Good morning, everybody, and welcome to our Interim Results Presentation this morning. Really pleased this morning. We've got Tessa Bamford, one of our Nonexec Directors here with us today, Dave, to keep an eye on us; and also our Chairman, Gareth Davis. Before we kick off this morning, I know that Gareth would like to say a few words about the board changes that we announced this morning. So, Gareth?

Well, good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Unaccustomed, as I am these days, to public speaking, I'll to string a few words together. But it's fairly important stuff. I'd like to tell you about some board changes. Firstly, about the Chief Executive of Ferguson Enterprises. And after 40 years of service at Ferguson, Frank Roach has decided to retire; and Kevin Murphy will succeed Frank as the new U.S. CEO on the 1st of August this year. And we're very fortunate to have an executive of Kevin's caliber and experience to take over the reins. And Kevin and Frank will work closely together to ensure an orderly handover of responsibilities. Frank has a considerable list of achievements. He's been absolutely fantastic for this business. He guided the business through the recession in 2007/'08, and he's grown revenue above market rate throughout, at the same time as delivering record trading margins. He's also invested very wisely in adding, in the last 6 years, 40 companies, bolt-on acquisitions with $1.3 billion of revenue. He's put service and people at the center of the organization. We have an enviable career structure in Ferguson, and the business has the best Net Promoter Scores in the industry, and it benchmarks strongly with some of the USA's best businesses. And Frank also saw the potential of e-commerce very early and has grown our business to a $3 billion channel over the last few years. Overall, Frank has done a fantastic job for us, and we're, we'll be eternally grateful for his massive contribution. Now Kevin's been appointed CEO, because he's a key member of Frank's team that's reinvigorated Ferguson and delivered excellent shareholder value. And he was a standout candidate and, as you know, has been COO for the last 10 years. He understands the business very…

Thank you, Gareth.

Thank you. I'll now hand you over to John.

You just about nicked my notes then. Gareth, very well said. Thank you very much indeed. Now, look, to the results. I'm going to summarize the highlights; Dave will then do the financial review; and I'll return to go through the strategy and the priorities. Firstly, the highlights. Look, the like for like growth improved in the second quarter to 4.8%, so growth over the 6 months as a whole was 3.2%. Some of the conditions that held back growth last year have improved, and Dave will talk you through that. Gross margin discipline was really good. Feel good about this. We held on to the improvements that we made in both mix and input pricing. Trading profit overall was up 5%. We invested in some of those areas that we talked about back in the autumn. We were a bit disappointed with the flow through, and we are going to target some cost reductions in the second half. Cash flow was very strong. We are on target with all of our working capital measures. The most important priority of the group relates to the growth, obviously, of Ferguson. And we are very positive about the progress that we've made with those growth initiatives during the first half. The U.K. transformation strategy that we talked about in the autumn is being implemented now, in line with that plan. And in the Nordics, our team has worked really hard on identifying the right operating strategy. But you'll see that we have taken the decision we're going to exit the business in the Nordics, and we'll cover those 2 in a little bit more detail later on. We've announced this morning that we are going to change the name of the group to Ferguson plc, and we're also going to report our results in U.S. dollars going forward. Before I go into the details of the strategy, I'll hand over to Dave to take you through the financials.

Thank you, John, and good morning, everyone. As John mentioned, we had a solid trading performance in our first half, with like-for-like revenue growth of about 3.2%. Total revenue growth at constant currency was 6.7%. We made good progress on gross margins, which were up 30 basis points, and we are very pleased with that. Trading profit of £ 515 million benefited from a £78 million increase from foreign exchange movements, and was 5% ahead in terms of constant currency. Headline earnings per share were up 26.7%, reflecting the profit growth in the year, the effects of the foreign exchange movement and the share buybacks we completed last year. Working capital, as John mentioned, was well managed. And net debt was in line with our expectations for the end of January, at £1.3 billion. The interim dividend has been increased again this year by 10%. Like-for-like growth improved in the second quarter for all regions, which was very encouraging, with Q2 like-for-like growth of 4.8% for the group. The U.S. like-for-like performance benefited from commodity deflation easing in the second quarter, and all regions received a boost in Q2 from the timing of the holidays when compared to last year, which allowed for more work to be done in December. Turning to the breakdown of revenue and profit growth. Total revenue grew 24.5% in the period, with growth at constant currency of 6.7%. This was comprised of like-for-like growth of 3.2%, which was 4.4% volume minus 1.2% deflation. Acquisitions contributed 1.7%, new branches added 0.2% and 2 extra trading days added 1.6%. The impact of translating overseas revenue into sterling added 17.8% to the reported growth rate. Organic trading profit was good at 21 million, with further 8 million for organic gross margin expansion, acquisitions added a further 17 million…

Dave, thank you very much. Last autumn, we set out 3 clear priorities for the group. This morning, I want to update you on each of those. Firstly, most importantly, we want to generate the best rate of profitable growth in Ferguson whilst protecting and incrementally growing our gross margins. Some of the drivers that we focus on, and we shared this chart last time, across the business are set out on this chart. And I just want to touch and update you on each of those. Firstly, on service. It's easy to think of a distributor as a logistics business, where, which we're simply trying to deliver product to customers as cheaply and efficiently as possible. But we're not just selling products, we're providing services to our customers to help them to run their businesses more efficiently. In Ferguson alone, we have over 2,000 field sales reps. They visit customers to really understand the customers' needs and to provide the product advice and help them win business. They're supported by an even larger number of inside sales associates who can source non-stock items, who can negotiate specific arrangements with our vendors. We have a call centers that are able to offer highly specialized support so, and customers know how they can find us, even if they need us out of hours. We've got the largest branch network in the industry, offering a one-hour pickup service. We hold orders until the appropriate time, and we provide fabrication services. We preassemble orders, and we schedule delivery to multiple locations at the appropriate time. We've got a no-nonsense approach to product returns, and we provide warranty support when things go wrong. And the provision of credit allows us to provide our services into the customers in the most frictionless way. We also…

Thank you. Good presentation. Arnaud Lehmann from Bank of America Merrill Lynch. A couple of questions for me, please. So you're announcing a few disposals, including the upcoming Nordics. You've got the move in Switzerland, also noncore assets in the U.S. So if everything goes to plan, you're going to get some cash proceeds, your net debt is likely to go down, your financial leverage is going to be pretty low. Would you -- what would be your priority in terms of the use of the cash? Or would you like to reduce the debt? Or can we hope for cash returns or more M&A? And I guess, my second question is related to M&A. I think you mentioned only small and mid-sized acquisitions in the pipeline. We are aware of a U.S. company selling potentially big Waterworks business. Could that be of interest to you? I mean, it's obviously pretty large, so I guess, there would be some competition issues.

Thanks, Arnaud. Look, I think, on the use of cash, we haven't got it in the bank yet, so I think the board will no doubt sort of figure that one out in due course when we do. Let's not spend it too soon, I hope so. But if you recall our hierarchy: fund organic growth, fund ordinary dividends, fund our M&A -- in accordance with our M&A strategy, and then return it to shareholders. And I think we've got a decent record of doing that. There's no reason to change the shape of the capital structure that Dave set out earlier, and our net debt range, in particular. Look, on the M&A and the competitor in the U.S. in Waterworks, I think that would be quite challenging for us from a number of perspectives. It's easy to just think, it's just a competition issue. There certainly would be competition considerations. And -- but actually, it goes further than that, which is to think about the impact on vendors, the impact on the customers and the impact on associates. So I think that will be something which, if we were to look at that, there would be a lot of hurdles on it.

It's Paul Roger from Exane BNP. So I'll have 3 questions on the U.S., please. The first one is on the recent run rate, the 5.5% like-for-like growth. I guess, a little bit surprised that, that's lower than Q2. Maybe would've assumed, given that deflation headwinds are going down and presumably the base in Industrial is easier, that, that like-for-like would have accelerated. So maybe if you could comment a bit about that. The second one is on the drop-through in Q2. You obviously mentioned deflation and, I think, a bit of investment as well. But even if we strip that out, it looks like the drop-through is about 10%. I wonder what your expectations are for the second half. And then finally, getting rid of the Nordics, changing their name, is this a step to a U.S. listing?

Do you want to?

Yes, I'll take the first one. When you look at our second quarter like-for-like versus what we've run since, our second quarter was really helped a little bit by the way Christmas fell this year versus last year, so that gave us a bit of a bump. Likewise, we had a bit of snow in March, which dampened our sales a little bit in that period. There's nothing that we've seen that's changed in the market or our performance to lead us to think anything differently.

Drop-through?

Yes. The drop-through piece. Our drop-through, I think, last September when we laid out our plans for the year, we indicated that we would have single-digit drop-through for this year, because we did do incremental investment in Ferguson. We said we were going to do about 32 million in investment in our MRO, our e-commerce and our technology, IT areas, and we're well on with that. To your point, we did have the deflation impact of 17 million. But despite that, we have still produced, in the U.S. anyway, a 7.3% flow-through. I think it's likely that we'll continue to be single digit in the second half. We won't get back to double digit in the second half for the reasons we just talked about. But going forward, we certainly believe, provided we have reasonable growth, that we can and should deliver low double-digit flow-through on incremental revenue.

Yes. And Paul, on the issue of listing, look, we have a really strong, supportive, stable shareholder base and have had for a considerable period of time. We're very happy with the U.K. listing. About 1/3 of our register is in the U.S., which is sort of international money from the U.S. anyway. We spend a lot of time there talking to shareholders, going on roadshows. So we try to look after all shareholders to make sure that they can meet us, but there are no plans to date to change that. And I certainly wouldn't link that with the, either the disposal or the name change. I think we see that as an independent issue. Gregor.

A couple of questions from my side. Can we just go back on this sort of relisting point? I mean, is there, have you considered any sort of other alternatives, perhaps a dual listing or some kind of more sort of U.S. GAAP reporting, something perhaps that would allow investors to compare your company more with the listed peers in the U.S.? The second question is on the Nordics. Could you give us what the carrying value is today of the Nordic business? Obviously, you've changed a bit. I think you're selling part of it or separately, I believe. So if you could just tell us what it's carried at as we stand here today.

Yes. Look, the carrying value of the Nordics business is about £ 600 million at any time, at the moment, and that includes both businesses. Look, I mean, I think, again, on the listing issue, to some extent, it ain't broke, don't fix it. We have a very supportive shareholder base. We go to our shareholders, both in the U.K., U.S. and wherever else, and we go to see our shareholders. Can they compare us to other listed companies in the U.S.? I mean, you bet they do. They compare us to other international businesses as well. So I don't think we're disadvantaged in the comparison states at all. We are happy with our U.K. listing and being in the U.K. index.

Emily Biddulph from JPMorgan. I've got 2 questions, please. Previously, you'd said that you thought the price would go back to flat at the end of the third quarter. You're obviously there already. And can you give us any price guidance for the second half of the year? And then secondly, you're talking about sort of the difficulty in being able to sort of generate synergies between the rest of the group and the Nordics. I appreciate that the other businesses are sort of Plumbing and Heating and therefore are sort of inherently slightly more similar. But can you give us a sense of is it really that different in the sense that they are distribution businesses in similar sort of end markets? So what kind of synergies can you generate between the U.S. and the rest of the group that you couldn't between sort of the Nordics?

Could you answer the first one?

Could you repeat the first question? I'm sorry.

The price -- the like-for-like price guidance in the U.S. for the second half, please.

Yes. Like-for-like, we anticipate it being fairly comparable with where we are trading today in the second quarter, in that range. We do expect deflation has eased since the second quarter, so we don't believe we'll have deflation headwinds, provided commodities stay where they are now or higher.

Okay. Look, I mean, on the synergies question around the rest of the group. The rest of the group is going to be focused after we exit Nordics. The rest of the group is going to be focused on Plumbing and Heating. There are some synergies beyond the area of operations. There are some synergies on the systems side. And there are some synergies in terms of just know-how, how we go about exiting that business. An example of that would be on the e-commerce side. But I don't want to overplay the synergies. The group owns the assets that it owns. Our most important -- the most important priority of our management teams in the U.K., the U.S., Canada is to, themselves to optimize those markets they know. They've got friends they can go and see, so we just recruited two new senior executives in the U.K. They both went straight out to see how Ferguson does it, to talk to their counterparts in the U.S. And that is a privileged position to be in. But it's important for those teams in the various businesses to make sure that they optimize in those markets. We do make better returns in the U.K., quite a lot better returns than we make in DT, better returns on capital and better net margins as well.

Aynsley Lammin from Canaccord, just two, please. On the U.K., wonder if you could just comment a bit more on kind of recent trading you've seen and what the competitive backdrop looks like. Is there any pressure on gross margins, particularly the kind of cost inflation coming through? And then secondly, just going back to the U.S., if you could comment a bit more color around kind of cost inflation there, such as labor, are you seeing any acceleration on the cost front in the U.S. business?

Yes, look, U.K. trading, I think the market is pretty tough. It's pretty tough. We are in a fairly low-growth market at the moment. I think that's been well documented as well by some of the competition. Just with respect to cost inflation, we do expect now to see more cost inflation. We had less than 1%, actually in the first half. But in the rounds this year, the spring -- a lot of prices are reset by our vendors in the spring and we are seeing quite a range. I mean, the top end of that range sort of passed mid single digits. We think, overall, that cost inflation throughout the rest of this year on cost of goods sold is likely to be in the range of 3% to 4% across the whole of our purchases. So we are seeing some cost inflation there. The impact on margins? Look, that's our job. It's our job to make sure that we are not the people suffering in between. We are providing a service, we need to make sure that we can maintain our value proposition to our -- our service to our customers, and that we recover that properly in our pricing, that's important. I think, in the U.S., if you look at sort of what’s happening, I do think some more cost inflation, this is on the OpEx side. I think some more cost inflation will creep in, because the labor market is tightening. And I think we – so last week, Dave, we examined this JOLTS index, if any of you follow that, which is the job – the amount of attrition in jobs, the movement of jobs around the U.S., and that has absolutely – that’s just gone up and up and up. And I think that reflects the fact that associates are just becoming more confident, not just in our company, but across the U.S. because unemployment is at quite low levels now. So I do think that we will see a little bit more – look, I think it’ll be a degree. Last year, we got – we were 2.5% on merits...

2%.

So 2% on merit increases. I think it will be higher this year a little bit.

And just on the U.K., how the competitors reacting to sort of kind of price increase? Do you expect the whole industry to be quite disciplined pushing those through?

Well, each – actually each competitor will have a different mix of imports versus U.K. sourced products, and so there will be differences. But I don’t think there’s enough – there isn’t enough margin in the industry for us not to be reasonably disciplined at passing that on. So that’s just something that we will have to do.

It’s Paul Checketts from Barclays Capital. I’ve got three as well, please. On the U.S., when I’m thinking about the investment that’s gone in, John, on the operating expenses and CapEx, too, for that matter, how much should we think of it as upfront investment now that you can ultimately get leverage on? And how much really do you need to be continually investing to drive your market share gains when we think into the medium term? That’s number one. The second is, can you give us a quick reminder on where you are in the logistics and supply chain in the U.S. and what’s left to be done? And the last one is with regard to the Nordics. When you reflect on the business over the last few years, what do you think went wrong there that we’re now in the position you’re in? Thanks.

Yes. The U.S. investment, I think if you look at the – there is – over a number of years, we have had an emerging trend to invest more in technology. And our overall technology spend today is $200-and-something million, so this is a big number. Is that going to reduce? I strongly doubt it. But of course, the point of that investment is to become more productive and to generate a better service proposition for our customers and to become more productive. I think that’s going to go up over time. I think the sort of – the other answer to the question is what do we expect in terms of flow-through going forward. I think where we see good single-digit growth, like over the last sort of three or four years, we should expect to be getting double-digit flow-through. Now throughout the rest of this year, that’s going to be – that is already challenged. But fine, we should be expecting – we should expect double-digit flow-through over the medium term on good single-digit growth, okay? Does that answer your first question, Paul?

Yes, but I think, I don’t want to put words in your mouth, but flow-through looking out is probably at the low end of double digits rather than…

I think that’s fair. I mean, we’ve always said, without substantial increases in gross margin, and the gross margin increases that we’ve – improvements that we made have all been incremental without substantial increase in gross margin or that utilization of capacity after the last downturn. I think that's right, okay? That was the first one. Logistics and supply chain in the U.S. On the one hand, have we got sort of lots of surplus capacity now? No. But there are opportunities still to continue to optimize on the whole logistics and supply chain piece. That's why we're putting in a new pipe yard, for example, in Ohio. The economics of that are it pays for itself in lower distribution costs, which is actually similar to the first Celina DC.

Right.

So I don't see that as being a drag. And it is interesting, if you look at our capital investment, I think our capital investment is at a sensible level for the, at the moment for the size of the business. So I do think there are more opportunities. I wouldn't see them as a drag and I wouldn't see them sort of boosting margins massively. I just see it as an ongoing thing with the development of our business, Paul. Does that answer that one? Nordics, what went wrong? Look, I mean, firstly, we don't feel good about this. We don't feel good. We haven't got good enough growth, and there are areas in which we haven't managed to get the right investment or returns on that investment. But look, let me, so I'm not positive about the growth that we've achieved or the flow-through that we've achieved. I think, Paul, though, today, the most important thing for us, we are going to look for an exit of this business. We are going to now pass that on to another owner in the fullness of time, and call that a day. So I don't want to pick the bones of that one in a very public way. I just don't think it would be appropriate at this point.

Thanks. Good morning. I’m Tom Sykes from Deutsche Bank. Just on the margin on the product price deflation, looks like it's about 17%. So just wondering about the inflection of commodities, do you expect the operating margin on product price inflation to be similar, do you get a reverse of that? And was that disproportionate, that minus 17%, in the first quarter, please? And then when you look at the D&A, rather dry question, but your depreciation, amortization went up more quickly than your sales, you obviously spent some money on CapEx, historically, but is that all coming through the D&A line now? Is that something that we should see that rising as a proportion of sales in the second half as well, because that seemed to affect your incremental drop-through? And then just finally, on the technology argument, you said you spent about $200 million, but your CapEx on software looks like it was only about $13 million, which is an incredibly small amount for a business which is obviously growing its e-commerce quite substantially. So could you just outline where exactly your technology spend is? Your CapEx seemed low, but you're pointing out technology equipment that you're buying. So where actually is your technology edge and spend, please?

Okay.

On the first one, if I understood your question correctly, the commodity deflation has now eased, and we're back to where we're seeing a little bit of inflation there. We don't necessarily expect to see a big rebound in those commodities. I think it's hard to project. So we have roughly in the U.S., we have roughly 12% of our sales are in what we consider the real commodity pipe, and we have another 8% that are kind of fittings and what have you. So in total which are a little bit more manufactured, they have a little less commodity influence, but still commodity products. So we have a total of about 20% of our products are commodity based. And again, we would expect the commodity prices roughly stay where they are today would be our assumption, but I think that's hard to call.

The margin impact was very high on the product price deflation, 17 on, effectively, 96 million of lost sales. So just wondering why the margin impact was so high? Is that just timing?

I think a combination of timing and some of that product does have pretty good backend on it as well. So, I think it's a combination of those 2 things.

The depreciation, amortization was the second one I think that's amortization.

Yes, I think the we have invested more. And clearly, in the U.S., we've invested pretty heavily in the last several years; some clearly forward looking investments and some catch up from, I think, still in some of our branches to bring them up to the speed we want. So the depreciation has increased. It's still well lower than it was before the early in the decade. But I think that level of CapEx is really is relatively normal now, and so I would expect it to stay in that range.

I think, Tom, on the third one, the investment in technology. Firstly, there's software and software license, but that's not the biggest part. There's obviously the associated hardware. But the biggest investment is the investment in the people, the reengineering, the process side. Very often, there's quite a time lag between when you sign a license and when you actually get the implementation done and then rolled out. That can be 1 or 2 years, typically, for a larger system. You look something like the Agility or even the Oracle, the new Oracle platform for the ecommerce in the U.S. I mean, those you sign the license, you develop them, you implement and there can be sometime delay. But there's massive investment here that just goes through the P&L. If you look at build.com, for example, the whole and we got 80 odd developers, I think, there? They're expensed, okay? So they're just going through that, what you would call, SG&A expenses. Is it investment, should it be on the balance sheet? Fine, doesn't matter. It's expensed. They're constantly working on that system. And that's I think that's becoming more and more prevalent, okay? Does that did we answer your questions there, Tom?

Yes, you did, but is there any of that SG&A spend, as related to Paul's question, that sort of rolls off a little or comes down? Or are you expecting that to still be a similar proportion of your SG&A, if not even rising a little going forward, because of the nature of how the industry is going?

I think the whole technology space, those numbers will go up, and it's incumbent on us to make sure that we really drive the efficiency from those platforms.

John Messenger from Redburn. Three if I could, please, John. First one is, you mentioned earlier there that whole issue of inflation coming through on cost of goods, 3% to 4%. Can I just check if, effectively, that you're almost indicating, when we think about next year, particularly the timing issue, obviously, [invent] return, but actually that 3% to 4% would be indicative on your comments about pushing for holding the gross margin that next year across the group, 3% to 4%, if you're successful will be the price inflation kind of dynamic that the group will be experiencing? That was question one. Second was just on the Nordics. Can I just check, from the point of view of an exit, I know it's early days and it will depend on who the buyer is, but actually, are you agnostic about whether it's a clean one-value transfer to you or whether you stay with a shareholding in something if it's a private equity player or just in terms of the permutations that might arise? And am I right in thinking there will be absolutely no tax bill and that what you receive as proceeds will be net-net, one and the same number? I think that will be the case. And then finally was just, when we think about the proceeds from that and the U.S. business, you mentioned earlier, 1982, when Ferguson was bought, and obviously one of the critical points was the huge buildup of bolt-ons and big and small, because actually some of them were pretty big relative to the original base business. When we look at where Ferguson sits now with HVAC, with MRO, with Industrial, with Fire and Fab, particularly MRO, because you mentioned 450 million of sales, broadly 2/3 has been acquired, 1/3 is organic, so 150 million is the base business. Do you need to do a lot more there? And should that be a focus for capital deployment in that there's a necessary need to bulk up because, to be relevant, you need to be just a scale level bigger to make that business really start to motor? So those are the 3.

Okay. Look, the 3% to 4% was a U.K observation, the U.K. COGS, okay? That is our best view for calendar '17 U.K. cost of goods inflation. Clearly, OpEx inflation needs to be kept down at lower levels. The second one about sort of are we agnostic and do we want to [clean this but], I think, today, this is very recent, John, so I think we would be open to all considerations, and it really depends what is useful, practicable, valuable. If there is something that we could continue to bring to the business, fine, I'll absolutely be entertained. We would entertain talking to potential acquirers about that. If there was a strong feeling for that or if there was some other reason. But you've seen from the last 34 disposals that we've done, we have, we've retained stakes in relatively few of them, okay? Tax, I don't think it's going to be a problem here. MRO, sorry, the 2/3, 1/3, it's 2/3 organic and 1/3 acquired, so far. Do we need to do a lot more to scale? I think we need to prove out the business model. The gross margins today are similar to the rest of the business. They should be higher. We're in an investment phase, so the net margins are somewhat lower than the rest of the business. But clearly, the purpose of entering the market is because we think this is a very good opportunity. And I wouldn't just buy scale as the reason for doing an acquisition. I think it's a terrible reason for doing any acquisitions. We have a strong preference for buying quality businesses, and we have a strong preference for integration, so that we generate a platform that is expandable. I think that is a very clear learning point from the development over many years of Ferguson. If you get a platform and you do it well, it's scalable and you can get into a really good organic growth momentum. So I wouldn't just want to scale for scale's sake. I think that would be the wrong way to think about it.

Just going back -- that was probably too simplistic in that I agree totally. Things like HP Products, that brought a whole part of new product lines. Is there something that actually -- where you're sitting with the 450 million of sales now, is there not more you need either in terms of product lines that maybe needs to come through, yes, a bulk bolt-on deal that gives you that accessibility, not simply just adding top line, I guess, or just field sales access, just to make you ultimately far more relevant and appreciated by the customer base that's out there that you are kind of on the ground and you should be taken more seriously?

No, it's a good question. I mean, when we look across all of the various categories of the MRO space, we feel that we can fulfill a large majority of those categories today. And there are some categories that we've chosen not to play in: stationery. There are probably 1 or 2 others -- there are 1 or 2 others. So there are some categories that we don't want to play in. But I think if you looked at that as a lens through which we did the M&A, actually you could make small acquisitions to get the capability, because what you really want is access to the vendors and the ranging capability, which we talked about with respect to some of the other businesses. So they wouldn't necessarily need to be of huge scale, John, I think. Does that make sense?

Thank you. Clyde Lewis at Peel Hunt. A couple for me, John. Again, probably following on a little bit from John's there in terms of sort of MRO opportunities, but thinking about the other businesses in the U.S. So I'm just looking -- can you update us as to where your market shares are in sort of Blended Branches, Waterworks, HVAC, Fire and Fab, etcetera? Just give us an idea also as to where, I suppose, the pipeline of acquisitions might be sort of biased in terms of opportunities on that side. And the other one, I suppose, coming back a little bit on the sort of listing issue, but more of the, probably, the corporate HQ issue. Does it still make sense to have that Swiss corporate base anymore? Or is that something again that may well get changed?

Yes. Look, our larger business by market share, Blended Branches across the U.S. and you saw the chart before, it's in the old packs, but across the U.S., we think our market share is 17%. It clearly varies somewhat by state, and our market position there is as market leader. Waterworks, we have a higher market share than that in the 20s. And we are market leader with the other ones; somebody mentioned earlier, a close second. But Industrial, we are tiny, because we are really focused -- we got a very focused strategy on Industrial where to make money. You know that there are some operators in that space today that aren't making money. The largest two players are not making money at the moment and haven't done for a couple of years, so we have to be very careful. And I think very focused to make sure that we continue to make good margins there. Fire and Fab, actually, this is a huge focus and success story. We got market share north of 20%, and a very, very, very good market position. HVAC we remain quite small, but we have a very good growth, good margin, good profitable business, and we’re pleased with it. It would be lovely to be much bigger. It’s still a very, very fragmented market in HVAC. And B2C, I think, here, it’s sort of reversed on Blended Branches. We have lower market share. This is in our categories. We have slightly lower market share than the big behemoths of DIY in the U.S. there, but nevertheless, we’re growing well. Does that give you a sense on market shares? Paul, is that okay? Yeah.

And then in terms of sort of opportunities, presumably HVAC, Fire and Fab, maybe a bit of B2C would rank above Blended Branches or sort of Waterworks in terms of sort of acquisitions?

No. Well, I think there will be opportunities in each of those. And certainly, looking back over the last sort of, what did we say, 40 acquisitions, how do they split, over half of them have been in Blended Branches. They’ve been relatively small, but it is nice and we did the one up in – yes, so we’ve done some nice acquisitions even recently there. So just because of the scale of Blended Branches, it would be great to add to that. Our Waterworks is just a smaller market, so there are fewer opportunities available. And the others, yeah, I mean, with B2C, if we can fill in those aisles, those categories that we’re – that we’d still like to be in, then we’ll do that either organically or via acquisition. Okay? Your second question, look, the corporate HQ sort of Bijou office in Switzerland, I mean, it works perfectly well. It works perfectly well today, so no change there unless the circumstances were to change in due course.

Ami Galla from Citi. Just two for me. The first one, on the U.S., if you can give us some color on your sourcing agreement there, how much do you currently source from outside the U.S? And how flexible that is if tariffs go up? My second one is if you could give us some color on e-commerce in U.K., what does that current footprint stand and how has that moved over the last one year?

Okay.

Sure. On the first one, in the U.S., currently, our sourcing group sources roughly $300 million to $400 million from countries outside of the U.S. So it’s relatively modest compared to the rest of our products. And our sourcing group, similar to the rest of the group, is currently in progress of negotiating at this time of year, typically in the first quarter.

E-commerce in the U.K – look, we feel really good about this. We’ve got a good team, really good team making really good progress. And we’re only just in double digits on the B2B side, but that represents very good growth. And what’s the scale of that? It will certainly, this year, exceed £200 million on the B2B side. B2C side is growing more strongly than that, strong double-digit growth in the B2C side, which is the Soak business, which is doing very well. So we feel very positive about e-commerce, both on the B2B and the B2C side. We're investing appropriately, I think, in that. But there's a mass, a mass of distance to run on that one yet.

Any more questions?

Good. Well, thank you all very much, indeed. Thank you all for coming. If you got anymore catch-ups, Mark is around, Dave and I are around, Nick is around. Catch us. Thank you.