Scott Richardson: Yes. I think that’s right, Mike. It’s certainly in that range. I mean, at the end of the day, we need to get no matter what bucket it’s falling in, we need to go deliver the EBITDA over time that we said this business would deliver. So it is about getting the base business back up into those ranges that we had originally set at the time of the deal in that $800 million EBITDA, including the other costs in there and then driving synergies on top of that. So this year with where demand is at, given some of the higher cost inventory that had to be worked off at the beginning of the year, it’s going to be a little bit lower. But then building that back and then putting synergies on top of that is exactly what Tom Kelly and the team are focused on.
Michael Leithead: Great. Thank you.
Operator: Thank you. Next question is coming from Vincent Andrews from Morgan Stanley. Your line is now live.
Vincent Andrews: Hi, good morning, everyone. Just a quick clarification around the subject made on the prior question. For M&M in the fourth quarter, you had guided to $50 million to $60 million of EBITDA. And then there are kind of two numbers discussed in the prepared remarks, one is 56, one is 39, which is the actual apples-to-apples comparison, the 39 or the 56?
Scott Richardson: It’s a 39.
Lori Ryerkerk: It’s a 39.
Scott Richardson: Yes.
Vincent Andrews: Okay. And then if I could ask this is the first quarter I can remember and I don’t know how long where your volume in automotive was below build, and that takes us through a variety of good batter and different auto environment. So I just if you have any further color on sort of why that happened, because like I remember other times where things were tough, but your team found a way to your innovation or your activations or what have you. So what happened this time that was different?
Lori Ryerkerk: So actually, Vincent, fourth quarter of ’21, was exactly like this. We had the same issue. We were lower than builds because of destocking. And I think there’s a number of things that happened. I mean people hit the end of the year. They want to make working capital numbers. So they destock at the end of the year, for a year in inventory control. Prices have been coming down because raws are down and natural gas was falling. So that made people more confident in pricing going forward. So they believe prices going forward are less than they are now. And so they choose to draw down their inventory in anticipation of lower prices. I think the supply chain issues have been largely resolved around the world. And so people are more confident about being able to buy material.
So why we saw a lot of build of stock in 2022 because people were worried about getting resin. I think we see, going forward, people feel the supply chain issues are largely resolved. So, the dynamic is actually very similar at the end of 2022 as it was at the end of 2021. I would say a little bit what’s different is usually the fourth quarter as a magnitude was a little bit — was more in 2022, I’d say, primarily because of Asia. And usually in Asia, we have a pretty good fourth quarter in advance of Chinese New Year. But this year, because of the resurgence of COVID in Asia, things were quite slow in Asia in fourth quarter as well. And so, I’d say the dynamic was a little bit more pronounced this year. Obviously, Europe was even a little bit slower just on the malaise we’ve seen in Europe all year.
