Welcome to the Third Quarter Earnings Call. My name is Ashley and I’ll be your operator for today’s call. At this time all participants are in a listen-only mode. Later, we will conduct a question-and-answer session. Please note that this conference is being recorded. I’ll now turn the call over to Mike Pettit, Vice President of Finance and Investor Relations. Mike, you may begin.

Thank you, Ashley, and good morning. Welcome everyone to the Wabash National Corporation 2016 third quarter earnings call. This is Mike Pettit, Vice President of Finance and Investor Relations. Following this introduction, you’ll hear from Dick Giromini, Chief Executive Officer of Wabash National; as well as Brent Yeagy, our newly appointed President and Chief Operating Officer on results for the third quarter, the current operating environment and our outlook for the remainder of 2016, as well as an early look at 2017. In addition, Jeff Taylor, our Chief Financial Officer, will provide an overview of our financial results. At the conclusion of the prepared remarks, we’ll open the call for questions from the listening audience. Before we begin, I’d like to cover two brief items. First, please note that this call is being recorded. Second, as with all of these types of presentations, this morning’s call contains certain forward-looking information including statements about the company’s prospects, adjusted earnings and adjusted earnings per share guidance which has been provided in previous filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission; the industry outlook, backlog information, financial condition and other matters. As you know, actual results could differ materially than those projected in the forward-looking statements. These statements should be viewed via the cautionary statements and risk factors set forth from time-to-time in the company’s filings with the SEC. With that, it’s my pleasure to turn the call over to Dick Giromini, CEO.

Thanks, Mike. The third quarter marked another excellent quarter for the company and delivered bottom line results that were among the best in the company’s history. Our financial results continue to validate our long-term strategic plan and demonstrate the ongoing progress being made in executing that plan to profitably grow and diversify the business. We’ve changed the fundamental composition of our business and it is clear we’ve made significant progress towards transforming ourselves into a higher margin diversified industrial manufacturer. Taking another step in our journey, in September, we announced that Brent Yeagy would assume the role of President and Chief Operating Officer for Wabash National, which took effect on October 1. With his appointment we’ve established and enhanced leadership structure to provide more effective and coordinated oversight of our growing a more diverse group of businesses. Brent’s proven leadership abilities clearly demonstrated with the CTP transformation. Now it can be leveraged across all operating business units as we continue to grow and diversify the company. Additionally, while we’ve continued to expand our product portfolio organically and strategically over the past five years, this move now allows me more time and freedom to increase my focus on further growing the company and continuing the great success that we’ve experienced in recent years. As a result of these efforts today, we are now generating record margins, record cash flow, and possess a pristine balance sheet with only 0.4 times net debt leverage. We have clearly positioned ourselves with ample resources to, one, fund our internal capital needs to support both organic growth and productivity improvements; two, to assure continue reduction of our debt obligations; third, to return capital to shareholders as appropriate; and fourth, selectively but more actively pursue strategic acquisitions. On the M&A front, we recently initiated internal effort to…

Thanks, Dick. I will start with Diversified Products Group or DPG, which includes our composites, tank trailers, aviation and truck equipment, and process systems businesses. Overall results in this segment were disappointing and lower than expected in Q3 with revenue of $87 million, an operating income of $6.2 million reflecting the continued soft market conditions in many of the end markets served by the DPG businesses. The tank trailer business continues to experience softness in certain markets which is creating top line pressure in the segment’s largest business. This prolonged softness is creating weaker top and bottom line results than previously expected. ACT recently lowered its 2016 forecast for liquid tank trailers to 4,900 units, which represents a 35% reduction from 2015 and down 31% from the tank trailer forecast at the beginning of the year. Our tank trailer business continues to see reasonably stable demand in the food, dairy, beverage markets offset by continued weakness for products related to the oil and gas, and chemical markets, resulting in shorter than desired backlogs for both liquid and dry bulk products. The positive news is that there has been industry capacity coming out of the liquid tanks space and we are well positioned to take advantage of stronger future demand. We also continue to be very proactive with cost management and have been – have had solid execution at the factory level. These actions have allowed us to maintain a healthy gross margin of 21.7% for the segment, in line with our historical range of 21% to 25% despite the weaker top line. While we don’t expect to see a return to the demand levels for tank trailers that we enjoy during the 2014 and 2015 timeframe any time soon, we do anticipate a stronger environment in 2017 and remain optimistic…

Thanks, Brent. Let me first give you a backdrop for my views on our market and prospects for the balance of this year and then next year. Looking forward, we are confident that overall demand for van trailers and our Commercial Trailer Products business will remain historically strong throughout next year and possibly beyond. This belief is based on a number of factors that continue to be positive trailer demand drivers. First and probably most importantly is the excessively age nature of the van trailer population. While the overall average age of trailers has come down in recent years, there continues to be a significant number of old vintage dry vans that have remained in use as a result of the massive industry under by of 2008 through 2010. By their very nature these pieces of equipment are less reliable, thereby costing more to maintain and operate. Second, the regulatory environment including CSA and hours of service is influencing both driver and carrier behaviors leading to the continued need to refresh equipment or to add equipment to increase drop and hook opportunities. Next carriers, we’re currently feeling the impact of periodic softness in load availability and pricing still remain nicely profitable and traditionally look to invest that cash flow into new equipment to optimize operating costs. Lastly, well, somewhat choppy in 2016, capacity is expected to tighten in 2017, as freight rebounds and regulatory drivers such as ELDs constrict industry capacity. Illustrative of the ups and downs in the 2016 freight market, ATA’s truck tonnage index decreased 5.8% in September to 132.7, following a 5% increase in August. Year-to-date, the truck tonnage index was 3% higher than in the same period last year. We also believe that ELDs are likely to have a more significant impact on capacity and some…

Thanks, Dick, and good morning everyone. We’re very pleased with the third quarter consolidated results as we delivered operating income and net income which are comparable to our record performances over the past two years. And we deliver these strong results despite the pockets of weakness we are experiencing in certain markets as Dick and Brent previously discussed. There is a high level of execution in our operations and business functions across the company which is reflected in our results, but this is more than just solid execution in operational improvement. We are benefiting from the actions we’ve taken over the past several years to grow and to diversify the company into new products in new markets. Before discussing the results for the quarter in more detail, I’d like to comment on our recent share repurchase activity. As you know we continue to execute a balanced capital allocation strategy, where we allocate capital to maintain our liquidity, deleverage the balance sheet, find our organic and strategic growth initiatives, and return capital to shareholders as appropriate. In regards to return of capital to shareholders for the third quarter, we increased our share repurchase activity with a total spend of approximately $22.3 million for just over 1.6 million shares. Since reinitiating share repurchase in early 2015, we have allocated over $98 million which represents approximately a 11% of our current market GAAP, and repurchased approximately 7.4 million share. This activity demonstrates our commitment to increase share holder value to return of capital as part of our overall balanced capital allocation approach. With that, let’s turn to the financial results for the quarter. On a consolidated basis, revenue was $464 million, a decrease of $67 million or 13% compared to the third quarter of last year. Consolidated new trailer shipments were 15,450 units…

Thank you. We will now begin the question-and-answer session. [Operator Instructions] And from Stephens Inc. we have Brad Delco.

Yes. Good morning gentlemen, and congrats Brent on the new role.

Thanks Brad. I appreciate it.

Dick, in your comments you mentioned some of your conversations with customers are a little more optimistic about trailer needs next year. Can you give us a little bit more context there just in light of a lot of these truck loader reports were CapEx has been cut and the outlook for 2017 has been cut as well? Are you trying to make an extinction between what’s expected on the tractor side verse the trailers side?

We certainly can only speak about what’s accruing on the trailer side and what our customer’s needs and expectations are for the upcoming year. We always do a bottoms up analysis and compare and contrast what customers stated needs are for the following year relative to what they purchase in the preceding year or two. And in many cases customers are saying that they will be needing more trailers and plan to order more trailers. Other cases the numbers are about the same, and in some cases the numbers are less. So it varies, but overall based on our assessment gives us confidence in the feedback and the current quote activity and discussions that are occurring in some of the orders that aren’t even placed, give us strong confidence that that it will be a respectable year, next year. As I stated in my formal comments, it’ll be down over year-over-year, but not as much as what some folks are anticipating. And I am speaking mostly in those comments in the van segment of our business. As I noted, the tank trailer markets and the platform or flatbed markets have remained soft throughout the year. And we’re not seeing a huge amount of upside activity, we’ve seen some notion of it on the tank trailer side with some increased quote activity. But even with what ACT is projecting, 67% recovery in that market from where it is this year, it’s difficult for us at this time to say that it would be anything more than that, but on the van side we feel it’d be stronger than what they’re saying specifically on dry vans.

Now that makes sense. To me it sounds like basically – at least sort of a worst case scenario back to normal replacement demand on the dry van side, is that fair way of thinking about it?

I think it still be a little stronger. If you really go back historically and look at demand levels, there’s still a pent-up demand for replacing extremely aged equipment going back to the 1998-2000 timeframe, there are still equipment in the market that is still operating and that equipment would have been replaced during the last downturn or shortly thereafter and there are still some catch up going on, trying to get that equipment out. Many of the fleets were hurt significantly during the downturn as many of us were, and had to put on hold a lot of their replacement plans. And since that time there has been a lot of catch-up. And if you recall 1998 to 2000, were the three strongest years of trailer build and shipments in the history of our industry. So it’s just timed itself with the downturn and a bad time for replacements. So that targeted group of equipment has just continued to age, 15, 16, 17 year old equipment nowadays. And it’s just not reliable and our customers, the truckload carriers need to have highly reliable equipment in order to keep their operating costs in check, maintenance costs in checks, so they can turn a nice profit of course and service their customers. And then the other part is tracking and retaining drivers. With CSA implementation four years or five years ago, drivers now – the best of drivers seek out carriers to drive forward, that will put them at least risk of getting caught in a roadside inspection. And with the potential of losing their CDL and they accumulate too many negative points for the road worthiness of equipment. So that’s just one other factor that plays into this.

That makes sense.

And just expanding on that real quickly here, I think our view is replacement of demand for total trailers is the 200,000 to 220,000 levels of where – if we see the industry at 240, 000 to 250,000 total units then it’s slightly above replacement demand and as much as 10% to 15% potentially. But it’s a very strong environment, even coming down from obviously the historical levels you saw in 2015.

That makes sense. And then maybe just one last question before I turn it back over. Dick, I don’t want to read into too much of your comments, but you did seem to sort of touch on exploring M&A opportunities. And again I don’t want to read too much into that. But what specifically could be out there that you have interest in? And then maybe Jeff or Dick either one of you could comment on, would you be willing to increase the leverage on your balance sheet and to what levels?

Well, at this point in time I certainly won’t share any specifics on what we’re considering. We’ve just started to undergo a process to clearly identify what those targets may look like. I will say that we want to leverage the core competencies that we have as an organization. So obviously we’re not going to go significantly afar from the kinds of things we do, but we want to grow our non-trailer side of the business, we set that as a goal. As you recall, to decrease the dependency especially on the dry van segment, not walking away from the dry van, but decreasing dependency by growing the business in other areas and other market, we certainly want to leverage the strong businesses that we acquired as part of the Walker acquisition that we did in 2012. So some of the markets that they serve are adjacencies to those markets, certainly would in consideration as we go through our process going forward.

Yes. Thanks, Dick. And Brad, as Dick alluded to in his comments, obviously we have our pristine balance sheet with net leverage of 0.4 times. So we have tremendous flexibility to take the opportunity in front of us to evaluate strategic opportunities to grow. That could potentially include adding some leverage to the balance sheet. I think we’re going to do that in a very thoughtful and meaningful way. If we come to that, we’re going to remain focused on the maintaining our bank ratings for the company. So we could add leverage to the balance sheet. I won’t comment as exactly how much it depends on, what the credit markets look like, and what a potential target would look like, but we certainly have tremendous flexibility given the position we are in today.

That makes sense. Congrats guys on these results. And I agree the balance sheet does look great, so keep up the good work.

Thanks Brad.

Thank you. And next we have a question from Mike Shlisky with Seaport Global.

Good morning guys.

Good morning

Good morning

Can you give us some thoughts on your own your potential for decremental margins in 2017, kind of based on where you positioned yourself through Lean-Six Sigma. I mean, it’s going be a down year. I think people might want to know through the kind of basic ranges, what the operating or the downside pull through might be on the offering income side?

Yes. Thanks, Michael, and good morning. This is Jeff; I’ll speak on the company as a whole. Obviously as we look year-over-year it’s the van area where you’re going see the pullback slightly next year in total volume. Having said that, our total margins today are in the 16% to 18% range, we have made tremendous improvements through operational efficiencies and productivity improvements. And as you know, we allocate a pretty significant portion of our CapEx budget to funding those initiatives. We certainly expect to maintain those benefits as total volume pullback slightly next year. So I think it’s reasonable with the margins where they are in that 16% to 18% range. Obviously the decrementals will be slightly above that, potentially in the 18% to 22% range, is just a broad range of where you could see decrementals overall. Having said that, we certainly have the potential for some of the markets that have been depressed in the current environment, specifically on the tank trailer in the platform side over time to turnaround and start to come up at exactly the time where we need them. It’s exactly the reason why we did the diversification in the acquisition we did in 2012 and potentially setting up very nicely to see those benefits over the next couple of years. So nothing is currently settled there, but potentially that’s where we see potential decrementals going.

Is that what you saw coming into this year? I mean, clearly you have a down year, you’ve increased your margins by – I think it’s over three full points, so far this year. Is that what you’re looking at before or this is just going to be how things flow at a bit lower volume level next year?

The opportunity that we had this year was that, while the top line volumes may look like they come down in prior calls, we try to get folks to understand that when you’re running at the kind of levels that our industry was running it in 2015, there was an excessive amount of overtime that was being spent, which is not as cost effective as running on straight time. So this year as a result of some pullback in the demand level to a more reasonably at still excessively strong environment, we were able to leverage that, and the CTP team did an outstanding job of producing the product on far or less overtime required to produce it, at the same time taking advantage of some capital investment in optimization initiatives on the factory floor. So a combination of factors have led to the higher margin performance for the business.

Great. And I also want to ask one more thing about your M&A potential here. At this point of your shares are still roughly in the 20% range for the U.S. market. Can you give us a thought as to whether you might be looking to buy another trailer maker right now? I mean if your company is trading at less than 5 times EBITDA and you’re one of the better operators in the sector, I would imagine that some of the other guys were smaller but less scalar, probably trying to hit much less than that EDITDA currently. So there could be a chance – a good deal here you think or are you still looking at just – is it almost entirely outside of your core dry van reefer markets?

It’s unlikely that you would see us buying another van trailer manufacture, if that was the question.

Okay. I’ll leave it there. Thanks guys.

Thanks Michael.

Thank you. And our next question comes from Alex Potter with Piper Jaffray.

Hi, this is actually Winnie in for Alex. Hi, thanks for taking the call. The first question is, in the DPG segment, I guess if you have take the tank trailer revenue and divide that by the tank trailer volume, it looks like pricing was down quite a bit versus last quarter and actually is coming down in a longer term getting back to like the late 2013. Can you elaborate a little bit more on that and what we should expect going forward?

Yes. Winnie, I’m a bit perplexed because sequentially pricing is up pretty significantly and it’s largely driven on mix as I commented during my previous comments. So I think we can continue to see very strong pricing in the industry. Yes, so I’m –

Okay.

I’m sorry, I was speaking to dry vans. For tanks, okay, so for tanks I think we have – there’s really two stories on the tank side of the business. The first side is the food, dairy, beverage side, which as you know is the bigger portion of our portfolio, has been relatively stable through the current environment that overall industry is typically more stable and we see that maintaining approximate levels where they are going forward. The ones where we do see some pressure on pricing in the tank side is certainly in the market that pullback then, oil and gas in the chemical side of it. And so we do see some price depression there, lower ASPs. Given that we think that volume has bottomed out. Certainly our hope and our belief is that it’s going to stabilize around current levels with the potential to start to see those improve going forward as volumes improve.

I don’t I would – Winnie, this is Brent. One thing I would add on a qualitative basis is that we’ve seen relatively flat ASPs over last several months. It’s kind of building of adjust points that we had seen in the market somewhat bottom out at least be flat from a shipbuilding and order intake standpoint. So we feel good right now. Relative to the pricing environment we think we’re well positioned for the upturn things like in 2017, but generally we feel good going forward.

Great, thanks. And then I guess I have a follow-up. Regarding I guess the non-trailer revenue in DPG segment, seems like now is the time that I guess we look to start materializing there. But given that the coming down during the cycle, by looks our revenue in the non-trailer revenue segment dropped, I guess 13% versus last quarter – in this quarter. So the question is, do you still expect this sub-segment within DPG to be a sustainable source of revenue growth and if so when you think it will start imposing year-over-year revenue gains – positive revenue gains?

This is Brent again.

Yes.

We saw some headwinds in Q3 relative to the movement of stock related non-trailer product. We still hope to see that turnaround somewhat in Q4. We’re actually seeing backlogs continue to improve in both the AVTE and process systems segment of DPG moving into Q4, so we’re seeing some early signs of some recovery. And with relative strength and those specific markets going into 2017, we should see some improvement accordingly. So, early stages, it’s not going to be at the same scale what we would see in our van or tank businesses, but they’re serving their purpose and adding additional value in this upcoming year.

Okay. Thank you. I’ll turn over. Thanks.

Thank you. Our next question comes from Steve Dyer with Craig-Hallum.

Good morning, and my congratulations to Brent.

Thank you, sir.

Jeff, I kind of tuned out half of the commentary on decrementals for next year, what the numbers you’re giving and then whether that relates to total company margins or one of the segments?

It generally relates to total company. Having said that CTP is obviously the largest segment and we’ll drive those numbers to a larger extent.

And what were those numbers if you could repeat those?

Steve, I can’t believe you’re going to make me repeat those numbers. But having said that our gross margins have been in the 16% to 18% range with the pullback in van business potentially decrementals, would be slightly north of that somewhere in the 18% to 22% range potentially.

Okay, great. And then with respect to the CTP segment, you guys have obviously made a lot of improvements from a manufacturing standpoint, Six Sigma standpoint. You’ve also had a pretty good run of raw materials here as you guys have talked about in your filings. Is it possible to talk a little bit about sort of how the early raw materials commentary looks for next year what it might mean to margins, and maybe bucket, how much of the improvement over the last, call it, a year to two years to three years? It’s been raw materials driven versus – is it 50-50, is it mostly manufacturing? How should we think about those two items going forward?

Let me start with the last piece. Yes, Steve, in terms of total margins and how they have improved obviously over the last year so, there have been multiple factors, there has been pricing, there have been productivity improvements and then obviously there have been manufacturing cost that includes materials but it also includes some of our labor costs as well. In general, those have been fairly evenly split across the year. We’ve had nice price improvement year-over-year for sometime, that certainly translates to improvement on the bottom line. We have made significant improvements in our productivity. I think one of the prior questions talked in, it was the question about decrementals. In fact that volume this year is down slightly from last year, yet our margins have improved, clearly demonstrates some of the productivity and operational improvements that we’ve made. And then obviously there’s a manufacturing cost component that’s provided some benefit there as well. As I said before, I think those are relatively evenly split across all three. In terms of forward looking, Dick and Brent can chime in as well, but material costs are generally very stable. We have early fluctuates, we see upticks, and we see downticks in steel and aluminum and plastic and those types of things, but in general they’ve been fairly range-bound.

Yes. Just as a reminder Steve, we will take forward positions on the aluminum content and on the steel content, they go into our trailers. Once we actually receive conformed order from a customer, we also build in those costs into our costing model when we’re pricing products. So we end up protecting ourselves and levitating any of the fluctuation that can occur from the time we take an order and till the time we build it by doing that and that’s a major benefit to us. It ends up based on calculations we’ve done, ends up protecting about 70% of the input costs for raw materials into the product. All the actions we take, there are others, but those are two key ones.

The only thing I would add is based on the commodity groupings that make up the bulk of material costs for the products that we produce. Material costs have some amount of inflationary component in some of the sectors as Jeff alluded to, some are actually going in the other direction. As we look at the next several kind of quarters, matched up with the order season that which we said is kind of pushed out into the Q4-Q1 timeframe. We’re not looking at material costs that are terribly to similar to where we were at this time last year. And with future positions as Dick alluded to, we’re in a decent position to manage our material costs accordingly.

Okay, great. And then lastly from me, I know that the order season has started, I guess more normally this year than in the past year or two. What are your thoughts, I guess, on pricing or what are your early conversations for next year seeming to indicate in others? There’s been some chatter about a little bit more capacity coming online. And as we get later into this season, how are the pricing conversations changing if at all?

Sure. This is Brent now. I say in general we’ve seen limited pricing pressure at common tailwind of 2016. It is a little too early to say definitively and what that will be for 2017, but we will see some level of market competitive pricing pressure based on what the market conditions will be. I will say at this time, we feel generally well positioned with where the customer base is at the moment with the deals that we’ve closed. We feel it’s appropriate for where the market is that. And we generally feel as if we’re in a good position, based on how well specifically the commercial trailer products business has performed in terms of responsiveness and just general value creation for the customers. So, well, yes, we’re going to see some pressure. I think you’re going to see something a little bit better grew but less pointed to maybe what you would have seen at comparable periods in the past. So we generally feel good for where we stand right now.

Great. Okay. Thank you.

Thank you.

And next we have a question from Mike Baudendistel from Stifel.

Hi, thank you. I just wanted to ask you, you talk a little bit about the regulations and the impact that those the EPA regulations might have, but I also wanted to ask you about the food safety rule for refrigerated carriers. Does that impact your refrigerator business at all?

Not substantially with the – will say, after public comment and the rule that we as it reads today, it’s much less impact and leverageable from a manufacturers standpoint, is going to have impact on the physical carriers and the added requirements. We don’t necessarily see that translating into any material impact from the manufacturer’s perspective at this time.

Okay, that’s helpful. And then I wanted to ask you about some of the industry data, I mean in these last few months there’s been an uptick in cancellation, I guess there has been some speculation that those weren’t really true cancellations, they were more cancellations that were going to be reordered for 2017 delivery. Is that what you’re saying?

I think cancellations are a mixed bag. I think across the industry there were some cancellations. As to your point that were just part of recalendarization, moving into 2017. I think most of the cancellations in general where – was then what I would call the small and medium tier players from an end customer standpoint, not the larger customers. At least that was definite how we saw it from our perspective. And in general cancellations have began to really quiet as we move into the second – this fourth quarter. So we feel like the market has generally calmed down as reset itself moving in the 2017.

Great. That’s all from me. Thank you.

Thank you. And our next question comes from Jeff Kauffman from Aegis Capital.

Hey, guys.

Hi, Jeff.

Hey. Congratulations, Brent.

Thank you, sir.

This is great news. My next question – my question is for Dick, a lot of my questions have been answered. Dick, congratulations also on your new role. And kind of listening to your commentary, should I think of this as now you have more time to focus and think about potential acquisition targets, so we’re going to take a look or we’ve got a lot that were looked and this is a change in gears on our strategy so to speak?

Well, it sounds more like the former than the latter based on the way you described it. Certainly by – and that’s what I try to share in my comments, by appointing Brent into the role as Chief Operating Officer, he effectively fills a role that I’ve been carrying all this time. Well, I didn’t carry the title anymore, it’s a title I had previously. And as we’ve expanded and grown the business, he gets that much more difficult to spend appropriate amount of time overseeing the myriad businesses that we now have. And this will allow me a little more freedom and time to focus on growth initiatives for the business. So going back to the way you framed your question, yes, it should provide me a little bit more freedom to spend time looking at how we reinvigorate the growth opportunities for the business. So that can include acquisition growth, but it also will include our organic growth opportunities for the business.

Okay. And just, I can’t remember, is this number right, but did you say in your longer term goals that the idea by 2020 is to have the core trailer dry van businesses as we think of it, be roughly at third to the total revenues?

Yes. And we didn’t put a firm number around it because it has a lot to do with how we get there, but yes, that would be a nice place to end up. So as we exit the 2020 year, it will be nice to be looking at and having about a third to the business having, I’d call it a dependency on the dry van segment. And that’s really been driven by an internal look at what our business struggled with back in the last downturn and going into the downturn we’ve recognized that we had a significant dependency on the dry van segment nearly 85% of the business was dependent on it. And as I’ve said many times that great strength became a great weakness for us as we got into the great recession when demand levels dropped by about 80%. As you recall Jeff, we went from about 60,000 units of demand for our business in 2006 down to 12,000 units in 2009 and that was really driven by the dry van segment. So less dependency on it, obviously we’re a much better business today, our dry van segment operates much better than it did going into the downturn, so we would manage through it more effectively. But having a growth initiatives for the business that would not walking away, again, I want to emphasize, we’re not walking away at all from the dry van business, but growing the business in other areas other than dry van can really be helpful to us in the event that we someday in the future face that that kind of a challenge.

Congratulations on some terrific margins in real tough quarter, and best of luck. Thank you.

Thanks, Jeff.

Thank you. And we have not further question. I would like to turn the call back over to Dick Giromini.

Thank you, Ashley. So, well, much has been done, opportunities certainly are bound, we’ll continue to be strategic, but selective in pursuing opportunities to grow our business. In addition to the organic growth initiatives already underway, we’ll continue to seek out way to increase returns and value for all shareholders while assuring that the proper balance between risk and reward is considered in all decisions. In closing, we’re again on pace to deliver another record year profitability 2016 with strong margins, continuing supported demand environment, and continued focus on execution. Thank you all for your interest and support of Wabash National Corporation. Mike, Brent, Jeff and I all look forward to speaking with you all again on our next call. Thank you.

Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, this concludes today’s conference. Thank you for participating. You may now disconnect.