Greetings and welcome to the Q1 2016 IDEX Corporation Earnings Conference Call. At this time, all participants are in a listen-only mode. A question-and-answer session will follow the formal presentation. [Operator Instructions] As a reminder, this conference is being recorded. I would now like to turn the conference over to your host, Mr. Michael Yates, Vice President and Chief Accounting Officer. Thank you. You may begin.

Thank you, Rob. Good morning, everyone. This is Mike Yates, Vice President and CAO for IDEX Corporation. Thank you for joining us for a discussion of the IDEX first quarter financial highlights. Last night, we issued a press release outlining our company's financial and operating performance for the three-month period ending March 31, 2016. The press release along with the presentation slides to be used during today's webcast can be accessed on our company's website at www.idexcorp.com. Joining me today is Andy Silvernail, our Chairman and CEO, and Heath Mitts, our Chief Financial Officer. The format for our call today is as follows. We will begin with Andy providing an overview of the first quarter's financial results and then he will provide an update on our markets and what we are seeing in the world and discuss our capital deployment. He will then walk you through the operating performance within each of our segments. And finally, we will wrap up with an outlook for second quarter and full year 2016. Following our prepared remarks, we'll then open the call for your questions. If you should need to exit the call for any reason, you may access a complete replay beginning approximately two hours after the call concludes by dialing the toll free number 877-660-6853 and entering conference ID 13620004 or you may simply log on to our company's home page for the webcast replay. As we begin, a brief reminder. This call may contain certain forward-looking statements that are subject to the Safe Harbor language in today's press release and in IDEX's filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission. With that, I'll now turn the call over to our Chairman and CEO, Andy Silvernail.

Thanks, Mike, and good morning, everybody, and I appreciate you joining us here for the discussion of our first quarter results. As Mike said, I'm going to walk through some overview comments and also some conversation around capital deployment, and then we'll get into the financials and the segment results. So from a big picture, as we sit here after the end of the first quarter, it looks an awful lot like as we talked about from the end of 2015. The overall economic picture is mixed. As I look at the landscape in the industrial markets, whether it's in the U.S. or Europe or Asia, are relatively weak. That's being offset in many regards by strength in our Health & Science businesses, municipal is also strong, and we've had very good execution. I'm going to take you through more detail when I walk through the markets and the segments, but I think it's suffice to say that the challenges that we talked about at the end of the year are still very much the same picture that we have after the first quarter. With that, I'm very pleased with how we started the year, given the markets, really because of the overall execution by our teams in the field. The first quarter – when I look at the first quarter, I think about the benefits that our shareholders get by IDEX having diversity in end markets and businesses and allow us, in these questionable economic times, to still drive profitable growth. And we saw that with the strength in our Health & Science business that still saw growth, even though there are some challenges on the industrial parts of the markets. And I'm very happy with our teams focusing on what they can control. Starting in the midpoint of…

Thank you. [Operator Instructions] Our first question comes from the line of Matt McConnell with RBC Capital Markets. Please proceed with your question.

Thank you. Good morning, guys.

Good morning, Matt.

Could you discuss the visibility that you have to the flat organic growth this quarter? Because orders are still down and I know there's a comp issue with the trailers and, especially in FMT, your orders' down 50% on an organic basis this quarter. Can you just discuss how you bridge to flat sales next quarter?

Yeah. So, if you kind of think about where we're ending the quarter in terms of backlog and what we usually go into a quarter with, typically, we have a total backlog that's about half the quarter, and we're kind of plus or minus that. We go into it thinking about what the first quarter versus second quarter with the amount of backlog that we have today and the fact that we built $23 million incrementally of backlog. And it gives us a lot of confidence that we'll get to that second quarter number, plus or minus. And so, I feel pretty good going in to the second quarter about where the top line will land. Because we are such a short-cycled business, you never know, as you know full well, Matt. But where we stand today with what I'll call stability on the industrial side and visibility relative to our current backlog and building backlog, it feels pretty good.

Okay. Great. And then, when you discuss the improvements in businesses like water and Scientific Fluidics, some of the parts that are doing better, is there a way that you can differentiate how your markets are doing versus – I know some of these are the pieces that you've been investing in through a fairly soft demand environment. Is there a way to split out how IDEX is doing versus the market in some of these areas that are going to grow in the back half?

Yeah. I think, not as discretely as I'm sure you'd like, but we can obviously cut it by what we believe to be overall market growth and then the impact of our initiative, whether they'd be market penetration or new products. That's a lot easier to do when you're truly entering a brand new market, which we don't do very often. The new products is really the place where you can really put your finger on and you can see the acceleration. So, if you look at the water businesses, we got a series of new products that we've launched. You can look at those discretely. If you look at dispense, you look at StrongArm, or you look at the platforms that we know we're on in HST, you can get your arms around each of those in a pretty discrete way. The way I would say across the board is we are modestly taking share. I don't think its huge share, but if you look at our relative organic growth rates market by market, segment by segment against our competitors, we feel pretty good that we're holding up relative to how the markets are and modestly taking some share.

Okay. Great. Thank you.

Thanks, Matt.

Our next question is from Nathan Jones with Stifel. Please proceed with your question.

Good morning, everyone.

Hi, Nathan.

If we could just start on the reversal of the accrual for the earn-out. I think it looks like it was on the CIDRA acquisition. And I know you would've preferred to pay that money out, because it would mean that business was performing better. Can you talk about what caused it to miss those expectations for the earn-out?

Yeah. So, that was an acquisition that we did that's a very important acquisition; small but important for HST, specifically, Scientific Fluidics. And we went into the acquisition with a very specific point of view of what we though the performance would be of that business. And our partners who are still engaged and excited about being part of IDEX and are doing a terrific job had a more aggressive point of view. And so, we agreed that we put a construct in place, and if they delivered over and above, meaningfully, over and above the base case that they would receive more consideration. And as always, when you do that, you put that on the balance sheet and, each quarter, you have to make an estimate. And so, as we sit here today, a part of that, we don't think they're going to get that, I'll call that accelerated growth on top of what we thought was already a nice chunk of growth in a good piece of business. And so, the accounting rules really dictate that. Yes, I would have loved – it would be terrific if they had hit their very aggressive case. But the base business is still doing quite well and very much in line with the model that we've put together.

Okay. So, it's not out of line with where you thought it would be?

No. No. And that – sometimes it happens, right? When you've got a buyer and a seller and you have points of view that are different. And this is a way to figure that out and it gives both real skins in the game around it and everybody knows what they're getting into, and that's just how it works out sometimes.

Understood. So you did about minus 3% percent organic growth in the first quarter. You're forecasting flat the second quarter, which means to get to the midpoint of the full year guidance that was minus 1% to plus 1%, you need about 1.5% in the back half. Is there any assumption of improving markets in the back half? Because it doesn't really look like your revenue comps get that much easier as we go through the year.

They do get a little bit easier. And Matt, when we're talking about 1.5 points, you're really talking about $10 million.

Rounding errors.

Yeah. These are real rounding errors. And so, there are some easier comps when you go to the third and the fourth quarter particularly. So, if you remember that the weakening last year really started the midway through the second quarter. And so, we still had a pretty decent second quarter overall last year, but we saw that weakening happening in kind of June. And so, the third and the fourth quarters were comparatively weaker. As I look kind of forward, the really important ramp for us was going to be where we're going to ramp from a weaker first quarter to a stronger second quarter. And that, for us, was really the telling sign. And given the backlog that we built and given some of the visibility that we have, unless you start to see something deteriorate meaningfully that we don't see today, we feel pretty good about where the top line should end up here for the balance of the year.

Okay. And then just one more, I guess, more philosophically on the M&A front. You guys have done a great job over the last several years. Earned a premium multiple out there in the market. Are there properties out there that would interest you that would require the issuance of equity? Is that somewhere that you would be prepared to go? Would seem that there's an arbitrage there on your valuation at some point here? Can you just talk about how you think about using equity? Any such properties even out there that would big enough to require that for you?

So, I think the answer to the first part of your question is yes, we would, but it would be very selectively. Even though we do have a premium valuation arbitrage, that equity is extremely valuable, and being able to use cash or debt tends to be a much better mechanism for us generally. And so, we'd really prefer to do that. But if the right thing were there and that was the requirement, yes, we would consider it. The reality is, and we talked about this a lot in the past, there just are very few things of the scope and size that would require us to do that. And there are some things out there. As we said in the past, there are some larger businesses that we think would be a great fit with IDEX and we believe could drive a huge amount of value, but there aren't very many. But if that rare circumstance were to happen, as one of our board members called it, the purple squirrel, if that was to happen, we don't find them very often, but would we do it? Sure, we'd do it.

All right. Thanks very much.

Thank you, Nathan.

Our next question is from Mike Halloran with Robert W. Baird. Please proceed with your question.

Hey. Good morning, guys.

Hey, Mike.

So, first, just talking about the signs of stabilization you're seeing out there on the industrial side, is that on the order book? Is that in the customer conversations? Is it in what you're seeing just maybe more normal sequential starting to play out? Maybe just some color on what the contextual things you're seeing specifically that point to the stabilization side.

Sure, Mike. We started to see this third quarter and the fourth quarter, right? So, as you saw third quarter, fourth quarter developing last year, you are still – if you went back, as I answered Nathan's question, if you went from kind of middle of the second quarter last year, through a good part of the fourth quarter last year, you were seeing sequential downticks, right? And you were seeing all of the behaviors that go along with that, right? And what we've seen now is that sequential stability, call it, for the last four months or five months, and also that – maybe I'll call it that sense of anxiety or panic that a lot of people have when you're seeing sequential downticks, you start to see that level off. So, yes, it's happening in conversations. It's happening in how people are setting their inventory Kanbans. And we're really principally talking about industrial distribution. And so I'm going to call it stability. Now, part of it is we don't have that big exposure or direct exposure to oil and gas. So places that do still have that you're still seeing lots of volatility. Even with oil creeping up here over the last few months, there's still a lot of volatility around that marketplace. And as you know, we're still in the midst of rig reductions. So we're not experts. We're certainly not experts in that part of the world, but the places that we do touch it, that still has a lot of volatility. But the base industrial business, both in terms of the numbers and how people are responding subjectively, feels like it's leveled off to a degree.

Okay. That helps. And then kind of a modeling question. When you think about the on-boarding of Akron here, how does that change the seasonality on that FSD segment?

Hey, Mike. It's Heath. Not a ton. Akron's activity doesn't have a tremendous amount of seasonality to it. Once we fully layer in the Akron numbers to our diversified segment, inclusive of all the ongoing intangible amortization and so forth, it will have an impact on operating margins down as we begin the journey to build up Akron's profitability closer to IDEX-like levels. But, in general, the order book for Akron doesn't have a tremendous amount of seasonality.

So, what that will do, though, Mike, is because as we do – because you do have some volatility across that segment, just more than others, and you have some more seasonality because of dispensing, that will probably, to some degree, not huge, but to some degree, mute that a little bit, the whole segment. It will be a little bit more muted in terms of volatility, but not big numbers.

That makes sense. And then on the HST side, anything new coming from a new product introduction side? Things you're working on with the core customers there that are going to be significant in the near term here?

Nothing that's going to blow the doors off. But the stuff that we're going to launch here this year, next year, this is the stuff we've been working on. If you were to go back and look two years ago, we'd have told you that we're going to start to see some stuff coming out in late-2016, 2017 that are really attached to new products that our customers are going to launch. And we're in design cycles with them and we follow them, and so success now for those is really based on do they hit their unit volume expectations. And they're pretty good at nailing that down generally. And so, nothing that's a barnburner, but really consistent growth around that strategy we've had for the long time which is more high value content per platform.

Great. Hey, appreciate the time.

Mike, just to follow on with that, as we think about the second quarter, as I know you're doing your modeling, we do have a little bit of lumpiness on a year-over-year basis in Q2 for HST, specifically, and that's not so much related to the instrumentation customers. It's more related to our MPT, the material process technologies, where we had some – a couple of – Q2 will have a couple of more difficult comps that we're coming up against in the second quarter that don't repeat later in the year. So, I just guide that to help you calibrate.

Thanks, Heath.

Our next question is from Steven Winoker with Bernstein Global Wealth Management. Please proceed with your question.

Good morning, guys.

Hey, Steve.

Hey. Just a quick question, do you have other earn-outs – acquisition earn-out agreements in place across the portfolio?

We don't.

Okay. And was pricing your typical 1% this quarter positive or something different?

Steve, this is Heath. It was a little bit lower in the quarter mainly driven by HST, and that's generally because as we've gotten further along with some of the bigger OEM contracts, that's become a bigger piece of the pie. Specifically, for HST, we don't generally reopen those contracts for pricing-related things. But it was a little bit lower than the 1%. But, for the year, I think, modeling probably just inside of 1% is a good number in total for IDEX.

Okay. And I'm just trying to get my head around the FSDP organic growth again. Outside that trailer projects, last year, organic was down 15%, because I think of the dispensing comps. So, how should I think about or how were you thinking about what real kind of underlying organic was in that unit?

Yeah. I think if you kind of puts and takes [indiscernible] basically flattish. We did see year-over-year order rates that were up a little bit. But if you kind of look at the base overall business, it's kind of flattish with strength in dispensing, decent performance in fire, offset by weakness in rescue and in BAND-IT.

Okay. All right. That's helpful. And then just one more quickly. I suppose with Akron Brass now, are you guys thinking that your kind of cash availability and debt availability, capacity for M&A this year is on the $0.5 billion range or something – or you think – okay.

That's right. Yeah. You hit it on the head. We got about $0.5 billion that we could tap into from our balance sheet. So, think of it over the next three years as being $1 billion-ish. That's another way to think about it.

Okay. I'll pass it off. Thanks, guys.

Thank you.

Our next question is from Allison Poliniak with Wells Fargo. Please proceed with your question.

Hi, guys. Good morning.

Good morning.

On water, Andy, you talked about some projects getting pulled forward because of the weather. Is that going to impact, I guess, the seasonality or lack thereof this year? Is that we should be thinking about?

No, it's not a huge number, Allison. So, for IDEX, it's not a huge number for water itself. It's a few million dollars here or there, so I don't think it impacts us looking forward enough to consider it.

Okay. Perfect. And then just bigger picture, a lot of talk on the stabilization on industrial side, the panic behind it. Trying to be positive here, is there any thoughts or views that maybe we could see an incremental lift as we move in the back half of the year?

I feel really similar to how I felt when we talked after the fourth quarter and my commentary is the same. I still think, overall, there's more downside risks than upside. I know it feels better for a lot of people and I know equities in our space have run here in the last month or so. But when you just look at the underlying conditions and take away the emotion of it and just kind of look at the data, the data does not suggest that there is a really strong upside case. I'd love to be wrong, but, as you know, we've always said this pretty consistently, we are much better at managing for a tighter scenario, and we can move on the upside very quickly. But, given the impact of incremental margins, we don't want to be caught on that downside. So, while I certainly don't feel like the risk has gotten higher in the last quarter, I still think that there's, overall, more downside than upside.

Great. Thanks. That's very helpful.

Yeah.

Our next question is from Charley Brady with SunTrust Robinson Humphrey. Please proceed with your question.

Hi. Thanks. Good morning, guys.

Hey, Charley.

Hey. Just going back on – you touched on a little bit earlier kind of beginning of the year things looked like a disaster. We had a pretty good snap back on the industrial space. But, I'm wondering, from your standpoint in terms of order intake, did you see a really sharp dip in the beginning of the year and you've come back to stabilization or plus, and so it's averaging out to kind of stable or – I'm trying to get a sense, I guess, of the cadence on really the orders through the quarter, first three months of the year.

Well, Charley let me clarify first. I think that the overall, just kind of generally, the commentary that I have today versus the commentary that I had after the end of the year, it really is the same. The difference is you got three more months of stabilization, right? You got a quarter more of stabilization. We started seeing some of the elements of it as we ended the year. But that being said, yeah, as we ramped from our first month through our third month, things did get sequentially stronger, but they also tend to get sequentially stronger, right? So if you look at how a normal quarter flows, it's not that different than the normal – maybe a little bit better. I guess, people are – everyone is looking here for a sign of strength. I really don't think it has materially strengthened. I think what you have is another quarter of stability, and the emotional pieces of it that were kind of really pounding in the early months of the year and the late months of last year. That real fear is starting to fall off. The data itself is not dramatically different.

Okay. That's helpful. Thanks. And I guess, just kind of bigger picture, on the energy exposure that you guys have had, what do you think, in your mind, that your customers are going to have to see? Is it a function of oil goes back to $50 plus a barrel? Obviously, you're not really much in the upstream, so that's a less of an impact on you guys. But I'm just trying to get a sense, from your point of view, when you're looking down the road, 12, 18 months, what happens in energy to kind of get things kind of back on track and maybe get some growth there?

Well, I think the radical swing in capital spending and in MRO, so if I were to go back in time and say what do I think that most of us got wrong to a degree, I think we got two things wrong that have been more amplified – that have amplified this downturn more than any of us expected. The first thing we got wrong was, I think, people didn't fully appreciate how much the energy capital spending over the last several years was pulling along the things that we define as general industrial, right? And so, the reverberation of that, as things got weaker, it hurt the general industrial, I think, more than people expected it was going to. So I think we got that one thing wrong. The second thing that we got wrong and we're really seeing playing itself out now, specifically, in that area is, historically, on the MRO side, as the big capital spending has slowed down, the MRO side has stabilized or picked up. And one of the things that we're not seeing in this time is you're – we're seeing differently than necessarily maybe in the past is the amount of pirating that's happening for parts off of things that are being taken offline is pretty dramatic. So why does that matter? It matters because I think that the overall deficit that we've experienced us less so than people who have a lot more exposure, this deficit has been a lot bigger. So what changes? Now, let me address your question really specifically. What changes is that runs its course and the capital spending even picks up modestly, and then you have an MRO deficit now that's got to be filled. Now, when that happens, if I knew that, I'd be in a different line of work. But it feels like the amount of capacity that's coming out, the supply/demand imbalance, at some point, if that turns over, you could see the excess capacity or the need for capacity snap back pretty aggressively. When that happens, if that happens, that's for all the smart people and they'll have to figure out.

Thanks. That's helpful. Appreciate it.

Thanks, Charley.

Our next question comes from Kevin Maczka with BB&T. Please proceed with your question.

Thanks. Good morning.

Hey, Kevin.

A couple of follow-up kind of modeling questions on Akron. So, you've got it neutral to earnings this year. The contributions offset by the step-up costs and the interest expense. Can you just talk about where you think margins will be on that business and what's the associated interest expense here this year?

Kevin, let's see. Let's tackle the easy one first. The interest expense is going to be $0.02 per share. The incremental is what we're anticipating for the year. And that includes, potentially, what we may or may not do in terms of trimming out some of the balance sheet as we think of that through the second half of the year. So it's a $0.02. The other piece to think about is there's certainly going to be a timing element of that. Andy addressed some of that earlier. We are going to work our way through the total purchase price accounting, step-up cost for the inventory in the first and second quarters. So, that'll have a bigger impact in the negative in the first and second quarters. And then, obviously, in the third and fourth quarter, we won't have those same costs. So you'll also get the full-on Akron Brass operating contribution. So, in terms of modeling, there's a little bit of differences, neutral for the year, but it does have a difference between the first and the second half.

Right. And then thinking about next year in terms of accretion, so there should be more for two reasons: that $7.6 million of step-up costs goes away that you just mentioned, but, also, you're expecting to grow and improve the margins on this acquired business. Can you talk a little bit about the improving of the margins and where they are now and kind of what you think your potential is here now that you own it?

Sure. Absent purchase price accounting and absent any intangible amortization, so let's just stick with EBITDA, because I think that's the best apples to apples comparison. It runs about 500 basis points lower than our existing Fire Suppression business. And our existing Fire Suppression business is plus or minus in line with the rest of IDEX, maybe just a tad lower. So, there's 500 basis points that as a stand-alone Akron Brass business that we're going to tackle out of the gate. I would suggest the timing of that's going to take a couple of years to get it up to speed. There's some operating decisions, some footprint discussions underway as we bring the two businesses together, our existing Fire Suppression business with the Akron Brass business. But, as those things happen and we integrate the commercial teams and go through all of that, I think we'll start to realize the synergies in the next two years.

Okay. Thank you.

Thanks, Kevin.

Our next question is from Scott Graham with BMO Capital Markets. Please proceed with your question.

Hey. Good morning, guys. How are you?

Good.

Question I have is about the energy and chemical impacts that you guys are – that you laid out at the top, Andy. You named the businesses. We know them all well. Could you tell us, first of all, the percent of sales from chemical and energy right now?

Well, you've got – so let's kind of break it into its pieces. So, energy in total, is somewhere north of kind of 10% of the company, right? So, somewhere – 10%, 12% of the company. The upstream piece of it, that's kind of gotten pounded, is about 2%. It was 3% last year. That's just the reality of that. So the stuff that's midstream and downstream makes up the vast majority of what you're looking at what we call energy. And when you think about the chemical piece, the overall chemical piece is a bigger piece, but we're mostly talking about playing in specialty chemicals, right? And so it's not kind of the broad base stuff – it's not the commodity chemical world. We don't tend to play in that. If you call it chemical and industrial that you put it together, we call that's about 25% to 30% of the total business. Pure chemical out of that is half to two-thirds of that total.

Got you. Now, on that, you have a business that obviously – the mobile business, could you give us a carve-out of that as well? You went out of your way in the slides here to talk about truck builds and, honestly, I've never heard you talk about that before.

Yeah. Well, the reason we do is, again, when you talk about energy, people tend to think of energy in a very specific way. And the biggest piece of what's in our energy business is LC, Liquid Controls, right? And so, Liquid Controls, a good chunk of that overall business is going into these mobile applications. So, mobile applications mean meters on trucks, right? That's the way to think of it. And you split meters on trucks into two things, kind of road applications and that serving aviation. And so, now, the reality is that if we don't follow the Class 8 to Class 6 truck build that you would think about for kind of heavy industry or whatever, people who are experts in that, we don't necessarily follow that trend. But the reality is that the truck builders and how these guys think about building, in some ways, does connect to that. So, we're not selling into the average Class 6 or Class 8 truck. We're selling into very specifically mobile energy applications. But there is some correlation between the truck builders that are producing kind of the general Class 6 or Class 8 and the folks who are selling into these mobile markets. So, there is some connection to that. We don't follow the broad trend.

That's very interesting, the way you look at that. Okay. Thank you. That's all I had. Very nice quarter, guys.

Thanks, Scott.

Our next question is from Jim Foung with Gabelli & Company. Please proceed with your question.

Hi. Good morning, Andy, Heath.

Hi, Jim.

Yeah. I just have one question. I was wondering if you could just size kind of the amount of business you may have potentially lost due to oil prices. As we look out to next 12 months with oil firming up and the business coming back, can you just try and figure out how much you can recover as we kind of see the reverse of this?

So, let's talk about the easy piece of that, Jim, which is the piece that's close to the wellhead. As I've mentioned, we probably had a total of 1% negative on that. So if that was 3% of our business a year ago, it's now 2% of our business. So it really truly is, in and of itself, a 1% headwind on IDEX, right? And then you probably have another 1% to 2% if you kind of scope across the rest of IDEX. Call it $10 million to $20 million more of incremental revenue that's probably been – that you can kind of put your finger on directly. So, call it 2 points of organic growth headwind, up to 2 points of the organic growth headwind that's just kind of directly tied to that. Now, it gets a lot more muddled and a lot less clear as you think about these ripple effects that have impacted everybody. The story that I tell often is a few years ago, we looked at this business in North Dakota. It had nothing to do with the energy world, but we looked at this business in North Dakota and you couldn't drive into the – you couldn't get a parking spot at the parking at the Wal-Mart, you couldn't get a hotel room, anything, right? And you go there today and the parking lot at the Wal-Mart is empty and you can get any hotel room you want at half the cost. And so, what I guess the reason I tell that story is, I think we all, again, underestimated the rippling effect in certain areas of that energy cycle. And so, as it comes back, I don't think it's going to be as dramatic. I wish I could pick a timeframe, but that's for you guys to do. But I do think that not only do you get the direct impacts of what's happened to the energy industry, I think you will get some positive residual impact to the general industrial.

Do you think that number would match that 2% of direct headwind that you see?

Again, I think the upside and the downside were pretty dramatic. So, what you got? Pre-2015 was pretty dramatic on the upside, and what we lived with last year was pretty dramatic on the downside and through the first quarter. Do I think it's going to snap back one for one? I think that would be optimistic.

All right. But it's something like – it's somewhere between $50 million to $100 million of revenues, potential revenues...

No. No, that's too heavy. Somewhere between $20 million and $40 million.

$20 million to $40 million?

Yeah. Yeah.

All right. Great. Thanks so much.

Yeah.

Our next question is from Bhupender Bohra with Jefferies. Please proceed with your question.

Hey. Good morning, guys.

Good morning.

So, my question revolves around HST. You've done a good job improving margins here. If I look back historically, this segment underwent through some restructuring. Where do we think margins would actually progress in the second half of FY 2016? And, holistically, where – Health & Science in terms of new products, especially with exposure to MPT, some of the long-cycle businesses here, where do you think – as you progress into 2017, can you give us some color on that?

So, Bhupender, I apologize. You broke up a little bit in your question. So, I think, if I heard you right, you were asking what do we think the back half HST margin looks like. I heard that clearly. I didn't hear the second part of your question clearly.

Yeah. Second part of the question, kind of holistically, if you look at HST, you've done a good job improving margins here. How do we think – like, what is actually driving the core sales for the business in terms of when you have – when you look at the exposure from MPT and Sealing Solution businesses?

Okay. So, let me – I'll try to tackle that, and if I don't get your question, if I don't answer it just right, please reframe it. So, yeah, we've done a nice job of getting this business up to speed. The way I break it down is kind of on the revenue side and then let's talk margins. And obviously, they're interconnected, but there's a couple of different stories in here. On the revenue side, we've seen real strength consistently out of those things that are scientific in nature, right? So life sciences, semiconductor, some of the electronic world that we touch marginally, those have been good and, by the way, have good profitability associated with them. And we've also had strength in improving margin to parts of the portfolio that were weaker. So if you look at MPT or if you look at Optics, over the last couple of years, we've done a nice job of moving profitability up. So you've seen the op margin move, but the bottom – but the top line is a little bit deceptive. And the reason for that is you've got a good chunk of that overall HST that's still really is industrial, right? So you've got a big chunk of – you've got the Gast and the Micropump businesses. You've got a good chunk of even the Optics business that's more industrial-related. And then you got a big piece of the sealing business that is touching oil and gas. So we've had some really – some nice strength on the scientific side offset by some weakness on the industrial side, but in total, overall margins that have had nice improvement. So, I think I may have missed your back question about MPT. So, if you'd repeat that, I'd appreciate it.

No. I think you answered the question on MPT. My thinking on MPT was MPT was kind of a long-cycle business within HST. And when you talked about the capital spending within the industrial business, overall, broadly weak right now, how should we think about that in the second half, especially, you're thinking is like there's much more – still more risk to the economy in terms of spending?

I think so. And I think to be clear about some things, because there's a few things depending upon how you take it, it could be some mixed messages. The first one is our overall view is you're getting some industrial stability. As that moves to the back half, you end up with some easier comps. And whether or not that's industrial, within FMT or some of the industrial parts of HST, you get moderately easier comps as you get to the back half of the year because of the real weakness that we saw last year. So, to me, that's a good news story, but not because the business is materially improving sequentially, so I don't want anyone to walk out of here saying, God, I'm confused. Andy is saying there's more risk to the downside, but we're going to be better in the second half. These are really consistent statements, right? We've seen stability. We've got a little bit easier comps in the back of the year. But, in total, as I look at the global economy and I look at the puts and the takes and whether there's more upside or more downside, given the underlying fundamentals, we believe that still there remains more downside than upside.

Got it. Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next question is from Jim Giannakouros with Oppenheimer. Please proceed with your question.

Hi. Good morning, guys. Thanks for sneaking me in here.

You get, Jim.

Yeah. So my question is on your organic growth investment dollars and where you're funneling those. I understand it maybe early in the year for you to be shifting those, but can you talk about where you're focusing, specifically, your organic growth investment currently? What businesses the focus is squarely on improving returns? And where growth investment won't be dedicated anytime soon? And if you've shifted your thoughts just given any surprises over the last six months, whether that's market based or just the efficacy of execution of internal strategies from specific business lines? Thanks.

Yeah. So, Jim, when you look at our investments like this, they tend not to have radical swings in the short term. And the reason I say that is because from the time you decide that you're going to aggressively going to go after an idea until the time it's launched and then, I call it, full absorption into the marketplace, those cycles are really long. And that really works to our benefit around when you win market share or you win new applications, the stickiness of those is really the fundamental driver to the economics of IDEX, right? That stickiness is a big deal. That being said, it takes a long time for that to happen, right? Our customers are highly risk adverse and they test and they poke for an awful long time before making any kind of radical decision. The reason I say that is that requires sustained long-term investment. And so, we tend not to jump around a lot in that. So, just kind of behaviorally, I think that's important to understand. To kind of directly answering your question, which is where we focused, a way to think about that is if you look at our portfolio and our businesses, and this is all public stuff we talked about before at investor meetings. We've got about two-thirds of our company in revenue and about three quarters of our company in profit that I would squarely put into the growth category, right? These are franchise businesses with clear number one or really strong number two positions. I'm talking about franchise brands like IDEX Health & Science, the Scientific Fluidics business. I'm talking about Viking, Warren Rupp, right? Gast. Even though our Rescue business is struggling, if you look at the brands within rescue, they're outstanding. If you…

That's helpful. Thank you.

You bet.

There are no further questions. At this time, I'd like to turn the call back over to Andrew Silvernail for closing remark.

Thank you, Rob. I appreciate that. So, everyone, first of all, I appreciate you taking the time to spend with us to talk about the first quarter. Our comments, hopefully, everyone's walking away with the clarity of our message, which is, we think we're executing quite well in a continued challenging market. There has been some stability in the markets, which is good, but we still think there's still lots of challenges here ahead, but we're very, very well-positioned, and I'm thrilled with how our teams have performed. Our folks throughout IDEX have really performed well to make sure that we're delivering value for our customers, for the people who work at IDEX and, very importantly, for you, our shareholders. So, I appreciate your time, and we look forward to talking to you in the future. Take care.

This concludes today's conference. Thank you for your participation. You may disconnect your lines at this time.