Yes, that’s a great question and I really appreciate you asking that, because I think it’s important. Jeff, I think very clearly stated that everything that has been discussed is very consistent with the same structure that we followed for 15 years, the biweekly meetings, the way we have thought strategically about the deal, the thoughts on how we use our platform, our management expertise to think about combinations. The financial approach is exactly the same, it’s very good. In the summer of 2017, we walked you through precisely how we think about the M&A that we expect deals to generate returns on investment above 10%, that we expect synergies to largely be realized in the first three years, that we look for deals that deliver accretion and that’s intentionally, you know, kind of third-down the list, because it’s really that return on investment and the importance of it being above our cost, the capital and above our hurdle rate, that’s really important. And that financial model, that financial discipline, it is how we approach every single deal, whether it’s a bolt-on deal or a big deal, It’s an obvious deal or a less obvious deal, the financial approach is exactly the same. Clearly to the extent that it is deal, that’s a little bit-off the beaten path, it’s really important to be able to get in and due diligence, and yes, we expect we can get synergies, but where might those synergies be and so the important elements of the model with deals that are again a little more off the beaten path, really are we need to go into and validate where we think the cost can come out, where we think the platform synergies will exist, but again the approach to it is no different, the same financial discipline, the same financial model and frankly the same financial hurdles that we have told you guide our capital allocation are exactly the ones we apply to every single deal regardless of the nature of that deal.