now, when we have put forecast of the 7% CAGR, that’s stuff we can touch. We feel comfortable with. That we have either got an order for or a pretty high confidence that that’s in the bank. These other opportunities are just that, opportunities. As they unfold, obviously, we will bring them forward. But I think the important point here is, legislation and environmental rules are going to make this a growth business for quite a while.

Okay. Thanks. And just very last question for me. You made several recent infotainment announcements related to OpenSynergy, Autonet. Apparently an award to provide infotainment [indiscernible] for an Asian vehicle that was unnamed. Was that in your backlog, number one? And then, number two, maybe shed any light on those announcements. And is there anything you can say about Ford's movement away from Microsoft towards QNX? Does that open incremental opportunity for you?

So I sense four questions there. Let me take them. As far as, is the Asian based open format, our infotainment package in the numbers? The answer is yes. Regarding the Ford situation, let me just go back. The Autonet, which is more of a connectivity play, and we are going to talk about that today of how there is about $30 billion market in the connectivity side, making money of analytics. Other opportunity sets that’s not in our portfolio today, not in our forecast, not in our earnings stream or revenue stream. That this opens up the opportunity for us to participate in. And that the Autonet story which Marty will take you through in a expanded way. And OpenSynergy is the opportunity for us to sort of interface with lots of different software formats. Whether Ford is with Microsoft or not it doesn’t matter. Using basically an Android based interface, we can interface with many different types of software, whatever software systems, the operating systems the customer wants. And still bifurcate that from critical elements of the vehicle which CAN business and separated on the CAN bus. Consider it a bifurcated operating system. That also Marty will take you through to an expanded base. Those two opportunities, Autonet and the OpenSynergy, expand our footprint to go do some additional stuff. And it's interesting, I was talking to Marty right before the call today. I think he has already received seven emails from these announcements saying, hey, we got to talk, from customers. So it's the kind of stuff that we brought Marty on board to do. It's the kind of stuff of expanding what is more of a traditional automotive footprint to more of the connected care footprint and we are pleased with that. But we will go into greater depth when Marty steps here in a while.

Next question from -- we will take Matt Stover please.

Thank you. Matt Stover with Guggenheim. A couple of questions. What do you think about the balance of the growth opportunities in the electronics business and the investment you need to make to accomplish that? It looks like there R&D increased year-over-year. And on the base Visteon business, I want to get a sense of how we should think about that into next year. And then I would like you to also comment on, as we integrate the JCI electronics business, how you can optimize investment to improve the fundamental margin and earnings performance of that business?

Okay. In your questions I will focus on the electronics with respect to how the progressed -- looking in 2014?

That’s right.

Okay. Let me just take in pieces here, hopefully answer your questions and Jeff can chime in. We have an opportunity set -- we first of all faced in 2013 the opportunity with the growth. And we did ramp up some engineering for selected program. That engineering as you know, electronics is a capital -- it's not a capital intensive business, it's an engineering intensive business. When we ramp up engineering it's because we have a business order for something coming so therefore there is a payback and it makes some sense. We don’t just add engineering for engineering's sake. Secondly, I think more critically as we go forward with JCI, there is duplication of some of the same fundamental platform, technical platforms, whether it be on the R&D side or development side that we will get synergies from. One of the things that we don’t do on the Visteon side and others do, is we do not capitalize the engineering. As we look at some of these events, programs, we expense them through the P&L immediately on the Visteon side. As you look at JCI, as you look at some of our competitors, they don’t do that. We will asses that as to what is the appropriate path. But we do immediately expense that through even though there are other streams and those activities go forward. So we see it improving. We see just the leverage on the platforms that we are investing in without JCI, improving the financials there. JCI is a turbocharger opportunity to strengthen that EBITDA performance and earnings performance. And don’t know, you want to amplify or...?

Yes. I think my big point there in addition to what you said is both these businesses are growing pretty heavily. So as Tim said, we are putting engineering ahead of it. As we bring JCI together with us, we see that that combined engineering team, not in the traditional element of having to shrink so much to basically cut cost in that way, that we can leverage that base a lot better without having to add as much incremental engineering to support the new business and to bring these businesses together. So I think your second piece of why bringing the two engineering teams together will allow us to overall increase our percentage cost and engineering overtime.

As we look at the JCI contribution with synergies etcetera, and you look out even a year or two and you see a contribution of say $100 million of EBITDA from the JCI piece alone and you lay that on a growing Visteon electronics piece, you see a business that’s generating a great deal of EBITDA but significantly undervalued in our share price today. So we will hope to amplify a bit of that granularity in the rest of the presentations here this morning.

Okay. Final question we will take from Colin Langan.

One, can you just comment on the sustainability of margins, particularly on electronics and interiors, they were the highest for the year. Were there any seasonal factors helping them out in the quarter?

I think both should be sustainable. If you look at the margin profile of what we are projecting as we go forward, we will continue to see some opportunities for improved margin. I think with the JCI integration, we will have some more opportunities to improve margins. It's an area for us to focus on. We find that the general give and takes in this business of pricing, which we generally have to give price reductions to our customers every year. But we are able to, for the most part, find some material and other offsets in productivity to offset those things. But then if you look forward on our new programs, there is a lot more technology content, there is a lot more R&D, there is a lot more complexity going in, which does allow for some higher margins. So that battle we expect overtime to continue to have some steadiness increased our margins. Although I am sure from quarter-to-quarter you will see some gyrations but overtime I think we would be stable to better.

There is always a little pressure in the fourth quarter of the people who haven't paid us. Or those kinds of things sort of make sure gets in by the end of the fiscal year, but that has been much more reduced from the dynamics in '12 into '13. So for the most part this is a sustainable footprint.

And can you, just following up on the earlier question, Ryan's question, you comment that there is a $300 million to $500 million opportunity from the R744, potential change. How are you -- or what are your assumptions in that opportunity?

If you look at the content of the vehicles that we will need to change -- and again, if one of the big OEMs goes to R744 in Europe, then there will be rippling effect because there is a lot, and there is an R744 presentation here that we can take you there here in a little while, is to, its performance and its contribution is significant. But what it is that will trigger other OEMs and therefore the content from heat exchangers and compressors and the other elements of that, that are our forte, looking at what is a reasonable share of that business would translate to that. Why today? Because we have 0% of that market in Europe. And right now we are one of the fundamental providers of that technology. So we see a role for us to play, growing as the decade progresses.

And just one last question. You mentioned going through electronics, the vehicle electronics had about $80 million in sales. But the margins were 30% from what was growing of. I mean is the remaining business a 30% margins business or was that just the incrementals are abnormally high?

It's generally very high. The con [ph] margin on that business is very high. Remember how engineering intensive our electronics business is. And that vehicle electronics business for the most part has be de-sourced from us a long time ago and you have seen the work done, that sales going away. But it hasn’t been things we have had to support. So the contribution of new business will improve our margin but we generally have had some headwinds as that vehicle goes away because of the high con [ph] margins from it.

We don’t give productivity on businesses going away and we don’t put any engineering on it. So it carries some high margins while it's still here but it will go away.

And when does that fully roll off?

Some of it's pretty sticky and some of it will hopefully be able to hold on to for a long period of time. I will say all that stuff is reflected in the guidance that we have given you.

Yes. There will $30 million to $50 million that will stick out through the planning horizon. It won't go to zero but that’s in the numbers we have given.

All right, great. Well, thank you everyone. I would like to thank everyone for their participation. If you have any additional questions, please feel free to contact me at your convenience. I also want to encourage those of you on the phone to join us for the presentations this afternoon, focusing on our climate and electronics, products and technology. You can access the webcast from the investors section of visteon.com. Presenters will include Tim as well as the leaders of these core business, Y.H. Park of Halla Visteon Climate Control, and Marty Thall of Visteon Electronics. Those presentations will start at 12.15 p.m. and we will conclude with a panel Q&A that will also include Jeff Stafeil. And now I would like to turn it over to Tim for final comments. Tim?

I want to thank you all for joining us today. I think the excitement is before us so I won't speak too long here. We have built a business platform of growth, we have built a business platform of excitement. Out there are some of our leading technologists to take you through this so I am just going to turn over quickly to Bob and say let's kick off the next phase of this great day.