Okay. Welcome back, everybody. Thanks for joining us. Thank you to The Kraft Heinz Company for being with us today. For the first time as Chief Executive Officer of Kraft Heinz, Steve Cahillane is with us today, as well as Andre Maciel, Executive Vice President and Global Chief Financial Officer. Thank you both for joining us. Thank you. Thanks for having us. All right. We're going to use the balance of our time today for Q&A, and I thought, Steve, we would just start with you, and really just get you to describe the updated Kraft Heinz story. Because I think a lot is underway, and I think investors are curious as to what's changing and what's changing for the better. Well, again, thanks for having me, and thank you all for your interest. I'd start by saying I joined Kraft Heinz in January. I joined because I wanted to join. I really saw the opportunity in front of us as being one that was real, it was tangible, it was exciting, and it was executable. I draw a lot of parallels towards 2017 when I joined the Kellogg Company, and I joined there because I really wanted to. I saw the same opportunity. What we have at Kraft Heinz is we have some of the most iconic brands that I've been privileged to work on, starting with the Heinz brand. Heinz brand may be only rivaled by the Coca-Cola brand in terms of its saliency, how it's known around the world. Compare the household penetration of a brand like Coca-Cola to a brand like Heinz, and you immediately see what the opportunity is. The opportunity to grow the Heinz brand, both domestically and internationally, is incredibly exciting. Beyond ketchup. You go to the U.K. and you see what Heinz does in everything from baked beans, in ketchup, in now tomato sauce, is really exciting. You see what Heinz does in the United States around condiments. It's really exciting. We're, even with a brand like Heinz, only scratching the surface, I think. Then you look at the vast majority of our portfolio, and what you see is, again, tremendous opportunity. The brands have been, I think, under-invested in for the last 10 years. I always want to be very careful about talking about the past, because I don't want to disparage the past or what happened, but it's clear that we did under-invest in the brands. What we have now is a real opportunity to do something different. To think about revenue generation as the most important north star of the company. To think about our productivity as something that enables our top-line ambition, and not in an end of itself. As we launched into January and announced the pause of the separation, I think what we saw is a real opportunity to actually take the resources that were designed against the separation and put that towards a top-line agenda to incrementally invest $600 million instead of spending $300 million in effecting the separation. In effect, a $900 million turnaround towards resourcing a top-line agenda. What you see, I think, coming out of the first quarter, is early green shoots. No victory laps here, but early green shoots around our share progression that's more positive than it's been in 10 years. That's meaningful, but it's something to build on. We still have the rest of the year in front of us, and most of that $600 million as dry powder that hasn't really even been deployed yet. Early days are encouraging. I got asked this morning, I think, a great question: What's the morale of the organization? Morale is incredibly high. When you talk about restructuring, that's an anxiety kind of infused thing. When you talk about a growth agenda, that's something different. I'm pleased I joined, I'm pleased with our early start, and I'm really excited about the future that we have in front of us. Great. As you say, that $600 million of incremental spend, I think, is the most visible component of your new initiatives, your new agenda. I guess you talked a little bit about this in the past, but maybe to ground everybody in the room on it, why $600 million? Why is that the right level of spend? Why not more? Why not less? How are we assured that it's not just spending for spending's sake? Yeah. $600 million is a nice round number, right? I don't want to ground anybody with, or trying to convince anybody that there's a false sense of precision that's exactly the right number. We did an awful lot of benchmarking around what would be the right level of investment for a company like ours. We think 5.5% of net sales against marketing is a good benchmark number. That's what we get to with $600 million. We think 1% of R&D is a good number. We looked at our overhead as a percentage of revenue compared to our peers. We were under-invested. Just in my first few weeks in the organization, really talking to people in our commercial organizations around what they felt they needed, where we were lacking, that's led to our human resource plan as well. We think it's a really good number. We think it's the right number. We reserve the right to get smarter. As we embark on this year, we're ahead of plan in the first quarter, as we talked about. If we continue to generate healthy returns against this investment, perhaps we could go above $600 million. Still meet the guidance expected in terms of profit. That wouldn't be a bad thing. That's our priority. Our priority is getting the right level of investment, and $600 million, I think, incrementally this year, is the base mark. We might go above that. Do I think we'll get to 2027 and say, "Oh my goodness, that's not enough. We're going to have to have a margin reset"? No, I don't think that at all. I have, based on the work that we did and based on the early green shoots and based on just my experience in and around this space for many years, I feel very confident. I feel very confident this is the right number, and I feel confident we might be able to over-deliver against that number. Again, the early green shoots, I think, are early proof points, and we'll just continue to get smarter and build on that. Part of it is it's not just the number, it's the quality of execution. Right? Really focusing on the quality of execution, how we do things, how we measure them, and how we reallocate in fast ways. Really reallocate based on learning, and the learning is happening faster than it's ever happened before, thanks to the technological revolution that we're in. I believe it's the right number. I believe we might do better than that number, and I believe that execution is the single most important element in getting the execution right. Yep. Okay. Andre, maybe you can weigh in here, and just in terms of a little bit more detail as to where that spend is going, where it's being prioritized and to Steve's point, kind of the scaffolding that you've built around the organization to learn as you're spending to double down on places that are really working and also pare back on things that have less of an ROI. Sure. About two thirds of the $600 million is going towards, I think, what Steve was just describing, the commercial levers that will drive sustainable top-line growth. Made particularly on product packaging superiority, market investment, media pressure, and commercial headcount to improve the quality of the execution. 2/3 is going against that. 1/3 is on price. This price is a combination of opening price points, which we believe is highly critical in this moment that the consumers are going through, as well as a step up on joint business plans with the retailers, so we can continue to protect and expand shelving where appropriate. The second part of your question? You put the spend in place. What disciplines or procedures or processes have you put in place to learn as you're spending to be able to, as I say, double down on things that are working and then pare back on things? How are you torturing your colleagues to make sure that the money is working, right? Yes. I'm good at that, but no, look, we have a very strong routine in place where, like pricing, for example, which is easier to manage in the short term, you have very good controls on a granular level. We might remember we said years ago, we have a very detailed promo system that allow us to track returns on more than 100,000 events in the U.S., so have very granular visibility on that. The revenue management team have a very strong routine that continues to learn from what's just happened to be deployed into the future. Feel very good about the price. Marketing, we have invested a lot in last year to have very good visibility on the returns we have on the market investments and gets updated regularly as well. We feel good about that. That's our topic of discussion. We have Willem here with us that leads our European business. Every month we go through the dashboard and how we are deploying the money. What are new ideas I have, what things are not working, how we can actively deploy the resources. I think we're very well set up for that. As Steve said, most of that spending is still to come, right? It's back half loaded. As the spending ramps, is this simple, as market share and top line growth or are there other metrics that you're watching to define success? I think the most visible metric for the investors will be the market share trajectory as well as our emerging markets growth. On market share, look, at some point last year, we were losing 90 bps of share, which was record high for us. We exited last year losing 50 bps. Year to date, we are losing 30 bps. In the last four weeks, we were losing 20 bps. Things are moving gradually in the right direction. To your point, the bulk of the step up in $600 million is concentrated in the second half, which is encouraging. Emerging markets, which we still have a high degree of confidence that they can deliver that high single-digit, low double-digit growth. We have, even in the first quarter, if you exclude Indonesia and we talked Indonesia a few times already, we already grew high single digits. Once you lap Indonesia, which we feel good about where we're going to stand in the second half, we're going to see that growth in the print as well, which will be very solid. Yep. Okay. As Andre just alluded to, Steve, you mentioned earlier, good promising start to the year, and through today. You also highlighted, along with the first quarter reporting, some timing benefits, Easter, some pantry loading benefits, some et cetera. I guess when you look at everything you've seen so far, where do you see the strongest signs of real structural improvement versus other areas that might be a little bit more kind of flattered by those dynamics? Yeah, Andre mentioned some of it, but if you just remember back to our first quarter, we did say we got about 100 basis points because of Easter. We got a little bit more than that based on winter storm stocking up and so forth. I think we were very transparent around look, the number was still not a growth number. I think it was - 0.4 or so, but we tried to equalize that so people really had a sense of what it was. We still felt good about it because of the market share progression that Andre just mentioned. We exited the year, we put a new metric in place. We're talking about where we're gaining or holding market share on a weighted basis for our company. We exited the year last quarter, fourth quarter of last year, at about 25%. We're only gaining or holding share in 25% of the categories. Even in U.S. Taste Elevation, which is where we really have a right to win, with Heinz and Philadelphia and others, we were only at 24%. We were not winning. If you look at where we exited the first quarter, those numbers were dramatically different, over 50%, and with U.S. Taste Elevation, I believe close to 80%. A really dramatic shift. In terms of that. That's real, because that's market share. You know where we are. If you look at the last 13 weeks, we've held that U.S. Taste Elevation in the almost 70% range, so it's been holding, and it's based on the investments that were made in the back half of last year and continuing on to this year. As Andre just mentioned, we're holding or gaining market share in more than half the categories. We're going to talk about that a lot because it's a way to hold ourselves accountable that we are committed to growing the top line of the business. Obviously we're all about shareholder return, and one of the most important elements to companies like ours, and one of the most highly co-related to your stock price is your organic growth profile. We can't control the macroeconomics everywhere in the world, but we can control how we perform within the industries. In many cases, we're industry leaders, so part of it, industry health is incumbent upon us as well. What we can really control is our ability to compete well in the market and gain or hold in more than 50%, and hopefully closer to 70%. We're seeing early green shoots of that happening, and so we're encouraged, but it's a high standard, and we're going to hold ourselves to that high standard, and we invite investors to question us about that, and we'll be very transparent about how we communicate what our performance is. That, again, we can hold ourselves accountable. In terms of the investments you've made, what percentage went against those Taste Elevation categories that have the highest future growth prospects versus shoring up the foundation of the formerly known as North American grocery. You have to do both. There's an element of where if we've under-invested in certain brands and certain categories and we've got some leaky buckets, think about an Oscar Mayer, for example. We need to make some investments in packaging to improve our Oscar Mayer performance. We know that. We will do those things. The highest returns we're going to see and where we're really going to push forward is in some of our really iconic brands, taste elevation brands. Heinz, Philadelphia, clearly areas where we can invest. You saw us invest in PowerMac, our new Kraft Mac & Cheese, which when I came, it was already developed, but a comfort food like Kraft Mac & Cheese with high protein and high fiber is a pretty compelling offering, I think, for consumers, and retailers certainly saw it that way. Retailers got even more behind it when we upped our investment against it. You have to have a balance. You have to do both. As we charge forward, we'll want to have a maintenance level of investment around what we call hold, and a winning level of investment against our Taste Elevation, where we feel like we really have a right to win, and we've got brands that are very responsive. Yeah. As you talked about, it's multifaceted. You've got more marketing, more investment in the innovation pipeline to market around, more commercial abilities, some investment in value. Which of those buckets, and maybe there's more, do you think is the most important for the company to fix? Yeah, I'd say really our innovation and our equity brand building are two elements that are really very important because when you look at our portfolio, one of the things that you see is our brand awareness is very high across the board. Think about brand saliency. People know our brands, how that translates into household penetration is not always as strong as it needs to be. There's two elements to really drive that household penetration higher when you have the type of saliency that we have, and that's through brand equity investment and innovation, and getting both of those elements right. You've seen a lot of what we've done, and I've talked a lot about this. A great example is what we've done with Capri Sun. Yep. It's a brand that has got very high saliency, but you saw consumers, which are basically young children, drop out at about age 12 because we weren't innovating around what it would take to keep a 12-year-old turning 13 in the category. It turns out it's a pretty simple innovation. It's called the plastic resealable bottle. I tease the team about that, but it was really smart because they took a real consumer insight. Okay, when consumers, in this case young children, age from 12, 10, 11, 12, to 13, 14, 15, it's no longer cool to have that little pouch that they had on the soccer fields when they were young, but they love the brand. Coming out with a plastic bottle was a way to actually age with the cohort, and it's proved to be very successful. By the way, it opened up 25,000 or so additional doors and convenience stores where we weren't. Right. A really terrific thing, now we're just launching Capri Sun in the plastic bottle with electrolytes. Again, a hydration for the mom, dad who's shopping for their child and doesn't want perhaps all the sugar of a sports drink, but they want something that they trust, and it's got electrolytes. There's a lot of examples where we've got the brand, we've got the saliency, but we haven't had the right level of innovation and brand equity investment behind it, and the $600 million in getting to 5.5% and 1% of R&D really helps us accomplish some of those things. Yeah. I'm sure there are a lot of people in the room who are listening to this and saying, "Okay, this makes sense." The U.S. food industry is no growth, right? The brands have tried making investments. We just haven't seen companies be able to sustainably bend the trend. Health and wellness, GLP-1, all the things that we've talked about for a long time. Why do you think Kraft Heinz can be different? I think a couple of things. Andre reminded me that if you just look at the categories that we play in in the United States, the growth standing still holding share would be 1.7% or so. Okay. Maybe not the most exciting thing in the world, but it's growth. Positive. Yeah. It's positive. How do we perform better within that? That's all the things that I've just been talking about, and I think a lot of times, not everybody, but there's an element at a high level where the center of store gets painted with one brush and it's not exciting, it's not growth. I would advance the idea that there's going to be winners and losers for sure, and there's going to be differentiation between those center of store and between companies like ours that make groceries writ large, and there has to be. We will be, and aim to be one of those that stands out among the top performers within that category. What does that mean? It means north of 1.7% growth, which could be, if you double that at 3.4%, that's the kind of the algorithm that existed in the past that can be quite exciting when you manage your middle line very well and you get high single digit operating income returns, that translates into double digit total shareholder returns for businesses like ours. I think that may not be NVIDIA, but it can be very exciting and it can be very appropriate for an investor to think about companies like ours and center of store, don't look at everybody with the same brush and think about who's going to be, which companies have the potential to win within that. I think our portfolio sets itself up very well to be one of those winners because we've got iconic brands that have been under-invested. As we get the investment levels right, as we get the execution right, as we get the organization really rallied around a top-line agenda, I think it's going to be exciting what we can accomplish. Great. One element, not the element that you've highlighted as most important, but one element is fixing value equations in pockets of the portfolio. And maybe you can both weigh in on this one. We've seen other companies, food and otherwise, make those value investments, see some volume response, but not necessarily see it translate into sustainable share or even a positive organic growth calculation. How have you approached that? What are your objectives in making these value interventions where you are, and how do you guard against just promotion to stimulate some volume but not really getting the positive full ROI? Well, I'll start and maybe Andre can weigh in. I think, I don't want to comment on what others have done, but we're taking a much more surgical approach to when we think about pricing. We think about it from the consumer standpoint, of course, and we think about affordability. We analyzed where are our gaps relative to competition, where are our gaps relative to private label, and where are our opening price points? Where do we have an opportunity to present to the consumer a more compelling value proposition? Value writ large, not just price. I think if you just look at price, it's going to be more difficult. All the things I just talked about in terms of innovation and marketing and consumer communications, getting the whole bundle for the consumer exactly right, but making sure that we put a real focus on affordability. At the same time, I think is really important. There's no denying what's happened the last four or five years has been unprecedented. We had COVID, obviously. We had supply chain shocks. We had inflation the likes of none of us in this room have ever lived through. You have to go back generations to see that. You have all those things which has put the consumer under pressure, but the consumer still responds to brands that they love when they're presented with ideas that are value accretive to them. We've looked at price as an element of that, but only an element. I think that's the important differentiator. Okay. Andre, anything to add? No, I think Steve covered the thing, the key points here is surgical investment. Again, it's two thirds of our $600 million is going against sustainable long-term initiatives, like it's marketing R&D so we can innovate better, we can show our brands out there, continue to evolve the attributes in the product, and invest a lot in strong marketing salespeople that can execute well. Good. Steve, you mentioned some of the retailer, not even acceptance, sort of excitement around the plan. Can you talk about how you're positioning the company to work with retailers? I guess maybe the level of retailer engagement and what you're trying to do, just how you're positioning yourself to be more integrated with what seem to be increasingly powerful retailers, where we're seeing consolidation. I'm thinking of the U.S., just at a level of, as you're making all these changes, we've talked about what you're doing, we've talked about what the consumer's looking for, in between you have a retailer who's a really important partner. How are you positioning to maximize that partnership? Yeah, I think the reception from the retailers around our paused transaction and our reinvestment, I know it has been extremely positive. I've gone and visited them and I've talked to them. As big as some retailers have become, as important as they've become, as consolidated as they've become, we're still very important to them. We're in most aisles of their stores. We're in their omni-channel world. We're doing everything that we can to be a leader and a good participant in good category dynamics. I think to the extent when retailers really believe that and understand that your commitment is to growing faster than the rest of their box, and therefore being a tailwind to them and not a headwind, is very well received. That's what we've tried to do, is build plans with this incremental $600 million that really speak to the consumer through the retailer. Right? That's been very well received, because if we are not growing, then we're a headwind, and we're too big to be a headwind. Retailers don't want us to be a headwind, they want us to be a tailwind. It's finding that overlap with retailers with great consumer plans. When you find that strategic overlap, and they understand that your absolute objective is to be good stewards of the category and grow your brands within a very healthy category, it leads to very good conversations. Very iterative conversations where you have to be willing to listen, you have to be willing to take the pushback, you have to be willing to understand what their needs are. I have found the retailer dynamic to be extremely positive. Especially coming out of the reset because. It's in their best interest to have a healthy Kraft Heinz. Yeah. Okay. Can we talk about the balance between more bets, more investment across more categories and more brands versus bigger bets? I think you're doing a little bit of both, I think you've talked about emphasizing fewer, bigger bets. Where are those bigger bets being placed? What kind of discipline and information have you built around your internal processes to make sure that where you're making those investments is the right place? We are trying to do bigger and fewer, particularly as it pertains to innovation. Because the focus of the organization and the resources of the organization can be best deployed when you really have that focus. Think about the big brands like Heinz and Philadelphia and Kraft Mac & Cheese. You're going to continue to see some big investments around that and some of the platform innovations that we're doing. Think Heinz Simply and Heinz Zero. Those are platforms with a lot of potential. The Simply speaks to consumers who are looking for clean label, who are looking for health and wellness, who are looking for nutrition. Things around nutrition and convenience and our big brands are areas where we'll see some real focus against. Now, having said that, we can do both, right? We can't neglect when we have such a large portfolio. I often think, if a small family owned the Grey Poupon brand, would it be better performing? I think the answer is probably yes. How do we do both of those things at the same time and take brands like Lea & Perrins, like Grey Poupon, that are absolute gems and are small in our portfolio and give them the right level of focus? That's part of the human resource investment that we're making. In putting really talented people against that, giving them the right level of resource, and letting them go run and win. It doesn't distract the rest of the organization, and you can do both. From a magnitude, you're going to see the big platforms against the big brands with innovation, but you're also going to see us look at some of these really unpolished gems in our portfolio that perhaps haven't had the right level of execution get executed against. I think they can grow a lot better than they have been in the past. Okay. How far out are you planning? Right? How far out is the innovation pipeline being built, the programs being built? I think we're all looking at money being spent today and looking for the early green shoots and signs of progress. Internally, how much work is being done to tactically put in place 2026 plans versus building out a pipeline for 2027 beyond? We're just starting our three-year plan right now. The minimum for the innovation pipeline will be the three years that we're looking at right now. Realistically, it's double that because a lot of the food scientists work and the real breakthroughs, you're looking at projects that may not come to fruition for five or six years. We're looking at really a six-year horizon around, realistically, what should we be working on that will take that amount of time, but with the real pressure against the three-year horizon as we build our three-year plan. In the fall, you get to really finalize what a 2027 plan looks like. Okay. Does the three-year plan come to fruition in concert with the end of this year? You're building it, when does it finish? It really finishes before the end of the year. Because it transitions very quickly. The first year of your three-year plan better be your 2027 budget. That's the way I've always focused on things. I know Andre thinks the same way. A great three-year plan always gets, in my experience, you build it every year because you're just tacking on another year and when you really get humming, the first year of your budget is the last year that you're working on. Okay. If we zoom out a bit, Andre, in the past several years when we've been on this stage, we've talked a lot about technology and capability building inside the company. Yet now we're back to kind of doubling down on investing. Is part of the capability gap that is being filled, is it technology, or is the organization actually in a good spot from a technology and consumer insights foundation, and it's really the people and the marketing to be able to utilize that technology better? Where are we? It seems a little bit disconnected from all of the forward thinking of the past relative to kind of a reset and reinvestment phase now. Yeah. Technology continues to be an important pillar, and technology is evolving so fast, we need to evolve together with it. As we have mentioned several times, we invested a few years ago in our revenue management structure. We feel very good about what we have. In the U.S. alone, we have about 50 people fully dedicated to it. We do have very good techniques on how to really identify the best type of tactics. We made good progress as we have been reporting periodically. We improved our promo ROI 20 basis points from 2021 to 2024. We moved it to a position of having net ROI positive. The promotions last year was not a good year, as we have indicated as well. We believe it has a lot to do with sales execution. We feel very good that with the investments we are doing headcount on sales, that will help tremendously. We have already got lessons from last year and already put some of those in place this year. Even year to date, we saw improvement versus our year last year. Still more to come, but I think we're moving in the right direction. Technology continues to be a main pillar, and we think we need to continue evolve with that. We feel very good. We have a sizable organization that all they do is AI. This team is deployed by different functions. There is a lot of effort right now, starting from the top, for us to have the organization embracing that faster and faster across the board. Okay. Steve, when you came in the organization, where did you find maybe the organization was surprisingly ahead versus things that you needed to accelerate from a capability standpoint? One of the really positive surprises was our level of awareness, consumer insights and technology, as Andre just mentioned. There's a good capability. There's a lot. We were not suffering from a lack of understanding what was happening. That was a very positive thing. If we had to rebuild our consumer insights, it would take a lot longer. The consumer insights, the team, the capability, the technology, I think, I was impressed by. I was really impressed by. Okay. Want to hit on a couple of things before we run out of time. From a financial perspective, Andre, there's a lot of focus on SNAP reductions in the U.S. You've called it out as a real near-term headwind for you. I guess, how are you sizing that impact as you see it today? What are you doing more tactically to mitigate some of those impacts where you are seeing them? Yeah. As we have said in earnings, we anticipate 100 basis points headwind linked to SNAP reductions. We are seeing some of that coming to fruition now if you look at the latest eight weeks or so. It's a lot affecting the sector. The best mechanism defense is productivity, to be honest, because we continue to go through inflation, right? Despite everything, this year, we are anticipating about 4% of inflation, which is twice the normal rate that we have seen in the past. I think because of the good work we have been doing productivity, now we're going for the fourth consecutive year of delivering 4% of COGS. That has helped us a lot to alleviate, avoiding having to take as much price as we would normally do. This year we're only pricing 20% of the inflation. I think in productivity, we continue to be a critical pillar for us moving forward as far as protecting the consumer in this moment. Now, with that being said, as Steve mentioned, a portion of our $600 million is going against these opening price points very surgically. There are very specific categories like salad dressing, pasta sauce, et cetera, that we are making sure that we have that particular SKU that we are offering to the low-end consumer to protect them in this moment. Okay. What about from a cost perspective, in the background, we've talked a lot about this conference and in general, just about the rising cost backdrop. As you're looking to invest $600 million or more, costs are rising in the backdrop. What's your level of confidence that you can withstand that rising inflationary backdrop in 2026, and also your level of confidence that that doesn't become an increasing headwind that requires a step down into 2027? Look, as I said in earnings, we feel we are hedged for the short term. I think our near term is very well protected. The productivity will play a very important role as well. If it is inflation that is currently expected to hit in 2027 as hedges roll off, productivity will be again the main mechanism defense. If it gets to a situation where the whole industry needs to price because of the magnitude of the inflation, we will do so, but again, in a smart way and trying to minimize this. I think there is a lot of effort on our side to do the best we can with productivity. We are currently working on how we can further step up from where we are today. We can protect the consumer in this moment. Yeah. You've said 2026 is a margin floor, and nothing at this point deters you from that outlook, correct? That's right. Okay. I guess from a balance sheet perspective, Andre, you've got some maturities coming up. You've taken some steps there. I guess, just how are you thinking about the capital structure and capital allocation priorities from here? I feel very good about the cash flow generation of this business. Last year, we delivered way more than 100% of cash conversion. This year, we're well on track to deliver that again. I think the excess cash that we have been generating and the strong balance sheet have allowed us to step up $600 million in investment and don't compromise any of our capital allocation priorities. In fact, it's preserving the dividend that we have, which is very attractive, maintain investment grade. Those are table stakes for us, and they're very important. We have excess cash still generated even with the $600 million, that we still have flexibility if we want to do so to step up more investment, we can do that. We're in a very good position. Our dividend is very well protected at this moment. As you alluded to, we are paying down $1.9 billion of debt now in this quarter. We are actively now looking at the 2027 because I have another big maturity coming through. We are strongly considering anticipating paying down debt because I have a good position of cash on hand right now. We just issue a Eurobond that allow us to get out of some expensive debt that we had in our debt. That alone was very successful. We are very oversubscribed. We were able to reduce interest expenses $300 million over 10 years, was very successful. I think, again, we feel very good about the cash flow generation of this business. We feel very good about the cash flow discipline. Balance sheet is in order, dividend is well protected. I think we're in a good position. Good. Okay, we're almost out of time. I guess, Steve, as we wrap up, if there's one thing that investors should remember and hold Kraft Heinz accountable for to judge success over the next year, what would it be? It'd be organic top-line growth momentum building based on our share performance. We've been very specific about that, and this is not a cost savings story anymore. This is a collection of phenomenal brands that have been underinvested, that are now going to be appropriately invested in, and that will win share, win consumers, partner with retailers to create something that I think is going to be differentiated from many of our peers. With that, we're out of time. We'll end it there. We'll look forward to hearing and tracking success over the next coming quarters, and we'll see you back here next year. Thanks so much. Thanks, Steve. Thank you, Steve.