Thanks, Operator. Good morning, and thank you for joining us for Ingersoll-Rand's Fourth Quarter and Full-Year 2017 Earnings Conference Call. This call is also being webcast on our Web site at ingersollrand.com, where you'll find the accompanying presentation. We are also recording and archiving this call on our Web site. Please go to slide two. Statements made in today's call that are not historical facts are considered forward-looking statements and are made pursuant to the Safe Harbor provisions of Federal Securities law. Please see our SEC filings for a description of some of the factors that may cause our actual results to differ materially from our anticipated results. This presentation also includes non-GAAP measures, which are explained in the financial tables attached to our news release. The participants on today's call are Mike Lamach, Chairman and CEO, and Sue Carter, Senior Vice President and CFO. With that, please go to slide four, and I’ll turn it over to Mike.

Thanks, Zac, and thanks to everyone for joining us today. As I've said a number of times since we held our Analyst Day in May of 2017, I am more bullish about Ingersoll-Rand's position to execute on our strategy to deliver strong shareholder returns over the next several years that I've been at any other time in my tenure as CEO. Please go to slide four. I'd like to start this morning by reviewing the fundamental elements of our business strategy, because in the midst of any busy earnings season, it's easy to move directly to microtrends and quarterly pluses and minuses and to lose sight of the larger fundamental picture and trends that really drive value for long-term shareholders. First, our underlying strategic objectives continue to be to deliver profitable growth through leadership positions and durable markets underpinned by global megatrends such as sustainability and the need to dramatically reduce energy demand and resource constraints in buildings, homes, industrial, and transport markets around the world. We focus on innovation and delivering the most reliable energy-efficient and environmentally-friendly products and services available, enabled by digital and other exponential technologies. We excel at delivering energy efficiency and reducing greenhouse gas emissions, reducing food waste, preserving natural resources, and generating productivity for our customers. We maintain a healthy level of investment in our businesses to sustain leading brands which are number one or number two in virtually every market in which we participate. It's important to highlight that we continue to invest to maintain the portfolio with superior breadth and depth in nearly every major product category in which we compete. In 2017, we continued our product growth team efforts, launching approximately 70 new major products throughout the world. We continue to strengthen our digital capabilities and creating value with customers and…

Thank you, Mike. Please go to slide number six. I'd like to begin with a summary of main points to takeaway from today's call. As Mike discussed, we drove solid operating and financial results in the fourth quarter with adjusted earnings per share of $1.02, an increase of 21% versus the year-ago period. We delivered high quality earnings which helped drive 2017 free cash flow to $1.3 billion or 118% of adjusted net income. Organic bookings and revenue growth was strong in both our Climate and Industrial segments. In the Industrial segment we delivered low-teens bookings growth in all three industrial businesses. We also delivered the strongest organic revenue growth quarter of the past three years. Additionally, the business continues to make steady improvements in its overall operating performance. On the Climate side, organic booking were up high single digits in Commercial HVAC, with low-teens growth in North America and solid growth in all other regions, except for Latin America. Organic revenue growth was also strong, up 6%, and was broad-based across all of our Climate businesses. Our Industrial business continues to strengthen its operational performance ahead of our expectations, with 160 basis points of improvement in adjusted operating margins on 5% organic revenue growth. Organic revenues were up low single digits in Compressor Technology and low-teens in Club Car and Industrial Products. Importantly, we also delivered balanced capital allocation results while meeting the commitments we laid out for investors in our guidance in January of 2017. We deployed $430 million on dividends, and increased the dividend 12.5% during the year, consistent with our commitment to maintaining a strong and growing divided over the long-term. We deployed $1 billion on share buybacks as the shares continued to trade below our calculated intrinsic value. To date, we've also deployed or entered…

Thanks, Sue. I'm going to spend the balance of our prepared remarks discussing the topics of interest we’ve received from many of you ahead of the call, and then do a quick wrap up summary before we open the floor for questions. Thanks to all of you who provided feedback to help us improve our focus on the issues that matter most to you in the section. Please go to slide 21. The first topic I’ll cover is our China strategy. It's one of the topics that have garnered a lot of interest from investors. So we want to spend some time providing more detail in strategy and expected impact going forward. First, it's important to note that our strategy in China for Tier 2 and Tier 3 cities is a proven strategy we've been successfully implementing in Tier 1 markets and the applied space as we first entered the market. Our strategy is to enter underserved geographic and vertical markets by using a direct sales force selling the product the way we do in most mature markets at the total cost of ownership basis versus the way you would sell an undifferentiated commodity. This takes a talented network of sales people, and other infrastructure investments to deploy, which we've been doing for the past 18 months. Once the customer has experience with our systems and sees the value in the total cost of ownership equation, we aim to become the basis for design, whereby we are advantaged with system reliability, energy conservation, and greenhouse gas emission reductions. We fundamentally transform the market landscape to compete on total value terms and are rewarded for our quality, technology and innovation, and service support. Margins improve as they would in any market where a product or service is differentiated and has a…

[Operator Instructions] Your first question comes from Steve Winoker from UBS. Steve, your line is open.

Thanks, and good morning all.

Good morning, Steve.

Good morning.

Hey, just first on guidance. Just want to understand again the relationship between the bookings that are trending, 8% organic and the 3% to 3.5% organic guidance on growth. Obviously there's a lag time on order to delivery in the industrial side, but maybe help us understand that. And also on the free cash flow conversion, I guess the CapEx increase. As there are inventory bill or are there other things that are kind of forcing that step-down versus prior year?

Steve, I'll do the first one, which the bookings came late in the fourth quarter, and so the exact timing of some of the larger compressor and applied shipments would still be a question mark. So whether that's a fourth quarter '18 or first quarter of '19 delivery it's TBD, and we'll update that throughout the year. But the bookings were definitely much stronger, and that was a surprise really from where we thought we would be at the end of the year. Backlogs were up about 12% going into the year. So we'll update shipments as we go further into the year. And Sue, on CapEx?

Yes, so, on CapEx, Steve, as we look at it, so we guided $300 million for 2018. When we started out the 2017 guidance we gave you about $250 million, we came in at about $220. So in other words, $30 million was really CapEx that we didn’t spend in 2017 that we're going to move over into 2018. So you have just a slight amount of increase. The other thing that I would say is when you think about the $300 million. The $300 million is primarily going to be new product introductions. It's going to -- the capital associated with that, it's going to be on factories for increasing productivity and increasing cost reduction ideas in our factories. So those primary objectives, when you think about them, are very clear with our growing operating margin and operating leverage. So we think that that $300 million is a good use of capital for 2018.

Okay. And Mike, just at a higher level, if we go back to the time that you took over and all the changes that you've made, particularly in the product development and introduction front, you've clearly run ahead on share of a number of HVAC competitors over this timeframe. But now we're seeing some of these other guys actually stepping up their own product introductions, very aggressively stepping up their own channel investments apparently more aggressively. Do you see the competitive environment getting more intense at all? Any forward thoughts on how that might impact the broader environment pricing, et cetera?

Steve, thanks. It's hard to look back now over nine years. It seems like it's a long time to look back. But one thing that we've been consistent about is just the level of investment that we've been pounding through every year on good ROIC projects. As Sue mentioned, stepping up on capital in those areas, the innovation pipeline looks solid. We had a lot of introductions, and 17 more planned for '18. So I think we do have a positive gap in the technologies and systems that we're putting out in the marketplace. And we've always known that we've got large competitors out there that are capable as well. So we intend to just continue to keep the drumbeat moving and keep innovation out in front. So we know where the competition is at relative to current launches, and we know what our pipeline looks like. And I would imagine that we're going to be able to maintain technology positive gap for some time.

Okay, great. Thanks. Good luck.

And your next question comes from Jeff Sprague from Vertical Research. Jeff, your line is open.

Thank you. Good day everyone. I had just a couple of things if I could. Also, Mike, just on the sales outlook. You addressed Industrial, it also seems like it has the same question about Climate given the way you're exiting here. Is there anything particular in the tone of orders or the forward look that gives you some pause in the top line in Climate for 2018?

Jeff, when you say some pause, just tell me what you're referring to there?

Well, I'm just looking at order rates that we seem to support maybe more than 3% organic growth in the business for 2018.

Yes, I mean the thing we don’t know, Jeff, is really the timing of fourth quarter and first quarter, whether it's '18 or '19. And these large bookings come in very late in the year, and we're really trying to assess at this point in time exactly when customers are going to need them. So it's difficult to predict. I mean clearly carrying 12% increased backlog year-over-year is a great thing relative to the revenue guidance that we've given. These are longer lead, large projects that we just need to work through a little more time to understand the exact timing.

And could you elaborate a little bit, Mike, just on your confidence on better China price in 2018. Does that reflect just the outright price increase initiatives or is it something that's happening in the mix of the business, a little color there to understand how that plays off?

Yes, so Jeff, we've been increasing price throughout Climate globally including Climate throughout 2017, in the back-half of the year in particular. And so I'm confident that pricing increases, because we've in some ways priced those projects coming through to shipment in 2018. I think competitive dynamics there would point to rise in prices in China as well. So I think that markets there are recovering in commodities has been something that's been felt by all competition. So you're seeing pricing coming through in the marketplace. And I think we've got a pretty good handle on what's happening, at least early in the year from a commodity perspective. So I feel like that gap is certainly going to close across the company and China. Beginning in the first quarter, frankly the gap closes, and then throughout the year. It's not really a hockey stick at all. I mean it's not a first-half second-half equation. I think that the leverage frankly is fairly linear through the year for us.

And just a quick one for Sue, if I could, repatriating 10% or 20% of your cash, so are you suggesting that although you're on a Irish territorial system before some of your cash was stranded, and you're now pulling that back or was there some other nuance in that comment?

No, there was no nuance in the comment, Jeff. What that really is, is some of our international entities that roll up under the U.S. structure, so the entities report into the U.S., and where as previously we had access to our cash through intercompany loans and through other mechanisms. We've going to use the tax reform and the repatriation tax that we're going to pay over the next eight years to bring back a small portion of that cash to the U.S.. And so you can obviously calculate this is roughly about $300 million. And the only reason really to signal that is we did not have a lot of cash that we did not have access to or that was a big part of the repatriation. So I was just trying to give you context on what the amount would be. And the reason it's an approximation is we have to go through all of the detailed works now that we've figured out the amount of tax with what the in-country rules are, how you would go about doing that timing of doing that, et cetera. So it was nothing more than a nuance to give you an idea of how much cash would come back to the U.S..

Great. Thank you.

Your next question comes from Steve Tusa from JPMorgan. Steve, your line is open.

Hi guys, good morning.

Good morning, Steve.

Can you just give us a little bit of color on what kind of price you're assuming in the guide here year-over-year, just roughly for the company?

Yes, Steve I'd really tell you that -- I'd start by saying that nothing changes around how we target and think about the operating system of the company trying to get a 20-30 basis point positive spread off material inflation. So, all the internal plans and all the incentive plans, if you will, are set to be able to achieve that. We've essentially thought about the year as being relatively flat in terms of price and material inflation. And we've set in place or in motion productivity ideas on a contingency basis that you could even handle, say, a negative 30 and still be able to achieve the midpoint of guidance. So we're really set for kind of a minus 30 plus 30 with spread roughly at zero is how I would think about that.

Okay. And again, you're not assuming flat price, you're assuming some price to offset the commodity, just to be clear on that, right?

Those absolutely priced, and on that of that there's absolutely material productivity on top of that, so absolutely priced.

Is most of that material productivity, is some of that coming from copper to aluminum or has that kind of already run its course? I know you guys were kind of ahead of the game on that front, in resi at least, or is it just blocking and tackling around product design?

No, so a number of things, but it's supplier consolidation to the preferred supplier program helps. That would be a driver. Material usage, so the quantity and gauge of material used. Material change, as you mentioned, would be another one. And then there'd actually be product design as well. So, all of that will contribute to a material productivity number.

Okay. And then just one last one, you mentioned that in the press release it sounded as if the China headwinds would be with you here in the first-half, although remedied pretty well for the full-year. You just mentioned that basically you're going to be linear on price cost over the course of the year. Should we think about the year as being any different from a seasonality perspective? And I think in the past you've said 45%-ish of earnings in the first-half, I think 10% to 12% in the first quarter. How should we kind of think about, at a high level, the seasonality of the year with these dynamics?

Sequentially, on your first question, really around pricing material cost inflation, we improve Q4 to Q1. It improves dramatically. You could think about maybe 50 basis points would be something that we would be thinking about in terms of that. So there's an immediate improvement I think Q1 to Q4 from that point of view. As it relates to the seasonality, I think you're right. If you go back over our four or five-year average it runs, say, 10.5% to 12.5%. I would tell you that at least initially I would be guiding you toward the lower end of that as it relates to just making sure that we've got this all contained around price to inflation, and it flows through the way that it should. So we feel good about what we're doing, but clearly we fully understand the burden of proof is on the first quarter, and so we're prepared for that.

Yes, well in the past you guys have smartly set a low bar and beat it, so kudos to you guys for keeping things reasonable here and not seeming to stretch. So thanks for the answers.

Your next question comes from Andrew Kaplowitz from Citigroup. Andrew, your line is open.

Good morning, guys.

Hi, Andy.

Good morning.

Mike, in the past you've talked about having good visibility into North American commercial HVAC markets. And it looks like bookings accelerated again in the quarter. Was that just easier comparison, did you see any pickup from hurricane-related work, and can you talk about any differences you're seeing in applied versus unitary markets?

Remember, quarter 4 last year for us was -- and in '16 was really strong. So I think that this strong quarter 4 that we booked is coming back-to-back really off combined healthy stack of bookings, so that, there's no easy comp there at all for us. There's larger projects that we have not planned in '18 that would dramatically change '18, and that would create a comp, obviously an issue for '19. But there are really no comp issues other than tough comps, '17 to '18 from that point of view. The visibility really hasn’t changed much. Institutional projects take longer. They're something that we work on with customers to help design and specify, and then move through the process of tendering, and awarding, and executing. So we tend to have more visibility on that, and that continues.

Okay, that's helpful. And then you mentioned the Industrial team is doing a good job on margin. But if I look at the income at the margin it was mid-30s in 4Q. It looks like you're only guiding to sort of mid-20s in '18. You talked about the large engineered-to-order compressors starting to ramp, which you know have been a bit of a drag on margins, so. And we know you've taken a lot of costs out of business. So again, is it just kind of conservatism, you've got to wait to see how this ramps up. But you could have pretty strong incremental margin growth in '18 if all things sort of step up the way they could?

Well, we feel good about the variable cost leverage. And it really depends on how much of the shipments come through in the year and how much fixed cost leverage do we get on that volume. So it really is something that'll play out through the year for us. But clearly great 2017, and more confidence kind of going into '18, '19, and really confidence around the 2020 outlook that we gave some time ago, that this business is really ahead of schedule on that front, and performing well.

Thanks, Mike.

And your next question comes from Joe Ritchie from Goldman Sachs. Joe, your line is open.

Great. Good morning guys.

Good morning, Joe.

Mike, maybe going back to that commentary you made on price cost with plus or minus 30 basis points this year. If you think about the major inputs, typically you guys hedge copper ahead of the year. So I'd be curious to get any details on that. And then, last year, clearly Chinese steel was a huge negative impact, being, I'd call it, 40% last year. Seems like where we are today, it seems like that's a lot more manageable. And so I guess my question is, first, maybe some more details around your assumptions. And then secondly, what are the biggest swing factors in your mind to maybe even getting positive price cost this year?

Joe, let me start out on the material inflation side and what we're seeing in 2018. So one, there's obviously the Tier 1 commodities that are inflationary, Tier 2, and then there's also other components. So what I want to point out is that refrigerants are going to be inflationary in 2018, and let's call that about 10% of our overall inflation. We've also got some led that goes into the Club Car product that will be inflationary. After that, as I break it down, what we expect to see is inflation in Tier 1 commodities is going to be about half of the inflation that we see spread between copper, steel, and aluminum. And so when I think about copper, we do lock copper as we go forward. So we're going to enter any given quarter with about 70% of that locked. And we're entering 2018 just under 70% locked on copper for the year. But we do expect that to be an inflationary component. You're also correct, Joe, that when you think about the globe in terms of commodities and what happened in '17, and what we also expect to see in 2018, is that Asia is performing differently than prior expectations. So before 2017, i.e., they did take some steel capacity offline. They've done other things that have kept some of their material inflation actually pretty high compared to what you'd normally see. And then in the U.S., not having options for steel purchases offshore, and using what's happening is another large part of that. So we do expect to see inflation in copper, aluminum, as well as some steel perhaps in the later part of the year. But I also point out the refrigerant and some of the other components.

Joe, I'd think about it as, and I've said before, that the nature of 2018 inflation seems more manageable to us than 2017. Some of that's got to do with the fact that copper is easier for us to take a look at and lock appropriately. And steel you get a little bit longer view, and it's sort of at a level right now where unless there's any trade policy shocks again to the system we feel that it's a more appropriate environment. So just in general, the nature or the profile of where the inflation is, is a bit easier for us to maintain, including refrigerants.

Got it, that's helpful. And then maybe just kind of switching gears, going back to Industrial for a second. I mean you're starting the year in such a better spot than you were last year just with your longer-cycle backlog, and clearly short-cycle trends remain good. When you look at the performance that you got this year from a margin perspective, it seems like you're being very conservative with your margin assumptions for 2018. And so to the extent you could comment on that, and then specifically around what are you getting from a pricing perspective as well on these orders, because it seems like your competitors are also putting through decent pricing increases.

Yes, industrial pricing has been really good. It's been great, and so our productivity there has been less of a factor too. So you're dealing with good price, and material inflation is a bit more predictable than it's been on the climate side. That's all really positive. Restructuring that we're doing in '18, roughly let's call it, say, $60 million in restructuring there. Two-thirds of that really is completed early now in January. And it's about two-thirds of the total. And it's really geared in the industrial area. So really thinking about how that'll flow through during the course of the year, and what the paybacks might look like when complete, there's an opportunity there. I'd like to say there's an opportunity more than there's a risk there. But there's an opportunity there perhaps for us to maybe to do better. So I'm really optimistic about what's happened with bookings there, what's happened with the margins being ahead of schedule, and the fact that we've got an early start toward the productivity requirements that we need to have in '18 and '19 there.

Got it. If I can sneak one more in, Sue, ending share count for the year?

For 2018?

2017?

2017, the average diluted shares was about 253.

Okay, average. So what was ending for 12-31?

Joe, we'll come back and grab another call. We'll find the number and…

Yes, I don’t know off the top of my head.

- another question.

Okay. Thanks, guys.

Your next question comes from Rich Kwas from Wells Fargo. Rich, your line is open.

Hi, good morning everyone. Mike, on institutional projects you've talked about a couple or three projects that you thought could come online in '18. Is that embedded in the revenue forecast or are those pushed out a bit?

No, they're not. They're not in the ‘18 forecast. That would be the upside of the forecast, but they are too big to throw in the number in forecast. I mean if they had done, they are going to be delivered really some in ‘18 but ‘19 and ‘20. They are going to be multi-year projects.

Okay, all right. And then on M&A, with regards to the stuff done in ‘17, is there profit number or EPS number we can think about contributing the guide?

Yes, Rich, here’s how we look at the M&A. So we talk about it, it would be about one point of revenue. We also are factoring in about mid teens EBITDA on those, which would equate to about $0.06 in 2018 and increasing in 2019 to $0.15 to $0.16 EPS increase.

An EBITDA sort of in the higher teens closer to 20, really the difference in ‘18 is just a step up, but really good businesses.

Right, okay. And then, last one on if you have some high cost that -- relatively high cost that’s maturing in ‘18. I assume that’s not factored into the guide, but are your kind of thoughts around refi-ing that, like you would be able to refi that at a pretty attractive rate at this point?

That’s exactly right. So, our intention is to refinance the 2018 notes that come due in August 2018. You are also correct, it’s at 6.75%. And obviously rates are much lower than that at this point. So, we do intend to refinance. We are watching the market and also being very conscious on any early break premiums and making sure that we have got the right mix there, but we do intend to refinance those.

Okay, great. Thank you.

Your next question comes from David Raso from Evercore ISI. David, your line is open.

Good morning. On the price cost, it hasn’t been positive year-over-year since 3Q ‘16. But, we are seeing for ‘18 given the first quarter, I suspect there is a quarter coming up within the base case that you see it turning positive again. Can you give us some sense of the cadence? How we think about? Is that kind of a post-China sell through? And then, it’s more of a third quarter back half or to that even be on the table for as soon as 2Q -- at least as your base case guidance.

Yes, I mentioned, Dave, that quarter four, quarter one, sequentially it’s 550 basis points better in for the full year that gets flat. Quarter one would still be a negative relationship. So, it does imply sort of second, third, fourth quarter improving. You will see that improve throughout the balance of the year as shipments were made in Q2, Q3, Q4, and pricing already established and material cost that hopefully we have got a handle on the inflationary number. So, they sequentially get better throughout the year.

And just so we understand get comfort with the 50 bps improvement from 4Q to 1Q, so basically 4Q is down 80 bps. You are thinking of first quarter call it 30, how much of that improvement is what’s happening in China, or how much is it your price actions you took to start this year and sort of what you are seeing year-to-date on price cost and the backlog?

Well, it’s all of the above, but it’s a 50% of the whole price cost relationship with China. And if you throw the Middle East in there, you can say it’s closer to 70% as China and the Middle East. And I would tell you that the China element really proportionally improved throughout the year as with the rest of the world. Pricing environment in China, we assume is getting better at that’s been our experience so far. And as we have highlighted here earlier, we felt the material inflation part of that now is somewhat under control with capacity really being now rationalized in the marketplace and we feel better about that.

And not to push a little bit, but again of that improvement how much is that something you have sort of see in the backlog today domestically? And why it’s still deteriorating, right? We have gone from 50 bps, 50 bps, 70 bps, now 80 bps. Even second derivative improvement will start to add some credence to, "Hey, we are maybe getting to the worst of price cost." So I think your first quarter comment is significant, that’s bps positive if it can develop. I am just trying to understand exactly the line of side on that. I mean how much is it…

Of course, sure.

- so with the orders coming in today have a better price cost.

Yes, in a commercial space, quarter one, we are shipping what we’ve already booked. So, we feel like the price scenario is pretty well established at this point. There is book in turn. But where there’s book in turn, it’s typically dealt with by list prices. So talking about unitary product, it’s going to have more list price than applied which is going to be very project specific. Well, the applied project specific was then quoted third quarter, fourth quarter, and shipping in the first and second quarter. The unitary had price increases going through as did our competitors.

Yes, it just seems that the unitary market is seeing a little bit of price realization to start the year.

Yes.

And the applied as you said is already been booked. So I am just trying to make sure what framework here looks like. There clearly should be a second derivative improvement. No doubt price cost 1Q versus we just saw, but the line of sight, given you have to apply the unitary fields like what it's doing in the channel, China has had wildcard. We really should see hopefully this is a full 50 bps, right. I mean this doesn’t feel like that’s fake guesstimate. But it seems like something you have a good line of sight for the first quarter. That’s fair assumption?

Yes, David, something that really have to change in the first quarter here in the last couple of months for that to really change my guidance here.

Okay.

And I don’t know what that would be at this point.

Just real quick, on Thermo King domestic, I see you have North America trailer down for ‘18. Lately, you have seen -- I know they are lumpy -- but lately you have some better orders at the domestic market. Is Thermo King’s trailer backlog right now not seeing any of that? Is there a bit of a tick up, but it’s just too large a hole to kind of dig out of to be flat to up for the year. Just trying to understand that guide versus what we have seen of late?

Yes, as we become less dependent around growth and margin for North American trailer, we are really just utilizing the ACT data here. So, we are not going to try to guess anymore than ACT on that. And it always comes down to which customer is ordering from who. And so, it’s too hard to predict at this point, but ACT is calling the market down and we are just reflecting what they are saying.

And your next question comes from Joel Tiss from BMO. Joel, your line is open.

Snuck on there, I wanted to ask sort of a little more structurally about the enterprise initiatives in I guess my thought is maybe that’s running out of steam a little bit. But, I wanted to ask it more about the flexibility. Is there a way to increase the flexibility when you see changes in the market? And I am just kind of thinking about in the future maybe we are going to see some headwinds just from the cycle.

Joel, there is a no quick that we are losing steam on the productivity idea that we’ve got across the company. In fact, we are attacking parts that we hadn’t attacked in the past. Warehousing, logistic, G&A cost where the profile of the company has changed over the years. Now we are catching up on some of those areas. So I don’t -- in a short time we have got here. It will be difficult tell you about the all the areas we have got. But I have got confidence that we are not running out of any steam here at all in productivity.

And I would now like to turn the call back over to Zac Nagle for closing remarks.

We would like to thank everyone for joining us today. We’ll be around in the coming days and weeks to take any questions that you may have, and I think Mike also wanted to make one closing comment as well.

Yes, just one last comment. This is Joe Fimbianti’s last quarterly call with us. And from all of us at Ingersoll-Rand and many the people that you have known over the years, Joe, on the call, thank you for 41 years, a 120 earnings calls beginning in April 1988. We wish you and your wife a great long healthy retirement, Joe. Thank you.

Thank you, Mike. It’s been an honor.

Thank you everyone.

This concludes today's conference call. You may now disconnect.