ESL
#Yes, <UNK>, thanks for the question.
Yes, in the ---+ so let me say, in the discrete charges that we took, we did feel it was appropriate to identify unique financing expenses related to closing Barco.
Okay.
Basically that was the process of moving money from the US and/or from our other operations in place, and then some discrete closing costs but those ---+ we view those as discrete charges.
You're correct.
There is nothing else related to Barco in the guidance.
So that's a great question, and I'm glad you asked it.
Thank you very much.
And again, I thought we made it clear, but obviously I didn't.
One of the reasons why we have not included Barco more explicitly in our commentary and the like, is we did not close on Barco until the second quarter.
So we did not own Barco in the first quarter.
Although we paid some charges to get it closed.
Right, right.
Paid some expenses to get it closed.
It didn't close until the second quarter.
Right.
We ---+ it did.
You're exactly right.
But don't forget, our first quarter ---+ because of our ---+ we're still operating under our old format here.
Our first quarter.
Our first quarter ended in January.
Actually, no, it's not, although we did take a discrete charge for it.
So last year we offered a ---+ in terms of derisking our pension plan, we offered a one-time opportunity for our former employees who are vested in the plan, who are drawing on the plan.
We gave them a one-time lump sum offer, to effectively buy out their pension.
Approximately 40% of the individuals who we offered it to took that opportunity.
Per pension accounting, under GAAP and actuarial calculations, once you do that, you basically have to go back in, without getting too technical, you have to go back in, revalue the pension plan, and adjust for the embedded loss that you were amortizing in there for those terminated vested employees, which is the way it's referred to in the parlance.
And that $3 million charge that we took there that's there, that's related to that.
Our pension plan, just for the record, our pension plan is fully funded, okay, and has been fully funded, and our pension expenses are not a headwind for the corporation, relative to our prior results in prior periods.
So this was a specific action that we took last fall as we were evaluating, as almost everyone is, that has a DB plan, I should say, a defined benefit plan.
We are looking---+ Trying to be proactive.
---+ at specific actions to be proactive to derisk that plan.
Even though it's in pretty good shape.
Yes.
It's in very good shape.
And under ---+ okay.
The easy answer to that one, I think, is that it is.
A strengthening dollar is a positive to the corporation.
The impacts that were taken here, we have a couple of business units, one in the UK, one in France, that we do not take hedge accounting treatment for.
And so we have some mark to market effects that go through each quarter.
Because of the precipitous decline in the Euro, those mark to market, on hedges, those mark to markets were fairly significant in this quarter.
So those are primarily accounting impacts, not cash flow impacts, and when the sales that are offset by those hedges materialize, the margins will be realized.
But under normal hedge accounting ---+ or under GAAP hedge accounting treatment, those effects would have been retained on the balance sheet and not displayed, and then you would have seen a positive effect.
If that helps at all.
That is correct.
Yes.
You're right.
<UNK> had to explain that to me about four times.
Yes, it does.
Certainly not to that degree.
We almost always have discrete tax events flowing through, but those will be at the tax line, not in other income and expense, and interest expense, as this one was.
This was unique in that regard.
There is certainly nothing major planned between now and the end of the year.
