Good morning, and welcome to Procter and Gamble's Quarter End Conference Call. Today's discussion will include a number of forward-looking statements. If you will refer to P&G's most recent 10-K, 10-Q and 8-K reports, you will see a discussion of factors that could cause the company's actual results to differ materially from these projections. As required by Regulation G, P&G needs to make you aware that during the call the company will make a number of references to non-GAAP and other financial measures. Management believes these measures provide investors valuable information on the underlying growth trends of the business. Organic refers to reported results excluding the impacts of acquisitions and divestitures and foreign exchange where applicable. Adjusted free cash flow represents operating cash flow less capital expenditures and excluding tax payments for the pet care divestiture. Adjusted free cash flow productivity is the ratio of adjusted free cash flow to net earnings adjusted for impairment charges and Venezuela charges. Any measure described as core refers to the equivalent GAAP measure adjusted for certain items. Currency neutral refers to the equivalent GAAP measure excluding the impact of foreign exchange rate changes. P&G has posted on its website, www.pg.com, a full reconciliation of non-GAAP and other financial measures. Now I will turn the call over to P&G's Chief Financial Officer, Jon Moeller.

Good morning. As you know, earlier this week, we announced that David Taylor had been elected and appointed as the new Chief Financial Officer of the company, which becomes effective November 1. And sorry, Chief Executive Officer. And so joining me this morning is A.G. Lafley. I'm going to start a discussion with a review of the fiscal year and fourth quarter results. Then A.G. will discuss our business strategy and ongoing moves to transform the company, and I'll close with guidance for fiscal 2016. One reminder before we begin, unless noted otherwise, the organic sales and core earnings results we're reporting today continue to include the beauty categories that we're in the process of exiting. The results of these businesses will be recorded as discontinued operations starting with the first quarter of fiscal 2016. In September, we'll provide an informational 8-K presenting historical results of these businesses as discontinued operations. Another important accounting item to point out before we get started is the decision we've made to move from consolidation accounting to cost method accounting for Venezuela in our GAAP financial statements. While this decision is effective for periods beginning July 1, it entails a one-time non-core write down of fixed assets, cash and receivables of about $2.1 billion, or $0.71 per share that's reflected in our fourth quarter 2015 numbers. We're committed to continue to serve Venezuelan consumers. The change we've made to our accounting simply reflects our continued inability to convert currency or pay dividends. Now on to our discussion of 2015 results. We accomplished four things in 2015. First, we delivered strong double-digit constant currency core earnings per share growth and very good free cash flow productivity, over 100% on modest organic top line growth. Second, we continue to make strong productivity gains across the board,…

Thanks, A.G. First, a few more housekeeping items. The guidance we're providing this morning assumes the transitioning beauty businesses are accounted for as discontinued operations, and are not therefore included in core EPS for either 2015 or 2016 fiscal years. This is the same approach we've taken with Duracell. While the amounts are not yet final, we expect fiscal 2015 core earnings per share to be restated from the $4.02 level to approximately $3.77 per share. The informational 8-K we plan to issue in September will provide more detail, including fiscal 2015 quarterly income statements and segment results. Towards the end of the calendar year we'll provide a fully restated 10-K for 2015. While we'll no longer include the results from our Venezuelan operations in our consolidated results, the fiscal 2015 results will remain in our base period sales and earnings. This will create a minor drag on organic sales growth trends and a $0.05 to $0.06 per share headwind on core earnings per share growth. Next, some context for fiscal 2016. We have large positions, leading positions in several big markets where underlying growth has slowed, most notably China and Brazil. Foreign exchange will continue to be a significant sales and earnings headwind, particularly in the first two quarters. To offset the foreign exchange impacts and restore structural economics, we've taken significant price increases in some markets. We need to manage through the market contraction and volatility that naturally follow. We have disproportionately large positions in the markets most affected by FX. We're market leaders in Russia, the Ukraine, in Japan and in Venezuela. In contrast, many of our internationally domiciled competitors are benefiting from their weaker currencies, providing fuel for reinvestment. We need to be cognizant of this as we construct our own plans and as we contemplate…

Your first question comes from the line of John Faucher.

Thanks. Good morning. So you guys have delivered a lot on the structural stuff, sort of brand disposals, et cetera, and you're delivering on the productivity as evidenced by the gross margin performance. But unlike many of the other companies we all cover, the underlying business appears to be getting worse and maybe at an accelerating rate. So I think this could argue for two things. One, that the organization can't handle this much change at one time and you need to slow down. Or conversely, there needs to be a lot more and bigger change, structural leadership, et cetera. So you guys are obviously going with option three right now, which is to sort of stay the course with the initial plan. But why should we all feel comfortable that that's the right course given the results and a little bit to some extent the guidance? Thanks.

Well I'd say, John, that we're in the middle of executing that plan, course three as you've outlined, and are to a place where we have the full benefit of for instance being able to focus on the 10 product categories which we will as we get through the beauty transition. We're also in the middle of dealing with some very significant market level events, which are kind of outside the strategy completely. But we're the market leader in a lot of the countries that are difficult right now, Russia's an example, and as I mentioned, we've made a very deliberate choice. The choice we had in Russia was very simple. We could accept negative gross margins in perpetuity, or we could price to restore structural economics so that future growth would be worth something. And that's the choice we've taken there as in other markets. And it's had a significant impact as we expected. So if you look at the month of June for example, our sales in Russia were down 57%, and we've got to work our way through these things. But we're taking an approach that we're convinced is the right approach for the long term. As A.G. mentioned as well, the innovation pipeline which we've been investing to accelerate, that acceleration is going to start hitting the marketplace as we go through the next year, which will help as well. And then ultimately at some point, we get to a place where FX isn't as much of an issue on either the top or bottom line, and we continue to deliver productivity savings which allow us to reinvest behind this innovation and grow faster. We clearly recognize the need to grow faster. We think we're making the choices that will allow that to happen in a…

Your next question comes from the line of Olivia Tong, Bank of America.

Good morning, thanks. As you look back at this year and the sales shortfall, can you talk through some of the key drivers? I mean was it more a lack of innovation or just innovation that missed their target? Or were the products not priced properly or was competition just better? And then what are your categories growing at now? And how do you think about market share growth for next year? And then just secondly, maybe can we talk through price mix in developed markets and where you think that will go next year? Particularly as we think about your longer term thoughts on pricing in North America with, if we look at baby and family care, you know Kimberly has been pushing price in tissue and diaper. So maybe if you could just address those two things. Thanks a bunch. Alan G. Lafley - Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer: Where to start. I'll take a shot at the last one. Yes, competition has been pushing pricing in the two examples that you mentioned. We continue to grow our share and our value creation in baby in the US. And as I hope I pointed out clearly enough in tissue/towel, we've just very smartly picked our spots, and we're very comfortable with holding sales as long as we create more value. We still have leading brand positions in the principal categories. And the fact of the matter is we're getting more than our fair share of value creation there, and that's the way we want to keep it. Look, on the first part of your question, Olivia, it's really none of the above, okay. It's really none of the above. And I'll just mention two examples because they're significant because the competitor thing is often mentioned. We had major competitive moves in big stronghold markets for us in fabric care in the last year, okay. One competitor moved into the Arabian Peninsula where we've had a long and strong position with consumers. The other as you know moved into the US at the largest retailer. In both cases our share is at or above the level that it was before the encroachment, okay, before their introduction. And in both cases we continued to create strong value. It's more an issue of timing of the moves that we'll be making category by category and the roll-off of the non-performing or under-performing parts of the business.

And I would say our guidance was low to mid singles. We delivered low singles. And the difference between the high and the low end of the range I think can largely be attributed to the macro dynamic in FX which you can sometimes characterize as impacting everybody. That wasn't the case this year as many of our competitors benefited significantly from FX. While we, it was a huge headwind for ourselves. And so that is a differentiator between firms in our industry and that is part of the reason that we're at the lower end of the range.

Your next question comes from the line of Steve Powers, UBS.

Good morning, guys, thanks. So A.G., it feels like with the Coty transaction and David's announcement this week as CEO, you really declared the recent phase of reshaping is in some ways done, and now it's time to move forward. But I guess my question is, building on your prepared remarks, what are you going to do differently as you move forward? Because while much of what you've outlined sounds reasonable and logical and makes sense, but also seems to John's Faucher's point like a continuation of what you've been doing and saying the last few years, and we haven't seen that return at least as measured on the top line. So what I'm looking for is less about what you're going to continue doing and more about where and how you and David are going to invest differently in the coming years. And I don't want to make this just about beauty, but as an example, what deficiencies are you trying to overcome when it comes to a brand like Olay and what is that going to cost? Alan G. Lafley - Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer: Okay. You know, unfortunately this isn't a continuation of what we were doing and I don't want to belabor that. But we were clearly over-expanded, okay, into developing markets and even into frontier developing markets, and you know what's happened there in terms of growth slowdown, economic and political volatility and the FX issue which Jon has mentioned a couple of times is real, and will continue through the end of this calendar year, okay. But it is a change. And the second thing is, we were clearly over-extended in several categories. The most obvious one was beauty where we got into service businesses and more fashion and trend oriented businesses.…

Your next question comes from the line of Lauren Lieberman, Barclays.

Thanks. Good morning. A couple times you've mentioned significant reinvestments in sales force. So I was hoping you could talk a little bit about what's been done so far, what needed addressing. Is it particular channels, is it particular geographies? And then also how that fits into a kind of a chicken and egg conversation about having innovation in market and things you really want to get behind versus what sounds like maybe with the exception clearly of things like FlexBall and PODS, but some kind of like biding time new product work with the real exciting stuff to come in the next year plus. Thanks. Alan G. Lafley - Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer: Lauren, I guess the answer is sort of yes to your series of questions. Let me try to describe it as clearly and crisply as I can. When you choose to follow the shopper, you obviously have to commit coverage and resources to growing channels, and we've done that. So we're in a much better position for example in e-commerce than we were three years ago. E-commerce is growing 30% to 40%. We're pretty competitive. There's still upside opportunities and there's more to come with subscription and auto-replenishment, okay. So yes. Follow the shopper into the channels that are growing. E-commerce is one. Drug is obviously another one. Small box discounters. I could go on. That varies by region, by country and we've made and are making that shift. The second one is dedicated to category and to retail account sales support. And I think we've talked before that we've added a significant number of dedicated sales resources. We started in the US where we're doing it category to customer. We're doing it in China where it's essentially category to channel or customer. And…

Your next question comes from the line of Bill Schmitz with Deutsche Bank.

First of all, congratulations, A.G., on the retirement the second time around. But my real question, were you guys tempted at all to more dramatically rebase earnings? Because it sounds like some of the investments are being deferred for because of some of the macro environment. But it's kind of hard to manage a business based on currency, because it's out of your control. So I was wondering if you had more resources in the P&L, could you do both, sort of like drive the productivity and the cash flow and also reinvest and stop the share declines? Because it seems like on my math the categories globally grew 3% and you guys were flat. So that's quite a bit of share loss I guess this quarter. So I'd just love to hear your thoughts on that topic. Thanks.

A couple things there, Bill. One is we did not, in the year that we just completed, curtail investment to offset FX, and you'll recall actually that when the more significant FX impacts occurred, we took our guidance down specifically to protect the investments that we needed to make in the future. I think our guidance ranges that we've provided for next year, well in fact I know, they accommodate fully the investments that we're planning to make going forward. So, and I think there's further opportunity to drive productivity, which will provide another opportunity to reinvest, I mean productivity beyond even what's in our current plan. So I do not see these as contradictory in any way. Alan G. Lafley - Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer: Bill, we did not pass on a single growth and value creating investment that was brought to us. You just have to look at our CapEx. We're putting hundreds of millions, billions, into new plants. We're putting up a new concentrated HDL plant in China that opens this summer. We're putting up a new plant in Brazil. We're putting up a new plant in Sub-Sahara Africa. We've been racing to add PODS capacity. We're racing to put new Infinity and Radiance capacity in because of demand for our femcare lines. Across baby diapers, hundreds of millions to convert to pants and premium taped as fast as we can. Again, I'm not going to go into the details, but in our plans in the year going forward, we have 10%, 20% and more increases in media budgets. It's hard for you to see our investments in communication and media because most of it's being funded by reallocation. We're simply shutting down the unproductive non-working dollars and we're converting it to working, and we're getting a heck of a lot more out of our digital mobile search and social programs depending on market, depending on category, depending on brand. But we've invested in sales. Every year we invest in R&D. And the good news is, knock on wood, for the most part, and R&D's a risky business, product innovation's always a risky business, but so far the teams have been delivering very high rates of products that are delivering high levels of consumer satisfaction, and as I said earlier, with a fair amount of uniqueness and differentiation. The issue is it takes some time to get them to commercialization and then get them expanding. But we haven't slowed anything down. If anything, we've accelerated a bunch of these programs by three, six, and some by as much as 12 to 18 months.

Your next question comes from the line of Dara Mohsenian, Morgan Stanley. Dara W. Mohsenian - Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC: Hey. Good morning. So first just a detail question. Jon, given David's start date is not until November as CEO, is this fiscal 2016 earnings guidance blessed by him, or might he choose to take a different view around the level of reinvestment needed behind the business and therefore earnings guidance? And the real question is, sorry to kind of belabor John's question earlier, but while it was helpful to hear that you're making more progress perhaps than is evident in the results, it's been a few years now of disappointing results. So I'd love to hear what's kind of plan B if you don't see the improvement in the business you expect going forward as you look out to fiscal 2017 and the historical changes aren't enough to get you to the TSR levels you desire. Maybe you can discuss some of the options at your disposal, whether it's the earnings rebates that Bill mentioned, to reinvest back behind the business, a split up, et cetera, but why those options don't make sense and how confident you are that the historical changes will actually drive improved results going forward. Thanks.

Well first of all, the strategy that underlies the guidance, the strategy and the plan are a company strategy and plan. That's all the way through the board. It's their strategy and plan. It's through the senior management team, which David has been an integral member of. And it's part of what the organization, every person in the organization's work plan is based off. So it's not an individual strategy or plan. It's a company strategy or plan. Having said that, I expect David will do what he's always done, and we'll do what we always do, which is wake up every morning and put our bare feet on the cold hard floor and optimize what's in front of us. And we live in a volatile world and we need to be responding to that on a daily basis. So we're not going to get locked or trapped in a very narrow element of our plan. We'll modify that as we need to. And I'm sure David will approach it that way. Alan G. Lafley - Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer: And I think, Dara, to the second half of your question, it's again a very simple answer. We'll change. Yeah, if it's not working, we'll change. Portfolio, we think it's 90/10, 95/5. They're never done, okay? They're never done. We will make acquisitions in the year or two ahead. We will probably have another divestiture or two in the year ahead. But we'll change. If the baby program doesn't work, we'll modify the baby program. If the fabric care program doesn't work, we'll modify the fabric care program. If we can't compete in a business after 20 years, after 5 years, after 10 years, we'll get out of the business. So I mean I think that's very straightforward.

And I think the last year is full testament to that. I mean you're right, the results aren't, haven't – we're not there yet. But moving out 60% of the brands in one year, that's not an indication of a company that's unwilling to embrace necessary change.

Your next question comes from the line of Chris Ferrara with Wells Fargo.

Hey thanks, guys. I guess just a couple of housekeeping, and then a real one. So first Mexico and Japan, right, both of those, like Japan because of the consumption tax timing and Mexico because of the backing out of promos. Can you talk about how those have progressed and how they might have affected the top line? On the tax rate going back up to 24% for next year, should we view that as the beginning of a more normalized tax rate for you guys? I guess, how are you thinking about it longer term? And then just lastly on the Coty deal, on the timing mismatch between the lost earnings from moving the business to disc ops and the share retirement, I guess because there's a year in between, right. As your shareholders, like how should we think about this deal truly being not dilutive, right, your ability to offset that. In other words, for that really to be true fiscal 2017, you can understand this is a long way out, fiscal 2017 needs to be a way above algorithm year because the share count is going to be so low. So, I know you're not going to guide out there, but just conceptually, would that be the plan? Is that what people should think about, that the share count moves that much lower, therefore 2017 will be a big bounce back year from an earnings standpoint all else equal? Thanks guys.

I'm going to take those in reverse order Chris. On the Coty transaction and the impacts, there's obviously some accounting changes that move things between continued operations and discontinued operations, but until the day that deal closes, all of the cash that those businesses generates goes into our bank account. So in terms of real economic impact next year is, all the cash is ours. And then in the following year, which is what we committed to when we had the call a couple weeks ago, we said post close there would be no dilution going forward, and that's still our plan. So that's kind of Coty. The tax rate at 24%, I think certainly the rate that we've been at is lower than we're going to have going forward just because we've been, as we've been successfully concluding RS(76:51) releasing reserves, and those are down to pretty low balances. So the 20%, I would call it 23% to 25% as being a normalized rate going forward. On Mexico and Japan, we saw a sequential improvement in Mexico, and are really getting to a point where that will be behind us. But in the quarter that had a 20 basis point impact in terms of top line growth. And then Japan obviously went the other way, and was a help to the quarter versus the year-ago softness.

Your next question comes from the line of Javier Escalante with Consumer Edge Research.

Hi, good morning, everyone. I guess I mean we all kind of like gyrating again around the same point which is, what it seems to be a lack of balance between top line growth and delivering very strong EPS growth, however theoretical because it's all currency neutral growth. So I wonder whether you have explained to us what you are doing with pruning the portfolio and how that impact top line growth. Because you had mentioned here things that are not divested, that you have been shutting down and cutting. That may be optically worsening the fundamental of the business. Thank you.

Yeah, so a couple things here. One and I think it's important to understand the order and the sequence in what we're trying to turn this ship around. And growing before we have the right structural economics, it doesn't create any value. So we're trying very hard through the productivity program, through the work we're doing in FX-impacted markets to ensure that we have the right basis to grow from. That doesn't mean we're not seizing opportunities that exist, but we're being choiceful and we're sequencing. And then when that growth comes, it's going to be worth something. The, I guess I just, you know. Alan G. Lafley - Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer: Yeah and I guess on the second half of your question, Javier, the answer is yes. We tried to give you two or three examples. The family care or tissue/towel example, we were quite okay with a 100 index on net sales because we made in our view a smart decision to get out of over time, which is as fast as we can, unprofitable conventional paper businesses in Mexico and to replace that with lower sales but much more structurally attractive exports of our best products from the US into Mexico, which will be purchased by certain consumers and by certain customers and we talked about being choiceful about which initiatives we took in which sequence. And we're just not going to move until we think we have a very good chance of winning with consumers and shoppers and until we have the economics right, okay. We mentioned the laundry example because that is a big one. And while we've been charging forward on PODS, concentrated heavy duty liquids, machine wash powders, all trade up, all preferred products by consumers, all growing in most developing markets, not just developed markets. We have been pruning Tier 4 and some Tier 3 bagged commodity-like powders. We've been pruning laundry bars, as Jon said. We have gotten out of commodity bleach. We have dramatically pruned our additives portfolio and just kept the ones that we thought were strategic and profitable. So yes, that is going on. And the point we were trying to make is while Jon and I and many others have been working on the company portfolio, the business unit leadership has been working on their portfolio. Some of it has been sold off. Hair care was an example, okay. Some of it has been shut down or otherwise resolved. And that just keeps getting better.

And I just want to make sure, one last point on this, I want to make sure we're being understood. We know the top line has to grow. Alan G. Lafley - Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer: (81:32)

I've shown you charts before. We'll probably show another one at Barclays, which is the exact chart that we talk to our organization about internally, which shows that we cannot get to our OTSR objectives with only bottom line growth. We cannot get to our OTSR objectives equally without only top line growth. That's the beauty of the metric. It's a balancing metric. And so we get it.

Your next question comes from the line of Ali Dibadj from Bernstein. Ali Dibadj - Sanford C. Bernstein & Co. LLC: Hey, guys. So you sound very different than I would have hoped on the call today or on CNBC this morning. There's still a lot of defiance. There's still a lot of confidence, it feels like. And look, all the frustration we're all feeling, I feel as well probably times 10. You're kind of brushing off the tough questions and maintaining this trust us, it'll turn, it'll turn. But just let me offer you a look through the lens of a shareholder, right, who you are as well. And you see what the stock price has done, and you look at organic sales growth and it's dismal and it's getting worse, and you admit that. And the cost savings are good but they seem too small and they seem like they're slowing in some cases, like the net part of it is slowing. The transaction is complex and tough and I get it, but maybe it's not as big as it should be, and you have a CEO with respect to, at least versus a lot of people's expectations of leaving a little early. You missed four or five years in a row, and it just feels like there's still this trust us and things will change because we're divesting things. But I still struggle to see what's actually going be different. I get you're going to get rid of 14% of your sales, 15% of your sales and 6% of your operating profit. But is that really it? Is that 1% incremental growth you're going to get out of getting out of those businesses, is that what we're hoping for as shareholders? And I guess how long do…

Your next question comes from the line of Joe Altobello with Raymond James. Joseph Nicholas Altobello - Raymond James & Associates, Inc.: Hey, thanks. Good morning. Just one quick one in terms of the transition. Obviously when you guys come out of this, you're going to look a lot different. You mentioned, A.G., you're going to be 40% to 50% less complex, in theory, at least on paper, a faster growing, more profitable company. But can you talk about the capital intensity of Procter & Gamble two or three years from now? Are you going to be a lot less capital intense given the new business, or the new portfolio that you'll have at that point? Thanks. Alan G. Lafley - Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer: No. No, we won't, okay. I'd said, Joe, we're in a period where we're clearly investing, okay, and returning but replatforming of our Grooming business, which has enabled us to introduce the Venus upgrade in like six months after the male upgrade, the investments we're making in the new product innovation in fabric, the major investments we're making in new product in baby. And as Jon said, putting up the six new mixing and distribution centers in North America. And we're rolling, we'll be rolling across Europe over the next several years, finish the job in North America over the next several years and we'll move on to developing markets with getting our supply chain as effective and efficient as streamlined as possible. So I don't think you're going to see an increase. We would hope for it to level out in time, but I would say for the next one, two, three years, we're going to be investing at about the current rate in CapEx.

Ladies and gentlemen, that concludes today's conference. Thank you for your participation. You may now disconnect. Have a great day.