Andrew Krill: Alright, thank you.
Operator: And your next question comes from the line of Mike Halloran, with Baird, your line is open.
Michael Halloran : Good morning, everyone. Thanks for the time. So, couple of questions here. First time on slide 8, I really appreciate the context and the color there. Could you put in context, what the typical lag is for you, both on the institutional side and the commercial side versus those start numbers? In other words, how far out does it take for your content to get in? And then you look back historically, what’s the risk profile been for cancellations? I’m guessing not that high on the institutional side and maybe a little more vulnerable on the commercial side. But any help would be great.
Todd Adams: It’s a good question, Mike. I think when you think about what’s embedded in an institutional start, it’s a school, it’s a university building, it’s a hospital, it’s a health care facility. And so the build cycle, from start to finish, your occupancy is somewhere on average, 12 to 18 months. Maybe some complicated hospitals or universities take a little bit longer, but I think 12 to 18 months is the right way to think about it. And our content is spread almost randomly, a third, a third, a third. So when you think about that, we really participate over that 12-month build cycle somewhat ratably. So if we’re going to spend — if it’s $100 of content, into that, a third will come in the first three to four months, a third will come in the second three to four months, and the remainder will come towards the end. So it’s fairly ratable over the course of that build that 12 to 18-month build cycle.
Michael Halloran: And then the cancellation risk, pretty low, right? I mean the institution [multiple speakers] less so.
Todd Adams: Yes. I mean, again, when you think about these things, particularly in education is a perfect example. That’s usually some sort of referendum that virtually never, never gets gains. Same as whoop, same is true with healthcare, healthcare, facilities, hospitals, things in the like. So, I’d be lying to say that I can recall a scenario where something like that has been canceled once, once it’s sort of worked its way through the restart process.
Michael Halloran: As Jeff said, good cash flow, obviously, strong balance sheet. How are you thinking about, willingness to be more aggressive there, you’ve got a large authorization on the buyback side. What are your thoughts on leaning in on that a little bit more resulting in next year? And then any thoughts on how you look at the M&A funnel and how actionable it is?
Todd Adams: Yes, I mean, I’ll hit M&A first. Obviously, we’re continuing to cultivate proprietary ideas. We continue to think that, we’ll see some conversion over the course of the next 12 months, and some things and categories that we’re very close to. And as it relates to buyback, look, I think, we take a pretty pragmatic approach, we take a look at what we think the intrinsic value of our projections are and look at where the stock price is, and we’ll be more aggressive if we think that there’s any sort of dislocation that we want to take advantage of, and obviously, we have this cash flow, and the confidence in the cash flow to do that, as well as the balance sheet. So, we’ll see. I think we’ve been, if you look at pattern recognition, when the stock was 21 to 22, we bought a lot when it was 29 or 30. We bought some, but we bought a little bit less. And so I think, we absolutely will continue to follow that philosophy going forward.
Michael Halloran: Thank you. Really appreciate the context.
Operator: And your next question comes from the line of Nathan Jones with Stifle. Your line is open.
