I don’t see it being anything super material for us. Again, it will — a little bit though in the one-way market can go a long way to help our brokerage freight and other verticals. And so I don’t know if there’s going to be a direct impact to us with some of the, hopefully, seasonal uptick when it gets warm, but there’ll be some indirect benefits for us.
Barry Haimes: Got it. And then my last question, a little more of a strategic one. You talked about managed freight and how competitive it is. And, obviously, there’s some very large competitors in the space. So could you talk a little bit about where you see your competitive advantage there and/or why you ought to be in that business versus some of the other businesses you’re in where maybe they — might be better. Thank you.
David Parker: Just think about, Barry, our managed freight is — a lot of is an extension of our asset-based businesses. If I looked at our top customers in that space, we also have asset relationships with them. And so what having that business allows us to do is provide overflow, flex capacity. If we get out of balance in markets, we can use the managed freight business to rebalance the markets. And so that business that we internally called solutions was started back in 2006 to really benefit our customers and augment our asset-based businesses. I would say it is still that today. They do have a number of their own customers as well that we’ve grown over time. And so but it was started to basically help be an asset overflow and augment the asset-based businesses, it still does that to a large degree.
And once we capture freight internally, hopefully, we can run it on one of the two segments versus giving it back and letting a competitor run it. And then again, they’ve really — they’ve done a good job growing some of their own business in that space as well. I will tell you we’ve got to saying internally on our — in our managed freight. We’re here to stay. We’re not here to sell. It would be hard to unpack our managed freight business, because it is so intertwined with our asset operations. And so we’re not chasing business just to add top line volume, like, a lot of brokerages because a lot of these small to mid and even large brokerages, they’re just trying to chase top line revenue and margin, top line margin, even if they operate in the red and a loss for the whole goal of selling to somebody and getting bought up.
Our goal is not to sell it. We probably couldn’t sell it. It’s rolled up within our asset operations, just how tightly they’re wired. And so what that does, it allows us to — we try to say, yes, if we can make money off of that. We’re going to lose money, somebody else can have it.
Barry Haimes: Got it. Thank you very much. Appreciate that.
Operator: Our next question comes from Jeffrey Kauffman from Vertical Research Partners. Please state your question.
Jeffrey Kauffman: Thank you very much and thanks for squeezing me here at the end. A lot of my questions have been asked, but I wanted to circle back on two items. I’m going to start with the CapEx. I think David, you mentioned about $40 million to $50 million of maintenance CapEx based on where the fleet is right now and the budget is kind of $55 million to $65 million net. Could you give me an idea of kind of where that implies the net fleet is on the tractor side at the end of the year and maybe differentiate the dedicated side of that versus expedited. And then the kind of the follow-up to that is, let’s say we’re wrong about you shape and let’s say some good things happen in the second half, and we start to see freight rebound. With the excess free cash, how much flex is there to go back out and say, okay, well, we may need to add to the fleet? How much wiggle room do we have in terms of where the net fleet might be 12 months from now?
David Parker: I can answer that, Jeff. So part of the $55 million to $65 million of total CapEx that we disclosed in our expectations for 2024, included about $20 million of growth CapEx, which implies just call it, $35 million to $45 million of maintenance CapEx. And you got to remember, so 30 of that was brought into 2023 kind of in the last month of the year to take advantage of some tax benefits, tax incentives that are not available in 2024. So we brought some of those purchases in-house or in earlier strategically, which is about $30 million, which – that means your maintenance CapEx for us on a kind of just an ongoing basis is somewhere in the neighborhood of $65 million to $70 million, I would say, conservatively. I think we are going to generate some free cash flow for sure.
And I think that to the second part of your question, if we do need additional CapEx or additional funds for growth, we’ll have plenty of availability, whether that’s on the equipment side or the M&A side or whatever. And we’ve done both of those in the last couple of years. And we like our strategy of capital allocation. And just because our debt ticked up towards the end of the year, it wasn’t kind of unplanned, if you will. It was just a matter of kind of gating, so we do think absent significant growth CapEx and the clunkiness that goes with that and — or some other M&A opportunity, we do see some sequential declines in our net debt number going into 2024.
Jeffrey Kauffman: Okay. And just one other follow-up, if I can. In the management commentary, you were talking about how the effects of the cyber-attack and the UAW impact were net-net offset by fuel surcharge minus fuel expense. And it looks like that was about a $0.5 million positive impact on the net fuel side. So I would have thought that the cyber-attack and UAW impact would have been a little bit more than that. Can you talk a little bit about how those affected your business? And as a $0.5 million bad guy net of those two events, the right way to think about it, if you’ll offset it?
David Parker: One, I would say, are you talking about year-over-year
Jeffrey Kauffman: Yes. I’m looking year-over-year.
David Parker: Yes, yes. I think if you look sequentially, kind of, how we look at fuel and the comments of kind of what we’re thinking about or how we were thinking about both the impact of the UAW strike as well as a cybersecurity strike or cybersecurity incident. We were talking about sequential — what to expect — we were reporting on Q3 and what we expect in Q4, and we knew that Q4 was going to be a little suppressed to Q3. So it was — those comments were more sequential. You know, if you look at our fuel, I do think it’s a — I don’t want to really put a defined number on it, but I would say it’s well over double what — maybe triple what you were kind of — what you were taking earlier.
