That certainly, as we get into ’24 and later, you would expect that start to go to its historical mid to high single-digits growth rate. On the biopharma, we fundamentally believe that it has bottomed out and it’s sort of settling in at these current levels. By the end of first quarter, what you begin to see is we anniversary the growth rates that we have enjoyed for two years — two full (ph) years of double-digit growth in fluid components, that anniversaries itself. But I would caution us in terms of how fast we get back to the high-single-digit growth on biopharma. We fundamentally believe we’ll get there. What we are not sure right now is how long it takes for us to get to that high-single-digit growth rate. We believe nothing is impaired, but we’re also cautious in terms of how fast the ramp happens.
Hopefully, that gives you color on both those questions. Joe, anything else to add on the numbers?
Joseph Kelley: Yeah. I would just say, Matt, when you think about it, the electronics, the EPS division is down like roughly 20%. When you study the T&I, given the diversity of that end-market, those applications, while it may go through ups and downs and it’s been growing the last several years, I wouldn’t anticipate a scenario — we don’t see a scenario where that’s down 20%, offsetting some recovery in EPS. And similarly, I would tell you, if you go to the medical mix — in our — the destocking going on there in the biopharma is quite unique, where it’s down 30%, 40%, whereas the medical interventional solution, yes, it’s growing nice double-digits now, but if you go back during the pandemic, the COVID, that was only down in the, I would say, 10%, maybe 15%. So, it just doesn’t have the magnitude of the swings that we’re seeing in the current down-cycle. So, I wouldn’t anticipate that to offset the recovery in those in ’24.
Sundaram Nagarajan: I think…
Matt Summerville: Got it.
Sundaram Nagarajan: And just in addition to that, I would say, is medical fluid components flattens out, maybe picks up a little bit. And our interventional component grows high-single digits is sort of how I would…
Matt Summerville: Got it. That’s helpful. And then, just as a follow-up, can you maybe talk about — it sounded like you were running two concurrent $1 billion M&A processes over the last few months. Maybe talk about what made you kind of halt or walk away from the other deal and why ARAG maybe won out over the other potential candidate?
Sundaram Nagarajan: Yeah. If you look at both the deals, we were excited strategically for both those opportunities. They fit right smack dab in the middle of where we want it to be, highly-differentiated precision technologies, very attractive growth rates in end markets we really like in places we really understand and do well and have a customer-centric business model. So strategically, both of them were exactly where we want it to be and we pursue both of them equally, yeah. And so, what really when we came down to final due diligence, we exercise financial discipline, we’ve always talked about, look, we first go through the strategic criteria and if we like it, we go to the next step and then when it’s financially make sense for the company, has a returns we’d like, then we do it.
So what I’m telling you is that, on ARAG, we hit both of them. In the other deal, in the final analysis, we couldn’t get there and we were financially disciplined and so we walked away from it.
Matt Summerville: Thanks, Naga.
Operator: [Operator Instructions] Go ahead, Naga.
Sundaram Nagarajan: Yeah. One thing I would add, as we were talking about the end markets, Matt, in your question, the end-market challenges and the upsides and we talk about the two acquisitions. I would kind of step back and think about this quarter. And if you think about this quarter, what Nordson’s team really did was have an operational excellence that kind of came through in the results. It really showed there were some challenges on the topline, but the team did an incredible job. And that showed during the bottom line, right? And one to look at it and say that’s operational excellence and you could simply walk away. But from my vantage point, what really shines through is the work we’ve been doing inside the company around Ascend strategy and the competitive advantage we are building.
And this competitive advantage of Ascend strategy really what it is, is you’ve got strong winning teams with an incredible owner mindset that are executing the NBS Next growth framework and delivering results, right? That’s the competitive advantage we are building and that shows up in three different ways. One, it shows up in divisions where end-market conditions are challenged, the team really takes an owner mindset and figures out what kind of cost actions we need to take and deliver decremental margins that we’ve talked about in the 55%. Then you have a set of divisions that have strong market opportunities and really fully participating in that growth through incredible customer service and delivering really strong incremental margins, right?
And then on the third side, the company not sitting idle, certainly looking at what are the growth opportunities through acquisitions. And so, the team really — the three different themes and end of the day, that’s what we’re talking about here. That’s in my mind is what is coming through in our results in the quarter.
Operator: Your next question comes from the line of Christopher Glynn of Oppenheimer. Your line is open.
Christopher Glynn: Thanks. Good morning, Naga and Joe, Lara. I was curious about the polymer markets, if there is any sort of interesting structural dynamics, what you’re seeing in terms of a typical timing around a recap cycle or market penetration momentum? Just curious for a higher-level view of that market.
