Do you have a strict threshold, like not considering anything below 70?

It wasn't 70, but anything below 50 was highly concerning for us. It had to be very strategic, overlapping with our footprint to make sense. Customer churn was very high in the industry if you don't own the tanks. However, if you own the tank, it's quite sticky because it's a process. It's not like switching email providers where you can just unsubscribe and create a new account. With tanks, it's about digging up the tank or detaching the hose, and your appliances might be off during winter. Most people won't risk not having heat, so there's a stickiness to it. I'm not trying to be anti-competitive, but if you own the tank, you have a high chance of retaining that customer.

What about valuations? What kind of valuations did you target, and how did that compare with the market?

We had certain return thresholds that the PLC had instilled in us, which they wouldn't approve pushing forward. As a result, I would say we were slightly below market, predominantly in terms of EBITDA margins. We weren't looking at unprofitable enterprises, which is quite different from what I do now, where it's more about ARR multiples and similar metrics. These numbers might have changed over the past year, but high tank ownership, an attractive market with a newer fleet, and a solid employee base were typically in the 8 to 9.5x range. Solid companies with less scale were in the 6.5 to 8 range, and smaller scale players were in the 3 to 6 range, depending on various factors we discussed.