Good morning. Thank you for joining us for RBC Bearings Fiscal Second Quarter 2027 Earnings Call. I'm Josh Carroll with the Investor Relations Team. With me on today's call are Dr. Hartnett, Chairman, President, and Chief Executive Officer, Daniel Bergeron, Director, Vice President, and Chief Operating Officer, and Rob Sullivan, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer. As a reminder, some of the statements made today may be for looking and under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Actual results may differ materially from those projected or implied due to a variety of factors. We refer you to RBC Bearings' recent filings with the SEC for a more detailed discussion of the risks that could impact the company's future operating results and financial condition. These factors are also listed in the press release along with a reconciliation between GAAP and non-GAAP financial information. With all that said, I'll now turn the call over to Dr. Hartnett.

Thank you, Josh, and good morning to everyone, and thank you for joining us. Again, as normal, I'll begin today's call with a brief review of our second quarter results and discuss some trends. We are seeing across the end markets. Before turning the call over to Rob, who will provide additional details. We delivered a strong second quarter with net sales increasing 15.2% year over year to $524.6 million. This was driven by continued demand in our aerospace and defense environment and a 14.8% growth from our industrial business. Consolidated gross margin for the quarter was 45.6%. Adjusted EPS increased 29.9% year-over-year to $3.74 compared to $2.84 in the prior year. Adjusted EBITDA rose 20.4% to $175 million versus $145.3 million last year. That's 33.4% of revenues. Pre-cash flow remained strong at $85.2 million. And that was net of a $24 million acquisition. And we retired $96 million of debt during the period. Turning now to our two business segments, approximately 56% of our revenue during the quarter came from our industrial segment. Aerospace and Defense, which was 44% of sales, continues to expand. Segment revenue increased 15.8%. The components were commercial aerospace was up 17.4%, defense 13.6%. Both were constrained by production capacity, which is easing as new equipment comes online. Across the A&D business, including space, we are seeing record order activity, increasing inquiries, customer requests for accelerated deliveries, and long-term commitments. On space, this sector continues to shine. In the first half, revenues expanded 78%, showing a continuous demand for components from an even ever-expanding stream of new and old customers. Of course, this business is still in the early stages of maturity. We recognize the long-term growth prospects it represents to RBC and are planning future expansions accordingly. On marine, we continue to boost production of components for submarines and are working to triple our output on these products from our baseline. We are now about 30% complete, 70% to go to reach our goal. We are planning continued expansion through FY28. Turning now to our industrial business, performance remains strong during the period with OEM revenues increasing 24.2% and distribution revenues increasing 10.6%. Overall, the sector was up 14.8%. During the quarter, we saw growth across aggregates, metals, food and beverage, warehousing, semiconductors, grain, and power generation. No significant contraction was seen in any of the core industrial markets. Overall, we remain invigorated by the strength, breadth, and outlook of the total RBC business. To the RBC team listening today, thank you for always going the extra mile in support of our customers. We believe and continue to believe our differentiators that make the difference are outstanding service levels, strong brands, unique certified products, leading market positions, technical expertise, most of all our dedicated employees. With that, I'll turn over the call to Rob who will walk us through the financials.

Thank you, Mike. We delivered another strong quarter ahead of our expectations with net sales growing 15.2% which led to a 19.1% increase in our reported gross margin. Gross margins of 45.6% on both the reported and adjusted basis compared to 44.1% reported and 44.9% adjusted in the same period last year. The gross margins this quarter reflect the benefits of increased volumes running through our production facilities along with the impacts of contract renewals and favorable mix. Second quarter A&D sales increased 15.8% year over year. Net sales from our industrial business increased 14.8% during the period or approximately 14% excluding 2 million of sales from PSC, which was acquired in August. A&D reported gross margins during the quarter were 42.2% and industrial margins were 48.2% compared to 38.7 and 48.2% in the prior year period respectively. On the SG&A line, we had total costs of $83.4 million or 15.9% of net sales for the quarter. This ultimately resulted in an adjusted EBITDA of $175 million or 33.4% of net sales for the quarter. That represents a 20.4% increase in adjusted EBITDA dollars during the quarter compared to the same period last year. Interest expense for the quarter was $9.3 million. This was down 30.6% year over year, reflecting the improved leverage position achieved over the last 12 months, coupled with lower interest rates. We paid off $96 million of debt during the quarter, which included repaying the remaining balance of our term loan ahead of the November 2026 target we set a year ago. The tax rate in our adjusted EPS calculation was 22.2% compared to last year's 22.0%. This led to an adjusted diluted earnings per share of $3.74 representing growth of 29.9% year over year. Free cash flow in the quarter came in at 85.7 million with conversion of 91.4% of net income compared to 71.7 million and 119.5% last year. Conversion through six months stands at approximately 119% of that income. Our strong balance sheet and improved financial flexibility provides us opportunities to pursue a balanced capital allocation strategy as we continue to deleverage. Looking into the third quarter of fiscal 2027, we are guiding revenues of $520 to $525 million, representing year-over-year growth of 12.7% to 13.7%. On a nine-month basis, that would mean sales of $1.564 billion to $1.569 billion, representing growth of 15.6% to 16% year-over-year. The outlook reflects the normal seasonal impact of the holiday period on our third quarter. Adjusted gross margins in the next quarter are expected to be in the range of 45.5% to 45.75%, and SG&A as a percentage of net sales is expected to be in the range of 16.25% to 16.5%. With that, operator, please open the call for Q&A.

Thank you. We're now conducting a question and answer session. If you'd like to be placed in the question queue, please press star 1 on your telephone keypad. You may press star 2 if you'd like to move your question from the queue. We ask you please ask one question, one follow-up, then return to the queue. Our first question is coming from Jason Holcomb from Morgan Stanley. Your line is now live. Hey, Mike, Dan, and Rob.

In the press release, he noted that you expect the second half of the fiscal year to be better than the first half. Can you maybe provide more detail on that comment and provide some context on what you're expecting for growth in the second half for industrials and aerospace and defense? And also, it'd be great if you can maybe comment on any notable differences in expected growth dynamics between commercial aero and defense.

I'm just making notes of your question. Sure. Well, first of all, it's easy to explain. The easiest component of the expansion in the second half is we got an extra week in there. So the way our accounting calendar works, it gives us an extra week. So that explains some of it. I think what's more relevant here though, the efforts that we've put in over the past several years and the capital that we've put in over the past several years will now show in these quarters. It'll show more in the fourth quarter than the third quarter for reasons which I'll explain, but that's definitely, we've added capacity We have the machinery. We've trained the people. We did the logistics behind the supply chain. And that effort is going to produce dividends for us in the next six months. So behind that, you know, we're behind our plan for the year on marine production, which is not producing what we plan to produce. and we've had some difficulties in the supply chain. Those difficulties have required us to insource some processes that are somewhat complex but manageable and we expect to do some significant catch-up particularly in the fourth quarter of our year on our marine plan and So that's another element that's important to us. And on the third quarter, third quarter is always a tricky quarter for us because it's a short quarter. Everybody knows there's plenty of holidays. But I think what people don't feel is, you know, a lot of our business goes to either the government or A&D customers. that have market caps in excess of $100 billion. I won't name any names, but you know the names. They seem to use a lot of December in terms of holidays and vacation time. A lot of our products that have to be shipped are shipped in accordance with a release that has to come from them with regard to certifications for quality and logistics. And so we're depending upon them in many cases for these certifications. In this particular year, there seems to be more of that than normal. So some of that might roll into the fourth quarter and some might not. It's really hard to tell. So that's the basis of our third quarter. forecast right there. Let's see. I think when we look at the aerospace and defense sign, I suspect if we can get the Marine up on its feet, then I think we're certainly going to be north of 15% on the A&D side of the business, maybe hovering closer to 20%. on the industrial side, very GDP dependent. And so I think we're always sort of budgeting a high single digits expansion on the industrial side of the business because we're not great forecasters of what the GDP is going to be out six months. and if you know somebody that is, please introduce us to him.

Thanks, Mike. Maybe just as a quick follow-up, I mean, I guess in your comment on the sort of like the logistical sign-offs for kind of calendar 4Q, I guess is that more directly related to the insourcing with some of the things you're doing in marine? or is that for or is that a separate comment that maybe is about maybe the market share that you're winning on other programs maybe just a little extra on that would be helpful?

No it's actually marine seems to be you know a little bit independent of that but it's usually aerospace it's aerospace defense maybe a little bit space I think space is in there too that's you know that's a little bit more administrative. There's more administrative releases on the defense side.

Gotcha. And then maybe just one last quick one is just, you mentioned on Marine kind of tripling output from the baseline for that business. I guess, do you have a sense of how long you think it would take to achieve that?

Well, I think once we put the insourcing project to bed and I hope we've, you know, we have all the linen in the pillows and that's imminent. I think we'll probably be past 70% next year and be in FY28 and we'll round that off in FY29.

Got it. Thank you very much, guys. I'll hop back in the queue.

Thank you. Next question is coming from Steve Barger from KeyBank Capital Markets, your latest ally.

Hey, good morning, guys. Good to talk to you. First question is on defense, on missiles and munitions. How much of what you're seeing today is just for replenishment of depleted inventories versus a structural increase in production rates? And what's your visibility like there?

Well, I mean, it's certainly the programs that we've been on are programs like the Tomahawk The GMLRS, the Standard Missile, and the Hypersonic Missile slash Sumwell program. You know, we've been pretty much steady state manufacturing product for those systems as is normal. Certainly those systems, the build rate for those systems has stepped up substantially. So we're going to see, you know, we're going to see a substantial stepping up in that next year. Or maybe some of that in the fourth quarter. You know, it's hard to predict. But, you know, if you look at the tomahawk, I mean, it's no secret that we've, you know, tomahawks have been built at 200 a year kind of rate. They now are going to 1,000 a year kind of rate. We produce several fuel system components for the Tomahawk missile which are critical to the missile. So we're actually in the process now of laying out floor space to bring up those production rates in accordance with that kind of demand. And GMLRS is is something that we're well tooled on. I think there's a 40% or a 20%, I don't remember the trailing numbers, but it's at least a 20% step up in volume. And we're tooled and we won't have any trouble meeting that step up. And the hypersonic Zumwalt program is a big one for us. And we're, you know, We're kind of in the middle of that. That hypersonic is going through its testing. And once testing is completed, we'll be released for manufacturing. So I think we're probably 18 months away from that release.

I know your submarine programs are the biggest part of defense. How big is missiles and munitions as a percentage of defense revenue for you?

Good question. Rob, how big is it?

I mean, I think it's running in the range of, you know, 50 million a year right now.

Yeah.

Got it.

Okay. And then one follow up on industrial. In your prepared remarks, you noted a lot of positive end markets. We're hearing the same from other companies. Can you talk about what you're seeing from the more traditionally cyclical OEM markets to the extent that you have exposure? I'm just trying to get the sense of whether we'll see an equipment capex cycle beyond the pickup and aftermarket and distribution that's already taken place.

Well, certainly our most cyclical OEM markets and market and industrial is oil and gas. And, you know, with what's going on in the world, there's a renewal there. We're seeing a pickup there.

Got it. And you don't have much machinery, like traditional machinery exposure, right?

We have it. It's not material.

Okay. Okay. All right, thanks. I'll get back in line.

Thank you. Next question is from Michael Tramoli from Google Home Security. Is that live?

Hey, good morning, guys. Thanks for taking the question. Nice results. um maybe Mike at the maybe I know the answer to this but but I'll answer it anyway just just given kind of the demands coming from marine missiles you know all things aerospace and defense are are you seeing any risk to your businesses of being second sourced at all as as the industry in general is broadly looking for more capacity um

I think the overall answer to that is no. We hear a lot of talk about bringing on second sources for certain positions, but that talk usually is directed at us to be the second source. So we do take a lot of pride in service levels. And so, you know, a bearing is a very small part of an airframe. I guess if you look at a 737 and you look at the discounted selling price of a 737, it's probably 60, 70 million. And, you know, our content is 200,000. So, you know, we don't Thank you very much.

That's always good advice. What about just on the capacity constraints you talked about in marine? Can you quantify that in terms of revenue? And even that area, I guess, maybe honing in specifically, was that more on the legacy RBC? Was it more on the VACO side? Any additional color there?

It's more like a legacy RBC. You know, VACO has got the same charge is tripling their production. And they seem to be more able to do that. Because their designs are different than Sargent's designs completely. So, yeah, the problem is in Tucson, and so we kind of work on that every day, trying to bring solutions to what they need. Fortunately, the requirements that they have, which are technically somewhat sophisticated from a metallurgical standpoint, were equipped in other plants, RBC plants, to manufacture those items. So we're in the process of retooling some of those RBC plants today to bring their manufacturing rate of those products consistent with Sargent's needs. So that's why I'm recently, it's a timing thing at this point, I'm recently sure that we're going to feel the effects of that in the fourth quarter.

Okay, okay. And then just last one for me. Rob, do you have the aerospace OEM growth rate in the quarter and maybe just kind of what you're seeing there in terms of kind of from Boeing, from Airbus, from the engine OEMs? Are you kind of in line with their rates? Are you looking into next year to where they want to get to in rates across the narrowbodies and widebodies?

Yeah, let me give you the numbers. So total commercial OEM was $114.9 million this quarter. Distribution was $21.5 million. And just so you have it, defense was $67.5 million on the OEM side and $26.4 million on the distribution side. So we're certainly seeing sequential growth. and the OEM side consistently as we've been ramping up and certainly driving a lot of it. Got it.

Okay. Perfect. Thanks, guys.

Thank you. Next question is coming from Scott from Deutsche Bank. Your line is now live.

Hi. Good morning. Rob, was the sequential backlog increase related to marine or is that something else?

It was broad across the aerospace, as you can imagine. Some of it was out of VACO, some of it out of Sargent Marine, and then just some other aerospace contracts flowing through.

Okay. And then Mike or Rob, you mentioned 78% growth in the space business in the first half. Can you share a rough split of that between organic and inorganic from VACO?

So, yeah, I'd say that, you know, VACO certainly makes up a large portion of that. When you look at it, even, you know, if you look this quarter two versus quarter two last year, it's still up a few million bucks or, you know, on an organic basis.

Okay. And then, Mike, if an aerospace OEM were to add RBC as a second source of supply on an existing product that's currently sole source to someone else, and then you sign that contract, say, this quarter, how long would it take for that to begin to ship to that customer and then show up in your results? Is it a year or longer or shorter?

Well, it depends upon what we, you know, if we sell them, if it's a standard product that we're already producing, We would probably give them a lead time kind of delivery and just phase it in and the lead time would be, depending upon product line, but at this point it could be 50 weeks.

Okay. And then last question for me, just on the earlier point about capacity. What are the primary machine tools that you use to produce aerospace bearings? How long does it take to get those tools if you order them now?

Well, the primary machine tools, if you can get the material. The material is also a problem, but you have to be way ahead of the game on the material side. Primary machine tools are turning and cutting machines, and those are made by Mori Seiki, and people like that. And then there's the next step in the process would be heat treating. So there's usually there's the turning machines lead time six months. The heat treating equipment lead time depending on the type of heat treating you want to do is a year to 18 months and then there's finishing equipment and the finishing equipment is we use 15 months planning to get it on our floor and get it operational and sometimes it's a little quicker than that but not very much and there's several different finishing operations that have that kind of lead time. So you might have a grinding operation and then you might have a polishing operation and stoning operation. And so both of those machine sets have that kind of lead time. And that's sort of the major machine tools At the same time, you need operators and folks that can deal with that level of complexity on the floor that can run these machines. Simultaneously, you have to be training those people. As you train those people, you usually have a drop back in plant efficiency because you have You have a lot of people in training and not a lot of people in making. So your paid hour versus your earned hour is diluted. Your earned hour is diluted. So that's sort of the manufacturing equation for bearings right there.

Okay, and then I guess as you look forward, do you see the constraint on growth as being continuing to be focused on tooling capacity and your ability to bring that in, or does it start to shift more toward labor as you get into next year?

I think we're okay from a labor standpoint. I mean, there's, you know, we're not perfect, but it's It's a fringe item at this point because of some of the approvals that we've recently gotten for our plants in Mexico where there's plenty of labor and plenty of labor availability and plenty of machine tool capacity. So yeah, I think the major component here is going to be continuing to cycle in advanced machine tool systems to upgrade those systems that we have on the floor to improve throughput and efficiencies.

Thank you very much.

Thank you. Next question is coming from Pete Skibitsky from Olympic Global.

Good morning, guys. Nice corner.

Morning, Pete. Hey, Pete.

Mike, can you update us on where you're at, especially at Boeing on production rates, just because they've obviously had some trouble stabilizing here at 47 a month on the max and trying to get to 10 on the 787. And I know it differs by plant, but maybe you can give us kind of an average of where you think you've produced at this quarter.

Yeah, you know, I think I'm trying to think of the last meeting I had on that two weeks ago. and I think they were clocking at about 42 to 45. It's a little disproportionate because we're getting business volume from previous suppliers of Boeing who have sort of exited the supply chain, to say it nicely. and so that's a little bit disproportionate to their rates which pushes a couple of our plants to a higher speed limit.

Right. So organically it's almost like you're in the low 40s organically if you exclude market share gains.

Right. I think that's fair.

Okay. Okay. Okay. Sounds good. And then just one more, just one maybe for Rob. Rob, one of the, you know, better SG&A spend quarters you guys have had in probably three or four years, I guess. And, yeah, you're looking like a bit of an uptick here in the third quarter. But, you know, was there any kind of unusual – one-time lower spend levels this quarter? Or, you know, are we able to maybe see a pronounced downward trend over the next few years? Maybe just update us on kind of what you're seeing SG&A-wise.

I think we're seeing more just the leverage of the increase in sales over time. That's the top level of the 16% mark. I think, you know, this was a strong execution quarter in terms of SG&A controlling our cost profile. You know, obviously as, you know, certain compensation items run through you get a little bit of an uptick in dollars moving forward but we're pretty comfortable right now where we are and we're pretty pleased to see the leverage on the increased sales compared to where we were a year ago you know we were closer to 17. so it's just it's just kind of continuation of the the discipline that we've been trying to put in place okay great thanks guys but just To add to that quickly, the uptick in the next quarter is largely centered around stock comp, which I think is going to be up by a million and a half dollars next quarter. That's driving us closer to that forecasted rate.

Okay. It's like a first quarter, third quarter thing, typically?

It's just the timing. And so I think that Q2 was up from Q1 in stock comp. Q3 is a little bit up from Q2.

Got it. Okay. Thank you.

Thank you. Next question is coming from Tim Thien from Raymond James. Your line is now live.

Thank you. Good morning. The first question is just on industrial. And I was interested, I think you said nearly 11% growth on the distribution side in the quarter. If you look at the results of some of the public suppliers, they're not growing at nearly that rate. So I'm just curious if maybe you could add some context there. And obviously they're getting a bit of pricing. So just curious if that's, are you seeing any signs of maybe inventory build from some of the customers or maybe gaining some share or a combination of that? Anyway, just a bit of context in terms of What you're seeing on that side of the industrial house and whether you think that's the sustainability, I guess, of that. Thank you.

Well, I think one of our advantages there, Tim, is that if we kind of use Dodge as the proxy on the industrial side of our business, their product availability across their line items. And they have thousands of line items. 97% of the time, 95% of the time, 96% of the time, when a customer needs that product, it's in stock. And so their service levels are extraordinarily high. And this is an aftermarket kind of thing Somebody needs the part because there's a part that failed in somebody's machine someplace that they need right away and we have it in stock and so they buy it from us. I think our service rates are industry leading and I think that brings a lot of revenue into Dodge. And RBC, the balance of RBC's industrial business sort of runs the same plan.

Understood.

Okay.

And then maybe one for Rob, just how to think about some of the cost items here as we think about what the picture looks like today versus 90 days ago. Just how you're thinking about this is more at the gross margin level, the impact of an inflationary The potential inflationary headwinds, how that's changed, if at all, in terms of how you're thinking about the back half of the year, just given changes in freight and logistics, et cetera. How impactful is that?

Yeah. Thank you. That's a fair question. I think we've been running this inflation race for a few years now, trying to stay ahead of it. And I think we've done a pretty effective job across the board. I think last quarter, We increased our outlook for the year from 50 basis points to 100 basis points of margin expansion for the full year. I think we still feel good that 100 basis points is very achievable. We certainly keep very close eye on the cost pressures as they come on, and we're constantly making sure we're making adjustments where we can to stay in front of it.

Okay. Thank you, guys. Thank you. Next question is coming from Ronald Epstein from Bank of America. Your line is now live. Hi.

Good morning. This is Andrew Stein on for Ron. I just wanted to ask about the capital allocation strategy here, given the comments on the supply chain, particularly in marine. Are you guys looking at M&A opportunities where you could potentially vertically integrate areas of weakness in the supply chain. Any color there would be appreciated.

Yeah, I'd be as high as Dan. Of course, we're always taking a look to see if some of our supply chain, if there's an opportunity to insource it. But it's not the main focus of our M&A strategy. I think we're out looking, Rob and I, like always. You know, RBC, you know, we've been doing this for over 23 years and have completed over 27 acquisitions. So we continue to do that. Rob's job is to get the balance sheet in shape and deliver it. So we're in a good position to participate in any transactions that come by. And so him and his team have done a great job getting that leverage down under one. will continue to do that and continue to deliver and will continue to look for deals to get done. So, you know, the three legs of the stool, right? Pay down that debt, invest in organic growth, and continue to look for M&A.

Just a quick follow-up. Are there any particular categories in the marketplace that appear attractive as like a bolt-on acquisition?

Well, you know, we like deals that bring, you know, new products and technology that we can bring over our current customer base to better leverage our position in our market with our customers. So we like defense assets, we like aerospace assets, and we like industrial assets.

All righty. Thank you. Thank you. Next question is a follow-up from Scott Deutsche from Deutsche Bank. Your line is now live.

Yeah, sorry if I missed it, Rob, but were there any end markets in the industrial business that batted well above their weight in terms of driving this growth, particularly on the OEM side? Or is that growth pretty balanced across the different end markets?

You're saying OEM specifically?

Yeah, or you could brought it out as well.

Yeah, I mean, mining and metals did really well this quarter. And then semiconductor. While it's small, it was mighty, and it was up significantly this quarter as well on the OEM side. A really broad-based expansion across so many end markets there.

Okay.

And it's nice to see that the OEM business was up 24.6%.

Right, yeah. And then is there much of a margin benefit that also hits for the aerospace and defense business when you hit this marine unlock at the end of the year, or is it more of just a revenue tailwind?

There's definitely a margin benefit. We've been feeling some pinch on the margins, I think, with some of the headwinds in the marine business. So I think that there's definitely opportunities there as we can work through and ramp up.

Can you quantify that pinch at all? Is it like a couple million dollars a quarter or something like that?

Well, for their business, I think it's five or six points on that business, so it's impactful. Largely on the aerospace margins, that was one pinch. The other side of it, again, is that Q1 and Q4 just notably have the most production days and tend to be our strongest operating quarters. Q2 has fewer production days, so you feel a little bit of that seasonality pinch in the efficiency.

Thank you.

Thank you. We reach the end of our question and answer session. I'd like to turn the floor back over for any further closing comments.

Well, I think our closing comments are, you know, we appreciate everybody's interest and questions this morning. Hope we gave you a good understanding of the positive outlook that we have and we feel about the business and look forward to talking to you probably in late January, early February.

Thank you. Thank you for your participation today.

You may now disconnect.