Larry De Maria: Okay. Yes. It’s just obviously — I think we’re mixing some apples and oranges and we’re all trying to get to some kind of a fair number. But we’re committing to growth in ’24, including MSA, including Hazel Park. CV is down 18%, maybe according to 1 forecast, but it’s offset by Hazel Park and some other things. But either way, we’re committing to some growth next year, assuming obviously that macro doesn’t blow up.
Jagadeesh Reddy: Larry, let me clarify. We’re expecting to grow overall MEC revenues next year outside of MSA.
Larry De Maria: Outside of MSA what? Sorry.
Jagadeesh Reddy: Yes, outside of MSA lapping, right, the happier MSA revenues coming into next year. In addition to that, we expect to grow MEC revenues overall.
Larry De Maria: Okay. Fair enough. And then we’ll start with less clarification. The $57 million — $27 million and $1 million to $2 million EBITDA from the potential UAW issue. Is that number specific to the 1 customer? Or that was a gross number prior to all these things getting sorted out?
Jagadeesh Reddy: It’s specific to 1 customer. Because in October — and just to clarify, right? In October, we were able to manage most of our challenges with overall UAW strike. As you know, we have some exposure to auto in MSA. And rest of today solves the 1 CV customer. So October, I think we’re able to manage quite well. In November and December, it’s just specific to 1 customer in the CV sector.
Operator: As we have no further questions, I’d like to hand it back to Jag Reddy, President and CEO, for any closing remarks. We do have a question. We have a follow-up from Ted Jackson. .
Edward Jackson: I just jumped in at the last minute with a couple of nitpicky questions for Todd because he’s my favorite person to pick on. So 1 thing just on SG&A, Todd. The quarter, the number was higher than was in my model. Not a big deal. You got MSA, and there’s clearly a lot of things, moving parts inside the business. What would be on the other SG&A expense line, how should I think about that for the fourth quarter? Just simply kind of a reset, if you would, as I kind of think through the model. I mean do you — is there some onetime stuff in there that we would see it go down? Or is that $86 million kind of the new baseline and we should be building off of that?
Todd Butz: Keep in mind, the $86 million includes $1 million of legal fees related to our former Fitness customer, and that continues to evolve. So I expect that to continue into the fourth quarter. And then $0.5 million of transaction costs, which I don’t expect to continue, right? That’s kind of behind us. We incurred those costs in Q3. But I do expect to have ongoing legal fees, unfortunately, in the near term until there’s an ultimate resolution on our claims. So we’ve said 4.5% to 5.5% in the near term. Next year, as we’ve talked about, we do have the SOC compliance requirements now that we’ll no longer be considered an emerging growth company. I feel like we’re in a great position to do that. But certainly, unfortunately, I’d rather, audit fees and other related things go up.
And from there, we’ll continue to delever. Delever, I would say, as our sales continue to grow. So in the fourth quarter, I would say similar without the transaction cost of the $0.5 million.
Edward Jackson: Okay. Okay. That’s helpful. And then on my second question on the nitpick for you is on amortization of intangibles. I mean will you have an updated table for amortization in your Q, I assume? Because clearly, with MSA and everything and now that’s in your balance sheet, that’s all going to change. But in the interim, can you give me some kind of color with what you think amortization of intangibles would be in the fourth quarter and then maybe in the aggregate for 2024?
