Good morning, everyone. Welcome to RWC's FY 2025 full-year earnings call. This is Heath Sharp, and I'm joined here in Sydney this morning by Andrew Johnson, our CFO. We will provide an overview of our results for the financial year ended 30 June 2025, followed by Q&A. Just before we get underway, I'd like to highlight that this year we have incorporated our sustainability report within our annual report. This provides a combined view of our performance across financial, operating, and sustainability metrics. Now, moving on to our results, let's start with an overview of the year on slide three. Certainly, this has been a challenging year from a macroeconomic perspective in all of our key markets. At the start of the year, we were anticipating interest rate reduction leading to a gradual increase in new home construction and remodel activity. This has ultimately proven to not be the case. In the U.S., long-term mortgage rates have remained stubbornly high. We have not seen any improvement in existing home turnover. This has been a headwind for discretionary remodel activity. In the U.K., the green shoot of economic recovery has not been sustained. New home construction activity continues to be subdued along with remodel activity. In Australia, we have seen a modest improvement in new home commencement. Nonetheless, activity levels are well below long-run averages and more recent peaks. Against this challenging economic backdrop, RWC has performed solidly. This is a testament to the resilience of our business and our execution focus. Underlying revenues were only slightly down on the pcp, while operating earnings were slightly higher. Pleasingly, we've continued to generate strong cash flow. We continue to be very pleased with the Holman acquisition. From an execution perspective, we fully consolidated Holman's operations with the legacy RWC business in Australia. We're seeing good momentum with respect to revenue synergy and also the cost-out opportunity we identified at the time of the acquisition. During the year, we made incremental progress on our manufacturing and operational footprint program. Unfortunately, the introduction of tariffs on imports into the U.S. disrupted our plans. Mitigating these tariffs has diverted a considerable amount of resource that would otherwise have been deployed on the strategic footprint work. Further, the volatility of the tariff situation has us wary of significant investments or infrastructure moves. Nonetheless, we have made progress. In the EMEA region, we diverted our manufacturing operations in Spain and consolidated an engineering facility in the U.K.. This is a meaningful rationalization of our operational footprint in that region. In Australia, we have closed three distribution centers as we have consolidated the warehouse network of Holman and legacy RWC. Managing U.S. tariffs has been our number one priority since the start of calendar 2025. We have provided an update today based on the latest tariff rates and our progress in mitigating their impact. I must say I am tremendously proud of how our teams have responded. It is a very dynamic and challenging environment. We've had to be agile in developing our mitigation plans. I am pleased that we are now well underway on executing those plans. Turning to slide four, I will briefly note some of the year's financial highlights. We recorded net sales growth of 5.5% over FY 2024. This year included a first full year's contribution from Holman versus the previous year's eight months. Excluding Holman, net sales were down 0.5% versus the pcp. This reflects the weak underlying end markets. Operating earnings, as measured by adjusted EBITDA, were up 1.1% on the pcp. Looking at our underlying operating margins, excluding Holman, adjusted EBITDA margin was steady at 22.3%. Adjusted net profit after tax was up 0.6% on the pcp at $147.7 million. Adjusted earnings per share were up 1.6% on the pcp. FY 2025 was another strong year for cash flow. Cash generated from operations was $271 million, representing a cash conversion rate of 97.6%. This cash flow enabled us to further repay borrowing, and we finished the year with a net leverage ratio of 1.3 times net debt to EBITDA. We have declared a final distribution of $0.05 per share, bringing total distributions for the year to $0.10 per share. This is up 5% from the $0.095 per share in FY 2024. In line with our revised distribution policy, we will be paying half of this via dividend and the other half through a non-market share buyback. I will now hand over to Andrew to step through our financial results in more detail. Thank you, Heath. On slide five, we have set out key performance metrics. Net sales were up 5.5%. The sales performance was driven by a full-year contribution from Holman. Excluding Holman, net sales were half a point lower than pcp due to lower volumes in the Americas and EMEA. Adjusted EBITDA was up 1.1% to $277.7 million, including a contribution from Holman. Adjusted EBITDA margin for the period was 21.1% compared with 22% in the previous year. As Heath has noted, the adjusted EBITDA margin excluding Holman was 22.3%. This was in line with FY 2024 and slightly ahead of the guidance we gave in May. We're pleased that we were able to maintain our margin despite lower volumes. Contributing to the margin performance were the cost savings of $19.7 million we achieved in the year, driven by procurement savings, the benefit of the EMEA restructuring in the prior year, and the realization of Holman cost synergies. We incurred one-off costs totaling $7.9 million in the period. The two major components were in EMEA and APAC. In EMEA, we incurred costs associated with the sale of our manufacturing operations in Spain. In APAC, we incurred costs associated with integrating Holman with RWC and synergies realization costs. Adjusted earnings per share were up 1.6% to $0.19 from $18.7 in FY24. Turning now to slide six and looking at the Americas result in a little more detail, Americas recorded a 2.1% decline in sales due to weaker demand, primarily in the residential remodel market. Excluding SupplySmart, which we exited during the course of FY 2024, Americas sales were down 0.6% versus pcp. The success we have had in rolling out new products has helped offset lower volumes driven by weaker market activity. As we mentioned in February at our half-year results, we did see a pull forward in demand from the second half to the first half of FY 2025. This was driven by some customers ordering ahead of the SAP upgrade to S/4HANA and a customer-led sales initiative switching from the second half to the first half. We also exited certain low-margin product lines in Canada during the year, which impacted sales. FY 2025 EBITDA was impacted in the second half by additional U.S. tariff costs of $3.3 million. Despite the tariff impact and the 0.6% reduction in underlying sales, we were able to improve our EBITDA margin from 21% to 21.2%. This was a result of the cost reduction measures we undertook during the year, and we think the team in Americas has executed really well. Now on to slide seven in the Asia-Pacific region. The biggest impact on performance in FY 2025 was the inclusion of a full year of Holman versus the eight months we owned the business in FY 2024. This resulted in a 44.6% increase in net sales in the Asia-Pacific region in local currency. Full-year external sales, excluding Holman, were up 2.4%, while second half sales were 4.7% higher. Intercompany sales were down 16% due to the transfer of SharkBite manufacturing to the U.S. in prior periods. Adjusted EBITDA was up 19.3% to $39.7 million. Adjusted EBITDA margin declined from 11.5% to 9.5% due to several items across the second half. First of all, the lower intercompany volumes I just mentioned, which resulted in lower manufacturing overhead recoveries. We also had higher input costs, particularly on comp work, which was exacerbated by foreign currency movements. Additional costs incurred in supporting Holman during the implementation of SAP in the second half. Finally, extra costs we incurred in sourcing product due to supply shortages. While we're disappointed in the second half result, we do expect that a number of these costs will not reoccur in FY 2026 or will not be as acute. In addition, we have implemented price increases as appropriate in response to the increases in material costs and are actioning further cost reductions. Looking at seasonality for the combined RWC and Holman businesses, we estimate the revenue seasonality for the APAC segment overall is around 55% first half, 45% second half. Holman is more first half biased, so that split's going to be more 60/40 first half, second half due to the watering side of that business. Operating earnings will have a greater first half skew due to the fixed cost basis. Looking at EMEA, slide eight, EMEA was our most challenging region from a volume perspective, although we did see a slowdown in the pace of decline versus FY 2024. Total sales in local currency were down 4.2%, and external sales were down 3.5% on the pcp. In the U.K., U.K. external sales were down 4%, with UK plumbing and heating sales down by 3.8% due to the lower volumes in both repair and remodel and residential new construction markets. Demand did improve in the second half, with UK plumbing and heating up almost 1%. Specialty product sales were down 5% due to weaker conditions in the telecommunications sector in particular. Continental European sales for the year were 1.9% lower than the pcp. The sale of our Spanish manufacturing operations impacted reported sales performance, and adjusting for this, Continental Europe sales were actually up 1.3% versus the pcp. As a result of the lower U.K. sales, we did see a further decline in adjusted EBITDA margin from 29.3% to 28.8%. We have continued to remain vigilant of cost to minimize the impact of lower volumes on the business. Turning to slide nine and looking at our cash flow performance for the year, this has been another strong year from a cash flow perspective. Cash generated from operations of $271 million represented an operating cash flow conversion of 97.6%. This strong cash flow performance has enabled us to further reduce our net debt levels, and we finished the year with a net debt to EBITDA ratio of 1.3 times, down from 1.59 times in the previous year. Given our low leverage, we reduced the total committed borrowing facilities by $150 million during the year from $1.05 billion to $900 million. We also extended the term of our committed bank facilities with an average debt maturity of seven years. On slide 10 we have set out in a little more detail the movements we saw in working capital balances. Overall, net working capital increased very slightly versus the pcp. The main movement was an $18 million increase in inventories. The increase was due principally to the impact of tariffs on the value of inventory, as well as foreign currency movements impacting the translation of inventories held in currencies other than US dollars. CapEx for the year was $33.5 million, representing just 2.5% of sales. We have continued to benefit from the capacity expansion we invested in several years ago, which is enabling us to keep capital expenditure to the lower end of our target range. We are forecasting a slightly lower level again in FY 2026. Let me now hand you back to Heath to update on tariffs and discuss the outlook for FY 2025. Thank you, Andrew. Before I discuss the outlook for FY 2026, I will provide an update on tariffs. On slide 11, we have provided an update on our progress in diversifying product sourcing beyond China. In summary, we are on track to meet the reduction in China-sourced goods for the U.S. market that we outlined back in May. We reduced China-sourced comms by 27% in FY 2025, and by FY 2027, we expect to have achieved a further 88% reduction from FY 2025 levels. At the end of FY 2026, we expect that this will be close to zero on a run rate basis. Looking now at the expected financial impact of tariffs on slide 12, the first point to note is that we have seen considerable movement in tariff rates since we first provided an estimate to the market in May. We have also seen the introduction of additional tariffs on copper and copper derivatives. Based on the announced tariff rates thus far, we estimate the net impact of U.S. tariffs on FY 2026 adjusted EBITDA will be $25 to $30 million. This estimate factors in the initiatives we have underway to diversify sourcing away from China to other countries. It also reflects price increases planned or already implemented. We are taking a carefully considered strategic approach to market pricing. We believe we are best served by taking a long-term perspective that retains our competitive position while ensuring gross margin dollars are maintained. Based on our mitigation plans, we do not expect a material impact from tariffs on operating earnings from FY 2027 onwards. On slide 13, we present our outlook for financial year 2026. For the first half of FY 2026, we are not anticipating any improvement in activity levels in any of our key markets. As such, we expect consolidated group sales for the first half to be broadly flat to down by low single-digit percentage points. In the Americas, we expect first half sales to be down by low single-digit percentage points. This is after adjusting for the pull forward in sales from the second half to the first half in the pcp and the exit for certain product lines in the Canadian market in FY 2025. In both Asia-Pac and EMEA, we expect external sales to be broadly flat on the pcp. Operating earnings and margins in the first half will be impacted by tariffs. The tariff mitigation initiatives we have underway are phased progressively throughout FY 2026 as we move product sourcing out of China and realize price increases. We therefore expect to see a disproportionate impact from tariffs on operating earnings and margins in the Americas in the first half of FY 2026. As a result, we expect the first half consolidated EBITDA margin to be lower than pcp due to lower volumes coupled with the impact of tariffs on operating earnings. Turning now to slide 14, I will step through our priorities for FY2026. Our people and the RWC culture remain our most valuable assets, and the health and well-being of our people remain a clear priority. We will continue the progress we have made in the critical area of health and safety. We have made great strides in terms of our safety culture over the past five years. We will maintain our efforts to ensure everyone's safe every day. We will continue to leverage the tremendous talent we have globally to deliver our primary goal of shareholder value creation. Short term, focusing on tariff mitigation will drive the largest benefit in terms of protecting value. Long term, we believe our existing strategy will create the greatest value. As such, this strategy guides our objectives for the year. There are three elements to this. Firstly, product innovation to deliver solutions for the job site. Second, ensuring a superior customer experience for our distributors. Finally, industry-leading execution. To the first point, our innovation takes two forms: incremental and disruptive. Incremental innovation is the long-standing backbone of our growth. This is our continuous process of developing range extensions and product updates. This enables us to deliver ongoing product performance improvements. It also protects or improves margins. The second form is disruptive new product innovation. Our regional in-house product development teams collaborate globally in developing the next generation of products for the plumbing industry. This work is longer term in nature, and significant new product releases are periodic. This ongoing pipeline of product innovation is key to RWC's brand and reputation. Of course, our incremental and disruptive innovation programs are guided by our in-depth knowledge of the job site. This is a differentiator for us. It allows us to deliver products that improve our end users' productivity and profitability. The core of our customer experience is simply making ourselves easy to do business with. Over the last 12 months, we continued to improve delivery performance across all regions, particularly in the U.K.. In the new year, we will continue this effort to ensure we have the right inventory in the right place at the right time. We will embrace and enhance the new tools and processes we have implemented globally, all with the goal of seamless service to be the best possible partner, the partner to which our distributors turn for value-creating solutions. Of course, the foundation of our strategy remains operational excellence. We will continue to optimize our global manufacturing footprint, notwithstanding U.S. tariff uncertainty. The goal, of course, is to ensure at all times that we have the lowest cost of manufacture. We will continue to manufacture high volume, technically oriented product in-house while pursuing opportunities to outsource labor-intensive sub-scale processes. We have significantly strengthened our strategic sourcing operation. We are focused on leveraging our scale across the group to achieve optimum costs while also maintaining highest quality. Further, given the current environment, we are working to create the most robust supply chain and to provide maximum optionality. In summary, we will maintain our execution focus to drive efficiency and reduce costs while ensuring we are ready to capture the upturn in demand when it eventuates. I will conclude here on slide 15 before we open to Q&A. The main message here is that we remain tremendously well placed for long-term growth. I believe we have a truly talented leadership team. Our regional leadership is very focused on executing their respective strategic priorities. Equally, they are strongly aligned around leading and supporting group objectives. The global collaboration as we work through the tariff challenge is a great example of this. Our capabilities as an organization have lifted significantly over the past few years following a very deliberate plan. Strong global alignment and our ability to leverage group expertise are cornerstones of the RWC approach. We saw this with the SAP upgrade to S/4HANA during the year. We are very clear on our growth strategy. Regional new constructions and commercial plumbing offer significant potential for future organic and inorganic growth in each of our regions, while our core R&R market continues to provide our foundation. From a manufacturing capacity point of view, we are extremely well positioned following our investment in recent years. As markets and volumes recover, we will benefit from this investment and the corresponding operational leverage. We continue to believe that our core markets are underpinned by strong macro drivers and enduring tailwinds. Ageing housing stocks and underbuild of new homes and pent-up repair and remodel demand augur well for the future. Finally, RWC has a very strong financial position. This leaves us well positioned to fund future organic and inorganic growth opportunities in addition to delivering ongoing shareholder returns. With that, I will open up the call to questions. We will take questions first from those on the conference call, and then Philip King will read any questions we have received via the webcast. Thank you. Thank you. If you wish to ask a question, please press star one on your telephone and wait for your name to be announced. If you wish to cancel your request, please press star two. If you're on a speakerphone, please pick up the handset to ask your question. The first question comes from Harry Saunders with E&P. Please go ahead. Morning. Thanks for taking my questions. Firstly, just wondering, is the $25 to $30 million tariff impacts incremental on 2025, or is it including the $3.3 million you already experienced in the second half of 2025? Good morning, Harry. This is Andrew. It is incremental to what we saw in FY 2025. Great. Thank you. Can you just maybe give a sense of the underlying margin movement expected in the first half, excluding the tariff impact, just based on that sales guidance? Also, in the second half of full years, say, assuming a flat end market in the second half, please. Yeah. Harry, if you look forward to the first half of FY 2026, there are two main bridging items that I think you've got to consider. The first is the Americas volume, and we said on a reported basis, we'll be down mid-single digits. We've spoken in the past around how volume impacts the P&L, and I would stick to what we've said in terms of our fixed variable ratio with 75% of COGS fixed. I'm sorry, 75% of COGS variable, 25% fixed. In SG&A, that turns around with 75% fixed and 25% variable. That'll get you to the volume impact. On the tariff side, we feel like roughly 75% of that tariff number we've quoted will hit in the first half. FY 2026 is certainly a transition year for us as we deal with the tariffs, and most of that is going to be dealt with in the first half. We do have some inflation. We have some cost savings. Those other items just kind of balance out. To get you to where we think margins will be, it's volume and it's tariff impact. Okay. Thank you. Are there any initial view of second half versus first half, any signs of a better end market? I don't think we're guiding at all to the second half now based on the level of uncertainty that we're seeing. Certainly, we don't expect any uptick in the first half. I think it's going to be quite tough, especially in the U.S. Great. Thank you. Cheers, Harry. The next question comes from Rowan Gallagher with Joan Group. Please go ahead. Yes. Good morning, Heath. Good morning, Andrew. Good morning, everybody. With respect to the tariff mitigation, the quantum of price increases you're proposing, Heath, and the acceptance. The U.S. is a market that's not used to price increases, particularly the retail guys. What would be the worst-case impact of those price increases not being realized, or could you help us out in terms of quantum of price increases that you're looking at, please? Look, we haven't tried to break down the cost savings, the timing of those projects, and the pricing simply because there's so many moving parts. We'd be here all day to try and set that out. What I would say is that we're heading in the direction that we set out in May when we first spoke about tariffs, and that is we've broken down our product list by customer, and we're considering all aspects of the market, the nature of the product, our position in the market, the nature of our competitors, where we're moving the product to, what the time frame is. All of that factors into where we ultimately need to land on price. There's a lot in that, and even some of those decisions have changed based on the rate changes in tariffs by country and then with copper over the last few months. Should we be getting into a 10,000-line spreadsheet, it's a little bit hard to break that down for you. Okay. In terms of, are there any, is the earnings impact of exiting the certain product lines in Canada material, and is there any work throughs being considered around that? No, not really. There's not really. There's not really. There's a sort of headline revenue impact, which is why we called it out. It helps understand the second half result and also the guides for the first half of 2026. From a margin point of view, the impacts are negligible, which was really the driver of our decision, to be honest. Yeah. Finally, if I may, just on APAC, obviously, Andrew had talked about, you know, the earnings, which sort of held that number of result back. You did talk about, you know, a material step change or step up in top-line sales, which would have included market share gains. You sort of deferred that and pushed that out. Yet your guidance for the first half is for flat sort of top-line sales. Is there anything we're missing there, or is there some products that have been pushed out or didn't see the light of day? Anything you can do to unpack that, that'll be helpful. Thank you. We have pushed some initiatives into the first half of FY 2026, and those are still going to come through. The guide that we put out there reflects where we think the market will be in the first half. We feel like overall looking at flat reflects both of those aspects, with the initiatives coming through and being offset by what we see as a lower market in the first half. We are hiring spot an uptick in sort of housing commencements, but we have not seen any impact on that yet and really don't expect to in the first half. We are towards the back end of that construction process. Ultimately, it's still a pretty challenging market. All right. That's super helpful. Thank you, gentlemen. Thank you. The next question comes from Lee Power with JP Morgan. Please go ahead. Hi, team. Just Heath, on your comments around the pricing, it sounds like it's not yet implemented. Are you at least comfortable with kind of what's been agreed with the big box, or is this something that's still going to take time to actually get a resolution with some of these things? Because as you said, there's a lot of moving parts. I'm just trying to work out, given you've talked to timing, how much of the pricing has actually been already implemented or at least agreed to be implemented. Yeah. We're comfortable with where we are. Certainly, the framework of what we're doing has been pretty clear for a while. The variability, of course, was where the tariff rates are going to end up for each country. We knew that or expected that there was an announcement on copper coming through and that pretty significant one that's essentially a raw material price, I suppose, more than a tariff conceptually. We needed that before we could actually move in some cases. What we had to do and the framework and the discussions are well developed, so we're comfortable with where we're at. Do you think the moving parts around price, like, you know, copper, we usually think of something as a bit more of a flow-through piece? Do you think something's changed with this whole process that means you don't necessarily give back price if, you know, tariffs get unwound or copper tariffs get unwound? Is this something where when you've had your discussions with the channel that they've said, "We'll give you price, but we take it back the moment anything changes," or is it going to stick? I think we're in slightly uncharted territory, to be honest. I would say when you get to copper price and copper tariff, that's pretty visible, and you know, you need to deal with that quite openly. You have to do it on tariffs as well. I think there's scope for us in the fullness of time to consider alternative sourcing locations and alternative manufacturing and so on. We'll deal with that as necessary. I think, though, ultimately, it's all pretty transparent what's driving this pricing, so you have to deal with that accordingly. Yeah, excellent. I'll go back and ask you. Thank you. Thanks, Lee. The next question comes from Sam Seow with Citi. Please go ahead. Oh, hey, guys. Thanks for taking the question. Just on APAC, ERP, you know, these 10 costs for supply disruptions, they sound kind of one-off-ish. Just hoping you can help us to quantify, you know, in FY 2026, what costs should reverse. Yeah, just to confirm if they are all in the second half that they reverse. Thanks. Look, I mean, Sam, we moved on both cost actions and pricing actions in APAC. There'll be a little bit of the impact that carried into this new financial year, but it'll be largely mitigated through the coming period. The one project that will take a while, of course, is right-sizing that manufacturing footprint, and that's been pretty clear for a while. I think at the moment, we're low to make any big decisions on that footprint. It feels to us to be quite valuable to have that capability at our disposal in a world that's pretty volatile. We will carry the cost of that footprint, if you like, for a period to go. Okay. Maybe just on the U.K., I mean, I wouldn't call it a turnaround, but you know, looking at UK plumbing and heating, it may have actually been positive there in the second half. Could you perhaps talk to the exit rate in EMEA and maybe what gives you confidence to give that flat guidance in that market particularly? Thanks. We've been really cautious about the U.K. because that market's just disappointed us a few times for a while. It's been bumbling along at more or less the same level now for about six months. We're quite happy that we're up positive. It's only just positive in the core underlying, in the core funding in any market, but that's a win compared to where we've been. I think we're comfortable to project that to continue, but we're not sufficiently bullish to say that a recovery starts now and the volumes are going to increase. It's a bit of a fine line we're walking there, but it feels a little better, but it's still a lot of uncertainty. That's helpful. Maybe just one following on from that. In EMEA, on the margin then, you know, given that kind of exit rate, is there any reason to think EMEA margin can't be flat to up in FY 2026? Look, it has been talked about a lot. It's heavily volume-dependent. If we get just a little bit of volume uptick, you'll see that. There is certainly scope for there to be a little bit of volume decline there as well, which would make it hard to improve those margins. Rest assured, though, the team over there are turning over every stone that they can to try and get that margin back. I think we've said for a while, spoken for a while about how painful it is to see that margin slip under 30%. We really want to get back to there. Ultimately, we will need an uptick in volume to realize that, I think. Okay. That's helpful. Thanks, guys. Appreciate the color. Thanks, Sam. The next question comes from Peter Steyn with Macquarie. Please go ahead. Morning, Heath and Andrew. Thanks very much for your time. Sorry, I'm going to go back to pricing, but I want to just sort of get a bit of a helicopter perspective. You are taking a very strategic view with your customers and channel partners. How is that going down? How are you differentiating yourself versus competitors as a consequence? How is that strengthening relationships and putting you in a better place in the medium to longer term, in your view? Look, I think, as I said on the call, a key aspect of that customer experience is simply making yourself easy to do business with. Getting that balance right in how many conversations you have, how many times you're talking to your customer, I think we have handled ourselves really well over the last six months. Maximum disruption and chaos is ultimately the real word there. For us, it's all about assuring our customer that we've got the product, we'll continue to deliver it, we'll optimize our cost, and we'll work with them to ensure that our pricing and shelf pricing is at the right point to allow the business to keep moving forward. It's a fine line to walk. There's no magic bullet in all that. You've just got to deal with it customer by customer and the nature of the relationship. I think we've done well through this period, quite frankly. The goal here is to take ourselves out of the complication basket or take ourselves out of the causing pain basket. I think we've, we're doing that and we'll continue to do that. That's sort of the execution side that I think we do pretty well. Thanks, Heath. Perhaps just stepping to the industry landscape for a second, how do you think the tariff context is playing out for competitors, and more specifically, would be M&A opportunities? Although we've been up to our eyeballs in dealing with all this tariff craziness for some months now, it's still got a ways to go, I think, before the real impact is seen in terms of ultimate pricing, inflation, and what, if any, impact on demand that has. In turn, how our peers deal with it. You would have to imagine that there are some companies that are really going to struggle to cut through this period. The cash flow implications are pretty significant, aren't they? I don't think we've seen anything yet. I suspect it will over the next 6 to 12 months sort of shake out a little bit. There may be some acquisition opportunities that fall out because of that. We will see. There may be simply some market share gains that we can make if we continue to execute well. I don't think there's anything to call out there, but I think it's got a ways to go, Peter. Thanks, Heath. Useful perspective. Appreciate it. Thanks. Thanks, Peter. Thanks. The next question comes from Ramoun Lazar with Jefferies. Please go ahead. Morning, guys. Just a couple from me if I may. Maybe if we start on the Americas, just the underlying demand in, I guess, what are you seeing there? What did you see there towards the back end of the half and perhaps the first six weeks of the year? Maybe if you can talk a little bit or give us a bit of color around the wholesale versus retail channels, and then also channel inventories, how they're looking going into the first half. Look, I think on inventory, there's nothing to call out there. I also probably wouldn't think of anything to call out on the differences across channels as well. Everyone's just sort of scrambling to deal with everything that is coming at them. I'd say that there was certainly during the second half of 2025, there was definitely a softening in demand. You remember, we were all pretty positive right at the end of calendar 2024. That kind of has evaporated during the last six months, and it has slowed down. We're seeing market forecasts for the U.S. as sort of mid-single-digit decline in R&R for the second half of calendar 2025, high single-digit decline on new construction for the second half of calendar 2025. That feels about right from what we can see in the overall market and the trajectory. I guess I'd come back to our guidance. We're pointing to an underlying low single digits for our first half financial 2026. That reflects the overall market holding our position, maybe picking up a little bit, plus a little bit of tariff pricing. It all kind of that's how it all comes together, Ramoun. Yeah. Okay. No, that's pretty clear. Just a couple of housekeeping ones. The $8 to $10 million cost reductions expected in 2026, should we assume they're evenly split first half, second half, or is there a skew there? A little bit more in the second half than first half. It's not quite 50/50, being more $4 million first half, $5 million second half, in that range. Yeah. Okay, that's good. Just on your guidance for the different divisions, I'm assuming that's all in US dollar forecasts. What do you, what's the assumptions for currency there? Is that outlined anywhere? No, we have not put that out there. It would be, if I understand your question correctly. Local currency. Local currency. EMEA sales are expected to be broadly flat. That's in sterling, is that right? Yes. Is that in US dollar? GBP. Oh, GBP. Okay. Local. Okay. All right. Great. Thank you. That's all I had. Yeah, thanks, Ramoun. The next question comes from Keith Chau with MST Marquee. Please go ahead. Good morning, Heath and Andrew. First question, just around the configuration of the team. I think at the last result, there was some discussion that there were some changes in the team to deal with some of the tariff impulse. I think, very anecdotally speaking, some innovation people helping out with sales and sales helping out on pricing. It seems like there was some disruption in the team. I am just wondering if you can give us an update on how all that is progressing, whether there have been further changes. It seems like execution is still fairly strong, notwithstanding some disruption within the team. Any color you can provide on that would be useful. Also, as it relates to innovations going forward, is that pipeline, is that still being filled at the moment given the changes in the team structure? I don't think there's anything overly significant to call out here. What we've done is just move some people around within the Americas organization to make sure we get the appropriate sort of focus and emphasis on tariffs. I mean, that's, you know, we've got to manage that. That's a project worth tens of millions. I think the U.S. team led by Will's doing overall a really good job. We did move Benjamin, who's the Head of Finance in Americas, to be, if you like, our czar of tariffs. He's completely over all the aspects, all the moving parts. As you know, that's changing pretty dramatically. Beyond that, we're just grabbing whatever people we need from wherever in the world to assist on projects. It's really a case of realizing from a global point of view, it's our most significant project. Therefore, what's the best and highest use of relevant people around the world to deploy? I would say we're now moving more towards the sort of execution from a sales front end and from an ongoing operational point of view. I think that is starting to feel as though we're heading back to the Americas organization sort of operating. We've moved people around because we've needed to cope with the magnitude of the project. Okay. Thank you. A follow-up, just looking at the channel and the context of past discussions. I think historically, Heath, you've mentioned that the retail channel is always pretty sharp and hard to negotiate with. In some instances, the wholesale channel and OEM is a bit more understanding when it comes to costs and passing them through. Is that still the case? If so, in order of difficulty, how would you rank those three channels to try and pass through costs? Has anything changed relative to that? No, look, there's certainly new ones in dealing with each of the channels. The OEM, by and large, we're on a copper index price, and you know, the tariff is going to have to connect with that. Honestly, it's also at a situation where you need to step outside that index and renegotiate some base pricing, particularly on the components and where they're coming from. We've done that, and again, that's all pretty visible. There's no surprise that we're having to do that, and it's going pretty well. There are some slight nuances we've talked about in the past between retail and wholesale, a little more structured in dealing with the retailers. The wholesalers, it varies just a little bit depending on the nature of that organization. Again, there's just so much visibility on this and what the impact is. It's become reasonably mechanical across all channels, to be honest. That's great. Thanks, Heath. Thanks for the color. Thanks, Keith. The next question comes from Shariyar Hussain with Bank of America. Please go ahead. Hi, Heath. Hi, Andrew. Thanks for taking the questions. Heath, a quick follow-up on your North America revenue guide of low single-digit decline in the first half. Could you just give me a sense that that sort of assumes that the market stays where it is, or did you say it's sort of that sort of bakes in some amount of improvement as we move through the half? I think, as we set out in the document we talked about at the heart, we had some, it's a really tough comp for us in the first half of 2026 based on some projects that got pulled through into the first half of 2025. We've had to adjust for that. Looking through that at the underlying business, I think we're performing as we'd expect at or a little bit ahead of market, which we think our guide for 2026 indicates. As I said before, a little bit of tariff pricing coming through in that 2026 number. Overall, we think we're in a market that's down mid-single digits or worse. It has certainly deteriorated through the course of the first part of 2025. We think the second part of calendar 2025 is going to be difficult on that. Honestly, looking into 2026 gets really, really challenging. Calendar 2026 gets really challenging. Okay. That's helpful. Heath, just a quick one. Are there any one-off costs that you will incur as you talk about the change in the sourcing agreements? I'm sorry, Shariah, can you just say that one again, please? Are there any one-off costs that you will incur, like one-offs regarding all the changes in the sourcing that you're doing? One-off costs in relation to sourcing, I'd say nothing really to call out. We've obviously mobilized a good part of our organization to deal with moving those products to new locations, considering other options. There's a little bit of OpEx in there, but honestly, nothing that's worth calling out. Okay. Great. Thanks, Heath. Okay, thank you. The next question comes from Niraj Shah with Goldman Sachs. Please go ahead. Hi, guys. Firstly, just a follow-up on the change in sourcing question. I guess, what is dictating or driving the timing of that? In particular, I guess, what are the risks around that being faster or slower than what you guys have targeted? Niraj, thanks for the question. Most of what we're moving from China to somewhere else is in relation or in combination with an existing partner. There's not a whole lot of changes that we are making to someone we haven't dealt with before. In fact, I'm sitting here struggling to think of any example where that's the case. There's generally strong relationship, good knowledge of how that sourcing channel works. Moving from one factory to another factory, even if it's owned by the same organization, it's still a change. You have to work through all the quality aspects, the setup, the first, you know, first-off samples, check they're conforming, all of which we can do. I mean, that's just a normal business. There's just a lot happening at one time. That's back to the question from Keith on people. We've simply had to deploy more people on that, grabbing people from the U.K. and Australia to help the Americas team and deploy most of the Americas team on that. We know what to do there. We know what the process is. Each of those is a project. There's, I don't know, 70 to 80 individual projects that are involved here across a couple of thousand SKUs. We just have to work through that. I don't, look, anytime there's change at the risk, but I think that's all manageable. I think we're fine with that. There is also, in this case, the chance of a delay in some of those projects. As we've looked at this quite closely, we, from May to now on the outlook, we're still very comfortable in saying we'll be in a good spot for FY 2027 to have managed the vast majority of those projects through and then to be gross margin dollar neutral from 2027 onwards. Understood. Thanks. Just a second one. I don't know if you've disclosed at this time, but you have in the past talked about your copper price sensitivity. Given some sort of wild moves out there over the last little while, what is the reference index or what weighting of reference indices should we be using when assessing that? Hey, Niraj, it's Andrew. You know, we've looked at that. We are seeing higher COMEX pricing versus the LME. However, longer term, we feel like the COMEX price will continue to equal kind of that LME plus tariff. We think that'll balance in that direction. As you go through it, I mean, roughly 10% of the copper we use is manufactured in the U.S., so still quite a bit coming from overseas and being imported. When you look at it, before tariffs, we're still at that $900,000 movement in EBITDA per $100 movement in the LME. That still gets you, from a sensitivity standpoint, still gives you a pretty good gauge. Got it. Thank you. Of course, that's before tariffs. Yeah. The next question comes from Nathan Reilly with UBS. Please go ahead. Thank you. Just a question on CapEx. I appreciate you've guided to a CapEx target in 2026, but maybe taking a more medium-term view on the capital requirements of the business. Maybe just let us know how you're thinking about capital requirements just down the track to support greater levels of that global manufacturing flexibility that you're talking to. Look, I think the current last couple of years' lower level of CapEx probably continues for the midterm. I think we're in a pretty good spot for capacity around the world. U.K., for example, we could support, gosh, on the core fittings as much as a 50% increase in volume there. There's a whole lot of leverage there. I think we're in a pretty good spot. We did spend some dollars over the last couple of years on CapEx on IT projects. The amount we're projecting to be lower in 2026 versus last year is probably driven by a lower spend in IT. The underlying sort of growth and maintenance CapEx is going to be pretty constant around, Andrew, it's like $20 million, $22 million is growth and maintenance. I suspect that will continue for a couple of years. I don't see any big changes in that sitting here. Perfect. Thanks for that. Okay. That's all the time we have for questions today. I'll now hand it back to Mr. Sharp for closing remarks. Please go ahead. Thank you. I think, Adam, we got a couple of questions, a couple not answered by the other question. Let's go for pricing in other two markets other than the Americas, but APAC and EMEA. Sure. I would think our view in the U.K. and EMEA is unchanged from prior years. It feels like a sort of an annual process there. I don't see anything changing that at this point. In Australia, that's always been a market where you move prices as applicable as necessary. That also feels unchanged at this point. As we called out earlier, there's a few actions we're taking or had taken, and we'll continue to take on pricing to help offset some of those costs that came through the second half. Nothing particularly to call out that's unusual there. Okay. The final question, any thoughts regarding the Holman business about maybe selling off the garden products? No thoughts whatsoever on that line. I think that's the basis of the Holman sort of execution capability of fundings, which we really need to use to amplify our funding through fundings. It's a strong team, strong innovation team. There's some really good product coming through there. I think we made a good margin on it. No, we're happy with it. Thank you. Oh, we got five more. Very good. Look, thank you very much. I appreciate everyone taking the time to join us on the call this morning. Thank you and have a good day. That does conclude our conference for today. Thank you for participating. You may now disconnect.