Next up, I'm very proud to announce we have FMC attending. As I think everybody on this line knows, FMC is one of my favorite stocks to cover. I do not say that with a light heart. Love covering agriculture, loved dealing with the organization over many, many years, which includes Andrew Sandifer, who's obviously a seasoned veteran at the institution. It's gonna be a great, you know, we're gonna sit down for a quick fireside chat. I think we have some prepared remarks, and then we'll dive into some Q&A. So I just wanna thank Andrew. Once again, really appreciate the attendance today. Thanks for having us here today. Perhaps the first question I think that is on everybody's minds is just, you know, would you enlighten us, to the extent of which you can on the recent management changes and just the onus of those shifts, and, you know, how investors should be perceiving them as we go into the second half of the year? I certainly, I'm glad to share some perspectives, but obviously, only so much I can say. The simplest way to answer the question is simply this. Mark Douglas and our Board of Directors came to an agreement that it was time for him to step down and for there to be a leadership change. Pierre Brondeau, who was our CEO from 2010 until 2020 and who has been Chairman since 2010, Chairman of the Board, will return and has returned to the CEO seat. He is getting reimmersed into the company. Pierre has obviously been involved in the company for quite a long time, but it is different as a Chairman than as an Operating Executive. So for the last four years, certainly very, you know, deeply engaged in strategy, but getting his hands back into more of the operational details. So, look, I, I'm personally very sad to see Mark go. I I have a tremendous respect for him as a, as a leader, and have, you know, had the opportunity to, to work closely beside him for, for many, many years, and I think him as a, as a friend as well as a colleague. But, you know, again, the best thing I can say at this point is simply, he and the Board agreed it was time for a change. I would note that Mark is staying on as an executive advisor through September 1st to make sure we do have a smooth transition. Obviously, with, you know, a former CEO, current Chairman, coming back into the CEO seat, you know, we don't anticipate any issues. Pierre knows the management team. Pierre, Pierre knows the company very well, but he does need a little bit of time to dig back into the details. For me, look, I've had the pleasure of working for Pierre for almost 20 years, but, you know, 14 years at FMC and at another company prior to that. He's, he's, he's somebody I have tremendous respect for as a business leader, as a strategic thinker, and as, and as a force of nature sometimes. We're all enjoying and adjusting to the changes, but I think it'll be a seamless transition. And I do think, you know, again, I wanna just give much credit and thanks to Mark for everything he did while he was CEO. I think we both agree. I can certainly echo those remarks about Mark, and perhaps Pierre is one of the most passionate people that in the agricultural world. It's a tightly-knit community, but. Absolutely. His reputation precedes him, so we're obviously looking forward to having him back as well. Just, you know, I certainly don't want to spend this time, you know, too short term in nature, but obviously there's been a lot of debate over the last, you know, few quarters, now, I think over a year, on just, you know, channel destock inventories. We've had a normalization in supply chains. It seems like end market demand is actually pretty stable. You know, perhaps you could just give us a real quick, you know, trip around the world as we've tended to do at conferences in the past and what you're seeing. Sure. And look, I think I'll start with the overall environment. I think the one thing that's been very steady and consistent over the past several years through, you know, going into the overbuying in 2022, through the correction that started in 2023, that continues today, consumption of crop protection chemicals by growers has been steady and growing, right? The end use of products has continued to be robust. These are products that you need to drive yield if you're a farmer, to both make your economics, but more importantly, to provide the world the food, the fuel, the feed, the fiber that it needs for a growing population, and to deal with much more volatile growing conditions, where, you know, the old formulas don't always work. You may need some additional help from crop protection chemistry. So first and foremost, we are, you know, we continue to see very strong end consumption by growers. Now, you know, the rollercoaster we've been on, where, you know, our industry went through significant supply disruptions during COVID, significant raw material inflation, with continued supply disruptions coming in through 2021, overbuying in 2022, fueled by fears of supply insecurity, as well as, hedging against inflation, and then a massive correction in 2023, as interest rates moved up and people decided that they were comfortable that there was enough end material available out there. So where we are in the state of the game around the world is, it's very. It varies significantly by country. We are still in the midst of this recovery. You know, I’ve broadly described it, and we’ll continue to describe. I believe we’re bottoming out. We’re moving away from correction and moving towards recovery, but it really does depend on what country you’re in. I think in the U.S., we’re probably most advanced, with inventories at the farm and retail levels at or below normal. Distribution, it’s a mixed story. It depends on which distributor, which products, but it is significantly improved. So as we go through this season, we certainly think we’re coming to more normalized inventory levels across the channel in the U.S. In Brazil, we just finished a growing season. You know, we’re in the off-season, going into the next growing season, and inventories are in a healthy place. They're not at absolute lows, but they are approaching more, much more healthy inventory levels. When you get to the rest of the world, Europe, you know, there's some spots where there's been some adverse weather in the early part of the year, U.K. in particular, with some really heavy rain in the springs that have still some remaining pockets of channel inventory. But broadly speaking, inventories are getting down to more normal levels across Europe. Asia is a mixed bag. I think the industry as a whole, not just FMC, has a significant channel inventory backup in India. You've heard comments from us, you've heard comments from UPL, you've heard comments from Sumitomo. You know, completely different business mix and approach, but their Q1 results, they noted, you know, that there was substantial channel inventory that's built up in India after several successive less than ideal monsoon seasons. So Asia's a bit more of a mixed bag. I think that phenomena, though, you know, of getting inventories down is an important first step in the recovery, but it's not the end of the recovery, right? And yeah, this is the question of what's the right level for the channel to hold over the long term. And so that's something we can click down onto if that's of interest. Just, you know, quick follow-up on just a few of those. Yeah. In North America, you know, you, and as well as some of your competitors, are certainly conveying that we're the, you know, the closest. I hear things like the new normal. In other words, inventories below historical averages or just trying to, you know, calibrate exactly where it should be. This time last year was when a lot of things unraveled for the industry holistically. When you think about your second half order books, your product positioning, you know, your market share, quick question there would be. Is it stable? How are you thinking about the second half last year in terms of purchasing behavior? It's our contention that it's mostly just in time, but what's overall kind of your view versus specifically 2023? Yeah. Well, compared to this time last year, things are significantly improved, and this, this time last year, the business ground to a halt. You know, basically, at the same time around the world, right at the end of May of last year, the, the crop protection industry just stopped. And we, you know, where the normal dialogue with customers, the normal interaction with customers, are an important part of us understanding demand signals, just were shut off. So and I want to think about this year versus last year, you know, one thing that's critically different, we are having conversations with customers about their future needs. So whether that's very large growers or co-ops or distributors or retailers, depending on the country we're in, we are having those kinds of discussions. So, for example, in Brazil, you know, this time last year, it was, you know, "Don't knock on the door, we don't want to see you." Well, you know, we're having conversations. We're having real conversations now on what they think their needs for the next season are. And it's important 'cause, you know, and not just for FMC, but for all the major crop protection chemical producers, our supply chains are not short, right? You cannot instantaneously adjust production to meet demand. We have to have an indication of what's coming to be able to manage inventories and production planning. So having those conversations is good. I am really careful about using the word normal anymore. You know, this is going into my seventh year in this role, and I've yet to see a normal year. What I will say is we are seeing behaviors and engagement that are more like what we've had in the past when we've had better visibility. In terms of the absolute order book, it's not as deep as what we've had, you know, at different points in the past, where we might have had more formally committed orders at this time of the year, but it's infinitely better than it was in June of 2023. So again, I think this notion that we're transitioning from the correction to a recovery is real, and we see indications of this both with these kinds of engagement with customers, with return to buying. But we are still seeing more small orders and more frequent cycles of ordering. Just in time, I think, is a misnomer, but I think this idea of more frequent, smaller orders closer to the time of application, you know, while all of the manufacturers, ourselves included, have probably more inventory on hand than we would like to carry or can bluntly afford to carry over a long term. You know, while that happens, that behavior can still work. Over time, there's gonna need to be a rebalancing. You know, these are y ou know, crop protection chemistry, our products are very seasonal in nature. You only need them in the growing season, and they are of critical timing. You know, if you're a farmer with a crop in the field and you get a bug infestation, you need an insecticide today. You don't need it a week from now. You don't need it two weeks from now. So if your local retailer doesn't have it on the shelf, you're gonna go to somebody else. So right now, the channel, the retailer, and distribution layers are able to get by with lower levels of inventory because manufacturers have available inventory to do servicing of much, you know, smaller, more frequent cycle orders. That's not long-term sustainable. Over time, this is gonna have to rebalance. I expect, however, that transition is gonna be a little lumpy and bumpy. So while I'm confident that we are in this transition from correction to recovery, the next couple quarters could still be very volatile, and where we get back to a more balanced pull-through of that consistent, steady, and growing use of crop protection products by the grower, pulling through the channel all the way back to manufacturers. You know, which fundamentally blocked up last year when the amount of inventory between the manufacturers and the grower just got out of hand. So with the Latin, you know, Latin American example, I mean, it's kind of been a little put and take, just trying to establish what, once again, dangerous term, the new normal. Normal. I, I don't know what that I've covered agriculture for, well over a decade now, probably 12, 13 years, and I can tell you, I don't remember a normal year, so to speak. I started in the drought in 2012. So, but in Brazil, it's also, it's a very difficult market to know exactly what's going on because you're gonna hear one thing in, you know, outside of Rondonópolis than you are in, you know, the Paraná State. It's just, you know, suffice to say, but, you know, when it seems like things are generally like these small batch orders that you're basically getting is still generally constructive. The other dynamic that you had last year is you had adverse weather kind of, you know, exacerbating the effects of the destock, just based on where inventories were post the 2021, 2022 seasons. You know, as we head into this, you know, the second half in terms of just the normalization of acreage, and obviously you don't touch every crop, but you touch a lot of them. Touch a lot of them. So how do you think about the potential marginal benefits from the normalization of crops in the second half of the year, and in terms of end market demand? Is the end market demand as stable as it is in other regions in Brazil, or is it slightly different? Yeah, look, Brazil is the largest, most diverse, most important agricultural market in the world, right? You know this, but just grounding for everybody listening. We participate in a really broad cross-section of crops. You know, it's one of the key attributes of FMC is our diversification by crops. And what we're seeing is generally healthy conditions. Farmers, you know, it really depends on the circumstances. If you're farming your own land versus renting, your economics are different, depends on which crop. But, you know, it is a bit where, you know, we had very, very, if not peak, very, very high farmer profitability the last couple seasons. You know, and I'll use the same analogy. I f you max out bonus two years in a row, and then the next year you're pretty light on bonus, you feel much poorer than you. Doesn't mean you're actually in bad shape financially, you just feel worse. So not to minimize that there are some areas where farm economics aren't ideal, particularly for those renting land. But in a lot of other places, you know, the Brazilian farmer's doing okay. And that is a resilient sector, right? And look, you, to be a farmer, you have to be an optimist to begin with. You're dealing with weather volatility, you're dealing with pest pressures and diseases, and all these other fun things, and a long growing season before you know that you've tied up all your cash before you actually get to see if you make any money. I think that that sort of entrepreneurial spirit in the Brazilian farmer isn't going away. So we are seeing y ou know, we're in the midst of the lull right now. Q2 is not a big season in Brazil. You know, it's going into the winter in Latin America. As we go into the new growing season, particularly planting in mid-September, you know, we'll continue to get a better read, but certainly all signals are we're very healthy. You know, good acreage, good, good planting intentions, good, good healthy appetite to drive plant crops and drive yield. So I again am at this point can't tell you what normal is, but I can tell you what better is, and 2024 is better than 2023. That's enough. The two other things that, you know, I think are I think the investment community, I mean, forcibly in a way, it's just, it has to look at short-term inventory corrections. Mm-hmm. And know what the narrative is there, which is, you know, in my opinion, has been distracting from a lot of the things that are going well. I mean, you've launched a lot of new products in various regions, but specifically Brazil, including a, you know, a big new fungicide that you purchased, correct me if I'm wrong, back in 2020. It seems like things ultimately, for the intermediate to long term, are still going well. Could you just hit on, kind of the new product outlook, you know, perhaps across the Americas? Cause I'd say the U.S. matters now, and then Brazil will matter in the second half, how investors should be thinking. Am I correct to say that it's probably not as much of the narrative as it probably should be over the next few seasons? Yeah. Look, I think we've tried to talk about this, and we're gonna continue to talk about this, but, you know, one of the silver linings in what has been a very challenging last four quarters has been how strongly our new products have performed. So just to put it in perspective, in our industry, it can take 10 years-12 years to bring a new synthetic product from identifying a molecule that looks interesting to actually having it registered, and packaged, and formulated for sale, product introduced in a marketplace. So when we look at new products, we tend to talk about products that we've introduced in the last five years, right? Because this is not a short-cycle introduction kind of industry. But in the last five years, you know, we have really been driving up the level of new product introduction. You know, in 2023, almost 14% of our sales were from products that we'd introduced in the last five years. In the U.S. in particular, was significantly higher than that. Brazil is an area which has been lagging, and we're starting to really now see the benefit of new product introductions. So those new product introductions are both formulations of existing active ingredients, as well as the introduction of fundamentally new active ingredients. So on the formulation side, we've been doing a lot with our diamides. We can talk a little more about this in terms of adding value, bringing value added and differentiated formulations of the diamides to the market. But we've also been introducing, you know, as you mentioned, fluindapyr, our new fungicide. It's one we co-developed with another company. We bought out their partnership rights in the late teens. But you know, have been involved in the development of that molecule since, I think, about 2012, when that actually was early-stage development. But we've started introducing fluindapyr under the name Adastrio in both the U.S. and Brazil, having very good response. And for a company that's very insecticide heavy, it's an important part of our new product strategy, which is to diversify a bit, balance out. We like insecticides, but we're underrepresented in fungicides, we're underrepresented in herbicides, and we look at what our new active ingredient pipeline, you know, four key new active ingredient compounds that we are in the process of introducing from the past two years through 2033, that collectively are about $2 billion in peak sales. You know, we have one fungicide and three herbicides. We've introduced fluindapyr, starting, you know, continuing to roll that over and out over a number of other markets over the next several years. Isoflex, which is a herbicide we introduced first in Australia and then into Argentina, will be coming to Europe shortly, you know, which will continue to build that, the cereals herbicide in particular, so Europe, a big cereal market. Next in queue is Dodhylex. Which is a herbicide for dealing with grass weeds. Particularly useful in rice, which itself is a grass. So being able to be selective and control weeds without damaging the rice plant itself is a pretty tricky chemistry. So that'll start being rolled out in late 2025 and into 2026, particularly in Asia. It has significant potential to really increase our participation in rice markets in Asia and our herbicides business. And then we have another herbicide, rimisoxafen, that'll come out in 2029, which is really for corn and soy, large row crops. And in both cases, they are fundamentally new modes of action, bringing a different way of managing those weed pressures to growers. So that new product piece is a huge part of the story. Certainly recognize that, you know, the business has had tough performance in the last several quarters. But again, the silver lining here is we have been continuing to see stronger than the new products and whether that's new formulations on existing active ingredients or new active ingredient products really have strongly performed relative to our overall portfolio. Yeah. Unfortunately, I think something that the investment community has been losing a bit of sight over, just given the noise in the last 12 months across the industry. Understood. But it's one of those. Understood. Things that I think just the more attention investors are able to spend on that portfolio. Absolutely. I think the better off, the FMC narrative's ultimately gonna be. You know, one of the last questions that's been on everybody's mind, you know, on the volume front, and we can obviously hit on some other aspects of the portfolio, has been a nd there's perhaps, perhaps part of this is correct, perhaps part of it's incorrect, but there has been the belief that there's been this, an acceleration of Chinese generic competition, specifically in the Brazilian market, and then even within the Brazilian market, people have been saying, "Oh my gosh, it's insecticides." I mean, these are arguably completely different products, but people aren't here to hear my opinion, they're here to hear yours. So what y ou know, what have you been seeing in the market? Has this been just a normalization over the last few years? How should we interpret that, you know, those data sets? Yeah, I think people need to look over a longer time period than just the last year, 'cause they're losing the perspective. The Brazilian market has always had significant participation of generics. Again, it's the largest, most diverse crop chemical market in the world. So what we're seeing right now, we don't believe is anything different than long-term trend, which is Chinese producers and generic producers have a significant participation in the Brazilian market. They always did, they always will. We face them in some of the less differentiated parts of our portfolio, and we don't in many of the more differentiated parts of our portfolio. So we have not seen, nor do we believe there's been disproportionate impact by Chinese generics in the Brazilian market. Yeah, bluntly, I, I think the biggest impact has been lack of demand, right? Now, when you have excess supply and lack of demand, you do get pricing pressures, right? I mean, it's this is microecon 101, right? So certainly, that when that is around you, and that's the tone, that can have carry-on, knock-on effects short term, right? But in terms of the long-term ability to position for value and the willingness of growers to pay for products that perform better, that's still there. It has just been completely masked by an absence of demand, as people have been just you know, very abruptly, very violently correcting inventory levels in the channel. So I think the next question, and you just alluded to it right there, I mean, obviously, pricing has been had a lot of price, you know, at the kind of the beginning part of this decade, a lot of mixed benefits as well. Now, where do we stand on a regional basis? And perhaps we can save Latin America for last, because that's probably the biggest debate, correct me if I'm wrong, but where, what would you see in the other main three geographies, and we'll do LatAm separately. Yeah, look, I think pricing overall for us, we've been taking price reductions in the low to mid-single digits over the past three quarters, right? 3%, 4%, 5%, and depending on the quarter. You know, when we guided Q2, we were clear that we thought we had a mid-single-digit price headwind this quarter. The pricing headwinds have been most significant in Latin America and Asia. We've actually still had, continued to have positive pricing in Europe throughout. In the U.S., it's been very, very light, if any, price reduction. So it is a story of different markets. You know, again, you have, you know, in Brazil, it's, again, the biggest, most diverse, most competitive market, and the one where you're subject to the most volatility. So, you know, we have talked openly, we've done price increases, we've done some accommodations for customers, where we've given some discounts or some rebate, basically, on existing inventory, where costs, you know, current pricing is below cost that our customers had in inventory. And, you know, in, in Asia, it, it's been, you know, to a lesser degree, those kinds of incentives, but just dealing with competitive pressures and some pricing. As we, as we look to the rest of the year, you know, at, at this point, we think we're gonna continue fighting those battles, but we also note that we're anniversarying some of these price decreases, right? If we get into. As we get into Q3 and Q4, particularly in Latin America and the new growing season, you're anniversarying, you know, high single-digit price decreases we took in the prior year. You're not starting from the same point. So it's not to say there couldn't be further, you know, modest price erosion headwinds, but we're not expecting a major downward swing in the second half. You know, perhaps, you know, setting the stage for the second half, over the past four or five quarters, as a consequence of everything that's been going on in the marketplace, obviously, you've had to adjust manufacturing. Mm-hmm. You know, there was a healthy price-cost narrative for the industry, which has kind of been I wouldn't say it's gone, I'd say it's deferred. Yeah. Significantly deferred. You know, when you take a look at, you know, your manufacturing operations for the second half of 2024, and perhaps more importantly, let's just talk about 2025 as well, you know, how should we think—how is FMC positioned, you know, in terms of just both those things, in terms of to get gross margin back and kind of, you know, enable the investment community to hopefully do what we do best and actually, you know, forecast the next few years from that new starting point? Sure. So I think we've covered most of the topics on price at this point. Mm-hmm. I think from a cost perspective, a couple of dynamics to think about. First, raw material costs. Raw material costs in 2024 are better than they were in 2023. They're a positive benefit for us. In Q1, that was a tailwind. It was able to offset other headwinds, but it, you know, raw material costs have continued to be a tailwind for us throughout the year. Unfortunately, as we move through the year, we're facing headwinds from unabsorbed fixed costs. So volume variance is in accounting speak, right? Which, when, because we are not running anything near full capacity at the moment, you know, think of it this way, you know, we have a bunch of different production lines, most of which are either dedicated to a single molecule or a very limited number of molecules. And we've been bringing up lines up and down as we need to make small amounts of production. We're not running at a steady pace right at the moment. As we see volume recovering in the second half and going into the beginning of next year, we are starting to bring up lines again, and we will start more fully absorbing that fixed cost. So those unabsorbed fixed costs, as well as some modest increases in in logistics costs from higher volumes and a little bit of inflation here in the second half, are gonna be where those headwinds actually more than offset the COGS tailwind in the sec the raw material headwinds, tailwinds in the second half. So Q2 through Q4 still have raw material tailwinds. They're more than offset by volume variances and logistics costs. As we get into 2025, however, the dynamics are different. What we're y ou know, as we look at buying material right now, prices are pretty flat. So we don't expect a raw material headwind or tailwind in 2025 at this point. Still early, but from what we can see, we're not really seeing a raw material issue one way or the other in 2025. What we are seeing, and what we do expect, is a reversal away from having unabsorbed fixed costs. As we, you know, as we start bringing manufacturing lines up, and with some of the changes we've made in our footprint through the restructuring program we're in the midst of, we should get back up to more full utilization by year-end. And the, you know, the absence of that headwind, in 2025, you know, becomes a tailwind, right? So from a cost perspective, I'd point to, you know, moving back to more normal production rates, more full utilization, and getting out from under of these volume variances, a key upside going into 2025 in the cost equation. You said something, and I just wanted, save this one for then, but perhaps it's a good time to ask it now. When we think about your manufacturing asset base, I mean, you've had a lot going on, quite frankly, for half of a decade. You know, you've moved a lot out of China. Yep. You've gone into India, you've enhanced your operations in other countries. You know, between that and the fixed cost absorption, when volume comes back, how confident are you that investors are gonna be able to, you know, see the, sorry for the stupid sell-side term, the, the fruits of your labor? Yeah. 'Cause once again, this isn't started twelve months ago, it started. No, this. Five years ago. Yeah, this started in 2019. Yeah. Right, we had significant production disruptions in China, from some disaster that happened in China with a plant explosion. Not our plant, but nearby one of our suppliers. As well as just a change in environmental enforcement by the Chinese government at that time. We had been on a path, but we really accelerated this path of making sure we had multiple points of supply for all key materials. And it wasn't specifically about getting out of China, it was more making sure that you had resilience in the network. So we were actually well-prepared going into COVID because we had been doing years of work, and we were continuing to do the work to make sure we had all these alternative locations. But look, I think the bigger point to your question is this: I think FMC is really well positioned to accelerate out of the bottoming out of this correction, right? We've done the things to make sure we have a robust supply network, not overly dependent on any one country, but also pretty efficient. We've been very actively doing restructuring, both in the manufacturing and supply network, but more importantly, in our operating cost structure. You know, making structural improvements in our SG&A, so that when, as we do bring back volume, you know, we both more fully absorb the fixed costs in manufacturing, but we lever our SG&A again, right? So that the, at the EBITDA level, the incremental margin is very attractive. So I think we're at a very good place, both from our ability to respond and ramp up, and from having done things to improve our cost structure on a permanent basis, so that as we do get volume recovery, we'll get very strong incremental margins. I think it's probably a good time to shift to, you know, perhaps the next topic that's on everybody's minds, but the diamide franchise. Mm-hmm. You know, I think we've seen some a lot of noise over the last, you know, once again, 12 months-18 months. Some justified, some perhaps not. Can you just give us a quick update on, you know, how you view the diamides franchise? Perhaps once again, I always like the, you know, quick around the world, and then we could talk about some, you know, more specifics from there. Yeah, so, look, for those of you less familiar with FMC, would certainly refer you to two key documents. One, the investor presentation, Investor Day presentation we made in November of 2023, as well as our earnings call presentation that we made for Q3 of 2023. That has a lot of detail, and you can also find this in our Qs and Ks. But if you're trying to get up to speed or refresh your knowledge on diamides, those are two really important places to look. Diamides are between 35% and 40% of FMC sales, depending on the year. There are two chemicals, Rynaxypyr, which is the larger, about two-thirds of the sales, and Cyazypyr, about a third of the sales. They are better performing than most other insecticides. They're more targeted, they're more environmentally friendly. They're the better mousetrap, and they have been consistently, for more than a decade, been taking share from older, harsher, less performing chemistries. So they are a tremendous part of our past, and they're a tremendous part of our future. They are an anchor part of our franchise. We have not been standing still with the diamides. We bought the diamides from the former DuPont in November of 2017 as a part of the DowDuPont required divestitures. divestitures. From the moment we bought them, we've had questions about patents and life cycle. And from the moment we've had them, there's been a tremendous amount of misinformation in the marketplace. Bluntly, and I would say this very emphatically, there is no patent cliff, right? People, people got hung up in 2017, and I think there's been a bit of misinformation in the marketplace in the last nine months, particularly, around the diamides. The composition of matter patents, you know, the simplest patents on the molecule itself, all expired in 2022 and early 2023. We have additional patents on, manufacturing processes and intermediates, that depending on whether it's Rynaxypyr or Cyazypyr, depending on what country, go through 2027 and beyond. Some, some begin expiring in 2025, some through 2027 and beyond. And then we have patents on specific formulations, that go from 2027 and in some cases, for another 20 years. So I think people confuse the idea that the composition of matter patent is expiring with the fact, with the idea that that business is all of a sudden gonna radically change for us. It won't, in part because we've been planning for this for most of a decade, right? Where we are intentionally moving our mix of diamide products to higher value formulations that are differentiated, that are, in many cases, patent-protected, sometimes new patents, in advance of generic competition entering. And generic competitors, when they do, and they will enter, they're in a couple of countries, when they do enter, will be able to compete with, you know, single solo formulations, low concentration, 20-year-old technology. There will be a place for those products, and there will absolutely be, where for Rynaxypyr in particular, similar to every other major crop chemical as it's gone off patent, an opportunity to expand the share of that chemical in the marketplace by broadening its use with lower price points. You've got players coming in who are willing to, to make a lower profit, and there's plenty of addressable market where the diamides are a better performing product. You just need a different price point than what we've been offering at right now. So we've been carefully managing this transition, through use of partnerships, through introducing value-added formulations, through cultivating brands. And I would expect, you know, what we're gonna see here is a maturing of the portfolio, an increasing of volume. Average price probably goes down, but you're gonna have, at the higher end, value-added formulations, again, continuing to be patented and highly differentiated, that can command very, very strong pricing and very, very strong margins. You're gonna have branded diamides, you know, our existing formulations with really strong brands, that'll continue to command a significant premium in the marketplace. Because growers are naturally conservative. They wanna know that what they're buying is the real thing, it's gonna work, it's not gonna damage their crop, it's gonna do what they need to do in controlling the pest. And then, you know, at the lower end of the market, with lower performing, less differentiated products, you're gonna have generic entry, but you're gonna have a broadening of the market where they can go again to applications that we don't pursue today. So we, we feel very confident that the diamides continue to be a driver of value for FMC and a, and a, and a driver of gross profit dollar growth for quite some time. So, you know, understand, understand the skepticism, understand the concerns, but I think if people dig into the history of the crop protection industry, it's not us just telling the story, it's five or seven major other molecules you can look at the case histories of and see that the original innovator retains both the majority of the vast majority of the volume and the vast majority of the value of the molecule, and that that value grows after patent expiration. I'm pretty sure you have one of those as well. A couple of them, yeah. One big one. Let's stick to that for just a second. I think one of the things, and I understand you're probably not gonna go too specific here, so I'll free you up on that, but there's always a but with me. You know, when you look at that marketplace, and you look at what Mark, Pierre, you have accomplished over the last, I'd say, actually decade, I'd actually say now a decade and a half now, there's branded share. Mm-hmm. There's molecular market share. And on the molecular market share, you actually do have a lot of favorable agreements with some of the, let's say, the largest well-capitalized key term, CPC manufacturers in the entire world. And I think that really narrows the playing field of that potential generic, you know, competition. You know, I'll leave this as an open-ended question, but, you know, am I thinking about that the right way? Yeah. Is the market thinking about that the right way in terms of who is actually gonna be competing, kinda specifically at that lower end? And are they even able to kind of, you know. Yeah. Establish the scale they would need to, to become a threat over the next two years? So I would certainly say, you know, when you look at our major markets, and all the markets are out there, but the major markets, we've had partners in this business since 2017, right? So, you know, large, well-capitalized multinationals who sell, you know, Rynaxypyr-based products, their own formulations and some of the same simple formulas, basic formulation that we sell, you know, at the least differentiated one that we sell. And we've had that, you know, sort of partners in terms of covering more of the market for, again, for many, many years, and we've pursued expanding those partnerships locally in a number of countries. The reality is that there's two core markets today where there's generic competition. It's China and India. In the U.S. and Brazil, FMC still remains the only registered source of the active ingredient. It's either, it's either made by us or licensed by us in those two markets, and we continue to defend, and continue to have, you know, intermediates and manufacturing process patents that are quite enforceable in the U.S. and Brazil. A little more challenging in India and China, but not, not in, not in the U.S. and Brazil, where we continue to have very strong success, in, in protecting those positions. But you're right, it's in the other piece of it is, we're not the only player marketing diamide products and haven't been for a long time. So the diamides as a class of chemistry and insecticides have a, have a significant share, but it's still a tremendous amount of, of addressable market. So you know, if those who want to come in with a less differentiated, low-cost, me-too product, there's room to grow, around where there are a number of established brands, all either sourced from or licensed by FMC, that are continuing to, you know, players who are thoughtful and continue to think about how you manage value in a maturing category. You have to skip, you know, pretty much half my questions because I had you here for an hour and a half. But, you know, what would just to leave the investment community just with, you know? Yeah. Obviously, a lot's been going on. We're all anxious to hear from both what you and Pierre will have to say in the coming months. But what would be the one thing you think people are missing right now? Obviously, everybody's just so acutely focused on, you know, the inventory dynamics, but what do you think is actually being missed from the FMC story that you'd like to articulate here today? Look, again, I'll reiterate, I think we're in a market that is moving from correction to recovery, and I think people are missing how well-prepared FMC is to take advantage of that recovery. We've done the hard work with restructuring, with adjusting our operating expense, with adjusting our footprint. We have a tremendous technology pipeline, both diamides and new active ingredients, that we're bringing fundamental new chemistry and new technology to market that really do impact 2025, 2026, 2027, and beyond. Now, just these four new active ingredients we were talking about earlier, it's $2 billion in revenue by 2033. This is not trivial. And these are very differentiated, new mode of action, fundamental new technology for our customers to benefit from. So that preparedness to accelerate and to really take advantage of a stabilization. Normalization, why don't we use that word, since we love the word normal today? You know, that return to whatever normal might be or to better, if not normal conditions, we are well prepared to accelerate into that. I think we have the right product portfolio, and we have, you know, a management team that is dead set committed to driving improvement in the business. Thank you so much for joining us here today, and once again, thank you for the support. Great. Thanks for having us. Thank you. Thanks.