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

Welcome back, everyone. Delighted to have both the CEO and CFO, Chuck Magro and David Johnson from Corteva with us this morning. I'm going to let Chuck and David make some comments. But in general, it's a pleasure to have you here. Always plenty of going on -- plenty of things going on with Corteva, but clearly, interest and diligence has been heightened with the planned breakup of the Seed and the chemical business. But I will -- I'll hand it over to you if you want to make some opening comments, and then we can kind of get it going.

Sure. Well, first of all, Matt, the first time we've done this, right?

Yes. No, I know.

It's great to be here. Thanks for having us. Maybe I'll just make 3 high-level comments, if I could. So 2025 was a pretty strong year for Corteva. Both of our business saw top and bottom line growth. We generated a little bit better cash than we thought. And we think that 2026 will be another year of growth on top of what we delivered in 2025. So I think from our perspective, the strategies that we've employed, if you look at where the growth is coming from, it's coming from organic growth in our -- what we call our growth platform. So think about in Seed, our out-licensing strategy, which is going to be a multi-decade strategy where we think we can capture a lot of value for our shareholders with our differentiated technology. Biologicals, we'd like that business to be $1 billion in the future. It's about half that now, and it's growing significantly above the market. And then in our CP products. And hopefully, in the next year or 2, that portfolio of products could cross $2 billion of revenue. So we've got a lot of forward momentum, I think, in some of the high-technology parts of the Corteva portfolio. And we think that 2026 will be a significant growth year on top of what we delivered in '25. Beyond that, then, yes, we've got this little thing called the separation that we announced last October. We're going to separate into 2, I think, market-leading world-class companies. One will be focused in crop protection and one will be focused in advanced genetics or Seed technology. The tagline for today is we're on schedule to separate in the second half of 2026. We expect that to be sometime in the fourth quarter. And we communicated that we think we could do that for total dis-synergies of approximately $100 million per year at a run rate basis. $50 million is actually built into our '26 guide. and we're on budget for that as well. So nothing of significance to report yet. In the first half of this year, we will announce headquarters, senior leadership teams, the CEO of new Corteva. And then, of course, we'll start to think through the capital structure and balance sheets and all of that. And David is here, and he can unpack all that for you. So that's what I wanted to cover today, Matt, at a high level. '25 was strong. I think '26 will continue that journey. We're within the 2027 framework that we outlined a year ago, and the separation is on track.

Well, David, I don't know if you want to make any comments.

Just adding to Chuck, I'll maybe go through the numbers real quick to recap '25 since we did have such a, we think, a really good '25. We like to talk about it a lot, Matt. So I'll say we ended up at $3.85 billion of EBITDA last year, which was up 14% over prior year. So again, we feel really strong performance there. We'd like to say we control the controllables. So I think that was a big element of our performance last year of productivity and making sure all that hits the bottom line. When you look at our EBITDA margins, we've expanded those about 215 basis points last year. So we're now up to like 22.1%. If you really go back in history when Corteva started, it was more like 14%. So we're on that journey, and we feel like we're starting to hit that area that we feel really good about. And then both businesses, as Chuck said, grew EBITDA last year. And I know CP grew 6% last year, which we feel is really strong and shows the power of not only that business, but the productivity, the new products, the biologicals. And then our Seed business grew 19% last year. So I think last year in total, really strong. And Chuck had mentioned the strong cash flow, $2.9 billion, and we converted over 75%-ish or so of EBITDA to free cash flow. And we deployed $1.5 billion of that in buybacks and dividends. So again, really strong '25 and '26. As Chuck mentioned, we're expecting about 7% increase in EBITDA with both businesses growing again this year. And probably one of the more exciting things for us is we expect our net royalty position to be neutral in 2026. And if anyone has been with us for a little while, that's about 2 years before we thought it would be. If you go back 5 years or so, that number was like negative $700 million. So that journey continues, and we feel good about that. As Chuck mentioned, we did build in $50 million in net dissynergies into the number. And I know tariffs are probably something on top of mind right now. We did build in an incremental $80 million of tariff impact in the '26. We feel about 70% of that is already either in our inventory or it's outside the U.S. And then, of course, we're evaluating the residual amount of that.

Right. Having both of you up here, I'm going to cater most of the conversation to longer-term dynamics and strategy, I guess. But we are 2/3 into the quarter. Can you update a little bit as to what you're seeing in ag markets so far, especially North America as it relates to CP and Seed uptake? Start there, I guess.

Yes. So one of the things we like to talk about, obviously, to is we like to look at our business in halves. I know everyone is very focused on the quarters. But the reason why we like to talk about half is for our business, there's an element between March and April during the season in the U.S. where you have Seed deliveries are very highly dependent on weather and so on and so forth. So we can have a significant movement between March and April, which really in the bigger picture doesn't really mean anything. It's just a timing issue. So where we look at right now, our bookings continue to be strong. I think that farmers are still prioritizing their Seed purchase, which is their most important purchase they make in the year. And when you look at the amount of technology in the Seed and the amount of prepays in Q4 is like a precursor to people wanting to get in line to make sure they can secure those seeds that they want, the highest technology. We do invest like almost $1 billion just in Seed to make sure we're delivering new technology every year. And the one other thing I'll mention about that Seed purchase is Seed is the only crop input that actually gets better every year. So I know there's been a lot of discussions around Seed inputs and the cost and what have you. But when you look at the Seed, we expect it to perform better every year and really it's just a value capture on our side. And in CP, the pest issue still becomes an issue, weeds and so on and so forth. So I think farmers do want to protect their crop. It's really important even in these times. And at the end of the day, I would say we're well on the way and very much in line with our expectations.

Maybe we start with CP then, given what you just left off. What's the path here for the industry? Because I mean, you made some I don't know, critical but honest comments as it relates to the future competitive landscape, commoditization of certain aspects. How does this change the way -- I mean, obviously, I know how it change the way you're competing, you're splitting the company. But when you think about the path forward for Corteva pro forma, the CP company, like how does the landscape change fundamentally for you?

Sure. So look, we didn't split the company because we're worried about CP. I'll just be very clear on that. In fact, we're quite optimistic about the future of the CP industry. If you look at what's happening, Matt, demand for crop protection is still growing, and we expect it to continue to grow. And when we think about it, we are at what I would call a cyclical trough right now. It's not demand-driven. Demand has been steady and increasing. It is supply driven. And farmers are using more of the product every year because they need to because of the environmental pressures that they have growing the crop and protecting it. So this is a situation where I think we've seen time and time again in a cyclical industry. And I think that the industry is poised for growth, to be candid with you. And what we wanted to do with the separation is allow a pure-play company, which this will be, to be able to participate in that growth in whatever capacity it chooses to do so. Just to give you my view on the market. So differentiation of technology is absolutely critical, and it was going to get more critical in the future. And if you look at what we did over the last few years with our portfolio is we deemphasized the commodity part. In fact, we exited about 20% of our actives over the last 5 years, and we sort of doubled down on the new technology. And we've got a $9 billion pipeline in this business right now with half or a dozen actives and even more biological products that will come to the market in the next period of time. So the setup for our business is really strong. I think from an industry perspective, it will return to growth. And what we said for 2026 is most likely the market will grow. That's our expectation. That's our call for 2026. It will be driven by volume. We're seeing strong demand essentially around the world, but there's going to be some continued headwinds, I think, in price, but volume should more than offset it. And everybody is sort of thinking about, okay, what's happening from China's perspective, right? Is China just going to commoditize this business just like it has in several other commodity chemical businesses. And my view is that there has been a time and place for generics coming from China and India, and there always will be. But I don't see a structural change happening. I think that what we're seeing is that demand is growing. And of course, the supply on the generic side is there. But really where things get exciting is on the differentiation. And there's still a premium for differentiated technology because of resistance issues in the crop. So I think if you start to think through this, and then we mentioned on the earnings call when we did the fourth quarter, even China is starting to put early signs of export controls. There's -- they put the export tax back on. There's a little bit of consolidation happening in CP in China. And all these things, I think, are good signs for the health of the industry. So we're optimistic that we're at a point here where we expect 2026 to grow. And we see this as a cyclical trough, not a structural change.

Okay. I mean you touched a little bit on this, right? But the competition from China. So obviously, the focus is on active innovation and product differentiation. Does it make it harder as a loan CP business, if your core portfolio is increasingly under pressure to find the money to drive the innovation? Does it change the way the returns are built for this product? Because you've got a situation where synthetics take years to bring to market. Biologics are maybe fast tracking that, and I want to talk a little bit about that clearly, and we have a whole panel today on that topic specifically. But -- how does it change the return on this 10-year investment cycle in general and how you think about investing in new actives?

Yes, it's a great question. I think if you were starting up a global crop protection business today, it'd be a tough investment thesis. But we have increased the amount of investment we've put into both sides of our businesses. Since we launched as a separate company, we've taken up our percentage of revenue that's going to R&D up. And so for the Crop Protection business, we're between 6% and 6.5% of revenue. As I mentioned, it's a $9 billion pipeline today. It has actives throughout the pipeline in different stages of market readiness. And we're really excited about the future, right? And we've got a blockbuster product that hopefully will get approval this year for Brazil Asian soybean rust. It's a product -- an active called Haviza. That's going to be huge. It's going to be beneficial for Brazilian farmers, of course, great for global food security, but really good for the crop protection business. And behind that, there's many other products that we're preparing for market. So to your question, I think for us, we've never pulled back in R&D. We've always been really a deep believer that what we can do better than anyone else is bring differentiated CP technology. And we've decided not to play in the middle. We exited our glyphosate business as an example, 3 years ago, right? Because it's been commoditized and there's lots of players, and we don't have a lot of differentiation there. So we're clearly going to play in a subset of the global CP market that is big, growing and exciting, and we can get premiums for. And we've got the R&D engine and capability and skill set globally to do that. But there are very few companies on the planet that can do what we can do.

Yes. And Matt, I would just reference, too, our results last year with our new products growing high single digits, which helped generate that EBITDA growth as we're investing in R&D. To me, that's the formula, along with Chuck, making sure that pipeline doesn't have any we'll say, like pockets or kind of issues going in any particular time. And I think the team has done a really good job with that.

One last comment, Matt. You mentioned it. It's expensive and timely to bring a new active to the market. My view is that where the industry is starting to take shape, and you can see with some of the announcements and changes across the industry, more collaboration and working together to derisk this for agriculture and for farming is mission-critical for the industry. So separating the 2 companies, this was top of mind for me to help make this decision. I think more consolidation could happen. I'm not going to count on it. But what will definitely happen is more collaboration when it comes to innovation because it is expensive and timely to bring these products to market. And if you can share that risk, you can bring a better product at a lower cost to farmers. That's critical.

Yes. I think you spoke a bit to my point, I guess, as well. So I was thinking about it as well, if you spent 6% of your sales to R&D and all of a sudden, your sales are down considerably because of pressures business, then your R&D becomes a bigger function overall. But you touched on Haviza and the company has some very nice fungicide products coming, right? Haviza, Adavelt, another one that we've been looking for. So if the CP market is flat over the next 2 years, maybe not a safe assumption, but let's just call it flat. What should Corteva's growth rate be as you layer in these new products and as sales pipeline starts to accrue a little bit more?

It sounds like a CFO question.

I knew that was coming, actually. I felt it coming this way. Yes, no, to me, like the market did not grow last year, right, but we did. So I think, again, I keep going back to the same thing around new product growth and what have you. In our guide for this year, we have 7% growth. When you put that down in between the 2 businesses growing, we said probably of the total growth in dollars, probably 1/3 of that goes to CP. So you're going to have about the same type of growth that we saw in 2026 versus -- that we saw in 2025. And if you start going into 2027, I'd say that has a slight uplift. But as you know, these products do take time over time. And then there's always -- there could be something falling off at the same time. So it is a little bit of a portfolio effect. So I would say that mid-single-digit growth in EBITDA, maybe a little bit higher than that as we get a little bit later in the decade.

Okay. All right. I appreciate that. To move to the Seed side. And I talked to Ken from Nutrien a little bit this morning on it. But what do you make of the longer-term profile of like the U.S. soybean farmer? And I mean that in so much as Brazil is obviously stepping into the market in a bigger way, supplanting a lot of like the traditional trade route for the U.S. soybean. We've seen consternation domestically as it relates to planting decisions. Our own strategist thinks that farmers probably plant more corn this year than they would normally because of fear that they're not going to have a market to sell their soybeans. Maybe that's overexaggerated, maybe that's not. There'll be new markets. We'll find different paths. But what do you see here? Because clearly, the soybean is being used as a trade tool and you have the leading soy technology in the market.

Let's start with, I think, the basics. So U.S. agriculture is still one of the market leaders in the world. My assumption for the foreseeable future is U.S. agriculture will continue to lead the world or be among the leaders. There will be 180 million acres planted of corn and soybeans. The mix will shift based on market opportunity and margins. But I don't see less planted area in the United States. It's still one of the most productive producing countries in the world, and I expect that to continue. I also expect soybeans will end up in China. Is there a political narrative around it? Of course, there is. But China needs the product. Can they get it all from Brazil? We can debate that. But even if they could, U.S. soybeans would end up in Mexico or Europe or Egypt or where they go today, and the trade patterns would adjust. So I wouldn't count out the U.S. soybean producer whatsoever. Now let's just look at it. I also believe that what is needed is that look what happened over the last 20 years in corn in the United States. That's the case study, right? They used to rely so much on exports. Now corn is essentially a domestic consumed crop. And so what's it going to take to get soybeans to be less reliant on export markets in the U.S. It's going to require policy and innovation. Those are the 2 pillars that were -- and Corteva is all in on the innovation, right? We need biofuel a biofuel mandate, and we need to be able to have U.S. farmers have another revenue source by investing in biofuel technology. So think about sustainable aviation, biodiesel. These are things that I think can consume a lot of oil in the United States, and we would then be less reliant on export markets. And there's really positive momentum going from a policy perspective, and I expect that this will happen over time. And it won't just be for soybeans, but it will be for other crops as well like canola and mustard. And so there's going to be a really great opportunity, I think, here for U.S. farmers to have diversified revenue sources, be less reliant on external markets, potentially get a premium uplift, and it's a win-win for everyone. But I don't think that, that comes just because we're worried that the rest of the world won't buy U.S. soybeans. I think we're going to do both, and I think that the prospects are going to be quite positive for U.S. farming.

Okay. I appreciate that. To build on it, right, so what's next after the Enlist E3? It seems like you're partnering now with BASF. So if we think about kind of the traits, tolerance, where does this product ultimately go?

Yes. So Enlist E3 has been, by every definition, a massive success. The technology today is on 65% of soybean acres in the United States. And now we're taking that same investment thesis, and we're moving it to the world's largest soybean market, which is Brazil. And we have a very small market share there. So the significant growth in the playbook that we have used in the United States is going to be used in Brazil, and we're seeing great momentum there. But the next technology iteration or the next-gen technology for our soybean technology will have most likely the relationship that we've built with BASF, their PPO technology built into it. It will be our HT4 next-gen technology. It's well under development right now. We expect that to be in the market, call it, early next decade. And so we've got a great long-term investment thesis around building our -- continuing to build and develop our market leadership in terms of soybeans. And I think that the other thing that we need to think through, it's not just the trait technology, right? The reason that Enlist is a winner in the United States is, yes, we have the trait technology, but we also have the best germplasm in the world, and we've been doing this for 100 years, right? So Pioneer turns 100 in 2026. We have that kind of history, and we're the only company that has that kind of history. And if you look at our new, what we call Z-Series soybeans, we had the world record at almost 220 bushels an acre. So we know that the genetics in our soybeans are superior. And so it's the combination of the germplasm plus the trait because growers what they need, especially right now when market conditions are tough, they need every bushel they can get to pencil out their business plans. And so I think what we've demonstrated with the Z-Series Enlist technology is that this has been really, really valuable. I was on a farm last summer and one of our larger soybean farmers who farm 15,000 acres, all he planted was our Z-Series technology. I couldn't believe it. Usually, they diversify, right? But he says, we're going all in because we've never seen performance like that.

Yes. I'd also say Pioneer sounds like a good pro forma Seed company name. I don't know.

You sound like about 10,000 employees.

I know how -- I mean, you talked a little bit about this, like you almost kind of preanswered my next question. But your #1 competitor is releasing Vyconic, right? It's probably the first credible threat you've had as it relates to Enlist and what has just been, to your point, like a blockbuster product. So how do you defend as Corteva?

Yes. So first of all, Enlist is the technology. We do license it. It's readily available. We have about 100 licensees that purchase that technology. So growers and our retail channel partners can get it from multiple places. And there's lots of competition in the industry. But yes, one of our peers are bringing in their next-gen soybeans. And that's going to give them, among other things, the 2,4-D trait resistance, which is what Enlist has today. So then if you -- the way I think about it, and it's a simple way to think about it is if they now have what we have in terms of technology trait protection, it's going to come down to the underlying genetics because that's what drives yield and who's going to win on the genetic gain. And when we look at that, like I mentioned, the Z-Series technology, we rolled that out 2 years ago. And before that, the market leader was our A-Series, and we're seeing -- farmers are seeing 2 to 3 bushels an acre on top of the best already. So I'm sure they're going to have a great technology and a platform, and I'm not talking anything negative, but I like our chances as long as we keep investing in that pipeline and able to drive genetic gain through our breeding program. And we've been doing this for 100 years. So I like our chances.

Yes. Kind of the last maybe -- the last topic on seeds, but hybrid wheat, right? Clearly, team Corteva is very excited about it. The TAM itself is massive. So how do we size the opportunity for Corteva revenues in a world where you have a product with a pretty significant advantage and the TAM is this large. And so how does this scale over time because I know it will take time. And what are like the stage gates? What should we look at for broader adoption? When we say this market has agreed to it or et cetera? How do we gauge progress?

Yes. So we are very excited about hybrid wheat. So we're going to try to do to wheat that we did to corn 100 years ago and hybridize it. And we've got a proprietary production system that we've put a lot of IP around because, look, hybrid wheat has been sort of the holy grail. People have tried to do it for 25 years, and there are hybrid wheat systems out there, but they're not as stable and they cost a lot of money. And then when you try to price the Seed, farmers can't afford it even though they get a yield improvement. So for us, the trick is we've got a very stable system, and we're going to be able to provide them a really phenomenal product, like we are seeing 20% yields under stress environments. And that's the worst product we will have because it's the first one coming out of our pipeline, our breeding pipeline. So you can imagine where this goes in the future. It's going to be a huge step forward for farmer profitability and global food security because wheat is the largest row crop in the planet. There's over 0.5 billion acres around the world. And it is still -- from a consumption of calories, it's 20% of humanity's calories still. So this crop is large and it's global. And we finally, I think, have got -- we've cracked the code when it comes to a hybridized production system that we can give value to farmers and price for it. So the opportunity, the way we've sized it up, and we're going to give more definition at our Investor Day event in September. But the way we think about this is, this is a $1 billion revenue opportunity, most likely in the next decade or so because it will need the ramp. Now we are launching this in the U.S. in 2027. So American farmers will have the first technology available to them in 2027, and then we're going to rapidly move it around the world. We may sell Seed around the world, but we may just license the IP because there's a lot of germplasm pools for wheat that are public and that other companies own, and we may not want to sort of enter the Seed business, but actually just get paid technology royalty premiums. So we're making that decision based on each market around the world. So we're going to go to the market with a multi-strategy of seeds -- of selling either our branded Seed white label or generic seeds or a royalty, and it will be market dependent, Matt.

Okay. The last 10 minutes, I'll kind of move to the breakup. On the dissynergy side, right, there's some skepticism around the size. You hear people kind of say, maybe it's going to be larger, right, particularly given the R&D component to it. And how -- as one company, you sit here and you say, I have a farmer who has a problem, I can say, is it best addressed at Seed or chemical level, and I can make that call early. Is there a world where now 2 independent companies competing for a solution set to a problem creates more inefficiencies? How do you build confidence that the costs aren't higher as it relates to R&D and innovation?

So we've done a lot of work, as you can imagine, with a lot of teams as we've been going through. I think one of the reasons there might be that perception is not everyone understands how separate the businesses are already today. So I know in a lot of cases during spin, some of the larger cost elements might be like splitting operations and this sort of thing. We have absolute 0 overlap between our operations. And that's because the CP business fundamentally is a global kind of functional business. So when you think about production and all that, whether it's our production or we're in-sourcing from other people, it's a global supply chain. Seed is very regional. We actually produce Seed around the world for local markets and so on and so forth. So there's very little cost, no cost actually on the production side of overlap. We will have the traditional kind of dis-synergies around, yes, we'll have to have 2 boards. We'll have 2 leadership teams, so on and so forth. So you will have some of that. But when you get down to really the R&D, R&D is fundamentally pretty separate today. So you have the Seed R&D is more focused in Iowa. You have the CP R&D, which is all chemical based, more or less, is more in Indiana. So they're pretty separate today. Now there is some overlap of some knowledge bases around microbials and all these sort of things that we need to make sure that both businesses will have access to over time, which we're working through that, something that you would probably do anyhow if you were a third party and be able to share technology. So really, from that standpoint, there's very little. So I feel really strongly confident in that $100 million net dissynergy number because we did say net dissynergy because there are opportunities for us to be a little bit more efficient as we build up 2 purpose-built structures just for each business. And I think at the end of the day, it will net to that $100 million or perhaps even lower than that.

Okay. I will open it up in case anybody from the audience has a specific question. I don't want this to be -- I know everybody gets a little shy. So -- here we go. We got one. Wait the mic is coming.

I'd be curious to know kind of what your thoughts are around artificial intelligence and how it can improve your discovery and really shrink that time from discovery. You still have to go through the expensive development and regulatory process. But does the ability of basically custom designing molecules now, maybe with some forethought into safety and regulatory, how is that going to change kind of your strategy? How -- and your thought process?

Yes, it's a great question, and it's live and active right now, and we're just scratching the surface. But what we're finding is that we're deploying AI tools in the discovery process, both in the chemical, biological and even in picking selections for new traits in the Seed side. And what we're finding is that the precision is transformational to be very candid with you. We can pick an active ingredient, for example, out of our huge library of material, almost 1,000x faster now. And so what used to be -- the way I look at it as an analogy is we used to be trying to find a needle in a haystack literally with the amount of compounds we have to comb through, and it was very manually based. Now with AI, it's like having a massive magnet that can actually just suck the needle out of the haystack. And that's what's happening. We have several of our new products that are in different stages of the pipeline that were selected with our AI tools. So it's literally game changing and the models are getting better every day. So we're really excited about this. Now we've been deploying AI tools in R&D, in the discovery part of the process for many years. And I think what we're finding right now is they're just getting better and better. The other area that we're deploying AI, the regulatory submission paperwork, it's astronomical. Sometimes it's like literally thousands of pages. And the AI tools are helping us collect the data, draft the documents, and we're saving a lot of sort of man hours, people hours to prepare the regulatory submissions, which can take an awful long time. And we're deploying AI tools in the regulatory submission work now, and that has been a huge time saver. So I do think that the regulatory process from discovery through regulatory approval, it is -- the biology is always going to be the limiting effect. But I think AI is going to really compress the time lines for us, especially if you start thinking about mentioned with our germplasm and the size of the molecular libraries that we have, deploying the AI tools now, I think it's going to make us much more effective.

I think one other thing I'll add is maybe not in R&D, but on the production of Seed, if you can think about how many farms around the world and what have you, it takes to actually produce the Seed that we sell every year. And a lot of times, you have to think about that 3 years in advance as to what you're going to produce, what type of hybrids and all this sort of thing, when you're going to produce, what type of farmer, what's the weather like, so on and so forth. We're applying AI models on that to make it more efficient for us as we produce Seed. So when you see some of the cost savings you see in each business, one element of that is us deploying AI in those areas.

I'm happy you asked the question, yes, because we've got -- we'll have Ashish up talk on biologics, and that's going to be a topic. We have a Seed panel, obviously, we'll talk because I mean, AI has certainly been an adopter -- Seed tech has been an early adopter of AI, but it seems like iterative advancements now are just so progressive that the rate of innovation is going to be pretty astonishing. So I'm happy the question was asked and you were able to talk to it. I guess with only 2 minutes left, I mean, as you look at your role in pro forma Seed co, like what are you most looking forward to? Freeing the business up?

Yes. Look, so we've got a phenomenal franchise that we've talked about Pioneer in 100 years. It's hard to pinpoint just one thing I'm excited about with the Seed side of the business. I am going to miss the chemical side, though, as a chemical engineer, I have a first love in that. And so they're going to have a great future as well. But for me, I'd say if there's one thing I'd had to pick, Matt, it would be, look, this out-licensing strategy is new and exciting, and we started 5 years ago when we were sort of on a net basis in the hole by $700 million or $800 million, right? And then David communicated just today that this year, we will be neutral. So in 5 years, we've sort of got to neutrality. And then the future now is to be net positive. And in our fourth quarter call, we said we think that could be a $1 billion opportunity for us in the next decade. And now that we've got freedom to operate in soybeans, we've talked about Enlist and moving the Enlist technology to Brazil, which will be a huge part of the licensing strategy. Then we have corn entering all the various large markets of corn out-licensing. We have our own canola technology. So for markets like Canada, a little bit in the U.S., Europe and Australia, where we'll be licensing our canola technology and then wheat. So you start thinking about this. I see this -- so I see wheat as sort of the third leg to our stool and then you have the licensing business being this really, really high-margin business, complete technology where we don't actually have to sell the product and we get an incremental return on that investment that's already been made in our branded technology. That is the multiplying effect, I think, for the Seed business going forward.

Yes. We get questions around does the breakup call into any question, just the strategic merit of the merger in its own. And I think Enlist and the out-licensing program has been in and of itself, almost a defining feature that was unlocked from that.

Yes. In fact, we would not be able to separate because we wouldn't have 2 global leading platforms to be able to do this with. So I think the merger was the right call at the right time. I think our performance speaks for itself as Corteva. But this is about the future, driving value creation and innovation in both businesses. And I'm pretty excited that both will be global market leaders in their own right.

Well, we'll end it there. Chuck and David, thank you for spending the last 40 minutes with me up on stage and look forward to following you as the year progresses.

Thanks, Matt.

Thanks.