Up, we have Corteva, we have Chuck Magro, the CEO, Dave Johnson, the CFO, I think almost a year in.
Nine months, but.
Not getting there.
Feels like a year.
Feels like a year? It's been a fun year, though.
It's a
good year.
You know, I'd really like to start this off by saying that, you know, the thesis is, if I do say so myself, being on the top of the Wolfe Alpha list, the thesis has been evolving really nicely over the last two years. That is not without hiccups, it's not without macro challenges, FX, you name it. Chuck, as CEO, what are the two things you're the most happy with? What are two things you feel Corteva needs to be doing better? Perhaps we'll launch into a longer-term discussion from there. Thank you.
Chris, good to see you. Hi, everyone. Great to be here , look, Corteva just turned six last week, so pretty new company still. I'd say that the things that we've been working on have to do with strategy and then just getting really good at execution. Generally, I'm pleased with both of those. If you think about the strategic direction of the company, several years ago, we made the tough choices, we pruned the portfolio, we exited a bunch of countries that did not make economic sense for us. When you look at seed, we decided we were going to be a technology seller, not a technology buyer. We embarked on sort of that journey to royalty neutrality, as we call it. In CP, we decided we wanted to be the leader in biological.
We made a couple of acquisitions, we beefed up our R&D. All of that seems to be going very well. Execution, I'm a big believer that we have to do what we say, say what we do, and continually just be boringly reliable when it comes to our performance. We've done, I think, a very good job of that. What we missed and maybe the things that kind of caught us, obviously, the crop protection destocking caught all of us. You know, I've said this before, I don't think I would have changed, I wouldn't have slowed down selling. I just wouldn't have done it if we had major customers that wanted the product. We probably could have looked around the corners a bit more, saw where this was going, pulled back our inventories and our production, and got ready for the storm.
We have put some things in place to fix that. I would say the thing that I am most excited about, and that is probably the new part for Corteva, is just the short-term, but also the medium-term growth strategy we have. If you start thinking about what is in the pipeline from a technology perspective, we literally can change the way we farm in the next decade. That, to me, is why we are here, and it is very exciting for me.
Just, you know, I don't want to be short-term, and I don't want to at all hinge your growth strategy on what's been happening in the U.S. marketplace. I mean, since January, there's been a lot of change between, first of all, the growth outlook based on U.S. ag policy, we can certainly get to that, but also just the shift in terms of, you know, being a little bit more positive on coarse grains, perhaps a little bit more cautious, at least to start the year in soybeans. Just how has the first half holistically been developing for you? Have there been any surprises? Where do we stand? Perhaps we'll, once again, go into the longer term from there.
Do you want to hit the numbers?
I can hit the numbers. You're interested in that, Chris. Yeah. So basically, you know, when we first came out with our Q1 numbers, we did have a very strong start to the year. Our EBITDA was up about 15% year over year, and our full-year guide was up 10%. Now, in our business, though, we do not really look at quarters. It is really the half that matters, right? Because you do have timing, weather elements, and what have you between March and April. So when we first provided our guide, we said, "Okay, first half, we are probably going to be now up about 5% year over year," where when we had first put out our guide earlier in the year, we said we would be flat. So a little bit ahead of where we thought.
As Q2 has progressed, I would say that we feel pretty good that we're transitioning or going closer between kind of that mid-single digit to upper single digit. I feel like, you know, the first half is going to play out pretty well for us. We will have to see and evaluate what, if any, that changes our full-year outlook, given that we still have a strong second half of the year baked in. We will do that after Q2 close.
I say, Chris, just the broader economy. I've spent the last two months traveling through Argentina, Brazil, of course, the U.S. and Canada. I'm actually surprised at how much optimism is on the farm. We're seeing most of the, you know, progressive farmers still acquiring land, investing in infrastructure. They're preparing their children to take over the farming operations. I think that the one thing that I wanted to hear, which we see in spades, is they're craving that next generation of technology. They actually need it right now. Where they're focused on and where their concern areas are, obviously, in the U.S., crop pricing has been muted a bit. That's pinching some margins. We have to watch that.
It's not an emergency today, but it is something that we need to really think through what happens over the next six, nine months, maybe twelve months. Trade. Farmers are farming right now. The crop's coming out of the ground. Things are looking very good. I think the question is, what happens at harvest? Will the trade situation be stable enough where they can sell the grain? They do require the export markets to be open. That's on a lot of people's minds. We can dive into other parts of the world when you're ready. I'd say, generally, there was more optimism than I thought.
I will not hit on tariffs after this, but since the beginning of the year, and to be clear, this is not just a year question, it is a how do we build from here question. You have had some things, I mean, the market has been rocky, but at the same time, you have also had a few things fall a little bit more in your favor, and you have been positioned very, very well. I could get into some product things, but I will just say U.S. ag policy, even in the last week, seems to be edging in the right direction. Let me know if you disagree with this, but it seems Brazil maybe has increased on our acreage for the first time in almost half a decade.
Been a while.
It has. Argentina, you mentioned. It seems like ag policy is edging in the right direction, perhaps a little bit slower. FX, we could talk about interest if you want. Just how do we think, does 2025 seem to be evolving at a time when you think this is kind of more comfortably setting up a better foundation to hit some of your 2027 targets versus your excitations about four to six months? I'll give you a little leeway on the response there.
The answer is yes. Look, if you look at what will move the needle for Corteva, it would be, okay, gene editing. We need freedom to operate, and it looks like the EU is very close. That is another really important, I think, linchpin to get that product on farms around the world. That is moving in the right direction. I think, like you said, Brazil and U.S. biofuels policy are both heading in the right direction. I am shocked at the speed at which Brazil is moving to be, you know, they are the second largest corn ethanol producer now in the world. They are still putting infrastructure in for that. They are very excited about the next generation of biofuels, so biodiesel and SAF.
Then you have the decisions that were made just in the last six or seven days with the U.S., the blend mandate going up pretty substantially. You start thinking about that, plus laying the discussion to have a healthy conversation around SAF and biodiesel here in this country. This is all in the right direction. This is exactly what farming should be about, finding ways to rely a little less on export markets, consume the crop commodities inside of these core countries, and then rely on the export markets for the rest, of course. There is a lot here that we really like. From a technology perspective, you know, our biofuel program had another very successful winter grow program. We are just, you know, counting up the harvest data now, but it looks great. We are going to take that to the next level.
I'd be remiss not to call out hybrid wheat. It's one of my favorite topics lately. Literally, we can transform that food system. It goes a long way to global food security because 20% of the calories we consume as humanity is wheat-based. If we can drive up yields by 10% or 15% in the early days, because we're going to launch this in 2027, it's a good business for us. It'll be a big business for us. We're saying it could be a peak $1 billion of revenue for us. I think it goes a long way to feeding a lot more people.
You know, on the Brazilian ag policy, Chuck, even in the time you and I have known each other, which has been about a decade and a half, in the last 10 years, Brazilian consumption of corn, percentage has gone from 2% to 17%. It's not a small move. And everyone's like, "Oh, they always had ethanol." It's like, it was sugar cane-based.
It was all cane-based, yeah.
It's a pretty fascinating topic. When we take a step back and look at, you know, depart from ag policies, the one issue that I'm going to knock on wood before I bring it up has been, you know, the one issue that has been driving some uncertainty has been tariffs.
Yes.
You've had this with China, you've had this with Europe, you had it with Mexico, seems to be alleviating, if I do say myself. You know, how has Corteva been prepping for that? I mean, you seem to be taking a pretty balanced, methodical approach and just being ready for whatever curveballs are thrown at you. Could you just give us an update where we stand today, just given all the news flow that we've had over the last, you know, few weeks?
David, I'll give you our direct impacts. Go ahead, David.
Right now, where we are, when you take into consideration, you know, all the exemptions, which are pretty difficult to go through, all our teams are doing a really good job of preparing us for that. Then you look at the 90-day delay that was put in recently, our impact, we have estimated about $25-$30 million for 2025. And Chris, as you know, that's all CP-related. It really is not seed at this point in time. We feel like that's definitely a manageable number, certainly manageable within our range of our guide.
I think the more important part is when you look at what the CP business did with their supply chains and their footprint and everything they did, you know, years ago to prepare us for this, I think we're in a pretty good spot where we're multi-sourced on 70% of our imports and this sort of thing. The teams are doing a really good job of trying to mitigate that $25-$30 million. We're also, we'll look at maybe a modest price increase. I think the industry will be looking at that if this continues. I think we're in, you know, pretty good shape whenever it comes to managing tariffs overall. The other thing to just remind everyone, our two big franchises, like Enlist and Spinosyns, are actually produced here in the U.S.
We're actually in a pretty good spot vis-à-vis perhaps others, you know, with our supply chain and where we manufacture.
One of the other things, and I won't imply any edge on this, but one of the things the investment community, the sell side and the buy side have loved is just the complete pendulum swing from licensee outflows. I don't want to get ahead of myself, so I'll say neutralization. But you've been, I mean, you've already swung about $650 million from peak to roughly where we are today, like $850 million to $200 million-ish.
That's right.
Somewhere plus or minus in there. You've done incredibly well with Enlist. You know, now it seems the narrative seems to be shifting a little bit more towards PowerCore, Vorceed. Obviously, a lot of things that could, you know, replace Qrome over time. And I'm not missing one. Kinventa, Janet knows that's my favorite, obviously, in Brazil. But, you know, how confident are you in that neutralization timeline? You already kind of expedited a little bit at your analyst day. How are we thinking about that for the next few years? And then also, dare I say, a longer-term question, can you get that swing into the other side of it where it's actually an inflow?
We absolutely will. We can and we will. You have the numbers, right? When we started this as a publicly traded company, we were like $800 million in the hole as a net expense, and we are around $200 million now. We have clawed back about $600 million. We originally said we would be neutral by 2030. Now we are saying 2028. We feel good in that bucket of timeline, for sure. That is just the beginning, right? That is just sort of, I think, was always going to be step one. Where we are highly focused and where the team is now turning its attention is this is about a $4 billion market that we really are a modest player in when it comes to outlicensing revenue. It is really separated between the U.S. and Brazil.
The real opportunity for us is to get our fair share of that $4 billion. That is going to take time. Once we get to neutrality late this decade, we will enter the 2030 decade with, I think, technology that is second to none. We have already got 100 licensees for both corn and soybean technology today. We know who the players are. We know how to do this. The technology is in high, high demand. In fact, we are probably supply-limited, not demand-limited when it comes to the outlicensing capability that we have. I think that this is something that has another 10 years plus to run. We will be very disappointed if we do not get our fair share of that $4 billion market, which is still growing, by the way.
What about the other, I mean, obviously, it's always nice to talk about all the traits and all the, you know, kind of the payoff of, you know, a decade plus of development. You already hit on the wheat side of it, but could you also hit on some of the double cropping, the short-stature corn, some of the other kind of pieces, the base business in terms of just, you know, creating that second to none, I'd say, complex for your, you know, farmers?
Yep. On reduced corn, very excited about the potential, the technology. For those that are not sort of familiar with it, it will be a shorter corn. The reason that has advantages is because you have access to the canopy. It will hold up a lot in high, high winds. The other, I think, magic to this is you will be able to plant the crops closer together, so density. You will drive a lot of yield benefits on the farm because you will be able to plant the corn crop closer together. This is a win-win for everyone involved. We have a dual-path strategy where we have a conventional bred corn system that is reduced corn, and we have a gene-edited. As soon as we get freedom to operate with gene-edited, we will not skip a beat, and we will be able to, I think, catapult anything that is out there.
That is really our philosophy. We plan to launch in 2027. Again, this is right on the doorstep of part of our growth platform. Hybrid wheat, I talked about, could be a billion dollars of revenue. The system looks phenomenal. Our initial expectation is that growers will see a 10-20% yield improvement. I just have to kind of tell you the significance of that. Our corn business, we were the first hybrid company in the world about 99 years ago, so we will turn 100 years next year. When it was first rolled out 100 years ago, there was no yield improvement back then. We are already seeing a 10-20% yield improvement with the first hybrids coming out of our wheat system. That will be the worst it ever gets because we will just get better with the breeding.
This has a huge potential for growers around the world. That is another thing that we're very excited about. I mentioned gene-editing capability. As soon as we get freedom to operate, we'll bring our first corn hybrids out about two years after that. It is a multi-disease protection in the genetics. We've spent enough time with this to know that this is going to be game-changing specifically for corn growers in the U.S.
I always joke that, you know, thank goodness Field of Dreams was filmed back in like 1987 because you never would have gotten James Earl Jones or any of those players on the White Sox into the field in short-stature corn based on the declining rows. It is an ag joke, people. Relax. All right. What, you know, one of the things I am particularly enthusiastic about, and I have been enthusiastic about this and Chuck Magro, I know the, I think I know the answer to this, but I really want you to answer for the audience. You know, gene editing has been on our radar screens for years. And every single time one of these crossed my desk for somebody who had a technology when I was at my old employer, I used to say, well, what about Corteva?
Every single time there was somebody with technologies, all roads always led back to you. The question is going to be very simple and yet complex. Why do you have the right to win there? How insulated is the moment the EU gives that green light, why are you the ultimate winner?
Yeah, it's a great question. I actually think that the technology over time won't be the differentiator, even though we are the largest estate holder for gene-edited outside of the country of China. There's China, and then there's Corteva, and then there's everybody else. We've built a nice IP estate, for sure. I don't think that that's going to be the determining factor for who wins this. I think what's going to be determined is, look, gene editing is simply cutting and pasting. I know the scientists hate it when I say that. As an engineer, that's as complex as I can get. You have to have something to edit. We have 100 years of germplasm in corn that we understand better than anybody else in the world.
I think the material that we're going to take to the next level and edit, that's going to make all the difference in the world. Of course, we're in 125 countries, so we have the channels to the market. If you think about, I mentioned Pioneer is turning 100 next year, we have a very unique route to market, right? In the U.S., we have 2,600 Pioneer agents that are independent business owners that work on the farm every day, and all they do is sell Pioneer seed. Can you imagine the power of this if you've got the latest and greatest technology, the best germplasm that is 100 years old, and a channel to market that is unique? I like our odds of success when it comes to this, but I don't think the differentiation will actually be the editing itself.
In fact, we're licensing the gene editing technology to anybody that wants to buy it because we don't think that that, we think commoditizing that to some degree is the right thing to do. The world needs this technology. We need to see gene-edited material on the planet because, like you probably all know this, but there's another 2 billion people that we have to feed by 2050. It's a 25% increase in our human population. If you look at the last 20 years, we had the same increase, right? 25%, but we have to increase land by 10%. We can't really increase that much land in the next 2 billion people we need to feed. The only way to do that is to bring the next generation of technology, which I think will be led by gene-edited capability.
I always love it when we're talking about the seed business. It's one of the few businesses that basic materials analysts cover where certain countries literally have to hide it in seed vaults in the Arctic Circle to ensure the continuity of the human race, God forbid something bad happens. It is a pretty interesting business that I think people still, despite everybody talking about it, underappreciate. We are going to dip down to an unpleasant topic and then get back to a positive topic down the presentation. The crop protection market has been challenging, Chuck, and I think you've gone on every single call, and it's just undeniable across the industry. I will say you are in a better position than most, for sure. It seems like that's now, you know, perhaps, dare I say, normalizing in North America, Europe, perhaps Asia.
You still have some pockets of issues, Latin America. What's your current assessment of the marketplace right here, right now?
So this will be the third year where it's been sort of uninspiring, right? We won't sugarcoat it. It's been a tough couple of years for the industry and then, of course, for our business. I'd say 2025 is certainly looking better than 2024 and 2023. What we're seeing is healthy volume. The channels seem to be functioning relatively normal. Yes, there'll be pockets, as you called out. Generally speaking, I'd say that within the realms of normality, the CP business is back to normal. What we're still facing, though, is low single-digit price pressure. That's coming from a whole host of areas, including, you know, that we're still seeing elevated generics. It feels a lot better than what we saw from a price perspective the last two years.
When we did give our recent earnings, we said, look, we thought that we were going to see low single-digit pricing until the first half of this year. Now we're thinking that's going to persist for the rest of the year. That's all built into the communication that we gave. There's nothing new here. It would be nice to see the pricing turn positive eventually. Eventually, it has to. In fact, when you go back in our history as an industry, you really do not see three continuous years of price declines. It's extremely unusual for our industry. I am not here prepared to say expect that in this quarter or this year because I think that we have to see if this is structural or cyclical. My opinion right now is that this is still purely supply demand. It would not be a structural change.
In fact, on-farm demand for crop protection is flat to modestly up. Growers are using the products the way they need them. That is something that we cannot forget, right? We have seen a lot of noise when it comes to the crop protection market, but the behavior on the farm has not changed. These are still core products which they need to grow that crop, and they are using it the way they should.
I think the temporary on-farm storage post-COVID or during COVID and the evolution of the broker market during that same time when people are trying to clear their balance sheets, I think, threw people off. I'm glad to hear it seems like it's certainly in the right direction. One quick clarification on that, Chuck, just in terms of pricing expectations. I mean, your guidance basically still implies that pricing will be slightly down in the second half. That's still the best way to think about it. No change of thought process. Got it. Okay. Cleared. One of the other things you've been doing behind the scenes, just continuously going back to this thesis of not being complacent at all, you have two things that could potentially help margins outside of price and mix.
One is you're being much more effective with your capacity, closing Pittsburgh, have to be sure, Pittsburgh, California. Obviously, being more optimizing your manufacturing, I'd say holistically around that. Also on the cost side, it seems like you're getting some benefits. I know that's a little bit tougher because you only turn inventory two times a year, so it's a little bit tougher. Can you just give us the latest and greatest on how you're thinking about that? Is everything kind of in line with how you're thinking about it? Perhaps a little bit better?
When you step back and you look at what we expected for like our net cost improvements for the year, we're about $400 million this year, which is a significant number. A lot of that is self-help. In CP, we've been on a little bit of a journey on footprint rationalization, kind of going through all those restructurings and what have you. We expect that to add of that $400 million, like $100 million of incremental benefit in 2025. A pretty significant piece. Then you look at on the seed side, which is about half, again, of that $400 million for this year, it's all about efficiency in how we produce seed.
About half of the COGS is actually the underlying commodity itself, but there's a whole nother half of logistics and packaging and all these sort of things that I think the teams are now starting to use actually artificial intelligent models to where they're able to go a little bit more efficient. I think over time, we're going to see that really benefit seed. CP is on this continuous journey. If you step back, Chris, and look at our three-year horizon, we had a billion dollars of EBITDA improvement. $700 million of it is this net cost. We're seeing it not only in this first year, but we do expect it to continue in 2026 and 2027.
The other thing I wanted to talk about in crop protection is about three weeks ago, a press release came out from one of your competitors, FMC, with its new product, fluindapyr, which is a substantial portion of its second-half growth. Essentially, you'll be, I know this isn't the right term, but redistributing the U.S. market, just given your breadth and access to the marketplace. Could you just, perhaps for those unfamiliar with these types of agreements, hit on why you would, perception-wise, help a competitor, even though we know you wouldn't do it if it wasn't helpful to Corteva, perhaps that and just how that ultimately helps your holistic offering in the marketplace?
Yep, sure. Look, this is the definition of standard in our industry. I do not know how else to say it, right? None of us, it is a very competitive industry. We all have great products. If there is something out there that is new, we want to get access to it. There are licensing and cross-selling agreements across the board because that is good for farmers. When I look at this specific agreement, what I would say is I think it is a win-win for both companies and for farmers. For us, we are going to get an interesting new product we will be able to put in front of our, specifically our corn growers. It has to do with the three-way fungicide market, which is a good market for us. It is complementary to the rest of our product slate that we are currently selling.
I think for us, it's great. For FMC, they get access through the Pioneer Network, our corn growers. It opens up a bit of a market for them. This is one of these definitions where I think it's good for FMC, it's good for Corteva, and it's good for growers. This is very standard. We do not usually make a lot of noise around these things because they happen very frequently, and they are usually incrementally beneficial for both companies.
With the minutes we have remaining, capital allocation has been a big topic, I'd say, since, I guess, once again, six birthdays. You've guided to about 40-45% of cash. Two-part question. First of all, is that just, do you think that's just the intermediate long-term run rate? We all know you've been here nine months and you didn't want to overprice and deliver. And we certainly appreciate that. At the same time, I've highlighted, and if I'm wrong on this, please call me out, but I like to highlight just, hey, a lot of cash turns hands between January and the end of December versus the end of December, whether it's the U.S. and early pay savings and Corteva cash things or the Brazilian marketplace. I tend to think that gives you a reason to enable yourself some leeway there. How should we be thinking about that?
Very complicated question, actually. When you step back and you look at the 45%, we feel comfortable with that, Chris. I think last year we were at a 50% conversion. One of the reasons for that is we did have a tailwind of working capital. We did work our inventories down, adjusting again to the CP market and that sort of thing. I think this year we started off very well. I think over a three-year period of time, 40-45% is good. We could, as we grow EBITDA, start to work that up slightly because you're actually mixing up because we won't need all the working capital and all that sort of thing when you have that incremental billion dollars of EBITDA. I think that's very much a positive.
The one thing on forecasting the cash flow, to your point, for those, we do get a lot of cash very much at the very end of the year, which is this cash credit mix with farmers. We could do a terrific job the first 10 months, and we could miss it on those last couple of months. I think maybe we're a little conservative, but I think it's prudent to be that way to see kind of how the year unfolds. So far, a good start to the year. I think the teams, again, going back to self-help and what we do, are doing everything possible to be very efficient in the way we manage our working capital investment in general.
Just, Chuck, obviously, you've done some M&A, you've done some buybacks, you have a pretty healthy authorization. I think I have a lot of confidence in Dave's ability to get to the high end of that range. So perhaps you have a couple of extra bucks in the bank. When we take a step back and we look at your share performance, some, let's say, growth opportunities, you've been very big in plant health, biologicals. How should we weigh what's in your thought process on share buybacks versus tucking in bolts and M&A?
So look, I think when I step back and look at the company, we got an A-rated balance sheet and we're generating a lot of cash. We can argue on the fringes, but that's going to continue. We are going to have the financial horsepower, I think, to do it all. We have also raised our dividend 30% since nobody talks about the dividend. It's amazing. On a basis, it's relatively small. We have bought back $4 billion of stock in the last four years or so. That's pretty remarkable. I think, again, when you look at the priorities for capital, we want to return capital to shareholders where it makes sense. Our overall focus is just maximum long-term value creation. We also raised the amount we're investing in R&D because when I first joined Corteva, we were investing too little.
I wanted to accelerate the seed portfolio. We put more money into that and we raised it to 8% of our revenue. I think over time, that's going to prove to be the right decision. You're asking about inorganic growth. We're always on the lookout for ways to use the balance sheet inorganically. It has to be the right deal that aligns with our strategy. The areas that we kind of are looking at are, they won't surprise you, right? Biologicals, gene editing capabilities, anything where we can acquire the next generation of capability where Sam Ethington says, well, I can develop it, but it's going to cost more. We're always looking at build versus buy, especially around our technology portfolio. We've got a great organic machine. The last three or four years, now we've built a great inorganic M&A team.
I think the two deals we have done, Symborg and Stoller, I think they have proven so far to be the right acquisitions at the right time for the right price. We would be very excited if we can find a few more of those.
I think also our callus program too is another one where the last couple of three years getting some muscle memory around that and making small investments in multitudes of technology will pay off over time.
I have a friend who's a portfolio manager, and he always tells me, he's like, tell Corteva to get the dividend yield up, tell them to get up. I said, it's not their fault. The stock keeps going up. I think he needs 1.6% or the S&P is. It may be a little tough draw this year, but we can get it there. Final question, Chuck. We've known each other a long time, Dave. It's been a pleasure working with you. I'm really glad you could attend today. There's always things to sell side, and less so the buy side, of course. We'll blame the sell side that investors miss about the story. You've been very transparent. You had a great event last November, and I think we're particularly enthusiastic about that. Are there one or two things you think the sell side is still missing?
Like, why isn't XYZ sell side writing about this? Why am I not getting a question on the call about this?
Look, I think in the first few years of Corteva, look, we didn't have the 15 years of performance. People were wondering, can they generate the right numbers with sub-$4 or sub-$4.50 corn? I think we've proven. Check, yeah, look, the company's doing okay with kind of moderate crop pricing. The other thing is, look, when we first joined, we had this big gap in our margins. Over the last six years now, the margins are up something like 600 basis points. There's not a lot of daylight now between us and everyone else. Check that box. I think it was really the blocking and tackling of the company, standing it up as a publicly traded company, all that I think the market's gotten.
I think where the market is missing right now, and we're starting to talk about it, is the growth potential beyond 2027. I know that we've put 2027 financial targets out there, but there is probably a decade or longer of what I would consider to be really interesting technology growth from gene editing, biologicals, hybrid wheat, outlicensing of our general seed portfolio, all these things. That is, it's going to take a little bit of time for the market to say, yeah, I can build that in. Some of these things are going, usually when a science company says, we got this great product, come back and see us 10 years from now, right? Because it takes that long in our industry. We're talking about hybrid wheat. It's launching in 2027 in the United States. I was in Canada.
Farmers were saying, Chuck, why are you going to wait to bring it up to Canada? We want it now. Look, I do think that we're on the doorstep here with these new technologies in 2027, 2028, 2029. Once the market starts to get comfortable that that timeline is going to hold, I think we become a growth story.
Thank you very much. Always a pleasure, gentlemen. Thank you.