Thank you everyone for coming along this afternoon. I'm delighted to have Fernando Fernandez, who is the CEO of Unilever, a company where I guess quite a lot has been happening over the last few years. It'll be the usual format, there'll be about 25 minutes or so, fireside chat between myself and Fernando. We'll then open up to questions from the audience. You can pose questions via the app, in theory, those will come through here, and the theory has been working. We'll also put a mic around the room. With that, shall we start? Yeah. McCormick. I'm going to be punchy here. McCormick over the last year or so, the shares have been relatively underwhelming. What makes them a better owner of your foods business than you were? The shares of American food sector has been under pressure, McCormick has been a clear outperforming in the food sector for a long period of time. Unilever Foods has been an outperforming in global foods for a significant period of time. We have seen McCormick always as a perfect complement for our foods business. Of course, we have taken the decision with the board of really making Unilever an HPC pure play. We saw that as our future. Probably the McCormick transaction came a bit earlier than we were expecting, there is nothing like a perfect deal at the perfect timing. Sometimes you have to decide and move on. We see McCormick as a very complementary company, it's very difficult to make a merger or a combination of businesses in which there are significant adjacencies that lead to significant revenue and growth and cost synergies and very limited overlap that gives you deal certainty because of the lack of antitrust issues. This is exactly this case. McCormick and Unilever are very complementary. A lot of adjacencies. Unilever mayonnaise with McCormick hot sauces and mustard, Unilever stock cubes with McCormick herbs and spices. We have very limited overlapping categories. Business are very complementary also, both in the retail side and in the food service side. McCormick in food service tend to be very strong in North America and in top of the table, front of house. Unilever is very strong in international and in back of house, huge complementarity. We believe this gives the potential of building a large EUR 20 billion food company very focused in flavor in one of the few verticals of foods in which GLP-1 is a tailwind and not a headwind, because when you consume more proteins, you have to flavor them. In one of the few verticals in which private label exposure in foods is very limited. I believe we are giving birth to what will be one of the greatest food companies in the world. I was not prepared to give our shareholders exposure to a poor portfolio quality, when really separating foods. I feel what we are giving Unilever shareholders now is, first of all, we are not increasing their exposure to foods. They used to own 100% of a EUR 12 billion business. Now they own 65% of a EUR 20 billion business. We are improving the quality of their exposure to foods because we are giving them now a company that really lives completely in the flavor space. We are giving them optionality, because when they were shareholders of Unilever, they were forced to own foods. Now they have the option of owning or not owning foods. I believe that we are really creating significant value. We know, and we are very conscious that we have brought uncertainty because, we have signed the deal in March, and it will take probably one year or 15 months to close the deal. When you increase uncertainty, you increase risk, and you require higher returns. There is an element of uncertainty that was built here. Overall, I believe in the long term, we achieve two big things. One is create a great foods company in which Unilever we know, Unilever and its shareholders will own 65%, and make Unilever an HPC pure play with a business that is already very strong. In the last three years, 5% top-line growth, 2.5% volume growth, 290 basis points of gross margin expansion, 170 basis points of operating margin expansion. How many companies in the staple sector has done these numbers? I feel we are in good shape. Thank you. On McCormick, don't worry, we'll move away from McCormick soon. One thing that really surprised me was that the business is guiding to a 3%-5% organic growth rate. When I went to look in my spreadsheet, I had 2% in. When I look at what the business grew last year, it was 2%. When I look at Q1, it was 2%. How do we bridge to this kind of higher growth rate that's expected over the midterm? The combined business of McCormick, of Unilever foods has delivered in the last 3 years, 2.4% growth. We really believe that there is potentially, as I mentioned before, let's look at food service. Food service is a unit economics business. When you increase the critical mass of your offering, you are fundamentally able to open more doors. We are fundamentally doubling, potentially doubling the food service business. I have been going to my Chinese company, for example, for many years. When we're talking with our food service people, the common phrase was, "If we will have the portfolio of McCormick." Imagine the vast wide portfolio of the spices of McCormick in the infrastructure of international food service of Unilever. Imagine the leverage that today the new McCormick will have with retail when you have the portfolio that you have that crosses from herbal and spices to stock cubes, from mustard to mayonnaise to hot sauces. I believe that there is significant leverage here in the new portfolio, and I believe the possibility of growing 3%-5% is at reach. It will happen in 1 year, probably not, but I believe the new McCormick entity will be probably 1 of the companies with the most appealing growth potential in the food sector. Thank you. One thing that I'm conscious of about this is it's very easy as a sell-side analyst, we sit there, sell that, buy this. It's very easy in an Excel spreadsheet, but the real-world reality of it is very complex. Getting out of ice cream was incredibly complex, doing that globally. We've still got shared services being provided to Magnum. Now you're going to be getting out of food, carving that out. There'll be shared services getting provided to food as well. Are you comfortable with the sheer complexity and the amount of change we have here? Are you worried some of the wheels may start to wobble? How are you thinking about that? I think you are raising 1 of the key questions that investors are raising with us. That is, "Hey, Fernando, will the separation of Foods disrupt what has been a very good performance?" The truth is that we have been able to separate ice cream and at the same time accelerate our top line and accelerate our bottom line. Separating business is not easy, but it's probably less complex than many people think. Of course, I was not going to lose the opportunity of preparing the company for the separation of Foods when I was separating ice cream. Some of the heavy building has been done. I feel it's important, you know this, Jeff, but Unilever operates today in the top 24 markets with 63 different sales forces. Our food business, 80% of our food business runs with a completely commercial standalone organization. In the market one to 24 of Unilever, Foods operate as a single entity. That basically made that separation relatively easy. There is a rest of 20% of Foods that operate within what we call One Unilever, so smaller markets in which there was no real critical mass to separate Foods from the rest of the business. In these markets, of course, there will be TSAs in place in which we will have to provide to McCormick to ensure the continuity on the business, and then McCormick will have to decide how to operate this business. We are confident that we will replicate what we have done in the case of ice cream, separating the business and at the same time continue delivering the top line and the bottom line of Unilever. I feel one of the secrets of the success in the management of Unilever during the separation of ice cream was that we really attack our cost base before the stranded cost hit the top line. They hit the P&L. I feel this is what we will do now. It was a lot of effort at that time, but I believe the culture in Unilever has changed a lot. Honestly, I probably would not allocate a lot of my personal time off to this because I'm very confident now that the cost discipline in the company, the mindset of performance in Unilever is very different to the one we had two or three years ago. Thank you. Maybe moving on from Foods, looking towards the future. Thank you. The new Unilever. Does the exit from Foods do anything to change the Remain core? Should the Remain core be a faster growth business with Foods gone? Is there anything it will be able to do it wasn't able to do with Foods there? I feel something that has gone a bit unnoticed is that we are separating 21% of our revenue, but we are separating 33% of the category geography sales of Unilever. I will run a company with 2/3 the geographic category sales I was running before. This is a serious simplification when it comes to allocation of resources, allocation of talent. Our operations as a whole in the new HPC become easier. Also when you run Foods and you run HPC, you run two very different industries. Foods is a low innovation cycle category. HPC is a high innovation cycle. The foundations of HPC are common. The science behind a shampoo, a beauty product, a body care product, and a laundry product is all around surfactant science. When you have a common R&D, when you have a common scientific base, you have a common manufacturing base. The channels of distribution, HPC is very clear, an omni-channel distribution model in which e-commerce is playing a significantly higher role with time, and it's also a market in which a structural premiumization is very clear. There are many patterns in HPC that are common, and in Foods are very different. The overall management of the company is simpler. I believe it will help us to allocate resources, and let me be very transparent. I believe McCormick is a better home for our food business than Unilever was. First of all, because it's very obvious now that McCormick and Unilever foods have more synergies than Unilever foods and Unilever HPC. I believe that the remaining HPC company will be simpler to manage. In the past, when there was an additional penny to invest, the decision was between Dove and Knorr, and we tend to go into the Dove side. I feel now this will be the allocation of resources into our best brands will be very clear. I'd like to talk about emerging markets because, with foods gone, over 60% of the business will be in emerging markets. I was looking back at my spreadsheet again, which goes back quite a long way because I have been doing this for some time. Over the last 35 years, Unilever's growth in EM has averaged 8%. How would you think about the future? One thing I'm very cognizant of is that historically, physical distribution was really important for Unilever. Now with the growth of e-commerce, quick commerce, the modern trade, the structure in EM is changing rapidly. Do you still think that's a reasonable growth ambition for your EM business? Do you believe that Unilever can hold share in EM, or you think some share loss maybe is inevitable? Let me start. I like a lot, 62% of our revenue in emerging markets. Emerging markets have superior growth population, have much more headroom for wealth expansion. They have space for urbanization. They have space for formalization of trade, et cetera. It's very difficult to think that developed markets have more growth than emerging markets. I don't have any doubt that emerging markets will grow faster than developed markets in the long run. Probably the 8% that you talk, that has a significant negative currency effect that you have to take into account. Yeah That is probably too ambitious. Do I believe that the emerging market has potentially 3% volume growth? Yes. Emerging markets tend to have 3%-4% pricing. I feel that is an important point when you compare emerging markets of today with emerging markets of 10 years ago. Today, do you know what is the percentage of global population that live with double-digit inflation? 6.3%. I was going to say I do, but only because I heard you say it earlier on today. It is 6%. 6% of the globe lives with double-digit inflation. This is a very different emerging market to what it used to be. Imagine the current geopolitical tension 10 years ago. What would have been the impact of that in the Latin American currencies? All Latin American currencies are appreciating today. Of course, we are having depreciation in Asia, but that is not a fundamental macroeconomic issue, it is a fundamental oil price shock issue. I believe that in the long run, I probably do not see the 8% top line, but I do not see the negative currency effect that I have seen in the past. Do I believe that emerging markets are a mid to high single-digit potential growth? Yes, I believe that. We have excellent exposure to emerging markets, and we have an extraordinary exposure to what will be probably the only exponential growth story of the next decade, that is India. In India, we have 47% share in laundry. We have 76% share in fabric conditioner. We have 60% share in dishwash. We have 55% share in hair. We have 33% share in sun care. We have 45% share in tea. We have 61% share in functional nutrition. We have an extraordinary position. Give me one good reason why I would lose share in laundry. Why? I have more shares, I have higher share in modern trade than in traditional trade. I have higher share in urban India than in rural India. I have higher share in, I say modern trade, traditional trade, urban and rural. I have more share in premium segments and in value segments. The trends are playing in our favor. There are a few categories, particularly in beauty, in which there will be more fragmentation, emergence of e-commerce will play a role. Yes, of course. I was recently in Lucknow. Lucknow is a very important city in Uttar Pradesh, in the center of India. The GDP is growing 12% there. The most aspirational brand in that segment in that place is called Dove. There is growth for everyone in India, and there will not be any company that will get the benefit of the explosion of consumption in India like Unilever will have. Very clear. Thank you. The U.S. is alongside India as your other high-priority market. If you think about the U.S., population growth is no longer what it was. There's increasing income inequality. It's a market that's become much more challenging for many people. Again, if we take that mid to long-term perspective, how do you think about Unilever's opportunity in the U.S.? Well, I feel population growth is a very important factor of the growth algorithm in emerging markets, but it's a much less important factor in developed markets. I believe in developed markets, premiumization is much more important. I feel in the U.S., we have delivered 4% volume growth in the U.S. in the last three years. I feel recently the top two physical retailers of the U.S. have given Unilever the Supplier of the Year awards in the consumer category. There is something going on with our business in U.S. that is really working very well when you have the two key players there awarding us the Supplier of the Year. I believe what is going on is that we have really transformed fundamentally our category and our segment footprint. Our portfolio today is very, very strong. We grew 9% in Walmart last year. We grew 17% in Amazon last year. We have a brand like Dove that is a powerhouse in the U.S. We delivered 4% volume growth in the last three years in U.S. Do I see 4% volume growth forever in the U.S.? Probably not. Do I believe that Unilever has built a portfolio with a category segment footprint that can deliver 3% volume growth consistently? I believe so. Could be one quarter a bit less, could be one quarter a bit more, I see this kind of 3% volume growth as a reasonable ambition for Unilever in the U.S. in an economy that has become K-shaped, and we are predominantly exposed to the higher side of the K. Thank you. The upper side of the K. Turning to inflation. During the last inflationary cycle, there was quite sharp initial margin compression in Unilever HPC, then it quickly recovered over the subsequent two years. I appreciate that this cycle is different, would you expect a similar shape of development, i.e., we could see some margin downside and then recovery? How are you thinking about this inflationary cycle? It's a different inflationary cycle I feel the last inflationary cycle was widespread with the significant depreciation of currencies across the world, in emerging markets. I feel in this case, you have a situation in which the inflation is very concentrated in petrochemical derivatives, that affects fundamentally our home care business. 50% of the inflation that we are having in our business this year, for example, is concentrated in home care, and 70% of our home care business is in emerging markets. Emerging markets give you some degrees of freedom in pricing that developed markets doesn't have, fundamentally, you have more frequency of price increases. In U.S., you have one to two windows of price increases per year. In Europe, if you are lucky, you have one. In emerging markets, you can go for sequential small price increases that allow you to compensate the cost. I feel it's a bit of a different cycle of inflation to the one of the past. We will have inflation of around EUR 900 million this year. This is around EUR 350 million-EUR 500 million more than what we were expecting at the beginning of the year, I believe it's a manageable number. Of course, we have been taking measures to really ensure that we contain the cost in the company in the different lines of a P&L. I believe it's manageable, we believe that it will be another year in which we will deliver earnings growth in hard currency as we have been consistently delivering the last few years. We should expect, there's no reason not to expect margins to continue to progress. I feel we are in good shape, I feel we have a good track record now of margin expansion. I look at gross margin fundamentally, There are five fundamental levers for gross margin expansion. I feel the most important for me is the strengthening of our brand equities. We have 60% of our revenue now grow in brand equities. When you grow brand equities, your brands have more pricing power, your relative pricing can improve across time. The second is we are growing 2.5% volume, in the last few years. Remember that Unilever, the new Unilever will be a 48% gross margin. You add back logistics, it's 54%. Our next unit of margin come, our next unit of volume, the marginal contribution is 60%-65%. If you have 2.5% volume growth, you don't have usually many issues in margin. Of course, we have done a lot of interventions in some of the value chains of key materials, and we are allocating now 55% of our CapEx to margin expansion initiatives. We allocate close to 1.6%-1.7% of our revenue to margin expansion initiatives. These kind of activities tend to have a three to four year payback period. That gives you 20-30 basis points of margin expansion at gross margin level. I feel we have a good plan. Of course, volatility sometimes can generate some shaking, I believe we are in good shape. Great. The industry in aggregate in Q1 had relatively buoyant volumes, It's fair to say the investor community was a little bit skeptical, thinking about the phasing of festivals, thinking about maybe stocking up ahead of price increases, et cetera. Do you think investors were right to be skeptical, Have you seen anything that would suggest that Q1, for the industry, was a function of kind of temporary phasing impacts? I cannot comment on other companies. What I can tell you is there has not been fundamental one-offs in our case. We are operating in particular in emerging markets, we are operating with the lowest level of stock in history that we have had. Our efficiency is very clear on that. When we read market data, we read market volume growth at a global level of around 1%, something like that. We are very clearly gaining volume share and data has to be above the 2%. The market has been a bit softer than what it has been one year ago when it comes to volume growth. That's obvious. I don't see any fundamental quarter one factor that at least has affected Unilever. We expect another good quarter in quarter two. I cannot say more than that. There is no factor in Unilever that has been pushing our volumes in quarter one in an artificial way. I know that some companies have been talking about the speculative buying and all that stuff. Honestly, I have not seen anything of that in our numbers. I'd like to talk about a subject matter that's quite close to both of our hearts, and that is the World Cup. Now, I suspect your chances as an Argentinian are rather better than my chances as a Scotsman. Nonetheless, I remain optimistic. Yeah. Um- Are you talking about first round or are you talking about the whole tournament? No, I'm talking about beating Haiti. Anyway. The World Cup is going to be the biggest activation that Unilever's ever done across the business. Yeah. I've never seen Unilever do anything on this scale. Can you just talk about that and the sorts of things you're doing and how big it could be for the business, and also crucially, why it's not just a sort of P of one event and there could be some sort of follow on. The reason why we are putting a lot of emphasis in event marketing and particularly in sport marketing, because in a context of media fragmentation, we see that the return on investment in events marketing are higher than they were in the past. Exactly the same apply, for example, to investment in physical presence in store. I feel the media has fragmented so much, that when you have events like this, it gives you an opportunity to really build awareness at the scale. Events like the World Cup is an excellent excuse to what we call flood the feeds. Just go into the Instagram and the TikTok and the reels of every single person. We are doing that in a category that historically has not been doing that, like personal care and beauty. I feel differently to happens. I admire a lot what some companies like Coke or some of the beer companies do. I believe they have done an excellent work in this space. I believe what is very interesting in the case of Unilever is that categories like deodorants, for example, are relatively low frequency categories. People buy three, four, five times a year. This give us a serious excuse to really concentrate activities, and capture a significant part of the consumer spending in the year. We have now, I believe, much better products than we had three years before. We have products that have more scientific, more science inside, better clinical proof. They have excellent packaging, excellent sensories. Our repeat rates tend to be high, when you have an opportunity of capturing an additional trial, it gives us a good opportunity. We are very excited about it. It's the first time that we do something like this, so results will tell if we were right or not. In principle, I feel the theoretical framework that we are applying to this activity is solid. We are very excited. It's a global activity. Of course we are doing this in the U.S., it's a very important market. The African markets are crazy about the World Cup, so we are doing this at scale there. Argentina has more supporters in Bangladesh than in Argentina. Brazil the same. There are countries like Brazil, Bangladesh, Pakistan, that are important markets for Unilever, in which this is a big event. I feel this give us the opportunity to do an activation at a global scale, with using digital marketing at scale. I believe we are getting much better at that. We are very excited about the impact that this will have in the equities of our brand and the residual effect in the long run. Finally, I'd like to ask you about AI. Every meeting I've sat in, there's been questions on AI. I don't want to sort of repeat ground that's probably been discussed quite a lot. I'd like to ask you, when you reflect on it from a Unilever perspective, what do you think is the one area you really need to get right? What's the one thing that scares you? Yeah. Well, I'm obsessed with the impact of AI in demand generation. The message I'm landing in the company all the time is, AI for productivity in the company, of course it will happen. This will be table stakes. Every company will do it. If I'm 6 months late on that's not a big deal. What we cannot be late is in being at the forefront of AI when it comes to strengthening our demand creation activities. We are doing a lot. I feel I can separate things in several buckets. First of all, AI is helping us to really reduce the innovation cycle times. If you were going to a Unilever R&D facility 5 years ago, 80% of the activity was physical, people putting stuff in bottles and all that stuff. Today, 80% of the activity is digital. We have 15,000 active patents, and we have more than 25 million data points of lab data plus consumer data, and we can now interact them in seconds and get 10,000 different scenarios. This is really accelerating the innovation cycle. This is the reason why, for example, we have invested in in-house fragrance facilities, because today there is a digital approach to fragrance development that really is improving our sensories very strongly. AI is dramatically increasing the amount of content we can put in front of the consumer. Two years ago, we have 10,000 content creators working for Unilever. Today, we have 300,000. You cannot have 300,000 content creators without the support of AI. We are really supporting them in the creation of content, and this is very important because the lifespan of a video today is four days. After four days, you have diminishing returns or negative returns, you have to change. Creating content is just-- I'm not happy yet where I am because I recently went to China, and I saw a company that built an EUR 800 million business in TikTok. They create 700,000 pieces of content a year. Things are accelerating even more. The other important point is the impact of LLM in search, proof, and conversion. I personally believe that this will be an important change in the future, particularly when it comes to proof. I believe this plays in favor of big companies and big brands because an intermediated AI recommendation of a brand in a category will require a significant presence of body of evidence, clinical proof, publications, patents, ratings and reviews, influencer recommendation, expert recommendations, et cetera. This is a big budgets game, and I believe this plays in favor of big brands in the future. One investor this week, I was talking with him, and they did a big research in China and U.S., and they have exactly the same view we have, that this really plays in favor of big brands. We are doing a lot in that space. I have now 20 markets, 50 brands in 20 markets being tracked on a daily basis in their presence in LLM rankings. We are not perfect there, but it allow us to really understand what our gaps are, what do we need to do about it. I have now 26 brands in U.S. running sponsored Amazon prompts on a daily basis in the customer journey. We are doing a lot of stuff. I believe we are one of the companies that are embracing that at higher speed. Much more things need to be done, and these things are changing every two weeks. Probably what I'm saying today is depreciated in 15 days. I believe that we are moving at pace. The great news is we're finished with my questions. There's a few that have come through remotely. We've got five minutes left. Let's try do them quickly so we can get some questions from the audience here as well. The first one is, did you have any other interested parties for Foods, or was it just McCormick? Was a tax-free spin or a cash sale possible? We have several options in Foods. We could have disposed the business to any strategy. We could have disposed a business to a private equity. We could have separated and listed like in the case of ice cream. In all these cases, the tax bill would have been 2 times the one that we are having now. There was no clear strategic buyer for this business, and you know how private equity buys. I believe that the valuation that we have got in the case of McCormick is very strong. As I said before, a Reverse Morris Trust was the most efficient way of doing it. In that context, McCormick was by far the best candidate to make it happen. It was an inbound proposal. It probably came a bit earlier than we were expecting it. We like it, and we decided to pull the trigger and move on. We are very happy that we have done it. I believe there would be a bright future for McCormick as a large standalone global flavor powerhouse, and there is a bright future for our HPC company, and I believe there will be an even brighter future for Unilever in HPC. I'm smiling at this one. Against my better judgment, I'm going to ask you it. Why aren't the analysts not so positive about the stock? I never blame markets. I never blame analysts. I feel Unilever has been a very inconsistent performer for many years. I feel now we are giving the market some reasons to start to believe, because we have now three years in which we have Unilever outperforming consistently against the staple sector. It's true that we have brought some uncertainty in the short term. I believe that every quarter that it goes by, and we deliver the numbers that we have been delivering, and we get closer to the closing of the transaction with McCormick, the value of Unilever will be shown. I have to say, I would like our share price to be higher. It's a good place to be a top quartile performer with a bottom quartile valuation. I prefer that than to be a bottom quartile performer with a top quartile valuation. I see valuation upside in Unilever. This is about how well we do our job every single day. Our responsibility is to ensure that every quarter we deliver what we have to deliver. On that, this is one of my own. On the valuation upside, if it's not realized, would you consider a U.S. primary listing, as some corporates have? They've got frustrated with European markets. The best value company in the sector is a European company that it has primary listing here in France. They are highly valued because they are a great company. My ambition is now, my goal, my obsession now is to be as good as they are, not about changing the listing. It's completely off the table. We are absolutely focused now on making the company better every single quarter. How does quick commerce affect you in India? Well, it's just a key driver of growth for us now. Quick commerce is around 4% of our sales, but it's really growing very fast. We have built a standalone organization to drive quick commerce now. I feel we have excellent Last year, we have serious issues of customer service in quick commerce because we were not organized to deliver that, but this is really moving in the right direction. This visit I did to Lucknow, I feel, and this is anecdotal. I went to visit a consumer in what we call rurban area, so the intersection of rural and urban, and it was a 24-year-old lady. I was shocked because she said, "Every morning when I wake up, I open my phone and I look if Blinkit has added my ZIP code for delivery." This is how things are changing. We have, as I said before, incredible shares in India, incredible brands, and the more people that can get these brands every single day, the better for us. Now we're nearly out of time, but Gerard here told me he had a punchy question, so I would like to put him on the spot. Can we have a microphone down at the front here, please? No pressure, Gerard. You answer. You like to put me on the spot, Jeff. Thank you very much. Fernando, thanks for taking the question very quickly. Obviously, we started a conversation, the exit from Magnum at the end of 2025, exit of food at some point in 2027. The company is going to be much smaller, about a third smaller. How do you think about this, you and the board? Firstly, maybe in terms of compensation, does that have an impact on the way the board, yourself are compensated? How quickly are you going to want to rebuild your original size? You speak about bolt-ons, India, the U.S. What about large deals? We are the scale. Practically, the remaining Unilever will be practically the size of L'Oréal. The remaining Unilever will be two times the size of Colgate-Palmolive. We don't have any scale issue. I'm not obsessed with being the largest company. I'm obsessed with being the best company. I always have preferred quality over scale, quality of portfolio over scale of portfolio. I believe it's a much better Church & Dwight is a fabulous company. What is the size of Church & Dwight? If the underlying question behind that is, will you do any big acquisition to restore your scale? The answer is not. What is the transformational acquisition L'Oréal has done in their history? What is the transformational acquisition that Church & Dwight has done in their history? We need to learn from the best. We are learning from the best. We are very committed to our bolt-on acquisition program. In the last five years, we have done 14 acquisitions, and in an average tenure of three years, we have multiplied their acquired revenue by 2.5 times. That's a good deal. I'm very happy with the size we have. I'm very happy with the portfolio we have. Unilever has gone into a very long journey to make their portfolio more coherent, more consistent, more global with less drags. I will not pollute the portfolio of Unilever with big transactions. I like some big brands, but our focus now is to continue developing a portfolio that is great and continue allocating around EUR 2 billion a year in bolt-on acquisition with focus in the U.S., because the U.S. is the only market that gives you local critical mass and gives you a foundation for international brands. We buy digitally native high exposure to e-commerce brands in beauty and wellbeing, in personal care in the U.S. with the potential to travel internationally to build a new leg of a global portfolio in the premium segment that is what Unilever has historically missed. The times of Unilever having a good idea about buying a soap in Angola or buying a detergent in Colombia or buying a mayonnaise in Poland are gone. We are concentrating our capital allocation to build a strong U.S. portfolio that can travel international in the premium segment. We are very disciplined about it, and we will continue doing that. Fernando, thank you ever so much and best of luck for the World Cup. Thank you.