Good morning. It is the second day of the Jefferies Global Industrials Conference. Laurence Alexander with the Jefferies Chemicals Team. It is my pleasure to introduce Pierre Brondeau, who is the CEO of FMC, and Andrew Sandifer, who is the CFO. Without any further ado, I am just going to jump straight in and get this started. Pierre, could you give your current view of where we are in the crop protection chemical cycle and what this might mean for this winter in 2027? Yeah, I think we are in a period which I would qualify as continuing what we have been seeing and facing in 2025 and beginning of 2026. I do not see much change in demand. I think I can say that we are confirming that overall, whether it is growers or distributors, repeating what we said at the earnings call, a tendency to buy product as closely as possible to the time of utilization and managing very tightly inventory in the channel. No major change in supply or demand, but certainly very cautious behavior from the overall industry. I have also read quite a few things about price moving up. I think there is maybe a little bit of a stabilization, but there are going to be some distortion on the way the pricing is being calculated or looked at, especially for Latin America. It has not reached our market yet. I think it could be for product as far as we can see, which are non-selective herbicide, which could be going up and maybe distorting the overall average number. We are not seeing a major shift in the way the pricing is and increase in pricing. Pretty much continuing on the same trend we have been, confirming very cautious behavior around purchasing of product and inventory management. One of the big steps in your de-leveraging initiatives was the Tessenderlo investment. Famously conservative and usually people who, if I can speak for them, which is not my role, always want a very significant margin of safety. To the extent that you can you talk about how you felt you got them comfortable with the generic pressure? What is visible structurally from the inside of the industry that maybe those of us on the outside who had the debate for the last nine months were missing? Yes. I think when we went through the strategic review, there were multiple options with very few of them which could have been beneficial to our shareholders, and quite a few offering for capital increase in the company as PIPEs. They were certainly bringing cash into the company, helping with their debt down payment, but they were expensive. I had discussion with Luc even before this process started, so he was not part of the process, but got accelerated through the process, and I had multiple discussion with him. The way Luc and Tessenderlo look at it is Tessenderlo is a solid company, generate cash, is in market which are not very fast-growing market, but is a very stable market. They do have a strategy to grow the company, which is to create what they call cornerstone investment, where they would own equity in a company. They would not participate in the management of the company, but would own significant equity of the company and would benefit from the performance of this company. What happened is Luc and his team completely believed in where FMC is and where we are going. Consequently, when we discussed, their view was, and our view, we were willing to have them being a 20% owner of the company. They were willing to be capped at that number. They were willing to have a lockup to not sell within three years because we want to make sure our shareholders would understand that it was not a short-term profit. To demonstrate to our shareholders that it was a long-term commitment, they were prepared to pay a premium to the stock at the time of the transaction. The reason for which Tessenderlo decided to invest into FMC is they believed in a strategy, first of all, in term of deleveraging the company and what we did for the revolver and the bond offering and bringing $1 billion of proceeds to pay down debts. Most importantly, they looked at the company today at having reached the bottom and things looking up from this point. They are not a company which has been investing with a three months or six month horizon. They're going to be a very long-term shareholder. Their view was everything you're putting in place fits what we believe has to be done for the company. Three key elements they are very strongly supporting. First of all, they believe in our Rynaxypyr strategy to stabilize earnings and hold the earnings from 2026 on flat. Second point, they understood our limitation to grow our core business because of our manufacturing cost, and we're very supportive of the way we're approaching the change in our footprint. Third point, they studied in depth our new product and looked at the way they would participate in the growth of the company from this point. I think the discussion we had also was around timing, and they understand it's not a long-term strategy, what we are implementing. We are seeing the light at the end of the tunnel. I think 2027 is going to be the beginning of the inflection point. 2027 should benefit from three things. Rynaxypyr being stabilized will benefit in the second half of the new manufacturing footprint. It should be finished by the end of the first quarter of 2027. Everything is on time. We should have all of the new products, new production, new registration, everything in place in the second half of 2027. The three molecules are going to keep on growing, specially driven, I am talking about Dodhylex, Isoflex, and fluindapyr. Specially driven by fluindapyr. We are expecting another 11 registration, and we are expecting four label expansion for fluindapyr. That is going to be the driver in 2027 of the growth of those three molecules. Then you move into 2028, where really you have the full inflection point because the new manufacturing footprint benefits the full year. You get, in addition of the growth due to fluindapyr, you are going to start to have registration for Dodhylex in Asia, very important for the rice market. Isoflex, very critical, will get the registration for cereals. It is a very big market. It is going to be a jump. Now you have the three molecule growing fast. You have your new manufacturing footprint. You have the Rynaxypyr strategy, and you have brought your debt down. When Tessenderlo looked at that, where the stock is, where the company is, completely buying into the strategy, being a long-term investor, they were prepared to take this investment in the company, and the only thing they asked for was for the 20% to have a Board seat. That is it. There is no cooperation between the two companies. There is no operational interactions. There is nothing beyond the fact they will be a 20% owner and a member of the Board, very much aligned with the short-term and long-term strategy of the company. Just to be clear on that last point, the no cooperation/operation, is that there is no expectation in the agreement? Or that also when you look at their businesses versus yours, there is no area for cooperation in the future? Both. Okay. The two companies could have stayed separated. Yep. They are in the ag industry, but in a very different place. Specialty fertilizer is not a place we intend to go, both. Can you talk about what you are seeing internally that makes you feel comfortable that Rynaxypyr dynamics, and then also maybe if you want to touch on some of the rest of what is going on in the core portfolio that you are comfortable about the growth bridge into 2027. Can you talk a little bit about the market dynamics there? Yeah. Rynaxypyr, I am going to be very careful because the acid test, which will tell us if our strategy is right, is really Q3, Q4. We always talk about Q3, but there is no such a thing as Q3. Q3 is September. Most of the ag company make about 25%-30% of their sales of the quarter in July, August, and everything is taking place in September. By July, August, the season is over in Europe, and it starts in North America and Latin America in September. So September is a very big month. Right now, the indicators are good that with our price point for Rynaxypyr, we are moving in the right direction in term gaining share in the lower end with the sole molecule. But most importantly, our new molecule received a new registration for a new formulation in Brazil. We are shifting more of our mix toward the high end of the Rynaxypyr, allowing us to expand our sales in the higher end of Rynaxypyr utilization. So far, the indications are good. Rynaxypyr is growing, but I want to be very careful because we are not yet at a point where we have seen the true confrontation against the generics and see how our strategy is going to work. It is really going to be a Q3, Q4. We will know more by the time we get to the earnings call at the end of October, and certainly the end of Q4 will tell us if the way we are approaching this market is right. What we know is that our pricing now is compatible with what we see on the market with the generics, so we can compete at certainly a quality which is second to none. We have a positive reaction. We know our product command a premium because of the reputation and the experience. Now, I want to see September to December to be more affirmative around the validity of the strategy. Can you also give an update on the timing of the closing of your I think you still have outstanding the Newark leaseback and the India transaction, which together is to bring in about- Yeah $370 million. When should that clear? First, I forgot to answer your- Oh, sorry. second part of the question. You asked me about the manufacturing. Yes. You are correct. Manufacturing is completely on time. We have either shut down or announced the shutdown of each of the plants, including the one in Europe, where we have started a consultation with the organization locally to be able to do the process as it should be done in Europe. The process, the different work council we have within the plant. The shutdown is taking place. We have decided the locations where the manufacturing will take place, either a plant or proprietary tools, shoulders, or genius company are going to make some product. Decisions have been made on where and how we will get the new registration for the new product line. Very much on time. Everything is telling us that we should be done by the end of the first quarter of 2027. You know the way the accounting work and the way we turn our product, the full benefit of the new product line should be fully seen in the second half of 2027. It is complex, but it is well-structured and well on time. We should have no surprise at this level. Okay. Just back to kind of the timing of the closing of the transactions. You know the only one we have closed so far is the licensing of rimisoxafen, and the sale of the small business in Denmark for floating chemicals. The three transactions remaining, the sale and leaseback of the Stin location, the India sale, as well as at Tessenderlo. All of these, all indications we have are that they will be closed in the fourth quarter. For some of them, we are talking a few weeks. It is on time. It should be a 2026 event allowing us to bring a net debt level toward the end of the year, $2.6 billion-$2.7 billion. Between $2.6 billion and $2.7 billion net debt at the end of the year. At the end of the year, That's where we expect to be. Which is not where we want to be, but which is a much better position than where we were a year ago. Yep. That put us at about a 4x net debt at year-end at the midpoint of our most recent EBITDA guidance for 2026. With the manufacturing footprint efficiency programs, the cynical question, I guess I have asked you before over the years with different programs, and it seems to be endemic in the chemical industry, is how long does it take for those savings to leak back to the customers? How much do you think in five, 10 years, how much is locked in as foundational and how much will get lost in the friction? It is actually maybe a more simple situation than most of the cases when you are doing something like that. We are going to save a significant amount of money by operating with a different manufacturing footprint. The objective is not for us to keep that money, to take it down to the EBITDA. Whatever are the hundreds of millions of dollars we are going to be saving, it is not to be added to our EBITDA in 2027 and 2028. The objective is to introduce, to reset completely a product line, put that in the market. Today, we have about 25% of our company is the growth portfolio. It serves appear the four new molecule and our biological product. As fast as we are growing those, when your core business, which is over $2.5 billion, shrink every year by 5%, there is not much you can do to grow the company. The objective is to reset the manufacturing footprint in order to reprice all of our product. to be competitive on the market, mostly in Latin America and North America, to regain a position, market share. Because we do have a very strong formulation technology organization, grew at market plus for those core products. Instead of every year decreasing our sales by 5%, 6%, growing them at the market + 3%, 4% a year or more if the market get healthier. That's the way we're going to be operating. So, you will see immediately a reset of a product line and a reset of a pricing to regain growth in those key regions. Do you think the core business can get back to low single-digit growth in the back half of 2027, or is that more of a 2028, 2029? How long does it take for the audience to respond? It has to be right away. Okay. Because it's contract negotiation. You're pricing the product at the place which is competitive against competitors. We have a reputation of quality production. We have a capability in term of formulation which is very strong, so there should be no reason to see immediately, as soon as the new product line is introduced with the new price list, you should see the impact immediately. Can you touch a little bit on kind of the R&D and innovation spend? Two angles here. First, how you've protected it in this realignment, which I would assume is fairly straightforward, but I've never done something like this. Then the secondly is, once you're back, once you have the core stabilized, do you want to increase the amount of R&D spend as the portfolio broadens out? Or how should we think about that over the next four or five years? R&D, first of all, we have realigned our SG&A. We have realigned our manufacturing. We have about 1,000 people who have left the company. We're not touching R&D. R&D is critical to our future. We have four molecules we are putting on the market in between now and 2028. We have two fungicides, which are coming to the market in 2030, 2031. We have a very healthy pipeline behind that. From a linkage to the manufacturing footprint, we are thinking deeply where we bring the product and where we manufacture them, depending upon the sensitivity around their technology. I think the more critical the technology is, we'll go to places which are more plants, which are more protected in case of leak. This all thinking is taking place, in order to manufacture the product at the right location. Now, where your question becomes very interesting and where I'm spending a lot of my time thinking with the organization is about R&D spending. Our intent is not to increase R&D spending in a crazy manner. But at least to maintain the spending we have. The issue is there has been a penetration of the market by generics, which have structured themselves differently and which are here to stay. It is not something which is going to change in the next couple of years. We're going to have to learn how to live in a lower price environment for the non-protected product, IP-protected product. The question for me becomes how do you increase your innovation capability? What I think the industry, the technology company, are going to be facing in the future in the way this industry is moving is, I think we'll have to do technology differently. I believe we'll have to create more partnership. There will be less and less. Today, FMC, we have a portfolio, the four molecules we are bringing to the market, we did that by ourselves. The two fungicides which are coming to the market in a couple of year, three years, we're doing that by ourselves. We have another series of product behind that. I think we have to learn to cooperate. I think there is nothing wrong to take a product which is in your development pipeline. You're a few years away from taking that commercial and you partner with a Bayer, with a BASF, with a Corteva, with a Kumiai, with a Sumitomo, to accelerate the process and bring those to the market. I think we'll see more and more of that. The same way we believe the licensing agreement we had with Corteva on rimisoxafen is very good for Corteva and for us. I think we will see more and more of those. R&D will not fundamentally change. We are still highly committed to it. We will still spend the same amount of resources. I think all of us, not only FMC, all of us in the crop chemical business will have to see and to think about how to be more efficient in R&D and how to join force to do it. I guess just a quick follow-on on that is, as you look at the industry, is the industry ready for that cultural shift, or is this one where it should happen but people need to be cajoled into sort of. Because it seems like you are moving more towards the way the pharma industry cross-licenses and cross partners. I think the crop chemical industry is ready for it. Okay. I talked to my colleagues. Nobody is resisting it. We had very specific discussion already in some cases. I think we all realize that developing a molecule, spending $350 million to develop an active, spending 10- 13 years to do it, in the long run is not viable, especially if you are in an environment where there is more price pressure. I think the industry realize it. There is multiple way to do those cooperations. Some are through licensing. Some are through joint research, but very open to doing it. Okay. When you look at Isoflex and fluindapyr, what are the key milestones on the regulatory front that would tell you that it's going to be coming in at the higher end of the range? I think fluindapyr is on the way. We had lots of the very critical registrations, and we have 11 pending for which we have very favorable outcome to be expected. We have label expansion also, so no concern here. Critical milestone for Isoflex, that's the European Union. The critical thing was to get the registration for the active. We got the registration for the active. When did we get that? Q1? Q1. In Q1, the EU agreed to giving us the registration for the active for Isoflex. Once you have the registration for the active, it's more of an administrative process. You need to register the formulation in each of the countries where you will be operating. So that's a very key milestone because you will see in possibly some in 2027, but certainly in 2028, a jump in Isoflex sales with the full registration of the product around Europe. Our European team believe that Isoflex will very quickly be bigger in Europe than Rynaxypyr ever was. Dodhylex, a bit of the same. We have good indication. It's rice, and it's 2028 that's a key milestone, is obtaining as many as we can registration for the rice market in Asia. Same thing, there is no specific issue. The final one, rimisoxafen. We're not yet at the registration level, but I think a good proof that the registration will take place in 2028 and beyond for the formulation is the fact that our friends at Corteva, who have a very strong regulatory group, has been going through all of the data and all of our document and see no issue at the registration level and were willing to pre-buy $200 million of the product. I would say 2028 is going to be a big year for Dodhylex and Isoflex. 2027, 2028, big year for fluindapyr. Can we talk a little bit about the Arc farm intelligence? I guess, first of all, what are you seeing in terms of the value creation for the farmer adoption? Also, does this really belong with FMC? Yes. I think it belongs to us like an equivalent technology would belong to another crop chemical company. I view that not as a business, but as a selling tool. It is a service. It allows us to anticipate pest, type of pest, timing, and we are using it with farmers as a service to anticipate which product and when to sell them. So it is not a business. We are not selling it. We are not selling the service. It is part of the toolkit. of our sales organization. Okay. We are using it a lot in Europe and using it a lot in Latin America. Okay. I do think, Pierre, we do have some very good data showing strong customer retention and increased repeat purchases from customers who utilize the Arc platform. The customers are seeing the benefit from that platform and its predictive abilities to help them better time application of insecticides. Certainly in that piece, very strong response from customers, but it is very much a part of the overall commercial offer. I also say just we made a side comment in our July earnings call as well. It is a source of market intelligence for us as well directly where we have tangible data that supports what we are seeing with lower insect pressure in a number of key markets at this time of year right now than what might have been anticipated. It is actually for us a useful market research data point as well, but it is very much integrated in what we do. It is not really a standalone commercial product. Okay. Can we talk a little bit about the Biologicals and the Pheromones, what you're seeing in terms of the growth rates there? How differentiated do you think that platform can be over two, three years? I wish you would not ask me that question. Let me answer it that way. There is three parts in our Biological business, what we call Plant Health. There is the one which is maybe the more commoditized part of the business, which is the nutrient. There is a valid question, does that belong to FMC or not? I don't have an answer. We need to think about it. In the middle is our Biological business. I think it's a very interesting business. It is growing fast. At the same time, I believe we would benefit, and we are doing it as I'm speaking, from an in-depth strategic review of what we do. We have a lot of products, a lot of local agreements, global agreements, joint research program, an internal formulation team. I think I would like to see a Biological program a bit more structured. It's part of the company. It's growing almost, I would say, despite the fact that we are not as structured as I would like. Because those are product which are good, but I would like a little bit more of a strategy in term of what belongs to FMC, what is more of a distribution role, and how do we structure research. The last piece is Pheromones. Pheromones tests have been positives. The full large scales has shown productivity improvement. The product by itself, but it's not a complete surprise, works. I think we still have a lot of work to do to go from a product which work when it's made more in a laboratory setup, to going to an industrial manufacturing in a space where we're not completely expert, which is fermentation. There is still work to be done for fermentation to be a fully commercial product. I think we have the bits and pieces. It is working. It is growing. Very often it is growing double digit, but I think there is much better to be done on this business than what we are doing with a better strategy and better structure. Mm-hmm. In the past we have talked about how your sales force had to adapt to having multiple new products to sell. Okay. That was a cultural shift for them. How far along are we on that? In terms of training, in terms of resources. I mean, you have been doing this at the same time as the restructuring. How far along do you think you are to getting FMC's customer-facing culture adapted to the pipeline? We came a long way, but we are not yet there. I think there is places like Brazil where we are shifting a strategy more and more toward direct sales at large and mega farms and towards crops, where we hired people who were more agronomist, more capable to do this kind of product launch. At the same time, we have been much more structured. We have a new Chief Marketing Officer who has been working on bringing more education to the sales organization. We still have work to do, but we are coming a long way. I think we are getting much more used, and you see it, the larger the new product sales are, the better our team is at selling it. We are reaching, with the last three products, $300 million, so we start to have those in the field almost everywhere where we have registration. Process is happening, but it's a muscle we've not been exercise a lot over the last 10 years, so it takes some time, but pretty pleased where we are today. Okay. Great. I think we're just shy of out of time, so thank you