FMC Corporation

Good morning and welcome to the fourth quarter 2025 earnings call for the FMC Corporation. This event is being recorded and all participants are in a listen only mode. Should you need assistance, please signal a conference specialist by pressing the star key followed by zero. After today's prepared remarks, there will be an opportunity to ask questions. To be placed in the Q&A queue, please press the star key then one at any time. If you are using a speakerphone, please pick up your handset before pressing the keys. I would now like to turn the conference over to Mr. Kirk Brooks, Director of Investor Relations for FMC Corporation. Please go ahead.

Good morning, and welcome to FMC Corporation's fourth quarter earnings call. Joining me today to provide today's prepared remarks are Pierre Brondeau, Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and President, and Andrew Sandefur, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer. After their comments, we will take questions. Our earnings release in today's slide presentation are available on the FMC Investor Relations website, and the prepared remarks from today's discussion will be made available after the call. Let me remind you that today's presentation and discussion will include forward-looking statements that are subject to various risks and uncertainties concerning specific factors, including but not limited to those factors identified in our earnings release and in our filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Information presented represents our best judgment based on today's understanding. Actual results may vary based on these risks and uncertainties. Today's discussion and the supporting materials will include references to adjusted EPS, adjusted EBITDA, free cash flow, organic revenue growth, and revenue excluding India, all of which are non-GAAP financial measures. Please note that as used in today's discussion, CTPR means Chlorantranilipril, Earnings means adjusted earnings, and EBITDA means adjusted EBITDA. A reconciliation and definition of these terms, as well as other non-GAAP financial terms to which we may refer during today's conference call, are provided on our website. With that, I'm going to turn the call over to Pierre.

Thanks, Gareth, and good morning, everyone. Last night, FMC announced a fourth quarter and full year 2025 results. as well as their 2026 priorities. Importantly, we also announced that our board of directors has authorized exploring strategic options, including but not limited to a potential sale of the company. To strengthen our business and position ourselves for success, we are laser focused on executing operational priorities in 2026. Those include strengthening the balance sheet, improving the competitiveness of a core portfolio, managing a post-patent Renaception strategy, and driving growth over new active ingredients. In parallel, the company is working to evaluate the best path forward for the benefit of the business and to maximize shareholder value. Accordingly, the Board of Directors has decided that a formal proactive process to evaluate strategic options makes sense to undertake at this time. The strategic review is at a preliminary stage. We have retained financial and legal advisors to assist us with this process. This strategic review does not impact the process underway to sell our India commercial business. As we look ahead, we are committed to position FMC for long-term success, and that starts with working toward our 2026 priorities as laid out on slide four. To strengthen our balance sheet, we are targeting paying down over $1 billion of debt through asset sales and licensing agreements. This includes the sale over India commercial business, which continues to progress with binding bids expected to be received in the second quarter. In addition, we are in active discussions regarding licensing agreements, which include upfront payments. Increasing the competitiveness of our off patent portfolio product remains a top priority. Our goal is to lower the cost of a non-diamide products to more effectively compete against generics. 2025 sales of these core products, excluding Renexapyr, were approximately $2.2 billion. Nearly $1 billion of these sales came from products manufactured in high cost facilities. We expect to lower the manufacturing cost of these products by at least 35% by 2027. This is a complex process which will require re-registration for most products, as well as a buildup of inventory in advance of the transition. As a result, we will be limited in our ability to adapt to manufacturing mix to the changing needs of our customers. We believe this reduced flexibility will act as a sale headwind in 2026 and has been reflected in the forward guidance. In addition, we are executing a post-pattern strategy for the next appeal. 2025 sales were just over $800 million and in line with our expectation. Beginning 2026, there will be generic offerings of CTPR in all markets. As CTPR becomes more widely available through generics, resistance is likely to increase. For example, We are seeing pest resistance in rice crops in China and Japan. Our advanced formulations and mixture are designed to address this challenge. As the owner of the original molecule, we have years of historical proprietary data which benefit our development of formulations and mixtures to combat resistance. for a more basic formulations of Renexapyr. Our plan remains to lower price and grow volume by capturing market share from all the classes of insecticides. We are already observing success with this strategy in a number of countries. We anticipate branded Renexapyr earnings barriers in 2026 to be in line with prior as higher volume particularly for more advanced offerings, and lower cost offset lower price. Finally, we are committed to the continued sales growth over four new active ingredients. We are only in the early stages of sales for four new molecules, but we are already seeing solid growth. Sales have increased from approximately 130 million dollars in 2024 to approximately 200 million dollars in 2025. So sales are almost entirely driven by Fundapeer and Isoflex. Doodelex received emergency registration in two countries, which resulted in modest sales in 2025. With while sales of new active ingredients grew 54% in 2025, they were below our expectations of $250 million. This was mainly due to impacts from later than expected registration for isoflakes in Great Britain. We estimate 2026 sales for new active ingredients to be between 300 million and $400 million. These activities are in high demand, with three of them offering a new mode of action. We still expect sales of the four activities to exceed $2 billion by 2035. We believe executing these priorities position us to enter 2027 with a stronger balance sheet, a more competitive portfolio, and growing sales of higher margin differentiated products. Our 2026 full year guidance is provided on slide five. We're expecting full year sales of $3.6 billion to $3.8 billion to be down 5% at the midpoint versus prior year. Price is expected to be a mid-single-digit headwind driven by Renexa Peer, which is consistent with our post-pattern strategy. The removal of India is expected to be a 2% full-year headwind that will only impact the first half. Excluding India, we expect volume to be modestly higher driven by new actives and branded Renexa Peer. Full year adjusted EBITDA is expected to be between $670 million to $730 million. As you can see on slide six, the main headwind versus prior is in our legacy portfolio due to competitiveness. Renexapyr overall is expected to decline, driven by dynamite partner sales. It is important to note that branded renexapia earnings are expected to be in line with prior year as we implement our strategy. Tariffs are expected to be a 20 million dollars headwind, nearly all of which will impact first quarter results. We expect positive impact from a growth portfolio with particularly strong contribution from new active ingredients. Our first quarter sales guidance outlined on slide seven is $725 million to $775 million, 5% lower than prior year. Price is expected to be lower by mid single digit which is consistent with our expectation for all quarters this year. The removal of India represents an additional 5% headwind. We do expect some volume growth as modest increases across most regions are largely offset by a few significant factors. There have been a large number of generic CTPR offerings announced, particularly in the U.S. and Brazil, as the last of our patents expired at year-end. Distributors and retailers have been reluctant to fully stock Renexapier until they better understand the quality, availability, and grower response to these generic offerings. We believe generic entry is also impacting our dynamite partners from whom we are expecting lower orders in the first quarter. Finally, planned registration losses in Europe will impact volume growth. We expect adjusted EBITDA to be between $45 million and $50 million, which is 58% lower than prior year and represents about half of the total EBITDA net headwind we expect for the year. The expected EBITDA reduction is largely due to lower price as well as cost factors that are unique to Q1. For example, manufacturing costs are unfavorable to prior year in the first quarter But as the year progresses, manufacturing costs are forecasted to become favorable. In addition, the full year $20 million tariff charges are recorded almost entirely in Q1. EBITDA margin in the first quarter is expected to be around 7%. This abnormally low margin is caused by the combination of lower sales on which to absorb relatively flat fixed cost and the unique cost headwinds I just noted. We expect this margin profile to be unique to Q1 with sub-second quarter margins returning to more normal levels as a result of higher sales and favorable manufacturing costs. I will now turn the call over

Thanks, Pierre. I'll start this morning with a brief overview of our fourth quarter results. Let me note that you can find more detailed description of our fourth quarter and full year 2025 results on slides 12 through 18 of today's presentation. During the fourth quarter, we continued to operate in challenging market conditions, including intense competition from generics and weaker grower margins. These conditions affected the timing of purchases and product mix for crop protection. While we delivered adjusted EBITDA and adjusted EPS near our guidance midpoints, sales came in below our guidance range. We reported $1.08 billion in Q4 sales, a decline of 11% year-over-year, or 5% on a like-for-like basis, excluding India. Price declined 6%, driven by lower RENAC's appear and strong market competition. particularly in Latin America, which led to pricing headwinds for our core portfolio products. Volumes were weaker than anticipated, with a decline of 1% due to high competitive pressure. Fourth quarter adjusted EBITDA was $280 million, a decline of 17% versus the prior year quarter, down 8% on a like-for-like basis, excluding India from the prior year. Lower price and volume were partially offset by lower costs and FX. Adjusted earnings per share for the quarter was $1.20, a 33% decline due to lower adjusted EBITDA and higher interest. Moving on to free cash flow in the balance sheet. We reported gap cash flow operations of $657 million for the fourth quarter, up $230 million versus the prior year period. The increase was driven by a release of working capital, particularly from receivables. This led to free cash flow of $623 million for the quarter. We ended 2025 with cash from operations of negative $6 million, which included $103 million of cash restructuring spending. 2025 free cash flow was negative $165 million. We ended the fourth quarter with net debt of approximately $3.5 billion, down over $550 million from the third quarter due to strong free cash flow. Net debt to trailing 12-month EBITDA was 4.1 times at year end, while covenant leverage was 4.6 times. As a reminder, our covenant limit is six times through the third quarter of 2026 and then steps down to five and a half times at year end. Turning to slide eight and that cash flow outlook for 2026. Free cash flow for 2026 is expected to be in the range of negative $65 million to positive $65 million. or breakeven at the midpoint, including an expected $130 million in restructuring spending. Lower EBITDA, higher restructuring spending, and modestly higher capital expense are expected to be offset by the liquidation of India working capital, lower cash taxes, and improved working capital performance in the ongoing business. Despite breakeven free cash flow and lower EBITDA, with the successful execution of our debt pay down plan, we expect to end 2026 with a reduction in net leverage of approximately one half term. We would then expect leverage to further improve in subsequent years with higher free cash flow from growing EBITDA and reduced restructuring spending. With that, I'll hand the call back to Pierre.

As we look ahead, the key driver of our growth and what differentiates us from the majority of other crop chemical providers is our R&D pipeline of new active ingredients. This pipeline is the result of years of dedicated work by research and development teams, and it represents a significant competitive advantage for FNC. On slide 9, we have provided base sales expectation using the current targeted crops. But we believe there is substantial upside to sales through application on additional crops. Frundapyr fungicide has been registered and launched in all major countries where we intend to sell, including the US and Brazil. Going forward, the focus will be on expanding sales through continued grower education. For Isoflex Active, we are already registered and selling in a number of countries. Sales are expected to increase in 2026 in particular due to a full growing season of sales in Great Britain, following a delayed registration in 2025. Further growth is expected in 2027, following product registration in the EU. We remain on track to receive this important registration, as we recently received approval for the active ingredient last week. DALYLEX, active. is the first new mode of action herbicide in over 30 years. We are confident that this herbicide can be useful in other crops like sugarcane and expect meaningful contribution from Godelix beginning in 2027. Finally, Remisoxafen is expected to begin receiving registration in 2028. Remisoxafen is the first herbicide ever to be classified as a dual mode of action. It is primarily targeted with Palmer amaranth and is now resistant to eight herbicide classes. These pre-emergent herbicides will offer corn and soybean growers a new solution to an increasingly challenging problem. In addition, to these four molecules, we have two more active ingredients in development. While we expect sales of these two active to begin during the early 2030s, that contribution is not included in the $2 billion of expected 2035 sales listed in the slide. The growth of these active ingredients are an important part of a key dynamics for 2027 and 2028, which are outlined on slide 10. In addition to accelerating the growth of a new active, it is important for us to also stabilize our core portfolio by executing a run-ex-appear post-pattern strategy and by improving the competitiveness of our legacy's core. We expect margins to improve with SG&A and R&D spend growing much slower than top-line sales. The combination of these actions is expected to result in EBITDA growth in the mid-teens percent in both 2027 and 2028. In closing, we are committed to position FMC for long-term success. Teams across the company are focused on executing our operational priorities for the same, with the same dedication and innovation that has always defined FMC. At the same time, we are undertaking a process to explore strategic alternatives. We believe that pursuing both paths simultaneously best position us to maximize value for shareholders. With that, we're ready to take your questions.

Thank you. We will now begin the Q&A session. To be placed in the queue, please press star key then 1 on your touchtone phone. If you are using a speakerphone, please pick up your handset before pressing the keys. Please limit yourself to one question. If you have additional questions, you can jump back in the queue. To withdraw from the queue, please press star, then two. At this time, we will pause momentarily to assemble our roster. Our first question comes from Josh Spector from UBS. Josh, your line is now open. Please go ahead.

Good morning. This is the latest for Josh. I mean, just firstly, like, I mean, you're targeting $700 million in EBITDA this year. I guess just given the volatility that we've seen in the portfolio the past couple of years, I was wondering if you could kind of just help us think about the different relative contributions there that are coming from the products in the portfolio. So, I mean, we have the key kind of product groups, you know, where an X appears, size appears, your new product sales, biologicals in the legacy court that's like off patent. So I mean, it seems like potentially you're implying maybe 400 million on legacy, 80 to 90 million on each of like runax appears, sales appear in the growth buckets and then about 40 million on biologicals. I mean, I know you guys talk about the sales a lot, but there's been a lot of volatility in there with the pricing and the earnings outlook. So I mean, anything you kind of share to help sort of understand the components would be great. Thanks.

Hey, it's Andrew. I'll, I'll take, I'll take the first crack at this one. Look, you know, we don't, we don't break out profitability by product line. I think when we think about what's going on in the business this year, certainly, you know, profitability of the core portfolio and the non-run expert core portfolio is a big contributor. It's a big part of the portfolio. And we've given those dimensions previously. Um, it's a, you know, it's, it's, you know, about half of the sales of the company. So it's obviously a big contributor to profitability. The RENACSA peer, as Pierre stated in prepared comments, we're expecting the branded RENACSA peer business to deliver earnings that are essentially flat year on year. We do see a decline in the partner sales portion of the RENACSA peer business, both in price as our continued efforts to improve costs for RENACSA peer are shared with our partners through the cost plus pricing contract mechanism, as well as lower volumes. Again, as Pierre mentioned in his prepared comments. For the rest of the portfolio, we will see increasing contribution from the growth portfolio, from all three elements of the growth portfolio, both in sales and in profitability, with contributions from Siazepir, certainly from the new AIs, as we have meaningful growth from the year before, and from plant health.

Just to answer at a high level around the volatility and our level of confidence, I think we have very high level of confidence in our total growth portfolio. The four new actives, Plant Health and Sales Appear. We also have a high level of confidence in our ability to keep earnings flat from 25 for branded Renex Appear, and we're already seeing how this is going to be deployed. The two places really which are challenging performance are very well identified. The first one is a core portfolio. We know that we do have about a billion dollars of production which is not cost competitive and for which we are being challenged to grow and losing market share. That's a number one contributor and that's where we have a high level of focus. The number two is sales to a dynamite partner. We had to lower the Ronexapier cost. We had no way around that. And on top of that, I believe a partner must be challenged also on Ronexapier sales with less volume. So those are the two factors today which are creating the most headwind in 2026. and which are being addressed to go away in 2027.

Great, thanks. I mean, I guess just following on from that then, I mean, you called out that you think you're going to be able to drive kind of mid-teens EBITDA growth into 2027 and 2028. So maybe you could kind of just talk us through how you see the drivers to achieve that sort of off this year's base. I guess what's giving you the confidence there that you can deliver on that given the challenging environment I've seen in the past couple of years?

Thanks. I think if you look into the question was a bit hard to follow, but if you look today, at the 2026 challenges. They are very clearly identified in two buckets. Going into 2027. We we know and we have confidence in a growth portfolio. It's been the growth of those products have been stable for the last for the last two years. So the two factors we really do have And that will continue. There is no reason for that not to continue to provide growth. And that's where most of the growth is going to come in 2027. It's a continuation of what's been happening in the last two or three years. Where we have been underperforming is, as I said, the core portfolio excluding Renexap here. This one is only an issue of manufacturing cost. Our products are good. Our network is good. Customers have confidence. We are just not competitive at the price level. We are correcting that. We are completely redoing our manufacturing footprint in high-cost countries, and this is well on its way. But number two is the Rolex Hapier partner contract. We there is a limit to how much we can decrease the cost of our next appear. We we are getting close to to the end of this price reduction which is going to reduce the impact it will have on pricing to a partner. And in addition, the size of those contract is becoming smaller and smaller, so the impact in 27 is going to be very minor. So daily varying the 15% EBITDA growth in 2027. has to be done by a continuation of what we have done over the last two years on the growth platform, which we are confident we can do, and really, really get our core products competitive from a manufacturing standpoint, which we expect to do by the end of 2026, sorry, 2027.

Thank you. Our next question comes from Alexey Refremov from Key Corp. Your line is now open. Please go ahead.

Thanks, and good morning, everyone. Just wanted to follow up on the sale of the entire company. Have you had any discussions so far, any interest, and was this prompted by any inbound inquiries?

No. What we... What we've done, Alexi, is a normal process. We worked with our board, and we presented to the board a business plan, which I have described, and that business plan includes a billion dollars of reduction of our debt. That is part of the base plan, which also includes improving the competitiveness of the core portfolio, the RENEX APR strategy, and the growth of ACTIV. That's the base plan, which leads to a $700 million EBITDA target. Once we presented that to the board, we also discussed, is there a way to increase shareholder return? Is there a way to maybe improve the growth of the sales of our new active ingredients and speed up the development process of the actives we have in development currently? And should we think about having our company operating under a different ownership, which could be beneficial to shareholders and which could be beneficial to the performance of our portfolio? That discussion with the board led us to say we need to go to pursue two paths. Path number one, the plan I presented to you. Path number two, an entire sale of the company. And for this, we are getting structured. We've hired advisors, bank and legal, and the process is being put in place right now.

Thank you. Our next question comes from Christopher Parkinson from Wolf Research. Your line is now open, Christopher. Please go ahead.

Great. Thank you. This is Harris Fine. I'm for Chris. Thanks for taking my question. I guess following up on the last one, looking out to 2027 and 2028, it still looks like you're confident in building some momentum. Can you just talk about the thought process around the timing of initiating a strategic review and any more color about how you're weighing a full sale versus an asset sale licensing agreement, what those different structures might look like. Thank you.

Yes. So the $1 billion of debt reduction, which is the sale of India, which is taking place, we are waiting for binding offers right now. the licensing of one of our new molecules, as well as other assets we have identified, this is going on with the basic plan. That is independent from the sale of the entire company. That's the base operating plan. On the side, there is another path, which is mostly focused on the entire sale of the company. And this is for the reason I said before, shareholder return as well as potentially giving more potential for the company to operate in a better way. So the process of partial divestiture versus full divestiture are separate. One is taking place with a base plan, the other one is a separate process we are currently undertaking right now.

Thank you. Our next question comes from Vincent Andrews from Morgan Stanley. Your line is now open. Please go ahead.

Thank you, and good morning, everyone. I wanted to follow up on the strategic alternatives in a couple of ways. Pierre, could you just clarify, is it only possible to do a licensing deal or sell the entire company, or is it possible that somebody could buy the new molecules in the pipeline, somebody else could buy the diamides, and somebody else could buy the balance of the business or other types of permutations, or are there limitations just in terms of the way that the company is set up from a manufacturing perspective that would make it too difficult to do something like that?

So I believe the company is set up in a way where multiple things could be happening. I would never say and never close any option which would be beneficial to the company in the way we operate and which would be beneficial to shareholders. But from a probability level today, I think the two highest probability we have in front of us. One is the base plan, which include a licensing, a sale of asset and the sale of India. The other one is the full sale of the company. There could be things in between, but right now they are not part of the way we are thinking about the company. Obviously, if people come with interesting ideas about things we could do, we would listen. But right now, we are focusing on two paths as the principal actions we are taking.

Thank you. Our next question comes from Joel Jackson from BMO Capital Markets. Your line is now open. Please go ahead.

Good morning, uh, peer and team. I'm just trying to reconcile, you know, some of the guidance that you're giving some of the different product buckets in 26. There was kind of a prior question on this earlier, but I always want to focus on revenue and I'm looking also, of course, of the good, you know, nuanced guidance you gave last year for all the product buckets going out for a few years. So if I understand, I mean, you, you, you said what you think the new AI will do in the growth portfolio in 26, but there's some for the product buckets. Like, so I think you're saying we're an active peer sales will be down this year, partnered and non-partnered. So that's the first question. then the rest of the portfolio, non-renax peer and core, would also be down this year. And then in growth, would SASA peer be down in 26 for sales? And then would it be roughly flat to up for the plan health? Like, can you just, those other buckets, so renax peer, non-core renax peer, SASA peer, and plan health, talk about how you see 26 versus 25 specifically, individually, sorry, thanks.

Hey, Joel, it's Andrew. I'm going to take the first crack at this, and Pierre, I'll chime in with some additional comments. When we think about the sort of the core versus the growth portfolio in big strokes for revenue. For Renaxa Peer, as Peer mentioned, you know, we're expecting flat earnings from the branded business. Revenue could be slightly down, but it's not a tremendous difference. Where you have the shrink year-on-year in the Renaxa Peer business is in partner sales. That's both from price, from the cost plus pricing mechanism, and from volume with the partners. for our legacy core, all the remaining core products, we are expecting a slight contraction, a drop year on year, that's pricing and volume, right? So overall, the core portfolio is down year on year from 26 versus 25. When we look at the growth portfolio, we have growth in all aspects of the growth portfolio, led by the four new active ingredients that are growing strongly, right? And again, you know, we've walked through in detail in the slide, Some very, very good momentum with fluendipir having been registered in all the core countries and with accelerating growth of Isoflex, particularly with having a full selling season in Great Britain this year. Plant health also grows. So all three pieces of the core portfolio are growing in 26, but it's really differentially impacted by the new active ingredients.

I think it's important to say these. The growth portfolio, there is no part of the growth portfolio, including branded sales APR, the four active ingredients, and plant health. All of them are growing. Renex APR, the strategy is focused on earnings, and we do expect branded Renex APR earnings to be flat versus 25. And then where we have a contraction it's in a partner sales for an accept here and the core portfolio.

Thank you. Our next question comes from Adeline Rodriguez from Mizuho. Your line is now open. Please go ahead.

Thank you. Good morning. Pierre, just one quick one for me. Like how confident are you that you have a good sense of the challenges facing the company. Because again, things keep popping up here and there. So yeah, I mean, your confidence level that you have, you know, you know exactly what the challenges are and looking one, two years out that you have, that you see a path out of this funk and you have a solution to fix it.

They said it's, It's a valid and it's a good question. I'm going to answer that in a very, very straight manner. I think. We've done a lot. Since I've been back in the company. There is one part. Which I missed. It is the risk. We had to see a. core portfolio outside of Runex Appear being as challenged as it's been by generic. And if you look at the performance of the company, we pretty much performed as expected in every aspect except the core portfolio outside of Runex Appear. The problem is that it's a big part of the company. It's $2.2 billion. So just shrinking on this part of the company by 3%, 4% is a significant impact. I was not anticipating that the downturn would last that long and that there would be that amount of competitiveness in that part of the portfolio especially in place like Latin America. I would have to do it again. I would have started the restructuring of a manufacturing footprint earlier. It is what it is. But if you look today at the portfolio of the company, the entire growth portfolio, the three parts are in great shape and performing exactly as we're expecting. The Renex IP of Brennan strategy is clearly in place. We have one thing to fix. It's the core portfolio. We know how to do it. It's ongoing. The plan is in place and it's started. So why am I so confident? It's because the number of things we have to fix is limited. It's one thing. The rest, it's in place. The problem, this thing we have to fix, we better fix it because it's big. But it's not that complicated to know what we have to do.

Thank you.

Thank you. Our next question comes from Frank Mitch from Phenomion Research. Your line is now open. Please go ahead.

Thank you. Good morning. Pierre, I would assume that you're thinking 2026 is a bottom for the company. And so I'm just curious, in terms of the timing of the sale of the company, I mean, it would seem like you're having these discussions at the bottom of the cycle, which might not get the best value for shareholders at this particular point in time. Can you just address the timing and why not wait until your restructuring program is yielding tangible results? Thank you.

Thanks, Frank. Yes, I think we do have a base plan which allows us to go through 2026. Which I expect at this point is at the bottom of the cycle for the company. And I also believe that. Getting through 2026 to we were doing it will create growth starting in 2728. That's the base plan we need to execute. on reducing our debts. And this process, we need to bring in a billion dollars into the company. Like any plan, you always have to weigh the risk and the certainty you have to deliver it. We are pretty confident about this plan and believe it will take us to the right place in 2027. That being said, we have a board, and this board has the responsibility to look for shareholders and how to get the best from the portfolio we have in the company. So when you think about that as an operator, clearly focused on 2026 will be the bottom of the company and should allow it to go back to growth in 27. Working with the board, we also believe it is important to always look at a double path. A parallel path would allow Jean- benefit for the shareholders and potentially thinking about doing more things with a portfolio of the company that we can do alone. Jean- You know, when you take money to research or a company like we're doing it is money you don't you don't spend in accelerating the growth of your new active ingredients, including the warning research. So the question we have to ask ourselves is, would this company operate better, grow faster under a different ownership, which will have maybe more flexibility financially than FMC has today? So I think both plans are valid. It is not like not selling the company would be a disaster because we don't have a plan to go through 26. I think the 26 plan is robust. and will put us in a good place in 27, but the alternative could be highly beneficial for shareholders and would allow the company potentially to operate better and faster. That's why the two processes are being followed in parallel.

Thank you. Our next question comes from Kevin McCarthy from Vertical Research Partners. Your line is now open. Please go ahead.

Hi, this is Matt Hatt. We're on for Kevin McCarthy. Could you provide an update on your upcoming debt maturities and covenant obligations? What's your plan for the next tranches of debt that are coming to?

Sure. Thanks, Matt. Sandra, I'll take that one. Look, we have 500 million bonds maturing in October. Obviously, our intent is to refinance them in advance of their maturity. You know, fallback, we can absorb that into the existing revolver capacity, but our intent is to replace them with new financing well in advance of that. We're in discussions with our financial advisors in the best form that we might pursue to do that, but, you know, certainly our intent is to refinance those here in the first half. When we look at our overall debt levels, you know, as Piers made very, very clear, We are intensely focused on reducing total debt of the company. We have a plan to reduce that debt by a billion dollars this year through a mix of asset sales, licensing agreements, et cetera. We have very strong confidence in that plan. Very advanced discussions on the sale of the India business. Discussions underway on licensing and on other asset disposals that we're not at liberty to go into any further detail at the day, but good progress in all of those dimensions. So that's an important part of getting the company in a much stronger footing by the end of 26. During 26, we will obviously have to manage closely our debt levels and our working capital. We recently renegotiated our revolving credit facility to get much higher covenants. That amendment was finalized in early December. We asked for a very high covenant six times. to allow us the flexibility to work through the things that we need to do in 2026. That will require us, given the seasonality of our EBITDA outlook, with a very light first quarter and then building through the year, to manage the traditional working capital build very carefully. And the team is laser focused on managing inflows and outflows of cash in the company to keep debt within those covenants. So I think we have a good plan to address the upcoming maturity. I think we have a good plan to continue managing within the existing covenants. But we are looking at all kinds of financing options and how we might put the company on better footing faster. And that's something that will be very active discussions over the next, particularly the first half of this year. Again, to directly address the maturity, but also just to make sure that as we're paying down debt, we have the right overall capital structure for the company.

Thank you. Our next question comes from Mike Harrison from Seaport Research Partners. Your line is now open. Please go ahead.

Hi, good morning. I was hoping, Pierre, that you could talk a little bit more about the new products coming in at $200 million rather than the $250 million you expected. It seems like that's a fairly large shortfall to just be related to a registration delay in the UK. And I guess maybe looking forward, can you discuss some of the factors that might drive that new product revenue toward the higher end or lower end of the $300 to $400 million range that you've given for 2026? Yes.

First, for the $50 million shortfall, your comment is correct. It is not all. the delay in registration for Isoflex. The delay in registration in Isoflex is a big part of this shortfall. But you also know that our sales in Brazil, especially the direct sales to growers, fell short of what we're expecting. It was still for a new a new market penetration, what I would consider a success, but not as successful as we were expecting. And part of those sales we didn't do were including fluent appeal. So the majority of the shortfall is the registration delay. And there is an additional shortfall in fluent appeal because of direct sales being a bit lower than what we were expecting. Now, the range of 300 to 400 million seems to be wide. What would drive us toward the higher end is mostly registrations. The speed at which we get registration, how much of them we add, not for Fluent API, but for Isoflex, There is place where we have, for example, exception to registration, which have been requested by our customers. We don't know if they will be granted or not. So there is a registration aspect which moves a lot in terms of timing. It doesn't change the fundamentals when you go two, three years down the road, but on a short period of time, six months could matter.

Thank you. Our next question comes from Matt Dio from Bank of America. Your line is now open. Please go ahead.

Yes, thank you very much. This is Salvador Tejano filling in for Matt. Sorry, I just want to go back to Runaxipir and trying to understand a couple of things. Number one, based on the flow chart, you mentioned that the EBITDA decline this year on Runaxipir will be from your partner sales. If I'm reading that waterfall chart correctly, it looks like it's kind of a 50 million EBITDA And last I remember, the idea was partner sales for Renexpeer were 200 million. So that's in terms of revenue, not even earnings. So that implies a massive, massive reduction margin. So are these numbers correct? And why are the earnings on that small bucket declining as much? And the second is, you know, I get the branded Renexpeer earnings target of being flat year on year. But can you talk a little bit about the top line for branded renax peer manually? What gives you confidence that the volumes will be flat given the competition? And also, what is your assumption on price? Especially since we noticed that you started lowering the price in Q4, as mentioned in some of the slides, right? Thank you very much.

All right. Morning, South Andrew. I'll start this off, and Pierre will take the second part of this. I think, look, for renax peer, In particular, as we think about the partner sales, we're looking at a reduction in volume and price. And when we look at the slide, let's be clear, we are intentionally not giving those numbers. We gave you a dimensional view of the drivers, so I'm not going to comment directly on estimates that people might try to infer from that slide. What we're trying to give you is a directional sense of the major drivers and what's happening with EBITDA this year. So certainly volume and price are impacts on the partner sales for Ranaxapyr and reduce both sales and profitability year on year for that piece of business. For the branded Ranaxapyr business, we have a combination of factors at play. We are reducing price, particularly on less differentiated solo formulations that directly compete with low-cost generic entrants. We're also seeing a mix shift where we're putting much more emphasis on our advanced formulations, mixtures, and high concentration product offerings. The combination of that mix shift volume gains as we're increasing penetration of RENACs appear more broadly, not just into the existing markets, and a significantly lower cost, right? We continue to have cost reduction from 24 to 25 to 26 allow us to deliver a relatively flat profitability of Brent and Renault-Sapir year over year. At the top line, it's a similar kind of story. And it's again that combination of volume and price and volume, including the mix shifts. Pierre, you want to add some things to the outlook for Renault-Sapir?

Yeah. The only thing I would add is you cannot make a straight calculation. Lower price, higher volume. Where do we land in profitability? Because you have a change in the mix, which is enormous with the work we are doing. I'll give you an example. I believe for an XRP in 2026, 50% of our sales will shift to advance formulation. So it is not at all the same portfolio in 2026 that we would have in 2025. And it's 50% advanced formulation command a higher price, so there is no price decrease for those formulation. That's why we have to be very careful that it is not the price will be lower. The cost will be lower and will have to increase the volume to compensate for the for the lower price. There is a very large part of the portfolio which doesn't see lower price. And as I said before, it's at least 50% in 2026.

Thank you. This now concludes the FMC Corporation Conference Call. Thank you all for attending. You may now disconnect.