Sure, Matt. I'll take a shot at this. First, I'll make a comment. We never specifically comment on any particular M&A position or either reacted and been doing anything in any given time. So I'm highlighting that and answering your question as a more broad, generic point of view. Taking the question from that perspective, look, we start with a couple of poor guiding principles. First, we're building a core business around a key strategy. We look for our diversified business that businesses that have systematic, sustainable competitive advantages, or the ability to build those and enhance those. And we look for a business to be part of the portfolio to either be made better by being part of the portfolio or to make the other businesses better. So we start with that piece of the strategy. When we think about anything like M&A, we recognized that we're not just trying to be bigger for the sake of being bigger, we're trying to be better. So something has to make that core strategic set of statements better. That's added capability, it has to make us stronger, bringing different geographic niche, bring something else to the portfolio, help us enhance an existing advantage, like a cost advantage, or a specialization advantage. So we're always thinking about those items. And why would something be better off with us than not with us. Then we recognized that there needs to be a financial dynamic and an appropriate financial dynamic around that, we come back to a handful of tests, something should be -- and these are not exclusive, but they're on the list, something should be accretive within the first 12 months to income. We would expect something to have a straight up payback period inside of three years, a cross overpay back inside of five years. We recognize that part of the financial considerations at any given point in time is how we're paying for it, is it cash or are we using our own currency. If we're using our stock and we're trading at a lower end of sort of a trading range for us versus a higher end, that's going to produce a different set of financial implications on those three or four tests I outlined. So cognizant of all of those. And then, the last thing I layer in Matt, it is not in any way lost on us that our job is ultimately to be good stewards of capital and good managers of the shareholders, capital and producing appropriate return. Trust is earned with disciplined thoughtful execution and a track record over a longer period of time and it's destroyed rapidly. So we're very thoughtful about that. And in anything, we do, look, to build on that trust and not destroy it. Our plan is to be doing this for a long period of time and continue to do it as successfully as we've been doing it. So we need to remain disciplined in anything we do, I think folks would look back at our Infinity transaction. And hopefully, on any metric you could find, you'd see that that was highly successful. I say this periodically, for any transaction that somebody does, you should assume that they were active and looking at several that they didn't do. If you started with that assumption with us, you should walk away with some degree of confidence that that we also know how to do something. We also had to walk away from something if it's not matching the right criteria that we put any transaction true and it's not meeting those hurdles. So that may be a longer answer that you wanted, but I think -- it's got a lot of nuances around it. Hopefully that helps.