We're still on the global verse, and we've got people out there playing games in the geopolitics, and that's always a risk, but no more into the future than we've been dealing with for the past four or five years. I think perhaps the only thing I'll add to that, just around the business space, about us continuing to, we're executing the strategy that we've been executing for the past, you know, 12, 18 months. This is about us being really clear. We know what ingredients, we know what we're doing in food service, and this is the extension of that. It's a whole lot of new things on top. We do obviously have the new capacity coming online, which Miles has already talked about, and we see that should start off the line coming out to 2026. Two other things, one is that actually there's a cost element to this. We have some very robust plans to take out any of the stranded costs related to the consumer, so we're very confident in that space. Of course, as we're to FY 2028 in particular, we'll start to see the down of those ERP costs, which 2026 will be a big year that looks like. We'll start to see that ramp down as well. If you list, there's a cost element which we feel very comfortable on, and we're executing the same strategy we have been for the past 12, 18 months. That's very helpful. I guess the one follow-up, you know, one thing you haven't sort of addressed, and it's a difficult one, but just I guess price relativities and the benefits also of sort of hedging and your risk control. Is there a neutral take on that, given the benefits you've had in the last couple of years, or are you assuming that you retain some of that? No, I mean, essentially we assume in reversion. We would go back to the long-term averages, to be fair. We've had a benefit in price sets, I mean, in terms of our hedging program. It's actually helped us offset our in-price relativities that we saw in 2025. In terms of our out, we are not assuming any benefit coming through in that space. That's great, thank you. The CapEx guidance provided for 2026 and 2027, over the last couple of years, you've been very clear in signaling the lift in CapEx that is coming, sitting at circa $1 billion through the balance of the decade. Just confirmation, given the amount of decarbonization, wastewater, and then your broader CapEx program, that the level of investment, $1 billion for the further out beyond 2027, remains appropriate as previously guided to? Yeah, I think probably what we'll see, you know, 2026, 2027, it might be slightly sneak a tiny bit over $1 billion. Like, I wouldn't be surprised if we get $1.05 billion, $1.1 billion potentially even. It does act down the road after that. It's sort of 2029 onwards. I think we'll be coming back to more of a level that's more in line with sort of our depreciation replacement. I see this as an uplift in the next few years, and then we'll see it come back down towards the end of the decade. Okay, and just because of the materiality versus depreciation, just to be clear, from 2029 onwards, you'd be signaling CapEx sort of around $600 million? Much, much closer to that level, yes. Yeah, okay, no, that's helpful, thank you. Just last question, just net debt at the end of FY 2026, you've provided a sort of a 2025 starting point, excluding Mainland. There's a CapEx, I guess, and including some of the CapEx from the previous year that needs to come through. Would you see net debt when you get to the back end of this year still be on kind of a glide path to the [$2.60] level signaled for 2028, or do you think that the profile could be quite flat through the period through to 2028? Yeah, I mean, I think we're definitely on a glide up. I wouldn't expect it to be particularly high during FY 2026, but as that sort of memory of paying a lot more tax payments, etc., so the cash, there's cash going out the door. We see that kind of flow through. I think 2027 and 2028, you'll see it go up towards that [$2.60]. I think FY 2026 will probably be relatively light. Thank you. Thank you. Your next question comes from Matt Montgomerie from Forsyth Barr. Please go ahead. Hi guys, good afternoon. Well done on another solid set of numbers. I might go back to Arie's question about bridging us to FY 2028 in terms of operating profit target. Andrew, you made a comment about, I guess, being very comfortable off that element. That comes out. It'd be useful if you could, I guess, quantify what of that, call it $250 million bridging from FY 2025 to FY [audio distortion]. Is the cost base versus, I suppose, the exchange through the ingredients and food service divisions? Yeah, I mean, I think broadly, Matt, we'd probably see it about 50/50. Okay. Yeah. That's helpful. Just on ERP costs, I think you've sort of signaled $50 million over 2025 and 2026. At what point, do you have a number in for 2027? Because there's obviously still probably a couple hundred million there left. Is that all happening in 2027? It'd be useful to phase us into 2027 and 2028. No, I get where you're going from. Look, there will definitely still be some spend in 2028. That's the way that we would have phased out at the moment. If you're willing to put a number in in 2027, you know, $70 million- $90 million, maybe somewhere around that sort of number. Definitely 2026 will be our peak year. We'll see it come off in 2027, and then there will be a little bit left in 2028. Yeah, perfect. There may be one for Miles, just on the back in terms of, you know, I've noted the engine gearing guidance commentary through to 3x to less than 3x. I suppose if we look at the balance sheet for compliance, we're looking at maybe 1.1x, 1.2 x gearing to EBITDA in 2028. Using the numbers you've provided, I guess my question there is like with the comfort levels now in the business and I suppose what I'm getting at is scope for further additional dividends over and above, I guess, paying the top end of your dividend payout policy range. Yeah, certainly I wouldn't bank on any further capital returns at this point until we've made further progress throughout 2026. As you see from the residual funds from the sales, circa $700 million, we'll put that through the capital allocation framework and make some decisions throughout 2026 and beyond. The rationale for moving from two to three is not to be under pressure to move back into a three. If we feel comfortable less than two, we will do so. Really, it's just a signal that we'll certainly be less than three, but on the more conservative end of that, certainly in the near term. Thanks, [Vince]. One more, Miles. You obviously, you and the broader management team have done a fantastic job over the last seven or eight years, I guess. What do we call tidying up the low-hanging fruit? Clearly, the consumer's the last major interested around, I guess, any further, I just call it low-hanging fruit. You said a note China consumer in particular, you know, obviously a reasonable drag still over the last couple of years, which is now included in food service profitability. That feels like one, but I suppose comments on thing else that you see from [audio distortion] your point of view. Sure. Generally, low-hanging fruit implies they're quite easy, easy things to give. Trust me, it's been a heck of a sort of six or seven years, but I'll put that aside for the moment. We acknowledge there's work in China, but the rationale for keeping China is all about the link between the Anchor and Anchor Food Professionals. It's very much aligned in that market. Beyond Anchor, you'd need to understand where we take that business into the future, but it's certainly been on our ticket for the early part of this funding. You'll see some progress on that because we know it's an important element. What I think you're starting to see play out this year, the year prior even to a certain extent, is that as you start to get more focused on what we know that we're here for, we're starting to deliver. To see our way away from consumer at some point throughout 2026, notwithstanding, of course, there's going to be some transitional service agreements that need to play out. Once we're sort of free of that, then I think we're just the tip of the iceberg in terms of where we can take this organization. There's still a heck of a lot more to do, but I wouldn't say it's low-hanging fruit. There's still a lot to be done. Yeah, that's useful. Cost is probably not the correct language, but thanks for that. No worries, thank you. Thank you. Your next question comes from Joshua Dale from Craigs Investment Partners. Please go ahead. Hi guys, well done on a very solid set of numbers yet again. The first question, your return on capital target is 10%- 12%. It looks like you could probably get a higher return than that by just buying back your own shares. Given where your balance sheet's at or is going to be at, is a buyback something you're considering? We always look at that as part of our capital allocation framework. As we evolve through, that is certainly part of the discussion that we'll have with the board. Got it. In light of the strength of your balance sheet, it was sort of interesting to note that you've kept your dividend policy payout range at 60% - 80%. In what scenario do you think we could be looking at a 60% payout? Yeah, there's nothing sort of in the foreseeable future. Like much of you on this call, I suspect our farmers and our board have got some pretty long memories. The last thing they want us to see is to start to get too excited and start to change our thinking. Just making sure that there is an element of, you know, let's realize why we're here. Yes, the last couple of years we've paid a sort of the top end of our policy, in fact, even beyond that when it was at a low range. It's important we keep the range there because things happen, and when you're dealing in an international market and storms come up on you bloody quickly, it's important we keep that flexibility and conservative nature of the balance sheet. You've seen the strength of the balance sheet, you've seen our history in delivering and therefore paying out at the higher end. That's certainly how management is focused on, but we need to be conscious of whose capital we're dealing with here. Thanks. Last question, the existence of the Fonterra Shareholders Fund, does the strength of your balance sheet lead you to take another look at whether it's worth keeping that in its current state? Like the earlier conversation that Andrew said, I think all these things are always on the table, but it's not a hot topic right now. Okay, thanks very much. Thank you. Once again, if you wish to ask a question, please press star one. Your next question comes from Marcus Curley from UBS. Please go ahead. Good afternoon. I just wondered if we could go back to the stream returns, gents. Could you give us some sort of color in terms of how you would sort of quantify that in terms of the benefit in the FY 2025 year? By the look of things in the presentation, you're sort of expecting a similar number for FY 2026, if that's correct? Not quite. If we look at FY 2025, we'd probably see, with the benefit of a hedging book, we would see about $100 million, $100 million, and maybe just $120 million max would be the benefit to be sold versus FY 2024 in terms of that space. That's certainly what we were seeing, but that is because of the benefit of the hedging book. Obviously, stream returns are narrowing. You've seen that narrow towards the end of the year. We started out in FY 2025 in a reasonable spot, but we certainly don't see that that's where we would actually end through the year. We do see it changing. We see it in FY 2026 sort of reverting back to where we were in FY 2024, which is essentially the sort of space. It's more of a long-run average, and that sort of mean reversion is certainly what we'd be expecting it to go through. What was the number in 2024? In 2024, oh, yeah, but $100 million less than FY 2025, yeah. Okay, so $120 million benefit going to, broadly speaking, a $20 million benefit. So a $100 million headwind, but baked into the guidance for the continued operations in FY 2026? Yes, that's right. Could you then provide a little bit of color in terms of where the, let's say, the underlying growth in the business is coming from in FY 2026, you know, against the backdrop of that $100 million headwind? Yeah, we do continue to see good margins in markets, so that's clearly there, particularly from an ingredients standpoint. We've got good, robust demand there, which we're seeing continue through. Food service is one that we're going to need to watch pretty carefully. Those high milk prices are definitely putting some pressure on margins in food service, so we do need to see that pricing in the market particularly goes up there. Still volume growth, yep, but I would like to see margins come up a little bit. The other thing that we have the benefit of in 2026 is that we did have some one-offs in FY 2025, probably about $80 million worth of one-off costs in 2025 from impairments, etc. We won't have those in 2026, so we're getting the benefit of that on the other side. Those one-off costs of $80 million weren't normalized out in the FY 2025 result? No, we didn't do any normalizations with the exception of the costs related to the divestment. Okay, where did those one-off costs occur? Sorry, I missed your question. What line items were the one-off costs in FY 2025? You'll see it in a couple of different species, predominantly in Q4. A couple of smallish, smallest in the grand scheme of things, but they add up, quality issues we had earlier in the season, an exit of a business earlier in the year, and brand impairments, yeah. That's how much we lost profit in the bit. Quite a few small, I mean, historically we still $80 million in each item, but a number of small things that added up to about $80 million that, you know, we decided not to normalize. Second question, just on the guidance, does it incorporate the benefit of the lower net debt in that continued operations EPS? At the moment, you know, that would be a relatively small space for us. Obviously, we've done the continuing business. Depending on what time the sale comes in and how long we hold funds for, there may be some potential upside in terms of us holding funds until we can distribute it back to shareholders. Until we have more clarity on exactly when completion date is, when funds come in and when they'll go back out again, we won't make any other projections on that, but there is a potential there for some upside. You mentioned briefly, or it was just acknowledged, that the China consumer business is still loss-making. Could you talk a little bit about what sits in behind that? I know, Miles, you briefly talked to it and what the plan is around that. Yeah, the plan is fairly clear. One thing that we did do and part of what's dragging it down is one of the impairments does sit in there, but also that we had some costs related to actually taking out some costs. We made some, basically, we took the team size down and we had some redundancies and stuff to pay. There were some one-offs related to right sizing, I guess you would call it, the business. We actually had to impair from a brand standpoint as well. That's what was sort of dragging it down through 2025. We do still have some further cost optimization to do within that business during 2026. As Miles said, we will actually then trim the portfolio a little bit as well. We will take out some of the sort of more tangential products, get really focused on what does create value in that space, which is more of your core Anchor and less of some of your other parts. That just gives us a much more, gives us a smaller business, but actually one that is more profitable than it was before. I guess the way to describe it is that it's been, up until now, a standalone consumer business while it reported into the Greater China business at a high level. Standalone and therefore sort of ran their own destiny. Their job now is to facilitate the growth of Anchor Food Professionals. That completely changes the way you go to market. You still want to make sure you have a presence in some of those retail channels, but it changes the way you go about it and how you spend your AMP, how many people you need, your approach to distributors. It's a complete change of model, of which Andrew said we've picked up a fair chunk of those redundancy costs in the current year, in the last year, which gives us a platform to then go forward under a new operating model. That said, still more to do. Miles, does that include exiting some of the products, for example, like UHT? Can I say maybe? There's obviously people involved in all this, so work to do, but I think you know what I'm saying. Sure, okay, thanks a lot. Thank you. Your next question comes from Nick [Marr] from Macquarie. Please go ahead. Good afternoon. I'm just on the guidance, just talk through what the main drivers of the bottom end and the top end of the guidance range will be over the year. Yeah, obviously, probably two things. Food service margin, we really need to make sure that we can keep food service, one, growing, but also that we can keep margin in place. Food service margin definitely there. Stream returns is always going to be something that plays out in the variability within our P&L, and that is probably the other biggest part that's playing there. Yeah, downside, wallet's almost around in the era. We are watching carefully the tariff situation in the U.S. I mean, the 15% starts to bite, and while we've had some success with our key customers in that market, we're starting to get a bit of pushback as well on that. We are watching that closely, and you could see us sort of moving down on the guidance if we don't have any success there. No, that's helpful. Just talking about the Mainland investment and the sort of numbers there, if we were to adjust for the divestment cost of, like, it's $368 million, it's quite a lot higher than, you know, we were probably thinking. If we go back to the original presentation, it was $200 million of kind of the scope before some of the changes and the currency and whatnot. Can you just talk through what's been the driver from that $200 million to, say, the $368 million where it's landed? Yeah, so there's three key things that are at play there. Four actually, if you include it's FY 2025 and not 2024. The perimeter is different. If you look at what we had put out before, we are now including the Middle East food service business, but also a manufacturing facility within Saudi is in there. There's a bigger perimeter than was originally there. We have the benefit, yeah, we also have the standalone costs. What we presented was a business that would be standalone, and that means that it had a lot of additional costs within there that are required in order for it to operate as a standalone entity. Those were costs that we obviously disclosed through the due diligence, but that cost would not be stuff that necessarily existed already because it was part of a broader entity. As a separated entity, because it's not being created as independent, it will go to, you know, go to across the Lactalis. Some of those standalone costs are just not required, and certainly they weren't in place in the business during FY 2025. That's probably the two biggest parts of it if I think about what the changes were. It's the perimeter and then the fact that the standalone costs weren't included. The underlying growth piece, sort of how much has that been year on year, and what's driven the majority of that? Yeah, so actually, two parts. The Australian ingredients business was probably the biggest part of that. Obviously, coming off quite a tough FY 2024 where they had a particularly high milk price in Australia, the Australian ingredients business was probably the lion's share of that. Actually, the consumer margins held up pretty well in the context of a high milk price. It's actually a good performance for Mainland in total, but the big driver would have been the Australian ingredients business. That's great. Thank you very much. Thank you. Once again, if you do wish to ask a question, please press star one. We'll pause a moment for any further questions to register. Thank you. There are no, oh, apologies. You do have a follow-up question from Arie Dekker from Jarden. Please go ahead. Hello, just quickly on capital management. Could you just talk to the ability to tax effectively distribute post the $2 return? I guess just comment on how much available subscribed capital will be left post that $2 return. Yes, so post the capital return, relatively little, I think. We are in the middle of hunting down to see if there's any in any of the sort of, you know, predecessor companies, etc. At the moment, there would be very little that would be on top of what we were paying out now. Okay, thank you. No problem. Thank you. There are no further questions at this time. I'll now hand back to Mr. Hurrell for closing remarks. Great, thank you. Thank you very much for your attendance and your questions. Of course, the team are available if there's any follow-ups that you may wish to have. Again, thanks for your support.