And welcome to Procter & Gamble's Quarter End Conference Call. P&G would like to remind you that 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. Also, as required by Regulation G, Proctor & Gamble needs to make you aware that during the discussion the company will make a number of references to non-GAAP and other financial measures. Proctor & Gamble believes these measures provide investors with useful perspective on the underlying growth trends of the business and has posted on its Investor Relations website, www.pginvestor.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. Jon R. Moeller - Procter & Gamble Co.: Good morning. With three quarters of the fiscal year complete, we remain on track with our going-in plans for the top and bottom lines against a backdrop of difficult market conditions. We're maintaining top line guidance, we're reconfirming bottom line guidance and we're increasing our outlook for adjusted free cash flow productivity to approximately 95% for the year. In the January to March quarter, organic sales were up 1%. Core earnings per share were up 12%, up 15% excluding foreign exchange. We generated $2.3 billion in adjusted free cash flow. We increased our dividend by 3%, the 61st consecutive annual increase and the 127th consecutive year P&G has paid a dividend, every year since our incorporation in 1890. The quarter did present challenging macro dynamics. As we and other companies indicated at the CAGNY conference in late February, and as you've seen in the track channel data, growth in…

Thank you, sir. Your first question comes from the line of Olivia Tong with Bank of America Merrill Lynch.

Morning. Thanks. Your commentary around sort of irresistibly superior products was quite helpful, but it seemed to be targeted mostly at assessing existing product. Didn't really hear much about innovation, and more importantly, given the slowdown, particularly in emerging markets, what you can do to make products perhaps more affordable to consumers? And is there any thought on making even more meaningful changes in terms of either product formulations, or pack-out (35:38) sizes to bring the cash outlay for those consumers down? And then, in terms of this new focus area, does that mean that overall spending against sales needs to go higher, and maybe there's sufficient offsets in other buckets so that in aggregate, the margins are relatively unchanged? Thanks. Jon R. Moeller - Procter & Gamble Co.: That's a lot of questions, Olivia. I'll try here. First of all, innovation is the antidote to slow market growth, and so it is definitely something that we continue to focus on and invest in, and we want that to be guided by this notion of irresistibly superior products and packages, because we know that when we do that, we can affect the rate of market growth. I gave you the examples earlier of PODS and Downy Unstopables, which clearly do that, and that market growth is so important, as I described, explained in the U.S. laundry example. It, historically, has accounted for the majority of the company's growth. So we are very focused on maintaining our innovation leadership. If you look at the most recent IRI Pacesetters report, we had five out of the top innovations as measured by revenue in the last year, and that's a focus that will not go away. In terms of affordability, that's important, very important. There are multiple dimensions to that, including package size.…

Your next question comes from the line of Dara Mohsenian with Morgan Stanley. Dara W. Mohsenian - Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC: Hey, good morning. Jon R. Moeller - Procter & Gamble Co.: Morning, Dara. Dara W. Mohsenian - Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC: So Jon, you mentioned a few strategic moves or changes today that you highlighted on the call in light of the current difficult environment and I had two questions from that. A, what's the motivation behind all these tweaks? Is it just that the external environment is difficult and you're being responsive to that? And then B, the broader, more strategic question would be, obviously you've made some very significant strategy changes in the last few years from the productivity you discussed in more detail today to paring the portfolio, et cetera, et cetera. You also mentioned a few additional tweaks or areas of emphasis today. So I'm wondering from a forward perspective as we look out, are there other more sizable or really large strategy changes potentially ahead? Or is now it just more a matter of executing on the previously announced changes and tweaks mentioned today as you manage through that difficult external environment? Thanks. Jon R. Moeller - Procter & Gamble Co.: Thanks, Dara. Your question on motivation for change is, simply put, winning. Clearly, the current environment makes that an even bigger challenge so that also informs the choices here, but the motivation is, very simply put, winning. We view the changes that we've talked about today, some of which, for instance, productivity we've talked about before, but we've tried to give you a better sense of the kinds of things we're going after to give you more confidence that that is something that's well within our capability to deliver. But these…

Your next question comes from the line of Kevin Grundy with Jefferies.

Thanks. Good morning, Jon. Jon R. Moeller - Procter & Gamble Co.: Morning.

A question for you on Grooming, which was obviously soft in the quarter, down 6%. I was hoping you could talk – I have a handful of questions here, Jon. The negative price and unfavorable mix in the quarter, maybe you could discuss that a bit. Also Jon, the growth differential between the U.S. and international because more recently the company has been able to deliver some growth in that business despite the challenges or the much discussed challenges in the U.S., that would be helpful. And then two others and if you don't have this, I can follow up with Mr. Chevalier. With respect to Shave Clubs, are you still seeing penetration rates slow in the U.S.? Some of the more recent commentary suggested that. And then lastly, with some of the price cuts that you announced in the U.S. at the mid and lower end of the portfolio, is it your expectation you'll be able to offset that, or should we expect to see some margin erosion in that business? Thank you, and sorry for so many questions. Jon R. Moeller - Procter & Gamble Co.: No, good questions, Kevin. Thank you. In terms of the mix dynamic within that segment, that is largely geographic mix which gets to your second question. The sales outside of the U.S. were basically flat for the quarter, and I'll come back to that, so all the reduction is being driven by the U.S. and as you know, those are our most profitable cases and higher price cases. So that's simply what's going on there. In terms of the non-U.S. markets, and your point about them historically offering us growth is exactly accurate. Really what's happening is that we're annualizing a significant launch on the ProShield product in Europe, so Europe was…

Our next question comes from the line of Lauren Lieberman with Barclays.

Thanks. Good morning. First, Jon, I may have just misheard that, but did you say that non-U.S. sales were flat in the quarter? So then I'm guessing that means U.S. would've been up like two-ish? If you could just break those two out, that would be great for the first point. Jon R. Moeller - Procter & Gamble Co.: So sorry, Lauren. I was talking about Grooming.

Oh, okay. Jon R. Moeller - Procter & Gamble Co.: Yeah, so from a U.S. standpoint, total company, sales were down one point, and so the balance was up two to three points.

Okay. Jon R. Moeller - Procter & Gamble Co.: Especially in developed markets. Developed markets are flat, developing markets were up three points in the quarter.

Okay. Thank you. So just with that in context, a lot of interesting and really important commentary on the call, but we haven't talked a lot about the quarter itself. So share progress, right, share and approaching market growth rates and so on was something that you guys had talked about as being very important to gauging success for 2017. So can you talk about progress in that regard, I guess in the U.S. and China, kind of two biggest markets, and then in the four big categories you've highlighted as being critical to success in gauging where things stand? Thanks. Jon R. Moeller - Procter & Gamble Co.: So overall share is still a small decrease, about 0.3 points over the past three months. If you split that across developed and developing, we're largely holding share in developed. We're flat versus year ago over the past three-month period. Most of the decline is in developing where we're down 0.6 share points. The majority of that is in China as we've talked, and is primarily driven by the Baby category where we've lost significant share because we don't have a competitive product, much less an irresistibly superior product in the premium, taped segment of the market. We have an entry that we're very excited about that will launch in August in that segment in China that's being sold into the trade currently. The testing on that product against some of the metrics that I described earlier is very encouraging so we're hopeful to be able to address that. The other major area of share loss we've already talked about this morning which is U.S. Grooming. So there's a market dynamic, and there's a share dynamic. And again, we've talked there about the steps we've taken to address that. Now sorry for mixing questions here, but getting back a little bit to Kevin's question as well, that is going to have a negative impact on top line growth in our margins in the near term, but it should improve our volume share position and allow us to both increase consumption, or at least remove a barrier for consumption, and be more competitive, allowing us to restart the cycle of growth on both the top and bottom lines. If you look at top-50 category country combinations as another measure of share progress, we held or improved our share position in 36 out of those 50 markets, sorry, our share trends in 36 out of those 50 markets. So we continue to make progress, but we're not yet where we want to be. Two big items: Baby Care China, U.S. Grooming, we're on it.

All right. Our next question comes from Bonnie Herzog with Wells Fargo.

All right. Thank you. Good morning. Jon, I sort of have a follow-on question on your endeavor to strive for irresistible superiority as it relates to your retail partners. While a very noble strategy on your part, I guess does such a premiumization strategy work in an environment where retailers are primarily looking to lower prices and increase value as a means of driving foot traffic? I guess I'm curious if you've been getting any pushback from your retail partners just because it sounds a little counter to what they might be looking for. Jon R. Moeller - Procter & Gamble Co.: Thank you, Bonnie. First, an important point. Irresistibly superior does not connote more expensive. It may in some cases. In other cases, it may not. And remember, we talked about superior execution as well, part of which is superior value equation holistically defined. If you talk about the retail universe broadly defined, what's driving most of their behavior is a search for their own organic growth, and foot traffic is an important part of that growth. Frankly, irresistibly superior offerings drive that traffic, and our retail partners look for us to play that role in their portfolios. It drives typically market basket, which is also something that's very important to them. So you're absolutely right to refer to the transforming retail trade landscape as something that we need to manage with, and frankly, I think there's no better tool available to us than exactly what we described. If we can bring to the market indispensable brands and products at a superior value equation and provide an in-store experience that provides value and delight to the shopper wherever she chooses to shop, we're going to win and our retail partners are going to win. And if we don't do that, it's hard to see that the outcome will be positive.

Our next question comes from the line of Wendy Nicholson with Citigroup.

Hi. A couple follow-ups. Number one, you talked about packaging as being sort of a new area of emphasis or focus, whatnot. That surprises me a little bit because some of your competitors have talked about packaging maybe being less important going forward, particularly as consumers shop more and more online so how the product looks on shelves is less important. So I'd love your take on that and whether you're contemplating different packaging for products depending on which channel they're sold in. Second thing, the irresistible superiority concept I get, and I hear that it's working in detergent but I would question something like grooming where the consumer has clearly said, hey, and I think most reports say consumers agree that Gillette is the best performing products, but other things are more important, whether it's price, whether it's convenience, et cetera, et cetera. So can you gauge what percentage of your portfolio or what percentage of your categories you think sort of product performance and this concept of superiority from a product perspective actually matters to the consumer? Thanks. Jon R. Moeller - Procter & Gamble Co.: Great questions. To your second question first, we need to be day in and day out driven by the consumer, and what they want and prioritize. So the notion of irresistible superiority does not move for a nanosecond away from that focus. And remember, we talked about superior value equation as part of the dynamic and look at the move that we're making in the U.S. razor category. So I'm very concerned here that there's a misperception that a bar of irresistible superiority in products and packaging denotes higher prices or that we could get driven by a slogan and not by the consumer because that's not what we're all about here.…

Our next question will come from the line of Joe Altobello with Raymond James. Joseph Nicholas Altobello - Raymond James & Associates, Inc.: Hey, guys. Good morning. First, just wanted to clarify something you mentioned earlier, Jon, on Grooming. How much of an impact, if at all, was there on order patterns from the price adjustments that you took given that they went into place I guess April 1? So maybe some delay in order patterns there. And then secondly, a little bit more color on one of the items you cited regarding slowing market growth which is retailer inventory reductions. How sustainable is this? Is this just a reflection of a new normal in terms of consumer traffic? Or was there some temporary component to it given that many retailers have a January fiscal year-end? Thanks. Jon R. Moeller - Procter & Gamble Co.: Thanks, Joe. Clearly there are dynamics around a major price change in a category, in a market, both as it relates to our brands but also as it relates to competitive behavior that a change to the dynamics within the window that perceives that period of time. I would have difficulty quantifying that for you, but there was certainly some impact associated with both order patterns and competitive behavior. The – sorry, I'm now forgetting – oh, slower market growth. The honest answer to your question, Joe, is I don't know. We think that the reduction in retail inventory levels was driven primarily by the consumer pattern that I describe in the U.S. that occurred in January and February, and we have seen a rebuild of some of those inventory levels as the consumer came back a little bit more strongly in March. April frankly is slowing a little bit. I don't know what that means. And you know, you have to realize we're talking about pretty small changes on the margins. They have a big impact on our results in any one quarter, but it's hard to look at that and understand therefore what the future looks like. There's nothing systemic that makes intellectual sense which would indicate why inventories should contract dramatically. Both retailers and ourselves still have significant out-of-stock opportunities to address. The last thing a retailer wants is a customer, once they've finally attracted her or him to their store, to not find the product that they want to buy. So I don't see anything systemic. I think this is more month-to-month volatility, management of cash positions as you rightly pointed out around quarter-ends. I expect that volatility to continue but I don't see a systemic trend one way or the other.

Our next question will come from (01:01:47) with Deutsche Bank.

Yes. Hi. Good morning. Thank you. So Jon, if you could just expand a little bit on what is going to drive the acceleration in Q4, because it seems to get to the midpoint of the guidance you need to do a 4%. And I know that you talked about some new innovation and it looks like the China diaper new product is now going to be in August. So if you could just remind us what are some of the things that are going to happen in Q4 to drive the acceleration? Thanks. Jon R. Moeller - Procter & Gamble Co.: First of all, relative to the guidance, there's a range for a reason. And I won't project where within that range we'll necessarily be. Time will tell. But I did mention in our prepared remarks that year to date, we were at the low end of that range. So I wouldn't necessarily assume a dramatic acceleration of the order of magnitude that you cite would occur in the fourth quarter. Having said that we certainly don't expect, given current market growth – it's all going to come down to market growth, quite frankly. And that's going to be the biggest driver in the difference between the fourth quarter and the third quarter. We progressed on shares in the third quarter but the markets were down. If we continue progressing on shares and markets continue to be soft, it'll be a soft quarter. If we continue progressing on shares and the markets pick up, it'll be a better quarter.

Our next question will come from Steve Powers with UBS.

Thanks. Good morning. I guess just stepping back, you've made a lot of incremental investment over the past year, Jon, and the quest for irresistible superiority in an increasingly difficult operating environment implies sustained if not increasing reinvestment in the years ahead. So I guess the question is, when does all this investment ultimately result in a true advantage for P&G so that we can get back to winning, as you said earlier? And has your timing or definition of winning changed at all with respect to that? Because I think the concern is what we're just seeing is that this is all just the added cost of keeping pace and that cost is going up in an environment where functionality gaps between high and low end products are getting narrower, price gaps remain wide, consumers are becoming increasingly discerning and hard to reach, et cetera. So I guess just to distill it down is, when does this result in winning, or is this just the cost of keeping pace? Jon R. Moeller - Procter & Gamble Co.: Good question, Steve. Let's step back a little bit. What we talked about doing this year was improving incrementally both the top and the bottom line, driving productivity to facilitate reinvestment, and we're right on track with those objectives. We're on track to deliver our going-in plan on the top line, our going-in plan on the bottom line. Going forward as I mentioned, we're still constructing the details of the plan for next year, but we would expect to improve again on both the top line and the bottom line. So sequential progress continuing to increase the number of category country combinations where we are winning. We've also talked very clearly about the need and our commitment to balanced top line and bottom line growth. And there's not a scenario here that we're anticipating that would violate that expectation, so the productivity facilitates the reinvestment. It also allows us to continue to increase the contribution from our bottom line. And in terms of the question of cost of competing, to the extent that we can continue to stay ahead of competition, where we are offering a benefit that the consumer prefers at a price that she sees as a significant value, there's no reason why these investments shouldn't pay off. But it's also why establishing this higher benchmark for how well these products need to perform and how effective the package needs to be against each of its objectives and how well we need to communicate those benefits, it's appropriate to do at this time.

And next we'll go to Nik Modi with RBC Capital Markets.

Yeah, thanks for the question. I'll keep it brief because most of my questions have been answered, but, Jon, you really provided some nice detail in geographic trends across your business first half versus second half. I was wondering if maybe you can give us some context around some of the categories, subcategories, in the portfolio. That would be really helpful. Jon R. Moeller - Procter & Gamble Co.: Well, I think you effectively have that through the segment data and the data that we provide you on the website. But each of the segments grew in the quarter with the exception of Grooming which we've talked a lot about, appropriately. So the growth is pretty broad-based. Our best performing businesses from a top line standpoint right now are ...

I'm sorry, Jon. I was talking about category growth. Jon R. Moeller - Procter & Gamble Co.: Oh, sorry.

Yeah, not P&G's growth. Sorry about that. Jon R. Moeller - Procter & Gamble Co.: Much prefer talk about our growth. Just kidding. I'll tell you what. I'm going to have John get back to you on that, okay? I don't have that sitting right here in front of me.

Okay perfect. Thank you. Jon R. Moeller - Procter & Gamble Co.: Thanks, Nik.

Our next question comes from the line of Andrea Teixeira with JPMorgan.

Hi. Good morning, everyone. Thanks for taking my question. Just going to be brief on basically the margin and reinvestment going back to Steve's question. On Beauty specifically, you had a huge decline on operating results, right? So I was wondering if this is temporary. I understand, of course, the Grooming is also had a big impact, but is there something about the reinvestment that we should continue to cycle through the end of, obviously, the fourth quarter and continuing through the beginning of next year? Fiscal year? Or how should we look at this in terms of the reinvestment in Beauty specifically, and a little bit of Baby as well? Thank you. Jon R. Moeller - Procter & Gamble Co.: We're making significant interventions in both Beauty and Baby currently. Beauty, our largest hair care and conditioner innovations in quite a while, were introduced into the marketplace in the U.S., for example, in the January-March quarter, so that's what you see being reflected there. Also investments in Olay. On Baby, we're making big investments both in improving product superiority, for instance, in China, as I talked about, but also participating and leading the rapid growth in the pants segment of the market, where we are now market leaders, and that's paying off extremely well. In terms of exact investments by category, that's what we're going to have to determine as we go through our planning process for next year, but let me remind you again, we are committed to a balanced approach to grow this business, growth on the top line, and growth on the bottom line with strong cash performance, and there's not a scenario that we would anticipate that would differ from that expectation.

Your next question comes from the line of Jonathan Feeney with Consumer Edge Research.

Thanks, Jon. You mentioned that extra moment of truth that comes from e-commerce. I mean, you covered this before, but it seems like every day we get closer to more and more disruption, more anecdotes about the importance of e-commerce, you guys having so much success in it. Where in your portfolio do you think, if any place, your business gets stronger in a post e-commerce, full-adoption world, wherever that gets? Like where do you feel like, wow, I'm sure glad e-commerce came along and we're competing there versus three or four years ago when it was a non-impact? And do you think, big picture, you're reaching a point anywhere globally? And do you reach a point in the future, where your margin structure your returns, however you think about it, your mode is bigger because of e-commerce versus the way you're going to market today? Thanks. Jon R. Moeller - Procter & Gamble Co.: That's a very interesting question. First, let me just comment on the progress on e-commerce. I mentioned earlier, organic sales grew 30% online in the quarter. It's now 5% of our business, maybe it's about a $3 billion business. It's primarily focused, but not exclusively, in the U.S., China, and in Northeast Asia, particularly Korea. China is about a $1 billion business online currently. I would expect that'll be 20% to even as high as 30% of our business within the next 12 to 18 months, so that's moving very quickly. Korea, it's 40% of the business today. The U.S. development in e-commerce is very different by category, with some of the bulkier and heavier products appealing to people online, so they're not having to fill up their shopping carts with those items, baby diapers, as an example, but also items were more specialized attention.…

Our next question comes from the line of Mark Astrachan with Stifel. Mark Astrachan - Stifel, Nicolaus & Co., Inc.: Thanks, and morning, everybody. Wanted to ask a different way on the Beauty question. So I guess given relaunches of certain hair care brands, certain SKUs of Olay, are you pleased with the performance, so far, I guess especially if you back out continued strong growth of SK-II? And what else do you need to do to really reinvigorate the business? Because even inclusive of SK-II, it would seem that the results are a bit below category growth. And then just one housekeeping question. What is the new breakout in COGS for product reinvestments? What is that? How should we think about that on a go-forward basis just given I think that was new this press release? Jon R. Moeller - Procter & Gamble Co.: Beauty care has been continually improving. I think this is our sixth quarter in a row of organic sales growth. We have some very strong brands within that. Certainly SK-II is one of them. Head & Shoulders is another one. Pantene, on a global basis, has been doing very well. Some of our personal care businesses have been doing well. So I don't want to give you the impression that it's – we're very happy with the progress on SK-II, but it's not carrying the show in its entirety. We still have opportunities in Beauty, as well, in the hair care line, some of the smaller brands. We just relaunched and re-staged Herbal Essence which is doing extremely well. That grew 6% in the quarter versus a year ago. But we still have work to do on Aussie and Rejoice as an example and within skin care, we're still making progress on Olay. But six quarters of growth we'll take, and we have very strong plans going forward.

Our next question comes from the line of Jon Andersen with William Blair. Jon R. Andersen - William Blair & Co. LLC: Hi. Good morning. Thanks for the questions. On the online organic growth rate of 30%, thanks for the color on that. I guess, could you provide a little more context around how that 30% compares to recent trends you've seen in your online business and how you think about that growth rate perhaps going forward? And then I was wondering if you could tie that into maybe the work you're doing on the supply chain network transformation? You've talked quite a bit about the cost savings and the productivity elements of the supply network transformation but is there – to what extent is that work also facilitating your ability to serve the e-commerce channel through different packaging configurations, faster time to market, et cetera? Thank you. Jon R. Moeller - Procter & Gamble Co.: Great question. Growth rates, not a significant change this past quarter versus recent quarters but continued strong. I'm really glad you asked the question on the supply chain redesign because it definitely enables us to improve our ability to serve the consumer in an e-commerce environment and to better serve both e-commerce retailers and bricks-and-mortar retailers. There are several aspects of this. One is getting the manufacturing facilities themselves and the distribution centers in the right places in the markets relative to population centers that allow us to bring products to consumers, whether it's in a e-commerce fulfillment environment or a bricks and mortar environment in a very efficient fast, and very efficient low-cost way. And the way that we were set up before with factories kind of all over the place, the design being simply an artifact of history, we were not set up well to do that, and that was one of the motivations that caused us to move to this new model. There are significant opportunities, and I mentioned actually I think perhaps in the last call, within that supply chain redesign to improve our ability again to serve e-commerce consumers but also bricks-and-mortars consumers. And the whole idea of being able to get kind of our lighthouse if you will, that's being able to produce eaches, so single packages in rotation. So as they're ordered, at the same cost that we're producing large batches of product today. And we have a lot of pretty exciting progress in that area with robotics and other things. We still have a lot of work to do, but that's where we want to be from a customer service standpoint and a consumer delight standpoint ultimately in the supply chain vision.

Our next question comes from the line of Ali Dibadj with Bernstein. Ali Dibadj - Sanford C. Bernstein & Co. LLC: Hey, guys. So I have two questions. One small, one big. The small one is just around the SG&A. I mean, you talk a lot about cost savings obviously, but without this 110 basis points from other operating income, it looks like you didn't cut enough relative to how much you sent back. So I just want to understand what the other operating income is. Sorry if you've already talked about it, and what we should expect going forward. But the bigger question, to me a really a big confusion point and I apologize, is I want to go back to winning and irresistibility that you mentioned because from a strategic perspective I just don't understand irresistible superiority because if you're saying that market share shifts aren't going to be the big driver of your growth and you quoted some numbers, Jon, that haven't been, and irresistible superiority isn't striving to premiumization, something you emphasized a couple of times to answering a couple questions, i.e. price mix isn't going to be driving category growth. I guess I'm confused as to what it is. I'm confused about how investing back into the business for no share gain and no pricing growth or limited pricing growth is a good deal for investors, and really toward the definition of what winning means to me, or more importantly, what it means to you. And instead, would it be better to admit like you did in Gillette in some sense and it looks like you did a little bit in laundry and a little bit in diapers right now given the pricing competition that's out there, that your categories are becoming diminishingly important to…

Our next question comes from the line of Bill Chappell with SunTrust.

Thanks. Good morning. Hey, Jon, just a commentary on the quarterly trends, the comment of late tax returns and weather and pantry de-loading. I think we all heard that and had questions about why the U.S. has been so soft. But I guess the question is, do you believe those really are the issues? Or is there something bigger? Have you seen some kind of improvement as we've moved past it in the quarter or even into April? Or is there something else going on that you've figured out? Jon R. Moeller - Procter & Gamble Co.: So as I mentioned to somebody earlier, I don't really know the answer here, Bill. What we saw, and that I do know, was significant decline in category growth rates, I'm talk about the U.S. now, in January and more significant in February with a rebound in March. And April is, by all indications, relatively soft. And I don't know what all the drivers are of that. And we're just going to have to see as we go forward. And as I said, that's going to have an impact, hopefully a positive one, but it will have an impact on our results both this year and next.

And your last question will come for the line of Jason English with Goldman Sachs. Jason English - Goldman Sachs & Co.: Good morning, folks. Thanks for making the time for me. Thanks for holding me out to be the closing act. I appreciate that. Two questions. First, I don't think you answered Ali's question, and I apologize if you did, on the corporate income, the 110 basis points of other income margin which I think equates to like $0.05. What was it? And then secondly, the bigger question, kind of going back to the theme of running hard to stand in place. Turning to margins, $10 billion of productivity right now, mix has sort of resurfaced and annualized, that rate will leak out $3.5 billion over five years. Inflation kind of running at sort of a similar offset or a similar drain, if you're not able to offset it. And then this reinvestment, if we annualize it, that tallies to around $3 billion over five years too. You just kind of gobbled up the $10 billion. Is that the right way to think about it? Or are there offsets that are going to allow you to let some of that $10 billion flow to the bottom line? Jon R. Moeller - Procter & Gamble Co.: Thanks, Jason. And thank you for reminding me of Ali's first question. I kind of got lost in the bigger question. Most of that benefit related to the gain on the sale of an office facility, and so that's what drove that. There were also some other impacts, but that's the most significant one. In terms of the question on mix, and the last question on savings flowing through to the bottom line, the mix impact in the quarter, the easiest way to contextualize…

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