Okay. Are we live? Yeah. Hi, everyone. So for those of you that don't know me or weren't in the last session, I'm Nicole DeBlase. I cover the multi-industry and electrical equipment as well as the machinery groups at DB. Next up on today's schedule is Ingersoll Rand, and I'm pleased to introduce Vik Kini, CFO. Vik has served as CFO since June of 2020, prior to which he held a number of different finance roles, including the dreaded role of investor relations. So I've known Vik for a while. And before that, he was with Gardner Denver before the RMT. So we're just going to dive right into the fireside chat, but towards the end, I will open it up to the audience for questions, so please don't be shy. So starting with organic growth.
Sure.
So actually, let's start with organic orders. They were a lot stronger than I think we had anticipated, stronger than investors had anticipated in 1Q, up 8%. Would you say that that also kind of surpassed your own internal expectations?
Yeah. So first of all, Nicole, great to be here. Thank you for having us. I think in terms of the Q1 orders, you're right, 8% organic orders. If you actually dissect that, it was actually 10% in the ITS business. Outside of expectations, I'm not going to go quite to that degree. I think we had been seeing continued good momentum. We had talked considerably. We still talk considerably about, let's say, controlling the outcome in some respect. So you always talk a lot about demand generation and marketing qualified leads and things like that, which, frankly, is a leading indicator even to an order. So in the context of Q1, what was actually very encouraging here is, particularly on the ITS side, if you look, for example, across the compressor landscape, you actually saw all three regions have strong double-digit compressor order rates.
Oil-free was in the high 20s in terms of the order rates for the oil-free specifically. And there was actually a really good spread between what I'll say the long cycle and the shorter to medium cycle side, particularly on the compressor side of the equation. So again, very healthy momentum, book-to-bill well above one, closer to 1.1, specifically in ITS. And we've always called out that this is a business where you tend to see book-to-bill above one in the first half, below one in the second half, and that's natural seasonality, particularly as some of those longer cycle projects ship in the second half. And I don't think that we have any expectation that that would be very different this year as well.
Okay. Got it. And thinking about end markets, geographies, any particular areas of strength that really jumped out?
Yeah. I would say in Q1 specifically, it was actually relatively broad-based. So again, I'll point to the compressor side because that's kind of, frankly, the largest piece of the equation. All three regions saw good double-digit organic orders growth, specifically in compressors in Q1. If I think across the spectrum here, would I call out any one specific end market or region? No, relatively broad-based. I think you are continuing to see, like we said, on the longer cycle side, the reshoring themes. Those are real. We have definitely seen them. You've seen us even over the course of the last few quarters. Whether it be last year, we talked about the reopening of the Buffalo facility here in the U.S., which is specifically for large centrifugal type applications and compressors going into big process type applications.
We took roughly $40 million to $45 million of incremental orders last year that we would not have taken, period, had that facility not been reopened. They were for in-region type manufacturing, I'd say end customers, very large named customers. A lot of those applications, a lot of what they were looking for was both reshoring as well as, I would say, made in the U.S., effectively lead times just coming from China, not in line with their expectations. I think a particularly strong area of growth, Europe has been remarkably resilient. I think the energy efficiency themes that we've talked about through the course of 2022 continue to be part of that narrative.
Frankly, when you have new efficiency in equipment that can lead to paybacks that are 12, 18 type months, it does create, I'd say, a sustainable tailwind in our perspective that's not just a here and now. It's going to continue for years to come. And I think one area that we've continued to be very, very pleased with is our platform in China. The Ingersoll Rand name in China, we believe, is the name of names. And now when you've had, now we're three years kind of past the RMT, we talked a lot about revenue synergies and things like that at the time of the merger. We never initially quantified them. But this is where I think a lot of that has been coming from.
So we talk about demand generation, instigating demand, but we also now have the opportunity with, for example, differentiated technology being able to sell into a region where you have an established presence. So for example, in China, where I'd say the Ingersoll Rand name is kind of the name of names, very established base, being able to, I'd say, relaunch the Gardner Denver compressor brand there, being able to bring differentiated technology like blower and vacuum that legacy Ingersoll Rand didn't have access to. Gardner Denver did, but now you're able to leverage the Ingersoll Rand name. And now as we have, we've done 30 plus bolt-on acquisitions since the merger. And now being able to bring some of that technology through some of these acquisitions and bring them into places like China.
We bought a business last year called Everest in India, market leader in India in blower vacuum technology, being able to now bring some of that different technology into other regions for China, as an example, is exciting. So again, these are what I would call a lot of singles and doubles, but this does lead to what I would consider to be above-market growth and the ability to continue to drive that on a quarterly basis.
And the revenue synergies, that's an interesting point. What inning do you think you're in with respect to realization? Because it seems to me like it's still pretty early, right?
It's still very early. I guess we're going to do everything in baseball terms here. Yeah, I'd still say it's relatively early. I would argue third, fourth inning at best. We're only three years in, and I think the combination of innovation, the continued, I'd say we do take a stance of in-region for the region. That's been a distinct trend. You've actually even seen some very distinct investments, whether it be Buffalo here in the U.S. Two quarters ago, we announced that we're investing in a new plant in India. We're effectively at capacity in India. We are investing in a new plant, specifically in India. A lot of that is in-region for the region, but what you're also now seeing is that's in concert with now localizing some technology for those specific regions that maybe historically they didn't have access to.
Okay.
You are correct. Yes, I would say still relatively early, and there's plenty of opportunity. I think oil-free is another great example there. When you look at the two portfolios, Legacy Gardner Denver, Legacy IR, Legacy Gardner Denver tended to be a little bit more on the medium to larger size compressors. Legacy Gardner Denver, a little bit more on the smaller to medium size. Oil-free platforms across the board. Now you've put the two together, and now you've given kind of global access to that range, which neither legacy company probably had full access to.
Okay. Okay. Got it. You mentioned China and how that's been strong for you guys, which is interesting because I feel like the whole reopening story in China has been a bit disappointing for a lot of companies. So maybe talk a little bit more about the drivers of the strength there, what you guys are seeing from an end market perspective.
Yeah. So I think you're right. I don't think there was this big, the gates flew open type routine. But I think if you look at the last 12, 18 months, I do think that we've been continuously seeing what I'd say relatively outsized growth in China, comparatively speaking to any underlying rate of growth or the markets there. Again, I'd point to a couple of things here. One, we do have what we consider to be a leading platform and franchise specifically in China. So that team has done a fantastic job of utilizing demand generation and taking existing technologies and then pointing them towards new applications that tend to be higher growth based on what's going on in the market. So again, one, instigating demand based on existing technology, existing applications, and using IRX and demand generation to kind of drive or instigate growth.
So that's that kind of controllable piece for us. I think China, if you look across the board, it stands out in my mind. I mean, we've been able to do this very well across the board, but China, without question, has been probably that area where leveraging, I would say, some of the differentiated technology that's come because of the merger that that region necessarily did not have full access to before. So again, we use blower vacuum. We use the Gardner Denver brand. These are all examples of, again, parts of the portfolio that have always been there, but we just hadn't been able to penetrate that region historically. And now with the IR franchise, the IR brand, you've seen fantastic opportunity to do that. And interestingly enough, Vicente was actually in China like two weeks ago here, so was able to kind of see it firsthand.
I would tell you that that team, their execution, what they've been able to do, continuing to drive double-digit compressor order growth rate here, even in Q1, I think speaks to those efforts.
Okay. Perfect. So just wrapping up on orders. So the two-year stock comp does get tougher from here. Should we be kind of braced for material deceleration and order growth?
Well, yeah, I think the way I would think about it here is when we talked about the expectations for the year, we kind of talked about we expected backlog exiting the year to be fairly comparable to what you've seen coming into this year. So book-to-bill around one for the totality of the year. Now, you are right. The comps are real. We've had material comps, particularly as you think about the back half of this year. So I would attribute some of that, if there is some degree of acceleration, it's probably a little bit more as a result of that, not necessarily what I would point to as any discernible changes per se in end market behavior at this point in time. So and we'll talk about revenue and some of the pricing actions and some of those comps as well.
But again, I think that was fully expected and largely anticipated in how we guided as we entered the year.
Okay. Okay. Got it. Specifically on the PST order side, so a little bit slower to recover, presumably because there was a bit of a COVID benefit aspect here. Are you seeing indications of improving demand in PST?
Yeah. So let's talk about Q1 specifically. So Q1 organic orders was slightly negative, I think - 2%. And if you look and kind of under the covers of PST, you know, PST is approximately kind of 13 individual businesses that are kind of grouped into logical platforms. And if you look specifically at one, the medical lab life sciences one, we did indicate that is exactly, Nicole, last year, kind of coming out of the COVID, there were some tough comps there. We also indicated in Q1 that specifically in kind of one part of that business, we have some large customers who typically place large frame orders that just did not repeat to the same degree. And so that was what was driving, in fact, the entirety of that negative orders growth in Q1.
In fact, if you look at the balance of the business, all of the other businesses were effectively mid-single-digit organic orders growth in Q1. So again, yes, the totality slightly negative, but if you look at the individual components, continued good momentum, I think that that's a good sign of things to come. And again, it speaks to how that business has really kind of now evolved over the last few years. It is a business that has, again, we do have some of the comps in medical lab life sciences, but we have a lot of conviction in that on a long-term basis. You've got water, environmental, clean energy, agritech, some core industrial. So it's got a nice kind of spread across the board. And I'll go back to even our investor day targets that we put forth in the end of 2021.
That's why we've said this business should be kind of more of a mid-single digit plus type growth, just because inherently a lot of the end markets that we're exposed there to, I think, have better secular trends over a longer time frame. Nothing has changed in terms of our expectations there.
Okay. Okay. Got it. And then back to this whole energy savings dynamic that you kind of brought up as one of the factors behind order strength. I mean, how much buy-in do you think you're getting from customers on this? You mentioned Europe, but is this becoming something that even North America customers are interested in?
Yeah. So if you think about the energy savings, and just to kind of give you a couple of speaking points, a compressor, a hallmark compressor in an industrial manufacturing setting consumes up to 30% of the energy in that facility. A blower in a wastewater treatment facility is consuming up to 60% of the energy in that facility. So if you think about what is top of mind for that savvy end customer, it is very much, again, how do I drive energy savings? How do I now drive my sustainability targets? You have to focus on this equipment. Our equipment is typically less than like 2% to 3%, probably speaking of the overall cost of an installation of a manufacturing facility, but it's one of the biggest energy consumers. So the answer to your question is yes, absolutely.
I think Europe was clearly a lot more in the forefront just given the dynamics and some of the rising energy costs of last year. The reality, though, is I think the opportunity to drive very accelerated paybacks compared to any degree of the legacy norm is very much there. And I would not discount that we're no different, but I'm sure every company that you cover, Nicole, every company that's here, they have ESG targets. They have Scope 1, Scope 2 targets. You will not realistically be able to achieve said targets without a distinct focus now on the compressor room or the blowers or the pumps just because they are a material component of the energy consumption of whatever facility. And we're actually seeing that.
We see that even in a lot of our customers' sustainability reports where they're literally calling out the compressor room as an example as a distinct area of focus. Probably was not the case five years ago, so that's a for us; we take that as a good leading indicator of a growth driver, not just now, but for the foreseeable future.
Absolutely. And I mean, does this potentially is this powerful enough to change the cyclicality of the business where you have a bit of a driver of strength even during an economic downturn?
We definitely believe that it is a sustainable, I'd say, growth driver without question. Again, I think for us, it's just one piece of the equation, right? We've talked about, and I'm sure we'll talk a little bit more about aftermarket, for example, where today 35% to 40% of the revenue base is more driven by aftermarket, but we would know without question the opportunity to drive that into the mid-40s, get up to the 50% range. We see that in parts of our business. Quite frankly, pre-merger, the legacy IR compressor business was close to 50/50 for original equipment aftermarket. So it's not an unachievable path. How do you leverage things like connectivity and IoT to be enablers there?
So yes, I would say some of the inherent trends in the market, like sustainability, energy efficiency, aftermarket demand generation. I don't think there's one silver bullet per se, but I think a lot of these are what we are effectively trying to instill and drive within the organization to reduce that inherent cyclicality. And you're right. It's no secret that when we did the merger, we had four segments. We divested two great businesses, the HPS business and Club Car. Number one players are arguably in what they did, but they came with a degree of cyclicality, oil and gas and effectively an automotive platform, right? And so now we've seen a very distinct focus between what we've done internally, but then also the M&A, where the M&A has been very purposefully pointed towards what we consider to be higher growth, sustainable end markets.
So it's no secret that you've seen assets that are a little bit more tailored towards agritech or food and beverage or things of that nature, wastewater treatment, because we ultimately believe those will be stickier, higher growth markets as you think out five, 10 years.
Got it. Makes sense. Maybe just a couple of shorter-term things because I think the audience will be upset with me if I don't ask.
Of course.
Anything you would highlight with respect to what you're seeing in 2 Q that's much different than 1 Q?
Yeah. Again, not to get into deep detail about order patterns and things like that, anything I would point to that's dramatically different from the operating landscape, not dramatically different. I'd say, Nicole, largely continuing to operate in a comparable environment as we saw exiting Q1 and as we talked about on our earnings call four or five weeks ago. And again, I think for us, the distinct focuses, whether it be from a commercial side or even, frankly, from a margin expansion side, continue to focus on those things that we can control. So whether it be demand generation to instigate demand, innovation, product localization, as well as things like I2V, as well as some of the productivity elements. Also worth noting here that we said coming into this year, we're still going to be prudent on the pricing side of the equation.
So yes, we do have a lot of what I'll call carryover price from actions taken in 2022, but the opportunity to take "more normal course pricing activities" in 2023 is definitely part of the equation, and nothing has changed in that respect. I think you can continue to expect to see us taking prudent pricing actions in the context of this year, much more in line with what you've seen historically.
Okay. The cyber attack. Anything to share update on that? Everything fully up and running now, and I think you guys quantified this as potentially pushing $40 million to $50 million of revenue to 3Q, and it was like $15 million to $25 million of EBITDA. Is that still the expectation?
Yeah. So specifically with regards to the cyber event, as we indicated on our earnings call on April 27th, we had a cyber event. We indicated on our earnings call that starting the week of May 8th, which was the next week, we would begin restoring impacted systems back up and running. That's effectively exactly what has transpired at this point in time. So what I would say here, Nicole, is everything has largely been, I guess, transpiring in line with our expectations and what we identified at the earnings call. I would also agree that that's consistent with how we framed our earnings guidance for the balance of the year, and then specifically the quantified impact of what I will call some of that phasing shift from Q2 to the back half of the year.
To put a finer point on it, we said that we would probably deliver around 45% of earnings in the first half, 55% in the second half. I think the numbers you indicated in terms of what that means, shifting from second quarter to back half is relatively in line, but again, no impact on the total year, and again, I would say that's still the expectation as we sit here today.
Okay. Perfect. Going back to pricing, which you brought up earlier, so you mentioned that you expect pricing to kind of normalize from here. What is normal for this business, for actually each of the two businesses?
Sure. I think if you think about it, so let's put a finer point on it here. In Q1, you saw 9.5% to 10% price realization across both segments. If I kind of decouple those two here a little bit, one, again, ITS, we clearly, I think, got out of the gates earlier in the context of even late 2021 into 2022. A meaningful amount of our pricing actions were taken in Q1 of 2022. There were actions taken through the balance of the year, but that does mean you're going to kind of anniversary some of those pricing actions here as we move to the balance of the year. So obviously, would we expect to see 10% price realization numbers for the balance of the year? No. But again, we took those pricing actions really in concert where we saw those inflationary pressures.
So I think the good news here is while pricing might step down from Q1 levels to the balance of the year, so should some of those inflationary pressures as well. So we do expect it to be price cost positive both on a dollar and margin basis for the totality of the year. PST, we did indicate that PST, we have taken, I think, what we consider to be requisite actions. Maybe we got maybe a slightly slower start in PST just due to probably some of the pricing maturity in PST compared to ITS, but very encouraging to see in Q1 that pricing levels and realization was effectively on par with ITS. As we think forward here, when we talk about normal, I think going into any year, again, the last few years may be aside, normal is typically 1% to 2% price realization.
So when I say that we've still seen the opportunity to take requisite pricing actions in this year, I think probably in line with those levels. Again, every business, every region is slightly different in terms of when they take said actions, but given the backlog we have, given that some of those actions are maybe going in place through the course of this year, realistically, you're not going to see the impact for any of those incremental pricing actions until maybe the really tail end of 2023 and into 2024.
Okay. Got it. And I mean, you laid out, as you mentioned at your analyst day, ITS, mid-single digit, long-term revenue growth, PST, mid-single digit plus, but growth has been well into the double digits for both segments in the past two years. So is there potential for some upside to those targets?
Yeah. Well, I think first and foremost, you're absolutely right. I think the last few years we have driven double-digit organic growth across the enterprise last two years, so clearly in excess of what we'll call those investor day targets. Now, I think those investor day targets, without question, are meant to be. They were to 2025, but you can consider those to be longer-term targets on average per year. I think we still view them as very prudent in the context of what we would expect the growth pattern of those respective businesses to be.
And if you look at any degree of what I'll call benchmark, whether it be industrial GDP or pick your favorite leading indicator, I think what you're going to see is those are probably 100 to 200 basis points in excess of those types of leading indicators, which for us, with our pricing strategy, innovation, and demand generation, that's without question what we are driving. How do we drive at least 100 to 200 basis points better than whatever that leading indicator and benchmark would be? So I say, one, on the organic growth side, absolutely, we would still see those as prudent. And then the corollary of that is also the inorganic growth, where we've given a similar 4 to 500 basis points.
You've actually seen us do at the top end or slightly in excess of that the last two years, and we reaffirmed our commitment to being able to acquire a similar level in the context annualized this year. Nothing has changed in that respect, and I would tell you the funnel continues to remain very healthy, bolt-ons in nature, very similar to what you've seen us do historically. So again, I think we continue to operate very well in line with those investor day targets, both on the organic and inorganic side.
Okay. Perfect. Supply chain, where are we on the path to normalization?
Yeah. I'd say it's still working through. I wouldn't characterize it as we're out the back end by any stretch of the imagination. So again, I think it nominally continues to get better, but we obviously continue to have outsized backlogs. I think that's probably a fair statement to say for many of our suppliers. So again, I think we continue to work through that here. I give the teams a lot of credit here that even in the context of the last 18 to 24 months where things probably were even more constrained, the teams have been able to be really hyper-focused on how we make sure we have access and availability to what we need to. Admittedly, one of the benefits of the merger was we did have a bigger supply chain than we otherwise would have been pre-merger for either side, either company.
And I think that's worked to our advantage. And so obviously, something that we'll look to see how we continue to execute, potentially right-size some of that supply chain as we think forward, but that's more of a future focus. Right now, we're hyper-focused on just being able to make sure we can get access to equipment and to the allocations that we need to be able to fulfill backlog. One thing from our side, and I think that has trended extremely well, as you would expect, is in our backlog, minimizing past due backlog. And so that is probably the single biggest focus, and the teams, I think, have that well under control at this point in time.
Okay. Great. Just want to see if there's any questions from the audience before I move on. Okay. We'll keep going. So you guys are kind of coming to the end of the cost synergy aspect of the RMT. It's already been three years. Time has flown by. What is there to do? You started talking about supply chain. If you look at costs across the business, what remains for improvement from here?
Yeah. Sure. So yeah, it is crazy to think it's three years, and we're now. I remember very fondly talking about the cost synergy funnel and the numbers on the forefront. So now to be on the other side of it. Yes, we have $300 million of cost synergies that we have committed to. We raised that very quickly after the merger from 250 to 300. This is the final year, $35 million in year. Should be no concerns about that. I think a couple of things here, Nicole. One, we have always said that we've had a funnel that's in excess of that $300 million, as you would expect, $350 million plus.
Not every dollar in the funnel will always translate to the bottom line, but I think one thing that we would acknowledge and point to here is if you go back and look at some of the original expectations, whether it be the structural piece or headcount piece, that probably happened quicker. Some of the direct material, I2V, without question, has been transpiring. We probably over-delivered on those two components of the synergy equation to an extent whereby the footprint piece, footprint was always supposed to be kind of the third leg of that synergy equation, albeit a smaller piece. But admittedly, over the last couple of years, have we really gotten to the magnitude of the footprint synergies that we would have contemplated originally? No. We've done some of the requisite actions you would expect on sales offices and things of that nature.
We've done some footprint in terms of some of the in-region stuff, probably more so some of the stuff that admittedly we kind of had to do. For example, we had co with Trane, we had co-mingled facilities where one party had to move out. So we've done some of that stuff just because we frankly had to. But has the last couple of years been probably the best environment to think about right-sizing some footprint within region? No, for all the reasons we've talked about. Now, just to be very clear, we never contemplated, nor at this point in time would we contemplate moving production or manufacturing from North America to Asia or vice versa. We very much are in-region for the region.
So think of the footprint opportunity as more in-region optimization, but I do think that, quite frankly, a good chunk of that still remains ahead of us. That's probably the biggest piece of the funnel that continues to remain as an opportunity going forward. Now, again, to your point, we're going to put a bow on merger synergies as much as I'm sure you want to hear me talk about it for years to come. This will be the last year we talk about merger-related synergies. And then any of those opportunities, I'll say, will just kind of fold into the, I'll say, normal course productivity that we will obviously execute to on a yearly basis going forward.
Makes sense. Just maybe talking about aftermarket, you brought this up earlier in the conversation, but I think 40% of ITS sales are driven by aftermarket. It's only about 15% for PST. So first part is, can ITS get to that 50% that you used to have at Gardner Denver? And second part, where can PST go?
Sure. Yeah. I think the opportunity to continue to push the aftermarket mix in ITS to levels that are, without question, in the 40% and ultimately hopefully reaching 50%, without question, I think it's doable. Of course, when you start getting both, you have, for example, a power tools business that is, it's less than 10% of the revenue of ITS, but it's not one that inherently has a large aftermarket mix. So again, there's always going to be nuances in there, but I think in terms of the core compression technology platform, between the initiatives we're running, between, frankly, some of the acquisitions that we've made to bolster the aftermarket profile, as well as some of the connectivity and IoT efforts, without question, and continuing to drive things like care contracts, which we've talked about explicitly. So without question, we think that's an opportunity set ahead.
Now, on the PST side, to your point, yes, a number that's closer to mid-teens, less than 20%. I think one thing that's probably inherent with the PST platform, when you think about some of the underlying technologies, they are probably not pieces of equipment that lend themselves classically to aftermarket in the way that ITS does. What we would say, though, is if you look at the revenue base on a more kind of recurring basis, that number for PST probably looks a lot more like ITS, probably 40% to 50%. And a lot of that is because, for example, when you think about a miniaturized compressor or pump in the medical business, again, it goes into some sort of OEM application.
Generally speaking, when that application reaches end of life, it's thrown away, and a new piece of equipment is put in its place, which has our pump specced in and installed, so the like-for-like replacement is very sticky. The classical aftermarket is probably, that's the piece that doesn't necessarily register quite to the same degree as ITS, but again, we do continue to see opportunities to improve the aftermarket profile, particularly when you have acquisitions like SEEPEX, things of that nature. There's about question areas to drive aftermarket connectivity and entitlement better, so we would expect to continue to see the aftermarket, I'd say, percentage of revenue in PST continue to climb. Will it get to ITS levels? I wish I could say yes, but no, that's just probably not the reality given the mix of the business.
Okay. Makes sense. So I think also at the analyst day, you laid out a target for over 25% of revenue to come from IIoT-driven products by 2025. How are you progressing towards that goal?
Yeah. So we reported at the end of 2022 that we were about 19%. So we're effectively one year ahead of the plan that we put forth in the investor day. And yeah, Nicole, I think you're absolutely right. At this point in time, that's kind of one of our leading metrics and leading kind of indicators is IoT-enabled revenue. So if you think about, for example, the ITS business, every compressor that gets shipped out of our facility over a certain horsepower range comes enabled with the edge device. We obviously want to work with the customer for them to enable that. And then that gives us the ability to proactively monitor, lend capabilities, preventive maintenance, all things that, again, what you don't hear us talk about is some revenue, an IoT revenue stream per se.
What we are focused on is how do we drive better IoT and connectivity to drive better aftermarket entitlement? And so this goes back to how do you take 40% to mid-40s, hopefully 50% one day? We view IoT as an enabler and a catalyst for that and very encouraged that we're effectively one year ahead of that target that we set forth in November of 2021.
Okay. Okay. Perfect. Looking at your EBITDA margin target, so progress towards the mid-30s in PST has been a little bit slower than what we've seen at ITS, but revenue has been not as strong as in ITS too. I guess, do you still view mid-30s as achievable by 2025?
Yeah. You're absolutely right. I think for some of the reasons we've talked about here, it's also worth noting that we did make one large acquisition in SEEPEX, that fantastic business, an additive technology in terms of progressive cavity pumps, a positive displacement pump technology we didn't have in the portfolio, has been fantastic in terms of the fit. Gross margin's well above 40%, but it did come in with mid-teens EBITDA margin. And we were very explicit that, yes, it is going to be diluted to PST. You've seen that. But we very much have a path and a target to be able to bring this to PST segment margin profile within a requisite period of time. Now, you've seen incredible progress. There are over 1,000 basis points of margin improvement from effectively when we purchased it, call it mid-2021 to the end of 2022.
We do have expectations that can get to PST segment margin profile as we exit this year. So again, between, I'd say, a business that has, quite frankly, slightly higher growth than probably the overall business, very healthy incrementals playing in that 40%, if not better in certain parts of the business, bolt-on synergy opportunities continuing, and admittedly, I'd say bettering price cost, as we've even seen now in Q1. Is there any reason why we see that the mid-30s type target is unachievable? No. I wouldn't say that there's any reason we don't see that we can get there within that requisite time frame.
And it is worth saying here that I think if you look at the last two years where total business was anywhere between 120 to 160 basis points of Adjusted EBITDA margin expansion in the last two years, clearly ITS has been on the higher end of that spectrum comparatively speaking to PST. We would clearly see PST having some opportunity to kind of make up some of that gap, if you will, as you think about this year into the next couple of years. So again, on average, we've absolutely, from a total company perspective, actually been exceeding. But to your point, it's probably been a little bit more ITS-weighted than PST. We do see opportunities for some of that to start normalizing, meaning PST being a little bit of the healthier contributor to that margin expansion for 2022, 2023 onwards.
Okay. Do we have a question in the audience? Yep. Mitchell?
I can hear you. I can hear you.
[audio distortion]
Yeah. Great question. So I guess for the webcast audience, I think the questions were whether labor inflation will continue to be at what will labor inflation look like in 2024? And then are you continuing to hire? I think the answer across the board here is I'm not sure we view labor inflation as any more of a headwind into 2024 than it probably was into 2023. We acknowledge that labor inflation, just to put in perspective, our cost of goods sold, about 70% of our cost of goods sold is direct material. So that leaves another 30% to be labor and overhead. So it's not necessarily the most material driver in our overall cost of goods sold equation, but it's very much there. And we definitely saw labor inflation being higher moving into 2023 than you had seen historically.
Are we probably going to see comparable levels of labor inflation moving into 2024 on 2023? Realistically, that's probably not that far off. I would also say here that we drive productivity as the means to offset labor inflation within our businesses and our plants. That's the plan you've seen in 2023 that's embedded in the guidance, embedded in the margin profiles that we've guided to. You would probably expect to see something very similar for us as we get to 2024. In terms of hiring, yes, I'd say where applicable, yes, we absolutely are. I'd say hiring where necessary given the levels of backlog and the necessity to be able to meet customer demand. Yes, I would say yes, we are hiring where applicable as we speak right now.
Okay. Maybe we have 30 seconds left. Very quick question on M&A. So you talked about that the pipeline is still active. What about appetite for large deals or adding a third leg to the stool at some point?
Sure. So yes, to your point, the funnel continues to remain healthy. I would say it is largely, if not exclusively, really bolt-on oriented. So very similar to what you've seen us do over the last two to three years. In terms of large M&A, I think we've always said that we're not averse to doing something that might be on the larger side, but it, one, has to be very much in line with the criteria that we've seen. It has to be, I think, we'll say very much probably in line or additive to kind of the business that we have today. And as such, also means that you have an imminent path to being able to make sure you're back in line with leverage targets and things of that nature.
Obviously, today we're sitting at about one times leverage, but making sure you're sub two and in that kind of level that we've always indicated before. So again, at this point in time, though, with regards to the funnel, nothing that I would point to that is anything different than what you've seen us speak to or identify historically. And that really means bolt-ons. You can think everything we've done to date has been sub $500 million, the two largest ones being SEEPEX and SPX FLOW Air Treatment. I would point to the stuff that's in the funnel right now, very much in line with what you've seen, more on the kind of sub $100 million, but great technologies, very additive. You saw us announce two more at the Q1, Trace Analytics, as well as Gaopeng Vacuum, which is an in-region China dry vacuum business, very exciting.
I think you can expect to see other comparable type assets like that.
Excellent. Well, we're out of time. Thanks so much, Vik.
You bet. Thank you.