Enerpac Tool Group Corp (EPAC) 2016 Q3 法說會逐字稿

Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for standing by. Welcome to Actuant Corporation's third-quarter earnings conference call.

(Operator Instructions)

As a reminder, this conference is being recorded Wednesday, June 22, 2016.

It is now my pleasure to turn the conference over to Karen Bauer, Communications and Investor Relations Leader. Please go ahead, Ms. Bauer.

Great. Thanks and good morning, everyone. Welcome to Actuant's third-quarter earnings conference call. On the call with me today are Randy Baker, Actuant's CEO, and Andy Lampereur, CFO.

Our earnings release and the slide presentation for today's call are available in the investor's section of our website. Before we start, a word of caution. During this call we will be making forward-looking statements within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act.

Investors are cautioned that forward-looking statements are inherently uncertain, and that there are a number of factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from these statements. These factors are outlined in our SEC filings.

Consistent with prior quarters, we'll utilize the one question/one follow-up rule in order to keep today's call to an hour. Thank you in advance for following this practice, and with that I'll turn the call over to Randy.

Good morning, everyone, and thank you for joining our third-quarter conference call. Beginning on slide 3 today, I'll provide highlights in the quarter and key accomplishments.

As you read in today's press release, we delivered sales and earnings above our guidance range. Our sales teams did a great job of supporting our customers and improving our capture rates in a very challenging market.

Core sales were in line with expectation. Energy maintenance and truck sales grew, but were offset by difficult conditions in upstream, oil & gas, agriculture, and general industrial.

The acquisitions in the industrial tool and energy maintenance area contributed about 2% to our top line growth, but were neutral to EPS due to acquisition costs. The MENAC business is a great fit within Hydratight because of the expanded service offering and seamless integration.

Larzep provides a catalyst for our industrial segment's expansion in Europe and products to serve the second tier market. Both acquisitions are very strategic -- supportive to our strategic plans, and we expect them to be accretive in future quarters.

Cash flow came in quite a bit stronger than expected, with good reductions in working capital, notably inventory. Our restructuring actions have been hard work, but we are on track to achieving the targets.

I'm very pleased with the performance of our teams in this very difficult market. With that, I'll turn the call over to Andy to walk through the details in the quarter, and then I'll come back with an overview of the markets, updated guidance, and some other initial observations.

Thanks, Randy, and good morning, everyone.

I'm going to start today's financial review on slide 4 with an update on our restructuring activities. We incurred about $3.5 million of restructuring costs in the quarter as we continued to execute on several restructuring projects involving facility consolidations, business simplification, actions, and personnel reductions.

This is in line with the amount for each of the last three quarters, and I suspect we'll see a similar amount over the next three quarters in roughly the same range. We're happy with the progress being made on these projects, and expect to realize the previously communicated $12 million of annual savings once all the identified $25 million restructuring program projects are completed in the middle of FY17.

Given the continued tepid market demand, we're evaluating additional cost reduction opportunities above and beyond the $25 million program as long as the paybacks are attractive. Stay tuned, we'll provide quarterly updates on these projects going forward.

Consistent with past practice, the restructuring costs in the third quarter are not included in our guidance or the results that we will be discussing today in order to provide a better picture of base earnings. As you can see here on slide 5, we reported sales of $305 million in the quarter -- third-quarter FY16, which was 5% below the prior year third quarter.

GAAP earnings per share for the quarter were $0.36 a share compared to $0.63 a year ago. Excluding the $0.04 a share restructuring charge this quarter, our third-quarter EPS was $0.40 a share.

The $305 million of third-quarter sales was slightly above our $290 million to $300 million sales guidance on account of the $7 million of combined sales from the two recent tuck-in acquisitions. The two deals, however, didn't add anything to consolidated operating profit or EPS in the quarter on account of purchase accounting and transaction related costs, but they will be added in going forward.

Finally, our $0.40 a share adjusted EPS was slightly better than our $0.34 to $0.39 guidance range for the quarter. I'm going to dissect these results in greater detail starting now on page 6 with sales.

Our consolidated sales in the quarter were down 5%, which included a 1% headwind from currency and a 2% tailwind from the (technical difficulties) acquisitions. Excluding currency and acquisitions, our year-over-year consolidated core sales declined 6%, reflecting weak demand in all three of our business segments.

The weakness was present throughout the quarter and was evident in all geographic regions, with the Americas continuing to be (technical difficulties) in the second quarter to minus 6% in the third quarter. I'll provide more color on sales by segment as I go through segment level results in a few minutes.

Turning now to operating profit on slide 7. We saw a sequential improvement in consolidated operating profit margins, as well as in each of the three segments from the seasonally low second quarter, but on a year-over-year basis a reduction as forecasted.

Our third-quarter operating profit margins were 10.4% excluding our restructuring costs, compared to 6.8% in the second quarter and about 13% a year ago. Consolidated margins were adversely impacted by unfavorable sales mix, pricing pressure in the energy segment, and under absorbed fixed overhead on account of lower sales and production.

Similar to recent quarters, many of our OEM customers are working down their inventory by reducing purchases from us well beyond the underlying end market declines in demand. And on the mix front, we continue to see higher core sales declines in our more profitable product lines, including industrial tools, offshore rig mooring, and ag products, which is has an unfavorable impact on our margins.

Now I'll spend a few minutes on each of the three segments, starting with the industrial segment on slide 8. The industrial segment recorded third-quarter sales 8% below last year.

Core sales were down 9%, while acquisitions added 2% benefit and currencies were a 1% headwind. The 9% core sales decline was a sequential improvement from the 14% reduction in the third quarter, but mostly attributable to comps and less so to changes in end market demand.

Enerpac's distributors continue to report challenging conditions in most verticals including mining, energy, and general industrial, and all geographic regions are reporting weak demand with consistent softness throughout the quarter. Now the combination of lower sales volume, the unfavorable impact of inventory reductions on absorption as well as mix weighed on our year-over-year profit margin comparisons. Our summary third-quarter takeaway for the segment is that demand is still very weak, but appears to have stabilized at a low level.

Now I'll move on to slide 9 to discuss energy segment results. Energy posted a 2% year-over-year sales growth, benefiting from strong service demand and sales from the Middle East FourQuest business acquisition. Excluding the 3% headwind and the 5% benefit from the acquisitions, year-over-year third-quarter core sales were flat.

We were pretty happy with that flat core sales compared to an 8% decline in the second quarter, but we saw sharply different trends in our maintenance versus our CapEx businesses. Hydratight had another excellent quarter, with double-digit growth on account of robust service work tied to oil & gas production and a large subsea connector job in Asia Pacific.

In contrast, our CapEx-oriented businesses, being Cortland and Viking, posted sizeable double-digit declines as oil & gas exploration, drilling, and upstream project demand and pricing continued to worsen. Energy segment profit margins rebounded nicely from the seasonally low second quarter, but were noticeably lower than the third quarter of last year on account of unfavorable product line mix and more aggressive price competition in the CapEx-oriented businesses.

Adjusted operating profit margins declined about 60 basis points for energy year over year to 12.3% in the third quarter, but it was a nice rebound from the second quarter seasonal lows of about 6%. As we look ahead, we see continued weak volume out of Viking and Cortland for the next few quarters tied to low oil & gas CapEx and continued lumpiness in the service arena with Hydratight.

I'll wrap up my segment level discussions with engineered solutions on slide 10. Segment sales there were down 8% year over year in the third quarter, a weakening trend from the second quarter on account of the ag market. Core sales were also down 8%, but no meaningful impact from acquisitions or currency.

We discussed the declining trend in ag on our last quarterly call, and demand for markets such as on highway truck and auto weren't strong enough to take up the slack. Demand in other off highway markets such as construction, forestry, and material handling was still weak. We expect these markets to continue to pose a head wind for the remainder of this year, as several OEMs are taking extended summer plant shutdowns to further pare back inventories in their own plants, as well as out of their dealers.

Not surprisingly then our profit margins in the segment were pressured with these low production levels and the resulting weak overhead absorption. Unfavorable mix was also a contributing factor to the 270-basis point decline in year-over-year adjusted operating profit margins.

So that's it for my segment level deep dives. I'm now going to shift to the balance sheet and cash flow with a few comments.

We had a great cash flow quarter, as we typically do in the back half of the fiscal year. Our third-quarter free cash flow was about $49 million, and included very good working capital management as we also reduced our inventory, given the weakness in the end markets.

From a capital deployment standpoint, it was an active quarter, with about $5 million spent on buybacks and $65 million on acquisitions. Quarter end leverage was in line with expectations at 2.7 times, trailing net debt to EBITDA, which should decline in the next quarter given our expectations for another strong cash flow quarter.

So that's it for my prepared remarks today. I'll now turn the line back over to Randy.

Thanks, Andy.

Now that we've seen the quarter market issues, let's take a closer look into the macros affecting Q4 and beyond. Beginning on slide 12, oil prices have improved, but are still well below the trigger point of $65 a barrel.

Price improvements will be contingent upon a constrained level of production and maintaining a balance in supply and demand. Current projections indicate a supply/demand convergence in the second half of 2017, and should yield a price of plus $65 a barrel.

As a result, CapEx projects are at an all-time low, OpEx are on a fix-as-fail basis in high cost regions; however there are parts of the world where the marginal cost of production is conducive to investment and maintenance at the current price levels, such as the Middle East, and it's no coincidence that our investments in these regions are a priority. Off-highway mobile equipment continues to be very weak, particularly in agriculture.

All major suppliers are projecting a 15% to 20% reduction in both cash crop and hand forged products. Distributors are reporting excess inventory of new and used equipment, which will require one full planting season to reach the appropriate level. As a result, our customers have reduced the component supply orders to match the model-year production plans.

The general industrial market has not improved on a year-over-year basis. The industrial distributors are reporting continued weakness in retail order demand. The impact of weak oil, construction, and general manufacturing markets continue to constrain the levels of sales improvement throughout the world.

In the vehicular market, Europe and China on-road truck remains supported by good registration and an aged fleet in need of replacement. Regionally, the US remains most challenged, and emerging markets are sluggish. Europe is generally soft, but certainly less worse.

Slide 13 provides details into the fourth quarter and the current trends in the business, and unfortunately we see more negative than positive dynamics. General industrial order activity as seen in the broad inner pack distribution channel is sluggish. Upstream activity in oil & gas is experiencing heavy pricing and demand pressures, and our customers are on a fix-as-fail mode for the foreseeable future. Lastly, off-highway equipment and most importantly agriculture demand has weakened further. All these factors point us towards lower demand.

Turning to slide 14, as you can see, the market conditions have dictated a modest revision to our core sales assumption and lowering our guidance range to $1.20 to $1.25 for the fiscal year. Our cash flow projections remain solid at approximately $105 million, and will represent the 16th consecutive year of free cash flow conversion of net earnings in excess of 100%.

Clearly lowering the guidance, especially after a solid third-quarter performance, is not how I wanted to start my tenure, but I must be realistic about the expectations both internally and externally and then drive the organization to achieve them. This does not change our commitment to our strategic vision of $300 million in EBITDA, which is the most common question I get from investors, so I want to share some of my initial observations.

Turning to slide 15, these are the components of EBITDA growth vision and my early insight into their status. Starting with simplification and cost actions, the entire team is committed to the program, and I want to reiterate we are not limited by the $25 million initial target. We will continue to identify and execute any activities that improve the long-term cost position of Actuant. Lastly, we are accelerating lean manufacturing efforts, which will yield significant savings to the Company.

I feel good about our ability to achieve the acquisition component of the vision; two deals have been completed this year and we have approximately 30% of that value in play. Our strong cash flow and pipeline of deals support our ability to make strategic additions to the portfolio.

Finally, core growth and market recovery. Macro conditions are not currently in our favor. Our pathway to growth will be through opening new regions, market participation, new product launches, and commercial effectiveness. While these are not immediate, especially in the OEM market, they are within our control, and I intend to drive them throughout the organization.

I'll provide more specifics and insights into my vision for Actuant and strategies at the upcoming investor meeting in October. I appreciate your patience as I continue to learn the organization, visit locations, and meet customers over the coming months.

That concludes the prepared remarks for today. Operator, let's open it up for questions.

(Operator Instructions)

The first question is from the line of Jeff Hammond with KeyBanc Capital Markets.

Hi, good morning.

Good morning, Jeff.

So two questions on the energy business. One, Hydratight, clearly some resilient quarters here, just looking out to 2017, quoting project activity particularly against some of these larger projects, how are you feeling about good or bad lumpiness on that business? And then on the other two, how close do you think we are in the bottoming process for Cortland and Viking?

Let me cover the first question. The pipeline is always our key area we watch on any service-related business. There are lumpy projects, and you know that we're working through those, but what I can tell you right now is that we are working extremely hard to attack any available service job in the world and that's part of the commercial effectiveness thing that I've mentioned is that we have to have a very high hit ratio to maintain the levels of sales and replace the larger projects in front of us. Don't want to give you any guidance on 2017 yet because we still have a fourth quarter to make, but I can tell you we're going to work hard to go after it.

And as far as calling the bottom on Viking, it's a long way off. You can tell that most of the improvement in oil is still so far below a trigger point of getting semi-submersibles back in the water, starting exploration. Andy and I have a few visits in the end of the month in the UK at some of our top customers. We'll have a better view on that, but I don't see a short-term fix.

Okay, and then just Randy, to follow-up on your comments about the $300 million EBITDA target. Sounds like simplification on track, acquisitions making some headway, and the market is maybe the big wild card to maybe being able to hit that or not. Is that something -- is that one, a fair assessment and two, is that something you'll readdress at the October meeting?

That is a very fair assessment of where we are at. Two components of the growth plan I think are well within our grasp. The market is going to give us what it's going to give us, and that's why if you look at the themes of what we're driving this Company to be is we want to be more commercially effective.

We want to open up markets that we haven't touched before and we want to open up regions that we haven't touched before, and on top of that we have products that are coming to market. We can control those things, but we can't control the market. So the magnitude of those growth are dependent on us. So I think you've hit the correct assessment.

Great, thanks.

The next question is from the line of Matt McConnell with RBC Capital Markets.

Thank you, good morning.

Good morning.

Just to follow up on the Viking comment, long way off from a bottom there, what are the breakeven levels? And I know it's not really contributing much to operating profit now, but do you have room to take breakeven levels down further as those face another decline next year?

Yes, we have been reducing the breakeven in the business throughout the year as we've been cutting back and what not. During quarter it did lose money, but we're not going to publicly state what the breakeven revenue is because we know our competitors would love to have that information.

We expect that certainly the revenues in this business will continue to come down over the next two and three quarters here. We are not at the bottom. We're certainly on our way down to where we expect this thing to end up, but we're not there yet. So it will be losing money certainly in the next three, four quarters on this, we will not be at a breakeven point.

Okay, thanks. And Randy, I wonder if I could ask in your assessment what do you think Actuant has to do to reinvigorate industrial organic revenue growth? And you've talked a lot about sales effectiveness and commercial effectiveness, and could you give a couple examples of what you're doing or what you think you should be doing in the industrial segment specifically?

Well there's one good example that we discuss. It's relatively small, but there is a market that sits below where we typically play, which is our second tier product line. The Larzep acquisition does open that up partially for us in Europe, and we also have addressed that a bit in North America; that's one good example.

I think you'll see us taking a harder look at the Asia Pacific region, because we are not as significant of a player in that region as we could be. And I think there's growth opportunity there, and I think that there's other areas in other segments of industrial tool usage where we can be a better and bigger player, particularly in aerospace and some of the other peripheral industries. So we've got a whole list of things.

I've been pretty selfish about how we started going through strategic plans. We started with the industrial segment. It is finished and in deployment; we're going to lay it all out for you, and by then you're going to see some of the bottom line activity and how its affected things. So if you could just be patient until October, then you'll see the whole plan.

Okay, thank you very much.

The next question is from the line of Mig Dobre with Robert W. Baird.

Yes, good morning, everyone. Thanks for taking my question. Maybe if we can look a little bit at fourth-quarter guidance here, I'm trying to understand what some of the moving pieces are.

I understand the revenue side, but I'm wondering segment level, how have your margin expectations changed versus your initial plan? Where does most of the hit come from?

Clearly the volume for the year is lower than what we expected and that's having impact on an absorption standpoint, especially I would say in industrial and in engineered solutions. Engineered solutions also going through the destocking, so we're feeling it there.

Mix has not been our friend this year. We were not expecting Enerpac to be coming off the way it has, and as you know that's our most profitable business. So that is impacting our overall margins as well.

So no doubt the margin we're at right now for margins is disappointing relative to our prior guidance. We're trying to do what we can from a cost down standpoint, restructuring standpoint, but candidly we haven't been able to rip the cost out as fast and as deep as the revenues have been coming off.

Just to clarify, you are saying that versus your last guidance from last quarter it's in industrial and engineered that margins have changed the most?

I interpreted your question to be relative to plan as opposed to in the last quarter, so my comments were relative to what our expectations for the year were.

Okay. Well then relative to your guidance, because that's what I really meant, sorry for not articulating, versus the last guidance where have the margin changes been the largest?

Relative to our last guidance 90 days ago, it's going to be where the volume is again, which is industrial is a little bit softer and energy is softer, engineered solutions is down because of absorption. So it's really across the line, and again the mix is not helping out when you're looking today versus where we were at 90 days ago. Both Enerpac and our ag business are pretty good margin businesses, and our expectations for revenues are down, so that's hurting margins -- margin mix as well.

Appreciate that. And then my follow up, can you remind us the discrete projects in the Middle East that you had that benefited energy for FY16, maybe size that so that at least we have a sense for what the potential headwind could be into 2017?

It was in terms of Hydratight and the first half of the year, it was probably $15 million,$20 million impact.

And the back half, anything?

No, it was the first half job.

Okay, thank you.

The next question is from the line of Ann Duignan with JPMorgan.

Hi, good morning.

Good morning, Ann.

Just a clarification, on the acquisitions, I think the industrial acquisition was probably in the quarter for the full quarter, but the energy acquisition, how many months was that in the quarter just so we know how to forecast?

Two months, so it closed I think on the 30th of March.

Okay, great, thank you, that's helpful. And then on slide 15 you talk about the tailwinds heading out to 2018. Can you talk about the fact that steel prices are up 60% plus year to date and when that might have a negative impact on gross margins for Actuant?

Could it be a FY17 event, FY18 event? Are you hedged? Just some commentary on the input cost side, please.

It's a fair question. We are not buyers of raw steel, so we do not see movements up and down. We're buying machine components essentially on this.

We typically have bands that we put around our suppliers in terms of if we have increases and decreases in the underlying commodity we have discussions with them. So in our view there's some -- more time has to pass before we're going to get into any discussions on price increases here on steel.

But honestly it has not been much of a discussion at all within our business. We're not seeing rampant or significant impact from it. So no impact at all in the quarter.

And I'm assuming that those are inflation/deflation clauses that you have in your supply agreements that eventually will come up for renegotiation if steel prices stay as they are today?

Yes.

Okay, thank you. And then a little bit more color on your customers, I think you said it was agriculture only OEMs shutting down for extended periods in the summer. Will that flow into your fiscal Q1 FY17? Should we bear that in mind?

I'll answer it and Andy can add some color to it. There are a lot that have their standard shutdowns, Ann, as they do model-year production changeovers.

Some of them have extended those shutdowns, so if you make your way through ag construction on-road/off-road truck, you'll see that all of them have shutdown schedules. Some have lengthened them based on their model-year requirements, and particularly in ag where there's a bit of an overstock those model-year start ups have been delayed.

Okay. And it's ag only, it's not truck off-road construction?

No, this is broad.

I would say it's primarily the ag certainly, but it's much broader than that. Not as much on-highway. There are normal shutdowns in on-highway in the fourth quarter, but no big changes there.

It's construction equipment, it's material handling, it's other types of forestry type products as well that we're seeing, and it's pretty broad spread or widespread across off-highway. So we say truck is on-highway, not much impact there.

Okay. That does sound like that could flow into Q1 FY17 then?

Couldn't rule it out. Right now we have not been given any kind of a scheduling advice on that. It's still business as usual, but that can change obviously.

Okay, I appreciate the color. I'll get back in line, thanks.

Thanks, Ann.

The next question is from the line of Robert Wertheimer with Barclays.

Hi, thank you. Just a couple quick questions on price, and you have been very transparent and I know it's not always easy. On Hydratight, are you able to go after business and get jobs without losing price?

Do you have a competitive advantage in some of these global projects you're bidding on? And just out of curiosity on Viking, is there a floor on price where people, your competitors can't move equipment all that well and so you can at least think about maintaining that as volumes erode?

Yes, on the service level, the unique part of our business is we do have four levels of diversification; we rent product, we sell product, we do certification on joints, and now with the FourQuest acquisition we do servicing and cleaning of systems and then we do full in service.

So there's a lot of things that we can touch, and the level of certifications that we provide is a differentiator. So it does insulate us a bit from pricing.

I'll tell you that the oil industry is difficult right now, and so we've got to look at all industries, nuclear, we have general power generation that we go after all over the world, and we're doing transfer sites for oil load-outs. So there's a lot of places we touch this type of service, so our hope is that our level of differentiation and the market spreads we have will help us maintain a reasonable level of pricing, but it certainly is out there.

Your question relative to Viking, it is about just trying to keep any equipment in the water you can and I think that's generally the case with all the major competitors. It's important for anybody that has the assets to try to utilize them because then you can cash flow the businesses, but there's not a lot of pricing discipline I'd say in the market right now.

Without question out of the three businesses, Viking is the most -- we're seeing the most aberrant behavior from competitors from a pricing standpoint, where they're looking for any kind of dollars to have cash flow come into their businesses because their kit is largely a fixed cost non-cash depreciation. So they are much more desperate I would say in that area.

Thank you.

(Operator Instructions)

The next question is from the line of Charlie Brady with SunTrust Robinson Humphrey.

Hi, thanks. Good morning guys and Karen.

Good morning.

Just I want to go back to the commentary on energy about your expectation in Q4 being a bit lower than you expected. Is that a function of just the Viking/Cortland business? Is it a bit softer, because I read it as the Hydratight business maybe expectations there have come in a little bit relative to what they were a couple months ago.

Yes, it's a great question, Charlie. We are expecting a sequential lump, big lump if you will from Q3 to Q4 with Hydratight, and that's the biggest movement for the revenues when we look from Q3 to Q4. Hydratight was up low double digits this past quarter on a core basis, and when we're looking at what our schedule is over the next 90 days here it's not as robust as we have seen.

And this isn't something that we're freaking out about, because even when you look at the trend over the last eight quarters, we've had real nice plus quarters and all of a sudden you have a minus 10 thrown in there. Then we rebound again right after that. That's that lumpiness that we talked about, and we've got a lump coming at us here in the fourth quarter.

Fourth quarter last year was pretty good; we've got a little bit more difficult comp this time around. Third quarter of last year was not good, so we had an easy comp on it. So that's part of what you're seeing. We do expect, beyond Hydratight, we do expect continued softness in Cortland and Viking and probably a further softening in particular in Viking in the fourth quarter as more and more of the jobs have wound down and we're getting into a real low activity base.

And then Q1 and Q2 of the upcoming year, they're also going to have a pretty tough comp for Hydratight, right, because of the Middle East job?

They will, yes.

And my follow up here on the commentary on the additional restructuring potential that you're looking at, at what point do you get to where you are really cutting into stuff that maybe if the market does come back it's going to be harder to snap that back up to capture that upside demand? Can you talk about is it more facility rationalization, is it more headcount related, or is it all of that?

Well, we're being very cautious on that issue. We (technical difficulty) and react to a market change. So that's something I personally get involved with, and with the individual segments looking at not only their headcount but their operational expenses, and then the manufacturing industrial moves that we're making.

Some of the larger savings that we're going to see in the next couple of months are associated with some of the manufacturing moves that are in progress right now. Undoubtedly we will continue to look at every aspect of the business to make sure that we're as lean as we can without damaging our long term ability to serve. So we're watching it very, very closely.

Our next question is from the line of Scott Graham with BMO Capital Markets.

Hi, good morning. One question on capital and one question on the markets. The Company has historically run at a 1,1.5 net debt to EBITDA level, and we're currently running 2.5 to 3.

And I know you're saying it's going to come down in the fourth quarter, but with the acquisitions you're two-thirds of the way there on what you're looking for overall for to get to the $300 million. Does that imply that really the next four quarters kind of need to be just free cash -- running free cash flow without much share repurchasing and without much acquisitions to get that net debt to EBITDA down to where the Company has historically been?

No, I don't think so. Our very publicly stated comments is our debt target zone is 1.5 to 2.5 times net debt to EBITDA, so we are on the higher end right now with this quarter and we expect to be essentially back on it next quarter on it.

Given the interest rate environment out there, given what we've had and the buybacks that we've had historically, certainly not a surprise that we've inched our way up from a leverage standpoint. So you should not read into it that cash flow for the next year is going to be used to reduce debt and we're putting M&A on hold.

I wouldn't expect to be spending more than our free cash flow on it in the next year, but it's going to be very targeted on tuck-in acquisitions. But there were a couple years when we had our leverage below our desired range of 1.5 here, and that was after we sold the electrical business, and that's why we bought back as much as we did from a stock standpoint to put a little bit more capital to work and just to leverage up so it wasn't quite as lazy of a balance sheet as it looked.

Got you. Thank you for that. The $300 million assessment, I think there was a question asked earlier about the $50 million coming from the markets.

I think the way things are trending right now, that number by the time the analyst meeting rolls around will be almost double that. It looks like your $25 million worse than that right now, not you but the markets.

Is there enough opportunity on the cost side to offset that simplification at $30 million? Can we get into a doubling of that number to help offset the market issue?

I think that it's unrealistic that we could cut our way to prosperity. I think that the simplification activities, the $25 million, certainly we're going to go after everything above that we can, but there's just simply not enough there to add another $20 million or $30 million worth of cost benefit to offset any market related things.

As I've said, our focus is going to be on opening new regions, looking at new market participation; which means different types of sales areas, whether it's aerospace and other places that we are in today but not in a way that we should be, some new product launches that are coming out, and then just flat getting out and being more effective as a sales force and in getting that incremental growth there.

That's not going to be the fix all to close that huge gap, but I can tell you that we will get growth out of it and our objective is to out pace the market in terms of market growth versus organic growth from those activities. So it's not going to be easy, and that's something over the next couple of months as we get closer to October we're talking through these things and seeing where we are going to land.

Thank you very much.

The next question is from the line of Justin Bergner with Gabelli & Company.

Good morning, everyone.

Good morning.

My first question comes back to the topic of Hydratight. We've seen a number of companies indicate a meaningful drop off in process MRO spending in the last couple of months, and so I just wanted to gauge whether the Hydratight conditions are best described as lumpy, or are you seeing a similar drop off that some of these other companies are seeing? And if not, why do you think you're not seeing the same degree of drop off?

Well there's one key factor that you have to look at compared to some of the other competitors that are out there is that we are geographically much wider spread. We also have a much heavier diversification of what we do.

Most of our competitors don't rent tools and they don't manufacture tools, and in the case now that they don't have some of the cleaning operations and some of the pipe preparation operations that we now own, that affords us a much broader scope of where we can make money. So it's harder to compare us directly with those competitors.

We are lumpy, I think that's the best way to describe it. Large projects usually start as a small job on a petrochem or a load-out facility or a transfer point for oil terminals, and then they grow because mobilization fees getting on a platform or out into the field are typically higher.

So once you're on a site, you tend to grow with it. That's how we believe commercial effectiveness and really being a great supplier can take some of that lumpiness out of it, but we love it when we get big projects but it also stings when you work your way through it because the comps become very difficult.

Okay. If I was to ask specifically about a certain competitor that reported trailing three-month orders today and showed a big drop off in process management, is it erroneous to think that the conditions that particular Company is seeing broadly apply to the likes of Hydratight?

Well I think you have to look into the Company's comps as to where their revenue is coming from. If it's primarily North America they're probably feeling a pinch.

Just get a marginal cost of production chart and you'll find that there are varying degrees of strategy on maintenance around the world. If you're sitting in the Middle East where your marginal cost of production is still very much in the money, you have a more proactive approach to how you're working on your equipment in your terminals and your petrochem sites.

If you're in an area where your marginal cost production is not so good, you're cash constrained and you're going to be on a fix-as-fail basis. So that sort of maintenance strategy is very common in any commodity related business, and so you have to get into the details of where the revenue flows from and what do those customers look like in those markets to make an accurate comparison.

Thanks, I'll hop back into the queue.

Thanks.

Our next question is from the line of Stanley Elliott with Stifel.

Good morning, thank you. Quick question on the MENAC acquisition; it was $5 million in the quarter, I believe in the press release you had said $25 million for calendar 2015.

Was this or is this a seasonally stronger quarter? Is this business ramping on the top line ahead of expectations? Any help that you could provide on that would be great.

Yes, sales in the quarter were about $5.5 million, that's really two months worth. It wasn't a full quarter first off. And there is a time when you're ramping up these businesses for projects and what not.

So I wouldn't read too much into that. There is some seasonality in here, but the business is growing.

So just even with the strong start, I mean is $25 million still a good number from a full-year perspective, or how do we think about that?

Yes, when we bought the business we had indicated that it was going to be growing quite a bit, and its run rate clearly is well above $25 million and the expectation was it's going to have a very good 2016, which we are enjoying right now. So the pace and size of this business is well above $25 million right now.

Great. And then as a follow up, as you move into new regions, new markets, new products, how quickly can you ramp the commercialization of the organization to really enter into those markets and penetrate those in a meaningful way?

Well the key when you look at a market, obviously you need the appropriate product mix because there are regional specific requirements for each type of product we sell. It may be a content, it may be a price point, there's lots of factors at play.

One of the biggest ones is your distribution footprint. So one of the constraints to most companies, particularly coming out of the US, is how do you stand up a distribution footprint to support the sales within those regions? That's where we are focusing is how can we get those points of sale aligned with the products we intend to sell.

Great, thank you very much.

We have a follow-up question from the line of Justin Bergner with Gabelli & Company.

Thank you for taking my follow-up question. It relates to the industrial margins. I guess on a sequential basis, it seems like there was decent incrementals versus the second fiscal quarter, and I guess I was just curious given the comments made earlier where the incremental or sequential margin profile was coming up short relative to what the Company might have hoped for or forecasted three months ago?

Sure, Justin, what you really saw was our seasonality. Our second quarter clearly is always the weakest, so last year we were off about 150 basis points in the EBITDA margin Q1 to Q2 and then jumped up about 350 when we got into Q3.

This year is similar. We were down 250 basis points in the first quarter and jumped up a couple hundred basis points here. So year over year we definitely expect to be down in margins in industrial, and the incrementals in that business are quite high. So if you're losing $1 million or $2 million or $3 million of revenue relative to what you're expecting, it's $0.02 or $0.03 a share just that alone, it's that sensitive.

Okay, that's helpful. Is there any particular area in industrial where the mix has worsened over the last three months and looking out over the next three months?

Not really. It's pretty consistent across the different verticals.

Okay, thank you very much.

You bet.

There are no other questions at this time. I will turn the call back to you. Please continue with the presentation or closing remarks.

Great. Well thanks, everybody, for joining the call today, but before we wrap up I wanted to provide just some high level details on our annual Investor Day. As you can see here on slide 17 that's going to be held in New York on October 6.

In addition to covering Randy's strategy and game plan as he just talked about here, we'll also have our executive leadership team on site for the small group meetings that we've done historically for a heavy dose of Q&A with them. So mark your calendar, watch for the invite and registration instructions in the next month or two.

Also note that our fourth-quarter earnings call for your planning will take place on September 28. So I'll be around all afternoon to answer any follow-up questions you guys have. Goodbye.

Ladies and gentlemen, that does conclude the conference call for today. We thank you for your participation and ask that you please disconnect your lines.