All right. Yeah. We'll keep you honest this way. Perfect. I I think we're good. Okay. Terrific. Well, listen, thanks everybody for coming back from lunch. Good to see everybody again. Very happy to bring FMC up on stage. It's a company I've known for a long time, a lot of different iterations. I think I probably first started looking at them 25 years ago or so in 1999, back before they kind of did anything R&D-wise in ag and basically just sourced a lot of stuff from Sumitomo. I think is kind of what the business model was back then. But they've certainly come a long way. Very happy to have Pierre and Andrew and Ronaldo here with us, so the whole breadth of the company here as far as you know brain power goes and understanding of the business. Maybe Pierre, if you could start, I think, maybe just level set. When you look at where you peaked in EBITDA a couple years back and then maybe what the LTM was at the low point last year, a lot of volatility in earnings versus what the 10- or 20- or 30-year view has been on ag chem. Kind of what went wrong company-wise and what went wrong macro-wise that kind of put that much volatility into the business? And then using that low watermark as a baseline, what should people expect just from the core business from that going forward? Yes. The mic on? I think it's on. Yeah. It's on. Okay. Well, maybe talk about the cycle and why that cycle would be more. I think the industry was due to the cycle. Mm-hmm. Eight years. That's usually what you have. What happened is, we had the COVID situation and most importantly the post-COVID situation where China pretty much shut down and supply was difficult. Mm-hmm. I think company, customers, distributors, retailers, growers started to order because they were worried of not being able to be supplied. Mm-hmm. They were ordering single, double, triple orders to make sure to get one because of fear of not having product. That supply chain issue got resolved. Mm-hmm. Nevertheless, the market did not realize that for about six months kept on doing it. So, you were at the end of a period where a cycle was due. Mm-hmm. It was amplified. Mm-hmm. By the fact that you had almost a year or a year and a half of overpurchased. And I think for the first time we saw usually, most of the inventory is based with distributors. Mm-hmm. Some retailers. Building inventory happened all the way to the growers, which usually never happens. Growers do not hold inventory. Right. So we got to a situation where when the downturn hit, it was magnified versus a regular downturn. Mm-hmm. Now you're correct. FMC got penalized maybe more than others. And I think the reason is that we have built over the last 10 years a manufacturing structure which is maybe a bit more flexible than most. Okay. We got very independent from China, less than 30% of China dependency. Mm-hmm. So even when China was not supplying, we were capable of supplying from the rest of the world. What happened is when people were placing single, double, triple order, we were capable of supplying our own orders. Mm-hmm. If a customer would be concerned and place an order for somebody else which could not supply, they would place it to us. Okay. We would be able to supply. Consequently, if you look at our growth rate in 2001, 2021, and 2022 they are much higher than industry. Mm-hmm. I think we grew 9% in 2021, 15% in 2022, and I think it's just because we were doing our own supply and potentially covering for other suppliers who could not. Okay. When the downturn hit, having more inventory than most. Mm-hmm. We got hit more than others. Okay. So, everybody got hit. We got hit a bit more. Okay. That's what happened. Okay. Okay. And then when you look at kind of the high watermark for that inventory and where you think you're at today with your products through the chain, how would you categorize the Delta? Are you where you want to be all the way through the chain, or do you think there's still some more inventory to come out? I think it's very region dependent. Okay. We are pretty comfortable with North America and Europe. Mm-hmm. Things are happening well in Latin America and Brazil, Argentina, where we see product going through the channel, with the season which is turning out despite the delay in rain. Mm-hmm. Pretty good. So, we believe Latin America will get by a normalized channel toward the second quarter. Okay. Asia is more difficult, especially driven by India. Mm-hmm. Which has the same cycle issue as everybody has, plus three seasons of bad weather. Okay. India will drive Asia to be in a high channel inventory for, I think, most of 2025. Okay, and I want to come back to some of that stuff, but I first want to kind of pull back. One of the questions we're getting across almost every company we follow is just obviously new administration. You know, they have a view that they want to change, you know, some of the global trade patterns in a number of different products. So, you know, whether you're looking back kind of at Trump 1.0 or kind of what some of, you know, the people around the administration have said so far, where do you see, I guess, both the opportunities around things like tariffs and maybe counter tariffs, and where do you see the most risk for your business? You know, I think we see ourselves in a pretty stable situation. No major risk. Okay. No major opportunities at this stage. First, lots of questions around the RFK. Mm-hmm. It takes some position around some products. A couple of them is really against our product, not served by FMC. We don't sell them. Okay. Now, it's important to know that we depend as an industry. Mm-hmm. We depend upon the EPA. Mm-hmm. The USDA. Yep. None of those are under the control of health services. Right. Which are held by RFK, so from a legal standpoint, there isn't much. Okay. From a tariff standpoint, I think numbers which have been mentioned for FMC are significantly higher than the real impact. Okay. First of all, we went from 60% China exposure to 30% China exposure. Mm-hmm. Second of all, there is multiple exemption you get. Mm-hmm. I'll give you an example. If you import product which are used in the plant in the U.S. to then being exported as a final product. Okay. You don't pay tariffs. Okay. If there is a product you bring from China, which if the rules are the same as before. Yeah. Yeah. You bring from China and you have no other place in the world you can procure the product. For example, one of our plants where we are making one of the specific intermediates for manufacturing. Mm-hmm. We bring it into our plant. There is no tariffs on that. Mm-hmm. Okay. There is exemptions which are, so you combine exemptions plus a low exposure to China. Mm-hmm. To give you a number, in 2018, the first administration, when we had 60% exposure to China. Mm-hmm. The tariffs impact on the company was $20 million-$22 million a year. Okay. So, you know, which we passed on to customers. So, it's not a significant number. Okay. And when people talk to you and they're worried, what kind of numbers do people have in their minds as far as, like, what's the Delta between what you think it will be and kind of how worried people are? The numbers I've read from some calculation which we are demonstrated by, looking at how much we sell in the U.S. Mm-hmm. Potentially we're in the $50 million, $70 million, $80 m,illion. Okay. Those tariffs, those calculations are trade calculations, not taking into account. Mm-hmm. The exemptions you get and not taking into account the fact that we're only down to 30% exposure. Okay. Not the 60% we had in 2016, 2017, 2018. Okay. Let me jump to R&D because, again, when I think about the DuPont deal that you did, I mean, obviously, you got Rynaxypyr, Cyazypyr, but to me, maybe the biggest Delta for FMC over a long period of time is you got a big R&D unit with it, and that's not something that you guys had done historically. So, maybe a couple parts in this question. One, when you look back in the time you've had it, has that R&D unit run like you would have hoped it would have? And then two, you know, from here forward, what does that R&D unit, do you think, bring to FMC? Yes. When I came back, that's the first thing I looked into because we knew Rynaxypyr is getting off patent. Mm-hmm. I wanted to know what were the growth platform. Mm-hmm. For the company. And R&D came through. Mm-hmm. I mean, I think I've never seen in the history of FMC bringing four new active ingredients to the market. Mm-hmm. Two actually came from the old FMC. Okay. But the development was enhanced. Mm-hmm. By belonging to the DuPont organization. And two are coming from DuPont. Mm-hmm. Four very performing products. Mm-hmm. Two are being introduced now. One will be introduced at the end of 2026. Mm-hmm. One in 2028. We expect those products very quickly to get into the multi-million multi-hundred million dollars. Mm-hmm. So, at the earnings call, we're going to try to give a more of a feel for the growth platform for the company. Okay. But those four molecules, we'll talk about three-year planning three-year plan impact. Mm-hmm. Because they have a short-term impact. Right. Plus, in some cases, they're allowing us to penetrate markets which we don't participate in. Okay. Maybe, Ronaldo, you want to talk about fluindapyr and soybean Brazil? Sure. Sure. fluindapyr is a product that we launched here in the U.S. under the name, the brand Adastrio. And we tested the market in Brazil two years ago. Mm-hmm. On soybean rust. Mm-hmm. This year is the first season, full season that we're commercializing the product. It's given us access to we never had a fungicide for soybean. Correct. That market alone in Brazil is probably worth something along the lines of $3 billion. Mm-hmm. So, it's $3 billion of new market for us to participate and explore. Mm-hmm. We've always been present in the soybean market in. Mm-hmm. In Brazil, but primarily selling herbicides and insecticides. Mm-hmm. Now we have the newest fungicide to offer to that market. It's pretty exciting, in terms of the opportunities, the new opportunities. Right. That it opens up for us. Remind me, the Asian rust market in Brazil, how that $3 billion, how volatile is that from year to year? Is that fairly constant, or is it one, you know, it's a billion dollars one year, it's four the next? Does it? As everything in agriculture, it's weather dependent. Yeah. But I would call it pretty stable. Okay. Okay. It is a very dynamic market. Yep. But it's pretty stable. It. Okay. It doesn't disappear from one year to another. Yep. If anything, I think it has grown. Mm-hmm. Because as growers started to treat their crops, everybody talks about Asian soybean rust, but the piece that excites us with fluindapyr is actually there are other diseases. Mm-hmm. To be controlled besides Asian soybean rust and what sets fluindapyr apart. Mm-hmm. It's not its performance on Asian soybean rust. It is the. Mm-hmm. The duration of control, so residual control, as well as, the other diseases that this product controls beyond or beside. Okay. Asian soybean rust. That is really what sets it apart. Okay. And that's why we're. Yep. We're excited about getting into that market as a newcomer. Okay. Not as a company that is a newcomer. Yep. But into that segment. And so, the efficacy on soybean rust, you would argue, is roughly equal with what exists in the market today, but the benefit from yours is you would have more residual value than those other fungicides would, and you actually fight some other diseases that they don't. So, that would be your. It is. Magic. The performance on Asian soybean rust is equivalent to the best. Yep. Options out there. Okay. And then when you think about that market launching a high-end product, market share-wise, I mean, do you figure, like, a third after six years, is that, like, a decent guess to think where the market share could go for this product, or how would you handicap, you know, your ability to take market share from others? We'll share more details on during our earnings call in February. Okay. But once again, we're talking about soybean rust. It's being commercialized in corn. Mm-hmm. Here in U.S. We're launching the product in Argentina as well. Okay. On soybean. So, when we talk about market share, we go crop by crop, crop segment by segment. Yep. Country by country. But we'll be more detailed in terms of our expectations. Mm-hmm. On how that product will become a growth part of our growth engine. Mm-hmm. In the next three years. Okay. So, not out there, not maturity. Okay. But what do we expect out of these new molecules in 2025, 2026... Yep. And 2027. Okay. And again, just because it's so large, if you would, I'm not real familiar with how fungicide for rust in Brazil is sold. Is it sold just independently, and then farmers would spray it themselves, or is it part of a package that you would buy with a certain seed company? You know, because sometimes it's quirky the way different things happen in Brazil from a marketing standpoint. Do you need to package it with something else or somebody else, or can you just sell it straight and the farmers would buy it? You know, it's kind of an à la carte option for what they do. We already serve those customers. Okay. We're talking about Rynaxypyr. We sell today Rynaxypyr on those markets. Mm-hmm. We just don't have or didn't have a tool to go into the fungicide market. Okay. So, it doesn't necessarily require a different route to market. Okay. Customers, they don't buy from just one company. Mm-hmm. They tend to rely on either retailers and co-ops in Brazil. Okay. Or the very large farmers. They buy directly from the companies. Okay. We plan to serve the same segments that we have served before. Right. But now playing into product segments. Mm-hmm. That we didn't have an offering for. Okay. All right. So, that's the first of the new molecules. All right. I don't know if you want to go through each of the molecules, but there is four of them. The other one is Isoflex. Mm-hmm. Which is an herbicide which is also being launched now. I think what the message I want to give is that you take those four molecules. Mm-hmm. You take Cyazypyr, which is... Mm-hmm. The patent-protected part of the diamide. Mm-hmm. You take the biological. Mm-hmm. Very, very quickly, you have a growth platform, which is very large. Mm-hmm. It is a large component of the corporation. What Ronaldo said about the four molecules is that we'll talk at the earnings call, but, you know, we said it could be $2 billion by the early 2030's. That's what was said at the last investor day. I think it's going to, it could be more because we're finding more application. There is one product, Dodhylex, rice herbicide. We called it and wanted to launch it as a rice herbicide. Okay. We're just finding out it is an herbicide. Mm-hmm. We've seen some tests. We were in Brazil two weeks ago. We saw some tests on sugarcane. It's a fantastic product. So, we're seeing more and more application. So, what we want to, rather than talking about ten years down the road, we want to show that in the next two or three years. Mm-hmm. It's going to have a major impact on the corporation, multi-hundred million dollars in the three-year plan. Mm-hmm. With high growth potential. Okay. And historically, when you've looked at molecules coming to market, I mean, obviously, like Rynaxapyr was a big home run as we've probably ever had, you know, outside of maybe Glyphosate, right, as far as just scale and efficacy and uptake. When molecules don't work historically, you know, and you go back and you kind of look at it, what's generally caused that? And again, if you look at these four and let's say one of them doesn't work, you know, at least to the scale you want, what is likely the cause of that? It could be anything, and tests which were sometimes you run some tests, and we're looking at the platforms of some of the tests we're doing with herbicides in Brazil. Some are very clear. When we look at Dodhylex on sugarcane, it's a very clear herbicide. Sometimes it acts as an herbicide, but you can see there is residual. Right. There is so, but you see it. The good thing about product is you see it very quickly. Mm-hmm. When it works really well, you also see it very quickly. Okay. We just launched those two products in the first year. They're over $100 million in sales. Mm-hmm. It's very rare. Yeah. You know they are for real. Right. So, the level of certainty around those four molecules with where we are in the test and the market introduction, at least for three of them, is very high. Okay. The fourth one most likely to. Yo u know, you talk about blockbuster molecule like, like Rynaxypyr, those four. Mm-hmm. Cyazypyr, which is today a $500 million molecule. Those four could get there. Yeah. Okay. I mean, they could each of them. Mm-hmm. Could be, $500+ million a molecule. Okay. Or more. Okay. But the thing which is more important than what the molecule could be for us is, there is a concern in the investment community: what is FMC with the diamides? Mm-hmm. What we are saying is we should not talk about diamides. We should say Rynaxypyr is one product in diamides. Mm-hmm. Which for us is becoming a core product. It's going to grow. We know how to shift the market toward technical formulation. But it's a product very soon within the next twelve months, which will be like Bifenthrin, Clomazone. Mm-hmm. Sulfentrazone. It's going to be a molecule which is in the public market. Mm-hmm. And we know the recipe. We have the strategy. We're putting it in place to grow these at 4%, 5%, 6%. Mm-hmm. That is part of the core, and then you have Cyazypyr, which is a very high-growth molecule, better product. Mm-hmm. Which is data-protected. Mm-hmm. There is no generic activity. Much more difficult to make, much more expensive to make. We don't have competition. Mm-hmm. We're not for that. We're developing advanced molecule. This is going to grow double digit. Okay. We have the four molecules we talked about. Mm-hmm. And then we have Biologicals. So losing as a protected molecule, a billion-dollar Rynaxypyr, we're going to go at 5% instead of 8%-9%. Yeah. But we have below that, a series of growth platforms which are growing even faster. It's a normal cycle. Yeah. There is no worries about moving Rynaxypyr into a core molecule. Right. Which is slower growth. Okay. And again, we usually don't get molecules as big as Rynaxypyr. Again, we've had, you know, Glyphosate a few, but I mean, not many. On the smaller ones, you know, a lot of the work I've done over the last 20 or 30 years, you would basically say you kind of go from the mid-30s in margins to, like, the mid-20s over, like, a 5- or 6-year period after it comes off patent. You know, that something like that is what the normal glide path would be. And again, depending on which molecule it's been, you might lose, you know, 10% of your sales or 15% of your sales. Mm-hmm. Or the growth rate may, like you were talking about, kind of get cut in half. Is that a decent framework to think about what Rynaxypyr would do as it comes off patent over, like, a five-year period? I think the margin gets protected. Mm-hmm. By moving your portfolio. Okay. Rynaxypyr, let's take the example of Rynaxypyr. Today, there is the single molecule. Mm-hmm. That's what we have sold when it was a patented product. Mm-hmm. Still patented for a year. Okay. Okay? We still have some time. Yeah. It's not yet off patent, but close. What is happening is, you move this product toward new formulations. Mm-hmm. Which have because Rynaxypyr is a good product. It's not a perfect product. Mm-hmm. It's been on the market for a long time. We use, because we're selling it, we see resistance. Mm-hmm. Starting to develop. Mm-hmm. It's a narrow spectrum. We can increase the spectrum in terms of the pest. Mm-hmm. We can control. There is ease-of-use problem. You can develop tablets. You can develop high concentration. Mm-hmm. What you can do is move your portfolio when people are coming with single molecules which have limitations in terms of application performance toward advanced formulation. We are developing a roadmap right now. Mm-hmm. You sell these products. These products provide a benefit, economical and technical, to the growers. Mm-hmm. You sell those at a premium on margin because of the technology. So yes, if you stay with a single molecule and try to keep on selling it against generic. Yeah. On the market, you're going to lose margin. Okay. But the idea is to shift your portfolio in the next couple of years. 60%-70% of the portfolio will have shifted from. Right. A single molecule. Okay. Into advanced. So the idea is not to lose margin. Okay. Nor to see a decrease of the molecule. Okay. Now, there is another aspect, but it's a decision we are working on to be made. We'll talk about that also. Investor Day is we are decreasing our manufacturing cost for Rynaxypyr and Cyazypyr significantly. Okay. Not talking a couple of%. I'm talking about. Okay. We found a methodology, and we exited some. We announced that. Mm-hmm. Some manufacturing sites. We're going to get to a place where we're going to be competitive with generic price. Mm-hmm. The question is when you get to these markets, it would not be a big surprise to one day see Rynaxypyr going from $1 billion-$4 billion. Mm-hmm. Like Glyphosate did. Yeah. The question for us is do we expand our pie? Mm-hmm. By using a lower cost to go into other insecticide market we are not going into today. Mm-hmm. Because our cost is too high. Mm-hmm. What kind of margin do we want? Okay. So we have the strategy of our current market. Mm-hmm. And current application. Mm-hmm. Protect margin and grow 5%. Okay. The question is how do we want to grow the pie. Right. Which part do we take depending upon what margin we want to take. Right. Okay. Yeah, because I mean, Monsanto dropped Glyphosate prices tremendously, like, the year before they came off patent, and I think grew volume 40% or something. Yeah. The year after. Okay. So, you're saying that may be available to you where you'd be willing to take a lower margin if you could significantly increase the size of the pie. That's something you'd look at. Okay. Fair enough. You brought up manufacturing, which I want to touch on quickly. When you look at what you manufacture in your own plants versus what you have third parties manufacture, is that the footprint you want going forward? Do you think you have the right footprint, or do you need to make some, you know, meaningful changes there? No meaningful changes. Okay. I think we have a good balance. We use contract manufacturing to make intermediates with zero-fund finished product. Mm-hmm. In our own plants. So, we have a pretty decent balance. It will be an evolving balance. Mm-hmm. Like, right now, we're increasing the footprint in India. Mm-hmm. It's also part of the cost reduction plus de-risking China. So, we make decisions as we go, but there is no fundamental change which is... Okay. ...which is required. Okay. And then when, obviously, you stepped away from the CEO role was. Mm-hmm. Chairman came back. You know, I always like to ask when you did, what is it you were hoping what change did you want to affect? Was it just to kind of settle investors' nerves and say, "Listen, I'm still here. You know, my hand's still on the till. This is still a good idea"? Or were there structural things, culture, or whatever within the company, you know, that you wanted to kind of meaningfully change? There is a couple of aspects. The first one is what I just talked about before. Mm-hmm. I wanted to change when I looked at the company, and that's something I've been thinking about, also before being CEO as a board member. And I think maybe one thing we have not done as well as we should have in the past is describing our portfolio. Mm-hmm. We kept on saying, "Don't worry, investors. Diamides are still patent-protected and data-protected, so it's still a growth platform." It is not the way we should talk about our company. Our company has a series of core products. Mm-hmm. Where the base molecule from which you create the formulations are in the public domain. Mm-hmm. This is where Rynaxypyr belongs. Mm-hmm. You have to devote the resources which are solely formulation resources. Mm-hmm. That is your core product. Don't try to sell Rynaxypyr as a patent-protected molecule. It's over. Mm-hmm. This is 5%, but you have to be highly focused on developing a growth roadmap. Mm-hmm. To move this portfolio from the single to the formulation. I think that's one thing we're not doing enough. Mm-hmm. Because we are treating that seed as a patent single molecule. Right. We would sell. I think it's the wrong strategy. The strategy is to move it up with a core and move the portfolio. It's going to take us a year or two years. Mm-hmm. We'll be there by 2016, 2017. Okay. The roadmap is in place, and there is some interesting product. The last one I'll do to give you is one description of one product we can make. Then the rest is structure from an investment spend. Mm-hmm. The company around the three growth platforms. Mm-hmm. Because losing growth, losing patent on Rynaxypyr is, I don't want to sleep over that. Mm-hmm. Not at all. Mm-hmm. Because we have what we need as long as we put the right focus. Mm-hmm. The right resource to get those platform to grow. Cyazypyr, because it was smaller than Rynaxypyr, was not getting enough attention. Mm-hmm. That's a fantastic molecule for which we have no competition. Okay. That's part of the strategic approach of the company I wanted to change was the first thing. The other thing is maybe going back to maybe doing some of the fundamentals right. Mm-hmm. I think we have to be very careful on how we forecast. Mm-hmm. Making sure it's a bottom-up process to understand exactly the sales potential of the company. Mm-hmm. The third piece I would say was marketing. Mm-hmm. One of the reasons for which we overgrew in 2001, 2002, because maybe we didn't understand enough. Mm-hmm. Where we're selling, where our product we're going, where the market is. Right. Going, and maybe we paid a little bit more of a price than others. Mm-hmm. When things went down. So, what I'll do is leading also the marketing organization. Okay. And revamping that. And the last one, I think, is R&D. Mm-hmm. We spent $300 million in R&D, half in the regions. Mm-hmm. Half Central, and the reporting was such that we could duplicate work. Wow. Mm-hmm. Money could be wasted or was wasted. Mm-hmm. I think we changed the governance of R&D. Mm-hmm. We changed the organization. Everything is coming under Ronaldo. He's changing the governance. Mm-hmm. I can tell you we can do much more. Okay. With the same amount of money. Mm-hmm. When you have a coordination among all the research centers. Okay. I do want to get your view on Biologicals. So, you know, kind of size and how you think that goes. I've generally been skeptical of biologicals for a long, you know, years back in Marrone Bio Innovations and Becker Underwood, and there's been a lot of hope and hype around biologicals for a long time. You know, I always tell people the experience on, like, my farm. It's like, you know, we've got acres north of I-80 that are, you know, clay soil. You know, we've got sandy soil south, and sometimes biologicals works much differently, you know, on each side of the interstate. And so it's hard to get a consistent efficacy from it is what my experience has been. But when you look at biologicals as a part of your portfolio, outside of mandates where maybe you're being forced to use it, you know, how do you see the efficacy of Biologicals developing, and how big can that portfolio get for you guys? I'm going to tell you a little bit what I think about Biologicals as a business. Mm-hmm. I'm not skeptical, but I'm the more prudent of the group. Then I'll let Ronaldo is a bit less prudent than me talk about Biologicals. My view is when I talk about the three growth platforms, Cyazypyr, the four new AIs. Mm-hmm. What we call the plant health. Mm-hmm. Okay, which includes biologicals. Today it's a $200 million business. Mm-hmm. Today it's growing at 20%. It's good. Mm-hmm. But you know, $200 million at 20%, it's not going to be a $2 billion dollar we talked about. Yeah. In the early 2030's. Yeah. Why is that? It's because there is an inflection point in terms of the number of Biologicals products we are developing. Mm-hmm. As well as pheromones. Mm-hmm. I need to see the inflection point in terms of the new product. Pheromones, we're going to start the first real test at the end of 2025. Okay. The potential is here. Mm-hmm. But I think we still have a lot to prove. Mm-hmm. Before we can say it's a multi-billion-dollar platform. The way I think about Biologicals is I don't think it's going to Biologicals are not developed and made to be standalone... Mm-hmm. ...Pest control product. We see that as part of a portfolio with chemicals. Mm-hmm. Used together, not as standalone. So, I think it'll be something which will be part of the portfolio. Mm-hmm. I don't think it will replace. I don't think it will cannibalize. I think they're going to be more complementarity. Mm-hmm. It's going to be part of a product which I use together because of efficacy pro. Okay. I mean, Ronaldo, you want to add? Just the fact that we see that as a fast-growing segment, but the value proposition is not to replace chemicals. Mm-hmm. It's really to fit into a best management program. Mm-hmm. Bringing more resilience against resistance development, being an alternative for growers that need to spray their crops three days before they harvest. Mm-hmm. There are limitations to do that with chemicals. They can do that with biologicals. Mm-hmm. Being products that will help growers. This is more on the biostimulant side of the industry, but help growers develop more resilience. Mm-hmm. In their fields because of the extreme weather events that we have seen. Yeah. We see that as a fast-growing platform, but not by replacing traditional chemicals. Mm-hmm. And it's much more being additional tools for growers to combine with the tools that they have today. Mm-hmm. Their crops become more resilient. Okay. Resilient. And then just the last one here on our way out, farmer economics have been pretty damn good the last five years if you look. You know, and there's some angling that they're going to be worse next year if you just look at, you know, today's numbers. You know, and again, all these things are cyclical. So if farmer economics, you know, move to a meaningfully lower point over the next couple of years, that would seem to kind of conflict where your business is coming out of the cycle trough and starting to improve. Their business is coming from kind of, you know, peak-ish or at least high levels, maybe down. How do those things converge, do you think? You know, how much of a headwind, you know, might that be for your business? We've never been able to tell a very strong correlation between farmer's economy and impact on our business. Mm-hmm. Because whether farmers' economics are good or bad, they need to protect what they have. Mm-hmm. They need to protect their crops. I think, could they at times go more towards generic if they're in very difficult situation? Yes. But don't forget there is risk. I mean, how many times have we seen people taking some cases legal, some cases illegal, mostly legal, generic Rynaxypyr, and instead of spraying once, having to go twice and three times. Mm-hmm. Because of the efficacy and the quality, so they are very careful. Mm-hmm. Especially the ones who are not generic growers. They tend to. They will. What changes. Right. When farmers' economics is difficult, it is that they are more careful. Mm-hmm. In the speed at which they buy. They will be buying. Right. But when times are good, when economics are good, when demand supply is good, they order a very large. Okay. Percentage of what they will need very early in the season. Okay. Today, what they would do in the case you talk about, they will buy 60%. Mm-hmm. They will still buy 100%, but the remaining will be closer and closer to time of use to avoid to build inventory, so it's going to play on the timing...... Okay. ...not on the amount. Awesome. So it brings a bit more uncertainty and a bit more stress on our organization. Mm-hmm. Because a lot of the sales are delayed. Sure. Listen, Pierre, Andrew, Ronaldo, thank you guys so much for coming and spending some time with us. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.