Thanks so much for joining for what I think is gonna be the last sort of fireside chat of the day. So delighted to be joined by Tobias Hestler, Haleon's CFO. And just, I guess, bit of history here. Haleon came out of GSK a year ago, the consumer health business, the first of the big ones opposed to the consumer market, where obviously we've since had more followed. So just to start with top line growth and how we should think about that for the actual medium term. So last year, you know, when you set out that 4%-6% organic sales growth target, I think it's fair to say there was a degree of skepticism. But you came in well off the top end of that last year. You're guiding to come in off the top end of it this year. How much visibility do you have on growth for next year? And what would have to happen for structural growth medium term to be in the top half of that 4-6? Thanks. Thanks, Ian. So, I mean, first of all, I would say I'm really pleased with the progress, and I think you mentioned the strong results we've shown, and I think through you know difficult you know macroeconomic environment overall. And, you know, when I think back about a year and a half ago, when we had the Capital Markets Day, and then events on, you know, which were after that, there was a lot of debate and people challenging us, "You know, where does the 4-6 come from? Can you even do 4% sales growth? We don't believe you can do the low end, the low end of that range." And I think that, you know, I think we've delivered, we've shown with our performance, strong, strong results. I think that debate now, if I think back about the conversations we had with many of you over the last six months, has really moved in. What would it take you to do five or six to be in the upper end of that range rather than the lower? So I see really strong progress in that, and I'm very, I'm very pleased with that. Of course, when we look at, you know, unpick a little bit, the components of growth, we had a little bit help of price. I mean, it's a pricing environment that is higher than it has historically happened. But I think what I would point mostly to is, I think, one, is driven volume growth. We've driven consistent volume growth in that business, both last year and also in half one of this year. And I think that's founded in our belief that's the best thing you can do to brands that we have. You maintain the trust and the consumer, and you stick with the consumer, and we've priced enough to keep the volume going. And we didn't want to go into a double-digit price increase and then losing single digit of volume higher. And I think we've executed well on that, which is, which is fantastic. Then, of course, we got a bit of tailwind from respiratory, and then there was, you know, early in the year, China turned around the COVID 180-degree turn in policy. That our team on the ground has done a fantastic job capitalizing on that opportunity. It was a prolonged cold and flu season in the U.S., but other markets weren't that strong, so I think that probably added about 2 points of growth in the first half year. Now in the second half of the year, we've guided to 7-8 for the year. Second half of the year means... that means 4-6. So, I think very well in that, you know, long-term algorithm for the remainder of the year. And I think look longer term, 4-6, I feel very confident that 4-6 is the right range. Why is it 4-6? Because as a part of our portfolio, with respiratory, which is allergy and cold and flu, which is a bit more seasonal. So, you know, having a lower point in the range protects a bit against a downside from a, from a lower season. But overall, I think the strength of the portfolio is coming through. That we've done well on oral care, we've done well in the pain relief business. And I think that's what you, what you've seen, what you've seen in the results. And from a geography point of view, a third of our business is emerging markets. Those have been growing high single digit, double digit, at times, and I think that also helps us for, as you know, land in the 4-6 overall growth algorithm as well. Just to go a bit more granular in terms of the drivers of that growth. If we were to go through your main categories, you know, OTC, VMS, Oral Care, where's the growth coming from? Is it penetration or geographic rollout, or is it premiumization? You know, how does that differ, and how should we think about just the balance between volume and price mix? Yeah. So I think if you look at price volume, I mean, if I look back to the pre-COVID days or what's, you know, happened in that business over the past, I don't know, 10 years, and also when I look forward, and I think we're gonna get back to that, what we think it's been a balance between price and volume. So last year, we shoot for a 5% growth overall, 2-2-ish% from price, 2-ish% from volume. I think that's a healthy sign of a business, because I think we're able, with our products, to take price either through innovation, but also I think some of our products are less price sensitive, so we should have the ability to take price. This is strength of the brand and also the healthcare nature of the product. A healthy business should also grow volume, because we're driving, we're driving penetration, we're driving geographic expansion. When you look a little bit where that is, I mean, I think in the oral care space, there's a lot of penetration opportunities. I mean, our, I mean, our biggest products are Sensodyne sensitive teeth. 45% of the world's population have sensitive teeth. Only 30% of those use a sensitivity toothpaste. So there's huge penetration opportunity, just about creating awareness of the condition. Actually, there's a very simple solution. All you need to do is change the brand of your toothpaste to Sensodyne. It's not, you know, a lifestyle change that you need to drive, right? Which is much harder to do. Change the brand of your toothpaste and you solve your sensitivity issue. I think that is right away. It's also visible. You start using Sensodyne, it works within a few days, so if you use Rapid, it works immediately, and it's solved, right? I think so you create trial, people use it, and they see it works, and then I think that penetration opportunity is there globally. The second biggest brand we have in oral care is Parodontax. Bleeding gums, gingivitis. That is a global phenomenon as well, but it's a brand that we've properly activated, maybe in a dozen markets in the world. So there's a huge geographic expansion opportunity by investing in that brand and taking it into a few markets. So that's the two examples. So when you look at Centrum, we've taken Centrum in a test launch to India last year, and Amazon is doing very, very well. We think some of the emerging markets are ready for, are ready for some of these brands. So I think that, again, geographic expansion. And in Europe, it's more activation using our strength in pharmacies, with one of the world's largest field forces going to pharmacies, educating about the brand. The brand has been there, but it's probably not been fully supported from a sales force and from an A&P point of view. So it's a mix of that. So you get a bit of price, you get volume, geographic expansion, and I think penetration opportunities that I think drive the overall ability to grow 4-6 in the longer term. Can we talk a bit about cold and flu, which you sort of touched on earlier? It's clearly been a big driver of your growth this year, but you've got some tougher comps coming up in the second half. How should we think about last year's flu season versus a normal season, or, you know, do we even know what a normal season is these days? How's this year looking and when will we know a bit more? Yeah, look, I think there has been, you know, first of all, there's been an enormous focus and probably way too much focus on respiratory and cold and flu, because through COVID, we had this massive -50%, and then, you know, all the business coming back. So of course, everybody focused on it. And I think we're finally probably getting back to a place where I hope we can talk much less about cold and flu, because, you know, it's in the mid- to high-teens% of our business. I mean, it's not that big, and it shouldn't, and it will not fluctuate that much. So I think it's gonna come back to the normal, you know, ±0.5-1 point. You know, it's not this fundamental shift. So what we've done is, I think for—in the guidance for this year, sort of 4-6% in the, for the second half, that gets us to 7%. We said in the second half, we expect cold and flu to be broadly flat. We expect volumes to be down, offset by—broadly offset by price. Why are we saying that? Because last year, late in December, we had a very early spike of a cold and flu season in the U.S. That's unusual. That happens every few years, but not every year, that the season kicks off that early. Plus, we had the China COVID policy change. So there was this explosive growth very, very early in the year, and our assumption is that this doesn't repeat. Now, that's a financial planning assumption. From a supply chain point of view, I make sure there's enough inventory, so if it happens, there's enough inventory for restocking at that point. I think it's much better to tell you guys what we think the financial planning assumption is, because I don't know what the season is gonna be. I have no idea. All I can do is I can plan from a supply chain point of view with the team around, having enough goods that when it's a good season, that we can supply to the... then to the market. Now, what's still in debate, that we have to work through is out of season use for cold and flu products. Which last year through the summer, which with Omicron having a lot of, cold and flu-like symptoms, there was higher use of cold and flu products than you would normally have in the summer season. That has gone back now to pre-COVID levels. So after Q3, this is out of the base as well for next year. Then we have to see where, you know, the China business lands, because there was, you know, explosive demand on Theraflu and Contac and all these products. We have, you know, it's probably taking a few months to see where the inventory levels land on that. That we have to work through. And then I would say for next, you know, the next season, of course, we won't have a repeat of the China, you know, Theraflu and COVID demand. But I think things are, I think, very much settling down, that we're, you know, back to the normal variability of the cold and flu business going forward. Thanks. Well, perhaps moving away from cold and flu a little bit. Just thinking more general, you know, macro visibility at the moment isn't great. How discretionary are your categories? Are you seeing any signs of down trading as consumer wallets get squeezed? You know, where might you see consumer behavior change first? I guess, the perception is that VMS is perhaps amongst the more vulnerable bits of your business to that, but not sure how true that is. So I think, I mean, more broadly, I mean, I think our categories are very, very sticky. And why are they? I mean, you deal with healthcare, and you deal with a healthcare problem that you or someone in your family has. So something hurts, something aches, you have a running nose, so there's a problem you're dealing with, yeah? So, you want that problem solved. And secondly, our products are not in your daily, not in your weekly, not in your monthly shopping basket. You hopefully buy an allergy product once a year, maybe twice a year. A respiratory product, once a year. If you have kids in school, in kindergarten, maybe several times a year. But, but it's not in your daily, in your daily shopping basket. And what you tend to do when you have a healthcare problem, you go-... to what you know and what you trust, yeah? And look, if I'm sick, I have a cold and flu, I go back to what my mom gave me, yeah? And I don't know what happens to you when your wife calls you and say, "The kids are sick," you're probably gonna bring exactly home what your wife is gonna tell you, and not what you find on the pharmacy shelf, and you think it's $0.50 cheaper. My assumption, yeah? Fair assumption. Fair assumption, yeah. So you go back to what works, because you're dealing with healthcare and and you're dealing with the health of your loved ones, and you wanna you wanna be sure that it's the things you know that work. And then also, when you look at how these products are sold in Europe, you're not standing in front of a shelf. You go into a pharmacy, and the pharmacist recommends something to you. So you're much more likely to take what the pharmacy pharmacist recommends you, and you're very unlikely to ask the pharmacist: "Do you have something that's as good, but it costs EUR 1 less?" It's, I think, you know, a decision that you might make in front of a shelf, but in front of somebody in a white coat, also less likely. So in the categories we're in, you know, less discretionary overall from my point of view, and that's what we've seen with the data, right? And the US actually would be the perfect place. In OTC, there's private label everywhere on shelf. We've not seen private label shares change in the US throughout the last 12 months. On the contrary, actually, private label shares have decreased, and branded products shares have increased. So there is no... Although there is an option that is significantly cheaper, consumers have not taken that, and I think the reasons are what I just explained earlier, that you want to deal with the problem that you have. And I think, look, I mean, we've also not seen this on, I think, products like Centrum, which is a multivitamin, or Caltrate, which is a calcium deficiency product that we have in China, because ultimately we're dealing with a basic healthcare need that the population has. On vitamin C, with Emergen-C, which has come down, that is probably more related to COVID and related demand, and has less to do with discretionary. Now, having said all that, we watch that very tightly. I mean, we know consumers are under pressure. They have less, less available income, but I think so far, we've not seen, you know, big changes. I think it's really more working through the base of, some of the VMS and the respiratory topics that we just talked about. Thanks. Well, perhaps moving on from top line, then, yeah, can talk about margins a bit. So gross margins are 60% plus, you should get pretty decent amount of operational leverage, from the sales growth you're doing, and that's sort of 12-46 medium term. How do we think about the balance between reinvestment and letting that drop through, you know, mid-term to medium-term margin expansion? And then specifically on this year, how come you seem to be guiding for sort of flattish margins this year, despite very strong sales growth year? Let me start with the second question first. I mean, what we've guided to for this year is 7-8 top-line growth, organic top-line growth, and 9-11 adjusted operating profit growth at constant currency. So that gives you margin expansion for the year at constant currency. You might have noticed we changed the way we guide. We made that change at half year. I think in hindsight, probably something we should have done much earlier, because if we try to guide to absolute margins, and then I think you'd have the rollercoaster of currencies, especially with the sterling strengthening, that just you know created more noise than it has to. So I think, yes, we're delivering margin expansion at constant currencies this year, and that, I think, is exactly what we had guided to in our medium-term model, yeah? Now, then, of course, this year is still a little bit unusual because we had earlier in the year, so, you know, the tail end of, you know, higher inflation coming through. We have higher labor cost inflation, given the labor cost environment and the salary increases we gave to our teams. There was quite some swings in demand, like, you know, when the China situation happened, I mean, we then, you know, run the factory 24/7, brought in additional people, had air freighted in active ingredients and stock in order to meet the demand. Or when there was for a while, no, no children's, a children's product in, in Canada on respiratory and on pain relief product, we got approval from Health Canada to use European products. So we chartered an airplane and flew that stuff over. So doing all the right things to meet unprecedented demand, using more contract manufacturers and all that, which also was, you know, a little bit of a drag, to margin that... So, yeah, but ultimately, we do the right thing because we, we, we help our consumers solve their healthcare needs, and I think that's a role I think we play, we play as a company, and that's very much on our, on our purpose. And then I think your question around, well, about reinvesting in the business. So, I mean, ultimately, we wanna reinvest, we want in the business to drive growth, because I think there's growth opportunities. For example, I mentioned parodontax earlier. Can we activate that product in more markets? Can we take more of our— Can we do more geographic expansion of some of our products? So that's where we wanna— that's where we want to invest, and I think there is, you know, enough ideas and areas in the business where that investment can go. You, I guess you talked about, you know, your purpose earlier. I mean, more generally, we've seen a number of companies sort of step up investment in ESG areas in recent years. It's certainly an increasing focus for investors, especially in Europe. How do you feel about your own sort of positioning on ESG metrics? Are there areas, you know, you'd like to be doing more in, or how do you, how do you think about that at the group level? ... So I think, I mean, first of all, I think we're in healthcare, right? I mean, everything we sell serves a very clear purpose, which is taking care of all of our health, right? It's all a healthcare need, right? I mean, that's, I mean, I think very much a role we play in society, yeah. And then providing that as a self-care product. You don't need to go to a doctor. You can go into a pharmacy, you can go into the store and buy that. So you can take better care of your own health and of your loved one's health. So I think that's very much on purpose. Then I think where we wanna, you know, I think where we're investing is, one, I think there is, we wanna provide better access to healthcare to about 60 million people, so health inclusivity. And a lot of health inclusivity, the barriers are education, educating about these products. And I think, we believe, there's a lot we can do in that space, that we explain to people, you know, disease awareness or, condition awareness. What things can you do, and what benefits that has to you as to when to take, when you take better care of your health. So that is a clear focus for us. Then, of course, we have the environmental targets, and we have a very good starting base. I mean, in terms of, of course, the products we make, I mean, we don't sell half-liter bottle of shampoos, right? I mean, or the products we sell, you don't start a washing cycle with them, right? So I think I mean, the amount of carbon that our products create is already relatively low, also the amount of plastic. But we set, you know, I think, very strong reduction targets, both on carbon, on plastic reduction, on recyclable toothpaste. And I think we're making good progress on those. And then I think also on governance, I think we put the right governance in place as an independent company. Now, there's more work to do with all the ratings, with all the indices, because we're, you know, we're a new company, so we need to start publishing all our results, then external companies can rate us, grade us. That work is still underway, and I think that, you know, every, you know, every one of those rating agencies or groups or associations or whatever they are, have their different mechanics, and I think we still need to work through that, and that will take a bit of time until we understand on what they want, until we put the right data out there that needs to be published. So that is underway, as we speak, yeah. By the way, I think from a, you know, I think very focused on that as a team, also our long-term incentive structure have an underpin on the ESG criteria. So we don't get paid for delivering ESG, but if we don't meet our ESG criteria, the long-term incentives get significantly reduced, yeah. And that is something investors have played back to us, that they thought this is a, you know, I think, a new and unique structure that we put in place. Because we think delivering on the ESG targets is table stakes, and we as management have, you know, committed to doing that. And if we don't deliver on it, then if we wouldn't, the long-term incentives would be reduced, but there isn't sort of a positive ticker or getting extra paid if we do that. Perhaps turning to the balance sheet. So you spun out of GSK with a reasonable degree of leverage, to put it mildly. Can you sort of remind us on the progress made on bringing debt levels down? How quickly should we expect maybe you want to de-lever from here? And you know, how much of a focus is it for you and the rest of the management team? Yeah. I think European investors told me it wasn't reasonable around 4. So I think, but you know. So yeah, so we spun out at, you know, around 4 times, around 4 times leverage. Now, I mean, of course, take a step back and say every company that has gone through major M&A activity, which ultimately that was, has had such levels of leverage, and we de-levered very quickly from that. We de-levered to 3.4 in less than 12 months. Or if you look at it in absolute terms, we took GBP 1.2 billion of debt out of the company between the 18th of July last year and the 30th of June in this year. So absolute, you know, strong progress made on the de-levering, and I think this is a very cash-generative business. We said we're gonna be below three, originally by the end of 2024. We've upgraded that earlier the year to during 2024, and we're very much on that track. So you should expect us to be below three during 2024. Also, we announced recently a divestment of a care brand. Also, we'll use that to pay down debt. So very much on track to de-lever and, you know, remove the three before the comma on the leverage, which is a concern, I think, you know, probably mostly from European investors, much less so here in the U.S. So it's not a topic here and a much bigger topic in Europe, so. And then, just in terms of, of GSK and Pfizer, you know, they're still pretty substantial shareholders, Haleon. Can you perhaps remind us how much they own, where we are in the lock-up period, and what they've said about their intentions? You know, whether you have any flex to assist with any, you know, participation, if that makes sense, all that stuff. Yeah. So Pfizer owns 32% of the company. That's unchanged. So that's the, the same stake they had before as a joint venture partner and as we, as we listed. GSK was holding close to 13%. They sold 2.6% of that in a placing they did, I think, back in May, so they're now 10.3%. So, so they did the first, the first step of, of selling, of selling some of the stake. There's no, there's no lockup, so they, they can buy, they can, they can sell. Of course, they don't have to ask us. It's, it's their choice. They can help us, they can ask us to help with-... activity. They committed to do this in an orderly fashion. They do it jointly, so they need to inform each other, and then the other party can say, "I participate or not." So that's what happened in May, that GSK said they wanna do it, Pfizer said, "We don't want to," so GSK did it by themselves. They both said that the stake isn't strategic. They wanna monetize that stake over time. And they both said they're gonna do it in a, I think, very organized, fashion and maximizing value. And I think that's exactly what GSK did. They did that placing at a very low discount. I think 2.4% was the discount. And I think sort of, you know, they've done exactly what they said they would do. By the way, also, how I experience both of these companies and then working with them. So I would expect them to, you know, calculate effectively where that is, maximizing value, and do that over time and their decision, when they, when they would do this. And I think I would expect them to do that, you know, over time, because it's clearly not strategic for the either of them. And then just moving on, I suppose, this time last year, we probably would have been discussing Zantac at great length. We've... We haven't mentioned it at all. Do we, do we need to talk about it, or is that kind of all in the rearview mirror? So, look, I think for me it's in the rearview mirror, right? I think it, you know, it cost us, you know, just, you know, two weeks out of the gate as an independent company. I think at the time when we didn't have the time to, I think, A, educate the market about what the legal topics are. I mean, you know, we're in healthcare, so that, you know, there could be a legal case here or there is not, it's not unusual, especially in the U.S. litigation environment. But I think that we're very clear on Zantac. We don't think there's any risk of exposure. You know, there's no liability to Haleon, and I think the primary cases, and those we can't be pulled into anyway, those are also progressing. And you've seen, you know, some big cases that have been thrown out, like the multi-district litigation in Florida. But you've also seen this earlier in the year, we settled another legal matter, the proton pump inhibitors, for a de minimis amount. So I think that's usually what I'm used to, that, you know, you might have a case here or there, and at some point you decide to settle it, because it's actually better settling than just making law firms rich and trying to fight it through. So I think, look, the overall, I think the legal, the risk exposure in the business we're in is relatively low because, I mean, what are we selling? We're selling products that have been on the market as a prescription product for on average 15 years before the patent expired. Then you go into a very, very intense dialogue with regulatory agencies, the FDA in the U.S., that you need to convince that it's safe to put that product on the free shelf for U.S. consumer to pick, that it's safe for U.S. consumer to use that. And that regulatory problem is very, very high. So there is, one, the data points for 15 years of use as a prescription product, and then another very, very strict regulatory procedure. As a result, the risk exposure comes down, comes down massively. And so I think I'm not, you know, I'm not concerned about the, you know, the risk exposure and the, and the legal cases, and I think, you know, and, and, and as Zantac covered all. Just thinking about that category, that sort of, I mean, I guess consumer health is highly fragmented relative to other consumer-focused categories. You are seeing, you know, consumer health companies come out of their sort of pharma parents, I guess. Does the space still need consolidation in your view, or is, you know, consolidation likely longer term? And does Haleon have any ambition to play a role in that? I get all, you know, Haleon done its consolidation with the Allergan Pfizer deal. Look, look, I think all care is already highly consolidated, right? With the third largest player, I think the top five in the industry have 65-plus shares. So I think, no, then where you have the fragmentation is on, is on OTC and on this, of course, very vast vitamin, mineral and supplement space. Now, I mean, we've been the consolidator industry with Pfizer and GSK, Allergan transaction we did. But the reason we did that, is because all these three businesses had strategic gaps. They had strategic issues. We had both from a geography side and from a category side. And I think the combination we did was a little bit like the dream combination because these businesses fit together like a glove. The geographic strength and weaknesses were, you know, were totally matching and it, you know, it gave us a number 1 position in the U.S. It gave us a number 2 position in China from, you know, a number 30 and 56 position. It gives an entry into VMS, where Pfizer had a good base, one of the higher growth categories. It made us a number 1 in the biggest category in OTC. So I think it solves sort of the strategic issues and gaps. So where we are now, we don't need big M&A to be successful. Now, you know, there's an opportunity coming up. If you look at that, of course, you would ask as a market leader to look at it. Are there synergies? Yes, there are synergies, but it doesn't necessarily mean that the business can grow more and is—it's a better business at the other end. So from my perspective, we don't need it. If the opportunity is there and it out limits the expense, you would look at that. But also don't forget, there's been very, very little consolidation in this industry because the synergies were there 15 and 20 years ago. It didn't happen, right? So synergies alone aren't a reason to do a bigger transaction. And then there's a little bit of bolt-on here and there, but I don't think that I think that is, you know, icing on the cake when you get a brand. But even there, the bolt-on deals in our industry is, you know, rather small. It's not, you know, this is not an industry with a very huge amount of M&A activity. So I think we have lots of internal software opportunities, how we can grow that business. I feel good about that, and then the rest, you know, will be seen. Okay. Well, perhaps lastly, from my end, you know, Haleon is still a relatively new company. It's just over a year since you spun out. How are things different now you're an independent business? What does that mean, I guess, operationally, but also culturally, in terms of the company? Yeah. Look, I mean, I think it's. First of all, I think, you know, spinning out the company, you know, I think hopefully creating a new sub-segment in the market, right? You mentioned earlier, Ian, we're, we were the first one out. Kenvue is out now. You know, Sanofi internally separated. They might go out and let's see what they do. There's, you know, the whole rumors about what Bayer might do. And I think it's positive that there's more companies going out and doing that because I think there is a, hopefully a new sub-segment that is being created in the market with, you know, consumer healthcare companies. Even though the portfolios aren't the same, but I think it helps if there's a second or third or fourth company that talks about over-the-counter medicines or about pain relief and, uh, education. Because we have a big education work to do. Look, I mean, we started probably three years ago, and I think we're far from being done about educating about the space that we play in, because we were buried under the pharmaceutical companies. You know, for the valuation of the pharma company, it didn't really matter, you didn't have to have that granular understanding of what the consumer healthcare businesses are. I think we're still on the journey of doing that. I think we made a major step forward, but there is more work to be done, and I think the more people in the industry doing that will help on that. Then in terms of spinning out, I think, look, there is. The first year, from my perspective, has gone well. I mean, we focused really on stability, on being able to learning how to walk, putting our quarterly reports out, doing our first annual report. All of these things are very, very intense. You You do them for the first time. We started with a white sheet of paper. We've done that, but we've also, you know, we copied and cloned a lot of systems, a lot of tools, from GSK. So I mean, it's, you know, created mini copies and I think and but that is not what you wanna, what we wanna be as a company. So there's an evolution now to, you know, build on the strength of what we have and making that a more agile and more quicker, company. I think that's the next phase of life that we entered, and we're in the middle of doing that, becoming more agile, becoming quicker, becoming faster. Then, of course, you know, sales have been good, so that was very, very pleasing. The business results are good. Still, there's learnings, like I mentioned before, on how we guided on profit or on margin. There is, you know, there are skills we didn't have. You know, we didn't have hedging skills because that didn't come across from GSK. We had to build those. So there's stuff we have to do, and that's the new company that we had to do, and we made, you know, really good progress in that. And we have a board that, you know, is entirely dedicated and it, it is very diverse on the consumer business. I think very different discussions at the board level compared to what I was used to before. Because you have a group of consumer, of experts sitting around the board table with us, who are deeply engaging, challenging us, bringing different points of views from their other, from their other, from their other areas. So I think that is potentially different than before. So, look, lots to be done still, but I think, look, I think we're really pleased about, you know, the first year of to us now, that we've been independent. Great. Thanks so much. Well, I think we've got 30 seconds left. Probably not time for a question in the room, but I think we'll go to breakout and continue, continue talking there. So on that, who wants to join the breakout room? Thank you very much. Thank you.