Greetings and welcome to the W.W. Grainger Fourth Quarter 2024 Earnings Conference Call. [Operator Instructions] Please note, this conference is being recorded. I will now turn the conference over to your host, Kyle Bland, Vice President, Investor Relations. Thank you. You may begin.

Good morning. Welcome to Grainger's Fourth Quarter and Full Year 2024 Earnings Call. With me are D.G. Macpherson, Chairman and CEO; and Dee Merriwether, Senior Vice President and CFO. As a reminder, some of our comments today may include forward-looking statements that are subject to various risks and uncertainties. Additional information regarding factors that could cause actual results to differ materially is included in the company's most recent Form 8-K and other periodic reports filed with the SEC. This morning's presentation includes non-GAAP financial measures, which include certain adjustments in previous periods as noted in the presentation. There were no adjusted items in the fourth quarter 2024 period. Definitions and full reconciliations of our non-GAAP financial measures with their corresponding GAAP measures are found in the tables at the end of this presentation and in our earnings release, both of which are available on our IR website. We will also share results related to MonotaRO. Please remember that MonotaRO is a public company and follows Japanese GAAP, which differs from U.S. GAAP and is reported in our results 1 month in arrears. As a result, the numbers discussed will differ from MonotaRO's public statements. Now I'll turn it over to D.G.

Thank you, Kyle. Good morning and thanks for joining the call. In 2024, the Grainger team continued to drive our strategy forward by remaining focused on what matters most: providing our customers with exceptional service and a great experience. On these core issues, we made strong progress this past year. We leveraged our technology data and analytical capabilities to drive differentiated value for our customers in those segments. We invested in supply chain capacity to extend our leadership position in MRO fulfillment. And we remain focused on fostering a workplace environment where all team members can build a rewarding career. These efforts allowed us to deliver on our financial commitments for the year and helped us maintain our track record of driving strong return for shareholders. I'm proud of the progress we've made and want to take a few minutes to highlight some of these accomplishments in more detail. To start, I'd like to ground us in the understanding that all MRO distributors are trying to solve 2 basic customer needs. First, customers expect to fall as experience. That means having the products they need, making it simple to find, having a seamless order process, getting into them quickly and making it easy to receive and pay. Second, customers expect their MRO partner to deliver tangible value for their business. This goes far beyond selling products and is something that shows up differently for each customer. It could be simplifying a customer's purchasing process, helping them improve inventory management capabilities, finding product substitutes to save them money or supporting their operational and safety challenges. Our 2 go-to-market models, High-Touch Solutions and Endless Assortment, are built to solve these needs for customers of varying sizes and industries. Our teams and processes are structured to help customers find the products they need,…

I want to echo D.G.'s comment on our strong 2024 performance. Not only did we make progress on a number of strategic initiatives, but the team was also able to deliver on the majority of our 2024 financial commitments. This includes revenue, margin and EPS all finishing within the original guidance ranges we provided this time last year. Now turning to detail on the fourth quarter. We had another good quarter to finish out the year with results coming roughly in line with expectations. For the total company, daily sales grew 4.2% or 4.7% on a daily organic constant currency basis, which included growth in both segments. Sales were strong in the quarter despite softness in the back half of December from holiday timing and customer shutdowns. Total company gross margins for the quarter were strong, ending at 39.6%, up 50 basis points over the prior year period. Favorability was mainly driven by the High-Touch Solutions segment, which I'll detail on the next slide. This gross margin favorability largely flow through to the bottom line, where operating margins ended the quarter at 15%, up 40 basis points versus the prior year. Overall, we delivered diluted EPS for the quarter of $9.71, which was up over 16% versus the fourth quarter of 2023. Diving into segment-level results. The High-Touch Solutions segment continues to perform well with sales up 4% on a reported basis or 3% on a daily organic constant currency basis. Results were driven by solid volume growth and continued improved price contribution within the segment. We also delivered growth across all geographies in the period in local days, local currency. In the U.S. specifically, we saw strong growth with government and health care customers, which helped to offset more sluggish performance across the other areas. For the segment, gross…

Thanks, Dee. In 2024, our team members showed up every day, living Grainger's purpose and putting the customer first, leading the strong results for the company. As we head into 2025, I'm confident durable advantage will allow us to continue to gain share and create strong returns for all stakeholders. With that, we'll open the line up for questions.

[Operator Instructions] Our first question comes from Tommy Moll with Stephens.

D.G., I wanted to start with a question on the new volume-based outgrowth metric that you've provided. So the 400 to 500, I believe, is unchanged from the prior framework. If we look at 2024, you were a little bit below the low end of that range. And I think the guidance for this year contemplates being around the low end of that range. So to the extent you can bridge us on those 2 years what the headwinds were and what keeps you confident in that 400 to 500 million longer term, that would be appreciated.

Sure. Thank you. So first of all, the biggest dislocation has been on the price component, and we actually hit that. There's some product categories that we don't actually play in that have had more price inflation. So we felt like moving to the volume metric made the most sense. We were lower than the 400 for 2024. There was still dislocation, we believe, in the volume metric as well. And I will say that this metric does get restated as well at that point looking forward. So we have found that we may have done better than we've stated here that is possible. So the 400 -- you see 400, 450, 450 moving forward. The 400 is really a nod to the fact that we found that when we expanded seller coverage, if we went with too many sellers at one time in a region, we struggled to hit the execution we wanted. So we scaled that back a little bit and only had one region of 70 new sellers in 2024, and we're going in smaller chunks moving forward. So that slows down that metric a little bit for this coming year. But basically, nothing has really changed in reality.

And as a follow-up, D.G., I wanted to ask about what's assumed in your outlook this year on government spend. And I mention that just because there's plenty in the headlines these days about potential headwinds there. And so as you put together your outlook for this year, I'm just curious what assumptions you made.

Yes. We obviously have a strong government business. I would remind everybody that the vast majority of -- the majority of that is actually state and local government. So federal government is a smaller portion. Of the federal government portion, military is by far the biggest chunk. And we do very well in serving the military. And we don't think that's going to be affected much, and it may actually be a positive potentially. So we don't have a huge impact in there right now from some of the government changes given where we play. And we obviously are constantly looking at regulations and making sure we understand what's going on. We feel pretty good about our federal business and our state and local business at this point.

And our next question comes from Ryan Merkel with William Blair.

My first question is just on the outlook for '25. You've got the market volume down 1%. Can you just talk about some of the assumptions you've made? And did you include anything for tariff uncertainty in that outlook?

Yes. I'll start with that. So yes, we're assuming that the U.S. MRO volume portion of the market will be flat to down 1.5%. And if you think about that at the midpoint, that is about where we, I believe, 2024 was. And so we're really not expecting, like some are, a macro step-change in the year. So we're assuming 2025 is going to be like 2024 at this point. And then to the second part of your question, since the landscape around tariffs is so uncertain and changing rapidly and daily, we chose to not include any tariff-related impacts in the guide at this point. And as more is known and we understand it and can work with our supply base, we, of course, will run that through our numbers. And if an adjustment is needed, we will do that at the next time we speak with you.

Got it. Okay. That's helpful. And I think that's fair. And then my second question is just on the opportunity with AI. And thanks for the extra detail in the deck, I'm looking at Page 7 here. I guess, D.G., this may be hard to answer because it's early, but should we view AI as potentially transformative for Grainger or is that a bit strong? Maybe it's just another tool in the toolbox to help you outgrow?

Yes. I think the way I view the AI tools is the powerful set of tools that can help make the business better and really important to point the effort at the right issues for the company and define processes that will benefit from AI. It's also really important to have data. If you don't have the right data, right data feed, you can get some junk out. And so we've been investing in those data assets with PIM and KIM over the last several years. And we've also invested in understanding how best to use AI, and we're experimenting and learning about where it plays best. We've been using ML, which is a part of AI for a long time. And we have made something like 18 working models in the business that run all kinds of things. So this is not really new to us. We do think some of the tools will be -- give us an advantage in certain areas given our data quality and the amount of data we have. I'd leave it there.

And our next question comes from Sabrina Abrams with Bank of America Merrill Lynch.

So I'm also going to ask a question about the volume target. So I see the slide that lays out the framework, the shift from 4 to 5 target to be about volume outgrowth rather than the total market. Just to clarify, are there any changes to how you're thinking about your gross margin or your operating margin or the EPS CAGR long-term targets given the shift in the outgrowth target?

No. No, there's no changes at all. In fact, the outgrowth target is still the same, too. So really, there's no change in anything or our confidence about the earnings algorithm going forward. Nothing's changed.

Okay. Great. And then as we think about the margin ramp through the year, I guess, how should I think about the drivers of margin, maybe at the bottom of Q1 and then ramping through the year? Just like looking at it, I think the price comps are more difficult in the back half, at least for U.S. HTS. So what sort of drives the improvement off of Q1?

Yes. So let me take it back a little bit, and I'll start with sales and I'll end with profitability because there is a little bit of noise, especially in Q1. And so as I mentioned on the call for the first quarter, we feel like we've had a slow start, and that will flow through the P&L, mostly due to January results and holiday timing and some adverse weather. And so that's going to also impact the first quarter. And so when you translate daily constant currency sales to reported sales, there's a lot of noise in the first quarter. And that's driven by foreign exchange headwinds, which are most pronounced again in the first quarter. And also in the first quarter, there's 1 fewer selling day in February, which reduces revenue roughly by about $70 million, representing about 160 basis points headwind to reported sales. And that all translates to the number that we provided in prepared remarks that we believe our reported sales for the quarter were in about $4.3 billion, around that area, for the first quarter. And so we don't -- from there, we're still not going to have typical seasonality with the business because generally, in the first quarter, we raised price more significantly. We've noted that price will be minimal in the fourth quarter -- first quarter, so you're not going to have the change sequentially from Q1 to Q2. So I wanted to call that out as well. And given the slower start to sales when you include the FX impacts as well as the daily sales count, operating margin in Q1 will be about the lowest of the year, and we kind of said that in the prepared remarks as well. We think it's going to land around 15 for the full year guidance range. This will drive EPS down to be flat to slightly down in the first quarter, and then that will also ramp thereafter.

Basically, it's because of the sales impact. And basically, that's the whole game here in the first quarter. There's some strange things going on with sales and FX.

And our next question comes from David Manthey with Baird.

D.G., just to follow on to what you just said, question on contribution margins, I guess, not just in the first quarter but more holistically for the year. At what rate would you expect unexpected incremental volume revenue dollars, so not tariffs or anything like that, but revenue dollars that were unexpected to flow through to EBIT and, let's say, that's manifested in the market growing 2% rather than flat to down 1.5%?

Yes. I mean we would expect -- if you're saying if we get better market conditions, north of 20% would be some of the incremental margins.

Yes. Okay. And then just one for Dee quickly. As we look at Slide 23 and we're bridging from the EBIT to the EPS, I know you have these below-the-line items for noncontrolling and allocation of participating securities. Could you just tell us what your rough estimate is for that? Is it $95 million, $96 million, something like that?

Let me get to the slide. You said Slide 23? Yes. I think that's right. Yes, you're looking at OIE? Yes, that's right.

Our next question comes from Jacob Levenson with Melius Research.

I just wanted to expand on Ryan's question a little bit around AI. And I know you mentioned you've been using machine learning for some time, but maybe you can give us an example or 2 of where there's been a step-change in the capabilities that you have today or expect to have just given the advancements that we've seen coming out of Silicon Valley.

Yes. I mean I can give you -- I'll give you 2, and I mentioned these in the prepared remarks. But a couple of years ago, we developed our own machine learning model to help stock our distribution centers. And this is a messy model with a lot of data because you've got to have supply lead times and slotting physicians and everything in the model, and then you'd let the model work to get the best service out of that. And that has driven significantly improved service in our buildings. And so that model continues to learn, and we continue to use that to basically make sure we have the right products in the right place for our customers. And that's an example of a step forward. I think the other one is we've been using generative AI to work with chatbot with our chat process in our contact centers. And that has helped make our responses to customers better, help them find products faster, and we're going to expand that to other channels as well. So we feel that a lot of opportunities with generative AI with our proprietary data to basically provide better customer experience, and we're going to continue working on those things.

That is super interesting. And actually, just on the DC point, is -- are these new facilities, when you build something from the ground up, I would have to imagine even a facility built 5 years ago is kind of outdated from a technology and automation perspective given all the changes that have happened in AI, just warehouse automation in general. But are these facilities -- how much more productive are they, I guess, is the question relative to the legacy stuff?

Yes. In terms of distribution center productivity, certainly, when we put the building in Manuka, that was the largest good-to-person system in the world, we believe. That is somewhat old technology but still pretty effective. We got probably 4x the picking rates for small parts out of that building. The issue is a lot of the building has forklift drivers and stuff, and that doesn't get us productive. So the overall building is certainly more productive than it was before. But what we've been able to automate and what the industry has been able to automate is mostly small parts picking rather than full pallet picking. And so parts of the building get a lot more productive and parts have not, I'd say. Parts are still sort of driving these around. We actually, though, have also been playing with AI tools that allow our DC team members to be working and get sort of single flow so you can push what to do next to them rather than working on 45-minute slots. And that allows them to, based on where they're at, get the next most efficient thing sent to them. And that, we think, is going to be pretty beneficial for us as well.

Your next question comes from Christopher Snyder with Morgan Stanley.

I hopped on a bit late, so I hope this wasn't already addressed. But I wanted to ask about price and gross margin. I think the minimal price expectation for 2025 is maybe a bit below what the market was thinking. So I just wanted to confirm that this is really just a reflection of your expectation for what you think the producers will ask for. And then does the company feel like they can push incremental price if needed?

So we look at a lot of things when we set price. And one is what competitors are doing. One is what our suppliers are asking for. Last year, we were pretty much flat from a GP perspective. We expect to be similar in a high-touch model next year. So yes, our price expectations reflect what our suppliers are asking of us as well, and that's an important element. We think if there is price in the market, we can certainly pass price. And if there's not, then passing price probably isn't the right thing to do. Our price tenet is basically to stay price-competitive and over the long term, be relatively price cost-neutral, and we think we can do those things.

Yes. I appreciate that. And I think you guys were price/cost-neutral in Q4. It seems like the expectation to stay price/cost-neutral in '25. So I guess, is there anything weird with like the typical gross margin seasonality? I know Dee called out some moving parts in Q1 with FX because typically, we get a pretty material step-up on gross margin from Q4 to Q1, which could kind of put Q1 in that 40% range, which makes low 38% for the year, feel like a relatively low bar. But let me know if I'm missing something on that, if there's anything weird on the seasonality.

Yes. Chris, I'll step in here a little bit. As you and D.G. were discussing, we're really trying to focus our price inflation based upon what we're seeing with our supplier negotiations. And we're not seeing the supplier inflation that then would translate into price inflation like what you're seeing from some of these market indexes. And so then even when we do our straight, we're not seeing that. And one of the things I called out in my prepared remarks is that we do see other product categories that are listed as industrial, and they are in the PPI sub-index. But those are things like airplanes and airplane parts and medical equipment, and we don't sell any of those things. So within that index, there is inflation on those products, but those are not products that we actually sell nor bring into our inventory. So we're not trying to chase that type of inflation.

Your next question comes from Christopher Glynn with Oppenheimer.

So just on the immediate bridging of outgrowth on the volume basis, you had 2%, 2.5% in the second half and then 4%, 4.5% for next -- for the current year. Is that something that kind of builds back gradually given the steeper outgrowth comps in the first half, whereby the first quarter, you're still kind of transitioning to rebuild momentum?

What I will say is we talked about what we think Q1 will look like, be a slower start to January. So we may have a little softness there. But yes, with us targeting the lower end of the 4% to 5%, that would imply that we would expect some ramping of share gain through the year.

Okay. And then on the gross margin performance, the 39.6 in the fourth quarter, arguably, the cleanest of the year with lapping some mismatches, and you had some call-outs earlier in the year. So if we were to regard that as something of a jumping-off point, is there a reason that isn't reading through or staying at a bit higher level than how you're benchmarking?

I think I want to make sure you're talking about Q4 results?

Yes. Was there anything particular in that 39.6 for the company that diminishes into next year?

Yes. Well, we did have about a 40 basis point tailwind this year from the fact that we had an E&O adjustment in the prior year. That's not sustainable. But the things that may be more sustainable is that we did get a slight mix and freight favorability of about 30 basis points in that number. And as we continue to talk about at the total company level, as the EA business grow faster than High-Touch, we will have a headwind from BU mix, and that was about 20 basis points. And so there were some ins and outs there that total to about 50 basis points year-over-year compared to Q4 2023.

And our next question comes from Ken Newman with KeyBanc Capital Markets.

Dee, I was curious if you could just quantify for us how much the fourth quarter ADS was impacted by the timing of holidays and extended customer shutdowns. And then just understanding that there is a lot of noise in 1Q, I'm just really curious if we've seen weekly sales trends in January return to those pre-shutdown levels yet.

Yes. So if you look at the fourth quarter, we're estimating that -- remember, there was a hurricane and then there was holiday timing. And so there was about 80 basis points impact or benefit from the hurricane for us that happened in October but on the quarter with 80 bps. And then holiday timing of shutdowns was about 50 basis points. And so when you normalize for that, the 4 7 goes to about 4 5.

Got it. And then maybe color on the January trends?

Yes. So the first full week of January, there was a lot of weather events that were challenging to understand. But I would say other than that, things have fought back to what is sort of normal activity.

Got it. That's helpful. And then just for my follow-up here. I know there's a lot of moving pieces here and a lot of investments going into place here in 2025. Is there any way to quantify the dollar SG&A spend for each of those buckets just to help us bridge to what's going to be fixed investment versus what's tied to whatever the volume flex will be in the year?

Well, generally, we don't share our investment dollar inputs to the business. But I'll say this, we are going to intend to invest incrementally in marketing. D.G. talked about our pay-with-seller ads from a geography perspective. And we're looking to add one, maybe 2, geographies later in the year. And those are our biggest investments that drive demand generation. We'll continue to look at adding products as needed in our merchandising area. That also is accretive. But we've built those teams, so it's not a lot of incremental SG&A. It's more incremental inventory if we find the right products and if we want to bring those products then into stock.

The only other thing I'd add is that on the technology side, we do continue to invest in technology to create advantage long term. It doesn't show up as huge increases in SG&A. But certainly, on a cash basis, it's a big part of our spend.

And our next question comes from Patrick Baumann with JPMorgan.

A couple of quick ones. Fastenal talks to, I think, a need for like high single-digit top line growth to expand their margins. And then kind of mid-single-digit growth is where they can defend them. Just thinking about your long-term algo, is it similar for Grainger where you need a high single-digit top line to get the high teens incrementals that you need to expand your margins?

No, no. For us -- I mean I'm not sure what Fastenal said. For us, I think it's probably more like mid-single digits we'd see expansion and lower single digits, it would be challenging.

Okay. And then on tariffs, I know they haven't come yet, maybe they won't, who knows. But if you could update us on your global sourcing mix by some of the key regions, maybe China, Mexico, Canada, would be helpful. And then how you'd plan to handle tariffs if they come, will you price to try to hold your gross margin steady? Or will you just put a surcharge in and simply pass the cost on to customers? Curious on any thinking around that.

Yes. I mean in terms of our footprint, we have global sourcing that is probably 60%, 70% in China right now. We are not uniquely exposed. Most of the things that we get from China, everybody gets from China. And we do have sourcing in Mexico. We have sourced -- we've moved some product to Vietnam. We've moved some to India. So we have a broad footprint, for sure. In terms of -- the uncertainty of the tariffs is still pretty strong. But in terms of tariffs, depending on what happens in the marketplace, the competitive environment, we would typically try to pass on and keep the same margins in what we pass on. It just depends on the nature of the tariffs, I'd say, there's still a lot of uncertainty. But we certainly have a good sense for our footprint, and we've been actively moving some of it over the last couple of years.

And your next question comes from Chris Dankert with Loop Capital Markets.

I guess to circle back to that long-term algorithm, maybe on gross margin. Historically, I think the target had been like a 37% gross margin. We're above that range. So it feels like because this mix is stabilizing to being a slight headwind holding the line at 39%, it seems like that's a pretty good performance. So in order to expand EBIT, we've got to really lever on SG&A. How -- would you push back on that characterization? I guess I'm surprised that you think you can expand even on 4%, 5% top line.

Yes. Yes, I think that's a great question. And yes, if you go back several years ago, you're exactly right. We were saying around this time, we were targeting to be about 37% total company gross margins. We've done better than that. And as we look at our outlook here now and as everyone plans to look in the future, we felt noting that remaining stable around 39%, based upon our value proposition and our 2 go-to-market models, makes the most sense based on polo we're seeing from share gain as well as from competitive pricing. So I think you've got it right. I think we've included details like that on Slide 24 that align with the long-term earnings framework.

And we would also agree that SG&A leverage is going to have to be the primary driver of of any margin expansion going forward, no question.

Got it. And I guess just finally, thinking about your market outgrowth formula as well, given your mix, you've got more health care, hospitality, government than kind of just the IP or ISM measurements would have, right? So I think it would make sense for you guys to outperform when industrial is slow. Maybe it's a harder push when you see the acceleration in the ISM. Any thoughts around how we should be interpreting that over time, perhaps?

Well, I mean, obviously, manufacturing is still our biggest segment. So roughly 1/3 of our business is manufacturing. I would say, there's probably over another 1/3 of the business is probably tied to industrial activity. So we are very linked to industrial activity. I do think that the government business is a bit unique and so is the health care business, but those don't make up as much as the total. So I think we're still very tied to IP, and that will always be the case given our structure.

And our next question comes from Deane Dray with RBC Capital Markets.

Just a question related to the tariffs. And I know your customers would never preposition ahead of a tariff just because it's all MRO and they're not really going to store ahead. But how about Grainger, just in terms of your product positioning, did you, in any way, kind of do some accelerated ordering ahead of what could be a disruptive period, especially from China?

So in general, we evaluate every year whether or not we want to make prebuys at the end of the year. We do a modest amount, and I don't think that really has changed for this year. So we probably did a few things that might have helped us in case this happens. But we don't get in the business of trying to prebuy in a big way, typically. So that's really not part of our motion.

Good. And I'm correct about the customers absolutely not doing that either?

That's right.

All right. And then second question, just on the outlook for M&A, just expectations for 2025. Is that a lever that Grainger would be interested in polling? And broadly for the distribution sector, there's been some announcements of some sizable deals. Do you think this is a sea change? You still have a highly, highly fragmented market, and outgrowth organically has still been the primary strategy. But is there anything in the way of M&A that might accelerate that?

I don't -- our strategy doesn't change. We think we're primarily an organic growth company. We do look at any opportunities that come up. There are certain subsets of distribution for which I think M&A probably makes more sense, for sure. And they don't necessarily apply to us. But the short answer is we are always looking, but we expect organic growth to be our primary driver.

And we have reached the end of the question-and-answer session. I will now turn the call back over to D.G. Macpherson for closing remarks.

First of all, thanks for joining. I continue to be very happy with our progress. I think, as we talked about here, our earnings algorithm doesn't change. We continue to focus on providing the best customer experience, on having an engaged team, and I'm making sure we deliver our financial commitments. And we feel very good about our going in position no matter what the market. And as we discussed, if obviously, the market's better than we project, we will do better. That's the way this works. But right now, we think we have all the tools in place to have a really good year. So thanks for joining us today.

Thank you. And with that, we conclude today's call. All parties may disconnect. Have a good day