“And that's the reason we raised it, and we also believe we can get it done by the end of year 3.”

In context

“he degree of execution, the speed at which it's been done and the energy that the team has had around the effort, which then gave us confidence, not just to increase the number but to increase the time of execution -- to decrease the time of execution to 3 years. Ram, any color on that? Ram Krishnan: Yes, you said it. I think the team, as we both reviewed the plans, felt very, very good in the quality of the opportunities that we had identified, and there is a shared vision around, trying to get this done faster and moving the business along. And that's where we've been very pleasantly surprised, the cultural similarity between how we both think, the customer-centricity and how we apply the rules to do the synergy actions. I think there -- we feel very confident that we could move faster. And that's the reason we raised it, and we also believe we can get it done by the end of year 3. Jeff Sprague: Great, good luck. Thanks. Operator: The next question comes from Nigel Coe of Wolfe Research. Please go ahead. Nigel Coe: Thanks. Good morning, everyone. So obviously, a lot of questions on NATI so far, National Instruments, I guess. You've obviously accelerated the time line for the synergies. As Jeff mentioned, you raised it by $20 million. But you kept the 31% margin targets. Just wondering if there's anything kind of offsetting the upside to cost synergies we should consider there? Mike Baughman: All right. Nigel, it's Mike. No, there's really on plan. And remember, that's five years out that we were talking about, 31%. We are on track. I think the important thing for the near term is that our expectation around that adjusted EBITDA margin will be that it's a little bit”