So maybe getting right into it, Vik, thanks so much for being here. Yeah, thanks for having. We start sort of, let's say, with the short-term. I think the Q4 results maybe seemed a little light on the outside, on the sort of top-line related metrics. I think you talked about China and the power tools and the sort of spacesuits business at ILC Dover as being some of the culprits. Maybe just sort of talk about each of those in turn, how you see them playing out this year. Yeah, sure. So why don't I maybe take a step back, and in terms of Q4, where organic orders were slightly negative, roughly negative 0.2%, negative 0.3%, in that ballpark. Worth noting that, obviously, with some of the headwinds we continue to see in China, if you were to exclude China, that would have actually been kind of low single-digit growth across the board. So I think in terms of the balance of the portfolio, broad strokes, we continue to see relative stability. Now, as far as 2025, we just provided guidance last week. On the organic side, we provided guidance of 1% to 3%, so midpoint of 2%. If I kind of go through the major regions, I think the way to probably think about that is the Americas playing towards the top end of that range, Europe probably playing in the bottom half of that range, and China is kind of expected to be flattish. It's probably the best way to kind of tee it up. It's worth noting that a couple of the areas that we have kind of highlighted quite a few times, it's the areas that Vicente, myself, and others have spent quite a bit of time on, not only on, but visiting and focusing on are some of these under-penetrated markets that we've talked about quite a bit. For us, that would be Latin America, India, Middle East, and what we'll call Southeast Asia. These are obviously areas that we have a meaningful presence, but I think our share, we would say, is under-penetrated compared to what the kind of share we command in the more mature markets. So we've spent a considerable amount of time, whether it be investments in new facilities, which we've put new facilities into both Brazil and India, or I'd say enhancing kind of our commercial presence, which has happened everywhere, but especially in places like Southeast Asia. We probably expect slightly better growth in those areas. Now, to your specific question for kind of the three areas that we called out specifically in Q4, I mentioned China, kind of flattish. I think we'll probably talk about China a little bit more here, but China has kind of been moving sideways for us, is probably the best way to say it. I wouldn't say improving, but not obviously declining either. Important to note that in the back half of 2024, book-to-bill in China actually was slightly above one. So again, still moving sideways, but at least encouraging that you saw a little momentum there. In terms of the power tools business, again, I would probably characterize it as kind of probably growth expectations somewhere around what I said for Europe, probably on the lower half of that kind of 1%-3% range. And then specifically on ILC Dover, I'll kind of hit the whole ILC Dover just to kind of be complete. More than 75% of the business now is in the kind of life sciences realm. And that business in Q4 grew double digits, which we actually think is quite healthy and screens nicely compared to, I'd say, the broader life sciences space. In 2025, similar high single-digit to low double-digit type growth expectations for the life sciences. And then on the aerospace and defense side, and I'm sure we'll talk about this a little bit more, but that one is kind of, I would say, moving sideways is probably the best way to say it. We've obviously talked about the next generation spacesuit program that kind of came out of the numbers last year. And probably the best way to think about that is that's kind of moving sideways at this point in time. Generally speaking, most of the contracts in that business are longer term in nature, and so you don't tend to see a lot of considerable movement in that respect. That's great, and maybe sort of dial into China a little bit. I think it's kind of a low double-digit share of your revenue base now. Kind of, what's the any change in strategy there because of sort of medium-term growth expectations? And do you think there's any kind of share loss going on with local rivals or something, or it's just a very soft market? Yeah, I would actually attribute it much more to the market. We actually think we're doing. I say the team, I think, is doing an admirable job in what has obviously been a tough operating environment. So we did say that for China for the full year, we were down about mid-teens in terms of revenue. Actually, given the environment out there, we actually think that's pretty good given the situation that's been going on in China in totality. Specifically on the ITS side, I think when you actually peel the onion back a little bit, you're actually seeing nice pockets of opportunity in some of those under-penetrated products, products that haven't been historically in China, just given the construct of our business. So that would be things like blower, vacuum, air treatment, things of that nature. Obviously, the compressor side is still the biggest piece, and that's the area that obviously has seen the comparative headwinds that's kind of masking some of that underlying pockets of opportunity. As far as the question about do you structurally do something different or de-emphasize or anything like that, I think the simple answer is no. To your point, China historically has been a mid-teens or a little bit higher in terms of percentage of revenue. It's now closer to low double digits, 10%, 11%, roughly speaking. Obviously, that's a consequence of some of the declines we saw last year, but also the growth and the balance of the business as well as M&A. But China still remains a healthy margin business. It's one that I think we continue to show good momentum in terms of innovation. I think the teams are focused on what we say, kind of controlling what they can control. We have taken prudent cost actions there. You saw cost actions both at the beginning of 2024 as well as towards the end of 2024 to continue to remain, I'd say, quality of earnings focused, and to the point, things are continuing to move sideways now, but we'll kind of watch and see what kind of happens for the balance of the year, but as I said earlier, this is an area that we're kind of expecting flattish growth right now, so we're not expecting any kind of what I would say meaningful second half recovery or anything of this nature at this point in time. Thank you. And then on the sort of ITS businesses outside China, how is the demand environment there? Is that sort of fairly stable? I think a bunch of companies have tried to talk about green shoots and that kind of thing, but it's hard to tell. Is it easy comps? Is it pre-buy? What's really happening? Yeah, I'd say probably the best way to say it is relatively stable. Like I said, in Q4, when you take China out of the equation, the organic orders was actually up slow single digits. I think for us, it kind of speaks to kind of the economic growth engine that we run, where we do see a good balance between organic and inorganic growth. And for us, I think this is continuing to be a differentiator. You obviously have seen the strong margin performance, good cash generation, things of that nature. But I think 2024 was a great example in terms of Americas clearly was probably the leader of the pack in terms of growth. EMEA was kind of in the middle, and we've talked about China specifically. I'm not sure I expect to see anything dramatically different as we kind of move through the balance of 2025. And I think for us, the exciting thing here is we continue to add differentiated technologies through M&A. In 2024, we did 18 M&A transactions, so ILC Dover and 17 others, obviously split between the two segments. And we're already off to, I'd say, a pretty healthy start. I know we'll talk about M&A here in a little bit, but we've already announced a few deals thus far in 2025, continue to have a very healthy funnel. And as of our earnings, which was last Friday, we announced that we have seven LOIs, of which a good chunk is sitting in ITS. So I think for us, we're going to continue to focus on enhancing the portfolio. We obviously are focused on organic growth, and I'd say the requisite investments, particularly in some of those under-penetrated markets, to drive, I'd say, outpaced growth in some of those pockets. But I think M&A is going to continue to augment that strategy. That's great. And then on the sort of order patterns at ITS, as you said there, I think a lot of project-type business that pushed up the orders a couple of years ago. You had the tough comps kind of ever since. Should we think about orders and sales moving fairly concurrently now that that wave of large projects may be behind us? Yeah, I mean, I wouldn't point to anything being dramatically different. So as we talk about kind of some of the leading indicators that we look at, we talk pretty explicitly about things marketing qualified leads or MQLs, which were still up double digits both for the year as well as in Q4. I think for us, that kind of correlates a little bit to more of the short medium cycle type technology. And I think it speaks to the fact that there is still active demand out there. And we're showing interest in our product. And so yes, we would acknowledge that the funnel is quite full. You continue to see this bit of elongation as some of the decision-making to actually put a PO or get to the finish line on an order is still kind of existent. I wouldn't say anything changed dramatically on that end, but I think the fact that the MQL activity continues is a good leading indicator. On the longer side, these would be the long-cycle projects. We've been talking quite a bit through the course of 2024 about good customer conversations, good discussions. The funnel is quite full. Decision-making process for a number of reasons with EPCs and whatnot continues to kind of extend. I think that was, frankly, still evident in Q4. I think the good news is those conversations have continued to be quite strong and healthy here as we've moved into 2025, and those projects really aren't disappearing per se from the funnel. So I think you put that all together, and when you think about the fact that you have the aftermarket side of our business, which is about 40% of the revenue in ITS, that behaves a little bit more, I'd say, book-to-ship classically. And then you have the balance, which is about 70-75% short medium cycle, 25% longer cycle. I don't think that mix is going to change dramatically. And as such, I would expect to see a comparable cadence of orders converting to revenue as you've seen historically. Great. And when we think about some of the drivers for the compressor business on the demand side, I think people are sort of torn between the energy price element, and high energy prices kind of force customers to maybe accelerate their replacement cycle of compressors because of the share of energy in a plant they consume. But then there's also just the broad aspect of kind of industrial production, PMIs, loose sort of industrial animal spirits. So when you think about compressor demand, and particularly, I guess, the 60% that's not aftermarket, how would you sort of weight or think about the relevance of each of those two drivers? Sure. I mean, I think obviously PMIs or industrial production are some proxy of kind of, I would say, industrial health. Clearly, that's at least a factor. But what I would really point to is you've seen we've been able to outperform those leading indicators over the last few years. Clearly, I think when you think about compression technology, sustainability, energy efficiency, digitization are probably three of the main key themes. And so as you think over a long-term basis, and you said it, when you think about a compressor that's consuming up to 30% of the energy in a facility, a blower that's consuming up to 60% of the energy in a wastewater treatment facility, obviously at higher energy prices, maybe that decision-making becomes even more evident. But even at current energy prices, with the efficiency levels that you can get from new machines, some of the upgrades, you can still see paybacks that are under two years, numbers of that nature. And when you think about capital being spent by your customers, generally speaking, those highest return projects are going to rise to the top of the list. And so I don't think that changes the thought process, broad strokes, in terms of how customers are thinking. We're looking for biggest returns, highest efficiency. How can they save money? How can they get that ROI and that payback? And generally speaking, things like a compressor, a blower, a vacuum tends to rise up that list. I think you mentioned for us, the other piece that we have been kind of hyper-focused on, and it's probably the single biggest organic growth initiative across the entire enterprise, is recurring revenue. So how do we continue to get better attachment, more service offerings, and that kind of ongoing stickiness with our customer base? And I think we're really pleased with the momentum we saw in 2024, the kind of the first full year in our recurring revenue, kind of, I'd say, kind of global total company initiative. We started the year kind of coming into the year at $200 million. Pleased to say that we kind of eclipsed $300 million for the full year of 2024. I think we're well on our way in that context of kind of the ramp we expected to see, but really on that journey to $1 billion of recurring revenue by 2027. For us, I think that's a piece that can continue to drive not just outsized or outpaced kind of growth on the aftermarket and recurring revenue side, but as we've talked about, it comes with pretty good margins. You've seen that starting to kind of manifest itself in ITS. And on that recurring point that you mentioned, I suppose, is that still built around the sort of Care package within compressors, or is there a broader push, say, in PST around recurring revenue? I know their share of aftermarket's lower. Yeah. So I think when you look historically, and we kind of had that $200 million kind of baseline or approximately $200 million coming in out of 2023, without question, the single biggest component of that was the compressor side in kind of the U.S. in the legacy Ingersoll Rand portfolio. That's really where the Care model, as you mentioned, kind of had its roots. And there were obviously pockets of, but I think 2024, that's kind of why we call it the ramp-up year, really adopting the global model, not just for recurring revenue, but for Care across the organization. And so that means the legacy Gardner Denver portfolio, Europe, Asia, Latin America. And then I would also say targeted aspects of PST. At the end of the day, PST, there's a good chunk of that portfolio that is pumps, rotating equipment. It kind of lends itself to having a Care-like model in certain places, and so as we exit 2024 here into 2025, what I would say is I'd say the model has largely been adapted kind of where we think it should be. Without question, clearly, compressors in the U.S. is still the biggest piece of that equation, and I think it will always still be the biggest piece, but I think we're seeing nice growth from minimal baselines in other parts, and then as far as the offering set, Care and Care-like contracts clearly are probably the biggest piece. They're going to continue to be the biggest piece. But I think we're starting to see good inroads on things like the air quality testing as well as the Ecoplant platform, which now Ecoplant, which is the kind of software technology platform that kind of can dynamically tune compressors remotely through kind of a machine learning sensor kind of algorithm, that has now started to actually be baked into our Care offering set, such that when a sales guy goes and tries to sell Care to a customer, they can actually sell all the offerings inclusive of Care as opposed to doing them one by one by one over different times. So I think we're actually getting not only just broader traction, but quite frankly, a bit smarter on how to sell the full portfolio. That sort of $1 billion revenue goal for 2027, can you get there organically, or you need some M&A the next couple of years to hit it? I think the intent is largely through organic. I won't say that M&A in the context of, think about, for example, there have been some of our acquisitions that have been channel. And channel, at the end of the day, a lot of it is acquiring a distribution network, service techs, things like that, where you can kind of, I'd say, push the Care model even further. So there will be some component of that that augments the strategy. But again, I would say organically is expected to be the majority of the growth. Perfect. And then on ILC Dover, you touched on it a bit. You've got Q3 of that, I guess, I think $400 million sales base is life sciences at ILC Dover. The non-life sciences portion, sort of how do we think about that playing out this year? The aerospace and defense piece? Yeah. Yeah. So yeah, just to kind of take a step back, maybe I'll kind of give the broad strokes on ILC Dover in general. So at the time of the acquisition, we said it was approximately $400 million. You were completely right. About 75% life sciences, about 25% was the aerospace and defense side. Now, obviously, on the aerospace and defense side, that's where we saw the next-gen kind of spacesuit kind of being descoped by our customer, and it's kind of just kind of fully come out of the run rate. That was about a $50 million number that kind of got reset mid-last year. So when you kind of do that math, obviously, those percentages have shifted a little bit. Obviously, life sciences is more than 75% now. As we think about kind of reiterating some of the comments here, when we think about 2025, one, the life sciences piece, we expect to still see kind of that high single-digit to low double-digit kind of growth. Aerospace and defense, as we mentioned, it kind of is moving sideways, obviously off a lower base, just given that kind of reset you've seen. We've always kind of viewed this business as having a bit of optionality in the context of kind of being part of the acquisition. I think Vicente mentioned on our earnings call, it's not somewhere we're terribly focused on, for example, putting M&A capital to work or anything like that. It is worth noting that we did mention in our Q4 earnings that we did sign the agreement for about $150 million plus for the legacy spacesuit contract. So encouraged to see that kind of get over the finish line. It is worth noting, though, not only was that included in guidance, but that's always been historically part of the revenue base off that. So it doesn't really change the equation in terms of, I'd say, the future growth or kind of future revenue expectations, but good to obviously have it there. Maybe to kind of take it to the bottom line side and kind of on the margins, because obviously that was a big topic for Q4. I think a couple of things to note. One, as you would expect with any new acquisition, we continue to invest in terms of the structure of the business. So I think when we acquired ILC Dover, it was a bit more of a matrix organization. We've now set up kind of three distinct P&Ls, three leaders, kind of reorganized the team, put the requisite investments in there. We've also been investing in areas like IRX, demand gen. Quite frankly, a lot of the factors that you see in the rest of the business that we think will lend itself to outpaced organic growth, particularly in that life sciences business. You couple that with, quite frankly, some of the reset and the kind of lower volumes you've seen on the aerospace side. I would say margins are a little bit lower than what you've historically seen, and you kind of saw that a little bit playing itself out in Q4. I think as we go forward, though, as we continue the integration, you start to see the synergies. Remember, we've only owned the asset for about six months or seven months. We have an expectation that you can continue to see, I'd say, synergies take hold and that margin profile kind of improve over time here. It's not terribly different than Seepex, if you remember. Seepex is the acquisition, another sizable asset we did in the PST segment back in 2021. Healthy margin, different technology really fit the core, 40% plus gross margins, but it was about a 15% EBITDA margin business at the time of acquisition, and we said yes, while it might be slightly dilutive off the bat, we see a runway to getting to fleet average margins by year three. We actually have now passed year three, and happy to say that Seepex is playing right at PST fleet average margins around 30%. So we've kind of been through this before. We kind of know how to execute and operate this, and I think it's just a matter of time and execution. On the overall sort of margin front for total Ingersoll, I think you're starting out in the sort of 27% range right now, moves up a few hundred points through the year. What's the sort of, what's the main driver there? How important is ILC Dover kind of as that margin contributor? Yeah, so I'd probably say it's the execution you would expect. So first and foremost, our business does tend to see a little bit of seasonality. I think the 2025 guide is no different in terms of both the revenue and the, what I would call, earnings weighting first half or second half. First half does tend to be a little bit stronger than the second half for just the long cycle projects and some of the normal seasonality. But when I think about the biggest drivers, I think it's going to be a couple of things. One, we do expect to be price-cost positive on a quarterly and annual basis, and obviously that'll ramp as the year goes on as the seasonality takes hold. Two, kind of our second year of kind of the recurring revenue initiatives continuing to take hold. Three, I'd say the normal course of productivity and things of that nature that you would expect across the organization given the size. And then without question, I would say the M&A integration. One would be ILC Dover, which we would expect to see sequential improvement on a year-over-year basis. Remember, it still is a bit of a headwind on a year-over-year comp through the first five, six months of the year. We bought it in June of last year, so that comp kind of anniversaries itself in the back half of the year. And then the other piece would be, like I said, we did 18 acquisitions last year. We've already done a handful this year. And so ILC Dover aside for a second, there's always this continuous, what I would say, integration and a little bit of a tailwind as we do the integration on M&A and the synergies we'd expect. So you put those all together, I would actually say that that'll be the biggest catalyst here. Nothing dramatically different than what you've seen. Obviously, 2024, you saw a slightly different algorithm, and a lot of that was just driven by some of the Q4 headwinds we saw that we've spoken about, which kind of created a little bit more compression point to point from the beginning of the year to the end of the year than you would normally see. Perfect. And if we look at the PST segment, I think ITS has had very, very good margin performance the last several years. PST operating margins last year were kind of levels despite obviously a big increase in revenue. I guess, do you find that concerning first off? And then secondly, that kind of mid-30s margin goal for that division, how imminent or not does that look today? Yeah, I mean, the way I would probably describe it is we know there's still a meaningful opportunity on the PST side. It's probably the simplest way to say it. So if you go back to 2020 versus now, you've seen nice revenue growth. I'd say it's been a healthy amount of M&A in balance with the organic side. And maybe a couple of things to note here, I think in terms of the factors that have kind of led to where we are. First and foremost, as I mentioned, some of the M&A, probably the most sizable asset before ILC Dover was Seepex, which, as I mentioned, was kind of we knew and acknowledged kind of off the bat going to be a little bit dilutive, but over a three-year timeframe, we'll be back to fleet average margins. That's exactly where we are. So I think one, that kind of thesis has played itself out nicely. I think in the context of thinking about some of the components of the business between those two times, it's probably worth noting that 2020 and 2021, during the kind of the COVID environment, probably the biggest beneficiary of COVID in our entire portfolio was the legacy Ingersoll Rand medical business when making products that oxygen concentration and things of that nature. And so that business obviously saw a nice pickup. It's a business that plays above fleet average margins and obviously was, I would say, helping the margin profile then. Obviously, it's worth noting that 2022, 2023 into this year, into last year, 2023, 2024 particularly, it's a business that obviously then has seen the kind of the inverse side and has seen the biggest headwinds comparatively speaking. We've talked probably the last six to eight quarters about the comps and things like that. So I think your point is completely valid, but I would also say I think the fact that the business in general has been able to maintain around that 30% EBITDA margins despite probably your biggest headwind being on the IR medical side with not insignificant decrementals. I think the team has really kind of fought it out to kind of continue to maintain that 30% EBITDA margin profile. Now as we look forward, kind of some of the same factors, the price cost, a little bit of recurring revenue opportunity. Quite frankly, now the biggest lift is now obviously clearly that synergy profile and that integration and what we expect to see on the ILC Dover side of the equation, in addition to what I would say just nominal growth expectations. That equation for us, not to mention the productivity side, which I think coming into this year, we kind of mentioned historically when we did the merger. Clearly, the ITS business with the compressor platforms, the synergies, it was a little bit more ITS weighted, and as such, PST was maybe a little slower to get started on things like IRX and some of the productivity i2V. Happy to say that I think entering this year, I think the productivity funnel is probably as healthy as we've seen on the PST side, which I think should continue to be a tailwind as we look kind of forward over the next few years, so I think for us, it's an execution. I think we have all the levers within our control to be able to kind of get to those levels that you've mentioned. Now it's a matter of execution and I'd say some nominal growth expectations going forward. Perfect, and then future acquisitions, I suppose, if we think about the last five years since the RMT, it's sort of 50-something deals in 50-something months with that big one of ILC Dover last year. Is that kind of how we should think about M&A the next 12-18 months? Like you do this deal per month and then, I don't know, some probability of a larger one every now and again? Yeah, I think the model is pretty sound, as you said. I think if we look at 2025, to your point, I think that Matthew can keep me on. I think the tally is actually over 60 now. So we're at over 60 in whatever it is, almost 60 months. So somehow that's a deal per month average. I think in terms of 2025, yeah, I think the model will look very similar to what you've seen historically. I wouldn't expect to see an ILC Dover size transaction. Think of more what I would call down the middle of the fairway bolt-ons. We announced three in our earnings call last week, Toshniwal, Excelsior, and SSI. All three of them, I would say, very core or close adjacency technologies right down the middle of the fairway in terms of kind of the size. And it should also be mentioned very prudent pre-synergy adjusted EBITDA purchase multiples, low double-digit. I think the return profile and the opportunity to take a couple turns out, three to four turns out by year three, very much same model you've seen. And in terms of the health of the funnel going forward, 200-plus companies in the funnel, seven more under LOI as we sit here right now. So I think the expectation to be able to do a comparable amount of transactions is very much the case. We've stated that we expect to do four to five hundred basis points of annualized inorganic revenue in the year, which is very consistent with what you've seen historically. So I don't think anything is really expected to change in terms of the M&A front. And last quick one, PST, we've talked about margins, talked about acquisitions a bit broadly. Should we think that because you've got that mid-30s goal, acquisitions now are not necessarily like your playbook where it makes sense? Yeah, I mean, I think without question, we obviously want to see transactions that our fleet margins are better off the bat if possible. Now, that being said, differentiated technology, it hits our financial criteria and ones that we can see a meaningful runway to improving over time. We're not going to shy away from assets like that. I think ultimately speaking, that will improve the overall health of the portfolio. And as we've mentioned, particularly in PST where you have life sciences now as well, first and foremost, we're going to continue to be disciplined. We're going to continue to do acquisitions across the full spectrum ITS, kind of I'd say the core pump technologies within PST as well as life sciences. So don't think now that all of our M&A will be diverted to one area or another. But I think the opportunity to continue to drive acquisitions that are in sustainable high growth end markets that we think can kind of continue to drive the growth algorithm up absolutely is going to be a focus, and for us, clearly ones that we expect to be able to take over that fleet average over time. Perfect. And with that, I think we'll switch to audience response questions, please. So the first one, do you currently own Ingersoll? So generally no. Secondly, what's the sort of overall bias or perspective towards Ingersoll at present? So sort of neutral to positive. This one's around sort of EPS growth against the US multi-industry average. Next question is really around cash. So almost all bolts on M&A. The fifth question is around the sort of PE multiple Ingersoll should trade at. So sort of market multiple. And then the last question is around kind of why doesn't Ingersoll deserve say a premium to the S&P? So biggest issue core growth. But with that, thanks so much, Vic, for joining us. Julian, thank you. It's a pleasure. Thanks.