All right, I think we'll get started. Next up, I'm very proud to have today, FMC Corporation, ticker FMC, based in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, my hometown. Very proud. Today we have Pierre Brondeau, the CEO, as well as Andrew Sandifer, CFO. I'm proud to know these gentlemen for almost 15 years. Been through a lot. Looking forward to the presentation here today. Pierre and Andrew, perhaps we could just pull a very quick audible. I went out of my way to make sure your partner did not speak about it in the prior presentation. You did sign a $200 million deal for an exciting AI molecule in the next few years. Perhaps we could just start the presentation by highlighting that agreement, what it means to you, both short-term and long-term balance sheet and commercial optionality. Yes. Thanks, Chris. Good to be here. As you know, we said we would license a molecule to a partner who would be the best potential partner for that molecule. Corteva is the partner with whom we wanted to work. It's a great molecule. It's a dual mode of action. Multiple application in multiple crops. Certainly soybean and corn are the crops which are the first target. The benefit of this deal is twofold. First of all, for us, in the current situation we are in, $200 million is part of the debt reduction process we have in place. As you know, we've said we're going to be attempting to go as high as $1 billion of debt down payment by either licensing or selling assets. $200 million is part of this process. Doing it at this time in 2026 was important. There is more the strategic and commercial aspect. You know the problem of the crop chemical industry, it's a highly fragmented industry. I think we are the fifth largest. We have a 7% market share. When you have a molecule of that quality, which have that capabilities, you need to find partners to reach the broadest possible market. You need to find partners which have maybe a more complementary portfolio than we do, which is Corteva. For us, that was our preferred partner. It increased significantly the size of the market potential for us and the ability to sell that molecule. The way the contract is structured, the $200 million is a prepayment for the molecule. We were intending to believe we'll get the first registration in 2028. Start to sell at that period of time. The way the construct is in the future is we keep the manufacturing of the product. We are selling the product at a cost-plus to Corteva. The plus is a blend of margin on the manufacturing plus royalties. Both companies can sell their own formulations based on that active ingredients. The Corteva licensing of the active ingredients for them to sell their own formulation is for corn, soybean in the Americas. We will also sell in corn, soybean in the Americas. We retain sole property of that molecule for all other crops and for the rest of the world. That's a summary of the deal. Just as a quick update in terms of the progress to the $1 billion. There have been a few moving parts, but just simple calculations. You had sold the Indian business, I'd say a few weeks, but just over a month ago, so that was one part of it. I do not believe the working capital aspect is included in that. You have the India sale plus the $200 million. We're approaching roughly half of the target. Is that the way to think about it as we head into the second half? Do you have a line of sight on anything else that you could be thinking about? We are at half of the target because there are small things we've done, we've announced, but they went under the radar screen because they were small. For example, we sold for close to $20 million a flotation chemical business we had in Europe. You're right, it's $250 million for India, it's $200 million. It's a few other small businesses, so we're close to $500 million. We do expect, I've said many times, that we have a real estate deal, which we are intending to sign. Hopefully, we're talking about a couple of weeks, and that will take us significantly beyond the $500 million, so above half of the way. We're at half of the year, it'll be a big deal half of the way to the $1 billion. Perfect. Just, obviously, there've been a lot of moving parts in the global CPC markets over the last several years, several months. One of the things that I've traditionally done with you is we always discuss about this time of year, about the second half, and look at the Brazilian market and just things how are shaping up. Perhaps if we just take a step back and just, given your expectations and the framework which you initially offered at the beginning of the year, and I'll leave it open-ended, how do you see the first half evolving? We always think about agriculture in halves. How are you thinking about your order book for the second half? I'll leave that as an open-ended question for what you're comfortable conveying. Anything quick to update us on? Yeah, actually, I think I can. What is it? What, 16th of June? 17th. 17th. We are about 13 days from the end of the quarter. I think the quarter is good. I think I can, right now. I've got our CFO next to me, he might jump on me, but I think we can confirm guidance for the second quarter. Things are unfolding as we were expecting. The second quarter looks good right now, and I think we're going to deliver the numbers we committed to for Q2. Q3, Q4. As you know, Q3, Q4 is the back end of the year loaded year or half-year. It's mid-June. We have not yet been through the formal process of doing the full year forecast. I would just say, at this stage, I do not have seen anything which would make me reconsider a full year target as we stated it so far. The number we've announced in terms of guidance for the full year, without being through the process, which we need to do. Usually this process is taking place during the month of July after the end of the second quarter, when we close the second quarter, we go to the re-forecast. We haven't done that. What I have, what I see at this stage, not formally, I don't see any reason to change the full year. One of the reasons for which I'm saying that is the second half relies very much on Latin America and mostly Brazil. We are in a very different situation than we were a year ago. I think by the time we get to the earnings call for Q2, we'll have more than half of the orders in hand that we need to deliver on the second half. To give you a sense of comparison, it would be more than double what we had last year at the same period. Significant progress on direct sales. As you know, we're shifting our commercial strategy toward large farm and mega farm and direct sales and co-ops more than the distribution retailer system. This is paying off. I think last year we were a bit behind. We started in April/May to realize that those farms, the large farms, start to place their orders in Q1 and beginning of Q2. The sales organization was ready at the time, we have a much healthier situation around Brazil and Latin America this year than we had last year at the same period. That's why I'm getting a level of confidence which is much higher than what I had before and which is making me say, at this stage, I don't have any information to reconsider a full year target. Please correct me if I'm even remotely off on this number, even in the best of times when Brazil was on fire and everything was doing incredibly well, you'd be probably 55%, maybe slightly higher in terms of your order book. You're at the upper end of the historical range, double of last year. Is that a fair characterization? Completely. Awesome. Taking a step back, you outlined with the board in February, and you've used the term running parallel strategies in terms of a core strategic review, as well as continuing independent, obviously contingent on, partially contingent on the $1 billion of debt to pay down for which now you seem like you're fairly on track, given it's June. Can you just give an update on your thought process, how the board's thinking about it? It seems like you're confident the numbers are falling in the right places on the independent side of it, just any update you could offer us would be greatly appreciated. The strategic option, this process has been going on. It is still going on. As we move forward, the number of parties we are discussing with is getting smaller, obviously. It is a process which I believe any company which is going through a process like this one should bring to a close not too late. Obviously, it's always very distracting for an organization to know that there is a strategic process which is being run. My intent of what I would like to be able to do is to certainly, by the time we get at the end of July to the earnings call for Q2, to be at a place where we can announce that we've closed this process and here what we're going to do. That's where we are, discussions are still going on. One of the things we've had discussions over this over more than a decade, but one of the things that seems to be misunderstood, and perhaps the situation with diamides is distracting you even more so than normal, is just the value of some of the inherent and some off-hand, some on-hand, the value of some of the AIs for which FMC is a leader. Obviously, there have been ebbs and flows, especially over the last few years with competition. I totally get that. What do you find in terms of the assessment, in terms of the valuation of your company from the street? Feel free to take a shot at me as well. What do you find is the most misunderstood? Is it something legacy like your dominant position in sulfentrazone? Is it the underappreciation for Isoflex or fluindapyr or Cyazypyr? Even just you still have a lot of very strong market positions. Once again, I understand the ebb and flow, what's the one or two where you'd say, "You know what? It's really frustrating that the Street seems to be missing this and the opportunities." Once again, feel free to focus the hate on me. I can take it. I think frustrating is not the word I would use because if I would be in your job, I might be thinking the same way. When you look at a company like FMC, which has been highly successful with a molecule like Rynaxypyr. We've done a lot of growth, a lot of earnings, you get to a place where that pattern goes away, it is clearly having an impact. Plus, there is a fact that some of the actions you have to take on that molecule to be able to develop a post-patent strategy, which is fundamentally lowering the cost of that molecule, has a very big impact on your pricing to your partners, to whom you're selling the active under cost-plus. Those two together are creating certainly a concern for investors on the short term. There is also, if I would be in your shoes, I would look at you're losing protection on that big molecule. You've got to set up a new strategy, which is a post-patent strategy. How successful will you be against very aggressive generics? All of those questions are valid, okay? All of those questions lead to the kind of numbers we are showing in 2026- 2027. Not from a point of frustration, but from a point of looking at what FMC will be, that's where I'd like to talk about, and obviously, the discussion on Rynaxypyr takes away the positive discussion of things that are going to be happening over the next three, four years. I think what we have to realize is that we have four molecules which are being launched in between 2026 and 2025 and 2028, including rimisoxafen we talked about licensing with Corteva, which represents over $2 billion in sales. There is a fifth molecule, the fungicide, which is going to come to market in 2030. It's going to have the same potential. All of those molecules are $500 million - $700 million. I think also something which is very, very critical for the future, if you tell me the question, "Pierre, which company would you run better? You would prefer to run FMC 2018 or FMC 2030?" I would say by a long shot, FMC 2030. Here is the reason. FMC 2018 was a very, very good company, but we were an insecticide company. Cyazypyr and Rynaxypyr were more than 50% of our portfolio. Insecticide is the least predictable of the crop protection products, are not the one which are matching the concerns of the growers. It's always herbicide, fungicide, insecticides, because insecticides, you never know what's going to come and when it's going to come. With the new molecules we are putting on the market, if I think about the five, two fungicides, three herbicides, and you think about FMC in the 30+ period, half of our portfolio will be herbicide. A quarter of our portfolio will be fungicide. A quarter of our portfolio will be insecticide. Much more aligned with what the market needs, much more predictable, with a very high percentage of IP-protected molecule and the growth portfolio being more than 50% of the portfolio. That's what we are heading toward. Obviously, the concern for the very short term linked to Rynaxypyr kind of hide all of this positive, which is a number of new IP-protected molecule, very fun with very high efficacy, new dual mode of action, and most importantly, what I think it's not been emphasizing enough, a complete reshaping of the portfolio to something which is much more in line with what the market needs. Got it. Just circling back to Rynaxypyr. I think everybody's aware of it. We don't need to rehash, obviously, the last few years. When you take a step back and you look at the growth and their new market entrances, I think they're kind of the benchmark thought here. When you take a step back and look at the market growth and the potential for that molecule to actually steal significant market share from other insecticide classifications, it still seems as though others have been successful, it still seems the volumes are growing. Pricing, cost-plus has been a significant portion of, obviously, the risk over the next few years. How do you feel about the growth of that holistically of that molecule 2026, 2027, 2028? Are there still the opportunities to steal further market share? The door is closed, buyer's down the hall. How do you feel about that now? Because at some point, once everybody enters the market, things presumably could stabilize, and then you'll have the broader market share opportunity as an insecticide classification. Any quick thoughts? Yeah. First of all, we should not kid ourselves. The price pressure will be there. There is no doubt. The generic are going to be very aggressive for Rynaxypyr. Everybody want a piece of this market. There is indication right now when you look at the export stats from China and some from India, that the price is increasing. In some cases, the numbers are showing that the price is doubling for generics. We are not yet seeing it on the market, so we still feel the price pressure from generics. The way I look at it, to answer your question, is the cost-plus supply to Rynaxypyr partners is going to become anecdotal. It's getting smaller and smaller. This year it's going to be less than $100 million. It's disappearing. That piece is not going to have a big impact in the years to come. For the rest, yes, we are seeing it. The much lower cost we have, allowing us to have much lower pricing, are allowing us, and we're seeing it right now, we've done it in North America, for example, to gain market share over lower-end insecticide. We see that growth of the volume. As important for us as that is shifting the mix of a Rynaxypyr portfolio more toward the high-end molecule. It's also happening. We have today a growth in our portfolio of the two high concentration, the mixture. First mixture we've introduced with bifenthrin. Right. Which extend the spectrum. We are awaiting, and it's very important, Q2, early Q3 for registration for a new mixture with indoxacarb, which would be very important for Brazil. To shift toward a high-end mixture formulation, high concentration, we have the tablet, [effervescent] tablet for rice, is going to be part of the success. We need to make both happening. One is gaining market share over the low end. We see some of that, and we need to shift the portfolio toward the high end where we command a premium. I'm only commenting about indications we have right now it's working in Q1, Q2, we see it. Frankly, the big test, it's North America, Latin America, including Brazil, in Q3, Q4. That's where really we're going to see how well our strategy is working. There are two things I want to unpack there. The first is, when you look at the data, and forgive me because I don't want to get ahead of myself, it sounds like you may not either. When you look at the data out of Asia for base molecules that have been off patent for decades, for the first time in years, it does appear as if pricing is beginning to stabilize. I have accounts at a couple of the distributors and wholesalers, and I get these blasts occasionally saying everything per liter is now-- You see these things go up 1%, $0.10 here, $0.20 here, $0.30 there, and you kind of start getting the indication that pricing for the first time in a while is stabilizing. At the same time, you look at the Asian exports, and it's a bit of a lag, but the Asian exports to Latin America in particular appear to be, I wouldn't say going down, but plateauing for the first time in a few years. You mentioned a comment about Rynaxypyr. You're not seeing it yet. Am I looking at the wrong data as far as a preliminary indicator for the second half, or is it we just don't want to get out ahead of ourselves, or how are you thinking about that, and are you beginning to see some of the similar things? I don't want to get ahead of myself. We have placed and holding onto price increase in Europe, for example. It's holding. There is indications that there is a stabilization of pricing in Latin America, at this stage coming from generic, but we are seeing it more on the non-selective herbicide like 2,4-D, glyphosate, more than you see it on the selective herbicide or other products. There is some signal of stabilization of pricing, but I want to be prudent because we don't see it yet in our product line, which are maybe a bit more technical than the non-selective product, and we are still seeing pressure. When I talk to my leadership team in Latin America and Brazil, they believe H2 could see price increase. Until I've seen it, I'm going to stay very prudent because there is price pressure. There is price pressure right now. Hopefully those indication you've talked about are going to verify. Right now I just need more proof that this will be happening. We've been too surprised over the last three years, always expecting things are going to turn, and they didn't turn. I'd rather prepare myself to compete into a tough pricing situation and be pleasantly surprised than starting to act like this is going to happen, and then it doesn't happen. One of the things that I find, you hit on this a little bit, let's dig in a little bit deeper, but I find there's not enough focus on Isoflex. It seems as though everything that you've been discussing in terms of approvals and the commercialization pathway and the breadth of the market size, quite frankly, seems to be overlooked because of the noise in the other areas. There have been a few approvals over the last, what? six, maybe nine months. one big one a couple months ago. Could you hit on that product in particular? I assume you agree with me that it's underappreciated, but I would love to talk about the potential market size, and how you're thinking about that relative to other NPIs which you've launched over the last few years? Yeah, I'm glad you're asking the question because you're right. Isoflex has been a bit overlooked. The timing is perfect. I was in Europe last week. We were at a major customer event in England where we had all of our big European customers for the official launch of Isoflex. I have rarely seen an enthusiasm from customers, growers, distributors, retailers for that molecule. For cereals right now, wheat is a major problem. You look at a field. For cereals, you just don't see the cereal. The yield are terrible. Isoflex has a very, very high efficacy. We got the registration for this product in England, and customers were waiting for the last minute because the cereals time is September, October, to buy for that registration to come, which came in July or June? June. Late June. Late June. We still sold quite a lot of it. This year, we're going to have a full year in U.K. We got the registration of the active itself about a month ago for the EU. Now we are doing all of the formulation registration, and we do have multiple requests from the retailers and the growers to local registration authorities in Spain, France, Italy, and Germany to get right to sell Isoflex under pre-registration status. Those guys are prepared to buy in Q4. That early, that's how important. To give you a sense, our team in Europe would tell you that Isoflex, in the next three to four years, in term of volume, will be bigger than Cyazypyr and Rynaxypyr together. You talk about the numbers that are floating around for Europe are north of $300 million in a very short period of time. Very good molecule. Of course, there is more application than cereals in Europe. We do have applications in Latin America. Sugarcane application showing- what's that? Sugarcane. Sugarcane, yeah. Showing some very, very strong result. We've applied for registration, there is much more application. You are correct because of all discussion around rimisoxafen, dual mode of action, the Rynaxypyr situations has appeared. It's been overlooked. It's a very important molecule, and the one with fluindapyr, it's going to grow the fastest. Chris, if I could just add, in our guidance for this year, we've talked about the two main ingredients that are currently commercializing, fluindapyr and Isoflex, contributing about $300 million-$400 million in revenue for the year. That doesn't have anything in it for potential emergency use exemptions in Europe. What Pierre was describing, where growers in a number of countries are really lobbying to be able to use that technology before it's formally, fully registered by country. That would be upside, and I think that's just a further endorsement on the quality of that technology and how valuable it'll be in the field. Much like, I think the Corteva agreement speaks very loudly about the strength of rimisoxafen as a technology. I think that strong pull from growers for Isoflex is a good testament to the technology and the strength of that product for Europe and for cereals in particular. It does appear European farmers continuously are stepping up. I wish them the best, sincerely. Two last questions. Just very quickly, could you just give, before we wrap up, an update on free cash flow? It seems like it's basically neutral. What are the puts into-- Obviously, I think this is going to be contingent on the second half, and Andrew, perhaps if you could just hit on kind of the puts and takes, what you're monitoring, and as of today, if this was the starting point, do you feel better than you did on January 1st? Yeah, look, we've gotten to a midpoint of zero, essentially, for free cash flow. There's two big swings in that. One is we have substantial cash restructuring costs this year. We're taking a lot of actions to get the cost position in the right place for our core portfolio. Following some big steps we took with Rynaxypyr last year, we're doing this for the rest of our off-patent active ingredient portfolio. Some big cash spending there. That's a headwind that dampens our ability to deliver positive free cash flow this year. On the plus side, we are monetizing the working capital from the India business. We're operating the India business on a cash basis. Selling cash only and collecting all the receivables, and that helps offset some of that headwind from cash restructuring. As always, a big dynamic in our working capital is a big dynamic in our free cash flow. It's a competitive environment. Many of the parts of the world we're in Brazil particularly, with the strong growth, that's longer term. We're doing a lot of things to try to manage that working capital, both from a receivables and an inventory perspective. We'll have more to say in July, but I think certainly that band around break even free cash flow this year is the right place. Now for my hardest question. Pierre, to wrap up, U.S. or France? U.S. or France? You really want to ask that question to me? Chris said it would be easy. You know what? France is going to have a third star. I am certain of it. I was hesitating, I thought it would not be appropriate out of respect for this group here, I was about to wear a French jersey today, I decided not to do it. I was wearing one yesterday. We welcome the rooster. We understand. Gentlemen, thank you very, very much. I always enjoy these firesides. If there is anything we can do, let us know. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Thanks, Chris.