Everyone, this is Mike Sison, Wells Fargo. I cover the ever-exciting chemical industry, which actually has outperformed over the last year- to- date, up about 14%. S&P was up about 8%. FMC stock has struggled a little bit, down 15% year- to- date, and well off its decade high of over $100. Today we have Andrew Sandifer, CFO of FMC. He's here to tell us the company's turnaround story. How do we get that stock back on the right track? It's got to be more exciting than some X story, right? That's going public at the end of the week. Thank you for spending some time with us, Andrew.
Yes, thanks, Mike. Appreciate you having us here.
I guess the first question is the strategic review. You're in progress of doing one, I recall.
Yep.
The board at your last public meeting had some offers on the table.
Yeah
or something like that.
Yep.
I'm sure you can't get into the specifics, any sort of color of what you think the board and you guys are looking for a deal or transaction that would create value for shareholders or versus staying a standalone company.
Yeah. Maybe I'll start off with that part first and build there. I think, as we've described it, there's really two things we're working on. There's Plan A, which is the operational priorities we've set for the company in 2026 to really get it back on a more strong footing and prepare for a return to profitable growth. Then in parallel to that, Plan B, which is a broader strategic review.
Yeah.
Plan A is really driven by four key initiatives. Aggressively paying down debt, primarily through asset sales and licensing arrangements, other things. We can talk a little more about that as it's interesting to people. Doing the right things to change the cost position for our core portfolio, doing some pretty significant cost restructuring to restore competitiveness for that part of our business. Implementing and executing our Rynaxypyr strategy, fully patented. Then finally, really the crux of the future for the company, which is really delivering on the potential of the four new active ingredients that we're in the process of introducing.
Right.
To your point, back in February, the conversation actually started a little bit earlier than that, but at the earnings call, we disclosed that our board had asked management to work with the board on an exploration of strategic options. We're very careful with the language. It's strategic options up to and including a sale of the company.
Yeah.
Over the past several months, a small group of us and the executive team working with the board and with outside advisors have worked on a number of different options and a lot of discussions, and a couple of different opportunities and a couple of different propositions that were interesting enough to really take to the board. That dialogue and that process is still ongoing, so there's only so much I can say today.
Yeah
Other than it's still very active. It's the full range of things that we could be thinking about, whether that's an outright change of control transaction or a merger or a strategic collaboration. All of the above have been considered and are continuing to be considered. There are some active discussions, and while we can't be certain about timeline, there are some practical realities. Discussions have been going on for a bit, and there is only so long you can run an organization with all of your employees under a cloud of uncertainty about what's the future look like. I would expect that sometime between now, here early, mid-June and in our Q2 call at the end of July, we'll have some more clarity that we'll be able to share. There's not a specific date I can point to at this point.
Like I said, it's an active set of discussions and evaluation with the board. I do think we would like to come to a more formal conclusion, a direction here before too long.
Right.
These kinds of discussions and dialogues with the board take time.
Right.
Again, I would expect sometime here before the earnings call at the end of July, we have something more substantial to say.
We have 25 minutes left, so just in case something pops up.
All right. We'll see if the phone buzzes in the interim.
Let's walk through the turnaround potential.
Yeah
For FMC a little bit. You talked about the four ingredients.
As I recall, it's expected to have sales between 300 to $400 million in 2026, $800 million by 2027, $1 billion by 2030, and potentially $2 billion by 2035.
Yep.
I'm going to botch this, the first one was Dodhylex Herbicide.
Yep.
It got registered in 2025.
Just for investors' thought, why is this herbicide more effective?
than what's on the market now? How do you see that ramping in 2026 and then in 2027, and then what do you think could this be, and I'm going to ask for all four.
Yeah
-could this be a diamide or which one could be a big one, and what's the base case for this longer term?
Sure. Dodhylex, which is-
It's close.
No worries. It's a lot easier to say than tetflupyrolimet, which is the chemical name of the molecule. It's a herbicide. It's a herbicide that is selective to rice, and the leading application for it is in rice crops. It is a herbicide that kills grassy weeds in a crop that itself is a grass.
It's a very rare thought that it's something that differentially impacts plants that are like rice, but not rice itself. It has applications broader than rice. Some very interesting potential for that molecule beyond that. All of the initial registrations are really focused on rice. Asia being a key area of focus, as a key rice-growing region, but the U.S., parts of Latin America, all a part of that program. The first registrations, we actually do have a few small countries with temporary registrations right now, but nothing material. We'll start seeing real revenue in 2027. Now, assuming we get the registrations that are expected in 2026 and 2027 for that, and then a nice ramp through 2027 through the early 2030s. We think that could be $400 million-$600 million. To get to the higher end, you need to broaden beyond rice.
Again, we do think there are some significant opportunities there. One of the things that's really exciting about that molecule, it is one of the first, if not the first, herbicides with a fundamentally new mode of action, meaning a biological pathway that it attacks in the plant to kill the weed, introduced in 30 years. It is truly novel, brand-new technology to the world, and a crop that desperately needs new tools to control weeds. Super, super exciting, and very high confidence that as we get the registrations, that ramps and becomes a very interesting product. It's not a Rynaxypyr here. It'll never peak out at $1.6 billion, at least not anytime soon. We'll see how inflation plays.
Yeah.
Maybe if we compound long enough. It is a big, meaningful contributor to the growth of the company.
Great. Then can you just remind us, just because we're going to talk about the diamide at some point, how does patents work for these? How long do they last?
There are multiple types of patents. The primary ones are composition of matter patents, which deal with the specific molecule itself. There's some strategy involving the timing in which you apply for those patents. We identify an early-stage discovery R&D compounds that have particular biological activity against pests of interest. In this case, against grassy weeds. You test them, you get more comfortable that that molecule may have some interesting commercial viability. At some point, you apply for a patent. Depending on the country, it's probably a 15, 17-year patent life. It takes another 7 to 10 years from whenever you've patented to get that product to market.
Right.
You're probably in a 10+ year window that you're selling under complete patent protection of the composition of matter. There are additional things you can do as you're finishing the development of that product. You can patent manufacturing methods. You can patent formulations and the way that that product is used with other ingredients, whether they're other active ingredients or non-active ingredients, to help make it a better performing product. You can also look to ways of novel delivery methods that can add additional patent protection. From a patent protection perspective, by the time you introduce, you're usually a decade or more of protection.
Yeah.
You also, in our industry, because you have to provide a tremendous amount of toxicological and biological activity data to get the product registered, many countries also provide protections to you as the initial holder of that data-
that go beyond the life of the patent. This is particularly in the EU-
Okay
-where you will get data exclusivity that extends the life of your protection as the innovator long beyond patent time.
Right.
That's a quick synopsis of the patents.
Okay. Then I guess the second one, I think I can pronounce this one, Isoflex.
Isoflex.
Herbicide.
That's an easier one, yeah.
Easier one. Got EU approval on February 26th.
Yep.
More registrations expected in 2027. I guess similar to Dodhylex, I just wanted to be able to pronounce it. What makes this herbicide special, potential for growth?
Yep
Longer term?
Isoflex is another herbicide, particularly useful in cereal crops.
Not exclusively. There are some other non-cereal applications as well. It was first introduced in Australia. It was also introduced in certain Latin American countries, certain Asian countries. The significant market is Europe. Biggest producer of cereals in the world. The active ingredient and formulated products were registered late in 2025 in the U.K. We missed a good piece of that selling season, unfortunately, in 2025, but we'll have a full- year of selling season in the U.K. for this year's winter cereal season. The active ingredient in Isoflex, as you noted, in February of 2024, was registered in the EU. We now have to get formulated product-level registrations at the country level.
That's what'll take through why we won't get formal introduction until 2027 across the EU. What's particularly interesting about this product in the EU in particular, the number of tools that growers that are growing cereals in Europe have to control weeds is becoming more and more limited. This is the first new product in a long time for cereal growers to help control the weeds in their fields. If you look at some pictures of what a typical cereals field looks like in Europe, it's hard to see the cereals for the weeds.
It's a tremendous opportunity for yield improvement for cereal growers in Europe. Much that, while we have no control over this, and I want to be very clear about that, we do have in certain European Union countries right now, there are farmers petitioning for emergency use exemptions that would allow them to utilize Isoflex-based products before the products are formally registered.
That would be upside for us in 2026 if that were to occur. We don't control that. We don't influence that. We are ready if there is an opportunity there, we would be glad to help growers out in Europe and give them a better tool and a new tool to help control weeds and cereals.
Great. Then the third herbicide, rimisoxafen. First registration 2028.
Yep.
Again, what's the excitement about that one?
My colleague, [Curt], who's with us today, knows that I have probably irrational excitement about this one. Rimisoxafen, it's a really unique herbicide. New to the world. When we talk about modes of action in terms of the way that a herbicide attacks a weed in terms of biological processes, it is not only a new mode of action, it's actually two new modes of action. It attacks two different biological pathways in the plant that have never been seen in the world before. Anybody who pays attention at all to the herbicide space knows that there's growing challenges with resistance that builds up in plants from having been exposed year after year to herbicides like glyphosate or 2,4-D or dicamba.
What rimisoxafen will do is give growers a new tool to control really difficult weeds that aren't easily controlled by most of the available technology on the market today. It's particularly useful with some resistant weeds like Palmer amaranth, which is a highly, very fast-reproducing weed that can really damage crops very rapidly. The number of tools on the marketplace that are out there that can help control that is getting really small. This is a big one for corn and soy in the Americas. This is one we're super excited about, and it is because of the degree of novelty and technical innovation that's involved in this product. This one's a big one. Again, it won't be Rynaxypyr, but all four of these products we think are in the $400 million-$600 million kind of range for peak sales.
This is one that could be at the higher end of that.
Okay. The last one's a fungicide.
Yep
Fluindapyr. You've had launches in the U.S., Brazil, and Argentina. Any more launches coming, and what do you think makes that one special?
Fluindapyr is a fungicide. It's good for a number of crops, but particularly soybeans. It's one of many products that can help control Asian soybean rust, but also works in corn, particularly on some diseases that are becoming very relevant in the U.S. and in the central U.S. in particular, tar spot and southern rust, where there are very limited tools to control. Certainly they're diseases that you don't want to get into your field, and there's a preventative value to this as well. Fluindapyr, as you noted, it's been registered in a number of countries. We've got most of the registrations, if not all that we're going to go after.
Okay.
We're really in the ramp-up phase.
Okay.
That's a product where we are seeing very substantial year-on-year growth. It's a great example of where we're using partnerships to help accelerate that growth. Last year, we entered into a partnership with Corteva, where we provide a formulated product to them that they market directly to their customers. It's allowing us to more rapidly gain adoption in the U.S.
A win-win for both companies. We are seeing very good growth there. Fluindapyr I'd say is furthest along in its commercialization, but a lot more room to continue growing.
Okay. Just maybe your quick thoughts on how the ramp-up is for these four in 2026.
The goal for 2030, I would assume that's heavily Dodhylex and then Isoflex.
Yeah.
Is that true?
Yeah. I think of the build this way. Right now, fluindapyr, largely registered. Isoflex still gaining momentum and getting the key European registrations to come in 2027, the really big introduction. Dodhylex just starts getting commercially introduced in 2027, rimisoxafen, first registration's in 2028. They build in that order.
Yeah.
We did about $200 million in sales across the two that are currently commercial, Isoflex and fluindapyr, last year. We expect those two to represent between $300 million and $400 million in sales this year, building to $800 million in 2028. Then, as you noted, by mid-2030s, up to $2 billion in peak sales here. The gating condition really is getting the registrations, and there's always a little bit of timing risk there, but we feel pretty good about our line of sight on registrations.
Right.
We think there's a pretty good trajectory here to see that really strong accelerating growth from these new active ingredients.
Great. Sort of the second area of the turnaround is the balance sheet.
Yep.
You recently said that there is licensing potential. I don't remember if this is one of these four or one of your other molecules, but can you maybe walk through some of that licensing potential as part of the $1 billion debt paydown-
Yeah
-potential? I think you recently said you've chosen a partner for that and that you will have an update today. No, I'm joking, but at some point.
Yeah. Yes. One of our four big priorities for this year is really shoring up the balance sheet. We've set a goal to pay down $1 billion in debt. With our last call, we sketched out where we have in currently active negotiations about $700 million in transactions. That included the India transaction, which has been signed-
Yep
for $250 million for the sale of our India business. That will close sometime before end of year. That's a piece of it. The next largest and the topic that you're raising here is around active ingredient licensing. Active ingredient licensing is something that is very common in our industry. Again, the idea being that none of us are big enough on our own necessarily to maximize the penetration of a product as rapidly as possible on our own. Particularly FMC is the smallest of the five innovation-led crop protection chemical businesses. There's a significant benefit from us from gaining a route to market through our peer companies. We also have some very special molecules in our active ingredient pipeline, and certainly of the four we just talked through, the active in the discussion that is very close to completion is about one of those molecules.
Yeah.
It is an opportunity to work with a partner whose route to markets are very complementary to ours and will allow us to, quite honestly, expand and accelerate the value of that molecule, such that there's upside beyond what we just talked about in terms of peak market value potential for that by having that additional route to market. That deal is imminent. I would say one word to you in terms of the process, lawyers. All joking aside, these are complicated transactions. When we say licensing, we're understating what the actual transaction is. It's a commercial agreement where we will supply active ingredient to the partner, and they will formulate and market products based on that active ingredient. To be able to do so, they need a license to our intellectual property, because it's a patented active ingredient, to be able to legally sell that.
They'll also need access to our registration data. Those have significant value. While we do these kinds of partnerships in normal course, I mentioned earlier the partnership that we have with Corteva in the U.S. for fluindapyr, this is a very normal part of what we do. What is different about this one is that it also will come with a substantial upfront payment.
Yeah.
That's in part because of the nature of the supply that's involved, and because of how special and differentiated this technology really is. We're very excited about the prospects. I regret that I'm not able to be more specific today. I would just repeat the word imminent.
Yeah.
We look forward to being able to share more details in the near future.
Got it. Great. Just a reminder for the folks on the webcast, I am on Bloomberg. If anybody wants to ask a question, just let me know. Same in the field here. In terms of the billion, you got $255 for India.
I thought you had other stuff to get you to $425 million. That's already done?
Yeah, let's separate the two pieces.
Yeah.
India, we carry on our balance sheet as a held for sale asset.
Yes
at a value of $425 million.
Oh, I see.
That represents both the sale price for the transaction.
The working capital
255.
Yeah.
The cash that we expect that business to generate while we continue to operate it.
Yeah
until it closes.
Till it closes.
That cash will flow through free cash flow.
Is embedded in our free cash flow guides. Relative to the debt pay down target, it's $250 million-$255 million.
Yeah
That is going out.
To get to $700 million.
it's the combination of the licensing and real estate deals?
Licensing, real estate, and a collection of a number of smaller things.
Smaller things. Okay.
Yes.
Okay. Great. Why don't we move to the diamides?
Okay.
They're off patent. Maybe just frame up where are we now in sales in 2025, and what's sort of the plan to
Yeah. Let's separate the two, because I think we've long sort of oversimplified by referring to the diamides. It's really two different molecules, Rynaxypyr and Cyazypyr.
Yep.
Rynaxypyr, the final patents expired on Rynaxypyr at the end of 2025, as well as the remaining data protections. Cyazypyr is still under significant data protection in most of its key markets through much of the rest of the decade. We still consider and report the Cyazypyr as a part of the growth portfolio, because there's still more growth to come from there and it's still protected, although not necessarily by composition of matter patents, but by other protections. Let's focus a little more on Rynaxypyr, where really all of those protections have fallen away in the last year. That business is stabilizing. It's down this year again, primarily because of a reduction in our partner sales. Not dissimilar to what we're doing now with other new active ingredients.
When Rynaxypyr was introduced to the market, the innovator, the company we bought that molecule from, entered into some licensing agreements and partnership agreements with a couple of other major partners. We took on those agreements when we bought that business and continued to operate that. That business, over time it became a cost-plus contract structure. As we prepared for the post-patent transition, it became clear to us that the supply chain we had in place was not going to be competitive in costs with generic entrants. We took some very significant write downs in 2024 and 2025 to change that manufacturing supply chain and radically reduce the cost of manufacturing Rynaxypyr. The good news is that prepares us very well for protecting and growing the profitability and sales of our branded Rynaxypyr business as we go through this transition.
For the partner business, it created significant headwind.
Yeah.
They benefited from those changes directly. I would say the silver lining in what has been multi-years of headwind, and particularly the last two years, where we've talked a lot about the drag from decline year- on- year in the partner Rynaxypyr business, is it's becoming a small enough business now, we'll do something on the order of $100 million in sales to partners of Rynaxypyr this year.
Okay
That even if it drops another meaningful chunk next year, it's no longer as material to our results. It's really going to become, I wouldn't expect that next year we're going to be talking a lot about partner Rynaxypyr. The branded Rynaxypyr piece is where there's more interesting stuff going on. The partner business sort of fades away into obsolescence as we move into post-patent period. Branded business, there's a tremendous opportunity for us to maintain value in the branded business. We have a cost position that is comparable to quality generics. At the low end and less differentiated, simple formulations of Rynaxypyr, we can be cost competitive.
Yeah.
We still command a premium for branding, quality, and service, but we have to be conscious and reflective of what competitive pricing is. We're increasingly shifting our mix for Rynaxypyr to value-added formulations, either mixtures with other active ingredients that give you improved pest coverage or help address resistance issues. Rynaxypyr's been out for a long time. A lot of bugs have been exposed to Rynaxypyr over time and have evolved to develop some resistance to the molecule. One of the best effective techniques is then to pair it up with another molecule to help make sure you maintain effective control over the pests. We have the deepest knowledge of anyone in the world on how to do that because we've been managing that molecule for its life cycle.
Right.
We are seeing, a big part of our strategy is to shift our mix to increasingly to differentiated mixtures, to higher concentration formulations, to differentiated novel delivery methods. At the same time, having a cost position that allows us to compete with lower value, less differentiated formulations with generic producers.
Right.
We think what that results in is flattish profit dollars for Rynaxypyr.
Contribution, I think is the best way to think about it. We don't really do a profit at the product level in the same way. With growing sales coming out of 2026 to 2027 because we see higher volume growth despite lower pricing as Rynaxypyr-based products become more accessible. A limitation, even though Rynaxypyr is a massive molecule and one of the top five all-time-
Yeah
molecules in the ag industry, it never got as big as it could because it was too expensive to use in a lot of lower value crop applications.
At a different cost point, you can see significant elasticity of demand.
Right.
We have seen this in countries like China and in Turkey, where in the years after patent expiration, the volume and markets of chlorantraniliprole, the generic form of Rynaxypyr, tripled as the price point shifted and you could move into new applications. Our strategy is to take advantage of both that volume growth with a very different cost position that's competitive with quality generics. At the same time, shift the mix to where we're emphasizing more value-added differentiated mixtures that allow us to earn a higher return, higher margin than just competing on a cost basis with simple generics.
Right. Great. Shifting gears real quick. You're guiding to EBITDA $677.30 for the year.
Sales $3,638. Maybe just kind of your thoughts on the crop protection market overall. The Iran war clearly has created soaring fertilizer costs. This is not good for farmers.
Yeah, I think most of your orders are set for crop protection. This for the quarter and maybe a little bit needs to be added, your order book for Brazil. How do you think the war, the increase in fertilizers, but they can't skip per se is going to affect your industry?
Look, I think this has been a challenging couple of years for the crop protection industry in general.
Yeah.
Lots of deflationary impacts, pretty aggressive generic competition, particularly coming out of China following a restart of the industry after it was shut down for a couple of years during COVID. The Iran war has a bunch of tentacles to it, right? The immediate symptom that everyone's seeing is around fertilizers. Yes, fertilizer price inflation does put pressure on farmer economics and that doesn't help in terms of where we are with the crop protection business. The longer this situation goes on in Iran, the more inflationary effects I think are going to be felt over a broader set of inputs to where crop protection chemicals, the intermediates used to make them, are far enough downstream from oil that we're not seeing it just yet, but it's coming.
The longer this disruption goes on, this conflict goes on, you're going to start seeing inflation in inputs for crop chemicals. We have seen this movie before. In 2021 and 2022, when we had massive supply disruptions, principally in China because of COVID controls, we saw significant cost inflation. 2022, FMC had over $450 million of cost inflation in our P&L in one year.
Oh.
Right? What happened? We raised prices. While that's not a great thing, particularly since there's pressure on farmer profitability right now, I do think there are pretty well observed interplays between energy prices and crop prices over time. Not on a daily basis, but if there's sustained higher oil price-
Yes
I would expect to see corn and soybeans trade up.
Right.
Higher revenues for growers help solve a lot of problems, but it doesn't relieve all pressure, but will help. If these pressures continue to build and show up in cost increases that hit the inputs that are direct into crop protection chemistry, I would expect you're going to see price movement.
Okay.
That, I think, can help break some of both the actual reality in the industry and some of the sentiment around the industry.
Right.
Sentiment around the industry I think is very negative right now because of pricing trends and generic pressures. You're seeing a wave of new innovation coming. I think we're the leading edge of that with the new active ingredients we just talked about. Some of our peer companies have some interesting technology coming a little later, but coming here as well. I think that's a part of the shift that will come in terms of sentiment around the industry. I think moving away from this deflationary environment, even though I have no wish to see conflict further extended.
Yeah
The damage is already done. There is going to be inflation. It is going to come through. I think that will help shift the pricing dynamic. It may not lead to restoring prices to where they were, but it may turn the tide from talking about continued easing and erosion of pricing back to prices moving back up a little bit. That can help change, I think, both sentiment and change the tone in discussions. It's all going to be prefaced on crop prices moving up.
Yeah
That it allows room in the farmers' P&L to allow them to make a profit.
Right
To be able to support it. I think there's a pretty good logical connection there.
A quick follow-up from folks on the webcast asking on the pricing, how do you manage that with the potential for more generics that might be used as farmers are a little bit stressed?
Yeah. Look, it's a double-edged sword. A lot of generics live on very razor-thin margins.
It's not just pricing, it's availability. We are already seeing some reports of easing of pricing and reduced availability from the lowest of low-end generics.
Yeah.
Anecdotal, not really hard data yet, we are seeing some decent data and some decent anecdotal evidence of this. I think that's really how this starts to switch, is that it's going to start taking the folks who are really living on the nice edge and pushing them over.
Okay.
People who have enough margin to buffer it and be able to continue operating are going to have to raise price to offset that cost over time.
Okay. Just on Brazil, I think you've recently said that the order book looks good.
Maybe even better. Any thoughts on Brazil, because that's a big chunk of your outlook for this year?
Certainly. We have a very heavily back-end weighted, second half weighted outlook for the year, right? As you described, was the $700 million in EBITDA in the midpoint, $488 million of that end of guidance midpoint is coming in the second half. Certainly Brazil is a key contributor to that. For us, Brazil is driven by growth in the new active ingredients and repositioning of our core portfolio products. It's enabled by a shift in go-to-market to more emphasis on the direct sales to large growers channel and complementing going through co-ops and through distribution and retail. We've made some public comments recently, both on the earnings call and in another conference recently around the order book, and specifically the order book for sales to these direct customers in Brazil, where we started that route to market last year and we're ramping up.
This year we've got a sales force that's been in the field the full- year, we are seeing significantly higher orders.
Okay.
More than 50% of the orders that we need to hit our plan for the year for direct customers.
we already have in hand.
Okay.
Those are orders that'll be fulfilled in Q3 and Q4. They're being negotiated now, and that number's continuing to climb. We'll update that number more precisely at the July call.
Yeah
We're above 50% and continuing to build very good momentum there. That helps increase our confidence in the ability to deliver heavily out of Brazil in the second half.
Got it. You got two follow-up questions and two minutes.
Rapid fire
real quickly. Question is, it sounds like inflation's coming. Are you going to get pricing out to offset that for you? How do you see that?
Mike, I think we're going to be, as we did the last time, we're going to be very thoughtful about how we approach pricing, but as inflation starts to enter and remember, we turn inventory about twice a year, so it's not a quick hit. It will take time before that starts showing up. We'll start having conversations with customers and start moving prices.
Okay. The last question was, you built this up to $700 million. How do we get to $1 billion in terms of debt reduction? Any conversations with the rating agencies and how they think about your liquidity?
Yep.
You have some refinancing.
Yeah. Very quickly, we get from $700 million to billion by selling additional product lines and businesses. We have prioritized things that had limited to no near term EBIT impact. India wasn't making any money for us, so we get proceeds with no diminishment of our future earnings capability. Licensing actually grows our future earnings capability, pull some of it forward. The real estate transactions, such that we may actually get an operating benefit when we're done. We'll see. The things that would next need to be done start to have more difficult trade-offs.
where you are giving up some of your near term EBITDA for debt reduction, and that's the reason we've sequenced it this way. We'll continue to work it. We feel very good about liquidity. We had a very well-received bond offering two weeks ago, raised $1.2 billion. We went out initially for $750 million. We'll be using that to pay off the maturity in October, as well as to bring down particularly revolver balances at this point. We feel very comfortable about liquidity, very favorable response from the ratings agencies there. From a credit perspective, the next real maturity we have is in 2029. We feel very good about the balance from a debt perspective. We would prefer to be in investment grade metrics. That's going to take a few years to get back.
Yeah.
That's the destination. From where we are today with the debt reduction that we're going to do this year and the work that we've done to improve the liquidity and with the offering and work we did with the revolver earlier this year, we feel very comfortable where we are with the balance sheet for right now.
Just one last quick one, maybe yes or no, 2027, you talked about double-digit growth. Feeling better about that potential?
Yes.
Yes.
I think we are feeling better about that potential. I think the momentum for the new products in particular, and look, we need to finish the restructuring of our manufacturing footprint. We know how to do that. We're good at that. We feel very confident on starting. We'll get some of those benefits in 2027, bigger in 2028, we will get some benefit in 2027. We know how to do that. We'll get it executed.
Great. Thank you, Andrew.
Great.
Appreciate it.
Thanks, Mike.