Larry Hilsheimer: Yes. On the GIP side, I mean we have always talked about you get sort of rogue individual markets around the world from time-to-time. That’s pretty much a constant. But you are right, we are in extremely good position from a balance sheet perspective, closing $0.5 billion of acquisitions and having our debt targets still be right in the middle on our leverage ratio. And we just completed a financing and farm credit system, which I mentioned, which by the way, frees up our entire facility, giving us $800 million of totally available capacity go at 6%, 6.5% rates. And yes, from a competitive standpoint, we know at least one of our very, very good competitors is not quite in that situation. So yes, we look at it with optimism, but yes, we are also realistic about things.
I mean they are going to continue to be good competitors going to be competing for the business. And we think they act in an appropriate way and haven’t heard anything differently from our team. So, these proposals are being – these RFPs for our business will be tough as they always are, and you work through the negotiations. But our teams have a good story to tell about the value that we deliver, particularly how well we serve our customers through the pandemic when sometimes that wasn’t true across the board.
Ole Rosgaard: And just in addition to that, we have seen quite a few boomerang customers as well as we call them, where they have gone away from us. So, this is more on a regional or a local basis. They have gone away from us for whatever reason, and then six months later, they are back knocking on the door. And we have several examples of that. And I would say that’s due to the exceptional service we provide our customers.
Gabe Hajde: Thank you for that Ole. One last one on the price-cost bridge that you talked about, plus 51. I think GIP was plus 56. Paper was minus 5. And I am trying to compare, contrast that to, if I just take the incremental $20 a ton cut in containerboard and assume that’s applicable for, call it, half of the year or something like that, that’s maybe $10 million. And then the increase in the OCC assumption would maybe translate to another 10. So, I am curious if there is something I am missing or if it’s more timing-related, and we have to carry that through into fiscal ‘24.
Larry Hilsheimer: Yes. Just to clarify, Gabe, the 56 on a total company basis was 51 positive for GIP and 5 positive for PPS relative to the guidance we originally gave. And obviously, within that guidance, we had different assumptions on pricing in OCC, but maybe a better way to get at it for you relative to PPS is talking about Q2-over-Q2, year-over-year. So, we are on an overall basis down $10 million on pricings and up $48 million on costs throughout the two businesses. Some of that in the cost side is actually related to working capital management because when we sell from our mill system into CorrChoice, if that gain in the mill system hasn’t been – it doesn’t get recognized until that CorrChoice inventory gets sold.
So, when the team does a really good job of driving down inventories at CorrChoice in a quarter, then it frees up that intercompany profit. So, you have the element of about $39 million of OCC benefit and about $9 million of that free up of profit elimination by driving down your inventory, offset by containerboard price impact of $12 million down and CRB actually the opposite wave $2 million up. Hopefully, that’s helpful.
