All right, we might make a start. Robert, very privileged to have you at the conference this year, obviously the CEO of News Corp. I'm excited to hear that hopefully we can continue doing this out to 2030. Maybe as a starting point, you know, we think about that 2030 timeline. What does News Corp look like as it evolves over that period? What does success look like? Yeah, I think you can say quite safely that there's more stability at News Corp than there is in the French government, which has just collapsed, by the way, for those of you who have investments in France. Five-year plans, look, if the Chinese Communist Party can have a five-year plan, we can have a five-year plan. I guess whatever happens in the next five years is built on the foundation of what we have now and the most recent year that closed at the end of June. I think what you saw there was the extension of really the core principle, which is we have three pillars that we've been focused on, which is digital real estate, Dow Jones, and HarperCollins, and they've all been doing well. Last year we had, on continuing operations, a record, profitability up 14% to $1.4 billion. We saw in each of those segments what we hoped we would say five years ago. As we look forward five years, I think you see that those three areas are still sources of growth, of stability, of free cash flow, which has been doing rather well for us compared to our early years as we were spun off and there was a paucity of cash. What you'll see over the next five years is not just a change in the segments, but a fundamental change in the macro trading environment. Some of that's going to be political and regulatory. Clearly, a catalyst for profound change, which you have to factor in when you look ahead, is the impact of generative AI. That is going to be across the businesses. It cannot possibly be the preserve of techies. Any company that leaves it in an area that's walled off there is really going to miss out on the opportunity. It's going to affect every department. Making every department understand that and empowering each department to take advantage of the opportunities that arise from AI, both in sheer efficiency and functionality, but also in the way that you're dealing with customers, enhancing the customer experience. At heart, what you're dealing with now, and we talked about this a couple of years ago, but it's coming to fruition quite clearly. Gen AI allows you to scale personalization at reasonable cost. That's a fundamental difference in the way that you're dealing with your employees, but also in the way you're dealing with your customers, maintaining subscriptions, acquiring subscriptions, right across the businesses. That will have a profound impact over the next five years. Where we have a comparative advantage is that, look, ultimately, the world of AI is dependent on the quality of content inputs. Garbage in, garbage out remains the prevailing principle. At the moment, a lot of the focus of investment is on energy generation, data centers, and chips. All the AI companies are going to need quality and immediacy in content because, by definition, AI experiences are retrospective. They are based on previously input content. How do you make sure that your content sets are contemporary? That's where, across a lot of our businesses, we have a comparable advantage. I think we'll see that play out over time, particularly as the debate moves on from the infrastructure to the essence of AI. As you touched on, obviously, with AI, it's going to be one of the more transformational changes over that period. If we think about the three pillars of your business, the content that they have, the assets they have, in an AI world, where do you think about the biggest financial upside, the biggest risks potentially to content in your assets? Just interested you sort of talk through it a little bit more on the segmental basis. Yeah, in terms of the news segment, there's a lot of debate around search at the moment. Does the Google synthesis change the access to websites? There's some evidence of that. At the same time, we're in active discussions with Google about how do you ensure that what you're serving customers and the pressure on all of the AI providers is going to be greater. How do you ensure that you are serving them integrity, and that it's not some recycled dross that is misleading and will ultimately lead to litigation? If I was a trial lawyer, I'd be looking at the unfolding world of AI with much relish because you can see that there's a huge amount of liability risk there that you can reduce if the quality inputs have integrity, which the high-quality journalism does. On the journalism side, there are both multiple challenges and multiple opportunities. On digital real estate, the real ability for us to personalize in a way that is unimaginable compared to the experience that people have now. We're in discussion with OpenAI about how, for example, with realtor.com, what more can we do there to ensure that it's a unique experience, it's a comprehensive experience, but ultimately that it's a compelling experience. Both Sam and I are deeply into property, and from a personal reading perspective. I think there's a certain empathy there that will play out among the two companies as we evolve the discussions. It's not a finished product yet, but early stage discussions. I think on both sides, we have a real sense of opportunity there to create, one, to enable realtor to become number one in the U.S., and two, and most importantly, and it's related clearly, to ensure that our users of our material have the most efficacious experience possible. On cost, yeah, sure. If you just look at AI from a reactive perspective, you're not going to be fully creative. It's interesting if you think about it. Reactive and creative are anagrams. There are going to be companies who are reactive, and there are going to be companies that are creative. We have to be a company that's creative. That makes sense. I suppose if we think about this environment we're operating in, I suppose some uncertainty around what AI does and how that evolves, how do you think about making investments across the group, whether that's realtor.com and trying to become number one, whether that's, you know, things like The California Post in the news media division? Talk about how you frame those investment decisions in a world of a bit of uncertainty. Yeah, it's interesting. You could be top down, bottom up. Actually, you have to be both. You have to listen to the teams. You have to learn from them. I can say that Lachlan's very much involved in all of our investment decisions. He knows these areas intimately, whether it be Dow Jones, whether it be realtor.com. Obviously in REA, his initial investment in REA has multiplied many times over. The same with books, where his understanding of that business is intimate again. We're able to have discussions at a high level that are very sophisticated. The chairman emeritus also has wisdom that we tap into. At the same time, you're dependent on really two things: expertise of the teams in their area, and expertise in ability to consolidate coherently. You look at the investments at, say, HarperCollins. You look at the acquisition of OPIS Energy at Dow Jones. They've gone well. The growth rates now at Energy overall are greater than when we acquired the companies. I have no doubt that when HarperCollins acquires, as they recently did, say, for Crunchyroll among the company's assets in Europe, that one, they'll incorporate the company in a way that makes sure that the cost efficiencies are there. Two, you're buying these companies as sort of catalysts for creativity, and you're ensuring that creativity is enhanced and ultimately that the profitability is enhanced. For that, we have a great team in Japan who, in their way, have an important role in being a custodian of the Crunchyroll relationship in Europe. Having seen that team in action, I have no doubt that they're going to do a good job. It has to be a holistic approach where at the top, and certainly not just myself, but you have, as I said, with Lachlan leading, a huge amount of expertise, understanding, passion for the businesses, but you also trust your teams. That makes sense. Obviously, there are the growth investments being made that we spoke about. I suppose it's been, what, two to three years since there's been any formal efficiency program being announced at News. I suppose the question is, as we look across the portfolio in the current market environments that we're at, is there scope to improve efficiency, OpEx, CapEx? Is this something we should be thinking about in the years ahead? Yeah, I mean, you would know last year the margin for the company rose from 15% to 16.7%, which was significant, but we're not happy with that. You're seeing that, for example, obviously you have higher margins at the B2B business at Dow Jones than you do at the consumer business. Last year, the B2B business was 39% of revenues, and significantly more than half of profitability. There are certain natural trends there that will increase the margins. The book business, which has frankly been a little slow in recent months, but there, the book bounce you get from a hit is very different to the past. In the past, it was the hardcover, which you frankly milked for whatever you could in that first phase, and then it was the paperback. Now you obviously have the printed version, the e-version, and the audio version, so your ability to profit from that and profit from a backlist, which is still expanding its e- and audio offerings, and the margins on the backlist are higher than the margins on the frontlist. That's another natural current towards increased profitability. Within the businesses, there's a focus on, okay, in terms of making the most of our assets, how do you increase profitability? At the same time, there's the cost focus. Again, sorry to be repetitive, but AI will be an important part of that, in the way that we're asking each of the functions, as I say, not just some technocratic dictatorship, the digital dictatorship, but actually the people who know how those businesses function, know how those segments actually work. Ultimately, the good ideas for implementing AI, and some of them will be creative and some of them will be cost-based, will come from those teams rather than from a digital [dictator]. I think AI is going to be pretty repetitive over the next few days. Sorry about that. You obviously authorized the new billion-dollar buyback, and that brings the total amount outstanding to $1.3 billion at a meaningfully faster pace than previously. Yeah. Talk about how the buyback fits within the capital allocation framework, whether there are any implications from this quantum of buyback if we think about, you know, News and wanting to continue to reshape the portfolio in the years ahead. Yeah, clearly we think there's a gap between the share price and the net asset value of the company. Clearly we also believe that on behalf of investors, investing in News Corp is a good investment. As mentioned earlier, our free cash flow has really become a lot more robust in recent years. There's no reason that I can see at this stage for that to be other than a continuing, improving trend. Don't forget we sold Foxtel to DAZN for $3.4 billion, oddly. Clearly there was some cash back into the company from that. At the same time, we've retained a stake in DAZN because we believe in that company and its prospect and our partnership with them. In terms of available cash, both what we have now and what we foresee for the future, we're very confident that expanding that buyback comprehensively is the right course of action. If you look closely at the disclosures, the rate of the buyback at the moment is four times the rate prior to earnings, and so it is a meaningful increase in the amount, and it's a meaningful acceleration in the buyback itself. With that increase in the rate and just the buyback in general, are there implications for your appetite for M&A moving forward? Are we looking at sort of bolt-on product assets, or is there still the scope for more transformational M&A that could be out there? Yeah, bolt-on sounds so mechanical, doesn't it? It sounds oldie worldie to bolt things on. We're doing the buyback at that enhanced rate, at an enhanced pace, in the full knowledge that we also have the ammunition to acquire when the right assets come along. I think, I don't want this to be sort of Robert rodomontade, to be boastful, but the acquisitions we've made of late have clearly all worked. As I say, that's because we have a comprehensive assessment process and a comprehensive consolidation process. If something comes along, we're clearly poised with poise at the moment and in a position to take advantage of those opportunities. We're not going to overpay, and we certainly didn't overpay for OPIS for CMA or for Houghton Mifflin for HarperCollins. We're scouring the landscape and, you know, opportunities are going to arise. Particularly at a time with a little economic uncertainty, which we find ourselves in the midst of at the moment, opportunities do come up, and for the right asset at the right price we'll strike. If we think sort of switching tack to the segment, Dow Jones on the consumer side, I think The Journal had its, you know, a record quarterly growth for digital subs in the recent result. Talk about how The Wall Street Journal Dow Jones consumer strategy has been evolving and where you've been seeing this growth come from. Is it offshore? Is it sort of local new market segments? Just talk through some of those drivers. Yeah, unfortunately, it's not offshore, not just yet, but it will be because international subs are only 17% of total digital subs at the moment. What we did, as you said, last year, digital subs were up at The Journal 9% to $4.13 million. In the last two quarters of last year, we saw a healthy increase in revenue because it's not just about the headline number, it's about the ARPU. The ARPU was up 10% in Q4. In a way, it's easy to get a lot of trialists in, but it's also easy to lose a lot of trialists. Bringing down churn is an absolute imperative for Almar and Emma and the team, because historically, churn on offers has been a little too high. There are two parts to that: making sure that we're targeting the right type of reader, who is a paying reader, and ensuring that in that onboarding process, people fully understand the complete range of reading in The Wall Street Journal. If you think about the suite of products at Dow Jones on the consumer side, you have MarketWatch, then you have The Wall Street Journal, then you have IBD, then you have Barron's, and they're all complementary. Clearly, we have a real focus on The Journal, but at the same time, we also are looking to introduce people to upsell other products so that they're on a reader journey that is relevant to their needs. I presume most people here read Barron's, and if you don't, you should. IBD has been much enhanced since we acquired it a couple of years ago. Some of the market services in MarketWatch are peerless. For certain types of readers, MarketWatch will be enough. There is no doubt that our ability to upsell is enhanced by having a clear pathway and a clear premium. There's a distinctiveness in each of those products because people will pay a premium for a perceived premium experience. You can't con somebody. You have to convince them that it's a premium experience. Part of that is just the look, the feel. You're dealing with knowing readers. How do you get knowing readers to pay you more while you increase their range of knowledge? On the B2B side, as you said, significantly more than half of the earnings for Dow Jones now. IBS was back at 10% revenue growth in the quarter. Talk about how the portfolio is working together, even with The Journal side on the consumer side of the business and whether there's opportunities to continue driving subscribers, taking price, building products in the quarters and years ahead. Yeah, and you'll see recently we made a couple of acquisitions, Dragonfly, which focuses on Risk, and Oxford Analytica, which provides very comprehensive, holistic assessments of world affairs. In fact, I used to write for Oxford Analytica when I was a correspondent in Japan for the FT in the early 1990s. I was officially moonlighting. I confess to that. When you look at that portfolio altogether, in Q4, Risk & Compliance was up 21%. It's moved from growth in the teens to growth in the 20s. Dow Jones Energy was up 12%. These are very healthy businesses. About 60% of the increase in revenue is new products, upsells, new customers, and about 40% is yield. It's a healthy combination of essentially new business and making the most of the existing business. There's no reason to believe that those sorts of trends will dissipate in any way because the focus on regulatory compliance, there was a perception that maybe in a Trump administration that regulation, that there is certainly some deregulation, but the cost in the U.S. and globally of not being compliant as a financial institution is escalating. The level of fines is going up. The sanctions list, the trade ban lists are getting more comprehensive, more complicated. For anybody involved in that type of business, they have to have Dow Jones Risk & Compliance. I think you see that in the numbers. There's also no doubt that the energy business, which we're focusing, yes, on the traditional energy sources at Opus, but also on renewables. The demand for both actually is increasing. Certain people are focused on one rather than the other. We see a complementarity in the two sources. Yeah. I mean, it's sort of thinking about this comment, 40% yield, comfortable that, you know, that will probably continue. No reason to think it dissipates. If I think about the price to value exchange on the B2B portfolio versus, say, The Journal and the consumer portfolio, how do you think, where do you see the better value? I suppose where is there more opportunity to keep driving yield? Which of my children do I love more? No, look, we love them all, each in their own way. There is obviously investment going on in B2B, and the team has built a platform that will be a firm foundation for future expansion. Do we get the credit overall at News Corp for the inherent value of the B2B business at Dow Jones? Absolutely not. I think if you were to deconstruct the numbers, and we do it, our team does a great job in explaining as much as we can about how those numbers are evolving. If you compare the valuation of News Corp, including the Dow Jones B2B business, to certain other competitors in that sector, you'll see that we're grossly undervalued. That makes sense. If we switch to digital real estate, obviously you heard from Janelle this morning, so I'll focus on the Move. Obviously, it's been a very dynamic market over here. Damian has evolved the strategy somewhat and returned revenues to growth during the last year. Talk about how that strategy has evolved and what you think we need to see to start being a meaningful contributor to earnings growth in News Corp. We need to see lower interest rates. If you look at last week, the 30-year fixed was around 6.3%, so lower than it has been. Existing home sales are tracking at around $4.01 million. When you get those both into fives, in a sense, so the 30-year fixed into the high fives, you get existing home sales into the fives, we'll be high fiving at realtor.com because there's no doubt there's been a lot of suppressed demand because of the mortgage rate. You already see what Damian Eales and the team have done during this, frankly, this fallow period for digital real estate where we've retooled the business. We've sorted out some of the inconsistencies in the software experience for realtors. We've enhanced the news coverage of the site, and it's now the largest digital news site in the United States. The impact of that is that you see that in June, I think we had 256 million visits. That's four times homes.com, twice Redfin. Those are not home-brewed statistics. They're Comscore statistics, so third party. We have more visits per visitor, and we have more pages read per visit. It's superior to 4.2 at realtor.com, 4 at Zillow, and significantly less at homes.com and Redfin. What we have is a site that is actually poised to profit from a change in the macro environment. When is that happening? It may happen sometime this month. Interest rates start to fall here formally through a Fed cut. We'll leave that to the Fed. Once people start to feel confident about the interest rate trend, I think, and start to feel a little more confident about the economy, and there are some concerns now. The underlying trends actually, you know, six to nine months, and I think what people should focus on from a political perspective are the midterms, right? Six months before the midterms, this economy needs to be starting to fulfill its potential. If you take that as a target, then I think you'll see a change in mood because obviously the president believes in disruption. Disruption can be disruptive, and how much disruption is too much disruption. I think you'll start to see some conclusions in Washington that it's great to have made some fundamental changes, but you need a foundation of stability. That too will have an impact on the housing market. A profound one. If we do see those changes in the macro, we do see low interest rates start to come through. Do you worry that the industry might reinvest a lot of that incremental revenue that comes through and the profitability overall doesn't improve too much? Or do you think the industry can be a bit more rational in a lower rates environment? Yeah, we aspire to rationality, and in terms of investment, we have the ability, particularly with marketing. We have two forms of marketing. One, it's traditional advertising, both in terms of traditional media, contemporary media, social media, et cetera. We also have the comparative advantage of content, which is itself a marketing tool, which is why we've invested so much and don't need to invest a lot more, candidly, in realtor.com's news and analysis section, which links into, for example, MarketWatch. We're trading modules of the New York Post. The New York Post, depending on the month, is a massive source of traffic, which is why we're expanding into California. In California already, we have close to 7.5 million regular readers for the New York Post online. Your ability, our ability compared to the competition to generate traffic and visits and stickiness is quite distinct. You'll see that when the market takes off because, yes, people will be looking for homes, but they'll be looking for advice about homes. They'll be looking for advice about which areas are hot and which areas are not. There's no doubt we do that better than anyone. Yeah. If we switch to HarperCollins, you know, you noted initially it was supposed to be a top of the chart for the quarter. How are you seeing the environment for books and sort of the mix of frontlist, backlist through FY2026 and some of the growth drivers like Spotify? You know, are there any trends or observations you can make around the digital side of Harper? No, so digital overall is about 25% of the business, half e-books, half audio. The one where there's been most growth is audio in recent years. Audio is growing at 25%, 30% year- on- year. I think we're at an inflection point for audio in particular, where you're seeing our partners at Spotify, who have been important in expanding the range of audio offerings along with Audible, which has been phenomenally successful. The expansion of Family and so on at Spotify will make a difference to that segment. In the end, there's a rhythm to reading, and there's a rhythm to people's book purchases. They all go through phases, I suspect, and then the books pile up on the bedside table and become a significant source of guilt rather than a source of pleasure. I think the bedside table pile is starting to shrink a little bit. At the same time, for example, with audio, the ability now to use AI to make the listening experience much more interesting is, we're just really discovering what more we can do there. Obviously, if you improve that listening experience, you'll improve demand. Now, the text to a visual, visual to text, and not just video to text, and text to video, it is going to change the reading experience. The most important thing, whether it be at HarperCollins or at our journals or our papers in Australia or the UK, and the advertising at The Times of London is significantly up. I don't think that the newspapers are in any way in a fatal downturn, quite the opposite there. The ability of AI to change those reading experiences is profound. It also means that we have to be back to creative rather than reactive. We have to be very creative in understanding what those offerings are and not be institutionally intransigent. Yeah. If we think about, of course, some of the moving parts within the cost base of HarperCollins and see digital growth, some of these AI trends, even the Tara Publishing headwinds that sort of we've been through, how do you think about books margin evolving in the years ahead as the team continues to scale? Yeah, HarperCollins has shown a history of increasing margin. Some of it does depend on the, as I said, the ratio of frontlist to backlist, backlist being more profitable. It absolutely depends on having hits. We're starting to see already with the most recent release by R.F. Kuang, that [Katabasis] right, so he's become a phenomenon. That will make a difference because, as I said, again, across the formats, we have a book of previously unreleased short stories by Harper Lee that will make a difference. Yes, you have to, you certainly have to focus on cost and I will take cost out, but you have to focus on a different type of acquisition, which is creative acquisition, artistic acquisition. You have to be able to anticipate the reader trends because there is a reader rhythm. There's no doubt that Brian Murray and Charlie Redmayne and the team at HarperCollins are expert in that. They're also expert in understanding how the digital marketplace is changing because you want prominence, you want placement for your books. Selling a book is not a covert operation. Robert, as we approach time, just closing on news media, obviously greater every quarter to reflect 2025, which is a fantastic outcome. How do we see that given it's evolving in the years ahead? Obviously, a lot of the attention is on the other three major segments. Is this something that we think has hit the inflection point or just broadly how you've seen news media within? Look, very country by country, publication by publication. We've seen at the New York Post a significant increase in advertising revenue. If you think back a few years, the New York Post year after year lost not millions of dollars, tens of millions of dollars. The New York Post the last couple of years have been profitable, which no one would have predicted. You know, we do think that there weren't many years since it was launched by Alexander Hamilton that it was actually profitable. It is now, certainly in the times that that Rivers has bought it twice, and through those periods, it was a loss maker. I mean, it had a social purpose, but it was a loss maker. It's now profitable and has a social purpose, which is why we're expanding into California, which is a desert for the sort of reading that the New York Post will bring in. It's an intelligent Turkish profundity, and a political perspective that is relevant to California, but not much seen in media there. In London, The Times of London, Rebecca and the team are doing a really excellent job in taking advantage of a premium cohort, and the integrity of The Times at a highly politicized moment in tradition, global history, the quality of the journalism, the quality of the presentation. Tony Gallagher, the editor there, doing an excellent job. You need to do that combination of a brilliant editor. For example, we have a peaceful New York Post and a commercial team that understands the vision and drives forward. If you have that, even though for many traditional media companies, these are difficult, if not desperate times, for us, it's an auspicious moment. Amazing. Thank you so much for your time today. I look forward to catching up soon. Thanks, Shane. Cheers.