Everforth, Inc. (EFOR) 2017 Q1 法說會逐字稿

Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for standing by, and welcome to the First Quarter 2017 Earnings Call. (Operator Instructions) And as a reminder, today's conference is being recorded.

各位女士、先生，感謝您稍候，歡迎參加 2017 年第一季財報電話會議。（接線員指示）並提醒您，今天的會議將被錄音。

I'd now like to turn the conference over to our first speaker, Ed Pierce. Please go ahead.

現在我想把會議交給我們的第一位講者 Ed Pierce。請開始。

Thank you. Good afternoon, and thank you for joining us today. Before we get started, I'd like to remind everyone that our presentation contains forward-looking statements. Although we believe these statements are reasonable, they are subject to risks and uncertainties, and our actual results could differ materially from those statements. Certain of these risks and uncertainties are described in today's press release and in our SEC filings. We do not assume the obligation to update statements made on this call.

謝謝。各位下午好，感謝今天加入我們。在開始之前，我想提醒大家，我們的簡報包含前瞻性陳述。雖然我們相信這些陳述是合理的，但它們仍受風險與不確定性影響，我們的實際結果可能與這些陳述有重大差異。部分風險與不確定性已在今日新聞稿及我們向 SEC 提交的文件中說明。我們不承擔更新本次電話會議中所作陳述的義務。

For your convenience, our prepared remarks can be found in the Investor Relations section of our website.

為方便起見，我們的預先準備講稿可在本公司網站的投資人關係（Investor Relations）專區查閱。

Please note that on this call, we will be referencing certain non-GAAP measures, such as adjusted EBITDA and adjusted net income. These non-GAAP measures are intended to supplement the comparable GAAP measures. Reconciliations between the GAAP and the non-GAAP measures are included in today's press release.

請注意，在本次電話會議中，我們將引用若干非 GAAP 指標，例如調整後 EBITDA 與調整後淨利。這些非 GAAP 指標旨在補充可比較的 GAAP 指標。GAAP 與非 GAAP 指標之間的調節表已包含於今日新聞稿中。

I will now turn the call over to Peter Dameris, our CEO, who will provide an overview of our results for the quarter. Peter?

現在我將把電話會議交給我們的執行長 Peter Dameris，他將就本季業績提供概覽。Peter？

Thank you, Ed. I would like to welcome everyone to the On Assignment 2017 First Quarter Earnings Conference Call. With Ed and me today are Ted Hanson, President of On Assignment; and Rand Blazer, President of Apex Systems and our Apex segment.

謝謝你，Ed。我想歡迎各位參加 On Assignment 2017 年第一季財報電話會議。今天與 Ed 和我一同出席的還有：On Assignment 總裁 Ted Hanson；以及 Apex Systems 與我們 Apex 事業部的總裁 Rand Blazer。

During our call today, I will give a review of the markets we serve and our operational highlights, followed by a discussion of the performance of our operating segments by Ted and Rand. I will then turn the call over to Ed for a more detailed review and discussion of our first quarter results and our estimates for the second quarter of 2017. We will then open the call up for questions.

在今天的電話會議中，我將先回顧我們所服務的市場與營運重點，接著由 Ted 與 Rand 討論各營運事業部的表現。之後我會把電話會議交給 Ed，對第一季業績以及我們對 2017 年第二季的預估做更詳細的回顧與討論。最後我們將開放提問。

Now on to the first quarter. Our results for the first quarter exceeded the high-end of our previously announced financial estimates for revenue and were within the range of our estimates for adjusted EBITDA and earnings per share. Revenues for the quarter were $626.5 million, up 7.6% year-over-year or up 8.2% on a same billable day basis. This marked the 13th consecutive quarter that our company grew above the IT staffing industry's projected annual growth rate since January 1, 2013. Our growth rate reflected, among other things, the continued deepening of many large new customer relationships that we have established over the last 3 years and the continuing increase in the rate of adoption of our delivery model. This quarter's year-over-year revenue growth was higher than our year-over-year growth rate for the fourth quarter of 2016, which is impressive considering normal seasonality, inclement weather affected revenues by $700,000 and higher adverse effect of foreign currency exchange impacted revenues by $1 million compared to $500,000 in the first quarter of last year.

接著談第一季。我們第一季的營收結果超出先前公布之財務預估區間的上緣，調整後 EBITDA 與每股盈餘則落在我們預估區間內。本季營收為 6.265 億美元，年增 7.6%，或以相同可計費天數（same billable day）基礎計算年增 8.2%。這是自 2013 年 1 月 1 日以來，我們公司連續第 13 個季度的成長高於 IT 派遣產業所預測的年度成長率。我們的成長率反映了多項因素，其中包括：過去 3 年我們建立的多個大型新客戶關係持續深化，以及我們交付模式採用率持續提升。本季年增率高於 2016 年第四季的年增率；考量到正常季節性因素、惡劣天候使營收減少 70 萬美元，以及外匯匯率的不利影響較去年第一季的 50 萬美元增加至 100 萬美元，這樣的表現令人印象深刻。

Adjusted EBITDA for the quarter was $64.6 million or 10.3% of revenues compared with $62.4 million or 10.7% of revenues in the first quarter of 2016. Cash generation continues to be at or above our expectations.

本季調整後 EBITDA 為 6,460 萬美元，占營收 10.3%；相較之下，2016 年第一季為 6,240 萬美元，占營收 10.7%。現金創造能力持續達到或高於我們的預期。

Virtually all of our divisions contributed to our strong first quarter performance. Revenue growth came from our local, mid-market and large national accounts, reflecting strong customer demand. Our size and service offerings enabled us to grow faster than published staffing industry growth rates, and we believe that we are well-positioned to generate solid, above-market revenue growth in the future.

幾乎我們所有事業部都對第一季的強勁表現有所貢獻。營收成長來自我們的在地、中型市場以及大型全國性客戶，反映出客戶需求強勁。我們的規模與服務內容使我們能以高於已公布的人力派遣產業成長率的速度成長，我們相信未來具備良好條件，能持續創造穩健、優於市場的營收成長。

Our IT business continues to see high demand from its customers, driven in part by greater adoption of staff augmentation as a viable alternative to outsourcing, offshoring and consulting. Wage inflation continues to be manageable. With respect to recent production, our weekly assignment revenues, which excludes conversion, billable expenses and direct placement revenues averaged $47.6 million for the last 2 weeks, up 9.2% over the same period in 2016.

我們的 IT 業務持續看到客戶端的高需求，部分原因在於客戶更廣泛採用人力增補（staff augmentation），作為外包、離岸外包（offshoring）與顧問服務的可行替代方案。薪資通膨仍在可控範圍內。就近期營運而言，我們的每週派遣（assignment）營收（不含轉換、可計費費用與直接媒合營收）在最近 2 週平均為 4,760 萬美元，較 2016 年同期成長 9.2%。

Since the closing of the Creative Circle acquisition on June 5, 2015, we have repaid $243 million of our debt. Our leverage ratio was 2.21x trailing 12-month Adjusted EBITDA.

自 2015 年 6 月 5 日完成 Creative Circle 收購案以來，我們已償還 2.43 億美元的債務。以過去 12 個月調整後 EBITDA 計算的槓桿比率為 2.21 倍。

During the quarter, we repaid $24 million of our debt. We estimate our leverage ratio to be approximately 2.14x by the end of the second quarter of '17.

本季我們償還了 2,400 萬美元的債務。我們估計至 2017 年第二季末，槓桿比率約為 2.14 倍。

As you will recall, we announced on June 13, 2016 that our Board of Directors authorized a new $150 million share repurchase program. Since inception, we have repurchased approximately 1.4 million shares at an average price of $39.07.

各位應該記得，我們於 2016 年 6 月 13 日宣布董事會核准新的 1.5 億美元庫藏股回購計畫。自計畫啟動以來，我們已回購約 140 萬股，平均價格為 39.07 美元。

During the first quarter, we repurchased approximately 229,000 shares at an average price of $44.31. And quarter-to-date, we have not purchased any additional shares. We intend to continue to execute on our share repurchase program based on share price and market conditions.

在第一季期間，我們回購約 22.9 萬股，平均價格為 44.31 美元。而截至本季目前為止，我們尚未再回購任何股份。我們將依股價與市場狀況，持續執行庫藏股回購計畫。

We continue to see signs that the ongoing debate regarding the on-demand workforce or gig-economy is accelerating the usage of contract labor.

我們持續看到跡象顯示，關於隨需勞動力（on-demand workforce）或零工經濟（gig-economy）的持續辯論，正在加速合約用工的使用。

Fractionalization of human capital by using the staffing industry's services is truly the only way to avoid the risk of misclassification of employees as independent contractors. Our customers have and are realizing this, and that is why we believe the secular growth opportunities for the entire professional staffing industry are so attractive. We also believe that we are well positioned to serve our customers' IT needs as technology rapidly evolves and is adopted.

透過使用派遣產業的服務來進行人力資本的「碎片化」配置，確實是避免將員工誤分類為獨立承包商（independent contractors）之風險的唯一方式。我們的客戶已經、並且正在意識到這一點，這也是我們認為整個專業派遣產業的結構性成長機會如此具吸引力的原因。我們也相信，隨著科技快速演進並被採用，我們具備良好條件來滿足客戶的 IT 需求。

Throughout this year, we continued to benefit from the ongoing debate regarding H-1B Visa reform and further adoption of our development / deployment model i.e. staff augmentation. Recently signed executive orders have only further solidified the trend towards adoption of our model versus offshoring.

今年以來，我們持續受惠於關於 H-1B 簽證改革的持續辯論，以及我們開發／部署模式（即人力增補，staff augmentation）的進一步採用。近期簽署的行政命令更進一步鞏固了相較於離岸外包，市場轉向採用我們模式的趨勢。

I would like to now turn the call over to Ted Hanson, our President, who will review the operations of the segments and then over to Rand. Ted?

現在我想把電話會議交給我們的總裁 Ted Hanson，他將回顧各事業部的營運，之後再交給 Rand。Ted？

Thanks, Peter. As Peter noted, revenues from our Apex and Oxford segments grew collectively 7.6% year-over-year. The Apex segment had another strong quarter of double-digit growth driven by Apex Systems, our largest division, and Creative Circle both of which Rand will discuss in his comments.

謝謝你，Peter。如 Peter 所提，Apex 與 Oxford 兩個事業部的合計營收年增 7.6%。Apex 事業部再度繳出強勁的一季、維持雙位數成長，主要由我們最大事業單位 Apex Systems 與 Creative Circle 所帶動，Rand 將在他的發言中進一步說明。

Our Oxford segment was slightly down year-over-year. Across all our business units, our IT, creative/digital/marketing, engineering and software/hardware offerings showed the most strength in the quarter and demand in those end markets remains very solid. Now on to the Oxford results.

Oxford 事業部的營收則較去年同期略為下滑。就我們所有業務單位而言，本季表現最強的是 IT、創意／數位／行銷、工程以及軟體／硬體等服務內容，而這些終端市場的需求仍然非常穩健。接下來說明 Oxford 的結果。

The Oxford segment is comprised of Oxford Core, CyberCoders, our permanent placement business, and Life Sciences Europe. For the first quarter of 2017, Oxford segment revenues were $144 million, down 3.3% year-over-year or down 2.6% on a constant currency basis.

Oxford 事業部由 Oxford Core、CyberCoders（我們的永久派遣／長期任用媒合業務）、以及 Life Sciences Europe 組成。2017 年第一季，Oxford 事業部營收為 1.44 億美元，年減 3.3%；若以固定匯率（constant currency）基礎計算則年減 2.6%。

Oxford Core revenues, which account for 75.5% of the segment revenues, were down 4.4% year-over-year. The decline in revenues is attributable to the completion of 2 large projects and lower contribution of permanent placement fees.

Oxford Core 營收占該事業部營收的 75.5%，年減 4.4%。營收下滑主要歸因於 2 個大型專案的完成，以及永久派遣媒合費用（permanent placement fees）貢獻降低。

CyberCoders, our permanent placement service offering, which accounts for 95.4% of segment perm placement revenues, was slightly down year-over-year. However, they are up 10.4% sequentially as we saw momentum build throughout the quarter with March showing year-over-year growth. For CyberCoders, we are seeing an increase in both opportunity flow and an improvement in the time to fill cycle.

CyberCoders 為我們的永久派遣服務項目，占該事業部永久派遣營收的 95.4%，年比略為下滑。然而，隨著本季動能逐步增強，其營收較前一季成長 10.4%，其中 3 月呈現年增。就 CyberCoders 而言，我們看到機會流量（opportunity flow）增加，且補缺完成週期（time to fill cycle）有所改善。

Gross margin for the segment was 40.4%, down 100 basis points year-over-year. The decline is primarily related to business mix of contracts to permanent placement and run-off of higher gross margin revenues from the large project completions mentioned above.

該事業部的毛利率為 40.4%，較去年同期下降 100 個基點。下降主要與業務組合由合約轉向永久派遣，以及前述大型專案結束後較高毛利營收的自然消退（run-off）有關。

As we discussed last quarter, we continue to take actions we believe will better position Oxford with their customers as well as improve our return on invested SG&A. First, we have realigned field management and skill practices within Oxford to better leverage our competencies. Second, we are addressing the increase in field expenses, which ramped up during the second half of 2016, for which we did not earn the expected return. And finally, we remain focused on rebuilding our sales model in order to deepen our customer relationships and increase our market share. Oxford's secret sauce has always been its ability to deliver high end, hard to find talent to its customers in multiple skill disciplines via a recruiting-driven model. While this will remain a core tenet of our business, we will work to leverage this best-in-class recruiting capability with a more progressive account focused sales strategy.

如同我們在上一季所討論的，我們持續採取我們相信能讓 Oxford 在客戶面前更具優勢、並提升我們在銷售、一般及行政費用（SG&A）投入資本報酬率的行動。首先，我們已在 Oxford 內重新調整外勤管理與技能實務，以更有效運用我們的核心能力。其次，我們正著手處理外勤費用的增加；該費用在 2016 年下半年加速上升，而我們並未獲得預期的報酬。最後，我們仍專注於重建我們的銷售模式，以深化客戶關係並提升市占率。Oxford 的「獨門秘方」一向在於其透過以招募為驅動的模式，能在多種技能領域為客戶提供高端且難以尋覓的人才。雖然這仍將是我們業務的核心信條，但我們將致力於把這項同級最佳的招募能力，與更具前瞻性的、以客戶為中心的銷售策略相結合並加以發揮。

I will now turn the call over to Rand Blazer. Rand?

我現在把電話交給 Rand Blazer。Rand？

Great, Ted. Thank you. The Apex segment, which consists of Apex Systems, Apex Life Sciences and Creative Circle business units once again reported strong results for the quarter, as Ted had mentioned. Revenues for the segment were $482.5 million, up 11.4% year-over-year. Both Apex Systems and Creative Circle, which combined account for 92.3% of the segment's revenues, reported double-digit revenue growth, while our Life Sciences' unit was down slightly in Q1.

很好，Ted。謝謝你。Apex 事業部（包含 Apex Systems、Apex Life Sciences 與 Creative Circle 事業單位）如 Ted 所提，再次在本季繳出強勁表現。該事業部營收為 4.825 億美元，年增 11.4%。Apex Systems 與 Creative Circle 合計占該事業部營收的 92.3%，兩者皆呈現雙位數營收成長；而我們的 Life Sciences 單位在第一季則小幅下滑。

Gross margin for the segment was 29%, which is 10 basis points lower than Q1 of 2016, due largely to a slightly lower mix of perm placement revenues. Pricing for the quarter remained stable in our end markets with bill pay spreads increasing slightly from the preceding quarter. Increases in top account growth for the segment across all units also had an impact on gross margin.

該事業部毛利率為 29%，較 2016 年第一季低 10 個基點，主要原因是永久派遣（perm placement）營收占比略低。本季我們終端市場的定價維持穩定，帳單與薪資價差（bill-pay spreads）較前一季小幅擴大。此外，該事業部各單位的主要客戶（top accounts）成長提升，也對毛利率造成影響。

Once again, our segment's EBITDA contribution reflected high conversion of gross profit to EBITDA driven by the continuing increase in the productivity of our sales and delivery teams.

同樣地，本事業部的 EBITDA 貢獻反映出毛利向 EBITDA 的高轉換率，主要受惠於我們銷售與交付團隊生產力的持續提升。

With respect to Apex Systems, our IT staffing division, revenue growth was propelled by a number of factors, including: Growth in accounts in 5 of our 7 industry verticals with double-digit revenue growth in our aerospace defense unit, financial services accounts, healthcare accounts and consumer industrial accounts; only the telecommunications and technology industry accounts exhibited slight negative growth year-over-year, although these accounts in these industries were our strongest performers a year ago; top accounts continues to lead the way with double-digit year-over-year growth, while retail accounts slowed -- showed only slight growth in the first quarter; our bookings for SOW-type work were also strong in the quarter and significantly exceeded our expectations; finally, as mentioned, our field teams continued to excel with increasing productivity supporting Apex Systems revenue performance and conversion rates.

就 Apex Systems（我們的 IT 派遣部門）而言，營收成長由多項因素推動，包括：我們 7 個產業垂直領域中的 5 個帳戶成長，其中航太國防單位、金融服務客戶、醫療保健客戶以及消費與工業客戶皆呈現雙位數營收成長；僅電信與科技產業客戶年增略為負成長，然而這些產業的客戶在一年前是我們表現最強的；主要客戶持續領先，年增維持雙位數成長，而零售客戶放緩——第一季僅呈現小幅成長；我們本季 SOW 類型工作的接單（bookings）亦相當強勁，且顯著超出我們預期；最後，如前所述，我們外勤團隊持續表現出色，生產力提升支撐了 Apex Systems 的營收表現與轉換率。

Our Creative Circle units continues to see good opportunities for growth with the market for creative marketing skill sets remaining strong. Similarly, we expect to see an increase in requisition flow for contract labor during the second quarter indicating some pickup in client demand for clinical and life sciences skills.

我們的 Creative Circle 單位持續看到良好的成長機會，創意行銷技能組合的市場需求仍然強勁。同樣地，我們預期第二季合約勞務的職缺需求流量（requisition flow）將增加，顯示客戶對臨床與生命科學技能的需求有所回升。

Overall, the Apex segment had another high-performing quarter with double-digit revenue growth and each of its business units contributing solid conversion of gross profit to EBITDA.

整體而言，Apex 事業部再度交出高績效的一季，營收雙位數成長，且各事業單位皆對毛利向 EBITDA 的穩健轉換作出貢獻。

Ed, I'll turn it over to you.

Ed，我把時間交給你。

Thanks, Rand. As Peter mentioned, revenues for the quarter exceeded the high-end of our previously announced financial estimates. Our revenue growth rate for the quarter was 7.6%, which was 1.6 percentage points or 27% higher than the published IT staffing industry growth rate. Using the same number of billable days as Q1 of last year, revenues on a same billable day basis were up 8.2% year-over-year. The effect of year-over-year fluctuations in foreign exchange rate was approximately $1 million.

謝謝，Rand。如 Peter 所提，本季營收超出我們先前公布財務預估的上緣。本季營收成長率為 7.6%，較已公布的 IT 派遣產業成長率高出 1.6 個百分點，或高出 27%。以與去年第一季相同的可計費天數（billable days）計算，在同等可計費天數基礎下，營收年增 8.2%。外匯匯率年對年波動的影響約為 100 萬美元。

Assignment revenues for the quarter were $594.5 million, up 8.2% year-over-year and permanent placement revenues were $32 million, down 1.5% year-over-year. While down year-over-year, permanent placement revenues were up 10.7% sequentially, and we're estimating both sequential and year-over-year growth in Q2 of 2017.

本季派遣（assignment）營收為 5.945 億美元，年增 8.2%；永久派遣（permanent placement）營收為 3,200 萬美元，年減 1.5%。雖然永久派遣營收年對年下滑，但較前一季成長 10.7%，我們預估 2017 年第二季將同時呈現季增與年增。

Gross margin for the quarter was 31.6%, which was at the high-end of our previously announced estimates, but down 64 basis points year-over-year. The decline was primarily due to a lower mix of permanent placement revenues, which was 5.1% of revenues down from 5.6% in Q1 of last year and a higher mix of revenues from our Apex segment, which has lower assignment gross margins.

本季毛利率為 31.6%，位於我們先前公布預估的上緣，但年對年下降 64 個基點。下降主要由於永久派遣營收占比降低——占營收 5.1%，低於去年第一季的 5.6%——以及來自 Apex 事業部的營收占比提高，而該事業部的派遣毛利率較低。

SG&A expenses were $146.1 million or 23.3% of revenues. After adjusting for $900,000 in acquisition, integration and strategic planning expenses, which were not in our financial estimates, and incentive compensation related to higher than estimated growth in revenues and gross profit, our SG&A expenses were in line with our financial estimates.

SG&A 費用為 1.461 億美元，占營收 23.3%。在調整 90 萬美元的併購、整合與策略規劃費用（該等費用未納入我們的財務預估），以及因營收與毛利成長高於預估而產生的獎酬性薪酬後，我們的 SG&A 費用與財務預估一致。

Interest expense for the quarter was $8.5 million, down from $9 million in the first quarter of last year. Interest expense included $2 million in costs related to the amendment of our credit facility in February, which among other things, reduced the interest rate on our Term B loan, 0.5 percentage point and increased our capacity under the revolver to $200 million. The costs of the debt amendment were not included in our financial estimates.

本季利息費用為 850 萬美元，低於去年第一季的 900 萬美元。利息費用包含 200 萬美元，係與我們於 2 月修訂信貸融資安排（credit facility）相關的成本；該修訂除其他事項外，將我們 Term B 貸款的利率下調 0.5 個百分點，並將循環信貸（revolver）額度提高至 2 億美元。該債務修訂成本未納入我們的財務預估。

Our effective tax rate was 36.2%, which included excess tax benefits of $1.1 million related to our equity-based compensation. These excess tax benefits were not included in our financial estimates. These benefits are the tax effect of differences between book expense and the related tax deduction for equity-based compensation.

我們的有效稅率為 36.2%，其中包含與股權基礎薪酬相關的 110 萬美元超額稅務利益（excess tax benefits）。這些超額稅務利益未納入我們的財務預估。這些利益是股權基礎薪酬在帳面費用與相關稅務扣抵之間差異所產生的稅務影響。

In prior periods, these benefits were accounted for as adjustments to stockholders' equity. As a result of guidance issued by the FASB last year, we, along with other public companies, are now required to flow these benefits through the provision for income taxes.

在先前期間，這些利益係作為股東權益的調整入帳。由於 FASB 去年發布的指引，我們與其他上市公司現在必須將這些利益透過所得稅費用（provision for income taxes）反映。

Net income for the quarter was $22.4 million or $0.42 per diluted share, up from $17.4 million or $0.32 per diluted share in the first quarter of last year. Net income included acquisition, integration and strategic planning expenses, the debt amendment costs and the excess tax benefits, all of which were mentioned earlier. The after-tax effect of these items totaled approximately $700,000 in additional expense or $0.013 per diluted share.

本季淨利為 2,240 萬美元，或稀釋後每股 0.42 美元，高於去年第一季的 1,740 萬美元，或稀釋後每股 0.32 美元。淨利包含前述的併購、整合與策略規劃費用、債務修訂成本以及超額稅務利益。上述項目的稅後影響合計約為額外費用 70 萬美元，或稀釋後每股 0.013 美元。

Adjusted EBITDA for the quarter was $64.6 million, cash flows from operating activities were $43.8 million and free cash flow, a non-GAAP measure, was $37 million. The conversion rate of gross profit into adjusted EBITDA was 32.6%, and the conversion rate of adjusted EBITDA into free cash flow was 57.3%.

本季調整後 EBITDA 為 6,460 萬美元，營運活動現金流為 4,380 萬美元，自由現金流（非 GAAP 指標）為 3,700 萬美元。毛利轉換為調整後 EBITDA 的轉換率為 32.6%，調整後 EBITDA 轉換為自由現金流的轉換率為 57.3%。

During the quarter, we repaid $24 million of our long-term debt and used $10.1 million of our cash to repurchase approximately 229,000 shares of our common stock.

本季期間，我們償還 2,400 萬美元的長期負債，並使用 1,010 萬美元現金回購約 229,000 股普通股。

Now turning to our financial estimates for the second quarter of 2017, we're estimating revenues of $650 million to $660 million, net income of $29.4 million to $31.3 million, and earnings per share of $0.55 to $0.59 and Adjusted EBITDA of $76 million to $79 million. These estimates do not include any acquisition, strategy, or integration expenses nor do they include any excess tax benefits related to equity-based compensation.

接著說明我們對 2017 年第二季的財務預估：我們預估營收為 6.50 億至 6.60 億美元，淨利為 2,940 萬至 3,130 萬美元，每股盈餘為 0.55 至 0.59 美元，調整後 EBITDA 為 7,600 萬至 7,900 萬美元。這些預估不包含任何併購、策略或整合費用，也不包含與股權基礎薪酬相關的任何超額稅務利益。

I will now turn the call back over to Peter for some closing remarks. Peter?

我現在把電話交回給 Peter 做一些結語。Peter？

Thank you. We continue to believe our scale, size and breadth of services has us well positioned and distinguishes us from others and provides us the opportunity to take advantage of what we believe are historic secular growth opportunities for the entire staffing industry. While the entire On Assignment team is very proud of our performance, we remain focused on continuing to profitably grow our business and increase our rate of growth. We would all like to once again, thank our many loyal, dedicated and talented employees whose efforts generated these results.

謝謝。我們持續相信，我們的規模、體量與服務廣度使我們具備良好定位，不僅讓我們有別於同業，也讓我們有機會把握我們認為對整個派遣產業而言具有歷史性的長期結構性成長機會。雖然整個 On Assignment 團隊都為我們的表現感到非常自豪，但我們仍專注於持續以獲利方式成長業務並提升成長速度。我們也想再次感謝眾多忠誠、敬業且才華洋溢的員工，正是他們的努力帶來了這些成果。

I would like to now open the call to our participants for questions. Operator?

我現在想把電話會議開放給與會者提問。接線員？

(Operator Instructions) Our first question will come from the line of Tobey Sommer with SunTrust.

（接線員指示）我們的第一個問題將來自 SunTrust 的 Tobey Sommer 專線。

This is actually Kwan Kim on for Tobey. First off, what kind of trends are you seeing in terms of the impact of the H-1B visa program restrictions done by President Trump? And how are your current and potential customers reacting to the changes?

其實我是代替 Tobey 的 Kwan Kim。首先，關於川普總統對 H-1B 簽證計畫限制所帶來的影響，你們看到哪些趨勢？你們目前與潛在客戶對這些變化的反應如何？

So we've spoken about this on several calls. And we told you that we've seen a change in behavior over the last 14 months. And the recently signed executive orders really just combination of what people have known about for a while. We've seen a change in behavior with regard to: First, work that may have previously been competitively bidded to be done offshore is being done onshore; existing work has been taken offshore is remaining there but we are starting to see some repatriation. We're also seeing client becoming increasingly concerned about reliance on the offshore model and that many IT professionals in India or the Philippines who may have wanted to come over on an H-1B visa, and these are the type of people that we are kind of exploring the loophole in the H-1B visa, lower pay people are not willing to do it because they don't have certainty that though have a job here and for how long. The people that are coming over doing algorithms, medical device, drug discovery work that are getting paid $100,000 or more, they are still coming over and willing to work under an H-1B visa. But some of the technologists that were coming from these lower cost places at $60,000, $70,000 a year, they're opting out and working elsewhere outside the United States. So that all benefits us. And as CIOs -- even before the debate about immigration reform, CIOs got more comfortable in relying on our deployment model versus the offshore model. They saw that they had greater control visibility and quality. And so we benefited from that for several years, but it is definitely benefiting us with regard to what work is to be performed onshore versus offshore unless it's going offshore these days.

我們在好幾次電話會議上都談過這件事，也告訴各位，過去 14 個月我們看到行為出現變化。而最近簽署的行政命令，其實只是把大家一段時間以來已經知道的事情加以整合。我們看到的行為變化包括：第一，原本可能透過競標交由離岸執行的工作，現在改在在岸執行；既有已經移到離岸的工作仍留在那裡，但我們開始看到一些回流。我們也看到客戶愈來愈擔心對離岸模式的依賴，以及許多在印度或菲律賓的 IT 專業人士原本可能想透過 H-1B 簽證來美國工作——而這些人正是我們所說的、某種程度上在探索 H-1B 簽證漏洞的族群——較低薪的人不願意這麼做，因為他們不確定自己是否能在這裡有工作、以及能做多久。相對地，那些來美國從事演算法、醫療器材、藥物研發等工作、年薪 10 萬美元以上的人，仍然會來，也願意在 H-1B 簽證下工作。但有些原本從這些低成本地區來、年薪 6 萬到 7 萬美元的技術人員，則選擇退出，轉而在美國以外的地方工作。這些都對我們有利。而且即使在移民改革的辯論之前，CIO 們就已經更願意依賴我們的部署模式，而不是離岸模式；他們看到在控制、可視性與品質上更有優勢。因此我們多年來一直受惠，但就目前而言，這確實讓我們在「工作應在岸執行或離岸執行」的取捨上持續受益——除非現在真的要把工作移到離岸。

That's helpful. And given the improved regulatory outlook in the higher rates among financial services companies, how is that affecting the demand level in that sector?

這很有幫助。那麼，考量到監管環境改善以及金融服務公司利率走高，這對該產業的需求水準有何影響？

Well, Rand, since you have the greatest exposure, you want to address that? Rand?

Rand，你的曝險最大，你要不要回應一下？Rand？

Yes. I'm sorry, I was on mute. Well, we've enjoyed a long run here, finance services accounts with double-digit growth now for 4, 5 quarters. So I think combination of things. The health of those institutions, those businesses, recent trends, they lead for better technology and more technology to enhance the business. So we're seeing pretty good business in that sector both on the consulting and -- excuse me, SOW and the staffing side.

是的，抱歉，我剛剛在靜音。嗯，我們在這裡已經享受了一段長期的成長，金融服務客戶連續 4、5 個季度都維持雙位數成長。我想是多種因素的組合：這些機構與企業的健康狀況、近期趨勢，都帶動對更好技術以及更多技術來強化業務的需求。因此我們在該領域的業務表現相當不錯，無論是顧問端——抱歉，是 SOW（工作說明書）以及派遣（staffing）端。

And I would just add. As we said in our prepared remarks, one of the pleasant uptick or resurgence in demand was in the aerospace and defense, and we're optimistic that will continue.

我再補充一下。如同我們在事先準備的發言中所說，另一個令人欣喜的需求回升或復甦來自航太與國防領域，我們樂觀認為這將會持續。

Next question comes from the line of Kevin McVeigh with Deutsche Bank.

下一個問題來自德意志銀行的 Kevin McVeigh 專線。

I appreciate the context on the growth. But just want to -- I mean, you guys are outpacing the market so much. I mean, is that kind of large client mix as well as kind of mid-market? Or are you just seeing more outpace growth on the financial side that hadn't been spent in for a while, which is really impressive growth. Overall, I just wanted to understand that a little bit more?

我很感謝你們對成長的背景說明。但我想問——你們的成長大幅領先市場。這是因為大型客戶組合以及中型市場的組合嗎？還是你們在金融端看到更明顯的超額成長，而那一塊之前一段時間沒有投入，這樣的成長真的很令人印象深刻。整體而言，我只是想更了解一下？

Well, I'll go first and then I'll let Ted add additional color. But qualitatively, Kevin, we've gone to a size and breadth of services, which include digital and SOW. There are just a handful of companies that can really effectively and credibly bid on work. And as CIOs are relying on our deployment development model, they want the companies that have the most credibility in delivering the service reliably. And our customers are not casual users of our service. I mean, we're not billing customers that have 50 internal employees that want help desk administration. I mean, we're billing 5s and 10s and 20s of millions of dollars a year to major corporations. And I think that distinguishes us from maybe other publicly traded companies. Our 2 largest competitors really are private, they're TEKsystems and MSI Global. Ted, I mean, what would you offer more granular than that?

我先回答，然後再請 Ted 補充一些細節。Kevin，就質性而言，我們已經發展到一定的規模與服務廣度，包含數位（digital）與 SOW。真正能有效且具可信度去投標這類工作的公司其實屈指可數。當 CIO 們愈來愈依賴我們的部署／開發模式時，他們希望合作的是在可靠交付服務方面最具公信力的公司。而我們的客戶並不是隨意使用我們服務的客戶。我的意思是，我們不是向只有 50 名內部員工、只是想找人做服務台管理的客戶開帳。我們是向大型企業收取每年 500 萬、1,000 萬、2,000 萬美元等級的費用。我認為這讓我們有別於其他可能的上市公司。我們最大的兩個競爭對手其實是私人公司，分別是 TEKsystems 和 MSI Global。Ted，你能提供比這更細的觀點嗎？

The only thing I would add, Peter, is that definitely within our Apex business, our large account portfolio is driving the growth. There is some growth in our retail accounts, but certainly, the big growth is coming in our large account portfolio. And then the marketplace on the creative side for creative digital marketing is very good and robust, both in the small and in the large customers that we are playing in right now. The 2 of those things together are pretty powerful engine right now for On Assignment.

Peter，我唯一想補充的是，在我們的 Apex 業務中，推動成長的確是大型客戶組合。我們的零售客戶也有一些成長，但最主要的成長確實來自大型客戶組合。再者，在創意端，創意數位行銷的市場非常好、也很強勁，無論是我們目前服務的小型客戶或大型客戶都是如此。這兩件事結合起來，對 On Assignment 來說目前是一個相當強大的成長引擎。

Peter and Kevin, can I make a comment also?

Peter、Kevin，我也可以補充一句嗎？

Please do.

請說。

Kevin, I think it goes to having -- Ted mentioned the word portfolio, it goes to building the portfolio of accounts in large accounts, small accounts, mid-market accounts and across 7 different industries that we focus on. And in any onetime point-in-time, may be couple of the industries are really hot, some are not. But it heads and flows, but the key is to build a portfolio that gives you strength in all different kinds of times. And I think we've worked really hard over the last decade building that portfolio across all of our business units, and it's working. It's working for us now. And I think that makes a big difference.

Kevin，我認為這回到「擁有——」Ted 提到的「組合（portfolio）」這個詞，關鍵在於建立一個涵蓋大型客戶、小型客戶、中型市場客戶的客戶組合，並且橫跨我們聚焦的 7 個不同產業。在任何特定時間點，可能有幾個產業特別火熱，有些則不是。但它會起起落落，重點是建立一個能在各種不同時期都帶來韌性的組合。我認為過去十年我們在所有事業單位都非常努力地打造這個組合，而它正在發揮效果——現在對我們就很有效。我想這帶來很大的差異。

And, Kevin, that's why we don't talk about economic conditions and GDP growth. We have a portfolio of customers that are going to do business with us. We don't know how much necessarily every year, but we know they're going to do business with us versus someone else and it's because of their project need not because of how fast the economy is growing and certainly, they have about hiring. So that's what drives us is, we establish relationships that we can rely on. We don't know how much revenue each year, but we can rely on it.

而且，Kevin，這也是為什麼我們不太談經濟狀況與 GDP 成長。我們有一個客戶組合，他們會跟我們做生意。我們不一定知道每一年會做多少，但我們知道他們會選擇跟我們做，而不是跟別人做；原因在於他們的專案需求，而不是經濟成長有多快——當然也與他們的招募需求有關。驅動我們的是：我們建立了可以依賴的關係。我們不知道每年各自會帶來多少營收，但我們可以依賴這些關係。

It's helpful. And then just -- and this is a little nip on the guide, the revenue. It looks like you are above kind of consensus, EBITDA as well. EPS kind of in line. Is that tax driven? Or is there anything else kind of impact in the EPS just for reconciling?

這很有幫助。然後再問——這有點針對你們的指引（guide）小挑一下：營收看起來高於市場共識，EBITDA 也高於共識，但 EPS 大致符合。這是稅務因素造成的嗎？或是 EPS 還有其他影響因素，方便我們做調節與對帳？

No, not really. In fact, the excess tax benefits, we did not include that in our income tax provision or effective tax rate. So no. Everything as you see it in our estimates. There's nothing out of the ordinary.

不，沒有。事實上，超額稅務利益（excess tax benefits）我們並沒有納入所得稅費用提列或有效稅率之中。所以不是。你在我們的預估中看到的就是全部，沒有任何異常項目。

Our next question comes from the line of Gary Bisbee with RBC Capital Markets.

我們的下一個問題來自 RBC Capital Markets 的 Gary Bisbee 專線。

Pretty encouraging commentary on perm relative to a number of the other staffing companies that have reported. I guess, can you give us any more color on -- if you have a sense of what drove the improvement throughout the quarter? What sort of change? And I think you also said a shorter time that the sales cycle is improving or the customers are making decisions more quickly relative to last fall. What's behind that? And any color?

你們對永久職（perm）的評論相當令人鼓舞，尤其相較於其他幾家已經公布業績的人力派遣公司。我想問，你們能否再多提供一些細節——你們是否了解本季改善的驅動因素是什麼？有哪些變化？另外我記得你們也提到銷售週期縮短、相較去年秋天客戶決策更快。背後原因是什麼？能否分享一些看法？

Well, Gary, we said in 2016, our performance was more reflective of our positioning versus the market. Clearly, the perm market was in a strong '15 as we started to see in the fourth quarter of 2016 and in the first part of '17. But some of it had to do with our reliance on a technology-based sales initiative versus feet on the street. I'll let Ted talk about some of the changes we've made that are internal and specific to us. But we started talking, I think, on the third quarter conference call that we started to see a better engagement activity from our West Coast clients, and that momentum has continued. And the team has done a really good job. So I'm not quite certain about what others are seeing and the elongation of decision-making. But our view into the marketplace shows us that we have greater confidence about year-over-year growth in '17 than we did in '16. Ted?

Gary，我們在 2016 年就說過，我們的表現更能反映我們的市場定位，而不只是市場本身。很明顯地，永久職市場在 2015 年很強，而我們在 2016 年第四季以及 2017 年初也開始看到回升。但其中一部分與我們更依賴以科技為基礎的銷售推動，而不是「人海戰術」有關。我會讓 Ted 談談我們內部、針對自身所做的一些改變。不過我想我們在第三季電話會議就開始提到，我們看到西岸客戶的互動活動變得更好，而這股動能一直延續至今，團隊也做得非常好。所以我不太確定其他公司看到的是什麼、以及決策拉長的情況。但我們對市場的觀察讓我們對 2017 年的年增成長更有信心，勝過 2016 年。Ted？

Well -- And Gary, kind of, to follow what Peter said, we can only give you the view of the market based on our view. We can't -- I don't know what everyone else is seeing. But I do know that to Peter's point, we've expanded, if you will. Our go-to-market capabilities have no electronic means of going to the market and also going to the market with the traditional sales force. So that's something we've been working on hard over the last few quarters. And we measure our time to build cycle to not only seeing orders up, but on time to build cycle where we might have lost with 10 days coming through to '16 in terms of how long it took clients to make decisions from a timing order was entered until we actually got it billed. Now we've gotten a few of those days back. We're not all the way where we were. The productivity in that unit is not quite back to where it was in its heyday. But we've taken some days out of the cycle, if you will. So we've taken some of the slack out, and we hope we'll keep marching forward the same way here as we go into the second quarter.

嗯——Gary，某種程度上延續 Peter 所說的，我們只能基於我們的觀點提供對市場的看法。我們無法——我不知道其他人看到的是什麼。但我確實知道，呼應 Peter 的觀點，我們已經擴展了（如果你願意這麼說）。我們的 go-to-market 能力同時涵蓋以電子化方式進入市場，以及透過傳統銷售團隊進入市場。所以這是我們在過去幾個季度一直努力推進的事情。我們衡量我們的建置週期時間，不僅看訂單是否上升，也看建置週期時間——在 2016 年，我們可能在這個流程上多花了 10 天，指的是從客戶做出決策、訂單輸入，到我們實際開立帳單所需的時間。現在我們已經把其中幾天拿回來了。我們還沒有完全回到以前的水準。該單位的生產力也還沒有回到鼎盛時期的水平。但我們確實把週期中的一些天數縮短了（如果你願意這麼說）。所以我們去掉了一些鬆弛，我們希望在進入第二季時，能以同樣的方式持續向前推進。

Okay. Great. And then, Pete, you said last fall, I think, it was when you were asked about your appetite for M&A, that with the stock trading below private multiples, your stock looked a lot more attractive than anything else. I guess, the stocks are quite a bit since then, I'd argue it's still inexpensively priced. But any updated thoughts on how you think about that? You clearly continue to buy back stock, but your leverage is down. What's on your mind is there?

好的。很好。然後，Pete，我記得你去年秋天在被問到你對併購（M&A）的胃納時說過，當股價交易在低於私募倍數之下時，你們的股票看起來比其他任何選項都更具吸引力。我想，自那之後股價已經上漲不少；我會認為它仍然定價便宜。但你對此有沒有更新的想法？你們顯然仍在回購股票，但槓桿也下降了。你現在在想什麼？

The way we approach acquisitions are opportunistically, and we got to find a good fit and a good service offering. And we've been a little more active and had more conversations I would tell you as of recent, and it's not because of our stock price, it's because we've been having more breakfasts, lunches and dinners with people, and they have found some things. There is nothing to look at the cup right now. We'll continue to buy our stock because there is a quality revenue stream. There is a quality earning stream, and there is a quality cash flow stream. And as I always say, you shrink the share cap and you grow the earnings, you have earnings surge. So we'll continue to balance our deployment of capital. But if we find -- if we find the right fit, we're -- as we pointed out, I think, we're going to be 2.14 by the end of the second quarter. So we got plenty of gunpowder for just pulling the trigger.

我們看待收購的方式是機會導向的，我們必須找到良好的契合點以及良好的服務供給。最近我們確實更積極一些、也有更多對話；我會告訴你，這不是因為我們的股價，而是因為我們和人們吃了更多早餐、午餐和晚餐，他們也帶來了一些機會。目前沒有什麼可以拿出來看的。我們會繼續買回我們的股票，因為我們有高品質的營收流、有高品質的獲利流，也有高品質的現金流。而且我一向說，你縮小流通股數、同時成長獲利，你就會看到獲利激增。所以我們會持續在資本配置上取得平衡。但如果我們找到——如果我們找到合適的標的，我們——如同我們指出的，我想我們在第二季末槓桿將會到 2.14。所以我們有充足的火藥可以扣扳機。

And then just one last quick one for me. With the perm returning, it sounds like the year-over-year growth in margin going forward, how should we think about the puts and takes around gross margins, both within your guidance for Q2, but also just thinking about later this year? Any color?

最後再問一個很快的問題。隨著正職（perm）回升，聽起來未來毛利率的年增成長，應該怎麼看毛利率的拉抬與抵銷因素？不論是在你們對第二季（Q2）的指引之內，或是今年稍晚的展望，有沒有什麼補充說明？

Well, we've had some compression. And some of that has been mixed, perm versus contracts. Some of it has been larger accounts growing faster than slower accounts. But some of it, Gary, has been, we had some challenges over the Oxford unit, and we -- our margins are down a little bit to flat. And so an uptake as a percentage of revenue of perm is greater than it has been historically, that's going to have a positive impact. But we always guide, and as you know, we're getting towards the end of our 5-year financial goals that we set out in 2014, but we always got into a stable gross margin than if we can expand them, we clearly do. I think we're really focused on regaining some of the operating leverage that we had in -- earlier in the latter half of '15, where we saw a little bit of a compression in our EBITDA margin because of less perm and also some of the compression because of the investments we made at Oxford that didn't payoff. But we think that margins are in the right spot, and there is room for improvement as the things I discussed occur.

嗯，我們確實有一些壓縮。其中一部分來自組合因素，正職（perm）相對於合約（contracts）。一部分是大型客戶成長速度快於小型客戶。但其中一部分，Gary，是我們在 Oxford 單位遇到了一些挑戰，而我們——我們的毛利率略為下降或持平。因此，正職（perm）占營收的比例若高於歷史水準，將會帶來正面影響。但我們一向給指引，而且如你所知，我們正接近 2014 年訂下的 5 年財務目標的尾聲；我們一直以穩定的毛利率為目標，如果能擴張，我們當然會擴張。我認為我們非常專注於重新取得一些營運槓桿——在 2015 年後半段較早時期我們曾擁有的那種槓桿；當時我們看到 EBITDA 利潤率有些壓縮，原因是正職（perm）較少，以及我們在 Oxford 的投資未能帶來回報所造成的一些壓縮。但我們認為目前的利潤率位置是對的，而且隨著我提到的那些事情發生，仍有改善空間。

Next question comes from the line of Jeff Silber with BMO Capital Markets.

下一個問題來自 BMO Capital Markets 的 Jeff Silber。

Just a follow-up on Gary's question about M&A. If you do go back to the market, are there any specific verticals or specialties that you will be looking to sell?

延續 Gary 關於併購（M&A）的問題。如果你們回到市場上，有沒有任何特定的垂直領域或專業，是你們會想要出售的？

There is no thing (inaudible). We're going to just continue to stand our existing verticals and enhance our skill selection and the services that we can provide our customers within those verticals. And domestically -- I'll say we'll stay focused domestically as well, Jeff.

沒有什麼（聽不清楚）。我們會持續鞏固既有的垂直領域，並提升我們的技能選擇，以及在這些垂直領域內能提供給客戶的服務。而在國內方面——我會說我們也會持續聚焦在國內市場，Jeff。

Okay. And then in turning back to your guidance for the current quarter, does it assume that Oxford returns to growth that we will probably see Oxford down year-over-year again?

好的。然後回到你們對本季的指引，它是否假設 Oxford 會恢復成長？還是我們可能會再次看到 Oxford 年對年下滑？

Yes. So Ted, you want to do address that? But basically we're not trying to call a bottom on the turn on the revenue growth there, but Ted, why don't you walk them through some of the stuff we're doing and some of the underlying trends that shows strength beyond just the top line stated number.

是的。所以 Ted，你要不要回應一下？但基本上，我們不打算去預測那邊營收成長何時觸底反轉；不過 Ted，你不如帶大家走一遍我們正在做的一些事情，以及一些顯示強度的底層趨勢，而不只是表面上的營收數字。

Yes. I think we have 2 things. One, we have -- when we think about Oxford, we are organized into skill discipline. Several of our skill disciplines are showing good year-over-year growth within IT, where we have had the large project in the prior year that now is running off as it gets completed. We're going to have a pretty tough comp, again, not only here in the first and in the second, third. It's about the same extent. That was in a way a pretty steady revenue generator, if you will, in the first, second, third and into the fourth quarter last year. So I think the comp is going to be difficult. We're going to work on our sales strategy, the piece that we're working on with Oxford around better pointing our investment and better allocation of SG&A. We'll see that help us a little bit in the SG&A line as we get into the second half of this year.

是的。我想有兩件事。第一，當我們看 Oxford 時，我們是按技能領域來組織的。我們在 IT 內的幾個技能領域，年對年成長表現不錯；而前一年有一個大型專案，現在隨著完成而逐步結束。因此我們會面臨相當艱難的比較基期，不僅在第一季，第二、第三季也是——幅度差不多。那個專案在某種程度上是去年第一、第二、第三季一直到第四季都相當穩定的營收來源。所以我認為比較基期會很困難。我們會調整銷售策略；我們在 Oxford 正在做的部分，是更精準地指向投資、以及更好地配置 SG&A。隨著今年下半年到來，我們會看到這在 SG&A 項目上對我們有一些幫助。

Okay. That's helpful. And then again just going back to guidance, what should we be modeling for interest expense in the current quarter? Is that going to be any different as the year progresses?

好的。這很有幫助。然後再回到指引，本季利息費用我們應該建模多少？隨著年度推進，這會有任何不同嗎？

It's going to be different than what it was in Q1, because we did not, obviously, we had the amendment expense. But, Jeff, as it relates to interest expense, probably may be $6.8 million-or-some.

會和第一季（Q1）不同，因為我們顯然在第一季有修訂（amendment）費用。但 Jeff，就利息費用而言，大概可能是 680 萬美元左右。

That's great. And then how about capital spending for the year and a possible for the quarter?

很好。那今年的資本支出呢？以及本季可能是多少？

Well, I'll talk about next quarter. We don't really give anything else past the quarter, but it should be pretty much at the level that you saw in Q1, but it's roughly $7 million.

嗯，我先談下一季。我們不太會提供超過單一季度以後的數字，但應該大致會和你在第一季看到的水準差不多，大約是 700 萬美元。

Your next question comes from the line of Edward Caso with Wells Fargo.

下一個問題來自 Wells Fargo 的 Edward Caso。

Congrats on the numbers. I had a -- with the talk around H-1B sort of the clients starting to look more domestically here, are the U.S. IT professionals starting to ask for greater wage increases? Are you -- I seem to remember, there is a bit of a lag before you can translate that into pricing increases. So could we be seeing some margin pressure in the coming quarters?

恭喜這次的數字。我有一個——隨著圍繞 H-1B 的討論，客戶似乎開始更偏向在國內找人，美國 IT 專業人士是否開始要求更高的薪資增幅？你們——我記得在把這轉化為價格上調之前會有一些滯後。所以未來幾個季度我們是否可能看到一些利潤率壓力？

Well, 2 parts to that answer. The first is, we're not -- the technical resource is aware of the scarcity, and they're savvy. They know what's going on. They search the Internet. So we have those conversations about what the appropriate pay rate is for particular assignment. I don't think that it is elevated the potential of the level of that conversation because they're saying, "You know what, these lower-paid people from overseas can't do it anymore, so I'm the only game in town, you got to pay me more." That hasn't occurred yet, Ed.

嗯，這個答案有兩個部分。第一，我們——技術人才知道供給稀缺，而且他們很精明。他們知道正在發生什麼事。他們會上網搜尋。所以我們會就特定派遣案的適當薪資水準進行那些對話。我不認為那種對話的強度已經上升到他們會說：「你知道嗎，那些來自海外、薪資較低的人現在不能做了，所以我成了城裡唯一的選擇，你得付我更多。」目前還沒有發生這種情況，Ed。

My other question, may be Ted could drill a little bit into what service offerings are working within Oxford and what areas are not, particularly around healthcare?

我另一個問題是，Ted 是否可以再深入說明一下，在 Oxford 內部哪些服務方案運作得不錯、哪些領域表現不佳，特別是在醫療保健方面？

Yes. On the healthcare side, Ed, we are growing. We had some pretty good comps last year that are difficult to deal with right now. And within that unit, in addition to that, our health information management offerings around billers and coders is way off from the heyday of the ICD-10 work. So I think, in healthcare, it's really the sum of those 2 things. In our skill sets around engineering and software/hardware, we're getting good growth. And absent of our big projects within IT, we're actually seeing some growth there. We just had a headwind with the run-off of the large project that we won this time last year.

是的。在醫療保健這一塊，Ed，我們正在成長。我們去年有一些相當不錯的可比基期，現在要應對起來比較困難。此外，在該事業單位內，我們圍繞帳務人員與編碼人員的健康資訊管理（HIM）服務，已經遠不如 ICD-10 專案最熱絡時期的水準。所以我認為，在醫療保健方面，主要就是這兩件事的加總。在工程以及軟硬體相關的技能組合上，我們取得了不錯的成長。而且若不計我們在 IT 的大型專案，其實我們也看到一些成長。只是去年這個時候我們贏得的一個大型專案如今進入結束期（run-off），對我們形成了逆風。

Our next question comes from the line of Mark Marcon with RW Baird.

下一個問題來自 RW Baird 的 Mark Marcon。

Great quarter. Wondering if you can talk a little bit more about the impact of the H-1B on this quarter? Because, Peter, you mentioned it's been building for a while. And how you foresee it further accelerating as we look out over the next year or 2 just assuming kind of a constant economic backdrop? Just how much more incrementally do you think we could grow from the increased level of interest?

本季表現很棒。想請你們再多談一點 H-1B 對本季的影響？因為 Peter，你提到這影響已經累積一段時間了。並且在假設經濟背景大致不變的情況下，展望未來 1 到 2 年，你們如何看待它進一步加速？就興趣提升所帶來的增量而言，你們認為我們還能額外成長多少？

I mean, Mark, I think the most rationale way to really address the change is, to just say, when CIOs looking at portfolio project they want to complete, they have the privilege of using project consulting through Deloitte or Accenture, outsourcing through HP, Dell Services, offshoring through the Indian firms or staff augmentation through us or another large provider. And you know the strengths and weaknesses of each of those models. And as there is uncertainty about reliability and timeliness of delivery of technical resources, they're opting less to award new work to the offshores using their offshore model. And the model is going, in my opinion, to become less attractive because: One, they're not going to be able to price their work as competitively if they have to pay $100,000 a year for someone versus $60,000 a year. And there is plenty of data on the Internet that shows that the people that are awarded H-1B visas through Apple or Facebook or Google are all well above $100,000 and the average salary of a H-1B visa recipient at one of the offshores is about $70,000. So they're not going to have a -- their cost of services is going to be higher for having to pay more and especially, if the lottery system is eliminated. The other thing is quality. If there is a return by customers that because of the uncertainty about time to fill an approval, some of the quality people overseas that were making $60,000, $70,000 a year won't come to the United States, they'll go to another country. And I don't think that's necessarily bad for our country because as I told you, it's going to open up more visas for the highly skilled people that are making a $100,000. So I think all of that continues to drive adoption of the other deployment model, project consulting, outsourcing, staff augmentation versus offshoring.

Mark，我認為最合理的方式來看這個變化，是這樣說：當 CIO 在看他們想完成的專案組合時，他們可以選擇透過 Deloitte 或 Accenture 的專案顧問服務、透過 HP 或 Dell Services 的外包、透過印度公司的離岸（offshoring）模式，或透過我們或其他大型供應商的人力增補（staff augmentation）。你也知道每種模式的優缺點。當技術資源交付的可靠性與時效性存在不確定性時，他們就較不傾向把新工作交給採用離岸模式的供應商。依我看，這種模式會變得更不具吸引力，原因是：第一，如果他們必須為某人支付每年 100,000 美元而不是 60,000 美元，他們就無法把價格訂得那麼有競爭力。網路上有大量資料顯示，透過 Apple、Facebook 或 Google 取得 H-1B 簽證的人，薪資都遠高於 100,000 美元；而離岸供應商那邊 H-1B 受益人的平均薪資大約是 70,000 美元。因此他們將不會有——他們的服務成本會因必須支付更高薪資而上升，尤其是如果抽籤制度被取消的話。另一點是品質。如果客戶因為核准補人時間的不確定性而回頭反映，一些原本在海外年薪 60,000、70,000 美元的優秀人才可能不會來美國，而是去其他國家。我不認為這對我們國家一定是壞事，因為如我所說，這會為年薪 100,000 美元的高技能人才釋出更多簽證名額。所以我認為，這些因素都會持續推動其他交付模式的採用：專案顧問、外包、人力增補，而不是離岸。

I appreciate all of that. I was wondering, if we take a look at the growth that you've seen, would you say a half of the growth...

我理解你說的這些。我想問的是，如果我們看你們所看到的成長，你會不會說有一半的成長……

I can't really numerically attach a percentage of what our growth is because, again, it has to do with attractiveness of the model. And the specific mindset of particular CIO, why they want to perform a certain project with contract labor versus offshore labor or project consulting labor versus staff augmentation labor. So I can't really make that direct lineal connection.

我無法用數字去附會我們成長中有多少百分比來自於此，因為這同樣取決於該模式的吸引力，以及特定 CIO 的具體思維：他們為什麼想用合約人力而不是離岸人力來做某個專案，或為什麼想用專案顧問人力而不是人力增補人力。所以我沒辦法做出那種直接的線性連結。

Okay. And obviously, it's going to continue to be a positive. Can you talk a little bit -- couple of other things? How much was the bill rate increase on the Apex side?

了解。而且顯然這會持續是正面因素。再請教幾件事：Apex 這邊的計費單價（bill rate）提高了多少？

It's in the financial. I don't know if we gave it on a segment basis. But in our supplemental financial information, the bill rate at Apex, it looks like it was up almost $2. First quarter '17 over first quarter '16, if I'm reading the data correctly.

這在財務資料裡。我不確定我們是否按事業別提供。不過在我們的補充財務資訊中，Apex 的計費單價看起來上升了將近 2 美元。如果我沒看錯數據的話，是 2017 年第一季相較 2016 年第一季。

Yes, I was just thinking about the Apex System. Just trying to...

是的，我剛剛是在想 Apex System。只是想要……

We don't -- we just give it by segment.

我們不——我們只按事業別提供。

Yes. Okay. And then...

是的。好。然後……

As you know, it's a big percentage of the total segment.

如你所知，它占整個事業別的比重很大。

Sure. With regards to Creative Circle, did that accelerate?

當然。關於 Creative Circle，那邊有加速嗎？

It continues to be the highest growth rate in the company right now. And they continue to be, as we told you, in the team. So it's a good market and they're doing well. But we don't give specific division of growth rates.

它目前仍是公司內成長率最高的業務。而且他們也持續如我們所說的那樣，表現很強。所以市場狀況不錯，他們做得很好。但我們不提供特定部門的成長率。

Okay. Broadly speaking, would you say that February and March were stronger than January and that things were accelerating as -- on a corporate-wide basis?

了解。就整體而言，你會說 2 月和 3 月比 1 月更強，而且公司整體的動能正在加速嗎？

Yes.

是的。

Okay. Great. And then lastly, on the statement of work, how -- can you characterize that a little bit more? Give a little more color in terms of what you're seeing? And what the impact is with -- from a margin perspective?

好，很好。最後一個，關於工作說明書（statement of work，SOW），你能否再多描述一下？提供一些你們看到的情況與更多細節？以及從毛利率角度來看，它的影響是什麼？

So do you want us to try to describe the type of work or the revenue side...

所以你是希望我們試著描述工作的類型，還是收入面……

No. The amount of incremental work that you are getting what you're seeing there? And what you're -- how you're able to go forth?

不。我是想問你們正在獲得的增量工作量有多少、你們在那裡看到什麼？以及你們——你們如何能夠往前推進？

Let me try to address it this way. It's many hundreds of millions, $400 million, $500 million of revenue for us. We're seeing that SOW as a delivery model, is growing very, very nicely and actually faster than staff augmentation. And Rand and Ted and their management teams have worked very hard. They continue to build infrastructure and expertise so that we can capture more of that business. And that is a big focus of ours that we intend to continue to pursue aggressively.

我用這種方式來回答。對我們而言，這是數億美元的規模，大約 4 億到 5 億美元的營收。我們看到 SOW 作為一種交付模式，成長非常、非常好，實際上比人力增補還快。Rand、Ted 以及他們的管理團隊投入了很多努力，持續建立基礎設施與專業能力，讓我們能夠拿下更多這類業務。這是我們的一個重點，我們打算繼續積極推進。

Next question comes from the line of Tim McHugh with William Blair.

下一個問題來自 William Blair 的 Tim McHugh。

Just wanted to follow up on -- just ask about the statement of work. Is that tied at all to your comments about the -- to the best you can tell, I guess, the pressure on immigration and debates on using offshore labor? Or is there a different initiative, or kind of factor that's helping you to grow faster there?

我想追問一下——關於工作說明書（SOW）。這是否與你們提到的——就你們所能判斷的，移民政策壓力以及關於使用離岸人力的辯論——有任何關聯？還是說有其他倡議或因素，讓你們在那邊成長更快？

Well, I would address it this way, Tim, just being higher level. I think that the SOW deployment model competes more with the project consulting deployment model, development model than it does the offshore model. So I don't think it's the H-1B visa that's driving it as much as CIOs are continuing to trying to find a lower cost model to do work. And SOW would fall somewhere between staff -- pure staff augmentation and project consulting. And so they're just blending their cost structures based on what project they want a certain model to develop or deploy.

Tim，我會用更高層次的方式來回答。我認為 SOW 的交付模式，與其說是在跟離岸模式競爭，不如說更是在跟專案顧問的交付/開發模式競爭。所以我不認為是 H-1B 簽證在推動它；更多是 CIO 持續在尋找更低成本的工作模式。SOW 大概介於純人力增補與專案顧問之間。因此他們會依據想用哪種模式來開發或部署某個專案，而去混合調整其成本結構。

Okay. And the comment on the SG&A, did it come in higher than you thought? Or is it for the quarter? And I guess, what would drive that? Or is it just we're still -- you're still talking about kind of a step-up last year that you have any time to fix?

了解。關於 SG&A 的評論，是不是本季比你們預期更高？那是什麼原因造成的？還是只是我們仍然——你們仍在談去年有一個階梯式上升（step-up），而你們需要一些時間去修正？

Are you talking consolidated or by segment?

你是指合併口徑，還是按事業別？

I was talking at the consolidated, but -- I mean, if it's different, I'd be happy to hear?

我是指合併口徑，但——我的意思是，如果按事業別不同，我也很樂意聽聽。

Yes, Tim, the comment related to SG&A, let me try to frame a bit. But first of all, when you compare with our estimates, our estimates do not include acquisition strategy or immigration expenses, okay? So that's about -- that was $900,000 in the quarter, okay? So you really do a like-on-like comparison with the estimates, you have to consider that. The other thing is that our -- we were -- we've seen in our estimates for revenues in gross profit. So when you consider the additional incentive compensation on the level that we beat or exceeded our estimates, then you consider the SG&A tied on that, then we were pretty much in line with what we had originally estimated.

是的，Tim，關於 SG&A 的評論，我試著稍微框架一下。首先，當你拿我們的實際結果與我們的預估相比時，我們的預估不包含併購策略或移民相關費用，好的？這一項本季大約是 90 萬美元。所以若要與預估做同口徑（like-on-like）的比較，你必須把這點納入考量。另一點是，我們——我們在營收與毛利方面超出我們的預估。因此，當你考慮到我們超出預估所帶來的額外激勵性薪酬，再把與之相關的 SG&A 一併考量後，我們基本上與原先的預估相當一致。

So the only thing I'd add is, well, which we didn't call out in our prepared remarks. If we had a little bit higher than budgeted expense on some medical plans and workers comp because of a couple of just freak slips and fall and icy weather that we're little bit higher than normal. And those all normalize as we move through the year hopefully.

所以我唯一想補充的是，嗯，這點我們在事先準備的講稿裡沒有特別提到。我們在某些醫療保險計畫和勞工補償方面的費用略高於預算，原因是發生了幾起純屬意外的滑倒、跌倒事件，以及結冰天氣使得相關支出比平常略高。希望隨著今年進行，這些都會回歸正常。

But the big driver are the 2 things: the integration and acquisition expenses and then the initial incentive comp were on the higher revenue levels.

但最大的驅動因素是兩件事：整合與併購費用，以及因營收水準較高而使得初始獎勵性薪酬較高。

And the last question that we have in queue comes from the line of George Tong with Piper Jaffray.

而我們佇列中的最後一個問題，來自 Piper Jaffray 的 George Tong。

I'd like to dig a bit deeper into Oxford. You talked a little bit about this earlier, but can you elaborate on how you plan to align your skill practices? And talk about how you plan to rebuild the sales model in order to bring the segment growth closer to industry levels?

我想更深入了解 Oxford。你先前稍微談到一些，但你能否進一步說明你們打算如何對齊各項技能實務（skill practices）？並談談你們計畫如何重建銷售模式，以便讓該部門的成長更接近產業水準？

Well, I don't know if we'll give you granular detail, but I want to kind of qualitatively walk them through some of the initiatives that you had going.

嗯，我不確定我們是否會提供很細的細節，但我想以較偏質性的方式，帶大家走過你們正在推動的一些措施。

So George, at its most simple level, Oxford has had a differentiated recruiting-driven model where that skill was pushed into the marketplace based on the ability to get the highest rate in any one particular client without a thought of creating a relationship with that client and setting the stage to do more with them in the future. So I think what we're trying to do at Oxford is stay true to our recruiting-driven model in the sense that we do. We are differentiated in the high-end, hard to find talent that we have in our database, but create a sales model where we can develop relationships with clients that are durable and sustainable for the long term so that we sell more than just one consultant, if you will, into any client. We can sell one which will become 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6. So our issue is not that we don't have enough clients in our portfolio, it's that we don't have deep enough relationships with them that have been sustained over a long period of time so that we can increase our share of their wallet. So -- and really, I think it is most simple. Now there is a lot underlying and all of that in terms of how we realign resources and the tactics we use in order to accomplish that. But it's the most simple level. I think, that's where we're trying to get at.

所以 George，用最簡單的層面來說，Oxford 一直有一個差異化、以招募為驅動的模式；也就是把那項技能推向市場，主要依賴在某個特定客戶身上拿到最高費率的能力，而不太去思考與該客戶建立關係，並為未來做更多合作鋪路。因此，我認為我們在 Oxford 想做的是：在我們確實以招募為驅動的模式上保持本色——我們在高端、難以尋找的人才方面具備差異化，且這些人才都在我們的資料庫中——但同時建立一個銷售模式，使我們能與客戶發展長期耐久、可持續的關係，讓我們不只是把一位顧問（consultant）賣進任何一個客戶而已。換句話說，我們可以先賣 1 位，之後變成 2、3、4、5、6 位。我們的問題不在於客戶組合裡客戶數不夠，而在於我們與他們之間沒有足夠深、且能長期維持的關係，因而無法提高我們在其支出中的占比（share of their wallet）。所以——我認為最簡單就是這樣。當然在這之下還有很多事情，包括我們如何重新對齊資源，以及我們用哪些戰術來達成目標。但在最簡單的層面，我想這就是我們要達到的方向。

Right. And as it relates to the skilled practice realignment, could you maybe give us some examples of areas that you are deemphasizing and areas where you plan to over-index in order to chase the growth, if you will?

了解。那就技能實務的重新對齊而言，你能否舉一些例子，說明哪些領域你們會降低比重，哪些領域你們計畫加大投入以追求成長？

I think that -- I wouldn't say we are deemphasizing anything. I think we're very happy with our skill set practices at Oxford. What we're trying to do is to group them so that, that's most logical to sell them into whoever the hiring manager is at a particular company. So instead of running a separate account plan or account focus plan for our healthcare IT group and our health information management group for a best-selling into like hospitals, we should be going at the marketplace together and selling all of our healthcare, technology and HIM professionals, all of our consultants. So in that sense, what we're trying to do is align. That's an example of trying to align those 2 units together so that we can cover more clients, and we can cross-sell both of those into those same clients. The same thing on the Life Sciences side, instead of having it align with maybe some of the more technical or technology-related practices. We want those more aligned with the healthcare side because a lot of those skill sets go into those types of clients. So I think we're not trying to deemphasize anything, we're trying to do more in all our skill practices, but we're trying to set them up so that we're taking advantage of the opportunity to most productively go to the marketplace.

我想——我不會說我們在降低任何事情的比重。我們對 Oxford 的技能實務配置非常滿意。我們想做的是把它們分組，讓它們以最符合邏輯的方式，銷售給某家公司的特定用人主管。舉例來說，我們不應該針對醫療保健 IT 團隊與健康資訊管理（HIM）團隊各自運作獨立的客戶計畫或客戶聚焦計畫，去對像醫院這類客戶做最佳銷售；我們應該一起面向市場，銷售我們所有的醫療保健、科技與 HIM 專業人才，銷售我們所有的顧問。因此在這個意義上，我們要做的是對齊。這就是把這兩個單位對齊在一起的例子，讓我們能覆蓋更多客戶，並把這兩類服務交叉銷售給同一批客戶。生命科學（Life Sciences）那邊也是一樣：與其讓它可能更偏向某些更技術性或科技相關的實務對齊，我們希望它更與醫療保健端對齊，因為很多技能組合會進到那類型的客戶。我認為我們不是要降低任何事情的比重，而是想在所有技能實務上做得更多；只是我們要把它們設定成能夠把握機會、以最高生產力的方式走向市場。

Yes. Makes sense. And then secondly, could you talk a little bit about your recruiter outlook for hiring trends? What your cadence for future hiring will be? And what recruiter productivity should look like? And what the implications would then be for margins?

是的，合理。第二個問題，你能否談談你們對招募人員（recruiter）的展望與招募趨勢？未來招募的節奏會是什麼？招募人員的生產力應該呈現什麼樣貌？以及這對利潤率的影響會是什麼？

Well, I think on that side because we're not giving any revenue growth. At Oxford, right now, our productivity is naturally falling. Well, it returns to normal times. I think it will because the strategy around creating deeper customer relationships and having more consultants on any one customer is automatically going to make our recruiting team more productive. Whether it will get back to and even exceed our prior hires, I certainly think we can get back there. But I think we're still working through that, George.

嗯，我想在那一端，因為我們目前沒有提供任何營收成長指引。就 Oxford 而言，現在我們的生產力自然在下滑——嗯，回到正常時期。我認為會的，因為圍繞著建立更深的客戶關係、並在單一客戶上配置更多顧問的策略，會自動讓我們的招募團隊更有效率。至於是否能回到、甚至超越我們先前的水準，我當然認為我們可以回到那個水準。但我想我們仍在釐清與推進中，George。

And then any comments -- same question for Apex?

那 Apex 呢——同樣的問題，有什麼評論嗎？

Apex right now is as productive as they have ever been. I won't say it's a high because we are always trying to get in and it's better there. But Apex is one of -- 2 of our divisions that have the highest conversion of gross profit to EBITDA. And it's coming both from our sales teams, our recruiting teams and from leveraging corporate infrastructure. So we're getting good productivity across all of that within the Apex business, and we're always looking for that to continue.

Apex 目前的生產力是他們有史以來最好的水準。我不會說這是高點，因為我們一直在努力介入並把它做得更好。但 Apex 是——我們兩個部門之中，毛利轉換為 EBITDA 的轉換率最高的部門之一。這同時來自我們的銷售團隊、招募團隊，以及對公司基礎設施的槓桿運用。因此在 Apex 業務內，我們在各方面都取得了良好的生產力，而且我們也一直希望這能持續下去。

And we have no further questions in queue.

目前佇列中沒有其他問題。

Well, we appreciate your attention and look forward to reporting our second quarter earnings. Thank you very much.

好的，我們感謝各位的關注，也期待在第二季財報時向各位報告。非常謝謝。

And ladies and gentlemen, this does conclude today's conference. Thank you for your participation and for using AT&T. You may now disconnect.

各位女士、先生，今天的電話會議到此結束。感謝各位的參與，並感謝使用 AT&T。您現在可以掛線。