Good morning, and welcome to the J.M. Smucker Company’s Fiscal 2025 Fourth Quarter

I’ll now turn the conference call over to Crystal Beiting, Vice President, Investor Relations and Financial Planning and Analysis. Thank you. You may begin.

Good morning, and thank you for joining our fiscal 2025 fourth quarter earnings questionand-answer session. I hope everyone had a chance to review our results as detailed in this morning’s press release and management’s prepared remarks, which are available on our corporate website at jmsmucker.com. We will also post an audio replay of this call at the conclusion of this morning’s Q&A session. During today’s call, we may make forward-looking statements that reflect our current expectations about future plans and performance. These statements rely on assumptions and estimates, and actual results may differ materially due to risks and uncertainties. Additionally, we use non-GAAP results to evaluate performance internally. I encourage you to read the full disclosure concerning forward-looking statements and details on our non-GAAP measures in this morning’s press release. Participating on this call are Mark Smucker, Chief Executive Officer and Chair of the Board; and Tucker Marshall, Chief Financial Officer. 1 We will now open the call for questions. Operator, please queue up the first question.

— Operator Instructions — Our first question is coming from Andrew Lazar from Barclays.

Mark, I think at CAGNY, you and Tucker mentioned that the company could have delivered an above algorithm EPS growth year in fiscal ’26 if it were not for higher green coffee costs. If we exclude the $0.80 impact from coffee inflation and pricing and also the $0.25 impact from tariff, I guess EPS is still expected to be lower year-over-year at the midpoint. So I guess I’m curious what has changed since then and sort of what drives this new more subdued outlook? And I guess, would you consider this new EPS base as sort of derisked, so to speak?

Andrew, this is Tucker. You are correct. If you take the midpoint of our guidance range of $9 on an adjusted earnings per share basis, and you add back the $0.25 impact of tariffs, which is new news from CAGNY, along with the outlook for price elasticity of demand associated with green coffee inflation of $0.80, you’d be in the low $10. And really what has changed is a couple of things. One, the importance of ongoing marketing investment to support our key growth platforms, specifically around Café Bustelo and Uncrustables. That is a $0.30 investment. And then also the new news as it relates to the performance within our Sweet Baked Snack segment, where segment profit will be down on a comparable basis, which is about another $0.20 impact, and that would put you well over $0.50. 2 And then I would just acknowledge that in this environment, we do find it important to provide guidance, both the top line and bottom line. But we also think it’s prudent that we take a very cautious approach and make sure that we have a wide range to not only reflect where we see our financial plan or outlook for the year, but also to be balanced on both sides.

Great. And then I realize coffee elasticity thus far has come in a bit better than planned. I think you had been planning for maybe higher than, let’s call it, historical elasticity going forward, just given the magnitude of incremental pricing that is still to come. And I think in your prepared remarks, you talked about historical levels of elasticity. So I guess my question is, why not take a more prudent view on coffee elasticity just in light of all the pricing coming through?

Yes, Andrew, it’s a great question. And we do believe, overall, we are being prudent and balanced in our outlook, particularly with respect to our coffee portfolio. And if you think about our outlook for the year, we have just around 20% net pricing factored into our FY ’26 outlook, against around a negative 10% volume impact due to that price elasticity of demand factor. And on average, that is an elasticity of 0.5, which is consistent with historical. But I would say that’s on average over a fiscal year, and that’s on average across the portfolio. In our first quarter, we will experience a greater elasticity factor as a result of taking pricing in our first quarter and early second quarter. And then secondly, also acknowledging that our first quarter will also have its most negative cost price outlook as we match the timing of pricing against the ultimate cost for the first quarter. 3

Next question today is coming from Ken Goldman from JPMorgan.

I wanted to ask a little bit about Hostess, in particular, the SKU and display rationalizations that you highlighted. I’m just hoping for a little bit more color, if possible, on kind of the size, the impact, basically, which products, which channels might be affected? Kind of any detail you can provide, so we can kind of get a little bit of a better vision of what to expect for the broader brand.

Thanks, Ken. It’s Mark. I can’t give you specifics on brands and products, but the way I would couch it is that we need to focus on the largest brands and related innovation in those brands. So think Donettes and cupcakes primarily because both of those are #1 in their respective segments. Twinkies is, of course, important. But if you think about Donettes, Donettes has performed reasonably well. particularly because it’s a breakfast occasion. You’ve seen a number of innovations that have come out around Donettes that are related. So we really need to make sure that we are focused on the platforms that are really going to drive growth, and it’s really those core brands. So we’re going to invest behind those core products like Donettes and cupcakes, among others. And then I would just maybe highlight as well. If you think about the clarity, we have a tremendous amount of clarity now on this business, and we know what we need to do to drive improvement and if I could just very quickly simplify the 3 pillars, you already hit on it, strengthen the portfolio, and that’s around optimizing the portfolio and getting more focused. 4 The second thing is elevating execution, and that’s very simply around a dedicated sales force and streamlined operations by closing and consolidating the Indianapolis facility that will improve profit over time. And then the last thing is quite simply brand building. and that’s around reigniting growth, investing in the brands. Obviously, we redesigned the packaging recently, but it’s really about supporting these brands and being laser-focused on what we have to go do.

Okay. And then just a quick follow-up on that. I know the – we don’t want to relitigate the past in a way. But one of the stories on Hostess, when it was a stand-alone company was the excitement of new products, the fulfillment of the opportunity of getting displays in stores where it didn’t previously have it. Just philosophically, we’re taking a step back, is it possible that the brand went a little too far in terms of lateral products or going into stores or channels where maybe it didn’t have the right to win. I just wanted to get a little bit of a better sense for how you think the brand stands now in terms of kind of where "should be playing."

Sure. So first of all, just taking maybe a quick step back, snacking is still very important. If you think about consumers like 70% of consumers still consume 2 snacks a day. Hostess plays across multiple occasions, right? I just mentioned the breakfast occasion, but of course, they are different dayparts. And so we fundamentally believe that sweet snacks continue to be a very important category. And although we do view that it’s going to take some time to obviously stabilize the brand and get it back to growth. We still are optimistic about our progress and the actions that we are taking. 5 So I guess the short answer to your question, Ken, is focus. And so there is a need for us to just to continue to focus on those components of the portfolio where we can drive growth and incremental innovation that is related to the core.

Next question is coming from Peter Galbo from Bank of America.

Tucker, I just wanted to clarify maybe one of the points you made on pricing for the year. So I think you said about 20 points or so to the coffee segment, and I think your guidance implies or has 9 points to the total company. So just wanted to understand the magnitude of the other price increases that you called out for the year, particularly around Uncrustables and then maybe also – I think there’s a pretty sizable coffee business in international Away From Home. So any clarity there would be helpful.

Yes. So the largest driver of pricing within that 9% relates to our green coffee portfolio, as we’ve communicated. The other pricing action in Frozen Handheld and Spreads around the Uncrustables brand to recover increased cost is in the low single digits.

Okay. Got it. And so the balance, again, comes through that Away-From-Home business that has coffee in it, just to be really clear.

Yes, that’s correct. That’s going to feel more like high single digits. You’re correct.

6 Okay. Okay. Terrific. And then, Mark, on Hostess and the revised long-term outlook, I mean, I guess the pushback or the question we’re still getting this morning is, look, you moved the long-term growth rate from 4% to 3%. Obviously, the near-term data still has a pretty wide gap to that. So just what gives you the confidence that the renewed kind of long-term outlook is conservative enough relative to the expectations, just given what we continue to see kind of in the near-term data?

Yes. Peter, I would begin by just saying the change in the long-term growth algorithm at top line for the Sweet Baked Snacks portfolio from 4% to 3% is primarily driven by the outlook for the category and our need just to acknowledge that it may not grow at that mid-single-digit level that it has in the past. And it’s also a reflection of how we continue to see the overall stabilization plan, inclusive of reigniting growth and making sure that we stay true to the Hostess brand, strengthen the core and bring along the innovation that supports the core.

Next question is coming from Chris Carey from Wells Fargo Securities.

I was just curious maybe if you could expand a bit on where you’re going to be pricing in the coffee portfolio. Obviously, it’s a big number. Should we be assuming that the entire portfolio will be seeing this pricing? Is this going to focus more on the roast and ground side given that you have the higher direct commodity exposure? So any additional context on how big pricing will be relative to your specific businesses within coffee?

Yes. So we are taking pricing across the entire coffee portfolio. That’s reflected in the 7 around 20% net pricing for the full fiscal year. Those actions came early Q1 and will also come in early Q2. And those actions not only cover green coffee commodity inflation, but also support recovering tariffs associated with our green coffee.

Okay. That makes sense. In the prepared remarks, you mentioned an improvement in Sweet Baked into the back half of the year as you implement some of these initiatives to stabilize the business. Can you just help us understand why that cadence gets so much better into the back half? Are you contemplating easier comps? Is there some innovation? Is there a lessening of any rationalization efforts that you’re putting in? So just maybe some context on the sequential improvement that you’re expecting in that business through the year per your prepared remarks.

Yes. So we see the Sweet Baked Snacks portfolio improving over time as a result of our stabilization efforts that are focused first on stabilizing share performance and improving share performance; and two, improving the profitability by quarter of the overall business and the profitability improved by actions that we’re taking. One example of that is the closure of the Indianapolis facility, along with looking at the overall portfolio as well of products. And so that’s really why it gives us confidence. And then to your point, we will be lapping some comps as we move forward as well.

Next question is coming from Robert Moskow from TD Cowen.

A couple of questions. The first on coffee, just looking at retail tracking data for the month of May, the volume is up according to Nielsen data anyway. So my first question is, do you expect some kind of reversal in that in June and July because so far, so good in terms 8 of consumers reacting to your higher pricing according to the data anyway.

Yes, Rob, it’s Mark. The first thing I would say is we’re really pleased with our performance on coffee across the portfolio broadly. I mean, Dunkin’ – or Dunkin’, pardon me, Bustelo is on fire. And Folgers has performed reasonably well as well. Dunkin’, we’ve actually seen some stabilization along with K-Cups due to more normalized relative price points. So a couple of observations. First of all, the category is functioning as it should, right, in terms of relative pricing being in line. And the other thing, too, is just coffee is still relatively affordable. And obviously, folks are still consuming caffeinated beverages. And coffee on average, brewed coffee is still about 10% – $0.10 a cup, right? So it’s extremely affordable. And we believe that the combination of affordability the fact that our portfolio meets multiple consumer needs, whether that’s value, premium, form, liquid, et cetera, and the fact that consumers continue to consume coffee at the same rates, about 70% of cups are consumed at home. All of those factors supported by our brand building efforts and particularly the growth of Bustelo continue to give us confidence that we can and should continue to perform in the category.

Okay. Well, here’s the follow-up. In the transcript, it says that you experienced elevated trade recognition in Sweet Baked Snacks and it was unexpected. Can you give a little more detail as to why it was unexpected. I would think that – I think what happens is you accrue for trade expenses during the year and then you kind of level them out in the last fourth – in the fourth quarter? Or it did play out differently than that? 9

Yes. Rob, as it relates to the Sweet Baked Snacks trade recognition. It just really came a part of our year-end trade accrual recognition process. And also, I would just acknowledge that we did go live in the fall onto a combined system. And so also as a result of that, there was some extra true-up activity in the new system as well.

Our next question is coming from Tom Palmer from Citi.

Maybe I could just start quickly on Hostess as well. At the Investor Day, you talked about how a big focus was going to be expanded distribution for Hostess. And you would have a better idea of kind of how that went in another quarter or 2. So we’re kind of, I think, up to that point. Based on some of the comments today, it sounds like maybe that’s not as big of a growth driver as it might have potentially seen, but just any update on what you’re seeing on the distribution side, especially for some of the innovation that you’ve previously discussed?

Tom, it’s Mark. Yes, we have seen good progress on that front, particularly with some of our larger traditional retailers. We actually have seen, as they’ve started to reset shelves, we are getting our fair share and actually building in things like permanent seasonal space on shelves that allow for us to actually rotate seasonal products in and out of permanent shelving. That’s on top of getting some incremental display. So that will continue to help support the business going forward. And to the extent that we see some consumer stabilization that is supportive of the convenience channel that will also support as well.

Okay. And then wanted to ask on the tariff side. Beyond green coffee, could you give an 10 update on your main tariff exposure and how you plan to address it? And that $0.25 net headwind, does that include coffee? Or when you talk about coffee inflation, that’s just kind of embedded in more of the coffee commentary?

Tom, there’s 2 parts to your question. So let me start with the first part. The areas where we see exposure from tariffs are, first of all, in direct materials. Within direct materials, the primary driver there is green coffee, which we view as an unavailable natural resource in the United States. So we procure from Brazil and Vietnam, among others. The second area is retaliatory tariffs. And so those are products that we produce in the United States and sell in the Canadian marketplace. Examples of that would be peanut butter, ice cream toppings and also coffee as well. And then you can also think of the next component of co-manufactured product. That’s product that is produced outside of the United States, and the 2 examples there are liquid coffee and wet cat food. And then the last bucket is capital goods or capital items that we put in our manufacturing plants as well that come largely from the European Union. The greatest exposure that we have in the portfolio is across those first 3 areas, but the leading driver is green coffee. The approach will be to price for the tariff and then to factor in an elasticity of demand assumption and the $0.25 impact is the net impact after making a pricing decision, again, on a responsible basis and/or seeking to find cost and productivity efforts as well, but then just acknowledging that we will have to take pricing and then making an assumption as it relates to price elasticity of demand as noted. So that’s what’s embedded in the net $0.25 impact. And I would also share that the net $0.25 impact predominantly over-indexes to coffee.

11 Next question is coming from Megan Clapp from Morgan Stanley.

Maybe just a couple of follow-ups for me. So first one would be a follow-up to Andy’s first question. At CAGNY, I think you had talked about base business momentum or growth as a tailwind to 2026. You took out growth, if I’m not mistaken. And if we do the math on the bridge, laying out all of the things that you pointed out. I think at the midpoint of the guide, it would imply a very little benefit from the base business, maybe even negative. So 2-part question. Is that math kind of consistent with what you’ve embedded in the guide as it relates to the base business, maybe minimal growth? And second, if that is true, what’s changed around the base business such that you no longer would expect growth in fiscal ’26?

Meghan, as we came out of CAGNY, we acknowledged the midpoint of our guidance range, actually came out of our third quarter earnings call of about $10 for fiscal year ’25. an above algorithm growth would be for us greater than $0.50. And so the simple math would say you’d probably land somewhere between $10.50 and the high $10 absent the factors that we have called out. And if you think about those factors that we’ve called out, you have $0.80 associated with price elasticity of demand for green coffee. I don’t know what estimates worth factoring in. Two is you also had a $0.25 impact of tariffs, which was new news. So that’s in excess of $1. And then we did acknowledge that it’s important to demonstrate momentum from a brand standpoint. And so we’re increasing our marketing on Café Bustelo and on Uncrustables. And then also Sweet Baked Snacks is softer than anticipated. And so maybe some of the things that weren’t thought of at the time is just where Sweet Baked Snacks 12 would be positioned. Two is some of these external factors that we’ve discussed. And then three, just an acknowledgment that we do see continued momentum in Frozen Handheld and Spreads. We do see strength of portfolio in pet, largely driven by cat food right now as we navigate the discretionary nature of pet treating and then just seeing continued momentum in our combined portfolio of international and Away-from-Home. So hopefully, that just gives you some context about, a, coming out of CAGNY, but really where we stand today due to some of those external factors.

Okay. Fair enough. That’s helpful. And then a follow-up to Rob’s question earlier, just on 1Q. Maybe for the total company, you talked about flat comparable sales. Just looking at overall standard data quarter-to-date through May, it’s pretty far above that. So is there something we should be thinking about relative to the standard data thats’ pulling – that should pull that down closer to flat in the first quarter?

Yes. So I think you have to acknowledge, one, flat in the first quarter, you will see some momentum in coffee and Frozen Handheld and Spreads at top line. Pet will have a little bit softness just due to the ongoing discretionary nature of pet treating. You will be lapping the impact of divestiture activity within the Sweet Baked Snacks portfolio, and you’ll see continued momentum within International and Away-From-Home. But on the bottom line, what I want to acknowledge is that we are going to see a decline year-over-year, as noted in our prepared remarks. And that is largely driven by the first quarter impact within our coffee portfolio. The segment profit margins in our coffee portfolio will be at their lowest level in Q1. They’ll be below 20%, but they will come back on a full year basis on average to be in excess of 20%. And so it’s just acknowledging the 13 timing of pricing and the overall cost within the green coffee portfolio in Q1.

Next question is coming from Peter Grom from UBS.

Tucker, can we just walk through the SG&A guidance. You touched on the higher marketing investment, which I think was outlined for $40 million. But are there other compo- nents or costs that are also moving higher? It just would seem that after taking the higher marketing into account, there’s not much of a benefit from some of the cost takeout that you outlined in the release.

Yes. So what we’re seeing is some impact of lapping TSA income and also the reset of incentive programs would also be factored into SG&A, but we are seeing cost and productivity gains within SG&A, and we’ve isolated the marketing, as you’ve noted.

Great. And then maybe just a question or a follow-up on phasing, a tough start to the year as you just outlined to Megan’s question from a bottom line perspective. But you mentioned sequential improvement through the balance of the year. Can you maybe just provide some guardrails in terms of how we should be thinking about the phasing? Did the decline just get less severe? Or do you anticipate returning to bottom line growth at some point in the balance of the year?

Sure. So speaking with respect to adjusted earnings per share sort of flow through the year, our lowest or softest quarter will be Q1 based on the comments that I previously made largely around our green coffee portfolio. We won’t see a decline in the second 14 quarter and third quarters as well, but those quarters will be consistent from an EPS standpoint and then we will see growth in our fourth quarter, as noted.

Our next question today is coming from Alexia Howard from Bernstein.

So 2 questions. First of all, you mentioned the pace of innovation beginning to pick up, and I think you talked about $100 million from products launched over the last year. How does that compare to pre-COVID levels, which I think were generally higher across the industry? And where do you expect them to get back to? And then I have a follow-up.

Alexia, it’s Mark. Thanks for the question. $100 million is great. I mean it’s definitely on the high side. We usually talk about historically innovation across products launched in the last 3 years. And in the last 3, it’s more like 250 – $250 million. So $100 million in 1 year is actually very strong. And it’s really, again, driven by focusing on the right thing. So if you – whether it’s peanut butter chocolate spread on Jif, whether it’s new flavors on Uncrustables, liquid coffee on Bustelo, really strong performance on the innovation in both Meow Mix and Milk-Bone. All of those things we’re doing very well. And I’m really proud of the fact that we continue to innovate in the right spaces because we’re focused on the consumer and paying attention to what their needs are and what they want. And so our ability to continue to deliver that is key to our success.

And as a follow-up, just coming back to Hostess. I think you talked about the value-seeking behavior on the part of consumers and the weakness in the C-store channel has been the key drivers of category weakness. How do you factor in or how does your diagnosis 15 extend into things like the uptake of GLP-1 drugs, RFK juniors Make America Healthy Again agenda, things like cutbacks in a state level [ SNAP ] spending approvals. It just feels as though there’s a lot more drivers in there. And I’m curious about how that’s leading you to manage the business differently.

Sure. It’s a great question. We continue to believe and watch the trends on snacking as I mentioned earlier, snacking is still very important. Consumers are going to continue to snack and they will continue to snack, but looking for, in some cases, different things. It might be smaller portion sizes in some cases, might be less sugar. And we just have to make sure that what we remain focused on is providing the consumer with choice and options. And so as we think about this and working with our policymakers and continuing to look at trends, as long as we stay focused on the consumer and making sure that our portfolio meets those needs, we feel confident that we will continue to grow.

Our next question today is coming from Steve Powers from Deutsche Bank.

First, I just wanted to test a bit your confidence in driving volume mix growth in both the Meow Mix and the Milk-Bone brands this year, just in light of current trends and in light of kind of the discretionary headwinds that Tucker had mentioned. So just kind of the building blocks to get back to positive on those brands would be great.

Sure. Meow Mix is supported by an increased cat population, right, and just great brandbuilding efforts and share of voice and good innovation. So I think the leading position in 16 dry cat, we will be able to maintain that and support it through growth. Similarly, on Milk-Bone, Steve, we are projecting getting Milk-Bone back to growth this year. It’s really going to remain, again, brand building, focusing on innovation, ensuring that we’re providing the consumer what they’re looking for. And just Keep in mind on Milk-Bone that we play in so many segments and treating occasions and all the way from value base biscuits up to more premium things like dental. The soft and chewy segment has been very good. And as long as we continue to innovate in the right places and support the brand, we have a lot of confidence in Milk-Bone as well.

Steve, I would just acknowledge sort of 2 technical items. One, in the third quarter of our fiscal year ’25, we had the plant shutdown associated with Milk-Bone. And then in the fourth quarter of our fiscal year ’25, we also had the inventory destocking by certain retailers.

Yes. Okay. Understood. Appreciate that. And then, I guess, sort of a derivative question, you offered similar commentary in terms of positive volume growth on Bustelo, which Mark, you rightly said is on fire. I guess just in light of that confidence, I guess, just the elasticity that implies on the balance of the portfolio? Just it seems notably worse than that 0.5, you called out for the totality. So just a little bit more color and context there, if you could.

Yes. I think, Steve, really what that plays into is just on average, we have 0.5 elasticity across the portfolio for the full year. But when you have a brand like Café Bustelo that continues to demonstrate great momentum and growth, it just implies a little bit higher factor on other aspects of the portfolio, and that’s why we get to an on average for the 17 overall segment.

Your next question today is coming from Scott Marks from Jefferies.

I wanted to follow up on Steve’s question on pet. I know you called out the inventory reduction at some retailers. Wondering if you can share maybe magnitude of impact there? And then if there’s anything maybe more than just some of the discretionary spend headwinds that you noted?

Sure. So in the fourth quarter associated with the pet portfolio, it was around $20 million associated with the inventory destocking at certain retailers.

Got it. And was that specifically tied to kind of the just broader consumer pullback in some of that discretionary spend? Or is there maybe something else involved with that?

We believe that it was more retailer-specific or driven, not necessarily driven by the overall consumer because we still see strong momentum for our overall pet treating portfolio as well.

Got it. And then last one for me. There was a comment in the prepared remarks about anticipating fiscal ’27 to be an on-algo growth year in terms of adjusted EPS. Just wondering if you can kind of share maybe some thoughts around that and how maybe you’re setting up fiscal ’26 to kind of – to run into ’27? 18

Sure. So I think there’s a couple of things that we want to acknowledge here on today’s call. Absent some external factors and some internal decisions, we would have probably been somewhere above $10.50 for this fiscal year. But when you factor in the impact of price elasticity demand on green coffee, marketing investments, the softness in Sweet Baked snacks and tariffs, the midpoint of our guidance range is $9. I think what we’re trying to acknowledge is, is that we don’t anticipate these factors reoccurring again. So depending upon where we end this fiscal year, we would anticipate an algorithm growth for next fiscal year.

Our next question today is coming from Max Gumport from BNP Paribas.

I’ve got one on free cash flow, and there’s 3 parts to it. I believe some of the answers could be related to each other. So first, you meaningfully missed the FY ’25 guidance of $925 million with $817 million reported. What was the driver of that miss? Second would be your FY ’26 guidance of $875 million implies a large step-up year-overyear despite adjusted EPS being expected to meaningfully decline. So what’s embedded in that assumption with regard to working capital and other tailwinds? And then the third would be the $875 million FY ’26 guidance, that doesn’t cover the anticipated $500 million in debt paydown and then the $455 million plus dividend payment. So I presume there’s a bit of cash you can call on. I know you have the $70 million balance, but what other measures are you expecting to use to fund those financing needs?

Max, so you are correct. We finished this fiscal year with $817 million of free cash flow, 19 which was approximately $100 million below our expectations coming out of the third quarter. Simply, it’s associated with green coffee inflation and our inventory balances were higher at year-end. As it relates to next fiscal year, our outlook is $875 million. And what enables that improvement year-over-year is, first of all, our capital expenditures are anticipated to be $325 million, which is about $75 million lower than we finished this past fiscal year. Further, we’ll continue to manage working capital, and we’ll continue to deliver earnings this fiscal year. With respect to your question around debt paydown, yes, we will use a combination of cash generated from free cash flow after dividend payments, and we will also use excess cash on the balance sheet as well.

We reached the end of our question-and-answer session. I’d like to turn the floor back over for any further or closing comments.

Well, thank you all, and thank you for joining us this morning. As we shared, fiscal ’25 was a year of significant progress as we delivered growth in a very challenging environment. Our results are a direct result of our focused strategy and the work we have done in recent years around portfolio optimization. We operate in very attractive categories with leading brands and offerings ranging from value to premium. Looking ahead to fiscal ’26, we remain focused on investing in our key growth platforms and executing on our strategic priorities. We have the right strategy and portfolio in place and are excited about our future growth opportunities largely through our key growth platforms. 20 In closing, I’d like to extend my sincere thanks to our employees for their exceptional work and dedication. I hope everyone has a great day. Thank you. Copyright © 2025, S&P Global Market Intelligence. All rights reserved 21