Corteva, Inc. (CTVA) Earnings Call Transcript & Summary

All right. Welcome to Ag-Apalooza. We're here with Corteva, the CEO, Chuck Magro; and Head of Investor Relations, Kim Booth. And we're going to get a nice update from Chuck. So Chuck, maybe you're going to go to go through the state of the union, and then we'll open to questions.

Okay. Thanks, Joel. Good to see you, by the way. Hi, everyone. Hopefully, you had a good summer back at it. I thought what I would do is just make 4 high-level comments to frame how we see the year so far and a forward look. And then we can just open it up for questions. But I would maybe set the stage, at least from our perspective. So the first comment I'd like to make is if you look at the first half, right, for Corteva, the financials were pretty solid. We were just below the 2023 first half numbers, and that was an all-time record for Corteva. So the first half of '24, pretty solid. And it was really driven by the performance in our Seed business, which continues to just have top line growth, bottom line growth and margin expansion. And that's truly driven by what we feel is just a tremendous technology pipeline that will go right through to the end of this decade and into next. From a crop protection, our business was down just like the industry. The industry is facing some headwinds. You guys are probably bored of us talking about it, but this global destocking issue that the industry has faced. The one positive thing we saw in the first half, though, when it comes to our CP business is that we finally saw in the second quarter volume growth. So the industry seems to have returned to volume growth, which is a good sign. Pricing, still a challenge, lots of competitive dynamics, and we talked about that at the second quarter. So when you put it all together, Corteva, pretty good first half. The second comment I'd like to make is, operationally, I'd say we have executed quite well, and I put that in a strong category. We did convey the message at the end of the second quarter that we're on track to deliver somewhere between $400 million and $450 million of, we call it, controllable or self-help. This is cost productivity, and it has some elements of deflation in it. And Kim is here and we can unpack this because I'm sure you'll have more questions. So operationally, I think we're handling the cost very well. And then if you look at SG&A, if you put it on an apples-to-apples basis because of some of the acquisitions we made, on an absolute dollar basis, our SG&A is essentially flat over the last couple of years. So another lever that I think we've done a nice job of managing. On the portfolio side, we launched 100 new CP products in the first half of the year, and we're on track to do 250 Seed new hybrids and varieties. So the pipeline is really starting to take shape and drive value. And we also said that, and I think this is probably the last comment I'll make on operations is, we're now the #1 corn and soybean producer in the U.S. It's been a while since Corteva could say that. So we're very proud of the team. We're delighted that farmers have given us their confidence with that kind of business. And that has to do with the pioneer brand, the technology, but also Brevant and the rest of our multichannel strategy that we have. The third comment I'd like to make is, now let's talk a little bit about the forward look. And at the time, what we said, at the second quarter, was that the full year guide was adjusted downward because we had some unusual items and some weather issues. So in the up protection, we had Northern Europe and Southern part of the U.S. that we lost some clinical sprays. It was simply just too wet. We couldn't get on the field, our customers couldn't. And then we introduced this topic as well of Argentina corn stunt. So we've seen corn stunt in Brazil. But we've never seen it at least at this level in Argentina. And this is an important comment to make because we don't sell a lot of feed in the third quarter, the way the seasonality is of our business in the global footprint. But in the third quarter, we will lose money in the third quarter this year. And a dimension of that is largely because of the seed seasonality. The one country we do sell Seed in the third quarter on scale is Argentina. And for those that aren't familiar with this issue, so this is an issue where we're having -- and it's an industry-wide issue, it's not a Corteva specific issue. But what will most likely happen is that less corn acres in Argentina will be planted because of this issue. And it's going to take us a little bit of time to sort of breed resistance. And we've done this before. We've seen elements of this in Brazil. And certainly, we're very good at managing our [indiscernible], but it will impact planted area in 2024. And the government estimates are around 20%. So hopefully, that helps you sort of size this thing, and we'll give you more details at the right time. Now we're still expecting a strong Q4 in terms of volume. Our order books look good when it comes to crop protection. And so when you put all this together, what we said at the second quarter was we full year guided $3.4 billion to $3.6 billion. And given the Argentina issue, and then we have to -- another question mark, which is a little early to unpack right now is, if you recall last year, there was about an 8% reduction in Safrinha corn acres because of very dry weather. And in Brazil, if they don't get the moisture, they won't plant the crop. And it's dry again in Brazil. It's still very early in Brazil, but we need to see what will happen for planted area on the Safrinha crop. And we won't know that until we get into October and November. So given the Argentina issue, I think it's safe to say that the top end of our guide of $3.6 billion is probably off the table. But we're still very comfortable that we're within the range. So that would be the third comment. It's just a little update on third quarter and full year and the impact that the Argentina corner stunt in terms of planted area will have on the feed business. My final comment though. So if you look at 2025 and then even beyond that, the future, this is where I think things get quite exciting. So we'll give you a full '25 guide actually at our third quarter, which is a little different for Corteva. We typically wait until February. But given that we have an Investor Day on November 19, and we want to talk about the future of agriculture and the technology pipeline, we think it's prudent then to give our first look at 2025. So that will come when [indiscernible] in the third quarter. But I think it's safe to say that we still feel very good about the overall value framework that we just revised, I think Kim in April or something, I think earlier this year. And there's still a pathway to that value framework. And if you recall what we said there is we're expecting continued Seed performance and growth. I'd say we're seeing that in spades right now. And then in CP, we would need the global CP industry to stabilize and turn to growth in 2025. And like I said, what we saw in the second quarter was volume growth, so that's a good sign. And now we'll have to see what happens in the remainder of the year, and I'm sure we'll talk about it. The other thing I wanted to highlight quickly is that, given now that crop commodity prices have come off and a large percentage in our Seed business is related to the commodity cost we are expecting some deflationary tailwinds now to come through the P&L. And you're going to see that as we enter 2025, but it will go beyond '25, and it will go into '26 and yes, Joel, it will go into '27. And we're going to rightsize that for you at the right time, and we can talk around that today, if you like. But COGS deflation will become a bigger part of the story now, given where commodity pricing is at. Then my last comment just on why we're constructive about the '25 in the future of Ag. If you look at the growth opportunities that Corteva has, it's pretty exciting. We have a significant growth opportunity in our new biological business. We're still seeing double-digit top and bottom line growth in that business, even in today's market conditions, which is great. We've got our new product portfolio, which is substantial, something like 8 or 9 new products in the last 5 or 6 years and then another, I'd say, equivalent 8 or 9 products in the next decade in the CP portfolio and that is slowly coming into the market now and will ramp up. And then our out-licensing opportunity. So in feed, if you look at the Enlist business, that was our first foray into out-licensing our soybean trait technology. And then we just had some approvals done late last year and early this year for our corn portfolio and there's a couple of packages we call PowerCore and Vorceed, and these are the next-generation trait protection packages in our Seed technology, and we are starting to out-license that technology to others as well, and that will drive to the performance of seed. And then finally, there's longer-term opportunities in terms of gene editing, biofuels and we can unpack that. But maybe I'll stop there, Joel, and I think that was a good summary to get us started.

Okay. That's great. Maybe I'll open the question [indiscernible] chime in. The question of multiyear seed cost deflationary tailwind has been very topical among the buy side, trying to figure out how to size that. There's been estimates out there, it could be as high as $600 million over the next few years. I think $1 billion in out direct number seems like it's inflated and not really what Corteva's opportunity is. And again, it's -- I think it's over 2 or 3 years. You talk about, for 2025, what is the reasonable range of outcomes? And also I had a question, talking about 2027 because I was trying to understand if I think 70% of this year's seed, for example, gets sold next year, why is it 3 years to work through the cost tailwind?

Yes. Yes. So the short answer on that, and it's a never a short answer is there's -- it has to do with how we also hedge the commodity. So there's a hedging program in place, and so it needs to roll off, and that will allow us, I think, some deflation through '25 right through to '27. But -- and we're going to give you an updated view on all of this through the third quarter and then the Investor Day. But here's what we said. We said this year, you can expect somewhere between $350 million and $450 million of overall cost self-help. That included deflation, okay? Even though seed was still seeing some inflation because of commodities flowing through left over from previous peak years. So $350 million to $450 million. And then in the second quarter, we said we're more comfortable in that $400 million to $450 million range. I think that was right, [indiscernible]. And then -- but we also said that we still would expect next year, so now to your question, 2025 to be $350 million to $450 million, and we're still in that area today. That would include deflation that we've just talked about, but also all the productivity, there's some asset optimization work that's well underway in terms of the CP organization. And I think it includes out-licensing -- royalty neutrality.

The royalty neutrality.

The journey to royalty neutrality. And do we have a number for that?

For next -- for 2024 and 2025, we said you should expect to see about $100 million a year. This year, we're outperforming. Right now, our estimate is $130 million. So we said kind of take that outperformance off of 2025 for now to say for next year.

And was it $150 million for the seed cost tailwinds, special tailwinds? Have you set that number $150 million or do I make that up?

We haven't sized the see deflation tailwind yet. We said it's going to be significant for Crop Protection. Just as a reminder, we said $100 million for the full year for '24 and expect at least that amount for '25. For Seed, we'll be giving you that information on November 7.

And what you're seeing now, do you think that, that $400 million level, like -- do you think that you're trending more to the high end of the range, the lower of the range or what do you think?

For '25?

For '25.

Yes. Right now, I'd just say we're comfortable with the $350 million to $450 million, $400 million seems to be right right now with what we know.

So just one more on that. Like what's a reasonable upside scenario for seed costs deflation tailwind next year? Is it $300 million, $250 million? Like just a scenario, what is a reasonable upside scenario?

Yes. Look, it's hard to say that there's upside or downside because this will flow through it's almost a program that we have. So I don't want to -- if I give you an upside or downside, I don't want you to think that, that is the number. I think you've got to give us a little bit more time to sort of frame this internally. But what I think you need to understand, and we said these numbers before is, we saw a significant inflation across the board, right, in the last 3 years. And it's reasonable to expect that at least from a commodity perspective, if we get commodity prices back down. And today, they're in that, like if you use corn $4, when we started it was -- corn was actually below that slightly. So we're not quite even back to the levels that we started with. So we won't get all of it back. And then if you look at just sort of regional pricing for corn, Europe is still a little bit higher than the U.S. and we have a large business in Europe. And the similar comment can be made for LatAm. So that's why there's some complexity here. We're not trying to be coy. But I think what you have to do is -- and it's easy for me to say, I would not get anchored on the value creation only for 2025. This is going to be -- if you look at our track record, and I think we have a track record our EBITDA is up over $1 billion over the last 3 years. We've done that through multiple levers, both growth and cost actions. And what we'd like to do is get you excited about the same journey and we're going to give you some new financial targets in the Investor Day centered and pegged to 2027. And then I think what we can talk about each year. But I think what we're trying to do is paint a picture that this business is in, if you think about where we started from a 5-, 6-year journey of very significant margin expansion and value creation. And that's what we don't want you to do this to get anchored in 2025. I know your question is centered around maybe more modeling for 2025. The only comment I'd make on that is, so far, what I would say is we're very, very comfortable with the framework we've given you. Now there's a lot that needs to happen we need to get a crop off. We need to get another crop planted in the Southern Hemisphere. But right now, the framework that the way we set it up, I think, is the best view we can give you.

Can you talk about the opportunity in biofuel?

So we're getting quite excited about this opportunity. If you look at -- and different parts of the world are doing this slightly differently. But if you just look at what's happening in the U.S., biofuel demand that is forecasted for even the next 5 to 10 years, if that demand is accurate, it would essentially consume the entire soybean crop in the U.S. So the energy markets are much bigger than the ag markets. That is -- everyone, I think, knows that. And the opportunity is gigantic. And so what we've tried to do as a company is bring our best science thinking to this. So this year, we did our first set of pilot programs where we brought canola seed from Europe, and we planted it in Tennessee and Kentucky, and we did this as a double cropping system. So farmers after they planted their -- after they harvested their soybeans, food crop, they then on a pilot program, planted a fuel crop. And we had 16 customers, farmers, plant about 5,000 acres. And the results were beyond our expectations. The crop looked great. Farmers made more money than they would with planting, for example, winter wheat. And this is an agreement that we have with Bunge and Chevron. So it's Corteva Bunge and Chevron working together as a value chain, of course with our farmer customers. Bunge contracted the oil, they crushed it and Chevron is going to put this into their biofuel programs. So this year, now we're going to ramp that up to about 35,000 acres in a total of 6 or 7 states. And this -- so this is a winter cropping system. So the benefit for Corteva is we get to sell 2 crops. But we're changing the cropping system with farmers, and there seems to be a lot of excitement about this. Our program was actually oversubscribed. In Europe, the program is different. There is a blending mandate for any airplane that lands in the EU to have a certain percentage of biofuel in the fuel. And if not, there are pretty harsh penalties. I think next year, that blending mandate starts small. It's like 2% but then it ramps up over the next decade or longer. And so companies -- energy companies are looking at biofuels and trying to find propping systems to meet the significant demand that they have. And for Corteva's part in this, we now are starting to really carefully about breeding crops just for this. We want to be sensitive that we don't take away from food production. That's why, if you look, for example, here, less than 20% of the crop here in the U.S. is actually double cropped. So this is a great opportunity for farmers to double crop, make more money we will get paid for the technology that we bring to farmers and then the crushing companies can do their thing and the energy companies can then meet their blending requirements.

And so in Europe, if you double crop, you can use this because I know you can't use straight...

Yes. So Europe, there's a lot of regulation around taking away from the food production. So it will have to go on either other acres or it will have to be a double cropping system of some type because there is quite stringent rules around taking too much away from food production. So you're absolutely right.

And then in the -- when you double crop in the U.S., do you use then less inputs on the fertilizer side and so on and so forth to lower the carbon intensity to [indiscernible] or no?

So if you're double cropping you get credits because from a carbon intensity perspective because it's a winter crop. It's going to be farmer specific. So I don't know if I can give you the answer, but my view would be this, because we are -- the farmers will grow 2 crops. They're going to require more inputs. They're going to need to protect 2 crops. They're going to have to fertilize 2 crops. But the carbon intensity scores will come from the notion that they are using a double cropping system. And that qualifies under the Inflation Reduction Act for the credit.

How much granularity are we going to get on the out-licensing opportunity? Like we see Bayer has north of $2 billion and sort of you and we can sort of see where Syngenta is. Is it going to be very like detailed or is this going to be sort of -- sort this target that we sort of have to trust you?

Yes. So look, you're right, the overall licensing market our best view today is it's around $2 billion in the U.S. So it's a sizable market. And there's -- from our perspective, what we're going to try to do is go after soybeans, corn and canola up in Canada. So we have -- we just received some approvals called Optimum Glide, which is a glyphosate-resistant canola hybrid and we'll be licensing that. So what we'll try to do is give you a perspective. I think the way you should think about it is in the short to medium term, we're committed to becoming royalty neutral. And I think those numbers are pretty -- they're out there. They're transparent. And what we said is we'd like to be royalty neutral by the end of the decade. And we've also said before that we're probably trending a year or 2 sooner than that. So I think you're going to be well covered when it comes to how we outline this for at least the first few years. And then we can talk about after that, how much granularity we should be giving you. But I think what's in front of us right now is that and you have the total number, so where we landed as of this year, Kim, in terms of...

For royalty?

Yes, we started at $700 million to $800 million.

Yes, we've made several hundred improvements over the past several years. So we're planning on giving kind of what's going to drive the near term. So we've already been speaking about PowerCore, Conkesta and then what will come later towards the end of the decade. So just that shift does moving more into our own proprietary technology, which gives us better out-licensing power for next-gen trades and whatnot.

Yes. And then let me give you one other very specific. So thanks for reminding me, Kim. If you look at our Seed portfolio, especially corn and soybeans, we're sort of #1 or #2 in the world where we play. And except for Brazil soybeans, which is the largest soybean market in the world, where we have a bit of small market share. So the formula that we've used for Enlist here in the United States around bringing the Enlist trait and then our elite germplasm it's allowed us to get -- we're on something around 55%. Our technology is on 55% of U.S. soybean acres. We're taking that same formula, and we're going to move that into Brazil, and we're in the early stages of ramping up that journey. And we think that there's a pathway to get about 1/3 of that market share eventually. It's going to take us some time. And so royalty neutral will get us to '27 or 2028, 2029. And then in the next decade, I think that's where you're going to see a lot of impact from the Enlist, Conkesta business model in Brazil. And there'll be quite a bit of value creation because of that. So that's the one market where I see a lot of opportunity as a company.

We were like $250 million net expense forecasted for 2024, just to put that into context.

Your neutrality is not just traits, germ too, right?

Yes.

So who is the biggest customer proprietary private label feeds in America is probably our old friends of Nutrien, right? They're buying germ from Monsanto from Bayer. So is this a question of, hey, Jeff Tarsi, hey, people -- I think you know these things. [indiscernible] switch over. And you have to -- how do you offer that? Like do you have to be competitive on price, more you want to be to get -- because that's probably a big change. It's convinced their Dyna-Gro seed program, as an example, to go from Monsanto to DuPont.

Yes. Look, I think the value proposition needs to stand on its own, which is if you look at -- and I'll just speak about Corteva. In 2026, our germplasm, our Pioneer brand will turn 100 years old. And if you look at why we are leading in the U.S. in soybeans and corn, it is really because the germplasm has performed. And I'll just give you a fun fact, right? So the world record for corn yields in the United States, its out of a farmer in Richmond, over 600 bushels anchor, pioneer seed. The world record for soybeans is in the United States. Pioneer Seeds, it's over 200 pushes. So I don't think we have to do anything when it comes to sort of anything more than just having the opportunity in proper conversations with folks the germplasm will perform exceptionally well. We've seen it for decades, and we want to give customers choice. Right now, there's not a lot of choice. And we think that -- and I've talked to many of them myself, the retail channel, but other seed producers, there's lots of third-party seed producers. They do want choice, and this is going to be a great combination. What Corteva was missing, we've always had darn good, if not the best germplasm out there. It's -- we didn't have the trade packages with the freedom to operate. That's what's changed. We now have the trade packages and the next-gen trade packages of PowerCore and then down the road for seed or corn they are going to put together with our elite germplasm. We like that offering for our customer base, and we think our customers are going to really like it. The inbounds we've had our team is active. A lot of work going on in this area, lots of conversations going on. So we'll see what happens. But right now, we're excited about this opportunity from an out-licensing.

The retailers, you have to really convince that your main [indiscernible].

It's retailers, but it's also third-party seed producers as well. There are still lots of them in the U.S. and other parts of the world that want access to the best technology. So it's a combination of different parts of the value chain.

Gene editing will play a part in that as well.

Right. So then after this, we're becoming the opportunity, I think, for gene editing. And if you've heard us speak about gene editing, we are very bullish. We have -- we're doing a lot of work. We've ramped up our research and development. We have the largest patent landscape when it comes to gene editing outside of the country of China. So Corteva would be #2. We have a lot of licensees. We do license the gene editing technology. And we think that the power and the impact that it could have could be more impactful than biotech was '25 years ago. We have so many good things going on in terms of the pipeline. So I think what we're trying to get communicated properly is that I think the world does need this technology. If agriculture is going to be a positive force for food security, for climate change and to help with the energy transition, which we've just talked about, gene editing needs to be front and center. And so we have several governments that have already passed legislation to allow freedom to operate. And we're waiting now on some very important jurisdictions. And the one that we were hoping that would happen this year, which now will not happen is Europe. But I still feel very confident that the EU will eventually approve the endorsement of gene editing technology because I think there is a recognition, first of all, that it is different than GMO, which is really important. And second, that the power of the technology, I think European farmers will want access to it.

I think you foreshadowed about a year ago at this event that gene editing would be a big part of your 2025 Investor Day coming up on November 19. Is that what we should expect?

Yes. It's going to be a prominent part of our technology pipeline. We're going to spend some time on it, and we're going to probably show you some amazing before and afters. To be very candid, Sam Ethington, our Chief Technology Officer, sent me some pictures last week that I couldn't -- no crop protection used on it. It was truly amazing. But I think the value creation is going to be determined. So the technology and the science we're going to share with you, and we're very excited about that. The value creation, we need to understand the path once we get freedom to operate. And what we've said is we believe that we can bring our first -- because we've been investing and we've been breathing, we can bring our first seed technologies into the market a year or 2 after we get freedom to operate. And usually, if you know how we breed feed, it could take up to 7 years, right, to get commercial quantities. And we might start very -- with low volumes but we think that it's very, very important to get this in the hands of farmers as quickly as we can. So the question is when do we get freedom to operate? And I don't want to speculate because there's this is with the political process in several countries. But I think once we have that, we will be one of the first companies to bring commercial products into the market. And there are a couple of commercial products, right? So you've all heard of the Guava tomato that's Corteva IP that's licensed to a very small company in Japan because Japan has very good gene editing law. They can use it. And it's a hard health seed tomato. So they've gene edited the tomato to make it -- to have a lot of nutritional and health benefits. And it is being sold commercially in the country. And that is Corteva technology that's licensed to this very small company. That's one example. So I think that we need more of these in the marketplace to really start to build momentum. But I do believe that the power of this technology is going to be very helpful for the challenges that we faced.

Chuck, when you -- there are '25 EBITDA targets out there. And I think in February, you talked about swing factors being seed pricing, cost deflation, self-help not trying to get in front of it, but like when you assess those or when we kind of look at those, it seems like 1, 2 and 3, as you highlighted, we're doing very well on CPC, obviously, is its own animal. Is that -- are there other things out there that we're missing?

No, I would size it up exactly the way you described it. So the framework that we put in place for 2025, a large part of it was within our control or more or less within our control. And that was some of the portfolio decisions we made, some of the cost management actions we've taken, the asset optimization and then some of this out-licensing that we just unpacked. We feel very good about all of those levers. But we also were pretty clear that we couldn't do that if the CP industry continued to decline. And so what we said for this year was, hey, we knew that it was going to be maybe a tale of 2 half in 2024, where we're seeing some pressure in the first half. And then we were saying we would like to see some stabilization and potentially some growth. And then a return to sort of the normal trajectory. If you look at the global CP industry, it's -- there's some volatility there. But on average, it grows at 1% to 3% per year -- over many, many years. We'd like to see that return to growth. And if we could see that we would get very confident in the framework. In fact, that would be that would be the, I think, the thing that we would need to see. So where are we today, right? We saw volume growth in the second quarter, which we called out. And we're expecting volume growth in the second half. So then the remaining thing, just to be candid and to put it on the table is, okay, well, how about CP pricing. And what we said at the -- in the second quarter was, there's competitive dynamics going on here. Prices were down and the question for all of us is, okay, well, how long does that continue? And that's what we need to see. And so when we give our third quarter, we'll give you the current perspective on that and then a look for the fourth quarter. But eventually, if you look at the global CP industry and you go back in history, it is for the industry to fall 2 or 3 years in a row, it has happened but it's rare. And what I can see is that there is still good on-farm demand. So that -- I'm not going to sit here and call it by quarter because I'll be wrong. It's like everybody else. But the one thing that you have to remember here is that the on-farm demand is healthy and steady. But farmers haven't changed how they're protecting the crop, they have an insect or disease pressure to refine the product. Now either will always play a role in this, but if you average that out through time, it's good to know that the global CP industry still has good underlying on-farm demand. And the rest of this, I think, will work itself out over time. And I know you're asking, well, when is that in my view is over time, because I think that's the best light and give you. I think maybe one other comment because I've been asked this before, I don't see a structural change in the CP industry. That would prevent us from getting back to sort of the historical growth over a cycle. I just -- I don't see it. I think there's a lot of moving parts. There's definitely a lot of complexity when it comes to the global CP industry. But I don't see any of it, but I would classify as being structural. I think it's all cyclical.

And just one follow-up. Is there -- did you say -- is it on the third quarter call or the Investor Day or the fourth quarter call, when are we going to kind of seed the buckets as far as, hey, we expect seed deflation in '25 to be $150 million or $300 million -- or not -- I mean seed [indiscernible].

Yes.

So at the CPC deflation, should we expect that [indiscernible]

Yes, there's CPC deflation. Yes.

And we saw -- did we see any of it in the second quarter? Or is it in the second half?

Yes, it will be in the second half. So I think we saw $30 million inflation in the first half, which will be offset by second half deflation. So net $100 million deflation for the full year. we set at least that amount in '25 for Crop Protection, but we will give you '25 deflation estimates for both business units on November 7.

So you have a little bit more to wait, but on November 7, we will give those to you.

On the pricing side, could you call out any difference between herbicides and the rest of the CP market?

Yes. So a little bit more competitive pressure in herbicides compared to the others.

Is that glyphosate at all?

Glyphosate is a big part of it, right, because it's a big part of the herbicide market. But then if you look at some of our new products, for example, -- some of them are flat in a declining market, which I think is great. We saw a very good both volume and I'd say on a relative basis, pricing in our Spinosyns franchise, our insecticide business. And then our biologicals business, biologicals will follow the general cadence of CP, but again, double-digit growth in terms of revenue, which is a positive sign and our margins are holding up in our biologicals business. So I think the portfolio moves we've made in terms of trying to focus on differentiated, unique technology potentially, you could say not as exposed to the commodities. Certainly, we exited the glyphosate business, I think, at the right time for us. Anyway, it was the right call for us. Entering the biologicals business, all these moves, I think, have helped our CP business. But the dynamic market pressures that we saw as an industry they were pretty aggressive. And so the destocking issue now, there are still some pockets, but I'd say more or less, most of this is behind us. So now we have to see a return to growth when it comes to price volume. That's -- and we're hopeful. But until we see it -- and I don't want to sit here and call it for you because I don't think that that's appropriate. But I think what we can say, and I've already said it is the on-farm demand looks healthy and strong. I think farmers are going to kind of crop, they're going to grow the crop, they're going to protect the crop. So all these sort of basic tenants are still well intact in this industry, which is important.

Just on seed pricing real quickly. I think one of the biggest tailwinds seed pricing isn't just taking price on existing seed, but the mix shift each year that's just consistent as you come out with new products. How does that compare in '25 versus historical years? Is there more new products like for seed than normal? And typically, how much is the mix shift tailwind in like an average year?

Yes. I don't know if I -- I couldn't separate the mix with the normal. Because there's -- every year, as I mentioned this year, there's 200 or 300 new varieties in hybrids. And that has the next breeding cycle of the germplasm. We have a lot of mix upgrading coming at us right now with PowerCore with 4 seed. And then in soybeans, the z series we just rolled out, which is replacing our A Series, and that has almost a 3-bushel per acre benefit to the farmer. And so we'll employ our normal price for value strategy. If we can put the next-generation technology in the hands of farmers and they can benefit. We will share that with them and everybody wins here. And so there is a dynamic here when it comes to pricing our feed around putting that next-generation technology in their hands and pricing for it. But overall, so if we just put it all together, we said at the second quarter that, from a pricing perspective, we would expect sort of low single digits in this environment.

For the entire portfolio? Or is that just for corn or just...

That's the total.

Just in the herbicide portfolio, could you help level set what's pre-emergence and what's kind of early post-emergence [indiscernible] not pricing just in terms of your portfolio, how much volume split across the different phases of the different life cycle?

Yes. So for us, we're not as exposed to that. We have pre emergence, we have post emergence I wouldn't have the information on my fingertips to give you in terms of that level of detail. But we did say in the end of the second quarter that -- some of the -- we did see enough of it to say that we missed so much, especially in Europe, but other parts of the U.S. as well that impacted the first half. But Kim, I don't know if you have anything more than that.

No, I think we speak mostly about [indiscernible] from a herbicide perspective, so post-emergence.

Going back to gene editing for a second. Will Pairwise have access to your kind of latest and greatest germplasm. And how are they going to interact with your internal gene editing?

Yes. So for those that aren't aware, we made a small announcement last week or this week on a partnership with a company called Pairwise, which is a specialty gene editing company, have some interesting new technology. I'll speak at a high level because I think it's probably a more appropriate. So we're going to bring in some of our IP and some of our germplasm and they're going to bring in their IP. It's going to be a joint venture that's exclusive to us. And so they will have access for 100% of our needs. And so that -- I think that is really important. Now what they learned from doing the work, then we share that. And so there's a sharing mechanism for the technology, but the germplasm and the product will flip the Corteva. .

Chuck, if I can go back to the CBC market for a minute. What is the current role that generics are playing in the market? And what do you expect the NIM over the next year or 2?

Yes. The generics journey has been interesting. So at the second half of '23, we saw generics get quite aggressive. And we saw a lot of product enter the normal generic markets, which would be LatAm. But there are generics elsewhere, but the most aggressive market we saw was in LatAm. And at that time, we were very transparent, and we said we don't think it will continue or be sustainable because, in many cases, they were running at either margins that didn't make sense, we'll just call it. . Since then in the -- the first half of this year, I'd say the generic pressure has -- it's more or less what we would normally expect. Generics have always been part of the industry, and I suspect will always be part of the CP industry. The number I have on top of my head is about 20% of the market, plus or minus. And so what we've seen since then is sort of normal behavior when it comes to imports into the different countries. Now I think where we have seen a change, I guess, is that when a patent is coming off their time lines, we're seeing generic producers build the steel much faster than we would historically have seen it. And there's been several products in the industry that have come off patent, and there is generic material now available. So I think the time line from sort of patent product to generic has reduced. But I don't see the behavior in the market. Now they have low pricing. So -- but for Corteva that's always been -- there's always been a delta. It's not the game we play. We try to bring value to customers. We try to sell the full acre. But it is something that you have to contend with in the market because there's alternatives that are lower cost, but there's always been alternatives that are lower cost. The other thing I'd say is not all generics are equal, but most of the generics they don't come with the same level of service or performance guarantees. A lot of the generics have been in the market for a long time in disease -- crop resistance to them. Oftentimes, you have to apply the generic more than once. So there are trade-offs that farmers will make in this environment. Do I use generics or do I use one branded? And there won't be a one-size-fits-all for farmers. But with margins being a little thinner on the farm, these conversations, they're normal. And I'd say they're even healthy. So I think that generics are playing a role, but they're not playing an outsized role when it comes to the issues we've got in the CP industry. I think from our perspective, what we've tried to do is move our portfolio away towards more differentiation so that we would have as much sort of interaction with generic competition, but it does exist. I'm not saying it doesn't exist. I'm just trying to say, we've tried to tilt our portfolio towards more unique offerings.

I wanted to ask a question on Vorceed, PowerCore C Series. What's sort of the time line of rollout of those? Are they going to be widely available next year? Or is it just some hybrids that will have it or some areas and then you roll it out more in '26, '27 timeline look like?

Yes. So the series will be widely available, and we're hoping that there won't be any issues there. PowerCore is now available for us to out-license and will be available. Vorceed is the next generation after PowerCore. And we're in the ramp-up mode for Vorceed. So Vorceed a little longer for us. And I talk about them both, but there is a bit of a sequencing here. So the way you need to think about it is with the Z Series launch that we've just done we should be sufficient for farmers that want that level of performance. And I'd say PowerCore should be more or less widely available to our customers as well from an out-licensing perspective.

I guess, I mean, you've seen the end of destocking as you were saying kind of behind you now. Why do you think the industry is getting, I guess, not more rational, but giving it back a bit more pricing now, given the fact that you should presumably see a natural uplift in volumes given destocking is now behind?

I don't think I should probably speak for the industry on this topic, I should probably just say for Corteva, I think there is a trade-off between price and volume, there always is. And for Corteva, what we want to do is we want to make sure that -- let me just give you a quick side bar. So a new active ingredient in the CP industry takes 13 years to bring into the market now, right, and several hundred million dollars. So it's a substantial investment that we need to make. And our clear view is that we want to make sure that we're getting appropriate value for that technology. And so our perspective is quite simple, is we're going to be in front of the farmer. We're going to try to bring them to the best technology. And we're going to have to have the right balance between price and volume. And I think more or less everybody is trying to figure that out. But it is a competitive industry. It always has been, and I don't expect that to change. So every company will have a different approach to that formula. For us, I think the one benefit we have is we have a lot of capability when it comes to being -- and Joel asked the earlier question in terms of being multichannel, we have a lot of capability to go to the customers the way they want to buy their products, whether that's direct or through a retailer or through a distributor. And so we've done a lot of pre-investing when it comes to our channel, which is really important. I think the other thing that we're trying to do is we're one of the few companies in the world that can actually bring a full acre, so we can start having a conversation about ideally, what are the performance objectives the farmer wants to accomplish, we can then select the seed and build a full package pre-post protection around that so that the farmer has more or less one-stop shopping, that kind of level of performance, that kind of level of service, I think, is attractive to a lot of customers, a lot of farmers. Others will have a different approach.

I got some question, people submitted to me before, [indiscernible] But One of the questions was, why won't this just be like we saw last decade, 5 years of elevated stocks to use. We saw it 5 years ago, like could we be in a $4 corn world forever? And how do you invest in that world? Can you justify R&D spends on seeds if you're getting 1% price mixes every year? Like things like that, how does that make you think if you did think there's a risk of that?

So the way I think about this, Joel, is the investment in R&D is absolutely mission-critical. In fact, in that environment, and I don't support that, that's the environment we're going to be in. But let's just assume we are. If you did not have differentiated technology and you were in that environment, I think that is a risky proposition. So technology is going to be the only way we're going to be able to drive value on the farm and for our stakeholders -- our shareholders. Now it is conceivable that we're in the low pricing environment right now, but let me just remind you of a few things. So last year was a record for global grains and oilseeds. And this year will most likely be another record. So global demand is still increasing. Now when we have large crops and perfect weather, then usually the world will produce a little bit more, and then there's a rebalancing in global stocks to use. But what we've seen is that the insect and disease pressures are increasing. The weather volatility is more severe than we've seen. And so I think what will normally happen is, it's going to get more difficult to grow crops. Now we're doing our best to make sure that these crops can handle this. But we are always at a spot where it seems to me like this is a cyclical industry when it comes to crop pricing and commodities and we're probably still in there. I think the one comment though, I'd make is if there is a real big drive for biofuels -- look what happened with [indiscernible] 20-plus years ago, right? The U.S. corn crop still 1/3 of it goes into that, this could be a major driver of crop demand around the world, major driver. And it's a little too early for us to call victory yet. All the winds are blowing in that direction right now. So I guess it's a bit of an answer to say, nobody can predict the cycle, but history has shown us that the crop pricing will go up and down based on supply/demand. But the one thing that's really important is that global demand for grains and oilseeds still continue to increase.

Chuck, your balance sheet is in great condition, just based on your guidance alone, I think you're going to generate something like $4 billion in the second half of this year. How are you thinking about M&A? Are you thinking about anything -- is it just bolt-ons? Are you thinking about anything potentially bigger if the market can allow it? How are you thinking about that?

Yes. So we do have a very clean balance sheet A-rated. I think in the second quarter, we said our free cash flow would be somewhere between $1.5 billion and $2 billion. So that's our current thinking. And you can look at the environment that we've just talked about through '25 to '27, you can see the company generating a lot of free cash flow. So what do we do with it? This year, we set a $1 billion share buyback. The Board has authorized that. And Dave gave you the update at the end of the second quarter. And so we are a big believer in returning capital to shareholders. We have also raised the dividend over the last 3 years. To your question on M&A. So we will use M&A. We have used M&A. Some spaces, I think, are more conducive to it. We like the biological space. So it seems to be an opportunity area where we have I think, a good fit. We understand the market. But I would say that, that is probably more bolt-on, as you rightly called out. I don't see anything bigger than that today. We're always going to be on the lookout. But I think we do have one of the best balance sheets and ability to generate cash in the industry. So I think we're well poised if an opportunity presents itself.

I'll ask the final question, I think this illustrative Chuck. Does your share price today, okay, when you said at around 11 Central, that may be the top end of the guidance range for this year is off the table, stock went down. Tell people why they're overreacting or okay, sorry, are people overreacting or maybe give us some a little more final remarks here, maybe why this is an overreaction, and 2025 is going to be great?

I mean to tell me it's on the market that the market is wrong. I will never do that, Joel.

If the market is wrong over the last 59 minutes or not or are they right?

My view is quite simple, is -- if you look at the '25 to 2027 time line for the company, and if you even go back to, say, the 2021 and the 2024 time line, this company has delivered. Everything we've said we would do, we have delivered, we've pulled all the levers. And I think we've performed very, very well. I think if you look forward, the future is quite bright for the company. We've got a lot of the self-help levers still to pull. We've got several growth platforms that we're investing in that will start to create value in 2025 and beyond. And I'm personally very excited about the future. I'm not going to get hung up on second half of '24 numbers. I think that there's some really unique situation here going on in Argentina. We need to see how the planted acreage comes into Brazil. But to me, those are items that I think the market will understand over time.

Okay. Thanks a lot, Chuck and Kim. Thank you. Everyone out there, thanks for attending.