Here we go. I'm Joe O'Dea. I lead the multis team at Wells Fargo. We are very pleased to continue the discussions with Ingersoll Rand and Vik Kini, who is the CFO of the company. Vik, thank you very much for being with us today... Yeah, thanks for having us. We're going to go right into the Q&A. Let's start on short cycle demand side of things. Yeah, of course. No shortage of interest in that. When we look at PMI in the U.S., we look at durable goods orders, the general tone actually from this conference, short cycle enthusiasm remains, and there's support behind the data trends. I think one of the key focus questions we get is we do see a lag between that organic growth kicking into gear at Ingersoll relative to, say, the general short cycle group and multi-industry. Just dig into that a little bit for us in terms of what you're seeing in the trends, how you think about that lag. For sure. Yeah, I think if you think about, take them in pieces here. First and foremost, the short cycle side, the momentum, things of that nature. I think as we expressed in our Q1 call, whether it was in the ITS side or the PST side, definitely see trends getting better there, similar to what you said. I think in terms of where you've seen, kind of whether it be the historical, to use your words, a couple of 100 basis points under performance, things of that nature, I think that comes to two things. One, I think the geographic kind of dispersion of the company, kind of our geographic exposures, as well as the fact that you do have other aspects of the business on the long cycle side and stuff like that can create some noise. As an example, over the last few years, I think not surprisingly, we've talked about, whether last year, some of that uncertainty that existed in North America because of the tariffs. The year before that, some of the reset in the China market. We had some, I'd say, specific nuances with our business with regards to some of the non-repeat of businesses like the EV battery business in China and some of the RNG exposure in the U.S., which I think created a little bit of an overhang on some of those numbers. Right. I think when we look at some of the short cycle momentum right now, I think, we're excited about some of the, I'd say, normalization of the trends that we've been seeing, particularly compared to the prior years. I think when you look historically and you put some of that noise behind us, the good news is it's that. It is behind us. We have not walked into 2026 with another $100 million headwind or anything like that. The China business has kind of reset. North America, we've talked about. Europe has actually probably been our most stable region over the last few years, and I don't think anything's dramatically changed on that front. I think the good news here is it's setting up for a better backdrop on a go-forward basis. The one thing we did mention in Q1 is that we do have, roughly speaking, 20%-25% of our original equipment business is longer cycle in nature. I think the positive on that is that the longer cycle funnels continue to remain relatively healthy. In Q1, we did see some of the noise from the Middle East that were a couple of discrete projects. The good news is we already saw one of those projects click through in April. A lot of that is just really more so timing based. I think on the long cycle side, yes, there's always going to be some degree of timing in terms of when those click through to orders. I think the good news is the funnels themselves continue to remain relatively healthy. We don't see cancellations or things of that nature. It's really much more just a timing nuance, but that's why we still remain encouraged that long cycle will click through and, with a better macro backdrop, hopefully that should set up for a better growth algorithm as we think forward. Do you have any sort of rule of thumb when you think about the short cycle versus long cycle if you were to focus on ITS in particular, but that timing lag between? Yeah. We'll start to see it here in the shorter cycle stuff... Sure. ... Before it has. Yeah. Maybe to set the stage here on ITS. Roughly speaking, I think it's 37%, 38%, so we'll say roughly 40% is aftermarket, which is obviously much more correlated to utilization and things of that nature of the equipment. When you look at the original equipment, roughly speaking, 20%-25% is long cycle. That leaves around 75% as short to medium cycle. When you think about the dynamics between the two, to keep it fairly simple, the short to medium cycle order to shipment, it's a little bit contingent on the product and the region, but you're anywhere from 30- 90 days. In that 60-day timeframe on average. On the longer cycle side, the longer cycle side for us are much more we call kind of the engineer to order kind of systems or packages. You're looking at things that typically have a price tag that's at least, roughly speaking, half a million dollars, but typically seven-figure price tag and higher. The order to shipment is typically anywhere from 6 to 18 months. It can take some time to obviously get from the funnel to an order, and then order to actual full shipment and full factory acceptance testing and everything with the customers can be anywhere from a year to a year and a half. There is a bit of a duality there. That's also typically why, for example, in the first half of most calendar years, you see a book-to-bill above one that's more indicative of some of those longer cycle projects being booked in the first half, and then they revenue more so through the second half of the year. When you think of the complexion of accelerating growth, aftermarket, short cycle, longer cycle, is the idea that aftermarket has been steady for a while, or are your customers going to be using facilities more as we go through this? Yeah, I think the aftermarket historically is a little bit of a better growth, all things held equal, dollar for dollar. I think it also speaks to the fact that on the aftermarket side, one of our single biggest organic growth initiatives, which you've heard us talk about quite explicitly, is the recurring revenue side. That's what's squarely in that kind of bucket and probably has been, all things held equal, probably the single best growth outlet from a total company perspective in terms of a unique initiative or things of that nature. Yes, I think typically speaking, you see that short cycle, kind of the beast that comes back a little bit quicker. The long cycle kind of has its dynamic, and then the aftermarket is kind of largely following that compressor or blower pump utilization. Yep. You touched on it a little bit with Europe and some stable trends there, that typically is another area of focus as people think about the organic growth and a little bit more China exposure than average multi, a little bit more Europe exposure. Just touch on those regions a little bit... Yeah. ... What you're seeing in the demand trends. For sure. Maybe just to set the stage here. Americas for us is about half of our revenue base, and that's largely U.S. centric, not exclusively, but U.S. obviously being the biggest piece. Interestingly enough, Europe is about a thirdExcuse me. Then Asia Pacific will be about 15%. Of that 15%, about 10%, 11% is China. Just to set the stage here. Interestingly enough, very comparable trends between our ITS and our Precision Technologies business. Within the PST segment, the Precision Technologies, the niche pump business, very similar revenue exposure. You don't see a dramatic shift between the two. They actually kind of mimic each other very well in that respect. As far as China, kind of to set the stage there, you're right. Obviously, that business has kind of reset a little bit from where we were probably two to three years ago. That business, China, was probably closer to 15% of total company revenue. It's reset to lower double digits, about 11%. I think the good news here is that kind of reset is largely there, right? That kind of happened over the course of the last few years. In fact, as we sit here today, I think in our first quarter earnings, we actually tied that China, through the lens of ITS, actually, I think it's shown its third quarter of organic orders momentum. Yes, that's off of a little bit of a lower baseline, but I think it speaks to some of the nimbleness of the team and what they're doing, because that business in China historically has been largely compressor centric. It's largely from the legacy Ingersoll Rand side. Clearly, that business won't show organic momentum without at least some contribution from the compressor side. It's still the largest piece. That's relatively stable at this point in time. Where you're seeing some of the pockets of growth opportunities are in areas like blower and vacuum and some of the localization of M&A. Blower vacuum technologies that really came from Gardner Denver, that that market really didn't have as much access to, now leveraging that Ingersoll Rand channel, you're seeing better traction. Same thing on the M&A front. As we've done now close to 80 bolt-on transactions since the merger. Those that are, I'd say, pertinent to the ITS side and have applicability in China, that team has probably been the poster child in terms of localizing for the local market. I think that speaks to what's going on in China. Yes, you've obviously seen some headwinds over the last few years, but I think we're encouraged by the fact that that team is showing growth in what is a tough operating environment. On the European side, the way I would probably characterize it is we've seen relative stability in the Western European front. Obviously, not all components of Western Europe are made equal. Clearly, the Central Europe, Germany piece has been a little bit slower treading. Germany, not frankly our biggest market. We're much more U.K., France, Mediterranean, Spain, areas of that nature, which have comparatively been a little bit healthier. I think as we sit here right now, I think stability is probably the right word to say. Still encouraged by what we're seeing there. We do have our India business, which is kind of part of our, we run it with Europe. India, smaller business, but with probably our single best growth region of the total company. Completely acknowledge that, yeah, what you're saying in terms of Europe and China, I think the China comp growth headwinds are largely behind us. We're encouraged by at least what we're seeing, a little more stabilization now. Europe has been relatively stable, that's kind of what we're still seeing right now. And then, related to price points, you talked about the longer cycle. You can do half a million. A lot of seven-figure price points. When you think about the shorter cycle side of things, just any color on the price points within that percentage of mix to understand, are you still seeing levels where customers might hesitate a little bit, waiting for firm confidence before moving forward with stuff? I mean, listen, I think there's always going to be some sense of that. I think, would I parse out price points between 10-20 or 30-40 or 50? No, I wouldn't delineate in that respect. I think when it comes to the short to medium cycle side, yes, price is always going to be a factor. At the end of the day, customers are paying for quality, reliability, energy efficiency, which is really what our products bring to bear. I would tell you, as long as you can have the innovation, the reliability, the lead times that match, you can generally get the price, hopefully, that you're kind of looking for. Nothing is dramatically different on that front. What I would say on the pricing front right now is that, not surprisingly, you're getting past a lot of the tariff noise that happened in 2025. You're lapping a lot of those pricing actions that were taken last year, you're getting much more into what I would consider to be a bit more of the normal pricing environment as we sit here right now, which is kind of returning back to that 1%-2% kind of standard. That's typically what you see in this business. That's where we're kind of migrating back towards. Nothing is dramatically different on that front. Obviously, China is a little bit of a tougher pricing environment, all things held equal. Other than that, North America and Europe tend to be operating as you would expect. Mm-hmm. Let's move to the price cost side of things. Yeah. If you have a question at any point, just raise your hand and I'll get to you. On the 232 stuff, going back to August, just explain the headwind that that presented from a cost side of things, the response. The timing of how all that has played out. Yeah. Are we at a point where that is all kind of in reported numbers? Yeah. Yeah. To keep it relatively simple, yes. Obviously, in the back half of the year, the timing of when some of those tariffs were coming in as opposed to the timing of announced pricing transactions, when that's actually on the channel, when that actually ripples through the order book into revenue, there's inherently always a little bit of timing there. The reality is we said we'd kind of work through that timing in the back half of last year, and that's what you've largely seen. I think as we sit here right now, yes, year-over-year, particularly in the first quarter, and you remember the tariffs really happened second quarter of last year, you still have some of the year-over-year comp dynamics as you would expect. Generally speaking at this point in time, price kind of matching those inflationary headwinds, those are really offsetting. As we mentioned, from the time that this started, we were not really looking to make margin on tariffs, right? We were pushing off one for one, and as such, it was kind of dollar neutral but margin dilutive. Obviously, as we comp that out here into the back half of the year, that normalizes a bit, and then compounded with the fact that you'll get some normal price, it should lend itself to a better price cost equation, all things held equal. We'll obviously continue to monitor what's going on in the market real time, but the team is largely managing through that. Any context on the magnitude of that margin dilution or the magnitude of price that was required as a result of those tariffs? Yeah, I mean, we didn't, I'd say, quantify it externally, so I was consistent with kind of what we talked about before. You did see elevated pricing levels that were above that 1%-2% average norm. That was clearly driven by the tariff dynamics. Like I said, it was largely offsetting the cost one for one. I'd say the levels of price that you saw really in the back half of last year, over and above that kind of 1%-1.5%, 2% realm, which you saw higher than that was really the driver there. That's returning much more to the norm as we speak right now. Again, I think as we move into the back half of the year, those expectations of much more normal course pricing, and I could say, having been with the company for 15 years now, 1%-2% has historically always been kind of that sweet spot. I don't think anything is dramatically different as we think about going forward in a more normalized environment. When you think about the raw material inflation earlier in this year, and then inflation tied to kind of the Middle East tension. Anything there that's requiring additional pricing responses? I think like everyone else, managing through it. I think whether it comes to some of the oil driven and oil derivatives or lubricants or plastics, obviously we're dealing with that like anyone else. When I say that we're kind of back to a little bit of the normal course pricing, to some extent that includes obviously an expectation that you're going to be offsetting some requisite amount of inflationary pressures or headwinds and things like that, as you would expect in this environment or like anyone else is dealing with. I think the simple answer is the team's been working through that. I would say in normal course, pricing actions have been taken. It's important to note that pricing for us is not uniform across the enterprise, meaning we don't have a set day for every business, every region, every product line we take a price increase. In fact, quite the contrary. We actually are staggered by business. Every business has their own cadence, and even in certain cases, equipment versus aftermarket. It's not a peanut butter spread approach. I think based on some of the exposures, we've made sure to account for that as we've gone through what we consider to be some of the normal course pricing to make sure that we're mitigating those pressures as much as possible. Have you seen any impact on the competitive landscape, just based on where folks are manufacturing, where they're selling, how that would've had differences in a cost and price, and then kind of demand? Yeah. Obviously, we can speak to what we've seen and what we've done here. I think just to keep it simple, we have a model that's very much in region for region, right? You do not have a meaningful amount of intercompany serving one region, serving another. We have very limited exposure in that respect, but that's the model that we've set up. Now, of course, we have a global supply chain. You do have your U.S. business, for example, procuring of certain components from Asia or China, just from a third party perspective. That's what's led to some of our exposure, which we've been managing. Clearly, some of our competitors have different models, as you've seen, and I think you would expect they've been taking the requisite actions, whether it be for deploying inventory, things of that nature, to try to manage. Would we still maintain here that we think our in region for region model in the grand scheme is a model that we want to subscribe to in the sense that we think it serves customers in the best possible manner, hopefully manages some of those global supply chain dynamics, but also manages lead times to customers? Yes. Hard for us to speak to kind of what others have seen and done. I would say this has always historically been a fairly orderly market in that sense. We would expect competitors to behave relatively prudently as well. Anything on Middle East as it relates to demand impact, logistics, added costs there, and coming back to, you did see some push-out in orders. Yeah. You've caught about a third of that in April. Yeah. Anything that you've seen since then? To keep it simple here, the first quarter, did we see any dramatic impact on the revenue and earnings side? Not really. Yes, we managed through it. We saw a little bit of noise in just the timing of some of the orders you mentioned, one of which had already kind of come back by the time we had done the earnings call. I think our expectation is that the balance of those orders would come back over the course of the year. Like we've said, the funnels, nothing dramatically changed. You're not seeing cancellation, things like that. Of course, every day that we wake up and see new news there, it continues to create a little bit of uncertainty. It would be good for that to get behind us just to get kind of that uncertainty out of the air. I don't think that's any different from anyone else in that respect. I think the simple way to say it right now is, we're still managing through it. The team's doing an exceptional job. Our employees are all safe in the area and the region. Getting a little bit more certainty would obviously be helpful, but the team's continued to manage through. Any meaningful disruptions or anything like that, nothing of that nature to speak to at this point in time. What about the energy efficiency opportunity tied to that? Yeah. The degree to for how long do we need to see disruptions before... Yeah ... Customers start to react? You can talk a little bit about the efficiency... Yeah ... Opportunity of replacement and new equipment. Yeah. For sure. First and foremost, total cost of ownership, energy efficiency, the fact that compressors can consume up to 30% of the energy in a manufacturing facility, that's always part of the narrative, right? I think to your point here, as if energy prices are elevated, but most importantly stay elevated for a period of time, we're not talking like weeks or a month, for an extended period of time, then that can become a much more, I think, relevant part of the conversation for customers to think about. We obviously use our demand generation engine to make sure that that education is obviously getting out to the customer base. The way I think about it here, is yes, to keep it simple, higher energy prices for a longer period of time inherently will lead to a better payback on a compressor, right? We've seen instances in the past where, if the average is something that can be in the two-year timeframe or thereabouts, the economics can lend itself to a year. In certain cases, we even saw in certain isolated instances, even better than that. Now, does that mean that everyone's throwing away compression technology? No, I don't want to lead to that at this point. If people have two, three, four-year-old equipment, they're still going to utilize that equipment. I do think it lends itself to the question that, maybe as that compressor reaches midlife, and you have to go through the big air end overhaul or the big kind of engine overhaul, if you will is the right thing to do to do that, or maybe invest in new technology. Maybe there's a replacement a little bit earlier than would've otherwise been done under the right circumstances. I think without question, we are having those conversations. Clearly, this environment lends itself to making sure that customers are at least aware of what their options may be, what the economics may be. We obviously do everything we can to help them with the decision-making criteria, what that means from a total cost of ownership, from a savings and a payback perspective. I think we're encouraged that we will continue to push on that. Joe, have we seen that necessarily be something that we can speak to there? I wouldn't go that far through the first quarter or anything of that yet, but it was still early days. We want to see that energy prices at a higher level for a more extended period of time. We'll see where that materializes, too. As you go to market, is a two-year payback generally what you need to target in order to move those conversations forward? Yeah. Listen, I almost look at it through the lens of we're an industrial manufacturer. Like anyone else, we look at all of our CapEx projects, and we rack and stack them. Generally speaking, if something hits a two-year payback, it's pretty compelling, right? I would tend to think our customers would have a fairly comparable kind of perspective as well. Yes. I think that that would generally hit return thresholds, return criteria, the right level of savings and payback that customers will be looking for. I can tell you through the lens of Ingersoll Rand, very similar for us as well. Shifting to the margin side of things. There's a lot of focus on the anticipated margin acceleration over the course of the year. Looking at both at each segment level. When we look at ITS, and think about what consensus has embedded is pretty decent margin step up Q1 to Q2, again, Q2 to Q3. It sounds like the pricing side of that doesn't change very much, but just kind of walk us through the building blocks. Maybe to kind of put a finer point on the pricing side, I think there is just to keep it two distinct pieces here. Obviously, as we move through the first half of this year, you're kind of annualizing the tariff actions that were taken last year, the pricing. There are in-year pricing actions that are being taken right now. Remember, as you annualize and calendar the cost actions from a tariff, that really happens as we speak now. You're taking new pricing actions now, that should lend itself to a slightly better pricing equation, price cost in the back half. There is a little bit of that going on in the back half. I would also point to the fact that, I think our guidance kind of outlined in broad strokes, slightly negative volume in the first half of the year, slightly better in the back half of the year. Slight volume improvement in the back half of the year, obviously with a business that plays in the 40%+ gross margin profile. That's obviously a contributor. The other two pieces I'll point to would be, one on the productivity side of the equation. When you think about direct material productivity, whether it be through classical procurement measures or things like I2V, where we're redesigning products, those follow cost of goods sold. Obviously, as you have your heavier shipment quarters in the back half of the year, you typically always see ITS margins have a step up from a first quarter into the back half of the year. That'll be no different than this year in terms of that productivity factor following just your revenue and cost of goods sold profile in the back half. Maybe the fourth point, which is a little bit more nuanced for this year compared to years past. In the back half of last year, you did see us take some fairly meaningful restructuring charges. That was, I think, prudent restructuring of the organization and the business, just given the macro landscape. Just to be clear here, those were global actions, total company, but obviously ITS is roughly speaking 80% of the revenue. That's obviously where the preponderance of the impact should sit. Those actions, you saw the charges in the back half of the year. You can expect that execution was happening kind of in the first few months of this year, the first half of this year, depending on the regions. That should lead to a little bit of a better cost profile in the back half of the year, all things held equal from a structural or SG&A perspective. Seasonally, there's typically a volume step up from Q1 to Q2. There will be sequential components... Yeah ... From that back half. You get more of that kind of price cost dynamics. Correct. Typically speaking for ITS, and you could argue when is the last year we saw typical, but that aside here, Q1 is your lightest shipment quarter, Q4 is your heaviest, Q2, Q3 in between. That's typically how it plays itself out. Yes, to your point, that seasonality factor, which is kind of what I'm saying, the revenue a little bit healthier in the back half of the year, the volumes and/or the cost of goods sold a little bit heavier in Q4, second half compared to first half, that does bring along for the ride some of the productivity with it as well. The way it's being modeled, there's more margin expansion through the year in ITS, but there's good margin expansion in PST as well through the course of the year. Anything different about kind of the complexion of the drivers behind that? I think a couple things here. Obviously, from a dollar for dollar perspective on the tariff front, obviously ITS probably had a little bit more impact there. It's not to say that PST didn't, but ITS probably had a little bit more there. From a PST side, I'd say the margin expansion that you're seeing, one, obviously from the volume side, right? You've seen the organic kind of momentum we've been seeing for a few quarters. It's lent itself to, I think we've had three consecutive quarters, if I'm not mistaken, of above 30% EBITDA margins in PST. We've kind of hit that level and now stayed above said level, which is very encouraging to say as we kind of continue on that track to that mid-30s EBITDA margin profile. When you think about some of the levers, though, very similar in nature here. Obviously, PST is taking its requisite pricing actions in year, as you would expect, very similar to ITS. Two, I think the volume side of the equation, this is the business that plays kind of closer to mid-40s gross margin profile. The volume piece here is very beneficial. You have definitely seen growth drivers from the life sciences side. We saw double digit organic orders in Q1, and I'd say the biopharma business is the one that obviously is the healthiest of the growers thus far in that business. I think as you continue to see that momentum, that's kind of just the volume click through there combined with the pricing. Listen, I think the PST side, you'll continue to see some of the same productivity drivers, no different than ITS. I think we've said it kind of explicitly that PST probably was a little bit of a later adopter of some of the kind of just standard IRX work and things like that, just as far as the merger, ITS was probably the more focal point. That obviously continues to lead to a little bit of, I don't want to say the word catch up, but a little bit of opportunity that still exists there in PST that maybe you've seen some of that comparable opportunity taken a little bit earlier in ITS. The other piece here is, I think we're still encouraged by the fact that the ILC Dover business now is kind of firmly the anchor on that life sciences side of the equation. You've seen the integration kind of now take root there. I think a lot of that is largely behind us in terms of the structural and some of that areas. Now continuing to leverage things like demand generation and things like that to help continue to accelerate some of that growth cadence. I think we're encouraged by that momentum we're seeing. As part of the productivity is tariff mitigation a factor at all in terms of sourcing or metal content, like how you're approaching that? Yes. I would say whether you call it classical tariff mitigation or even I2V, because they start to dovetail across each other in terms of how do you redesign a product to limit your exposures to one component versus another. They kind of all fit together. I would say in terms of the tariff mitigation, a lot of that, what actions could have been taken, have largely been largely there. Now, as far as resourcing, i.e., like, going from one supplier to another supplier, potential some tweaks and redesigns of products, I would consider now that's kind of part of firmly the productivity part of the equation. Yes, those are very much pre and partial. When we say procurement and I2V, it's exactly those types of initiatives that we're looking at. I wanted to dig in a little bit more on the life sciences side. Yeah. Maybe just start by explaining the life sciences business there. A few different markets you're really playing in there. Sure. Our life sciences business, roughly speaking, $600 million-$700 million business. It's kind of got two building blocks. The life sciences piece discretely is three businesses, but they kind of come from two different places. The first one is you have the legacy, what I'll call Ingersoll Rand medical business. The business that's been part of the portfolio forever, approximately $300 million in size. If you remember, this is the business that was probably the biggest beneficiary from COVID. It obviously makes some miniaturized compression and pump technology that goes into a host of what I'll call OEM devices, diagnostic machines, things like that. It also has some outlets and applications in breathing applications. That was the big run up during COVID. You saw the big reset to sub $300 million. I think what you've seen here is now, I'd say steady kind of growth, kind of off that trough. You've seen a bit of a recovery here in terms of just some, I'd say better growth cadence as we looked over the last two years. That business is the largest there, but largely serving larger like, OEM. It's an OEM component manufacturer. That's kind of where you should think about some of their kind of end market applications, diagnostic machines, things of that nature. The other businesses really came from the ILC Dover acquisition. The first would be the biopharma business, let's call it squiggle $200 million in size. Obviously this is playing very large in single use containment and technologies that are used in things like GLP-1s, high potency APIs, personalization of medical treatments, things like that. Things that have obviously been very high in the news, and continues to see very good growth traction. Obviously this business has been, prior to our acquisition, a double-digit kind of grower. It's maintained comparable momentum. Obviously, it's been the one that, in Q1, for example, was the, let's say, the largest contributor to that double-digit growth cadence you've been seeing and continues to operate well at very healthy margins. The third business, so interesting, it's $300 million, $200 million, the third business is $100 million, so it kind of makes the math kind of easy. This is our medical device business. This is where we are manufacturing medical device components for large manufacturers of medical equipment, whether it be a catheter or whatever it might be. We're being contracted to manufacture a specific component that's usually through like silicon or thermoplastic type engineering, very precise. This business, a little bit of a different growth cadence. Whereas the other two businesses kind of behave very similar in terms of their normal book and ship dynamics and things of that nature. This business has that, but this business also is being specced into these end market kind of applications. You typically live a two to three year type of spec in process with one of these large customers. Once you've gotten specced in, then you live the life cycle of that product line. When I say this one's a little bit different, for me, this is about looking at kind of the medium term kind of funnel. It's about layering those different applications on top of each other and getting specced into those new applications. As you look at those new products and those new processes, how do those rack and stack over the medium term? Yes, there's a short term dynamic, but I think we're encouraged by that kind of medium term funnel that you're seeing. Listen, the fourth business, which is kind of the smallest piece, it's $50 million, is the space business. It's a pretty moving sideways type business, as you would expect, given kind of some of the end market applications. Doesn't really move dramatically. Those are the four components there. Obviously, the first three are what are really driving the growth, and we're continuing to remain encouraged about what that future looks like. When you think about those three, are there product or capability gaps within there that would be higher priorities as growth opportunities for you? I'm not sure I'd initially say gaps. What I would say here is a couple things. One, very complementary to each other. The fact that, for example, our medical device business can do plastic tubing type, plastic molding, things like that can be used with some of the pump technologies that might come from our IR medical business or other parts. There are complementary components there. The way I'd probably look at it now is I think you really have a beachhead, for lack of a better way to say this, from a life sciences perspective, where you're thinking about $600 million-$700 million. You could actually find, I'd say, some complementary technology. If you look over the course of the last year as an example, we've done four bolt-ons in life sciences alone. Lead Fluid from a pump technology perspective, Scinomix in terms of some lab automation. You've seen Berry Global, which is actually a complementary technology into our biopharma business. You're actually seeing now the opportunity of, I wouldn't say necessarily fundamental gaps, but the opportunity to find complementary technologies that can be bolted on that kind of fit those businesses and be able to actually, I would say, mimic the model that you've seen kind of core to Ingersoll Rand, albeit in ITS and Precision and Science Technologies historically. These are businesses that we're sourcing from an M&A perspective that are sole sourced. We're getting exclusivity. We're not going through big auction processes in those respects. They are multiples. From pre-synergy multiple perspective, they're very comparable to what you've seen, low double-digit. You can drive comparable returns. It actually is proving to be kind of a nice anchor that you can now do a lot of the bolt-on like you've seen in the more core industrial side of the business historically. That's a good segue into M&A for total Ingersoll. Yeah. You delivered at or above target for a number of years now. That's 400 to 500 basis points of acquired annualized inorganic revenue. We've seen a little bit lighter activity recently. Maybe just explain kind of what you're seeing out there. Is your appetite for larger deals going up? To speak to the confidence of... Yeah. For sure ... Reaching that four to 500. Yeah. I wouldn't read too much into it. As you know, M&A can be, for lack of a better word, say, a touch episodic in some respects. I think the way I would think about it here is, year to date, we've closed four transactions, all small bolt-ons in nature. When we did our earnings, whenever that was, six, eight weeks ago, we had 10 more under LOI. Those 10 are very much what I would consider to be kind of down the middle of the fairway bolt-ons. LOIs typically have a pretty good hit rate to getting to the finish line of a closed transaction. You obviously still have to go through diligence and things, so you have to go through that process. It speaks to the health of the funnel, right? It's not to say that the funnel is dramatically different. In fact, I would say the funnel still multiple hundreds of companies in the funnel at varying stages of cultivation. The fact that 10 are under LOI speaks to the fact that I think the activity levels are still quite high. The economics, whether it be purchase multiple or return profile, is very similar to what you've seen. As far as your second question about appetite for larger deals or things like that, I think nothing's changed in that respect. We've said that maybe every three to five years you'll see something a little bit more sized like ILC Dover was. In the interim, you're going to see us be very keen to continue the bolt-on routine. I think that there's a lot of opportunity to add differential technologies, but create value through the return profiles and the synergies that we can deliver there. Nothing's different in that respect. As far as anything more sized, like I said, we'll continue to keep monitoring the market. If there's something that's out there that makes sense, we won't be averse to looking at it, but it's got to hit the right deal criteria and things like that. In the interim, you're going to see the bolt-on routine continue to be the focal point. Is life sciences the most attractive opportunity that you have when you think about that pipeline? I would actually say the pipeline is quite equitable across both segments. Yes, obviously, with the ILC Dover transaction and now having that beachhead there, it does open an aperture for more life sciences type M&A, comparatively speaking, to probably where we were two, three years ago. I think you're going to continue to see an equitable mix across both sides of the business. ITS will continue to see its fair share of bolt-on M&A. We continue to see opportunities on the Precision Technology side, including one of the four bolt-ons we did already this year. I think life science is intriguing, but don't think of the fact that you're going to divert capital to just one versus the other. I think you're going to continue to see an equitable spread across the board. Moving to the recurring revenue side of things. Yeah. You've achieved some good success so far on the targets. Ultimately, a target to get to $1 billion. Yep. Just talk about the progress so far. Any thoughts on the timeline that it takes to get to $1 billion? For sure. Listen, I think, probably not surprising to hear, but I think the recurring revenue initiative with CARE being kind of the gold standard there, arguably a one-off, if not the highest kind of organic growth initiative we've had internally. Just to kind of speak to the momentum we've seen, this is a business that, or this was a portion of the portfolio that was roughly $100 million when the merger happened. It was roughly $200 million when we did our Investor Day in 2023, and we eclipsed $450 million, roughly speaking, last year. The fact that you continue to see great traction and momentum, this is no longer just a North America compressor story anymore. That's still the biggest piece, but you've really adapted this model from a recurring revenue perspective in CARE to Europe, Asia, Latin America, the Gardner Denver portfolio, where it makes sense, and other technologies, i.e., blower, vacuum, and pump. Where there is aftermarket content, there's probably some degree of a recurring revenue model that can be adapted. The good news here is over the course of the last two years, you've really seen that model take root in a lot of our businesses. It's still relatively early days, but you now have measurable baselines, I'd say, across most of our portfolio. As far as the path forward here, listen, we continue to be really excited about the future here. This is one where I tell you we're going to continue to see, our expectation is continue to see this being one of the best growth drivers in the aftermarket portfolio as we think about 2026 and 2027. To be very clear, it doesn't mean that there's some end of the game at any point in time. I think that's just a milestone along the way here. We continue to be really optimistic about where the future holds here, and the fact that now we're getting better traction in the other parts of the portfolio aside from just U.S.-centric compressors, I think is encouraging. The good news here is, as we continue to do M&A, whether it be product acquisitions or even in certain cases targeted channel, those are both quite viable outlets to continue to proliferate that recurring revenue model. Perfect. I think that brings us to the end. Perfect. Thank you very much. Really appreciate it. Well, no, thank you for having us. Appreciate it. All right. Thank you.