Good morning, everybody, and welcome to our media update for the second quarter of 2025. Many thanks for joining us today. Today, Bill and Wolfgang will address our performance in the first half of 2025 and the second quarter. After that, we will have time for your questions. Before starting, I would like to briefly draw your attention to the cautionary language included in our Safe Harbor statement. With that, over to you, Bill. Thanks, Michael. Hi, everyone. Thanks for joining our call. We issued a comprehensive update on our 2025 performance and outlook, as well as litigation provisions already last week. I'm sure those topics are of interest, and we're happy to address them in the Q&A. To avoid repetition, I'll focus my remarks mainly on what we're seeing in our business across the board and the bigger picture for Bayer. Let's start with the numbers. As always, we'll speak about our sales growth in currency and portfolio-adjusted terms. Across the group, sales remained flat throughout the first half of the year. Our core EPS amounted to EUR 3.72, and free cash flow is at - EUR 1.4 billion. We're on track to reach our initial 2025 outlook. In Crop Science, we grew sales in Q2, primarily driven by our corn business, bringing our first-half sales to - 1%. Our margin is at 26%, which is stable year-over-year, despite sales headwinds from the loss of both Dicamba and Movento due to regulatory events. Consumer Health is up 1% on the year. Growth was muted due to soft market conditions in key regions and an allergy season that was weaker than expected. For the remainder of 2025, we expect the softer market conditions to persist, particularly in North America. We're starting to see a healthier growth contribution from our top brand and country intersections, which we call power couples. This is a promising early indicator that our investment and portfolio strategy is paying off. The margin's at 23%, which is a little bit ahead of last year at this point. Pharmaceuticals continues to grow. We're at 2% at the half-year mark, thanks to sustained growth behind NUBEQA and Kerendia, which were up a combined 65% year-over-year. Our Pharma margin is at 27%. Looking at the broader industry, we continue to monitor the ongoing developments in the geopolitical landscape. Our 2025 Pharma outlook includes what we know of the impact. Thanks to our year-to-date performance in Pharma, we're raising 2025 currency-adjusted guidance for the group on both sales and earnings. Looking ahead, we're beginning an important second half of 2025, which will be marked by further progress on all strategic priorities, continued launches, and geopolitical and currency crosswinds to navigate. I'll now address our priorities, calling out some highlights. First, beyond the operational success of our Pharma business, we continue to see news flow on our pipeline and launch assets. We launched Beyonttra in Germany on April 1st, and we're working to rapidly scale it to countries across Europe, with encouraging signs in the early months. Beyond that, we've garnered important approvals for key additional medicines and pipeline assets, with important label extensions for Eylea, Kerendia, and NUBEQA. On elinzanetant, branded as Lynkuet, the FDA has extended the review timeline, and we expect it to conclude within the next 90 days. In the U.K. and Canada, we've received first approvals from health authorities for Lynkuet. Our Crop Science team is making headway on their plan to improve profitability. We've reached agreement on the central points of a joint declaration with our workers' representatives, and we can begin streamlining production and operations. We've also reached important milestones for our crop protection portfolio. The EPA has proposed reapproval for Dicamba, and we recently submitted Icafolin, our blockbuster herbicide molecule, for approval in the U.S., Canada, Brazil, and the EU. Next, I'll address where we stand in the fight against litigation. Last week, we communicated settlements and significant provisions to limit our exposure to the litigation industry. These decisions are part of our multipronged strategy to significantly contain the litigation risk by the end of 2026, which we affirm today. Simply put, every decision we make has the goal of positioning the company to move past our litigation woes. Here's an overview of the current state of affairs. In June, the U.S. Supreme Court requested input from the Solicitor General in the glyphosate case. We welcome this step, and we expect a recommendation in the coming weeks or months. This decision keeps intact the broader timeline of having a SCOTUS ruling by summer of next year. Our strategy is multipronged and not dependent on a singular milestone like a positive SCOTUS decision. As we said all along, most disputes of this nature are settled with an agreement inside or outside of the courtroom. When it serves the company interests and our broader strategy, we will consider settling. More specifically, just recently, we've taken thousands of cases off the table through confidential settlements on a low cost-per-case average in the glyphosate litigation. In PCBs, we also reached an important settlement on confidential terms on the Burke case. With respect to the past Sky Valley Education Center verdicts, we continue to await a ruling from the Washington Supreme Court on the Erickson case. Independent of the merits, the court processes in these SVEC cases have proven to be particularly challenging. We have a strategy in place to limit our exposure. Therefore, we're provisioning for potential settlements. We also remain active outside of the courtroom. We welcome legislation at the state and federal level that reaffirms the authority of the US EPA. Beyond these measures, we continue to examine additional options to protect the company, and everything remains on the table. We remain acutely aware of the threat of this issue for US farmers, US consumers, and for our company. This is an important time with numerous prongs of our strategy advancing toward important junctures. As we move forward, we're making each decision with one broader goal in mind: narrowing the overall threat and bringing our company closer to containment. I'll close with a personal comment. You've seen the news that the Supervisory Board agreed to extend my contract to the end of March 2029. I'm humbled by their trust. It's an honor to lead this company with its great mission and amazing people for an additional three years. I know that the extended time horizon invites questions about what Bayer will look like at the end of the decade. Those are valid and important questions and ones that we take very seriously. Right now, you'll understand that our focus is on the biggest work facing the company: delivering the year, rebuilding our pipelines, resolving litigation, improving Crop Science profitability, and making all of Team Bayer leaner, faster, and with maximum mission impact. I can assure you that we will emerge from that work with a vision for how Bayer can best deliver its mission for the remainder of this decade and beyond. Thank you, and over to you, Wolfgang. Thank you, Bill, and welcome also from my side. Let's start with some more background to our preliminary Q2 release last week. I will focus on business drivers and this, because, amongst others, also currency impacts. For the group, Q2 net sales grew slightly by 1% versus the prior year quarter in currency and portfolio-adjusted terms. As reported, we saw a decline of 4% with material foreign exchange headwinds affecting our top line with about EUR 550 million. EBITDA before special items came in at EUR 2.1 billion, in line with the prior year quarter. Lower earnings in Pharma were offset by better results in Crop Science, Consumer Health, and our reconciliation. The better reconciliation result was mainly driven by income from the transfer of some of our soccer players, partly offset by higher incentive provisions and balance sheet-related hyperinflation postings. The FX headwind on EBITDA before special items amounted to EUR 184 million in the second quarter. Core EPS of EUR 1.23 were EUR 0.29, or 31% above prior year, driven also by a better financial result and lower taxes. The core financial result improved by about EUR 150 million year on year due to lower interest expenses. The core tax rate was only 9% in Q2, benefiting from a reduction of tax provisions. I would also like to comment on the bridge from core to reported EPS of - EUR 0.20 in Q2. You'll also find this in the appendix to the presentation you've been given. Main drivers for the delta are litigation-related expenses classified as special items, with some offset coming from write-backs to Crop Science intangibles. For glyphosate, we record about EUR 1.2 billion, significantly impacted by the adverse Anderson verdict. We will continue to appeal this case. However, a second instance ruling leads to an adjustment of our provision, as we have also done in the past. We also updated other litigation costs. On the number of cases, we settled 17,000 cases, but also accounted for new claims. For PCB, we recorded about EUR 530 million as provision and liabilities for the Burke case and potential future settlements related to the Sky Valley Educational Center. Also, here, the provision accounts for some other litigation costs. Against the backdrop of the five-year framework for Crop Science, we also recorded EUR 840 million in write-backs on intangible assets in Q2. In Q2 2025, we recorded a free cash flow of EUR 125 million compared to EUR 1.3 billion in the prior year. The delta is largely driven by the higher incentive payout, as considered in our full-year outlook, and prior-year baseline effects from phasing of crop customer payments. On a year-to-date basis, free cash flow is at - EUR 1.4 billion, only slightly behind the prior year, and despite lower earnings, as well as higher incentive and restructuring payouts. Compared to the end of Q1, net financial debt decreased by about EUR 1 billion- EUR 33.3 billion, mainly driven by FX translation effects related to U.S. dollar denominated debt. Year on year, net financial debt was down by about EUR 3.5 billion. Let me now go straight to our divisional outlook for the full year 2025. For Crop Science, we reaffirmed our full-year outlook at constant currencies, including the expected regulatory impacts. With the recent proposal of the EPA to approve Dicamba, we're optimistic in regaining registration for the next season, which could also help in soy and cotton pricing going forward. Global corn growth and core crop protection volumes increases supported our year-to-date performance. Going forward, we are monitoring potential headwinds that could follow a historical high U.S. corn season and strong recovery in other geographies. We also remain cautious on the crop protection dynamics. For the second half of this year, though, we project solid acreage recovery and strong market positioning in Latin America, underpinning our confidence to deliver on our financial guidance for 2025. On profitability in Crop Science, we continue to project efficiency gains, cost management, and mixed effects to secure a stable margin at constant currencies in 2025 versus the prior year. Due to market volatility, we are intensely focused on margin resilience for execution of our five-year framework. For Pharma, we raised our currency and portfolio-adjusted sales growth guidance based on robust business performance in the first half of the year, with growth of our launch products more than offsetting declines in our maturing portfolio. Specifically for Xarelto, we now expect a sales decline towards the lower end of the EUR 1 billion-EUR 1.5 billion range previously provided. As this pushes part of the LOE impact to 2026, we anticipate next year's sales erosion of Xarelto at a comparable level to 2025, which is again likely to be balanced by the continued growth dynamics of our launch products. Looking at profitability for Pharma, we expect the 2025 EBITDA margin before special items within a narrowed range between 24% and 26%, again at constant currencies. For Consumer Health, net sales were up 1% in the first half year with balanced price and volume dynamics. While we anticipate that innovation and the strong performance of our power couples accelerate sales growth during the second half of the year, we foresee full-year growth now to be at the lower end of our guidance corridor. With continued emphasis on our operational efficiency initiatives, we expect that our EBITDA margin before special items will stay within the previously guided corridor. In the last column, you will find the latest FX estimates based on June month's end rates for each of our three businesses. The headwinds on sales increased, while the individual impact on margin fell below the materiality threshold. Based on the divisional projections, we raised our net sales and EBITDA before special items also for the group at constant currencies. We also see a slightly better core financial result, which we now project at - EUR 1.7 to - EUR 1.9 billion for the full year. The improvements in EBITDA and financial result allowed us to raise our forecast for core EPS by EUR 0.30 at constant currencies. Based on the additional litigation-related liabilities and provisions we booked in Q2 and our trajectory for restructuring expenses in the second half, we now expect special items in the range of - EUR 2.5 billion and - EUR 3.5 billion for the year. We're confirming our free cash flow and net financial debt outlook as we previously guided. Let's now look at the impact of foreign exchange rates and the latest geopolitical developments. We have updated our FX estimate based on the June month's end rates. Given the continued depreciation of the U.S. dollar, as well as a weaker Brazilian Real and Chinese Yuan, we expect material FX headwinds for sales and earnings for this year. For net debt, on the other hand side, we anticipate a reducing FX translation effect. We are monitoring the currency development closely. It is a big swing factor for our business, with also expected material impacts in 2026. Let me close with some comments on geopolitics and the potential direct and indirect effects on our business. Overall, we still continue to observe high volatility. We have gained more clarity around tariffs on European exports to the U.S., establishing a 15% baseline. That's a ceiling without stacking for most EU exports, including pharmaceutical products. It remains, however, to be seen if the ongoing sectoral investigations will lead to additional pharma tariffs. Indirect effects remain hard to predict, particularly around the development of consumer confidence impacting our Consumer Health business, as well as the timing and execution of most shared nation principles and their effects on drug pricing. Overall, we need to deal with a new reality of geopolitical volatility. We have established very effective and flexible workstreams to react quickly in this environment. We also continue our efforts to effectively manage our supply chains with mitigation measures around sourcing and inventory management. In areas like seeds and rice production, our regional footprint continues to be a footprint. For 2025, based on the latest status of announcements, we still feel well-positioned to digest potential impacts within our full-year outlook at constant currencies. Looking forward into the next year, we continue to carefully monitor any potential direct and indirect developments. We relentlessly work on countermeasures to ensure the stability of our supply chains and minimize the potential impact to our business and our customers. We will, of course, keep you updated accordingly. With that, Michael, over to you for facilitating the Q&A. Many thanks, Bill and Wolfgang. Now let's start the Q&A session. Here's what you need to do to ask a question. Make sure that Zoom is the only active chat program open on your computer, and make sure your microphone is activated in Zoom. If that's the case, you can use the raise hand function. We will register your interest, and when it's your turn, I will call your name. A pop-up window will then open on your screen. When you see this pop-up window, please unmute yourself and ask your question, and your camera will remain off. That's it. Let's get started and see who we have. We have the first question coming from Tim Lowe from Bloomberg. Tim, you have the first question. Please go ahead. Thanks. I actually have two real quick I want to just get in. First, this one is kind of, I found amusing. It caught me a little bit by surprise. It's probably for Wolfgang, maybe Bill. Can you just unpack a little bit about this soccer transfer? I assume it was Florian Wirtz and Liverpool, but can you just sort of like unpack how that factors in? It's pretty rare that Bayer Leverkusen shows up in your quarterly earnings. That's question one. There was like GBP 100 million price tag reported. I'm kind of curious if that factored into your results. For Bill, obviously, the conversation continues around the future of glyphosate. I know you guys haven't made any decisions on what to do. I'm sure it will depend on how things go in the coming months. Can you just sort of maybe offer a bit more specifics as to what needs to happen for you guys to decide, OK, we're going to continue to produce glyphosate? Or if it's easier to answer, what would force you to stop? I mean, yeah, just like what factors are going in there? Yeah, Tim, interesting question. Thanks for that. Let me categorize it for you. We have the three divisions. We have the recon. In the recon, we do several things. We record the costs of enabling functions that we don't allocate. You're right, we're also recording results of smaller businesses that we own, like the soccer club. By the way, on top of that, you see volatility based on adjustment to incentive programs. For Bayer that we fully consolidate, it's not a first. We also had a transfer of Kai Havertz in the past. If we have these transfers, we need to compare the book value with the prices that we get. That can lead to an extraordinary result on several players. That was just recorded last quarter. That's pretty much it. We still expect for the reconciliation the same amount. We had kind of facilitated in our outlook already for some of these transfers. Our outlook for the year is stable, but that's pretty much it. Tim, regarding the future of glyphosate, yeah, it's a complex scenario because we have a product that is one of the most studied chemicals in the world. It's been widely available for 50 years. It's been reviewed and re-reviewed by every regulatory agency on Earth, including, for example, most recently re-reviewed by the European Food Safety Authority in the fall of 2023. They once again found the product safe and not likely carcinogen and cleared it for use for another 10 years in the European Union. At the same time, the company's been exposed to these lawsuits for a decade now. We're basically saying, hey, unless something changes with that situation, we're going to have to stop producing glyphosate because it just simply is not viable. I mean, this is an older product. It's not a particularly profitable product. It's one where we have kind of, yeah, unbounded litigation. We've had that conversation with farming groups. We've had it with policymakers. I think there's a lot of concern about this because this is an essential tool for farmers to produce an abundant and safe food supply for America and, frankly, around the world. We are looking for progress on this. That's why we're working with state legislators, with farming groups, with the U.S. Congress, and others on, for example, pesticide labeling language that clarifies that the EPA does have the authority across the 50 states for pesticide labeling because that topic has been muddied in recent years. We're also, of course, asking for the Supreme Court of the United States to hear our case on this. We've had important progress in the last, yeah, in the last couple of months on that as well. Basically, it comes down to we will either find a solution on these things, or we will be exiting the business. We'll be shutting down production, which, again, we think that's we don't think that makes sense. We don't think it's a good idea, for example, for the U.S. that has such a massive interest in food production for its people and for export to basically have no internal supplier of one of the most essential tools. That's where we are. Thanks for your question, Tim. The next question comes from Patricia Weiss from Reuters and then followed by Ayisha Sharma from Endpoint News. We start with Patricia. Over to you. Hello. Good morning. I'm Patricia. Two questions about Bayer. You said everything remains on the table. Could you clarify what does that mean at the moment? What options are there in June and in the middle of the fall to improve non-biome source fertility under the Texas system? If so, how and why? A question on job cuts. You have cut 30,000 jobs so far. Was that it, or will there be more this year? Thank you very much. Thank you, Patricia. We've said we're pursuing legislative answers. We're pursuing other policy initiatives at the federal and state level. We're obviously pursuing work in the courts, including up to and including the Supreme Court. We're also looking at structural measures. We've not commented beyond that on what those structural measures would be. I know there's been rumors about Texas two-step. We don't comment on that. We are committed to resolving this litigation situation. We think we're taking all the steps that are required. We remain confident that we'll be able to do that in the time frame we laid out last year, which is, we said we would do that by the end of next year. That's what we're on track for. Regarding job reductions, we never started with a target on job reductions, and we don't have a target now. There are additional things that are happening now, including as part of our five-year plan to improve productivity in crop protection or in Crop Science in general. We're not projecting how many job losses there would be. I would expect that there will be additional reductions in headcount number over the coming, certainly over the coming 18 months or so. The next question comes from Ayisha Sharma from Endpoint News, followed then by Ludwig Burger from Reuters. Ayesha, you go first now. Morning. Thank you for taking my questions. On the first one, Wolfgang mentioned about the Trump administration floating the idea of most favored nation pricing for pharmaceuticals. I was wondering if Bayer has been in contact with the administration about any strategies to cut drug costs. Is the company considering a direct-to-consumer sales approach like some other pharma companies have floated the idea of? Secondly, could you provide any more color on why the FDA delayed the approval decision for elinzanetant? Was there any particular sort of additional info that they were looking for? Any updates on the kind of communication going on there would be great. Thank you. Yeah. Thanks, Ayisha. Regarding ways to reduce the cost of medicines for U.S. consumers, Bayer has been involved already in some approaches to direct a patient. We can follow up with you to provide more information on that. We think the current system is badly broken, a system where often 50% or more of the cost of a medicine as borne by the patient is actually going to middlemen. That makes no sense. The companies that are investing billions of dollars to innovate are basically seeing the money going away to middlemen, and it's not benefiting the patients either. We're definitely open to that. We've actually done some innovating in that area already. Regarding the delay in review and approval of elinzanetant, we had a request from the agency for some additional data. We've provided that data, and we anticipate that they will make a decision within the next 90 days. We don't think there was anything in their questions that signaled to us a lack of ability to approve, but it was more some questions that they wanted to sort through. Thanks, Ayisha. The next question comes from Ludwig Burger from Reuters, followed then by Jonas Jansen, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung. Ludwig, you're first. Let's see. Maybe you need to unmute yourself. Apologies. I hope you can hear me now. Good. Yeah, we hear you now. Thank you. Sorry. My question is on the any likelihood of the use of authorized capital from the AGM. There has been a new settlement that you announced last week, and there's a change in the provisioning as well. How does it affect the need, if there is any, of the capital increase? You did mention in your release as well an increase in your provisions of EUR 1.2 billion, if I'm restating that correctly, linked to glyphosate. If you take the delta between the Q1 and Q2, what's on your balance sheet, that's much less. I just wonder if it's about half of that. I wonder whether that's down to foreign exchange rates. Thanks. Yeah, I'll take that, Ludwig. Thanks for your question. Good morning. First of all, we're super thankful that we got the approval for the additional authorized capital to give us flexibility down the road if the eventuality should occur that we need it in conjunction with resolving the legal complex. As you know, that's the only reason why we would use it. I can tell you there is no current plan to use it. As it relates to the provisioning, EUR 1.2 billion in the glyphosate, EUR 0.5 billion in the PCB case. Your observation is correct. The total provision went up by about EUR 900 million from EUR 6.5 billion - EUR 7.4 billion. There are several effects at work. Number one, to a small degree, to provide to use it later on. There was a utilization. Number two, when the special item effect in the P&L is provided to cover a settlement that you have already agreed upon, it doesn't go into the legal provisions. It actually goes into short-term liabilities. That's, for instance, in the Burke case. By far, the biggest element is what you have already discovered, a translation effect, because we settle in dollars, and in our balance sheet, we put it in Euros. You've seen over the last quarter 1.11 going to 1.17, I believe. There's also a significant translation effect in this. It accounts for the majority of the difference between the two numbers. I hope that gives you the bridge, Ludwig. Okay. Next in the line is Jonas Jansen from Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, followed by Annette Becker from Börsen- Zeitung. Jonas, please go ahead. Hello, and thanks for taking my question. Thank you for the information. I also have a question regarding the glyphosate settlements. You spoke about a low-cost purchase average with the confidential settlements. Is there maybe anything, you know, like a tendency in which direction we're going there? Because if I think about the cases in 2020 where you had like $10 billion or $11 billion for, I don't know, around 100,000 cases, is it much less, or in what case are we talking there? Regarding that, do you see more interest in settlements at the moment? You have like 61,000 outstanding claims because in the past, you saw an effect after winning or losing in court. What's the, I don't know, the dynamic at the moment? Maybe I'll take that. I can just say we don't disclose the specific amounts because, if you will, this is a negotiation, and there's a number of reasons why it's not in the company's interest with respect to future settlements to disclose amounts. We've said in the past many times, we recognize that a settlement may be the ultimate solution and that if we can find an opportunity to settle cases on a low cost per case on average, then we'll do that. This is really just following through on what we've said we would do. I think your other question about willingness to settle, you'd have to ask the plaintiffs about that. What is true is that people are realizing that this is a big topic, not just for Bayer, but this is a big topic for America because there's a lot on the line with respect to glyphosate and availability of glyphosate to assist farmers for providing an affordable and healthy food supply. To the extent that awareness is being raised, it makes people think about the stakes involved. I think that's to the benefit of Bayer and our interests, which are highly aligned with the interests of the country. Okay. We have Annette Becker from Börsen -Zeitung next, followed by Daria Sukharchuk from APM News. Annette. Thank you. Good morning. I have two questions regarding the Pharma business. As far as I know, you fill your stock in advance of the tariffs. I would like to know, what does that mean for the next year? Because when your stocks are empty, you have to pay the tariffs. I'm interested whether Bayer also got a letter from Mr. Trump regarding the prices. Thank you for the question, Annette. I think it's important to note right off that we're a net exporter of pharmaceutical products from the U.S. to other countries. We view, by the way, the continued sort of free movement of goods as very important. It benefits the United States, and it benefits other countries. I just want to put that out there first because I think we have a lot riding on this. I think the U.S. economy and other economies have a lot riding on continued healthy trade. This remains quite a volatile situation because we do hear different things on different days about what the outlook is. I think we've taken stock of the U.S.-EU trade agreement, and that's something that's sort of manageable. It's hard to speculate about what the impact would be next year until we have a more concrete picture of exactly what the trade policy will be. I think we'll be waiting for that. Okay. Next question comes from Daria Sukavchuk from APM News, followed by Patrick Thomas from The Wall Street Journal. Daria, go first. Hello. Thank you for taking my question. Can you hear me well? Yes, we hear you. Okay. In Bayer's quarterly report, I have seen a statement that the previous U.S. administration's Inflation Reduction Act has had an effect on drug prices. Could you maybe elaborate on that? Which drugs specifically are affected by that? Thank you. Yeah. One example would be NUBEQA, our super successful prostate cancer drug. We saw very, very significant price adjustments that we knew about. The good news is that the volume effect was much, much, much bigger than that. We saw, again, very, very significant growth of the product. It was specifically NUBEQA. Yeah. I might just add, Daria, that we view this as kind of a win-win because basically, the price impact on Bayer gets passed on to patients. That was part of the mechanism. It's actually probably a counterexample of the pharmacy benefit manager, where the rebate from Bayer goes to the middleman. In this case, the additional discount from Bayer actually goes into reducing the out-of-pocket costs for patients. We think it's quite good, and we're pleased to have over 50% growth already this year for NUBEQA, despite that bigger discount. I think it's a win-win. Okay. Next in line is Patrick Thomas from The Wall Street Journal, followed by Akash Babu from [SHRIP]. Patrick, you're first. Hello. Good morning there. I'm from Bright Barely from the U.S. Do you guys see a bottom for some of the new cases in the Roundup litigation? It looks like in your latest release, you're over 190,000 claimants now with many new cases. Unless you do get some sort of relief or stop producing glyphosate, it seems there isn't a clear bottom. I'm curious what your read is there. A quick second thing. Can you just give us your sense about what the health is of the American farmer right now, especially given the trade volatility of the Trump administration? What are you seeing in farmer balance sheets at the moment? Thank you. Yeah. Thanks, Patrick. Thanks for, I don't know if you stayed up late or you got up early, but hopefully, you're going to get some more sleep. I'll go back to bed after this. Yeah, that's good. That's good. Are you in Chicago? Yeah, I'm in Central Time right now, about 3:40 P.M. Yeah, that's rough. I hope you get a nice second sleep. Thanks. Yeah. On the question on glyphosate cases, there is a phenomenon that happens where plaintiffs may see a window closing, I think, with the Supreme Court potentially taking our case and other things that are going on. There may be a bit of extra emphasis on filing cases right now. I think you may be seeing some of that phenomenon. Ultimately, that's why there has to be a solution that is a solution rooted in policy, rooted in law, rooted in a high court interpretation, because the current situation is simply unsustainable. I would just add, you know, we mentioned that we filed our new herbicide. I think it's the first new active ingredient that's come out from the ag inputs industry in something like three decades. We have to think long and hard about whether we can actually launch that in the U.S. because part of the challenge with Roundup is that it was a unique product of our company for some decades. That makes it more of a target for lawsuits if you have a proprietary product. Now we're talking about a new proprietary product. We're really making the case to policymakers, hey, we do not have a stable regulatory environment today for crop protection products because if the leading authority of the land can say your product is safe, but that opinion can be undermined in any court in the nation, it's not a healthy place for innovation. Anyway, that's a bit of a deeper dive on that. In terms of the mood amongst American farmers, I'm sure you probably have a view on that too because I know you talk to farmers and farm groups. I've met with a lot of farmers and farm groups in the last 60 days. I think they're happy to see very good-looking crops right now. I mean, so far, it looks like it could be a bumper year. At the same time, I think they've got one eye on their fields and another eye on the futures prices, which are pretty low. I would say they're cautiously optimistic, but also pretty nervous. Gotcha. Thank you. Thank you, Patrick. Akash has obviously withdrawn the question, which means we have a last question coming in from Bernhard Vetter, agrarzeitung. Bernhard, over to you. Thank you. Can you hear me? I have a question regarding the discrepancy between the recorded nominal and adjusted numbers, the ones going up, the other ones going down. Isn't the currency hedging working that well, or are these no-cash items after all? Yeah. I assume you're commenting or asking about the EPS, the earnings per share, where we're at $1.23 on the adjusted numbers and on the core EPS, and then on the reported numbers, we had -$0.20. The major items at work are what we call special items, which are related to litigation and which are related to restructuring. In the last quarter, the majority was on litigation. We discussed that earlier on the call. As we further spell out the plans to get to our $2 billion in savings, we're also recording restructuring costs in these special items. That had a major impact on the quarter. It was somewhat offset by a write-back in Crop Science. You know that we had communicated our five-year plan. Bill had referred to it as well in the middle of May. Technically, that was a so-called triggering event. We had to reassess all of our intangibles in Crop. You saw, for instance, a major write-back in corn because our prospects there, in the long run, are better. That was a bit of an offsetting effect. Those are the two major effects at work here. We give you always both the core for comparability with the past, but then, of course, the IFRS numbers are what's in the report. We'll give you the bridge. It's, by the way, also in the appendix to the presentation that you received. Okay. Many thanks, Bill and Wolfgang. Many thanks for your interest and your questions. That concludes our media update call for the second quarter. Thank you very much, and we wish all of you a very good day. Thank you.