Slide Presentation, dated February 14, 2007

Safe harbor provision

During this presentation, we will make forward-looking

statements subject to known and unknown risks and

uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ

materially from those expressed or implied by such

statements. Such risks and uncertainties include, but are not

limited to, the volatility in metals demand and prices, the

cyclicality of the various industries the company serves, and

other risks described in reports filed with the SEC. We

assume no obligation to update the information provided in

this presentation.

Important Information

Ryerson Inc. plans to file with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") and mail

to its stockholders a Proxy Statement in connection with its 2007 Annual Meeting, and

advises its security holders to read the Proxy Statement relating to the 2007 Annual

Meeting when it becomes available because it will contain important information. Security

holders may obtain a free copy of the Proxy Statement and any other relevant documents

(when available) that Ryerson files with the SEC at the SEC's web site at

http://www.sec.gov. The Proxy Statement and these other documents may be accessed at

www.ryerson.com or obtained free from Ryerson by directing a request to Ryerson Inc.,

ATTN: Investor Relations, 2621 West 15th Place, Chicago, IL 60608.

Certain Information Regarding Participants

Ryerson Inc., its directors and named executive officers may be deemed to be participants

in the solicitation of Ryerson's security holders in connection with its 2007 Annual Meeting.

Security holders may obtain information regarding the names, affiliations and interests of

such individuals in Ryerson's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31,

2005

and

its

proxy

statement,

dated

April

2006,

each

which

filed

with

the

SEC.

the extent holdings of Ryerson equity securities have changed since the amounts reflected

in the proxy statement, dated April 3, 2006, such changes have been reflected on

Statements of Change in Ownership on Form 4 filed with the SEC.

Proxy Solicitation

Use of non-GAAP financial information

The Company uses the LIFO method of inventory accounting in the U.S., which results

in a better matching of costs and revenues than the FIFO method.

To supplement its

consolidated condensed financial statements presented on a GAAP basis, the

company has provided certain non-GAAP financial measures, in some cases adjusted

to reflect the effects of valuing inventory on a FIFO basis. While FIFO is an

acceptable inventory valuation method under U.S. GAAP, the presentation of FIFO

basis financial information is considered non-GAAP financial information as the

company applies LIFO inventory valuation for its financial reporting purposes. A

reconciliation of the adjustments from GAAP financial measures to non-GAAP

financial measures is contained in the addendum to this presentation and may be

accessed at www.ryerson.com. This non-GAAP financial information is not meant to

be considered in isolation or as a substitute for financial measures prepared in

accordance with GAAP.

Ryerson believes that providing these non-GAAP financial measures in addition to the

related GAAP measures better enables investors to understand the

company’s

operating performance and also facilitates comparisons of Ryerson’s operating

performance with the performance of other companies in the industry.

Ryerson: Perspective on historical performance and trends

Industry participants

Comparable measures

•

ROIC % instead of gross margin % or EBITDA

•

ROIC takes into account product mix, customer mix and asset

intensity

Comparable accounting

•

FIFO vs. LIFO

•

Many industry participants are wholly or in part on FIFO;

Ryerson utilizes LIFO in the U.S.

•

A.M. Castle

•

Reliance Steel & Aluminum

•

Olympic Steel

•

Metals USA

•

Earle M. Jorgensen

•

Russel Metals

•

Samuel Manu-Tech

•

Shiloh Industries

•

Steel Technologies

•

Worthington Industries

(7.0)

(4.0)

(1.0)

2.0

5.0

8.0

11.0

14.0

17.0

20.0

23.0

26.0

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

Post-

Restructuring

Pre-

Restructuring

Ryerson’s Programs are Producing Results

Since 1998, Ryerson has implemented significant cost savings initiatives and has

steadily improved results relative to peer median over the last 6 years

Initiatives

$85mm Restructuring

$40mm of annualized

synergies from

Integris acquisition

Source: Company reports

Notes:

1 Calculated as tax-effected FIFO EBIT/average invested capital; see addendum for detailed assumptions and reconciliation to GAAP results

2 Includes A.M. Castle, Central Steel & Wire, Earle M. Jorgensen, Gibraltar Industries, Olympic Steel, Metals USA, Novamerican, Reliance Steel & Aluminum,

Russel Metals, Samuel Manu-Tech, Shiloh Industries, Steel Technologies and Worthington Industries

Consolidated over 20 locations

Centralized shared services (credit, IT, accounting,

purchasing, HR)

Increased local accountability for customer service

Strategic sourcing

Created backbone for future acquisitions—J&F

Steel (2004), Integris Metals (2005) and Lancaster

Steel (2006)

Supplier leverage

Reduced overhead

Consolidated 5 service

centers

Return on Invested Capital

(LIFO companies adjusted to FIFO)

Sale of Inland Steel

Acquired Thypin Steel,

Washington Specialty Metals

and Cardinal Metals

Ryerson

Peers²

Ryerson

Trendline

6.3

9.7

11.9

12.2

15.1

10.0

15.8

13.1

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

16.0

18.0

10-Year

5-Year

3-Year

1-Year

Average

Ryerson

Peers²

10.0

12.5

15.0

17.5

20.0

22.5

25.0

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

Ryerson

Peer Average

21.9

Average

19.2

Carbon

Flat Rolled

30%

Stainless and

Aluminum

25%

Bars,

Tubing and

Structuring

20%

Fabrication and

Carbon Plate

20%

Other

Carbon

Flat Rolled

25%

Stainless and

Aluminum

52%

Bars,

Tubing and

Structuring

Fabrication and

Carbon Plate

Other

Ryerson’s Changing Product Mix

Sales

increase

over

100%

through

organic

growth

and

strategic

acquisitions;

stainless and aluminum sales have grown to approximately 52% of sales

1998 Sales by Product

$2,783mm

2006 Sales by Product

$5,909mm

FIFO Gross Profit Margin vs Peers

Gross margins do not provide the most accurate comparison of Ryerson

to its peers due to differences in product mix and customer type

Nickel surcharge on Ryerson’s stainless products depresses margins as

a percentage of sales compared to peers with less stainless sales since

there is no markup on the surcharge

Ryerson’s reported gross profit has grown from $134 per ton in 2002 to

$261 per ton in 2006

Notes:

1 Adjusted for impact of LIFO and extraordinary and non-recurring items; see addendum for detailed assumptions and reconciliation to GAAP results

3.2

3.4

3.6

3.8

4.0

4.2

4.4

4.6

4.8

5.0

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

Ryerson

MSCI

3.8

Average

3.6

Inventory Management

On average, Ryerson’s inventory turnover has been consistently higher than the

Metals Service Center Institute’s reported turns

Note:

1 Calculated as cost of goods sold (adjusted for LIFO impact) divided by average inventory over the period (adjusted for LIFO reserve) for Ryerson; MSCI inventory turns calculated as shipments divided by average inventory over period; see

addendum for detailed assumptions and reconciliation to GAAP results

(18)

(30)

(20)

296

463

(54)

(22)

349

506

862

(71)

(100)

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

LIFO

FIFO

Ryerson LIFO Overview

Discussion

Ryerson Cumulative EBIT

Under Last-In First-Out ("LIFO") the most recently

purchased inventory is costed against sales first

In any given period, there will be a difference

between COGS calculated on a LIFO basis versus

COGS calculated on a FIFO basis—this difference can

be positive (LIFO credit) or negative (LIFO charge)

and is the income statement impact of LIFO

In periods of rising prices, a LIFO company would

experience higher COGS and lower operating profit

resulting in income tax benefits

Ryerson also reports a “LIFO reserve”, which is the

cumulative impact of using LIFO in valuing its

inventory versus replacement costs. Replacement

cost is calculated using the current cost for each

product category in inventory at the end of the

reporting period

•

LIFO reserve at December 31, 2006 of $504

million

Source: Company reports

Note:

1 Reconciliation to GAAP results located in addendum

Ryerson Structure

70 individual markets;

each has a separate

P&L

3 International JVs

Under-performing markets with

targeted savings of $30mm in

2007 (before restructuring

charges, if any)

Redundant facilities and

remaining IM integration –

$10mm

savings in 2007

Inventory turns –

achieve 5 turns

by year-end 2007

Operating efficiency

Organic growth

Acquisitions in fragmented

domestic business

Targeted international markets

poised for growth

Ryerson has opportunities to both improve performance in the

short run and achieve long-term profitable growth

Short-Term Improvements

Long-Term Profitable Growth

Performance differs by market

Inventory actions

New organization

•

New supply chain leadership and

staff in place

Better process management

•

Improved forecasting capability

•

Revised ordering parameters and

safety stock levels

Upgraded software tools

•

SAP provides better capabilities,

reporting and process

standardization

Improved communication

•

Internally on market conditions

•

With mills on shipment parameters

$50mm improvement achieved by

January 31, 2007

$100mm expected by end of 1Q07

5x by year-end 2007

899

1,052

1,103

1,083

1,046

1,007

800

850

900

950

1,000

1,050

1,100

1,150

Jun

Sept

Oct

Nov

Dec

Jan

1,250

1,350

1,450

1,550

1,650

1,750

1,850

Tons

Current Value of Inventory

2006

2007

Ryerson Structure

70 individual markets;

each has a separate

P&L

3 International JVs

Under-performing markets with

targeted savings of $30mm in

2007 (before restructuring

charges, if any)

Redundant facilities and

remaining IM integration –

$10mm savings in 2007

Inventory turns –

achieve 5 turns

by year-end 2007

Operating efficiency

Organic growth

Acquisitions in fragmented

domestic business

Targeted international markets

poised for growth

Ryerson has opportunities to both improve performance in the

short run and achieve long-term profitable growth

Short-Term Improvements

Long-Term Profitable Growth

Performance differs by market

Upgrade information systems with SAP

Consolidate 5 legacy platforms into one

Estimated $80 million project to be completed by year-end

2008

Estimated cost reductions alone should generate a high return

on the investment

Additional benefits:

•

Seamless link with customers and suppliers

•

More detailed and timely decision-making information

•

Facilitate sharing of inventory and pricing information among

service centers

Conversion process to date

•

21 service centers, including the largest and most complex are

complete

•

40% of all field employees

Organic growth

National Marketing Programs

Global Account Sales

Integrated national footprint servicing large, multi-location customers

through a single point of accountability

Targets customers consolidating suppliers

Currently about 20% of Ryerson’s revenue with opportunity to expand with

existing and new customers

New opportunities with multinational manufacturers

Aggressive

marketing

and brand

creation

•

Promotions

•

Targeted

vertical markets

•

Direct outbound

telesales

Leads to trial

•

Good experience

leads to

retention

•

Extensive

external and

internal metrics

Added 10,000 accounts and $200MM of revenue since 2004

•

Acquisition and joint venture strategy

Product/supply chain

Different

Same

Service center industry is fragmented and consolidating

“Add strength

to strength”

Highest overall

potential

Cross-selling

opportunities

“Buying a cash

flow”

Very risky

New markets

Completed 8

acquisitions since 1997

Won’t overpay

Priority on keeping

customers and key

employees

Capture integration

value

International JVs

Mexico

India

China

Collado Ryerson Mexico –

approximately $75MM of annual

revenue; 50/50 fabrication venture

Tata Ryerson India –

approximately $200MM of annual

revenue

50/50 venture

Indian metals distribution in its infancy

Expanded product line to include stainless and fabrication

VSC Ryerson China Limited –

approximately $150MM of

annual revenue; 40% stake with option to take majority

ownership in 3 years

Chinese metals market 4x size of U.S. market

Fragmented and growing service center industry

Expanding number of service centers and capabilities

Ryerson Structure

70 individual markets;

each has a separate

P&L

3 International JVs

Under-performing markets with

targeted savings of $30mm in

2007 (before restructuring

changes, if any)

Redundant facilities and

remaining IM integration –

$10mm savings in 2007

Inventory turns –

achieve 5 turns

by year-end 2007

Operating efficiency

Organic growth

Acquisitions in fragmented

domestic business

Targeted international markets

poised for growth

Ryerson has opportunities to both improve performance in the

short run and achieve long-term profitable growth

Short-Term Improvements

Long-Term Profitable Growth

Performance differs by market

Ryerson leadership development process

Internal Development

Comprehensive training

Early identification of high

potential managers

Rotational assignments

Mentoring

Educational opportunities and

additional external training

External Recruiting

Executives with specialized expertise

•

Supply chain management

•

Operations/lean manufacturing

•

Six Sigma

•

Marketing

•

Value-added processing

•

Divisional P&L management

•

Global account management

•

International M&A and

operations

Incentive compensation aligned with stockholders

Short-

and Long-Term Incentive Plans

Short-term incentive:

Annual incentive tied to OROOA (operating return on operating assets)

Target set by Compensation Committee

Corporate staff: Tied to corporate performance

Service center staff: Tied to individual service center

Long-term incentive:

Awards of performance share units

Tied to 4-year return on net assets (no payout if minimum thresholds

are not met)

Targets set by Compensation Committee relative to industry and

cyclical sector returns

Designed to pay for performance and create long-term value

Incentive pay represents over one-half of senior executives’

total

target compensation

Stock ownership guidelines

Board of Directors

40% of the Board has been newly elected in last four years

Ryerson’s Board members have a variety of backgrounds in core areas

relevant to operations, including complex multi-location service

businesses, finance, marketing, technology, M&A and International

Board has active operational and strategic focus

Compensation and Audit committees are entirely comprised of

independents

Incentive-based compensation system

Directors

are

accomplished

executives,

having

significant

public

board

and executive management experience

ISS governance rating of 98%

Industry Analysis Assumptions

Methodology:

•

Gross Margin excludes impact of Depreciation and Amortization (D&A); if a company does not break out D&A on the income

statement

(such

Ryerson

post

2002)

50%

D&A

allocated

Cost

Goods

Sold

and

50%

allocated

Operating

Expenses (unless allocation noted otherwise in filings)

•

ROIC is calculated as tax-effected FIFO EBIT (adjusted for tax-effected LIFO charge) plus earnings from equity in affiliates,

divided by the average invested capital over the period; invested capital is equal to total debt + minority interest +

shareholders’

equity (adjusted for tax-effected LIFO reserve)

•

Inventory Turns:

•

RYI and Peers: Cost of Goods Sold (adjusted for LIFO impact) divided by the average inventory over the period (adjusted

for LIFO reserve)

•

Metals

Service

Center

Institute

(MSCI):

annual

shipments

divided

average

inventory

over

the

period;

includes

and

Canada; includes aluminum data since 2001

Ryerson Peer Group includes: A.M. Castle, Central Steel & Wire, Gibraltar Industries, Olympic Steel, Metals USA, Novamerican,

Reliance Steel & Aluminum, Russel Metals, Samuel Manu-Tech, Shiloh Industries, Steel Technologies and Worthington Industries

•

Source of financials is company reports from SEC filings for public US companies, SEDAR for Canadian public companies,

Central Steel & Wire Report to Stockholders through most recent period available; last reporting period ending 12/31/06

(Ryerson), 11/30/06 (Novamerican and Worthington), 10/31/06 (Shiloh Industries), 6/30/06 (Earle M. Jorgensen), 12/31/05

(Central Steel & Wire) and 9/30/06 for all other peers

•

Ryerson’s 1997 and 1998 results exclude the Inland Steel Company operations which were sold in 1998

Certain adjustments made to reported results:

•

all

non-recurring

items

listed

the

income

statement;

35%

tax

rate

for

net

income

adjustment

used

•

equity in earnings of affiliates was excluded from gross and operating margins when broken out in the income statement

•

Ryerson adjustments which are not broken out on the Company's income statement: $9.6mm charge from a change in the

method of applying LIFO (2005) and a $16.2mm charge related to customer bankruptcy (2000)

•

Earle M. Jorgensen’s COLI income, which is treated as a credit against SG&A in its financials

•

All companies calendarized to December year end

($mm)

1997 ¹

1998 ¹

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

Operating Profit

133.1

96.0

97.1

(4.1)

(76.0)

(7.9)

3.4

99.7

232.9

183.9

Adjustments:

+ Gain on Sale of Asset

(8.9)

(5.9)

(1.8)

(1.3)

(10.9)

(5.6)

(6.6)

(21.6)

+ Pension Curtailment Gain

(8.9)

(4.4)

(21.0)

+ Restructuring & Plant Closure Costs

3.6

27.8

19.4

2.7

6.2

3.6

4.0

4.5

+ Charge Related to Customer Bankruptcy

16.2

+ Gain on Sale of Company Interests

3.3

(4.1)

+ Write-Off

1.0

+ Adjustment to Sale of IEMC

8.5

+ Charge from Change in Method of Applying LIFO

9.6

EBIT

115.3

90.1

98.9

35.5

(53.6)

(11.7)

9.6

97.7

218.9

166.8

+ Depreciation & Amortization

27.7

33.2

32.1

31.8

25.0

23.9

21.1

39.2

40.0

EBITDA

143.0

123.3

131.0

67.3

(21.8)

13.3

33.5

118.8

258.1

206.8

+ LIFO expense²

(12.7)

(41.4)

(8.0)

(22.0)

(31.3)

29.4

22.1

273.5

(62.0)

189.3

FIFO EBITDA

130.3

81.9

123.0

45.3

(53.1)

42.7

55.6

392.3

196.1

396.1

- Depreciation & Amortization

27.7

33.2

32.1

31.8

25.0

23.9

21.1

39.2

40.0

FIFO EBIT

102.6

48.7

90.9

13.5

(84.9)

17.7

31.7

371.2

156.9

356.1

Reconciliation of Certain Non-GAAP Items

Notes:

1 Excludes results of Inland Steel Company operations which were sold in 1998

2 1997–2005 LIFO expense assumed equal to change in LIFO reserve year-over-year

Source: Company reports; 2001-2005 results restated per 2005 10-K

($mm, unless otherwise noted)

1997 ¹

1998 ¹

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

Revenue

2,804.0

2,782.7

2,763.5

2,862.4

2,243.5

2,096.5

2,189.4

3,302.0

5,780.5

5,908.9

Cost of Goods Sold²

2,178.0

2,156.9

2,131.6

2,292.7

1,891.6

1,729.8

1,830.4

2,810.8

4,893.5

5,050.9

+ Depreciation & Amortization Embedded in COGS³

(12.0)

(10.6)

(19.6)

(20.0)

+ Charge from Change in Method of Applying LIFO

(9.6)

+ LIFO Expense/(Benefit)4

12.7

41.4

8.0

22.0

31.3

(29.4)

(22.1)

(273.5)

62.0

(189.3)

Adjusted FIFO Cost of Goods Sold

2,190.7

2,198.3

2,139.6

2,314.7

1,922.9

1,700.4

1,796.4

2,526.8

4,926.3

4,841.6

FIFO Gross Profit

613.3

584.4

623.9

547.7

320.6

396.1

393.1

775.3

854.2

1,067.3

FIFO Gross Profit Margin (%)

21.9

21.0

22.6

19.1

14.3

18.9

18.0

23.5

14.8

18.1

Inventory:

Inventory

425.7

500.6

543.1

567.9

409.5

493.9

501.1

606.9

834.3

1,128.6

+ LIFO Reserve

112.4

71.0

63.0

41.0

9.7

39.1

61.2

334.7

272.7

504.0

FIFO Inventory

538.1

571.6

606.1

608.9

419.2

533.0

562.3

941.6

1,107.0

1,632.6

FIFO Average Inventory

488.8

554.9

588.9

607.5

514.1

476.1

547.7

752.0

1,024.3

1,369.8

FIFO Inventory Turns (x)5

4.5

4.0

3.6

3.8

3.7

3.6

3.3

3.4

4.8

3.5

Reconciliation of Gross Margin and Inventory Turns

Notes:

1 Excludes results of Inland Steel Company operations which were sold in 1998

2 2001 and 2002 COGS adjusted by $69.8mm and $61.8mm, respectively, due to 2005 restatement

3 Assumed to be 50% of reported D&A

4 1997–2005 LIFO expense assumed equal to change in LIFO reserve year-over-year

5 Calculated

cost

goods

sold

(adjusted

for

LIFO

impact)

divided

the

average

inventory

over

the

period

(adjusted

for

LIFO

reserve)

Source: Company reports; 2001-2005 results restated per 2005 10-K

($mm, unless otherwise noted)

1997 ¹

1998 ¹

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

FIFO EBIT²

102.6

48.7

90.9

13.5

(84.9)

17.7

31.7

371.2

156.9

356.1

Tax-Effected FIFO EBIT³

66.7

31.7

59.1

8.8

(55.2)

11.5

20.6

241.3

102.0

231.5

Average Period Short-Term Debt

0.0

48.5

0.0

Average Period Current Portion of Long-Term Debt

4.2

3.2

0.0

71.3

0.0

176.1

Average Period Long-Term Debt

260.1

257.0

257.9

179.8

100.7

160.5

243.4

396.3

525.6

865.8

Average Period Minority Interest

58.7

29.4

Shareholders' Equity:

Shareholders' Equity

427.5

563.6

697.8

661.7

554.6

409.1

386.6

439.6

547.8

650.4

LIFO Reserve

112.4

71.0

63.0

41.0

9.7

39.1

61.2

334.7

272.7

504.0

+ Tax-Effected LIFO Reserve³

73.1

46.2

41.0

26.7

6.3

25.4

39.8

217.6

177.3

327.6

FIFO Shareholders' Equity

500.6

609.8

738.8

688.4

560.9

434.5

426.4

657.2

725.1

978.0

Average Period FIFO Shareholders' Equity

473.1

555.2

674.3

713.6

624.6

497.7

430.4

541.8

691.1

851.5

Average Period FIFO Invested Capital

796.1

874.0

961.5

1,013.1

845.0

658.2

673.8

938.0

1,392.8

1,893.4

FIFO Return on Invested Capital (%)

8.4

3.6

6.1

0.9

(6.5)

1.7

3.1

25.7

7.3

12.2

Reconciliation of Return on Invested Capital

Notes:

1 Excludes results of Inland Steel Company operations which were sold in 1998

2 Reconciliation located on page 37

3 Based on assumed 35% tax rate

Source: Company reports; 2001-2005 results restated per 2005 10-K

Business model

Profit drivers and impact

Profit drivers

Impacted by

Volume

(tonnage)

Manufacturing economy

2 types of customers

50%-60% OEMs—agreements

40%-50% transactional—spot pricing

Gross margins

(gross profit/ton)

Market conditions

Buy and sell negotiations

Selling prices

Material costs

Operating expenses

(operating

expense/ton)

Volume

60% fixed costs/40% variable

Labor productivity

Logistics and transportation

Inflation

Space utilization

Corporate overhead, incl. IT and legacy costs

Assets

(asset turns)

Working capital Inventory is the largest component

Service network

Hypothetical LIFO vs. FIFO-

Where is the value during a rising price environment?

ANSWER: SAME FUNDAMENTALLY

LIFO-

Lower income, higher reserve

FIFO-

Higher income, no reserve

Material

Cost

Material

Cost

Gross

Profit

LIFO Methodology

Period 1

Period 2

Period 1

Period 2

Material

Cost

Material

Cost

Gross

Profit

FIFO Methodology

800

200

400

1,000

1,200

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

+$200

Average Selling Price

800

1,000

200

1,000

1,200

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

Average Selling Price

+$0

LIFO Reserve $300

$500

Recent jumps in metal prices

Stainless and Aluminum

Source: Purchasing Magazine

*Spot prices include raw materials' surcharges starting in 1st Quarter 2001

Hot Rolled, Cold Rolled and Plate Prices

Source: Purchasing Magazine

*Spot prices include raw materials' surcharges starting in 1st Quarter 2001

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

4,500

0.7

0.9

1.1

1.3

1.5

1.7

1.9

2.1

Stainless

Aluminum

150

250

350

450

550

650

750

850

Hot Rolled

Cold Rolled

Carbon Plate