Good morning. My name is Lauren, and I will be your conference facilitator this morning. At this time, I would like to welcome everyone to the Danaher Corporation’s Second Quarter 2017 Earning Results Conference Call. All lines have been placed on mute to prevent any background noise. After the speakers’ remarks, there will be a question-and-answer session. [Operator Instructions] Today’s conference is being recorded. I will now turn the call over to Mr. Matt Gugino, Vice President of Investor Relations. Mr. Gugino, you may begin.

Thanks, Lauren. Good morning, everyone, and thanks for joining us on the call. With us today are Tom Joyce, our President and Chief Executive Officer; and Dan Comas, our Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer. I’d like to point out that our earnings release, the slide presentation supplementing today’s call, our second quarter Form 10-Q and the reconciliations and other information required by SEC Regulation G relating to any non-GAAP financial measures provided during the call are all available on the Investors section of our website, www.danaher.com, under the heading Financial Reports. The audio portion of this call will be archived on the Investors section of our website later today, under the heading Events & Presentations, and remain archived until our next quarterly call. A replay of this call will also be available until July 27, 2017. During the presentation, we will describe certain of the more significant factors that impacted year-over-year performance. The supplemental materials describe additional factors that impacted year-over-year performance. Unless otherwise noted, all references in these remarks and supplemental materials to company-specific financial metrics relate to the continuing operations of the company and the second quarter of 2017, and all references to period-to-period increases or decreases in financial metrics are year-over-year. We may also describe certain products and devices, which have applications submitted and pending for certain regulatory approvals. During the call, we will make forward-looking statements within the meaning of the Federal Securities Laws, including statements regarding events or developments that we believe or anticipate will or may occur in the future. These forward-looking statements are subject to a number of risks and uncertainties, including those set forth in our SEC filings, and actual results might differ materially from any forward-looking statements that we make today. These forward-looking statements speak only as of the date that they are made, and we do not assume any obligation to update any forward-looking statements, except as required by law. With that, I’d like to turn the call over to Tom.

Thanks, Matt, and good morning, everyone. During the second quarter, we delivered double-digit adjusted earnings per share growth, solid core operating margin expansion and strong free cash flow performance. Pall and Cepheid are two most recent largest acquisitions, also continued to perform very well. Looking ahead, we expect our core growth rate in the second half of 2017 to accelerate compared to first half levels, driven by improving order trends and as recent acquisition by Cepheid and Phenomenex become part of our core revenue. And with our continued strong free cash flow generation and strengthening balance sheet, we feel well positioned to actively pursue larger acquisition opportunities going forward. With that as a backdrop, let's move to the details of the second quarter. Adjusted diluted net EPS was $0.99, which represents an increase of 10% over the last year. Sales increased 6.5% to $4.5 billion, and core revenue grew 2%. The impact of currency translation decreased revenues by 1.5%, while acquisitions increased revenues by 6%. Geographically, revenue in the developed markets was up low single digits, with solid results in the U.S. and Japan slightly offset by performance in Western Europe. High-growth markets increased at a mid-single-digit rate, led by China, which delivered high single-digit growth or better in each of our four segments. Reported operating profit margins declined 150 basis points to 15.2%, primarily due to the impact of charges related to the discontinuation of a product line in our Diagnostics segment and the dilutive impact of recent acquisitions. Our core operating margin increased 70 basis points with the strong performance led by our Life Sciences, Environmental and Applied Solutions, and Dental segments. Strong free cash flow enables us to pursue high-impact growth opportunities across our portfolio, and it continues to be one of our most important metrics at…

Thanks, Tom. That concludes our formal comments. Lauren, we’re now ready for questions.

Thank you. [Operator Instructions] Our first question comes from Ross Muken with Evercore ISI.

Hi, good morning, guys. So maybe just first touching on sort of the sequential growth acceleration you’re looking for, a lot of moving parts in the business. It feels like maybe in environmental and water, there was also maybe a bit of order push-out. Can you just give us some color and help us bridge back to a growth rate for Danahar that would be more consistent with what we would think about for these businesses. Again, you had a lot of comp noise and some order movements. You’ve obviously got the acquisitions as you’ve said. So help us sort of walk through the parts and then your confidence level in turning some of the pieces like dental, where the growth rates are obviously not where you wanted to be. Obviously, that doesn’t happen overnight, but that you’ve got the right sort of plan and that you understand why it’s underperformed and in turn can get back to that more normalized rate.

Good morning, Ross. Thanks. Thanks for the question. Let’s start with the jumping-off point, Ross, of sort of the second quarter end and the first half. If we look at the 2% in the quarter and really look through that to the order rate, and we’re actually rather encouraged by the core orders, which were 100 basis points better than our core growth. When we look at the second quarter number that we put up, that was mostly obviously due to dental. Our expectations were in line with dental being closer to a flat number came in lower than that, down slightly, and the results of that really represented the difference between the 2% we put up and the 2.5% that we expected. So it was really largely around the dental. I’ll come back to water in just a second and your point about timing. We are seeing the continued destocking that I mentioned, and that’s primarily around the traditional consumables side, and we look at the rest of the dental portfolio, and as I mentioned, we continue to see good performance across our specialty consumables businesses as well as equipment. And so, I think we need to get through these adjustments relative to the channel before we can see some better performance from the dental platform, and as a result of that, we thought it was a relatively prudent approach to think of that as being consistent in the second half of the year with the first half of the year until we can get through those. I’ll come back to the forward look here in a second, but I thought there were a number of encouraging things around the jumping-off, or starting point, here in the second quarter and the first half. Life Science in particular at 3.5%,…

No, that’s helpful. And just maybe as you’re thinking about – again, you made comments around the balance sheet and, obviously, the ability at this point given where you with Cepheid and other assets to potentially contemplate other M&A, can you kind of remind us, given the current environment and sort of where the business mix and how the different pieces are performing, kind of what your bias is right now in terms of the style of assets you’re looking for and maybe in all sort of size limits, et cetera?

Ross, just in terms of the balance sheet, I mean, we feel very good about it, particularly given the exceptional free cash flow that we delivered here in the quarter, nearly $900 million of free cash flow in great conversion continues to position the balance sheet exceptionally well for further acquisition efforts. We’ve talked to $500 billion worth of opportunities here in the second half, but by the time we round the corner, with this bubble of free cash flow generation, round the corner into 2018, we’d be back to spending certainly at a free cash flow level or beyond. So I think our bias from a size standpoint continues to increase as the balance sheet returns to fighting shape. Relative to our business model and our preferences, obviously, our past track record here in the last couple of years would suggest we look for businesses with strong underlying growth capabilities and growth trajectory in strong market positions, leading positions in those markets. You’ve seen us build our position relative to the consumables and aftermarket in our businesses. Today, we are at roughly 55% consumables, and we think that underpins the level of market and volumes visibility and stability and also underpins good gross margins and strong operating margins. We look for global businesses and exposure and opportunities to high-growth markets. I think Cepheid is a great example of a business that has tremendous opportunities in high-growth markets but largely under-penetrated in those markets. And so, I think a continued bias towards strong growth rate, good consumables businesses, balanced with exceptional installed bases that are anchored by strong brand, global positions and high-growth market opportunities, I think all represent the kind of model that we’d be looking for in future acquisitions. So hopefully that helps.

All the color was super helpful. Thanks, Tom.

You bet, Ross. Thanks for the questions.

Our next question comes from Tycho Peterson with JPMorgan.

Hey, thanks. Tom, I mean, I think you called out a softness in the US clinical market both from spec and Beckman. Is that all ACA/PAMA noise? And, I guess, with Beckman still stuck in the kind of low single-digit growth, what gives you a comfort in an acceleration in the back half of the year for that?

Thanks, Tycho. Tycho, we actually in mass spec, we had a very good quarter in mass spec with good performance, particularly in pharma and in the applied markets. The only softness that we saw around mass spec, which is not really new news, we’ve seen it earlier this year and it really is a comp versus prior year, is really around the clinical anchored store clinical position in mass spec around pain panels. And as some of the reimbursement chains in pain panels, we saw a headwind there, and we’ll get through that headwind in the balance of this year; but otherwise, good performance, a very good performance SCIEX generally across the number of the end markets. At Beckman, in diagnostics, we were very encouraged by the continued improvement particularly in North America with improving retention rates that we track very consistently as well as competitive win rates. That being said, we do believe that there is some uncertainty in the end markets today around ACA and what ultimately happens there. We’ve seen some hesitation on the part of some customers to make some decisions, and we’re going to need to get through that. I don’t think the happenings of the past week have done much to eliminate that uncertainty; but in the meantime, I think we’re driving what we can control well, which is ensuring that we serve our current customers well and drive increasing levels of customer retention and enhancing our win rates, and that’s coming partly on the back of the work that we’ve done in terms of new products, both in terms of our hematology platform as well as assays that we’ve launched around AMH and vitamin D. So we are encouraged by the performance there. We think that the rationalization of the product portfolio between the VERIS, the VERIS platform and the Cepheid platform is going to enhance our position in what is arguably the fastest growing segment of the diagnostic market, which is molecular.

Okay. And then – and geographically, the PMI indicators have actually been better out of Europe, you called out softness there. Can you maybe just talk a little bit about what you’re seeing in some of the leading indicators?

Sure. Well, both in terms of leading and the lagging, Western Europe actually is – our softness there is largely around our dental platform. We had a number of businesses that performed quite well in Europe, but we would put the bulk of that softness in Western Europe around dental.

Okay, and then just lastly on the dental. You’ve called up pricing in the 10-Q. That seems to be a bit of a new dynamic is – just maybe quantify how much of impact that had versus destocking?

Tycho, it’s very, very modest. We’re talking 20 basis points. And we were flat in pricing in dental. In the first quarter, we were just down ever so slightly. A little bit of that is mix. Given consumables, where we tend to get more pricing, was so weak in the second quarter, I don’t think there is any meaningful change in pricing in dental.

Okay. Thanks.

Thanks, Tycho.

Our next question comes from Derik De Bruin with Bank of America.

Good morning, Derik.

Hi, good morning.

Good morning.

Hey, a couple of questions that I’m going to focus on diagnostics. It looks like the core operating profit margin on diagnostics, it was down 25 bps when you exclude everything, and I think this was second quarter in a row. Is there just some talks – some comments on the margin trend there and what impacting it? And then the other question is, it looks like Cepheid is growing 18-ish percent on an – if I look at the numbers. That’s definitely -- last quarter and this quarter, definitely your Cepheid numbers are above what we have modeled as a standalone for the company when we – the company was still public. Could you talk a little bit about is it ensured placements, is it higher utilization on Cepheid? Just color on the revenue trends, if it’s bulk high market growth – high developing market, high-burden market? Just a little bit more color on what the Cepheid numbers are?

Sure. You bet, Derik. So let’s start with the Dx operating margins. The – what we put up is negative 25 basis points. If you look at the FX impact on that, which in the case of a diagnostics is probably one of the more notable impacts of FX in the quarter, net of FX diagnostics actually put a positive 50 basis points.

Got it.

Operating margin. So, underlying operating margin -- and that is, if you look at the improvement from the first quarter, that’s where my comments earlier represent a 400 basis point improvement over our operating margin performance in the first quarter, so good trajectory and good underlying performance. So, we feel pretty good about what’s going on there. Turning to Cepheid. You’re right. We put up some pretty significant double-digit growth rates there at Cepheid so far through the first half of this year, and those are higher growth rates than what we’ve seen historically. Derik, that’s largely a function of some fairly large orders that we had both in the first and the second quarter, largely associated, but not exclusively, but largely associated with the high-growth markets. We continue to believe that Cepheid on a go-forward basis is a solid 10% kind of growth business. So we love the fact that we are putting up the numbers we are, and we continue to go aggressively towards large tender wins. But obviously those are a little less predictable and -- but we feel very comfortable with a sustained 10% flat double-digit growth rate going forward. Utilization remains quite good. We track utilization sort of account by account. So I think the underlying performance of the business both in terms of placements in the developed markets as well as utilization across the breath of the menu remains consistent and in some cases actually improving through some growth initiatives that the team is putting forward.

Great. Thank you very much.

Thanks, Derik.

Our next question comes from Doug Schenkel with Cowen.

Hey, good morning, guys, and thank you for taking my questions. Starting on guidance. For the year, what is your core revenue growth target? And what are you targeting by business? And then related to that, could you just speak to how ongoing dental weakness is impacting your growth outlook for the year as we sit here today relative to where we were, say, 90 days ago?

Dough, so what we are talking about is an acceleration to 3% ballpark, a 3% core growth in the third quarter and better than that here in the fourth quarter. Tom talked about the underpinnings about better order growth. We did have the unusual dynamic in the second quarter that core order growth was better than shipment growth in every one of our four reporting segments, and that’s part of the encouragement we have kind of going into Q3 and the second half year. A high-level perspective, if we look at the second half, we expect three of the four platforms, excluding Dental, to accelerate here from where we are in the second quarter. Dental we expect versus relatively flat in the first quarter, we have a pretty conservative assumption here around dental here for the balance of the year, given the comments that Tom already made.

Okay, understood, and that’s helpful. But to be clear, you don’t want to give specific by segment or full year core growth targets and you don’t want to comment on how dental has changed relative to what you’re embedding into guidance if it has changed relative to where we were a quarter or two ago, correct?

I think I kind of give you numbers in the total company Q3, Q4. We tend to give directional numbers around the segment. And clearly dental, dental is a lower number here than we were thinking in April. Again, I said that some of the other businesses are performing a little -- expectations were a little better than we thought here in April on the heels of what we’ve seen in terms of order growth and -- better performance around margins is evidenced in the second quarter.

Okay, that’s helpful. On dental, a real basic question, and I know it’s a one that comes up probably in every meeting. So I am just looking to get educated again. How was it possible that distributors can still be destocking? It seems like this has been going on for better part of a year, and it seems like you’d expect this is to continue for the balance of the year. I guess, just practically speaking, how much longer do you think this can take? Again, I’m just trying to get educated on this dynamic and also trying to, I guess, at least get a better understanding of how confident you can be that there is not more going on than just destocking.

I think what’s a little bit different about the scenario today versus probably nine months ago is that nine months ago, we were really talking about a phenomenon that the channel first began taking about, which is that the disconnect between what was being sold in and what was being sold out started to create an inventory issue. So as the consumables market began to slow down, distributors began to adjust their order patterns later last year. I think what’s different today that’s enhanced it, Doug, is that there are some channel dynamics going on right now with some shifts in terms of manufacturing distributor alignment, all that’s been made public, and I think that has further exacerbated some of the shifts we’re seeing right now. So I don’t think it’s simply a continuation of something that began last year. I think it’s probably a little bit of what went on last year as well as the increased turbulence that’s been associated with some of the shifts in the channel alliances.

Okay. Thank you. And one last clean-up question pivoting to capital deployment. What do you define as a larger deal? And I know you talked about your capacity in the context of free cash flow. Is the right way to do the math here just look at our free cash flow projections and assume a reasonable leverage ratio and that’s how big you could go in the aggregate over the next year or so? Thank you.

Sure. I mean, we would be -- when we talk larger deal, it’s a -- we view Cepheid, a $4 billion deal, is a larger-type deal.

Okay. And then is that math logic pretty safe?

Yeah, I mean that’s about a year or a little bit more a year of free cash flow, plus the earnings you bring on from the acquisitions.

Okay. All right. Thanks, guys. Really appreciate it.

Thank you, Doug.

Our next question comes from Steve Beuchaw with Morgan Stanley.

Hi, good morning. Thanks for taking the questions. A lot of tough questions out this morning so far on the call, so I’m going to go easy.

Steve, please don’t let us down now.

No, no, no. I am -- I consider myself a part of the team here. One team, one dream. The first one is that one that normally come up early, which is, could we just spend just a minute on a couple of areas in terms of the end-market metrics that tend to be high-focused and some are controversial? One is pharma. I saw the commentary in your prepared remarks on the pharma was very, very positive, and it’s fair to say that pharma is holding up and were sort of pass any concerns about the slowdown tied to drug pricing or any other boogieman. And then, I think with the NIH, I think, in the commentary you call that was stable, but I suppose that might be raised and hope for 3Q, because we have an NIH budget, or whether its federal budget. I mean, should we be thinking about 3Q possible being a little better? And then for Dan, shifting gears, I wonder if you can comment on just a couple of things. One, Easter timing, do you think that was at all material in terms of, not necessarily selling days, but activity in the quarter? And then, Dan, how should be think about the tax rate for the second half? Thanks for humoring my many, many questions.

Steve, thanks. So let’s start with pharma. We continue to remain very positive on the pharma market and specifically the biologics portion of the pharma market. As you may have heard us mentioned in the past, we have about $1.5 billion worth of revenue that’s attached to the pharma market, and specifically in the biologics area, and these are largely around the bulk of assets at Pall and at SCIEX as well as a couple of other life science businesses. There is a lot of strong macro drivers, I think, underlying our continued optimism around pharma, specifically around the growth of biologic drugs, the shift from small molecule, investments in small molecule development. It’s a large molecule development. I think you’ve heard us mentioning a number of the statistics that are supportive of that in the past. You mentioned drug pricing, Steve. That does get some air time these days. I think drug pricing, in combination with just broader uncertainty around ACA, I think certainly has to have some impact on pharma companies today. We’ve certainly seen some of our customers manage inventories a little bit more tightly, I think, make sure that they’re managing their cost structures. We feel very – pretty well insulated from a lot of that because we produced a very high-value consumable at relatively low cost of the overall manufacturing process of a biologic. But nevertheless, these are factors that have to influence these customers in the macro. So while we feel extremely positive about the biologics market continuing, clearly you’ll hear a little bit of noise in the market about uncertainty associated with some of those factors. You did hear me mention accurately about our business in the academic market relatively stable. I think that was specifically probably around SCIEX. That being said, you mentioned NIH. NIH, direct NIH spending is a relatively small portion of our overall life science business. And so while it’s always encouraging to see NIH spending increased, the absolute impact on that, given our small direct NIH spending presence, means it’s a good thing but ultimately doesn’t really move the needle that dramatic. I think it’s a good macro indicator, but I probably wouldn’t go much further than that.

And, Steve, just on the other questions, we expect our tax rate to remain about 20.5% for the balance of the year. We do expect our cash tax payments to be down materially versus prior year. We had exceptionally high cash taxes last year somewhat related to separation. Because of that and because of our strong year-to-date free cash flow, I know we have talked in April about a sort of an expectation of high single-digit growth for free cash flow, we now expect double-digit growth of free cash flow for the full year. Regarding Easter timings, we did hear a little bit of noise, more European businesses, that are having some modest impact to them in the second quarter, but I’m not sure we want to go more than that.

Thank you so much for all the color, guys.

Our next question comes from Deane Dray with RBC Capital Markets.

Thank you. Good morning, everyone.

Good morning, Deane.

I was hoping to visit the decision on the VERIS product line shutting that down, what was the tipping point? And just to be clear, this was shut down and not sold and might should we considering other similar actions elsewhere?

Deane, this was a product line discontinuation. It was not a sale or any form of a transaction like that. In terms of a tipping point, I don’t know that there would be necessarily a single point. This was something that we knew or thought about, I should say, as a possibility when we were going through diligence. Obviously, it was well understood that we were going to have an additional product line in molecular diagnostics. What we couldn’t necessarily fully understand until we got beyond diligence close the transaction and really got underneath the product roadmap was the ability for us to continue to scale the gene expert platform and infinity over time both in terms of menu as well as in terms of daily volume or throughput, if you will. And so, as we came to understand the potential that was represented by the Cepheid platform and that unique architecture that they developed, we then were able to really map that against the capabilities of the VERIS platform, the runway in terms of menu expansion of VERIS and the associated process for FDA clearance and other regulatory approvals, and we found that not only did we have a tremendous opportunity in terms of scalability, throughput and assay development, but really it accelerated our position beyond what we anticipated in due diligence. And so it really was through what I think was a pretty thoughtful analysis that really was a team effort between the Cepheid team and the Beckman diagnostic team. They came to a unified conclusion that this was in the best interest of our diagnostic portfolio.

That’s a good color. And then just as a follow-up, and I hope I don’t get the flag for piling on on dental here but, we’ve been dancing around this destocking question, and interestingly, one of your biggest competitors has been talking recently about taking share in this space, and I just was hoping you could comment on that. So beyond the channel alignment noise, have you lost share in the consumable side?

I see no flags throw. Happy to take questions on dental in any dimension. There is no question because -- about the impact of destocking here, because we have a relatively high level of transparency with our major distribution partners around sell out byproduct category for us and against the house. So it’s a mathematical equation. We also have outstanding dialogue and transparency with our channel partners around what their current inventory levels are in terms of weeks and months and what their internal targets are managing their own balance sheet situation. So, I think we are on firm ground factually. I think, from a product line standpoint, I mention that we’ve actually seen good growth in a number of our dental product lines. I think, in those areas where -- on the traditional consumables side, where clearly there has been the weakness that we’ve noticed, while the destocking is pretty mathematical, could there be shifts between individual competitors inside the house that we don’t get full transparency to, certainly it’s possible. But I would say, today, if we lost any share in the consumables side, it would be very marginal.

Got it. Thank you.

Thanks, Deane.

Our next question comes from Erin Wright with Credit Suisse.

Great. Thanks. Can you give us an update on the Cepheid integration? Are you tracking ahead of plan? And do you think you’ve seen some more low-hanging fruit in terms of synergies than maybe you initially anticipated?

Thanks for the question. Cepheid integration has gone extremely well. We have a wonderful team of long-time Cepheid associates, many of whom are in the top leadership positions around the business, and we’ve supplemented that team with a small number of key leaders from the Danaher side: one in operations, one in finance, just to name a couple. And I think the combination of that long-term Cepheid leadership team as well as some of the Danaher associates have continued to make exceptional progress. That progress has really come on the back of a consistent use of the tools of the Danaher business system. Some of that has come in the form of manufacturing productivity improvements, higher levels of volume being moved through given manufacturing cells at lower headcount levels in some cases, but in other cases, simply a function of being able to keep up with the growing demand at the same level of headcount, and therefore, driving higher levels of productivity. So, we’re thrilled with the progress that the team is making operationally. In terms of some of the low-hanging fruits that you asked about, I think it’s been pretty consistent with the expectations that we had. Low-hanging fruit in an acquisition integration typically starts with public company cost, and those company cost have come out of the business. We seen – we’ve seen very good improvement in areas that we focus on, like indirect costs, which were not managed as tightly over time there as we would typically do at Danaher. We focused on purchase price variance and looking for supplier either rationalization or a combinations with existing Danaher suppliers, where we have outstanding quality and delivery, and some of that integration of suppliers has led to improvement in gross margins from a material cost perspective, and we continued to drive those improvements over time. In addition to that, I think commercially the teams are working very well together. While we maintain an independent commercial team at Cepheid, we have a tremendous lead-sharing process going on between the businesses across the balance of our diagnostic platform, more enhancing our feet on the street in high-growth markets, specifically in China. I’ve talked about that in a couple of our past conversations. And so we think the opportunities for using the tools of DBS commercially terming driving higher market visibility, leveraging the commercial reach and capabilities of the balance of the diagnostic platform, all set us up very well for continuing good performance at Cepheid. So we couldn’t be happier about the performance both in terms of core growth, operating margin and free cash flow at Cepheid thus far.

Excellent. Thanks. And a follow-up acquisition pipeline and the regulatory environment, specifically on timing, and do any other regulatory uncertainties de-rail our alternatively expedite your decision making process when it comes to acquisitions? How aggressive can you be on the M&A front near term?

I wouldn’t say we see anything in the regulatory environment that would create any undue uncertainty or create any hesitations. We talked earlier today about the capabilities we have with the tremendous free cash flow and the strength of our balance sheet. I think we’re extremely well positioned to put that balance sheet to work during the balance of this year and certainly into next year.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next question comes from the line of Dan Arias with Citigroup.

Hi, thanks very much for the question. Maybe just quickly on Pall, unless I missed it. Hoping you can maybe put some numbers around the revenue impact that the Middle East project comp had on the quarter and then how that compares to the headwind that you saw there in 1Q?

It was about a $10-plus million project both in Q1 and in Q2, and that’s we will not have that comparison here in the third and fourth quarter.

Okay, great. That’s helpful. And then maybe just a quick follow-up on Cepheid and the pipeline there. I think we’re coming up on the period where the prior team was targeting the point-of-care launch with the omni. Obviously, you guys have your own plan, has your own timeline there, but just wondering if you might be willing to comment on how you’re thinking about that product and that market, what our expectations there should be, now especially as ACC comes around the corner here.

Thanks. You are asking about the omni product line, which we, the prior management team, put in play from our R&D perspective before we acquired the business. We got a chance to get inside the omni product launch opportunity in a great depth. We think that’s an exceptional product with tremendous opportunities. We challenged the team to really make sure that they had done the type of diligence on the technology as well as the commercial side of launching that product. We did that partly through due diligence and then certainly through the strategic plans and the product roadmap reviews that we’ve had. That product is, we’re confident we can launch that product in the first half of next year. I think that product has any exceptional opportunity to drive point-of-care position and an exceptional level of assay capability that will truly revolutionize the point-of-care market. So we feel very good about omni, and we feel good about the launch schedule that we’ve established.

Okay. Thanks very much for that.

Thanks, Dan.

And that concludes today’s question-and-answer session. At this time, I will turn the conference back to Mr. Gugino for any additional or closing remarks.

Thanks, everyone, for joining this morning. We’re around all day for questions.