Tate & Lyle plc (TATE) Earnings Call Transcript & Summary

Good morning, everyone, and thank you for joining today's presentation. We are now into the live Q&A portion of the presentation. As I said in the pre-record, on the 1st of April, we passed a major strategic milestone with the divestment of the Primient business. The new Tate & Lyle performed very well in the year, delivering double-digit revenue and profit growth, and we are effectively managing inflationary and supply chain headwinds. I'm also delighted that this morning, we completed the acquisition of Quantum Hi-Tech, a leading dietary fiber business in China, which will significantly strengthen our fortification platform and customer offering. Before we take any questions, I would like to once again extend a warm welcome to Dawn, who joins us for her first results presentation today.

So our first question comes from Alex Sloane.

A couple from my side if okay. Maybe just the first one, just on Sucralose. I see a very strong year, 15% profit growth, which I think was well ahead of what [ Purdue ] and certainly the sell side were anticipating at the start of the year. So the question would be, is that kind of new base sustainable? And obviously, after mid-teens volume growth, where does that leave you from a capacity perspective? And the second one was just on cash flow outlook. I appreciate last year was quite an exceptional year with the transaction. But maybe you could kind of give us a sense of how you see cash conversion going forward maybe versus EBITDA or another reference point in '23 and into the medium term?

Sure, Alex. Thanks. And so let me take the Sucralose question first. So look, I mean, clearly, we're delighted with the performance of Sucralose last year, and we benefited from a number of key trends. The first is, Sucralose continues to grow strongly. And of course, there was a recovery last year because of the out-of-home beverage market recovering. We saw a really strong pull from some of our biggest customers. The second thing is the fact that we're the only Sucralose player making products in North America is a big benefit for us. And our quality and our food safety and our environmental credentials are a really strong draw for our customers. And all that flowed through in the results we saw last year. The third thing, of course, as you rightly point out is, we've managed to create some more capacity in McIntosh to drive growth. And we've committed to some modest capacity expansion because of the success we've seen in the last few years. So we're not expecting the kind of growth we saw last year, but we do expect to see some modest growth on the top line this year and some pretty consistent earnings coming out of the Sucralose business as we go forward. On cash, and I'll ask Dawn to comment here as well, I mean, clearly last year was an exceptional year because we had this big swing in working capital at the end of the year because of the transaction, so to close the sale of the Primient business, both building working capital for us so that we could keep customers served and building working capital for Primient. And we got the $120 million back in the transaction post the year-end. So we're expecting to see more normal approach to working capital going forward. And the good news for us, of course, is, the balance sheet remains really strong to allow us to invest for future growth. So just hand over to Dawn maybe to add a little bit of color.

Yes. So thanks, Nick, and good morning, everyone. Thank you for the question, Alex. As Nick just said, the most important piece from a cash perspective is that we've got a really strong balance sheet and liquidity to be able to invest for the future, but also a cushion that provides a cushion in terms of any potential challenges. Nick's outlined the one-off pieces for 2022. And as we look forward to 2023, what's important is that we will continue to invest behind growth. From a capital expenditure point of view, we're increasing from GBP 75 million to GBP 100 million -- between GBP 90 million to GBP 100 million. And that's really important. The other piece from a cash flow perspective is in an inflationary environment, of course, that puts pressure on working capital, and we will look to mitigate and manage through that. The other thing to say as an incoming CFO is cash is really important to me, and it will be a key focus area for this year.

And our next question comes from James Targett at Berenberg.

So a couple of questions. I mean, firstly, maybe just on the inflation. You mentioned GBP 100 million was the inflation impact for FY '22. Can you give us your -- what you expect for FY '23? And then I suppose linked to that, just trying to break down your expectations for the top line outlook in FBS between your pricing mix and volume growth.

Sure. So I mean let's start with maybe a little bit of color on last year. So I mean, clearly, we saw strong volume growth and good revenue translation, which was driven by 2 things: successfully managing to shift the mix of our business. So if you think about the revenue accretion, we got about 5 points from new products and mix, and then passing through inflationary pressures where we needed to. And that all led to a significant increase from volume to revenue, so 5% volume, 18% revenue growth. But the encouraging piece of that though is, if you strip out the extraordinary inflationary impact that the GBP 100 million drove, we saw a good translation on the base mix. So the quality of business we're doing is improving. We're anticipating seeing something similar this year in terms of driving continued improvement in mix. I mean, to be honest, James, it's very difficult to give you a precise number on inflation at this point. We're going to work really hard on productivity again this year, really hard on cost control. And then we've put some supplementary pricing through, which will adjust as we see how things evolve. But our intent for sure is to try and cover inflation this year again with those 3 things, productivity, cost control and the right kind of pricing whilst not slowing down the top line.

If I just follow up, I mean, you talk about demand being strong. And obviously the new products continue to grow strongly. So a mid-single-digit volume figure is not unrealistic in your opinion? And then on the pricing, maybe if you could talk about when your kind of first incremental price increase hits, and maybe some sort of color on the magnitude of that increase.

So look, I think it's a bit early to tell how volume will evolve. We're still seeing good demand for what we do, as I said. On pricing, we're actively engaging with customers now in supplemental pricing and passing that through in the first half of the year. I mean, clearly there's a balance there between keeping customers served and making sure that they can manage their costs as well. But we're having the right kind of conversations. And we'll stage it through the year as we see how things evolve, because it is a very uncertain environment at the moment. But the good news is the engagement early on is strong. And I think our next question comes from Martin Deboo at Jefferies.

I've got 3. I don't know if that's allowed. The first one may overlap with Alex's question. I was distracted. I just want to try and get a fix on where pro forma 1st of April net debt ended up. Dawn gave some very useful numbers, which on the back of an envelope seems to me to suggest that before Quantum, you probably had a pro forma position of about negative GBP 60 million relative to what you'd said you'd be around neutral I think. Am I -- and the reason I think you're negative is you ultimately had to put more working capital into the business. And relative to my numbers, a bit more exceptional is how I'm seeing it, but I'd just be grateful for your corroboration of that. Moving on to the trading. You made the statement on Page 4 that you have committed agreements in place for key inputs covering the majority of the first half of 2023. It's a slightly odd statement, Nick, given that the business runs on calendar year, contracting implies as an uncertainty around the fourth calendar quarter. But can you remind me, now we're in this new world, these complex supply agreements in the prospectus, just give me an idiot's guide to in the new world, how is corn procurement working for FBS and how much and what sort of risk is FBS taking on corn? And then the third one, if you'll allow me, is just what's the outlook for Europe primary given it's still a retained business? Europe corn price is clearly -- how -- I think this is really an isoglucose business. So where are we versus the isoglucose sugar price? What's the situation on capacity utilization in isoglucose, Europe? How would we think about the outlook for Europe primary?

Okay. So why don't I take the second 2 questions, then I'll ask Dawn to comment on the debt position post the transaction completion. So your first question on corn. So what we've said is we're substantially covered through the first half of our financial year, which to your point takes us to the end of the third quarter of the calendar year. That's really a reference to Europe, Martin, where, as you know, forward cover on corn is more problematic. And typically what you do is you buy the season ahead. So we're starting to lay in cover for the next crop season in Europe as we speak, as farmers start to bring to market what they're planning to plant. In North America, as you rightly point out, it's an annual process. And because we contract annually, we're fully covered on corn in North America through the end of the calendar year. So hope that gives you a simpler explanation of that. And as part of that, as we've done when we do contracting, we back-to-back the cost of corn, although Primient will be buying it on our behalf. So it's really no change to the North American position. So hopefully, that gives you a clearer sense of the difference between Europe and North America, which is really no different to the past, I guess, is a simple way of putting it with this, using Primient as a source of our corn. I think your third question was about primary products in Europe, if I remember. Pre -- anything to do with Ukraine, Russia, we were anticipating a moderation in the challenge in primary products in Europe, so improvement in the pricing situation and therefore, no drag on the business this year. It's a little bit early to tell how things are evolving at the moment, and we'll give more color to it as the year evolves. But what we are seeing, as you say, is, continued pressure on corn prices. We're also seeing an increase in the price for isoglucose and also for co-products. So at the moment, those 2 things are balancing each other off in the near term. We'll see how that evolves as we get into the year. And then lastly, your question on net debt and post the transaction completion, I'll ask Dawn to pick that one up.

Yes. Thanks, Nick. Thanks, Martin. Yes, so from a net debt-to-EBITDA perspective post-transaction, post disposal of Primient and post the Quantum acquisition, as we've said, our net debt-to-EBITDA ratio will be less than 1. And if you think about the split within that piece, we'll be carrying cash on hand, and that's important to ensure that we've got the availability of cash, and that we can move quickly in terms of future acquisitions. We are also obviously keeping the debt that we've currently got for 2 reasons. One, because it's a reasonable interest rate. And the other reason is, if we looked to pay down that debt, we would incur penalties. And then if we needed to raise more debt for future acquisitions, given the fact that interest rates are rising, that would likely be at higher level. But I think from a balance sheet efficiency perspective, that's something over the next few months that I will look into to ensure that we are being as efficient as we can.

And our next question comes from John Ennis at Goldman Sachs.

I've got a couple of questions. My first is coming back to the volume growth outlook for FBS into 2023, because I guess volumes sequentially slowed in the second half, particularly in the developed market part of your business, albeit impacted by comps and pricing and other aspects. But as you take another round of price increases in 2023, do you think volumes can grow again for the FBS business, both at a total level, but also for your developed market businesses? So I'm not after a range, but just a guide on whether you think volumes can be positive again this year? And then my second question is on the topic of Integrated Solutions. You mentioned this as a driver of growth on Slide 25. And if we combine that component with the new product revenue, which are together effectively, I suppose your higher value add part of the portfolio, can you give us a bit more of a steer on what the outlook is there? How big is that going to be as part of your portfolio? I know you have the new product target on a 5-year view, but maybe if you combine those 2 components, that would be helpful, either as a snapshot of where they are now or where you're expecting them to get to.

Sure, John. And 2 good questions. Look, I think on volume growth, I think we have to look at last year as a whole. Let's start with that. So 5%, very encouraging, probably at the high end of where we'd anticipated being. I mean, you rightly said different comps half 1, half 2, half 1 very much impacted by COVID the year before, half 2 lapping a recovery. But the overall run rate remain very positive, and we're seeing that in the early part of this year. So I think it's entirely possible we're going to see volume growth this year despite all of the challenges of the sort of inflationary environment. And we'll see how things evolve through the next few months as things stabilize. So that's the sort of the headline at least, without putting any numbers on it, because in today's environment, I don't want to be too precise. On Integrated Solutions, I mean, clearly there's a big overlap between new products and solutions because you tend to find with new products that the formulation side of that is more important for customers as they understand the power of what we're doing. New products as a proportion of revenue, 14% last year, 16% if you take out the Primary Products Europe business, which just gives you a sort of sense of the progress year-on-year. And I'd say our Integrated Solutions business is now tipping into the sort of 20% in total of the overall business. Increasingly, what we're seeing in our pipeline for new businesses, a much higher proportion than that coming from solutions. So we're looking to see that evolve as new products grow as part of the portfolio over the next few years. How far can we get? I mean, time will tell, but we're making progress, and the kind of progress that's driving the kind of margin profile we want to see. And that's the focus to continue to drive that progress. And if we do that, we'll get the right balance of growth.

And then just to confirm, you're effectively saying maybe 1/3 of your business, if you combine the 2, given there's a degree of overlap between new products and Integrated Solutions. Is that correct? That's [ 20% plus 16% ] minus a bit of overlap?

No, I think you have to think about it more closer to the 20 than the third. I wasn't as clear as I maybe should have been. And our next question comes from Alicia Forry at Investec.

Just a couple of questions for me. Just back to the European Primary Products business. Can you talk a little bit about the efficiency initiatives that you see for that? Because presumably, that's going to be less of a drag over time on the group and I was just curious if you could speak to a possible time line on that. I think we would have thought FY '23 would be another tough year given inflationary pressures. But your answer to a previous question suggests perhaps it's not quite as tough, maybe a little bit more benign than we might have feared. So should we expect another leg down in profits in FY '23 on that Europe PP business?

Okay. So there are 2 different questions in there. Let me answer the second one first. So coming into the year, we were anticipating less of a drag from Primary Products in Europe as we started to see sugar prices improve. We're still anticipating that's a possibility, but we need to see how the balance between corn price and sugar price evolves over the next few months. As I said, we're seeing improved pricing on both isoglucose and co-products, which is helping with the corn price increase at the moment. But it's certainly less of a drag than we've seen in the past -- last year. The second point about efficiency initiatives. We're working on capital programs to divert that capacity out of Primary Products in Europe into Food & Beverage Solutions. And as we do that, we'll see a reduction in the amount of primary product that we sell in Europe and we'll shift it into a high-margin business. That's going to be a 2, 3, 5-year journey. So it's gradually evolved over time. It's not going to happen overnight, but that will help with reducing the drag that you talked about.

And then on the investment that you will be making incrementally into Sucralose, is that going to be occurring in FY '23? Or is that for a future year?

So those investments are going in as we speak this year. We will see some benefit in terms of capacity uplift this year, and then it will be fully complete for the next financial year.

If I could just squeeze one last one in, and then I'll pass the mic along. Just the recent new deal -- sorry, the recent acquisitions that you have made, I was wondering if you could talk a little bit about the impact they're having on the business in terms of -- whether revenue synergies, cost synergies, anything you can talk about with how they are...

So let me about the 2 acquisitions we did a year or so ago, so the stevia business and the tapioca business. I mean, clearly those businesses are different supply chains. So the cost synergies are relatively modest. Although, for those businesses, of course, we're selling them through our sales force, so there's no additional cost from a sales perspective. We are seeing significant synergies, especially with stevia, as we think to formulate along alongside our other sweeteners. So we're seeing -- I mean the stevia business doubled in size last year, which is incredibly encouraging and ahead of where we had our business case. And it's a combination of selling stevia solutions alone, but also stevia combined with some of our other ingredients like Monk Fruit, to provide multiple solutions for customers. So we are definitely seeing revenue synergies as a result of that. And actually, stevia alone delivered a couple of points of revenue growth last year as part of this 18% I talked about. Then we talk about the 2 acquisitions we've done, very different in nature. So Quantum, which we announced today, significantly broadens our dietary fiber business by bringing FOS and GOS into the portfolio, and encouragingly significantly enhances our position in China. So we're expecting from that business to get a real benefit in China because we're establishing a really strong manufacturing platform. And then alongside our other fibers, we believe FOS and GOS can play outside China as well. So we're expecting to see synergies in China and then the ability to grow it outside China. The other deal that we announced in April, so the Nutriati, chickpea protein and flour deal, is much more about testing our ability to successfully grow in protein. And as much part of that will be how we combine the plant protein from Nutriati with our other ingredients to provide customer solutions, because if you look at the ingredient label of a plant protein product, it's got a lot of the other stuff that we make in it. So we believe there's an opportunity there to create some synergies across our other platforms as well, which is really the trick for us as we continue to improve our ability to provide solutions for customers, not just ingredients. So our next question comes from Karel Zoete, Kepler Cheuvreux.

I have a couple of questions. And the first one is on mix. I think at the half year 1 stage, we were at a mixed benefit of around 7%. And for the full year, you now call out a 3% benefit of mix. So just curious how things have developed in H2 as your new products just continue to be high. The second question is more on the reorganization of your R&D by integrating more closely core R&D with solutions and applications. Why is this important? What changes it? How do you develop new products and go to the market? And the third one is coming back to the acquisition in China. You mentioned it as a solution for fiber, the cost proposition. To my knowledge, it's widely used in IFCN and also as a kind of like a sugar product to replicate human milk. What are the opportunities in terms of products to -- as a fiber in other solutions in dairy and other food categories?

Okay. So why don't I give you the headline on mix. So I think the mix benefit in the full year was around about 5 points, right, Dawn?

Yes.

So -- and we just called out the fact that 3 of that came from, if you like, the core portfolio and 2 of it came from acquisitions, so from stevia. And the reason for that is just to give some clarity, so it was really actually pretty consistent through the year. It's just we called it out slightly differently at the end of the year. I think that's fair to say, isn't it?

Yes.

So no significant shift at half 1, half 2. And you're always going to see a little bit of phasing through the year anyway. Your second question about R&D. So the importance of the reorganization in simple terms is this, which is, in Chicago, we've got this innovation engine that comes up with new products, and then our application scientists, so those who understand applying those ingredients to the food matrix and to provide solutions for customers in creative categories, happens at a regional level. Creating a better interface between those teams to drive faster application with customers is key. So if you like, strengthening the link by putting those 2 teams together is allowing a better flow of information, then that allows us to create prototypes and solutions faster for customers, which therefore allows our innovation engine to work in a more effective way. So that's sort of -- and sort of as simple as that. And then your last question about China and the fibers business. Look, I mean, we think there's massive potential to formulate with the Quantum products, the quantum fibers in our existing portfolio, which categories, and that's going to be most effective and we'll learn over time. We -- literally the acquisition concluded today. But you rightly point out, we see a big opportunity in dairy. We actually think there's a big opportunity in beverage as well. And we'll learn a lot as we move forward over the next few months. So our next question comes from Patrick Higgins. We can't currently hear you, Patrick. So maybe we'll move on and come back. Next is Heidi Vesterinen from –- yes, I can hear you, Patrick. That's good.

Sorry. Just 3, if I may. So firstly, just on the slight slowdown in Q4. How much is -- that is just down to a top for prior year comp? Or is there an element of timing, I guess, with maybe some volume being pushed into Q1 of this year, given, I guess, the strength of the Q3 performance as well? And second question is just on central costs. Obviously higher than expected and a big step up in H2. Could you just talk us through some of the additional investments during the H2 period that lifted that? And I guess how much flex is in that number from year-to-year, depending on the momentum in the rest of the business? And then finally, you've mentioned consumer demand has been strong into 2023. How do you see that developing as the year progresses? And I guess customers look to manage cost inflation and perhaps dial down inflation? Or do you see structural trends and trying to remain relevant to consumers means that they need to keep innovating strongly?

Okay. So let me take the first question and the last question. Maybe Dawn can pick up the central cost question.

Yes.

So on the quarter 4, you're right. There was a little bit of slowdown in quarter 4. I'm not reading too much into it at this point because any one quarter can be kind of a little bit up and down, and the timing can sometimes get in the way. We're still, as I said, seeing good customer demand as we come into the first quarter. If I link that to your sort of last question, what we're seeing at the moment is tremendous pressure on global supply chains. And customers are really struggling to acquire the materials they need to keep their businesses running, and that goes right the way through to retail. So we're seeing unlimited demand for what we do, pretty much -- as much as we can ship, we can sell. Whether that continues much beyond the next 6 months or so we'll see. I mean I think it's likely we're going to see a consumer shift out of home into in-home that happened in the pandemic, but we still saw good demand for what we do because of the balance across channels. People will still need to eat and drink in an inflationary environment. So in the near term, we're seeing a good outlook for what we're doing. In the medium term, we know that the way we've positioned the business against the growing trends of healthier food and beverage is precisely the right place to be. What we don't know yet is, as we get through some of it into the back end of this financial year and the next financial year, how that shift is going to occur. So it's going to require us to be very agile, both in how we innovate with customers, balance between value and other innovation, and agile in the geographic mix we're going to see. But what we do know is that the medium-term demand for what we do is very strong. And I don't know, Dawn, you want to pick up the central cost point?

Yes, sure. I think what's important from a cost point of view is that we've got a cost base that enables us to grow. And that is the single overriding factor. I think the other pieces are within that, ensuring that we've got the right resource allocation, that our resources are allocated to the areas that will generate the most value and also particularly at the moment that we're being responsible and that we're looking for cost efficiencies and cost optimization. And I think we'll continue to do that as we have done last year, as we move through this year.

So we're now going to go to Heidi Vesterinen at BNP Paribas. I'm afraid I think you're still on mute. Okay. So I believe we've got another question from Alex Sloane, Barclays.

Just on the JV piece, obviously, a very challenging year for the sweeteners and starches. I wonder if you could give us a sense of maybe how much of the decline there was one-off. I think you referenced some disruption versus what we should be kind of thinking about the pro forma base to model JV prospects into next year. And then just one -- just very quick one, just on Quantum, obviously, a leader in GOS and FOS. I did notice a couple of years ago, they were talking about R&D in human oligosaccharides in China. I wondered if that's still an ongoing piece of research and maybe growth opportunity for that business?

Sure. So let me pick up the JV point first. So we saw 2 impacts on the JV business last year. And I'm primarily talking about Primary Products in North America. We saw -- as we said at the half year, some operational disruption as we put some more environmentally friendly power into one of the plants, and that created some disruption that impacted the first half, and I think that number was in the sort of GBP 6 million range. And then, of course, what we saw in the second half was an acceleration of cost inflation, especially in the third quarter before the pricing round. Through the pricing round, the JV or the primary products business successfully managed to restore margins as a result of the right pricing discipline. So we're expecting to see a recovery from that. And the other thing we saw last year was very strong performance from the Bio-PDO JV. So we're expecting over time, as we've said before, to see stable earnings out of that business and a good dividend. And we'll see how things evolve this year. We know that KPS are very focused on growing that business, and we're expecting to see some recovery as a result this year. And then on your second question, yes, you're right. There is still some research going on. It may or may not be an interesting opportunity for the future. I mean in the near term, we're going to be very focused on continuing to successfully grow the FOS and GOS business, and that's done really well in the last few years. So we're excited about having it in the portfolio. And I think now we're going to go back to Martin Deboo at Jefferies. Martin?

Yes. It's a follow-up on central costs. It goes to the question that's just been asked, but I just want to come in another way. The central cost line was significantly higher than consensus was looking for. And I'm still not entirely clear what this incremental investment going through the central cost line is? And also, it just feels odd that when the business is -- the retained business is a significantly smaller scale, central line -- cost line is going up rather than down. I wouldn't expect central cost to pro rata down with the sales, but you'd imagine that there will be some opportunity to make savings. So given it's now quite a material part of the profit mix, what sort of FY '23 outlook is there on central costs? And just -- can we just understand this to what these investments -- again, that's going through the central cost?

Yes. I mean -- so I mean, clearly, there's some investment in growth opportunities and in M&A resource. And as we think about this year, we're not anticipating an increase in central costs. One of the tasks we have now as we think about new Tate & Lyle is, how do we look at the cost base through fresh eyes, and if you like, adjust where we put our cost to accelerate growth. That's a process that we'll go through in the next few months, and will then help us think about the future cost base of the business. I wouldn't anticipate a significantly different outlook on central costs in the near term while we go through that work. I don't know, Dawn, whether you want to add anything to that?

No, nothing to add. Okay.

And I think Heidi Vesterinen at BNP has another question. No? Karel, apparently, you have another question, so from Kepler.

You now call out that you expect to be a net zero carbon by 2050, which is, I think, a new statement. What's the delta here? Is that you've been selling 3 large plants? Or has there been a progress elsewhere? What -- so what's the delta? Why you can now make that statement? And how much is based on your CO2 offsets or where do you see real reduction of emissions?

So the difference, Karel, in increasing our ambition on our environmental footprint is, we've done a significant amount of research in the last year on our Scope 1, 2 and 3 emissions. And we're very clear we've got robust programs funded to hit the targets we set for 2030, and that's the near term for the business. Beyond 2030, as technology evolves and we see an increased focus on carbon reduction and climate reduction for us in our Scope 3 scope, we're confident that we'll be able to get to net neutral by 2050. I mean, clearly, things are going to evolve, technology will change, regulations have changed, but we've got a very solid idea of how we're going to get there – that -- to our 2030 target. So I'm pretty confident that from the research we've done. Technology will allow us to deliver on the net zero commitment by 2050. So what's really changed is, we've done a lot more research on it this year to layout a pathway to get there.

That's good. And in the factories, you've kind of sold to the JV, those are in your Scope 3, right?

Those are in our Scope 3, yes. And as part of the agreements we have in place, there is a commitment to deliver on the carbon reduction targets we've set for those plants up to 2030 as well. So I'm going to try one last time to come back to Heidi Vesterinen at BNP. I see you there.

Hi Nick, this is the operator. So I'm going to ask a question on behalf of Heidi Vesterinen from BNP Paribas. The question is, have you seen any customers switching out of corn given high prices? That's question #1. And question #2 from Heidi is, given the industry's move towards broader solution-based approaches, could it make sense for Tate & Lyle to be part of a larger organization, thinking back to your earlier comment on making yourself an attractive partner for specialty ingredient companies?

So on the first question on switching out of corn, we haven't seen anything yet. We'll see how things evolve over the next few months. The second question on whether we could be part of a bigger organization. Our focus very much is on the growth of Tate & Lyle. I think we've done a really great job of positioning the company for future growth with the recent divestment we've done. Alongside that, we've done 4 acquisitions that we're really hopeful and confident -- in fact, they're going to accelerate our growth and allow us to more effectively serve our customers. And as Dawn said earlier, with the strength of the balance sheet and our established ability to do the right kind of deals, we're confident other things will come along. But our focus in the short term is absolutely on continuing the successful growth to gesture of the business this year, integrating the acquisitions we've done, notably the Quantum deal we did this -- we announced this morning or completed this morning rather, and then navigating the short term, while seeing the exciting potential of the business for the long term. So I think with that, we're at the end of the Q&A. So look, thank you, everybody, for watching and for all of your terrific questions. Just in summary, we've successfully repositioned Tate & Lyle as a growth-focused Specialty Food & Beverage Solutions business, and we're actively focused on delivering on that growth agenda. We look forward to meeting you soon, and at our Capital Markets Day event later in this financial year. In the meantime, thank you for your time, and I wish you all a very good day.