CLGX
#No, we use a planning rate so we don't incorporate discrete items.
No material impact.
Sure, so <UNK>, as you know or may know we have significantly shrunk our overall US mortgage market exposure the last three or four years.
Roughly 60% of our revenue is exposed to US mortgage volumes at this point.
Some are more of a mild exposure but that roughly is the current exposure level.
It continues to drop by design.
We still like our positions in moment mortgage we have market-leading positions in a few areas mostly data-driven analytics areas so we like that as a basic, generates good cash flow.
But we have more than doubled our international business as an example the last couple of years we have a very significant footprint; I think a quality footprint in insurance.
Our spatial business is also a double-digit grower so those will continue as long as they are continuing to grow at the faster rate than the overall obviously the proportionality of our non-mortgage business will increase so I think we will drift down from the current 60% to less.
As I mentioned, we had a relatively good business in energy, which got blown up by the drop in oil prices and gas prices and now things have rebounded and there's life in that market as well.
And I think one opportunity that we have built up but we have significant room to grow was in the public sector, which needs data and analytics for planning so the infrastructure program that the President has proposed should that get off the ground, those are things that can use our services from a planning and implementation standpoint.
There's a lot going on in the non-mortgage area but I would say our core mortgage businesses have done great, they have good margins.
We have taken share in they generate a heck of a lot of data that we can use in the analytics piece and some of the other products.
I like our position in mortgage going forward.
We are pretty disciplined on the M&A front.
I want to make sure that we have properly integrated the assets that we have and I want to make sure that we get through the client diversification efforts that we have.
There is tons of things out there, but it's a vast array of things and we want to stay disciplined.
So I don't think there is a specific answer to that question other than we look at everything, we've passed on everything in recent past and if there is something that is terrific we will look at it, if it's not we are not going to jump at stuff.
I think as long as those two clients ---+ their shares are moving in line with the market, I don't think it will be a meaningful share change for us.
I think in the short run obviously you are leaking revenue from those two clients, but you are adding it.
So I think it's going to be, assuming there's nothing extraordinary, I would expect that to be as we get out of 2017, we'll be in roughly the same position we are in today, share wise.
No, I think that this, when <UNK> said gross, Geoff, it is really only the costs associated with implementing the plan to get to the net.
The growth doesn't mean we are reinvesting in something else.
<UNK>, so both of those business units have higher margins than our aggregate Company margin level.
Correct.
We've done a lot of good things over the years to move the needle on that and I would say for 2017 there are two pieces.
There is obviously the decline with the market and the other component that we're going to see later in the year is we're going to have a pension payment, we're terminating our pension plan which will be a good slug of money as well.
So that's why we've stuck on the 55% longer-term there may be an opportunity to nudge that higher.
Just to clarify that, this is a pension payment related to one of the acquired companies it's not a broader CoreLogic pension plan just to be clear.
Great.
