Bayer Stock

Good afternoon and good morning, everybody. Welcome to our conference call to discuss Bayer's Third quarter 2026 results. I'm Jana Ackermann, and it's a pleasure to welcome you today as Bayer's new Head of Investor Relations. Thank you for taking the time to be with us on the call. I look forward to engaging with you and working closely with the investor community going forward.

For today's presentation, Bill will provide an update on our year-to-date business performance and strategic priorities. Judith will then walk you through the key drivers of our results and the outlook. After the prepared remarks, they will be joined by the President of our 3 divisions for the Q&A session.

Before we begin, please note the cautionary language in our safe harbor statement.

And with that, over to you, Bill.

Thanks, Jana. Really great to have you all with us. Hi. So we posted our results for the third quarter earlier today. 9 months into the year, we're on track to deliver our commitments with a strong operational performance, and we're even upgrading our outlook in several areas. Sales grew 3% organically or currency and portfolio adjusted, which we'll refer to throughout today's call. Core EPS is at EUR 3.97, which is in line with our guidance despite some effects on the corporate lines.

As expected, free cash flow is at negative EUR 3 billion due to known litigation-related payments. On the whole, our businesses demonstrated operational resilience and underlying potential. Cost Science and Consumer Health are performing in line with targets while navigating market pressures. In our Pharma business, led by Nubeqa and Kerendia demonstrated its growth potential. And let's take a closer look. In Crop Science, the third quarter is always our smallest. Year-to-date, the business is growing about 3.5% with the EBITDA margin coming in at 24.6%. Our seeds and traits business is growing double digit supported by innovation lift and market share gains, most notably on corn globally and soy in the U.S. Our core crop protection business is down in the year due to expected portfolio exits, regulatory impacts and increased generic pressure. This was further compounded by a historic drought in Europe and a strong El Nino.

Now looking forward, LatAm is off to a strong start of the season, and we feel well positioned to deliver our 2026 outlook. Pharma continues its momentum. Year-to-date, the business is growing at 2% with an EBITDA margin of 26.8%. Nubeqa is up 60% year-to-date and Kerendia is growing 76% in the same time frame. And we continue to strengthen product profiles and growth prospects of both brands. Our newer launches are also progressing well. In Q3, Beyonttra entered our top 15 pharma products in terms of revenues for the first time. Xarelto and Eylea continued to decline in line with our expectations, but we've reached a turning point in pharma's growth trajectory, and we're beginning to see the other side.

For the full year, we now expect sales growth toward the upper end of our guidance range and on the back of our strong performance year-to-date, we are also upgrading our margin outlook to 25% to 27%. To support the future growth trajectory of our pharma business, we announced our plans to build a state-of-the-art production facility in New Albany, Ohio, in Q3. The facility will support our growing portfolio in oncology, cardiovascular and renal care and we'll complement our global site network in pharmaceuticals, which we'll continue to invest in as appropriate. Finally, Consumer Health. We're growing 2% so far this year, and our EBITDA margin is at 22.9%. Our dermatology and digestive health businesses continue to grow led by contributions from Bepanthen across all regions and MiraLAX in the U.S. allergy and cold is our only category that's down due to a weaker season so far.

We continue to see challenging market dynamics, particularly in North America, but we remain focused on achieving our 2026 commitments and delivering for the consumers that are counting on us. Overall, we remain confident in our 2026 targets for the group. We expect our Pharma business to continue its momentum and to come in better than previously projected, and we're upgrading our outlook for adjusted EBITDA, free cash flow and net financial debt. Operationally, Bayer continues to make good progress, and we'll stay focused on strengthening our performance 90 days at a time.

Now let's move on to our strategic priorities. First, the pharma pipeline. I mentioned Nubeqa's growth momentum. At the recent ESMO Congress, we presented interim results that bolster this medicine's potential. This analysis showed an impressive 58% reduction in the risk of metastasis or death in prostate cancer patients with a very high risk of recurrence. We're pleased with this data. Of course, we were cognizant of market dynamics like competitor, genericization and pricing pressures, but we feel that these results reinforce Nubeqa's overall potential. The biggest news out of our pipeline came at the beginning of last week when we received the first approval for asundexian in secondary stroke prevention in China under the brand name Sunharbo. As asundexian is now the first approved Factor XIa inhibitor worldwide, and we're focused on obtaining additional approvals.

Now here, I want to congratulate the Bayer team that got as indexing to this point. Our scientists in Wuppertal invented this molecule and have worked on it for more than a decade. Even after a big setback in November 2023, they haven't lost sight of what asundexian could mean for scope survivors. They've embraced our operating model and artificial intelligence, which allow them to substantially compress the time line getting this medicine to patients a year early. That's incredible impact.

Now regarding Crop Science profitability, we continue to address pressures on crop protection through actions under our 5-year framework. In Q3, we further consolidated crop protection production activities and we reduce costs, and we're going to continue to monitor the market closely and take actions as necessary. We're also advancing differentiated innovation in seeds and traits as well as Crop Protection. Last month, we introduced the new insecticide, Plenexos, to the Mexican market, while the Vyconic soybean stack advanced into the final stage of EU import approval, bringing us one step closer to launching this key blockbuster.

On the Roundup litigation, we remain focused on our objective of significant containment, and we're on track. In September, the class settlement between plaintiffs Class Counsel and Monsanto reached the final approval hearing, the company remains confident in the proposed class settlement. We appreciate that it's getting a thorough review, and we await the judge's ruling. Why is this important? As we've said before, the path to resolving mass litigation in the U.S. almost always involves a settlement, and we reached a deal with plaintiffs Class Council. Together with the Supreme Court's June ruling, the class settlement offers the company the best path to significant containment. That's what we committed to and that's what we aim to deliver.

Now as we move toward that goal, there will still be a much smaller number of individual cases pending against the company. One case was just decided in the company's favor. We take that as a strong sign that our containment work is advancing. Last week's Aretino case was important because it was the first case that went to trial after the Supreme Court 72 decision, which struck down the failure to warrant legal theory. Now in this case, plaintiffs had to present a legal theory based on design defect and negligence claims. And the fact that all 12 juries cited with the company should be informative for those seeking to pursue claims in the court system. We'll continue to handle cases in the best interest of the company, and we're awaiting an important decision on the settlement.

Now I also want to mention PCBs, which differ from the glyphosate cases in terms of the multifaceted nature of the claims. Our legal strategy accounts for this, and we'll continue to defend these matters vigorously or pursue settlements. We expect legal proceedings in the coming quarters and will act in the company's best interest. Now looking ahead, we're focused on closing 2026 strong and achieving our targets. The ag season is underway in Latin America. Pharma has strong momentum with existing launch assets and potential new medicines reaching the market. And Consumer Health is going to embrace our operating model to navigate a softer market and deliver the year. And we see an exciting future for Bayer, a future in which the company is viewed differently than in the past.

We're focused on improving revenues, increasing productivity and cash generation through our operating model and with our rollout of artificial intelligence. We want to sharpen our capital allocation with resources focused on the biggest mission impact while continuing to deleverage. Now we're going to continue to update you on our progress, and we have any next opportunity with our full year results in February next year.

Now over to you, Judith. SP1 Thank you, Bill, and hello to all of you. It's been a pleasure to meet many of you in person since the first half year results. I'm looking forward to continuing our conversations. After the first 9 months of the year, we see very good momentum and are happy to be able to upgrade our full year group outlook for adjusted EBITDA, free cash flow and net financial debt. Year-to-date, we delivered organic sales growth of 3% and adjusted EBITDA growth of 7% compared to last year. In Q3, Pharmaceuticals was the key driver of group performance supporting organic sales growth of 2% and adjusted EBITDA growth of 7%. Foreign exchange effects were a year-on-year tailwind on reported results in Q3, contributing approximately EUR 250 million to net sales. This was primarily driven by the weaker euro against the U.S. dollar, Brazilian real and Chinese renminbi.

On a year-to-date basis, however, currency effects continue to weigh on results, reducing sales by around EUR 700 million and adjusted EBITDA by approximately EUR 360 million. Year-to-date, core earnings per share of EUR 3.97 benefited from stronger operational contributions, particularly from Crop Science and Pharma offset by both a weaker core financial results and higher core taxes. In Q3, strong adjusted EBITDA in pharma contributed positively to core EPS. However, we saw softer performance in the other divisions. We also saw pressure from noncash effects in the financial results, mainly driven by interest-related fair value changes in some of our employee benefit and pension instruments.

Turning to free cash flow. We reported a negative EUR 3 billion for the first 9 months of the year, largely driven by EUR 3.7 billion of litigation related payments. This was slightly better than expected. Excluding these payments, underlying operational cash flow is ahead versus prior year, driven by improved trade working capital as well as licensing resolution income. In Q3, free cash flow was negative EUR 300 million, including the second payment into the class settlement fund. Finally, net financial debt decreased to EUR 31.1 billion, reflecting a notable improvement versus both Q3 '25 and Q2 2026. This was primarily driven by the successful closing of the Apollo equity investment, which generated proceeds of EUR 3 billion. We had announced this transaction in the second quarter.

Let's now take a closer look at the performance of our businesses. In Crop Science, disciplined execution of our 5-year framework supports resilience in a dynamic ag environment. On a general note, the third quarter for Crop Science is usually small given that the Northern Hemisphere season wraps up, while the southern hemisphere season is only starting. So Q3 is not very telling about the full year performance, and we can see it here. Total Crop Science sales declined 2% as headwinds in Crop Protection were partially mitigated by seeds and traits growth. However, year-to-date, we see an increase of 3.6%. The decline in core crop protection is more than offset by strong double-digit growth in seeds and traits in the first 9 months. we expect to outpace the market in '26, supported by market share gains across several key crops.

For the quarter, seeds and traits were up 3%. Soybeans grew 5% in Q3, driven by strong performance in Latin America. Year-to-date, sales were up 45% or 10% excluding the first quarter licensing resolution income. Growth was driven by increased acres as well as higher pricing and market share gains in North America following the return of the U.S. dicamba label. This performance positions us well for the full year, even as growth is expected to moderate in the fourth quarter. Corn sales were stable in Q3. Year-to-date, sales increased by 4%, supported by price and volume growth across regions. Adjusting for the prior year licensing resolution income we expect underlying corn growth in Q4, led by Latin America. Core Crop Protection declined 6% in Q3 and year-to-date reflecting additional weather and generic pressures alongside regulatory and portfolio headwinds. Adverse weather in Europe and El Nino-related effects, limited crop protection applications.

We have taken targeted actions to address challenging market conditions, supporting volume growth in Latin America in Q3. We expect this momentum to continue in Q4. Glyphosate sales declined 5% in the quarter, primarily due to weather conditions in EMEA and were down 2% year-to-date. On profitability, adjusted EBITDA was approximately EUR 100 million in Q3, with margins moderating as expected. Importantly, year-to-date margin remained above prior year at 24.6%. And -- this was a result of a favorable sales mix, continued execution of our 5-year framework and the licensing resolution. Our pharma business continued to execute on its strategic priorities and starting a new growth cycle. This is a major milestone and turning point worth pausing technology.

We are now seeing stronger growth momentum as we have entered the second half of the year. In Q3, net sales increased by 6%, bringing year-to-date sales to EUR 13.4 billion, up 2% year-on-year. This performance positions us well to finish 2026 at the upper end of our full year sales outlook for pharma. Nubeqa sales increased by 58% in Q3 to roughly EUR 1 billion, with growth across regions and a particularly strong performance in the United States. Year-to-date, Nubeqa is now at EUR 2.6 billion. Kerendia sales grew by 65% in Q3, mainly driven by the United States and China. Year-to-date, Kerendia sales are close to EUR 1 billion. Based on this strong performance, we now expect Kerendia to grow by around 60% for the full year.

The launch of Beyonttra continues to perform ahead of our expectations. It has made it into our top 15 pharma products in Q3, and we remain focused on driving uptake through 2026 and beyond. As expected, Xarelto and Eylea declined 31% and 24% in Q3, respectively, due to the loss of exclusivity and biosimilar competition. Importantly, the pace of decline is beginning to moderate. For the first 9 months, the sales development is in line with our expectations for the full year. Eylea 8-milligram continued to show good volume growth, now accounting for 60% of total Eylea sales. Finally, our base business remained a solid contributor to pharma performance with 3% year-to-date growth.

In Q3, sales grew 5%, driven by continued momentum in radiology and women's health alongside a solid recovery of Adalat and Aspirin Cardio in China. Adjusted EBITDA for Q3 was up 24% with EBITDA margin expansion to 27.6%, mainly driven by top line growth. This was further supported by lower write-off for inventory a tail-end product divestment and operational efficiency. At the same time, we continue to invest into future growth. Year-to-date, the margin is at 26.8%, leading to an upgrade of our margin outlook for the full year.

Turning to Consumer Health. Sales increased by 2% in the first 9 months with growth across all nonseasonal categories. In the third quarter, sales were broadly stable in a market environment that remained mixed across geographies and categories, particularly in the U.S., market conditions remained challenging. Despite this, we continue to see solid momentum in key parts of our portfolio. Digestive Health grew by 5%, led by MiraLAX, while dermatology increased by 3% and primarily driven by continued momentum from Bepanthen. Both categories also delivered solid growth year-to-date with dermatology up 5% and digestive up 3%. This reflects our focused allocation of resources behind the brands, categories and markets where we see the strongest opportunities for sustainable growth. We experienced softer allergy and cold sales, reflecting cautious retail inventory build in the United States ahead of the season. Nutritionals also declined in the quarter given the competitive environment in the U.S. and EMEA. Despite this, Nutritionals remain an important contributor to our year-to-date growth supported by e-commerce and brands such as Elevit.

Turning to profitability. The adjusted EBITDA margin was 24% in the third quarter and 22.9% year-to-date, well within our full year guidance corridor. We continue to invest behind our brands and innovation to support future growth. These investments and foreign exchange headwinds weighed on margins, productivity gains and disciplined cost management provided a partial offset while preserving our ability to invest in our growth priorities.

Let's move on to the group outlook. With the strong pharma performance, we now expect adjusted EBITDA for the group between EUR 9.8 billion and EUR 10.3 billion at constant currencies, up from our initial guidance range of EUR 9.6 billion to EUR 10.1 billion. We reiterate our current guidance range for core EPS Core financial results and core taxes are expected to remain within the modeling ranges, including the noncash effect we saw in Q3. On free cash flow, we continue to work on all cash flow levers, including profits, working capital and CapEx. We are raising our full year outlook by EUR 1 billion to minus EUR 1.5 million to minus EUR 0.5 billion. The previous forecast have been between minus EUR 2.5 million and minus EUR 1.5 billion. The improved free cash flow performance is anticipated to result in a lower net financial debt at year-end, which we now expect to be in the range of EUR 28 million to EUR 29 billion at constant currencies. This compares to the previous range of EUR 29 million to EUR 30 billion.

Finally, on currencies, we have updated the foreign exchange estimate based on September month and spot rates, which remains rather stable compared to our last estimate. I will close with the divisional outlook. In Crop Science, our performance through the first 9 months keeps us on track to deliver within our full year guidance ranges. Strong seeds and traits performance is expected to offset additional core Crop Protection headwinds.

Looking ahead to the fourth quarter, we expect continued momentum in Latin America. The year-on-year comparison for crop science will be impacted by prior year licensing income. For our Pharma business, Q3 marks the starting point of a sustainable return to growth. Based on the current performance, we expect to finish 2026 at the upper end of our organic sales growth outlook. While we remain committed to investing in our launches and advancing our pipeline in Q4, top line growth is expected to further support full year margin expansion. We therefore upgrade our full year outlook for the adjusted EBITDA margin to between 25% and 27%, up from 23% to 25% previously.

For Consumer Health, the performance in the first 9 months supports our full year guidance. Based on the development year-to-date and our current projections for the fourth quarter, we expect full year growth in the lower half of the guidance range. Market conditions remain mixed, especially in the United States, competitive dynamics in Nutritionals and the development of the cough cold season remain important factors for the fourth quarter. Our focus remains clear, invest behind our strongest brands and innovation while allocating resources towards our most attractive growth opportunities.

Looking ahead, we will, of course, provide our 2027 outlook with our full year 2026 results, but I want to highlight some trends we are seeing. Firstly, Crop Science will face a tougher year-on-year comparison in the absence of licensing resolution income. We continue to monitor a mixed agricultural environment with pressure primary economics, generic competition and weather uncertainty but believe that underlying demand remains resilient. We will respond with appropriate measures as we execute our 5-year framework. Secondly, the U.S. tariffs on pattern and pharmaceuticals have been considered in our guidance for this year. On drug pricing, we continue to evaluate what U.S. most favorite nation policies may mean for our pricing and launch strategies.

I want to end my remarks by reiterating that we remain firmly focused on our financial priorities, strengthening our balance sheet improving productivity and cash generation and building financial flexibility to invest into next-generation growth.

With that, over to you, Jana, for the Q&A.

Thank you very much, Judith, and thank you, Bill. We will now begin with a Q&A session. [Operator Instructions]

Our first question today comes from Richard Vosser, JPMorgan.

Maybe 1 question on Crop Science and comments you just made, Judith. Just thinking about that 5-year framework. I think that 5-year framework had margin expansion up to sort of mid-20s. But just maybe you could talk a little bit about how the shape of that might be in '27. I think at the crop day, there was an idea of just some improvement but not linear to some improvement in '27. So just thoughts on '27 a little bit more and a little bit more detail around EBITDA margins and maybe the top line as well.

And then second question on Nubeqa for Pharma. Perhaps you could talk about the potential for growth going forward in a little bit more detail. You mentioned that [indiscernible] trial. So maybe the thinking on the impact of that maybe a little bit more on the impact we should expect for XTANDI Generics maybe in '27. And then beyond, there's probably a little bit of IRA and other things, but just bringing it all together, how we should think about growth as Nubeqa going forward.

Great. Do you want to go or Rodrigo on the margins for crops?

So maybe I'll start, Rodrigo, and then you put in some color. So we're not giving '27 guidance, obviously, but you're right to ask, Richard, on do we see any trends going forward. What I feel is very important is that we are committed to beat market conditions, and I think we're seeing it this year, and that's what the team is also projecting for next year. Don't forget about the licensing income. Obviously, you have it in mind that we're seeing this year that we're not going to repeat next year.

And on margin, lots of work going on. I'm sure Rodrigo is going to have many examples here ranging from factories consolidation, renegotiation of contracts, all sorts of things. So the team is keeping a good world cup on improving the margin there.

If I just -- again, you've summarized very well, Judith. Richard, if I just use your question because you finished with the top line and the margin, just to use the about '27, let me give you a deep dive on these 3 elements that was mentioned by Judith.

The first one, the market conditions. Yes, we are expecting with El Nino, with the geopolitical, so the recent development in Ukraine and the Black Sea restrictions, a lot of uncertainty and volatility about the market, the farmers' economics that were mentioned as well even expecting probably a reduction of corn area in U.S. So the market conditions that you heard from other companies as well remains challenged for '27. That is the first element. The second one is important is what Judith mentioned, we had the licensing resolution impacting Q4 of '25 in corn, Q1 '26 in soybean and that will not recur in '27. So on reported sales, you're going to have a moderation on top line and margin because of that. But that brings me to the underlying business. The underlying business continue on track on the 5-year framework. So we are expecting to perform above market next year. We have our seeds and traits continue to perform as we see very strong performance this year.

And also in our Crop Protection, just to mention some of the examples that was mentioned by bias well, we had pln Plenexos in Mexico next year. We are expecting the U.S. and in Brazil, a very important market. We are also expecting Stryax to continue to expand Covestro, also Brazil and U.S. and other products that we have. So the underlying business, both on the top line and on the margin, we continue on the path towards our midterm ambition that you mentioned. So these 3 elements are very important for '27, and we're going to provide much more details in February, as mentioned by Judith. Thank you for your question.

And with that, Stefan.

Richard, and thanks for the Nubeqa question. So yes, of course, we're excited about the results that we're seeing and adding new indications prospectively because we have to see what the [indiscernible] for us what the regulatory pathway is for it. And then in terms of the future growth profile, of course, we're not guiding '27 here or following years. But I think we can be optimistic, obviously, as we're going to expand our user base. We've said that currently, we cover about 60%, and we're going towards covering 80% of all eligible ARI potential patients that helps us drive our volume share.

On XTANDI, we'll have to see. There's certainly a pricing headwind coming. And when you look at the growth, we're not necessarily defending our percentage growth, but our base is increasing so that we continue to see continued growth for Nubeqa and everything else will inform in more detail at the beginning of next year. Thank you.

Second question comes from Sachin Jain, Bank of America.

One for Stefan and then one for Bill. Stefan, for you on [indiscernible]. You've referenced the recent China approval. The label was solid, sort of allowed for and safety was well reflected. So should we be thinking about that as a rough proxy for the U.S. label or any comments you can make around how those discussions are going? And then given the [indiscernible] data is coming, what just update us how you're thinking about your commercial scenarios depending on their data?

And then just one for Bill. Thanks for the commentary on the glyphosate class settlement. And maybe just update us on how you think about when we should hear back on that? Any color you're willing to give on opt-outs and your level of comfort with the debate on the future cases, which seem to be a bit of a sticking point in the debate.

Yes. Sachin, thanks. So we're very pleased with the Chinese label. And I think it's noteworthy because in my career, I don't recall ever having a new class of medicines being approved first in China. So that's really subject to remember. So we're waiting for the FDA label. So we haven't reached PDUFA date. So there's a little bit of time left. And at this point, it's speculative if it's going to be the same label. I think you characterized it correctly. The Chinese label is very solid with no significant restrictions that I could see. So we're in intensive discussions with the FDA, and let's see what comes out of it.

As to what this means compared to milvexian. I think at this point it's not very helpful to speculate too much. Obviously, we believe that we have an extremely solid data set when it comes to secondary stroke prevention, where I think whoever comes there will come up with something really, really good if they want to beat us. So we feel very strong that we also have most likely about a year advantage over the second follow-up. And then I think that will help us. And we'll have to see about milvexian. They have multiple studies, as you know, going for multiple indications, as you know. So at this point, I think it's purely speculative.

Great. And yes, thanks, Stefan, and such good to see you or good to hear from you anyway. Regarding the ruling from the judge on the settlement, we expect -- yes, we expected an answer what we said before Christmas, and so that's coming in the near future. So it should be in the next several weeks. And then on the question of opt-outs let me explain the process a little bit. So there was an opt-out date in early June. That was the time when people have the opportunity to opt out.

Now this is kind of a special case because since that time, there have been 3 events. One event was the Supreme Court ruling, which was very strong in our favor. Second event was the fairness hearing, which we think went pretty well. And the third event was this trial that happened or that read out last week, which was the first trial to test these sort of other legal theories which ended in an unanimous defense verdict. So you can imagine there might be quite a few plaintiffs and plaintiffs councils who had opted out in early June but who would reconsider that decision in light of subsequent events. And that, in fact, is the case, and there's actually a lot of interest from those lawyers and plaintiffs. To actually get into the class, there is a mechanism for that to happen, and that is going on at kind of a fast pace. But it's actually -- there's just like there's some administrative burden in opting out. There's also an administrative burden in getting back in, and it's also subject to the approval of Class Counsel and us.

Now when the judge rules, there will be some declaration of the number of opt-outs. But keep in mind that after that date, if there are existing opt-out requests in process or new ones coming in, those can still be allowed back into the class, again, subject to the approval of class council of the company and the judge. So whatever number that is, will be probably a moving number because it's on its way down, and it will likely continue to go down. So hopefully, that gives you a little help in deciphering that.

Next in line is James Quigley, Goldman Sachs.

I've got 2 on pharma, so 2, Stefan, please. So firstly, on Kerendia, did I hear correctly that the growth for the full year is anticipated to be 60%, 6-0 percent. We've seen 76% in the first 9 months, which suggests a sequential decline in absolute revenues as well as growth. So are there any headwinds, et cetera, we need to factor in when we're modeling for the full year? And then just an update on how the launch is going across the 3 -- across the 2 different indications -- indications, sorry, as well as the geographical rollout, that would be great.

And secondly, following up on Richard's question on Nubeqa and IRA. Obviously, now with the drug annualizing at about EUR 4 billion, what does this mean in terms of the potential for IRA negotiation? What is your base case for when you could see -- when you could be included in the negotiations? And do you have any sense of based on what you've seen so far with other drugs, what the potential price hit could be and the impact on growth?

Thanks, James. So on Kerendia, as the base is growing, percentage growth is going to come somewhat down in the fourth quarter. Overall, we're still seeing a positive momentum on both indications. So -- and we are predominantly a non-Europe play, which is unfortunate because of very low pricing that we have in Europe. So we're looking into the overall year picture there may be some rebate considerations that we need to add. So that's why we've taken this 60% choice, but it's a really good question.

Nubeqa, IRA negotiations, we expect to get started in '27. So that we will have an impact of IRA sales start in -- as of '28. And so it's coming. And we'll have to see if we can negotiate at similar price levels as competition has. And it certainly is a clear headwind going forward.

And the next question comes from Charles Pitman from Barclays.

Two questions, please. Firstly, just on pharma margins. I was wondering if you could give us a little bit more detail just on the 3Q dynamics and how we should read these going forward, noting the expected investment into preparing for an milvexian launch. So just thinking about kind of is the 3Q gross margin and SG&A, R&D levels suitable weathers going forward and also on D&A, just noting that crept up in the quarter. And then just secondly, for Judith, thinking about the dividend and noting that B has been paying EUR 0.11 per share since '23, but litigation remaining on track. How can we think about the capital allocation decision framework for FY '26, '27 dividends?

Stefan, do you want to comment on the margin dynamic?

Yes. Thanks for the question. So first, before I get to that, let me correct an answer I just gave to James on the previous one. I said '28 and unmet '29 is the impact from the IRA negotiations. So I need to stand corrected there.

So on pharma margins for this quarter, so we had a couple of pluses and minus here including some divestitures, which has driven margin up. So when you look at the very positive margin for Q3, you probably have to take about 20 basis points down to come to where we really are operationally, which is still a significant improvement, which is linked to our strong growth in the third quarter.

Against that, you will see now coming online in the coming quarters, more and more additional sales expenditures from the asundexian launch or I should better say now Sunharbo launch. That is going to get underway starting with the first quarter in the U.S. and hopefully, and certainly in China. So that's going to weigh on the margin. So our the term guidance stands, which is what we've given to you at the beginning of this year is that we see for the coming year, a stable outlook, maybe or even a little bit more in terms of margin pressure because of the investments and then a gradual margin improvement towards 30% in the following years until 2030.

And then, Charles, on the dividend and capital allocation. It's a little early to talk about '27 and beyond. But I can talk about my philosophy and how I look at it. And really, when you look at the results we've just presented, we do expect that we will have higher cash in over the years to come. Crop Science is working on the 5-year plan. You've just heard the amazing pharma success. Consumer Health has a very solid base of close to EUR 1 billion of cash flow we should, with the containment of litigation that Bill mentioned, we should have lower outflows. And so really, I feel confident that we will be able to do several things. We'll be able to materially increase our investment into the future. We will be able to pay down debt. And yes, of course, over time, we will also start paying a higher dividend again.

And next in line is Vincent Andrews from Morgan Stanley.

Quick question for Rodrigo. First, there's been some volatility in corn prices since the end of the summer. Wondering if you can just talk about how that has been impacting the order book. for the North American 2027 season? And then secondarily, in Crop Protection, it seems like the results are sequentially weaker than you had anticipated 2Q to 3Q. Is that the case again 3Q to 4Q? And within that, could you just talk about what's happening to raw material costs in Crop Protection, if that's getting worse and what you can do about it?

Thank you very much, Vincent. So let me start with corn in the U.S. So we -- you saw that this year the reduction on area came, but probably end up with -- around 97 million acres in U.S., what was a little bit higher than probably it was anticipated in the market. For next year, what we are seeing now, and again, there is a lot of developments right now, and we're going to learn more in the next weeks and months. potentially, we are seeing a reduction to more close to the historical level of corn area in U.S. That is a little bit of what we are seeing -- our order book is strong because also we are bringing a lot of new generation hybrids to the market and the package that we have is strong, but we are expecting a lower area for next year as for now, and we're going to need to close local to that one.

On the CP, on the Crop Protection, for the full year, we -- of course, we projected the impact of the regulatory and the product exits that was mentioned by Judith on the script here, and that was a big part of that. What I think Q3 came of was the weather impact, right? So especially the dry season, the hot season in Europe and Asia, we had an impact on our fungicide applications and herb side. That is the impact that we had in Q3. We are coming now to Latin America. We are in the strong performance in Latin America. As you know, we have a very strong portfolio with Fox Supra, Fox Ultra on the fungi side together with Luna. So we had a very strong portfolio in fungi side. Also on the insecticide, we had the [indiscernible] Prime expansion. So we have LatAm in Q4 performing well, and we are hoping for that one for the full year as well. But I think the Q3 core element to call out was the impact of the weather. That's probably the one piece, and we are managing our portfolio and our platforms here to deliver. And that's why we are very confident on delivering the guidance for '26. So thank you for your questions.

And the next question comes from Matthew Weston, UBS.

My questions are about asundexian and the launch trajectory, Stefan, if I can. Clearly, we all have high expectations. I know you do, too. But can you try and help us frame some of those. Can you give us an expected split of Medicare, Medicaid versus commercial in the U.S. that you would anticipate? And then really just help how to frame that first year. Should we expect a significant phase of free drug and bridging programs at the beginning of the launch? Or are you confident that we can see some elements of meaningful revenue ramp with commercial access relatively early?

So great question, Matthew. That's the question I'm asking my team as well. And there is no clear answer because we don't have too many precedents for this. So this is most likely going to be a heavily protocolized indication. So for the acute cases, we expect people to leave the hospital with a 1-month supply. And I think this is going to put considerable pressure on payers to go for continuing these prescriptions. So that would speak for a good uptick dynamic.

But then we'll have to see really what's in the label because I think the label is going to inform us if there's any limitations that could be thrown in by payers or not at this point, it's really speculative. When it comes to Medicare, this is obviously a population that has a high level of patients that are covered through Medicare, so Medicare is going to be important, and you know that we have some limitations in terms of our promotional penetration when it comes to Medicare. Whilst for commercial plans, we're going to be very supportive to patients in the beginning so that they can continue the treatment as they get discharged from the hospital. Nothing more to share on Medicaid at this point. But I think this is something that we'll have to see how it goes. We've got to be focusing our efforts on hospital to get started so that we can get into this protocolized setting as soon as we can so that patients get discharged with the right treatment based on our very strong data set.

And we have Joe Jackson from BMO coming next.

I'm going to ask 2 questions one by one, if it's okay. First question is, and it could be Rodrigo. Bill, we've seen in the Crop Protection industry, a discussion about rebates, especially in the U.S., rebate models changing, gross to net spreads. Can you talk about what's happening in CP from Bayer's business, the gross to net spreads, pricing, how that's changed, how you've adapted?

Yes, Joe, I will -- thank you for your question. And just using the opportunity here. I did not mention, Vincent, you asked also about the impact of the raw materials, right? So there is an impact, but we are managing with the actions that we are taking also in terms of sourcing, renegotiating some of the things that was mentioned as well. I just want to call that one.

On the CP piece, Joe, just to go deeper here. We have a very clear plan. And since many years, we are managing sellout and selling on our crop protection with a very high discipline in terms of pricing inventories in the channel in terms of gross to net. So we have different gross-to-net strategy depending on the product itself, the regions itself. So we are not seeing any significant change. We are just products that are needed because of generics, but there is no massive change for us on that side right now. So we are always adjusting our plans and acting according to the market, but there is no massive impact for us on that one.

And your second question?

Yes. My second question would be -- and this would be for Bill, I'm guessing, is what have we learned? What have you learned from the separation of [indiscernible] over the last month? I mean you've been -- I'm sure, Bill, every day on this job, you've had this job, you've been asked, are you going to ever split off Crop Science one day? What have you learned from watching that operation? And if you get to a more comfort level and looking at the portfolio down the road and you were maybe to make a choice to split up Crop Science, would you think about maybe splitting off to 2 parts, seeds and crop chems separately? Or what have you learned from that experience the last month of [indiscernible]?

Yes, Joel, thanks for the question. And I'd also be interested to hear Rodrigo's thoughts on it because he's obviously the closest to the crop science business. But I would say, first off, it's 1 month in. So I'm not sure we can learn a lot from it yet.

So I think time will be a more important factor in really assessing how that goes. And I think for us, the main factor that keeps us focused on what we're doing now, which is really still pressing hard on kind of our 5 key opportunities but also on going all out with AI implementation across Bayer is just the opportunity cost of sort of structural adventures because when I think about the 88,000 people of Bayer and how hard they've been working to drive these kind of results like the asundexian, getting asundexian into market a year before our competitor has their Phase III data. That doesn't happen just sort of on its own. That's about people being laser-focused on the business, on the operations, on simplifying every process, and we've taken out almost 70% of management in the last 3 years. We've put a whole new way of operating in. You can't do that MB doing that kind of company dividing.

And so we like this focus that we have. We feel like it's driving better results. And I think I speak for all of us that we don't think we're anywhere close to done with this in terms of the improvements that we can make in terms of driving faster action, higher productivity, better customer satisfaction. So that's kind of our main thinking. We're not particularly focused on the competitors. We're focused on beating ourselves and delivering a better result every quarter. So that's probably our main outlook. But Rodrigo, maybe you have some specific insights on the crop science field and what's that -- how is that shaping up?

Just to add, I think, Joe, we talked a lot about that in [indiscernible]. For me, it's a lot of out performance and driving performance on our business in the next years. in our industry, that performance is highly connected with innovation and how we are operating. So this is what really matters for us is that we perform every platform that we have as we said.

I'll give just some examples of this year, right, that was mentioned I'm very glad that we are on the seeds and traits platform, as an example, we are at 12% year-to-date performance. Even if you exclude the licensing resolution is at 5.4%, that means 4% in corn, 10% in soybean year-to-date, 16% on cotton, 25% on the other seeds and traits, especially in canola. So we need to perform on core protection. If you compare it to the market, if you compare to the competitors already released, the discipline that we are executing our crop protection is very important. We plan this year to moderate sales because of our margin expansion focus that we have. So we account for the regulatory and the product assets. I mentioned the weather was probably a bigger impact, but that's how we manage egg, right? This is particular normal to our process.

So for me, the question that will remain is about performance. And this is the focus that we have in the organization. Very clear, the entire organization are very aligned on our 5-year framework and how we drive that in the next year. So that's the goal that we have to drive innovation growth, margin expansion and cash generation, and that's what we're going to continue to do.

So we have 3 more in line. And the next one is Christian Faitz from Kepler Cheuvreux.

Two questions, please. First of all, on Crop Science. Are you seeing weather-related channel inventories that could weigh on '27 in Crop Protection products, I guess, particularly in Europe or are you handling that already this year by rebuying some of the volumes. And second, is the settlement timing context and given that we are already well into Q4, would you still expect a significant portion of the flat EUR 5 billion cash outflow to happen this year?

Thanks, Christian. On the inventory. So I was mentioning, we have a very high discipline on managing sellout and selling. As the minute that we see any impact on the sellout where there is a market impact. We reduced our sales, we managing inventory. So that's what we do global-wise. So we don't see that in a different way. Of course, when you had a weather event like you had in Europe, you may end up with one specific country or application that you could have a little bit of that you were expecting upon new cite application and there is so dry that you don't do that, but we manage that as well. So we don't see a massive issue with inventory. I think we are managing that to the right level to keep low inventory in the channel to be able to manage the business as it should be. So I think we are on track on that one. Bill?

Actually, I think Judith is going to take that one.

Yes. On the settlement payments, we had talked about EUR 5 billion this year. We're about 60-ish percent in, I would say, so right now, we're keeping that as a forecast, there is a certain here that some of it is going to slip into next year.

Next one, Thibault Boutherin from Morgan Stanley.

Just on Pharma tariff, so limited impact this year, how should we think about next year and the margin? You announced a large investment in U.S. manufacturing. Could you confirm that discussions with the administration are ongoing as well in that context? And just a clarification, you mentioned the impact of MFN on pricing and strategy. Just to confirm that the kind of considerations are related to actually striking a deal. So as you don't have a deal at the moment, are you still constrained on launch and pricing?

Yes, I'll take it. So Thibault, thank you. So on both tariffs and -- let me first start by the Ohio investment. So the Ohio investment, clearly, is as a sign of our strategy of renewed focus of the U.S. market really coming through. That includes bringing also manufacturing to where our biggest markets are in the world that we live in now. So I think it makes all the sense in the world. That's one thing.

So the second one is about MFN and about tariffs going forward. So a point, I'm not in a position to give you a precise pinpointed guidance. These are ongoing discussions, you're right. We're one of the companies that has not signed a deal on this. So right now, that would mean we would be exposed to potential tariff impact and potential garden globe impact. And this is something that we're currently discussing still. So stay tuned. You will get an update with the first quarter and our guidance for next year.

Good. I think we have 2 more now. And so the next one is Rajesh Kumar from HSBC and then we have for more before we conclude. Rajesh, over to you.

My first question is a clarification on cost base and run rate. I appreciate there were quite a few technical elements in the quarter like inventory moves, maybe some litigation gains on discount rate changes. The nonstrategic brand sale, et cetera. So it's a bit difficult to work out what's the run rate cost base based on SG&A. If you could help us with on a run rate basis, how do you see the cost base going into '27, that would really help, especially because if you were to take the third quarter run rate and extrapolate on '27, you would start seeing margin increase in pharmaceutical, that seems contrary to what you might be saying. So that's the clarification question.

And the second one is I know you obviously don't want to speculate what mill vaccine competition in SSP might do to index and uptake and [indiscernible]. But if we were to consider the scenarios that could be one in a where mill vaccine succeeds is similar to what we have seen in case of asundexian, it could fail in SSP or it could be better. And that data will get this year. The SSP comes out next year. So -- just on the scenario that SSP is a hit miss or maybe compared to where you are, how do you see that impacting or benefiting your uptick of pricing discussions, et cetera? If you could talk to those scenarios, I'm 100% sure like everyone else you also don't know the answer. So just how you're thinking about the problem would really help.

So Stefan, I think the first question, maybe it wasn't totally clear, but I think you're talking about -- Rajesh, you're talking about the pharma margin in Q3, is that right?

Yes.

Yes. So -- and maybe just to paraphrase, I think, Stefan, you were saying that yes, you wouldn't put too much stock in the Q3 margin because you don't have the bigger spending for asundexian kicking in yet. And there was a couple of other things that were a little lumpy. So I think you got to probably go more with the longer-term guidance that Stefan has been providing rather than focusing in on Q3 and seeing Q3 as a new normal. Is that fair, Stefan?

Yes. That's exactly what I said previously. I mean we're obviously very happy to see that margin is improving based on growth. But again, some of the major cost -- additional cost is yet to come in next year, and it's going to be sort of like balancing out to some degree or maybe even overbalancing with that. We also had a relatively low R&D expenditure in Q3. Don't expect that to stay at the same level. So there's some gives and takes. So I think our previous guidance stands.

And as on asundexian, let's be clear about 2 things. One, we have -- someone at an investor meeting said to me the other day, it's a rare data set in cardiology. So I think we sometimes don't give ourselves enough credit for how good our data set really is, a 26% reduction in secondary stroke with no additional important bleeds is something that we surprised everyone with it. So that needs to be beaten or at least reached by competitor. So I feel very confident about this data set. Secondly, we have first-mover advantage. And let's not underplay this. We're strong in cardiology. We've been building our cardiology presence in the United States over the last few years and our performance on Kerendia, which, by the way, on moving 12 months has already passed the EUR 1 billion level.

As a reminder, many people were seeing this to be in its peak, a much smaller product. So we've proven that we have marketing capabilities, and we have a strong level there, too. So not we'll be riding on our label in China. We are strong anyway. And for Europe, we'll have to see where it lands. And whether asundexian has both products, both edification, one indication, I think what matters for us is our own strength. And I'm not -- and I'm also telling our teams do not look so much into the rearview mirror of who may be coming there, but rather look ahead. So we're going to continue to build on our strong differentiation that we already have at this point. We're establishing a new standard of care in stroke -- secondary stroke prevention. And so we feel very good.

Maybe one last word on margin. I understand that you're all asking this because what is clear that Pharma has turned a corner and that we're coming out of the -- what we call the resilience phase, and we're now into growth. So expect continued growth in the quarters to come. There will be -- sequentially, sometimes some months, but I think we can expect with that guidance that we've given to clearly hold. We want to grow mid-single digits ideally, of course, above, but mid-single digits in the coming years until 2030 and start margin improvement as of '27.

And the last question for today comes from Tony Jones from Redburn.

Two questions. I'll try and be quick. First one for Rodrigo. Could you just confirm the technology licensing income is still around EUR 2 billion, excluding the Corteva agreement? And are there likely to be any pluses and minuses on that in 2027? And then secondly, one quick one for Judith on cash. Is there likely to be any significant growth CapEx in '27 and '28 growth investments or any other cash costs which might impact free cash flow?

So Tony, let me address your question. So the license resolution on Q1 this year was EUR 450 million. Overall, our lifesaving business, as you said, is over EUR 2 billion, and it's correct. For majority of that is based on small and regional companies. and we are projecting on the course of our 5-year framework with the new launches that we have, [indiscernible] Biotech, [indiscernible] that we're going to continue the licensing strategy to develop that business. So you have a right number there.

And then, Tony, on investments for the future years. What I would say is we have earn the money first before we start investing in. But like I said earlier, we are very positive looking at these results and what it means for the future in terms of there will be higher cash flows from profits. We're also working on measures around trade working capital. And so we'll come back in '27 with renal projected investments in that year. But over time, we feel confident that investments will go up.

Thank you very much for your questions and interest. This concludes our Q3 2026 earnings call. Have a great day.

Good morning, and welcome to our media update for the third quarter 2026. Many thanks for joining. For today's presentation, Bill will provide an update on our year-to-date business performance and strategic priorities, and then Judith will walk you through the key drivers of our results and the outlook. And after that, we'll have time for your questions. Now before starting, I would like to briefly draw your attention to the cautionary language included in our safe harbor statement. And with that, over to you, Bill.

Thanks, Michael. Hi, everyone. We posted our results for the third quarter earlier today. And 9 months into the year, we're on track to deliver our commitments with a strong operational performance, and we're even upgrading our outlook in several areas. So sales grew 3% organically or currency and portfolio adjusted, which we'll refer to throughout today's call. Core EPS is at EUR 3.97, in line with our guidance despite some effects on the corporate lines. As expected, free cash flow is at negative EUR 3 billion due to known litigation-related payments. On the whole, our business has demonstrated operational resilience and underlying potential. Crop Science and Consumer Health are performing in line with targets while navigating market pressures.

And our Pharma business, led by Nubeqa and Kerendia demonstrates its growth momentum. Let's take a closer look. In Crop Science, the third quarter is always our smallest. Year-to-date, the business is growing about 3.5% with the EBITDA margin coming in at 24.6%. Our seed and traits business is growing double digit, supported by innovation lift and market share gains, most notably on corn globally and soy in the U.S. Our core Crop Protection business is down on the year due to expected portfolio exits, regulatory impacts and increased generic pressure. This was further compounded by a historic drought in Europe and a strong El Nino. Looking forward, LatAm is off to a strong start to the season, and we feel well positioned to deliver our '26 outlook. Pharma continues its momentum. Year-to-date, the business is growing 2% with an EBITDA margin of 26.8%. Nubeqa is up 60% year-to-date and Kerendia is growing 76% in the same time frame. And we continue to strengthen product profiles and growth prospects of both of these brands. Our newer launches are also progressing well.

In Q3, Beyonttra entered our top 15 pharma products in terms of sales for the first time. Xarelto and EYLEA continue to decline in line with our expectations, but we've reached a turning point in pharma's growth trajectory, and we're beginning to see the other side. For the full year, we now expect sales growth towards the upper end of our guidance range. And on the back of our strong performance year-to-date, we're also upgrading our margin outlook to 25% to 27%. To support the future growth trajectory of our Pharma business, we announced our plans to build a state-of-the-art production facility in New Albany, Ohio in Q3. The facility will support our growing portfolio in oncology, cardiovascular and renal care, and it will complement our global site network in pharma, which we continue to invest in as appropriate. Finally, Consumer Health. We're growing 2% so far this year, and our EBITDA margin is at 22.9%. Our dermatology and Digestive Health businesses continue to grow, led by contributions from Bepanthen across all regions and MiraLAX in the U.S. Allergy and cold is our only category that's down due to a weaker season. We continue to see challenging market dynamics, particularly in North America, but we remain focused on achieving our 2026 commitments and delivering for the consumers that are counting on us.

Overall, we remain confident in our 2026 targets for the group. We expect our Pharma business to continue its momentum and come in better than previously projected. And we're upgrading our outlook for adjusted EBITDA, free cash flow and net financial debt. Operationally, Bayer continues to make good progress, and we'll stay focused on strengthening our performance 90 days at a time. Now let's move on to our strategic priorities. First, the pharma pipeline. I mentioned Nubeqa's growth momentum. At recent ESMO Congress, we presented interim results that bolster this medicine's potential. This analysis showed an impressive 58% reduction in the risk of metastasis or death in prostate cancer patients with a very high risk of recurrence. We're really pleased with this data. Of course, we're cognizant of market dynamics like competitor genericization and pricing pressures. We feel that these results reinforce Nubeqa's overall potential. The biggest news out of our pipeline came in the beginning of last week when we received the first approval for Asundexian in secondary stroke prevention in China under the brand name Sun Harbo as Asundexian is now the first approved Factor XIa inhibitor worldwide, and we're focused on obtaining additional approvals.

Now here, I want to congratulate the Bayer team that got Asundexian into this point. Our scientists in Vipetol invented this molecule and have worked on it for more than a decade. Even after a setback in November of 2023, they haven't lost sight of what Asundexian could mean for stroke survivors. They've embraced our operating model and artificial intelligence, which allowed them to substantially compress the time line, getting this medicine to patients a year early. That's incredible impact. Now regarding Crop Science profitability, we continue to address pressures on crop protection through actions under our 5-year framework. In Q3, we further consolidated crop protection, production activities, and we reduced costs. We'll continue to monitor the market closely and take actions as necessary. We're also advancing differentiated innovation in seeds and traits as well as crop protection. Last month, we introduced the new insecticide Plenexos to the Mexican market, while the Viconic soybean stack advanced into the final stage of EU import approval, bringing us one step closer to launching this key blockbuster. On the Roundup litigation, we remain focused on our significant containment, and we're on track.

In September, the class settlement between plaintiffs Class Counsel and Monsanto reached the final approval hearing. The company remains confident in the proposed class settlement. We appreciate that it's getting a thorough review and we await the judge's ruling. Why is this important? As we've said before, the path to resolving mass litigation in the U.S. almost always involves a settlement, and we reached a deal with plaintiffs Class Counsel. So together with the Supreme Court's June ruling, the class settlement offers the company the best path to significant containment. That's what we committed to. That's what we aim to deliver. Now as we move toward that goal, there will still be a much smaller number of individual cases pending against the company. One case was just decided in our favor. We take that as a strong sign that our containment work is advancing. Last week's Aretino case was important because it was the first case that went to trial after the Supreme Court 72 decision, which struck down the failure to Warren legal theory. In this case, plaintiffs had to present a legal theory based on design defect and negligence claims. And the fact that all 12 jurors cited with the company should be informative for those seeking to pursue claims in the court system.

We'll continue to handle cases in the best interest of the company, and we're awaiting an important decision on the settlement. I also want to mention PCBs, which differ from the glyphosate cases in terms of the multifaceted nature of the claims. Our legal strategy accounts for this, and we'll continue to defend these matters vigorously or pursue settlements. We expect legal proceedings in the coming quarters and will act in the company's best interest. Now looking ahead, we're focused on closing 2026 strong and achieving our targets. The ag season is underway in Latin America. Pharma has strong momentum with existing launch assets and potential new medicines reaching the market. And Consumer Health is going to embrace our operating model to navigate the softer market and deliver the year. And we see an exciting future for Bayer, a future in which the company is viewed differently than in the past. We're focused on improving revenues, increasing productivity and cash generation through our operating model and the rollout of AI.

We want to sharpen our capital allocation with resources focused on the biggest mission impact while continuing to deleverage. We'll continue to update you on our progress, and we have the next opportunity with our full year results in February next year. So now over to you, Judith.

Thank you, Bill. And hello to all of you. After the first 9 months of the year, we see very good momentum and are happy to be able to upgrade our full year group outlook for adjusted EBITDA, free cash flow and net financial debt. Year-to-date, we delivered organic sales growth of 3% and adjusted EBITDA growth of 7% compared to last year. In Q3, Pharmaceuticals was the key driver of group performance, supporting organic sales growth of 2% and adjusted EBITDA growth of 7%. And Foreign exchange effects were a year-on-year tailwind on reported results in Q3, contributing approximately EUR 250 million to net sales. This was primarily driven by the weaker euro against the U.S. dollar, Brazilian real and Chinese renminbi.

On a year-to- basis. However, currency effects continue to weigh on results, reducing sales by around EUR 700 million and adjusted EBITDA by approximately EUR 360 million. Year-to-date, core earnings per share of EUR 3.97 benefited from stronger operational contributions particularly from Crop Science and Pharmaceuticals offset by both a weaker core financial results and higher core taxes. In Q3, Strong adjusted EBITDA in Pharma contributed positively to core EPS. However, we saw softer performance in the other divisions. We also saw pressure from noncash effects in the financial result mainly driven by interest related fair value changes in some of our employee benefit and pension instruments. Turning to free cash flow. We reported negative EUR 3 billion for the first 9 months of the year, largely driven by EUR 3.7 billion of litigation-related payments. This was slightly better than expected. Excluding these payments, underlying operational cash flow is ahead versus prior year, driven by improved trade working capital as well as licensing, resolution income and the Avelox divestment.

In Q3, Free cash flow was negative EUR 300 million, including the second payment into the class settlement fund. Finally, net debt increased to EUR 31.1 billion, reflecting a notable improvement versus both Q3 and Q2 '26. This was primarily driven by the successful closing of the Apollo equity investment, which generated proceeds of EUR 3 billion. we had announced this transaction in the second quarter. Let's move on to the group outlook. With the strong pharma performance, we now expect adjusted EBITDA for the group between EUR 9.8 million and EUR 10.3 billion at constant currencies, up from our initial guidance range of EUR 9.6 billion to EUR 10.1 billion. We reiterate our current guidance range for core EPS. Core financial results and core taxes are expected to remain within the modeling ranges, including the noncash effects we saw in Q3. On free cash flow, we continue to work on all cash flow levers, including profits, working capital and CapEx. We are raising our full year outlook by EUR 1 billion to minus EUR 1.5 million to minus EUR 0.5 billion. The previous forecast have been between minus EUR 2.5 billion and minus EUR 1.5 billion.

The improved free cash flow performance is anticipated to result in lower net financial debt at year-end, which we now expect to be in the range of EUR 28 billion to EUR 29 billion at constant currencies. This compares to the previous range of EUR 29 million to EUR 30 billion. Finally, on currencies, we have updated the foreign exchange estimate based on September month-end spot rates which remained rather stable compared to our last estimate. I will close with the divisional outlook. In Crop Science, our performance through the first 9 months keeps us on track to deliver within full year guidance ranges. Strong seats and trades performance is expected to offset additional core crop protection headwinds. Looking ahead to the fourth quarter, we expect continued momentum in Latin America. The year-on-year comparison for Crop Science will be impacted by prior year licensing income. For our Pharma business, Q3 marked the starting point for a sustainable return to growth.

Based on the current performance, we expect to finish '26 at the upper end of our organic sales growth outlook. While we remain committed to investing in our launches and advancing our pipeline in Q4 top line growth is expected to further support full year margin expansion. We therefore upgrade our full year outlook for the adjusted EBITDA margin to between 25% and 27%, up from 24% to 26% previously. For Consumer Health, the performance in the first 9 months supports our full year guidance. Based on the development year-to-date and our current expectations for the fourth quarter, we expect full year growth in the lower half of the guidance range. Market conditions remain mixed, especially in the United States, competitive dynamics in nutritionals and the development of the cough cold season remain important factors for the fourth quarter. Our focus remains clear, invest behind our strongest brands and innovation while allocating resources towards our most attractive growth opportunities. Looking ahead, we will, of course, provide our '27 outlook with our full year 2026 results, but I want to highlight some trends we are seeing.

Firstly, Crop Science will face a tougher year-on-year comparison in the absence of licensing resolution income. We continue to monitor a mixed agricultural environment with pressured pharmaeconomics, generic competition and weather uncertainty, but we believe that underlying demand remains resilient. We will respond with appropriate measures as we execute our 5-year framework. Secondly, the U.S. tariffs on pattern and pharmaceuticals have been considered in our guidance for this year. On drug pricing, we continue to evaluate what U.S. most favorite nation policies may mean for our pricing and launch strategies. I want to end my remarks by reiterating that we remain firmly focused on our financial priorities, strengthening our balance sheet, improving productivity and cash generation and building financial flexibility to invest in next-generation growth. With that, over to you, Michael, for the Q&A.

[Operator Instructions]

We have a first question coming from Sonja Wind from Bloomberg followed then by Kevin Grogan from Script. Sonja over to you.

Good morning. Can you hear me?

Yes, we can hear you. I think with a little bit more, let's say, volume here in the room, but we can hear you.

My first question would be on the next big position settlement proposal. Plaintiffs can fill up in as of now, as I understand it. So I would be curious to hear if you are satisfied with the proportion of opt-ins and puts as of today. You also mentioned the -- can you give us some context on the financial exposure that is remaining there? Do you believe that the current provisions are sufficient to cover the cases that are still outstanding? And then lastly, I would have a question on the drug pricing. So you're availing Asundexian approval in the U.S. and Europe, it's under review. I'm curious what alternative options launching strategies you're looking at because not launching is one option, but maybe are you looking at private market launches as well?

Yes. Sonja. Good to hear from you. Yes, first, regarding the question about, I guess, what we could call opt-ins. So this would be people who opted out before the -- there was an opt-out deadline that was in early June. And there were actually quite a few people who originally opted out who are now actually trying to get back in because since that early June opt-out deadline. There's been a couple of big events, including the SCOTUS approval, the fairness hearing, which we thought went well. And then also this most recent loss on these alternative legal theories. So there's actually a lot of sort of opt-outs and plaintiffs who were representing opt-outs who are now trying to get in.

So I think it's possible that there will be quite a few more of those coming back in even after the approval would come, we're assuming that there will be an approval from the court just because we believe that this is a good deal it's supported by the overwhelming majority of the plaintiffs' attorneys as well as the company. But -- so there'll be a ruling, but there could well be more basically returning opt outs coming back in after that because it's an administrative process, there's papers that have to be signed and notarized on things. So we would expect that based on cases also like the Aretino case that we just mentioned, where the jury sided 12-0 with the company that a lot of people who were thinking about challenging before the Supreme Court ruling, before this latest trial, a lot of them trying to get back in, we're getting those calls now, and we think that will continue.

So I just say that because I guess you should expect that when there's a ruling on a final ruling on the settlement, there will be a certain number of opt outs at that point but that number should continue to go down as more of those come in and get through the administrative process Secondly, on -- you asked about PCBs. PCB has been -- there's been PCB litigation since the 1980s. It flared in the '80s, they flared in the '90s. There were some in the 2000s. We have a number of these cases in Washington state that we've resolved earlier this year. And so we sort of expect with PCBs that there will be cases, and then there will be kind of lulls, and then there will be cases and this is something we have to deal with in an ongoing fashion. We have some reserves for this, but obviously, we only reserve for things when we believe there is a high likelihood of something occurring. And on PCBs, that would be very difficult to judge.

So I think this is -- we view this as something that's going to be ongoing in the background, and we'll deal with that. And we have plans on how to deal with that with a combination of our defense and certain strategic settlements. So that will continue. And then you asked about drug pricing for Asundexian. Look, the main goal, Sonia, would be that we have a reasonable price for Asundexian and approved in all the major markets. This is a medicine that is a game changer in the treatment of stroke Something like this doesn't come along often, and patients in every country should have access. And so that's got to be our goal. And the key is we're working with countries like the German government to say, "Hey, this needs to be a reasonable price. I mean, by the way, I was just looking at this data the other day. Since AMNOG was created in Germany, which is the price control authority in Germany, prescription drug prices have gone down 10%. That's over 15 years. They've gone down 10%.

At the same time, the general inflation has driven the price of everything up by 44%. So the cost of R&D, the cost of production and the cost of everything else have gone up 44% while pharmaceutical prices have gone down 10%. And that's not reasonable. And so this is something we're working with and other pharmaceutical companies are working with actively in Europe because Europe should not become a pharmaceutical desert. But that's what these kind of price containment policies could lead to. And so we're optimistic with Asundexian, we can get to a good outcome, but it remains a concern.

Okay. The next question comes from Kevin Grogan from Scrip followed by Patrick Thomas from the Wall Street Journal. Kevin, over to you.

I've got a couple of pharma questions, please. First of all, Bill, I remember in the past, you were saying that, in general, you preferred earlier stage assets to bring in if you've got more value else can do more with them. But given that Beyonttra now starting to bloom and very impressive performance in the third quarter, have you maybe looking to revisit that plan and maybe getting other late-stage assets into sort of further boost the portfolio there. And also a quick one on Lynkuet launch, how is that going? Because obviously, there's a lever monitoring aspect. Is this very much a sort of a wait and see kind of thing? Is it very difficult to announce because obviously, your friends at Astellas had similar problems in actually in terms of the speed of launch.

Yes. Thanks, Kevin. It sounds like you're in fine form today, which is good because I guess you're an hour earlier than us maybe, so good for you. Yes. So on your question about early-stage deals our preference there, of course, we would love to do late-stage deals that are really great value, and we can get big blockbusters when they're all ready to launch. And so it's not that we don't like late-stage deals. It's just the general observation that late-stage deals tend to come at a very high price tag. And in fact, in my 30 years in the industry, I've been tracking this. And my estimate would be that between 80% and 90% of late-stage deals end up being negative NPV. That's not -- like I don't go to the casino either because the house is rigged against you.

And so doing late-stage deals as a matter of course, is not a good way to run a pharma business. unless you like to pay more than things are worth. Of course, if we find a great medicine that is available in late stage at reasonable terms, then, of course, we'd like to do that deal. And so Beyonttra is a great example of that. We think this is going to be a really important medicine, and we think it was an attractive deal. Usually, when you can get an attractive deal on a late-stage medicine it's either 1 of 2 things is true. Either it's because you know something about that indication, that disease or that market that other people don't know, and I've been a part of deals like that in the past, for example, in multiple sclerosis at former companies where we knew something about the therapy area of the disease, and we were able to make a really good deal based on that unique insight or you have some asset that the partner needs.

And for example, in the case of Beyonttra, we have production capacity and not only capacity but we have, I would say, world-class ability to go from somebody else's process to putting the process in our facility and getting it approved by regulators. And so I think that combination was actually quite helpful for us in getting the Beyonttra deal. And we're -- yes, in fact, we're doing that with a number of products also including Nubeqa, we're beginning to produce it in-house because of that capability. We'll keep an eye out for good late-stage deals, but we're not relying on that for our future pipeline. And instead, we are focused on doing a lot of deals early and getting a lot of shots on goal. We have a world-class drug development organization that can move things very rapidly, and we have a very low cost structure. And so I would put our speed and cost structure of drug development up against any company in the world, and we want to capitalize on that. And by the way, Asundexian, great case in point. Because there was a very competitive Phase II race with Factor XIa inhibitors but we're in the market and our competition doesn't have Phase III results yet.

So I think we've demonstrated we can move fast. And so our strategy really is to get as many molecules as possible that are high-quality molecules, whether they're from in-house labs like Asundexian and came from Wuppertal in right down the street in Germany from our own chemists. You look at things that are coming out of [Vividion] in San Diego or Blue Rock or AskBio. So these are sort of in-house innovation centers or external, but we want to get as many quality molecules in early stage as possible and then go through development in really fast timing. That's our strategy. On liquid, yes. I mean we know this is a -- how would I say, it's not a simple marketplace because menopause is sort of I think often it's people satisfied with it. Women just decide, hey, I'm just going to get on with life despite these symptoms. And so it's sort of undertreated. The options are under recognized. There's a relatively low awareness.

So we think it's going to take a little while to get the get the awareness up, get physicians used to using these medicines. We like our label. You mentioned liver testing. I think we think we have a good label. We're not hearing a lot of pushback on that. It's -- I think it's more a question of inertia and kind of overcoming that market inertia.

Okay. Talking about being very up early for the call. Next in line is Patrick Thomas from the Wall Street Journal and then followed by Antonin from Rainer [indiscernible] Patrick, over to you.

Can you guys hear me okay?

Yes.

Two quick things. Bill, I'm wondering if you can give us just a quick sense of with the midterms today here in the U.S. How are you guys expecting the results, especially if the Democrats win control of both houses to impact bar? Will there be more scrutiny either from a competition perspective or if there's specific policies there, maybe you can push for in a divided Congress or how that may impact the farmer. Can you just walk us through a little bit of some of the scenario planning there. And then lastly, I just want to ask, if the settlement gets the green light from the court and Roundup, can you -- when is it time to waive the mission accomplished kind of flag there with crop science since you took over and kind of give us a sense of how far down the line is that turnaround is in crop science. So thanks guys.

Yes. Thanks, Patrick. I hope you're not in Chicago right now because...

No, in New York today.

Okay. So then it's only -- what is it, 430? So -- but I hope you have a big cup of coffee then at least. Yes, midterms, wow, that's kind of -- I know that's big news in America right now. And today is obviously today. And I would say, look, Bayer, we operate in over 100 countries around the world. We deal with all kinds of parties and all kinds of governments and the thing is our products at the end of the day, it's about people's health and about people's nutrition. And those are kind of -- in a sense, they're nonpartisan topics or they should be -- and so we have very good relationships with members of both the main political parties in the U.S. I would say the -- some of the topics are really cross-cutting topics.

So for example, cost of health care and the need for smart ways to pay for health care, that's becoming more of a bipartisan topic, nutrition and the importance of improving nutrition standards. That's I would say -- I don't know if it's bipartisan, but it's certainly not the monopoly of one party or the other. So we're going to work with reasonable people in both parties to try to get the best possible policies for America and for our mission, which is, yes, better health and better food for everyone in the world and everyone in America. America is our #1 market. It's the source of a lot of our innovation, and we have a deep commitment. When I was there, for example, recently in Ohio to announce our new facility. We had members of Congress from both parties. And they recognize that, hey, America was built on collaboration. And at the end of the day that people have to work it out because what's best for America is what's best for the people, which is things like availability of breakthrough medicines, availability of healthy food. And so yes, we'll work with both parties.

Regarding, yes, when will we say mission accomplished? Well, I have to admit, to my personality, I don't ever feel like the mission is accomplished. Because we can always do better and I'm pleased, for example, that we're improving our margins in crop science. I'm pleased that we're having a really strong year in seeds and traits. We're kind of weathering the storm in crop protection, which has been really down market. As you know, some of our competition has had really, really negative results. And we're kind of holding up. So I'm very proud of what we're accomplishing there, but we have more work to do. And we still have close to 1 billion people in the world that are food and secure, and we're tackling that. We're tackling that in America. We're tackling that in Brazil. I'm going to be in Africa in a couple of weeks in a couple of countries where we have major initiatives on how can we make them food self-sufficient. So I don't -- you're not going to see me waving the mission accomplished flag anytime soon, Patrick. But that's not because we're not making progress. I think we're going to continue to deliver better results every year. but mission is not going to be accomplished for a long time.

Thank you. Next question comes from Anja Ettel, followed by its Andre, over to you.

Thank you. Last time, you said that having 3 separate divisions is not the standard structure today. What does the impending end of the wave of lawsuits mean for the proposed spin-offs is a spin-off of consumer health, for example, now on the horizon. And as always, my question for the employees. How many jobs has Bayer so far? It's part of the reorganization under DSO. I know it's not a job cut program, but in the side it is and does this mean the job cuts are over now?

Yes. Thanks, Anja. And let's see, spin-off, litigation. Yes, where are we on that? I think it's pretty simple. We have -- we decided a few years ago that breaking up the company was not the right answer at the time because we needed to tackle all these kind of 5 key issues. And now we've actually made a lot of progress on tackling those 5 key issues. But as I've explained also in the summer, we have a lot of momentum on those. We have some work to do. For example, we're improving our margins in crop science, but we got to get better at that. And that's a lot of change that's required to do that. We're rebuilding our pharma portfolio, but we have more to do on that. And in Consumer Health, we started turning the ship around where we were dependent a lot on price increases and not growing volume. And now trying to get back towards volume growth, and we're seeing signs of that, but we're not satisfied with where we are.

In addition to those things, we've got to really nail down the litigation and then we have AI, which, frankly, 3 years ago, it was a novelty, but it wasn't really on our radar screen. And now it's become a major driver for productivity improvements and basically, we are continually looking at the environment and saying, "Hey, what should we be doing? What's in the best interest of the mission, our employees, the shareholders, and it's really clear to us we have so much going on, so much activity that's productive activity, and we're making gains every quarter. And it's really clear to us in management. The last thing we're going to do is stop all that and say, "Hey, put all that on hold for 2 to 3 years while we do some sort of spinoff or break out. So we're not doing that today. And as I said, we continue to watch the environment. If the environment changes, and we think, oh, something like that would be a good idea or would be warranted, you'll be the first one to know, Anja. But until then, we are super focused on driving the momentum in this business and making Bayer the fastest, leanest, most innovative life science company in the world.

By the way, I wouldn't have said that 3 years ago because people would have laughed it would have just been a joke. But I can tell you, having cut out almost 70% of the management jobs, that's no joke in terms of being lean. We've demonstrated it with products like Asundexian in terms of being fast and I believe we're getting ready to demonstrate it on the innovative side with things like the blockbuster launches in crop science. So all that to say is you'll be the first to know if we decide to do something different. But right now, we're really going to be focused on capitalizing on our strengths. Regarding your jobs question, I think we're down about 14,000 jobs from our peak in 2023. As you said, it's -- that's not really a one-to-one correlation with dynamic shared ownership. In fact, we've actually added a lot of jobs. For example, we've built out some big innovation centers in AI with software engineers, and AI experts that are driving really rapid deployment of AI across Bayer in some really cool ways. Those things are netted in that 14,000 number.

So more than that when jobs went away, but then we've added new ones. You asked whether there's going to be more job cuts. Personally, I would say, yes, there's probably going to be fewer numbers of positions. If I look out over the next 3 to 4 years. because we're getting more efficient. And we're using AI to drive personal productivity. And so we probably won't have to hire as many people as we would have. So -- but I think that's good because, again, our mission is to drive as much innovation as possible for the people of the world, and we got to do that, yes, in the most effective way we can.

Thank you. Next question comes from Patricia Weiss from Reuters followed then by Ayisha Sharma from Endpoint news. Patricia, over to you.

Hello. Good morning. I hope you can hear me well. Live giving a promising progress in mitigating legal risk by year-end as promised, actually alongside renewed growth in Pharma, is Bayer finally ready to close the Monsanto chapter? And what is your strategy going forward? And secondly, when exactly do you expect the final court approval of the settlement?

Yes, I'm just taking a few notes here Patricia. Yes. So I would say -- maybe I probably wouldn't use it -- I probably wouldn't say it the way you described it in terms of the chapters we're going through because how it feels like inside the company, is that if we say go 3 years back, we had 3 promising divisions. We had a lot of -- we had a beautiful mission that people believe strongly in, but we were lacking some key products and innovation. We have this big litigation overhang. We have the quite a clunky management structure. By the way, I just want to be clear on this. So we had 16,000 managers and 102,000 people. Three years ago, okay? 16,000 managers, 102,000 people, that's actually about average or maybe a little better than average for big corporations.

If you look at other companies like Bayer that are in complex businesses like pharmaceuticals or developing agriculture innovation you would find that 16% of employees being managers is actually kind of low. But today, we're at 4,500. So we went from, I would say, a very traditional and typical management, hierarchical approach, basically bureaucratic approach, which is every other 100,000-person company that I come across is pretty much like that to being super lean. And with that leanness has come speed. And so I guess we would say, we started a new chapter 3 years ago. And now the question is how far can we take that. And I've been actually all over bear pretty much every continent this year and many, many Bayer countries and Bayer sites, talking to our people about, hey, what are we going to do now? What's our next act? The last 3 years been fighting to save the company, but also to put in a fundamentally new foundation. It's like building a house. If you have an old house and you are to say you have some things you like about it, but it needs a real -- a total makeover, you got to do some extreme surgery. And we've actually done that now. That part is behind us.

But now the question is, hey, how far can we leverage that to bring our mission to life even more. And so I think this is the conversation we're having inside Bayer we are moving into the next chapter, but the next chapter is going to be about doubling down on innovation, and we're going to use all the efficiency measures we have at our disposal through our system, like Dynamic shared ownership, which allows extreme flexibility with resources. We're going to use that to drive a lot more innovation, investment in pipeline and better returns. So yes, I think we're there. Maybe -- I don't know if that answers your question in the way you asked it, but that's how we see it. In terms of the timing on the settlement, it's really hard to speculate. It could be any week now. I think it's probably the best way to say it. We said we expected it before Christmas. I think we still expect it before Christmas. So that's coming up fast.

Okay. The next question comes from Ayisha Sharma from Endpoint News. Ayisha, over to you.

Just going back to the launch of Asundexian and MFN. I know you've said you're committed to sort of launching the medicine globally, including in Europe, but will that launch look any different or be structured any differently because of pricing pressures? So for instance, will there be more of a focus on private launches rather than public health systems. And secondly, you said that AI helped you compress time lines for the approval of Asundexian in China. Could you perhaps share a bit more color on that? So when were you initially planning to secure an approval in China? And how far forward did I bring that? And how exactly did AI help? I'd like to get a bit more color on that.

Yes. Thanks, Ayisha. So first, the question about Asundexian pricing, access, MFN, et cetera. Look, we are -- so with respect to MFN, we're working on that right now in the U.S., and that's an active topic for us, but we expect to have a good resolution that's good for America, good for Bayer. In terms of the access, our strategy is, for sure, a broad strategy, not some sort of private only thing because, again, this is a molecule that should over the coming decades, save millions of lives. And we -- yes, our mission, which you see in the background, which is health for all, it doesn't say health for people with private insurance. And so we got to work on that. And we're going to fight really hard with everything we have to make sure that this medicine is covered broadly.

And then your question about AI and China approval, let me just clarify. I was referring to AI and Dynamic shared ownership, helping accelerate the overall progress of Asundexian so that we're able to launch it so fast. That includes the China approval, but I wasn't meaning specific to China. Although we are doing a lot with AI in China as well. But we're using AI, for example, a lot of work in terms of compiling regulatory submissions data cleaning and tabulation. We're using AI, a huge amount of AI in manufacturing, quality control in things like validation runs. And it would be impossible for me to list exactly all the places on that one molecule. But it's something that's really swept our company. And I can tell you because I -- well, so just again, think about Bayer now. We have 88,000 people and we have 4,500 managers. So that means we have 83,000 individual contributors.

And when I talk to Bayer managers and ask, hey, how many of you have had your jobs, your daily work transformed by AI okay? The managers, I would say, maybe 20% raise their hand. When I talk to individual contributors and particularly people like scientists, engineers, statisticians, doctors, agronomists. I mean, these are the people that are doing the most of our -- I would say, our knowledge work, the heavy lifting, on innovation, on analysis. When I talk to those people also in finance, legal, HR, enabling functions, and I ask them, okay, how many of you would say that AI has transformed your daily work? 80%, 70% will be very quick to raise their hands. This is -- I know there's a lot of talk in the big wide world about AI security risk. I think that's real. There's talk about AI replacing jobs, AI, job armageddon, we're not seeing that at Bayer. What we're seeing is AI is making Bayer people have more capability to drive innovation faster, create molecules faster, test them faster. I see it as a big win for our people, for our mission, for society. That's why I think the risk parts of AI need to be dealt with -- but we shouldn't lose sight of what this can do for productivity, for things like improving the availability of nutritious food, improving the availability of breakthrough medicines. This is -- count me as an AI positive.

Okay. The next question comes from Jonas Jansen, [indiscernible] followed then by Andrew Noel from Chemical ESG. Jonas, over to you.

I would think that all your competitors also use AI in the same amount. So I was wondering how you still got the, I don't know, time the 1-year advantage? And I was thinking if that's then mostly DSO effect? And if you would say that by maybe 5 years ago wouldn't have made it in the same time. What do you think?

Yes. Jonas, I'm glad you asked about that. And also mentioning competitors, and yes, probably the majority of the advantage we have on Asundexian and timing is -- the majority of that probably is from DSO because we -- most of that gain we locked in, in going from Phase II to Phase III really fast. And that -- the as Asundexian team was one of our front runners, it was one of our first DSO teams. So I think that's right. But that being said, I think we have an advantage in AI over many of our competitors for a really simple reason. I just talked about how AI is a tool that is driving the productivity of the individual contributors of the organization. It's not really a management tool. It it's designing processes faster. It's designing molecules faster. That's not a management task. Managers aren't designing molecules. Managers are creating new chemical processes. That is the work of scientists, engineers, biologists, agronomists, et cetera.

And it's -- how do I say this is really an accident for us. Because when we implemented DSO, we weren't thinking about AI. But now that we have DSO, we're loving it because we basically -- our strategy with AI is not, oh, the Management Board is going to figure out AI implementation and tell everyone what to do. That would be folly. That will be crazy. It would be like in the '80s, when I started my career, I remember my first job, like my boss and my boss's boss, they didn't have computers right? Like when you went into their office for a meeting, their desk had papers on it, but there was no computer, right? And so my point is, my generation, we drove the computer revolution. The use of PCs. That was -- we did that, not our bosses. It's going to be the individual contributors who drive the AI revolution. And we've created a system that basically puts the individual contributors in charge of 95% of decision-making.

And so the job of managers is to support that. And so I believe that's a key reason why Bayer is adopting AI so fast. Because in other companies, the managers are like gatekeepers on AI adoption. And in our company, the individual contributors are off to the races. So this is part of the reason why we feel so strongly about our strategy that we're on right now and not letting up because we think this is an incredible time of increased productivity for the firm.

Thank you. And then we have last questions coming from Andrew Noel, Chemical ESG. Andrew, over to you.

I just have 1 probably a short one. I realize this topic isn't going to be foremost in your mind, but it's been a month since the [ Corteva ] split with Vylor and there's been that debate around an integrated model or best is separate. I just wondered, have you had any feedback from the chain, from Rodrigo about market share gains or maybe you've been able to benefit from the turbulence from their split or what have you. But like I said, I realize it's probably not a big topic one month in.

Yes. Thanks, Andrew. Look, I know this. Our people believe very strongly that we are able to best serve the grower, the farmer when we show up on their farm, and we have a whole suite of solutions. And by the way, Pression, which is our new short corn, that's a prime example. Some of the things we showed at our Crop Science Day in Iowa that I think some of you got to be a part of -- these are growing systems that include not only better plants, better crop protection chemicals and then digital farming solutions that help in terms of all the decisions about land management, timing of the planting, all these things, where they come together. And so we believe that's a great asset that we bring to farmers and growers I think the results will be seen in the market in the quarters ahead.

But I will say this, we are not primarily focused on competitors. We are primarily focused on the mission and driving innovation. I get to see this because Bayer, we have a football club and the thing is in football, you either win or you lose. There's no, how do I say, it's a win-lose sport. Sports is [indiscernible] loose. Innovation, it's not like that. When I see a competitor that does something great, has some great innovation, I think, wow, that's awesome. Good for the customer. I wish we'd gotten there first, but I'm glad to see that innovation come in. Bayer, we are not focused on the competition. We are focused on getting breakthrough products faster to patients, to farmers and to consumers. And I think we're starting to show what we can do with that. we've got a lot more in store. So thanks for the interest, Andrew. And yes, we're going to keep going.

All right. Thank you very much. Thanks to Judith. Thanks to Bill. And first and foremost, thank you very much for your questions and for your interest. This concludes our session today, and we wish you all a very good day. Thank you very much.

So delighted to welcome Bayer Consumer Health to the back-to-school conference. Welcome, guys. I'm going to try and make this 5-way conversation work. So let's see if we can figure this out. So I want to introduce the team, Julio, CEO; got Magnus, CFO; Dave, R&D; and Trevor, Head of North America. So I think I'm right on that.

So listen, there's a lot to discuss. Consumer health is a super dynamic category. Maybe the way we're going to try and do this is I've got a few questions, and we're going to kind of go down the line type thing. And hopefully, it will work.

So perhaps by way of kind of introducing yourself to this audience because -- maybe a lot of people haven't come across you that often. Can you -- can we start a little bit, Julio, talking a bit about the Bayer Consumer Health business, maybe orientate us in terms of your sales, your margins, some of your key brands and the kind of geographical spread of your business, just to start with.

Yes. Happy to do that. So hello, everyone. And so we have a business that is, first of all, is #3 in the world of consumer health. So, the way you need to think -- look at this is Haleon is #1, Kenvue #2 or #3. The size of our business is around EUR 6 billion. This year, we're growing at 3.5%. That was in the first half of the year. Our margin was 22.3% -- we guided at the beginning of this year that we would be between 0% and 4%. So we're at the upper range of that growth projection.

We still kept our guidance because we don't see a recovery of the market in some of our key markets taking place yet. So if anything, we continue to expect that it's going to be a challenging market. So in terms of margin, the 22.3% is within the range of 22% to 24%, which is what we had guided. Now in terms of what is our portfolio, we are pretty much present in the key categories in consumer health. So we have presence in seasonal categories, allergy and cough and cold.

The -- these are the only ones that in the first half of the year did not show any growth. The rest of the categories, I will mention in every single one, we've been growing. And that is everything that has to do with cardio, pain, digestive health, nutritionals and medicated skin health, dermatology. So in all of them, we've been growing. In terms of giving you a perspective of where we are in the world, we are present in more than 100 countries.

And this is one of the reasons why we've been very resilient to the challenges in some of the key markets. But when you do take a look at where is the majority of our presence, that's basically the U.S. is our largest market, followed by China and then Germany. So that's more or less the spread.

You mentioned cold and allergy. Could you maybe just outline how big a weight that, that business is within your portfolio?

Yes. So that's about 20% of our entire portfolio worldwide. That is different to the U.S. So for the U.S., cough and cold and allergy is larger. It's close to 40%. So we are -- whenever there are issues with these categories, and there's been in terms of the seasonality, that impacts our U.S. business mostly.

And is it an area you've seen destocking? Do you have any views on the cold and flu season, the allergy season upcoming?

Yes. And I think probably Trevor will be best positioned to do that. And I'll just make a couple of comments. In terms of the destocking because I know that, that was something that in the last couple of years has been an issue we've been dealing with. We don't see destocking taking place for the rest of the year. I think all the adjustments that our retail partners needed to make have been made and we're not seeing that as much in this year, especially in North America, in the U.S.

There was some destocking taking place in the first half of the year, perhaps in some other parts of the world, but we don't see this, especially in North America. But Trevor, maybe if you want to go ahead and take the other one.

Yes. I think on North America, we did a lot of work over '23 and '24, 2023, '24 to really help normalize the inventories since COVID. COVID really threw us for a bit of a loop in terms of what is the right level of inventory. So we've taken care of all that. We don't see destocking being a major issue in terms of our results. What you might see is some phasing -- so as we look into the season, retailers are trying to balance their inventory levels to say when is the right time to order the stock.

So we are seeing some phasing between Q3 and Q4, but we don't see that as a major impact to the business overall. We feel like our inventory levels are at the right stage right now, and we're monitoring those very closely within this category.

And maybe back to you, Julio. Obviously, several of your competitors have spun out of their parent companies. The rationale being obviously that consumer health and pharma are fundamentally very different business models with pretty few synergies. How has sort of Bayer and Bayer Consumer Health reacted internally to this evolution? I mean the factual here is interesting in itself. Do you see sort of benefits from remaining embedded within Bayer -- or maybe under what conditions could you see yourself as a separate company?

Yes. Thank you so much for the question because we get it a lot. Sorry. Not the -- so we get it in every conference we go to. And it really has to do with what is the mission we have as the Bayer Group. And I don't know, all of you that follow Bayer, we have a vision of Health for All, Hunger for None. And to be able to really live up to that mission, we need to have the 3 businesses that we have. With respect to health, we have a definition of health that really it's all encompassing.

So for us, in Bayer, health starts with self-care, prevention, goes through diagnosis, treatment, and we even are working on cures. So if that is your definition of health, strategically, you want to have those capabilities in-house. That is one of the reasons why we continue to have the business and we'll continue to have it. We're not here because we're thinking otherwise. We actually believe that when you take a look at the macro trends in the world today, you see a what we call a consumerization of pharmaceuticals or a consumerization of health.

You see that, for example, with everything that's happening around the GLP-1s and so on, where consumers have a larger say in terms of what is it that they're going to take, consume and they're even driving recommendations as to their treatments. There are a lot of synergies, but what is really, really important is that we don't have any impediments to really be able to do the job that we need to do as a consumer health division within the group. So we're very independent, entirely independent of the rest.

So we have functions like medical and regulatory that one would think they're sort of being driven by the pharma sibling, not really. It is -- they're fully independent. But what it does, and this is why we like to call it instead of fast-moving consumer goods, we say this is fast-moving consumer health. There are skills and capabilities that you need to be able to move at speed, have the speed, the brand focus, the market focus and consumer focus of a fast-moving consumer company, but the scientific backing and rigor that a mini pharma would have.

Yes. But that sounds great. I mean the consumerization of consumer health is a term that we hear from all the consumer health companies coming out of pharma companies. We also find that it takes a lot to change the mindset. You need changes in people. So that consumerization of consumer health, which you're talking about, how does it sort of change things on the ground in terms of innovation, in terms of marketing, in terms of segmenting consumers because clearly, FMCG or fast-moving consumer health is very different from being inside a pharma company where it's a lot more about molecules. It's much more about consumer need states. How far through that kind of journey do you think kind of Bayer Consumer Health is? It sounds like it's quite advanced.

It is very advanced actually. So as I said, we run independently. So there -- we're not sharing any resources with pharma. And if anything, we really want to make sure that we're focused on the consumers. And I'll give you a very tangible example in terms of also the -- we've implemented in the last couple of years an operating model that we call dynamic shared ownership, which is basically we delegate and allow the teams across the world to be able to take decisions and make decisions, be more empowered and sort of like running -- the company running in like micro enterprises around the world.

So we recently had an instance where one of our key products in dermatology, Bepanthen in Brazil, we picked up a trend that was happening in Instagram. And this was picked up by the Medical Director in Brazil. And it was that consumers were taking our product, Bepanthen, and taking rosehip oil because rosehip oil has -- benefit's in terms of skin, clearing skin and so on and so forth, and they were mixing it. They were making videos posting this on Instagram, and we picked up this trend. Immediately, the team got to work and say, well, let's take a look and see we're going to do this ourselves.

From that moment until when the product was on the shelves, and I'm talking not only physical shelf, but even faster in the digital shelves, it took a little bit less than 9 months. And this is the sort of things that we want to do more of. This is just one example. What we pride ourselves on doing is allowing the teams to be able to do that. And the leverage we have as a global company with global reach is being able to scale this because it wasn't only relevant for Brazilian consumers. It turned out that halfway across the world in China, this is something that also could happen.

So, the moment we scale, all the economic impact that has, right, lower cost of goods, et cetera, et cetera, creating economies of scale for that one particular product. That's just an example. And that has driven us to really, really rethink our entire innovation engine. And maybe I can also hand over to Dave, who's heading the scientific area. And just to say, we -- it's not about someone in headquarters and Basel thinking what the people in Brazil or Argentina or Turkey need, but really being able to pick up the signals from the consumers and turning them into products as quickly as possible, translating science into a product. But Dave, if you can please add.

Sure. So I think we're pretty far down the road with consumer centricity. This is something which is very much instilled in all of the teams. Innovation is always a team sport. And there isn't kind of discovery happening in labs, which gets pushed out as Julio said, every team in every market, they build their innovation strategy, they come up with their innovation plans. And then, of course, we can scale those around the world. So, the model is very well established and then determining what's right for that market rather than being able just to take from kind of a global menu is something that's really important.

And I think making sure that we are very agile as a business that we are not slow. We can move exceptionally fast. We can get products to market in 6 months, 9 months when we need to. We can also invest in the rigor and the evidence generation for things that take longer. It's about having that flexibility. That's how the model shifted.

Okay. Thanks, Julio. I'm going to move to Magnus and ask a few questions. First one really is around -- it's a similar topic around -- I have a personal view that consumer health industry has taken too much pricing, too much pricing over the years and not enough focus on sustainable volume growth. Would you agree with that? And specifically for Bayer, what -- how do you think about price and volume? And what are the key levers to take what Julio is talking about in terms of consumerization of consumer health and then turn that into sustainable volume?

I start with a key lever, which is household penetration. Our strategy is grow to EUR 1 billion, and that is an intentional expression of what we want to stand for as a self-care company to reach more households. And that is a volume topic in the end.

I agree, and I think it goes back to the years of '22 to '24, where price was the predominant growth lever -- used by the entire industry, by the way. But I think we also got to learn that price sensitivities increased and that we saw in the market overly price driven and also in the numbers of corporations overly price driven.

I think the last 2 years, I think this has turned, at least in our case, to give also proof, our 3.5% for the half year, 2.6% price and 0.9% volume. So we see that our efforts have returned. And the story is as simple as this, household penetration that needs the right innovation, the right focus.

And we don't want to underestimate the point of access, makes health care accessible to as much population as we can. And that is also a volume theme. So see us committed on driving volume. Last but not least, what's the algorithm for us. It is 1/3 price, 1/3 base volume, 1/3 innovation. So 2/3 volume, if you will, and 1/3 price, that's the lighthouse.

But within your algo, your algo is 3% to 5% organic. Is that right? So your algorithm on the organic growth is 3% to 5%.

Midterm, yes, short term, you see this challenge.

But your -- yes, my question is you're tracking below that. I think you're 1.5%. I think that's the right number.

That is a single quarter. Let me put it in the context. Half year 1 is 3.5%. Guidance was 0% to 4%. Also very intentional, as I think you are all aware of the macroeconomic distortions that we have.

So it's prudent to say there are a lot of swing factors that can influence this. So with 3.5% for the half year 1, we feel in line with this guidance, but we are also very careful of the market performance to go, in particular, in key geographies like U.S. or Germany, where we still see muted sentiment that will have an impact also on the second half.

And maybe can you talk a little bit about your exposure to Northern Europe? Because we're hearing at the conference, a lot of companies talking about Germany weakness in the pharma sector, changes happening in Europe. What are you seeing on the ground in Germany and Northern Europe, particularly in some of the key channels?

Yes. Pharmacy markets. But I think the key thing there, as in the U.S. is consumer sentiment. I think with all these inflationary trends, the continued Middle East conflict, you see a certain purchase hesitation, in particular, in the pharmacy channel, less so in the e-commerce channel. But to the particular example of Germany, it's still a pharmacy-driven archetype. And that's why you see this also effect.

Yes. And then in emerging markets, again, obviously, increasingly important battleground in consumer health, given that's often the largest gap between health incidents and treatments. And you hear every consumer health company talking about the opportunity in emerging markets.

Can you maybe just outline a bit more specifically Bayer Consumer Health exposure to some of the big EMs like China, like India? And how are you trying to sort of animate those countries and allocate resources into the right brands and the right categories within EM to get the biggest profit pool opportunity from a kind of a CFO return on capital hat on?

We see great exposure. Our business is well exposed to emerging markets. The #1 is definitely China, where we also have a great momentum currently. Although the market there also is muted, but we participate big time in the shift from offline to online channels and are there in a driving force.

The other 2 markets that we definitely see is India and Brazil. There, we believe there's a lot of head space. If you combine the population, it's, I think, 1.6 billion people back to the access story.

And also, let's say, the self-care systems are in need of self-care solutions for basic economic reasons. And there we also prepared. Relative to resource allocation, back to the DSO system that we have implemented, it is also a dynamic resource flow. And resource means both talent but also money to then also double-click on those market opportunities. So net-net, exposed -- well exposed to emerging markets, the biggest headroom that we want to enter in the next couple of years, Brazil and India.

Okay. Thank you, Magnus. I think we're going to keep going down the line. So Dave, you're up next. In terms of like your role, Chief Scientific Officer, can you maybe sort of outline your key priority -- what are you trying to actually do? And then numerically, can you sort of tell us today how much you're spending on science or R&D or however you quantify it and how you measure, I suppose, your returns from that? So it's a multipronged question, but how do you measure returns on the R&D pipeline?

So I think science means lots of things to a lot of different people. For us, when we're thinking about science and R&D, we look across the whole life cycle of our portfolio. So we look about innovation and growth, and we also look about how do you protect and maintain the existing portfolio on the market, which needs improvements, reformulations, changes along the way to kind of maintain them on the business. And it's about 50-50 split between that growth side of things and kind of maintaining and improving. So, that's the kind of the overall scope.

When it comes to investment, we invest about 3.8% of net sales in R&D, and that covers off both that innovation and maintenance side, which is, I think, broadly speaking, it's kind of at the upper end of investment, recognizing that science is very important to us as a business. When I think about things like the innovation pipeline, we have lots of leading lagging KPIs. But ultimately, for this, you need to have a pipeline which is large enough, that's differentiated. It goes over multiple time horizons that is also scaled. That's really important.

And there's lots of metrics with that. But for me, this is all about impact in the market. There's no point having a wonderful on paper pipeline. This is impact in the market. That's how we understand what's successful or not. So when you take something like a brand like Bepanthen in China, we launched that brand via cross-border a couple of years ago, great kind of pickup from consumers. We then formulated a local product, launched that becomes #1 for nappy rash in China, which gives us the confidence to then launch range upon range of whether that is summer skin care, winter skin care that is bespoke for those consumers in China. So for me, the innovation really comes to life in the market rather than the pipeline.

Yes. And in terms of the portfolio, how do you think about sort of trying to deseasonalize the portfolio and sort of reduce the dependence of that volatile category? What can you do from the science point of view to try and help reduce that kind of inherent volatility on the top line?

I think there's probably maybe 3 ways in which the -- that topic is being addressed. The first is, I think that a lot of the other categories are growing faster, dermatology, digestive health. So there is a natural shift away and into those faster-growing categories is one.

Another is we have obviously brands like Claritin in the U.S., which are large, and we are continuing to invest in those brands in other parts of the world. So for example, again with China, launching into nasal sprays in China, which gives you more of that spread around the world.

And the last piece, particularly for things like allergy, allergy is seasonal, but there's also a huge component of nonseasonal allergy. So you take a brand like Claritin, this works against 200 allergens beautifully well. And we know that about 50% of people suffer with allergies all year round.

And so, there's opportunities to then build the evidence base and help people kind of choose our brands year-round rather than just in those kind of hay fever kind of scenario. So that combination of the 3 kind of can spread your risk a little bit.

I'd love to also ask you about Rx-to-OTC switches. It's obviously a big topic in consumer health. And when you get 1, or 2, it can really move the needle. I think it's been a while since you've had 1, looking back, I think, '22, '23. Can you maybe sort of outline where you are on that?

And do you see any signs, particularly here in the U.S. where there's a push to lower drug prices that perhaps the political backdrop or the regulatory backdrop is a bit more supportive to actually reduce the administrative admin burden that is required to actually deliver the Rx-to-OTC switches. Is there anything kind of in the pipe or it's hard to say, but I'd love to get your sort of general perspective on how important Rx-to-OTC switches is for Bayer Consumer Health?

Our take is Rx-to-OTC switch has been a great driver of the consumer health industry over the years, and many of our brands like Claritin, MiraLAX, they emerged from Rx-to-OTC switch. And it's still important. We retain the capability to do that. And we have a number of projects ongoing internally. These are high risk, high reward. So they're not something that we would talk about until much closer to the market.

And I think in general, there is an increased appetite or an increasing appetite amongst governments around the world, including the U.S. There's an increased openness to switch. I think what remains to be seen is how does that translate in the U.S. I think we're expecting early next year, a little bit more feedback on the different benefit areas and what the approach might be within switch. So we remain kind of active.

But I think it's really important that whilst it is -- it's a great form of innovation and it's part of this toolbox, what's equally important, probably even more important, is actually building out our brands into new markets, into new areas, building that up with our internal capabilities and also bringing new technologies into our brands from licensing. About half of our pipeline comes from contributions from outside of Bayer as well as our internal capabilities. So I see it's much more of one component, and we remain active, but it isn't something that we're relying upon.

Maybe just one to add because the U.S. is a big market for Switch. And our last one was Astepro, which was a nonsteroidal nasal spray. One of the things we're looking at is to have a balanced approach to innovation. And so Switch is a great growth driver, but in the right circumstances. So where you have a very strong differentiated product.

Astepro was a great example. It was the first nonsteroidal nasal spray, works in 30 minutes that had not been seen in the category for us. So that gave us a differentiation. But in a category that's growing. So when you look at allergy, yes, seasonal is sometimes tough to balance, but the spray segment was growing.

But also, it takes significant investment. Whenever you launch a new brand, you have to give it the runway. And so that's one of the things we consider when we look at the portfolio is how do we make sure we're making the right investments, but giving them enough time to grow and build in the market. It's now a $60 million-plus business. So we're very happy with where it's at, #2 spray, but we have to be careful about not jumping too quickly into multiple new brands. And so that's why we're very discerning on the switch. I think it will still be a part of our program overall. But being a bit more discerning in terms of what the balance is.

And continuing that theme, Trevor, maybe we can have a couple of questions specifically on the U.S. Maybe the first one would be helicopter view. U.S. consumer seems to be pretty challenged. Affordability is a big topic. The category growth doesn't look great from the consumption data that we can see, excluding seasonal ranges, and even ex that.

So, what's your, kind of, take on the U.S. consumer in your category at the moment? What kind of growth are you seeing for the category? And any particular subsectors where the growth is above the average or below the average, Yes.

Yes, happy to share. The OTC market is soft in the U.S. It's been a challenged -- a challenge and it's actually progressed throughout the year. We expected it to be a bit more resilient this year. We've seen it a bit softer. Seasonal does account for some of that, but it's not all of it, as you mentioned.

Some of the macroeconomic pressures are real. Inflation is expected to be at 4%. We do see some consumer confidence fading. So that is impacting the market overall. We expect probably low single-digit decline this year versus a year ago.

On the seasonal side, there's incidents that are definitely impacting that. Ironically, in allergy, weather played a big part of it. And if you look at this year, precipitation is up 11%. That puts a damper on the pollen and the impact of the incidents.

But that being said, there are pockets of growth. So if you look at the Digestive Health business, that's one of our strongest businesses. We have 2 great brands in there with MiraLAX and Alka-Seltzer. We see that growing significantly strong for us as well. Nasal is another one.

We have a leading brand in the nasal sprays of Afrin. That's one of our top power couples that we talked about that we're investing behind to extract that growth. And we're also seeing resilience, honestly, in our cardio business and the prevention business overall. So there are pockets of growth.

And what we're trying to do is make sure we manage with agility, how to extract those pockets of growth while managing some of the volatility in the market. But we expect it to be subdued for the next.

And the other big topic on the U.S. is, of course, channel, right? Being in the right channel is key. I mean we've all seen what's happening with the drugstore channel here. Can you maybe outline what your channel split is currently?

And then what you would consider to be an optimal channel split, I suppose, and trying to understand the kind of the interplay between the drugstore channel and making sure that in the e-commerce channel, Amazon and walmart.com, that you're also winning. So yes, if you can just maybe touch a little bit on how you're thinking about channel evolution, that would be really useful.

Yes. I think overall, we have very strong partnerships with a lot of retailers. And our goal is to try to have strong joint business plans that create value. So I won't say there's an optimal split of that. But what I will say is as we look at the consumer journey evolving, we want to be where consumers are looking for information, finding information, and ultimately making a purchase decision.

You mentioned drug. Drug is a key partner for us because we see them, although they've struggled in the last little bit in terms of growth, they play a key part in that consumer journey from Rx to consumer. They're about 25% of our business, and so they're an important partner for us to work with.

But that being said, we're also very focused on where the growth is and where the consumers are. So we've made a lot of investments in our e-commerce business, our digital capabilities to really gain the growth there. The U.S. is leading the Bayer group in general in terms of penetration amongst e-commerce, but we still have a lot more headroom to grow there. So that's a big focus for us to continue to build and focus on growth. So that's it.

I would also ask you about digestive health. Digestive health, I think, was pretty strong in Q2. Do you see digestive health becoming one of the more attractive categories structurally over the next decade, especially given the growing interest in gut health and GLP-1 adjacencies?

I'd love to get your sort of perspective because there's different investor opinions about GLP-1 and what it all means for digestive. So, yes, what's your sort of perspective on that?

Yes, I'll talk about digestive health. We see it as a very attractive category and with long-term growth potential. And so it's 1 of our fastest categories today. We have 2 brands that compete in that category with MiraLAX and with Alka-Seltzer on a big basis. We also have a smaller business in Phillips'.

But where we see the opportunity is even within constipation, which is more of a treatment category, there's a big discrepancy between sufferers and treaters, okay? Now GLP-1s drugs and gut health is creating more focus in that area, but we're focused on how do we close that gap between suffering and treating.

And that's where MiraLAX has played a huge role. So there's really 2 key areas that we're growing with that brand. One is on the base business, continuing to try to close that gap between suffering and treating, really educating non-treaters and kind of destigmatizing the marketplace because a lot of folks have pretty bad stigmas around laxatives. And how do you really make that more of a part of a normal conversation. We have a new campaign, Relax, it's MiraLAX, which really talks about how can you help treat and prevent that going forward.

The other part is innovation. MiraLAX is an incredible brand with a great equity with the ability to expand. And so back to innovation, really fast innovation, we saw the opportunity. MiraFAST, which is for overnight laxatives, we expanded into that market. That is going 300% above what we thought it was going to be, okay? MiraFIBER in the fiber space, anybody that's involved in the fiber market can see that, we're seeing huge growth in that space, too.

So actually, between the base business and closing that treatment gap, but also innovation and broadening the shoulders, we see a lot of opportunity in digestive health for our business.

We're almost on the buzz, but I want to have to ask you one final question about VMS. It's been a big topic. So I want to get your perspective as well. It's obviously been a pretty hot area right with P&G, Thorne and Unilever, Gruns and Nestle making moves out.

When I look at the Bayer VMS portfolio, I'm thinking about brands like, say, Berocca, where that had initially a big first-mover advantage, but you've now got kind of new disruptive companies coming in. How can you kind of -- how are you seeing the market evolving? It seems like it's barbelling a little bit. And how do you kind of find your niche and impact those forces that are happening in the VMS market?

Do you think you need to buy? Or how are you going to, I guess, animate the next 3 years in the U.S. because the category is changing so dynamically?

It is a very dynamic and a very competitive category. And we see it as really core to our strategy because as Julio said at the beginning, we see the continuum of health, and this is on the prevention side. When you look at sort of the VMS supplement category, this is where you start to play on the prevention side, and we see that as a core area that we want to continue to grow in our business.

The category has been very dynamic. If you look at how we measure the category and the channels we measure, it's down about 3%. But there's pockets of growth, like if you look at magnesium, collagen, nutrition, like functional nutrition, there's growth there. But we're seeing a shift, a shifting dynamic.

The first thing, though, is we have leading brands in this space. We're 20% of the children's multivitamins. We have a leading brand with One A Day. But we're not happy with the performance recently. So we've done a lot of interventions to really focus on that first, how do you stabilize your business and continue to grow?

A couple of things. First of all, how do you get consumer-relevant formulations, claims, updating our packaging, building stronger relationships with our retailers. We've seen some of that now show up on shelf, which is really important for us and continuing to invest on the brand equity and the science.

And I think that's one of the biggest differentiators for us going forward. I would say over the last 5 to 10 years, you've seen a lot of start-ups, a lot of influencer-led brands that maybe didn't have all the science behind it and consumers now are getting much more discerning. And with the advent of agentic commerce, LLMs, they're having access to that science in a much more relevant way. So our focus is on making sure we're hitting the needs and like delivering on the science overall.

A couple of examples. We just launched the Women's Gummy upgrade with biotin. So One A Day has the largest concentration of biotin in a gummy for women. That's critically important, a top need for nails, hair, skin doing well for us. One A Day Kids with iron. I can let Dave talk about it. But putting iron into a gummy, if anybody has ever tried it, it's a very difficult thing to do. Iron is not a very flavorful molecule. And what they've been able to do is really formulate using our science expertise to develop something that kids want to take, delivers 2/3 of their iron intake. So we're looking for very smart ways to compete in the market with the businesses we have. And of course, we're always looking for opportunities to expand our presence in that area.

So we're always looking at is there opportunities to build an area that we're not in, but also build in capabilities that we might have available. I don't know, Julio, you want to talk a little bit to the work in Europe on Natsana on some of the capabilities, but we are looking at opportunities.

I don't know if we have time. I think...

We can squeeze it in. I'd love to hear your view on that.

Definitely. So we're very bullish on nutritionals. And it's in which part of nutritionals you want to play and the recent moves, you see the cloud competitors are not entirely coming out. They're just being selective in terms of where they're playing.

We are in the same way what Trevor has mentioned as well as Dave, we believe we have the hardware out there. There isn't anything that is out there that we don't have. And whatever we don't, we continue to scout in terms of what is it that we need to have to be able to complement our portfolio. But most importantly, we do have the brands all across the world in nutritionals that we can leverage to expand those brands and be able to bring a hardware that is working somewhere else and bring it into that.

Now what we're focused on is on the capabilities. And it's the capabilities in terms of what is it going to take to be able to win in that space. And it's not only being able to have the product, the packaging, et cetera, et cetera, but making sure that you have the evidence and you have the science that really has the -- shows the evidence that your product is actually doing what you say you're doing in your marketing.

And that is going to be important. It's going to become even more relevant as we go into agentic commerce. This is something we're seeing right now. We see it increasingly as an opportunity because in the last couple of years, the barriers of entry in this space were too low. Too many new players came in that perhaps created a lot of confusions in consumers. And we believe that agentic commerce is going to bring in a little bit more rationality in terms of how do they discover the products and how do they choose which are the ones they want to take.

Absolutely fascinating. Thank you, Julio. Thank you, Magnus, Dave and Trevor. I think it kind of works this 5-way discussion. So looking forward to hearing you...

In consumer health. So...

Thanks again, everybody. Thank you.

Thanks, everyone.

So good morning for all of you here live in Iowa, but also good afternoon and good evening for some of the ones that are on the webcast as well. So I'm Rodrigo Santos, I'm the President of the Crop Science Division at Bayer. And it's a real pleasure that you guys have here spend a day with us. The team had a lot of work in the field and I'm sure you're going to enjoy. So it's really great to have you in this 2026 innovation event. 16 months ago, if you remember, 16 months ago, we introduced our 5-year framework to you. And in a brief summary, the 5-year framework was built around 3 key elements of the triangle that we mentioned.

The first one EUR 3.5 billion growth on the top line based and fueled by the innovation that we're going to see today. Second one, mid-20s EBITDA margin supported at more than EUR 1 billion savings that we have, and you're going to have an update on that one as well. And at the same time, to generate another 1.5 cumulative cash in the plans that we have for the next years until the end of the decade.

So my hope today is that after all the information that you're going to get from Guru, Sascha, Mike and also what you're going to see in the field you are as convinced as we are as the blue people here are that, first, we are delivering on the commitments we made. That's the first one.

And the second one, we're going to see -- and we're going to show, by the way, how exactly what we committed, what we have already achieved and all the proof points that we demonstrate on our execution. But also second as important as we are delivering. The second is that we have an engine to deliver sustainable value to our farmers and to our investors. We believe that our ability to consistently out-innovate our competition, creates differentiated value for customers really put us to drive sustainable financial performance, and you're going to see that with Mike and the engine of R&D and again, in the field.

But before I go into more of that and to deep dive on that one, let me hand over to Jana that help us to give us a little bit of what we're going to have on the day today. Jana?

Thank you, Rodrigo. Good morning, good afternoon to those online. Good morning, everyone. Welcome. I'm Jana Ackermann, Bayer's new Head of Investor Relations. And happy to have you here with us today. Whether you have followed by a crop science for years or whether you're new to agriculture. We're delighted to have you here and appreciate your interest learning more about our business.

So let me walk you through our agenda for today. First, Rodrigo Santos, our Crop Science President; Guru Ramamurthy, our CFO; and Sascha Israel, our Head of Product Supply, represent the capital market update. That runs from now until 11:00. Then from 11:00 to 11:45, Mike Graham, our Head of R&D, will give you an update on our R&D capabilities and pipeline outlook, followed by Q&A.

And then after the lunch break at around 1:15 comes the highlight of the tour of the event today, our future getting real experience of how our pipeline is coming to life in the field makes this year's investors event truly different.

Throughout the presentation, you will see the designing the [ ACR ] logo which highlights innovations that you will also experience in the field today. You will have the chance to meet our full leadership team and many of our leaders and scientists from around the world. Those are the people in the dark blue shirts, so please take the chance to speak to them and ask your questions. We close the day today with a barbeque here on site, and you'll get the chance to interact even more with the team.

So it's a full day, very rich day. And obviously, we enjoy that you very much enjoy it. Now -- as with any investor event, I would like to bring your attention to the cautionary statement regarding forward-looking information. To put it into a frame, as you know, Bayer is a global leader in Health & Nutrition, and Crop Science is our largest business, representing nearly half of the group sales. It holds leading positions across Seeds & Traits and Crop Protection and serves an attractive global market.

So as Bayer advances, Crop Science has become a more leaner, more focused organization. Today, the team will share the significant progress we have made and how we're executing on multiple levers to drive growth, expand profitability and enhance cash generation. So these actions do more than just strengthen the Crop Science profile, but they also safeguard future investment in innovation, improved financial flexibility and contribute to a stronger Bayer overall.

So by the end of today, we hope you'll leave with great appreciation for the quality of the Crop Science business, the strength of our innovation engine and the confidence in Crop Science ability to create sustainable value. From a very personal experience perspective, I had the privilege of spending the past 5 years in Brazil and Asia in Crop Science. And my experience there showed me how diverse agriculture is across the world, from really large-scale farms in Brazil to small holder farmers in India. And one thing, regardless of the market for me consistently stands out, and that's what we're going to show you today. It's the passion to innovate and bring sustainable solutions to farmers.

So on that note, I look forward to meeting each of you today, and please reach out to me or Erica over there, if you have any specific investor relations topic that we can address today or as a follow-up.

And with that, happy to hand it over to you, Rodrigo again.

Thank you very much. Thank you very much. We're going to experience the heat of Iowa this afternoon. But before that, -- so let me go a little bit more into the details, and we're going to share more information with you that what excites us at Bayer at Crop Science and what we have in our pipeline.

So here are the 5 -- on this slide, you have the 5 reasons why we are very confident in the prospect of our division. Let me go through them one by one. So first, we operate in attractive and growing market. Our market, Seeds and Crop Protection globally is growing at a rate of 2% a year in the next 5 years. Second, we have a proven and winning business model. We are the leading global innovator in seeds and traits and in Crop Protection and our leading position in the markets that matter around the world, allow us to create trust with farmers and deliver constant value creation.

The third, we are executing the 5-year framework to deliver our financial plans that we have. I want to emphasize that because we are executing on our margin growth and our cash measures, as you're going to see here today. And we remain committed to deliver EUR 1 billion of savings by 2029 and to realize the free operating cash flow above EUR 3 billion.

You'll see clear progress on this in the presentations this morning, and we're going to deliver that. Fourth, innovation-driven growth. We are committed to growth above market in our launch in the pipelines in this industry-leading from precision breeding and the launch of more than 400 hybrids and varieties every year to the front side of the 10 blockbusters that we will launch in the next years to the geographic expansion and the new value pools creating that we're going to see, opportunities that will create value by pricing, share and volume opportunities that we have.

But even more important, Mike will show you how the engine and decades of data powered by AI will drive further differentiation for our platforms in breeding, biotech, chemical discovery, genome editing and digital tools. And fifth, sustainable value creation for the future. Beyond the launch pipeline, we have the leading R&D engine in the industry. And this engine will really constant deliver further innovations into the next 10 years.

These setups for the long-term success, if you bring all that together, if you bring the execution of the 5-year framework, we are set to deliver real growth through the midterm and capitalize on our leadership and innovation in the long term. So that's the case that give us so much confidence.

The 5 reasons for our Crop Science business, it stands alone. So -- but let's go more into details in each of them to focus a little bit more on the next slide. So first, let me start with the market. I'll start with the market. There are some distant market segments, each of them with some specific dynamics and growth opportunities. And the fourth thing that I will go a little bit deep that you know this one, agriculture and our farmers face a fundamental challenge. They must produce more on every acre every single year. And why is that for 2 key reasons, right? So the first one the demand on the left here keeps growing and the supply keeps getting harder.

So let's talk about demand first. So by 2050, the planet adds 1.5 billion more people in the planet. That's 18% more people than today, and all of them needs to eat, of course. At the same time, the biofuel targets are rising globally. By 2035, we expect the biofuel demand to be growing by 50%, reaching almost 65 billion gallons.

And this is an area that we are very excited about because of our portfolio and our biofuel crops that you're going to see also today. And there is a third element here, so the diets are changing. So the growth is showing that we're going to talking about 12% increase in animal protein consumption by 2035.

So all the demands on the left, let's talk about the supply here on the right, because supplying also is not getting easier. It's getting even harder. So climate change is already leading to more frequent and more severe weather events. These events are impacting harvest. Just one number to you we are expecting that you could have 11% to 25% of harvest impact depending on the crop, depending on the region. At the same time, weeds and diseases are adapting every year more than 10 new resistance with cases appears.

Today, we have already about 550 documented cases globally. Weeds are evolving faster than we would like. And the third element here is the soil. Scientists tell us that by 2050, 90% of the soils are at risk of degradation, 90%. So here is the picture. Growing demand shrinking or at least more challenged supply, but that's exactly why we are here. That's exactly why this industry exists. This is why the Bayer employees every day get to work is to bring and to really drive our vision of Hunger for none. And I believe we are really well one of the few companies that we have the scientific muscle and the market reach to provide essential solutions to get it done.

So let's put a number on that opportunity that I just mentioned on the market. Our global market seeds and traits together with Crop Protection was worth EUR 120 billion in 2025. And we expect to reach almost EUR 130 billion by 2030. So this is around 2% growth CAGR for the next 5 years.

And seeds and traits are a little bit higher, 2% to 3%. And in Crop Protection, the growth is around 1% to 2%. So this is the next 5 years and the next 10 years together is a market that is durable and it's growing. That is the market that we operate in. So that's the -- we have set for ourselves, but let's talk how we're going to win in that market that I just mentioned. So on the first slide here that I will show you, we're going to have a look on our business model first. How we compete, how we steer the business day by day.

This slide shows exactly what the leadership look like for us in numbers. So in corn, first, we are the global #1 with a EUR 7.1 billion in the market in 2025 and the number tells by itself, around 35% of global market share. Soybean, we're also #1, EUR 2.2 billion in net sales, around 30% of global share.

On the other seeds and traits, cotton, canola, vegetables, depending on the crop, we are seeing anywhere from #1 to #3. EUR 1.8 billion in net sales and around 35% share in cotton specifically. In Core Crop Protection, we are the global #2. It's EUR 8 billion in net sales, around 12% share. But if you break that down further, we are #1 in herbcides, #2 in fungicides and #3 insecticides.

In the noncore Crop Protection, our glyphosate business, including Ruveon is the #1 globally, EUR 2.5 billion in net sales, around 40% of share in that market. So look at that lineup and leading positions in every single platform we are operating in. So importantly, these results are driven by farmers around the world choosing our innovation year after year to make -- to help them make their business productive and profitable.

These results reflect decades of investments in innovation, reliable product supply and our go-to-market approach that has built trusted relationship with farmers increasingly through our digital capabilities and even faster with artificial intelligence. So I want to outline to you what this business model is at least hard not to say very difficult to replicate.

So the first element here is our portfolio. We hold the leading portfolio in each of every product segment that we compete, you experienced this in the products first hand out of the field this afternoon. That's the first element. The second one is our product supply, both in Crop Protection and in seeds, our supply chain is resilient and efficient. We've secured access to active ingredients, including partnerships in best cost countries and our seed production is robust. And in a world where you have a lot of disruptions, more tariffs, more uncertainty, this matters more than ever.

Third, we have the largest reach among the key markets in this industry. That means proximity to the grower, that means trust -- you cannot build that overnight. That really takes decades of relationship. And fourth is R&D. We have the leading capabilities across every technology stack. I'm talking about precision breeding, biotech, gene editing, chemistry and our digital tools.

And finally, to unlock the new value pools in segments that goes beyond our traditional car. So this is not something new for us. We've done it before, and we are doing it again. This is the architecture that we have. This is the model that we created, and this is what we are taking forward for the next years as well. So we believe that we are very uniquely positioned to deliver agriculture at scale. It's important to have that. This is our competitive differentiation in our business. We can unlock value on every acre.

We are talking about designing the acre here. We have the portfolio and the scale to bring multiple technologies, multiyear, multi-crop and system solutions that we talk a lot. And this is a good example of a farm in the future, specifically a typical large-scale farmer here in that region in Iowa, as an example. First, you see the amount of technologies that show up on the operation. This technology is increasingly working together.

The seed choice enables farmer options for crop protection. And all of that work to maximum effect when unlock then with digital tools. Second, these are next-generation technologies that come from the 10 blockbusters in our pipeline. We are rewriting the competitive standards and creating the next wave of differentiation that will further separate us from the historical peers that we have in the market with the blockbusters.

And third, this future farm evens rewrite the traditional way of corn and soybean rotation. As we introduce the intermediate crops like CoverCress, we offer a potential new income stream for farmers in a truly multi-seasoned system. This shows you the full potential of our strategy and our portfolio from seeds and traits to Crop Protection, biologicals digital tools, assistant approach to help farmers improve the yield and profitability at scale globally.

And let me be clear, we are very proud as well that this platform in this business model is already working. And this is the section that every platform is different. We have different growth dynamics, different farmers need, different regions and competitive dynamics by the different platforms that we have. This is why it's important that we pursue a very diligent and different strategy for each of the platforms that we have.

Because we have scale, we see having different business segments together as a strategic advantage and one that plays out is that what we innovate, how we can serve the growers. But that doesn't mean that we operate each of this business in the same way. In fact, one of the key to our strategy is that we operate each of the business according to the unique dynamics of this segment.

So let me go through the commercial strategy one by one. So if you start with corn, our corn platform, this is our biggest platform today. Our strategy here is very clear. We're going to continue to further growth, further expand win market share. We are bringing innovation, geographic expansion, and go-to-market approach to help the platform of corn continue to grow. Soy, seeds and traits is different. We are still the global market leader, but we had to manage the challenges that you very know about North America when we have the Dicamba label [indiscernible] tour.

But this is resolved now and we are transitioning towards our next wave of innovations with Vyconic and Intacta 5, and this will change the game in soybean again. Third, we have the other seeds and trait business, cotton, canola, vegetables. Here, we are expanding market share through innovation and commercial reach. This is smaller crops have different innovations and go-to-market approach from corn and soybean, and we are touching that one.

So then for Crop Protection, the strategy on Crop Protection is to target profitability. We focus and we did the homework in managing our structure and our costs and making the business more resilient and more flexible. We focus our R&D. We streamlined our portfolio and our go-to-market footprint, and we adjust our product supply to drive profitable growth in Crop Protection.

And then there is the noncore Crop Protection. This includes Ruveon as a dedicated stand-alone entity for the U.S. glyphosate business. We announced this in July 1 this year. And for the commodity glyphosate business, the strategy is different for the core and for the others. Here, you require a commode mindset and a very dynamic pricing to unlock your potential here.

And very important, this business needs a very low possible overhead. And that's what we put on the Ruveon to be a very lean and agile organization to deal with that market. And finally, the new value pools and we are very excited about that. It seems like the biofuel crops that you're going to see today. Here, we aim to build a leading position in strong partnerships.

This is how we run Bayer Crop Science. We will talk about all the platforms much more detail later today. But now before I go and talk more about the integration of the platforms and how we manage each of them different, I will transition to Guru to first provide you an update on the 5-year progress that we made so far. Guru, please.

Thank you, Rodrigo. And let me also add my warm welcome to everyone joining us today, whether you're here in the room or dialed in. It's absolutely great to have you with us here. So let me give you a progress update on the implementation of our 5-year framework.

Our 5-year framework continues to be our top priority. In the following sections, we will provide clear evidence of execution, underpinning our confidence in achieving our targets. I was closely involved last year when we defined the program, and I'm now accountable for its delivery. Importantly, the entire leadership team remains fully aligned behind its objectives and is fully committed to making it a success.

Our ambition is clear. On margin, we target more than EUR 1 billion of margin improvements between 2024 and 2029 from measures that are within our control. On cash, we work towards more than EUR 1.5 billion cumulatively freed up from working capital. And on sales, we aim for above-market growth, realizing EUR 3.5 billion in incremental sales on a currency and portfolio-adjusted basis. To accomplish this ambition, our 5-year framework consists of 3 dimensions: first, strengthening the foundation of this business; second, capitalizing on our rich pipeline in our core business; and third, expanding beyond the core into new value pools, which will contribute in the 2030s.

Let me now briefly elaborate on how we are working towards meeting our ambition. We have a focused and agile implementation framework and governance model that enables us to drive execution with discipline, adapt to changing market conditions and prioritize the delivery of our 5-year framework targets. This rests on 5 key principles. First, dedicated delivery teams that relentlessly drive execution of our initiatives to realize outcomes with great discipline and focus.

Second, committed executive sponsors who guide and steer implementation with full accountability for delivering target values. Third, following our DSO operating model, our teams operate in a 90-day sprint cadence, enabling them to respond quickly to changing market conditions while maintaining speed and discipline in executing against our targets.

Fourth, effective collaboration with our works councils, the employee representative body to ensure we move at the right pace. And fifth, harmonized team incentives, linking delivery of our ambition directly to personal compensation. Let me elaborate a bit on this. Across the vast majority of our markets, we now have incentives tied directly, not only to sales and margin, but also to cash flow performance. What I'm seeing is how this has positively impacted behaviors.

Our teams are highly committed to cash flow delivery even under difficult market conditions. Together, these 5 principles have helped us to establish a framework for disciplined and adaptable execution. And the progress we are making is increasingly reflected in our numbers. Let me now walk you through this progress on our 2029 ambition.

Starting with margin and cash ambitions where outcomes are largely execution driven within our control and determined by our own actions rather than the broader market environment. On margin, we confirm our ambition to deliver more than EUR 1 billion of clean EBITDA improvements by 2029. And I'm pleased to report that we have delivered approximately EUR 380 million of annualized run rate benefits, representing around 40% of our ambition by year 2 of our 5-year program. This progress gives us confidence that we remain firmly on track to achieve our 2029 target.

These planned improvements are driven by all 3 areas. For R&D, we are targeting more than EUR 150 million and have already delivered EUR 40 million. In product supply, we are targeting more than EUR 600 million from COGS measures and have already delivered EUR 250 million, supported by sourcing, productivity and optimization initiatives. I'm really pleased to report that our sourcing initiatives are ahead of schedule. And in go-to-market and global functions, we are targeting EUR 400 million and have already delivered around EUR 90 million.

As you see on this slide, all 3 areas are fully on track and progressing well with product supply initiatives being the biggest contributor as expected. The trajectories of progress reflect the nature of these initiatives. Productivity and sourcing actions in product supply materialize faster, whereas site consolidation, footprint optimization as well as organizational changes require more preparation and phasing to minimize disruption to our business and to our customers.

On cash, our ambition is to free up more than EUR 1.5 billion of cumulative cash from working capital by 2029. By the end of 2026, we expect to deliver approximately EUR 1 billion already through working capital management with the inventory reduction initiatives tracking ahead of schedule. Next, turning to sales growth. Our ambition remains unchanged to grow above market and realize EUR 3.5 billion in incremental net sales on a currency and portfolio-adjusted basis by 2029 against our 2024 baseline. Also here, our progress to date remains fully consistent with our midterm expectations.

As we have previously shared, the first phase of the 5-year framework is focused on strengthening the foundation through margin and cash measures, while sales growth is expected to accelerate in the later years of the program. In 2025, we delivered 1% CPA growth. And for 2026, we guide for 0% to 3% CPA growth. And following a strong first half, we remain well on track to meet that guidance. Importantly, this progress should be seen in the context of actively managing our core Crop Protection portfolio through regulatory-driven exits as well as divestments and pruning of lower-margin products.

The latter is naturally moderating top line growth, but improving the quality and profitability of the portfolio. Taking together the incremental sales for 2025 and 2026, this would translate into roughly EUR 550 million of incremental sales at the midpoint of our guidance. A significant growth contribution from our innovation pipeline is expected in 2028 and 2029, reflecting the timing of our blockbuster launches and the adoption ramp-up.

As a result, we will be seeing a back-end weighted growth profile, reflecting the strength of our innovation pipeline in the years to come. So in summary, our execution-led initiatives are delivering as expected with a couple progressing ahead of schedule. Our sales trajectory remains aligned with the timing of our innovation-driven growth opportunities, giving us confidence in achieving our 2029 ambition. With that overview of our 5-year framework progress, we will now get into a deeper update on the first dimension we call strengthen the foundation before we take you through the other 2 dimensions.

This dimension is particularly important because it creates the operational and financial foundation required to fully capture the value of our upcoming innovation pipeline. With that, I'll now hand it over to Sascha, who will take you through the details of how we are strengthening the foundation.

Yes. Thank you, Guru, for that overview on our progress, and I'm very happy to take us forward now and provide you with further details on the individual components of the program. And I would like to start with product supply, specifically the improvements to our cost of goods sold. This, as you have seen, is the largest lever in our margin program. And our ambition here is the more than EUR 600 million of clean EBITDA run rate impact by 2029.

We are driving these improvements across 3 areas. The first is sourcing and process improvements in Crop Protection with a clean EBITDA target of EUR 240 million. We have already secured EUR 200 million of cost improvements through these sourcing levers as well as technical improvements. So in this area, we are ahead of schedule as of now.

The second area is our Crop Protection production network with a target of more than EUR 240 million. This lever is very important as it adapts our network to the current market context of increased generic pressure and very cost-efficient product availability out of China. This market environment has caused cost of underutilization and some cost competitiveness issues for some of our raw materials and molecules.

We are, therefore, adjusting our network for active ingredient manufacturing and for formulation filling and packaging to address this. Specifically, we are reducing the share of active ingredient production we do in-house significantly from around 35% today towards 25%. Implementation is well advanced, and we will see a cost improvement of more than EUR 240 million in 2029 as a consequence. And third, we have our seed production optimization with a target of around EUR 120 million. Also here, we have already implemented our first wave of structural improvements across production, logistics and warehousing and are well on track with this lever as well.

One important point across all 3 before we go into each area. It's noteworthy that implementation and product supply of the measures that we've outlined here is running significantly faster than the financial impact. Depending on the specifics, it can take 12 to 18 months for the benefits to transition from production to inventory and then fully to the P&L. This is already reflected in the savings ramp-up you see on the slide, and we are tracking very well also on our upcoming milestones. So let's focus on each area in more detail, starting with sourcing and process improvements.

How are we actually delivering the savings here? In this area, we are focusing on 3 major levers. The first is raw material and active ingredient cost deflation. Over the last year to 18 months, we've set up several dedicated teams and formats to aggressively renegotiate with existing and new suppliers across the entire portfolio. We've also worked jointly with our strategic partners to unlock cost advantages across the value chain.

Second, we've shifted 10 active ingredients to external sources in low-cost countries in an accelerated outsourcing process. A couple of similar shifts have been or are still being executed for several key raw materials where we are also moving from higher cost geographies and suppliers to new partners. And third, process optimization. We have focused over the last year our technical teams. And here, I'm talking specifically about our chemists and engineering teams decisively on cost improvements.

To this end, we've set up 14 end-to-end optimization teams, and they are focused on things like yield, waste reduction, energy efficiency and chemical route optimization. This is also a very nice example, by the way, of our usage of artificial intelligence as AI is allowing us to significantly expand the scope of molecules and processes we can cover with our team and our existing resources.

So overall, our progress across procurement, supply chain and manufacturing is well on track and capturing the benefit in this specific area is growing even faster than we have originally foreseen when we set up the program. Now let's move on and focus on our crop protection production network and the more than EUR 240 million we are targeting there. This is a very sizable saving, but it's also feasible, and we've made very significant decisions in this space already that we are fully committed to. Let me start in Germany at our largest site in the network in Dormagen.

We are consolidating from 6 plants at the site down to 3 by 2029. We are also integrating our Knapsack operations into Dormagen. And in Frankfurt, which is our second major combined AI and FFP site in Germany, we are fully exiting our activities. The cost savings from these measures include elimination of cost of underutilization, further outsourcing of 8 active ingredients, several relocations within the network and efficiency gain.

This measure by itself will consequently yield more than EUR 100 million cost improvements, and we will realize it in several ways between 2027 and 2029. We take a similar approach in our Kansas City active ingredient manufacturing site. Here, we consolidate from 2 into 1 plant. This also eliminates significant cost of underutilization and adjust our fixed cost base, in particular also in the infrastructure area and delivers a total cost reduction of more than EUR 100 million as well.

Lastly, we are globally adjusting our formulation capacity by 20% to 25%. This change will focus the network on key technologies, improve our utilization and deliver savings of more than EUR 40 million. The savings include the discontinuation of our formulation activities in our Frankfurt site that I've mentioned previously.

But it also includes further changes across our network, such as our recent announcements relating to our Shakopee site in the U.S. or our formulation site in BangPoo in Asia. Needless to say, these changes are a major transformation for us. So I'm very glad that we have a great and committed team working on it, and we have made significant progress since our last update. Let's look at some of these key milestones and achievements.

Firstly, we have signed a joint declaration, enabling the changes in Germany, including the before-mentioned measures in Frankfurt and Dormagen. We are well on track with the technical product transfers. We have and are progressing well with the required registration activities, and we are building the necessary bridging stocks and are well advanced with that. Lastly, we've also already decided or are in the process of finalizing the required sourcing contracts relating to the molecules we are outsourcing.

And we can, therefore, also say with confidence today that these contracts are in line or better than foreseen in our original assumptions. So in summary, we are very committed and well on track to deliver the envisioned network savings of more than EUR 240 million as planned in our 5-year framework.

Lastly, let's talk about seed production. Let me preface that and start by saying we have a world-class seed production, which has continuously improved efficiency and yield, leveraging science, digital technologies and best practice operations and agronomic practices over the last years. And we expect this trend also to continue in the future. In our 5-year framework, we have focused on specific additional improvements, which are more structural in nature to further boost efficiency and support growth. The expected benefit is an additional EUR 120 million of cost improvements.

One focus area here is our warehousing and logistics network. As an example, we were able to optimize our soy warehouse network in the U.S. by a 10% reduction of contracted storage, and we improved logistics by increasing the share of direct customer shipments by a factor of 3. We are also in this space, optimizing our network, such as in the case of our recently announced divestment of our windfall soy site. Another focus area in this space is supporting geographic expansion with improved costs. An example here is the opening of our new corn seed site in Kabwe, Zambia in March 2025.

So this site serves as a distribution hub for Africa, and we expect it to deliver efficiency and supply high-yielding corn seeds to roughly 10 million smallholder farmers in the future. So this lever represents a broader set of individual measures compared to the crop protection lever, but we're also well on track to deliver the committed savings of EUR 120 million. So let me summarize what we've seen in the area of product supply.

Across our Crop Protection, production network, our seed production and the broader 5-year framework for product supply, we have strong confidence in delivering our plan. We are on track, and we are in several places ahead of schedule with the implementation, and we have a strong team that's continuing to implement the changes. What's important is that our vision for Crop Protection, in particular, is that with the changes, we will not only get the overall EUR 600 million of cost benefits.

With our measures, what we'll also do is transition to a setup that has a significantly lower structural cost base, improved utilization and a new renewed and focused portfolio. At the same time, we will have significantly increased the share of external sourcing. And through the combination of all these measures, we will deliver resilience, flexibility and also the competitive product costs required to win in today's market.

Now moving on to portfolio and R&D. On the portfolio side, we have announced changes as well, and we are on track. In total, we have divested 5 nonstrategic active ingredients. One of them is Flubendiamide, another one is Metribuzin, just to name 2 examples. On the formulated product side, we are discontinuing more than 200 of what we call strategic product groups. These are specific product formulations in a given geography or country. Together, these product groups represent about EUR 200 million of sales. Today, these products do not fit our strategic growth or profitability expectations anymore and roughly 100 of those will already be phased out by the end of 2026.

It's worth noting that the average gross margin of the products we are discontinuing is 10% to 15% below -- percentage points below our Crop Protection average. So this streamlining enables not only cost savings, but is also generally accretive immediately to our margin. Next, let's take a deeper look at our R&D measures. As we laid out last year and driven by the changed market environment, most of our R&D measures are addressing our CP business. Our ambition here is more than EUR 150 million of clean EBITDA impact by 2029.

The key levers are increased focus on return on innovation spend as well as adjusting our R&D fixed cost base similar to what we've done in product supply. We are on track and EUR 40 million will already be delivered in 2026. So let's also look at this important lever in a bit more detail. To deliver the improvements, we have made important progress along a number of dimensions. First, we have concluded a comprehensive pipeline review and adjusted our assessment framework by lifting the profit margin threshold.

And we are introducing a next wave of automation and artificial intelligence into our processes. We have also made clear decisions on rightsizing our global R&D footprint and reducing our fixed cost base. As our most important measure, we are consolidating our Crop Protection R&D by transferring our herbicide research from Frankfurt to Monheim. This will allow us to capture greater efficiency and reduce our fixed cost base, for example, through synergies in lab and greenhouse usage.

Implementation is already on the way following the previously mentioned joint declaration in Germany. In parallel, we are adjusting our field testing network, country support model and systematically relocating formulation technology activities into regional hubs. Also, this will improve cost efficiency while improving proximity to our customers. An example of this measure is our site in Yuki in Japan, where we will discontinue our global Crop Protection formulation technology center and relocate the activities into more cost competitive locations.

So in summary, the changes in the R&D space will drive significant cost and efficiency gains, focus our activities much more on the highest area of return and also reshape where and how we conduct R&D in a changed market environment. Finally, let's move over to the last category, and let's cover go-to-market and SG&A costs. Our ambition here in that space is more than EUR 400 million of EBITDA improvement by 2029. Our first lever is to improve gross to net realization by becoming more disciplined and targeted with discounts, rebates and other market funding.

This also includes simplifying how we operate across markets to drive down our cost to serve. We've also revised what we call country archetypes in line with market fundamentals and business opportunities. This approach, which I'll explain in a little bit more detail in a second, is leading to strong efficiency gains and increased focus as well. One outcome of these archetypes includes, for example, several Crop Protection country exits in West Central Africa and a set of smaller markets -- smaller Asian markets. It also led to the adjustment or refocus of go-to-market resources. An example for that is our Asian markets where we focus our activities from a much broader portfolio to a set of priority brands and also continue to increase the role of digital demand creation.

Moving to global functions here at the bottom part of the slide, we are on track and making good progress as well. We continue to implement our functional productivity programs. They are driving greater automation and the use of artificial intelligence together with the continued rollout of our leaner, more empowered operating model. We've also optimized and are challenging our spending on outsourced services for relevance and market opportunity to deliver savings as well.

Overall, with these changes, we are seeing very good momentum and expect the benefits to build steadily through 2029. So to conclude and as promised, let me give you a bit more flavor on how we are implementing the changes with our revised country archetypes. With a revised approach, we have 3 categories of countries in our portfolio. First is our focus countries. They represent more than 70% of our Crop Science sales. This is where we are strengthening the demand generation to capture growth. Looking ahead, the next step here is to expand our on-farm presence and further refine our partner network.

Later today in the field this afternoon, Brian Naber will share more details on how we strengthen our go-to-market approach in our largest market, which is here in North America. Second, we have our leverage countries. They represent about 1/4 of our sales. In these markets, we push for efficiency to reduce our selling costs while still strongly benefiting from the innovation we deliver to our focus countries.

Our measures in this second group of countries are already yielding an annual cost reduction of EUR 30 million. We are continuously increasing collaboration with distributors and retail partners, and we are sharpening the focus of our teams to market segments with the highest fit to our portfolio. Last, we have our harvest countries. They account for less than 5% of our sales. Here, the focus is on freeing up resources, taking the leanest possible approach or exiting markets altogether.

In the harvest countries, we have already discontinued commercial activities in the first wave of around 10 countries since last year. This includes, for example, the before-mentioned crop protection business in several West Central African markets as an example. We also already reduced our FTE base in these countries by around 100 positions, and we will continue this process going forward. Across all our measures related to go-to-market and global functions, we are consequently on track and progressing well. Now this also brings me to the end of the deep dive on the individual components of our strength in the foundation part of the 5-year framework. As you can hopefully see, we've made significant progress since our last update and are consequently very confident to deliver on our ambition in this area. With this, thank you very much for your attention, and I will now hand it back to Guru, who will continue from here with an update on cash.

Thank you, Sascha. So let me close this section out with our cash productivity program because margin is only part of the story, cash matters just as much. Our ambition is to free up more than EUR 1.5 billion of cumulative cash from working capital between 2024 and 2029, and we are on track. In fact, we got off to a strong start ahead of schedule, as I'll show you in a moment.

There are 3 levers. First, inventory. As mentioned previously, we are tracking ahead of schedule. We have already delivered EUR 500 million inventory reduction in 2025 with a further EUR 300 million in implementation. And we are very confident to deliver EUR 800 million by 2029. The key measures driving this reduction include safety stock optimization of active ingredients globally and formulated products on a regional level, tighter management of our seed stock levels, including reduction of excess production and dedicated management of slow-moving inventory.

Second, on payables. We are extending supplier payment terms for our own cash position. We have set up a dedicated team renegotiating terms with more than 200 of our most important suppliers. And we have expanded the use of supply chain financing to provide a funding solution to our suppliers. As a result, we expanded our average supplier payment terms by 4 days in 2025, and we continue to drive further improvements in our terms.

And third, on receivables, we've reduced our days sales outstanding by 2 days already year-on-year by standardizing payment terms, being more disciplined about timely collection, and we've also expanded our price linked terms into Asia. So across all 3 areas: inventory, payables and receivables, we are strengthening our working capital productivity and building resiliency to our overall cash delivery.

To wrap up this part of the deep dive, you can see why I'm very confident that our execution remains well on track. Our margin and cash initiatives are largely within our control, and we are making great progress through our focused and agile implementation framework. With this, I'm handing it over to Rodrigo to take you through the other 2 dimensions of our 5-year framework.

Thank you very much, Guru and Sascha. So we talk about the savings and the margin expansion and the cash. Let's talk about growth. So let me share a little bit more about the platforms that we have and how we're already translating into results already in '25 and '26, and we're going to talk beyond. So let me start with first in corn.

Corn, we grew by 13% year-over-year in 2025, double-digit growth in every single region. This year, first half of the year, we are growing corn again even with a decreased area in North America. Second, soybean. Soybean, we stabilized the top line. We regained our dicamba label in North America as we speak, and we grew share of our Intacta 2 expanding Brazil by 9 percentage points. Third, in our other seeds and traits, we've gained share in canola, in vegetables and in corn, cotton, sorry.

And in our Core Crop Protection, as you heard, we are making the operational progress we want to see in our portfolio. We divested the 5 key ingredients that Sascha mentioned. We discontinued and we prune our portfolio for more than 100 products that were diluting our margin, and we launched the new more profitable ones in their plate that I'll mention later in the presentation. And last, in our noncore Crop Protection, the consolidated U.S. glyphosate assets are different managed at Ruveon entity, and this is where we are sitting today on the first results of the expansion of our growth.

But let's talk about the next years. Let me connect you to the ambition that we mentioned to our 2029. Every platform that we have, I just walked you through has its own plan. And this is what I told you earlier. We pursue very differentiated strategy by each of the platforms that we have. So starting first with corn and the seeds and traits, our fastest growth engine, and we're already delivering the results that I mentioned, but we are building even further momentum in '26, '27, '28 and '29.

Soybean is different. We stabilized in 2025. And essentially, we are flat while we are preparing the launch of our game-changing innovations that will get us on a new growth trajectory beyond 2028 when we launch Vyconic and Intacta 5+ in Brazil. So let me go here on the Core Crop Protection. We are also expecting the low single-digit growth here. We have poster profitability measures like pruning our portfolio, and we will get profitable growth in the second half of the 5-year framework period. And the noncrop protection glyphosate here is different. We are managing the price based on the dynamics of the market and focus on margin, not on top line.

All of that put us in a solid above-market growth plan that we have for the next years until 2029. Let's go deeper here. This is one important slide. Let me show you how exactly behind the above-market growth that I just mentioned and how are the different drives comes together. The key driver of growth are our innovations, starting with the blockbusters. The blockbusters, we have the strongest trait and Crop Protection pipeline in the industry. So we are talking about Preceon. We're talking about Corn Rootworm 4, icafolin, [ Lab4 ], Plenexos and the new fungicide that will come in the early 2030s.

This is the blockbusters. As these blockbusters are only being launched now in the next years, their contribution 2029 ambitions is still moderate, but they fuel our growth that will go beyond 2030s. But that's been on the innovation engine in the breeding that refreshes and upgrades our portfolio every year. We launched more than 400 new hybrid and seed varieties across corn, soy, canola every year.

And each of the new varieties and hybrids bring advantages for growers and increase the yield per acre, right? So none of these hybrids or varieties is a blockbuster alone, but the totality of our breeding pipeline might be the hidden blockbuster driving the biggest portion of our 2025 -- 2029 ambition. And our breeding engine is running very well. It will continue to drive growth in the [ 23rd ] and beyond. Also, another big contributor to growth until 2029 is the seeds and traits geographic expansion. We are pursuing our proven technologies into new markets, into new markets where seeds and traits demand is growing fast, like in Asia and in Africa. And last, Crop Protection Life Cycle Management is also driving growth, and I'll mention more details. We deploy new formulations and we extend the application of our proven AIs into new geographies, new crops and additional applications. That is the pipeline behind our above-market growth plan that we have in the next years.

So let's go through each of the platforms, and we start with corn. Corn is our largest platform, and we will keep it our strongest. Our measures here are already delivering growth above our mid-single-digit ambition, putting us firmly on track to contribute to our 2029 ambition. And we get in 4 layers here. The first, the grower relationship itself, best-in-class support, so growers succeed and we stay loyal to us. So that's the first one.

The second one is geographic expansion in Europe, Middle East and in Africa and in Asia, and we are growing faster there, and I'll come back to more details on that one. The third is genetics. About 2 new hybrids every year expanding our lead in North America and Latin America and with the new next generation of traits coming together with that new genetics. And fourth, scaling up our Preceon Smart Corn System globally, along with our FieldView digital platform.

So corn deserves that I go a little bit deeper in each of those key elements here at least. So let me start with the geographic expansion. This is where I want to spend a little bit of a moment because it's -- I think it's really underappreciated. In Asia and in Europe, in Middle East and Africa together, we are targeting more than 10% compound growth in the next years. That's more than EUR 600 million of incremental sales by 2029 from these 2 regions alone.

So let me make that concrete with a few examples. So first, Asia, where we market the strains and our genetics and focus our commercial teams across the different regions. We are growing above double digit there. And also, if I go to EMEA, where we are growing at a high single-digit rate. Here are 2 examples. Tanzania, a leverage market for our Sub-Saharan Africa. We built a dedicated corn team there focused purely on unlocking demand and taking our technology to farmers.

In Germany, one of our focus markets, we set up a dedicated [indiscernible] team, simplify how we go to the market to a single point of contact for the customer and bundled our corn herbicide with our DEKALB seeds. Sales there are growing around 10% a year. So this isn't one strategy for platform across the whole EMEA region. It's a playbook adapted market by market, and it's growing and it's working on that region as we have here. So let me go now and let's talk about the innovation engine behind the growth that we have.

So first, we have a clear trade road map running out to 2035, better weed control, stronger protection against rootworm, enhanced protection against certain pests and several of these are genuine blockbuster traits. Some of this, as you would expect, is still pending regulatory approval, as I need to mention. And behind that, we have more than 1,000 hybrids in North America market today only. We deploy roughly 200 new hybrids every year. And by 2029, about 70% of our portfolio, our commercial portfolio will have been renewed.

And each new generation is delivering 2% to 4% yield increase. This is how we keep our lead through our stead continuous pipeline of blockbusters, not just one single bit, but also a pipeline of continued innovation and the engine that is leading to the market. Let me talk about because one of the key questions that you have is about Preceon because this is a really game changing in corn. So short-stature corn products, and we're going to see that in the field are more resilient and easier to manage.

That gives farmers extended access to the field for later season crop protection and it's paired with FieldView data guidance and with tailored support from our organization. As this technology is new to the market, we want to ensure that farmers receive the best possible introduction and support as they adopt the product. And we have set up a clear rollout plan to ensure the best experience for our growers. Farmer interest is already strong. Participation in our groundbreakers programs in U.S. is tripling every year. And following our first commercial launches in Europe, in Spain and Italy, we captured 5% of the market in the first year. And in 2030s, we are taking this to Brazil, to Argentina and many other regions across conducting all the trials that we have in the plan. So if you look at the Preceon by itself, let me tell you that what it means to our portfolio, right?

Preceon is going to contribute meaningfully to our growth, and it does that in 2 ways. First, through acreage expansion itself, as you see on the slide, growing from a standing start to 26 million acres by 2035 and foster heading towards 50 million acres by 2040. These acres will be partially coming from our toll corns, but also will take share from our competitors. By 2035, the incremental acreage should be fueled by growth of our global market share by 4 percentage points.

And second, we will have higher seed -- higher sales per acre coming from volume and pricing coming from that technology as well. The increased seed density in the yield maximization strategy that we have leads to higher seed volumes per acre and also all the benefits for the growers and the value creation for Preceon allow us to capture a fair share of value pricing at a premium. So that's the corn, our largest platform, and I think you are clear proof points of where this whole company is heading. So let me go to soybean. Now soy. Soy is a different story. Currently, we are stabilizing our business, and we're preparing the launch of the new innovations that will get us back to a strong growth plan after that.

In North America, we did what we said we would do, right? We regained our dicamba registration for the '26 and '27 seasons. We defended our acreage. We streamlined our cost structure, and we are preparing the launch of iconic soybean, a new trait package to growers for seed multiplication in '27 for commercial sales in '28, pending the regulatory approval as well.

In Latin America, we secured our position for future growing seasons. We increased our share of Intacta 2 Xtend by 9 percentage points to around 30% of the market. And we are already preparing our next-generation trait Intacta 5+ for launch in 2027, also pending the regulatory approval that I need to make that disclaim. So soybean, different plan than corn. So now let's talk a little bit deeper on that one because it's a very important platform for us.

Let me start with the North America. We launched a new herbicide, Tri-X after regaining dicamba label. We stabilized our market share in the first half of '26. I would say that we're even better than that. And we are streamlining our footprint, including divesting a processing facility in [ Dormagen ], as Sascha mentioned. Now on top of that, let me be specific about Vyconic because I think it's a really game changer for the market. It gives growers the widest option for weed management available, and that will change the farmer buying behaviors.

Today, the weed control system is the most important buying criteria. When weed controls get easier with Vyconic, the focus will naturally shift to yield performance of the genetics. And in our trials, our Vyconic class soy variety show better yield advantage against all the competitors. In 2027, we will start commercial seed production. This already happens by the commercial soybean growers who gain experience with the new technology.

And in 2028, Vyconic varieties will be commercially accessible for all farmers. And we expect adoption will be very steep on the case of Vyconic because we expect more than 50% trade share in North America by 2032. This is, of course, as I said, depending on the regulatory approvals that we have. In Latin America, the story is about transition. As you know, in 2028, the exclusivity rights for the first-generation Intacta trait will expire, but we are already making the upgrade to better performing products. Growers are transitioning from Intacta 2 Pro to Intacta 2 Xtend for better performance right now as we speak, and that share grows from 9% in '24 to 19% in '25 to 28% in '26 and the market we are targeting more than 65% in the next years.

It offers better weed control than our next best competitor and better insect protection, and that's why you're seeing this ramp-up that you see in the numbers. But that's not enough. Behind that, we are preparing the Intacta 5+ with even stronger insect protection and weed control for the launch to its feed multipliers in '27 and commercial sales in '28. So defending North America, converting Latin America, that's how we solidify and we accelerate our soybean growth to going further after 2030s.

Beyond corn and soy, we have the 3 more seed platforms and each of them are growing, as I mentioned. So let me go deeper here. We expect mid-single-digit growth ahead, but individual pieces are moving even faster. In canola, we are targeting low double-digit growth until 2029 through next-generation hybrids and region-specific go-to-market. In cotton, already the global #1, we are targeting mid-single-digit growth until 2029 through new trait technologies.

And in vegetables, we are targeting mid-single-digit growth until 2029 through a renewed portfolio of more than 400 new varieties that we are launching. Let me go into details in the canola integration story here because I think it's a very good one. Almost a decade ago, after the divestiture of our legacy canola assets to BASF, we were #3 player in the Canadian market. Now we are a strong #2, constantly growing our business and gaining fast share. And in Europe, our DEKALB genetics carry resistance traits that protect yield against key regional diseases.

In Canada, our newest hybrids deliver more than 6% yield advantage against leading competitor, and we are gaining the significant share that I mentioned. The global canola market itself is growing 1% to 2% a year, but through better genetics and sharper regional execution, our target is significantly higher with lower double-digit net sales growth until 2029. That's how we outgrow a slower growing market in the case of canola here.

We are already the global #1 in cotton. Let's talk about cotton here. Our strategy now is to extend that lead to our [indiscernible] traits technology, and you're going to see and we're going to talk about that as the next-generation trade is launched in 2029. And we run that in a very different by region. In Australia, we're expanding acreage. In the U.S., we are growing our own brands and our trade license. And in Brazil, we are growing trade share through our license and our Deltapine brand.

So global cotton demand is growing around 2% a year, and our target is a mid-single-digit net sales growth until 2029. So also another growing platform. And finally, the vegetable seeds here. This is another hidden germ that we have here. It doesn't get the attention that corn and soy, but look at what it does. It's very interesting. We are already #1 in tomatoes and peppers and 2 on the top 3 vegetable crops globally and #2 in the vegetable seeds overall.

Our ambition is to continue to drive growth backed by 400 new varieties introductions between now and 2030. Again, you are seeing and hearing the engine of R&D working here. On average, we bring around 20 new products per crop to market every single year. And that's really the pace of innovation that we are seeing, and you're going to see acceleration coming for the next years. Think about disease-resistant cucumbers or tomatoes resistance to a major regional virus and even a tomato enhanced with a vitamin D to gene editing.

That's a unique opportunity that we have. The global vegetable seed market grows around 2% or 3% a year, and our target is the market is to grow above market until 2029 as well. So let's talk about Crop Protection platform. As we talk about, we are managing the business for a low single-digit growth, and we are doing it with 3 levers. First, the new blockbusters launches over the next years. That's the first one.

The second, life cycle management, developing new formulations and expanding improving active ingredients and products into new geographies and new crops. And third, sharper go-to-market. We're deploying our resources into the markets and brands where we can grow profitably. I need to go deeper in one of those elements here because this deserves a deeper dive here. So let me go first to the -- this piece here. We have 2 new exciting blockbusters coming in the next years. You heard about that Plenexos and icafolin, 2 new blockbusters. For our new herbicide insecticide, Plenexos, our launch plan is on track. We have already realized the first commercial sales, and we expect to launch the product in key markets like Brazil in '27 and U.S. in '28. We see peak sales potential of around EUR 500 million in the mid-2030s for Plenexos. For our new herbicide, icafolin, we still -- we will submit dossiers, which will cover 95% of the market potential already by the end of this year, and we are targeting around EUR 750 million of peak sales, also driven by additional herbicide tolerance opportunities that we have.

And behind these 2, we have already a new fungicide in the pipeline, targeting major launches in the 2030s. So icafulin and Plenexos, both on track with more innovation already behind them. We are also getting more value out of our portfolio through life cycle management. Let me give you 3 examples. There are different strategies are very important for capturing value. So Convintro. The strategy here is geographic expansion. We are taking this proven active ingredient into North America, into Brazil with extended crop spectrum, both markets wasn't sold before, and this has the opportunity to triple our potential market and addressing even increasing customer needs for resistance braking solutions.

So Convintro herbicide is the first one. Another good example is Vayego. Here, the strategy is crop and past spectrum expansion through new formulations. And I'll give you a number. Through the life cycle management alone, we plan to double Vayego sales from 2030 -- 2025 to 2030. That's another example of the life cycle management. The third one, the Fox. Fox here, the strategy is the brand expansion. We are continuously evolving with active ingredients mix for the Fox family to improve efficacy and to break resistance in the key diseases. 3 brands, 3 different playbooks, and these are just 3 examples of many of how we deliver innovation and we leverage our proven portfolio for future growth.

So blockbusters, life cycle management is very important in Crop Protection because this helps us to drive the growth that we have in the plan in the next year. So let me go now to the last piece here of the noncore Crop Protection. As I mentioned here, this is essentially the U.S. glyphosate business and also the glyphosate that we have.

Here, it's not a top line growth ambition. We have a dedicated team and a very lean structure, managing a commodity business to compete in cost and scale, and it's a different mindset that really requires that focus. And the goal is very simple. It is to have really a profitable business and driving profitability in the next years that we have here, very lean target organization. So that brings me to the core base.

And now let's talk a little bit, and you're going to see in the field beyond our core because this is core. We are building real new positions in new value pools, something that builds on the foundation for growth beyond 2030s. In biofuel crops and biologicals, we are working toward global leadership through strategic partnerships. I won't go deeper today on that one, but I want you to see the direction because growth for us is not only about defending what we have and expanding what we have, but it's also about creating new opportunities, and I'll go very briefly on that one.

So let me go to the -- give you a very concrete example of this new value pool, biofuel crops. We already have the #1 high-yielding portfolio of intermediated crop seeds for biofuels. We cover 3 of the 4 key crops used for renewable diesel and for sustainable aviation fuel. And we are not doing this alone, but through partnerships. So CoverCress first, where we hold 65% ownership in a true farm to fuel supply chain, winter canola through a strategic partnership with a market leader in sustainable aviation fuel in Europe; and camelina, a strategic alliance in scaling up under the new Gold brand. So our ambition here is bold. We have -- we want to expand our acreage by a factor of 60, so more than 5 million acres by 2035.

And we commercialize this into 2 ways. First, the seed sales and also to sharing in the value further downstream. That's also an opportunity that we have here. This is what a new value pool looks like when you're building properly real partnerships and acreage, real commercial upside. And with that, the combination of what we have on the core to drive the above-market growth in the next years and beyond the core for the 2030s and beyond. I'll go back to Guru so he can bring all this together. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Rodrigo. So now let me now take you through the path to our 2029 ambition and the overall financial outlook. We confirm our ambition for above-market growth and mid-20s clean EBITDA margin by the end of the decade. This is consistent and reinforces what we shared with you last year. We expect a compounded annual growth of approximately 3% through 2029 against a market which we expect to grow on average 2%. This above-market growth is driven by our strong portfolio and innovation pipeline.

Our 5-year framework will deliver more than EUR 1 billion margin improvements from efficiency measures fully within our control. This leads to a margin expansion of 100 to 150 basis points per year on average. Seeds and traits, Core Crop Protection and noncore crop protection each have very different economics, and we don't manage them with a one-size-fits-all playbook. For example, Ruveon, as announced in July this year, is a distinctly managed business for U.S. glyphosate.

This differentiated steering by platform is very important, and I will share a bit more on different approaches to capital allocation later in my section. We are not introducing a new story here. We are showing you the financial translation of the implementation program, and I will now provide additional context on how the different components come together to support delivery of our midterm ambition. So let's start with our sales outlook. Our ambition remains to grow above market at approximately 3% CAGR on a currency and portfolio-adjusted basis by 2029 compared with the 2025 baseline.

Corn being our largest and most profitable crop accounts for the largest portion of the growth, driven by innovation, both through new hybrids and blockbusters and geographical expansion. In addition, we are very excited about Preceon becoming a growth driver through both market share expansion and increased value capture per acre through 2029 and further accelerating into the 2030s. Soy is expected to be essentially flat. Towards the end of the period, however, we expect to see strong growth momentum from the introductions of Vyconic in North America and Intacta 5+ in Brazil that translate into significant acceleration into the 2030s.

Other seeds and traits are expected to contribute a mid-single-digit growth rate, a similar impressive growth trajectory as our corn platform just at a smaller scale. Crop Protection is expected to deliver low single-digit growth. Our recent performance has been impacted by regulatory headwinds, industry-wide generic pressure and planned portfolio pruning. Looking ahead, as this environment continues, our focus is on profitable growth, driven by the ongoing geographic rollout of Convintro, continued expansion of the Fox fungicide franchise and additional crop registrations and users for Vayego.

In addition, the upcoming launches of our blockbuster innovations, Plenexos and icofolin will drive growth over the coming years. So before moving on, let me provide you with 4 additional insights. First, on calendarization. As a reminder, top line revenue in 2025 and 2026 includes revenue from the licensing resolution with Corteva. It creates some phasing effects between the years, but does not change the underlying business trajectory or midterm targets. This licensing revenue is part of our business model and reflects compensation for the use of our proprietary technology.

However, the timing of revenue recognition creates a strong step-up in 2026, which combined with further CP portfolio pruning will naturally moderate the year-over-year growth comparison for 2027. Secondly, on growth beyond '27. As mentioned before, beginning in 2028, we expect growth momentum to accelerate as our blockbuster launches gain scale and make a more meaningful contribution to the business. Third, on currency effects. This will remain an important factor for our business going forward. We face strong exposure to the U.S. dollar and Brazilian real from our top 2 markets.

We saw negative effects here in 2025 and to a lesser extent, also this year. Fourth, on external market factors, a cyclicality and geopolitical volatility can affect our top line. As a result, sales growth is unlikely to follow a perfectly linear trajectory, but we remain focused on actively managing these dynamics and executing the levers within our control.

So in summary, our growth ambition is underpinned by the strong growth profile of our seeds and traits business, a robust innovation pipeline across both seeds and traits and Core Crop Protection and targeted life cycle management. Let me now build on the licensing resolution I just mentioned on the previous slide because it illustrates a broader point about the strategic value of our technology leadership.

Our leading position in traits is not only an important driver of our own seed business, it also creates significant value through out-licensing. In Brazil soy, for example, our traits are used on more than 85% of the planted area. More broadly, we have 2 to 3 trait generations ahead of our closest competitor. While we are already working on Gen 5 and Gen 6 traits, our closest competitor is still working through Gen 2 and Gen 3. That gap is the result of years of R&D and regulatory investment and expertise, not something that closes quickly. This leadership means that other industry participants rely on access to our technology to remain competitive.

The recent agreement we signed with Corteva on the licensing resolution includes HT technologies in soybean and cotton and is just one proof point for the strength of our technology and how sought after it is. Financially, this translates into a highly resilient licensing business. On the top line, we have greater than EUR 2.5 billion of sales from royalties. And on a net basis, including fees we pay for in-licensing, we generate well above EUR 2 billion of net licensing income annually. The agreement for our current technologies continue well into the mid-2030s.

And we have secured already important licensing arrangements for our key pipeline technologies, including HT4 in soy and cotton as well as corn rootworm 4 and LEP 4 in corn, which go even into the 2040s. Together, these agreements safeguard more than EUR 2 billion of net licensing income annually into the future with further upside potential in 2030s as new technology adoption grows.

This resilient income stream reflects the long-term value of sustained investment in trade innovation and supports our overall financial outlook. So now let me turn to margin and explain the key components that will drive our path towards our mid-20s clean EBITDA margin ambition by 2029. As stated earlier, we expect average annual margin expansion of 100 to 150 basis points over this period, driven by 2 main levers: sales growth and efficiency gains from the execution of the 5-year framework.

Let's look at sales growth first. This will be a meaningful contributor to margin expansion over the coming years and several factors underpin this contribution. First and foremost, we expect a favorable portfolio mix at the divisional level as our higher-margin seeds and traits business continues to grow faster than Crop Protection. Within seeds and traits, growth is driven by improved price and mix as we continue to launch new hybrids and gain market share.

Second, within Crop Protection, we are actively and systematically improving the quality of earnings through portfolio pruning and the divestment of margin-dilutive products, an execution lever that is largely within our control. Thirdly, our innovation pipeline and blockbuster launches are expected to further enhance the margin profile of the business. Taken together, these actions are driving higher quality, more margin accretive growth, which we expect will make an increasingly significant contribution over the course of this period.

The other major contributor to margin expansion will be the productivity and efficiency gains generated by the execution of the 5-year framework. As explained earlier, we have an overall ambition of greater than EUR 1 billion with product supply being the biggest contributor with over EUR 600 million in savings. The overall program remains fully on track with some initiatives that are tracking ahead of schedule. Productivity and sourcing actions in product supply materialize faster, but as site consolidation, footprint optimization and organizational changes require more preparation and phasing to minimize disruption to our business and to our customers.

Further, the expected structural inflation across our cost categories will be more than fully offset. Since the introduction of the margin ambition 16 months ago, the ag macro environment and geopolitical backdrop have become volatile. However, our actions to drive margin expansion have materially strengthened the resilience of our business. In fact, they have enabled us to absorb inflationary cost pressures, including higher fuel, energy and logistics expenses related to the conflict in the Middle East while remaining within our 2026 guidance range.

So let us now look at the margin trajectory. In line with our guidance, we delivered a 19.4% clean EBITDA margin in 2025 despite FX headwinds and regulatory challenges affecting high-margin sales. As communicated earlier on our earnings calls, the timing of licensing resolution income benefited 2025 with further positive impact also in 2026, along with certain onetimes, for example, from divestments. Importantly, we expect strong underlying margin expansion in 2026 with a major contribution from the EUR 380 million of productivity and efficiency gains delivered through our 5-year framework. This demonstrates our ability to deliver within our average annual margin expansion range of 100 to 150 basis points. For 2026, we confirm our guidance range of 20% to 22% clean EBITDA.

Looking ahead to 2027, we expect strong and continued progress on our margin initiatives. At the same time, the comping effect of onetime gains and licensing income from 2026 is expected to moderate the year-on-year EBITDA margin expansion. I want to reinforce that the underlying drivers of margin improvement remain firmly in place. We will provide more specifics in early 2027 as part of the overall Bayer Group guidance.

So let's move to 2028 and 2029. We expect margin expansion to accelerate toward the upper end of the 100 to 150 basis point range. Higher-quality margin-accretive growth will become more visible through portfolio mix improvements and innovation-led growth, while structural productivity and efficiency benefits continue to build. So let me summarize this. We are rigorously executing our 5-year framework and the levers within our control with initiatives either fully on track or ahead of schedule. Even as market dynamics evolve, we will adapt as needed and remain fully focused on achieving our mid-20s clean EBITDA margin ambition by 2029.

So let me now turn to our cash outlook. As I mentioned earlier, we've already delivered EUR 500 million of inventory reduction in 2025 alone with a further EUR 300 million in implementation. We also extended average supplier payment terms by 4 days while reducing days sales outstanding by 2 days year-on-year. This represents strong progress in working capital productivity. At the same time, our 2025 free operating cash flow was impacted by currency headwinds and a planned change in our precollection practices, which is designed to improve cost to serve.

But here is the important point. Despite these impacts, our underlying cash program is unlocking working capital productivity and establishing the trajectory we need for 2026 and beyond. Looking ahead, we expect to build on the EUR 1.4 billion of free operating cash flow from 2025 progressively year-by-year, reaching more than EUR 3 billion by 2029. Four drivers enable us to get to our ambition.

First, profit expansion will be a major contributor. Our sales growth is increasingly driven by high-margin products, and we expect incremental revenues to convert at higher margins. In addition, the productivity and efficiency measures of the 5-year framework drive operating earnings. Regarding our foreign exchange exposure, we aim to actively manage this over the midterm. Second, working capital productivity. This will help fund our sales growth rather than constrain it. We have an additional EUR 300 million of inventory reduction underway, and we see continued progress on our customer and supplier cash productivity. Third, we have carefully planned and will make the investments that are required to enable successful execution of the 5-year framework transformation and which will sustainably improve our profit and cash generation. The majority of these onetime implementation costs will occur between 2026 and 2028.

Fourth, as mentioned earlier, the personnel compensation of our teams across many markets is now linked to cash flow performance in addition to sales and profit margin. So taken together, these measures support our clear focus on improving cash conversion to greater than 50% and achieving our ambition to generate more than EUR 3 billion of free operating cash flow by 2029. As Bayer's largest division, Crop Science plays a critical role in the group's cash delivery. The cash we generate funds the R&D and capital investments required to reinforce our long-term leadership while supporting Bayer Group priorities.

The entire Crop Science management team is fully focused on delivering our ambition. Let me now move to our capital allocation priorities. As I mentioned, we steer our platforms differently. This also applies to how we allocate capital. In seeds and traits, we continue to invest to expand our market leadership through R&D for genetic and trait leadership and through CapEx for growth and footprint expansion. This is where our licensing advantage that I described earlier gets reinforced and extended.

In Core Crop Protection, we streamline go-to-market and R&D and selectively invest to drive profitable growth. That includes process improvement, site adjustments and R&D for our long-term active ingredient pipeline and life cycle management. And in noncore Crop Protection, including Ruveon, capital allocation is managed independently from the core, focused on maintaining the asset base, which is consistent with Ruveon managing its business as a distinct entity.

So across every platform, capital follows strategy. And that discipline is what ties together everything I've walked you through today. Above-market growth anchored in corn, canola, vegetable seeds and our Core Crop Protection pipeline, a resilient licensing income stream, an accelerating margin trajectory and a cash program that is unlocking working capital productivity. Individually, each of these is a reason for confidence. And together, they make a compelling case for why we will deliver our 2029 ambition.

Let me summarize our financial outlook. We confirm our ambition to deliver above-market growth, achieve a mid-20s clean EBITDA margin as well as more than EUR 3 billion of free operating cash flow by 2029. Our confidence is underpinned by the strong execution of our 5-year framework and the tangible progress we have already achieved across our key initiatives.

In closing, I want to leave you with 6 key messages to take away from today. First, our 5-year framework delivery is fully on track with measures progressing well across all 3 elements of the triangle: sales, margin and cash flow. Second, we have a differentiated steering approach across our platforms, which lets each of our businesses respond flexibly to market trends rather than following a one-size-fits-all playbook.

Third, corn remains our main growth driver. Our Preceon Smart Corn System is developing into a leading platform for the next decade, while the growth we expect through 2029 comes to an even larger degree from new hybrids and geographic expansion. Fourth, our soybean recovery is gaining real traction with the return of the dicamba label and our Vyconic and Intacta 5+ trait technologies are well positioned to lead in both U.S. and in Brazil.

Fifth, we are transforming our Core Crop Protection business into a leaner business focused on driving profitable growth. And sixth, Bayer remains the key innovation leader in this industry. We have the broadest pipeline and the strongest technical capabilities, and these are fueling both our own business and our licensing opportunities. With that, I want to thank you for your attention, and we'll now hand it over to Mike Graham, our Head of R&D, to speak further about our R&D capabilities and impact on current and future pipeline. Thank you.

Well, good morning, and great to be here today, and a huge thank you, Guru. It's truly, truly wonderful to be here today. It's a real pleasure for me to be actually here in Huxley. For those of you who I haven't had the chance to meet, I'm Mike Graham, I lead the R&D organization.

And I've actually spent my entire career in R&D. And it's really, really neat for me to be back here today because I actually started my career on this very farm. So to have the opportunity 30 years later to be with you today and share the amazing innovations that we have in front of us is truly an incredible opportunity. Now what you heard this morning is where we're taking the company.

What I'm going to do over the next 45 minutes or so is take you deeper inside the engine that is delivering the innovations and fueling our growth plan. I'm going to share the technology that sits and sits behind it today and what our teams are actually delivering right now and what all of that means for the value we create for our growers.

And I want to do it by answering the key questions you've been asking us. So the questions we hear from you are on this slide. And let me start by putting those questions on the table right upfront. And I'd actually rather take them head on. The first question we get is relevance. Does innovation in agriculture still matter. And that is a very fair question. If you look at where crop productivity and crop prices are today.

The second question is race. Are we going to win the race to the next disrupting technology. There's a lot of noise out there, and a lot of companies are claiming a lot of things. And finally, return, is our innovation pipeline still going to differentiate us beyond 2030. I know you are very eager to understand the next quarters, but the foundation of our success in the many quarters of 2030s is being set today. So relevance race return. I will come back to all 3 of them at the end, and you can hold me to whether we answered them or not.

Now I'm going to start with relevance. And I want to start with a little bit of history because it's easy to forget what R&D has already delivered. And you can go back to the mid-1800s and simply look at the advancements we've made in breeding and new genetics and productivity in corn. The first 70 years of that line are flat and farmers were working just as hard then as they are today. When they wanted to harvest more, they had to plant more acres.

Then hybrid corn showed up and everything changed. In the 1990s, we bought GMOs into the game and everything changed again. Today, we're at around 100 to 80 to 200 bushels an acre in the U.S., same land, same acre more than 6x the output. Now if you think about what actually drove that, it's the 4 things that are on the right.

Seed and traits define the yield and the quality of the crop. Crop Protection, safe guards that yield against weeds, pests and diseases. Fertilizers provide the nutrients that crops need to grow, and machinery lets a farmer work that field with precision and efficiency. And the first 2 are our market. These are the 2 crucial levers that decide how much a grower is actually going to harvest. Now let's look ahead. Guru already talked through the drivers of growing demand and the supply side challenges for crop production.

What is important in the context of R&D is arable land, which is vastly farmed already. There is not a much expansion area left. So in contrast to our 19th century farmer, we cannot simply go out and plant more acres. We need to further increase productivity, and we need to uplift the yield on every acre despite increasing headwinds. For example, just think about the potential impact on corn yields in Iowa. When the number of days above 90 degrees Fahrenheit triples by 2050.

This really leaves one answer. Innovation is urgently needed on every acre. So relevance is settled. Innovation matters more than ever. Now the second question is the race. I'm going to give you my short answer upfront and I will prove it in the next several minutes. We will win this race for 5 reasons. The first one is our leadership spans across key R&D platforms driving agriculture innovation. Breeding, biotechnology, genome editing, Crop Protection and data science, not 1 or 2 of them, we are second to none in all 5.

We seamlessly integrate and scale next-generation technologies, and that's what continuously refreshes already industry-leading pipeline, which is the most importantly tailored to our growers' needs. Having access to technology isn't the same as running it at the scale inside of commercial pipeline.

And I'll show you exactly what that difference looks like. Second, we are uniquely integrating these platforms to create synergistic systems, not just products, novel solutions and grower outcomes cannot be replicated. That's truly where the step change value where grower sits and it is the hardest thing in this industry for anyone to copy. Third, our proprietary data and AI engine accelerates our R&D pipeline. And that speeds up the delivery of value to the farm gate.

We have 20 years of connected data that you simply cannot go out and buy. And finally, our world-class R&D team has the expertise not only to discover, but to critically execute and deliver breakthrough products at a global scale. And I don't want to dwell on that one for a second, because it's the reason the other 4 actually perform.

Platforms don't discover anything on their own. People do. And this is the deepest bench in the industry. So if you take one line off the slide, take the one at the bottom. Others have pieces, we have the full engine -- and that is exactly why we are entering a new phase of innovation, more products, better performance and more value for our farmers.

Now that's a big claim. So let's take a look at our unique R&D advantage, so you can understand why we are so confident. And this is a whole advantage on one slide. and it maps for everything I'm going to show you today and everything you will see in the field.

On the left there are 4 foundational R&D platforms, supercharged by data NII. Precision breeding, which combines speed with the #1 germplasm library in the industry. And germplasm is the one thing in this business. You can't simply create or invent. You can only accumulate it. Our biotech platform, which is protected by more than 11,000 granted patents, and that's a real moat stemming for more than 30 years of amazing and incredible work.

Our genome editing, which as you will see, is embedded in our #1 breeding pipeline. Not sitting off to the side because an edit has limited value unless it's combined with elite high-performing germplasm and managed through a strong breeding pipeline. And last, but not least is our molecular design, built on an industry-leading target discovery to develop new modes of action, new active ingredients tackling new modes of action.

Now in the middle of this, that is the piece that makes a difference, and that's our data and AI engine. It supercharges off all of those platforms. It's the reason we can make the decisions we make faster and more accurately than anyone we compete with. And on the right is what comes out of it, superior solutions for our growers. Seed and traits, Crop Protection, digital solutions. And we go one step further with system design, where we bring all of it together on one acre to pride growers with end-to-end solutions.

So the logic on this page is simple, leading tech platform supercharged by data NII combined into differentiated solutions and systems. Any competitor can do 1 or 2 of these things. Not one of them can come at all of it. Now I'm going to walk you through each of these and show you the proof points rather than the ambition, relevance, race and return.

Three words in mind as we go through this presentation. Now let's start with seed and traits. Now before the details, let me give you the high-level picture on the connection of our tech platforms and the value that we deliver to our growers. On the left, the same platform we just saw with data NII sitting across all of them.

On the right, 3 tangible benefits for the farmers with which we are after, increased genetic gain that's simply raising the ceiling on a farm, increased yield resilience, which is an adverse weather and climatic change is a requirement, and that's just simply making sure that the ceiling is maintained throughout the growing season and effective protection against weeds, pests and diseases by increasing the crop tolerance levels.

And we do this across corn, soy and our other crops. Now corn is our largest crop, and we are the undisputed global market leader and leading in 3 out of the 4 regions. Our market position follows performance, not the other way around.

And if you think about our leadership in corn, it rests on 3 cornerstones. We have the largest germplasm in the industry. We lead in key countries that are producing corn in temperate subtropic and tropical environments. We have an unmatched trade portfolio and pipeline.

We have twice the trade events of our key competitor. And we have a local performance edge, which is the one that actually pays the grower. Our DEKALB hybrids in the U.S. deliver a tremendous 6.2 yield advantage over our key competitor products.

Now going forward, I will use corn as a template and as an example to explain in more detail how our differentiated technology platforms are set up and how we develop them to develop -- to deploy the next generation of innovations and maintain our leadership position. But please be sure we're using all of these technologies and differentiators as well in soy and our other crops.

Now all of this innovation starts with data, and this is most probably the most underappreciated asset we have. No one else in this industry comes close to our scale. And it is really, really hard to replicate because you need 5 things working at the same time, and you've been needing to do them for many, many years.

You need the automation. You need the data that comes out of that automation. You need the IT systems to store that data. You need the capabilities and the models to understand that data. And then you need the discipline to think about where those decisions go and how do they impact our pipeline.

Our capability in these areas is unparalleled with millions of genotypes, millions of phenotypes, environmental measurements around the world that are continuously feeding advanced artificial capabilities across our platforms. In total, today, we make well over 250,000 AI decisions every day, and that number is simply growing.

And that's not something a competitor combined. That takes many, many years to build. Now I'll share many examples of how we're using data across the pipeline, but this is actually one of my favorite examples. On the left is the farmers P&L. And the important part is that we build this P&L county by county, not country by country, yield times price realization minus cost.

And what's left, obviously, is a profit that a farmer takes home. We have developed what we call a bioeconomic index. It takes that hyper local farmer P&L differentiated by geographies, environmental condition and crop usage and it translates the most impactful profit drivers into actionable R&D target product profiles. The example on this slide is our late 105, 110 relative maturity right here in the U.S. and you can read the priorities straight off the bars.

Increased performance, which is realized yield gain is not surprising. It carries by far the highest way. Improved agronomics, such as options and weed management and pest control come second. Improved plant health, using, for example, our best-in-class traits or disease tolerant hybrids, and decreased production costs, for example, avoiding a few job steps, which cost diesel and labor.

We're not inventing technology here for nice-to-have purposes. We start where the grower makes or loses most money in a specific maturity zone in a specific geography and we design against it. That is what design-driven R&D means. And if you think about what that does when your R&D is pointed at the biggest value pools, 2 things happen. Your hit rate goes up and your ability to price for that value you create goes up with it.

Now this is perhaps the most technical and important slide as you think about the advancements we're making in plant breeding. So I want to walk through it very carefully. Historically, breeding has been a fairly linear process. You make crosses, you start making selections, you put material in the field to test and you advance the very best material. After roughly 5 years, you have enough data on a given line or a given inbred to realize that it is a high value so you could start breathing a new generation with it again.

And that whole process typically takes about 5 years. Now on the left-hand side of this slide is how we have transformed our breeding approach. Ours is a continuous genetic cycling loop, constantly feeding breeding lines and data into product development. And look at the line underneath because it's the essence of what this enables.

It takes us from that 5-year generation time to a 4-month cycle time. That is 15-fold faster than what we have done in the past. And on the right, you can see what this does for growers. Again, this is that same North America portfolio and the late maturities measured now in dollars per gain per acre.

The white line shows historical breeding progress, a gradual increase worth $13 an acre a year in genetic game. The green line is this new methodology precision breeding, which has already created 9 generations of breeding in 3 years. And because of the speed, the genetic gain from one generation to the next has been accelerated, and it delivers roughly $38 an acre per year.

Now that is 2x the amount of genetic gain that we were delivering versus our historic approach. But here's the part I want to be really clear about because it's super easy to miss. This is a rate, not a one-off step change. Every year, it compounds and the gap between our germplasm and our competition simply gets wider. And that's why I personally and we all at Bayer are confident talking to you not just about the next advantage of our next launch class, but our competitive advantage for the next 30 years and beyond into 2030.

Now besides the speed of our breeding engine, understanding performance of new genetics and products in the field over diverse environmental conditions and years is crucial for our success. And this is also an area where we've made significant progress in recent years. Just 5 years ago, this capability did not exist. It only became possible with the latest AI and computational capabilities. We have taken all of that historic data from genomics to weather and soil characteristics to build a digital twin of our field testing program.

And actually, we have not only a digital twin of our testing fields, but almost every corn field in North America. We can simulate how any specific hybrid is going to perform on any specific acre under all possible weather scenarios without ever planting a plot on that acre. And this is already doing 3 things for us today. It allows us to do yield simulations to assist product advancement and placements on a grower's field. We can simulate literally millions of physical environments so that we have much better understanding of our genetics and our products into the future. And that then allows us to think very differently about how we prescriptively produce the next generation of products that we want to place on our growers' field.

And the accomplishments on the right is the one that I'd hold on to. Today, we sit in Story County. We used to test hybrids on 3 physical testing locations in this county. With the digital twin today, we can actually simulate 85,000 simulated data locations. And we have countywide acreage cover of almost 300,000 acres of simulation. And the beauty of this system, it scales. It goes beyond Story County. You can scale it to Iowa. It gives you 7.6 million locations you can simulate, but you can start simulating it across the world, across crops and enabling us to think very different.

And why it matters is commercially at the bottom. You can start thinking very differently about the time lines it takes to deliver a product to market, moving much faster than what we're doing today because we can leverage the simulated data. It improves how we're advancing and placing a product in every grower's field. And additionally, it allows us to run a much more efficient R&D testing engine, which enables us to gain more knowledge with similar amounts of resource that we use today.

Now what does all this look like when you bring it together? Today, you're going to have the opportunity to see a hybrid in the field. And this hybrid is DKC68-35, and it's a recently launched DEKALB Superstar product. It's a hybrid you will see for a number of different reasons because here's what it delivers. It is, first and foremost, a contest-winning hybrid.

Last year, it won 67% of the 2025 National Corn Yield Growers Contest. In trials, it has an average yield advantage of 13 bushels an acre advantage against our key competitor with an incredible win rate of about 82%. This hybrid is unique. It leverages proprietary international genetics from multiple countries, Thailand, Mexico, Argentina and the U.S. And it's truly a testament to what I shared with you earlier about strength of our global germplasm library. Nobody else can draw from such a broad and diverse germplasm base as we can. This hybrid has amazing agronomic characteristics, superior plant and grain characteristics, it's tolerant to heat and drought test, and it's got really robust root characteristics. And the amazing thing about this hybrid, it's adapted to about 60% of the U.S. corn markets.

Now why am I showing you one hybrid? Because this is our entire story in a product. It's that germplasm base I talked about. It's our advanced breeding methodologies that I talked about. And it's all of that coming together to deliver a superstar hybrid that we have today in the field. And you will get the chance this afternoon to work and interact with our team as they describe the journey of the development of this hybrid and what you can expect in the years to come.

Now I want to move to the biotech side because it also is an incredible story. Now every organization can actually have a slide like this. What nobody else has is what happens when you own all 5. And I'm not going to go through all of them. You'll hear the story today. You'll see some of the evidence for what we're trying to build. But I want to focus on the first 3. When you are in this space of plant biotechnology, it all starts with your genetic library. And this is why it matters. You can never design a trait against a target you have never seen. The libraries for us are our search space itself. So 7x more complete genomes isn't 7x more work. It's 7x more shot on goal.

We then focus on how do we capitalize on AI to design the next level -- the next traits? And this -- the old model in this space was find and test, and it was really a numbers game. So when you say 200x greater target activity, it isn't a better trait. It's really a different entry bar. And finally, tunable gene expression is the one that I want to call truly unique. The industry treats a trait as binary. You have it or you don't. The farmer really values what sits in the dose, how strongly it expresses in which tissue does it express and at what growth stages. That's where efficacy and yield drag get decided. Nobody else has this capability.

So let's put it together. The library defines what's possible, AI decides what's worth building, tunability decides how well it works. This is all complemented with our high-through validation capability. And in the end, this means that we will double the number of high-value trait products by 2040. That is not luck or a one-off effect. It's a systematically higher hit rate. Now there's 2 ways you can look at the scorecard. And this is one, and it answers the [indiscernible] question much faster than what I actually can.

As I mentioned, we have over 30 years' experience in plant biotech and an absolutely unrivaled position. We hold the #1 trait share globally and also #1 in each of the crops, corn, soy and cotton. And we are constantly 2 to 3 trait generations ahead of our competitors. Today, our reach -- today, we have more than 15 countries, and this leadership also becomes clear when you look at our trait portfolio. We have more than 2x the number of traits in the marketplace today versus our closest competitors. And this goes out.

And if you look out through 2029, we will launch 5 new traits, and they are basically all blockbusters. The biotech version of Preceon, Vyconic, and Intacta 5+, Corn Rootworm 4 and Lep 4. And in the pipeline for 2030 and beyond, we have 16 additional traits. With that strong pipeline, we will maintain our leadership position and even extend it versus our competition. We are simply widening that gap. Now if somebody would ask me what it would take for our competitors to actually keep up or have approximately what we have, I would answer that they would have needed to started several decades ago.

Now the other scorecard you can look is what we have from a trade perspective in the field today. Now let's start with the left-hand column because this is a key point. All of these launches come from the same innovation engine, an engine that consistently produces more winning innovations than our competitors. Now here's what it means for the short-term future. Throughout all of our corn products, we see that our launch classes bring in significant yield advantages against our key competitors of roughly 5 to 12 bushels per acre. That is meaningful for our corn growers and is the basis for our above-market growth and market share gains.

New hybrid launch classes with different traits, all of them beating the key competitors. And that is what I meant when I say we are entering a new phase of launches. And for successive launch classes in 2030 and beyond, our first genome edit go commercial and will contribute further to this performance uplift. And that is what I want to talk about next.

Now genome editing is a technology I get asked about the most. And we have not talked about what we are doing in genome editing as much as some of our competitors who have been much more vocal. Our expectation is that we will have global regulatory status determination in place by the early 2030s, and we will be ready to introduce our first genome edit products at scale to meet this time line. It is also really important to understand that the editing tool itself is not worth much on its own. This technology is available to virtually everybody. The advantage is the data and the analytics that inform you want to edit and then the system you plug it in to create a product for a grower. And that is exactly what we have been working on.

Our experience and capacity in genome editing is vast. We've been working in this space for almost a decade. We have many external partnerships, including a 7-year collaboration with Pairwise. And we now have one of the leading genome editing platforms in the industry. We have made over 100,000 edits. We've tested thousands of edits in the field, and we've created significant advancements in identifying novel genetic variation that we can bring to our pipeline. But most importantly and most recently, our editing capabilities have been fully connected and integrated into our precision breeding engine. And this allows us to capitalize on the speed of precision breeding and the genome design capabilities of editing. The combination of these 2 will further accelerate the rate of performance increase of our pipeline.

Now remember what I shared earlier. Editing without elite germplasm gives you an interesting result in an inferior plant. We are fully unlocking the potential of editing. And where this takes us long term? Biotech, breeding and gene editing create a complete flywheel, each one making the other 2 faster. It opens up genuinely new product concepts, for example, areas like nitrogen use efficiency. And to say it plainly, competitors have pieces, they do not have the system. Now one last thing, and you'll see this throughout my presentation, none of this would have been possible a few years ago. It's the advancements in data and computing that make this real.

So let's look at this in a little more depth. Earlier, I highlighted some of the key characteristics to advance genetic improvement that includes speed and accuracy. A large third component and the fuel for the germplasm engine is useful genetic variation. Genome editing unlocks this variation at an unprecedented scale. For example, look at the corn plant on the left. Multiple different parts of the plant can be targeted by genome editing. And every one of them is new variation that traces back to a farmer's P&L that I showed you earlier.

So every improvement means real dollars for our growers. And these characteristics aren't incremental agronomic tweaks. Every one of them changes the economics of the acre. And we are working on a massive wave of commercial launches to come. And taken together, this is nothing less than the largest introduction of novel genetic variation in the history of our plant breeding program. Our precision breeding engine and genome editing capabilities have already been connected. By 2028, already 10% of our early breeding pipeline will have edits in it. And this number will simply continue to grow until 2035 when it will be 100%.

And as I mentioned, in the early 2030s, we launched our first commercial genome edited class. So we have been less active in talking about genome editing, but we have been more active in doing it. It is already well up and running in our seed and trait product design engine today.

Now let's have a look at soybean. Now I'm going to be a little shorter here. I'm not going to go through all the technical capabilities that I shared with corn. But please be sure, everything I showed you for corn, we do today in soy and the other crops that we will talk about. Same engine, same data types, similar teams, just simply pointed at a different crop. Now soy is our second biggest crop and has resulted in global market leadership position. We're #1 in LatAm. And in Brazil, we hold more than 85% trait market share. We are #2 in North America, where our genetic fleet constantly shows superior yield performance. And we have, as you've already seen, an absolutely superior trait pipeline launch. Vyconic and Intacta 5 will be defining the new gold standard for weed management. And in the case of Intacta 5+ insect protection with industry's yield-leading genetics underneath them.

Now let me tell you a little bit about what's in the pictures above, which is simply highlighting some of the underpinnings to how we run our R&D operations. These are pictures of operations that are in Puerto Rico, Petrolina, Brazil and just down the road in Ankeny, Iowa. And at times, it's really difficult to imagine that the complexity and the scale that we've done is really through the sites that are running these type of operations. And you have to be really thoughtful as you build this of what operations do you need to have, what automation do you need to put in place? And how do you seamlessly integrate it across the entire pipeline you're trying to manage.

Now if you look go down the road, Ankeny, Iowa applies automation at a scale not evident anywhere else in the industry. And if you simply look at our winter nursery sites in Puerto Rico and Brazil, our industry-leading teams there are using new capabilities, new technology and running multiple breeding cycles every year. And so you can imagine when those teams are working in their summer or winter here, we are simply accelerating the journey of our seed to our growers fields around the world.

Now let me look at the soy pipeline advantage. And this sets up the same way as what we talked about for corn. If you look at the left-hand column, and this is, again, the point I'm making, these are the same 4 platforms you saw in corn. And also in soy, we have an industry-leading R&D engine that will deliver more innovation in the next 5 years than some of our competitors have delivered in the last decade. So here's what our innovation means for our growers. Our Intacta 2 Xtend, our most recent trait launch in Brazil, which is currently gaining strong market adoption, already delivers a 2.1 bushel per acre advantage against our competitors.

Our next innovations, Vyconic in the U.S. and Intacta 5+ in Brazil, which both contain industry-first trait stacks with tolerance to 5 herbicides will further lift the bar and increase the yield advantage by 2.2 bushels per acre and 4.3 bushels per acre, respectively. And also in soy, similar to corn, our first gene edits will go commercial in the early 2030s.

Now Rodrigo covered a lot of the other crops, but one crop I wanted to spend just one slide on is our hybrid wheat journey. And obviously, wheat is growing on more acres than any other crop in the planet, but it has only received a fraction of the technology investment that corn and soy gum. Yields have been close to flat for years. And really, that's not a problem, but it's a big opportunity. And what we've been working on is building the biggest wheat germplasm base in the industry. And this is the same thing we did for corn. We're doing it by combining 2 distinct sources of germplasm, our very own WestBred germplasm here in the United States and the RAGT germplasm pool in Europe. And when this is complete, nobody else in the industry will have that global scale of germplasm. And this will be really important as you think about hybrid wheat because it will enable us to develop hybrids for multiple climatic zones around the world.

Now the right-hand side of this slide is really 2 steps, and I want to put them in the right order. If you first look at where we are sit today with varieties, we lead in varieties today. In 2025, WestBred won 57% of the national winning placements, and that's more than anybody else. Now our hybrids add up to a further 11% on top of our current winning varieties. And I want to be clear what that number actually is measured against. It is measured against our modern WestBred commercial varieties across Texas, Kansas and Nebraska.

Now this is the hardest benchmark the industry is using. Much of the hybrid data you see from others is compared against older varieties, which make the delta look far bigger. But we deliberately want to benchmark against the best hybrids in the market, which happen to be ours. And in that, we still are able to generate double-digit upside. I've been in this industry a long time, and I've watched what hybridization has done in corn and other crops. It didn't improve the corn market. It really created it. So when I see an 11% on top of leading varieties in a crop of this size, and I understand the continued improvement that our teams are making, I don't read that as an incremental product. I read it simply as a new market, and we intend to be the ones who will lead it.

Now let's move to crop protection. And you may have seen based on my experience that I spent the majority of my career in seed and traits. But learning and working with our crop protection and seeing and understanding the incredible innovations that they are making is one of the best stories that we haven't shared. So it's a true pleasure for me to be able to talk a little bit about what we're doing, where we're going and what is the impact we believe those innovations are going to have. If you just go back in time and you think about how crop protection was discovered, it was super powerful and it was slow, and you actually needed a pinch of luck for it to be successful.

And CropKey really flips this around. We and our teams start with a target protein inside the pest or the pathogen. And we call that the lock. And then we use advanced computational technologies to identify a molecule that sits in it, and we call that the key. And we are currently the only company that systematically is discovering these new targets. I won't take you through all of the 5 numbers because 2 of them really carry by far the most weight for the story. Our recent research has led to the identification of a 4,000-fold increase in the number of targets. And every new target can be a new mode of action, one that resistance has never seen before.

The second one is safety insights. With our design approach, we've delivered built-in safety features. We have them 5 years early than what we used to have in the past. And obviously, that means a lot for our R&D efficiency. In our business, the expensive failure isn't the one in year 1 or 2. It's the one in year 9 that has already cost you plenty of development money. And today, registrability, not efficacy is a binding constraint for new molecules. But the real value isn't in one single number. These are not 5 separate improvements. They are one chain. More targets only pays if you can design keys for them. Keys only pay if they are registrable and registrable AIs only pay if you can actually manufacture them and formulate them at cost.

Competitors are improving one link. We have rebuilt the chain. And by the way, we also believe that this buys us 2 years of additional patent-protected life on every product. And that is truly what is unlocking new modes of action looks like, the most differentiated, resilient and registrable innovations for our growers into the future. And this has led to the amazing results and real change in our CP pipeline, and I want to compare it to the past.

And let me simply walk you through this. On the far left is the old industry paradigm I mentioned, and it included us in it. From 2000 to today, the whole industry performed incremental development of new molecules based on the same 8 key modes of action. And the majority of Crop Protection sales today still sit on those 8. And you can see what that produced. Of everything we launched in that period, only 20% carried a genuinely new mode of action. And so we have developed several of the named 8 here.

Now let's start looking at what CropKey does as we start moving to the right in our pipeline. In development today, 30% of our candidates carry a new mode of action. Two of them, you already know by name, and you'll see later today in the field, are blockbuster Plenexos and Icafolin. If you go earlier in the pipeline in research and early development, almost 50% that are coming through the pipeline are new modes of action. And then if you simply look earlier in early research, 70% of new chemical classes are built on new modes of actions, and these will hit in 2040 and beyond.

And obviously, if you play this out and you look at what's in place in our target discovery, every single candidate is a new molecule target leading to a new mode of action. So the share of new mode of action goes from 20% to 100% as you walk into the future, and that adds up to more than 50 new modes of action in the pipeline today. That is the single most important line I can give you on crop protection today.

Now I want to share what that tangibly looks like if you look at our pipeline. Asian soybean rust is the most damaging disease in soy, and Brazil is the biggest fungicide market in the world. So this is a huge prize in our Crop Protection business, and everyone is chasing it. Our new fungicide is particularly designed to fit the requirements.

Let's take a look on the left in key aspects and features. The white shape is what a normal candidate would look like, and it's really what the future candidates of our competitors are going to look like. And it's normal for a reason. Anything discovered than designed has trade-offs. You buy efficacy and pay for it somewhere else, safety in cost of goods or in registrability. Our new candidate scores in every dimension because we have been designing molecules based on target discovery. That is an entirely different approach from the one that we've been doing in the past.

So we have a very differentiated product with an exclusive novel mode of action that has the highest biological efficacy and a broad spectrum. And farmers don't spray one disease. They spray a field with several at once. And so spectrum is what takes a pass of their sprayers. At the same time, this new fungicide meets all current safety aspects. And here's what it really means to the growers. In our early trials, it shows about a 17% yield advantage against the commercial standard under disease pressure across 7 locations in Brazil. So this is not a lab result. It's real yield uplift in Cerrado field conditions.

Finally, I want to wrap up the Crop Protection section talking a little bit about biologics. Interestingly, this has been an area that I followed most of my life. My father was a sole microbiologist. He spent his career discovering and deploying microbes that improve crop production for growers around the world. That is the right vision and undoubted the impact we all believe biologics can have. But if you look at the map, it is clear that our biologics solutions are more regional in nature and in many cases, are more similar to how a new hybrid or a new variety would work in a region. They are adapted to specific regions or conditions, specific environments, specific pain points for growers and specific P&L relevance that are different everywhere.

But similar to our approaches in seed, traits and crop protection, data and AI capabilities enable us to transition to a more design-based approach for biologic development. We sit on one of the leading data sources of biological sequence information and associated performance field data. Additionally, we have developed a rich ecosystem of strong partnerships to tackle the most relevant and commercially attractive biologic segments. Each of our partners is bringing specific technology, regional strength or new approaches to accelerate our journey. And we already have a strong portfolio.

Serenade is the global leading biofungicide. Ibisio is a novel biologic bird repellent. And with our partners, we have more than 15 projects in the pipeline today. All of them evaluate against our strict criteria. New biologics need to strengthen the farmer's P&L, and they must strategically complement our core businesses. To sum it up, every market needs different biologic solutions. Our partners are bringing specific capabilities to optimize them and turn into winning products. My father spent his career, as I mentioned, in this space. Today, we believe we can further design them for the future.

Now I'll move to the digital side of this story. And this is a really, really interesting story that you'll hear more about in the field today. But it's a story that every company has. So let me tell you why our story is actually different. Digital doesn't sell a farmer anything. It makes everything they already bought from us worth more. And there's 3 parts to it. There's a data asset, which is a part that can't be copied, not because of its size, but because of where it came from. Our data comes from R&D, our data comes from the commercial organization and our data comes from our customers. And it enables us to have insights on every one of our products on every farm.

A competitor without our seed and chemistry footprint has no route to the data -- at this data at any price. The insight layers matter because that's what sits behind it. With FieldView, the recommendation a farmer gets come out of the same model that designed the product in the first place. Nobody else can close that loop between the front end of a breeding program and taking it all the way to the field. And we have opted for an open platform, which is a choice that some people think is counterintuitive. But it looks like giving away an advantage, but it really isn't. It's how the data keeps coming in. And it means that we never ask a farmer to change their equipment, change their agronomists in order to work with us. And the proof is on the right.

FieldView with Preceon delivered a 5% increase in the U.S. You can see the same proof in Brazil with VAlora, which delivered an outstanding 6% increase. Now think about what that means economically, same bag of seed, same acre, several percentage points more yield. That is why I'd argue that digital is the highest margin yield we produce. So my own ambition here is very simple. Every single product we will sell should be connected to a digital recommendation. We're not there yet, but I have no doubt that is where we're going.

Now finally, I want to talk about the uniqueness of our system and share a little bit about where we're going in this journey. And let me start with a clear example, HT6 and Icafolin. And I want to be precise about the phrase from the seed onward because it's the whole claim on this page. The industry norm is to retrofit. You take a herbicide that already exists and you go looking for a trait to get tolerance to it. We are designing it simultaneously as one purposely crafted system.

Our seed and trait gives you an HT6 an elite best-in-class germplasm, which means there's no trade-off in yield for tolerance. Crop protection gives us Icafolin, a novel active ingredient for resistance to grass weeds. And grasses matter because that is where a farmer has the fewest options left and resistant issues such as black grass continue to evolve fast. And digital solutions here enable you to safeguard the best weed manage, deliver insights to inform the field, deliver specific product recommendation, spreading timing and manage compliance.

Now anybody in this industry can sell a herbicide. Almost anybody can sell a tolerant seed. What we did was design the trait and the molecule for each other from the beginning, and that is why the tolerance is clean and the agronomy works so well in the field. And what is that worth to our growers? It's worth over-the-top flexibility with an HT system. They spray when the weeds are there, not when the crop stage allows it. And timing is the single biggest driver of whether control actually works. It enables lower doses because the application is targeted, less product on the acre for the same control, which is a cost answer as well as a regulatory answer at the same time.

And we see up to a 25% yield increase in resistant challenge environments where resistant grass weeds are the key issues. We can build such systems because we have the trait. We have the molecule, and we have the digital tools sitting under one roof. That is why this is ours alone. And then you can take this one step further, also raising the bar for differentiator from a competitor further. What you're looking at is a 2-year cropping system on 1 acre here in the Midwest. Year 1, Preceon short-stature corn and year 2, Vyconic. And in between is CoverCress, an intermediate crop between the cash crop, which turns that fallow window into a third income stream. And to design such a multiyear multi-crop system, our tech platforms are contributing each of their part.

You see the traits, for example, breeding for short-stature corn hybrids and traits for further enhances come into play. We use genome editing to modify maturity and oil content in crop CoverCress. So it actually fits in the window between the cash crops. And in soy, we get excellent yield potential from the genetics plus genome edited enabled standability. In our crop protection, for example, our Delaro Complete formulation is well suited for late-season fungicide applications. And remember, and you'll see this today that Preceon allows for late seasons accessibility. And we have also extended the labels of 6 of our proven crop protection products for use in intermediate crops, a great life cycle management example.

In soy, Stryax herbicide formulation plus fuel appliance, seed treatment actually safeguards the crop. And our FieldView digital solutions are adding the insight and foresight to select the best specific hybrid implanting density for the field and monitor crop growth. And that truly means that we're designing the acre. We're not selling a farmer a list of products. We're designing the system so that it improve what it earns them. Now think about what that actually requires. You need leading seed, you need leading chemistry, you need leading data and artificial intelligence, and you need all 3 of them talking to each other. We are the only one in the industry with leading competencies across all of these 3 elements. There isn't another company that can copy it.

So let me come back to the 3 questions I put on the table at the start. Relevance. Does innovation matter? It truly matters more than ever before. Demand keeps rising, supply side keeps getting harder, and there is actually no more land, which leaves exactly one variable in the equation. How productive can we make the acre already farmed? That variable is R&D. The race, are we winning it? We are leading in every single tech platform, and we are the only company that can combine -- company able to combine them into one unique system.

And I'd stress the second half of that sentence because the platforms can be bought, the combinations can't be made. Others have pieces. We have the full engine. And finally, return. Does the pipeline differentiate us beyond 2030? It's stronger than it has ever been, and it delivers on 4 fronts: seeds with strong yield advantage in all of our crops, best-in-class traits for weed and insect protection, new crop protection modes of action with superior performance and safe by design and a crop systems designed to maximize grower profits. And we do all of this while closely aligned to our R&D resource allocations.

And that last point is one I'd leave you with. This is not a single blockbuster story. It's 4 independent sources of advantage arriving across the same decade. So it does not stand or fall on one launch, one trial or regulatory decision. And that is what it makes something you can actually underwrite. I've spent my whole career in this organization, and I have never seen a pipeline like the one I showed you today. And after lunch, you're going to get the opportunity to walk out of this room and see these products and systems and solutions in the field. And I'm genuinely looking forward to your questions. A huge thank you.

Hold you back in a minute. Thank you, Mike. Thank you very much. Wow. So let's go now after the insights that we have. I'll go straight to the point here because I know we brought you here. We felt that we needed to share a lot of information with you, but now it's time for you to do all the questions that you have. We allow a lot of time for the questions that you have.

I will invite, of course, Mike, Guru, Sascha to join me. Jana will help us facilitate the questions. Erica will help as well with the questions that we have online, and we're going to cover that one. But also, I want to share with you that here, you have a picture of the leadership team in Crop Science, but also you have people from all the different regions with you this afternoon. One of the key elements of this event is to give you the opportunity to interact with the leadership team with all the different areas as well.

So you can ask your questions. You can go deep dive on hybrid wheat or Camelina. We have a challenge at Bayer. We have so many things in the pipeline that sounds like, oh my God, it's a lot, but that's a little bit of the luxury that we have. So if you want to go deep dive on some of the crops, cotton or biofuel or corn or soybean, we're going to have the full opportunity this afternoon. So let me go straight and invite the team to join me here and also Jana to help us, and we go for the Q&A session here. Any question.

Okay. First of all, thanks to the team. Thank you for all the great presentations. I said it was a rich day, a full day. I think we delivered a lot of content, and now it's up to you, and we invite you to ask your questions. A couple of housekeeping remarks. Please just quickly state your name, company and then limit your contributions to 2 questions, so we get a lot of input from different people.

Of course, here in the hall, please just raise your hand. We'll have some people with microphones and online, just type it into the chat and then Erica will help with reading them out. So with that, let's start the Q&A, roughly 45 to 60 minutes. Okay. A lot of questions here. I think, Richard, you were first.

Richard Vosser from JPMorgan. First question, just what's underlying the slow ramp of Preceon? It seems relatively slow given the innovation that it brings the yield advantage. There are obviously other traits that have yield advantage as well. But just what's underlying that? And then secondly, there seems to be a limited contribution from Preceon and Vyconic to the '28, '29 growth ambitions. So what's driving the acceleration in '28 and '29 given that '27 is going to be maybe 1% growth or something like that based on the base from '26?

So let me start here, Richard, and the team can complement here. So thanks for the question. First, on the Preceon. There is 2 elements that we have here. One is the breeding event of Preceon and the other one is the biotech version that Mike mentioned that we are launching in '28. When you have the biotech version, your ability to bring the technology to many, many hybrids goes faster, and that helps adopt to speed up the adoption of the technology because it's a hybrid by hybrid technology that you need to bring to the farmers.

So there is an initial adoption of Preceon, but the ramp-up really will go with the biotech version that we're going to have. I would encourage you also to explore with Mike this afternoon that there is also a gene editing version of Preceon because when you think about biotech and then you think other markets like Europe, the gene editing can be another unique solution for that market.

In terms of the contribution, you're right, Richard. If you think about our next years, as we are launching these new technologies, the first tiers of adoptions, you don't have a significant financial impact. So when you think about our growth that we have for the next years, you have like 20%, 30% of that is coming from the blockbusters. There is a lot of coming from the innovation that is driving growth this year, as an example, all the new hybrids, the new formulations, the expansion that we have, the geographic expansion that we are having right now.

This is the complement growth that we have. So the combination of growth for the next years, it is that one. We decided to focus a lot about the next years. If we would have this event talking more about 2035, then we would have a lot of the contribution of these new blockbusters. We decided that to focus more on the next 5 years, right, Mike? But this is the core element. Any complement?

No. And Richard, you're going to get the opportunity this afternoon in the field to kind of really experience Preceon. And Rodrigo highlighted it really well. We started with a native trait. We then progressed into a biotech trait, and we have a gene edit in the pipeline. The other thing that's important is it looks like corn, but it's actually different from tall corn. So there's a period of learning that has been required, not so much for us, but how we interact and help our growers be successful with the system. And one of the big advantages of what we've done is we've partnered really well with our growers around the U.S., 3 years of piloting now.

So we've gained learning in terms of how you produce and they've obviously gained a lot of learning. So that's been really helpful in us just thinking about really how do you maximize the value of this technology. But no doubt, I don't think you're going to find anybody in this organization that is not super excited about what this technology can do and what it's going to bring to a grower.

Jeff Zekauskas from JPMorgan. When I was looking at your cost reduction in crop chemicals, I think you're going to take EUR 240 million out of cost of goods sold. And what you're going to do is you're going to limit your active ingredient production in Europe and across your portfolio. And this is a strategy that's not so different from what FMC is doing or Corteva is doing.

So what is it about the manufacture of AI of active ingredients that makes it uncompetitive from a cost standpoint in Western Europe and in North America relative to Asia? And as you move to your production in Asia, is it more China or more India and why? Can you sort of explain what's going on in that industry dynamic?

Thank you, Jeff. And Sascha will help us on that one for sure.

Yes. Thanks for the question. So first of all, I mean, we have 2 categories that play into the savings, so the sourcing and technical and the structural one. So in total, it's EUR 440 million. And to your question, when we set up this initiative, we really went through our molecules one by one. And the key guiding criteria was, is this cost competitive with the best places and players in the world to produce it. And -- the answer is not unanimously the same. So we have, in particular, as we go to molecules that have very complicated chemistry, very yield dependent, smaller lines that require very flexible sort of setup.

It is not that we found that we can consistently source this, for example, cheaper from China. So this is the ones we are also keeping in our network, and we can continue to develop successfully in the future. However, for some other molecules, which are global commodities these days, they are very much energy price driven, large overcapacities, et cetera. We did not see a path to produce this competitively in our assets in Europe. So that's why we made the decision to move them over.

Now to your question, sort of a lot of the new partners we have that will supply us are in China, but we still pursue a strategy of resilience as well. So just that we outsource doesn't mean we have only a single partner, for example, one option that you can go for is try to go for a setup with partners in China and India, just to name one example. Of course, this builds a little bit over time, but this has been our process and the proposal and the measures you have seen today, this is what offers us the best near and also midterm cost benefit in terms of EBITDA improvement.

Let's go for the gentleman who has the microphone.

Always a good plan. Kevin McCarthy, I'm with Vertical Research Partners. So I have 2 questions. I'll ask them one by one. First, in your corn seed business, you've set forth a target of market share gains of 4% by 2035. Can you talk about how that target was developed and whether the path to that 4% might be linear or smooth in your plan or follow some other timing cadence, for example, more exponential with the introduction of Preceon. So I'll stop there for the first question.

So let me address that one, and this will be a great discussion in the field as well with the team. That is for Preceon. One of the things that we had when we are introducing this new system for the farmers, the first thing that we realize on our models is that a big portion will replace our tall corns, right? We have the leading market share position in the U.S. as an example. So a significant portion of the growth that we're going to have with Preceon will be replacing our tall corn.

But in our models as well, we identified the opportunities to continue to gain share and accelerate the gain share with that specific system, and that is the projection that we shared today of gaining additional 4 points of market share with the system versus our competitors' approach that we see in the market. The Preceon, I mentioned that one because we see a different opportunity with the system, and Mike said something that's very unique. I was with the North America farmers this year, they are doing the Ground Breakers. It's quite unique.

Every single farmer is using the system in a different way. Some of the farmers increased high density and kept the same distance between rows, some other farmers adjusted. Some farmers use a different approach on controlling disease, as Mike mentioned, is a very individual farm system that is very unique. But that brings us different value opportunities. First, market share that you mentioned. The second element of pricing, of course, with that one, the seed density, the entire system drives a higher seed density is another opportunity that we have and the system approach. One of the key challenges for the farmers, a good example in U.S. is to apply fungicide on late stage. Well, that allows us to have another opportunity here. So -- but the market share specifically is what we model of gaining share over competitors over the course of the next years.

And then my second question. Might be for Mike on the crop protection chemical pipeline. You talked about moving from 20% of the product mix being new modes of action to 70% for Phase I and 100% for discovery phase or Phase 0. Can you elaborate on what that means for the economics of that whole decade-long process in terms of cost, hit rates and ultimately, return on investment, as you said?

Yes. It's a great question, which we're actually debating last night. So I appreciate the question. I mean, obviously, when you change the number of new modes of actions that way, you cannot assume that you're going to continue to do everything the same way you've done in terms of how you evaluate them, how you move them through the pipeline and how many actually end-of-term innovations you actually need to put in the marketplace. So kind of that back-end business model of when those molecules come to fruition and how they impact the pipeline, that's work that will be done in the years ahead.

But the beauty of what we're doing, and this applies not just to CP, it applies to whether you're in seeds or traits is every one of our teams is thinking about how do you use new capabilities that will help you either think differently about how you evaluate a product upfront, so it becomes cheaper, more efficient, faster, think differently about how you would evaluate them in the field. So it becomes cheaper, better because you're getting better data actually in the end. And then think about how you move from pipeline to pipeline.

So our expectation is this doesn't necessarily mean that this is a massive growth in incremental resources that we need. Our expectation is that we're going to continue to innovate so that we can think about how do we do these things in a different way so we can continue to maintain a pipeline that has the likelihood of having high success but also contributes to the growers at the time.

Christian from Kepler.

Christian Faitz, Kepler Cheuvreux. Two questions, please. First of all, you mentioned a bit nitrogen fixation. Can you elaborate that? Where you see market potential yield trend or, let's say, artificial nitrogen destination? And also, I guess that's mostly corn and wheat. So maybe if you could elucidate that a little bit?

Second question, Rodrigo, you have that map of Europe and European expansion. There was a big white spot, actually 2 white spots. There was Russia and Ukraine. Can you talk a bit about the current and expected market situation in both countries and where you are there?

Yes. Maybe I'll start on the nitrogen fixation. Maybe 2 ways to think about your question. One is to simply think about what these new technical capabilities allow you to unlock. And this is the incredible power that a technology like genome editing has because once you understand the sequence information of the plants, how genes connect, what they impact and what are the potential toggles you can use, you can then start editing the plant to do things like nitrogen fixation. So early, early, early in the pipeline, we are doing this type of work, where we're evaluating edits that we believe have an impact on nitrogen -- improvements in nitrogen efficiency.

The other thing I'd leave you with is my example was editing in plants. You could obviously do the same thing in microbes. And we are also looking at that because we understand that not just today, this is going to be a challenge. But if you think about where nitrogen as a whole goes into the future, it's an area that we've got to continue to explore in more detail. So certainly, you're going to see us continue to do this and continue to focus on it. But it really also is intended to give just a view of the magnitude and the potential that this technology unlocks in a way that we haven't been able to address some of these things in the past.

So let me talk about the region there. So the first element that I want to just share is that when Mike shared about some of the new crops that we are working, we talk about hybrid wheat here. There's rice also the work that we're doing. This is when you think about mid, long term, those crops has a huge impact in some of the regions that we are talking here, EMEA, Asia. But specifically on Ukraine and Russia. Corn in Ukraine was always a very important crop, and we had a very important presence in Ukraine. Of course, the war is bringing a lot of challenges for that region, and we have the team here that leads there that can share more details with you.

But this is the challenge. And it's interesting because -- when you go to the farmers and the farms in Ukraine, as an example, they have a very large operations farming, extremely rich soil, high technology. One of the best adoptions of digital tools that we saw in that region was in Ukraine by the farmers. So you have there a really unique potential. The challenge that we have today is still because of the impact of wars and how this is impacting sometimes the dynamics for -- continues to impact the dynamics for the farmers there. Extremely resilient, but we -- I really hope that we can turn that page as sooner as possible to return to the normal circle of agriculture that in the region. I think the team can help you more with more details there as well later.

I think Alek, you're next.

Alek Ebbeling, UBS. Two, if I may. First on margins next year. So I appreciate you're not at the point to give guidance for next year, but I was wondering directionally about the possibility for margin expansion in '27, given the Corteva litigation one-off that you talked to, but also higher crop protection input prices from the Middle East conflict potentially kicking in next year and the potential to take advantage of high glyphosate prices, which may not continue into next year.

Will 2027 be a bump in the road? Or could there still be potential for expansion? Kind of maybe what tailwinds could support expansion? And maybe second, if I could, on competition in short stature corn. So yesterday, a competitor announced they also plan to launch reduced stature corn. So how do you expect Preceon to differ from the competition? And what IP protection do you have that is unique to Preceon?

Wonderful questions. Thank you very much. I will start, and I'll ask your help here, and Mike as well will help me on the answers. On the margin, thank you for your -- on your question, you mentioned it's too early to guide for '27, but you want to get a direction of travel more than the guidance, of course, without getting further details. You already mentioned some of the elements that we're going to need to manage in '27. We see directionally the expansion of our margin for next year in the combination of factors that you mentioned. One element you saw when Sascha was giving you the full overview of the savings that we have in our plan.

There are some elements that we are already doing in '26, some other elements that we'll continue to have in '27 that will continue to contribute to the journey of the margin expansion that we have. Also, of course, we have the new growth with our pipeline that we have as well on the line of that one that we will manage that. We are managing a lot of the cost impact that we have for the recent war in the Middle East as well. All those elements will play. We believe that we are -- the direction of travel for the margin expansion continues, as you said, Guru, you want to add a little bit?

Yes, certainly, I can add. I think as we said earlier, early '27, we will give you more specifics on the guidance. I mean, directionally, what is important to recognize is that in '26, we will be able to demonstrate margin expansion on an underlying basis on the strength of the productivity and efficiency work that's happening on the 5-year framework. We expect this to continue in 2027. So if you want to think about it directionally for '27, I think it's a margin expansion vector on the productivity efficiency side. Of course, as Rodrigo mentioned, we're going to look at all aspects of growth, including pricing opportunities and challenges. And we also then also consider the comping effect of the licensing resolution income that's sitting in '26, not in '27. So when we guide further in '27, we'll give you more specifics on how they all come together.

And on Preceon, and again, you'll have this discussion a little bit in the field today. And it's kind of important to understand the journey that we've been on with Preceon and how it varies by the trait you're using. So the trait that you'll see in the field today is a native trait. So it's available in our germplasm, there's no IP around that trait. When you start moving into the next generation, then you get some level of IP in place. The important thing when you go on this journey, and this is really hard for folks that don't think about this space a lot is because you -- it's just because you have high-performing tall genetics doesn't mean when you translate them into short genetics of the same background, they're going to perform the same way.

And so there's knowledge and insight and data that allows you to inform those decisions. And that is a really, really important process that we go through. And you will see a little bit of this today when they demonstrate some of the digital capabilities that the team has built because it's not just making that conversion to shorts, it's then making a recommendation digitally of how it's going to perform in every field. And that is where this gets really hard to replicate. If you don't have all of those streams from the germplasm, the innovation, the digital to the experience in the field to the customers that are connected to it, that's a super, super hard model to duplicate at ease.

Let's go to the back of the room. Yes.

John Roberts, Mizuho. With all the technology we've heard about today, is there anything that affects glyphosate? And what's the multiyear outlook for Ruveon?

Well, John, not for the R&D component, no. We are not -- again, of course, Icafolin is a wonderful new mode of action in herbicide that for 30 years, we're not able to launch, and we are very excited about the launch, and we have this end of this year, 95% of the regulatory global submissions made. So it's really exciting, but not on the glyphosate piece. On glyphosate, what we see is a little bit what we said, it's really managing that business in a commodity approach with a very lean organization, fast decisions and managing that business in the -- we are -- what we are doing in terms of -- if I go one step deeper to your question, what we are doing on glyphosate, we are always working on the formulations, how we simplify formulations, we make cost competitive, and there's a lot of work on that side, but that's it not on the R&D.

And then could you talk about the balance sheet of Ruveon a little bit? So what are the assets that are in there, the Pocatello mining operations, all the manufacturing? And anything unusual on the liability side that's in the new legal entity?

Do you want to cover?

Yes. So I'll go first and see if anybody wants to add anything. So the way we have set up Ruveon is it's an end-to-end entity that covers all of the U.S. production as well as the commercial end of the operations. And so the asset base that comes with all of that is sitting on the balance sheet of Ruveon, includes the mining to the end of the [ value chain ]. That's all included.

Michael? Here the gentleman here in the blue. And then we go right after.

Mike Santangeli from Anomaly Capital. I just had 2 questions on the gene editing slides you discussed. So the first, given you are hybridizing new crops and applying your innovation engine to -- and gene editing to more crops that aren't hybrids, A, why not go out and acquire more germplasm? And b, what would make a good or bad addition to the portfolio given there's plenty of new TAMs out there that this technology potentially unlocks for you?

We're not ever opposed to looking at new germplasm. So that's -- we're always open to look at it, and we do. We continue to look, but it's got to create significant value to what we already have. And if you think about what I described, it's really, really hard to go out and find something better than what we have. When you simply think that take the temperate markets in the world, we're #1. Take the subtropic markets in the world, we're #1 and take the tropic markets in the world, we're #1. And each of those markets contribute something different to your gene pool. One is lots of diseases, lots of stress tolerance. The other one could be ultra-high yielding and lots of great agronomic characteristics. So -- but we're never opposed. So it's not -- that's something we're certainly very open to.

If you allow me just to complement, you saw some of the elements that we did recently exactly on the line that you said. So the Camelina acquisition that we had, the 60% acquisition on CoverCress are some of the examples that we did some of the investments on this new germplasm. I think one of the work that we did here today, and I really hope I know that it's very technical, if you allow me to say that, Mike, but it was very important for you guys to get the engine of R&D because in Crop Science, different from my peers in Bayer about finding a new pharma molecule.

In Crop Science, it's about the engine producing innovation every year. It's a very different element of innovation on that one. But applying that innovation of precision breeding, gene editing, biotech and all the data science that Mike mentioned to different crops is really a unique opportunity. We see that in canola. We see that in cotton. We are seeing that in veggie and we could see further. So just to reinforce what Mike said, we have other opportunities. We are expanding on hybrid wheat, hybrid rice, and there are some unique opportunity in terms of the market globally. Of course, we're going to continue to heavily focus on corn and soy as the key driver platforms here, but there are some more opportunities that we are exploring there.

And then if I could, just one second question. Some of your pharma peers have talked about faster FDA timelines. Given the speed of innovation with your gene editing tools, is there some possibility for faster registration as well as you spin this up?

I mean, a, we're quite excited kind of the developments on the gene editing side and kind of what we see as maybe opening up in some of our key markets for import approvals. So the work that's happening in Europe right now is quite positive, and it gives us maybe even more energy to accelerate what we've been doing and driving forward. So for sure, but we're going to be operating once we have the right approvals around the world in a very different type of environment where the most of the edits that we're going to make are actually considered like breeding traits. And so the ability to move in our germplasm will be very quick and very open. And that's the beauty of the engine we're building with precision breeding that you want that speed of getting it into your germplasm. And you want to do it super quick so you can get them out there into the market as quick as you can.

Yes. Matthew DeYoe from Bank of America. Mike, this might get a little circular with kind of the R&D cost savings in general, but CropKey, right? You're talking about it as a huge innovation driver, particularly because you can be more targeted in discovery basically. Like how much of your R&D in crop chem loose percent is discovery? And how much more -- I guess this discussion was how much more we can do, but conversely, how much can you pull out of your discovery expense with tools that are just this much more targeted. What's that clumsy waste you get rid of?

I'm glad you started the question that this could be circular. So that was -- it's actually -- it's a great question. So -- and I see Rachel is in the back there, so she can maybe give me the -- at least the percentages of what would be discovery and development. But I would bring it up a level and just leave you with the idea that while we're designing each of these new modes of actions, we are actively thinking about how do we do things differently. And doing things differently means how do you evaluate, in some cases, in silico or different methodologies that you have typically taken much more expensive approaches to get the same answer.

And how would you use? And I think in the slide there, you saw some great examples of how automation is now getting used to increase the amount of data, which is also allowing you to think differently about downstream, how you test things. So the net effect is -- and I don't know, Rachel, if you have a number on the kind of the break between discovery and development that...

We are doing less discovery than development because in development, you have also the defense of the current AI we are having on the market. So we are at 25% in research.

So -- and we'll just keep -- I mean if you think about the real cost, it obviously is -- it gets into some of the work we're doing in development. And that is a space we'll continue to look at and how do we continue to use new technology, new capabilities to do it in a very different way.

If you allow just to use your question and the previous question on crop protection because there's probably one of -- and Jeff started also a good question on crop protection about the cost. I just want to combine these 3 or 4 questions on crop protection because I think it's an important element. When we designed the 5-year framework, and you saw a lot of the savings were concentrated in crop protection, as you realize from the discussions that we had. But we are talking about all the innovation here, right? The crop protection, we see the combination of the 3. While in seeds and traits, you have a different approach. But for crop protection, we have a combination of 3 factors that we consider very important.

Let me illustrate the market first. I'm talking about the market and some of our competitors playing the same thing. When you look at crop protection, you have around 20% of the market that is patent protection where you have AI with a high differentiated pricing and premium here. You have on the market, 30%, 40% that is what you call the expanded value that you're doing formulation expansions. I gave 3 examples today that we are doing as well in terms of -- you're increasing the spectrum of control or different crops or geographies or you're putting a new AI together, expanding the family of fungicide like I used the Fox example. So this is the second portion of the market. And there is a portion of the market that is more a generic competition that you have the remaining here.

We need to be very well set on playing on that market. We are bringing innovation, and we're going to -- and the CropKey is a core element of that innovation. There is a very well-designed place in terms of extending the value opportunity here with the portfolio that we have and new crops and new expansion. Convintro was another example that I used today. But at the same time, you need to be cost competitive. It's innovation, life cycle management and cost competitive. And this is the element of the crop protection that we are driving. Since -- by the way, this is -- since we announced the 5-year framework last year, this is the drive that we are taking in our engine here of crop protection in our platform.

Steve.

Steve [ Slaughter ] from [ Manulife ]. Thank you for the overview. Mike, I was interested in understanding what the pricing premiums may be for some of this innovation. You got a lot of interesting assets coming in the next 3 years, either on seeds and traits or on crop protection. Is there headroom for pricing in a world where in the last 6 months, fuel prices have gone up dramatically. We've seen inflation ticking up and interest rates, in particular, ticking up, just the health of the grower community to pay for this innovation?

You can go first. You.

I can start, but you can add here, Mike, because you also -- it was interesting. One of your colleagues here did a recent analysis of the last 20 years of our sector, and you saw the compound growth rate on seeds and traits by 5% on crop protection was 4%, but then you go to the pricing element of that one. My short answer is, yes, you have an opportunity in terms of pricing when you are bringing that innovation to the market. Of course, that opportunity is better when you have the farm economics is better. It's more challenging when you have. But what we saw -- let me start with the seeds and traits, especially, you have that value creation and the ability to share that value with the farmers and to capture that in terms of pricing, very clear in our pipeline as we did in the last years as well. It's a very -- in the seeds and traits, when you think about the area expansion that is almost flat.

So a lot of the value creation is coming from the pricing and the value here. On CP will be a combination of factors. You have the opportunity of pricing with the new products that we have, but then the mix that I just described of the full portfolio, the growth is coming more from the volume than the combination of pricing. But for the innovation specifically, yes, you have that opportunity also in crop protection. And both on the new AIs and the expanded value creation when we are using formulations approach here. Ludo?

Yes, you covered it well, Rodrigo.

Yes. But that's -- yes. And again, one of the things that Mike mentioned during his presentation that we want to try to share with you that we have a very large experience with value creation on a scale base. And this is very important when you think about some of the -- what we see for the next 5 years in the market.

RunLin Wang with Farallon Capital. Two questions on pricing. First one being a little more different angle, more on pricing in an up cycle on seeds and traits. Obviously, historically, you talked about innovation and splitting sort of 1/3, 2/3 with the farmer. Is there room for more upside in sort of an up cycle? And how does that materialize while sort of sticking to the 1/3, 2/3 type of split? And then second question more on glyphosate pricing. Obviously, a very dynamic market. Curious what you're seeing most recently? And then how to think about the right way for glyphosate to be priced going forward in a more normalized state?

Let me start with a direct one on the glyphosate one. Of course, as you can imagine, we have a team on that group that I mentioned that monitor the PRC reference in China almost on a daily basis. And while you have like seeds and traits that you do a pricing per year or per season and in CP, you have some dynamics during the year. Glyphosate is extremely dynamic pricing. You're managing the opportunity when you have the up cycle on the PRC and you manage also the adjustments when you need to do.

So on glyphosate, we monitor that one and we react on a very agile way that we can do. Of course, there are some seasons, right? When you're getting orders and so on, but it's a very agile way. Our projections that you have here is considering a historical price. That's what you have here. Hopefully, and someone mentioned that, hopefully, we can have an upside on that one, but that's the historical. We use the 15 years historical price on the projections that you saw here. So I think it's the focus here.

On your first question on seeds and traits. You're spot on. You know very much our model of value creation and value share with the farmers, the 60-30 that you mentioned, 66%, 33% that we normally do. One thing that we are doing very, very heavily is on value creation. On this industry, I'm also 30 years in the industry here, you're going to grow based on value creation. It's a value creation-driven growth industry. So what I'm saying that when you see some of the yield numbers that you saw here on Preceon as an example, this is a core element of the value creation that we are doing. And then each crop is different and each technology, we can do a little bit of adjustment on the 60-40 that you were mentioning here. But directionally, is that one.

You need to have the farmers perceiving the value so you can ramp up the penetration as fast as you can, but you capture the portion of that value. Directionally, is that one. Each technology, each trait or crop, we make some adjustments to that one. But the core element for us is value creation here. And I think that when I look to the -- to what you saw today from the Mike's presentation, that's the unique opportunity that we have in the next 5 years. We are creating systems that brings a lot of value and our ability to share that value with the farmers will be really decisive for our growth in the next years.

Mike, any complement?

No.

Lucas Beaumont from UBS. I just wanted to ask about the licensing market, how you see the outlook there over the next few years? So I mean, you guys have the leading position in corn. Corteva is probably going to be entering that market though, similarly in Brazil. I mean, they sort of have the leading position in soy in North America, but you'll be looking to take some share back there as well. I mean, they have a pretty aggressive kind of EBITDA target out there to sort of get to $1 billion over time.

I guess how do you guys see the market? Is it a zero-sum game? Do you see the licensing market to be able to grow? And what is like the right share level for, I guess, each of you to end up with within that space?

I can start and Guru will help me here. There is a growth opportunity in terms of the licensing when I think about the mid, long term. The competitor that you mentioned, they put a number in 2035, right? So that's a little bit longer than we are discussing here, much longer than we are discussing here. If I would do 2035, to be honest with you guys, we would need an extra day here with you guys because what we have in 2031, '32, '33, we didn't bring too much here today, but we are more focused on this session on the next 5 years.

So licensing, as Guru mentioned, is an engine that we used for a long time, and we have the licensing agreements really well established. More than 90% of that is with regional and small companies, not global license. We still have licensing with Syngenta, Corteva included. We do license with them, but a lot of our licensing today resides on the regional and small to medium companies. I see a growth of license because of new technologies. Preceon biotech is a great example of that. And Vyconic is another one that we are getting massive requests on Vyconic right now, and we are signing deals as we speak here.

So there will be growth opportunity in terms of total licensing, but there is a very important element here. The licensing value comes a lot from the trait package. We are licensing germplasm as well. But the core element of the drive of growth and value out of licensing is the trait. And I think we are very confident about the launch. When you see the numbers of traits because we have that visibility of our pipeline and our competitors' pipeline, if I finish my comment to you is that we are very confident about the opportunities that we have with the trait package that we have. And you just mentioned one example, Vyconic is a great example of that. Preceon is another great example. If you go to Brazil, you have -- we are Intacta 2 Xtend as we are growing at the same time that we're already launching Intacta 5+. So there is another opportunity in terms of licensing. So we feel we don't have a number here for you for 2035, but it's a great number.

Okay. We go Tony first and then Duffy over there.

Tony Jones from Rothschild. I've got 2 left. Firstly, on routes to market, I think in the focus countries, how you define it? I think it's 70% of sales or something. The target is to get closer to your customer. Can you talk about what that means in practice? And why is it only happening now? And then secondly, on Preceon, it looks like the next-generation GM variant has been delayed a few years, which might be explaining the slow ramp. Can you confirm that? And what's happened? Is it a product issue? Or is it a regulatory issue?

Let me address the first one, and I'll give you the second one, Mike. And it's a wonderful question. I love that question. And by the way, we're going to have one stop in the field today that is about go-to-market. We're going to focus, of course, in U.S. and North America here, so you can further explore that question there. But it's a very interesting question because it combines with the second one that you mentioned a little bit. So around 50,000 farmers in U.S. today accounts for more than 50% of the market. We are bringing technology right now, and Preceon is a great example of that, that, as I said, is a farmer-to-farmer experience and a farm-to-farm value creation.

So the proximity with farmers creates a lot of value. Historical, we have that one for the trust and the relationship that we established with them. But a lot of the value creation that we're going to bring to the market is a lot about tailored to farmers and to the system and acre by acre experience. So that proximity with the farmers will generate further value for them first. And then to the point before, value for us as well. So that model, if you go to Argentina, we have here the team here from Argentina or Brazil or Canada or U.S. is an extremely established model that we have, and it's really working extremely well.

This is the one that we don't talk much here because we're talking about technologies, but I encourage you guys to see a little bit of the go-to-market in the field because this is something that will create, again, with all the data that we have, and this is a little bit a combination of what Mike said, right? We couldn't do that before with the AI and the data that was generated, computational capacity that we have right now. So the opportunity to offer very tailored solutions acre by acre creates a very unique opportunity in terms of value creation for the farmers and for us. So that's why we are doing that, and we're going to explore more this afternoon.

On the second question on Preceon specific, Mike?

Yes. No, we are -- I mean, it's a great question. This is a journey of traits. And I mentioned earlier on, we started with a native trait. And it's a journey of learning. So as we make the transitions from one trait to the next, we continue to learn. And this simply means you need to work and get the trait into more germplasm, evaluate more products and learn how it's going to perform on a grower's field. And I -- and it kind of gets to the first part of your question that in this equation, we've been very deliberate of having the grower in the middle of this.

So we have wanted to make sure in this partnership that we understand how these products are going to perform -- and for us, this is part of this journey that is really, really important. So you'll see it in the field. You won't see the biotech version. You'll see the native trait today. But behind it sits a very deliberate approach of how you think and you learn as this trait as it comes closer to market.

We're still expecting the biotech approval on the same timeline that we had. And the ramp-up, it's going to happen. If you think about what we have and a little bit to reinforce that message, when we even share here today that we're going to get to a 50 million acres in 2040. This is really -- it's probably one of the largest technology that we probably had before as well. So we are very excited about that. And you're going to hear much more about that this afternoon. There was a question here.

Duffy Fischer from Goldman Sachs. First question is just around hybrid wheat. It's an opportunity we've known about for decades. So why now are we at an inflection point? How quickly do you think the market will adopt hybrid wheat? Have we figured out the COGS side of it? And then what do you think the competitive dynamic will look like? Because, again, several of your big competitors are also trying to come to the market. But just what's that market look like over the next decade in your view?

Yes. And I'll let Sascha comment on the COGS as well. Obviously, this has been an area of interest for a long time. And actually, we've had different attempts over time to bring this to market. And I'll compare it to maybe what happened in the hybridization of corn, which actually hybrid corn was first identified in 1908. And it wasn't really mainstay here in the U.S. until late early '40s into the mid-40s. So a 30-year journey that required kind of understanding of science, understanding how you bring germplasm together to make a hybrid that is very, obviously, very different from a variety. Now, obviously, the science has progressed a lot.

Our understanding of the genetics has progressed a lot, the ability to put things into what we would call different pools so we can actually make up the hybrids has progressed a lot. And we see this as an opportunity now given the changes in some of the challenges that our growers are having with more stress in the field, timing of planting, limited productivity. This is -- this technology is the right time to start introducing it. And we've done a lot of work. We're super excited about the ability to combine these germplasm pools together, which is unique. We feel really good about our WestBred germplasm, and now with the RAGT germplasm, we start building very 2 different germplasm pools that we can use.

Obviously, our competitors are also active in this space and talking about this space. Two of them, for sure, are highlighting timelines that are much quicker than what we're saying, obviously, at the end of this decade. But our intent is that we want to make sure the system works, that we're delivering value to the grower, that we've got the cost of goods identified and managed the way that we do. And we want to build a system that's a resilient, stable and effective system for our grower. And our approach is simply you don't rush hybrids into the marketplace to do that. You are very, very effective in how you test them, how you evaluate them, you evaluate them over a diversity of environments. And that is the journey that we've been on to develop the products that we plan to launch.

Yes. On the production side, just adding indeed figuring out the production system is and has been one of the key challenge. But also there in the last year through our work, we've made significant progress, and we now see a very attractive path to the commercialization. So this makes it a very attractive business case going forward. There's still work to do, but there were also very, very important progress points for us in the last years on that.

And then maybe just a second one on your 5-stack herbicide tolerance, both in North America and in Latin America, what would you expect the split to be of the chemistries used over the top of that? So the HPPD inhibitors versus glyphosate versus glufosinate? And then is it an opportunity for you guys to have formulations, can you increase your actual ag chem sales over the top of that when those come in?

I do not know the numbers. Brian may...

That's a wonderful question. When I say that, it's probably because I don't know the answer. Now the second one, I know. The second one, yes, when we have and we were debating about that one and we were looking at the numbers. On the crop protection, we have opportunities in the herbicide side with the launches that we have. So the short part of your question is yes, and we see that with Vyconic in U.S., and we see that with Intacta+ in Brazil. The first part of the question, I don't have by my mind, but we're going to try to do the split between the composition of the models that we have for the herbicide, I don't have here, but we can follow up on that one. We can follow up on that one. But the second one you have on our 5-year plan, we have some of the growth in CP is coming from the herbicide over the trait platform that you just mentioned.

Maybe before we take your question again, maybe go and see if we have some questions in the chat.

Yes, we do. So I'm going to consolidate a couple of questions from Vincent Andrews here on U.S. soy. Can you talk a little bit about our trait leadership position by 2032? Is this going to be a compilation of trait licensing or also sales through germplasm? Can we comment on who is interested in this technology at this time? And then also maybe a little bit of guidance around timing of regulatory approvals and how we're thinking about that commercial launch on an acreage perspective.

That's great. So let me start here, and then Mike, you can help me as well. Vincent, so it's a combination of the 2 factors that you just mentioned. We first -- and Mike, you can help me on this one because we saw this 2 weeks ago. First, we are very excited about Vyconic in our brands because of the combination of the trait package with the germplasm that we are bringing to the market. Mike mentioned some of the yields here, but what we saw on the data 2 weeks ago, it's really exciting.

So first, we do believe this is probably -- and I'll take that risk to say that you help me if I'm not right, Mike. Probably this is the best launch of soybean that we're going to have in U.S. because of the combination of the trait package and the germplasm that we have and the breadth of the germplasm and also that. So first, we do expect growth with our brand, our brand business. But at the same time, we do have a unique opportunity to -- on licensing, and we are having licensing discussions, licensing agreements right now with some of the companies that we have of the U.S., but also in other markets. So the growth is coming from the 2 variables.

Any complement here, Mike?

No, just on the regulatory. So we're -- what we've communicated before, we're on track for regulatory approval. So that continues. One of the things that's really unique about Vyconic is it's -- and you mentioned it, but it is one of the largest launch class we're going to have of any new biotech trait in soybeans. And that launch class is extremely high performing because it capitalizes on some of the systems and methods and technologies that I mentioned during the presentation. So it's one of these first waves of innovation that comes together with seeds and traits that we're going to launch in the marketplace with a new trait. So we're -- and again, we're going to get another round of data, but we're extremely excited about the performance of what we've seen.

John Roberts from Mizuho again. A lot of the basic science is common with human health, genomics, gene editing, data science, AI, how siloed is the R&D here versus what's done on the human health side? And you're different than some of your competitors in that 50%. Is it a holding company type structure? We think about you as very siloed versus that? Or are you benefiting from what's happening on the human health side?

I would say we benefit a lot. And maybe there's time today, we could just talk about how close we have a partnership with some of the work that's happening in pharma R&D. So we benefit a lot. We use a lot of the systems. And likewise, they benefit from what we're doing. So it's not siloed today. There's a lot of overlap, both in terms of how we think about data, how we think about AI, how you put it together and how you build some of the models. So I think we're lucky to be able to rely on that.

The one thing you've always got to remember when you get into the world of Crop Science is we deal with something that pharma really, really doesn't have to deal with at the scale, which is the environment in which we put the crops. And so that is a whole different space that we've leveraged, and I shared the example of the digital twin because that's really around how do you think about this environment. But other than that, from the areas that you identified, lots of opportunities ensuring that we put in place today.

Okay. I think we are getting to the end of the Q&A, but I think we have certainly time for one more question over here. And then I think we close it off.

Part of the vision for Bayer is scaling regenerative agriculture. Could you share a bit more of some of the challenges to scaling and what you see as the key levers to overcoming those? Apologies. I'm Velika from EOS Federated Hermes.

That's a great question. There's 2 elements of your question, if you allow me to answer on that way. So we see a lot of the expansion of how farmers are doing regenerative agriculture at scale, right? So some of the work that you have that we are having some examples here with the Preceon system and the system that Mike mentioned about the multi-season approach with an intermediate crop and the question that was about nitrogen fixation, there is a wonderful element of developing regenerative at scale. If you go to the rice, direct seeded rice in Asia or all the work on the carbon programs in Latin America, an amazing expansion on that when the work is adoption.

What I would love to see more is the Scope 3, the industries that should buy Scope 3 from farmers happening. So the stream of value for the farmers is not at the speed that it could be. And it's basically a lot of the food companies not purchasing Scope 3 reductions, trying to postpone those commitments as much as they can. So hopefully, that we have more flow of money for the farmers on that stream. But the system -- the beauty is that the system is built not only to generate extra revenue, but it's to generate yield and resilience by itself, and that's why you see the adoption from the farmers, but hopefully more and more will come as an extra stream of money.

Very good. That concludes our Q&A and the first part of our session here today. Thanks again to all the presenters. Thank you all for being here and dialing in. I think it was a very rich, full first of the day. And with that, thank you and see you soon.

Good afternoon and good morning, everyone. And welcome to our conference call to discuss Bayer's Second Quarter 2026 Results. Bill will begin by sharing his perspective on the key achievements of the past few weeks and our path forward. And we are delighted today to have Judith with us for our first quarterly earnings call. She will offer her initial perspectives and provides further insights into business performance and the outlook.

[Operator Instructions] And our 3 divisional presidents will join Bill and Judith then to address your questions.

Before we get started, I would also like to encourage you to join our Crop Science field event on September 2 in Iowa. If you have any questions regarding registration or logistics, please reach out to our Investor Relations team.

As always, please note the cautionary language in our safe harbor statement. And with that, over to you, Bill.

Thanks, Jost, and hi, everyone. And by the way, I think most of you know this is Jost's last time leading the call before he runs off to lead the radiology business. So we'll try to make it a good one. But the past 90 days have been really important for Bayer. And operationally, we're on track for the year. We've made decisive progress on our long-term strategic priorities, and we're going to cover both of those things today.

So let's start with the performance in the first half of '26. Across the group, our businesses are delivering what we committed. Sales are at EUR 24 billion, growing 3% on a currency and portfolio adjusted basis, which we'll refer to throughout the call today. Core EPS is at EUR 3.66, which is also up 3% from our last year at this time. Our free cash flow in the first half is at negative EUR 2.7 billion. This compares with negative EUR 1.4 billion last year at this point, and it's due to the litigation-related payouts that we've previously communicated.

So on to our businesses. Crop Science delivered sales growth of 5.5%. This was driven by strong momentum in seeds and traits, including the additional licensing revenue we posted in the first quarter. EBITDA margin expanded to 31%, a considerable improvement over last year, reflecting higher margin sales, the licensing revenue I just mentioned and disciplined execution.

In Pharma, we demonstrated continued resilience, Sales remained flat with Nubeqa and Kerendia combining to grow 66%, overcoming significant and expected declines in Xarelto. Eylea is down 27%, driven by pressures from biosimilars and with the 8 mg business now representing half of our Eylea's sales. Beyonttra continues to progress well, and our base business is growing, in part due to strong volume growth in radiology.

Our EBITDA margin is at 26%. This puts us in line with expectations as we continue to invest in future growth in the second half of the year.

Finally, Consumer Health posted growth of 3.5% with contributions from all but 1 category and particularly strong growth in nutritionals and dermatology. EBITDA margin is trailing prior year, but on track to meet our outlook.

Overall, we're pleased with our trajectory. Despite an uncertain environment, we're pacing well to meet our targets, and we'll continue executing our plan. Team Bayer has what it takes to deliver.

Now I'll touch on our strategic priorities, including some recent highlights. In Pharma, we've received priority review for asundexian in both the U.S. and China, and we're preparing for a planned launch in the end of '26 or beginning of '27. Further, we closed the acquisition of perfuse Therapeutics, which we announced last quarter. This is a novel development medicine in glaucoma and diabetic retinopathy.

Crop Science continues to execute its 5-year framework, and our efforts here are beginning to deliver tangible results as seen in the expansion of our margins. We're also optimizing our business setup. Last month, we consolidated our U.S. glyphosate business into Ruvion, a distinct entity that will be nimbler and better positioned in a commodity-driven market. Further, we continue to build our innovative portfolio. For instance, we announced a license agreement for broad commercialization of hybrid wheat, one of the world's most important staple crops.

Across the company, we continue to push for productivity gains with our operating model. Teams working on launches in Pharma, driving profitability gains in Crop Science and those making investment decisions in consumer health have much more ownership over their work. We think our lean entrepreneurial operating model positions us well to capitalize on the opportunities of artificial intelligence. And we're investing in AI in both enterprise systems and tools for our people so that each person at Bayer can extend their productivity, making the greatest impact at the fastest pace and lowest cost.

Finally, litigation. The last 90 days have been decisive in the company's years-long efforts to contain the litigation uncertainty. On June 25, in mon versus Darnell, the U.S. Supreme Court announced a landmark ruling for the cause of regulatory clarity for American agriculture and for the company. The decision was in no way ideological with the majority of justices nominated by both Republicans and Democrats siding with the company. Further, the opinion was unequivocal. The Environmental Protection Agency is the authority when it comes to regulating crop protection products. Claims grounded in states failure to warn theories are preempted and should be dismissed. Lower courts have already started acting on the Supreme Court's ruling.

What does this decision mean for the company's multipronged strategy? The proposed class settlement between Monsanto and leading plaintiffs firms is moving ahead and we remain convinced it is the best path to resolution, including for plaintiffs, whose primary legal theory was deemed without merit by the nation's highest court. We're in a stronger position following the court's ruling. The final approval hearing in the state court in Missouri is now scheduled for August 19, with a final decision expected later this year. During the interim, the company will participate in the class process, including briefing the court regarding objections and assessing the quality and quantity of opt-outs.

On PCBs, as previously communicated, we aim to enforce the indemnity agreements Monsanto had in place, and there's a case moving forward now in federal court. Overall, our containment strategy is in a strong place with some important milestones ahead. We remain focused on making the right decisions for the company, both in the moment and for the long term. Over the past 2.5 years, we've been laser focused on a clear set of priorities: rejuvenating the pharma pipeline, significantly contained in litigation, deleveraging, improving profitability at crop science and making Bayer leaner, more dynamic and more productive. We've progressed in each of these 5 areas, and each of them has demanded intense focus. And it's imperative that we maintain that focus. So we're concentrating on delivering our commitments and ensuring the best future for Bayer.

So with that, I'll hand it over to Judith to walk you through the financials as well as her first impressions to the company. She's joined at a pivotal moment for Bayer and has been all in from day 1. Judith, over to you.

Thank you, Bill. And welcome to everyone on the call. It's a pleasure to be with you here today. I'm delighted to have joined Bayer at such an exciting time. The team has made significant progress on litigation and we remain firmly focused on containing the overhang. The goal remains that Bayer is increasingly valued for the strength of its businesses, innovation and its growth potential.

Having spent my first month listening to customers, colleagues and investors, the following themes stand out. First, Bayer's innovation engine is a fundamental competitive advantage. Our leadership positions are built on decades of R&D investments, delivering breakthrough innovation that farmers, patients and consumers rely on. Our teams are committed to innovate for our mission. Second, we have attractive growth opportunities ahead of us, supported by powerful long-term trends. We have strong positions in large markets with growing and aging populations. Our new operating model has made us leaner and more customer focused.

Third, our financial priorities are clear: to continue to strengthen the balance sheet, to improve productivity and cash generation and to create flexibility to invest for future growth in next-generation medicines, ag technologies and consumer health.

While we've made good progress on the transformation, there's still important work ahead. I see a clear opportunity to build on the momentum with strong execution and financial discipline to deliver sustainable value.

With that, let me turn to our financial results. Net sales increased by 3% to EUR 24.3 billion in the first 6 months. In Q2, sales increased by 2% to EUR 10.9 billion. EBITDA before special items rose 7% to EUR 6.6 billion in the first half, including an increase of 2% to EUR 2.1 billion in the second quarter. Foreign exchange effects were not a material headwind this quarter.

Core earnings per share came in at EUR 3.66 for the first 6 months. This is consistent with the underlying business seasonality and our expectations for the year. If you look at Q2 specifically, core EPS of EUR 0.95 was 17% below prior year, given nonrecurring benefits in taxes and the reconciliation result in 2025. Both items show a more normalized pattern this year, in line with our expectations.

Let's move on to free cash flow. This year, material litigation-related payouts amounting to EUR 2.5 billion in the first half drove the negative cash flow and explained the decline versus the prior year. For the second quarter, we saw higher incentive payouts compared to prior year.

Finally, net financial debt remained rather stable with a slight increase to EUR 33.6 billion compared to the second quarter of 2025.

Compared to the end of the first quarter this year, net financial debt increased by EUR 1.1 billion, driven by litigation payouts, the profuse acquisition for our Pharma business and foreign exchange.

In recent weeks, we successfully completed 2 important financing transactions. The EUR 3 billion equity investment from Apollo marks an important strategic milestone. It strengthens our capital structure and provides additional flexibility for future financing needs. Upon closing, it will reduce our net financial debt in the second half of the year. We have since successfully placed USD 5 billion in bonds, further demonstrating our ability to access the capital markets. These achievements have been an important team effort, and I would like to sincerely thank all of our colleagues who contributed to this and importantly, to our first half results.

Overall, our performance puts us well on track to deliver our full year guidance. Let's now take a closer look at the performance of our businesses.

For Crop Science, disciplined execution of our 5-year framework drives growth and margin expansion. Year-to-date, we saw sustained momentum across the seed and traits portfolio and improved profitability while core crop protection continued to face pressure. Overall, the strong first half reinforces our confidence in delivering full year guidance, even as sales mix is expected to shift towards lower-margin products in the second half.

In the second quarter, net sales grew 4% to EUR 4.9 billion, driven by strong seed and traits performance and improved glyphosate volumes and pricing.

Soybean sales exceeded expectations with 17% growth for the quarter driven strong North America performance, including higher prices from the return of the dicamba label in the U.S. Soy growth reached nearly 70% year-to-date or 13% excluding licensing income. In the second half, we expect lower excess seed sales in the United States due to improved utilization rates. Additionally, our transition from Intacta Roundup Ready 2 Pro to Intacta 2 Xtend is expected to weigh on Brazil sales.

Cotton also benefited from return of the dicamba label, driving both volumes and prices as expected for the quarter and contributing to 9% year-to-date growth. Other seeds and traits grew 21% for the quarter on solid canola expansion, growing 63% year-to-date.

Following the strong Q1, corn declined by 3% in the second quarter. It includes the anticipated phasing impacts in North America, partly compensated by double-digit growth in EMEA and APAC.

For the first half, the business grew 4% with strong growth across all regions despite reduced acres in the U.S.

Core Crop Protection declined 2% in the second quarter driven by lower prices. The expected volume recovery was muted by dry weather, mainly in parts of Europe. The temporary reintroduction of Movento in France drove insecticide growth in the second quarter.

Year-to-date, core Crop Protection declined 5% from ongoing generic pressure and portfolio pruning impact. We expect growth in the second half of the year, supported by higher volumes. However, continued regulatory and pricing headwinds are anticipated to weigh on performance.

Glyphosate sales recovered this quarter with higher pricing and increased volumes contributing to a 13% increase. A price spike in the second quarter nearly offset volume decline from the first quarter, leaving glyphosate broadly flat over the first half of the year.

On profitability, EBITDA before special items of approximately EUR 900 million came in 30% higher than prior year, resulting in a margin of 18.4% in the second quarter.

In addition to higher seed and traits sales, the strong execution of our 5-year framework contributes through low-margin exits in core Crop Protection as well as COGS efficiencies. Furthermore, we benefited from insurance income and divestment gains.

Year-to-date, EBITDA before special items margin of 31.4% is expected to moderate in the second half. This also includes a different distribution of licensing resolution income, which was realized in the first quarter this year compared to the fourth quarter last year as well as pricing pressure and the impact from the Middle East war.

Our Pharmaceuticals business continues with solid delivery against its strategic priorities. This is clearly shown with strong growth of our new products and a solid base business contribution, which balanced the expected declines of Xarelto and Eylea. We are now at the inflection point of turning to growth going forward.

While sales were in line with the prior year in the first 6 months, we expect to accelerate growth in the second half, putting us on track to achieve our full year outlook.

For the second quarter, we achieved net sales of EUR 4.5 billion, representing 1% growth versus the prior year period. Our key growth drivers continued their strong momentum. Nubeqa grew by 64% in Q2 across regions, where Kerendia sales increased by 83%, mainly driven by the U.S. and China. With combined sales of more than EUR 2 billion for the half year, and based on the current dynamics, we are well positioned to meet the market expectations for the full year.

On our new launches, performance of liquid and Beyonttra continues to be in line or even above our expectations, and we're continuing to drive launches in additional markets throughout 2026 and beyond. Xarelto and Eylea declined by 42% and 33% in Q2, respectively, driven by the expected effects of loss of exclusivity and biosimilar competition. While both declines were modestly above our guidance range, this was against a stronger prior year comparison.

For the second half, we expect a softer comparison base. Importantly, Eylea 8-milligram continues to see strong uptake reaching around 55% of franchise sales in the second quarter and remaining on track for about 70% share by year-end.

Our base business grew 4% in the second quarter with continued strength in radiology and women's health, more than offsetting volume-based procurement related impact on Aspirin Cardio and Stivarga in China as well as declines across other parts of our mature portfolio.

For the first half, base business growth was 1%, and we foresee broadly stable performance going forward.

EBITDA before special items was down by 4% to EUR 1.1 billion in Q2, resulting in a margin of 23.7%. The year-on-year decline was mainly driven by our decision to increase growth investments as well as pricing pressures partially compensated by higher volumes, a write-back for inventory and continued savings from efficiency programs.

While our margin for the first half of the year was 26.4%, we will continue to invest into growth going forward and expect to end the year in line with our guidance.

Turning to Consumer Health. We continue to focus on driving sustainable growth while navigating a volatile market environment, particularly in the United States, where consumer sentiment remains subdued. Against this backdrop, net sales increased by 1.5% in the second quarter and 3.5% in the first 6 months. With that, we remain well positioned to deliver within our full year guidance range.

Growth was driven by all nonseasonal categories, highlighting the strength of our balanced portfolio, strong category positions and focused investments. E-commerce continue to be an important growth driver, reflecting our investments in digital capabilities and our ability to adapt to evolving consumer purchasing behaviors across channels.

In nutritionals, brands such as Natural Elements and Elevate delivered strong online growth. These favorable sales dynamics helped offset the decline in allergy and cold reflecting softer seasonal demand as well as the pull forward of customer orders in the first quarter due to timing of seasonal orders in allergy in previously -- as previously highlighted.

Turning to profitability. The EBITDA margin before special items was 22.1% in the second quarter and 22.3% in the first half of the year. Benefits from our new operating model and ongoing cost efficiencies continue to support profitability, while targeted investments in brands, innovation and digital capabilities are positioning the business for future growth.

Foreign exchange headwinds impacted the first half year margin by about 50 basis points. Excluding these, profitability remained broadly in line with the prior year and within our full year guidance corridor.

On to our outlook for 2026. We reiterate our group outlook on sales, earnings and free cash flow at constant currencies for the full year 2026. Our outlook reflects a strong performance in the first half, but also the anticipated dynamics for the remainder of the year. In addition, we remain mindful of the dynamic external environment.

Our net financial debt, we have reflected a minority equity investment by Apollo, with closing expected in the second half of this year. With that, we now anticipate net financial debt in the range of EUR 29 billion to EUR 30 billion, down from previously guided EUR 32 billion to EUR 33 billion.

Overall, we currently see a balanced risk and opportunity profile for our full year outlook, which continues to include our latest assessments on several external factors and geopolitics.

Looking ahead, we continue to closely follow several key topics that remain fluid. For Crop Science, we continue to monitor geopolitical and weather-related developments, including potential El Nino impact. Whether volatility could affect planting and yields in some regions, and our technology-based seed and Crop Protection solutions are helping growers to manage these challenges.

For our Pharma business, we do not expect tariffs to materially affect our outlook this year. At the same time, we remain focused on developments in global drug pricing, particularly around MFN policies, and continue to evaluate the potential implications for our pricing and launch strategies.

For Consumer Health, key variables in the second half of the year remain the trajectory of the consumer sentiment in the U.S. and other key markets, the performance of seasonal categories and developments in the macroeconomic environment. Finally, on foreign exchange rates, in line with our practice, we have updated the foreign exchange estimate based on June month-end spot rates. Compared to constant currencies, this leads to a slightly lower headwind and to net sales and to core earnings per share compared to the last estimate. And with that, over to you, Jost, for the Q&A.

Thank you very much, Judith. Thank you very much, Bill. [Operator Instructions] First question today comes from Richard Vosser from JPMorgan. He's followed by Sachin Jain from Bank of America.

A couple of questions, please. First question on pharma. Just we're -- obviously, you pointed to the Beyonttra launch being relatively strong. We've seen the cardio transform trial failing for a potential competitor there. So just what's your thoughts on the changing environment for Beyonttra? How do you see potential going forward in terms of maybe peak sales? And should we anticipate Beyonttra sales being disclosed in Q3 this year?

And then one question on crop. Maybe just one question on soy. If you could give us a little bit more color on the dynamics going forward into the Latin America season but also how your market share has developed with the return of dicamba, and how we should think about potential further market share gains in coming seasons, maybe with Iconic?

Richard, and thanks for the question on Beyonttra. So we're extremely pleased with the uptake. Obviously, the competitive environment is something that we're closely monitoring. We believe that the stabilizers as a group has proven clinical efficacy. And this is the standard that people have to go against and we have clearly the strongest data set in that class with over 90% stabilization.

Can we expect to report out Beyonttra in the third quarter? So I hope so. Certainly, I expect to report out Bandra sometime in the second half of this year. Over to Rodrigo.

Thank you, Stefan, and thank you, Richard, for the question. And it's an important one for soybean, both in Latin America and North America. So let me start with the Latin America because it's an important one. Before I go to the details here, I just want to highlight this is very in line with our 5-year framework. If you go back on the May 13 last year and you take the slide of soybean, what is happening right now is very in line with the plans that we have for the soybean. And what is that? So Latin America first, and I'll invest a little bit on time here to share a little bit.

Latin America, we are making a technology transition there. We have Intacta, as said by Judith, for the last many years. But Intacta is coming for -- to -- off patent in the coming years. So for that reason, we launched, in [indiscernible], at the same time that our competitor launched their first technology. And we are growing dramatically the new technology to the market, but it's expected as we planted that you're going to see a decline on the penetration of Intacta. We had Intacta over 85% penetration in Brazil, and of course, naturally, right now, you have less varieties being launched because of the patent expiration in the coming years. So we do expect, and that's the impact on sales that we predicted the lower penetration of Intacta. But at the same time, and that's very important, Intacta 2 Extend, we launched it, and we are growing again double digit again. We are coming to 40% penetration while our competitor is low digit still. So 40% penetration with Intacta 2 Extend over 50 million acres with that new technology. and this is just the preparing for the launch of Intacta 5+ that will come in the next years.

And this is also very aligned to the North America. When we plan for the soybean, we plan '27 and '28 as being transition years because of just mentioning Latin America as well for North America. North America, it's great to have the label back and to be able to grow the soybean in North America in the first 6 months by 13%, excluding the the licensing agreement. What is even more important is the prepare for the launch of Iconic, as you mentioned. And this is coming -- in the coming years for soybeans.

So soybean overall, we are in a transition period technology transition in Latin America, the preparation of the launch of Iconic. But if you think about the next 5 years, we are planning to grow soybean, especially in North America, but also with the new launches in Latin America. So thank you for the question because it allows me to go a little bit deeper on the soybean dynamics. Again, very aligned to what we shared before on the 5-year plan that we have.

Great. Following from Sachin, we have Charles Pitman King from Barclays in the line, but Sachin, your first.

Sachin Jain James from Bank of America. And firstly, I'd just like to refer what Bill said, yes, thanks help to me what in a volatile period. best of luck in your new role. So my questions, big picture for Bill. You comment on the wires of your open mind to group structure. So wondering if you could provide a bit more color on your latest thought process and what could trigger a formal strategic review?

Secondly, you referenced August 19. Could you just clarify whether you expect to communicate where your opt-in is at relative to threshold? And I'm assuming you have a high-level view already. I wonder if you could share any color. And then I wonder, as if I could just squeeze in a third. So Asyndexion for Stephan. In fact, just think about regarding the launch trajectory of this in terms of physician excitement, hospital formularies. And then I wonder if you could comment on pricing given that you most likely have to price this now premovecine-AF data and Judith referenced MFN thoughts in our introductory comments.

Yes. Thanks, Sachin. Yes, regarding the question about the kind of group strategy and group structure, I think we've got a group here, the Board of Management, 5 of the 6 of us are here today. And we think about this a lot because key question for us is what's the most effective way to pursue our mission and also to secure the future of the company, which, as you know, was no trivial matter over the last few years with some of the challenges we faced. And so we're thinking about this all the time. I mean, we're definitely in a better position now than we've been at any point in the last few years to make strategic choices, but we still have these 5 key priorities. And if you think about them, we have the Pharma continuing to make progress and invest there. We've done a good job rebuilding the late-stage pipeline, but we got more work to do on the mid-stage pipeline. in Crop Science, we've begun the work of improving profitability, but we've got more to deliver there, and that's a 5-year horizon that we have to cover. And so that needs continued focus. We've also got these things like the debt that we've demonstrated the ability to pay it down, but the balance sheet isn't yet where we want it to be. We're making progress, but again, more work to do there.

On litigation is a topic, again, good progress, but we got to close the door. And finally, this question of bureaucracy. I mean I think certainly, 3 years ago, we believe that bureaucracy was a significant even additional burden on Bayer compared to some of our peer companies. I think what we've done now with the progress we've made, the radical change in our operating model, we actually have an asset here, but we've got momentum. We're getting basically better every quarter and we don't want to break that up right at the moment.

So we -- I would say we've been very disciplined on these 5 topics, and we remain very disciplined on that. As a leadership group, we have our heads up and we're thinking about what other options are there, what opportunities are there, and we're always thinking about that. But from where we look right now, we think our best option today is to basically keep driving home on these 5 topics so that we believe basically, improvements and continued improvements on these 5 areas will make our future better whatever we decide to do structurally in the future, whether we're staying together as one Bayer or whether we do something different with the division. In any case, a better balance sheet, having clarity on litigation, more efficient, high-performing operating model, stronger Pharma division, stronger Crop Science division, these are all kind of no regret moves. And so we believe, at least right now, we want to stay focused on that and keep moving forward.

And I think we'll know when we see an opportunity, we'll talk about that, and we'll make sure you're the first to know, Sachin. So -- but meanwhile, we're going to keep our heads down and keep focused.

Regarding August 19, that's the scheduled date for the fairness hearing. It's a -- yes, it's an interesting time because obviously, it's not a normal thing that happens in a class proceeding that you have a Supreme Court ruling that happens. Obviously, this one is very much to our favor. So as I said, we're evaluating kind of the quantity and quality of outstanding claims or the people who opted out. As you can imagine, if people want to come back in, just like there was a process to opt out that involves paperwork and all that sort of thing, to reverse that also requires paperwork and that can be a bit cumbersome. So we're working on all that. I wouldn't expect that we're going to share anything about it until -- yes, basically, until it's over, until we've got a final number, we've had the fairness hearing.

And so we'll, yes, we'll update folks when there's something concrete to update on, but as it stands, we're pleased with how that's going, and we keep moving forward.

Stefan, do you want to talk about asundexian?

Yes. Sure. Sachin, thanks for the question. And I think we all share the excitement around the strong data set on asundexian. We're getting ready to get this into the marketplace in the fourth quarter. let me reiterate, this is a product that we believe is going to establish a new standard of care in the treatment of secondary prevention of secondary strokes. In terms of the trajectory, given that this is a truly new game in town. On the 1 hand, we need to educate physicians. On the other hand, I do expect that physicians are going to broadly welcome and are going to start prescribing, especially in the acute setting in the beginning as we launch. So we're getting ready for that. Of course, the limiting factor, as usual is access. So that's the only thing that's going to probably slow things a little bit down. But I would hope that we see a slightly improved access versus normal cardiovascular launches as we've seen them like with Kerendia, for example.

On the pricing topic, we're pricing on the back of very, very strong clinical evidence, which gives strong value for our product. I think many people were surprised by the strong showing both on efficacy, but also on this immaculate safety that adds no additional bleeding versus given antiplatelet therapy. So we will be starting to price in the U.S. and in China, and Europe will come next. So MFN considerations are more for sometime next year. In the meantime, let me be very clear, we're making the point today already with reimbursement entities across those geographies that are being looked into as a comparator for MFN that we will need to have comparable pricing. And if that is not the case, that will or that may create delays in access. So that's going to be an interesting battle to fight. But I think we're very clear on this. It's not going to be a push over in those markets where we would follow the U.S. launch sometime in 2027.

Excellent. After we hear a chance from Barclays, we have Matthew Weston from UBS Centerline. But Charles, you go first.

Two questions from me. Firstly, on crop. Just thinking about -- in terms of the glyphosate mix. Could you provide any details around the price and volume growth breakdown for your glyphosate and non-glyphosate-based herbicides? Just thinking about the FY '26 volumes. You noted in the earlier remarks, the global launch remains stable, implying a 2H volume increase. Just what is it that gives you this confidence? And how does the separation of glyphosate into Rugen support this target?

And then maybe a question on guidance for Judith. Noting that your guidance has been restated despite 2Q representing another strong EBITDA beat versus consensus expectations driven by the better-than-expected Crop Science delivery, how can we interpret this? Are you resting that you think the global uncertainty has worsened? If you could also touch on whether or not you're considering El Nino as a tail or a headwind in this? And maybe just more broadly, what your typical guidance philosophy looks like?

Let's see Rodrigo, could you here the sound was a little rough, but could you hear that all right?

Yes, I think so, Bill. And Charles, I'll answer here because the sound here, but if I don't reach your point here, please let me know. But on the glyphosate question that you made, so let me go a little bit of the dynamics that we had, right? So Q1 started a little bit soft on glyphosate. Then we had a price increase globally on glyphosate, and we had a recovery that was mentioned by Judith on Q2. But glyphosate is a very dynamic business, right? We were -- some weeks ago, we were on 0 tariff for the U.S. import of China. We just recently had a resolution now that you had another tariff more importing from China to do U.S. And this is one of the key elements of how we are managing glyphosate. Different from our core proprotection or our seeds and traits, this is a commodity mark that you really need to manage very agile. Pricing dynamics and adjustments that you need to do is almost like in a monthly basis. And this is one of the core concept that we designed when we put the glyphosate team to operate as a unit here to really make that business as agile as possible.

Bringing this to the business for this year, this -- what we have today on the first 6 months and the next 6 months gives us confidence that we're going to be on the guidance that we have for glyphosate. We're going to be monitoring right now, of course, the dynamic of global pricing. I mentioned about the tariffs in the U.S., but also we're going to see that in the global dynamics. But I feel that we have an opportunity and of course, clearly, if you have a tariff in the U.S. brings an opportunity for our business in U.S., and we're going to be capturing that with this model that I just mentioned. But this is a little bit what we have for the year. And overall, you asked me about the sales.

Again, overall glyphosate business represents 10% of our total sales, just to give you a little bit of a range here that we have. But that should be helping us to deliver what we have planned for the full year. With that, Judith, back to you.

Yes. Thank you, Rodrigo, and thank you, Charles, for the question. There was indeed about a EUR 200 million beat on Crop Science in the first half. And Rodrigo has just gone through again, and I did in my prepared remarks on what are some of the standout topics here. We also see though in the second half the -- well, first of all, the seasonality such as the first half is much bigger and so bigger opportunity there, too. And the second half in Crop Science, we see a mix change. So higher crop protection with a lower margin than the seed business. And indeed, we planned in for potential to see if there's any -- there's -- it's not without risk, let's just put it that way versus the full year. And so that's why we are confident of confirming.

If you ask me about the philosophy of how I look at guidance, it is our best knowledge, needless to say, but it's also one where we are very committed to. And so you have our commitment that we will meet this guidance.

Maybe one last topic, even though it's smaller. When I had mentioned, there were some positives in there that might not -- that will not repeat in the second half. They're smaller of nature, but we mentioned divestment, we mentioned some insurance. And that's what, maybe 20% of the EUR 200 million, much, much smaller. So I just want to give credit where credit belongs. It really has been an operational beat.

Super. Fantastic. So following Matt from UBS, we'll hear from James Quigley from Goldman Sachs. But Matt, go the next 1 and in, please go ahead.

Two questions for Judith, please. The first on the LAC transaction, is there any additional color you can give us so we can get our models right when we get the consolidation as to where we can land on a percent ownership, but more importantly, the profitability of LAC? And if you're not prepared to give us a number, can you help us out with relative to that 25% around for Pharma, I assume it's a meaningfully more profitable business with no R&D burden that some help would be great to get that minority in our model more accurate.

And then the second question is more of a medium-term one, stronger cash generation, a number of moves to reinforce the balance sheet and a strong business outlook, I think, have been messages today. Investors have had an $0.11 dividend for the last 3 years, totally understandably as you rebuild the balance sheet through litigation. But when should investors think about a return to a more normalized dividend payout from Bayer? Is 2027 from '26 earnings too early? Or do we just have to wait and see?

Thank you for those questions. First on the [indiscernible] Apollo transaction, it's -- we're not going to give details on exactly. So I think we're going to have to think about with the Investor Relations team on how we help you model this. I mean, I guess, the way you have to think about it, on the 1 hand, we are selling equity. So that's an impact on on our EPS, on the other hand, offsetting -- partially offsetting is, of course, we have better access to debt at this stage. And clearly, Proofpoint was the EUR 5 billion that we were able to tap into right after the Apollo transaction. So we -- it's not very significant, but I hear your point. We're going to have to help you model this better. So stay tuned.

On the dividend, indeed, we had -- given where the debt was, to pay minimum dividend over the last 3 years, I think, was the thing to do. We will -- the right next time to come back to you on this question will be our total year results in February as we will work through our medium-term plan, we will get -- have a better view, and that's the time that you should expect a communication around this.

And Judith, I wonder if you want to mention in the first part because you mentioned about selling equity, but it will show up -- you said it will show up in EPS, but it will show up as the cost of the dividend, right, as opposed to a change in the share base or the...

Yes, exactly. It's a minority interest impact. Absolutely.

So it will show up on the P&L more as a -- yes, like a cost of capital as opposed to like a diluting the share base.

Yes, exactly.

I'm sure we can provide the some what the future estimated EPS impact is or something?

Okay. Great. So next is James from Goldman Sachs, and he followed by Joel Jackson from BMO. James?

Again, thank you for all your Justin Better luck in the Radiology business. So first question for me for Judith. So thank you for long out your initial impressions. But from what you've seen so far and your experience in other companies, so what are the key levers you can use to reduce the net debt? Are there any easy wins that you can implement from what you've seen so far? And how do you balance priorities here in terms of fixing the balance sheet versus investing in innovation and then obviously, real estate dividend, as you spoke to before?

And are there any innovative ways like the Apollo deal that you can use to reduce the debt burden or to engineer flexibility to invest?

And the second question is for Stefan. Investors are increasingly looking at the mid- to long-term outlook in pharma businesses, particularly with the patent close in the mid-2030s that are coming around the corner. You've closed Perfuse Pharma. But how are you thinking about organic versus inorganic investments and potential for more pharma deals versus some progress you've made with the pipeline as we've seen today? Nubeqa and Kerendia are launching very well. As we've seen, but investors will start to have 1 eye drifting towards the pan expirations. So how are you approaching this in the longer term?

Yes. Thank you, James. Very good question. Yes, the way I look at it, so really coming into the company, I think there are very credible plans from the divisions on each improving their growth profile and their margin. I think the most obvious that you're going to see just because parts of the launches have already happened, and you can see it with Nubeqa and Kerendia is, of course, in the Pharma business as of the third quarter. But we're all working on this and all the different parts of the companies are going to be contributing. So once you have an increasing results, you have reduced payouts also for litigation frankly, that's where I feel we will have good opportunity on both reducing the debt, but also, of course, investing and potentially increasing the investments even into into the future. And so I think we're in a good position to do both delever materially, but also continue to invest into our businesses. The opportunities there, we have the right teams, and we're in the right markets.

Yes. Thanks, James. Needless to say that I love your question because I think your question states the obvious. We've really turned around this pharma business, and we're now already talking about the next success cycle because we sort of like taking this one for granted. Thank you for that. So when it comes to the post LOE for Nubeqa and Kerendia, first of all, let me state, we still have a couple of years to go before that really hits your models. But that's going to be still soon enough. So we're working, obviously, tirelessly to come up with the next success cycle, and that includes things like Perfuse, of course. It includes some of the, what we believe, truly interesting oncology medicines from our radiopharmaceutical platform, but also from [indiscernible] where we're really advancing things fast on the immuno-oncology area side. We're also seeing potential still with higher risk, but still good potential from our cell and gene business. So we'll have some major readouts in the coming 12 months there as well.

Just as a reminder, we should, in the first quarter, readout our cardiovascular trial there with gene therapy and severe heart failure patients and a few smaller trials that are reading out. So that will give us, yes or no, some validation on these platforms. And we're advancing very nice on [indiscernible] in Parkinson's as well, which is a Phase III development asset.

Add to that a few cardiovascular opportunities from our classic, let's say, research and early development platform. And we need to up our game on on deals. We're continuously doing deals, but you heard Judith. We're freeing up cash going forward because I'm so glad that we're starting to talk business and future, and that should give us some ability to invest. We're not going to do major acquisitions. I don't think that's in the cards. But we're starting to beef up again also our external growth momentum in the years to come. And I'm looking forward to that.

Obviously, in order to get there, we need to first drive up Nubeqa, Kerendia, asundexian, Beyonttra,Lynkuet to be really big products. I think we're well underway to doing so. And that should give us headroom to do some of these investments that will be absolutely needed if we want to continue this nice success story that we've been building over the past few years. Thank you.

Excellent. Following Joel, we'll hear from Christian Feitz from Kepler Chevreux. Joel, you're next.

I want to ask about, if you look at what you're doing with Ruvian and the other week, you they are looked at seeking counter billing duties against glyphosate in the U.S. then pulled that back quickly. There's some executive orders around elemental phosphorus and glyphosate. So first question would be, maybe you could just give us an update on what the company's use on our Ruvian and glyphosate what that will do for Bayer, what your objectives are with everything you're doing on that side?

And then my second question would be a little greedy here, but when you think of 2027 for Crop Science? Do you think there's enough growth drivers at current crop prices to offset the onetime uplift you got from [indiscernible] this year?

Rodrigo, maybe I'll just comment on Ruvion at a high level, and then you can talk about Crop Science and your outlook. I think it's really simple. There's nothing much more to say on this. We we announced more than a year ago that we -- yes, we need to be able to run the glyphosate business differently because it's a very commoditized market, and it needs really leanness, agility and really fast adaptation to business conditions. And so it didn't fit very well in our portfolio. So we've created a separate entity for that. And we're -- beyond that, we're not really prepared to comment about future outlook. But that's where we are today, and that's where we'll be until further notice.

Rodrigo, do you want to talk about the business outlook.

Sure. Joel, thanks for the question. A little bit early to go deeper on 2027. Of course, on Q3, we're going to talk more about that and a little bit of the dynamics. But high level, we continue to see momentum on our seats and traits. I think I'm very pleased with the performance that we have on the seeds and traits over the first 6 months with a 6% growth, excluding the resolution. We do expect continued growth in the corn business that we have. We were able to grow corn volume on the first 6 months despite the area decrease in U.S. also pricing as well. So we continue to see momentum on the seeds and traits, and we are really preparing our [indiscernible] business this year. We are doing some divestments and pruning some of the work that we have. So we're going to go into more details in 2027 in Q3. But I would say that very consistent to the plans that we have on our 5-year framework. We have that path of innovation and some of the launches is starting in '27. But at the same time, another important element, we are already harvesting the start of all the savings that we are putting in place, but the savings will hit even further in '27, '28, '29 in our plan.

So the combination of the innovation on the top line and the savings that we are putting, aligns us with a 5-year framework for the '27, but more details to come in Q3. Thank you.

Great. So next is Christian from Kepler Chevreux, and he's follow-up from Thibault Boutherin from Morgan Stanley. Christian, Go ahead.

Judith and Houston team and you did welcome you, all the best for your new position. Two questions, please. crop science. I'm a bit surprised by the robust organic growth in Europe. And I would believe Europe is a bit more crop protection and seeds versus the Americas. Hence, given the severe drought, we are seeing in large parts of Europe, are you concerned about inventory buildups? And how would you plan to manage this into the next season?

And then my second question actually also on crop just modeling question. D&A has been all over the place in Crop Science in the past several quarters. What would you consider a normalized depreciation and amortization level in crop per year.

Thank you, Christian. So let me jump here already on EMEA. So the first thing that I want to highlight, I want to -- I'm very pleased with the double-digit growth in our seeds and traits in EMEA. That was a very important element, and we are growing the business there. We have some very cool highlights of the [indiscernible] in some of the countries like in Italy, and we continue to grow in some very key markets for us there. So double-digit growth in the seeds and traits. Inventory is in the same level that we have last year in overall EMEA. So I'm not -- as you know, we manage sell-out very close. So we don't do sell-ins. We are not seeing a great movement in sell-out. But you are right in terms of the weather impact. If you look to the fungicide sales that we have in the first 6 months, this was impacted by the weather in EMEA. It's very dry. So you probably have much less disease and you may have less application of fungicides. So we see that, but we adjust our selling. So inventory-wise, to your specific question, I think we have -- we are under control.

You have some spots that you're going to have to manage. But overall, the inventory in EMEA is at the same level that we had last year. So it's in a good place. But also when you talk about the performance highlights for the seeds and trades also the Monsanto extension in France, that is also an important element of the performance of EMEA.

Yes. I don't know who wants to cover the DNA? Maybe we'll come back on that one?

Okay. We will cover the D&A question later. First is questions from Thibault Boutherin. Thibault, please go ahead.

Just a couple of questions on pharma. Eylea 8-milligram a very strong growth performance. Can you just remind us, what's happening in terms of IP, Europe and your key ex U.S. countries? Is it -- is there an IP protection on the dose? Or is it just a question of biosimilars developing the same formulation 12% and the shape of the 8-milligram becomes more important?

And then second question on asundexian. When do you feel like you will be ready to share what are shortages on potential new indications? Do you see a broad scope of potential indications as a mechanism, obviously worked very, very well in secondary stroke prevention, but that is so efficacy a couple of other indications.

Thank you, Thibault. And so yes, let me try to go one after the other. First Eylea 8 milligrams, yes, we're now -- more than half of our sales are 8 milligrams. That's very good to see. Unfortunately, the 2 milligrams is getting heavy fire both on pricing, most importantly, but also obviously, volume-wise now. So we're going to be landing inside of our guidance, but I would have wished for even some better results there.

In terms of protection, we have limited protection for now on the 8 milligrams. It's something that we're working on, but we would have to see some some product that would be in development that, in theory, could enter the market.

On asundexian, obviously, I love that question. Please stay put a little bit longer. We're working on this. We see potential for more, but I don't want to give up some of our thinking because I think it's innovative thinking that has not necessarily been explored to the same degree up to now. We took our learnings from the failed AF oceanic trial and try to apply those learnings as we move forward, potentially exploring also other indications. But let's also not get sidetracked here. We have an incredible opportunity ahead of us. We're recreating a new standard of care. And I think the unmet need is extremely high for stroke prevention. So a lot of good things to have. But rest assured, we will inform you in due time at the latest when we give our next R&D update about our ideas on anticoagulation.

Excellent. We will now hear questions from Tony Jones from Rothschild, followed by Alina Shane from Jefferies. Tony floor is yours.

Best of luck Jost, and welcome Judith. I've got 2 quick ones left. Firstly, for Bill, at the end of last year, you told me that over half your time quite often was spent on litigation, that should be changing for the better. What are you going to spend more time on now as that time when litigation come a question for Judith. You mentioned in the presentation that cost savings helped in the first half...

Tony you broke. Tony?

Al, can you hear me?

Yes. Can you repeat the question?

Yes. The first 1 was for Bill. On litigation, -- last year, you told me that you spend a lot of time on litigation. As that NAM may be coming to an end, how will you be reallocating your time for the rest of the year and then '27? And then secondly, for Judith, you talked about efficiency gains in the first half any indication what the total year gain could be and whether there will be further benefits in '27?

Yes. Thanks, Tony. I appreciate your curiosity about my schedule. Yes, well, I look forward to spending less time on litigation for sure. And there's a number of interesting topics. But I think probably the biggest one is working with this group on how we, yes, fully harness the power of our new operating model and the intersection of that with AI to more rapidly reinvent every part of our business. And then through doing that, how we come up with basically incremental ways to invest in our pipelines, not just in pharma, but also to enhance our consumer health portfolio and take crop science to the next level. So it's -- I think yes, we have a lot of performance improvement potential. I think all of us are very convicted to that. In fact, everyone we talk to at Bayer, it's pretty funny because we often talk to our folks and and say like, okay, how would you rate the progress we've made? And people rate it very high. But then when we ask them how much more progress do you think is possible? They often rate that even higher than what we've done already.

So yes, I think we're all looking forward to less time on litigation and more time on that fundamental driving the mission forward driving our performance forward.

And that almost answers the question I have to thank you, Tony, because really, it is the new operating model that has brought most of the savings. And it's less layers, it's also 90-day cycles. It's faster. But clearly, there is more to come. You've heard at different points in time from the colleagues on the -- on all of the efforts that are ongoing to improve margins, and that's literally the case for all 3 divisions and enabling functions, if you may say so. And so yes, there will be more to come, and we will keep working on this. And while I have the mic, maybe I'll answer the question on the -- Christian's question on Crop Science DNA.

So as a point of reference, we're not giving today data about 2027. But as a point of reference, in 2025, it was EUR 2.8 billion. And in the first half, it was EUR 1.5 billion. So hopefully, that helps you to model.

Fantastic. We have no more analysts in the line to ask further questions, so thank you very much. As many of you know, this is my last quarter as the Head of Investor Relations. And Bill has said it earlier, and I look forward to working with Bayer radiology team. It's been a great privilege, a pleasure and fun to engage with all of you over the years. And I would really like to thank you a lot for the good discussions we had, the support and the continued interest in Bayer. Please continue to reach out to the Investor Relations team and take the opportunity to get to know my successor, Jana Ackermann. She's with us today. She is great, and I'm very confident that you will be in the best hands. Thank you once more. And with that, we conclude our Q2 2026 earnings call. Have a great day.

Good morning, everybody, and welcome to our media update for the second quarter. Many thanks for joining. Bill will begin by sharing his perspective on key achievements and our path forward. We also have Judith with us today for our first quarterly earnings call as CFO at Bayer. She will offer her initial perspectives and provide further insights into business performance and the outlook. After that, we have time for your questions.

Now before starting, I would like to briefly draw your attention to the cautionary language included in our safe harbor statement. And with that, over to you, Bill.

Thanks, Michael. Hi, everyone. The past 90 days have been very important for Bayer. And operationally, we're on track for the year, and we've made decisive progress on our long-term strategic priorities. So we're going to cover both of those things today.

So let's start with our performance in the first half of '26. Across the group, our businesses are delivering what we committed. Sales are at EUR 24 billion, growing 3% on a currency and portfolio adjusted basis, which we'll refer to throughout the call today. So core EPS is at EUR 3.66, which is also up 3% from last year at this time. Our free cash flow in the first half is at negative EUR 2.7 billion. So this compares with minus EUR 1.4 billion last year at this point, and it's due to the litigation-related payouts that we've previously communicated.

So on to our businesses. Crop Science delivered sales growth of 5.5%, and this was driven by strong momentum in seeds and traits, including the additional licensing revenue we posted in the first quarter. EBITDA margin expanded to 31%, a considerable improvement over last year, reflecting higher-margin sales, the licensing revenue that I just mentioned and disciplined execution.

In Pharma, we demonstrated continued resilience. Sales remained flat with Nubeqa and Kerendia combining to grow 66%, overcoming significant and expected declines in Xarelto. Eylea is down 27%, driven by pressures from biosimilars with the 8-milligram business now representing half of our Eylea sales. Beyonttra continues to progress well, and our base business is growing in part due to strong volume growth in radiology.

Our EBITDA margin is at 26%. This puts us in line with expectations as we continue to invest in future growth in the second half of the year. Finally, Consumer Health posted growth of 3.5% with contributions from all but one category and particularly strong growth in nutritionals and dermatology. EBITDA margin is trailing prior year, but it's on track to meet our outlook.

Overall, we're pleased with our trajectory. Despite an uncertain environment, we're pacing well to meet our targets. We'll continue executing our plan, and Team Bayer has what it takes to deliver.

Now I'll touch on our strategic priorities, including some recent highlights. In Pharmaceuticals, we've received priority review for asundexian in both the U.S. and China, and we're preparing for a planned launch in the end of 2026 or beginning of 2027. Further, we closed the acquisition of Perfuse Therapeutics, which we announced last quarter. This is a novel development medicine in glaucoma and diabetic retinopathy.

Crop Science continues to execute its 5-year framework, and our efforts here are beginning to deliver tangible results as seen in the expansion of our margins. We're also optimizing our business setup. Last month, we consolidated our U.S. glyphosate business into Ruveon, a distinct entity that will be nimbler and better positioned in a commodity-driven market. Further, we continue to build our innovative portfolio. For instance, we announced a license agreement for broad commercialization of hybrid wheat. Wheat is one of the most important stable crops in the world.

So across the company, we continue to push for productivity gains with our operating model. Teams working on launches in pharmaceuticals, driving profitability gains in Crop Science and those making investment decisions in consumer health have much more ownership over their work. We think our lean entrepreneurial operating model positions us well to capitalize on the opportunities of artificial intelligence. And we're investing in AI in both enterprise systems and tools for our people. So each person at Bayer can extend their productivity, making the greatest impact at the fastest pace and the lowest cost.

Finally, litigation. The last 90 days have been decisive in the company's years-long efforts to contain the litigation uncertainty. On June 25, in Monsanto versus Durnell, the U.S. Supreme Court announced a landmark ruling for the cause of regulatory clarity for American agriculture and for the company. The decision was in no way ideological with the majority of justices nominated by both Republicans and Democrats siding with the company. Further, the opinion was unequivocal.

The Environmental Protection Agency is the authority when it comes to regulating crop protection products. Claims grounded in states failure to warn theories are preempted and should be dismissed. Lower courts have already started acting on the Supreme Court's ruling.

What does the decision from the Supreme Court? What does this mean for the company's multipronged strategy? Well, the proposed class settlement between Monsanto and leading plaintiffs firms is moving ahead, and we remain convinced it's the best path to resolution, including for plaintiffs, whose primary legal theory was deemed without merit by the nation's highest court.

Well, we're in a stronger position following the court's ruling. The final approval hearing in the state court in Missouri is now scheduled for August 19 with a final decision expected later this year. During the interim, the company will participate in the class process, including briefing the court regarding objections and assessing the quality and quantity of opt-outs.

On PCBs, as previously communicated, we aim to enforce the indemnity agreements Monsanto had in place, and there's a case now moving forward in federal court. Overall, our containment strategy is in a strong place with some important milestones ahead. We remain focused on making the right decisions for the company, both in the moment and for the long term. Over the past 2.5 years, we've been laser-focused on a clear set of priorities, rejuvenating the pharma pipeline, significantly containing litigation, deleveraging, improving profitability at Crop Science and making Bayer leaner, more dynamic and more productive.

We've progressed in each of these areas, and each of them has demanded intense focus. It's imperative that we maintain that focus. So we're concentrating on delivering our commitments and ensuring the best future for Bayer.

So with that, I'll hand it over to Judith to walk you through the financials as well as give some of her first impressions of the company. So she's joined at a pivotal time for Bayer, and she's been all in from day 1. Judith, over to you.

Thank you, Bill, and welcome, everyone, to the call. It's a pleasure to be with you today, also given that it's the first time that we're actually talking in this forum. I'm delighted to have joined Bayer at such an exciting time. The team has made significant progress on litigation, and we remain firmly focused on containing this overhang. The goal remains that Bayer is increasingly valued for the strength of its businesses, innovation and its growth potential. Having spent my first months listening to customers, colleagues and investors, three themes stand out.

First, Bayer's innovation engine is a fundamental competitive advantage. Our leadership positions are built on long-standing R&D capabilities that farmers, patients and consumers rely on. Our teams are committed to innovate for our mission.

Second, we have attractive growth opportunities ahead of us, supported by powerful long-term trends and strong positions in very large markets with growing and aging populations. Our new operating model has made us leaner and more customer-focused.

Third, our financial priorities are clear: to continue to strengthen the balance sheet, to improve productivity and cash generation and to create flexibility to invest for future growth in next-generation medicines, ag technologies and consumer health.

While we made good progress on the transformation, there's still important work ahead, and I see a clear opportunity to build on the momentum with strong execution and financial discipline to deliver sustainable value.

With that, let me turn to our financial results. Net sales increased by 3% to EUR 24.3 billion in the first 6 months. In Q2, sales increased by 2% to EUR 10.9 billion. EBITDA before special items rose 7% to EUR 6.6 billion in the first half, including an increase of 2% to EUR 2.1 billion in the second quarter. Foreign exchange effects were not a material headwind this quarter.

Core earnings per share came in at EUR 3.66 for the first 6 months. This is consistent with the underlying business seasonality and our expectations for the full year. If you look at the second quarter specifically, core EPS of EUR 0.95 was 17% below prior year, given nonrecurring benefits in taxes and the reconciliation results in 2025. Both items show a more normalized pattern this year, in line with our expectations.

Let's move on to free cash flow. This year, material litigation-related payouts amounting to EUR 2.5 billion in the first half drove the negative cash flow and explained the decline versus the prior year. For the second quarter, we saw higher incentive payouts compared to prior year. Finally, net financial debt remained rather stable with a slight increase to EUR 33.6 billion compared to the second quarter of 2025.

Compared to the end of the first quarter this year, net financial debt increased by EUR 1.1 billion, driven by litigation payouts, the Perfuse acquisition for our Pharma business and foreign exchange.

In recent weeks, we successfully completed two important financing transactions. The EUR 3 billion equity investment from Apollo marks an important strategic milestone. It strengthens our capital structure and provides additional flexibility for future financing needs. Upon closing, it will reduce our net financial debt in the second half of the year.

We have since successfully placed USD 5 billion in U.S. dollar bonds, further demonstrating our ability to access the capital markets. These achievements have been an important team effort, and I would like to sincerely thank all colleagues who contributed to this and importantly, to our first half results.

Overall, our performance puts us well on track to deliver our full year guidance with us reiterate our group outlook on sales, earnings and free cash flow at constant currencies for the full year 2026. Our outlook reflects the strong performance in the first half, but also the anticipated dynamics for the remainder of the year. In addition, we remain mindful of the dynamic external environment. On net financial debt, we have reflected the minority equity investment by Apollo with closing expected in the second half of this year.

With that, we now anticipate net financial debt in the range of EUR 29 billion to EUR 30 billion, down from previously guided EUR 32 billion to EUR 33 billion. Overall, we currently see a balanced risk and opportunity profile for our full year outlook, which continues to include our latest assessments on several external factors and geopolitics. Looking ahead, we continue to closely following several key topics that remain fluid. For Crop Science, we continue to monitor geopolitical and weather-related developments, including potential El Nino impacts. Weather volatility could affect planting and yields in some regions. Our technology-based seed and crop protection solutions are helping growers to manage these challenges.

For our Pharma business, we do not expect tariffs to materially affect our outlook this year. At the same time, we remain focused on developments in global drug pricing, particularly around MFN policies and continue to evaluate their potential implications for our pricing and launch strategies.

For Consumer Health, Key variables in the second half of the year remain the trajectory of consumer sentiment in the U.S. and other key markets, the performance of seasonal categories and developments in the macroeconomic environment. And finally, on foreign exchange rates, in line with our practice, we have updated the foreign exchange estimate based on June month end spot rates. Compared to constant currencies, this leads to a slightly lower headwind to net sales and to core earnings per share compared to the last estimate.

And with that, over to you, Michael, for the Q&A.

Many thanks, Judith. Many thanks, Bill. Let's now start the Q&A session. [Operator Instructions] Okay. Now let's get started.

And the first question will come from Sonja Wind from Bloomberg and then followed by But the first question goes to Sonja. Sonja, over to you.

Can you hear me?

Yes, we can hear you.

I have two questions. The first one is on your launch strategy, which you already touched on. So for asundexian, for example, are you planning to launch this in Europe as well, specifically Germany, where the environment has become a bit less favorable for drug makers? And secondly, on the litigation topic, do you have any comments so far or at least a timing for when you will comment on the number of opt-outs from the settlement proposal?

Yes. Thanks, Sonja. Good to hear from you and happy summer. Let's see. First, regarding our launch strategy for asundexian. Well, when we develop a medicine like asundexian that we think has potential to help millions of people around the world prevent secondary strokes, we certainly have every intention of launching in every country possible. I think we urgently need more developed countries to shoulder their share of the burden on pricing. I think for too long, many countries in the West outside of the United States have kind of taken a ride on the U.S. paying higher prices and then other countries paying lower prices.

And just as an example, in the time since AMNOG was formed, prices for pharmaceuticals in Germany have gone down about 10%. And of course, over that same time, consumer prices have increased 30% or 40%. So this is not a pricing approach that is sustainable in any way. And in particular, it really threatens future innovation. So we hope to launch asundexian around the world, including in Europe and in Germany. But we certainly need to have conversations, and we're having those conversations to make sure that it's appropriately valued because pharmaceuticals should not be seen as simply a cost center in a health budget.

Asundexian is a great example where if you can prevent and it showed in the Phase III trial, 26% reduction in second strokes. I mean that has enormous impact on health care systems in addition to the impact it has on patients' lives and the lives of their families. But it also has enormous consequences in terms of keeping people out of hospitals, keeping people out of rehab centers, out of long-term care facilities, and that needs to be appropriately valued. And unfortunately, in Europe today, that's not appropriately valued. So we're working hard on this with policymakers, and we definitely need them to step up and do their part.

On the question on litigation and opt-outs. So the opt-out period, it closed on June 4, and that's been confirmed by the courts. The final approval hearing will happen on August 19. That's the scheduled date. And so we -- there are always some opt-outs. We have this sort of extended period between the June 4 and August 19 dates, and this is a time where we would consider allowing people that were out back in. So that's kind of ongoing. And I don't expect that you'll hear much from us on that until the hearing date thereafter.

So the next question comes from followed then by Patricia Weiss from Reuters.

I have three little questions. First, have you now completed the job cuts as part of the DSO initiative? And how many jobs have you cut in total? The second question, are you now considering spinning off divisions? You mentioned it in the past that sometimes it comes back. And a third political question, an important decision is coming up for the economy in August. North Rhine-Westphalia wants to phase out coal-fired power generation. So Evonik is calling for the coal phaseout to be postponed. Is Bayer calling for that as well? Would you be happy if coal gets more time?

Yes. Thanks, Sanjay. In terms of job numbers, in Q2 of this year, the number of jobs at Bayer was roughly stable. It was about flat. I wouldn't think of it as necessarily indicative of what's to come. I think we've said from the beginning, we don't have a job number in mind. What we want to make sure is that all of our people are able to do their best work every day and that we have the maximum impact that everyone has the maximum impact on our mission.

And that's what our system is designed to do is basically every 90 days, each team can say, "Hey, do we keep going? Does this team have a reason to exist? Do we keep going? Do we break up and go join other teams? Do we get smaller? Do we need to expand?" And these are basically dynamic decisions. That's why we call our system dynamic shared ownership is that every 90 days, we have the opportunity to adjust. I think we're going to continue to pursue increased productivity because that's in our DNA now that everyone at Bayer understands that our goal is not just to preserve the status quo, but we have this mission that's behind us here, health for all, hunger for none. And our goal is to make sure that everybody at Bayer can have a bigger impact on that every 90 days.

So I know you'd like a simpler answer than that maybe, but I think the simplest answer is we're going to do everything we can to make our people more valuable. And AI, by the way, incorporation of AI, which is happening very rapidly at Bayer, and we have a lot of really amazing examples of how it's making a difference already. I think that's going to also be a significant force in making our people more impactful. So we're going to have to see, but I think you're going to see Bayer getting leaner and more productive over time.

You asked about spinning off divisions. The structure topic is one that is always with us because we have 3 divisions that are different, and that's not the normal way of things in the world today. What I'd say about that is we -- when we started having this conversation together about 3 years ago, things were looking really not so good for our outlook, and we're in a much better position today. We've worked really hard for that. That hasn't come easy. But we regularly assess, and I know Judith just recently joining the team, we regularly assess what's -- hey, what's the best outcome and what's the best approach for all of our stakeholders, our employees, our shareholders.

And we keep an open mind about it. So we're always looking. But we still have these 5 key priorities that we identified at the time, and we've got really important work to do on those. We've been very disciplined. How do we improve the pharma pipeline? We've made progress on that, but we have more work to do. Likewise, Crop Science, productivity, profitability, we've made progress, much more to do. The debt levels, Settling litigation is an important component of improving our financial health, but it's not inexpensive. And so we've got to continue to work to strengthen our balance sheet.

We've got the need to drive efficiencies everywhere and be a leaner, faster, more innovative company. We've made great progress with Dynamic shared ownership. So I'd say we've gone from a position of weakness on this of being rather on the bureaucratic end of the spectrum. Now I would say we're probably one of the least bureaucratic large companies that anyone would ever see. But now this is a position of strength, and we can use this, and we've got momentum. So we're going to do that.

I think overall, this is paying off right now for shareholders because they see the valuation upside that comes with focus on these things, reducing the litigation overhang, increasing our financial performance like we delivered this quarter.

Strengthening our balance sheet. So we will stay open-minded on this topic, but we're not going to allow it to be a distraction for us while we've got this momentum, and we're going to keep focused, really laser-focused on those key priorities. So -- yes, that's what I have to say about spinning off divisions.

And then the question about North Rhine-Westphalia and coal-fired power, I don't think Judith or I are trying to be experts on energy policy. But I think one thing that's becoming very clear in the world today, and this is also very clear in Germany. If you don't have energy security, you don't have national security. And this is not a trivial matter. And so again, we're not the experts, although actually Judith has quite a bit of knowledge in the energy field. But I would strongly urge policymakers in Germany and Europe to pay more attention to this because industries are going away. And Bayer is not the most energy-dependent company around. I mean there's a lot of other companies in Germany and in Europe that are more energy dependent than we are, and they are suffering mightily. And that's a vital interest to all the people of Germany and of Europe. So I don't think we have an official position on that one topic. But I would say on energy policy, we need more affordable energy for Europe, for jobs, for the economy and for the future.

So next question comes from Patricia Weiss from Reuters, followed then by Bert Frondhoff from Handelsblatt.

I hope you can hear me well.

Yes, we can.

Great. Wonderful. Let me read some to the question of Bayer's corporate structure. You recently carved out the glyphosate business into the stand-alone entity. I'm saying the move would make the business more agile? Or is that rather the first step toward a sale or spin-off of the business? And you also said you will stay open-minded, like what would be the most possible scenario at the moment? And does the Supreme Court ruling in Bayer's favor now effectively eliminate the risk of future multibillion-dollar glyphosate provisions? And my last question, the debt reduction is progressing faster than expected, thanks to the Apollo deal. Will you primarily use this to further strengthen the balance sheet? Or are you also considering larger M&A transactions to bolster the pharmaceutical pipeline?

Yes. Thanks, Patricia. Regarding Ruveon, I don't think we would really say more than what we've said because like in anything that's a structural move, I think you have to kind of take things one step at a time and you do what makes sense at the time. And we think it makes all the sense in the world given the competitive state of that business to have this sort of semi-independent entity that can really move fast and take the actions that are required to be competitive in that space. So I don't think there's anything else to say on that for the moment.

Regarding the SCOTUS ruling and what it means for glyphosate, I mean, it certainly is a very important step because the court is acknowledging what we've been saying all along, which is that, yes, if the nation's leading authority has approved a label, and has ruled on the question of safety of a product, then a manufacturer that's done everything as Monsanto has done to provide information, updates and to keep that label current, they can't be sued for failure to warn. That just doesn't make any sense. So I think that's -- it's a really important step for limiting litigation in the future.

That being said, I think in order to really resolve this, we need to get the class done and make sure that there's clarity for all involved. And so that's why we're pursuing that. And I think our balance sheet, we want to strengthen that. We also -- we know we need to invest, for example, in the pharmaceutical field. This is Pharmaceuticals is an area where you have a medicine for 8, 10, 12 years and then you lose patent protection and then you basically have to reinvent yourself every decade. And so there needs to be investment for that. So yes, we want to both strengthen our balance sheet and increase our future investment, especially in the Pharma division, and we're working on that.

Okay. And the next question comes from Bert Frondhoff, Handelsblatt, followed then by Ayisha Sharma from Endpoint News.

Can you hear me?

Yes, we can hear you.

Okay. I have the same question about the future of glyphosate and Ruveon. But related to that, what is the profit margin on glyphosate? Could you give us a number compared to the gross margin of Crop Science in total?

Yes, Bert, we don't normally describe profit margins on individual products. But we've said many times before that the profit margin on glyphosate is it's very low. I think sometimes we said it's approaching 0. It depends a little bit on what's going on in the world and what the price of the generic glyphosate is doing. But yes, it's definitely one of the lowest profit products in our portfolio.

Next question comes from Ayisha Sharma from Endpoint News, followed then by Muller Financial Times.

First, just on Germese health spending plan that was recently passed. How do you expect that to kind of affect drug prices on the continent and especially with regards to MSN in the U.S.? What sort of broader ripple effect do you expect that to have on the industry? And secondly, there's been an uptick in pharmaceutical companies making deals with sort of Chinese biotech and licensing innovation from China. I was just wondering, does Bayer also have an interest in that area? Is that an area where it's looking to expand?

Ayisha, well, yes, we were disappointed at the outcome of the recent discussions in Germany about reforms and so-called reforms in health care. Increasing the discounts and mandatory rebates from pharmaceutical companies, as I mentioned before, this really doesn't make any sense, especially for a country that aspires to be a leader in the world in pharmaceuticals. And so yes, we're really urging policymakers to reconsider that because yes, it's -- right now, I think about 80% of the medicines that are used in Germany, consumed in Germany are produced in Germany, which is a really good position for the country to be in.

But -- yes, kind of using the pharmaceutical industry as a way to balance the health care budget, that's really not viable in -- well, I was going to say it's not viable long term. It's not even viable short term. So we -- yes, we would strongly urge the government to reconsider that.

Regarding Chinese innovation, there's a lot of great innovation coming out of China, and we're certainly open to deals. We've done partnerships with Chinese biotech companies and start-ups, and that could be an increased source of innovation. I think the worldwide, there's a quest for innovative new molecules and kind of new approaches to finding targets and attacking targets in the human -- well, yes, disease-related targets. So we're very open to that. I think we also have a lot of partnerships with companies in Europe and the U.S. So it's really a global affair.

The next question comes from Florian Muller, Financial Times, followed then by Jonas Jen van.

So I have like [indiscernible] similar deals. Do you think that in particular or along those lines in the future as well? Do you think you still have some assets which you could use for that? Or -- and do you think that it could also be an alternative to spin-off just in general?

Florian, we couldn't hear you very well. Were you talking about the Apollo deal?

Yes.

Got it. We missed the beginning of your question. We heard the end. Okay. Judith, do you want to comment on that?

Yes. Thank you, Florian. Indeed, this was -- Apollo deal was the right transaction in the right time, if I may say so. We -- it is a EUR 3 billion equity investment, which really it was already mentioned by one of your colleagues earlier, is helping us to delever. And so that is a very -- is a very good structure for us with a very good partner for that matter. And yes, it's part of the entire toolbox that we have to look at our balance sheet and the delevering. There isn't -- I didn't hear the first part of your question, but there isn't anything similar plan at this stage. But like I said, it's part of the full toolbox.

The next question comes from Jonas Jansen, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, followed then by Adria Kat from Dow Jones Newswires.

Just one clarification regarding the discussions. Do you have time line when you need to -- that needs to be resolved or an expectation when that should be the bigger topic with the regulators. Is there anything coming up? What you could talk about? And the second question, just a short one, every other year when it's getting warm and low water on the, are you impacted by that...

Jonas, could you just say your first question, we just missed like the first few words. And...

Just regarding about the pharma discussions with regulators, you mentioned in the first answer, do you have like a time line when that needs to be resolved to work properly or an expectation when you can get into the discussions with the regulators? Is there anything coming up or anything planned? Or is that just an ongoing discussion all the time?

And do you mean the pricing authorities?

Yes.

Okay. Yes. Yes. So the policymaking process is complex. What we heard from the government in Germany was that they remain very committed to the long-term kind of funding of pharmaceuticals and paying for innovation, but there's a need to balance the budget this year and -- but things will get better in future years. And so it's kind of an open topic.

And I think there's -- yes, there's ongoing conversations happening about that with -- between the representatives of the pharmaceutical industry and the government as to what that will actually look like and how we can ensure that we do have good conditions for innovation. So I think more to come on that.

And the question about the Rhine effect. I mean, we see it. It's obviously affecting shipping on the Rhine. I think we've managed to mitigate it thus far. There is some more rain happening in Central Europe right now. There were storms that came through last night, and we're going to have to see whether we have a recovery in shipping. But so far, that's not -- there's not been an impact on Bayer.

And the next question comes from

Can you hear me?

Can hear you.

I wanted to follow up on the topic of the group structure. You've said that you still have important work to do. Does that mean that you would have to wait until you're fully satisfied with what you've done in terms of these 5 priorities that you've outlined? Or could you look at this before that?

Yes. Thanks, Adria. I mean what it comes down to is focus. And we have 87,000 people that are focused on delivering on the mission and really nailing those 5 key priority areas. But that doesn't mean that the management Board can't have our head up and kind of considering opportunities and options. And what I would say is, for now, we think the best plan is to continue to drive hard on those 5 topics because they will make us better in any scenario, in any structural scenario, whether we're staying together, whether we're selling something or divesting something. In any of those cases, basically having the litigation overhang significantly contained, having a stronger balance sheet, basically delivering better financial performance in every division, in every business, having a nimbler, faster organization, that's going to serve us in season and out. And so our assessment today is that it's not time to take our eye off of that. We need to stay really focused on driving those, and we'll keep our minds open and our heads up.

All right. Thank you, Judith. Thank you, Bill. That's all we had on the docket right now from the questions. Thank you very much for your questions. Thank you very much for your interest. And this concludes our call, and we wish all of you a great day. Thank you.

Good afternoon and good morning, everybody, and welcome to our conference call to present the first quarter results for 2026. We'll keep today's remarks focused. Bill will comment on the overall business performance and report progress on our strategic priorities, and Wolfgang will share more insights into the Q1 financials, the current geopolitical environment, and our Outlook. We will then turn to the Q&A session, where the Presidents of our 3 divisions will join Bill and Wolfgang to answer your questions. Before we begin, please note the cautionary language in our Safe Harbor Statement.

And with that, over to you, Bill.

Thanks, Jost. Hi, everyone. It's good to be here with you today. Two months ago, we presented our plan for 2026, and this afternoon, we're reporting that our businesses are performing in line with our expectations. So, I'll get started by going through the Group numbers and then provide color on each of the businesses. So as a Group, we posted sales of EUR 13.4 billion, and that's 4% up on a currency-and portfolio-adjusted basis, which we'll refer to throughout the call today. Core EPS came in at EUR 2.71, that's also up from last year at this time.

Our free cash flow in the first quarter is at negative EUR 2.3 billion, and that's in line with our outlook, as a significant portion of our litigation-related payments fell in the first quarter. So on to our businesses, in Crop Science, sales grew nearly 7% year-over-year. This result was bolstered by roughly EUR 450 million in additional soy licensing resolution revenue as we communicated last quarter. Excluding this impact, our core business grew 1.4%, driven by strong growth in Corn, offsetting declines we expected in Crop Protection. EBITDA was up with our margin coming in around 40%.

Of course, the additional licensing resolution revenue helped. We also made underlying gains with higher-margin sales and operational efficiency. In Pharma, sales were roughly flat. Nubeqa and Kerendia continued their momentum, compensating for declines in Xarelto and Eylea. Our EBITDA margin came in at 29.2%. This was positively affected by divestment incomes coming in behind last year due to pricing pressures and investments in launches.

Finally, Consumer Health grew 5% with contributions from almost every category. Dermatology and Nutritionals were in the double digits with Nutritionals benefiting from our growing e-commerce business. At 22.6%, our EBITDA margin is slightly trailing 2025. Overall, we're pleased with how our business has started the year, and we're in a good position to confirm our 2026 Outlook. At the same time, it's early. We know that the world around us is volatile, and we'll have to stay vigilant. So we're focused on hitting our goals and delivering for farmers, patients, and consumers.

So, on to our strategic priorities. The first 4 months of 2026 have been eventful, and we have some big weeks ahead. You see the highlights captured on the slide. I'll start by focusing on litigation, as we're in a crucial phase of our containment efforts. We continue to make progress with the class settlement agreement we announced with leading plaintiffs' firms in February. The settlement has passed several hurdles. In terms of upcoming milestones, objections and opt-outs are due by June 4, and the court's final approval hearing is scheduled for July.

Further, 2 weeks ago, the U.S. Supreme Court heard our argument on why preemption is not only necessary for American agriculture, but consistent with the law. We appreciate the justices taking our case and seriously engaging with the legal theory that we put forward. We feel our arguments were well represented. Now it's in the court's hands to interpret the law and make a ruling. We'll be ready for all outcomes. Our multipronged strategy continues.

We continue to make the case for regulatory clarity for American farmers, and we've seen progress and setbacks for this cause, including passage of legislation in Kentucky and a setback in the Farm Bill discussion. Why does this matter? The stakes of this issue are bigger than scoring political points. Americans want a food system that is safe, bountiful, and sustainable. They want agriculture that keeps food affordable while keeping chemical inputs to only what's necessary and also preserving biodiversity.

Farmers, particularly in times like this, when farm economics are stretched, they want new, safe tools that secure their harvest. Last year, Bayer introduced Plenexos an innovative insecticide that protects yields by killing the insects that destroy harvests while preserving pollinators. It can be applied precisely, getting rid of pests with doses as low as a few grams per acre. When I say low dose, this is what I mean. Imagine a soybean field the size of an American football field.

You could treat it with around 11 grams of Plenexos' active ingredient. I have a prop here. These are American quarters, okay? We got George Washington on the front. And these little guys, these 2 are worth about $0.50. But the weight of these 2 quarters, that is -- that's how much Plenexos it would take to treat a football field. So that -- this is what people are looking for. They want greener, healthier, more productive agriculture and Plenexos is just the kind of innovation that we need.

And it's already being applied in South America, and we want to be able to bring it to U.S. farmers as soon as possible. They want it, too. But there's a really big thing standing in its way, a system that gives trial lawyers the authority to undermine years of regulatory and scientific scrutiny. Why introduce new products -- products that cost decades and billions of dollars to research and develop. If even after a rigorous approval process, you're subject to billions of dollars in legal costs.

That's a question we'll have to ask more going forward. Now outside of the litigation space, we continue to execute on each of our priorities. Take pharma growth and the pipeline as an example. Earlier, I mentioned Kerendia strong revenue growth, driven by its momentum in treating patients with chronic kidney disease and type 2 diabetes as well as in heart failure. Now in addition, we've presented data in chronic kidney disease with type 1 diabetes.

And last month -- just last month, we announced positive top-line data in treating non-diabetic patients with kidney disease. So this means that once approved in these additional indications, Kerendia has the potential to help patients in both heart failure and across a wide spectrum of chronic kidney disease, including in areas where there aren't many alternative options today. This is a great example of how we're not just growing the reach of our medicines, we're widening the pool of people they can serve.

In addition, we just announced an agreement to acquire Perfuse Therapeutics and their first-in-class development medicine in glaucoma and diabetic retinopathy, which very nicely complements our established footprint and expertise in ophthalmology. We continue to advance our plan, and we're dialed in on delivering our commitments in 2026. Now I'd like to hand it over to Wolfgang, who will walk you through our numbers. And he's going to be doing this for the last time for Bayer today. So over to you, Wolfgang.

Thank you, Bill, and also a very warm welcome from my end. As Bill said, this is the last time I get to share our quarterly results with you before handing over to Judith in June. Before diving into the business, I would like to sincerely thank all of you for the constructive discussions over the past 8 years. It's been an eventful time, turbulent at times, but I've always appreciated our close exchange. I'm deeply grateful to my team and the people I've gotten to work with across Bayer.

And I'm very confident we are setting the company up for a lot of success in the future. Let's now look at the Group results for the first quarter. Q1 net sales grew 4% versus the prior-year quarter, driven by Crop Science and Consumer Health, while Pharma was in line with the prior year. EBITDA before special items came in at EUR 4.5 billion, which is 9% or about EUR 370 million above the prior-year quarter, led by a higher Crop Science result.

Profits in our Pharma division declined and EBITDA before special items for Consumer Health and Recon came in at almost the same level as in the prior year. Across divisions, we experienced the anticipated, significant FX headwinds in the first quarter, totaling about EUR 890 million to our top line and about EUR 320 million to the bottom line. The effects were driven mainly by the U.S. dollar this time. Core earnings per share came in at EUR 2.71.

The increase of EUR 0.31 or 13% compared to the prior year is largely driven by about EUR 0.40 of licensing resolution income and EUR 0.10 from tail-end divestment income in Pharma. These expected non-recurring effects were more than offset in foreign exchange headwinds of about EUR 0.20. Free cash flow of minus EUR 2.3 billion was EUR 800 million below the prior-year quarter. As expected, this was driven by material payouts related to the previously announced settlement activities for PCB and also glyphosate, totaling about EUR 2 billion in Q1.

Operational cash contributions improved by about EUR 1.2 billion, including the licensing resolution payments and Avelox divestment income. Net financial debt increased to EUR 32.5 billion since year-end '25 due to the negative cash flow. Year-on-year, net financial debt was down by about EUR 1.7 billion. Let's now take a closer look at the divisional performance. For Crop Science, the team is focused on execution of our 5-Year Framework, driving resilience and margin improvement.

In Q1, net sales came in at EUR 7.6 billion, plus 7% versus the prior year. The core business grew by 9%, led by an 18% increase in seeds and traits. Corn increased 7%, driven by growth across all the regions. Strong volume gains were delivered in EMEA and LatAm. While we noted higher volumes to start the season in North America, timing of sales and anticipated lower acreage are expected to reduce sales year-over-year in the coming quarter. Soybean sales posted a very significant increase from the noted licensing resolution. Excluding this effect, higher prices from the recovery of the dicamba label in the U.S. and strong volumes in Latin America drove a 9% increase in sales for the quarter.

Driven by the Brazil soybean transition and continued focus on U.S. margins, we expect these Q1 benefits to moderate throughout the year. Purchase delays in cotton and declines in Vegetable Seeds were nearly offset by growth in canola. The core Crop Protection business declined 7% on an anticipated soft start to the season amid continued generic pressure and challenged farmer profitability. We expect partial volume recovery in Q2, led by North America and supported by Stryax herbicide growth with the remaining recovery focused on Latin America in the second half of the year.

Glyphosate sales declined by 15% on lower volumes due to delayed purchases. We are focused on recovery in North America in the second quarter and in America -- Latin America in the second half of the year. We are closely monitoring recent market price developments and will strategically adjust our pricing accordingly. On profitability, EBITDA before special items of EUR 3 billion came in 18% higher compared to the prior year, resulting in a margin of 39.9%.

The higher margin is primarily an effect of the higher-margin sales and soy licensing resolution, combined with disciplined cost-savings execution. These efforts offset FX headwinds of about 80 basis points. Let's move on to our Pharma business, where we continue to see strong growth of our launch assets, balancing the anticipated declines in Xarelto and also Eylea. For Q1, this resulted in net sales of EUR 4.2 billion, which were level with the prior year. Nubeqa grew by 57% across regions, while Kerendia sales increased by 84%, mainly driven by the U.S. and also China. Together, they contributed EUR 1 billion in net sales in the first quarter.

We are also satisfied with the uptake of our 2 new launch assets, Beyonttra and Lynkuet. Beyonttra is now launched and reimbursed in 18 European countries. Lynkuet has been brought to the market in Germany and Switzerland as of April 1 and shows good early uptake signals following the first launch in the U.S. at the end of last year. As expected, Xarelto continued to decline in Q1. LOE impacts across markets led to the anticipated sales drop of 40% compared to the prior year.

For Eylea, we recorded a 21% decline compared to the first quarter of last year. While we are seeing a continued positive volume development for Eylea 8-milligram, which is now contributing 46% to the Eylea franchise, we continue to face pressure from the market entry of biosimilars, and that's especially on pricing. Our base business declined by 1% as continued growth in Radiology was offset by declines in other parts of the portfolio, particularly driven by lower demand in Women's Health as well as volume-based pricing-related impacts on Cardio Aspirin and Stivarga in China.

On the bottom line, EBITDA before special items decreased by 8% to EUR 1.2 billion, resulting in a margin of 29.2%, slightly lower than the prior year. As expected, we are seeing the impact from continued pricing pressures while continuing our growth investments into launch and innovation. This was compensated by savings, solid volume uptake as well as income for 2 smaller tail-end divestments of about EUR 120 million.

Now turning to Consumer Health. We focus on sustainable growth while navigating anticipated soft consumer sentiment in our 2 biggest markets. Against this backdrop, net sales increased by 5% in the first quarter. Growth was supported by a more balanced mix of volume and price, driven by focused investments in our power couples and the integration of Natsana, the Nutritionals e-commerce business we acquired. Almost all categories grew, led by Dermatology and Nutritionals, fueled by innovation and strong e-commerce momentum.

Within the seasonal categories, cough and cold declined due to a softer season in North America and parts of EMEA. Performance in Digestive Health was impacted by an ongoing pharmacy consolidation in China and a continued channel shift towards e-commerce. This resulted in structural reductions in retail inventory requirements. At the same time, we saw some pull forward of customer orders into the first quarter, and that was in particular in Nutritionals and Allergy. These timing effects shape the quarterly profile, but they do not change the underlying demand outlook and are fully reflected in our full-year guidance assumptions.

Our EBITDA margin before special items was 22.6%, reflecting solid underlying profitability within our full-year guidance corridor, though slightly below last year. FX headwinds diluted margins by 70 basis points. Productivity gains from our new operating model and active cost management, together with divestment gains of some tail-end products created additional financial flexibility. This enabled us to step up investments behind our brands and portfolio priorities, to support growth. Let's now look at the Outlook for our divisions.

With the Q1 results, we are on track to deliver our full-year guidance at constant currencies for each one of our businesses. For the quarters to go, let me just highlight a few items. For Crop Science, we have a different distribution of the licensing resolution income, which was realized in Q1 this year compared to Q4 last year. For the second quarter in total, we expect top-and bottom-line results at constant currencies to be broadly stable year-over-year. Following a strong Q1, corn and soy sales are anticipated to moderate with a decline versus prior year.

This is expected to be largely offset by growth in cotton, partial volume recovery in glyphosate and core CP, as well as TRx growth in North America. For Pharmaceuticals, we are well on track to deliver our full-year outlook. As guided, we expect the second half of the year to come in stronger than the first half in terms of top-line growth. While on margins, we anticipate increasing growth investments behind launches and pipeline in the coming quarters. For Consumer Health, the market environment in our 2 biggest markets, the U.S. and China remains challenging.

In the U.S., market conditions weakened further in the first quarter, with expectations of an overall decline for the full year. Supported by a solid start to the year, we remain confident in delivering our full-year guidance here as well. Moving on to the Group, we iterate our outlook at constant currencies for the full-year '26, while continuing to monitor geopolitical dynamics and foreign exchange rate movements. On geopolitics, based on our latest assessments, we expect to cover potential impacts within the guidance ranges provided for '26.

We continue to closely monitor the evolving situation, in particular in the following areas. In Crop Science, we expect some direct impacts on sales and incremental costs, most notably in fuel, transportation, and energy, which are manageable this year. However, we are closely monitoring rising energy prices and structural inflation across petrochemical supply chains. Resulting production-cost increases will be largely captured in inventory with higher-COGS impacting the P&L in later periods.

Timing and duration of these variables may also have indirect effects on acreage mix, farmer profitability, and the evolving crop protection landscape. For instance, favorable PLC prices could support glyphosate pricing opportunities should conditions remain supportive. Overall, it is harder to predict how these indirect effects will ultimately unfold and impact final planting and buying decisions. For our Pharma business, we do not expect any major impact from tariffs to our outlook this year, as they would only become effective at the end of September and should be capped at the 15% as part of the EU-U.S. trade deal, and we are monitoring the latest developments here closely.

We will also continue to apply tariff mitigation measures. On drug pricing around the world and MFN in particular, we continue to monitor the situation and continue to review our pricing and launch strategies. For Consumer Health, ongoing geopolitical tensions could primarily affect our business regarding consumer sentiment and demand, while higher oil prices may also affect supply and production costs. Following our latest assessment and continued focus on cost control, we anticipate staying within our '26 guidance range.

And finally, on FX. In line with our practice, we have updated the FX estimates based on month-end rates in March. Compared to constant currencies, this leads to the effect shown in the last column on Slide 12. However, this is just a point-in-time analysis, and we would still expect ongoing volatility around foreign exchange rate developments for the remainder of the year. To illustrate this, we have also looked at the FX impact at 5 months forward rates as of April. Applying those rates, we would end up at around EUR 1 billion headwind in net sales, approximately EUR 400 million headwind in EBITDA before special items, and about EUR 0.30 headwind in core EPS, which is more in line with our previous estimates.

And with that, I hand it back over to you, Jost, to facilitate the Q&A.

[Operator Instructions] So the first 2 in line today are Sachin Jain from Bank of America and James Quigley from Goldman Sachs.

I just wanted to kick off by thanking Wolfgang for his support over the years and wish him all the best for the future. Two questions on Litigation, if I may. So the first one is on the opt-in/opt-out. Just wondering if you could give us a perspective on what visibility you have on the rates in the coming weeks before the June 4 date, and how you think you will be able to communicate on whether it's been successful or not between the June 4 and July 9 Fairness Hearing. And then the second question is your perspective as a company on the oral hearing? Investors perceived it as mix. Obviously, stock was down on the day. Just interested in your thoughts and how it will impact the opt-in/opt-out rate from your perspective.

Sachin, let's see. So, visibility before June 4, yes, we have some limited amount of knowledge, but there's an Administrator for the class that is the official recipient of the opt-outs. And we'd expect to get some update from the Administrator about a week after the June 4 deadline for opt-outs. And then I think we'll definitely take some time to evaluate that information. We're looking for an opt-out rate, as we've said before, that's essentially 0.

And we have to see depending on what are the opt-outs, what are the strengths or the merits of their cases with respect to, I don't know, whatever the facts set of the cases is. And that I would anticipate will take some weeks. So bottom line is nobody should be holding their breath on June 5 because there won't be any information from the company, for at least some weeks after that. And then, yes, on the Oral Hearing, I was there 2 weeks ago yesterday, and we felt like we had a good opportunity to present our case.

The U.S. Supreme Court is not -- they're not hearing about question about whether our product caused someone's illness. They're looking very focused at questions of interpretation of the constitution or interpretation of the law. In this case, the law in question is preemption. And I think we -- yes, I think we felt good about our ability to present those arguments.

And yes, I won't get into the merits of our case or the other side arguments, but I think the essential point is important to make, which is that FIFRA included explicit guidelines for preemption. And without it, there is, frankly, regulatory anarchy in the United States, at least on the question of pesticides. And so yes, we think that the court should rule in our favor because we have a very compelling case.

Thank you, Bill. So we have James Quigley from Goldman Sachs coming up next, and he's followed by Richard Vosser from JPMorgan.

I'd also like to extend my best wishes to Wolfgang for the future as well. A couple of questions from my side. So firstly, on Kerendia, had another strong beat this quarter. If we look at the slide in the appendix, year-over-year sequential growth in the U.S. seems to have declined. So is this just seasonality? Is it mainly FX related? And can you talk to the relative growth you're seeing across the approved indications in the U.S. and China? And maybe a quick one for Rodrigo as well on Crop.

So you talked about some of the volumes being shifted out in the Crop Protection business into the second quarter, we might see a partial recovery of glyphosate and maybe a recovery of some of the other Crop Protection products there. But how confident are you that this volume is going to come back? What visibility do you have on pharma inventories? And what are you sort of -- and how confident -- how much visibility do you have on the potential price moves in glyphosate given that was quite a tailwind a few years ago?

James, thanks for the question, and thanks for also being with us and really liking more and more Kerendia because we continue to beat expectations. So I think there is nothing to worry about in the U.S. We're seeing continued strong demand. Yes, we're comparing against now also some -- we're starting to compare against some strong months or quarters sometimes, but I have nothing to be concerned about. We're continuing to roll out additional indications now having it in a non-diabetic population is giving us an additional boost in the renal patient group. And I think the halo of the product is growing month-by-month, and we're seeing increased confidence in prescribers. We're continuing to broaden our prescriber base. So, nothing to be concerned about in U.S. or in China on Kerendia, so expect continued strength there.

James, let me address the Crop Science question here. So we're glad to report the Q1 and confirm the guidance, as you heard from Bill and Wolfgang for the full year. This is in line to what we planned. In Crop Protection specifically, this is also very in line with the plan. We are exactly right now executing our 5-Year Framework. And in the case of Crop Protection, there is a high focus on that one as we announced 1 year ago on the May 13 on the 5-Year Framework presentation. We are pruning the portfolio. We are doing some divestments.

So we do expect, especially on Q1, moderate on the top-line of the Crop Protection that was part of the plan, including some regulatory effects as well. But as you asked about Q2, the main event we have is TRx, the new dicamba formulation. We got the approval. We managed the orders and the production, and this will impact especially Q2. And in the second part of the year, we see more growth in the Southern Hemisphere, especially Latin America with the launches that we have, like mentioned by Bill of Plenexos or the Fox family, Supra, Convintro, a new herbicide as well.

We have more launches and growth that is coming on the second-half of the year. With that, I just reconfirm that we are in line with the guidance for this year, and we are executing as we have. Specifically on glyphosate, the beginning of the year was a decline on PRC at the beginning of the year. So there was a pause from purchase from farmers waiting to see what happens. Now it's the opposite direction that you heard as well.

We are confident on the phasing of the volume that we have for Q2, Q3, and Q4 -- and we are -- as you know, we have a specific team, a separate team managing glyphosate, very lean and very effective, and we are reacting to the opportunities that we have like pricing mentioned by Wolfgang or other opportunities that we have here. So we are really looking very close with this team on how we best manage this business to capture if any opportunity will consist over the next 3 quarters that we have. So thank you very much.

So following from Richard Vosser from JPMorgan, we'll hear from Laurent Favre from BNP Paribas.

A couple of questions, please. One on Crop Science on Corn. You saw strong performance and maybe stronger than expected in Q1. Could you talk about your expectations for the rest of the North America season, both in terms of price and volume? We can see acreage going down, but it didn't seem to have as much an effect. How should we think about that? And then a question on Pharma, please. The launch of Lynkuet, if we could drill in there, Stefan, please. Prescriptions in the U.S. seem to be broadly in line with the Veozah launch. How is that going? What's the reception like? What's the ramp like from here? That would be great.

So Richard, let me address the first part of the question on Crop Science. You're spot on. We are very happy with -- after 2025, where we had a great performance on the seeds and traits. Q1, also a very strong performance on the seeds and traits. Even if you don't include the licensing resolution, you have the seeds and trait business growing by 7% is the same that you saw for Corn by 7%. Specifically about U.S., you're right. So last year, we had a 98 million acres. Initial projections would be a significant decrease, probably you're going to see less of that.

The last USDA report, they were talking about something between 94 million, 95 million acres, and we're going to need to see this in the next weeks or so because of the commodity prices and fertilizers cost, farmers will make these decisions on how much will be the final planting of Corn in U.S. So we will be probably lower than last year, as you mentioned, not as low as initial thoughts. And this will be what was impacting Q2 mentioned by Wolfgang as well.

But overall, also Soybean, 9% even if you don't include the licensing. I just want to remember that some of these licensing resolutions should also impact '26. But even if you don't include them, you have a 9% growth in Soybean as well. So seeds and traits, great performance, and we hope that we keep the momentum for the next quarters as well. With that, Stefan?

Yes. Thanks, Rodrigo. Richard, yes, thanks for the question on Lynkuet. So of course, I sound like a broken record, but it's early days. So I'll be careful not to go too far and project too far into the future, but we're happy with the uptake. It's in line with what we would have expected. It's about -- still about creating awareness. It's about broadening the NKT-class based on our unique double-mechanism-of-action. So that I think sets us apart, and it's also being more and more recognized by prescribing physicians.

And I think the proof of it is that we're really gaining in breadth of prescribers; we're adding about 500 physicians a week that are newly prescribing Lynkuet. It doesn't really show much in the audits because a lot of this is also used in samples. So we're getting there. It's -- again, as I said, early days. What else can I say? We have about -- on access, of course, that's the second one. We're looking to increase access. You know how this works in the U.S. So after a few months now, we're about 1/3 into it and adding accounts on a monthly basis. Progress is slow as expected, but we're happy with what we're seeing.

Fantastic. So following from Laurent Favre from BNP Paribas. We'll hear from Alek Ebbeling from UBS.

My two questions are for Rodrigo. The first one on Soy. Did I get it right from Wolfgang that you're looking at a year-on-year decline in sales in Soy in Q2. And that was a bit surprising, as, I guess, Soy rates should be up about 4%, and I was assuming that you would be gaining share this year with the dicamba registration. So was -- was it all about the pull-forward into Q1 and you're assuming limited share gain for the overall H1? That's question number one.

And the second one is, I guess, a broader topic on inflation and what we're seeing on supply chain in India and China. Are you seeing less pressure? Are you assuming there will be less pressure from the generic companies given all the issues on especially petrochemical availability down there?

Thank you, Laurent. Let me start with the second question, Laurent, because this is a little bit of an interesting. The uncertainty on the market is very high right now. So if you think about all this Middle East war, how long will last and what is the impact on the energy cost and in the end of the day, the pricing. You do see some reaction in terms of the generic pricing right now. So in the short term, you could have some opportunities in terms of pricing that you could capture here.

Also, and I think you just need to take in consideration that this also have an effect on next-season as the higher cost also is impacting the production and will impact the inventory that the products that we're going to be selling next year and that we're going to talk later about that one. But for this year, as much as glyphosate, and we are watching this, as you can imagine, on a weekly basis, we may have an opportunity to capture some opportunities that we're going to look for that one, not only on glyphosate, but some other Crop Protection products as well. You're right.

So this is potentially on the short-term, you could have some opportunities on that, and we are watching very close. On soybean, soybean, 9% growth on the first quarter, if you do not include the licensing resolution. We do expect this year for soybean to be the beginning of the regaining that we're going to have. We are very excited about the work that we are doing right now. I had the team yesterday, and we revisited the launching plan for [indiscernible] in U.S.

And we're going to have the opportunity to demonstrate that in September in Iowa, where we're going to have our Innovation Event there that you are all invited. And I hope that you can make it because this is like -- we are excited about the launch of [indiscernible] in the next seasons to the U.S. farmers as much as Preceon and the other launches that we have. Soybean specifically this year, we had a great start. We don't see a major impact in Q2, but we need to see what will happen in LatAm in the second part of the year, right? We are advancing with our Intacta 2 Xtend. It is more than 30% penetration right now at the same time that our competitor launch, there is below 10%.

We are excited also the development of the new technology in LatAm. We are preparing also the next launches of Intacta 5+ that's also coming in the next years. But Soybean this year is the regaining. We are seeing some pricing development that you mentioned. We have the new herbicide that is launching, but there is a lot of preparation of Soybean as we plan to regain a lot of share in the U.S. in '27, '28, '29 and beyond. So some preparation and some excitement for the next seasons as well. Thank you.

Alek Ebbeling from UBS is followed by Christian Faitz from Kepler Cheuvreux.

Two, please. First on Crop and the timing of a potential Middle East impact. So is any potential impact expected in the first half given that most U.S. farmers may already have fertilizer for the season? And then what potential impact could the conflict in the Middle East have in the second half? Have you quantified that impact? And are there any active mitigation steps you can take? Second, on Pharma, specifically pharma tariffs. So you've noted no expected impact from pharma tariffs this year. To avoid potential tariffs, much like some of your competitors, are you engaging in discussions with the U.S. administration?

Alex, thanks for that one. And let me start on the Crop Science here, and you're spot on, right? So the impact in U.S. is more of the final planting-season, right? So -- and this is a good example of what I was mentioning about USDA saying, well, you may have 94 million, 95 million acres of Corn, and this could swing between 96 million to 93 million acres of Corn as an example, because of what you just described.

The reaction of farmers to the fertilizers, depending on how they are being able to purchase the final piece of that equation, and they can shift a little bit more to soybean or not. This is the -- so in U.S., you are spot on is more impacting the closing of the season, the closing of planting from the farmers and the swing that they can make here. The bulk of the season is done. The key question depending on the duration of the war in the Middle East is the second half of the year and the impact in the Southern Hemisphere, right?

And especially on fertilizer costs and the farmers' economics. So we're going to be watching that one. We are working closely with our teams as well to mitigate. We are putting our plans in place to mitigate any major risks that we have. A good example of what I just described is how we're putting efforts in our seeds and traits business is our new launches of CP to help us to offset some of that one. But a lot of uncertainty on the Middle East. We're going to be watching this very close and communicate more with you in the coming quarters as well. Stefan?

Yes. Thanks, Rodrigo. So a question on tariffs. We're indeed baking in tariffs into this year's guidance. So nothing there. But for next year, it's a little early, but we're considering all options, and we're talking to a lot of people. So stay tuned, and you'll hear more from that.

Excellent. After Christian from Kepler, we'll hear from Charles Pitman-King from Barclays and Rajesh Kumar from HSBC.

Wolfgang, all the best for your post-Bayer time. Two questions on two small activities actually. Consumer Health, with a pretty stable operating performance, why did operating cash flow decrease by more than 25% in the quarter? Any special reason other than working capital? And on Veggie Seeds, I noticed that Veggie Seeds sales were down quite heavily. I assume a part of this is due to the Middle East situation per March. If my assumption is true, i.e., the Middle East situation, should we count on an even bigger decline for the second quarter?

Let's see. Wolfgang or Julia, which one of you guys wants to talk about Consumer Health cash flow?

Christian, it's Wolfgang. Nothing to worry about in Consumer Health. We just happened to have had an exceptional Q1 last year. You remember, we had over EUR 1 billion in free operating cash flow there. We expect a little bit less for the year just because of timing of certain working capital items and a bit more investments there. So yes, we are a little bit down year-over-year, but nothing to write home about. We have a very good year on cash flow here as well.

On the Crop Science question, you're spot on. The impact on Veggies Middle East, not only in Iran, but also in the other countries that we have. And the team is working on logistics to recover that in Q2 and Q3. We don't see further than that for the year. Again, Middle East war, we're going to need to see how this will evolve. But the impact that we saw in Q1 on Veggie specifically was the war in the Middle East and the impact of our sales in that region. Again, the team is working on Q2 and Q3 for alternative routes in logistics and to recover part of that. Of course, the Iran one specifically is a small portion of that. That is probably a full-year impact, but it's a small portion of non-material for the full-year for the Crop Science division. Thank you very much.

Excellent. So we have Charles Pitman-King from Barclays coming up next and then followed by Rajesh before we conclude the call. Charles, please go ahead.

First one for me, just coming back to the Litigation. I'd just be interested in any further information you're able to provide us in relation to the progress on this opt-out rate. Just noting that the Bayer Briefing Documents from the 21st of April suggested that 60% of Round-up claims remain represented under the class action across the 12 law firms or so.

I'm just wondering, in the past 3 weeks or so, have you seen any change in those conversations to update us on that number following the SCOTUS Hearing all the comments from Judge Chhabria on the 30th of April. And then just secondly, on your Ophthalmology franchise, noting that Eylea 8 mg is now 46% of Bayer Eylea sales. I'm wondering how this rapid rise in share could potentially change your outlook for Eylea beyond '26. And just thinking about this Perfuse Therapeutics acquisition in the view of trying to maintain your SG&A relationships within the Ophthalmology section as we await the Phase III trial results, how you expect to bridge and maintain those relationships over that time?

Yes. Thanks, Charles. Regarding the opt-out rate, there's really nothing more to say because basically, these are decisions that the law firms have to make in conjunction with their clients. And so we don't get in the middle of that. So there's not a lot to say there. We did pass a couple of hurdles there were objections and things, but those were dealt with. And yes, as far as we can see, the class program is on track.

Yes. Thanks. And on Ophthalmology, first, let's say -- let's talk about Eylea and then go over to the bridging, as you call it. So 8 milligrams is indeed about half of our sales now, which is good. But unfortunately, the overall franchise is actually there where we guided you that it would be. So we're in the minus 20s, and that is expected to continue. So there's a logic that 8 milligram would take over. And we expect some sustained Eylea business from that, even though we continue to really suffer on pricing here across the board.

So Perfuse, the acquisition, you have to see this not just as a commercial play, but also as something where we leverage our knowledge in the space. When I talk about knowledge, both on the science side, but also in our KOL network and being really good at hopefully setting up a good and fast late-stage clinical development for this new medicine. Please also be reminded that we don't have a commercial infrastructure for Ophthalmology in the U.S. So a lot of this needs to be built. But of course, of what we will still have for Eylea depending on how fast we can get this over the finishing line, and there are still a couple of risks along the way for the Perfuse asset, we will try to bridge as much as possible. But don't see this just as a commercial bridge play.

Super. And the last question today comes from Rajesh Kumar from HSBC.

First question is for Bill. I appreciate you're deploying capital into M&A. We will probably get updates on class action and Supreme Court news around the same time, and then we probably will have Fairness Hearing. So the clarity on Balance Sheet probably only comes much later in the year. So what are the Capital Allocation and Strategic Choices you're making given we still don't know how the Balance Sheet impact of this Litigation situation might evolve.

Any background on how you're thinking about the problem would be much appreciated. And the second question is on Crop Science. Very difficult problem to crack in terms of predicting what the second, third-order impacts would be. But mechanically, if you can help us understand that, say, if feed prices are going up, for what period are you hedged for your input costs? How long does it take for you to increase the prices, pass on through? What are the mechanics or the clockwork behind how that filters through your P&L and Cash Flows would be much appreciated.

Great. Yes. Thanks, Rajesh. In terms of Capital Allocation, I would say our primary source of funds is Operating Income, and we want to continue to significantly increase our Operating Income over the next few years -- this is a Company that should be capable of generating a lot more cash than we've been generating. It's one of the reasons we like the structure of the class because we kind of put this -- the big bulk of the cost behind us and can move forward.

We've put in place a system, our Dynamic Shared Ownership system that turns on 90-day cycles where every team in the company is working to make improvements every 90 days. And we see continued improvements, cost reductions, additional growth opportunities in abundance across all 3 divisions. So make no mistake, I mean, we're definitely planning on investing in our future in R&D in all 3 divisions. But the primary source of funds should be from our operating income.

And we've been able to do that in the past. We're going to be able to do that in the future. We're having other conversations about what do we want to do in terms of the Pharma pipeline, Crop Science opportunities, OTC switches and Consumer Health. But this is things that are -- yes, that we see that we're able to fund through the plans that we have for the most part.

So, I'll hand it over to Rodrigo.

Yes, Rajesh. So thank you for that one. So, let me address your specific question about Crop Protection. The far majority of what we are selling in 2026 was produced because of the lead time was produced in 2025. So in the end of the day, the impact of the raw-materials or the energy-costs that we are seeing today is going to the production of the Crop Protection that will be -- we're going to sell next year. So, in terms of dynamics that you asked me, this is a little bit of the lead-time in Crop Protection and the impact you're going to see more on that.

And we're going to talk about '27 later in the season. And again, the duration of the war, the impact, we're going to need to monitor this year to see what is that. But I bring back with this -- the opportunity to just reframe here. When we designed '26, we designed '26 after the performance of '25. Confirming the performance of '25 is another step towards the direction that we are taking with a 5-Year Framework. And we are glad that we are having another step forward on that direction.

And we are working heavily, including in Crop Protection to expand our margin. And the performance of Q1 is in line with that one. And we are expecting this year 20% to 22% EBITDA margin for the overall business. And this is the book of the work that the team is doing right now. So confident that we can deliver '26, and we're going to prepare all the plans that we have for '27 and beyond with the 5-Year Framework. So thank you for the opportunity to address that with the question.

Rajesh, I probably on the second part on how we hedge this, we obviously do not only engage in currency hedging, we are also hedging like Corn and Soy prices for our input, what we have to pay to the growers. We also hedge Energy to the degree that's economically viable. And then, of course, we have a major focus in this environment on hedging the currencies. Just as a reminder, we don't hedge translational risks, but we hedge all booked transaction risks and a good chunk of the anticipated transactional risks. So I think we are pretty state-of-the-art there and do whatever we can to buffer volatility.

Great. So I'm going to close things out actually today. I just want to say a few words about Wolfgang on behalf of the Board of Management. And I know I speak for many of the investors as well that have gotten to know Wolfgang over his time at Bayer and before. I arrived here 3 years ago. And at that point, Wolfgang was about 5 years into his time. And I think 8 years at Bayer from 2018 to 2026 is not a walk in the park as Wolfgang always likes -- he likes that phrase, so I'll use it in this case.

But I think he's -- I found him to be always on top of what's going on, to know both the details, but also to always be understanding the bigger picture. He's a great help to all of us on the Management Board in terms of, yes, the kind of help you need when you're in pressure situations, cool-headed, clear thinking, and just an incredibly fine human being and friend. And so I don't think we've -- I don't think any of us has seen the last of Wolfgang, but we are happy for him to move on to the next phase of his life, and we wish you all the best, Wolfgang. And yes, so...

Thanks so much.

Thanks again all of you for joining us today.

So thank you, Bill. I guess this concludes Wolfgang's last Conference Call. We'll all miss you, Wolfgang, for sure. And I wish you all a great day. Thank you very much.

Well, good morning, everybody, and welcome to our media update for the first quarter 2026. Many thanks for joining us today.

We will keep today's remarks focused. Bill will comment on the overall business performance and report progress on our strategic priorities. Wolfgang will share some insights into the Q1 financials, the current geopolitical environment and our outlook. After that, we'll have time for your questions.

Now before starting, I would like to briefly draw your attention to the cautionary language included in our safe harbor statement.

And with that, over to you, Bill.

Thanks, Michael. Hi, everyone. Two months ago, we presented our plan for 2026. And today, we're reporting that our businesses are performing in line with our expectations. So I'll get started by going through the group numbers and then provide color on each of the businesses.

As a group, we posted sales of about EUR 13.4 billion. So that's 4% up on a currency and portfolio adjusted basis, which we'll refer to throughout the call today. Core EPS came in at EUR 2.71. That's also up from last year at this time. Our free cash flow in the first quarter is at negative EUR 2.3 billion. That's in line with our outlook, as a significant portion of our litigation-related payments fell in the first quarter.

So on to our businesses. In Crop Science, sales grew nearly 7% year-over-year. This result was bolstered by roughly EUR 450 million in additional soy licensing resolution revenue as we communicated last quarter. Excluding this impact, our core business grew 1.4%, driven by strong growth in corn, offsetting declines in expected -- that we expected in Crop Protection. EBITDA was up, with our margin coming in around 40%. Of course, the additional licensing resolution revenue helped. We also made underlying gains with higher margin sales and operational efficiencies.

In Pharma, sales were roughly flat. Nubeqa and Kerendia continued their momentum, compensating for declines in Xarelto and Eylea. Our EBITDA margin came in at 29.2%. This was positively affected by divestment incomes coming in behind last year due to pricing pressures and investments in launches.

Finally, Consumer Health grew 5%, with contributions from almost every category. Dermatology and nutritionals were in the double digits, with nutritionals benefiting from our growing e-commerce business. At 22.6%, our EBITDA margin is slightly trailing 2025.

Overall, we're pleased with how our businesses started the year and we're in a good position to confirm our 2026 outlook. At the same time, it's early. We know that the world around us is volatile, and we'll have to stay vigilant. So we're focused on hitting our goals and delivering for farmers, for patients and for consumers.

Now on to our strategic priorities. The first 4 months of 2026 have been eventful, and we have some big weeks ahead. You see the highlights captured on the slide. I'll start by focusing on litigation as we're in a crucial phase of our containment efforts. We continue to make progress with the class settlement agreement we announced with leading plaintiffs firms in February. The settlement has passed several hurdles. In terms of upcoming milestones, objections and opt-outs are due by June 4, and the court's final approval hearing is scheduled for July.

Further, 2 weeks ago, the U.S. Supreme Court heard our argument on why preemption is not only necessary for American agriculture, but consistent with the law. We appreciate the justices taking our case and seriously engaging with the legal theories that we put forward. We feel our arguments were well represented. Now it's in the court's hands to interpret the law and make a ruling, and we'll be ready for all outcomes.

Our multipronged strategy continues. We continue to make the case for regulatory clarity for American farmers, and we've seen progress and setbacks for this cause, including the passage of legislation in Kentucky, and a setback in the farm bill discussion. Why does this matter? Well, the stakes of this issue are bigger than scoring political points. Americans want a food system that is safe, bountiful and sustainable. They want agriculture that keeps food affordable, while keeping chemical inputs to only what's necessary as well as preserving biodiversity.

Farmers, particularly in times like this, when farm economics are stretched want new safe tools that secure their harvests. Last year, Bayer introduced Plenexos, an innovative insecticide that protects yields by killing the insects that destroy harvest while preserving pollinators. It can be applied precisely, getting rid of pests with doses as low as a few grams per acre.

Now when I say low dose, this is what I mean. Imagine a soybean field, the size of the plain area in an American football stadium. You could treat it with around 11 grams of Plenexos' active ingredient. By the way, that's the weight of 2 U.S. quarters. I brought a couple along here. Imagine that the whole football field covered by that much Plenexos. That's actually the kind of innovation we need. That's what people expect from progress, and it's already being applied in South America, but we want to be able to bring it to U.S. farmers as soon as possible, and they want it too.

But there's a really big thing standing in its way, a system that gives trial lawyers the authority to undermine years of regulatory and scientific scrutiny. Why introduce new products, products that cost decades and billions of dollars to research and develop, if even after a rigorous approval process, you're subject to billions of dollars in legal costs. That's a question we'll have to ask more going forward.

Now outside of the litigation space, we continue to execute each of our priorities. Take Pharma growth and the pipeline, as an example. Earlier, I mentioned Kerendia's strong growth, driven by its momentum in treating patients with chronic kidney disease and type 2 diabetes as well as in heart failure. Now in addition, we've presented data in chronic kidney disease and type 1 diabetes. And last month, we announced positive top line data in treating nondiabetic patients. This means that once approved in these additional indications, Kerendia has the potential to help patients, both in heart failure and across a wide spectrum of chronic kidney disease, including in areas where there aren't many alternative options today. Now a great example of how we're not just growing the reach of our medicines, but we're widening the pool of patients they can serve.

In addition, we just announced an agreement to acquire Perfuse Therapeutics and their first-in-class development asset in glaucoma and diabetic retinopathy, which very nicely complements our established footprint and expertise in ophthalmology. We continue to advance our plan, and we're dialed in on delivering our commitments in 2026.

Now I'd like to hand it over to Wolfgang, who will walk you through our numbers for the last time today. So over to you, Wolfgang.

Thank you, Bill, and hello also from my side. As Bill said, this is the last time I get to share our quarterly results with you before handing over to Judith in June.

Before diving into the business, I would like to sincerely thank all of you for the collaboration of the past 8 years. It's been an eventful time, turbulent at times. I'm deeply grateful to my team and the people I've gotten to work with across Bayer. And I'm confident, we are setting the company up for a lot of success in the future.

Let's now look at the group results for the first quarter. Q1 net sales grew 4% versus the prior year quarter, driven by Crop Science and Consumer Health, while Pharma was in line with the prior year. EBITDA before special items came in at EUR 4.5 billion, which is 9% or about EUR 370 million above the prior year quarter, led by a higher Crop Science result. Profits in our Pharmaceutical division declined, and EBITDA before special items for Consumer Health and Recon came in almost in line with the prior year across divisions. We experienced the anticipated significant FX headwinds in the first quarter, totaling about EUR 890 million to our top line and about EUR 320 million to the bottom line. The effects were mainly driven by the U.S. dollar.

Core earnings per share came in at EUR 2.71. The increase of EUR 0.31 or 13% compared to the prior year is largely driven by about EUR 0.40 of licensing resolution income and EUR 0.10 from tail and divestment income in Pharmaceuticals. These expected nonrecurring effects were more than offset in foreign exchange headwinds of about EUR 0.20. Free cash flow of minus EUR 2.3 billion was EUR 800 million below the prior year quarter. As expected, this was driven by material payouts related to the previously announced settlement activities for both PCB and glyphosate, totaling about EUR 2 billion in Q1. Operational cash contribution improved by about EUR 1.2 billion, including the licensing resolution payments and Avelox divestment income. Net financial debt increased to EUR 32.5 billion since year-end '25 due to the negative cash flows. Year-on-year, net financial debt was down by about EUR 1.7 billion.

Let's now take a look at the outlook for our divisions. With the Q1 results, we are on track to deliver our full year guidance at constant currencies for each one of our businesses. For the quarters to go, let me just highlight a few things.

For Crop Science, we have a different distribution of the licensing resolution income, which was realized in Q1 this year compared to Q4 last year. For the second quarter in total, we expect top and bottom line results at constant currencies to be broadly stable year-over-year. Following a strong Q1, corn and soy sales are anticipated to moderate, with a decline versus prior year. This is expected to be largely offset by growth in cotton, partial volume recovery in glyphosate, in core CP as well as Stryax growth in North America.

For Pharmaceuticals, we are well on track to deliver our full year outlook. As guided, we expect the second half of the year to come in stronger than the first half of the year in terms of top line growth. While on margins, we anticipate increasing growth investments behind launches and the pipeline in the coming quarters.

For Consumer Health, the market environment in our 2 biggest markets, the U.S. and China, remains challenging. In the U.S., market conditions weakened further in the first quarter, with expectations of an overall decline for the full year. Supported by a solid start to the year, we remain confident in delivering the full year outlook.

Moving on to the group. We reiterate our outlook at constant currencies for the full year '26, while continuing to monitor geopolitical dynamics and foreign exchange movements.

On geopolitics. Based on our latest assessment, we expect to cover potential impacts within the guidance ranges provided for '26. We continue to closely monitor the evolving situation in particular in the following areas: for Crop Science, we expect some direct impacts on sales and incremental cost, most notably in fuel, transportation and energy, which are manageable this year. However, we are closely monitoring rising energy prices and structural inflation across petrochemical supply chains.

Resulting production cost increases will be largely captured in the industry, with higher COGS impacting the P&L in later periods. Timing and duration of these variables may also have indirect effects on acreage mix, farmer profitability, and the evolving Crop Protection landscape. For instance, favorable PRC prices could support glyphosate pricing opportunities should conditions remain supportive. Overall, it is harder to predict how these indirect effects will ultimately unfold and impact final planning and buying decisions.

For our Pharma business, we do not expect any major impact from tariffs to our outlook this year, as they would only become effective at the end of September and should be capped at 15% as per the EU U.S. trade deal, and we are monitoring the latest developments. We will also continue to apply tariff mitigation measures. On truck pricing around the world and MFN in particular, we continue to monitor the situation and continue to review our pricing and launch strategies.

For Consumer Health, ongoing geopolitical tensions could primarily affect our business regarding consumer sentiment and demand, while higher oil prices may also affect supply and production cost. Following our latest assessments and continued focus on cost control, we anticipate staying within our '26 guidance range.

And finally, on FX. In line with our practice, we have updated the FX estimate based on the March month end spot rates. However, this is just a point in time analysis, and we would still expect ongoing volatility around foreign exchange rate developments for the rest of this year. To illustrate this, we have also looked at the FX impact at 5 months forward rates as of April. Applying those, we would end up at around EUR 1 billion headwind in net sales, approximately EUR 400 million headwind in EBITDA before special items and about EUR 0.30 headwind in core EPS. This is more or less what we had in our previous estimates.

And with that, I'll turn the call back to you, Michael, to facilitate the Q&A.

Thanks a lot, Wolfgang. Thanks a lot, Bill. Let's now start with the Q&A session.

[Operator Instructions]

And the first question comes from Jens Tonnesmann, Die Zeit, followed then by Antje Honing, Rheinische Post. Jens, over to you. Maybe you work with the unmute button, if that is the case. Okay, we're waiting a little bit. Okay. Shall we go on to the next one? I think I hear you. Jens, can you talk?

Okay. Can you hear me now?

Yes, we can hear you. Great. Thanks, Jens.

I've actually got 2 of them. The first one is, Bill, you mentioned the setback with the Farm Bill. Surprisingly, the setback in the Congress was caused by a majority of Democratic and Republican representatives, some of them close to the MAHA movement. So can you explain why you and the farmers, obviously, we have such difficulties to convince the MAHA politicians and it follows to, well, to -- with your thoughts about the farm bill and your aims of that?

And the second question is, next Saturday marks a truly historic day for Bayer. It's the tenth anniversary of the day Bayer announced to take over Monsanto. With what thoughts are you looking at this anniversary? And what do you think is the main lesson Bayer should draw from this takeover for its future?

Yes, Jens, just first commenting on the Farm Bill. First off, making legislation is a very complicated affair. I probably don't need to remind you that since I think you get to see how legislation is made in Berlin as well. And it's no different in states in the U.S. or in the U.S. Congress. That being said, I think the removal of the label uniformity language from the Farm Bill in the House of Representatives is really a big opportunity missed for Congress to fix something that's broken. And unfortunately, this has been through a lot of misinformation on propaganda. It's been called pesticide immunity, which in no way it is. It simply says that there is a standard for pesticide safety. That standard is carried by the federal agency that is actually responsible for that. And so in this case, Congress didn't do its job.

It means that if you don't have this clarity, you have a patchwork of regulations where different states have different rules. And not just rules for use of pesticides, but questions on matters of fact and matters of science. And surely, that's no way forward. And I gave the example of Plenexos, which is, again, something that everybody says we need. Very low dose, precise Crop Protection that protects pollinators, but takes out the crop killing insects. And so this is in advance. But it doesn't make sense to bring these kinds of things forward if you have no standard in a nation for what is considered safe. So I think, unfortunately, this is a political miss. And it's something that needs to be addressed. Otherwise, it has very negative implications for access to innovation for American farmers and American consumers.

As to the 10th anniversary, I'm glad you told me that because I actually didn't know that. I would say we have a beautiful crop science business that is benefiting millions and millions -- actually billions of people every day, and we benefit greatly from having this combination of high-tech seeds and cutting-edge Crop Protection tools available as well as digital farming. So I think we've learned a lot about that. And as I've said before, I think the financial terms obviously didn't include litigation. And so from that standpoint, obviously, there's lessons there as well.

Okay. Thank you. Next question comes from Antje Honing, Rheinische Post. Followed then by Jonas Jansen, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung. Antje, over to you.

Yes. I have a question that's on employees' mind. How many jobs have you -- have been cut so far as part of the DSO restructuring? And are you now ready with the organization and job cuts? And once again, to Monsanto, given what we know today, would Bayer take over Monsanto again?

Antje, yes, so not a lot of update on the first question, but the number to date is about 14,000 jobs that have been reduced. By the way, a lot of this had to do with things like underutilized capacity and facilities. It doesn't have anything -- those kinds of things don't have anything to do with dynamic shared ownership.

But that being said, we needed a lot fewer managers. And we have a system that basically takes managers out of the gatekeeping role that they play in most organizations. And if you think about it, if you have 12 layers of hierarchy, do you really want 12 layers of gatekeepers? And the people of Bayer have said, no. And so we actually now have 6 to 7 layers across the organization, but these managers are no longer primarily serving as gatekeepers. They're actually supporting the individual contributors of Bayer, which is, I don't know, 93% of the total population are now individual contributors, supporting them in getting more work done towards the mission and faster.

So we actually are very proud of this accomplishment. We're moving faster than we've ever moved before towards our mission. And we're very -- yes, we're very satisfied with how things are going. You asked sort of are we done? The work is never done of making a great organization, but we're done with sort of the big structural phase, and now we look forward to continued improvement over time.

Let's see, question -- hypothetical about -- yes, I mean I don't think there's really anything to say about that. The strategy of bringing seeds and Crop Protection and Digital Farming is alive and well, and it's benefiting consumers and farmers around the globe. Obviously, the financial terms, in hindsight, didn't work out very well.

Okay. So next question comes from Jonas Jansen, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, followed then by Patricia Weiss from Reuters. Jonas, you're next.

First, I want to thank Wolfgang for always constructive and competent dialogue. All the best to you. And just one fact question because in the present speech, you spoke about less than 17 grams. I think in your speech, you said another number, I just want a clarification on that, please.

And speaking about Plenexos, what's your strategy then now because -- of course, the U.S. is a very important market for Crop Science. Is there like, I don't know, a target that you say, I don't know, we need to be on the market by 2027 or we won't go on the market until it's solved. And what's the -- I don't know, what's the idea behind that. Is there a time table, which you can expect to bring innovation to the U.S. as well.

Yes. So actually, Jonas, it's funny. So I have these quarters here. So the last time I used this analogy, we were talking about a European soccer field, which is actually quite a bit larger than an American football field. And I think for the European field, you needed a little more -- a few more grams. And so that -- that was 2-euro coins. And for the U.S. football field, we corrected it. So it's 2 U.S. quarters. So I'm sure that will come in handy for many of you today as you go through your daily work.

And the question about bringing Plenexos to America. Yes, we hope to bring Plenexos to America very soon. All eyes are on the Supreme Court. We are expecting a verdict from them on this question of whether FIFRA provides federal preemption for -- regarding labeling of pesticides. And we sure hope that they rule for preemption because without it, it would be essentially the equivalent of a pharmaceutical company launching a product in America, but having no idea whether the FDA label is valid. Because without preemption is the idea, not only could any state create a separate label, but also any state jury in any state could just decide whether or not a product has certain attributes or not, based on the opinion of the jurors, as opposed to something that is based on the judgment of hundreds of career staff scientists that are experts in the field of assessing the safety and effectiveness of pesticides.

So that's what's at stake. We do hope to be able to bring Plenexos to market in the U.S. soon, and we hope for a positive verdict from the Supreme Court.

Okay. Next question comes from Patricia Weiss from Reuters, followed by Florian Müller from the Financial Times. Patricia, over to you.

I hope you can hear me? I hope you can hear me?

Yes, we can hear you. We can hear you well.

Wonderful. You state that Bayer has prepared for all outcomes regarding the Supreme Court ruling on glyphosate. So if the card rolls against federal preemption, what exactly is the plan B, should investors praise for immediate multibillion dollar provisions, and especially now that the route via the Farm Bill has suffered a setback.

And at the AGM, investors also demanded margins instead of vision. So today, we see falling Pharma margins and just 1.4% growth in Crop Science. So what is your plan going forward regarding those demands from investors? And does this also force a structural breakup back on to the table?

Yes. So yes, thanks, Patricia. So in terms of being prepared for all outcomes, as I said, we have a multipronged strategy. It includes legal approaches. You mentioned the Farm Bill. I mentioned earlier, Kentucky legislation was passed by an overwhelming majority of the House and Senate in Kentucky, providing that clarification. Last year, that legislation -- similar legislation was passed in Georgia and in North Dakota. And so it shows that there's not -- yes, there's a definitely wrestling going on about this topic because it's very important for farmers.

The other thing, obviously, that's really important is the class settlement because as we've discussed before, the Supreme Court accomplishes certain things, but especially providing clarity for future products like Plenexos. Whereas the class settlement is a settlement for past and future claims in the case of glyphosate and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. So there are multiple approaches, and we have further ones that we've discussed before that we could go to in a fallback in a worst-case scenario. But -- so I think that's pretty clear.

Wolfgang, do you want to comment on the margin question?

Yes, Patricia, I can probably say a few things about the margin. And it's probably worthwhile to go business by business.

If you look at Crop Science, we were sub 20% last year. We have recognized that we have work to do in Crop Protection. We've announced a 5-year plan. We said we would go to the mid-20s by '29. And this year, we're making progress. We go to 20% to 22%. And from next year, '27, '28, we will be supported by great product launches out of our pipeline. So we are confident there.

In Pharmaceuticals, we are just navigating to through 2 LOEs. We've always said we will get to the mid-20s at that time. We're there are right now. But we also said, as next year growth resumes to the mid-single digits, that we are targeting 30% over the next couple of years. Obviously, we are monitoring all the variables there on pricing, et cetera.

And in Consumer Health, if you rewind the movie like a few years, we were significantly below 20% margins. Now we're around 23%. We guided this year carefully at 22% to 24%. And we have also said that we want to develop into the mid-20s here. So we believe these are all leading in the industry, and that's our objective, and that's what we're committed to, and that's what we're executing.

Okay. The next question comes from Florian Müller. Financial Times, followed by Sonja Wind from Bloomberg. Florian, over to you.

I hope you can hear me. I'm wondering about supply chains both with regards to the Middle East, but also with regards to the export restrictions in China. You have shared some color on that before, but maybe could you tell me how confident you are in your supply chains at the moment? If you foresee any shortages, and if so, where? And how you expect that going forward over the upcoming months?

Yes. Thanks, Florian. That's obviously something that we take great care to ensure that we have adequate supply of all our raw materials and critical inputs. So far, we've not faced any shortfalls. We've -- yes, we've had to navigate some things like export restrictions in the past year, but we've managed to do that. And at the moment, we have access to all the supplies we need to continue to provide our products to customers.

As Wolfgang mentioned in his speech, obviously, if the price of oil stays highly elevated, that will affect raw material inputs, which particularly affects our costs in product supply in Crop Protection. But also if it affects things like transportation costs around the globe, that can kind of be a general tax on us. So these are things that we're staying on top of, but this is all incorporated into our guidance.

Next question comes from Sonja Wind from Bloomberg, followed then by Bert Frondhoff from Handelsblatt. Sonja, over to you.

I also have a question on the litigation topic. Bill, you said that you are ready for all outcomes. Does it mean that even in the case of a Supreme Court ruling not in the favor of Bayer, you are confident that you can significantly contain litigation this year? And can you also give us some details on the current state of things with the opt-outs of the settlement proposal? Since the deadline is coming up, do you think you will reach the necessary threshold? And then also on Plenexos. So if I understand this correctly, if the Supreme Court should not rule in favor of Bayer, that means that Plenexos might not launch at all in the U.S., is this correct?

Yes. Thanks, Sonja. So yes, in -- for your first question, yes, we believe we still have the opportunity to significantly contain litigation this year with or without the Supreme Court ruling. That being said, as I said, the Supreme Court ruling is really a big sign for the future because, frankly, it just opens the question of, well, what is a pesticide label in the U.S.? If there's no federal preemption, then what is the point of a federally approved label? It's kind of a regulatory anarchy, and nobody is quite sure what that would look like. And that's something that's been caused by the litigation industry and their relentless attack on science. And it's something that we surely hope the Supreme Court will find -- yes, the right answer on.

Regarding opt-outs and -- yes, we don't comment on the process. This is an important topic. We've said before that the number of opt outs needs to be essentially 0. That's the point of a class settlement is that you have an agreement with the plaintiffs to finalize it. And so we want to do that. So we're looking forward to the close of the process.

And it's probably going to take us a little bit of time to sort through it because we'll have to evaluate whatever the result is. And so I say that because the opt-out deadline is June 4, but nobody should expect they're going to hear something from the company on June 5 or something. This could take some weeks in order to kind of figure out and go through the tallies and figure out what is the nature of the opt-outs and who are the parties and what are their claims. And so that's something. So I would encourage people not to hold their breaths on that.

And then Plenexos, yes, if we -- how would I put this, I don't want to speculate on what the Supreme Court ruling could be. If the ruling was highly adverse to the interest of innovators like us in Crop Protection, then we'd have to consider what that means for the future and for products like Plenexos. But I think we remain confident that the Supreme Court will uphold the law on this. FIFRA seems pretty clear because the alternative view that there is no federal preemption is sort of a nonsense. It doesn't make any sense. Why would you have a federal agency with thousands of staff scientists who are charged with approving a label, if that label doesn't carry any weight. So I think we're confident that the court justices will see it that way, and that we'll be able to bring Plenexos on time and to farmers.

Can I maybe add a quick follow-up question, just for my understanding? Because you said before that you have multiple strategies to fall back on a worst case scenario. Would that be measures beyond the ones you're currently using?

Yes. Well, we said before, there's also structural options. And so these have to do with company structure questions. And so these are things that are potential fallback options. But as I said, we have no plans to proceed in that direction at this point because we have the class settlement, we have the Supreme Court that we hope we will be ruling in the right direction, and we'll go from there.

Next question comes from Bert Frondhoff, Handelsblatt, followed then by Kevin Grogan from Scrip. Bert, you're next.

Yes. I had the same question. Bill has already answered, so I wish you a good day.

Thank you, Bert. So next question then comes from Kevin Grogan from Scrip, followed by Annette Becker, Borsen-Zeitung. Kevin, over to you.

Wolfgang, thanks for everything. You've been very helpful. And all the best of the future, all the best.

Now Bill, a couple of pharma questions, really. You just dipped into the M&A markets for the first time for a while with a Perfuse deal. Do you think that would be -- is it fair to say that could be one of the first, there are a few bolt-ons to come on in the near future? With particular areas are you keen on? Ophthalmology, obviously, the area of expertise from Bayer. Can you see any more deals in that area? Also, you've got gene therapies, which might be handy in that.

And also, I noticed that farmer earnings were down due to the expenses for Lynkuet, for the launch. And could you give me an idea of what expenses specifically that involves? And also a word on how that launch is going and also for Beyonttra as well because I noticed that you said that you'll continue to review pricing and launch strategies. I guess maybe in Europe, given it's not the easiest place to get a decent price. Could you give me some color on that as well in a comment?

Yes. Thanks, Kevin. So yes, your question about the Perfuse deal and whether that is sort of signaling interest in more of these kinds of product acquisitions. I would say, for sure. This is an interest we've had in an ongoing way. And we've been on the lookout. You saw we did the -- well, frankly, Lynkuet was that kind of a deal a few years back. Beyonttra was that kind of a deal just a little over a year ago. We did the Perfuse deal just a couple of weeks ago. And absolutely, we're looking for more of those. But we're very disciplined about this, and we're not willing to pay more than we believe something is worth. And frankly, that's kind of the temptation in the pharma industry that companies always face is they want new products, but they -- yes, they pay more than they should. And frankly, we don't want to be in that business. So we're going to be careful, but also aggressive.

And by the way, that's why you see that we're not typically going out and buying, let's say, ready to launch worldwide medicines because the price of those relative to the value is just generally out of whack. So you see a product like Lynkuet, where we bought it in an opportune stage; with Beyonttra, it was a regional deal; with Perfuse, again, earlier stage, promising data, and it's a therapy area we know very well. We're certainly interested in products that are in therapy areas where we have a good understanding of the disease, especially understanding of the disease.

Market synergy, it's useful, but I wouldn't overrate that because certainly in my career, I've been involved in launching a lot of therapies into new markets that my company had no history in, and doing that very successfully. So we're not afraid to try a new therapy area if we believe the science is strong. But I think you'll see more of those in the months and years ahead.

On Lynkuet and Beyonttra, we don't provide details on kind of our launch investments. But Lynkuet is a medicine that could benefit a broad array of women, and so it does need more promotion to make sure we get the word out, and we want to make sure we do that right. And -- but we're pleased with how both Lynkuet and Beyonttra launches are going. They're -- in both cases, 2026 will be their first full year in the market. And also, you have countries that are just now coming online reimbursement wise. So -- but we believe the performance so far looks quite good, and we look forward to important contributions from both of those medicines in the future.

Okay. Next question comes from Annette Becker, Borsen-Zeitung, followed then by Bernhard Vetter, agrarzeitung. Annette, you're next.

Hoping you can hear me?

Yes, we can hear you.

Okay. I have just 2 short questions regarding the licensing remark with Corteva. Do I get it right that it's a onetime effect in Q1? And then the follow-up, is it contained in the operating EBITDA from Crop Science in Q1?

Yes. Annette, yes, it's -- it was 2 payments, one at the end of last year in Q4 and one in the first quarter of this year. It's important also when you look at year-over-year comparisons later on -- and yes, it's operating because it's basically a royalty on operating R&D expenses we had in the past. So the return on those R&D expenses should also be operating like the R&D expenses were in the first place. So yes.

Next question comes from Bernhard Vetter, agrarzeitung, then follow-up by Andrew Noel, Chemical ESG. So Bernhard, over to you. See maybe the unmute button? You see this? What work?

Goods now?

Yes. Now we hear you. You can go ahead.

[indiscernible]

So Bernhard, I think we hear you. Maybe just want to keep on talking, we try it.

Can you hear me now?

Yes, we can hear you.

I'm sorry.

No problem.

My question is about the EUR 2 billion that are out of your bank account, I understand for PCB and glyphosate, but is the money now in the bank account of the plaintiffs actually or how this is going?

Bernhard, you're right. The free cash flow impact in the first quarter was EUR 2 billion out of the EUR 5 billion we expect for the year. About 3/4 of that actually went towards the plaintiff firms, and about 1/4 -- and that's related to the class, actually went into -- it's called qualified settlement fund, think of it as an escrow account. So it is negatively impacting our free cash flow. But by the way, it hasn't reduced the provision yet. But -- so 3/4 are on the other side and 1/4 of the EUR 2 billion is in an escrow account, basically.

Okay. So now next in line is Andrew Noel from Chemical ESG. And then as the last questions coming from Ayisha Sharma from Endpoint News. But Andrew, you're next.

I've got 2. The first one is, I mean, it sounds like there's a question to answer on whether it's worth innovating in Crop Protection. I wondered, is it impacting your investment decisions already? Perhaps there's projects that you think will be right in the battle zone that you just want to hold off on right now. And obviously, the context of that would be the danger of weaker prospects if you have a lot of patent expiration without a new flow of new innovation like FMC is suffering.

And the second question is about -- you talked about the power of Monsanto and Bayer together, but the strategy is elsewhere, if I mentioned UPL and Corteva is going in the other way, they're splitting off seeds. Could you tell me how physically integrated Monsanto is into Bayer? And give me a sense of what the dissynergies would be if you kind of tore those apart. I realize it's probably not a priority right now.

Sure. Yes. Thanks, Andrew. Yes, I would say, the biggest thing that's been affecting investment decisions in Crop Protection in recent years is probably the -- yes, just the availability of sort of ever lower-priced generics coming from Asia and the effect that's having even on innovative pesticides. Because yes, the farmer always has an alternative to buy the new branded product or an older generic. And if the generic prices are crashing because of oversupply, then that negatively affects even the innovator molecule.

So I think that's meant that companies like ours that are -- I think we're probably the leading innovator in crop protection chemicals. We've had to raise our bar and say, "Hey, we're only going to invest in things that are really breakthroughs." And Plenexos would be an example of that. And so we've actually done that already. And if you look at our 5-year plan that we announced for Crop Science for improving margins and profitability. We -- as part of that 5-year plan, we're getting out of a lot of active ingredients where the competition from generics is just so high that it just doesn't make sense to be in them. And then on others in our R&D pipeline, we really raised the bar as to what works.

So we think with that, that, that provides for pretty good incentives to invest. The world does need these innovations. You simply can't feed 8 billion and growing population without these crop protection tools. And we think the new ones have the opportunity to be both better value for farmers, but also better for the planet. So we think there'll be that demand, but again, just at a very high bar.

And by the way, I would remind folks that the U.S. is not the largest market for Crop Protection. In fact, Brazil is the largest market, and there are many other markets beyond the U.S. That being said, I mean, we think the U.S. will adopt good policies on this. And that's why we're certainly far from giving up on that, but we think that the Supreme Court decision is very important for that.

On the question of synergy, I mean, you asked specifically how much is -- you said Bayer, Monsanto integrated? I mean we don't even think like that or talk like that. In fact, already, when I arrived 3 years ago, nobody was talking like that. It was -- we basically have one team in Crop Science around the world that is delivering these tools country by country seeds, Crop Protection products, digital solutions. And yes, it's -- I think our people are very proud of that.

I think the synergies are quite strong. And yes, it's more that we're able to come along with total solutions. So if you take Plenexos, which is our short stature corn -- I'm sorry, Preceon, our short stature corn, this is a combination of a really innovative seed, some important Crop Protection tools and digital farming coming together in a powerful way to boost yields with less inputs, less carbon, yes, less environmental impact. This is basically what the world needs, not only for food, but also for biofuels and other things. So I think it's quite compelling from a high-level strategy, and we would hope for better conditions and Crop Protection in the future.

Thank you. So the last question for the call today comes from Ayisha Sharma from Endpoint News. Ayisha, over to you.

Just one question on Nubeqa. I know that you experienced sort of continued growth for that in the quarter. Could you give me a bit more color on how that growth was impacted by the Inflation Reduction Act?

Yes. I'm not sure I've got a clear answer for you on that, Ayisha. I mean I know our sales growth in the U.S. was quite strong -- Go ahead, Wolfgang.

Yes. I mean we don't give out the numbers, but we achieved very remarkable growth in Q1 again. And you should assume that, that growth covers already pricing reductions that were part of the IRA. So whatever you see in terms of growth from us is already covering the IRA impact.

All right. And with that, thank you very much for your questions, for your time, for your interest today. This concludes our call, and we wish you all a very good day. Thank you very much.

Ladies and gentlemen, as chairman of the Supervisory Board of Bayer Aktiengesellschaft and thus Chairman of the meeting, I hereby open the company's Annual Stockholders Meeting. I would like to welcome you, our stockholders, the stockholder representatives, representatives of the media and all other members of the audience.

I am delighted that you have accepted our invitation to follow today's Annual Stockholders' Meeting via an online audiovisual feed.

Ladies and gentlemen, with the approval of the Supervisory Board, the Board of Management has decided to hold today's Annual Stockholders' Meeting virtually once again today. In so doing, we exercised the authorization issued by the 2025 Annual Stockholders Meeting, which was resolved by the annual stockholders meeting by a majority vote of over 75%. We made this decision in favor of a virtual annual stockholders' meeting after careful consideration and primarily took the following factors into account in reaching this decision.

The fact that the rights of stockholders in the virtual Annual Stockholders Meeting correspond to those in the physical meeting. The items on today's agenda, the fact that a large number of stockholders can take part in a virtual annual stockholders meeting and can easily join the meeting wherever they may be, the positive experience with the virtual annual stockholders' meetings held by Bayer in the past. The positive feedback from major investors on the conduct of the company's annual stockholders' meeting in a virtual format and last but not least, sustainability issues as well as cost considerations.

By opting for a virtual annual stockholders' meeting, we also continue to follow the widespread practice of large listed companies. We have included elements in today's Annual Stockholders' Meeting that we would like to use to deepen the dialogue with our stockholders and increase the liveliness of the virtual Annual Stockholders Meeting. As before, stockholders can use the stockholder portal to react to Bill Anderson speech, my report on the work of the Supervisory Board and the statements made by other stockholders. To do so, various emojis can be clicked as you will be familiar with from social media. The reactions will also be shown in the public webcast of the Annual Stockholders' Meeting.

Moreover, you'll be able to contact the company directly via the stockholder portal for the first time this year. You can use this new feature to converse with our employees outside of the formal framework of the Annual Stockholders' Meeting. This new feature can be found below the live feed of the Annual Stockholders' Meeting, along with the emojis.

We hope that you make use of these additional ways to interact with us.

Ladies and gentlemen, today, the Deputy Chairwoman, Heike Hausfeld, and Paul from the Supervisory Board are present in the meeting room. I have appointed Paul Achleitner to chair the meeting if I am forced to leave. All other Supervisory Board members will participate in the entire Annual Stockholders' Meeting via a live audiovisual feed as permitted by our Articles of Association. All of the members of the Board of Management are present. I would like to welcome our CEO, Bill Anderson; our CFO, Wolfgang Nickl; our Chief Talent Officer, Heike Prince; and the members of the Board of Management; Stephan Uri, the Head of our Pharmaceuticals Division; Gudrigo Santos, the Head of our Crop Science division; and Julio Triana, the Head of our Consumer Health division.

I would like to extend a special welcome to Judith Hartmann in particular. She's attending this annual stockholders meeting as a member of the Board of Management of Bayer AG for the first time. Judith Hartmann joined the Board of Management on March 1, 2026. With effect from June 1, 2026, she will take over as CFO from Bogan Nickel, who will retire as planned.

Now, Judith Hartmann will introduce herself briefly.

Thank you very much, Mr. Winkeljohann. Ladies and gentlemen, dear stockholders, I am pleased to have this opportunity to briefly introduce myself to you here today. My first day at Bayer was nearly 8 weeks ago. The Mission Health all hang of none really inspires me because basically, it's all about 2 of today's most urgent issues, food and health.

This mission begins with our customers. That is why they were the first ones I met with during my onboarding. I have seen how much trust they place in Bayer. I've also experienced how much passion and pride our employees show when working for our mission. And I've already been able to see team Bayer in research production. And I've -- and in the functions, I've been to the United States, Germany, Switzerland, Spain and recently to Brazil. So I was able to see Team Bayer in a number of different functions, in research, production and sales. So I saw firsthand what our company is capable of, and that is why I'm very much looking forward to everything we will achieve together.

For farmers all around the world, who made it clear to me how much they count on us as partners at their side. For patients for whom we develop new improved therapies, and for customers, for consumers for whom our products provide very important help in their everyday lives. And for you, our investors, for whom we want to create lasting value, that is especially dear to my heart.

Our DSO operating model promotes better and quicker solutions for our customers, and artificial intelligence will accelerate this development even more. I come with extensive international experience in the fields of energy, the environment and health care. This includes management positions at ENGIE, GE Healthcare and Battleman, both in operations and in finance. Most recently, as an operating partner at the Investment Company, Sandbrook Capital.

And as a Supervisory Board member at companies such as Unilever, RTL and Marsh. I will continue onboarding. And I've seen that we see that the sustainable success of business fields with very much responsibility for us where our customers put their trust in us, and they also see our reliability, quality and responsibility.

I will continue my onboarding in the next few weeks. And in June, I will succeed Wolfgang Nickl as Chief Financial Officer. Thank you to all of the colleagues for giving me such a warm welcome here. I'm looking forward to discussions with you about what we have achieved and about the opportunities that lie ahead. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Judith Hartmann. Ladies and gentlemen, I would also like to welcome the notary public, Dr. Marc Hermanns. As in previous years, he will be taking the minutes of the Annual Stockholders Meeting. One of the company's 2 proxies is also present in this room.

Unfortunately, a number of Bayer employees have left us since the last Annual Stockholders Meeting. I would like to pause for a brief moment of silence in memory of those Bayer colleagues who passed away last year and also in memory of all victims of armed and political conflicts.

Ladies and gentlemen, I would like to take this opportunity to thank everyone who has contributed to the preparation and organization of this Annual Stockholders' Meeting. Let us now turn to the formalities and information on the organization of today's Annual Stockholders' Meeting. The entire Annual Stockholders' Meeting will be broadcast for stockholders and their authorized representatives in audio and video on the stockholder portal. The stockholder portal can be accessed via the company's website for the Annual Stockholders' Meeting.

In addition, as Chairman of the Annual Stockholders' Meeting, I have ordered in accordance with Section 16 Paragraph 4 of our Articles of Association that today's Annual Stockholders' Meeting will also be broadcast in full in an audiovisual feed on the Internet for interested members of the public. It can therefore be followed by anyone without restriction. Please note, however, that stockholders and their representatives will only be connected to the Annual Stockholders' Meeting electronically and included in the attendance list if they use the stockholders' portal to access the meeting. The opening of the Annual Stockholders' Meeting, the speech by the Chairman of the Board of Management and my report for the Supervisory Board will be recorded. The recording will be available on our website after the Annual Stockholders Meeting. Recordings of the broadcast of today's Annual Stockholders' Meeting are not permitted.

Once again, this year, we are offering simultaneous interpretation of the entire Annual Stockholders' Meeting into English as well as a live broadcast in sign language. You can choose your preferred language setting on the website. And for the first time, we afford you the opportunity to see live subtitles. In addition, we are again offering our stockholders the option of listening to live submissions made in English translated into German by our interpreters. This will enable greater participation by international investors during the Annual Stockholders' Meeting.

Please understand that this is a convenient service offered by the company. We cannot guarantee the availability and accuracy of the interpretation. If you would like to make a statement in English, as in the past, you can arrange for a translation into German, which is the official language of the Annual Stockholders' Meeting yourself. As Chairman of the Meeting, I have determined in accordance with Section 131 Paragraph 1 of the German Stock Corporation Act that the stockholders right to information and ask questions may only be exercised by means of video communications and thus as part of a spoken statement. This enables the other stockholders to follow the statements, questions and their answers at the Annual Stockholders Meeting in a coherent manner.

The Board of Management will answer the questions you ask. If questions relate to the Supervisory Board, I will answer them after consulting with the Board of Management. Should further questions arise from the answer to a question, these can be put by any stockholder by requesting the floor.

Voting rights can also be exercised in the usual manner during the annual stockholders meeting via the stockholder portal. I will explain the details of this procedure later on. In accordance with legal requirements, stockholders who were able to submit -- that were also able to submit statements, countermotions and nominations prior to the Annual Stockholders' Meeting. [Audio Gap] countermotions and 5 election proposals for the Supervisory Board elections. We have made these available on the company's website for the Annual Stockholders Meeting. To allow for more targeted questions, we also publish [Audio Gap] discussion today. Despite all efforts, there are general technical disruptions during the Annual Stockholders' Meeting, I would ask for your patience. In this case, please also follow the information on our website for the Annual Stockholders Meeting and in the stockholder portal.

In the event of individual technical difficulties, please contact the stockholder hotline. You can find its phone number on our website for the Annual Stockholders Meeting and in the stockholder portal. The convocation of today's virtual Annual Stockholders Meeting, along with the agenda and the proposals of the Board of Management and Supervisory Board for the resolutions were published in the Federal Gazette on the 4th of March of this year in due form and time; the annual financial statements, including the management's proposal for the use of net retained profits; the consolidated financial statements; the summarized management report, including the explanator report of the Board of Management on takeover-related information; and the report of the Supervisory Board have been available on the company's website since the Annual Stockholders' Meeting was convened. They are also available there today.

This also applies to the CVs of Marshall Smiths and Alfred Stern who are candidates for election to the Supervisory Board. The compensation report on the compensation of the members of the Board of Management and Supervisory Board submitted to you for approval is also available on the company's website.

Ladies and gentlemen, I hereby declare that the Annual Stockholders' Meeting has been duly convened in accordance with the law and the Articles of Association. The attendance list will soon be available in the stockholder portal for stockholders and their representatives who have connected electronically. We will then update the attendance list at regular intervals.

Ladies and gentlemen, I would like to draw your attention to a few points regarding the debate and contributions there, too. Stockholders who wish to take the floor on 1 or more items on the agenda are requested to register their intention to take the floor on the stockholder portal in good time. This means that you will enable us to appropriately allocate the time available to the speakers. As explained in detail in the invitation to the Annual Stockholders' Meeting, it has been possible to request to take the floor and check video communication since 9:00 a.m. today in order to make it easier for you to follow the Annual Stockholders Meeting throughout.

As part of the submission that you make, you can also ask questions, ask follow-up questions, make election proposals and file motions. Requests for the floor can be submitted until the attendance list has been closed. After that, requests to take the floor on motions can still be made via the stockholder portal. When making requests for the floor, you must provide your name, e-mail address and a telephone number at which you can be reached today. If possible, please also indicate the items on the agenda on which you wish to speak. If you wish to speak in English or submit a motion, please also state this and the content of the motion. This will enable us to check when your request should be dealt with.

At the appropriate time, a dialogue window will appear in the stockholder portal, asking you to enter the virtual waiting room. Depending on the number of requests for the floor and your position in the speakers list, this may take some time. Please be patient if need be. When you enter the waiting room, you will leave the transmission of the Annual Stockholders Meeting, which is time delayed for technical reasons. In the waiting room, the transmission is no longer time delayed so that you will not be able to follow a small part of the Annual Stockholders' Meeting, usually 10 to 15 seconds when you enter the waiting room. Please select the time of entry to the waiting room at a time that is favorable for you, but also in good time so that a technical check of your video communication function can be carried out.

Once the function check has taken place and I've called your name, you will be activated for the live broadcast of your submission.

Ladies and gentlemen, a few remarks on the voting procedure. Voting for today's virtual Annual Stockholders Meeting is possible by postal vote or by authorizing and issuing instructions to the proxies nominated by the company in the stockholder portal until the voting procedure ends. I will announce when the voting procedure ends in advance. Until then, you can still change your vote on the stockholder portal. I will remind you of this in due course, but I would like to ask you now to cast your votes and issue instructions in good time.

If you have registered for the Annual Stockholders' Meeting with several stockholder numbers, or if you have several proxy cards, you must exercise your voting rights for each stockholder number or proxy card individually so that all of your votes can be accounted for. Voting results are determined using the edition method. This involves counting the yes and no votes. Abstentions are recorded separately, but have no bearing on the voting result. Objections to resolutions of the Annual Stockholders' Meeting and complaints about unanswered questions to be recorded in the minutes can also be submitted electronically via the stockholder portal. The same applies to requests pursuant to Section 131 Paragraph 4 and 5 of the German Stock Corporation Act.

As explained in the notice convening the Annual Stockholders' Meeting, objections may be raised from the beginning of the Annual Stockholders Meeting until it ends. The voting procedure and the counting of the votes are monitored by the notary as are the objections, complaints and requests received in accordance with Section 131 Paragraphs 4 and 5 of the German Stock Corporation Act. The notary has assured himself of the functionality and reliability of the corresponding technology prior to the Annual Stockholders' Meeting.

Ladies and gentlemen, now that I have made these housekeeping remarks, we can now move on to the agenda. The agenda with the draft resolutions was published in the convening notice in the Federal Gazette on the 4th of March. You can also find these and other documents on our website for the Annual Stockholders' Meeting. As I mentioned earlier, the company received several countermotions and election proposals for the Supervisory Board from stockholders within the statutory period. We have made them available on our website. They are deemed to have been submitted at the time they were made available. They do not have to be addressed at the Annual Stockholders Meeting if the person submitting the motion or nomination is not duly authorized or registered for the Annual Stockholders' Meeting.

Let us now begin with Item 1 on the agenda. However, I will now also call to order all the other items on the agenda. Item 1 on the agenda addresses the financial statements and reports to be presented and the resolution on the use of profit. The annual financial statements for 2025 were prepared by the Board of Management, approved by the Supervisory Board and are thus adopted. The consolidated financial statements were also approved by the Supervisory Board. The summarized management report was also reviewed by the Supervisory Board and approved without objections.

The Supervisory Board also examined and approved the Board of Management's proposal for the use of profits, which provides for a dividend of $0.11 per share and concurred with the proposal. The audit are audited the annual financial statements, the consolidated financial statements and the summarized management report and issued an unqualified audit opinion on all of them. The Supervisory Board approved the results of the audit.

The auditor also audited the compensation report prepared by the Board of Management and the Supervisory Board for the 2025 fiscal year and issued an unqualified audit opinion on it. A copy of all documents has been made available to the doc notary. Items 2 and 3 on the agenda relate to the ratification of the actions of the members of the Board of Management and the Supervisory Board. I will discuss the Item 4 on the agenda, i.e., the proposed elections to the Supervisory Board, and Item 5 on the agenda, which relates to the resolutions on the compensation report in the Supervisory Board report. Item 6 and 7 on the agenda relate to the appointment of the auditor. Once again, for the 2026 financial year, management intends to appoint Deloitte auditor of the financial statements and of all financial reports prepared during the financial year. Furthermore, management intends to appoint Deloitte as sustainability auditor for the first time in view of the expected implementation of the EU Corporate Social Responsibility Directive in 2026.

For the first time, management intends to appoint PricewaterhouseCoopers GMBH, auditor of the potential report for the quarter ending on March 31, 2027. Switching financial statement auditors is required by law from fiscal 2027 onwards. After auditing the financial statements for fiscal 2026, Deloitte will have completed the maximum period of 10 years allowed by law for a single accounting firm to audit financial statements without interruption. The proposal made by the Supervisory Board to elect PricewaterhouseCoopers was made after a tender process conducted by the Audit Committee to select a new auditor pursuant to the applicable provisions of the EU financial statement Auditor Regulation.

Ladies and gentlemen, this concludes my introductory remarks on today's agenda. Ladies and gentlemen, I would now like to give the floor to Bill Anderson and ask for his report for the Board of Management.

Well, dear ladies and gentlemen, shareholders, welcome to our Annual Shareholders Meeting. It's great to be with you. Right before beginning, I'd also like to say a warm welcome to Judith Hartmann. She joined the company in March. She'll be taking over as CFO in June. Welcome, Judith. We're really glad to have you on board. She succeeds Wolfgang Nickl, who is joining us for his last annual shareholders meeting today. So Wolfgang from all of us at Bayer, thank you for your service for the company and its mission.

I've come to know Wolfgang is a highly skilled, reliable colleague and friend. I'm really grateful for our partnership. So thank you.

Well, in March 2024, we set Bayer's agenda for the next 2 to 3 years, revitalized the pipeline, reduce debt, significantly contain litigation, tackle bureaucracy and focus the company exclusively on our mission. And since then, we raised our ambitions for our Crop Science business laying out a 5-year plan to boost competitiveness and to be first to the farm with innovation that will shape agriculture for generations.

Now, we're 2 years down the road. No corner of the company is the same as it was. The company is leaner and faster. The pharma portfolio and pipeline are more promising than perhaps ever before. Crop Science is executing its performance improvement plan. The debt burden is lower. We've advanced a multipronged strategy to address the litigation uncertainty. Our businesses delivered the 2025 numbers in virtually every metric. Overall, we see great progress. But here's the thing, the work isn't complete yet. Our turnaround plan is still in full swing. We've advanced each of our priorities to a crucial juncture, but not a single 1 is complete. We have medicines in the pipeline that we need to bring to patients, businesses to make more profitable so we can fund future innovation, debt to reduce, litigation to contain, an operating model that's installed and generating wins but still needs to be scaled more widely.

Our list of to dos is clear. There are big milestones and decisions ahead, and I'm confident that the coming months will set Bayer up for a brighter future. The 88,000 people of Bayer know this, they've shown great resolve in bringing the company to this point. And thanks to them. I, alongside my colleagues and the management Board fully expect Bayer will leave 2026 and enter 2027 stronger than we've been in a long time.

Now, before jumping ahead, let's review 2025 and the outlook we've shared for this year. 2025 was a crucial year. We had patent expiries and important launches in pharmaceuticals. We had regulatory headwinds and margin pressure on Crop Science. We had to recalibrate our growth in consumer health. We entered the year knowing it would be decisive for our turnaround, and we delivered. Team Bayer registered sales of EUR 45.6 billion. Our core earnings per share came in at $4.91. We generated EUR 2.1 billion of free cash flow, and we reduced our net financial debt to EUR 29.8 billion.

As previously communicated, we expect net financial debt to increase in 2026 due to litigation-related expenses. Each of our businesses progressed. A new picture of our pharma portfolio emerged with Nubecca and Corandia more than offsetting XARELTO declines. More to come there. Crop Science kicked off its 5-year framework and took difficult decisions to shore up margins and prioritize investments. While Consumer Health struggled on the top line, we protected the bottom line. Our team has a clear picture of which brands and which markets need attention.

Now, in terms of outlook, we anticipate a solid year across our businesses, which are off to a good start. We expect continued momentum behind our launch products to compensate for declines in Pharma and Crop Science due to loss of exclusivity and regulatory pressures. In addition, we'll continue to invest in our pipeline and launch products in 2026 to set ourselves up for growth in '27 and beyond before accounting for FX changes [Audio Gap].

Let's look at our priorities. 2025 was a year in which Bayer took a hard look at its challenges, and we acted on each of them. The pharmaceutical pipeline, 2 years ago, there were some question marks about our pipeline. Today, the work isn't finished, but we're seeing instead exclamation points. Nubeca, a cancer treatment, and Corendia grew at a combined 68% last year, and the recent approval for Corendia underscores the treatment's potential in both heart failure and chronic kidney disease with blockbuster potential in each indication. The Beyond launch is outpacing expectations. One year after its launch, half of newly diagnosed patients in Germany are receiving Beotra to treat a fatal heart condition.

This year, the launch of Linquit, a nonhormonal treatment for menopause symptoms is in full swing. We started in the U.S. and are now expanding to the EU. In February, we released outstanding results [Audio Gap] with just a few grams per acre. Let me break that down. If the soccer pitch at the Bayer arena were a soybean field you could treat it, the whole soccer pitch, with only 17 grams of Plinexis. Now, if you want to feel for how much 17 grams is, that's the weight of just 2 EUR 2 coins. Imagine that a whole soccer field with that much Plinexis. We have big innovation plans like this, which really take off in 2027 and beyond. That's why our performance improvement work in 2026 is so important. We're taking steps to improve our cash generation and to strengthen the operational foundation of our business.

On litigation, for years, we've been working on a multi-pronged containment approach. In the early months of 2026, much of that approach has become visible. In February, Monsanto announced a class settlement, which received preliminary approval in early March. We've seen numerous plaintiff firms, even firms who traditionally oppose class settlements recommend the settlement to their clients. Further, we're pleased that the United States Supreme Court will hear our case with oral arguments scheduled for next Monday. This is a big milestone for American farmers and a lot is riding on it.

The U.S. is among the most advanced agricultural countries on the planet. And our innovation pipeline is full of new tools, including pression short corn that's less carbon-intensive and ecofolen, which is the first major new post-emergent herbicide mode of action in a generation. These are game-changing innovations for farmers that took decades and billions of dollars to research and develop and which undergoes serious regulatory scrutiny by expert independent agencies.

Now, why continue that work if it still leaves you at the mercy of a $600 billion litigation industry? More and more people understand this, and we'll keep making the case. Earlier this month, lawmakers in Kentucky voted to enact legislation protecting farmers access to scientifically regulated crop protection products. We're grateful to see a broad coalition of farmers, farm groups and the scientifically minded public, calling on lawmakers in other states to take similar steps. Much has been done to significantly contain litigation, and this remains an active situation with important milestones and decisions in the weeks ahead.

We continue to take it 1 day at a time, and we remain prepared for all scenarios. Cash generation and deleveraging remains a top priority. I want to acknowledge that we're once again proposing paying out the minimum dividend, as we've previously communicated. This is not an easy step but it remains the right one for the company's financial future. As we consider our dividend policy going forward, we'll look carefully at the company's capital allocation strategy that's given our cash and debt position.

Now, our final strategic priority is the advancement of our new operating model. 2 years ago, Bayer was run like any other multinational with lengthy chains of command and strategy and budgeting processes whose key organizing principle was the 12-month Gregorian calendar. That's no longer the case. We're acting in focus, 90-day cycles. We roughly have the numbers of layers. And we've reoriented the focus of the firm from administering to doing by cutting management by 2/3.

Bayer is moving faster, more flexibly at less cost. There's still more to do. We're focused on the vital work of scaling key mechanics and practices of the new system. We feel this setup positions us well for the coming artificial intelligence revolution. In fact, if you listen carefully, many companies leading the AI charge are moving in a similar direction, flatter organizations, larger teams, more nimble rhythms and faster, more fluid sharing of information. There's a popular phrase at Bayer, it probably exists at a lot of large companies, which are home to vast expertise that's fragmented in research labs and sub teams and meeting minutes. The saying is if Bayer knew what Bayer knows, well, soon, we may know.

We're exploring how artificial intelligence can unlock the extensive Bayer intellect, speed up key processes and free up our people to get more creative about tackling Health for all, hunger for none. We continue to make significant investments in our IT infrastructure in streamlining our systems and simplifying the way we sort data so that people at Bayer and our customers can benefit from the full intelligence of the enterprise. This is a company that serves 600 million consumers with everyday health treatments that processes more than 25 billion data points in C genotyping. If dynamic shared ownership is our opportunity to make the enterprise more entrepreneurial, Agentic artificial intelligence is our chance to make the organization more effective with every individual at Bayer commanding more data, more autonomy and more resources for our mission, health for all, hunger for none.

That mission is optimistic, but it doesn't exist in a vacuum. We're living in times when its optimism might feel quite distant. Wars, uncertain international relations, a warming planet, technological disruption, interruptions to the availability of important inputs like fertilizer, for the world's farmers, these are times of great upheaval.

In the past 3 months, I've been on both coasts of the United States. I've spent time in Germany, China and India. I've had the chance to speak with people who are running global artificial intelligence platforms and people who farm plots of land that are smaller than this room. I've spoken with political decision-makers across the ideological spectrum and people on the shop floor. No matter with whom I speak, the conversations have a lot in common, great concern for our world, a desire to make things better and a clear sense of focus on the things that matter most. In uncertain times, the superficialities are stripped away. Companies must ask the questions, what can we do? How can we serve a world in turmoil?

There's nothing superficial about health for all, hunger for none. We're active in essential sectors. We don't work that people depend on for their basic needs. I've met people across the company, and I'm consistently humbled by their expertise and great dedication to our work. Last month, I visited Team Bayer in India. Our Consumer Health team in India reaches at least 20 million people who otherwise have limited access to care with sales channels that range from open air markets to on-demand deliveries in 15 minutes or less.

Just a few weeks ago, our Crop Science site in Zambia celebrated 1 year of production. Just a few years ago, the region where we built this site could barely feed itself. Now, we're planning to triple Zambian corn output reaching up to 10 million small holder farmers by 2030 and supplying seeds to neighboring countries. In 2025 alone, Team Bayer reached 68 million women in low- and middle-income countries with modern contraception, 53 million smallholder farmers with key agricultural products and services and 82 million people in underserved communities with self-care.

This is a company people can count on for the fundamentals. That's true today, and we're working on tomorrow. Let me share 2 examples: 1 from agriculture and 1 from health. Four billion people on this planet depend on synthetic fertilizer for their food and around 1/4 of global fertilizer production passes through the Strait of Hormus. Together with expert partners, Bayer is 1 of the few companies working to enhance the natural capabilities of key plants like corn, like wheat to improve nitrogen utilization, which could significantly reduce reliance on synthetic fertilizers imagining the potential.

In human health, we're at the forefront of modern medicines fight against Parkinson's disease. Bayer is the first company to have advanced both a cell and a gene therapy against this devastating disease. Clinical trials are running as we speak. We're in uncharted territory, and that can be uncertain, but there's no health for all, hunger for none without venturing into new terrain, and we're steadfast in our ambition to lead this fight.

We are in uncertain times dear shareholders. We have a mission that's meaningful. It's fundamental. It matters today and tomorrow. In the past 2 years, we've made big progress in focusing the company on that mission and clearing out everything else. Bayer is a company with a deep sense of who we are, what needs to be done and what we exist to do in this world. We still got a lot to accomplish, and we're on the right track.

Now to close, I'll summarize with a few words in German. We have made great strides, but we're not finished yet. We've made big progress, but we're no longer -- Team Bayer has an important mission and a clear plan, and we are setting up the company for a successful future.

Thank you for your time, your support and trust, dear shareholders. We'll keep going in pursuit of health for all, hunger for none.

Ladies and gentlemen, our CEO, Bill Anderson, has now offered you information on the annual financial support to '25. Thank you very much for your convincing report.

Stockholders, ladies and gentlemen, I'll now move to the report of the Supervisory Board, which is Part 1 of today's Annual Stockholders' Meeting, Item 1 of the agenda. You'll also find this on Pages 13, 22 of the annual financial report. In the completed fiscal year, the Supervisory Board was looking at the strategic alignment of the company and in the implementation of strategic priorities, namely, the development of the pharma pipeline, the legal cases and deleveraging profitability of Crop Sciences and reducing bureaucracy by implementing in a consequent manner dynamic ownership.

I will go into this in my report in more detail. Furthermore, the Supervisory Board also took important decisions on the Board of Management. Bill Anderson will have his contracts extended. And Stephan Olis, the Head of our Pharmaceuticals division, will have his contract extended to October 31, 2029. The Supervisory Board also appointed Judith Hartmann to the Board of Management effective March 1, 2026. Judith will take over from Wolfgang Nickl as CFO when he steps down on May 31, 2026.

Finally, in March of this year, the Supervisory Board extended the service contract of Hagelin Prince, our Labor Director and Board of Management member responsible for Human Resources to August 31, 2028. In addition, the Supervisory Board gained a new member in 2025, not indeed, as I outlined last year as part of the Annual Stockholders' Meeting. She joined the Supervisory Board effective January 1, 2025.

Ladies and gentlemen, the Supervisory Board convened for 9 meetings last year. There were also 28 meetings of our Supervisory Board committees. Our key annual meetings were held in person, including the February meeting on financial statements, the September strategy meetings spanning several days and the annual planning meeting in December, which was in person. The other meetings were held either as virtual video conference or as hybrid meetings.

With many Supervisory Board meeting members not residing in Germany, this was practically the only viable option, especially in the case of extraordinary meetings arranged at short notice while also representing an appropriate choice from a sustainability and cost perspective. In between the meetings of the Supervisory Board, I was in regular and close contact with our CEO, Bill Anderson, as well as with the other members of the Board of Management and other senior leaders of the company.

I'd now like to highlight some of the key topics Supervisory Board focused on this past year. Engaging with stockholders and other stakeholders is a top priority for Bayer and the Supervisory Board. Following the 2025 Annual Stockholders' Meeting, we extensively engaged with investors on board of management compensation. And in early 2026, we continued our dialogue through our corporate governance [Audio Gap] shared by our stockholders. These conversations give the Supervisory Board a wider and deeper perspective on the issues discussed.

Ladies and gentlemen, Advisory Board continued to monitor the Board of Management's business strategy and the company's performance very closely. In my report at our Annual Stockholders Meeting last year, I listed 5 priorities for the Supervisory Board's work in 2025. Firstly, improving performance in all areas. Secondly, advancing the pipelines at Pharmaceuticals, Crop Science and Consumer Health. Thirdly, improving cash flow and reducing net financial debt over the long term. Fourthly, implementing dynamic shared ownership to demonstrably enhance performance. Fifth, proactively finding conclusive solutions to Bayer's litigation issues.

We've been focusing on these topics or its relations thereof in previous years, too. As before, they represent important priorities for our work as a Supervisory Board. Allow me to now briefly describe how Bayer [Audio Gap]. Hence, it is such an important topic. Bill Anderson already went into some detail on these centers. But I would like to mention that we achieved 2 independently necessary and mutually enforcing milestones, especially as regards to litigation.

So as previously announced, we achieved 2 independently necessary and mutually reinforcing milestones in this regard at the start of the year. In February, Monsanto reached an agreement with a nationwide class of plaintiffs to settle current and potential future cases in the glyphosate litigation [Audio Gap] to review the Danel case, a particularly relevant case and the glyphosate litigation. The U.S. Solicitor General had previously issued its recommendation that the Supreme Court review the case. We also continue to work with U.S. legislators to support clear and consistent regulatory standards for crop protection products.

Just recently, the White House issued an executive order underlining what a crucial role glyphosate plays. The Supervisory Board as a whole, oversees the company's multipronged strategy to significantly contain the litigations and has also reached specific settlement agreements, which were extensively addressed during all ordinary meetings as well as a number of extraordinary meetings and were also the subject of a written resolution. The Supervisory Board's deliberations on these topics are based on preparatory work by the Legal Risk Committee, which is chaired by Lori Schechter.

In particular, the aforementioned class settlement agreement reached in February of this year as part of the glyphosate litigation with the topic of particular phases for the Supervisory Board. Supplementing input from external experts consulted by the Board of Management, the Supervisory Board also sought its own legal advice and subsequently approved the conclusion of the settlement agreement on that basis following in-depth discussions. We also extensively focused on the other priorities I mentioned earlier, performing our oversight and advisory duties to the support of the work of the Board of Management. In each 1 of these areas, the company has also been able to make major strides.

The Crop Science division, for instance, has taken steps to improve operations and efficiency, whilst also carefully reviewing the product portfolio to ensure investments are being made in areas where it can deliver major value for customers, whilst also securing the highest possible returns for the company. Powered by its leading innovation capabilities, the division plans to launch 10 blockbusters over the next 10 years. It also remains committed to hitting the goal of lifting its EBITDA margin before special items to a mid-20s percentage range by the end 2029.

The Pharmaceuticals division for its part has made great progress in growing its top line and bolstering the pipeline. On the sales front, the division exceeded its original expectations. Nubeqa and Corendia have delivered significant gains driven in part by approvals for new indications. Bayer has also obtained marketing authorization for its new products by Entra and Linquin in 2025. In addition, the company published positive Phase III data for Azindexion for secondary stroke prevention in February 2026. Bayer also continues to make strides to improve cash generation and reduce debt.

In 2025, the company generated free cash flow of EUR 2.1 billion. Meanwhile, Bayer achieved a substantial reduction in the net financial debt, which fell from EUR 32.6 billion as of year-end 2024 to EUR 29.8 billion as of year-end 2025. The implementation of dynamic shared ownership, DSO, the operating model has already brought significant improvements in terms of speed, efficiency and customer focus. Bureaucracy has been slashed, hierarchy levels have been greatly reduced and decision-making has been placed in the hands of those doing the work.

These steps have also already delivered shorter innovation cycles and enhanced growth momentum. The company is targeting EUR 2 billion in sustainable organizational savings by the end of 2026. An additional topic that has become a priority from the Supervisory Board's perspective is the use of artificial intelligence. Bayer is increasingly leveraging the power of AI throughout the company, as we look to further optimize processes, unlock efficiencies and accelerate innovation. Thanks to the DSO operating model, we are in a position to effectively deploy new processes and tools in a targeted manner.

Throughout the company, a number of AI initiatives are underway, helpig us to utilize it more effectively and deliver ever greater impact, not just for our customers, but also is a key factor for our competitive profile, but also as a lever for bolstering our company's profitability. Our existing digital tools and platforms provide a strong foundation for implementing AI.

In addition, the Supervisory Board has frequently explored ways that it can utilize AI to support its own work.

Ladies and gentlemen, I would now like to move on to the agenda for today's Annual Stockholders' Meeting from the perspective of the Supervisory Board. The agenda mainly comprises the standard annual stockholders meeting items. There are also 2 Supervisory Board elections to be conducted, which I will talk about shortly. And another point to mention concerns the appointment of the auditor. Due to the legal requirements around mandatory auditor rotation, today's annual stockholders' meeting marks the last time that we will be proposing Deloitte's GMBH as the auditor of the financial statements of Bayer AG and the consolidated financial statements of the Bayer Group as well as the sustainability report. That also means that a new auditor needs to be proposed to review the interim report for the first quarter of 2027.

After conducting a selection process in accordance with the legal requirements and based on the recommendation and recent preference of the Audit Committee, the Supervisory Board proposes that PricewaterhouseCoopers GMBH be appointed as the auditor to perform the forementioned review.

Ladies and gentlemen, I would now like to turn to Board of Management compensation for 2025 and share some insights. Last year, we conducted a mid-cycle review of the Board of management compensation system, which was approved by shareholders at the 2024 Annual Shareholders Meeting, performed midway through the 4-year cycle, this review was designed to explore whether an updated system should be put forward at this year's Annual Stockholders Meeting. Our review clearly demonstrated that the critical points raised by stockholders mainly related to the application of the compensation system rather than the underlying design of the system itself.

Against this backdrop and consistent with investor feedback, the Supervisory Board decided to keep the current system in place. That is why we are not putting forward a proposal for a new compensation system at this Annual Stockholders Meeting. At the same time, we are mindful that our 2024 compensation report received 67% support, which was below our expectations. During engagements, certain shareholders shared critical feedback on the link between pay and performance with respect to the payout factors for the variable compensation components, STI and LTI, for fiscal 2024.

They also saw potential for additional transparency around the application of the factor for strategy development and execution. We took this feedback into account in our 2025 compensation report and provided more detailed information on how targets are set and attainment is evaluated as well as how the fast strategy development and execution is applied. Alongside these improvements, we also focused on further enhancing our reporting and disclosures in order to provide greater clarity around our pay-for-performance approach. The Supervisory Board will continue its efforts to optimize the design and application of the compensation system while taking into account stockholder feedback.

Ladies and gentlemen, with respect to the 2025 short-term incentive STI plan, attainment for our CEO amounted to 121%, which was also on par with the average attainment level among the other Board of Management members. This reflected performance against the financial and strategic targets we set at the beginning of 2025, which paved the way to upgrade the guidance for the Pharmaceuticals division and thus also for the group as a whole later in the year.

Within the STI, attainment for the year was based on above-target performance for sales growth and for core EPS as well as below-target performance for free cash flow. Regarding the long-term incentive LTI plan, the attainment level of our Board of Management members participating in the tranche 2020 to 2025 performance period amounted to 28%, reflecting below threshold performance for relative TSR and ROCE and above-target performance for our sustainability goals.

Ladies and gentlemen, let's now turn to the audit of the financial statements for fiscal 2025. The Audit Committee and the Supervisory Board extensively discussed and examined the financial statements of Bayer AG, the consolidated financial statements of the Bayer Group, the combined management report and the audit report prepared by the external auditor for fiscal 2025. There were no objections, and we, therefore, concur with the result of the external audit.

We are in agreement with the combined management report and in particular, with the assessment of the future development of the company. The same applies to the proposed dividend. The Supervisory Board has entered to the proposal by the Board of Management for the use of the distributable profit, which provides for a payment of a dividend of EUR 0.11 per share. As announced back in 2024, the Board of Management and the Supervisory Board agreed to adopt a dividend policy that involves paying out only the legally required minimum for a period of 3 fiscal years from 2023 through 2025.

The Supervisory Board is aware that the substantial reduction of the dividend represents a significant burden for our stockholders. However, given the fact that Bayer needs to further reduce its debt, an area in which we made encouraging progress last year, we believe that this remains the right decision and an important one at that. the stockholders, 2025 was a pivotal year for your company, Bayer AG, as it looked to advance its turnaround. It was a year in which we made significant progress on our key strategic priorities. We have embarked on a clear path to ensure Bayer is best placed to thrive in the competitive environment.

On behalf of the Supervisory Board, and if I may, on your behalf as well, I would like to thank the members of the Board of Management and the entire workforce for their hard work, particularly in view of these very challenging times.

Ladies and gentlemen, I'd like to conclude by sharing the following remarks. I'd also like to mention the Supervisory Board elections. Therefore, 2 elections are required. The Supervisory Board would like to propose the election of Marcel Smith and Alfred Stan. These 2 people are particularly competent and fulfill the requirements of excellently capital market experience, governance questions, operative experience in transformation phases and corporate experience in -- on Asian markets.

Marcel Smith is a tax -- is involved in tax law. He was the CFO of large international companies, for which, among other things, he worked for many years in Asia and in the U.S.A. Alfred Stan is an engineer. And until August will be the of another large company. He's also a member of the Supervisory Board of several companies of the OMV company. These appointments will be laid down by him by August at the end of the year. Marcel Smith and Alfred Stan will now introduce themselves to you by way of short video, and these videos were recorded in advance.

Good morning. My name is Marcel Smith. I am Dutch, and I was born in the Netherlands in 1961. As you have seen, I hold a Masters degree in Business Administration, a Degree in Tax Law and a CPA certificate. I have a broad background with experience across many regions, roles and industries.

In 2022, I ended my corporate career and have since been running my family office from Singapore. I spent most of my time supporting companies in the early stage, the majority of which are in the sustainability sector. I find the opportunity to help Bayer regain its leading position in the world of pharmaceuticals and agricultural science very appealing. When science-based companies like Bayer are successful, society as a whole benefits. That is what drives me to play my part.

It is also important for Europe to have major industrial champions. For me, however, the more compelling story is how the company is trying to accelerate long-term innovation and thereby increase revenue growth and profitability. If this succeeds, the company can become a shining example of many -- for many European companies that want to compete successfully on a global scale.

And with this, I'm standing for election and hope for your support.

Dear shareholders. My name is Alfred Stern. I'm very pleased to have been nominated for election to the Supervisory Board of Bayer AG. Let me briefly introduce myself. Since 2021, I have served as CEO of OMV, which is a publicly listed energy and chemicals company headquartered in Vienna. My term in this role will end in August of this year. As a native of Austria, I have worked in the chemical industry for over 30 years with international assignments in the U.S., Switzerland, and of course, Germany.

What I have in common with the long-established Bayer Group is the deep personal conviction that we must safeguard the essential foundations of our lives Health, Nutrition and Energy. Bayer stands for scientific excellence and innovative solutions that improve the lives of patients, farmers and society worldwide. This ambition is powerful embodied in health for all, hunger for none. I combine a cross-industry perspective as well as in transformative mergers and acquisitions and complex legal cases, always with a clear focus on consistent business execution.

And this is what I would like to bring to the Supervisory Board with independence and integrity. Thank you for your trust. I would be delighted to accompany you, the esteemed stockholders of Bayer on this journey. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much to Marcel Smith and Alfred Stan. Ladies and gentlemen, Colleen Goggins and Paul will not stand for reelection. Furthermore, Frank Logan, a representative of the employees will lay down his appointment to the end of 2 days meeting. The company has already requested the legal appointment of a successor. All 3 members of the Supervisory Board leaving, I would like to thank you all. Colleen Goggins was firstly elected to the Supervisory Board in 2017 from 2019, 2021, she was part of the committee for litigation. And since 2020, she has been in the ESG Committee and the Nominating Committee of the Supervisory Board. Among other things, she has excellent expertise in consumer health and brought this into her work on the Supervisory Board.

Paul was elected for the first time at the Annual Stockholders Meeting of 2002 and was member for an impressive 24 years. In the time of his membership, he shapes the significant developments of the company over all of those years for a quarter of a century. For example, the restructuring at the beginning of 2000, the restructuring of the chemical business in LANXESS AG and the plastic business in Covestro AG as well as taking over sharing and Monsanto [indiscernible] also members of almost all committees of the Supervisory Board for many years.

Frank Logan also has much experience to look back on. He began in 1978 with an apprenticeship at Bayer. He then began working at a predecessor of today's IGBCE and was then voted in to the Supervisory Board in 2015 on the proposal of the employees. Since then, he was a member of the Auditing Committee and since 2024 in the Legal Risk Committee and for this duration of its existence, the committee for innovation. Dear Colleen, Dear Paul, Dear Frank, for you, this is the last Bayer Annual Stockholders' Meeting that you will take part in as members of the Supervisory Board. I would like to thank all of you for your long dedication and work in the Supervisory Board. We wish you all the best for your future.

For a member of the Board of Management, this is also the last Annual Stockholders Meeting. As I mentioned at the beginning and has been planned for much time, our CFO, Wolfgang Nickl, will be laying down his appointment at the end of May and will be going into retirement. Under Wolfgang Nickl management in the last 7 years, Bayer has been able to significantly improve its structures and processes make itself more efficient and improve in a comprehensive manner. Dear Wolfgang, we are very grateful to you. We wish you for your future all the best.

Ladies and gentlemen, I'd like to now mention we'd already talked about the work and focuses for the Supervisory Board as it looks to support the company's multiyear transformation. We made encouraging progress on these priority issues as expected. However, these challenges have not yet been overcome. Over the next 12 months, we will therefore continue to focus on the following issues and closely oversee and support the Board of Management in its efforts to move Bayer forward. Firstly, improving performance in all areas. Secondly, advancing the pipelines at Pharmaceuticals and Crop Science, including in the medium term. Thirdly, improving cash flow and sustainably reducing net financial debt. Fourthly, continuing to implement dynamic shared ownership to demonstrably enhance performance. And fifth, achieving further progress and significantly containing the major litigations that Bayer is involved in and ensuring the requisite financing is in place.

Dear stockholders, I firmly believe that by focusing on these 5 priorities the Supervisory Board, together with the Board of Management, will continue to significantly advance Bayer's transformation over the next 12 months. the Supervisory Board and I personally will closely monitor and oversee Bayer's ongoing transformation. We look forward to our continued dialogue with you. Thank you very much.

Ladies and gentlemen, before we enter into the debate on today's agenda items, I would first like to inform you of the attendance figures. I will then give you some organizational information. I now have the attendance numbers. Of the company's registered [Audio Gap] divided into 982,424,082 non-par value shares, we have 549,563,488 no-par value shares, which are representative with the same amount of votes. This corresponds to 55.94% of the registered share capital. Furthermore, the company received postal votes for 34,092,281 non-par value shares. In total, votes are present thus for 583,655,769 no par value shares, which corresponds to 59.41% of the registered share capital. When attendance was calculated, 368 stockholders were and so-called representatives were taking part in today's annual stockholders' meeting online. I can also inform you that a further more than 1,452 people were following the virtual annual stockholders meeting in the public stream when attendance was calculated.

Now, on to the announced organizational notes. It is not expedient to divide up the speeches on the individual agenda items. The debate on all agenda items should therefore be summarized. I would therefore ask speakers not to separate any contributions on several agenda items, but to present these together.

Please also note that only speeches that relate to the agenda [Audio Gap] the German Corporate Governance Code and Annual Stockholders Meeting should be concluded within 4 to 6 hours at the latest. This has not been possible at recent annual stockholders' meetings. Nevertheless, I will endeavor to ensure that everything runs smoothly today. And in the interests of us all, I would ask for your support. I have already received numerous requests for the floor, and I would ask those who still wish to take the floor to do so promptly [Audio Gap] brief and limit them to 10 minutes as was done in the past.

In view of the requests to take the floor that have already been received, I reserve the right to formally limit speaking and questioning time in the further course of the Annual Stockholders' Meeting.

Ladies and gentlemen, after the -- after your comments have been received, I will coordinate with the Board of Management, and these will be answered. After the answers have been given, we will just talk about and come to the voting on the points of the agenda. I would like to mention that you can also carry out your voting rights using the shareholder portal. And you can also change your votes until I close the vote. I will announce the closing of the vote, but I would ask you not to wait in your own interest until the last moment to vote or issue instructions.Ladies and gentlemen, the first speaker, hopefully, is Marc Tungler, who I will call upon. Mr. Tungler, please be prepared. I would also call upon Dr. Hakes Brink to ready yourself. And then, Mr. Ingo Spyke will speak. In addition to your name, please indicate for whom you are speaking. I also [Audio Gap] meeting. I will call -- then call the respective speaker by name immediately before connection. [Audio Gap] Tungler.

Thank you very much, Professor Winkeljohann for giving me the floor. Indeed, my name is Marc Tungler, and I'm General Manager of the DSW stockholders association, not to be mixed up with the DWS, which certainly will take the floor later on. Now this is ASM and what's the conclusion Bayer has delivered. You have delivered. You have lived up to your forecast, annual targets have been met, especially net debt has been reduced significantly. That's very important because certainly, it's going to rise again in the future, and I will come back to this. But operating business has seen clear progress, and that's really what matters.

Bayer not only has got its litigation issues, but also the operating business in Pharma and Crop Science. Here, we see a silver lining on the horizon, a positive development, and that's really what matters. And that's also why the share price has responded accordingly. Thank you very much.

Now, at last, as Bayer stockholders, we're not only suffering, but we can also look optimistically into the future. And it's something we need to appreciate. And also, that gives us hope and not only us, the existing stockholders, but also those who are looking for an attractive investment and have thus and detected Bayer as a possibility. But of course, there's also a litigation, and of course, it is for sure that our cash flow is not directed at the future where it belongs, but at the past, and that needs to be changed, and you're working on this. And that's also something that we highly appreciate because at last, we now have got the impression that you've got a clear plan, a clear road map of how to contain these issues so that finally, that Monsanto litigation matter can be put behind us.

Of course, I've got a couple of questions for your operating business. Let me start right away because I think it's very important for us to stockholders to understand what's currently happening in the U.S. with the Supreme Call with the litigation taking place. And therefore, I've got a few questions. I'm looking forward to your answers. My questions are not that important, much more important are your answers.

Now, the question, do you now feel that the litigation risk has now really been contained? Or what is your current view on this? What's our risk? And what's our risk if the Supreme Court rules against us? I mean that's also very relevant. The settlement is one thing, but the Supreme Court is also another aspect. And both of you Mr. Annis and Mr. Winkeljohann, mentioned this. So what is your take on the risk of the Supreme Court ruling against us. And what's our contingency plan, our fallback solution if that were to happen? Maybe you can briefly elaborate on this because we didn't discuss that at greater detail. That's why I'm asking.

Now, what is your specific yardstick for you, and we, the stockholders, say, "Yes, we can now take it off". So when has that litigation risk for you being contained significantly? So when will that be over? When do I not have to ask about this anymore? Maybe that's your yardstick. So when will that case be closed in your point of view? So we can better understand this. For example, what acceptance ratio in the settlement is required for you to call it a success. So that's very important for us to understand.

And we also very much appreciate the fact that you do you not plan to take any equity action for the glyphosate matter at least for the time being. Is it going to remain so? Do you -- any plan to raise any new equity? Basically, you received the approval last year. But let me repeat this, so far, I haven't heard about you planning to take any action in terms of your equity. Maybe you can also elaborate on this. So let us know that whether you are not planning to ask us stockholders to inject any further money.

And when you talk about debt and when you fund this via debt, maybe there might also be hybrid solution. There might be similar to an equity action, but not any capital increase. And what about our rating because there's a lot of money involved? Can you secure the current rating? Or it's going to be very expensive for us in the future? It's already quite expensive, but it's going to get even more expensive anyway in the future with the interest burden.

And now if we can tick off that litigation matter, so what is then your view of Crop Science in our group because that's also a matter that has been raised very often, not by you but rather by others. Namely, how do you view the future of Crop Science in our company? Or once most of the litigation has been finalized, is that the right time to divest that part of the company. Is that still a matter for discussion? Or have you ticked this up as well? And how confident are you about the pipeline in Crop Science. We always talk about a Pharma pipeline, but what's your take on the product pipeline in Crop Science? What can you report in this regard.

And then, of course, we always talked about the patent cliff and the patent gap in Pharma. Has this down been overcome. We talked about it a lot in the past. And today, of course, we are 1 year older, but hopefully also 1 year smarter. And therefore, have we now overcome the patent cliff? And can you really announce this as of today?

And now, the DSO, you Mr. Anderson and Mr. Winkeljohann, you both talked about it and you mentioned an amount of EUR 2 billion. Maybe you can tell us what does this do to the company? Of course, the one end is saving cost, but the other thing is what does it mean to employees? I mean things have come down a bit, but saving money is 1 thing, but productivity or efficiency is the other thing.

Now, looking at the compensation report, you've also touched upon this professor Winkeljohann. It's very interesting to see in the LTIP, we are -- excuse me, in the STI, we're above 100%, but STI at 28%. And I'm saying something which might come as a surprise to you because this is unusual year from a shareholder representative. But I'm a Supervisory Board member myself. How can you attract new Board members? If you did, by the way, welcome Ms. Hartmann, how can you attract new Board members, 28% target achievement. I mean that's really heavy. Has the compensation system, at least in the long term, being set up in such a manner that it has a motivating character and allows us to attract the right people.

I mean, we've got good people on board. Don't get me wrong. But shouldn't you and you said in 2 years, you will have a look at this, should you rather send a new incentive for on the LTI? I mean, looking at the strong share price, do we have the LTI aligned in the right way? Should we take the cash flow more into consideration? So I don't think that the compensation system gives you a problem finding good potential new board members. But maybe you can elaborate on this. So thanks to everybody leaving today. [indiscernible] thanks for your strong commitment. And of course, also to Paul. I hope [Audio Gap] locking in again. No, we continue.

So thanks Very much, Mr. Tungler, for your statement and for your questions. And we now continue with the next speaker, Dr. Sven of SDK. And after that, I also would like to ask Mr. Spy from Deka from union investment to get ready. But first, Dr. Hafkas, please.

Well, I have just heard that we have -- that Mr. Hafkas is not ready yet. So next would be Mr. Henrik Smith. And after that, Ingus.

Mr. Schmidt, you've got the floor.

Yes. Well, thank you very much, Professor Winkeljohann. Dear Mr. Anderson, ladies and gentlemen, on the Supervisory Board and the Management Board, dear stockholders. I'm Henrik Schmidt, and I represent DWS, one of the leading European asset managers and on behalf of our investors and their investments. It is my pleasure to talk to you at Bayer ASM. Of course, this is already the seventh virtual ASM since 2020 for Bayer. We would have loved to hold this dialogue face-to-face.

Now, the previous speaker already mentioned and you did so as well, the Bayer Group has reached its targets for 2025. And for 2026, a solid development in profit and revenues is to be expected, also thanks to FX. Now, the progress in all of the divisions is to strengthen the growth of the group in all areas in the medium term, which was also urgently necessary because we, the stockholders, for a long time had to wait for good news from Leverkusen. Therefore, at this point, I also would like to thank all employees and also the members of the Management Board and the Supervisory Board for their strong commitment in the past fiscal year. And I kindly ask you to pass on these words of gratitude to the entire workforce.

Now, taking a closer look at revenues, so that the adjusted profit per share from ongoing business remains still behind the previous year's figures. What we are confident about is the outlook for the year and also the positive news on the provisional approval of the class settlement for current and future roundup claims, and also, the positive outlook for the expected decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in June. Now, the glycophate settlement and the remaining litigation risk, that's something we'd like to better understand. And here, I would like to know how many claims are still pending. And will further claims filed going beyond those mentioned in the annual report.

And in general, how many more claims do you expect? After the preliminary approval, the next step is to notify the possible participants of the class settlement. And how confident are you that the participants of that class settlement will accept it or will reject it, and therefore, take it to court? Now, do you expect that after the fairness hearing, the court will then rule on the final acceptance of that settlement? And regarding the capital provided, as Mr. Tungler said, do you expect that you will need that amount provided for so far? Or will it go beyond that? Now, which would be the impact of the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling on this settlement and other cases?

Now, you already mentioned that you've been able to improve your net debt at EUR 29.8 billion. You reached the lower end of your guideline, which you had already lowered last August anyway. Now, we would like to know that term of the debt, how has that shifted? And how does Bayer plan in the medium term to deal with the net debt and borrowing?

And then, we are interested in the progress made in developing and introducing pharma products. [indiscernible] established growth drivers, and this substantiates our outlook. We've got specific questions on Crop Science and Consumer Health. How are you making progress in your road to billion strategy. Can we expect the performance improvement to accelerate and in terms of Crop Science. Well, an overall settlement here is still pending. And you spoke about this, and please explain your strategy, and please let us know what's your view on the update of the farm mill is, which is the most important nutritional activity in the U.S. Is there any steps that can boost your confidence in the outlook on this?

And did you make any payments to individual parties in the U.S. and to what extent? Now, one aspect on the further strategic development. If the Management Board and the Supervisory Board were to consider divesting individual divisions, which has been discussed in the public also several times, then we expect that this is done in a stockholder-friendly manner, namely that in that case, all shares are placed at the stock exchange in Germany. I mean, a bit by bit approach like at that time taken by Covestro, that's something we reject. And this brings me to corporate governance and the composition of the Supervisory Board. At today's Supervisory Board, as you at today's ASM, the mandate of Ms. Goggins and Dr. [indiscernible], as shareholder representatives will end. We thank both of you for your long-term commitment to our company. You Dr. [indiscernible] were elected to the Supervisory Board for the first time in 2002 and for the last time in 2021.

And over these 24 years of your term, you had to support a couple of extraordinary decisions, and you have supported the Bayer Group all of the time with all of your full power. We thank you for your great commitment and bid you farewell to you and wish you all the best for your future. Mr. Schmidt and Mr. Stan all already were presented to us as successors. We welcome these 2 proposals. They complement the Supervisory Board, especially in food and agriculture and also chemical expertise. However, the know-how in the pharma area, which is the most relevant business for Bayer in the future, it does not strengthen, and it's still underrepresented on the Supervisory Board. Therefore, we consider it very important that the Supervisory Board pursues the strategic further development of this know-how, considering the significance of that business for the Bayer Group in the future.

Considering the terms ending in the next 2 and 5 years -- in the next 2 years, namely 2 and 5, success in planning is also very relevant for us. And your letter to the stockholders, Mr. Winkeljohann, you referred to the sophisticated search for a successor to the CFO, the handover from Mr. Nickl to Hartmann is something that we consider well considered, and Ms. Hartmann, we welcome you on the Management Board and wish you all the best for the upcoming tasks, which certainly also be challenging to you.

At the same time, however, the question now arises, what about the succession planning for the Supervisory Board, namely, here specifically, how do you approach success in planning on the Supervisory Board, who is involved to that? And how often does the nomination committee and the plenary of the Supervisory Board deal with that matter? And Mr. Winkeljohann, your term will also expire next year. And we also would like to know what your outlook is and whether you will still be available as the Chairman of the supervisory beyond the ASM 2027. Therefore, let me ask you whether you will also be available again for the next term to be decided upon at the ASM 2027?

And this brings me to the question about the skills now on the Supervisory Board. In combination with the competence profile, 1 key tool for success in planning should be used more in a more elaborate manner. And we expect this to be used and presented in a more transparent manner for us to be able to determine whether the skills and competence is available because the binary mode currently still used in that competence profile, does that allow us to really assess the current skills now available on the Supervisory Board in a precise manner? Therefore, we ask for a more precise and more comprehensive description of the skills and know-how in the Supervisory Board.

In 2025, according to annual report, the Supervisory Board also reviewed the external efficiency review and identified a certain room for improvement. And we would like to know which specific aspects have been identified there, and how you intend to report on the implementation of the respective actions? Let me once again add 1 specific improvement for improvement. Please represent -- please publish the terms of reference of the Board of Management, which should be an easy task.

And this brings me finally to compensation. And of course, that's something that we also think very hard about a stockholders in 2024. We approved the concept basically and the compensation report last year, was also approved by us. Now, in 2024, you announced that you're going to review the compensation system within the 2 years period. And the annual report says that the interim review did not lead to any changes to the compensation report and that the Supervisory Board will also, in the future, make sure through a respective review that you pay for performance.

Now, paying for performance is also important to us. And against this backdrop, we would like to know which findings you generated in dialogue with us on the compensation system and which criteria to apply to determine whether that compensation system is appropriate. Did you use the market practice or best practice as a reference. And I also would like to come back to nonfinancial targets once again. Last year, we already stated that we expect the Supervisory Board to use these nonfinancial targets are also in the short-term incentive, and we'd like to know whether this was implemented.

On the change in control clauses, let me tell you that we're taking a critical view on this. In the Bayer case, however, very tight criteria have been defined for the application of this clause. But there is still a question about the scope and the content, which compensation aspects is that clause because it's a 250% base compensation? Is that just the fixed compensation or does this also include short and long-term variable components or even pension obligations that are included in this calculation?

Now, this year, when it comes to approval, the compensation report, we will abstain. But for the further development of that system, we expect that our statements will be taken into account. And for the future, we recommend that change of control clauses are avoided. Now, we approve the proposals for ratification of the acts of the management that we wish you, the members of the Management Board and Supervisory Board, great success in the decisions coming up in this very important fiscal year. And for us, the stockholders, we hope that this slight growing hope it still seems to be emerging in the U.S. We hope that this will also manifest itself in the share price at the end of the day and that it will not wither again due to more glyphosate being spread. Thanks for your attention.

Thank you, Mr. Schmidt for your submission, your wishes and the questions that you have asked, which we will answer, of course, later on. I would like to add that Mr. Tungler tried to get back into the system. Indeed, he had already completed his submission. And therefore, for technical reasons, we did not lose anything. I would now like to call Dr. Hafkas as the next speaker from SDK, and I'd like to ask [indiscernible] to be on the reading. So Mr. Haskas Spring, the floor is now yours.

Mr. Winkeljohann, thank you so much for handing me the floor. Dear Supervisory Board, Board of Management, dear stockholders, as I said before, I am [indiscernible] of SDK, the association for the protection of capital investors. I represent my own shares and our proxies.

Now, the technology doesn't seem to have matured as much as we would have liked because almost all of the speakers in the virtual waiting room were kicked out earlier today. We believe that you introduced additional features, that's great, but it doesn't seem to work perfectly. The virtual format still has growing pains. But I would like to pick up where Mr. Tungler left off with his positive statement. And in light of my time allotment, I would like to repeat this.

I would like to start by welcoming Mrs. Hartmann. We are happy that you're on board, Mrs. Hartman. And I would like to say a couple of words with respect to Mr. Nickl. Let it suffice to be said that these are some very big footprints that you will have to step into. Now, with respect to the settlement, my predecessor speakers have already addressed this issue. The settlement was concluded before the Supreme Court gave us feedback in specific, the hearing, which is going to take place next week, as was mentioned before. A decision can be expected in the second half of the year.

Were we perhaps a little premature with respect to the settlement? Should we perhaps have waited for a ruling? What is your take on this? With respect to the financial KPIs, free cash flow continues to be on the decline. How should the structural problems be addressed? What new approaches are you going to choose as a Board of Management? With respect to the figures, the same applies to the equity ratio and indebtedness, which remains high, although net debt has reduced, it is still at a high level -- a very high level that is. Now, if net debt remains so high in the future, how do you envisage being able to pay a dividend, what approaches are you taking to stabilize your capital structure? Has the Board of management mold this over? One of the other speakers today has already alluded to this.

Selling divisions or parts of divisions could perhaps be a solution. Have you already thought about this? Do you have any strategies for this? This brings me to another topic. And I would like to know your assessment on them. How is Bayer reacting to the global crisis. Do you have a crisis department? How are you increasing your resiliency? We're talking about energy shortage and tariffs and duties. It's very difficult to figure out what to tackle first.

Now, it is hardly imaginable that this chaos prevailing around the world will come to an end tomorrow, especially given the actions of the United States, which are rubbing everyone the wrong way. Now, it appears that Bayer is selling phosphorus directly to defense companies and arms producers. Are you seizing these opportunities? Is this true? Is this going to be a new mainstay for the company? Perhaps you can give us some information on that as well.

Dr. Winkeljohann and Mr. Anderson, you also spoke about AI. What's your setup in respect of AI, in particular, given the fact that most AI providers come from China and the United States, and given state regulation, they have a rather questionable approach with respect to data privacy and data protection. How do we ensure that trade secrets are not stolen from Bayer? How do we manage this risk? This brings me to the end of my submission. I would like to thank Mr. Winkeljohann for reconstructing Bayer over the years, and Mr. Nickl, it was always great to work with you. I and the SDK wish you all the best for your future. Although, to be quite honest, I cannot imagine you entering into retirement. So we would perhaps to bid you farewell and hope that you opened another interesting chapter in your life, which has nothing to do with the retirement.

Dear Board of Management, Dear Supervisory Board, please convey the best wishes of the SDK to the employees of Bayer AG and the whole Bayer Group and our expressed gratitude for everything they accomplished in the past financial year because without your employees, that wouldn't have been possible. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. [indiscernible]. We will, of course, pass on your best wishes. Thank you for your submission and for your questions. I would now like to hand the floor to [indiscernible]. And I would like to ask [indiscernible] and Peter Klausen to be on standby. Mr. [indiscernible], the floor is now yours.

Thank you, Professor Winkeljohann. Ladies and gentlemen, I'm [indiscernible]. I represent Deka Investment, 1 of the biggest fund companies in Europe and a subsidiary of the Sparkasse Group in Germany. On the 23rd of May 2016, with the announcement of Bayer to take over Monsanto, we embarked on a very, very disastrous journey. This is -- the 2026 marks the tenth anniversary of this event.

We have seen an increase in the share price, including the dividend. The share price of Bayer increased by 80% since the last ASM. So it looks like desperation has turned into hope. Mr. Anderson, finally, you are following the needle on the compass of the capital markets, and you've opted to chart a promising course. Whether you will achieve your goal, however, is completely unclear. The road is stony and it's windy. 2026 is going to be a year of decisions, not just for Bayer, but also for you. That's for certain.

We have 3 requests. First of all, settled your litigation; second, change Bayer's group structure; third, improve your earnings power to improve the situation in pharma and agriculture. And fourth, please pay a better dividend. Ladies and gentlemen, the key to all further debates lies in curbing your legal risks. You have spent a lot of time and effort doing on that. Take advantage of the situation in Washington. It is absolutely key to the capital market that you settle your lawsuits, and that would open up a lot of opportunities for you in the capital market.

Bayer has already taken a lot of steps in this direction, but you need to do much more in order to eradicate all of your litigation. Now, should you be successful in front of the Supreme Court? That would be a great milestone passed. After that, however, you would have to look at the group structure and figure out whether it still tallies with the risk profile of the Bayer Group. You need to figure out whether you can actually -- you're actually in a position to continue along this road.

Now, an unbiased assessment of portfolio measures, an honest discussion about the structure and debate on potential spin-offs and divestments should be conducted and you shouldn't limit yourself to cosmetic adjustments. You only create value if the changes that you usher in result in more room for maneuver. If you're successful in your litigation, what legal steps will you take after that? Do you rule out a sale of consumer health? What about an IPO of the agricultural division in the United States?

Now, moving on to the operational issues for pharma and agriculture. We look at the Crop Science business in the short term. The crisis globally has deteriorated the framework conditions around the world. It curtails the profitability of farmers in a number of regions around the globe. This has consequences for a group like a Bayer, the Crop Sciences business, of which depends directly on the constitution of farmers. If earnings drop, if geopolitical insecurity delays investment decisions, that is nothing that is temporary, but rather is a long-term burden. Against this backdrop, we would like to ask you this, do you already see tangible burdens for the Crop Science business, which cannot be reversed and that will carry on into 2027? If so, when assessing the 5-year plan, this would be of substantial significance. Such a plan under stable conditions is already ambitious.

If you look at the current market and geopolitical risks, however, it can become even more ambitious. If you stick to your goals, then you have to ask yourself whether they are realistic and in conformity with the market. And what does this development mean with respect to the portfolio pruning plan of crop science? If market conditions continue to deteriorate, you will have to reevaluate that portfolio. You need to make sure that you could -- that you create value in the future without just tying down management and financial resources for nothing. Competitiveness of your new products depends in part on your competitors and the competing products that they offer.

With the success of Sondexian, you have to look at Bristol Squibb Myers. The money that you use for investments is becoming scarce and the same applies as a result of your litigation. How do you intend to compensate for that? Can a pharmaceutical company live up to the R&D performance of the bigger players around the world? This also applies to us on Dexion.

Now, let us look at net debt and the capital structure. With the announcement of the class settlement of February 2026, Bayer has taken a number -- another step towards reducing its risks. This can contribute to a further relief in terms of your -- the burdens that you shoulder from a financial and legal point of view. But this comes at a cost. It deteriorates your cash flow. If you look at the credit KPIs for your current rating, you quickly realize that this puts you under pressure when making investment decisions. So the key question that this begs is why didn't you opt for a different financing structure when putting together the class settlement? Why didn't you plan for more equity so that you could protect the balance sheet better.

And I'll run the risk of weakening your financial foundation even more. Couldn't you have come up with a financial structure, which would have strengthened your capital position while also minimizing risks? And will you be able to continue paying a dividend? This brings me to the changes that are being ushered in by the U.S. administration and how they will affect Bayer. The tailwind for Bayer is tangible, but there are other topics which may have to be reassessed.

In particular, we're talking about the climate and diversity. In the past 12 months, have you made adjustments? If so, which ones? Is Bayer still committed to its diversity guideline? We welcome the voluntary reporting last financial year according to the new CSRD standard. However, we would wish to have another clear signal from the Board of Management. What are the reasons for renouncement of a say on climate at this year's Annual Stockholders' Meeting? Please put a say on climate as an item on the agenda next year.

Bringing me to the agenda, I would like to move on to the ratification of the actions of the Board of Management. The Board of Management has addressed the topics that are relevant to the capital market. The share price has reacted positively to this. Therefore, we would approve the ratification. But this comes with the demand that by the next ASM, we want to see significant improvements, in particular when it comes to reducing legal risks. In addition, we call for the financial stabilization of Bayer, so that prospectively, you can pay a good dividend once again.

We approved the management's proposals for all of the items on the agenda. We wish the Board of Management and the Supervisory Board the best of success. And we also wish for an in-person ASM next year, which is long overdue.

Thank you, Mr. [indiscernible] for your submissions and your questions. Now, we would like to continue with the list of speakers. The next speaker is [indiscernible] from [indiscernible] Investment. I would like to ask him to take the floor now. And I would like to Mr. Peter and Godfried Arnold to be on standby. Mr. Berning, the floor is now yours.

Ladies and gentlemen, my name is Jana Berning. I am the Head of ESG Capital Markets at Uninvestent. We are an investment company of the [indiscernible] Bank, and we represent the interest of our 6 million investors. Mr. Anderson, for the first time since the assumption now from Monsanto, we slight at the end of the tunnel. The share price has gone from EUR 20 to EUR 40, and this is important for the market to regain confidence and that you delivered on what you promised in 2025, and that's the basis upon which we want to build reliability.

But of course, we cannot forget that at EUR 40 million we are massively below the value we were at before Monsanto was bought. This will cast a shadow for much time on your strategic flexibility. Mr. Anderson, 2026 is going to be an important year. You have a two-pronged strategy in the U.S., which is of great importance to Bayer. The Supreme Court took the course on and judgment could be passed down in June, July. This could form the basis of 10,000s of judgments and limit our legal exposure. However, there's also a settlement program that you have funded with $7 billion. This settlement project is not a call for piece. It is tactical.

If the settlement is not accepted, then a positive judgment to Bayer from the Supreme Court would mean leaving with empty hands. Mr. Anderson, how high is the current acceptance rate quote for this settlement program? What is your plan B if the court decides against Bayer or if the defense does not work as well as you hope? The core here is ultimately whether Bayer will achieve an operative turnaround, will the DSO program actually enable Bayer to work more efficiently or less so in pharmaceuticals and -- that we seem to be doing well. The pipeline is very strong and Xarelto and Zali are doing well. That's the operative strength that we expect from Bayer.

Mr. Anderson, you are preparing Bayer -- or how is Bayer preparing for the next round of patent litigation from 2030. In running contrary to all other competitors, why are there no strategic agreements with the U.S. government. It looks worse for Crop Sciences. The Agricultural division has significant problems, and the promises made have not been fulfilled. The end markets seem to be far less attractive than they were said to be at the time. Mr. Anderson, when will the efficiency program and your innovative program, and I'll refer to you that we are amazed that you talked about earlier on to results. We need a vision. We need to see revenue, not empty promises. Bayer needs operative success. Otherwise, the glyphosate litigation will dampen our ability to act, and we don't want to end up with $1 billion high loan.

Only when we have overcome these legal challenges will we be able to achieve midterm planning. Given this, we accept Bayer's decision to spin off consumer health for over-the-counter medication. We must focus on operative turnaround. Bayer, in addition to its DSO program, cannot afford any further restructuring internally. As a sustainable investor, we are particularly interested in ESG criteria.

Climate protection is an important question here. In the reduction of emissions, Bayer is #3 in our DAX survey. It's possible to do more if in addition to reducing emissions, positive contributions are made to decarbonization, climate protection goals. Do you want to take a pioneering role here? Mr. Anderson, we would welcome this. in its efforts for climate protection, Bayer cannot do any less work, especially given what's happening in the U.S.A. In the question of social matters, we have seen that no more information has been published regarding staff. However, annual reports to be made and aspirations have been made for worse distribution, it seems. Are you going to be able to offer further liabilities without quantification? Or are you going to limit yourself to what we see in the U.S.A.?

Regarding governance, Mr. Winkeljohann, your appointment is going to end at the Annual Stockholders Meeting in 2027. Will you run for appointment once again? If yes, we still view your appointment critically and would ask you to reduce the number of appointments that you have. If no, how will you aim to pass on your appointment. We ratify the actions of the Board of Management and the Supervisory Board and agree with all points on the agenda.

We would like to thank all employees of Bayer for your tireless work in this decisive phase. One thing is clear, whether the operative turnaround is successful is not dependent on the meetings of the Board of Management, rather in the laboratories, the production sites and customers on the ground. It is the strategic staff that will bring Bayer forward and bring us more market trust.

In the future, we would like the annual stockholders' meetings to take place once again in person instead of virtually. Because once again, today, we see that direct dialogue cannot be replaced by online meetings. Thank you for your attention.

Thank you very much, Mr. Wenning for your contribution. I'd now like to call up Mr. Peter Closing from the coalition against Bayer dangers, and I would then ask Godfried Arnold and Daniel Werner to get ready. Mr. Closing, the floor is yours.

Thank you very much, ladies and gentlemen, stockholders, members of the Board of Management and Supervisory Board, my name is Peter Closing from the pesticide action network, and I'm speaking on behalf of the coalition against Bayer dangers, CBG.

I have a PhD in toxicology, and I disagree with the management's position regarding the cause of Parkinson's disease by pesticides that are marketed by Bayer or were marketed by Bayer Crop Sciences. I agree with Santos at the last Annual Stockholders Meeting as the Head of Crop Sciences, he said that the development of the Parkinson's disease is complex. But what was misleading was that no approval bodies has ever come to a conclusion that the use of 1 of our registered products or active ingredients has been linked to Parkinson's disease. This is an incorrect conclusion, but it was made for a good reason.

There is a significant gap in the data. In long-term studies, there is no obligation to examine the connection between Parkinson's disease and Bayer elements. The authorities will not draw this conclusion, and this is not -- this is down to a lack of corresponding investigations that Federal Ministry for work and social affairs in 2024 stated that with sufficiently long exposure there is principally a link to be assumed to Parkinson's disease for all active ingredient groups, herbicides, insecticides, fungicides, in the context, however, of these long-term studies, the link with Parkinson's was not examined.

So have you aimed -- have you applied to have this seen as an occupational risk or disease? I see manifestations of Parkinson's linked to this. My question is, therefore, also in connection to active ingredients that Bayer is no longer allowed to market in Europe, but is allowed to sell in the global south. From academic literature, we see at least 3 biological active agents that offer proof of a link between them and Parkinson's, namely the insecticide Fibronil, Delta Metri and the fungicide Mancozeb.

For the fungicide active ingredients, Fiona, which is present in several products in Germany, there are notices. I will save you as toxicological expert presentation at this stage, but would like to ask the following. Is Bayer prepared to take [indiscernible] and to take these from the market -- to remove them from the market given they're linked to Parkinson's? Secondly, is the company prepared to fill the gaps in the investigations and examinations for pesticides? Thirdly, is Bayer open to more in-depth discussion on these questions? Thank you in advance for your answers to my questions.

I would ask the stockholders to vote for the coalition against Bayer dangers countermotions. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Mr. Closing for your contribution and for your questions. The next speaker is Godfried Arnold, who is also from the coalition against Bayer dangers. After this, I'd like to ask Daniel Werner and Jan Parker to ready themselves. Mr. Arnaud, the floor is yours.

Ladies and gentlemen, management of the Bayer company, stockholders, my name is Dr. Godfried Arnold. I am a pediatrician, in retirement, and I'm speaking on behalf of the Coalition against Bayer Dangers. For you to better understand who I am, I have put on my new shirt. It's green and has small squares, it's checkered. I will be talking from an ecological and pediatric point of view.

When I take my morning walks through the woods, I find small brooks. I, however, have not seen Foxborn for a long time. Why is that? As the Bayer insecticide AMADA killed all flies? And have all of the frogs starved forever? I would love to have seen some of these in my garden. Worse yet, which consequences will this have for us, Bayer stockholders, who are seemingly dependent on the presence of something that kills other things?

Well, what should we do when all insects are killed? On our wind screens, we've not seen mosquitoes for a long, long time. Is that it? Should we simply dispose of our high revenue insecticides? I'm afraid that we may need to look for a new area of nature for you to kill if we want to keep on earning money. I've looked at our pipeline and considered what you might consider. So after insecticides, herbicides, pesticides, perhaps ecocides; however, for this, you would need much advertisement to make this suicide more palatable.

Now, from the pediatric perspective, I see young families time and again with a family dog, which is well integrated. It's wonderful to see how these 2 species intuitively get along at a young age. However, I also wonder what impact the flee agents of dogs and cats has on the health of the child, the young child when the child and the animal come into close contact.

As early as 10 years ago, academics working in the pediatric field and oncologists found that using pesticides can indeed trigger or at least lead to cancer. For example, leukemia, lymphatic leukemia, mostly it is children between 6 months and 5 to 6 years who have this. The first contact to pesticide takes place via the mother during pregnancy. The second takes place in the early infant years when children put their fingers in their mouth, meaning that they ingest pesticides.

If leukemia is detected early, there is a dramatic phase of therapy to be taken. Should the child survive, this often leads to secondary cancer due to the consequences of the initial therapy. If a young child in your family does indeed grows the old age, what will you tell them? How will you feel with this knowledge? Proactive preventive work of American pediatrician is consistent avoidance of pestifides and frequent cleaning of floor services with damp clots.

There are further observations that were made in 2005 by environmental academics in the U.S.A., the Environmental Working Group, EWG, that shows the global burden of pests or contaminations with which newborn children in the U.S.A. are born. More than 280 industrial agents and pesticides were found in too randomly selected newborn children in the umbilical cord, in their blood. 180 of these chemicals produced at industrial scale are carcinogenic. Interactions of these many damaging substances, harmful substances has never been investigated and cannot be estimated.

American laws and our society allows this without concern or question. I, therefore, call upon you not to ratify the actions of the Board of Management. My question to Bayer AG is, what is your contribution to reducing these harmful substances for newborns and young children? What are your safety recommendations in order to avoid leukemia caused by pesticides? Thirdly, which safety recommendations do you propose when using flee repellents for dogs and cats in households with children? Thank you very much.

Thank you very much, Mr. Arnold for your statement and your questions. I've got 2 more speakers for the first round of questions. The first one will be Mr. Werner. And after that, I'd like to ask Mr. Parker to get ready. But now first, Mr. Werner, you've got the floor.

Thank you very much, Dr. Winkeljohann. First of all, I'd like to briefly refer to the virtual ASM. I ask you to soon be available again for direct contact. Of course, first of all, good morning to the members of the Management Board and the Supervisory Board and also the co-stockholders. I mean, it feels -- you feel somewhat isolated here, although the employees are very helpful to establish the digital line, but you don't really get a good feeling for the ASM quite in contrast.

Now, my first situation is about PFAS, the -- these chemicals, I think that's something that has been in the headline and the toxins that emerged from Teflon. Now, the production and then use of these chemicals in the covestro time. Now, which risks of liability are we facing? Are we here facing maybe a second glyphosate? And at which places in the business are PFAS infected materials being used?

My next aspect is microplastics after these forever chemicals. Now, I is the word in the functional process of these microplastics, and which actions is Bayer taking in order to protect its employees and the environment from microplastics and the risks resulting from this, which have not been fully investigated yet.

Number three, IT dependence, from microplastics to microseft from the forever chemicals, PFAS to the various internal IT developers from overseas in Asia, and they are somewhat dubious anti-democratic and authoritarian attitude is somewhat very worrying. I mean, everybody must be shocked to see who is having a dinner together with whom in the U.S. and in Asia, who is planning what with whom behind which kind of walls.

And then this dependence, of course, is also being accelerated by the somewhat rush towards digitalization that we have embarked upon. I've got the following question. To what extent is Bayer using IT and AI programs of non-European providers? Are they being used in operational communication and monitoring of individual manufacturing processes and logistics solutions? Here, I would like to also get specific names of which providers are being used. What is Bayer doing in order to overcome this dependency in the sense of digital sovereignty? What about open source solutions? Does Bayer support actively the developments and not just wait and see, but maybe also supporting start-up companies that will make us independent from Microsoft, Palantir and the like?

Now, from this, let me turn to AI. Nobody really wants to hear it anymore. Nevertheless, we have to talk about it. Now, my experience with AI applications in different things, in banking, health funds, telecommunications, Deutsche Bank, Deutsche Railway is that sooner or later, you end up with friendly, but stressed employees telling you that processing the faults of AI consumes more time than what the use of AI saves. More and more nonsense and mistakes are being produced by AI applications, especially when it comes to very special cases or information that is hard to find on the Internet.

So AI, as soon something is not standard anymore, AI starts hallucinating. Using AI in the production and distribution and disposal, where is AI specifically using AI applications. So very specifically, which processes are being based on AI? What works well specifically? Where have you been disappointed? And what might even be dangerous in terms of AI? Now that, that slope, is that a problem where AI is revolving around its own mistakes? How many employees are necessary to monitor AI? Now, what's the cost and benefit ratio in the use of AI? Can we ever expect a kind of breakeven there? Are AI agents also being used that is self-monitoring AI, where own decisions by AI are monitored by other AI agents because that's like a black box effect? What's the worst case scenario in the operations? What could happen in this regard?

Can manipulative AI process even being identified by the employees anymore? Will it at some point get so complex that no human can understand it anymore? Now, we have heard that some applications tend to protect themselves and trying to hide AI mistakes? Now, would it be imaginable -- sorry, if it may sound an absurd example, but nevertheless, as of kind of layman, I'd like to understand. Now, would it be possible that in an AI-controlled process, a faulty AI decides to add arsenic to aspirin because at some point, it considers this advantages.

And then, the monitoring AI allows this to happen in order to protect its sub AI agent. Of course, that will be terrible, but it would be imaginable. Is there any human in the loop to monitor that? And therefore, my question is how efficient can an AI be, we always need a human to monitor things. And how would that human have to be monitored? What a deep kind of understanding would he need to have?

Next point, generative AI, for example, when it comes to creating the annual report, is that being used also when it comes to drafting the address of the Supervisory Board or CEO. Now, how much has been already created artificially there? Now, the answers to the ASM questions, to what extent have that been generated with the help of AI. Image videos, advertising promotions is AI being used, for example, are AI-generated voices being used when Bayer is placing ads?

Now, the enthusiasm about digitalization, well, in some areas, it seems to be justified when it comes to streamlining mass production processes. But in some cases, we're overdoing it, I think. And what's Bayer's take on the risks of such applications also in terms of cyber crime? How many IT attacks is Bayer subject to every day, for example? How often do people try to hack into Bayer's systems per day? And how do you defend yourself in this regard? What's Bayer's view on regulatory actions to limit AI use to such an extent that the risk is still controllable?

Now, when it comes to constructing and using data centers, how is Bayer involved in this regard? Because the benefit and the environmental impact here also has to be balanced properly. Does Bayer share the somewhat unlimited enthusiasm about the use of AI? I mean, we are part of an experiment. We've got to become aware of it. And if it fails, then we're all affected. Does Bayer share the general concerns in the public? Or does Bayer think they are far fetched? Wouldn't it be possible for Bayer to learn from industrial history, which has also been characterized by a sometimes blind belief in technology as a consequence of which unregulated production of plastics, forever chemicals, cancerogenic pesticides and fossil fuels have brought the world into a disaster situation.

I'm almost closing. I'm happy that you have listened to me for so long without interrupting me. I kindly ask you to do everything dear members of the management and Supervisory Board to live up to the claim of your image video namely for a world which you can proudly pass on to next generations. Please take this to your heart. This is a great slogan, but you really have to also walk the talk. I'm very much looking forward to your personal committed and very specific questions. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much, Mr. Werner, for your statement, for your appeal and also for your questions. So we've got 2 more speakers now in this first round. First, Mr. Jan Parker from coalition against Bayer dangers and then also Alan also from CBG, the coalition against Bayer dangers. First, Mr. Parker, you've got the floor.

Ladies and gentlemen, my name is Jan Perk. I'm a journalist. I'm also a member of the Board of coalition against Bayer dangers, CBG. Now let me, first of all, express my discontent about the fact that this AGM still takes place in a virtual format. In my view, there's no more reason speaking in favor. The only explanation is that Bayer tries to avoid the confrontation with direct criticism against its group. However, CBG does not accept this. We continue to protest and ask for an in-person ASM. And therefore, we also held a rally in front of the meeting location in Leverkusen.

And one thing I also would like to raise here and put on the agenda, namely the use of glyphosate as a chemical weapon. The Israeli Army is currently using glyphosate as a chemical weapon in Southern Lebanon in order to establish a buffer zone there, what they call it security zone where no people are allowed to live anymore. And glyphosate here plays an essential role because the agricultural areas being destroyed by glyphosate, which means the farmers are losing their basic subsistence possibility, and 9,000 hectares of agricultural area have thus already been destroyed according to official sources.

The UN High Commissioner for human rights is here referring to a serious humanitarian risk for the civil population -- civilian population living there. And the Brazilian initiative called permanent campaign agricultural toxins and for life, even is reminded of Vietnam. They say the Agent Orange of these days is glyphosate. And what is extremely problematic is the use of phosphate that is the precursor product of glyphosate. And processed into white phosphorus, it is used in artillery missiles explaining in the air and then being used as in bombs. The human rights monitor has documented this for March 3. There was an explosion in the area of the City of [indiscernible]. And during that in closing, or this was preceded by a call by the Israeli Army on the population in the respective areas to leave their homes, and Human Right watch criticizes this practice sharply.

I quote, the incendiary effect of white phosphorus can lead to death or cruel injuries, which the people affected will suffer from throughout their lives. For 2023 and '24, the Israeli Army also carried out these operations, and for '23, the origin of the missile that contained white phosphorus has been clearly documented. According to the research of embassy international, it was 155-millimeter artillery missile of the M825 series of U.S. American production. And that this is also where Bayer is involved because in the U.S., Bayer is the only manufacturer and producer of phosphorus.

Bayer exploits the precursor product of phosphorus in Polk Springs to turn the so-called phosphide into phosphorus, and thus, the Bayer subsidiary in Monsanto is also mentioned officially in documents of the U.S. government on the supply chains for the U.S. military, namely as a producer of white phosphorus. And I quote from 1 of these documents, and this document is the tender document to procure white phosphorus. And this document at the same time, also clearly limits the list of potential providers. I quote, "Based upon the public procurement provisions, this procurement is limited to authorized dealer of white phosphorus and which is manufactured by Monsanto in the U.S. and Canada and the joining countries".

Now my question, which interim dealer -- intermediate dealer is Bayer acting with? There's always Israeli company, ICL Group being mentioned. Is this the company which Bayer is collaborating with? Or is it a different one?

The second question, I would like to know about the ratio, how much percent of phosphorus goes to civil production, namely the production of glyphosate and how much of the phosphorus is used for military purposes? This possibility to use glyphosate for military purposes was officially approved in the Executive Order of President Trump on 18th of February. And the title of this executive order is very clear. I quote, "It's about promoting civil -- the country's defense by ensuring sufficient supply of elementary phosphorus and herbicides based on glyphosate". The executive order calls phosphorus, once again, I quote, "Omnipresent in defense supply chains, and therefore, very important for military readiness to defend the country". And then the standing order also says a future reduction or stopping the national production of phosphorus and glyphosate-based herbicides would seriously endanger the security of the United States.

Phil Anderson was very clear about Trump, and he welcomed that Trump had confirmed the systemic relevance of glyphosate, and at the annual press conference in March, he said, I quote, "We share this view, and we will implement that order". Now, that's something I once again would like to repeat. So that means actually that Bayer is available as a supplier of arms and defense goods. And Bayer also fundamentally agreed, and that's something I really would like to once again reiterate because it could also have legal consequences.

I already just quoted that comparison of glyphosate to Agent Orange. And in the case of Agent Orange, 2 or 3 years ago, there was a lawsuit in France, which had filed against Bayer. [indiscernible] had been affected by Agent Orange. And in this case, the Bayer legal counsel had argued that it was not our fault. We did not deliver Agent Orange voluntarily. We had to. And if Bill Anderson, now in terms of glyphosate, endorses the Trump's standing order, then, he says that Bayer now is shipping these products on a voluntary basis that I'm asking you is Bayer aware of the legal consequences that may arise. If a Lebanese glyphosate victim now were to file claim against Bayer and asking for damages? Because in this case, Bayer could not claim that you just acted on an order on a command, but it was Bayer's decision.

And of course, the involvement of Bayer in wars is not a coincidence. Bayer has got a long history here. In 1914, Bayer provided the [indiscernible], which was 1 of the first chemical weapons at all. And then that was followed by [indiscernible] and after 1945 -- and also sienicacid, by the way, and after 1945, Bayer continued in this year and also contributed to chemical warfare.

Considering this continuity, the statements heard by Bayer sometimes that Bayer is willing to face its past and come to terms with it, well, this turns out to be paying lip service and also considering of what we have already heard here of the Bayer's mistakes and what we are still going to hear after me. Now therefore, this once again really is fully in line with what we know about Bayer.

Now, these mistakes and wrongdoings that I have listened and the previous speakers have and which are yet to follow, now they apply to different areas. We also have forever chemicals or we've got Parkinson's caused by pesticides. But there's 1 thing they all have in common, namely, these are the side effects of the reckless handful profitability by Bayer. That's why I call upon the stockholders to vote in favor of the countermeasures of CBG and not to ratify the actions of the members of the Supervisory Board and the Management Board.

And before closing, let me say this, we at CBG, we have drawn the consequence saying that there is only 1 option, actually, which is to put Bayer under Democratic control. Thank you very much for your attention.

Well, thanks, Mr. Parker. And next, we've got Ellen Tugel speaking. I think he is going to speak in English. Mr. Tugel, you've got the floor.

Hi, ladies and gentlemen. Yes, I'll be speaking in English, and thank you for this, dear board and dear members of Bayer and also my comments at CBG. My name is Ellen Tugel, and I'm part of the permanent campaign against pesticides and for life in Brazil, which is a network representing hundreds of organizations that fight against the agri business model of death and work daily to build an agriculture that respects the planet, health and the lives of our -- of all the people. We call this agriculture agrocology.

It is unbelievable that in face of the multiple crises our society and planet are facing, Bayer continues to be part of the problem instead of truly engaging in building solutions. A century old powerful company present in the deepest core of the entire world with advanced research centers and thousands of highly qualified workers will have the full capacity to promote modes of food production and over life that do not destroy the dedicated and already struggling balance of nature. However, Bayer chooses to continue producing pesticies.

Even when they are already banned in Germany, Bayer continues to ship these products to Brazil and other countries on the periphery of capitalism of -- where regulation is fragile and more susceptible to its economic power. Brazil remains the world's largest consumer of pesticides. In 2024 alone, 98,000 tons of active pesticide ingredients were sold at 20% increase compared to 2023. The pesticide industry revenue in Brazil, we reached almost $20 billion in 2024, a budget largest than most of the agency responsible for overseeing peticides in the country.

Despite the discourse of efficiency and profitability, this model only exists at the expense of the public money of the Brazilian working people. Between January 2024 and February 2025, pesticide companies received tax exemptions totaling $4.2 billion in Brazil. Bayer alone costs our country's product covers $26 million, but Bayer's problems in Brazil are not limited to the appropriation of public funds. Biopesticides portfolio registered in Brazil consists of more than 100 products made from 50 different in active ingredients. Among the top sellers are products based on imidacloprid, which is banned in European Union for being a killer of bees and biodiversity. Bayer also sells 8 -- at least 8 other pesticides that in Brazil that are not permitted in Europe. Is it possible for our company to claim it cares about the future of the planet while continuing to sell pesticides in Brazil that the authorities in its own country have already rejected for their own citizens, but that is not even the worst of it. Bayer continues to associate itself with the worst elements of politics simply to continue extracting more and more profits. After financing Donald Trump's election campaign in 2016 and 2024, Bayer was rewarded with a safe conduct to escape the multibillion-dollar lawsuits it has been facing in the United States.

In this regard, we would like to ask my questions. Why does Bayer continue to advertise itself as a sustainable and innovative company, yet continues to sell very old and banned pesticides in the country of the global [ salt ]? Does Bayer -- second question, does Bayer consider it fair to take advantage of the Brazilian people's public money to distribute its own its profits to wealthy shareholders in Europe and the United States? And the third question, is it Bayer corporate policy to associate with far right politicians in search of commercial advantages, as has been happened with Donald Trump in the United States?

Therefore, I appeal to the shareholders, do not grant discharge to the Executive Board and the Supervisory Board and instead vote in favor of the countermotions from the coalition against Bayer dangers. Thank you very much for your attention.

[Interpreted] Yes. Thanks to [ Ellen Tugel ] for his speech and questions. And... [Foreign Language] this brings us to the end of the first round of questions. We have now received quite a number of questions, and the Management Board is going to answer them in a minute.

But before that, I would like to make an announcement on the further cause of the ASM. As already mentioned, our ASM is limited. It has now already been ongoing for more than 2 hours, and the time available has to be distributed evenly. I have got 13 more requests to speak. And therefore, as the Chair of the meeting in order to ensure a proper course of the ASM, I hereby declare that the speaking and asking time for every further speaking is limited to 10 minutes. The remaining speaking time is shown on the screen for every speaker. And 2 minutes before its end, the display will turn yellow and when time is over, it will turn red.

Furthermore, I also announce that in 10 minutes, that is at 12:42, I will close the speakers list. So those of you who still want to make a statement, you are asked to now register in the shareholders' portal for that purpose now.

And with that, ladies and gentlemen, we now turn to the answers. Bill Anderson is going to go first, and then he will hand over to Wolfgang Nickl. Bill, the floor is yours.

Thanks, Norbert. Yes, Mr. [ Hakgesbink ], you asked how Bayer is reacting to global crises, whether a permanent crisis team is in place and how we're increasing our resilience and how we deal with changing U.S. tariffs. Bayer has systematically adapted to an altered global situation amid higher volatility and fast-paced geopolitical developments. And in line with our new way of working, we have teams that continuously observe changes in tariffs and trade agreements, for example, and make suitable recommendations for action.

We've taken and continue to take measures to increase the resilience of our businesses. This includes a diversified supplier and production structure, consistent working capital management and regular risk and scenario analyses of geopolitical and macroeconomic developments. We successfully navigated a volatile tariff environment in 2025, partly through cross-functional and product-specific countermeasures. Our forecast for 2026 considers all known geopolitical effects. At the same time, we continue to very closely monitor the developments and adjust our price, procurement and supply chain decisions where needed.

Mr. [ Schmidt ], you asked about any payments made by Bayer to individual candidates and political organizations in the United States during the past fiscal year. In accordance with our code of conduct for responsible lobbying and the corporate policy, Bayer does not make political corporate contributions of any kind. This includes donations to political parties, elected officials or candidates for public office.

In the United States, employees may voluntarily support candidates for public office through personal contributions via political action committees. These are not corporate donations. The Bayer Corporation Political Action Committee is used by some of our U.S.-based employees. All Bayer [ PAC ] contributions are regularly reported to the Federal Election Commission and are publicly available on its website. In 2025, employees contributed a total of USD 366,750 to political candidates at all levels in the United States through [ BayPAC ].

Sorry, Mr. [ Hkbink ], you asked whether there are deliberations within the Board of Management on selling a division or parts of the division to reduce the debt burden. Our clear focus continues to be on overcoming the company's current challenges and implementing our strategic priorities. At the same time, we continuously renew our portfolio as part of our responsible corporate governance, including smaller targeted divestments. These take place in a strategic and value-oriented way, rather than as a short-term debt reduction measure. We primarily want to reduce debt by generating higher cash flow long term and through strict capital discipline and operational improvements.

[Foreign Language]

Sorry, Mr. [ Hakgesbrink ] and Mr. [ Schmidt ], you asked how the class settlement and the case before the Supreme Court are influencing our strategy and whether the settlement was proposed too soon. Our aim is to contain litigation as much as possible as quickly as possible. The proposed class settlement and the case before the U.S. Supreme Court complement each other. The class settlement was advantaged by the anticipated Supreme Court hearing and includes potential claims not covered by the Supreme Court case. The case before the Supreme Court also covers further pending proceedings and potential suits by plaintiffs who are not participating in the class settlement.

The ruling by the Supreme Court is also important as a landmark decision for the regulation of crop protection products in the United States that goes beyond the specific case. Regarding the timing of the class settlement, we analyzed the situation very carefully and are confident that we have taken the right steps here for Bayer. And I'll hand it over to Wolfgang.

[Interpreted] Mr. [ Tugel ] and Mr. [ Wenning ], you asked about the status quo of the class actions. And as we've communicated before, we follow a strategy. And in addition to clarifying the legal situation before the Supreme Court, this involves the class action settlement and intensive communication within our multipronged strategy, rely not only on individual measures and adjust the strategy for curbing to the extent possible, to current developments.

We're confident that the proposed class action settlement will be implemented and that the Supreme Court will decide in our favor. The Supreme Court and the settlement are independently necessary, and they strengthen each other mutually. Correspondingly, the settlement would also come to pass without the positive support of the Supreme Court.

Mr. [ Tuner ], you asked, in addition, how a financing via debt capital or hybrid instruments would affect the rating of Bayer and how we intend to safeguard our rating. Within -- in view of our financing projects, we've communicated that the financing is supposed to contain senior bonds and structured products in order not to place too much of a burden on debt KPIs.

We are in close and intensive dialogue with the rating agencies. We are rated not just on the basis of the instruments, but also on the basis of the cash flow development, the reduction of net debt and progress made in curbing legal litigations.

Mr. [ Tuner ], you wanted to know about the financing of the measures to curb the glyphosate litigation. As before, we do not intend to use any capital increases to do that. We have secured the financing through a credit line. We also envisage senior bonds and structured products that rating agencies classify similarly to equity.

Mr. Schmidt, you asked whether we assume that the court after the fairness hearing before the court of first instance will reach a final decision on the approval of the class settlement. After the fairness hearing, the final approval by the court of first instance is supposed to be reached by the court that is seized upon. We believe that the proposal is solid and fair and should be evaluated positively. But of course, we cannot anticipate the judgment of the court.

Mr. Schmidt, you asked whether in view of the capital that we have in store, we continue to assume that we will completely exhaust the framework. We are not going to speculate how many claimants will remain in the settlement and receive a payment. The available tranches, however, are capped and therefore, give us [ plan-ability ].

Mr. Schmidt, you wanted to know how many lawsuits were still pending and how many additional lawsuits we anticipate. With the class settlement, the communication of lawsuits that have been filed, it doesn't make any sense anymore. The reason for this is that the settlement relates not just on lawsuits that have already been filed, but also to potential claimants which had a glyphosate exposure by the 17th of February 2026 and who had a non-Hodgkin lymphoma diagnosed. The size of this group will come to light once the settlement has finally been approved by a court.

[Interpreted] I need to interrupt you just now, Wolfgang. I had announced that I would close the speakers list at 12:42. It is now 12:42, and I hereby close the speakers list as announced via the stockholders' portal. This means that you can no longer file any more requests to take the floor. Of course, I will call all of the stockholders who've already requested for the floor so far. So now we can continue answering the questions. Thank you.

[Interpreted] Mr. Schmidt, you asked about the maturities of the liabilities and how they have shifted. In 2025, we reduced debt from free liquidity. The new financings were smaller than the redemptions. We believe that our maturity profile is well balanced, stable and in line with the business model.

Mr. Schmidt, you asked how prospectively, Bayer intends to handle the reduction in debt and its own refinancing. As demonstrated by 2025, by focusing on generating liquidity, Bayer can reduce the debt and service the debt from the business. In 2026, we are going to do some refinancings, and we expect approximately EUR 5 billion in cash out in connection with lawsuits.

With respect to financing, we have announced that senior debt and other structured measures will be used in order to secure refinancing risks from the capital markets or the hedge refinancing risk from the capital markets in this context. And both this year and next year, we have a syndicated credit line with a volume of $8 billion with 23 banks. As in the past, our strategy aims to use various instruments in order to have the broadest possible diversified basis of investors. The future reduction of debt will be supported by targeted savings as well as a new target operating model and targeted allocations.

Mr. [ Sai ], you asked about the use of equity in the financing structure within the context of the settlement of lawsuits. The primary objective for us when it comes to financing issues is the access to the capital market and the resulting cost of capital. And of course, we always want to keep our ratings in view. The current financing structure that we're envisaging envisages senior bonds and structured products and supports the goals that I mentioned earlier. The long-term strengthening of the capital structure remains in our focus. We want to achieve this, especially through operating performance, cash flow generation and disciplined capital allocation.

Mr. [indiscernible], you asked how in the foreseeable future, we will be able to return to paying a dividend and what approaches are being pursued in order to stabilize the capital structure. Furthermore, you asked whether for fiscal 2026, we can count on a significant dividend once again. Our clear focus rests on the stabilization of the balance sheet. For this reason, in fiscal 2024, we announced that for fiscal 2023 through 2025, we will propose to the Annual Stockholders' Meeting that we pay the legally required minimum dividend. The priority is reducing debt, sustainable cash generation through strict capital discipline, working capital improvement, structural cost reductions and securing our investment-grade rating.

With respect to the future dividend policy at Bayer, so far, we have not reached any decision yet. Our clear goal is that as a matter of principle, we want to return to an attractive compensation for our dividends. The timing and the level will be determined later on.

Mr. [ Haskebank ], you asked about the free cash flow and optimization measures. The expected negative free cash flow in 2026 will result primarily from approximately EUR 5 billion in cash expenses for litigation. Adjusted by this, the operating free cash flow is positive. After 2026, we expect significantly lower payments for lawsuits and also, therefore, an increase in cash flow contributions.

With our strategic priorities, we are addressing the most important challenges and aim for growth and profitability improvements. In addition, with our operating model by the end of 2026, we want to achieve some EUR 2 billion in savings as well as sustainable productivity increases. We expect that the resulting earnings improvements will result in increasing cash contributions. On top of that, we continue to bank on working capital discipline and prioritize investments.

Mr. [ Busky ], you asked what safety recommendations Bayer would issue with respect to the use of anti-flea products for dogs and cats in households with children. Bayer already made a statement in 2020, and [ Elanco ] no longer belongs to the Bayer portfolio. So you now have to ask [ Elanco ] about this.

Having said that, I would now like to hand over to Heike Prinz.

[Interpreted] Thank you, Wolfgang. Mr. [ Tulle ], you asked about the impact of Dynamic Shared Ownership on day-to-day work and staff, as well as the degree of implementation and the savings already made. DSO has totally changed the way we work in the company with far fewer levels of hierarchy, larger management spans and more responsibility within teams, meaning that decision processes have been accelerated and responsibilities have become clearer. This has always been done in a socially acceptable manner and in exchange with the employee representatives. Rollout is taking place across the whole company.

So far, we have been able to remove 6 organizational levels, and we have been able to reduce the management positions by 2/3 and have introduced 14,000 FTEs. Financially, the DSO is approximately EUR 2 billion, and we've been able to save this by 2026, EUR 700 million in 2024 and further EUR 800 million in 2025 are the savings that we achieved.

Mr. [ Wernning ], you asked about how Bayer is able to ensure its liability to aspiring for a balanced gender distribution. Bayer aims unchanged to achieve these this level of gender balancing in the company. The communicated quantitative goal of 33% women in top management positions was achieved in 2025.

On this basis, we decided to move away from fixed numbers to aspiration-based management with yearly progress reports at all management levels. This is not a step backwards, rather, it is in line with our claim to be diverse on a global level, sustainable and is in line with local legal requirements. The selection for promotion are always based on performance and qualification, and this is transparent in terms of reporting on the development of the balance of gender in the company. This approach is not due to political development, but is in line with our long-term diversity strategy and experiences that we made in the target period 2025.

And with that, I'd like to pass the floor to Stefan Oelrich.

[Interpreted] Thank you, Heike. Mr. [ Unler ], you asked about the long discussed patent cliff and patent gap in the pharma business has been overcome or whether there are significant challenges. In comparison to our original expectations, we are looking at a very positive revenue development. The expected reduced sales for Xarelto and Eylea were accounted by our launch products, in particular, Nubeqa and Kerendia. That can be seen clearly in the 2025 development and in our forecast 2026. In addition, with Beyonttra and Lynkuet, we have promising products that have been introduced, and we are optimistic that we'll be able to launch with asundexian on the market soon.

With this in mind, we see this acute patent cliff as [ a test ]. We are on the right path to achieve growth in the middle 1 figure percent range by 2027. And we're also working further on expanding our pipeline. We are investing in a targeted manner in late development programs and strengthening the early and middle pipeline by increasing productivity and development with our new innovation model. In combination with external innovation, this is the best strategy to prepare us for the next decades.

Mr. [ Hgeslink ], you asked how AI is supporting R&D at Bayer, whether in coming years, this will lead to a reduction of costs or increased efficiency in R&D and whether this can be quantified. AI is revolutionizing R&D, not just by short-term cost reductions, but by increasing productivity and creating long-term value.

In the Pharmaceutical division, for example, we're using AI to analyze complex data sets. By doing so, we're able to generate new therapeutic hypotheses faster than ever before and validate these. A central goal is to significantly reduce development times. We aim to reduce the development cycles on the long term by up to 50%. This acceleration directly supports our strategic priority of renewing our product portfolio and strengthening it. Our focus is also on improving quality and productivity in our innovation processes.

Mr. [ Werning ], you asked how Bayer today is preparing itself for the patent lapses coming up in 2023 wave. This preparation is a fixed part of our pharma strategy for the future. We have been strengthening our innovation model and focusing our organization structure of early and midterm R&D portfolio products in order to bring new products onto the market.

With this in mind, we are pursuing approaches with leading profiles in various classes, for example, cell gene therapy in Parkinson's. In addition, existing products are being further developed independently in order to reduce individual patents. We are investing consistently in renewing and spreading our innovation pipeline and are pursuing smart deals in our focus areas. In total, Bayer is not just short-term reacting to this patent cliff, Rather, it's looking at sustainably overcoming these patent lapses in the future in a sustainable manner.

Mr. [ Wenning ], you asked why Bayer, dissimilarly to other companies, has not been able to achieve a strategic price agreement with the U.S. government. Dissimilarly to the 17 companies that received a letter from the U.S. government, Bayer was not formally called upon for negotiations as a most favored nation to carry out price regulation. Of course, we continuously are looking at price and market introduction strategies in the light of the developments of the U.S. regulation framework.

Bayer is working constructively with political decision-makers and authorities in and outside of the U.S.A. in order to enable fair price conditions. This should allow access to patients and offer better prospects for innovation.

Mr. [ Spay ], you asked how sure we are that we will be able to compensate for possible revenue losses in the pharma area. You also asked whether a pharma company of medium size with its R&D cost is able to keep up with large companies and how we would estimate our pipeline at the moment, especially given the asundexian and competition situation. The effects of patent lapses are being felt today, but they are being compensated already by the strong growth of new market products, for example, Nubeqa and Kerendia.that can be seen in the revenue development in 2025 and for the forecast 2026 with additional contributions expected from Beyonttra, Lynkuet and asundexian. We see ourselves on the right path from 2027 to achieve sustainable growth.

Between the large and smaller pharmaceutical companies, we believe that there is a question perhaps of more and less successful companies. In the last years, we have shown that we are able to successfully research and develop. We have received new approvals for 5 new products or important indications, and 16 clinical programs have been moved into the next development study or completed, including asundexian in the secondary stroke prophylaxis.

But of course, we have to continue to develop. We have also newly aligned our innovation model with a clear focus on therapeutic core areas and competencies in additional technological modalities such as cell, genetic therapies, chemo, proteomics and radiopharmaceutics.

We are convinced by the strength and quality of our pipeline. In particular, it is very balanced and focused given our innovation model. At the end of last year, asundexian had shown a significant reduction of new strokes without a significantly increased risk of significant bleeding in Phase III studies in the OCEANIC-STROKE studies. We are well positioned for stroke prevention, and we are ahead of our competitors by a year. We expect approval by the end of the year or at the beginning of next year.

And with that, I'd like to pass the floor to my colleague, Rodrigo Santos.

Mr. [ Tungler ], you asked how confident we are about the product pipeline for Crop Science. We have every confidence in the strength and sustainability of the Crop Science pipeline, which is a cornerstone of our growth strategy. It's designed to address farmers' most critical needs, spanning seeds and traits, crop protection, biologicals and digital farming solutions, while at the same time, supporting profitable and resilient growth for Bayer.

As part of our R&D activities, we refresh our portfolio every year with 400 to 500 new seed products and numerous crop protection registrations globally. We are also working on groundbreaking innovations. In this context, we are planning 10 blockbusters launched within the next decade. With each, we expect peak sales of more than EUR 500 million.

And we are making good progress. The first blockbuster, Plenexos innovative insecticide, has already been granted approval in Latin America, is now being launched in further markets. This will be followed by biotech version of [ Precision ] Smart Corn System and Vyconic soybeans, both of which are expected to be rolled out in 2027. Our new herbicide [ Icafulin ], our fourth-generation corn rootworm technology and Intacta 5+ will then be launched in 2028.

We expect that these blockbusters and the annual portfolio refresh will add more than EUR 3.5 billion to our top line by the end of 2029. Overall, this gives us a high confidence that our innovation will drive growth and margin improvement at Crop Science over the midterm and support sustainable value creation well into the future.

Mr. Schmidt, you asked about our strategy in the agriculture sector and for an update on the farm bill in the United States. Global agriculture and food systems are facing major challenges such as climate change, water scarcity and population growth. By leveraging our global leading research and development expertise and leading positions in seeds, traits, crop protection and digital farming, we are strategically addressing these challenges in a targeted manner.

You also asked about the U.S. farm bill. The legislative process has begun. Specifically, the U.S. House of Representatives is expected to begin deliberations on the proposal starting next week. We do not wish to speculate on the future legislative time line at this stage.

Mr. [ Spark ], you asked whether we already see tangible and irreversible pressures from the Iran war on the Crop Science business extending into 2027. Geopolitical tensions and ongoing trade policy uncertainties are contributing to heightened volatility across agriculture market. We are starting to see energy prices push structural inflation across petrochemical chains, which is expected to impact intermediates, solvents, surfactants, packaging materials and formulation chemicals.

While we are taking active mitigation measures in the short term, including energy hedging, diversified sourcing, alternative supply routes and prudent inventory management to protect against abrupt disruptions, we will not be immune to the effects. In particular, we are, of course, closely following the increase in fertilizer costs, which is affecting both our farmer customers and the state of food security around the world. At present, we do not see any evidence of consequences that will extend into 2027.

However, timing, magnitude and persistence of the situation remain uncertain, and it can only be accessed on the basis of the currently known information. We are closely monitoring the situation and continuously access both direct and indirect implications of cost, pricing and demand.

Mr. [ Spike ], you asked whether we already see tangible and reversible pressures from the Iran war on the Crop Science business extending 2027. Geopolitical tensions and ongoing trade policies uncertainties are contributing to heightened volatility across agriculture market. We are starting to see energy prices push structural inflation across petrochemical chains, which is expected to impact intermediates, solvents, surfactants, packaging materials and formulations, chemicals, as I just mentioned.

At the present, we do not see any evidence of consequence that will extend into 2027. However, timing, magnitude and persistence of the situation remain uncertain and can only be assessed on the basis of the current known information, and we are closely monitoring all the situations to continue to assess both direct and indirect implication for the cost pricing and demand.

Mr. [ Closin ], you asked about potential gaps in the registration procedures for crop protection products in relation to Parkinson's disease. In the course of the approval and reapproval procedures for crop protection products, regulatory authorities throughout review and evaluate extensive data from studies. This includes data on [ toxicology ], echo toxicology, effects on environment, metabolism, residues, human and environmental exposure and epidemiology. Studies on neurotoxicity, which can play a role in the development of Parkinson's disease, are also mandatory in the EU. For example, when approving active substances, they cover both the potential neurotoxicity of the active substance after single and repeated exposure, as well, reproduction toxicity effects.

Mr. [ Spike ], you asked whether we will continue to adhere to our 5-year framework targets in Crop Science and whether they remain realistic and appropriated. Our sharpener portfolio, optimized footprint and increasingly resilient earnings models make us highly confident that we will deliver on our midterm targets and that we will be able to navigate agricultural cycles with greater consistency.

The execution of our 5-year framework is well on track, with 2025 already demonstrating tangible progress despite a challenging market environment. It's important to understand that this framework remains our central steering tool. It reflects current market realities, underpins discipline and execution and supports our preparations for an unprecedented number of market-shaping innovations.

With a clear path that encompasses sales growth, margin and cash flow, we believe the framework continues to provide the right balance of ambition and realism for the period ahead. However, we are, of course, monitoring the market and the underlying conditions closely, and we will undertake corresponding measures as necessary.

Mr. [ Spike ], you asked what are the current geopolitical developments mean for the portfolio pruning plans in Crop Science and whether we would reassess the portfolio based on economic viability if market conditions were to weaken over a longer period. Portfolio pruning in Crop Science is a deliberative strategy to deliver on our 5-year framework and midterm financial ambitions. We have already divested [ Moot Active Ingredients ], exit nearly 200 crop protection products. This allows us to prioritize investment and resources on those areas where we see sustainable profitability and innovation-driven growth.

This disciplined strategy is aimed at strengthening the business resilience throughout agriculture market cycles. As market conditions structurally change, we will continue to review the portfolio for profitability and strategic fit. We will not hesitate to take further actions where assets do not meet our economic thresholds.

Mr. [ Wenning ], you asked when the efficiency program and our innovation pipeline, including short stature corn, will lead to measurable improvements in results. The 5-year framework was launched in 2025, and we are firmly focused on execution. We have started to implement measures across the value chain, including production footprint optimization and product portfolio measures. These measures will support our profitability growth going forward.

Last year, we have already delivered roughly EUR 400 million of efficiencies and cost savings. In addition, to strengthen the operational foundation of the business, we are preparing for the launch of several blockbusters innovations in the next 10 years, all with a peak sales potential of over EUR 500 million. We launched the first of the 10 blockbusters innovations already in 2025 with insecticide Plenexos in Latin America. The [ Precision ] system, including short stature corn, was already launched in so-called breeding version and is highly appreciated by the farmers who have gained initial experience with it. It is expected to double acreage again this year, and we are going towards broader commercial impact with a biotech trait introduction, which is expected in 2027.

Other key introductions, including Vyconic soybeans in the United States, [ Icafolin ] herbicide, the fourth-generation trait against corn root worm will begin contribution to the top line growth and margin expansion towards the end of the decade. In combination with our yearly portfolio refresh, we expect to increase our top line by EUR 3.5 billion by 2029. Taken together, we expect a gradual but tangible improvement in profitability from cost and growth measures with more pronounced effects as we move towards our midterm margin ambition for Crop Science.

Mr. [ Closin ], you asked if we would be prepared to engage in dialogue about our active ingredients. We have continuously engaged in dialogue with our stakeholders for many years, including discussions with numerous NGOs. We will continue these discussions in the future because transparency is very important to us as a company. As a general principle, the safety of our products is our top priority.

Mr. [ Closin ], you wanted to know whether we are withdrawing certain products from the market that are linked to the development of Parkinson's disease. The safety of our products is always our top priority. More than 100 regulatory authorities worldwide have approved the use of Bayer's crop protection products and active ingredients based on scientific studies.

As part of the registration and reregistration process for crop protection products, regulatory authorities review and evaluate extensive data from studies. No regulatory review has ever concluded that the use of any of our registered products or active ingredients is associated with Parkinson's disease.

Mr. [ Arnold ], you asked why you are finding less [ frog spa ] in the wild. The European regulations for crop protection products are among the strictest in the world. EU Regulation 1107-2009 takes into account potential risks for [ foreigns ]. The safety of our products is always our top priority. Our chemical and biological crop protection products are tested in early development phase in relation to the modes of actions, their toxicological properties and the extent of their potential impact on nature. This ensures that the effects of our products are targeted and do not pose unacceptable risk to humans, animals or the environment.

Mr. [ Arnold ], you asked about the safety of our products for unborn and newborn children. Our products may only be marketed if independent regulatory authorities conclude after scientific evaluation that they are safe when used properly. For this reason, all act substances and products undergo extensive toxological testing prior to approval, including studies on reproductive and development toxicity. In addition, product labels contain clear instructions for use, including protective measures and restrictions on use.

Mr. [ Arnold ], you asked what the safe recommendations are for avoiding potential pesticide-related leukemia. Before crop protection products are approved, they are undergoing research and development process that lasts more than 10 years and include extensive safety testing, including assessment of [ cardiologenecity ], including leukemia.

Mr. [ Hapkans ], you cited report regarding allegedly, phosphorus sales in the United States and asked whether they indicate a strategic realignment of the business or establishing of another business pillar. A subsidiary of Bayer has been operating a phosphorus mine in the United States for many years now. The share of the phosphorus produced by Bayer is used to manufacture crop protection products. This is also the business case for Bayer operating the mine.

A portion of the phosphorus is, however, also sold to a limited number of third-party companies and used for various industrial purpose, such as fire, retardants and aviation fuel. These third-party companies are contractually prohibited for reselling elementary phosphorus for military purpose. At present, Bayer is not supplying phosphorus to the U.S. government. Due to an executive order from the U.S. President, however, the company will be obliged to respond to any potential inquiries in the future. The supply of the U.S. government is not an additional business pillar.

[ Super ], you asked what percentage of phosphor goes towards production of glyphosate and how much is used for military uses. As just mentioned, the share of the phosphate produced by Bayer is used to manufacture crop protection products.

[ Sargo ], you asked why Bayer positions itself as sustainable and innovative while marketing crop protection products that are approved in some countries of the global South, but not in the other regions. The fact that the crop protection product is not approved in EU says nothing about its [ safe ]. Bayer adheres to existing and robust regulatory systems that are in place around the world to protect human health and the environment.

Furthermore, countries in the global south has different climate conditions and face challenging past pressures. Clear examples of this includes locust flags in parts of Africa and Asia or the spread of fall arm worm in Africa. Fortunately, agriculture in EU is not familiar with these threats. In other parts of the world, the they endanger the lives of many people. Without the use of crop protection products, their food supply would be destroyed.

And with that, I pass to Julio.

Mr. Schmidt, you asked about the progress made and the perspectives regarding our Road to Billion strategy at Consumer Health. Strategically and financially, the Road to Billion strategy of our Consumer Health division is on track, even though the market environment remains challenging.

At the heart of the strategy is reach. We want to reach billions of people with trusted self-care solutions. We're making step-by-step progress by reaching more consumers, strengthening our presence in digital and conventional channels and by focusing our investments on the biggest value drivers.

Our growth is increasingly volume-driven rather than primarily price-driven. And this is one of the key objectives of our Road to Billion strategy. In addition, more than 50% of our strongest brands gained market share in 2025. Our Road to Billion strategy is not a short-term promise, but rather a long-term approach for growth. We're convinced that it will give many more people access to trusted self-care solutions and bring us closer to our ambitious financial targets. Norbert?

[Interpreted] Okay. So let's see. Mr. [ Werning ], you asked whether Bayer will achieve the operational turnaround. And we've already made tangible progress in our operational turnaround, and we're confident about the further implementation of our strategic priorities. 2025 was a successful year for us, and we met our upgraded guidance and made clear strides in containing legal risks while rapidly integrating Dynamic Shared Ownership into the company with Team Bayer on board. Our pharmaceutical strategy is clearly showing success with the performance of our newly launched products and the progress of our pipeline. And our strategy of offsetting losses from patent expirations through new product launches is clearly working, and we see growth potential starting next year.

At Crop Science, we've initiated a program to increase profitability and leverage growth opportunities. So overall, we're not finished yet, and we still have more work to do. We continue to work on containing our legal risks and delivering on all our priorities.

Mr. [ Werner ], you asked about the emissions caused by microplastics and nanoplastics in Bayer's production processes and about specific protective measures for employees and the environment. Bayer is fully committed to compliance with all applicable laws and regulations and works diligently to implement all provisions in this area. As part of our health and safety management and also in our production processes, we adhere to the prescribed high standards in order to protect our employees and the environment.

Mr. [ Tumler ], Mr. [ Spike ], you asked about potential structural adjustments once the wave of litigations has been substantially contained. Along with containing legal risks, our clear focus is to address our strategic priorities. In particular, we work toward further reducing the net debt load, boosting cash flow and implementing our new operating model and systematically executing our divisional strategies in Pharma, Crop Science and Consumer Health. We consider all of our divisions to be attractive businesses with strong fundamentals and long-term growth potential. Nonetheless, as communicated before, we are generally open to options and must continually ensure that Bayer is the best owner of each of our businesses.

Mr. [ Werning ], you asked whether Bayer plans to go beyond reducing its own emissions and play a leading role by enabling decarbonization through climate solutions. Bayer is pursuing a holistic climate strategy that includes positive contributions to decarbonization in addition to reducing our own carbon emissions. In agriculture, in particular, our products and solutions make an important additional contribution to decarbonization. For example, we promote the adoption of climate-friendly agricultural practices and technologies such as genome editing for higher yields, as well as soil management approaches like direct seeding and cover cropping. Our goal is to help customers measurably reduce greenhouse gas emissions in agricultural systems and enhanced carbon sequestration.

Mr. Werner, you asked about PFAS in the supply chain and contaminated sites as well as possible liability risks. Due to their broad use, PFAS can be present at various points along the Bayer supply chain, for example, in the production process as materials and production plants and as intermediate products or packaging. This is a topic that affects companies worldwide and is one that Bayer is also carefully investigating and addressing.

Our products and manufacturing processes follow all applicable rules and regulations and meet all safety standards. We work closely with regulatory authorities and industry partners to stay informed of the latest developments and to develop appropriate approaches to ensure compliance with future laws and regulations. If the question concerns production at Bayer Material Science, these questions must now be answered by the Covestro Group, which is now an independent company.

Mr. Vernon, you asked whether Bayer was actually becoming more productive or simply smaller through the dynamic share ownership of the program. Overall, Dynamic shared ownership is aimed at making Bayer more productive. The goals of DSO are to reduce complexity, shorten decision-making paths and move responsibilities closer to our customers, our markets, our products, the resulting cost savings and structural changes are a result of reducing layers and eliminating redundant structures rather than the primary objective.

Our intent is to strategically reinvest efficiency gains into innovation, growth priorities and competitiveness, making Bayer leaner, faster and more focused. This will strengthen our resilience and effectiveness in our core businesses and for the long term. We see ourselves well on track in this transformation and are confident that Bayer is thus well positioned for the future.

Mr. Rayner, you asked about digital sovereignty regarding the use of AI, what the situation is with open source solutions and whether we actively support start-ups in this context. Digital sovereignty is important to us. Among other things, we work closely with not just one but a large number of international partners. This also includes select startups that are relevant and promising for Bayer. Our focus here is on promoting innovations in our areas of health care and agricultural technology. Bayer has a fundamentally positive and strategically open attitude towards open source solutions. Use for the development and own contributions are established within the group.

Mr. Spike, you asked whether we have made adjustments to our climate and diversity policies over the past 12 months and whether the company remains committed to them. We continue to advocate on behalf of diversity and want to create a working environment in which equal opportunity and inclusion apply to everyone. This not only reflects our values, but also helps us become a stronger and more innovative company. We're a global company, and we'll continue to work to attract high-performing diverse talent and to offer all employees an optimal working environment to unlock their full potential with us.

With respect to our climate-related activities, we pursue a holistic climate strategy that not only focuses on consistently reducing our own emissions, but also includes positive contributions to decarbonization. We're keeping these promises while complying with all respective applicable government laws and regulations.

Finally, Mr. Byrne. You asked about the use of artificial intelligence in image videos, advertising and promotion at Bayer. Bayer is actively involved in the use of AI in content production and media optimization. AI power technologies and tools are used to increase efficiency in content and media spend. This includes content generation and media optimization, where in general, savings of around 30% are expected. The use of AI to increase effectiveness is an important aspect of our marketing efforts.

And now I'll pass it over to my colleague, Wolfgang.

Thanks, Bill [indiscernible]. Mr. Byrne, you asked about the use of IT and care AI programs by non-European providers, especially in internal communication in operations and in monitoring of manufacturing processes and logistics solutions. And you asked about specific names of companies to be given. Now buyer uses IT solutions by international providers after a thorough review. For example, the internal corporate communication we're using Microsoft products. And production and logistics, we are using various our solutions obtained outsource and produced in-house.

Mr. Miller, he also asked whether payer uses AI agents, how this can be monitored or these are black box systems and bather manipulative or faulty AI processes can still be detected by employees, better uses AI in all areas of our business, including R&D, operations and product supply, marketing and sales and also in the corporate functions in order to increase operating efficiency, lower cost and accelerate innovation. And doing so, we attach great importance to transparency, effectiveness and safety of the systems to make sure that no black box effects occur. The processes are documented and can be controlled. The responsibility for the user and success in the final analysis are still our employees. So far, the use of AI has proven helpful.

Mr. Byrne, you asked whether we share the high expectations placed in AI. We are certain that AI will continue to improve our business processes and promote our growth. However, I would not call this an unlimited expectation of all becoming good in this regard.

Mr. Byrne. He also asked about possible concerns against the use of cardiac intelligence. We are aware of the fact that new technologies such as AI can be linked to predictable and unpredictable risks and that their use, therefore, requires a special responsibility. Risks and opportunities are also ethic I think considerations must be discussed in a broad-based social dialogue. For several years, Bayer has been actively involved in respective political and technical exchange formats on a national, but also on an international level.

Mr. Tungler, Mr. Smith and Mr. Wenning, he asked about the acceptance ratio for the settlement in the glyphosate case. Now for the class settlement applies that it comprises all potential payments that comply with the criteria. So they do not have to accept the settlement proposal, but they can also reject it if they don't want to participate. The deadline for this so-called opt-out is still available until the fourth of June 2026 and claimants who want to opt out can, by then also then decide to rejoin the collective settlement. Therefore, any interim result would be not really meaningful.

We expect that most of the claimants will remain in the so-called class of collective settlement and will not leave it. However, if too many claimants decide to leave the settlement, then Bayer can terminate it unilaterally provisioned in the settlement agreement. And basically, it's normal and to expect that in this phase of the class settlement concerns of the claims are being raised, which can either be resolved before or in court.

Mr. Byrne, you talked about the number of employees which at Bayer are involved in monitoring artificial intelligence, artificial intelligence as well as all other IT systems to a great extent, monitored by the Bayer IT organization. And here, we have a 4-digit number of employees in this area.

Mr. Byrne, you want to know how we can prevent the use of AI leading to so-called AI waste slope support responsible AIU where decisions have always been reviewed by experts in order to avoid buyers and false information. Bayer has got internal policies for the use of generative AI tools as well as requirements for responsible handling of AI which has been described in the Bayer code of conduct.

Furthermore, Bayer has set up an internal working group on the subject of responsible use of AI, which consists of experts from various functions and to which reviews and adapt existing policies and the application. Furthermore, through continuous further training, it's IT and data academy as said compulsory AI training, Bayer ensures that the employees do have the necessary skills for a reasonable use of AI.

Mr. Byrne. We also wanted to know what the cost-benefit ratio of the use of AIs and whether at some point, we can expect a breakeven. The use of artificial intelligence is leading to cost savings many areas through process optimization and automation. The additional costs for licenses or necessary computing power in the data centers of the cloud providers are more than compensated for by the use of AI. We are implementing the use cases with a clear priority and the rate of return here is at the focus of our intention and our implementation in most of the cases delivered the expected results.

Mr. Werner he asked about the use of generative artificial intelligence, amongst others, in the annual report, or when drafting the address of the Management Board and Supervisory Board. The addresses that you have mentioned are not only being given but also written by humans, and for the annual report, we're using AI for support.

Mr. Byrne, you asked about the use of artificial intelligence. As a digital company, Bayer uses digital intelligence in all areas of its business, including R&D, operations, product supply, marketing and supply and sales and also in its corporate functions in order to increase operating efficiency, lower cost and accelerate innovation. The use cases are along the entire value chain from the change of the way that we do research all the way up to the way how we interact with our customers, patients and farmers. We are aware of the fact that the use of AI also requires very high responsibility. And so far, we are satisfied with the use of artificial intelligence.

Mr. Byrne, you asked about the support of AI in answering the questions at the artificial intelligence, you support us in many areas also in preparing and implementing the ASM. We will continue to review and consider the use of AI in areas where we expect efficiency increases and where it seems reasonable to us. When it comes to answering the questions of the ASM, however, our stockholders can be sure that the contents of all answers have been thoroughly drafted, reviewed and then also put into final wording by our experts.

Mr. Byrne you asked about the risks of the use of AI in connection with cybercrime. You also asked about the number of IT attacks against Bayer and how we defend ourselves specifically against them. Cyber attacks are increasing on a general basis, especially with the increasing progress made in digitalization. Bayer is pursuing a multipronged approach for cybersecurity, and we are reviewing our security measures worldwide continuously. Now first of all, we rely on our employees. Their responsible action is decisive for our defensive actions. We carry out group-wide awareness campaigns, and we also offer regular training to make sure that our employees learn to detect and report suspicious activities.

Secondly, we do have technical defensive mechanisms. Our cyber defense center operate around the clock on a 365-day basis per year in order to monitor potential threats and respond to potential attacks.

Thirdly, we're also working externally on cyber topics and cooperate with other large companies and governmental organizations through proactive actions such as controlled detection capabilities and response processes. Bayer has been able to successfully mitigate the impact of such events in the years 2024 and 2025.

Mr. Taiga, you asked about the sale of pesticides in Brazil. Thanks to the development of agriculture in Brazil, the country is now able to feed its population and it's not the case in the past. Furthermore, Brazil has become a large exporter of food and thus, and a key factor for the global food safety. And all of this is only possible through innovation in agriculture. The sheer effect alone that a pesticide is not approved in the EU does not say anything about its safety.

Many other approval authorities all over the world, including Brazil, very robust and sophisticated regulation systems to protect human health and the environment. Of course, there are certain challenges such as certain tests, which fortunately, we do not have to deal with in Europe. In other areas of the world, however, they threaten the lives of many people because without the use of pesticides, their basis for income and food would be destroyed. And there also is a couple of examples of pesticides that have been approved in the EU, but not in other countries, simply because they are not needed.

Mr. Taiga, you asked about the way that we deal with politics legislation and government of course, set the framework of our business as a globally operating company, we do have a social responsibility to make our know-how and skills available and to support political decision processes through our experts. Political lobbying in our view, is an important legitimate option to make sure that in the final analysis, we reach a good and balanced legislation.

Mr. Taiga. You asked about our Brazilian customers. Thanks to development thanks to the development of agriculture in Brazil, the country can now feed its population on its own has become one of the leading exporters worldwide of food and thus contribute significantly to global food safety. That was not the case in the past.

And about the production of -- and to bring this is our own production, and it's not an external by chain, as I've already described, a subsidiary of Bayer has been running a phosphorus mine for many years. The majority of manufacture probe is for our home manufacturing of protecting -- of this is then used and the limited amount of third-party companies and sold for industrial purposes, for example, fire protection or for jet fuel aviation tool.

[indiscernible] you asked about possible areas -- due to the use of AI and production health and safety for our consumers are most important to pay our production in response to the highest standards. They are regularly audited in order to ensure complete compliance payer is obligated to ethical and responsible use of AI in all areas of our business. The human factor remains irreplaceable meaning that in our production, we work with highly qualified multiple networks.

And Mr. Byrne, you asked about retail and regulatory measures to limit AI risks. And of course, they are in terms of building and use data centers as a more Bayer suppose that a nonlegislative initiative in order to create trust in AI-based applications and at the same time, to enable innovation, given the central meaning of AI for R&D and the use in health and agricultural applications, regulation and with a certain amount of risk-based and innovation-friendly use and enable.

Mr. Taiga, asked about the use of glyphosate by the Israeli Army and Lebanon and perhaps legal consequences. We have no information on the described events or the delivery of lifestyle.

And with that, I'd like to pass the floor to you, Norbert, I believe.

Ladies and gentlemen, I have places. I'm not -- of course, nevertheless, I would like to answer the questions as the Chairperson of the Supervisory Board, Mr. Tungler, you asked about the compensation system of the supervisory report as to whether it -- now aligned in a future-oriented manner, whether the SE and LTI have been considered and whether, in particular, the strong share price orientation, LTI should be adjusted.

The Supervisory Board is convinced that the existing compensation system is sustainable and also aligned with performance and -- STI is in line with the business success and is also made up of 3 equally weighted components, that's adjusted group revenue per share -- free cash flow currency and portfolio adjusted revenue and growth together.

The corporate performance into was stronger than forecasted. This is reflected in the factor 110% for STI. The LTI, however, is consciously long term and is based on the capital market. So a low payment factor for the LTI reflects the share by development of Bayer between the -- 2 and the end of December 2025. Both in absolute terms and also comparatively to the euro stocks over Furthermore, it considers that the goals or capital costs were not achieved.

The combination of STI and LTI ensures that short-term operative performance and long-term value creation are considered at the same way. The strong cattle market alignment of 80% weighting in LCI is a central element in order to bind in the interest of the Board of management and of stockholders. The Supervisory Board monitors the compensation system regularly and critically, always with the goal of having it in line with transparency and performance.

So the next question, Mr. Schmidt, you asked for an explanation of the process of successes for the Supervisory Board, the nominating committee of the Supervisory Board looks and every meeting the planning for the Supervisory Board. The Nomination Committee is made up currently according [indiscernible] myself as the Chair. By identifying suitable candidates and the assessments, the Nomination Committee regularly is assisted by staff consultants in fiscal 2025, 3 meetings took place in fiscal 2026. One meeting has taken place of the nomination Committee.

In these meetings, the Nomination Committee, in addition to preparing the election proposals for today's Supervisory Board elections also looked at long-term signing of successes for the Supervisory Board. The Supervisory Board always looks at supervisory bottle shins and successes. And the addition there are efficiency checks and this took place last year with these -- every year for a discussion of Supervisory Board.

Mr. Schmitt, you asked about the efficiency checks of the Supervisory Board in the past fiscal year, efficiency checks took place and a consultant firm was called on to support the supervisory board, the total results of the efficiency testing was a 25% protected using 300 benchmarks. The recommendations were identified that should increase the efficiency of the Supervisory Board in the future. We would also like to stress that the Supervisory Board in its long-term discussions with Bayer there also included a further strengthening of successful planning for the Board of Management and the Supervisory Board and all look at questions in the preparation of meetings of the Supervisory Board analyst committees. The implementation of things that we always look at in the presidium of the Supervisory Board and an executive sessions. -- we also will report on important topics in the reported Supervisory Board.

Mr. Schmidt, you asked about the expectations of indirect nonfinancial goals in short-term variable compensation, whether these would be considered and implemented. In STI, nonfinancial and strategic aspects are not considered regarding the factor for strategic development and strategic implementation an explicit manner. This factor can be used to assess the performance of the Supervisory Board and the Board of Management members using strategically relevant criteria, including nonfinancial goals, for example, the ESG and the strategic priorities. This ESG stands for environmental, social and governance.

Mr. Schmidt, you asked which compensation components limited in the change control cause to 250% of the annual basic compensation but this is referred to and why the variable compensation components or pension acceptances are included. The limitation of the change of control costs refers alone to the annual basic compensation. This is limited as insofar as this amount is lower.

Any payment in a change of control situation is in terms of calculation below the 2-year compensation and is, therefore, in line with the recommendations of G13 at the German corporate governance code. It's also worth bearing in mind that the claim of a settlement or severance a change of control situation changed significantly. And the Board of Management member after 12 months can use their special termination right should this become necessary.

Mr. Schmidt, you also asked about which insights were able to take from dialogue with the stockholders regarding compensation and which criteria are used in order to assess the appropriateness of this system, whether the compensation report is aligned with the market practice or best practice. The compensation system has the annual so-called meeting in 2024 was voted in with 93% and was therefore accepted very positively by the stockholder business Supervisory Board went into significant dialogue with the stockholders and therefore, gain to the conclusion that change to the compensation system was not necessary the individual discuss aspects are things that we have reported on in detail in our report. The new compensation for 2025 includes more transparent estimations regarding our goals and our achievement process. the link between corporate success and the compensation of the Board of Management, it makes it clearer.

Basically, the appropriateness of the compensation system is judged on the basis of market practice, alignment of the strategy of Bayer for competitiveness and regulatory requirements of the German corporate covenants product. The Supervisory Board is aligned with international market practice and international. Of course, it is a central aspect that must be understandable. It must be as transparent as possible. And for this reason, we time it again. to work out best practice, follow those lines and also to shape these best practices.

[indiscernible] asked about the reasons for which no say on climate or resolution is on the agenda of the annual stockholders assembly. After in past years, very deepens of the expectations of our investors when it came to this conclusion. we decided that the time was right to say that, say, on climate was not the right moment at the annual stockholders meeting. Our climate strategy, our goals and progress will be put down in detail in our summarized report and in the transitional transformation plan, which is monitored by the Supervisory Board and regularly discussed with investors.

Mr. Spike and Mr. Fanning, you asked about who were considering as my successor for the chair of the Supervisory Board, the Nominating Committee of the Supervisory Board will offer recommendations in the coming days, weeks and the results of these deliberations are nominating format things that I will not preempt here. However, of course, I'm willing to candidate once again for the Supervisory Board. So contributions I make in different super Supervisory Board and a different function is dependent on what I'm offered and whether and how and when an appropriate successor will be found. The dose it depends on the amount of time that is so late.

Ladies and gentlemen, if I am correct, I believe this means that we have now answered all questions in this first block, we will then continue with the discussion, and I would like to ask Mr. Epic to present his contribution. And I would then also ask Mr. [ Barroso ] to be ready. After that [indiscernible] I would ask you to prepare yourself, Mr. S.A., the floor is yours.

Chairman, members of the Board of Management and the Supervisory Board shareholders and stockholders. I'm [ Ludvik Epic ]. I have the honor today to speak to you as a representative of CBT coordination against Bayer dangers. I work in the field of trade policy at the Technical University of Munich.

Time and again, we speak about the reputation of Bayer as being a forward-looking company and the export of pesticide which are banned in the European Union. But we're not talking about a side show of the business, but rather a fundamental issue of entrepreneurial integrity.

Does they apply a uniform standard for healthy and human rights? Or is there a stricter standard in Europe and a weaker standard in those regions of the world where individuals are more vulnerable. What is extremely problematic is that these exports include a number of active ingredients, which in the European Union are banned and which can be found, however, in Bayer products. And I would like to emphasize this fact, this includes MycoCept. We have 2,536 tonnes or in propane. 1,399 tonnes of those are sold. And Imitaprid is used, which is deadly for bees and other pollinators. And of course, it is very fair to see what countries these products are exported to monitoring application protection, access to protective gear these countries often don't live up to European standards.

In other words, especially where protection is that is the weakest is where a payer sells products that are no longer approved in the European Union. And then we have the pesticide boomerang because a number of these dangerous ingredients return to the European Union in food stuffs that are then imported from these countries. So an alleged external problem becomes an internal problem within the EU among consumers. And of course, it also becomes a problem for the European legislators or a company that once stand for science for a better life, this practice is really questionable and calls your reputation to questions as well.

Scientific responsibility shouldn't halt at the outer borders of the European Union. And we shouldn't look at this topic in an isolated fashion. New trade agreements threat to exacerbate this development, if within the freight work of the [ Merck tours ] and tariffs the hurdles for agrochemicals are lowered. You increase the danger of pesticides and other hydrochemical products. being exported into countries that have lower standards than the EU.

The consequences of this can be seen today already in Brazil, in 2025, 9,729 pesticide toxicity cases were registered. That's an increase of 84% over 2015. This corresponds to 27 people per day. What is especially dire is that small children in the group of 1 to 4 are especially affected experts. In addition, believe that a number of cases aren't reported these figures clarify the consequences of these substances. This is why on behalf of the shareholders of the network and the negating Munich, the following questions.

First, when will they put an end to the exports of pesticides, which in the EU are bad for health reasons? And without doing that under a regulatory duress, but on your own responsibility. How many tons of MycoCept and other pesticides, which do not have approval within the EU have been sold by Bayer in fiscal 2025. and been exported into third countries.

Since the change of government in 2025 and the taking of office of alloy in the ministry has changed its focus on reducing red tape and promoting exports. What commitments has the group received in order middle bands to continue better to hedge the export strategy in weaker countries? And how do you ensure that you don't instrumentalize your strategy in a one-sided fashion you emphasized in the new transparency report 2025, your dedication to the UN guiding principles for business and human rights? How does this commitment to human rights tally with the fact that Bayer is being proactive in putting an end to a draft to an export ban?

Bayer is a member of the Economic Council of the CDU was the blockage of this export ban determined in this council. There is a code of contact for responsible lobbying. Bayer establishes itself that the company as a legal entity cannot make direct contributions and donations to a political party. But whereas Bayer may not write checks to parties directly, millions are paid to associations such as Crop Life International and Crop Life Europe, which, in turn, do a lot of lobbying work how do you ensure that your membership fees to organizations such as crop life are not used in order to finance political campaigns that have objectives that contribute your own sustainability goals and your code of conduct?

Now I call on you to stop hiding between the route of formal legality because that has nothing to do with what is actually in compliance with the law. What you are exporting shouldn't have anything to do with your business model? There has the opportunity to stand for a global protection standard in order to protect human kind. And to promote an entrepreneurial strategy that is not based on bad standards.

I would like to ask the stockholders not to ratify the actions of the members of the Board of Management or the Supervisory Board and instead to approve our counter motion. Thank you very much for your attention. Thank you, Mr. Essig, for your contribution and for your questions, and thank you for the fact that you remain within your 10-minute time allotment.

I would like to now call [ Dr. Ronaldo Sudre ]. He is going to submit in English, and he also represents the coordination against Bayer dangers. After him, Mr. Hans Oswald will speak to us followed by [ Tamen Smith ]. Mr. Barro Sudre. The floor is now yours.

Ladies and gentlemen, my name is Ronaldo Sudre. I may be Professor research -- our University of [ Marna ] in Brazil. I speak for first time to experience with the affected communities. What is happening in the state of Marion -- in Brazil much region and the only of the policy stage in the country is [indiscernible] it's a recurring pattern. In the first 3 months of the year, we have the worth equity every of real spraying of best sites of communities. They were more the [ 200 ], affecting 188 communities, [ 209 ] series. This is not a statistic, it is a crisis, a health crisis, with people failing in real experienced symptoms such as vomiting, skin irritation, NGO problems caused by exposure to chemicals.

Which crisis because crops are being rated in the storage in every -- crisis with automation of the water, soil and GEF -- also a of cases because most of the affected communities are indigenous people. We are living in a highly vulnerable conditions. It's important to stage query. Its main case this large many accidents or the risk [indiscernible]. There is strong dense that this experience are part of the process of the stocking pressure of these 10 stores contributing for exposing of communities from the lens.

We are not just talking about a technical problem. We are [indiscernible] although it's no exactly wish products to a usage case itself very likely that among the are substandard by largely global operations. And we now since we began 2025, they will see of the reported has also gone printed for spray. The process is in fact in the mostly [indiscernible] in Marion and also in Brazil.

In light of this, I want to raise an important point. Europe and Germany, they are restricted regard chemicals NGE exports, this is -- offsite information and [indiscernible] regarding impacts. But even we now that these seasons are not defect. Nevertheless, there is a principal product not -- of every month. And today, more than companies are being parity on to monitor the entire production chain and set annual duration and outside Europe.

Even this, has possibly does not have a win to produce results. It continues to out its entire life cycle. So the question is straightforward. How can a company like Bayer operate on this strikes Europe -- at the same time begin like the serious impact in the regions.

This very standards to prevent harm, why does this harm to continue to occur? It's not just a matter of complaint with the [indiscernible] it's a matter of global responsibility. It's inevitable for vulnerable population to buy exports to risk that would not to tolerate it of the contest.

What states here is not just the company's image. It's a homelife, territories and the future of entirely communities, that's why I would like to conclude why the Director -- the share holds to -- consider the impacts.

And so I would like you to each shareholders not to dismiss the Board offering [ Greco ] and the Supervisory board, but the [indiscernible] of the counter proposed for the -- by the [indiscernible] of Bayer. Thank you very much.

Yes. Thank you, Mr. Barro Sudre. And on [indiscernible] I'd like to welcome Hans Oswald as the next speaker followed by Clemens Min and I would like to ask [ Udokato ] be on standby as well. Mr. Oswald, the floor is now yours.

Thank you, Professor, Dr. Vincent Johan. I'd like to say hello to you. And I hereby file a motion on the rules of procedure. I am Hans Oswald from lower mine.

I am on the Board of the Association of Residential Property which has made a task of pointing out irregularities. Throughout Germany, we have more than several hundred thousand members. Now just in general, with respect to the rules of procedure, while I was waiting, I googled on the Internet, and I ask AI a question. AI told me that item things that we continue to complain about, especially with respect to the speaking time. And I'm looking -- I'm holding the camera -- by phone up to the camera, so you can see it.

I want to point out that the limitation is speaking time goes counter to the rules of procedure and the therefore, should not be allowed. And in order and to impose a limitation before follow-up questions can be asked is something that I believe is not very opportune.

So I filed a countermotion to the ratification of the actions of the members of the Board of Management and the Supervisory Board. I request that this ratification be voted on by individual Board member. And I also hereby file a motion for having stockholders attend future annual stockholders meeting in person once again.

And I also filed a motion for the Articles of Association to mandate a combination of in-person and a virtual event. Therefore, a hybrid event in order to ensure that all stockholders irrespective of any physical or other limitations they may have and wherever they may be located around the world. can fully exercise their stockholder rights. To this end, I expect an extensive statement from the Board of Management and the Supervisory Board.

Why? All shareholders should be treated equally. Currently, stockholders for financial or health or logistical reasons are unable to participate or systematically put at a disadvantage. I am a good example of this although I registered the telecom AGM in 2025, I was able to attend because I couldn't travel for health reasons. And therefore, I was not able to file my motions and counter motions appropriately.

If that AGM had been conducted in hybrid format, I could have done that work from home. And we mustn't forget that there are some stockholders that are not familiar with the Internet. They are also excluded from virtual AGMs. It is important that the freedom of shareholders is safeguarded. Therefore, every stockholder should be given the option to attend either in presence or online.

Dr. Dinko Johan, you should seriously figure out what stance you want to take. Now we have learned lessons from the corona pandemic. During the Corona pandemic virtual AGMs were established successfully. However, many companies felt that this was just a stop gap before being able to return to in-person events. And that is what we should look at the virtual annual stockholders' meeting like we shouldn't just accept them as a fixture now.

You have alleged that a hybrid ASM is too expensive but that is not tenable. You can offset the additional cost by reducing the compensation of the Board of Management. Now we mustn't forget the members of the Board of management often earn 20 to 60x what the politician earns I think that this is a completely unacceptable situation and a redistribution of money to the benefit of the stockholders would be desirable.

Yes, stockholders should be involved more stockholders have a voice. The stockholders are the owners of your company, the feasibility is given the technical and legal requirements enable you to do this. If you look at the Netherlands, you can see that this hurdle can be overcome. Such formats as hybrid ASMs do indeed work the legal cost is definitely acceptable, especially given the fact that your company has an extensive legal department that can easily handle the requirements. You need to strengthen the stockholders' democracy, ruling out, excluding stockholders, marginalizing stockholders to mines, the principal of a stock corporation. A hybrid event would promote the maximum participation of stockholders around the world. So we have -- we call on stockholder representation such as the DSDK and the DSW. A lot of stockholders believe that their stockholder rights are being curtailed because the hybrid format is not being offered.

Now I am on the Board of the residential property Association. And in that capacity, I ask you why hybrid annual stockholder meetings cannot be implemented, especially against the backdrop that other countries and other sectors are doing this successfully. Many German stock corporations also hold hybrid Supervisory Board and Management Board meetings. The same right should be conferred on the stockholders because the stockholders are the owners of a stock corporation.

If Management Board members and Supervisory Board members enjoy excessive salaries, then you should also make it possible to have a hybrid Annual stockholders' meeting because you are obliged to do that. I called on all stockholders to support my motion and to take similar initiatives before other companies. Only if we collectively exert pressure, can we ensure that the interests of the owners, namely the stockholders, which stand above the employees and the members of the Board of Management and Supervisory Board are safeguarded.

We have hybrid annual general meetings being conducted by companies that are much smaller than yours. We must safely assume that your legal department can make it possible to have a hybrid annual stockholders meeting. If you want to do it, I'm sure that you can. I expect a clear statement in response to this.

Professor Winkeljohann, I would also like to say something about another topic. A lot of people have requested the floor and spoken out against Bayer's use of glyphosate, et cetera. Now I know a number of farmers and they time and again, tell me that without glyphosate or Roundup, they wouldn't be able to do their business, and you would be unable to feed the world's population. I'm not an expert on this, but if this glyphosate and Roundup were used properly, then there wouldn't be any concerns in using these products.

Now a lot of people today spoke out against that. Now Sometimes, you have to pick your fights. Is it better to use glyphosate? Or is it better to figure out a safer way to feed the world's population, perhaps it would be good for Bayer to actually listen to the people who object to its practices, perhaps it would be opportunity to sit at a common table and try and figure out how to help people around the world who do have a shortcoming of food and then maybe come up with solutions on what pesticides best to use.

I would also like to endorse what the other speakers have said before me today, Mr. Henrik Schmidt, and the gentleman from the SDK also does a good job [indiscernible] and the Representative Union Investment, Mr. Berding, also do a good job. You can see that we have a lot of young representatives. A lot of our members are customers of yours and therefore, I think that you should do a better job. And here I'm talking especially about Mark Kumla.

He is a very well-versed speaker and makes very good submissions. Sometimes, I believe that he's on the wrong side. Sometimes he sits on supervisory boards. So I don't know whether the Supervisory Board offices can be reconciled with the interests of the shareholders. I would hope that he was more dedicated, especially when it came to hybrid annual stockholders' meeting because I believe it will be very important for Bayer to do that. I personally am not against virtual ASMs.

I'm sorry, Mr. Oswald, I think that you have to come to an end soon because you already exceeded your time allotment.

Yes, Mr. WinkelJohan. Perhaps it's not so opportune to cut people off. You didn't do that to the first round of speakers because it's not a good practice. And also, you make us nervous and then things get dragged out even more. And sometimes you take -- this results in longer breaks. We had such a long break of 30 minutes at E.ON.

Now I'm trying to get to an end.

Yes, please try and get to an end.

Greetings from friendly. We have blue skies. I hope that I can convey this feeling to you. I'm not sure exactly where you're sitting. Perhaps you can do something positive for your stockholders around the world, especially in Brazil. Thank you very much. I look forward to the next speaker. because I think they want to file a motion with respect to the rules of procedure, and I've already filed a number of countermotions.

Thank you very much, Mr. Oswald. Ladies and gentlemen, we would now like to continue with the agenda. Clemens Min is the next speaker. He will be followed by Ouro Ruter and Mr. Andreas Berna. Mr. Min, the floor is now yours.

Mr. Winkel Johan, Mr. Anderson, ladies and gentlemen, who sit on the Supervisory Board and the Board of Management, shareholders, stockholders. As a stockholder, I would like to, first and foremost, thank everyone who contributed to the positive business performance in the past fiscal year. I represent my own shares and speak on behalf of my family members. I'm Clemens Min. From May 1985 until the years -- the early 2000s, I worked for a chemical company in 2012, together with some coworkers.

I received the Otto Bayer medal for excellence in research. My farmer operates a farmstead that he inherited from the family and another brother operates a family hotel. Bayer has decided to close a location that they acquired from [indiscernible], researchers and scientists at this location repeatedly discovered herbicide agents, the last of which was [ dapalin methyl ].

Over a long period of time, there was a cooperation which was tried and tested and continued to grow stronger and stronger based on extensive expertise and experience. An end has now been put to that. You cannot simply shift this type of brain power from one location to another. Against this backdrop, I want to ask you how Bayer against the backdrop of its commitment, science for a better life, health for all, hunger for none can be maintained.

I believe that these slogan appear to be empty without modern herbicides. Presently, just a moment, please. At present, I cannot discern how Bayer in the future wants to come up with its own innovative solutions in the area of herbicide research to avoid long transport routes and to ensure food supply, especially in global times of crisis, a high-performance agricultural sector in Europe is absolutely necessary. Against the backdrop of increasing food and fertilizer prices, you have to reduce costs as much as possible.

As reported in June 2025 by the publication Agrar Today in the EU for over 20 years, no new active agents were approved. In addition to the approval request for icafolin from Bayer, 2 competitors requested approval for a herbicide, one of which was recently successful. According to experts, the decisive products will be on the market no earlier than the fall of 2026 or fall 2027.

In 2025 alone, 3 significant herbicide agents lost their approval, reducing the number of corresponding products. Overall, the number of active agents in the EU that have been approved since 2000 has been cut in half. Against this backdrop, I have the following questions for you. How will Bayer in the future ensure that agriculture, in particular, in Europe, has a sufficient number of active agents that match the crops that have to be protected. In other words, herbicides.

The currently available data provide you with a sufficient basis in order to come up with new mechanisms of action for herbicides using AI and to launch successful and promising products on the agricultural market. Do you believe that bio-herbicides as a matter of principle, are more -- are safer than synthetic herbicides? And does the company plan to make supplementary offerings? By when do you believe that the digital procedure will lead to significant productivity increases in agriculture? And how will Bayer participate in this? I would like to ask you to answer my questions, and I thank you for your attention.

Thank you very much, Mr. Min, for this statement and your questions, and this brings us to Udo Ruter, and he's going to be followed by Andreas Werner and Guunerwolf. But first, Mr. Ruter, you've got the floor.

Professor Winkeljohann, I do not want to subscribe to what Mr. Oswald said, but I also want to file a procedural motion regarding today's ASM. In my view, stockholders' rights have been limited in an inadequate manner by the much too early closing of the speakers list at 12:42 already. That was before the questions of the first round of questions had been answered even because the respective answers to these questions may result in further questions, which other stockholders would like to then follow up on stockholders who hadn't taken the floor earlier yet.

So restricting the stockholders' rights so early is something I would like to remedy. And therefore, I filed the procedural motion that you reopen the speakers' list and my suggestion would be to reopen the speakers' list at least until 3:00, allowing stockholders to respond and come up with follow-up statements, especially on the basis of the answers given so far.

In particular, I also would like to call upon you as follows. We have today once again noticed that such virtual AMs can still not be conducted smoothly and seamlessly. And we have again seen today that the speakers and stockholders waiting in the virtual waiting room have been locked out again. And for example, the first speaker, Mr. Tungler was already cut off.

So I'm absolutely convinced that an in-person ASM would be much more productive and effective. Many other stock companies have already decided to hold this kind of an in-person ASM again. And of course, the ideal solution would be a hybrid format where stockholders could also decide to opt in electronically. And thus, the conflict that has arisen around virtual AMs could thus also be overcome.

And in the seventh year of a virtual ASM at Bayer, we have now seen that stockholders do not agree with this kind of format. And also surveys among the free float stockholders showed that 80% of such stockholders would really prefer an in-person ASM or the possibility to dial in electronically if they are not able to travel on site. So that would be really the silver bullet for all stockholders.

And therefore, at this point, I do not wish to further elaborate on the contents anymore, but I rather hope that you will directly respond to my procedural motion by reopening the speakers' list again until 3:00, allowing stockholders to respond to any answers that may have already been given and file their follow-up questions. Only then will stockholders be able to voice their views in an unrestricted manner as has also been provisioned by the law.

And actually, according to the law, this virtual format should only be used in special and extraordinary situations. And for that reason, I, at this point, would like to hear your direct response on this procedural motion, so that all stockholders can fully exercise their rights. Thank you very much for your attention.

Thank you very much, Mr. Ruter. We will come back to this. Before we now proceed on the speakers list, Mr. Oswald had asked that the ASM should vote on the question of whether the ratification of the actions of the members of the Supervisory Board and the Management Board should be done via individual voting on the individual persons. And we will do so before providing the answers.

But now we first continue with the next speaker on the speakers list, and the next speaker will be Mr. Andreas Wolf, Andreas Werner, and he's going to be followed by Mr. [indiscernible].

Hello. My name is Andreas Werner. I represent my own small number of shares. I've got only 2 brief questions regarding Russia. The first one is a practical question. How do we receive payments for our shipments to Russia? And the second question is a compliance question. How does the company make sure that EU sanctions are being complied with by our subsidiaries in Russia in their intra-Russian trade?

That's all I wanted to ask. Enjoy the rest of the afternoon.

Thank you very much for these 2 questions, Mr. Werner, which we're going to answer later. And then I would like to ask Mr. Gunther Wolf as the next speaker to take the floor, and he's going to be followed by Gerrit Hofer. Mr. Gütherolf, you've got the floor.

Professor Winkeljohann, I thank you very much. My name is Gunther Wolf. I have been working -- and I've been staying at nursery homes for 18 years, and I'm a representative of the coordination against Bayer [ Dangers ] and also a representative of the association of people -- of children having lived in nursery homes. Mr. WinkelJohan, at the last ASM 2025, you told me that you reject the call for financial participation of Bayer because you do not see any responsibility of Bayer for the act of the employees of such homes at that time.

You remember? Now I hadn't even claimed that in the first place. It was about the violent medication of children with products of your company, which did not have any therapeutic effect, but which owes only meant to calm down and sedate patients. And that was only about profit maximization. You also said that at that time, the reviews on the basis of the legal standards applying and the ethical standards applying at that time and on the basis of the respective indication had been given.

And that is not correct either because this was not about treatment of a disease, it was just about sedating patients and opening up new sales markets for your product. And this is also done on the basis of creating fears amongst people who are then -- who then feel forced to accept medication. Are you familiar with the respective addition of the doctor's newsletter from the year 2002. Here it is. Have you read this?

I'm holding it into the camera right now. Now it reads as follows under Item 11. Competition forces us to open up new markets. And the aim, and this is now underlined, the aim must be to convert all of the healthy into sick people. That is people who most possibly need medication for mental or physical diseases and therefore, feel the need for treatment in order to feel healthy.

Now in terms of physical diseases, this already works well, but even much better in mental diseases, especially as there are statements that all people are not really healthy. And furthermore, there is a significant impact of physical health on to mental health. Now that sounds horrible, doesn't it?

Now you also said that the review at that time had been carried out on the basis of the loss applicable at that -- sorry, I already said that on the basis of -- no, I already said that. Sorry, I'm lost. If you wanted to act according to ethical principles, that according to the Nuremberg conduct of 1949, you should have acted. The ethical code of conduct of 20th of August 1947, then you also said that children and teens had been involved only to a minor extent. That statement is not in line with the documents held in your archives, some of which I have had access to.

In my experience, more than 800 patients were subject to medical treatment in the respective homes. I, myself, for example, was there from 1968 to 1974. Doctors were generously supported by you financially by giving us the document -- the medication of yours, such as Professor Durner, which in a document of 7th of June 1964 has been confirmed according to which namely he has received 600 [indiscernible] per monthly. You can check this out for yourselves because these are documents from your archives. Are you familiar with them?

On the 18th of June 1964, Bayer AG held a meeting where Professor Durner, Medical Council, Dr. Egmar, Dr. Reboc, Dr. Zommer and Dr. Foss participated. I invite all of the shareholders to contact our association of children from children's home, and I call upon all of you to refuse to ratify the actions of the members of the Management Board and rather support the countermotions of the coordination against Bayer Dangers. Thank you very much for your kind attention.

Thank you very much, Mr. Wolf. Ladies and gentlemen, before we continue with the next speaker on the speakers' list, Mr. Ruter has filed a procedural motion for reopening the speakers' list until 3:00. Now this is an action which -- However, the decision I have taken to close the speakers list is -- was required in order to make sure that the ASM can be closed within the appropriate time frame. And therefore, the decision lies with the respective Chair of the ASM, and therefore, I uphold the decision to keep the speakers' list closed. We now have Mr. Hofer as the next speaker and then Mr. [indiscernible]. Mr. Hofer, you've got the floor.

Professor, WenkelJohan, I'd like to thank you for passing me the floor. Ladies and gentlemen, CEO, stockholders. My name is Gert Hofer, and I work at the organization, society for threatened peoples. And I'm speaking on behalf of my colleagues today, Ms. Fernandez, who wanted to take part online from Brazil, but given bad weather conditions, she unfortunately has neither electricity nor Internet and is unable to take part.

I'll be talking about the burden of indigenous peoples due to pesticides and the alike. Brazilian indigenous peoples have been subject to pesticide burdens. These aren't individual one-off situations, it's the system. Monocultures and genetically modified seeds and the use of herbicides have consequences on the people who live in these territories. The [ Abriani ] people is a good example of this.

Glyphosate has been shown in water sources here. Health care issues such as vomiting, itchy skin and irritation have been reported on. This is not a coincidence. It's been proven. In [indiscernible], the province in water samples, 22 different pesticides were found. 82% of the samples were contaminated. A significant portion of the proven substances is already banned in the European Union.

Human rights and health organizations have been complaining that pesticides are ruining water in indigenous peoples territories and contaminating nature. The practice of spraying from the air and on the ground is also particularly problematic. Pesticides do not stay where they are sprayed. They make it into rivers and waters and into communities that cannot protect themselves. If any water sources in villages are sprayed, then this is a significant problem.

And this is the crux of the matter. Bayer is not a company today that sells products. After buying Monsanto as part of the agricultural industry and is therefore responsible for biocultures and intensive agriculture, this destroys biodiversity. It creates conflicts over water in indigenous communities. There's a probability -- a problem of credibility and double standards. What is banned in certain regions of the world is still sold and exported in others.

Brazil has often been the target market for particularly problematic substances. This gives rise to the complex question, which responsibility will Bayer assume for those people who have been afflicted. I'd like to ask you to call upon you today to assume this responsibility, ensure that there is effective protection, ensure that human rights don't only make up part of your sustainability reports, but that you act with them in line, stop creating the harmful pesticides.

Don't just talk about right [ application ]. Indigenous peoples have a right to health, clean water, healthy food and unsoiled land. Maintaining human rights should not be understood as a voluntary additional task. Rather, it is a crucial part of governance. I would therefore ask all stockholders not to ratify the actions of the Board of Management and the Supervisory Board, but to vote for the coalition against Bayer Dangers Motions.

Thank you, Mr. Hovert. The next speaker is [indiscernible], after which the final speaker in our second block will be Ms. Margaret. The floor is yours.

Members of the Board of Management, the Supervisory Board, ladies and gentlemen, my name is Sven [indiscernible]. Today, I'm here in 3 capacities. Firstly, I'm speaking for our family office, where we keep corporate interests and shares and amongst other things, amongst other types of investments. I'm also a member of the Executive Board of [ Standards AG ], a chemical company and the [indiscernible] be in corrosion protection products.

The third function is an NGO in Africa, in Tanzania, where we work on training, education. We've worked with academic and economic cooperation with universities in Tanzania and Germany and companies from Tanzania and Germany. Essentially, I have 2 interesting questions. I will try to keep myself very brief in order not to overload the Annual Stockholders' Meeting.

As managers of a company, we know that we have 2 points of leverage to optimize profits, either by way of revenues, so selling more, increasing prices or by saving measures, reducing costs. I would be interested to know whether there were any standstills that were unplanned on your sites and whether there are any statistics for these, what the causes might have been for these standstills. So these unplanned plant standstills are normally not down to the mechanics or replacement parts rather production standstill opportunistic costs that are linked to this by this type of downtime. Are these very minor causes, corrosion of electrical connections of a switch or circuit or valves, block valves, valves that are conducive to downtime.

I would like to hold out my hand to your engineering department and demonstrate solutions. Should you require consultation, there are various ways of solving this. I'm sure that costs could be saved by doing so, which would, of course, have a positive effect on the share price, which would benefit all of us.

A further question is increasing revenue, new markets, Africa. If the statisticians are correct, the population of Africa will increase to 2050 twofold. So we're then talking about 2.5 billion people who will be living there. That is a monumental number. As an optimist, I tend to focus less on the risks, but more on the opportunities. But there is a European obligation to support infrastructure, including agriculture, that these can at least increase in a linear manner.

You already mentioned Zambia. And I find that very interesting indeed. With our NGO in Tanzania, we have already carried out and offered training sessions in agriculture for farmers to help them find solutions as to how they can increase their crop yields. I would be interested to know whether in the future, cooperation might be possible. I think that this task is of the utmost importance. Food, drinking water, energy, these are the basis of human life and human existence, ensuring food security and supply that counter possible future conflicts and considering migration and movement that might even be prevented by this.

The question is, therefore, whether a cooperation might be possible or whether these might even be requisite for Tanzania to become an importer for your products. Those are my questions. I wish all participants of the Annual Stockholders' Meeting a constructive and active dialogue, and we'll now say goodbye from our headquarters in [indiscernible].

Thank you very much for your contribution. As our final speaker, Ms. Margaret Pua, the floor is yours.

Hello. My name is Margaret [indiscernible]. I am the Chair of the [ BVT ]. That's the federation of those harmed. Unfortunately, I must speak to you today once again. It's not just unfortunate, it's unbearable because after all that I have already reported at these meetings, nothing has taken place. And of course, we're now talking about Duogynon in the pregnancy tests OF Schering AG that was on the market until 1981. And when used properly, I repeat when used for its intended purpose properly, was harmful to conceived life.

Dr. [ Reinhard Sber ], a PhD chemist and doctor showed us the chemical reaction processes between the highly reactive active ingredients of Duogynon and the DNA of embryos. Together with him in 2023, we published a book Deformations Due to Pregnancy Tests. The Duogynon pregnancy scandal is finally visible. This is what the book looks like.

We have presented the scientific results. We published them and made them accessible to all. We brought these scientific documents to Bayer AG as the legal successor to Schering AG in connection with a response to be expected. Does that take place? It did not.

No, instead of this, every year, I have to read the same piece of paper that in proper use, no harmful effects could be expected. How disappointing. You have the best chemists in the world working for your company. How should I describe this conduct of Bayer AG, a company that has hidden the scientific truth on Duogynon. It exert influence on committees, on authorities and scientific communities. It disallows further scientific research on this. How can the mothers of these harmful -- of the embryos that have been harmed so much be made the scapegoats this.

It's also scandalous that the surviving victims, their relatives, the public and the parliament has been systematically lied to when specifically an attempt to investigate this took place. I've been fighting for this for 50 years. I know what I'm talking about. This can also be read in our book. I therefore bring [ suit ] against you today. In 1976, in early pregnancy, I never meant to harm my child by using the pregnancy test containing Duogynon, but deformation of organs and also stillborn babies, severely disabled children, that is down to Duogynon. The suffering behind it can hardly be put into words.

In Germany, if we talk about abortions in Paragraph 218, this causes emotion. But now there is tacit tolerance that a pharmaceutical company caused numerous abortions and the most severe disabilities. This makes me angry and I cannot comprehend it. You cannot change what has happened, but you can at least bring justice. What you have refused to the victims, truth, recognition and compensation and not at any time, but now, that is what I call upon you for.

The final question, when will a responsible chemist, not a doctor or a lawyer, when will a chemist publicly declare with their name and their role that Norethisterone acetate and estrogen, the active ingredients of [indiscernible] were linked to this harm. Until that takes place, I call upon all stockholders not to ratify the actions of the Board of Management and the Supervisory Board and rather to vote for the countermotions of the coordination against Bayer Dangers.

Thank you very much, [indiscernible] for your contribution. This brings us to the end of the second block of our contributions, and we then come to answer the questions. I would like to ask Wolfgang Nickl to begin, and then I will pass to Rodrigo Santos.

Pleasure to do so. My first question I'm answering is for you, Mr.[indiscernible] asked about the export of pesticides into the global south, which are not approved for use in the EU. The safety of our products for men and environment is top priority for us. We are using global safety standards even if they are, in some cases, stricter than the local regulation.

Since 2012, Bayer has not been selling any pesticides anymore, which are classified by the WHO as acutely toxic, which is classification 1a or 1b. Since 2016, Bayer has committed itself to selling only pesticides, which have been -- the active ingredients have been registered in at least one OECD country or in a country with a sophisticated risk-based regulation system.

The fact that the pesticide has not been approved in the EU does not say anything about its safety. Many other approval authorities all over the world also have very robust and sophisticated regulation systems to protect human health and environment. And their assessment reflect the specific agronomical and climatic conditions in the respective countries.

Mr. [indiscernible] you also asked about the export of Mancozeb and pesticides from Germany to other countries. Mancozeb is an indispensable substance used against fungus in banana cultivation. Without that active ingredient, there would be a massive loss in harvest. Please understand that we cannot disclose any export numbers on individual active ingredients. Mr. [indiscernible], you wanted to know how we make sure that our membership contributions to organizations such as Crop Life do not conflict with our behavioral code for responsible lobbying and our sustainability goal.

As an active member of industry associations, we work hard to make sure that these organizations introduce their own code for responsible lobbying. Our binding code of conduct for responsible lobbying as well as the base principles does represent the framework according to which we act ourselves in political lobbying and also those third parties who are funded by us, namely in transparent fact-based manner with integrity and in compliance with our sustainability goals.

We bring our influence to bear to make sure that these supported associations also comply with these standards. Mr. [indiscernible] also franked whether Bayer applies a globally uniform standard for health, environment and human rights. Our code of conduct defines the ethical principles and standards in a uniform manner, which all employees worldwide have to comply with. This includes compliance with laws and regulations, integrity and business practices, respect for human rights, responsibility for the environment and a commitment to a fair handling of stakeholders on the basis of respect.

We just want to avoid negative consequences, for example, human right violations in our own business activity. But at the same time, we thus also want to promote positive impact by improved stakeholder engagement. Mr. [indiscernible], you asked how we make sure that our lobbying cannot be used by individual parties in a biased manner. Bayer is in dialogue with all democratic parties and political decision-makers who are committed to a parliamentary democracy and the values of our basic law, the constitution. We enforce transparency in collaboration with representatives of political institutions are proactively involved in transparency initiatives.

Doing so, Bayer goes far beyond the statutory requirements. We are -- we have been collaborating very well and professionally with the German Ministry of Agriculture under its current leadership. And the same also applies to the previous ministers in charge of this Ministry. Mr. [indiscernible], you also asked about the Economic Council of the CU and the ban or the rejection of a pesticide export ban.

Our code of context for responsible lobbying represents binding rules for engagement and political space. It covers compliance-related risks and creates transparency in our collaboration with the representatives of political institutions. On the topic of pesticide export, since 2012, Bayer has not been selling any pesticides anymore worldwide, which are rated as specifically toxic by the WHO. Furthermore, in 2016, on a voluntary basis, the company committed itself to selling only such pesticides, which have been registered -- the active ingredients of which have been registered in at least one OEC country or for which an OECD data package has been generated.

Mr. [indiscernible], you asked about the connection between our commitment to U.S. principles for economy and human rights and our attitude towards pesticide export ban. Bayer is committed to respecting human rights and supports the U.S. principles for the economy and human rights. The safety of our products for men and environment for us is top priority everywhere and at any time. The international trade with pesticides is subject to strict regulation.

Before pesticide has been approved, safety studies have to be conducted on the basis of scientific principles and quality standards defined by the respective approval authorities in order to protect the health of men and bees and the environment. Then we got a question by Mr. Min, who asked whether bioherbicides basically are safer ecologically and toxicologically than chemically synthetic herbicides.

Now first of all, let me repeat that the safety of our products is always our top priority. All of the products offered by Bayer are safe for men and the environment if they are used according to the intended use. The origin of an active ingredient, whether biological or synthetic basically doesn't say anything about the safety for men and the environment. The discovery of new active ingredients is one of our priorities, and we permanently are working on tailored new and optimized solutions. Mr. Werner, you asked to what how Bayer receives payments for shipments to Russia. The payment flows to and from Russia are on -- are settled exclusively via registered and non-sanctioned banks and are subject to regular strict and stringent controls.

Mr. Werner, you also asked how we ensure compliance with the EU sanctioned regulations for business activities of local Bayer companies in Russia. Bayer AG has got comprehensive compliance procedures in place, which apply on a global scale. And we also, amongst others, have mandatory trainings, risk-based reviews as well as clearly defined enforcement escalation mechanisms. These procedures are meant to make sure that compliance with the respective export control and sanctions regulations is ensured and any breaches are systematically pursued.

The compliance procedures apply especially of the sanction regulations of the American Office of Foreign Asset Control, OFAC, the Security Council of the United Nations of the European Union and the United Kingdom, at least to the extent that these are applicable according to the respective seat of the company of Bayer AG or its subsidiaries. Mr. Hofer, you asked about our -- about the responsibility for use of our products. The safety of our products is our top priority.

Our systems are already working according to this principle in research and development. Our products are safe if they are used according to the intended use. Furthermore, we hold regular trainings on the safe use of pesticides in the countries of Global South. In the year 2025 alone, in this way

we have reached more than 4.1 million farmers. Furthermore, whenever we receive any indications of a nonintended use of our products, then, of course, we will follow up on these indications on a local basis. Mr. [indiscernible], you asked about damage regarding pesticides and glyphosate. The safety of our products for men and the environment is a top priority for us.

Basically, pesticides can only be sold on the market if it has been proven that if they are used properly, they are not harmful for men and the environment and that environment is not exposed to any unacceptable risk. Furthermore, we apply globally uniform safety standards. And even if in some countries, they are more stringent than the local regulations.

Furthermore, we are running global scale we are running trainings on a global scale every year. And as I just said, in 2025, we have thus reached almost 4.1 million users. Mr. Butzi Shimane asked about a partnership in Tanzania. Thank you very much for your interest. We are happy to enter into a respective dialogue on this.

And with that, I hand over to you, Rodrigo, for further questions.

You asked that when digital farming will contribute with gains in agriculture in Europe and how buyer will contribute. So digital agriculture is already contributing to productivity gains, including in Europe, our digital platform, Field Ville brings together machine data and turns into practical fill specific recommendations, helping farmers make better decisions. The platform today is using more than 111 million hectares worldwide increasing the value of the seed and crop protection solutions in every farming practice for me, you also ask a how buyer can leave up with a guiding principle science for a better life and health for all and hunger for none without innovation in the field of herbicides.

Thank you for your question. Bayer operates globally and continues to invest in innovation in core protection, including herbcides in Germany, too, where key research activities are being consolidated at Mon Hindsight. We continuously develop and optimize new, safe and sustainable solutions with herbicide in test and fungicide as well. A central element is our life cycle management, which enabled us to achieve numerous new product registrations each year and to tailor our solutions specifically to crops, regions and the needs of agriculture.

Clemens, you asked how Bayer will ensure that effective herbicides will continue to be available to agriculture and how Bayer will contribute particularly in Europe. So Bayer continuously develops an improved new, safe and sustainable crop protection solutions with herbicide infuriated effects for the global market and including Europe. A central element is our life cycle management, which enable us to achieve numerous new product registration every year. This enable us to expand our solutions to additional crops and regions and to tailor them closely to agriculture needs.

And Mr. Min, you asked about the currently available database and if it's demonstrated its efficiency to identify new herbicide modes of actions using artificial intelligence and then successfully launched corresponding products. Discovering new modes of actions is 1 of our key priorities in crop protection and in the field of AI, we are leveraging our innovative crop key approach to crop protection chemistry to achieve improved levels of precision, safety and sustainability by designing crop protection molecules that are engineered to be highly targeted specific with a minimum environmental footprint. Another example, we announced our continued partnership with Open fold Consortium a leading nonprofit AI research consortium. We shared our intent to apply the consortium's newest model, open old tree to start proteins from plants, weeds and paths, thereby accelerating the development of new crop protection molecules and trades.

And with that, back to Stefan.

Thank you, Rodrigo. So you asked about studies on home then. And the reports published on that so far and also in our archive, you find indications the 2 studies which were performed in the period from 1915 to 1980 and specialized hospitals on the registration of par products. And these are performed on the basis of the legal and ethical framework conditions applicable at the time. And in accordance with the respective indications. These studies were part of the clinical development program of the substances. And children and teams were also involved to a small extent in these studies. If the medical demand all the respective indication was given. We support the historical investigation of the conditions of the use of medication in children's homes in the period from 1950 to 98, and we'll continue to do so by providing access to our historic archives in Leverkusen and Benin. The call for financial compensation, however, is something that we respect because we were not responsible for the conditions at the time in the children's or for the actions of the respective employees.

They asked about product [indiscernible] is the cause of embryos malformations in the 1970s and 1980s comprehensive studies and expert opinions were performed by well-known experts to identify possible root causes amongst in Germany, the U.K. and in the U.S. without these studies having resulted improving an excel root cause effect connection between the use of the Duogynon and those cases reported. In our view, there are still no new scientific findings, which would question applicability of these studies, which has also been confirmed in Germany, but then I hand back to Wolfgang Nickl.

Thank you, Stefan. Thank you, Stefan. Mr. Oswald. You filed a motion to supplement the artist of the Association of Bay to have them reflect that future annual stockholders' meetings of BRG be conducted as hybrid ASMs, which would be a mixture of in presence and virtual formats.

Such an amendment to the Articles of Association cannot be requested by way of procedural request at today's Annual Stockholders' Meeting. We cannot decide on such a change to the Articles of Association at an Annual Stockholders' Meeting. Such a modification of the Articles of Association is not envisaged by today's agenda. Such issues have to be prepared in advance and we need to have a quorum. In addition, we have substantial doubts with respect to the proposed change to the Article Association, the Soft Corporation Act basically envisages 2 formats of Annual Shareholders Meeting. The in presence and the virtual format. Both formats work well and have been tried and tested. By contrast, this German Stock Corporation Act does not envisage a legal framework for the conduct of a hybrid ASM, such an amendment to the Article of Association for the conduct of a hybrid ASM would therefore be associated with substantial legal risks. As we've already mentioned, within the scope of a virtual ASM, all stockholder rights are safeguarded. In addition, the virtual ASM enables a widespread partization of the stockholders independent of their place of residence, and it also takes into account cost issues and sustainability considerations. Mr. But Simon, -- you asked some questions with respect to unscheduled plant outages. These are documented systematically as soon as they occur, the objective being assessing them and troubleshooting.

Having said that, I would like to hand back to you, Norbert.

Thank you, Wolfgang, ladies and gentlemen, we have a number of requests for the floor. 5 to 6 individuals have requested to speak. We're in contact with them. I don't believe that the technical connections have been established yet. Therefore, I suggest that we interrupt the ASM briefly until everyone has been able to log on. So we interrupt the annual stockholders meeting now for a couple of minutes.

[Presentation]

Ladies and gentlemen. Ladies and gentlemen, we would now like to continue our discussion and the next speaker will be Veronica [indiscernible]. And like to then ask Daniel, Vena and Hans to be ready to take the floor after. Ms. [indiscernible], you have the floor.

Thank you. I'll be speaking and is my German is not that good. My name is Veronica [indiscernible], and I'm here to ask a question on behalf of ShareAction, who facilitates a group of investors concerned about regulatory and transition risks from have pet side. We are concerned about the highly hazardous best in your product portfolio and the material risks these products exposed to the company and its investors to -- we would like to better understand your plans to improve transparency and action on highly hazardous test sites. And for context, the company central global biodiversity framework signed by all 196 parties to the conventional biological diversity includes clear targets to address the role of pests in biodiversity class. And the global framework and chemicals target emphasized the urgent need for action and transparency on highly hazardous pesticides, including Target A7, which specifies stakeholders must take effective measures to phase out highly hazardous best is in agriculture, where the risks have not been managed and were safer and affordable alternatives are available and to promote transition to and make available those alternatives. This required companies to identify, disclose and create transition plans for high hazardous pesticides. Now we have noted what is disclosed in your latest annual report, but what is your plan to improve transparency on these products to align with the targets of the GFC and to prepare the forthcoming CSRB revenue disclosure requirements for substances of concern and substances are very high concern. Thank you.

Yes. Thank you very much, Veronica [indiscernible]. The next speaker is Daniel Vena, followed by Hans Oswald and then [indiscernible]. Mr. Vana, you have the floor.

Thank you very much for letting me take the floor once again. I pass to the floor beforehand, but the problem has already been raised. It's a known problem. If questions have not been answered sufficiently, or if we believe they haven't been answered efficiently. So if you close the speakers so early, there's no possibility to ask a follow-up question. So I think that your answer was -- well, let me put it this way, is very short and simple. And I think it was a bit autocratic to simply do it in that way. Now that is certainly something that you're allowed to do, Dr. Vince Johan, I have a slight restriction here. I took a look at this with the with someone from the Internet service. And I didn't quite hear the answer for Mr. Vince Johan. I didn't hear that. Maybe that's exactly what I was waiting to hear. So virtual shareholders' meetings. Well, my impression is I'm just speaking off the cuff right now. And this is something that you have to go through. It's mandatory and it's tiring. I realize that, but it's also timing for me as well. And I'm speaking here as an individual shareholder. I don't belong to any organization or whatever. I'd just like to get an impression of Bayer. Bayer is a very questionable company because I live in Krefeld, and that means that there is a tradition for Bayer here in this city and is seen as something we have to consider something that is good and something that might be threatening for the company. So I would simply like to have some more information. But I don't get a very good impression. And the question is, what are your interests? What kind of an impact do you want to have? And I think we're just amongst ourselves. I'm sure there are probably only a few hundred people still following the annual shareholders meeting, the press is already left. So I think we can talk as normal human beings to 1 another. And the answers that you read off very quickly. And these simply can bring the agenda to an end, and then you have met all the requirements with respect to shareholders, right, but you didn't do very much for your image. So I would like to request that return to in-person annual shareholders companies telecom to do it, why can't you do it, especially are you are being focused on. There are a lot of questions. You do good things, but you also do things that are also subject to criticism. And there is -- this is rightly so. So face up to it, my proposal could perhaps help to solve this problem with regard to some of the follow-up questions after having asked questions. And I'll come to 1 that I think that was not really answered completely. Otherwise, everything else can be picked up. My proposal is now people who've asked for the floor, they have a standby right, so to speak. So before the Annual Shareholders Meeting or the -- when the list has been closed in all of the questions at penance should be asked once again. Are you happy with the answers you've got? And this is the case at an in-person ASM, you asked. Have we answered all your questions, and if no 1 else asks for the floor, then we can conclude with our general discussion. I think that would be -- okay, somebody asking for the -- for the first time, the list has been closed. But you've already asked for the floor, you should have the possibility to ask a follow-up question. That is something that can't be all that difficult. And I think that it would be accommodating to us for our shareholders. Everybody is thinking about the company, perhaps worried about the company. And we're not only shareholders. We're also citizens in this country, citizens on this planet. And I think that a lot of things are going through our minds, not just earning money or having a high share price or how we're going to deal with all of these different questions. Monsanto once again, and this is something that is having an extreme impact on there. These are questions that are out there, and I think that we simply have to have access to all of this.

So let me put it this way. I'm not an activist. No. I can really understand that you might become an active is 1 day, be open with us, talk to us. We're not going to hurt you, and we don't want to be heard by you. What we want is to better understand the world, the world we live in. We and you as well. So thank you very much for your attention.

Hold on. I forgot 1 thing. One question that was not answered. And I'd asked clearly about this on the image video. The human voice. Is that a human voice or is it AI? And if you have the possibility to work with an artificial voice. And if this is trained, in that way to generate an artificial voice, would you really be able to do that? Would you want to do that? And image video that really takes away from the human aspect behind all of this. And this is something that you also work with, with the medicine that you produce as well as the food and food supply that you're guaranteeing you really want to have an artificial voice on all of that. I think that, that is something that really needs to be discussed.

Okay. Thank you very much, Mr. Vana, we will take your questions on board. If I say things right, we have 3 more speakers on my list. We tried to reach him Mr. Herling, maybe you can let us know you're out there, and we can put you on the speakers' list. And now the next one is Mr. Oswald. This is the third block. Mr. Oswald, you were -- I took you earlier on the list to speak is because of your motion, and we'll deal with that. And now I'd like to call upon you now to make your statements or any questions that you might have on the agenda. So once you've had the floor, we will hear from Mr. Herning and then Mr. Parmod Bushar, who should be ready to take the floor. Mr. Oswald sorry, you have the floor.

Go ahead. Thank you, Professor Dr. Vince Johan. My name is Hans Oswald. I am on the Board at Febrahegan [indiscernible]. I'd like to just raise a few points Welcome, and hello to everyone, especially the owners of Bayer and that is to say the shareholders, I would like to welcome all of you here today to the Annual Shareholders Meeting a hybrid ASM is the only form of ASM that cover all of our rights as shareholders. And I'd also say that somebody else mentioned hybrid ASMs. I'd like to contradict. If you want to do that, you can do that and you have so many lobbies that you could do this without any problem whatsoever. If you wanted to. If the Board of management, you have millions that they earn and if you take the EUR 12 million, then of course, there must be something left over for the shareholders. So that's why I would like to ask for this, Daniel and his comments, all I can do is agree with what he said. He put it very well and that is how things should be and how that could be done, et cetera. So my special thanks go out to the employees at Bayer for the work they did over the last fiscal year. And also the Bayer soccer players did very well, and this is of their known because of the positive promotion. And just like the soccer players, you should also include them even more and better in your PR, take a look at the advertising in the field of soccer. And you have the possibility to really use U.S. soccer players to have a positive image. And I don't see enough of that. We associate the SoCa players with certainly not enough with your chemicals company. Be Saga is not as successful as they were with Cabo unfortunately, but they are still successful. And I think perhaps you should get somebody like Capilano back. I am really sorry that he left there we had excellent players. And I would expect that you give us a statement on that, also with regard to winning or loosing in soccer at AG.

The transmission of the entire ASM is good, and I'd like to say thank you very much for that. But -- and I also like to give you the green card, rather than give you the red card because this has been very open and everyone has been able to have a look at this. I think that's good. And I think you should continue with this. You should pass this on to other companies as well. Some of them are blocking ASM, and we don't think that's good.

Now when it comes to ratification of the acts of the Board of Management and the Supervisory Board, we also have to ask some general questions on the ASM so that we can get answers to these questions, and we can determine whether or not we can ratify the Board of Management and the Supervisory Board. Dr. Paul [indiscernible]. Hello. I'm pleased to see you here and to see that you're in person at Bayer, you have you worked at the Deutsche Bank, and you had lots of criticism there. And I must say, it took 10 years approximately before you could get Deutsche Bank back on course. Maybe you will manage that in conjunction with Professor Dr. Winkelman, that would be wonderful. And it would be good if you could then also make a statement as to how you can imagine this for the further course because the share and Instagram are not doing all that well.

Sorry, I just hung up, somebody was calling me on the phone, I have to switch it off. Sorry about that. Okay. Now maybe it will be a good idea if you could describe a typical day at work, Mr. Anderson and Mr. [indiscernible] also, in particular, when it comes to glyphosate round up. Maybe you could explain to us what you are doing there. What are you doing so that we can then have a positive account on this and how this will be in the future and how you want to settle all of this with all of the negative assessments that you've had with all of the negative statements we've heard from speakers today. In 2024, things were much worse, of course. So we have to see to it that things settle down somewhat and that we can make progress there because this has led to a lot of negative PR. In the last few years have shown once and again that we've had problems or complaints, Dr. Vincorion and that is with the overboarding, you're overboarding. I don't think it's all that bad, I must say. It depends on what an individual can do and what the individual situation is. And maybe you could explain that to us. How do you see that with your different mandates. And I'd also like to know to what extent the Trump tariffs or burden on par, especially since you are active in the U.S. as well. And that would be a statement we would like to hear something on once upon a time, there was the all-time high for our share price. It was about EUR 168. And then it plummeted down to EUR 18. We went to EUR 10, even lower that was a record. And now we have recovered somewhat. And we can see that the all-time low is a bit far away if we are simply moving -- we're similarly far moved from the all-time high. Lots of shareholders have lost a lot of money with their Bayer shares. Remember 1 thing, when it was over 100 or over at 168, now they really have to try about it. So I would like to say, I can calm you down when it comes to the share price. But I also am quite sad when I see the problems with Monsanto and Roundup. And there, we hope that we can then go back up to over EUR 100 do something about it. And I think Mr. Alain, he might be able to help you out on that point.

EUR 0.11 dividend. Well, this is a question for the shareholders. When you see that a maximum of EUR 12 million paid for the Board of Management, a dividend indicator of more than EUR 100 million, that is unbelievable. And I think you really should do something about that. And now I have 1 small request with regard to the excessive compensation. My motion is that we do not ratify or that the compensation for the Board of Management should be cut in half 12 million should be reduced only for the CEO without any fringe benefits, that is 600x what a salesperson gets. 550x that with the minimum wage would get. And this is per day, it's more than EUR 57,000, and that's about 7,000 hours per hour. So the CEO, I'm sure could have 42x the maximum point, and that means tankage Stim, our President here in Germany and 45x what are changes here in Germany. In Bavarian, we say this is like a self-service store. So I'd like to request thinking about this. To what extent -- could you maybe do something here? And maybe your employees could then also serve your employees better with their pay. Thank you very much for your trust and for your willingness to listen to me. I'd like to say goodbye to you all now, and we have a sunny day, blue-side and I would like to say something positive to close on. Thank you very much, and all the very best.

Thank you very much, Mr. Oswald. Also for the green card and for the good wishes to our employees. Of course, we will pass these on. And the questions then will be answered later on.

Ladies and gentlemen, I see just 1 more speaker on our list in the third block. And I think that means that we will have dealt with the speakers list. [indiscernible] will be talking to us now. Mr. [indiscernible], you have the floor.

Thank you very much, ladies and gentlemen, dear management Board, shareholders. My name is [indiscernible], I'm a biochemist commission. I'm dealing with the impact of pesticides, impact on environment and health. [indiscernible] on behalf of the CBG concerning the topic of responsibility. Your interpreter has to say that person speaking is hardly audible. We'll try our best coming by the interpreter. So we are pacing ourselves on studies. We do also, things that you are basing the 7 studies and research work and to inform the authorities that doesn't clear the case. In the 70s and 80s, the pace pesticide coming to the market. When derating, they are releasing what is eligible, not degrade toxic matters. And much as we can and substances cannot be removed from the water. So the irreversible enrichment of the broader is given then. Today, this has become reality patients are used on a workboat basis. There's enough evidence that is used in a much higher concentration than any other man-made chemicals can be proven in, in fact, human blood plants, et cetera. of the ground water research in Germany show that the limit value the threshold value is by far exceeded -- your interpreter is absolutely, sorry. This cannot be translated. There are so many background noises. We have to close the microphone, awefully, sorry. You could try to reconnect the speaker if that is possible from a technician point of view.

[Foreign Language]

Your interpreters apologize, but there is a machine running in the background, and we cannot understand what the speaker is seeing. We apologize. I'm terribly sorry.

[Foreign Language]

Again, we apologize. There is a machine running in the background, and it is impossible to tell for sure what the speaker is trying to say. I'm very sorry. I hope he's almost finished.

[Foreign Language]

Thank you very much, Mr. [indiscernible]. Thank you for your statement, for your questions. Ladies and gentlemen, that is the end of our speakers list. That will take us a little time to answer your questions. So I'd like to take a quick break now. It will maybe take us about 10 minutes, and we'll be back then. Thank you.

[Break]

Ladies and gentlemen, after the break, we will continue with answering the questions. Questions after the third and last speaker block. I will start with a counter motion presented by Mr. Oskar to reduce by half the compensation for management for the compensation of the members of the management board, it's the Supervisory Board, which is responsible, and they will decide on the basis of what the ASM decides when we will therefore not present for vote for content.

I will hand over to Mr. Nickl Mr. [indiscernible], you're asking whether the voice and the image video is AI generated a natural one. I can assure you it's a human voice. And you were also asking whether in future videos, we will use artificial voices. This is not our plan.

Mr. [indiscernible], you will ask them, well, we are not having an in-person ASM. The ordinary ASM 25 has authorized the management board with a majority of 75.6% a to have a virtualized and 2 further years. From the operation for the implementation of the ASM in virtual format, the Management Board has made use of it and the Management Board has then taken into consideration all items of the agenda. The target of a broad participation of shareholders of aspects and sustainability aspects. And it was crucial for the management Board by shareholders right in today's virtual as correspond to what happens in an in-person meeting as far as speaking rights questions and answers are concerned. This is why we decided to say of virtual format.

Mr. Oswald, you were asking about the impact of Trump tariffs, especially against the backdrop of our operations in the U.S.A. We have prepared to deal with the volatility across different business areas and consider the increased uncertainty of new normality. In '25, we managed to never get through dynamic trade political environment and to restrict the impact of the digital tariffs. This was achieved by way of a combination of targeted measures in our cross country and by way of concrete exception rules, which also resulted from the strategic relevance of our product. Our new DSO working mode has turned out to be highly efficient in order to react flexibly to changes and we will further enhance the strength. For the year, 26, our outlook includes the current assessment of expected indirect political impact. We will keep an eye on the further development. This includes straight relationships between the U.S. and the EU and various bilateral multilevel trade agreements.

Mr. [indiscernible]. You were asking for the losses or gains in the field of soccer via AG. We can tell you here now that we do not have any explicit business division soccer within IAG, if we can communicate that the loss or profit with via 04 [indiscernible] was EUR 0, and the numbers are going to be published at the end of May, by the way.

Mrs. [indiscernible], you were asking for the transparency as far as highly dangerous helpful pesticide can since 2012, Bayer has not sold any crop protection anymore, which were considered proxy by the world health organization since 2016. I have submitted to only sell substances, which are at least approved in OECD country as far as the active agents are concerned. We only have a few highly hazardous passes in our global portfolio, and they only account for a small share of our revenue. To control impact on risk in context with such substances, we have introduced a global group guideline concerning the assessment of chemical substances. This guideline describes how identified substances are monitored and which kind of measures we take.

Mr. Oswald, you were asking what we do in order to solve the [indiscernible] problem in the interest of the company. The restriction of litigations is 1 of the 5 major challenges of the companies we are dealing with as priority together with the competent experts, we are promoting sustainable solutions in order to reduce legal risk Bill Anderson and robot will cut your hand, has already mentioned that in their comments.

Mr. [indiscernible], you were asking for the health risk deriving from TSA is currently subject of scientific risk assessment by the European Chemicals Agency which will probably be concluded in the coming months. The results of such study cannot be anticipated, and we do not want to advance any assessments made by the authority. We would like to ask you to turn directly to the ECH agency in Health.

Mr. [indiscernible], you were also asking for the residual substance of DFA in the environment. By will comply with legal requirements, and we are continuously participating in consultations with European regulatory authorities as far as threshold values saying the ongoing processes are not lost yet and there's no official proposal that has been published by the European Commission.

Mr. [indiscernible], you had a few questions on GFA. The safety of our products is a top priority for our company. We assess all new findings cautiously and report the authorities by -- based on full transparency all data that could have an impact on the safety of our product. [indiscernible] asset has been used for a long time and is container processes like polymer refrigerants, construction industry, household products, chemical industry, health care, TFA is also a metabolite of some plant protection substances. According to the results of news, the scientific studies on TSA, including relevant monitoring data, we must establish that there are no indications of risk through TSA expert House in the everyday life and no impact on human health or the environment. And this is also a turf potential TSA burdens. If there is a proper use, there is no concern about it. It's important to know that it's not Bayer, but another company which is competent for reregistration concerning TSA has submitted follow-up studies and the has received a proposal for cell classification concerning reproduction toxicity. It's also important to know that ECHA has carried out versification processes and all available scientific elements are taken into consideration.

Mr. Ming, you were asking how we can make sure in the future that agriculture, especially in Europe, has sufficient effective substances available for the reduction of competing plus, especially herbicides. The availability of new herbicides is an important question concerning the competitiveness of European farmers. And this is why our new herbicide at Catlin has already been submitted for registration in the EU. This activation has a totally new active mechanism in here side, this has not existed for more than 30 years. The active agent has been developed as part of our new research approach crop key with the aid of AI. In concrete terms, it made that we are no longer looking for active agents, but we designed the relevant molecules so that they comply exactly with the weeks we want to come back like a key in cable. It is up to the European authorities to give approval to the products and to make these innovations available to European farmers.

Mr. Ming, you communicated that currently, we cannot talk about the fact that the target of significant productivity increases by way of digital farm in river be achieved. We take note of this assessment, and we point out that increases have been achieved, but there is further potential.

Mr. Ming, you were asking whether the available database is efficient when we search for a new mode of actions. Our substance library gives us an excellent foundation. And as we already mentioned, we are taking advantage of our new CropKey approach. Bioscientists thus can improve the composition of the product by taking into consideration efficiency, safety and sustainability criteria. Instead of using screening for the search of molecules, the research is designed with the help of novel molecules, which are targeted to certain proteins in weeds and harmful insects. I think I'm through, and I hand over to you, Norbert.

Thank you very much, Wolfgang, for answering those questions. The list of speakers and the questions have all been answered now. So we have answered your questions in detail, and we've answered all the questions that have been asked.

Since there are no further speakers on my list, I would like to note that all of the questions have been answered. I would like to thank you all for your contributions and the Board of Management for answering their questions. So that closes our discussion.

Before we turn to the vote, I'd like to note once again that at regular intervals, we've been updating the list — the attendance list has been available in the shareholders' portal for the shareholders and their representatives.

Ladies and gentlemen, Mr. Oswald had presented a motion with regard to ratification of the Board of Management and Supervisory Board actions individually. And this is something that I will first vote on this before we turn to the vote on the agenda items.

To avoid any misunderstanding, I'd like to say that this vote is only the decision on the procedural question as to whether the Board of Management and Supervisory Board should be ratified individually. And when it comes to the ratification of the act, this will be done separately. So we will carry this out through the shareholders' portal.

The motion is shown there, and you can vote by absentee ballot or you can also give your authorization and instructions to the company's representatives, proxy representatives. Who is in favor of Mr. Oswald's motion should vote yes in the field. And if not, you should focus this on the field called no. And if you want to abstain, and this is now at 4:30, that is where we will conclude the vote on the decision as to whether they should be voted on individually.

You can vote by absentee ballot or you can give your authorizations and instructions, and any changes to this or any changes you'd like to make or revocations will no longer be possible after the break I just announced.

The broadcast will be interrupted briefly, and we will start up again at —-- sorry, at 4:32. That's when we will continue.

[Break]

Ladies and gentlemen 4:34. We'd like to continue as planned. And it is no longer possible to change any of your instructions, and any other changes or revocations with regard to the individual voting possibilities are no longer possible.

This has been taken into account, and I'd like to ask the notary public to take note of that. The proxy representatives have also released the votes that they have and their appropriate instructions. So we're going to now begin counting the votes. And once I have the results, I will announce the results. And I'd again like to interrupt once again. The notary public will also be overseeing the counting of the votes.

[Break]

ladies and gentlemen, we now have the results with regard to the ratification of the actions of the different Boards. I'd like to announce, first of all, the request for individual ratification. And here, we saw that there are 480,358,285 shares for valid votes, and this accounts to 46.9% of the share capital. 16,767,174 votes in favor, that's 3.49% and 463,591,111 votes against, that amounts to 96.51%. We also had 103,355,906 abstentions.

And here, we see the results with regards to the individual ratification of the Supervisory Board. I'd like to note that we see that with 480,355,000, this is the Supervisory Board, and we see that this accounts for 48.9% of the share capital. Then we have 16,776,174 votes in favor or 3.49% and 463,590,264 votes against, 96.51%. And we see that there were also 103,354,753 abstentions.

The Annual Shareholders' Meeting rejected the motion to vote on these individually.

Ladies and gentlemen, that brings us to the end of the agenda and we talk about the votes have been entered into the system. And here, we see the instructions that have been taken into account. And now we can see that with regard to the absentee ballots will also be taken into account if they were received on time.

I would like to note that the ASM will be interrupted once again very briefly. We will continue, and we will also see that the different instructions and any changes will no longer be possible.

The proposals from the Board of Management and Supervisory Board were published on the 4th of March with the notice to the ASM. You will find them in the notice to this ASM. I will not read out all of the different proposals since they've already been published. You could do so during the ASM or beforehand, and you could also make other election proposals as well.

And if the election does not receive the necessary majority, then the countermeasures or the election process will be dealt with. If that is the case, then, of course, these counterproposals or the election process will become moved.

With regard to the ratification of the acts of the Board of Management and Supervisory Board, we can say that the members to be ratified, here, you cannot vote for your own shares nor for shares of third parties. And this also applies to those of you who are representing shares from the members to be ratified.

I'd like to now note that at 5:00, we will conclude the vote. You can vote by absentee ballot, and you can give instructions and authorizations will no longer be possible after that — after the next break. It will no longer be possible.

So please remember that your votes and your instructions can take some time through the Internet, and that's why we will do so as possible. So now we will interrupt once again very briefly, and we will continue then at 5:00 p.m.

[Break]

Ladies and gentlemen, it's 5:00, and we're going to continue our ASM just like I announced. Voting via absentee ballot and the instructions and proxies to the proxy holders are no longer possible. The technology has taken that into consideration, and I'd like to ask the notary public to also take the note.

The proxy holder has released the instructions that were submitted at the point in time of the closure of the voting system. We will now start to count the vote. Despite the use of highly sophisticated technology, the counting will take some time. As soon as I've got the results available, I will announce them. And until then, I ask for your patience. The notary public will monitor the voting process.

[Break]

Ladies and gentlemen, I've got the results of the voting available, and I will continue the ASM, and I will announce the resolutions. Let me point out that the ASM shortly after the announcement of the resolution will be closed. And this ends the opportunity we have given to object via the shareholders' portal.

The number of the votes and their share in the registered share capital as the number of the yes and no votes as well as the abstentions will be shown on screen. The aforementioned pieces of information are part of my resolutions and announcements. Thus, the established resolutions and announcements include all information required according to Section 130 subsection 2, sentence 2 of the Stock Corporation law.

Detailed voting results will also be made available on the shareholders' portal, and they will also be published on the website of the company.

Ladies and gentlemen, for each resolution, I do establish and announce by referring to the information you see on screen as follows. We submitted for vote the resolutions proposed by the Management Board and Supervisory Board, which were published in the Federal Gazette on 4th March this year.

On Item 1, the ASM has adopted the draft resolution concerning the appropriation of profits with a vote of 98.63%.

On Item 2, ratification of the acts of the members of the Management Board, the ASM adopted the draft resolution with 96.65%. And I'm happy about the trust you placed in the Management Board and congratulations to Bill Anderson and all the members of the Management Board for this.

This takes us to Item 3 on the agenda, ratification of the acts of the Supervisory Board. The ASM had adopted the resolution at 95.48%. Ladies and gentlemen, I would like to thank on behalf of all the Board members for the trust you place in us.

On Item 4, elections to the Supervisory Board, the ASM has adopted the proposed resolution namely to elect Marcel Smith at 97.89%. And as far as Alfred is concerned, the ASM adopted at 92.3%. Congratulations to the two, I'm looking forward to cooperating with the two gentlemen.

Item 5, resolution on the approval of the compensation report. Here, the ASM has adopted the resolution at 88.93%.

Item 6.1, election of the auditor and the auditor for potential auditor's review of the half yearly financial report and the interim financial report for the third quarter of fiscal '26. The ASM has adopted the proposed resolution at 99.78%.

On Item 2, election of the auditors for the sustainability report. The ASM adopted the proposed resolution with 99.90%. I would like to congratulate the ladies and gentlemen from Deloitte for the election.

Item 7, election of the auditor for a potential auditor review of a potential interim financial report for the first quarter of fiscal '27. Here, the ASM has adopted the proposed resolution at 99.87%. I would like to congratulate the ladies and gentlemen from PricewaterhouseCoopers for the election.

Ladies and gentlemen, this means that the voting results have thus settled all the countermotions, which are no longer to be discussed.

Ladies and gentlemen, this has brought us to the end of our agenda. I would like to thank you on behalf of the Management Board and Supervisory Board for participating in today's ASM. And I would also like to extend my cordial thanks to all staff members who have prepared the answers to the question and everybody who's been participating and involved in the preparation and implementation of the ASM.

The next ordinary ASM of the company is planned for 30 April '27. Once again, thank you very much for your attendance and the interest you show in our company. I would like to farewell to you, and I wish you all the best. Stay healthy and a peaceful future. To all of you, a nice evening and a relaxing weekend.

I thus close the ASM at 5:26 p.m. Thank you very much.

[Portions of this transcript that are marked [Interpreted] were spoken by an interpreter present on the live call.]

Good afternoon and good morning, everybody. Welcome to our conference call to review Q4 and full year 2025 and to look into 2026. To begin, Bill will share his perspective on our business development, the progress we've made in our transformation and the path ahead of us. Wolfgang will then provide an overview of our financials in 2025 and the outlook for 2026. We will then hear from our divisional presidents on the performance of their businesses and plans going forward to execute their strategies, and then we move to the Q&A.

Before we begin, please note the cautionary language in our safe harbor statement. Let me also remind you that we'll speak about our sales growth in currency and portfolio adjusted terms throughout today's presentation, if not stated differently.

And with that, over to you, Bill.

Thanks, Jost. Thanks to all of you for joining today's call. We're really happy to go through our 2025 results and to provide an outlook for '26. Before doing that, I do want to share a short update on company leadership. As we announced in November, Judith Hartmann has joined the company and the Board of Management as of March 1. So she's going to spend the coming weeks getting to know the company, its customers, our people, our products before taking over as CFO in June. So she's looking forward to meeting you. I know some of you know her already, picking up from Wolfgang, who's definitely locked in on steering the company through an important next 3 months.

So let's get into 2025. In July, we upgraded our currency adjusted sales and earnings guidance for the year. And today, we're announcing that we delivered that guidance, landing comfortably within the improved corridor. Sales came in at EUR 45.5 billion, and we posted core earnings per share of EUR 4.91, and our free cash flow came in at EUR 2.1 billion. Here's a picture of our businesses. Crop Science progressed in the first year of its profitability improvement program. A rejuvenated picture of our Pharmaceuticals business emerged with launch medicines establishing themselves as growth drivers and others advancing through our pipeline to the market. Our Consumer Health business suffered from the market softness in the United States and China, but maintained the bottom line. And across the firm, we're seeing improvements to the way we operate. Launches are moving at great speed, resources moving much more fluidly.

Our organization is considerably flatter and leaner, less managerial and more mission-oriented. We have roughly half as many layers, and we've reduced management by 2/3 compared with when we kicked off this work. The 88,000 people of Bayer are doing more faster with less. And all in all, we recognize progress on our comprehensive turnaround plan, but the journey is far from over. There's much more to do in each of our priorities and each of our businesses. Our focus is on the important work ahead. One of those key priorities is significantly containing litigation. Two weeks ago, Monsanto and plaintiff lawyers in the U.S. announced a nationwide class settlement to resolve eligible current and future cases in the glyphosate litigation.

And today, I want to reiterate a few key points. First, the class settlement is moving through approvals. Just as we said 2 weeks ago, we're confident in the merits of the agreement. We await the judge's ruling, and we'll be ready for any scenario. Second, Monsanto has filed its opening briefs with the U.S. Supreme Court, and the case has received strong support from the U.S. government, Attorneys General in 15 states, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and many more. We will continue preparing our case in anticipation of a ruling likely in the second half of June. We're particularly grateful for the backing we've gotten from farmer groups across the United States who know better than anyone how important glyphosate is for their vital work.

In fact, the White House recently recognized how essential glyphosate is for U.S. food security with an executive order. We share that view, and we're fully prepared to comply. Overall, our multipronged strategy proceeds at pace. We know we have some important milestones ahead of us. We'll stay focused on taking the right steps for the company and remaining prepared for all outcomes. Beyond that, this issue has garnered a lot of attention lately. And in the coming months, we expect a rigorous debate about American agriculture and what's needed to create a food system that's robust, sustainable, healthy and regulated by sound science. We appreciate that people come to this issue with a range of opinions, and we welcome that conversation. Most importantly, we've got to be clear on the facts.

Fact 1, glyphosate safety is resoundingly confirmed by regulators. More than 50 countries, including the U.S., Canada and countries across Europe say so. These are thorough reviews, not designed at getting clicks or going viral, but carefully assessed risk and reaching scientific assessments. Fact 2, glyphosate is essential for agriculture and food systems. It keeps carbon in the soil and protects harvest from being wiped out by weeds. It helps keep a trip to the grocery store affordable at a time when food prices are a topic of concern. American farmers are a bedrock of the nation's economy and a force for food security around the world, and we want to keep it that way. Fact 3, litigation in the U.S. is big business. Litigation costs amount to more than $600 billion a year. That's taking more than $4,000 out of the pocket of every American household. And it's growing, thanks to backing by private equity and foreign investors who enjoy tax-free returns.

Last week, the Washington Post called on Congress to pass tort reform and specifically cited the glyphosate litigation as an example of how the system has gone wrong. So the next time the narrative is framed as sticking it to the big corporation, people should question who is actually the big corporation here and who's ultimately bearing the cost. For years now, Bayer has been on the record on this issue and many others surrounding the glyphosate litigation. We've made our case to politicians across political lines and the general public, and we'll continue to be clear and transparent about our interests. We'll engage with people of different opinions, and we'll hope to find common ground. Most importantly, when it comes to questions this big, we'll always start with what's true.

Now beyond litigation, we have a full agenda for 2026. We have ambitions to help many more patients with Nubeqa and Kerendia. 2026 will be the first full year of sales for both Beyonttra and Lynkuet, and we want to launch Asundexian as soon as possible. Our Crop Science business set the foundation in 2025, establishing its 5-year framework. Execution is underway and will continue in 2026 with the goal of improving the top and bottom line in '26, all while preparing important launch plans scheduled for '27 and beyond. Consumer Health plans to advance its Road to Billion strategy, setting off -- sorry, offsetting an uncertain market by making the right investment decisions in categories where we have the most to win.

And in a year where we're bearing the brunt of litigation-related impact, we're exercising vigilant discipline in how we manage our resources. Cash conversion is of the utmost importance. Deleveraging remains a big focus area, and Wolfgang will tell you more about our financing plans for this year. And we're laser-focused on delivering the EUR 2 billion in organizational savings through our operating model. In terms of our outlook, we expect a solid performance in 2026 with product declines in Pharma and Crop Science due to loss of exclusivity and regulatory pressure in the EU, offset by continued strong performance of our launch products and our annual portfolio refresh. In addition, we want to ensure continued investment in our pipeline and launch products in '26 to set ourselves up for growth in '27 and beyond.

Before accounting for FX changes, we see our core earnings per share landing roughly in line with last year. And as we shared 2 weeks ago, we're expecting a negative free cash flow this year due to litigation-related payouts. That outlook is emblematic of the company's current strategic position, strong signs of progress, but still working on a comprehensive turnaround. We've made major gains across the company, but that work is not yet complete. We're focused on delivering what we've committed for '26 and making the right long-term decisions to set Bayer up for sustained profitable growth. We have a clear picture of what needs to be done in every area. We're dialed in on the tasks at hand, and we're ready to deliver. So Wolfgang will walk you through the numbers. Over to you.

Thanks, Bill. Welcome also from my side. Let's first take a closer look at the group financials for the full year '25. In a pivotal year, we fully achieved our raised financial guidance for all group KPIs. Group net sales came -- grew by 1% year-over-year in a currency and portfolio adjusted terms. All divisions delivered their adjusted guidance. Let me briefly highlight the main business drivers by division. For Crop Science, the anticipated regulatory headwinds from the Dicamba label vacatur and the Movento expiration were offset by strong corn seeds and traits growth. Corn growth was driven by several factors, historically high corn acreage in North America, strong performance of our corn seeds and traits globally and finally, a portion of incremental licensing revenue from the resolutions with Corteva in Q4.

Let me pause for a few additional comments on the Corteva resolutions. First, the resolutions represent licensing fees rightfully owed to us for the usage of our proprietary technology across multiple periods, including the years '25 and '26. Licensing fees are an important element of our business model and thus are accounted for as operating revenue. Second, based on content and timing of the resolutions, about EUR 300 million supported our corn performance in Q4 of '25. And as you may have read in the annual report, about EUR 450 million will support our soy performance in Q1 '26, which is reflected in our outlook. We always had a high level of confidence that we would prevail, but these numbers were higher than what we modeled before.

Third, given the positive impact, we decided to advance certain strategic measures like product portfolio streamlining. Together with an impact on incentives, this is largely offsetting the positive effects from licensing income in 2025. It is important to note that the underlying operational targets would have been achieved without these effects as well. Our Pharma business fully delivered on its raised guidance. Nubeqa and Kerendia continued the significant growth momentum and finished the year ahead of our raised expectations. With that, the launch assets performance more than offset the expected decline in Xarelto as well as headwinds in Eylea.

Our Consumer Health division delivered resilient performance in a challenging market environment with net sales stable year-over-year and in line with our revised guidance. Nutritionals were partially affected by difficult market conditions in both China and the U.S., while softer seasonality in cough, cold and allergy led to a decline in this category. As previously indicated, our group top line was impacted by material FX headwinds of around EUR 1.7 billion, driven by the depreciation of the U.S. dollar, the Brazilian real and some hyperinflation currencies.

Let's move to the bottom line. Group EBITDA before special items came in at EUR 9.7 billion compared to the prior year, negative foreign exchange effects of around EUR 500 million weighed on profitability. We also saw higher incentive provisions and growth investments compared to the prior year, while top line growth and cost savings helped to compensate. In an important year for our transformation, all our divisions and the enabling function delivered on the profitability commitments, balancing necessary growth investments with disciplined resource allocation and cost savings. Core earnings per share came in at EUR 4.91. The decline versus the prior year was driven by the expected lower EBITDA before special item and includes FX headwinds of about EUR 0.30. Our core financial results came in better than anticipated. Compared to the prior year, it improved markedly, mainly driven by lower interest expenses and positive changes in equity results.

Reported earnings per share were at minus EUR 3.68, as you can see in the appendix. Main drivers for the delta next to the regular amortization of intangibles are significant litigation-related provisions and liabilities classified as special items. Litigation-related special items amounted to EUR 7.5 billion in total, including the increases that we announced 2 weeks ago. Let me also clarify again that our litigation-related provisions and liabilities are based on a comprehensive assessment. The provision and liabilities of EUR 11.8 billion contain all litigation-related costs we know today and can reliably forecast, also covering past glyphosate verdicts either settled or pending in appeals.

Our free cash flow came in at the upper end of our guidance range at EUR 2.1 billion. The anticipated year-over-year decrease is mainly driven by the expected higher incentive and litigation-related payouts. With our continued focus on improving working capital and prioritizing capital expenditures, we have further reduced our year-end working capital to sales and our CapEx to sales ratios in '25. Net financial debt was reduced to below EUR 30 billion by the end of '25 due to the cash flow contribution and about EUR 1.4 billion in foreign exchange tailwinds driven by a weaker U.S. dollar.

Let's now move to the outlook for '26. Let me start by explaining the background for a methodology change that we will implement for our core earnings per share KPI as of this year. What we want to achieve with that is to provide enhanced transparency around our operational performance, reflecting necessary cost of doing business and moving core EPS closer to reported EPS. Previously, our core EPS definition only included the core depreciation linked to usual depreciation of property, plant and equipment. All amortizations of intangibles were excluded. As of this year, we will also factor in the amortization of certain intangible assets, in particular, software. The change in methodology leads to an approximately EUR 0.35 step down in '25. Adjusting for the new methodology, we come from the EUR 4.91 that I just mentioned to EUR 4.57 in 2025.

For '26, we anticipate stable core earnings per share at constant currencies on a like-for-like basis. All businesses plan to further progress in the transformation, continue to execute their strategic agenda and set the basis for future growth. Overall, expected higher earnings contributions from Crop Science and Consumer Health will be offset by anticipated lower earnings in Pharma, in line with the divisional strategies. On the corporate level, our outlook assumes higher long-term incentive provisions due to the increased share price compared to '25. This also results in higher reconciliation cost, as you can see in our modeling assumptions in the appendix. We also expect higher interest expenses impacting our core financial result. This is driven by an anticipated increase in net financial debt due to the substantial litigation-related payouts and the resulting negative free cash flow in 2026.

Finally, on geopolitics. Let me start by addressing the recently started war in the Middle East. Our thoughts are with the people across the region. Our focus is on ensuring the safety of our people and the continuity of our business. At this point in time, we do not see a material impact on our business and we will continue to closely monitor the situation. We are in close contact with our people on the ground who ensure continued supply of our essential products. Regarding tariff and FX, we are prepared to deal with a new dimension of volatility across businesses and regions. In '25, we successfully managed the dynamic trade environment and limited the impact of additional tariffs. This was achieved through a combination of mitigating measures by our cross-functional teams as well as tariff exemptions based on the relevance of our products. Our new way of working proved extremely helpful in flexibly handling the situation, and we will continue to build on that strength going forward.

For 2026, our outlook includes our latest assessment of estimated direct and indirect geopolitical impacts. As mentioned previously, we expect foreign exchange rate fluctuations to remain a major swing factor. Based on year-end spot rates, we anticipate continued foreign exchange headwinds of about EUR 0.30 to our core earnings per share, as shown on the right side of the chart. Managing our FX exposure in the geopolitical context has been a major priority for us in '25 and will continue to be a major priority in '26. Overall, we will continue to monitor the situation very closely. This includes the future of the U.S., EU trade relations following the recent court ruling on IEPA-based tariffs.

Let me summarize with the outlook for all group KPIs for 2026. We anticipate net sales of between EUR 45 billion and EUR 47 billion at constant currencies, representing a growth range of 0% to 3% in currency and portfolio adjusted terms. For EBITDA before special items, we target between EUR 9.6 billion and EUR 10.1 billion in '26 at constant currencies, representing a minus 1% to plus 4% development versus the prior year. As mentioned, core earnings per share are expected to come in between EUR 4.30 and EUR 4.80 at constant currencies. In our free cash flow outlook of minus EUR 1.5 billion to minus EUR 2.5 billion at constant currencies, we account for the expected significant litigation-related payouts of around EUR 5 billion as also announced 2 weeks ago.

With the negative cash flow, we expect net financial debt to increase to between EUR 32 billion and EUR 33 billion at constant currencies. As also announced 2 weeks ago, ultimate financing for the litigation resolutions is planned to rely on senior bonds on the one side and instruments receiving equity credit ratings by the rating agencies on the other side and not on the AGM authorized capital increase. While finalizing these measures, please note that the current net financial debt outlook for now conservatively reflects straight debt financing.

In the last column of this slide, you will find the estimated foreign exchange impact based on month end December 2025 spot rates. And for modeling purposes, we have included all relevant assumptions in the appendix to this presentation, including the combined value for core depreciation and core amortization based on the core EPS methodology change. And with that, Rodrigo, over to you.

Thank you, Wolfgang. In Crop Science, we have built a more agile organization through DSO and strengthen our operational discipline through our 5-year framework. That discipline is already delivering tangible impacts. It show up in 3 areas, underscoring the strength of our core business and the differentiated growth we see through the end of the decade. Number one, in the resilient performance we delivered in 2025. Number two, in the clear step forward we expect in 2026; and number three, in the progress already made against our 5-year framework, laying the foundation for a stronger performance through the midterm.

So before turning to 2025 and 2026 specifically, let me anchor us in where we stand in the 5-year framework because this is the lens through which we manage the business and the road map that guides every decision we make. We are on track to deliver across the triangle sales growth, margin and cash. We've strengthened the operational foundation of the business by simplifying the portfolio and sharpening our footprint, we are firmly on course to deliver the more than EUR 1 billion margin improvement. Actions include divesting and outsourcing multiple active ingredients, exiting nearly 200 crop protection products and streamlining our global site footprint from crop protection to seed production.

We are also exiting lower return vegetable crops and the noncore seed treatment equipment business. As we advance our efforts, portfolio streamlining go-to-market models will be largely completed by year-end. Innovation remains our engine for future growth. Protecting our proprietary traits and R&D capabilities is critical. Simply put, the recent resolution with Corteva is licensing revenue for the use of our technology. It does not change our growth outlook or licensing expectation. It does ensure fair compensation for our technologies today and well into the future. And it safeguards the value of our innovation engine with advanced 6 projects and introduced 470 new hybrids and varieties last year.

Our industry-leading pipeline position us for differentiated durable growth. Our first blockbuster Plenexos is now launched and will expand into Brazil this year. Icafolin submissions are complete. NewGold Camelina is now in the market for biofuels and the 9 additional blockbusters are on track for upcoming introductions. And that includes the Preceon Smart Corn introduced with biotech approach, along with the Vyconic in 2027. As followed close by our fifth-generation herbicide tolerance soybean trait position us for double-digit share growth and put us firmly on a path to retain the #1 soybean trade position in North America. This is the strength of our pipeline. We have an unprecedented number of markets shape innovations on the horizon with a clear pathway for growth.

With that strategic context in place, let's look at how this foundation is already showing up in our results, starting with the resilient performance in 2025. 2025 demonstrated the strength and resilience of our growth engine. We delivered on guidance despite significant regulatory pressure and additional market and currency headwinds. We recognized additional licensing revenue and executed strategic measures specifically to streamline our portfolio, advancing our 5-year framework and strengthening the financial health of our business. Seed and traits delivered robust growth propelled by a near double-digit increase in corn, excluding licensing income with a strong start to the LATAM season and expansion globally. In addition, vegetables delivered a fourth straight year with growth over 5%.

Finally, through disciplined execution, we delivered roughly EUR 400 million of efficiency and cost savings. We close out 2025 with a business that is structurally healthier, better positioned to deliver a steady improvement towards our midterm ambition. So let's talk about 2026. '26 represents yet another step forward in delivering our 5-year framework. We expect ag market fundamentals to remain challenging and project below average market growth. However, our resilient base and focused execution give us confidence while we benefit from the license income, we will continue pushing hard on our 5-year framework measures. Overall, 2026 is another year of diligent execution of our strategic plan, setting us for the future. Our core business growth is expected at 1% to 4% currency and portfolio adjusted. An important contributor for this growth is the recent approval of our Stryax dicamba formulation. This marks the first step in reestablishing the momentum of our North America soybean business, giving farmers the added flexibility they have been waiting for.

For 2026, we expect Stryax herbicide growth as well as pricing gains in soy and cotton. Still, we do not expect full recovery yet preparing for the Vyconic introduction in 2027. For corn, we expect low single-digit growth globally based on anticipated price and market share increase despite acreage reduction in the U.S. And in core Crop Protection, we anticipate softer growth on higher volumes driven by new products, offsetting continued pricing pressure and EU regulatory impact as previously expected. For glyphosate, tariffs recently have been reduced on Chinese import into the U.S. and in generic. So generic PRC pricing has declined below the historical median. With that, we currently expect glyphosate sales to decrease by 2% to 6% compared to the prior year. We will continue to monitor the situation and adjust pricing as needed for the separate managed commodity business.

As we look at calendarization, the noted soy licensing revenue will benefit the first quarter. However, lower tariffs and generic price decline adversely affecting glyphosate sales. And in addition, we expect a soft start to the Crop Protection season on top of continued regulatory effects in Europe. Our growth drivers such as Stryax sales will only emerge later in the season. On the bottom line, we will strengthen our margin profile with expected EBITDA margins before special items of 20% to 22% at constant currency, inclusive of the dilutive glyphosate margins. This reflects continued cost discipline as well as pricing and mix benefits from portfolio streamline in line with our 5-year framework. For example, in soy, we are focused on pricing to value and improve utilization rates over top line growth.

We will monitor current closely as sales seasonally in the soft currency markets like Brazil can create volatility in both on top and bottom line results. Taken together, these factors underpin a realistic execution-focused 2026 outlook and underscore the momentum we are building for the years ahead. Our sharpener portfolio, leaner footprint and increasingly resilient earnings model give us strong confidence in delivering our midterm targets and navigating ag cycles with a greater consistency. We will provide updates through the year and also invite you to join us in Iowa this September for an innovation showcase and a deeper dive into our strategic progress.

And with that, over to you, Stefan.

Thank you, Rodrigo. And over to the Pharmaceuticals division in which we continue to make great progress on our strategic agenda as we have now entered what we call the last year of the so-called resilience phase. And we've seen tangible results for all of our strategic pillars throughout 2025. We're well on track in renewing our top line and our strategy of balancing expected declines for our mature products with growth from new products, which is ultimately working out really well. I will shortly provide more details on our 2025 performance and also on our expectations for 2026, which are both fully in line with this strategy. However, I want to also highlight that we're well set for our next wave of growth right into the next decade, driven by significant sustained Nubeqa and Kerendia sales as well as a successful launch of Beyonttra, the first launch of Lynkuet in the U.S. and very positive data presented for Asundexian only a few weeks ago.

We have demonstrated also great success in our efforts to grow our pipeline value and nourishing our foundation for future growth. Driven by our innovation, our new innovation model, we have progressed 16 clinical programs across the development phases and achieved approval for 5 new key indications or products in 2025. I already mentioned Asundexian, but I do want to reiterate the genuine excitement we witnessed among attending physicians at the International Stroke Conference in New Orleans earlier this year. Not many were expecting such groundbreaking results. With this potential new treatment option in secondary stroke prevention, we may have an opportunity to truly rewrite the future for stroke survivors and their families.

In addition, this study is a great example of how we are derisking our pipeline. It also demonstrates our excellence in executing a study that has been praised by the scientific community for its pragmatic design and for being very representative of clinical practice. In addition, we are continuing to leverage our new operating model for increased performance. With a significantly more outcome-centered organization, we're fully focused on those activities that generate the most value for our customers and the company, and there with also for our shareholders. At the same time, we're applying very stringent OpEx management, which has enabled us to not only increase our performance, but also our efficiency. We have consequently been able to sustain our margin in the mid-20s range, all of this despite facing continued LOE pricing and VBP-related pressures, while we continue to invest into our launches and also into our pipeline.

Now briefly turning to our 2025 performance. Bayer Pharma has delivered on its upgraded 2025 guidance, growing by about 2% in 2025. With strong growth of Nubeqa across regions as well as a fantastic growth of Kerendia, mainly driven by the U.S. and China, resulting in a total combined sales of EUR 3.2 billion just for these 2 medicines, we clearly overachieved expectations. In line with our narrowed guidance corridor, Xarelto declined by 32% or EUR 1.1 billion due to continued genericization, especially in Japan and Europe. For Eylea, we're seeing increased pricing pressures with the market entry of biosimilars, which we were only partially able to offset with volume growth, including an increasing contribution of Eylea 8 milligrams, making up 26% of total Eylea franchise sales through the year and roughly 40% at year-end.

With strong growth in radiology and women's health more than offsetting VBP-related declines, mainly affecting Cardio Aspirin and Stivarga as well as declines in our mature portfolio, our base business grew by 2% and achieved 2025 sales of EUR 9.2 billion. Looking at our margins, we also delivered on our guidance. While the declines from 26% in the prior year to 25.4% in 2025 were driven by changed product mix and pricing pressure, higher growth investments into launches and innovation as well as FX headwinds. We were able to partially offset these by volume growth, continued savings from efficiency programs and reversals of write-downs in inventory.

Moving into 2026, we expect an unbroken growth momentum for Nubeqa and Kerendia, amounting to an expected growth of approximately 50% at constant currencies, respectively, driven by continued market penetration and indication expansions such as, for example, the upcoming EU approval for Kerendia in heart failure following the recent positive CHMP opinion that we received. This growth momentum will be further supported by the continued launch dynamics of Beyonttra and also of Lynkuet. While we were able to defend Xarelto well in 2025 overall, we experienced increased generic pressure towards this year-end.

Therefore, we also expect a slight acceleration of relative declines in 2026 in comparison to last year, being in the range of 35% to 40%. With the accelerated pricing pressures we have seen for Eylea with the entry of 2-milligram biosimilars since Q3 2025, which we may have slightly underestimated, we will focus our activities to build on the strong clinical profile and unparalleled label of Eylea 8 milligrams to significantly expand its contribution to the Eylea franchise to approximately 70% and sustain our market-leading position in volume shares.

Despite these efforts, we will likely see declines for the Eylea franchise in the range of approximately 20% to 25% at constant currencies in this year with the pricing pressures somewhat leveling out thereafter. Since 2 milligrams biosimilars only entered the market fairly recently, we will continue to closely observe and evaluate the evolving situation and we'll provide updates as we gain more clarity as per usual reporting practice. In line with the stringent shift of resources to focus our activities on our current and future growth drivers as well as continued VBP pressures out of China and declines in our mature product portfolio, we expect a modest contraction of our base business in 2026.

In sum, we're expecting growth of 0% to plus 3% at constant currencies for this last year of what we call our resilience phase before returning to mid-single-digit growth as of 2027. As we are hovering over a prior year during which the IRA, VBP and LOE-related pressures increased over the quarters and Nubeqa and Kerendia will continue to grow as this year progresses, we expect the top line for the second half of 2026 to come in stronger than the first half. Looking at our 2026 margin, we would expect that the impact of a changed product mix and increasing growth investments throughout the year will only be partially balanced by cost savings from efficiency measures. We, therefore, expect a 2026 EBITDA margin before special items in between 23% and 25% at constant currencies as we keep working to expand our margin as of '28 towards 30% by 2030.

With that, over to you, Julio.

Thank you, Stefan. Over to Consumer Health now. So as we review our performance and set our priorities, I want to begin with the progress we're making on our Road to Billion strategy. Last year's market environment was challenging for 2 reasons. First, market dynamics in the U.S. and in China; and second, the continuation of seasonal softness in cough, cold and allergy. Despite these obstacles, we have stayed committed to our strategic approach, focusing on areas where we can create the most value and actively respond to evolving market conditions. Across markets, we also see structural shifts. Consumers are more deliberate in how they spend. E-commerce continues to scale quickly. At the same time, traditional retail is consolidating and retailers have reduced inventory levels to manage working capital more tightly, especially in the United States and China.

Despite this backdrop, the fundamentals of our business remain attractive. A growing middle class, rising health care adoption and constrained health care systems continue to support durable demand for our categories. In the near term, we expect continued volatility in China and in the U.S. with performance likely to contract. Over the long term, we expect both markets to return to sustainable healthy growth pattern. While allergy, cough and cold have been soft for 2 years, the fundamentals underlying our categories remain very solid. Our Road to Billion strategy is designed to convert this solid foundation into sustainable value creation. At its core, the strategy aims to increase household penetration by reaching billions of consumers through both online and off-line channels as well as through our strong presence in pharmacy and health care professional settings.

In the medium term, this will support consistent sell-out growth and more predictable sell-in. We're executing this strategy through 4 pillars; focusing resources on our power couples, the brand and market combinations with the highest right to win, strengthening our trusted brands through innovation and leveraging our repeatable growth model, aligning our lean organization around consumers, customers and categories and driving productivity and protect our margin and reinvest in growth. I remain confident in our fundamentals. Executing with focus across these 4 levers will deliver long-term value creation.

Now let me turn to our performance in 2025. 2025 was a challenging year that tested our resilience in a difficult environment across the entire industry. Against this backdrop, our sell-out held in line with the market at close to 3%. This was supported by our active approach to partnering with retailers, aligning sell-in with sell-out. We delivered EUR 5.8 billion in net sales. This was essentially flat year-over-year and in line with our revised guidance. Price contributed modestly, while volume declined as expected, reflecting market dynamics. However, sell-out overall was stronger than sell-in. Category performance was mixed. Dermatology, Digestive Health and Cardio gained market share. The allergy and cold categories were held back by softer seasons. Nutritionals came under pressure in the U.S. And in China, the prenatal segment contracted as demand for Elevit declined in line with falling birth rates.

Our EBITDA margin before special items was 23.1%, slightly below last year. On a currency-adjusted basis, it was in line with 2024 at 23.3%. This demonstrates resilience in a year marked by volatility. Productivity gains from our new operating model and active cost management offset inflation and help fund investment in our power couples and in the fast-growing e-commerce channel.

Now looking ahead to 2026, we expect continued macro and geopolitical volatility. Given our geographic footprint and the segments where we compete, we expect our relevant market to grow by about 2% to 3%. This is about 100 basis points slower than the total consumer health market. Category dynamics, geographic mix and increased volatility underpin our net sales growth outlook of 0% to 4% in currency and portfolio adjusted terms. Building on our 2025 base, we aim for continued volume recovery. The United States and China, our 2 biggest markets, will play a crucial role in our overall performance. Slowing growth and market volatility there could heavily influence our results. Consumer confidence remains soft across the world. If consumer spending picks up and seasonal categories see higher incidents, we might achieve the higher end of our growth forecast. If not, growth could be toward the lower end.

Given the volatility and its impact on our top line, our EBITDA margin outlook before special items for 2026 is 22% to 24% on a constant currency basis. Savings from our new operating model and active cost management are expected to offset annual cost increases. We continue to reinvest a portion of those efficiencies to strengthen our brand equity and gain share. We will continue to accelerate investment in e-commerce and AI across brand building and activation, consumer engagement and product supply. Prioritizing self-care and empowering people to take control of their health has never been more important. Through our Road to Billion strategy focused on building trusted brands, we are uniquely positioned to meet the needs of consumers, creating lasting impact and long-term value.

Thank you. Jost, over to you for the Q&A.

Thank you all. We now begin our Q&A session. And before we start, just a few housekeeping comments. [Operator Instructions] We'll start today with Richard Vosser from JPMorgan, followed by Sachin Jain from Bank of America.

First question is on Eylea, please. Thanks very much for the guidance for the year. But could you give us a little bit more color in terms of the building blocks in terms of price, volume and how you're thinking about the 8 milligrams ability to increase volume in your regions for Eylea. Just some color there on '26 would be helpful. And then second question, just on crop. Maybe you could talk about the -- with dicamba coming back on the market, how you see the benefit on pricing for soy and cotton seeds through '26 and how we should think about that impacting those 2 seeds?

Richard, thanks for the question. So on Eylea, I'm pleased to report that we're seeing very positive volume uptake of 8 milligrams, and that is bound to continue throughout all of '26. So I was talking about 70% of our total sales should come from 8 milligrams by end of the year. And I think that will continue quarter-over-quarter. We're seeing excellent demand based on the, I think, category-leading label that we have for 8 milligram. And so that will unfortunately not fully compensate for the price declines that we're seeing on the 2 milligrams because it's -- a biosimilar entry is not so much a volume erosion for us as it is much more a price erosion, and that's really hard to beat.

And Richard, let me cover the crop question here. Thanks for that one. So on soybean, let me separate 2 elements here. Of course, having Stryax label back in 2026 is important for us because it allow us to recover some price, both in soy and cotton, as you said. Important to say that we are expecting significant volume growth and share gains when we are launching the next generation that is Vyconic that we are planning for '27. This is when we're planning to recover a significant portion of market share in the market, grow double digit and recover that leadership that we have in the trade market. '26 is a transition for soybean as we laid out in our last 5-year framework. Important to have that to recover some of that value, but the key driver of growth will come in '27 and beyond when we launch the new technology in U.S.

So next one in line is Sachin Jain from Bank of America, and he's followed by Charles Pitman-King from Barclays.

Two topics, please. I'm going to kick off with litigation and perhaps you could just touch on how you think about opt out. So any color on class time lines for preliminary approval and how important it is for the opt-out period to conclude pre-SCOTUS final decision? And just any color on your scenario around what happens if SCOTUS [indiscernible] some of our feedback suggests the class could fall apart. I'm just interested in your thoughts there.

And then the second one for Stefan, I have to ask on Asundexian and clatory excitement. I wonder if you could just comment on 2 factors that could drive Asundexian market size to be different to the existing antiplatelets. Wondering if you could touch on treatment duration potentially being longer and then usage in a broader population, prevalent versus incidents. And the reason for the latter point is I think there's some data ISC that suggested you could use it broader than within 72 hours of index. Do you plan any further analysis that could further build on that?

Yes. Thanks, Sachin. So on the litigation questions, first off, the time line for preliminary approval, the standard time line is 15 days, which is today. But the judge can extend that at his discretion. So it could come today. It could come in the days ahead. As I said before, we designed the settlement agreement in collaboration with a large set of the plaintiffs lawyers. We designed it in a way that it met the needs of the plaintiffs and the needs of Bayer. And so we would anticipate that it would receive preliminary approval and ultimate approval. The time line can be 90 days after preliminary approval for opt-out period or it can be longer than that.

And yes, I mean, there's probably different scenarios where it comes before or after a Supreme Court decision. It would be better if it comes before, but it doesn't change the fundamental nature of the question there that's before SCOTUS and the opportunity in the settlement agreement. You asked about opt-outs. I think we said before the opt-outs needs to be something approaching 0, okay? Because, yes, if people opt out, then you don't really have an agreement and then we'd have to move on to other potential solutions. But I probably won't speculate beyond that. And maybe Asundexian, Stefan?

Yes. Sachin, thank you for sharing our enthusiasm on the Asundexian data. You can imagine we're all thrilled. And I don't want to tell you how that day went when we opened the data. It's certainly memorable to me and will be so for a long time. So the questions you asked are really good questions. Based on the strong data, we're looking at analyzing our study data to the full degree. So there will be scientific meetings where we will share some of these analysis throughout the year. Of course, it's also in our interest, and I think in anybody's interest, given the strong data to derisk secondary stroke patients risk as much as possible. And that includes potentially taking a product like Asundexian longer and also maybe at a later point in time than just at the point of the event. That's something that we'll be discussing with regulators. Those discussions have just started. So stay tuned for more. But I understand that, obviously, the answer to those questions also determines very much the potential of the product.

So the next to get ready in our queue is Christian Faitz from Kepler Cheuvreux. But before that, we hear from Charles Pitman-King from Barclays.

Firstly, on Crop Science I'm just thinking about the impact of the Corteva in-licensing and your kind of margin target. You mentioned the underlying in-licensing was better than you expected or more beneficial than you expected, which in turn allow you to pursue that further product streamlining. So I'm just wondering if you could give us a little bit more detail. We understand that you have the EUR 300 million and then the $450 million guided on the in-licensing, but how much of the greater streamlining on the negative side have you seen impact in the underlying Crop Science business?

And just thinking about the kind of potential repetition of these in-licensing payments going forward, how is that impacting your midterm margin target? Are you still expecting that mid-20s EBITDA pre by 2029. Is that, therefore, more derisked given these in-licensing revenues should be booked at 100% margin? And then just secondly, more briefly on Xarelto, given the accelerated erosion versus consensus, I'm just wondering if that time line to hit your sales target floor of EUR 900 million to EUR 1 billion mentioned at 3Q within 2 years is still valid. And what gives you that confidence that is a defendable floor?

So let me start, Charles, with the last part of your question. So the licensing resolution doesn't change our 5-year plan and our goals to achieve the mid-20 EBITDA margin targets that we mentioned about that one. And that includes, of course, our licensing business that is over EUR 2 billion today. So yes, it doesn't change that outlook that we have planned for the next 5 years. Going deeper a little bit on the elements here. When you think about the impact in 2025, we delivered the upper end of our guidance in Crop Science, also impacted by that licensing resolution. But even excluding that licensing resolution, and just let me do one remark here. Part of that should be impacting '25 and '26 as well. But even if you exclude completely that resolution, we would achieve our guidance in 2025. And to give you even a deeper information on that one, when you look to the corn performance that we book our results in '25, we grew by 13%. If you take again completely that resolution, we would still at the double-digit growth in corn based on the global performance that we have.

If you go to '26, the year-on-year is a marginal or is not material impact of that licensing because of the year-on-year element here. We're going to have in soybean, and you're going to see that on the Q1, but year-on-year, it's not a material performance. In the end of the day, it's an important recognition of our licensing, our R&D innovation and our leadership, but doesn't change the course of the plan that we have on the 5-year framework and the growth that we are planning for the next 5 years. Thank you for that.

Charles, thanks for the question. So last year, we had guided that we may land Xarelto at EUR 1 billion to EUR 1.5 billion negative. We're happy that we could do better than that and land at the upper end of this. So what we sort of like failed to lose last year, we're going to lose it this year. And that's where the increased pace comes from. That does not change the fact that we're going to land at what you call the floor. Now there is no mathematical precision around the floor, but I think the numbers you indicated resonate with us. And why do we believe that to be the case? There are a number of regions where already today, we have cash-paying patients that prefer to buy a branded product over a generic product. And those are typically regions in the global South, in parts of Eastern Europe or also in China. And there is every reason to believe that this floor will hold. Thank you.

Great. Before moving to Christian from Kepler Cheuvreux, we will -- after moving to Christian, we will hear from James Quigley from Goldman Sachs. But the next one is Christian from Kepler.

Two questions, please, on crop that is. Rodrigo, I note your remarks of a soft start in Crop Protection into 2026. What are the key reasons? Is it weather channel inventories or continued share losses versus generics or a combination of all 3? And then the second question is, when would you expect Icafolin having a significant contribution to your non-glyphosate herbicides franchise? Is that still -- is it this decade or rather early next decade?

Thank you very much. So let me go deeper on our Crop Protection. On our core Crop Protection, excluding glyphosate, we are planning to grow in 2026. The growth will come from the launches that we have, the expansion of Plenexos to Brazil or Verango Prime and the Fox family that we have there, also the new launches like Stryax in U.S., offsetting some of the regulatory losses that we're going to continue to have in EU as we planned and also, of course, the pricing that you mentioned of the generics in the market. With that, we still plan to grow our core business here. Glyphosate is a different element here as we guided for minus 2% to minus 6%, and this is really a high commodity business here. We are planning Icafolin to launch, and we already complete the regulatory process and the plan is to launch '27, '28, and we're going to expand that launch to globally, and that will come with the new launches that we have.

So we should have an impact, as you said, by the end of this decade of Icafolin coming to that market to complete our portfolio as well. So that's the frame that we have in Crop Protection here.

So James Quigley from Goldman Sachs, followed by Vincent Andrews from Morgan Stanley.

I've got 2, please. First, thank you for the help over the years [indiscernible] see tomorrow in person, but best of luck for the future. So first is on Nubeqa. So you're expecting 50% growth next year. It seems to sales around EUR 3.4 billion. The previous targets were greater than EUR 3 billion peak sales. You would have reached that after about 6 years with 4 to 5 years left of patent life. So how are you thinking about the trajectory from here? The market is quite dynamic with generics on the horizon, J&J published a study suggesting a leader in the real world stronger than Nubeqa not necessarily a fair comparison.

And you're going to have competition on the horizon from Pluvicto and also Pfizer's EZH2 combination with XTANDI. So how are you thinking about the trajectory here over the next couple of years? And then secondly, also, Stefan, and a follow-up on Sachin's question on Asundexian. So the data did look pretty impressive in oceanic stroke at ISC, justifying your excitement there. So what are you hearing from KOL diligence that you had at the conference? How are you thinking about potential indication expansion as well, particularly those patients who can't dose up on Factor X inhibitors or can't tolerate Factor X inhibitors, to what extent is there potential for expansion here? Or do the results of OCEANIC-AF make this tricky?

Okay. So first of all, James, thanks for -- on Nubeqa, we're super pleased. We're seeing extremely strong growth momentum across all regions in the world. And I don't see good reasons why that would change anytime soon. Last year, remember, we already had an impact on IRA-related impact in the U.S. because of the overall situation there. So we're quite bullish on Nubeqa. I've said publicly, this is likely to be the largest product we've ever had. I think our outlook for this year proves that. How far this is going to get us? Well, we'll see. And the entry of generics, of course, will have an impact. We clearly anticipate that. But let's not forget also that we have a very differentiated profile with this product and patients appreciate that and also prescribing doctors appreciate that. So we see continued growth for Nubeqa also beyond 2026.

For Asundexian, that's an excellent question. And that's precisely an area that I've had the pleasure of discussing with KOLs, including our lead investigators of the OCEANIC-STROKE study. And obviously, the results promise to redefine standard of care in secondary stroke survivors, but they also open new questions about can this type of mechanism be a solution for improved brain health in patients maybe with or without prior stroke. And then, of course, can it also be an option for the population you described in atrial fibrillation. Those are questions we're looking at constantly. And stay tuned. You'll hear more from us during the course of the year. This is a very competitive space. So I won't share it all here on this forum.

So Alek Ebbeling from UBS will follow after Vincent Andrews from Morgan Stanley. Vincent, please go ahead.

Just wondering, Rodrigo, if you can talk a little bit about the seed order book for North America, in particular, the mix you're seeing between corn orders and soy orders from an acreage perspective. And if you think that might shift a little bit more towards soy, just given there's been a pretty significant run-up in nitrogen prices this week given the conflict in the Middle East and if you think that might skew your book more towards soy? And if you could remind us sort of what the profitability differential is these days between a corn acre and a soy acre in North America? And then I have a follow-up.