David Rush: It actually, it goes hand-in-hand with what we need to do from a standpoint of competitiveness related to slower housing starts and increasing our customer service reducing cycle times. So a lot of it is around synergies that we realized from new M&A we’ve done over the last 18 months. Some of it is related to payroll productivity, getting more for less specifically within our delivery initiatives and some of our truck turnaround initiatives. Some are around manufacturing productivity as I mentioned since the merger board foot per man hour has gone up 22%. That is a combination of best practices across plants as we continue to acquire value-added plants from other parts of the country and integrate them into the BFS way of doing things.
There’s productivity savings there. We’re always constantly reviewing our indirect spend. There’s opportunities there. So we, we, we’ve probably got six to eight different initiatives that will fund that $90 million to $110 million and we’re very confident in our ability to get there.
Collin Verron: Great, thank you for the color.
David Rush: Yes.
Operator: And we will take our next question from Michael Dahl with RBC Capital Markets. Your line is now open.
Michael Dahl: Good morning. Thanks for taking my questions, Dave. Congrats on the new role. Thanks Mike. A couple follow ups. On the on the first quarter guide, the slide has a comment saying, there’s a bullet point saying that sales and adjusted EBITDA include the expected benefit of price, commodity and margin impacts for the quarter. You know, I think Peter, as you articulated earlier there is a sharper commodity headwind from a top line standpoint in one queue. So can you just elaborate maybe a little bit on what that comment means and if it’s possible to then split out if there is still some benefit on margins, what your base business for 1Q would be estimated at versus that 400 to 440 total?
David Rush: Yes, so I think probably the biggest challenge in this is, that there’s no base business at a quarterly level that’s, that’s not a, it doesn’t actually exist, so I’m not holding out on you in terms of talking about that number. You’re right, there is a, there is a lot going on in the year-over-year comps and the ability to break out those pieces. Unfortunately it is generally driven by some detailed analytics. We have some top side assumptions, but I don’t think they’re particularly helpful to you in terms of insight. A lot of the year-over-year comparison from a commodities perspective is negative in the first half or far more negative in the first half than the second. Unfortunately just from a, the ability to break those pieces apart, so starts comp.
So I think that our guide or our comment when we were given the guide saying that the first half is going be harder from a comparisons perspective unfortunately it’s probably my best insight to offer for the, for the numbers this year.
Michael Dahl: Yes, okay. Yes, I guess it was just, since that comment says there’s still benefits in there, but maybe that speaks to the margin, margins haven’t quite normalized yet in 1Q.
David Rush: Yes, I’ve got
Peter Jackson: We have a footnote that is really just trying to say it’s all in, that was all.
Michael Dahl: Yes, I got you. Okay. And, and so my second question is, is kind of somewhat related, but just a two-parter on the full year scenarios. And so as a point of clarification, when you say commodity price my sense has been that a blend of lumber in OSP , but can you correct me if I’m wrong there and, and hit the starting point. Okay. So then just for a frame of reference if we’re looking at a blended price year to date, you know, it, it seems like that’s kind of in the mid three hundreds, maybe oscillating between mid-300 s and high 300 s. Is that a fair characterization of where you’re at year-to-date on that blend?
