Ladies and gentlemen, good morning, and welcome to CSL's Market Update. It's Mark Deering speaking, and joining me online is Paul McKenzie, CSL's Chief Executive Officer, Joy Linton, CSL's Chief Financial Officer, and John Levy, CSL's Deputy Chief Financial Officer. Paul and Joy will shortly provide a brief commentary on this morning's announcement, after which there'll be an opportunity for Q&A. We are currently in pre-books close period, and consequently, will likely need to defer some answers to our full year results announcement in mid-August, when we'll have more information to hand. Please note, this briefing is being audiocast, and I'll now pass you over to Paul McKenzie. Paul? Thank you, Mark, and good morning, everyone. I look forward to seeing many of you in the months to come when we announce our fiscal year 2023 results, and again at our Capital Markets Day in October. The Market Day will be the first time CSL holds this type of event, and it will be a great opportunity for you to hear insights from our executive team as we describe our strategies for continuing our journey of sustainable and profitable growth. I am pleased to report the company is recovering well from the impact of COVID. However, our current strong performance is being impacted by a volatile currency environment. The purpose of this morning's announcement is to update you on our financial outlook. We have just completed our budget for next year, and I'm happy to continue our practice of providing investors with financial guidance. I want to emphasize CSL is in great shape as we continue to execute on our 2030 strategy. Demand for our medicines remains strong. The underlying business remains robust. Our R&D pipeline has never been better, including new external partnerships. During COVID, we continued to invest in needed capacities and capabilities, and we have a strong financial base, which has allowed us to remain resilient in a challenging macro environment and develop platforms for sustainable, profitable growth, and most importantly, to allow us to deliver on our promise to service patients and public health around the globe. I'll now hand over to Joy to discuss the financial outlook in a little more detail. Joy? Thank you, Paul, and good morning, everyone. As Paul indicated, currencies have moved against us. I am, however, able to reaffirm our constant currency financial expectations for fiscal year '23. Pleasingly, we expect the result to come in around the top end of the guidance that we provided at our half year results in February. Our foreign currency headwind, on the other hand, has further increased, up from $175 million that we expected in February, to now between $230 million-$250 million. Using our projected FY '23 reported NPAT A as a base, we expect to grow 13%-18% in FY '24, or in absolute dollar terms, we forecast an NPAT A of $2.9 billion-$3 billion at constant currency. Within the FY '24 forecast, we have included a modest recovery of CSL Behring gross margin and the entrance of generics in Europe for Ferinject. Currency movements have affected us in a number of ways. As investors will understand, the greater the currency headwind in FY '23, the lower the starting point when we're determining our FY '24 growth rate. I recognize that analysts tend to use house views on currency expectations. However, at any point in time, our numbers are based off the assumption that rates remain steady throughout the financial year. The second point I want to make on currency is that CSL Behring has about 50% of our sales outside of the US, yet the majority of costs are in US dollars. This comes with some counterintuitive impacts. If the cost of production changes in one year, it doesn't have a margin impact until year two, when the product is sold, and that is a function of our long manufacturing cycle. If the price of a product changes, we see the P&L impact in the same year, and this creates a timing mismatch between the impact of input, cost, and sales. Our geographic diversification of sales is actually one of our strengths. It not only provides us with financial diversification, but puts us in a position to be able to help more patients around the globe. A volatile currency environment hasn't helped. Roughly speaking, over the last year or so, currency movements have given the CSL Behring an additional headwind to margin of about one percentage point. As we've grown, we're affected by more currency pairs. A decade ago, it was all about the US dollar versus the Swiss franc and the euro. Today, while these currency pairs remain important, so is the Yuan and the yen against the U.S. dollar, a reflection of our growth in China and Japan. In addition, the growth of FLUAD, which is produced in the U.K., has also created headwinds. In the current financial year, as we have major capital works underway in Australia with the new cell culture facility in Tullamarine, the weak AUD hasn't helped here. I'd now like to make a couple of comments about the CSL Behring gross margin. As many of you know, COVID has had a significant impact on our ability to collect plasma efficiently. Both donor fees and labor costs have increased across the industry. COVID is receding, it is not a simple matter of just reducing donor fees. We still need to compete for donors. In fact, as we have said before, it is unlikely that donor fees will ever go back down to pre-COVID levels. We are, however, making good progress. Our cost per liter of plasma, or CPL, as we refer to it internally, is down from its peak, and as we exit the year, I expect CPL to be down around 15%-20%. This is encouraging, but still not enough to get the CSL Behring margin back to pre-COVID levels. We will need other drivers to help get us there, and these include operational efficiencies, both in terms of manufacturing and in our plasma centers, and manufacturing yield improvements, particularly in IG, the launch of new products, along with some modest price, product price increases along the way. All of this will take some time, particularly in the high, current high inflationary environment and the foreign exchange realities. I will say that we fully expect the CSL Behring gross margin to return to pre-COVID levels in the medium term, and we look forward to sharing more of our plans on this at our full year announcement in August. Lastly, a point on NPAT A versus NPAT. We reaffirm that the one-off costs in FY 2023 of acquiring and integrating Vifor Pharma are in line with the guidance previously provided. Looking into FY 2024, we of course, see a significant reduction in these one-off costs. In terms of amortization of acquired intellectual property, for CSL Vifor, these costs remain in line with the prior guidance for FY 2024 at the top end, Sorry, for FY 2023, they remain in line with the guidance at the top end. For FY '24, there will be some additional amortization to be incurred as assets commercialize, particularly HEMGENIX. With that, I'll hand you back to Mark to facilitate some Q&A. Thanks, Joy. As I mentioned at the beginning, we are limited in what we can say, given our financial year is yet to close, but we would like to give people an opportunity to ask a question. Could you start with just one question, and then if there is time, we'll come back for further questions. Our first question comes from David Low at J.P. Morgan. Go ahead, David. Thanks, Mark. look, my question really relates to what you're seeing on the demand side and how things are panning out versus pre-pandemic. I mean, I think, are we seeing the same level of patients being diagnosed? Are we seeing demand recover as quickly as you'd expected? Would like a little bit of flavor on how it's spread between the US and other key markets as well, please. Great. Thanks, David, for your question. Great to hear from you. In terms of our overall demand for our product portfolio continues to be robust, as I said. Your question specifically is highlighting IG, and if you look at the IG trajectory in the US, diagnosis rates were, a little while back, 70%. They're now crossing over 80% diagnosis rates of the pre-COVID level. We're seeing a good trajectory there, and overall demand is robust around the globe. Our product differentiation strategy and our market demand is strong. Good. Thanks, David. Okay. Our next question comes from Mathieu Wieser from Citi. Go ahead, Mathieu. Yeah, good morning. Thanks for taking my question. I was just wondering if you could give us a sense of revenue projections by division for FY 2024. Thank you. That unfortunately, Mathieu, we'll need to handle that one at the full year result. Did you have another question? Yeah, just in terms of the components of, you know, the gross margin and the cost per liter, there's donor fees. What are we seeing in the other costs of cost per plasma liter? Whether you see those continuing to increase in FY 24 in terms of inflation, do you see that kind of tapering going forward? Thanks, Mathiue. I'll take that question. Clearly, labor costs have increased in the course of the last 12, 18 months. The inflationary environment in the U.S. is still fairly robust, one would say. Having said that, we have implemented and are implementing a range of initiatives in the plasma centers to really try and drive efficiency of labor. For example, we've moved to much more flexible work scheduling, part-time workers, rather than having to always employ full-time workers. That's created a bit of leverage for us, which has been good. I think we're cautious, though, because, as I said, that external inflationary environment is still out there, and you know, we're not seeing big demands for wage increases at this stage, but we remain fairly cautious into 2024 on that front. If I could just add to Joyce's comments, Mathieu, I think the digital efforts in plasma, specifically at the plasma centers, how we connect to the donors, how we manage their journey in the centers, how we manage them, post their visits, is really paying off in terms of our goals for both donor experience and center efficiency. ... Thanks, Mathieu. Our next question comes from Saul Hadassin at Barrenjoey. Go ahead, Saul. Yeah, thanks, Mark. Maybe just one for Joy. Joy, just that comment about the sort of the medium-term improvement in Behring margin. Can you give us any sense of what does that actually mean in terms of your outlook? How many years do you expect that to actually take? Is it a case that it's effectively just a, as you say, a modest improvement into 2024? Is it again, a modest improvement into 2025, or is there some expectation of sort of a stronger recovery as we move out into that medium-term timeframe? Thanks. Thanks, Saul. There's obviously a number of variables, but yeah, modest improvement into 2024, a modest improvement into 2025, and then, you know, a 3-5-year timeframe to return to pre-COVID margins. Good. Thanks, Saul. This question comes from Sean Laaman at Morgan Stanley. Go ahead, Sean. Good morning, Mark. Good morning, Paul and Joy. Are you able to give a bit more disclosure around how you think about the generic competition for Injectafer in Europe, whether it's double-digit declines, single-digit declines, what do you expect there? Thank you, Sean. The, unfortunately, we're gonna have to leave that one for the full year result. Do you have another question, Sean? Yeah. How do you think about the flu business or Seqirus going forward? I mean, it's done tremendously well over the last 3 years. Do you think in your thinking, you can maintain that level of profitability? We'll again, do you have a third question, Sean? We'll leave that. No, I- I'm sorry about that. Probably all along. Some questions we can't handle now until we have more information to hand. No, understood, Mark. I might park it there 'cause they're all down that lane. Next question comes from Andrew Goodsall at MST Marquee. Andrew? Thanks very much. Just wondering whether you could, just to put us all on the same page, give us, or give us some help with a bridge from NPAT to NPAT-A on a post-tax basis. I'm just thinking, just obviously amort, which you've kind of given us. Andrew, we lost you. I will try and paraphrase there, Joy. I think he's Andrew's looking for the components between NPAT and NPAT-A. Yeah. Ed, I'm not sure he's on the call to hear the answer, but everybody else can hear the answer. We have our NPAT-A at the top end of the guidance that we provided. Amortization of IP, which we said was $140-$170. The acquired inventory uplift, which is the one-off costs associated with the acquisition, we provided guidance previously of $140-$160, and our transaction and integration costs, we provided guidance of $120-$140, and they all still hold true. Hopefully that gives you a walk between NPAT-A and NPAT. Thanks. Thanks, Joy, and thanks, Andrew. Next question, David Stanton at Jefferies. Go ahead, Dave. Look, I guess it's a follow-up from me, from Andrew's question. Can you sort of tell us then, the goodwill amortization is likely to be for 2024, just so again, we're all on the same page. You talked to, you know, in 2022, it was $126 million. You said that's gonna step up. I mean, is it gonna step up by $50 million, $100 million, $2 million? If you give us some guidance around that'd be greatly appreciated. Yeah, sure, David. There's a bit of a step up in Vifor because we've got 12 months of the business, not 11, and you might think of that as kind of sub $50. Then HEMGENIX comes online once we start to commercialize that business, and, you know, it's kind of sub $50, but, you know, they all kind of then add up to sort of sub $100. Thanks, David. Next question, Craig Wong-Pan. at RBC Go ahead, Thanks. Just wanted to ask about HEMGENIX. I think the last answer there was, answered part of my question, that, HEMGENIX has yet to be commercialized. I was wondering how much we should be expecting in FY '24 for HEMGENIX sales? Well, I think we're happy to say that we're expecting HEMGENIX to be the first patient to be dosed before the end of this financial year, i.e., in the next week or so. We have included really a full year of HEMGENIX in our numbers for next year. Again, you'll see more of that at the full year as to what that looks like. Thanks, Craig. Next question comes from Steven Wheen at Jarden. Go ahead, Steve. Thanks, Mark. Joy, I was just wondering, just looking at the FX, considering the volatility within the FX number, if, you know, there's obviously the impact going into FY 2023, for the last four months. If you looked at the rates that were around February, I'm just trying to understand how much of the FY 2024 number has been deteriorated by the FX? Yeah. Thanks, Steve. I might just make a couple of broader comments on the FX. When we, at the half year, said we were, you know, if rates stayed at that point, it was about $175 million. The main currency pairs that were really impacted by that were the euro to the US dollar and the Chinese yuan, which is our albumin business in China. They were the two biggest components. In the second half of the year, or sort of from December through to about May, which gives us this higher forecast, the, really, the euro actually slightly improved, and there really hasn't been much. movement in the one. You know, we've booked that in the first half of the year, so that sort of that's held true. In the back part of the year, the two currencies that are actually moved the most is the pound to the dollar. We have this quirky thing where our British, our pound entity in the U.K. is actually not a U.S. functional currency entity, it's a British pound entity, and so we do wear that currency risk on settlement. Then the second one is the Aussie dollar to the U.S., which is a function of the capital investments we've been making in Australia. I hope that helps. Thanks, Steve. next question comes from Laura Sutcliffe at UBS. Go ahead, Laura. Thanks for taking my question. Could I just go back to the brief comment you made on plasma yield improvements earlier? Is that something that's required to get the margin back to pre-COVID levels? Or would you characterize it as one of several things that can help you get there? If it's required, and just given the time frame, you mentioned three to five years, does that mean we should be building in some plasma yield benefits on a three to five-year time horizon? Thanks. Great. Thanks, Laura. The yield is always an ongoing journey, right? That's our constant business, both in Behring business, Vifor business and Seqirus, right? We're constantly looking at yield, and we have roadmaps for those yields. Plasma yield, both at acquisition and the plasma centers through manufacturing, is consistently a lever that will be a contributor to our journey back to margins, along with other things that we mentioned in the preamble, in terms of other efficiencies, modest price increases, and obviously the introduction of new products. Yield, the journey of yield is a constant and a critical part of getting back to our pre-COVID margins. Thanks. Thanks, Laura. Next question comes from Chris C ooper at Goldman Sachs. Go ahead, Chris. Thanks, Mark. Joy, just a clarification question. When you say cost per liter is gonna exit the year 20% or so down, just confirming that's year-over-year, or that's from peak, or are they tantamount to the same thing? Yeah, off its peak, Chris. Just a very quick follow-up. 20% off the peak. Off peak, okay. The peak was about a year ago? The peak was about nine months ago. Okay. Um- That cost per liter reflects donor fees, donor fees that were paid roughly nine months ago, that then kind of, you know, went through the system, or is that reflective of a sort of mark-to-market donor fee today? you know, 9-12 months it takes to go through. When we say donor fees will exit the year, we will see the benefit of the end of this year, like June or now. Donor fees we're paying now, we will see the impact of that in the second half of next year, right? The back end of next year, financial year. Yeah, understand. The inference being, if donor fees have come down over the last nine months, the cost per liter is gonna continue to improve over the next nine months. That's correct. Yeah. Got it. Thanks. Good. Thanks, Chris. Next question comes from Shane at Morningstar. Go ahead, Shane. Hello, good morning. Just following up from prior questions, the quick calc I get for reported NPAT is just over $2.1 billion for FY '23. Given you mentioned goodwill amortization is top end around $170 million, would $250 million be sort of ballpark for FY '24? Yeah, that's not an unreasonable number. Great. Thanks. Thanks, Shane. We have a further question from Andrew Goodsall. I know we lost you there, Andrew, for a while, but Andrew Goodsall at MST. Go ahead, Andrew. Apologies, immaculate time for my battery to drop out. I was perhaps just following up on that question. I did get some notes from my colleagues there, but just the tax treatment of any of those items in terms of the way you're adding that back, you're adding them back just cleanly to NPAT? Or are you, yeah, just the whole number, I guess, just to clarify? Yeah. They're all post-tax numbers, Andrew. Okay. My colleagues have sent to me the $140, $170 for acquisition and similar for similar for AMAL, which we know. They're the two key numbers I imagine. The third one was the acquired inventory uplift, which we'd guided to $140-$160, which is the. Got it. accounting treatment, as required by the accounting standards. Yep. Yep, got it. That's an offset to the numbers, isn't it? Well, that's a one-off, right? You don't incur that next year. Yep, yep. Got it. Thank you. Good, thanks, Andrew. Next question comes from Oliver Stevens at E&P Financial Group. Go ahead, Oliver. Yeah. Hi, thank you. you mentioned the FY 2024 forecast factor in the impact of generic entrants for Ferinject. Is this different from your assumptions at the time of acquisition? I guess more generally, do your longer-term Vifor acquisition assumptions hold? Thanks. Yeah, thanks for the question. Really appreciate it, Oliver. Just some general comments on Vifor, and most of this we'll have to cover at the full year results, but the integration is proceeding well. You know, we're well on target with our synergies. We continue to explore and execute on opportunities across the businesses. Right, as we said, our goal was to be stronger together. We have developed our execution plans in preparation for the LOE. The LOE was always on the horizon. We've been working hard on those plans, and we continue to be bullish on the growth and benefit of iron in the healthcare system. Thanks, Oliver. Next question comes from David Low at J.P. Morgan. David? Thanks. Just on the same topic, can we just get an update on what you're seeing in terms of generic competition today? I mean, I think last we heard was, Sandoz had registered in 12 countries. Just wondering if you could give us an update on what you're expecting in terms of competition. Yeah, at this point, what we're aware of is what you're aware of. Sandoz has been approved in 15 countries in the EU, there's other companies that are in that process, but have not yet officially been approved. Thanks, David. Next question comes from David Stanton at Jefferies. Go ahead, David. Just a follow-up from me. I noticed that Joy had talked to, you know, greater plasma collection center efficiency. You know, to what extent has the sort of the delay from the Rika device led to that sort of being pushed out in terms of those plasma collection center efficiencies that perhaps the market was thinking would occur into 2024? Well, clearly, the rollout is slower than we had originally anticipated when we first talked about it. We said it would take a year, and I think the original plan was that it might be finished by about now, and we're still working through that rollout plan. Again, we remain committed to it. We're very positive about it, but it's gonna take some time, and I think we always said the execution risk was once you change a center, you cannot go back. You have to be very confident that it's gonna work, and it's gonna work well. I think the right thing for the business is that we take our time and get it right, and that's what we're currently doing. Yeah, it's slower than we otherwise would've thought a year ago. David, if I can just add, we're, you know, we're still progressing all of our roadmap plans for Rika, so we've just completed the clinical trial for the individualized nomogram, which is great. To your point on the efficiencies of the centers, there's many levers we pull in the centers, from digital to donor experience to flow and operational excellence. Rika is just one part of that overall equation, for us to move the centers forward. Thanks, David. Next question comes from Laura Sutcliffe at UBS. Go ahead, Laura. Hello. Thank you. Just looking at the constant currency guidance range that you've offered us today, could you just speak to what you think are the key levers that stretch you towards the upper end of that guidance over FY '24? Thanks. Thanks, Laura. I mean, we'll clearly provide more at the full year on this, but the business is in good shape, right? We're still growing very strongly. you know, revenue growth is still quite strong across the businesses. We're seeing some, as I said, modest improvement in the Behring margin. We're getting some nice operating leverage below gross profit. I think we've been able to show that in the last year or two, and there's a bit more of that to come. So yeah, I mean, 13%-18%, we actually think that that's a pretty good reflection of the growth in the business, you know, this year, next year, the year after, so, and in the years to come, right? We remain really positive about the, into the medium and longer term for the growth across all of the businesses that we now operate. Hopefully that's helpful, but we'll provide clearly more detail at the full year. Good. Thanks, Laura. Ladies and gentlemen, there are no further questions in the queue, so we'll draw this briefing to a close. I'd like to thank you for your interest in CSL and look forward to speaking again at the full year result in August. Thank you, good morning, and goodbye.