Thomas Hook: I am seeing a lot of friction there, Chris. Customers want lead times in 20 weeks to 25 weeks for us to be really world class, 52 weeks is way too long and the market demand is there. Certainly our products and technologies are in very high demand and we — at the end of the day, we want to take advantage of those favorable market conditions. It’s not commercial activities holding us up. It’s squarely manufacturing output. So that’s where those investments are concentrated. And like I said, on the flip side and the hot runners, it’s the other way around. We have plenty of manufacturing capacity. We need commercial market engagement to ensure that we are penetrating into the markets, particularly in mobility, transportation, automotive, to get better engagement with customers, different operating challenges in Molding Solutions.
And of course, as you know, that is happening at the same time as a considerable amount of operational consolidation and facility rationalization. So it’s tough to do all those at the same time, but needed.
Christopher Glynn: Okay. And then in terms of MB Aerospace, as we think about 2024, we heard it will still be dilutive, on the one hand, maybe more so given for twelve 12 months instead of $4, $5, but also you will be doing some integration and normalization there. Anything directional relative to the $0.40 that we would expect for dilution next year even directional?
Julie Streich: So we are still working to fine-tune those numbers and I wouldn’t want to — I really wouldn’t want to put something out there, because the team is still continuing to work through a lot of the complicated accounting elements.
Christopher Glynn: Does that mean that the $6.3 million a quarter amortization that, that’s in flux? I take that to mean.
Thomas Hook: No.
Julie Streich: No. It’s not in flux.
Thomas Hook: That will be — that will not be a variable, Chris. That’s going to be constant. But as you know, we have a rather robust synergy plan for the MB Aerospace. And as that is implemented that would obviously buffer significantly over the course of the year towards the end of the year, it being less dilutive. So there’s — given you more qualitative statements here. But we have a lot of work to do from a planning perspective to give cognizant guidance for 2024 on this to give you more than just kind of qualitative statements here, kind of more definitive information.
Christopher Glynn: Okay. That makes sense. And something that might be a little easier to guide directionally. Any parameters we can put on free cash flow. Obviously, the accounting is going on the P&L, the GAAP and the adjustments is going to be a little bit of a pin the tail on the donkey exercise for us today. But in terms of free cash flow margin or some way to ring fence expectations, even with caveat that things are still getting worked out and you have consolidations which might move working capital. What should be free cash flow margin for Barnes Enterprise in 2024?
Thomas Hook: Yeah. Chris, excellent question. We know we need to provide that information. Heard it from Pete’s question as well. We need to provide a walk on kind of deleveraging and cash flows. I think the two things have to be provided together to give you the visibility you are looking for. We have a preliminary view of it, we are not ready to share it and we know when we provide our 2024 guidance for investors, that has to include a clearer picture of the cash projections, not just what historically we have done in terms of EPS, because of the differential between the amort and other deal related expenses. So we take that, Pete’s question, as well as yours, as we will come back and provide information with a clearer picture on EBITDA/cash, so you can understand what that picture looks like for 2024.
