And one of the things that is a very important part of that is the technology leverage right not just in pricing systems, but ensuring that we are pricing to the value that our customers are experiencing. So, you know pricing sort of the last thing to happen. The first thing that happens is understanding our customers’ needs, knowing how they use our product, understanding their goals, really driving innovation around bringing a solution that matters to them and that we can be paid for. So pricing, we are never going to be done and we are going to continue to capture value there. And similarly, our procurement system, you’re right that — we have a great team that’s been in place for quite some time now, and we continue to leverage our scale successfully in these multiple raw material segments that we participate in.
And each one of them is different. It’s very interesting.
Vincent Anderson: Sure. All right. That’s helpful. All right. So, last one. You talked a bit about this. It sounds like a lot of it’s still kind of to be determined through the end of the year. But a lot of your non-U.S. sites, at least appear to be running fewer technologies on a per-site basis than what we see with your, kind of legacy U.S. assets. So as I think to your growth strategy you’ve been globalizing a lot of U.S.-developed products to buy rather than build. Are there opportunities to get more leverage out of the non-US sites where the footprint and staffing might be underutilized? And is any of that in your current savings target, or is that more related to again kind of your growth strategy?
Celeste Mastin: That again will be addressed as we look at our global footprint. Our — so when you look at our plant base well over half of those plants serve multiple GBUs and you’re right most of them are technology-based probably two or three different types of technology that they will be focused on. Our intention is not to have big mega sites. We want to continue to produce close to our customer, and there is a value in doing that. We just need to make sure that again when we look at the business capacity utilization by technology that, where there is redundancy that’s unnecessary that we can remove it.
Vincent Anderson: Okay.
Celeste Mastin: Did I answer your question, Vincent?
Vincent Anderson: Yes, yes. I might try again in six months. But, yeah.
Celeste Mastin: Okay, okay.
Vincent Anderson: That’s it from me. Thank you.
Operator: Your next question comes from the line of David Begleiter with Deutsche Bank. Please go ahead.
David Begleiter: Thank you. Good morning.
Celeste Mastin: Good morning, David.
David Begleiter: Good morning. Celeste and John, your Q4 guidance implies a pretty steep ramp from Q3. Can you give us some color on the various drivers and buckets how much from price cost? How much from cost savings? How much from volume and normalized operations to drive that ramp?
John Corkrean: Yes, I think the biggest driver is the momentum we are seeing from raw material savings, and I think we have done a good, really good job managing pricing. So as I said, the — it’s been very consistently kind of $40 million to $45 million of savings per quarter between the two and we would expect a similar number in Q4 on better volume performance. Right, so those are the major drivers, and we would — the impact from restructuring and acquisitions will be more in Q4 than it has been in any of the other quarters, maybe close to double based just on the timing of the acquisitions, and the ramping up of restructuring. So those are the things that would drive this ramp. Now we also, I would say have an easier comparison in Q1 through Q3 as it relates to the macroenvironment that we were facing in Q4 last year versus the previous quarter.
So the growth rates are in part a reflection of easier comparison, but it’s more of those things that I talked about the timing on raws, management of pricing, improving volume and ramping up of restructuring savings, and acquisition impact.
David Begleiter: And John, how that $40 million to $45 million price cost tailwind, how much of that is locked in? I presume pricing is locked in and I presume most of raw material costs are locked in as well. Is that fair?
John Corkrean: Yes. I think that’s fair. I mean, I think everything is a little bit, particularly on the raw material side on a lag, right because it’s the products that we purchased in Q2 were really the ones that impacted our P&L in Q3. So, if you think about what’s a Q4 impact, it’s really materials that we have already purchased and pricing. We do have quarterly resets on our formula-based pricing, but we have — those are based on the previous quarter’s raw material costs. So, we do have pretty good visibility on that as well.
David Begleiter: Great. And just last thing in ‘24 on a non-formula-based products which I know it will be down. Do you expect pricing to be down on the other portion of the business, the negotiated portion of the business?
Celeste Mastin: Well, again we will, because there will be plenty of reformulated products that we introduced to customers that are at a lower price to the customer while still being margin-preserving for us. So there’s a lot of activity, David, right now underway to reformulate and provide savings to customers given the weak volume demand that’s out there. Now, some customers will take advantage of that and some won’t. Again, we are a very small part of our customers’ end product and very enabling. There may be cases certainly where we are introducing higher priced products that bring overall total savings to them by allowing them to use a different substrate or run their line faster. So it’s a bit of a mixed bag, but I think that the overall movement in price will be flat to incrementally lower for all of those reasons.
