Nicole DeBlase: Just maybe starting with the cadence of EPS through the year, I think just looking back at normal seasonality, you do typically see like a step up in the second half from either the first half or 2Q however you want to look at it, I guess what are the key puts and takes that you’re embedding more of like a step down at the midpoint this year?
Todd M. Leombruno: Nicole, that’s a great question. We looked at that a lot as we put this guidance together. What I like about the guide is the EPS is evenly split now first half, second half, it’s fifty-fifty. So there’s big ramp in the second half that should be concerning. I would call out that Q1 and Q2, obviously, those were both record numbers when it comes to EPS. So, I think that’s a little bit of the driver there. Aerospace business remains strong. We have no concerns about that business whatsoever. But we did see some softness in the North American businesses and obviously international got a little bit better, but it’s still a little choppiness out there. So, that’s really the elements that went into our guide. If you look at both of those quarters and really the second half of the year, I mean, we really are still guiding at record levels of earnings per share.
Nicole DeBlase: Totally understood. Thanks, Todd. And then just going back to some of the order trends, you guys gave really good color around the international revenues that you saw, but what actually improved sequentially in the orders going from the down 8 to the down 5 in 2Q? Thank you.
Jennifer A. Parmentier: Asia Pacific orders improved in the quarter.
Nicole DeBlase: Got it.
Jennifer A. Parmentier: That’s [indiscernible]
Nicole DeBlase: Thanks Jenny, I’ll pass it on.
Todd M. Leombruno: Thanks, Nicole.
Operator: Our next question comes from Nathan Jones with Stifel. Please state your question.
Nathan Jones: Good morning, everyone.
Todd M. Leombruno: Good morning, Nathan.
Jennifer A. Parmentier: Good morning, Nathan.
Nathan Jones: I’m going to start off on capital allocation now that the balance sheet is in much better order post paying down a lot of the debt off Meggitt. Being back to maybe around two turns in net leverage at the end of 2024, can you talk, about your willingness to get back into the M&A market, we’re in a bit of a different interest rate environment than we were when you bought Meggitt. You went up to a little over 3.5 tons of leverage to buy that. What your appetite is for potentially levering up given the different interest rate environment and priorities for debt versus M&A?
Jennifer A. Parmentier: Thank you, Nathan. This is Jenny. Well, first of all, as we’ve said, debt pay down is our number one priority. But as Todd mentioned, we are ahead of schedule for achieving around that 2.0 number by the end of this fiscal year. One thing I would say is that, we never let the pipeline go dry. We’re always working the pipeline. We’ve built a lot of relationships over the years. That’s how we’ve wound up with these great companies in our portfolio, and we continue to do that. We have the right deal. It has to be the right property out there. We still want to be the consolidator of choice. We like all of our eight technologies, we do see an opportunity to build on the entire portfolio. We want that to be driven by secular trends and longer cycle, faster growing, more resilient businesses. And we wanted to be accretive to margins, to EPS, to cash flow. So, we’ll keep this pipeline going and we’ll be looking for that right deal.
Nathan Jones: And I mean, would you be willing to do something like 3.5 tons of leverage and de-lever after that, again, given the change in the interest rate environment, as a lower number kind of you’re sealing these days given the interest rate environment?
Todd M. Leombruno: Hi, Nathan, this is Todd. I’ll take a stab at that. So, listen, we’re not trying to do anything bigger than what we’ve done. Jenny said it, I think very well. We’re trying to make sure we do the right deal for the company, for the shareholders. What we have proven is, is we have proven that we can de-lever quickly. We generate cash like we’ve never done before. And I think what we’ve been is we’ve been creative with the way we structured those deals that allows us some flexibility on that. So, I don’t think we wouldn’t be afraid to do something like what we did before, but we don’t necessarily have to do that if it doesn’t present itself.
Nathan Jones: Fair enough. Thanks for taking the questions.
Todd M. Leombruno: Thanks, Nathan.
Jennifer A. Parmentier: Thank you, Nathan.
Operator: Our next question comes from Mircea Dobre with Baird. Please state your question.
Mircea Dobre: All right. Good morning. Thank you for the question. Just to follow-up on that discussion with Nathan, when you’re approaching M&A at this point, first, are you sort of just looking at the eight technologies that you currently have in your portfolio, are you willing to look more broadly beyond that? And also how do you sort of think about your specific vertical or end market exposure? You’ve done some sizable things obviously in aerospace. Is that still an area that you’re looking at or are you frankly willing to look to further diversify your portfolio beyond the end markets that you currently have exposure to.
