Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for standing by. Welcome to the Ametek Fourth Quarter and Year-End 2012 Results conference call. During the presentation, all participants will be in a listen-only mode. Afterwards we will conduct a question and answer session. At that time, if you have a question please press the one followed by the four on your telephone. If at any time during the conference you need to reach an operator, please press star, zero. As a reminder, this conference is being recorded Thursday, January 24, 2013. I would now like to turn the conference over to Kevin Coleman, Vice President of Investor Relations. Please go ahead, sir.

Great, thank you, Susie. Good morning and welcome to Ametek’s fourth quarter earnings conference call. Joining me this morning are Frank Hermance, Chairman and CEO; and Bob Mandos, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer. Ametek’s fourth quarter results were released earlier this morning. These results are available electronically on market systems and on our website at the Investors section of Ametek.com. A tape of today’s conference call may be accessed until February 7 by calling 800-633-8284 and entering the confirmation code number 21643345. This conference call is also webcasted. It can be accessed at Ametek.com and at StreetEvents.com. The conference call will be archived on both of these websites. I will remind you that any statements made by Ametek during the call that are not historical in nature are to be considered forward-looking statements. As such, these statements are subject to change based on various risk factors and uncertainties that may cause actual results to differ significantly from expectations. A detailed discussion of the risks and uncertainties that may affect our future results is contained in Ametek’s filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Ametek disclaims any intention or obligation to update or revise any forward-looking statements. I will also refer you to the investor section of Ametek.com for a reconciliation of any non-GAAP financial measures used during this conference call. We will begin today with some prepared remarks and then we will take your questions. I’ll now turn the meeting over to Frank.

Thank you, Kevin, and good morning everyone. Ametek had a solid fourth quarter to complete another outstanding year. We established quarterly and annual records for orders, sales, operating income, operating, margins, net income, diluted EPS, and operating cash flow. In addition, we acquired seven highly strategic businesses in 2012, establishing records for capital deployed and annual revenue acquired. For the full year 2012, sales were up 12%, operating income was up 17%, operating margins expanded 100 basis points to 22.4%, and diluted EPS ended at $1.88, a 19% increase over 2011’s diluted EPS. In the fourth quarter, orders were very strong, increasing 28% in total and 4% organically. The core order trend within the quarter was positive with December being very strong. The book-to-bill ratio was 1.14. Sales in the quarter were up 10% to $841.8 million. Internal sales growth was down 2% while acquisitions added 13% and foreign currency translation was a one point headwind. Operating income for the fourth quarter increased 13% to $190 million from $167.4 million last year, reflecting the impact from our operational excellence activities. Operating income margin in the fourth quarter was a record 22.6%, a 70 basis point improvement over the fourth quarter of 2011. Net income was up 18% to $119.9 million and diluted earnings per share of $0.49 were up 17% over last year’s fourth quarter. Operating cash flow was excellent with both the fourth quarter and full-year results representing records. Operating cash flow was $192 million in the fourth quarter and $611 million for the year, up 25% and 20% respectively. Free cash flow was 140% of net income in the fourth quarter and 121% of net income for the full year. Backlog at the end of the fourth quarter was over $1.1 billion, an all-time record high. Working capital…

Thank you, Frank. As Frank noted, we had a strong fourth quarter with excellent operating performance. I will provide some further details. In the quarter, total selling expenses were up less than total sales on a percentage basis due to good cost containment. General and administrative expenses were 1.2% of sales, below last year’s fourth quarter level of 1.5% of sales driven primarily by lower compensation and consulting spend in this year’s fourth quarter. The effective tax rate for the quarter was 29.8%, down from last year’s fourth quarter rate of 30.7%. The full year tax rate was 30.7% versus last year’s rate of 30.9%, and in line with our expectations. For 2013, we expect our tax rate to be between 30 and 31%. As we have said before, actual quarterly tax rates can differ dramatically, either positively or negatively from this full-year rate. On the balance sheet, working capital, defined as receivables plus inventory less payables, was 17.5% of sales in the fourth quarter. This near-record low level of working capital positions Ametek as one of the top performers in our peer group and is a direct reflection of the tremendous strides our business units have taken in driving towards operating excellence. Strong working capital management will remain a key priority. Capital spending was $24 million for the quarter and $57 million for the full year. Full-year 2012 capital expenditures were 1.7% of sales. 2013 capital expenditures are expected to be about $65 million. Depreciation and amortization was $28 million for the quarter and $105 million for the full year. 2013 depreciation and amortization is expected to be approximately $118 million. Our cash flow was excellent in the quarter and for the full year. Operating cash flow for the fourth quarter and full year were records. In the fourth quarter, operating cash flow was $192 million, up 25% over last year’s fourth quarter; and full-year operating cash flow of $611 million was up 20% over 2011. Free cash flow was $167 million for the fourth quarter, representing 140% of net income. For the full year, free cash flow was $553 million, approximately 121% of net income, continuing our strong free cash flow generation. Our strong cash flow was deployed to support our acquisition strategy where we expended approximately $750 million on transactions in 2012. Total debt was $1.45 billion at December 31, up $190 million from 2011 year-end. Offsetting this debt was cash and cash equivalents of $156 million, resulting in a net debt to capital ratio at December 31 of 34%, down slightly from 35% at the end of 2011. At December 31, we had approximately $710 million of cash and existing credit facilities to fund our growth initiatives. Our highest priority for capital deployment remains acquisitions. In summary, we had an outstanding 2012, establishing records essentially for all the key financial metrics. We are well positioned for further growth both organically and through acquisitions with a strong balance sheet and cash flows.

Great, thank you, Bob. That concludes our prepared remarks and we’ll now open it up for questions.

Thank you. [Operator instructions] Our first question comes from the line of Allison Poliniak with Wells Fargo. Please proceed with your question. Allison Poliniak – Wells Fargo: Hi guys, good morning. Just touching on the order trends, Frank, obviously you talked about the process in December being actually surprisingly stronger. Were the orders—I guess the strength in orders weighted towards one industry or a few industries that you can talk about?

Well, it was pretty broad-based if you actually look at some of the key drivers. The process businesses were particularly strong. The power businesses were particularly strong, and surprisingly our floor care business was also very strong. Aerospace on a quarter-over-quarter basis was not as strong as the three I just indicated, but that was because we had a very, very strong Q4 of last year. So the order trends in the quarter were surprisingly strong. Allison Poliniak – Wells Fargo: Great. And then as you look into ’13, obviously a lot of uncertainty out there, and you mentioned the areas where you’re expecting to see strength. But are there any areas that are still weak now that you’re starting to get the sense might be turning the corner as we head out into ’13 at this point?

Yeah, it’s a great question, Allison. I would say the key factor is probably geographic in nature where if you look at the fourth quarter, organic growth and sales for the Far East was not that strong, but orders were. So I think we are definitely starting to see a turn in Asia and in particular in China. Now, it will take a few more months to verify that trend, but when you read the fact that China is in fact improving, their PMI was better recently, that’s a key factor for us because we’ve got about 18 to 20% of our sales in that part of the world. So that’s probably a key factor in how well we’re going to do from an organic viewpoint next year. As you I think are aware, in Europe, although that’s probably one of the weakest global areas, our business tends to outperform because we’ve got aerospace businesses there that perform very well, and we also roll up the oil and gas business from the Middle East in our European results. So when you look at Europe, we tend to outperform. So that’s probably the best way to look at it, Allison. Allison Poliniak – Wells Fargo: Great. Thanks so much, guys.

Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Matt McConnell from Citi Research. Please proceed with your question. Matt McConnell – Citi: Thank you very much. On the quarter specifically, could you give a little more insight into the several end markets in EMG where customers turned cautious; and then what are your assumptions for whether that caution persists into the start of the year? And maybe along with that, what’s the first quarter of ’13 organic revenue growth assumption?

Yeah, sure. Why don’t I just walk through EMG and give you a perspective of sort of what happened in the fourth quarter and how we see it going into 2013. As you know, in EMG we break that business down into differentiated and cost-driven motors. If you look at the differentiated side of that business, for all of 2012 our differentiated businesses perform quite well really on strength in our precision motion control and military businesses. If you look at the quarter, overall sales were up 10% driven by the contributions from the Dunkermotoren acquisition and strength in our core precision motion control business. Organic sales in the differentiated side were actually down mid-single digits in the quarter; and as I mentioned in my opening comments, we saw customers actually delay shipments across several parts of the differentiated business. And in particular answer to your question, our EMIP division, which has specialty metals types of focus, was one of those areas; and the other was our third party MRO business in aerospace. As we went through the quarter, we saw push-outs but the order trend was good, so it’s kind of a mixed message from that viewpoint. So looking ahead to 2013, we expect these differentiated EMG businesses to be up approximately 10% with organic growth up mid-single digits, so we do think the trends are going to get better. Looking at the other side, the cost-driven motors organic growth in the fourth quarter was actually flat for the cost-driven motor business, but actually that was the best organic growth of the year for that business and that strength came out of North America. For 2013, we expect this business to be approximately flat. Specifically with respect to your question around the first quarter, what we’re assuming is sales…

Yeah, it’s a great question. I think it’s fair to assume a 35% contribution margin for next year—or for this year, excuse me, 2013. But when we talk about contribution margins, we exclude the effect of acquisitions because obviously you’re not going to get that level of contribution margin on the deals themselves. So I think using a 35% contribution model, extracting acquisitions in your model is a reasonable projection. We actually did much better than that in 2012 because of the cost take-outs. And yes, your point regarding the cost take-outs – you know, there’s really an equation here that involves pricing and the cost take-outs in one hand, and on the other would be inflation and investments in the business. So I’ll just give you some rough numbers – these are just sort of averages if you took the middle of our guidance, that we’re looking obviously for the 85 million in cost take-outs. We’re looking for pricing to be in the order of 1.5 to 2% of sales. In terms of investments, we’re going to—well, what we’ve got budgeted right now is about $35 million of investments, so then obviously the balance to that equation is inflation and of course the earnings that come from it. So it’s definitely possible that we could exceed the numbers that I’m talking about, but we usually take a fairly conservative view as to our earnings and I think most of you are aware that we’re very good at making our earnings estimates and hopefully exceeding them. So we’ll see what happens as the year transpires. Matt McConnell – Citi: Okay, great. Best of luck. Thank you.

Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Scott Graham with Jefferies. Please proceed with your question. Scott Graham – Jefferies: Hey, good morning everyone. I just wanted to ask—Frank, I’m hoping that you’ll do your typical un-bundling of each of the business units as part of this question; but I think even more specifically, I was wondering if you could tell us—you know, I know that international continues to be a big thrust for you guys, but has that maybe changed form a little bit here to the extent that maybe we’re de-emphasizing Europe a little bit and maybe re-emphasizing the BRIC sales? At 50%, a little over 50%, are you looking to bring that number up into the 60s, or are you kind of happy with the 50 to 60% range? I was just wondering what the intermediate term view was on that strategically.

Okay Scott. Let me take the international growth question first, and then—I’ve already given you a breakdown of EMG. I’ll give you a breakdown of EIG so you have a better sense of what’s going on there. But if we looked at the international growth, you’re absolutely right that our focus is in BRIC. It’s not as much in western Europe or in the U.S. We see the growth coming out of the BRIC areas. Just to give you some numbers, in the fourth quarter BRIC orders were up 24%, and they were actually up organically 16%. So that bodes well, as I mentioned in response to Allison’s question, that things are improving and that’s where a large part of the growth is going to come from. Doesn’t mean that we’re not going to continue to put investments in the U.S. and continue to put investments in Europe in those areas that we think are good areas to invest, but clearly the focus is going to be in BRIC. Rolled up in our budgets for this year, we’re planning to add about 70 people, predominantly in sales and some in engineering and India into those areas to maximize our potential. With regard to your specific around the percent of sales, we are inching that up. It was at 52% in the fourth quarter. It was 51% for the entire year of 2012; and yes, we would like to inch that up. If you look at our market opportunities, having 55 to even as high as 60% of our sales in international areas makes sense. It’s difficult, though, to grow that international—the BRIC content, I should say, the BRIC content because there aren’t a lot of acquisition opportunities there. So while it’s doing very good organically, it’s not as good from…

Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Mark Douglass with Longbow Research. Please proceed with your question. Mark Douglass – Longbow Research: Hi, good morning gentlemen. Okay, so—well, housekeeping. Payables?

$321 million. Mark Douglass – Longbow Research: 321 million – okay, thank you. Frank, as you were going through aerospace, was that just EIG aero that you were talking about; and if so, what happened with overall aerospace in the quarter and what are your expectations for overall aero in 2013? And is the defense side, the military side getting affected by sequestration, anything like that?

Yeah, what I was referring to, since I was responding to the EIG part of the business, was essentially EIG. If you look at the full aerospace businesses, what we’re expecting in 2013 is to be up mid to high single digits. We expect it to be quite strong, and if you break it down by the various sub-segments, we’re expecting the commercial business to be up low double digits, we’re expecting the third party MRO business to be up low double digits, we’re expecting business and regional jets to be up mid single digits, and for military we are assuming in the overall mid to high single digit guidance a negative 5% for military. Yes, we are seeing some impacts from sequestration, but actually our order intake and where we stand right now is pretty strong. It would surely beat that organic down 5%, but it’s pretty difficult to come up with an assumption as to what really is going to happen as Congress goes through its deliberations. So we took a conservative view of the military business, so if the military business actually does better than that, then we could be approaching the double digit arena for all of aerospace. Mark Douglass – Longbow Research: Okay. And then has the breakdown in aerospace shifted over the last year or two with some of the strength out of the other businesses versus, say, military—

Well, it’s a great question and you would think the answer would be yes, but the answer is actually there hasn’t been a dramatic change and that’s because the military business has continued to perform well. So the mix has remained pretty much the same, and if you look at the mix, about a third of our business is military in aerospace and the other two-thirds is commercial and business and regional jets, and third party MRO. So it’s changed a little bit, but not substantially. Mark Douglass – Longbow Research: Okay. And then final question on the power side, it sounds like industrial—well, the industrial side of power, which I think you have some exposure to oil and gas there as well, but also you have a military exposure to power. How is power looking if you maybe break it up that way in 2013?

Yeah, we don’t have a sizeable amount of our power business that is related to military. There is a little bit of that, but that was not a prime driver to the performance. Most of the power business is much more commercially oriented. We do have some military content but it is not a significant part of power overall. Mark Douglass – Longbow Research: Okay, thank you.

Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Richard Eastman with Robert W. Baird. Please proceed with your question. Richard Eastman – Robert W. Baird: Yes, good morning. Frank, could you just talk for a minute or two about the Dreamliner production disruption and how you’re thinking about that for the first quarter and into next year? I would think that would have a measurable impact on your growth rate there in aero.

No, it’s another great question, Richard. Actually when you look at our content on aircraft, we have a very varied content. We fly on just about every commercial plane there is, so this disruption that is occurring with the Boeing problems really is not going to have a major impact on our instrumentation business. It could have a little impact but it’s not significant in the grand scheme of things. The key for us on actually all of these new platforms is that you need to be on them, because eventually the new platforms are going to be the business. So we’ve put a lot of effort on getting on the 787, the 350, the 380, the Max, the Neo – all of those airplanes. But again, no one of them is significant. There’s another part of our business, which is the EMIP over in EMG, that makes master alloys for titanium, and there has been some disruption in that business but it’s not really driven by this recent problem on the 787. There was actually some build-up in the supply chain, so that business has been a little bit softer the last three months and will be a bit soft in the first quarter, but that’s included within the estimates that we have given you. So I think that’s the best way I can characterize the 787. Now obviously if the 787 is off the market for an extended period of time, as I think about I still don’t think there be a huge impact because what will happen is it will shift to other aircraft and we’ll just put product on different aircraft. But hopefully Boeing will get their arms around this and get it fixed. Richard Eastman – Robert W. Baird: Okay. And then just a question on the geography – can you just rough out the size of China itself for ’12 and maybe what the expectation is there for growth in ’13?

Yeah, if you look at all of our Far East business, on a rough order it’s about 19% of our sales. The China piece is about half of that in rough numbers – these guys are looking up the exact numbers, but I know that’s kind of in the ballpark. The growth rate that we’re assuming in our budget and in our roll-up is really like a mid-single digit number. It’s not real aggressive, and actually when we put our numbers together, we didn’t have privy to how strong the orders were in the fourth quarter and therefore we took a more conservative view. So I as I said in my response to one of the questions, if that really comes back and you start to see the normal kind of growth over there, which would be more in the high single digit arena, we’ll do better than the estimates that I provided to you. Richard Eastman – Robert W. Baird: Okay. And then again, if we look at ’13 and maybe the core growth assumption for ’13, if we’ve got maybe a mid-single digit for Asia, can you just fill in the blanks there? Is Europe expected to be up, flat, and then where does that leave the U.S. for ’13?

Yeah, actually what we’re assuming is similar growth in Europe and in the U.S., and the reason for that, which might be surprising, is what I mentioned before – we happen to have some businesses in Europe that will outperform the macroeconomic trends because we in essence have aerospace businesses there, both OEM and third party MRO, that are performing reasonably, and we also roll-up the oil and gas businesses from the Middle East there. So we’re expecting sort of low single digits from Europe, low single digits from the U.S., mid-single digits from Asia, and that’s sort of where this low to mid level comes from. I think we’ve got the opportunity to outperform that, but we’re taking sort of a cautious view with all of the uncertainty that’s going on in the world right now. Richard Eastman – Robert W. Baird: Sure, okay. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Christopher Glynn with Oppenheimer. Please proceed with your question. Christopher Glynn – Oppenheimer: Thanks, good morning. So an interesting kind of mismatch between the organic growth in the quarter and the orders resilience. I guess what it points to is a dynamic of project deferrals. I’m wondering what signs you’re seeing of that resolving. Doesn’t seem like you factor much into the first quarter on that dynamic kind of shifting.

Yeah, you’re right on. The fourth quarter was interesting because we did see these push-outs occur, and the orders were extremely strong. But we’ve been cautious on the first quarter. We want to see it play out. You would hope with the orders as strong as they were that we’ll see some better growth in Q1, but I want to run the business assuming that’s not going to happen and make darn sure we get the earnings, and then if we get a little bit better growth and some of those push-outs in effect land in Q1, and there isn’t more push-outs into Q2, we’ll obviously over-perform. Christopher Glynn – Oppenheimer: Okay. And in that dynamic of orders, goods, sales a little soft, can you break the U.S. out in that sense?

Actually when you look at the fourth quarter, by region of the world in sales, they’re all about the same. They’re all about the same. They’re all in this minus-1%, minus-2% kind of region, and it’s because of all the dynamics I’ve talked about where there were push-outs but aerospace tends to over-perform the market, and we didn’t see the sales growth yet in Asia. What we saw was the order growth, so that’s the dynamic. Very interesting. Christopher Glynn – Oppenheimer: I guess the question was so the U.S. did participate in that dynamic where order growth outperformed sales growth as well?

Yes, yes. Christopher Glynn – Oppenheimer: Okay.

Yes, I’m sorry. I didn’t answer the question in the right way. Yes, if you’re asking by region where did we get the outperformance, yes, we definitely got outperformance in the U.S. Christopher Glynn – Oppenheimer: Okay. And then lastly on the operating margin, very strong in the quarter. What was the contribution of temporary belt-tightening?

I don’t think we have that rolled up, so I really can’t answer that specifically. But there definitely was belt-tightening because as we went in the quarter and we saw some of these project deferrals that you were referring to, we definitely tightened our belts. And as I mentioned, the actual cost savings overall that went through the P&L for the full year was actually higher than what we told you in the third quarter estimates, which means we actually did more than we had anticipated. Some of that is temporal, but also some of it is permanent, and that will help us as we go into 2013. But we’ve got significant confidence that this additional $85 million that I’m talking about that will roll through the P&L in 2013 will happen. I think you know we’re very good at this, we’ve got very detailed plans by division, by business unit, by product line in essence as to what we’re going to do and how we’re going to achieve that $85 million. Christopher Glynn – Oppenheimer: I have noticed that. Thanks, Frank.

Thank you. [Operator instructions] Our next question comes from the line of Jamie Sullivan with RBC Capital Markets. Please proceed with your question. Jamie Sullivan – RBC Capital Markets: Hi, good morning. First question is a follow-on there on the margin – EIG at obviously record levels. It sounds like that may be sustainable. Just wanted to confirm that in your view.

Yeah, I do believe the EIG margins are high, obviously, but they’re at sustainable kinds of levels. As I’ve mentioned before, we think there is opportunity on the EMG side of the business because obviously the absolute level of those margins are lower, and that’s obviously part of our 2013 plan. If I were going to give you some guidance for 2013 when you roll all of the things up – the costs, the incremental effect from low to mid-single digit organic growth, inflation, investments, et cetera – what we have running through this is about 30 to 50 basis points of margin improvement. Jamie Sullivan – RBC Capital Markets: Great, that’s helpful. And then just a follow-on on the oil and gas business where you’re expecting to see some positive trends in ’13. Can you talk a little bit more about maybe some of the applications and geographies where you’re expecting to see some of that strength?

Yeah, it’s clearly going to be driven from the international front versus the U.S. front. A good indicator of how well the oil and gas businesses will do is rig counts, and if you look at the worldwide rig counts, they’re essentially at record highs. There’s about 3,500 active rigs on a worldwide basis, but if you look at the growth that has occurred and is expected to occur, the U.S. rig count is actually going down while the international rig count is going up. So there’s a dynamic below the top line of what’s happening, and that plays well to us because about 70% of our business is outside the U.S. in this particular business. We’ve particularly focused internationally because there’s a lot of expansion going on in that area. There’s also this dynamic of fracking, which is a hot political topic in the U.S., and at some point I think we’ll bust through that because we’ve got enough both oil and gas below us right here in the U.S. to really become energy independent, and we really need to capitalize on that. But the rig count is going down in the U.S. right now. Jamie Sullivan – RBC Capital Markets: Thanks, and if I could just sneak one more quick one in?

Sure. Jamie Sullivan – RBC Capital Markets: On the cost-driven motors business, comps are starting to turn flat, potentially turning positive. Just want to get your perspective there on does that make you potentially more positive on early cycle recovery, or do you see that as less of kind of a canary in the coal mine indicator business at this point?

Yeah, we do have—I have more confidence this year than I have over the past several years in our floor care business. It’s not because of a fundamental change in the market dynamics. It’s really driven by the fact that we have won some business, major business with one large customer. I can’t speak to who that is, but it’s a substantial amount of business that you may recall I mentioned that our orders were strong in the fourth quarter, and that also was driven by this major customer. So I think we’re going to see better results out of that business over the course of actually the next few years, based on the relationship that we have developed with this customer. And also, these are high-end motors which means that the profit margins are higher than the base business; so you detected a signal from me, but it’s not because of the market. Jamie Sullivan – RBC Capital Markets: Okay. Thanks very much. Appreciate it.

Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Matt Summerville with KeyBanc. Please proceed with your question. Joe Radigan – KeyBanc: Hi, good morning, Frank. This is actually Joe Radigan on for Matt. I just had a quick follow-on on the order rates. Just in terms of the sequential cadence during the quarter, I believe you said you saw a ramp up that peaked in December. Can you comment on what you’ve seen so far in January? Have you seen a continuation of that progress in order rates into 2013?

You know, I don’t have—on a sequential basis, I actually don’t have that information. What I can tell you is we are on target for our January orders. We get those on a daily basis. Do you guys know? I don’t have that.

We’d have to look that up sequentially.

Okay. So we’ll have to get that for you. I just don’t have it at my fingertips. But I think the key point is we’re surely in line with the guidance I’ve given you for the first, say, three weeks or whatever of January. Joe Radigan – KeyBanc: Okay, perfect. Thanks. That’s all I had.

Thank you. Our next question is a follow-up question coming from the line of Matt McConnell with Citi Research. Please proceed with your question. Matt McConnell – Citi: Great, thank you. I wonder if I could slip in a quick follow-up on Dunkermotoren. I know it’s been probably two or three quarters since that closed. Could you give an update on how that integration’s been going and maybe profitability, and I think it was a one point drag to the EMG margin. Was that roughly in line with your expectation?

Yeah, it’s now performing very good. I’m very, very pleased with the operating team there. We just did a review recently and that team has embraced the Ametek culture, and they’re very good and their profit margins are lower – there’s no question. We knew that when we acquired them. As we do with most acquisitions, we’re going to continue to work and improve those margins, and your analysis is right – it was about 100 basis points improvement. And actually just to expand on your question, this is not going to be an atypical situation as we go forward because obviously if you look at our margins with respect to peer companies, our margins are very high; so there is going to be an impact on the margins when you bring in deals. And our preference is actually to bring in deals that have lower margins because part of the value we can create is to increase those margins. So I would say Dunker is a typical example of that, so we view that from a return on invested capital viewpoint because we buy these businesses at, say, 10% pre-tax profits, and over the course of a relatively short period of time, we can make many of these businesses 20%-plus pre-tax. That just means the return on invested capital is off the charts. Matt McConnell – Citi: Okay, great. Helpful. Thank you.

Thank you. Our next question is a follow-up question coming from the line of Mark Douglass with Longbow Research. Please proceed with your question. Mark Douglass – Longbow Research: Just real quickly, Frank – you talked about 85 million in gross savings in 2013.

Yes. Mark Douglass – Longbow Research: And you had 85 million in ’12, correct?

That’s correct. Mark Douglass – Longbow Research: Now if I remember, you guided 60 million at the very beginning of 2012, so you outperformed—

That’s correct. Mark Douglass – Longbow Research: So how much of that was—I mean, certainly some of that is probably due to acquisitions you made over the year and then you got some additional savings there, but how much can you say was organic, if I can put it in that way? Does that make sense?

Yeah, it does. Great question. I can give you a gut feel. I can’t give you exact numbers. But my gut feel is that probably 70% of that was organic, and what happened in 2012 – and your numbers are correct – when we started the year, we assumed 60 million; but then as we were going through the year with the macroeconomic uncertainty, and we saw that we weren’t going to get as much top line, as was true for most industrial companies, we focused on increasing that number from the $60 million kind of region up to what ended up to be 85 million. So I think there’s some room as we go through this year. It would not surprise me if as we get into the year, our businesses do better than the 85 million. There probably is not as much leverage as we got in 2012; in other words, going from 60 to 85. I doubt we’ll go from 85 to 85 plus 25, but I think the number could be higher. Does that help? Mark Douglass – Longbow Research: Very much so. Thank you.

Thank you. Mr. Coleman, there are no further questions at this time. I will now turn the call back to you.

Okay, great. Thanks everyone for joining our conference call. As a reminder, a replay of this call may be accessed at Ametek.com and at StreetEvents.com, and I am obviously available all day for any questions at 610-889-5247. Thanks so much.

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. Have a great day.