RBC Bearings Inc (RBC) 2012 Q3 法說會逐字稿

Good day ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the third-quarter 2012 RBC Bearings earnings conference call.

My name is Lacey, and I will be your coordinator for today.

At this time, all participants are in a listen-only mode.

We will facilitate a Q&A session towards the end of the presentation.

(Operator Instructions).

As a reminder, this conference is being recorded for replay purposes.

I would now like to turn the presentation over to your host for today's call, Mr.

Adam Sigel.

Please proceed.

Good morning and thank you for joining us today for RBC Bearings' fiscal 2012 third-quarter earnings conference call.

On the call today will be Dr.

Michael J.

Hartnett, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer, and Daniel A.

Bergeron, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer.

Before beginning today's call, let me remind you that some of the statements made today will be forward-looking and are made under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995.

Actual results may differ materially from those projected or implied due to a variety of factors.

We refer you to RBC Bearings' recent filings with the SEC for a more detailed discussion of the risks that could impact the Company's future operating results and financial condition.

These factors are also described in greater detail in the press release and on the Company's website.

Now, I would like to turn the call over to Dr.

Hartnett.

Thank you Adam, and good morning.

The first nine months of our fiscal 2012 continued to show strong organic growth in both our diversified industrial and aerospace markets.

We continue to see solid order volumes across our key markets and good execution by our manufacturing facilities.

During the third quarter, our sales were $95.1 million, an increase of 17% over the same period last year.

The strength in our industrial markets continued through the third quarter with sales of our industrial products up 18% on a year-over-year basis.

This increase was driven by strong demand from both distribution and OEMs with a year-over-year rate of 12.6% and 20.1% respectively.

Our major markets continue to respond well to our product offering, engineering support, and service levels.

Sales of industrial products for the period represented 52% of our total revenues, and aerospace and defense represented 48% of those revenues.

Last call, we discussed the strength and breadth of demand from our served industrial market.

The picture today remains as strong now as it was then.

Market leaders in this sector continue to be mining, oil and gas, ground defense and general industrial distribution.

Orders from our customers in the oil and gas market remain strong and building.

New products are being added to support equipment in the hydraulic fracturing markets, as well as both onshore and offshore energy development.

Construction of large equipment for the mining sector continues to expand through the period as reported by the equipment builders during their conference calls.

In Europe, we are also encouraged with the reception we see for our new products for the machine tool industry, and the results of new marketing initiatives for sales of these products in Asia.

Finally, we are experiencing volume expansion at our industrial distributors in the United States.

This is driven by replacement markets of mining and oil and gas as well as an overall improvement in company coverage in these markets.

Relative to our aerospace and defense business, these businesses grew 16.1% in the third quarter compared to the same period last year.

The positive development in the aircraft markets we spoke about last call continue today.

Strong book-to-bill ratios at large aircraft OEMs was again demonstrated in calendar 2011.

As you can see from our third-quarter results, this sector continues to perform very well for us.

As reported on our last call, we remain busy in the sales, marketing, engineering and manufacturing preparing for the next leg of the expansion to support the manufacturing plans of the plane builders.

There are numerous new products under development or entering their manufacturing cycle, frequent customer visits to our facilities, some visits to gauge our readiness to support production ramp-up, some visits are added -- are to approve added processes and products.

Considerable activity is expended to support these visits, as well as plan for increases in production throughput and to develop multi-year contract supply agreements.

These are daily topics of our discussions.

As I stated previously, manufacturing capacity worldwide is being measured, rationed, and taxed to support production requirements.

Relative to RBC, we are carefully reviewing our order book relative to our client base, given our current and projected capacities, to ensure our best clients see no disruption in service levels and our manufacturing efficiencies are not compromised by any loss of economy of scale as a result of industry planning perturbations and capacity constraints.

We fully expect that, in the coming years, should the number of planes planned today actually be produced, there will be a shortfall in worldwide qualified manufacturing capacity to support these objectives.

We think of that as a wonderful concept.

These are interesting times, and a company can be easily overwhelmed by the demands from this industry.

Believe me, we are doing everything we can to be cautious in our commitments and deliberate on planning our growth through this phase of the cycle.

In summary, we ended the third quarter of fiscal 2012 with $215.7 million of backlog compared to $180 million for the same period last year.

Gross margin performance for the third quarter was 35.4% compared to 32% for the same period last year.

This is an improvement of 3.4 percentage points, better than last year's third quarter.

As we discussed on the last few calls, our internal target is to add 1% to 1.25% of gross margin in fiscal 2012 over 2011.

For the first nine months of fiscal 2012, we are much better than planned and exceeding our internal target.

These margin improvements are the result of improved pricing on new contracts as well as process improvements, better execution, and of course greater production volumes.

Looking ahead, we expect the fourth quarter of fiscal 2012 to hit the high water market in terms of sales and to be slightly over $100 million.

I'll now turn the call over to Dan who can provide more color on the quarter and the full year.

Thank you Mike.

Since Mike has already discussed sales and gross margin, I'll jump down to SG&A.

SG&A for the third quarter of fiscal 2012 increased by $1.7 million to $15 million compared to $13.3 million for the same period last year.

As a percentage of net sales, SG&A was 15.8% for the third quarter of fiscal 2012 compared to 16.4% for the same period last year.

The increase in SG&A year-over-year was mainly due to an increase in personnel related items.

Other net for the third quarter fiscal 2012 was expense of $0.4 million compared to expense of $0.4 million for the same period last year.

For the third quarter fiscal 2012, other net consisted of $0.4 million of amortization of intangibles and $0.1 million of bad debt expense, offset by miscellaneous income of $0.1 million.

For the same period last year, other net consisted of $0.3 million of amortization of intangibles and $0.1 million of other expenses.

Operating income was $18.2 million for the third quarter fiscal 2012, an increase of 49.2% compared to operating income of $12.2 million for the same period in fiscal 2011.

As a percentage of net sales, operating income was 19.1% for the third quarter of fiscal 2012 compared to 15% for the same period last year.

Income tax expense for the third quarter fiscal 2012 was $5.8 million compared to $4 million for the same period last year.

Our effective income tax rate for the third quarter of fiscal 2012 was 32.1%, compared to 35.1% in the same period last year.

The effective income tax rate for the third quarter of fiscal 2012 includes $0.4 million of discrete items.

Excluding these discrete items, the effective income tax rate for the third quarter fiscal 2012 would have been 34.5%.

For the third quarter of fiscal 2012, the Company reported net income of $12.2 million compared to net income of $7.4 million for the same period last year.

Diluted earnings per share was $0.54 per share for the third quarter fiscal 2012 compared to $0.33 per share for the same period last year.

Turning to cash flow, the Company generated $14.8 million in cash from operating activities in the third quarter fiscal 2012 compared to $14.7 million the same period last year.

Capital expenditures were $3.9 million in the third quarter of fiscal 2012 compared to $2.7 million for the same period last year.

We expect our capital expenditures to be approximately $14 million to $16 million in fiscal 2012, right on target to our normal 3.5% to 4% of sales.

The Company ended the third quarter of fiscal 2012 with $59.7 million of cash, $1.1 million of debt on the balance sheet.

I would now like to turn it back to the operator for the Q&A session.

(Operator Instructions).

Edward Marshall, Sidoti & Co.

Hi guys.

I know you didn't break it out, but the Houston facility, was there any margin drag on that?

I don't have that number in front of me, but it's probably around $500,000 $to 600,000.

Okay, so it's really stepped down there.

The operational adjustments that you mentioned I guess in the press release and you talked a little bit about today, is that capacity through investment or maybe headcount?

Kind of I guess as a follow-up to that, what's the current utilization of the facilities?

We use our facilities every day.

That's good.

The facility utilization is very strong.

I think it's a -- in terms of additional capacity, it's a matter of training people and adding -- and either adding ships or adding more people to the existing ships.

We don't see the need for bricks and mortar or anything that extreme.

Okay.

Then if I could dive into the financial -- the industrials real quick, you're growing twice the rate of the closest competitor in the industrial business.

They mentioned similar markets responsible for their growth.

I know oil and gas is growing pretty well, but the market -- is there market share gains there or why are you growing so much faster in that business?

I guess that's a testament to you, but if you could dive into that a little bit further.

I think, first of all, our execution is very good, so we are taking care of core customers.

Our inventory positions are extremely good in the industrial sector.

So, the availability of product to those markets is the best it's ever been.

We've expanded our sales force into additional regions of the country where we in the United States where we were sort of underrepresented.

We've got a flow of some new products that are well-accepted.

So I think we're doing a lot of things right and it's showing up in the numbers.

So can I infer from that that you think you are stealing share?

I don't know if it's so much stealing share as is there's new systems being designed and introduced, and our products around those new systems.

I don't know, if we weren't there, I think somebody else's products would be on those new systems, but I can't imagine that's a -- the market isn't just stable.

It's growing, and so we are growing with it.

The oil and gas business in the quarter, what was the value of that?

How much did that produce in the sales line?

Gosh, that's -- I'm going to be guessing.

It's probably somewhere north of $5 million.

Lastly, if you could, do you know the breakout between the commercial and defense and what was responsible for the growth in the aerospace side?

I'm assuming commercial is growing much faster than defense, but if you can break out that way, that would be great.

Yes, I think Dan is -- address those numbers, right?

Yes, we said total aerospace and defense grew at 16%, but we don't have the number in front of us, but I'd guess that the commercial aerospace and distribution business probably grew closer to 20%.

20%.

Okay.

Thanks guys.

Walt Liptak, Barrington Research.

Thanks.

Good morning guys.

I want to ask about the capacity adds, and just specifically how many aerospace facilities are you at at this point, and how many shifts are you working and I guess what's the increase that you're expecting?

We probably have ten facilities doing aerospace, some share of the aerospace with industrial, but there's ten in the aerospace game.

What was the second question?

Just how many shifts are these facilities working?

It varies.

It's hard to add shifts in a place like Switzerland, and it's easier to add shifts in a place like Mexico, so if it varies by region.

The larger plants are pretty much running sort of 1.5 shifts.

Okay.

But adding a second shift is not easy, because you have to have services as well as labor on the shift.

Otherwise the shift isn't as productive as you need it to be.

So there's a whole infrastructure growth scenario that has to take place in order to do that competently.

Okay.

I guess you made some comments early in the call, the aerospace growth rate at 20% looks good.

How should we think about where we are in the cycle?

Is it still -- are we in third inning?

Are we still early in the game for aerospace?

Now, we are early.

We are -- if Boeing did I think 35 737s in the fourth calendar quarter of the year and really is selling at a rate of 50 on a per-month basis, they really need to step it up and they are trying to determine what are the kinks in there?

What are the lumps in their pudding that they can't step it up to 50 and how do they step it up to 50?

So you have Boeing attempting to get to 50 on that measure.

You have them attempting to get to ten 787s a month, and you have the Airbus with an almost parallel set of objectives and the A350 coming on, where our content is very strong on the A350.

It's actually more than our normal content on a Boeing plane.

So I think we are early in the game here.

Okay.

The growth rate looks good, but are you expecting it to accelerate from here?

Based on the commentary it sounds like you're expecting your order activity to go north of 20% in the coming quarters.

Yes, you know, it's kind of -- the overall answer is yes, but I think there may be some quarter-to-quarter timing issues with regard to when contracts are finalized, and whether or not there's going to be any more setbacks on some of these Boeing or Airbus programs to introduce the ships.

But overall, the wind is at our back on this thing.

Okay.

The backlog decelerated a little bit.

I think you said you were at $215 million at the end of January.

That's down from $216 million, so it's not much of a deceleration.

But how should we think about the backlog?

The growth looks fine but how should we think about that?

I think, in part, I think that's timing in terms of -- we are at a critical point in several contract negotiations that where we've actually reached agreement with customers, but they haven't released orders in that period.

So it's absolutely timing.

When we look at what we have contracted today for just aircraft backlog over the next three to five years, we have well in excess of $400 million under contract.

Okay.

Then the last -- you mentioned wind at your back, but I started thinking about wind.

Is there any -- are you seeing any turn at all in the wind markets or is it still pretty blowing against you?

No, we are not seeing any much positive development there at all.

Other than the testing that we are going through and the qualification, we are really not seeing much of an industry pickup.

Okay.

Great.

Okay, thanks very much.

Samuel Eisner, William Blair.

Good morning everyone.

Just to go back to the backlog question, it seems as though on a sequential basis orders are actually down about 12%.

So is that strictly all timing or is there a way to flush out the $95 million of orders in the quarter, you know, aerospace versus industrial or maybe just some further color on that?

Yes, I think it's pretty much timing.

I don't see anything more than that.

I think it's -- we have -- as I was explaining to Walt, we were at a critical point on several contract negotiations, particularly on the aircraft side of the business, where we concluded those negotiations over the quarter.

So it kind of held up order placement because you don't know what the prices are until you conclude the negotiation.

So, I think that should even out over the next quarter.

Okay.

Are those contracts your typical kind of three- or five-year contracts, or are those more annual contracts?

They are more the three- to five-year.

Great, okay.

Regarding gross margin, obviously you've had now for the first nine months about 200 basis points of margin expansion.

But in this quarter, you had COGS come in somewhere close to the first quarter.

So what are you doing to be able to keep COGS basically flat on an absolute basis while being able to increase the overall margin?

Is it pricing?

Is it just better productivity?

What typically is going on that's leading to the expansion?

The margin expansion?

Well, clearly it's -- there's a number of things that are playing through there.

One is just better execution in the plants, in some of the major plants.

That better execution comes from the last 24 to 30 months of studying what were the problem children in the mix and deciding how those problem children could be better produced to be more efficiently produced.

So, that's our business right there is identifying where there's margin improvement opportunity in our existing mix.

We like to spend time and effort on that sort of thing once we have that under a long-term contract.

We don't like to work on things that are going to be here today and gone tomorrow.

So there's been a lot of process engineering improvement there I think in most of the facilities.

I think second to that is that over the years we've been in start-up on several new programs, and so we are improving our execution through the learning curve on many of those programs.

The added volume is certainly helping with the absorption.

So is it right to assume then that this is structural, this is not just a one-time benefit where you're getting north of 35% gross margins?

Absolutely.

Okay.

Then I guess two final questions, one on, basically on the aerospace side.

Based on the perceived kind of production ramp for both Boeing and Airbus, when would you foresee having to add capacity?

Would it be in the next year?

Would it be in the next 24 months?

How are you thinking about that?

Then just lastly on the cash balance, just priorities for cash, obviously with $58 million of net cash, I think any indication of what your plans are for that.

Well, yes, I think we will continuously add manufacturing capacity throughout the next eight quarters.

I mean, I think we're following the aircraft buildup.

We are trying to understand what the volumes are.

We are trying to take the number of planes that are being built by certain designs, knowing what our mix content in those planes, understanding what the demands are going to be in our plants for those line items and making sure that the balance between capacity and demand is reasonable.

Right now, we are trying to -- we've got a little extra capacity, so we are trying to outproduce some of that demand to get ahead of the curve a little bit because we now take that if you get behind the curve, it's very painful for both you and your customer.

So I think it's going to be a very carefully measured and executed program.

We are not going to try to be all things to all people, and we may not be able to take care of the entire customer base.

And so we have to be very strategic about the execution during this period of time.

Your second questions concerned cash, so I'll let Dan address that.

Like always, we will be using that cash to invest in internal organic growth and external growth.

About half that cash is in the United States and half of it is in Europe, and so we are working hard to find opportunities in both Europe and the US to expand our businesses.

Great.

Thanks very much.

Peter Lisnic, Robert W.

Baird.

Good morning gentlemen.

I guess first question, on the optimization of production schedules, is that occurring more on the aerospace side or industrial or is that both?

It's more on the aerospace side but it is both.

Okay, all right.

Then if you are kind of going through that, I guess I could maybe infer that there are some temporary costs that you might be encouraging.

Would that be an accurate assessment?

If so, can you maybe give us a sense as to what might be going through the income statement for some of those activities?

It's normally what goes through the income statement.

It's product development costs.

If we have a new product that we are developing, there's a lot more cost than there is revenue.

And so we have a lot of those products right now coming through the cycle, both design.

There's cost to design it; there's cost to test it; there's cost to test it with the customer, if he is going to test it or you're going to test it; and there's cost to tool it up.

Usually when you manufacture these things, you hate the margins and you start working your way down the learning curve.

So we have, we constantly have that passing through our income statement.

Okay, but there isn't necessarily any sort of discreet inefficiency cost necessarily, it's just the nature of having the products out there?

It's the nature of the business.

Yes, it's the nature of our business.

Okay, all right.

I was just wondering if there was anything that was discrete.

Then in the -- when you talk about capacity, it sounds like the constraints there are more on the aerospace side.

I'm just wondering what the capacity outlook looks like in industrial and whether or not any of that capacity could be fungible and used for aerospace.

No.

Actually, we are constrained on capacity for industrial in certain sectors too, particularly the oil and gas sector.

We could sell more if we could make more, so we definitely are constrained there.

But the big numbers is probably more towards the aerospace side.

I think, right now, we are keeping up fine.

We need to be getting a little ahead of it in some of the plants, and so we need to be working on that.

We need to actually outproduce our sales for a while, and so we have to kind of focus on that, those issues.

Okay.

Then your comment about increasing cap or capacity over the next call it eight quarters, is it safe to say that we shouldn't necessarily expect a big step-up in capital expenditures for fiscal 2013?

It just sounds like there is some incremental capital that you're going to be deploying but not necessarily any sort of step function change in the CapEx outlook for '13.

It should be completely normal and historical.

I think we can manage it within those constraints.

Okay, all right, perfect.

Then the last question, the very strong gross margins in the third quarter and with these markets, your comment earlier about being in a good spot with some of the manufacturing tightness, for lack of a better term, across the globe, how should we think about where your gross margins could go over the longer-term, or maybe operating margins, where those can go over the longer term, given the favorable demand backdrop and capacity constraints that are out there globally?

Let's hope they can go up.

I certainly think they can.

The -- I don't think we are at any plateau.

I don't know if we are going to have a quarter or a year that increases 2 or 3 gross margin percentage points.

I suspect that we can probably get another 1 point, 1.5 points out of it next year.

Okay, all right.

That is very helpful.

Thank you for your time.

Steve Barger, KeyBanc Capital Markets.

This is actually Alex Walsh sitting in for Steve.

Thanks for taking my questions.

First off, on the last conference call, you guys talk about repricing some contracts at a higher rate.

I was wondering if you could update us on the progress of those, especially given kind of the conversation we've been having about constraining CapEx, just in terms of where you guys are in terms of repricing those contracts.

I don't remember saying that.

Can you -- it's a little out of context for me.

Can you add a little flavor around it so maybe I can recall exactly what the subject was?

I think you said that a portion of your business would be subject to repricing.

I believe the comment was in the range of 40%.

It was towards the latter end of the last conference call.

I'm just, Dan, I'm drawing a blank here.

It's all right, I'll move on.

I guess everyone -- I think we've covered aerospace OE pretty well, but I was wondering if you could talk about what you guys are thinking in terms of the growth rate for defense.

I know Boeing has taken decent orders for the Chinook.

I was wondering what platforms you guys are looking and how we should be thinking about that business going forward.

Yes the -- well, we are -- basically you look at the major platforms that the military uses today for helicopters and fighters, and we are pretty much across the board, some platforms being more important to us than others, the Chinook being one of the more important platforms.

I think the defense business and our structure, we have several new programs coming on.

I think the new programs will replace some of the consolidation, if you want to call it that, in the Defense Department, and we should pretty much be able to hold that part of our business even.

I don't see it as going to be a growth sector.

If it were growing, it would be maybe a little bit difficult to support.

A lot of that business also goes through the aircraft airframe plants.

So, I think it's going to be steady for the next few years --

Okay.

-- with the exception of ground defense, which may grow a little bit.

What platforms would that be on?

For defense?

For the ground platforms?

The MRAP, the Buffalo, and all that mine-resistant hardware that is being produced and reconfigured.

Got you.

Okay.

Obviously, you're getting good growth on the OE side of the aerospace, but I was wondering if you talk a little bit about aftermarket.

How much did that make up in the quarter, and how are you guys thinking about the growth there?

We are seeing -- what we call aftermarket are the -- are aircraft distributors.

Aircraft distributors actually support as much OEM business as they do aftermarket business because they look for a way to expand their business so they chase down the smaller OEMs and their supply chain, and sell them product.

So we, in total, we saw that part of our business grow nicely over the period, pick up pretty well.

I suspect less than half of that business is truly replacement, but in total, that side of the business expanded well.

Okay.

As I look at the seasonality of your business, I know that typically fiscal 4Q tends to experience a pretty solid sequential increase in revenue.

Actually looking back to 2003, it looks like it's been about $11 million on average.

I was wondering if there's anything you're seeing or how we should be thinking about the sequential revenue Cadence in the next quarter.

Anything you're seeing that might differ from what has historically been?

We just don't have guidance anymore.

Mike in his opening comments gave everybody a little hint where we thought Q4 would be, so I think really that's all we have to say on the Q4 numbers.

Okay.

That's all I have for now.

Thanks for taking my questions.

(Operator Instructions).

Gregory Macosko, Lord Abbett.

Thank you.

I'd just like to confirm that Dan was correct on his comments regarding contracts.

You did mention that there were a number of contracts in aero that were rolling off after four or five years, and all of which you said would have higher pricing.

Are those contracts all the ones that are rolling off?

Have they been completed at this point?

Signed and renewed and everything?

Pretty much.

I'd say the answer to that question, now that it's in context for me, I think the answer to that question is yes?

And has the pricing improved?

On most of them, not on all of them.

Okay.

Then with regard to your comment on -- you mentioned that you were overproducing, etc., or producing to kind of get a head a little bit.

I didn't see anything regarding inventories in the release.

Talk to me about where does inventory stand and what happened to it on a sequential basis second to third quarter?

The inventories for the end of December, about $161.6 million.

$160 million you said?

I'm sorry?

Yes, $161.6 million.

And so for the nine-month period, it's up around $17 million.

So did it rise from the second quarter significantly or not?

It went from $161.6 million, and we were at $155.2 million in the second quarter.

Okay.

So it's really not -- in other words you are not absorbing particular overhead by building inventory in the quarter is what I'm hearing you're saying there.

Yes.

Okay.

Then talk to me about the CapEx.

Last quarter, you said $12 million to $14 million.

Now it's $14 million to $16 million.

Obviously, you're mentioning about the eight quarters of expansion, etc., steady, slow expansion.

What are we talking here?

Is it basically kind of equipment that kind of, as you go along, we need some more so you're adding more lines or things?

Tell me what it means when the CapEx budget goes up a little bit.

Okay.

It's a combination of three things really going into the fourth quarter.

Normally about 70% of our CapEx is capacity related where we are rebuilding machines or buying new machine tools and about 30% is maintenance related where we are working on buildings and etc.

In the fourth quarter, we bumped it up a little because we have one building that we are actually buying a new building in one of our facilities to increase a little bit of capacity.

That's going to run us about $1.3 million.

So that's what -- a good opportunity came up on the market for an asset, and so we took advantage of that.

Okay.

But still we are between that 3.5% to 4% target that we've always run at as a percentage of sales.

Well, if I just take the $60 million and divide it by 0.035, I get $457 million revenues for the year.

Do you think that makes sense?

Only joking.

No comment.

All right.

What about the warehouses in Chicago and Dallas?

I know you were opening some there.

How did that go?

What's going on there?

It went fine.

Chicago is up and running and Dallas won't be up and running until probably March 1, maybe March 15.

Is that -- are those industrial warehouses or is that the aero distribution you mentioned, or where does that stand, what does that serve?

Industrial.

Industrial, good.

Okay.

I sense you said last time you talked about the content rising with Boeing particularly relative to the 787.

Your talk of the new product development, etc., I assume that trend continues with rising content kind of on a per-plane basis.

Absolutely.

Okay.

Finally, you -- I think you mentioned clearly the margins have been great.

The gross margins particularly are very nice.

The -- you mentioned another 100 basis points or so I think in '13 or that's possible.

I mean in effect, even though you outperform your original expectations in fiscal '12, you still have the same incremental expectations on the gross margin line I think in '13.

Yes, we are resetting a little bit.

We are resetting our expectation of improvement for the new bases.

Okay.

In your release, you talked about necessary adjustments operationally to ensure that we can continue capitalizing on these opportunities.

This is kind of what we are talking about with regard to out-producing and the like.

That's what you're referring to with regard to your order book.

Yes, we have a certain strategy which is confidential on how we execute these businesses.

Uh-huh.

In part, that's responsible for the margin improvement, and in part that's responsible for our outstanding reputation for customer service.

Okay.

Good.

Thanks very much for the conversation.

Samuel Eisner, William Blair.

Thanks again for taking my question.

Just a couple of quick follow-ups here.

Regarding you said that you're being somewhat selective on your revenue and you're putting customers on allocation or you're basically picking and choosing which customers will get revenue, is there a way to quantify any missed revenue opportunities in the quarter based on your selectivity?

Not that I know of.

And no, I do not know how to do that.

Okay.

Then additionally, there seems to be that there's a big contract out there for Navistar for the MRAP program.

It's about $900 million or so.

Presumably, would you -- have you begun to see any orders from that?

Is that currently in your numbers, or is that the growth rates that you're talking about potentially coming forward?

That's a good question.

It would be potential growth.

It all depends which vehicle it is, and what the set up is on the vehicle.

Okay.

Because, to my knowledge, it seems as though you have pretty good content on the MRAP program, so presumably that would be a benefit, but as you said, it depends on the content or it depends on the company.

We expect to see that benefit.

Okay, thanks.

Ladies and gentlemen, this concludes the question-and-answer portion of our call.

I will now turn the call back to Dr.

Mike Hartnett for any closing remarks.

In closing, I want to thank everyone for their continued interest and support of RBC Bearings and for participating in today's discussion, and for making RBC part of your investment strategy.

Thank you very much.

Thank you for your participation in today's conference.

This concludes the presentation.

You may now disconnect.

Good day everyone.