Seeking Alpha
We cover over 5K calls/quarter
Profile| Send Message|
( followers)  

CGI Group Inc. (NYSE:GIB)

February 12, 2013 1:20 pm ET

Executives

Michael E. Roach - Chief Executive Officer, President and Director

Unknown Analyst

Okay. I think we're going to go ahead and get started here. We're a part of the -- we're still on the IT services track here, still focused on consulting and outsourcing today. And it's really interesting today to have CGI group here, Michael Roach, Chief Executive Officer of CGI, because you guys have really evolved in the course of the last few years that we've covered you to just being a little Canadian company to a North American to now having kind of a global footprint. So looking forward to kind of catching up with you and getting more color on how that evolution has happened. I think, as I pointed out to you, I think yesterday when we were talking about some of the stuff here is that when we look around at our coverage and kind of consider the systems integration and consulting companies that are out there publicly traded, after Accenture, there really isn't a kind of classic SI consulting business. I mean, for us, in our coverage with the sort of publicly traded companies, it would have been literally Accenture and then maybe, say, Sapiens [ph] and some of the other companies. So the first time that we traveled up to Montréal to meet with you guys, that was partly where we're looking for because we had lost Affiliated, we had lost Perot, we had lost UBS, and I'm sure there's another one...

Michael E. Roach

Keane.

Unknown Analyst

Keane. Some other ones along the way that had kind of disappeared and you guys have kind of emerged. So maybe as a level set to just kind of help people understand CGI Group a little bit, who you guys are, some of your capabilities and then we'll step in with some questions.

Michael E. Roach

Okay. Well, thank you. And thank you for joining us and your continued interest in CGI. Just really a Coles Notes version. We've actually been in business for 36 years. Unlike some of our competitors, we know the business we're in. We're in the IT services business, focused on bringing the best of technology and business process services to our clients. We're executing a classic buy-and-build strategy, targeting accretive acquisitions that will help us be a better company to be able to service our clients around the world. Utilizing that profitable growth strategy, we've doubled the size of the company on average every 4 years for the last 20 years to a point now that we're over $10 billion of revenue, 71,000 people, operating in over 43 countries.

We have developed over those years an operating model that is really centered on the principles and the fundamentals of running a sound business over time. For example, we seek balance between our 3 stakeholders. We need all 3. We need the loyalty of our customers, our people and shareholders. We're owners in our own business, about 60 million shares are actually owned by the employees. Before the Logica acquisition, 85% of our people were shareholders. For every dollar they put in, we match a dollar up to 1% of salary. And we think that's a winning strategy, and that people tend to look after a business better if they own it. And we can also have very frank discussions about value creation.

Our performance is all outcome-based. We still have stock options, but they're performance-based. No performance, no vesting. No time vesting of options. So last year, we increased the market cap of our company $3 billion, and I think about 35% of my options were earned. The rest of them were lost. So we have a high standard. We don't have individual performance pay. We have profit-sharing. The word profit comes in front of the word sharing, so we need to generate sufficient returns to our shareholders, after which we generate a profit-sharing plan.

We're organized around geographies. We have clear accountability. No double line reporting, no horizontals that lead to nowhere. Everybody is focused on the customer, creating value and is accountable for that value. We also have developed a set of standards that are value indicators for customers, for employees and for shareholders. Everybody in the company is managed on the same indicators, and they're the very ones that I report to you as investors: profitable revenue, recurring revenue, bookings, cash generation and margins and earnings per share.

So as part of that acquisition -- our acquisition strategy, we found that 95% of our footprint was in North America; 5% in Europe, where 2/3 of our customers had businesses in North America and Europe and the balance had business in North America, Europe and Asia. Logica was the exact opposite to that. They had 5% of their business in North America.

So we have a criteria: right acquisition, right price, right time. We go for all 3, not 2 out of 3. Logica did that. Strategically, they filled that gap. They allowed us to continue to build out our local model, proximity to clients, because they have a lot of offices in very close proximity to their clients. Right time. Europe, evaluations were very low. We bought in August. And right price. Interest rates are also very, very low. We got that financed out of Canada at very good rates. And we also had a one investor put in $1 billion into the stock. So we've been operating the company now for 5 weeks. We're rapidly putting in our operating model along the lines I described, and we have set a commitment to drive 25% to 30% EPS accretion in fiscal 2013, after excluding the integration acquisition costs. We put up our first quarter with that in mind, and we're tracking to that plan, if not a little bit ahead. We will invest about $400 million to restructure and transform the business. A lot of it is transformation in terms of how we change the operation to be more value-created orientated. And we're well on the path of delivering $300 million in annual benefits as we exit year 3.

So again, our goal would be to drive the EBIT of the European operations up to the higher end of the competitive range, which is about 8.5% to 9%. And they're obviously quite below that now. But the good news is in the first full quarter that we integrated Logica, every SBU made money so that we've got a good foundation now which to track the impact of the integration. So maybe that's a bit of a...

Unknown Analyst

Yes, no. That's a good start. I mean, I think there's a lot of pieces to sort of chew on there in thinking about where CGI kind of came from. And maybe just to sort of level set it -- just to kind of finish the part on level setting. When you think about competition now as you're currently sort of positioned, maybe sort of juxtapose a little bit about who your kind of primary competitors are? Do you think about the IBMs, the CSCs, the Accentures of the world, or is it more of a hybrid [indiscernible]?

Michael E. Roach

Yes. So again, we -- because again we think about the business locally first and then globally as the customers need it and the various markets we're in, so we're a big player in the U.S. government as an example. So there, we see more of the government-focused players, the SAICs, the Northrums [ph], these type of companies. When we go more into Europe, we're seeing the Capgeminis and the Athos. And then as we go globally, we see the IBMs and the Accentures and some of the Indian pure-plays, although we don't overlap directly with them because, again, our strategy is somewhat different. We want to stay very close to the client. We're in the relationship business. We want to the key go-to partner in Finland, in Sweden and in Canada and in the U.S. where we operate and we want to capture mind share with the client up there at the business requirement, systems analysts and the high-end work.

Unknown Analyst

Okay. Maybe just to switch gears a little bit to thinking about the -- kind of the demand backdrop. The 2 probably more controversial parts of your business right now, I guess, in some ways would be what's going on with the Defense business and understanding federal defense spending trends, all these concerns about cutbacks, et cetera. Maybe let's start there and then kind of switch gears over there to Europe in terms of demand and growth opportunities.

Michael E. Roach

Well, again, just -- again, some context. Our business in the U.S., especially the government business, came through 2 acquisitions: American Management Systems in 2004, which I think a lot of you folks may remember. Very good franchise, primarily in the civilian side. We actually spun off the defense side to CACI at that time to derisk the leveraging of that deal. Plus as a Canadian company, we weren't structured to manage that. And then we did Stanley, 2011, on the defense intel space. And as a result, we have a balance of about 50% of our revenue coming from civilian agencies and 50% from the defense intel. And we're now certified and clear to do all business across all of those jurisdictions. Our strategy there has always been to focus on those functions that are required for the government to operate on a day-to-day basis. And -- give you some examples. 25% of the visas that are issued to companies -- countries are processed by CGI. So the visa program will continue to operate whether the government cuts back or doesn't cut back. We're also embedded in the process of the passports. We also have our ERP system, Momentum, which is a full ERP of financial systems and HR that's in their long-term outsourcing agreements with areas like the State Department, the U.S. courts, the EPA. These are long-term contracts, and they're actually the back room if you will, of the government. Those functions will continue to operate in any scenario that you go through. Those are just 3 examples. We're also -- and we'll probably talk about that -- very embedded in the health care reform that's going on. We're building the federal HICSS exchange, as an example. We're building it for 6 other states as another example. So we're very embedded in there. So our strategy -- and we built up a good backlog. When we acquired AMS in 2004, our backlog in United States was 5%. Recurring revenue is now over 50%. So we have a recurring revenue base. And the final thing, I'd say, our book-to-bill in the U.S. Federal Government on a trailing 12-months is the way you need to look at it because it's very lumpy. It's 119%. So I think we're not going to be immune to anything that happens in there, but the way we've structured our business, we believe that we'll continue to fight above our weight in there because of the areas in which we're operating are areas that are essential to the government operating. What we're seeing right now is, and we've seen this a couple of years ago, is 2 or 3 phenomenas. Where we have existing contracts that are just being extended for the option years, so they're not being put out to bid -- which is good if you have a good backlog, because it means that business is going to roll out, roll forward. In other cases, we're seeing bids pile up in there. The last time, I think we had about $1.5 billion in there of bids that were waiting approval. We're probably north of $500 million now of bids that are in there, and we're waiting to see whether they're going to get approved or whether they're going to push sideways. So I think it's a good business. It's a good franchise. We've experienced good growth in there, and we're still very optimistic about our prospects in there over the long haul.

Unknown Analyst

Got it. And one other distinction to kind of draw in that -- to maybe just sort of zero in on the work that you guys also do around the health side. You mentioned the health care exchange, but there's also some work that you guys do for Medicaid, Medicare that would also -- or just Medicaid, excuse me. On the provisional [ph], the RAC?

Michael E. Roach

The RAC, yes. Yes, so again we broke out health care as a vertical, and it's only represented about 5%. I think it's up to 8% now. And it's growing at 40% to 50% a year. And it's coming from all areas of health care. It's coming from the health exchange systems that I mentioned. It's coming from the recovery programs in terms of auditing. We have a franchise of 7 states where we're doing audits, and I think we've identified about $500 million of misquoted or fraud-related type benefits from those programs already. We're also working with the payers' side, companies that are preparing for the legislation to go in. And a lot of that health care business, in our view, is moving to a retail model. So they're going to start selling health insurance kind of like how you sell car insurance, individual by individual. That's going to drive a lot of systems work. It's also going to drive a lot of data center-related -- there's going to be a huge requirement for storage capabilities to actually store these records, maintain them over time. So we're right in that area, and we're very focused in that area. And it's not only a U.S. phenomena. We're active in the Nordics and in Europe, as well as the demographics are just driving the costs up of that business.

Unknown Analyst

Interesting. Maybe switch gears....

Michael E. Roach

And we expect that to continue to grow 30% to 40% a year when I look out, when I combine all that. But the growth rates are very, very high there.

Unknown Analyst

Maybe on the enterprise commercial side. We're -- hopefully, we're far enough along now that we have some visibility on IT budget spending by some of your kind of enterprise commercial clients. What do you guys getting back from them [ph] in terms of budget, budget growth opportunity and how does that...

Michael E. Roach

Yes. I go around the world and I talk to clients and I've done that a lot of time in Europe. And what you'll find is that clients -- generally, what they have in common is they're looking for growth. And they're not getting the growth in their domestic markets. So they're doing one of 2 things generally. They're either using technology -- web -- through the web to actually go into other markets and sell their products there and try to drive the growth that way, or they're actually doing mergers and acquisitions in other countries to actually buy the growth and position themselves. Either one of those paths require investment in information technology. I think my sense is, in some of the European countries, and we saw that in North America a number of years ago during the financial crisis, you kind of have everybody in 2 camps. You've got some guys that are afraid of the future, so they hit the pause button and try to sit on their cash. And you got the second group, who say -- and we're -- we like to be in the second group, to say that, "These are good, healthy markets, and we're in a downturn. Now is the time to be proactive, invest and grow." So when I look at my customers, I see both there. But I would tell you -- and we've seen it in the U.S. Our business in the U.S. last quarter grew by about 20% organic. A lot of that on the commercial side. But in the U.S. market, we're seeing the commercial clients start to invest more now and retool to try and capture the upswing in the economy. And we're starting to see that in Europe as well, especially in the Nordic countries. They seem -- the economies seem to be fairly stable there and companies are looking at trying to get more value for their IT investment. So I see the sense that -- my view is that we've bottomed here, and we're starting to see the uptick.

Unknown Analyst

Got it. Maybe if we switch gears over to Europe. I think you did this almost in -- it seems like in the same way where there's a lot of concern about government spending, and you guys went sort of head into it with the Stanley acquisition. And it felt like that same sort of situation replayed itself a little bit with Europe and all that in terms of we had [ph] last year. And yet it was an opportunity for you to kind of consider, I think with what you're saying there, to sort of be proactive in this downturn to go into Europe at a time when I think people were obviously concerned about what was going on there and maybe not as concerned today, but certainly still reason [ph] that could face some challenges here. So maybe if we just sort of think about that sort of twofold. One, what was it about the asset, first of all, that attracted you guys to this? And help us understand what you're doing to really turn around, because I think that that's where you get sort of skepticism about your efforts there, that it was kind of a considerable challenged business to begin with. And you guys went into it, not only knowing that there were challenges, but also the operating issues that you were going to have to kind of contend with in that platform itself.

Michael E. Roach

Yes. And so again, when we look at what we've tried to do, first, our basic assumption is that there will only be 5 or 6 true global IT services company left. That there's going to be a global consolidation, and that the suppliers are globalizing because the clients are globalizing. So the supply chains are now global and the clients are saying you either follow me or you lose me. So they're looking for somebody who can do the work locally but also do the work globally. When we look at the number of companies, they're not -- we went through the list, there are not a lot of entrepreneurs anymore building IT services companies. The Indian pure-plays have taken the oxygen that used to fuel those companies. Those body shop jobs that used to be done locally, where the Serge Godin, the founder of our company, or Ross Perot or Mr. Kean, you go through those, those aren't there. So when we looked around, the number of companies that are built out that have a local footprint with loyal people and long-term relationships are very few left. That's the first observation. Logica had that footprint in Europe. They had a mirror image of the footprint we've got in North America, and they have deep relationships in countries like Sweden and Finland. I spoke up in Finland after Christmas. We had a customer event that goes on every year, 600 or 800 clients and CIOs in the room. That kind of local brand and loyalty is very hard to ever evergreen. So that attracted them to us. It also allowed us to meet the pressures and demands from our clients in terms of following them around the world. And then part of our strategy as well is to continue to leverage intellectual property into our customers. It has higher margin, it's stickier and you deal with the business side not only the technology side. It's very accretive. It's -- generates cash. It's very sticky, so it stays there. With Logica, we now got a bigger distribution channel because we're now in 43 countries with 71,000 people that can help us pull through and leverage our IP strategy to a bigger group. And of course, finally, as I said before, the timing was good and the price was right. And you have a willing seller there, which of course, was the other thing that you need.

What are we doing with it? Again, typically people think when you acquire a company, it's about a restructuring. For us, it's more about a transformation. It really starts with putting back into accompany the fundamentals that drive success in the capitalist environment. And the first one is clear accountability. Who owns the responsibility to market, deliver, develop the people, generate the margins, generate the cash, create the value? And then we -- with that model we put in, how do they share in the value they create? And its long-term thinking. It's not short-term thinking. This is why we don't push our people to hit targets on quarters in terms of bookings. Because if you do that, you'll actually rob value from the shareholder because you have discount on a -- for one day and pay for it for 5 years. So all that kind of fundamental thinking, we don't have that in our model. We flatten out the organization, streamline the corporate groups because the accountability is local, increase the spans [ph] of control. And then we take all the projects that they're doing, and we code them red, yellow and green, which we've done. The red ones are where we have a customer issue. We're not making money, or there's a cash issue. I review them personally on 6 calls -- 1 hour calls every month. And through there, the project manager, the business unit leader is walking through with me what it's going to take to get to green. As we do that, margins improve because every day, we're not losing money. We're making money. So a lot of things like that. We put in a new bid process in. So now we have hurdle rates in terms of what we're bidding, and we have a standard criteria. What kind of cash terms are we going to get? When are we going to get paid? These type of things. So we've also met and trained 1, 000 Logica managers. I've spoken personally to the work council and explained the very openly transparency, why we need to transform how we do business. Because everybody wants to win. They've been very cooperative. The employees want to work with a strong company financially. Customers want to deal with a company that's strong financially and, of course, investors want to put their money into a company that is going to be focused. So it's coming along well. I think, as I say, in the first quarter, we put up some very significant base here upon which we can measure the progress from here on in.

Unknown Analyst

Maybe just to sort of dig in a little bit to those changes. The area that I would find kind of interesting is just the decision-making around signing a new contract. And I know that we've talked about this in the past, where you're willing to forfeit revenue growth for margins. And I think that's a really big change for the way that maybe the business used to be run. Help us understand a little bit on your philosophy on that, as you think about probability over revenue growth and then ultimately, how that discipline is actually getting sort of implemented in this positive asset [ph].

Michael E. Roach

Again, we come at it very simply, is that -- what we're here is to create value for the customer in the deal and value for our shareholders, and we look for the right balance. If we're not doing that, as I tell my people, we're actually writing a check from our shareholders to the shareholder of the customers, and it's just a transfer of wealth. So we have to find that right balance in terms of delivering value to our customers and creating value for our shareholders. So we have a set of escalating gates for deals that are qualified. In some of these gates, we actually review the financials of the customer to make sure the customer is going to be financially strong. So we don't sign a deal where a customer goes under and our shareholders are left holding the bag. And again depending on the risk, if it's a fixed-price project, the team that does the estimation on that project, there's a second group called the estimation center, who have 10 or 15 years of project history. They run a second estimate. So now you've got 2 estimates. And there's a workout going to say which is the right estimate. Because if you lowball the estimates, you might win the business, but if you can't deliver it for that because history tells you you've got 15 years of deals you've never been able to deliver at that, you're going to lose money. And then ultimately, again, basic terms, in terms of cash payments, risks, legal liabilities are reviewed relative to a set of standards that we've developed. We would take on an open uncapped liability, as an example. We just can't get insurance for that so we're not about to put our shareholders at risk for those type of liabilities. And these deals get signed off and of course, the person who sells the deal is also accountable for delivering the deal and it's -- works into the profit-sharing. So the loop is closed. If they get a bad deal, it's going to impact them financially. And therefore, there's a big incentive here to get it right.

Unknown Analyst

So what do you worry about, then, in terms of your strategy in Europe? I mean, it sounds like you've got a vision, you've got a plan, you're operationalizing some of this. Where could there be some potholes or surprises here as we think about Europe?

Michael E. Roach

I think, if you look at our model, the risk is that you don't go further enough, fast enough in terms of addressing these issues. So again, we -- to your comment on the quality of revenue, we go through revenue. What you find in an acquisition, because a lot of companies are focused so much on top line growth, there's revenue going through where there's no margin. It's just pass-through. And again, we want to take that out. It takes some courage to do that, to say, "No, thanks. There's no margin there. I can't optimize that. I can't create any value." So it's to get that instilled in the culture to say, "Don't take revenue where there's no margin just to prop up the top line." Because in fact, in pure mathematics, it drops down your percent contribution, and it also in some cases exposes the company liabilities as you're passing stocks through with no margin. So part of it is getting that in and instilling in that culture. It means incenting people for the right thing so we don't incent on revenue only because that drives a wrong behavior. Again, we're trying to incent behaviors that are aligned with creating value, long-term value, for the 3 stakeholders. So I think the model takes some time to get in fully. And the first layers of changing that are easy. It's when you get down to the last 25% where people might have a big ownership to something that's been there for a while that doesn't fit with our model because it's not on strategy, or it's a business, where the margins are always going to be low. It's a commodity business. And we're better to remove that and actually spend management time focusing on a higher margin, higher growth business. So that's where the rubber meets the road when you get down to the last 20%, where people say, "I have been in this for 15 years. I look at it, and you've only made 3% margin for 15 years and the prospect of making any more is not there," you've got to make a call and address it.

Unknown Analyst

Got it. You made the comment earlier that you bought at the right time. And I guess, presumably, some of that also has to do with what you're seeing in Europe. And you talked a little bit about this and that the backdrop feels like it's, maybe, a little bit better. Maybe kind of just help characterize that imbalance, what you're seeing from a demand perspective more than the operational side of it?

Michael E. Roach

As I say, we tend to, North America, look at Europe as one entity. It's really not. It's a series of countries. And what drives the economic growth and the investment cycles are much different in France than they are in the U.K, as 2 examples. So I find it's uneven there. When I look across -- as I mentioned, I did a swing through the Nordics and I liked what I saw there in terms of market prospect and talking to the customers and the oil and gas industry, and some of the stuff that they're doing globally is very interesting and the financial sectors as well there. France is a very steady market. I think there's a lot of government support for that market. So you don't get the wide swings there in terms of that, and we have a lot of government and consulting business in there. U.K -- U.K. is a market that I think is a good market for us. I mean, we understand that market probably better. We have the same type of government as the U.K. and Canada, so we understand how they think about government business and we do think there's areas to grow in there. Netherlands is starting to recover. We're doing better than, I think, Logica did in the past years in there. And Germany is a bit of the big unknown. It's a big economy, but it's a little bit volatile there in terms of whether that growth rate is going to be sustainable here going forward. And Asia-Pac, we got a nice footprint in there. Strong franchise in Australia. And we're building out in Malaysia and some of these other countries there. So it's more of an area where we use global delivery. But also, it's been our tradition to actually work in markets from the inside at a small scale for a number of years before we make an acquisition there so we understand what we're buying and that we're not in a position of getting a bad asset.

Unknown Analyst

Got it. We're almost at 5 minutes here, so I wanted to give a couple of guys -- if you had some questions, open up the floor with one of the microphones. [indiscernible] had one.

Question-and-Answer Session

Unknown Analyst

Can you help us [ph] with free cash flow generation a couple of years out? I'm not looking for explicit [ph] guidance, but margin declines and the receivable issue [indiscernible] fraud.

Michael E. Roach

Yes, so I think.

Unknown Analyst

[indiscernible] 800 million?

Michael E. Roach

For this year?

Unknown Analyst

No, 2014 [indiscernible].

Michael E. Roach

Yes. Well, I would think we'd be -- as we get -- the operations themselves, the cash from operations certainly should be that 3 years out, if not higher.

Unknown Analyst

That's for cash flow? And what would you use that cash flow for?

Michael E. Roach

Well, again, what we're trying to do in our cash flow is we actually run an accretion model to find out what's the highest return. And what we found is reinvest in the core business because our return on invested capital has been double-digit over the years. And accretive acquisition, pay down debt or buy back shares, depending on the cost of capital and whatever covenants we may have there. And we did renew our Normal Course Issuer Bid, where we can buy up to 22 million shares. So we have that on the table. But I would think a lot of our cash after investing in the business is probably going to be focused on the debt side here for a while.

Unknown Analyst

And the debt ratios you're comfortable with?

Michael E. Roach

Yes. Yes, yes. Given the amount of cash that we're generating, we're comfortable with those ratios. And we're astute enough to take that debt and term it out over a long period of time so that we don't have any kind of an upcoming cliff there.

Unknown Analyst

What -- maybe on that point on the debt reduction, what changed? Because a quarter ago, you said no buybacks, focus on debt reductions. But then this quarter, you said...

Michael E. Roach

Well, again, I never believed to take any tool off the table. I think as a publicly-traded company -- and again, we're big holders in our own company. So we believe in the long-term appreciation of our stock. As you know, we bought back about $2.4 billion of stock over the last 6 years. I think the average price was about $12 of stock. Today, it's at $28. It's been very accretive for the shareholders. So we'd like to have that option there. And again some of that debt is termed. So we're not going to prepay that debt. We'll pay it when it comes due. And we'd like to keep that flexibility to buy back our stock.

Unknown Analyst

I'm curious to get [indiscernible] Logica acquisition, I think, or I'm told that there was certainly some South American assets within -- in that portfolio. But how do you view it as a whole? And what's the strategy going forward for that region?

Michael E. Roach

That's not been a region that's been typically in our strategic plan. They actually got that assets through an acquisition they did in Spain, I think. And it's not a very big footprint relative to the rest of the world. So we're looking at that to see what is the most -- smart way to leverage that asset in terms of its very small footprint. Most of the countries they're in other than Brazil, there's under 100 people in there. So it's a very challenging market right now.

Unknown Analyst

Anyone else? Okay, we're almost out of time, so I'll go ahead and stop there, and keep it moving along. And thank you very much, Michael.

Michael E. Roach

My pleasure.

Copyright policy: All transcripts on this site are the copyright of Seeking Alpha. However, we view them as an important resource for bloggers and journalists, and are excited to contribute to the democratization of financial information on the Internet. (Until now investors have had to pay thousands of dollars in subscription fees for transcripts.) So our reproduction policy is as follows: You may quote up to 400 words of any transcript on the condition that you attribute the transcript to Seeking Alpha and either link to the original transcript or to www.SeekingAlpha.com. All other use is prohibited.

THE INFORMATION CONTAINED HERE IS A TEXTUAL REPRESENTATION OF THE APPLICABLE COMPANY'S CONFERENCE CALL, CONFERENCE PRESENTATION OR OTHER AUDIO PRESENTATION, AND WHILE EFFORTS ARE MADE TO PROVIDE AN ACCURATE TRANSCRIPTION, THERE MAY BE MATERIAL ERRORS, OMISSIONS, OR INACCURACIES IN THE REPORTING OF THE SUBSTANCE OF THE AUDIO PRESENTATIONS. IN NO WAY DOES SEEKING ALPHA ASSUME ANY RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY INVESTMENT OR OTHER DECISIONS MADE BASED UPON THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ON THIS WEB SITE OR IN ANY TRANSCRIPT. USERS ARE ADVISED TO REVIEW THE APPLICABLE COMPANY'S AUDIO PRESENTATION ITSELF AND THE APPLICABLE COMPANY'S SEC FILINGS BEFORE MAKING ANY INVESTMENT OR OTHER DECISIONS.

If you have any additional questions about our online transcripts, please contact us at: transcripts@seekingalpha.com. Thank you!

Source: CGI Group, Inc. Presents at Goldman Sachs Technology & Internet Conference 2013, Feb-12-2013 10:20 AM
This Transcript
All Transcripts