Welcome to the Anheuser-Busch InBev Third Quarter 2013 Earnings Conference Call and Webcast. Hosting the call today from AB InBev is Mr. Carlos de Brito, Chief Executive Officer. To access the slides accompanying today’s call, please visit AB InBev’s website now at www.ab-inbev.com and click on the Investors tab. Today’s webcast will be available for on-demand playback later today. [Operator Instructions] Some of the information provided during the conference call may contain statements of future expectations and other forward-looking statements. These expectations are based on the management’s current views and assumptions and involve known and unknown risks and uncertainties. It is possible that the company’s actual results and financial condition may differ, possibly materially, from the anticipated results and financial condition indicated in these forward-looking statements. For a discussion of some of the risks and important factors that could affect the firm’s future results, see Risk Factors in the company’s latest annual report on Form 20-F filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 25, 2013. AB InBev assumes no obligation to update or revise any forward-looking information provided during the conference call and shall not be liable for any action taken in reliance upon such information. It is now my pleasure to turn the floor over to Mr. Carlos de Brito. Sir, you may begin.

Thank you, Jackie. And good morning, good afternoon, everyone, and welcome to our third quarter results conference call. Let's start with the highlights. We delivered solid revenue per hectoliter growth of 4.2%. That was a good performance from our global brand portfolio, led by Budweiser. The Grupo Modelo integration continues to go very well, and we are ahead of schedule in delivering cost synergies. Consolidated EBITDA grew by 10.5%, with healthy margin expansion in all zones apart from one. Normalized profit attributable to equity holders of AB InBev increased by 20% compared to the third quarter last year, and our board has approved an interim dividend for fiscal year 2013 of EUR 0.60. Turning now to the detail of these results. Total revenue for the quarter grew by 3%, driven by strong revenue per hectoliter growth of 4.2% or 4.9% on the basis of the same geographic mix. As you can see from the chart, there was solid per hectoliter performances in all of our top 4 markets. Total volumes are down by 1.3%, with beer volumes down 1.4%. Our global brands grew by 5%, and our total Focus Brands volumes grew by 0.3%. EBITDA was up 10.5%, with an EBITDA margin expansion -- EBITDA margin of 39.8%, a growth of 274 basis points, with the strong contribution from the captured cost synergies from the Grupo Modelo combination of approximately $210 million in this quarter. The volumes of our global brands -- Budweiser, Corona, Stella Artois and Beck's -- grew collectively by 5%, as I mentioned. Global Budweiser led the way, up 8.1% in the quarter and 7.5% year-to-date, led by strong performances in China, Brazil and the U.K. Corona grew by 3.7% due to the strong performances in Mexico and the brand's main export market outside the U.S. We…

Thank you, Brito, and good morning and good afternoon, everyone. Starting from Canada, we estimate that the industry declined by 1.2% in the quarter, driven by higher taxes and pressure on consumer disposable income, although there are good signs of industry improvement. Our own beer volumes in Canada declined by 2.2% in the quarter, with market share stable on a sequential basis. Our Focus Brands grew 1.5% during the quarter, led by Bud Light family, which is benefiting from the rollout of our premium Platinum and Lime-a-Rita innovations. The market remains very competitive, but we continue to invest behind our brands while balancing volume and profitability in a sustainable way. Moving to Latin America South. Total volumes in the zone were marginally down, with beer volume decline of 2% and non-beer volume growth of 2.2%. Our beer volumes in Argentina grew 0.5% despite a difficult economic environment and high inflationary pressure. We estimate that we gained market share during the quarter, as well as year-to-date. Zone EBITDA grew 20.5%, with margin expansion of almost 200 basis points to 42.6%. In Western Europe, own beer volumes grew by 0.1%, helped by good weather in most of our markets. In Belgium, own beer volumes increased 0.4%, with a good performance from our Focus Brands during the summer. In Germany, own beer volumes fell by 3.5% due to a weak industry and market share loss following our price increases. In the U.K., own beer volumes grew by 4.2% in the quarter, with the industry enjoying excellent summer weather and our own business benefiting from very strong market growth. Belgium, Germany and England have already qualified for the FIFA World Cup in Brazil next year, allowing us to fully leverage our global sponsorship of the tournament to drive Jupiler, Hasseröder and Budweiser in their…

[Operator Instructions] Our first question is coming from Andrea Pistacchi with Citi.

I had a question, please, on the surprising situation in the U.S. If you could be, please, a little more specific on what drove the decision to postpone pricing in some of your markets? And also, if you could possibly give a sense of what portion of your U.S. business this -- in what portion this postponement has taken place and general comments on the pricing situation, please?

Well, Andrea, Brito here. So first, I mean, the price in the U.S., as said in our press release, this year was a bit delayed because of some different regional conditions. So as you know, every year, price increase is done differently by region, by package, by channel, in some regions, with no price increases, some others with above-average price increase, so it's a very different footprint in terms of what we do. And of course, we take into account the market particularities and conditions. So -- and then this year, we thought it was best for our brands to delay some of those price increases. But at the end of the day, the net price increase was about 3%, which is slightly higher than last year. So that's the net of all this. But of course, since you asked, I mean, this delay will have an impact in the fourth quarter, for sure, because instead of having 3 months of new price in the fourth quarter, as we had last year, we're going to have 2 months because of the delay. And yes, so that's the summary in terms of the price increase in the U.S. this year.

May I just -- sorry, a follow-up for [indiscernible]. Ask him whether these concerns are, in some states, the whole portfolio or whether this is just the low end or your -- the premium segment? If you could be at all more specific, please?

No, I mean, for competitive reasons, I think that's what we want to say at this point about the price increase.

Our next question comes from the line of the Chris Pitcher with Redburn.

Following on from the pricing question. Could you just clarify -- I don't think you gave it, the percentage of your region or volume that has had the price increase delayed, just so we can get a better idea of the impact? And then on the whole pricing situation, could you talk a little bit about how the competitive price response has been in Brazil and confirm whether -- you said canceled -- the excise didn't increase, it had been canceled rather than deferred?

Well, again, this delay only affected some regions, as I said before. But I think, Chris, the best answer is at the end, the net of all the different situations -- because again, we apply pricing per pack, per region, per channel and in different timings. I think the best one is to say that the net price increase is about 3%, and that's slightly higher than last year. I think that summarizes everything. In terms of Brazil, the fellowship [ph] or the market is under pressure there because of the currency devaluation. Now the currency came a bit back, but there is inflation. There is currency devaluation, and therefore, as every time, I mean, we increase prices, there is delay. Competition has their own agenda. They don't follow 100%, but the fact of the matter is that everybody was pressured this year because of the cost pressure and the currency devaluation.

Our next question comes from the line of Nik Oliver with Bank of America Merrill Lynch.

Just one on the North -- for the LATAM North margins, just trying to get a sense of how much of the increase is recurring factors and how much was one-off. So firstly, on the other operating income, how much of that increase was the government grant year-on-year, and how much was the legal claim? And then, on the admin expenses, just some sense about how big the element of variable compensation was within that number?

Yes, probably the second question would answer the first one. On the other operating income, a significant chunk is linked to fiscal incentives, which are beer, in the long term, and it's a kind of recovering part of the business, which is helping or adding to the EBITDA margin expansion for the quarter although we do not -- or did not provide a breakdown on the pieces. In terms of admin expenses, there is not only the issue on bonus accrual here and there, but there is the issue on calendarization for different quarters. I would encourage you to take a look on the full year basis more than in any specific quarter. But in any event, the bonus accrual is linked to internal target achievements. And as always, targets are very strategic [ph].

Our next question comes from the line of Simon Hales with Barclays.

A question -- or a couple of questions around Mexico, if I can. Just on the cost saving delivery in Q3, I think it was ahead of most people's expectations. Can you just talk a little bit about where those cost savings actually came from in the quarter? And given that speedy delivery and the fact that those cost savings you delivered to date are going to continue to annualize over the coming months, why should we not expect to see an even greater proportion of the $1 billion delivered by the end of fiscal '14 rather than reflowing into 2015 and 2016?

Simon, what we said about -- again, stepping back, I mean, I think you're right. I mean, we're very pleased with the combination and the speed of integration of the Mexican operation into our business. I mean, the guys really embraced the culture and, really, the dream of building the Best Beer Company in a Better World and being part of that. So the $325 million of synergies within the -- what was the Grupo Modelo not only Mexico, but mostly in Mexico, year-to-date, was a great testament to that. Pretty much 45% of this is coming from cost of sales and the other 55% coming from operating expenses. What we said, given that the speed of capture is being greater than anticipated, is that the $1 billion is confirmed, but we're saying that most of it should be captured by the end of 2015, with all of it being captured by the end of 2016. So we recognized that by adding to what we have said the previous quarter, given the speed of the integration. So we're very happy with that.

Okay. And just following on the string on Mexico, if I can. Can you just -- obviously, the volumes were impacted, you said, by the weather in the quarter. I'm just sort of wondering, in the non-weather-hit regions, what the volume performance was like, trying to get an idea of what that, the underlying market, is looking like.

Well, we're not disclosing by region, but what I can tell you is that September was what really drove the volumes to what we have in terms of minus 2-plus percent because September was a terrible month. And I think everybody saw all the storms on both coasts, tropical storms and hurricanes. So if you look at July, August, a much better picture. If you look at September, a much worse picture that impacted the full quarter.

Our next question comes from the line of Melissa Earlam with UBS.

Just a couple of questions, please. Just to confirm, on the $1 billion savings target for Modelo, does that include the $75 million of cost savings prior to the acquisition completing? And then secondly, moving on to the U.S., can you just confirm -- you alluded to innovation being a key part of your agenda for the year. Can you confirm that we should expect a full innovation pipeline starting already from January 2014 again?

Yes, Melissa, yes. To your first question, yes, the $75 million is part of the $1 billion, so yes. In terms of the U.S., the pipeline continues to be very healthy. If you remember last year, 2012, we had the top 2 most successful innovations in this market. And if you look at this year, the year is not over yet, but year-to-date, we have also the top 2, being Straw-Ber-Rita the #1 innovation this year. That was not a full year, even. It was launched later in April. The pipeline remains very strong. And during the third quarter, we launched 2 package innovations: The 25-ounce can, which we're the only company with that kind of pack size in the marketplace. We think it's going to be very strong in the single-serve convenience store because it's at the same price point as the 24-ounce from our competitors, brand by brand. And we also launched the 20 -- 16-ounce resealable aluminum bottle that's, compared to competitor, it's sleeker, it's more contemporary. So we think we're building -- we're still in the building phase, but we think it's going to be very successful with our young adult consumer. So we have a great pipeline for next year that will start with Super Bowl, which is the time when we normally launch the innovations for the year, and that will be no different for 2014. So we continue to think 2 or 3 years ahead and very excited about innovations. And innovation should be looked in a broader fashion. It's not only liquid. It's also packaging, and it's also marketing programs, signature marketing programs, right? And it's also good to mention here that in our -- especially on the packaging innovation side, the verticalized operations that we have with MCC, Metal Container, has played a big role in providing us with proprietary packages in the market. So we're utilizing our verticalized operations to give us that competitive advantage in the marketplace in a very competitive market, which is the U.S.

Our next question comes from the line of Kris Kippers with Petercam.

Some more follow-up questions. Perhaps, first one, specifically on the dividend strategy. We saw the interim dividend for the first time. How should we see this evolving going forward? Will it be a percentage of the full year dividend, or will it be gradual, going up together with the full year dividend? So some more feedback on that would be great. And then regarding the Mexican synergies, which are, indeed, quite fast. Are they just going faster, or you also see some lines which are going better than anticipated initially?

Yes, first -- on the first one, from the cash management standpoint, given the fact that we have already paid EUR 1.7 at the beginning of this year and now the proposed EUR 0.6, that is EUR 2.3 in terms of total payout. We thought that EUR 0.6 is a good starting point for the transition while taking into account our strong commitment for the leveraging. So over time, as the balancing between first and second half payment is what we are trying to achieve with the policy of paying twice a year, the November should grow in relevance as compared to the May. I'm not suggesting here they are going to be equal, but the balance going forward should be a bit better than what we've seen this year, again, as a transition year. And, if I may add to that, the only point is, being the first or the second half, we will always be focused on the full year fiscal dividend or the dividend being paid in connection with each fiscal year, and that one is the one we expect to be a growing number, right?

And Kris, in terms of the synergies, I mean, yes, they are coming faster because, as I said, the integration is going very well, and people really embraced the idea that together, we can do more things, that together, we can do more. And they embraced the dream of building the Best Beer Company in a Better World. In terms of -- it's always the case, as you said, that synergies come from different lines. You planned for one thing, and then when you go to implement them, some lines are better, some lines are worse. But at the end, what we're seeing here is that we're confirming the $1 billion flat. We're saying that the speed will be greater. And therefore, we should have most of them captured by the end of 2015. The other thing that this is not in the numbers, but we continue to be very bullish about, is the Mexico top line opportunities over and above the $1 billion. The $1 billion, as you remember, is only related to cost synergies, as we always do. But we said at the time of the combination, when we announced it, that we also -- through the exchange of best practices, that we saw lots of opportunities for top line synergies that would not be announced but, for sure, would come on top of the $1 billion. So that hasn't changed.

Our next question comes from the line of Trevor Stirling with Sanford C. Bernstein. Trevor Stirling - Sanford C. Bernstein & Co., LLC., Research Division: First question would be, Brito, we've heard a lot about on-trade slowdown in the U.S. from people inside the beer category, but also in other beverage alcohol categories. Is that something you're seeing in your business as well?

Yes. I mean, on-trade has been hit by the whole economic situation. And then when you look at our consumer, consumer in the U.S. has been hit by so many things, I mean, payroll taxes and government shutdown, and that's still in discussions, and -- I don't know. I mean, so many things. I mean, it's -- and now the health care issue. I mean, it's a transition year for the health care, for the Obamacare. So I mean -- and you know that the on-trade beer is more expensive, not only beer, but everything is more expensive, so people tend -- not only in the U.S., but when times are tough, they tend to buy more in the off-trade, where they can get the same for much better pricing. So -- but on the other hand, we see big opportunities for the on-trade because that's a part that we haven't focused so much in the past. And we think, given the brands we have today and the fact that we're premiumizing more and more of the portfolio, as we've done in the past with brands that we've built, the on-trade is a very important component. So we're very committed, especially this fourth quarter and the beginning of next year, to really be more focused on the on-trade because, even if you say it's under pressure, the fact of the matter is that premium brands remain an important part of the on-trade, and we want to be more active in that segment. Trevor Stirling - Sanford C. Bernstein & Co., LLC., Research Division: My follow-up question would be, have you an estimate of what STRs would have been without the change in phasing of the price increase?

No, I mean, at this point, I think the best answer for this is to say that, as we said with our share, that our -- the fact that the price was delayed had an impact on the way the trade rose before the price increase. And last year and this year, there was a month lag, so that pushed some of the volume from September -- from October into November -- from September, sorry, into October, therefore, from the third to fourth quarter. And the best answer, net-net, is -- in our estimates is that by the end of this month, October, we should be back to the same share trend, which is a negative 45 bps, that we had in the first half, most of it coming from the sub-premium brands, okay? So that's the best way to explain this shift in between quarters, given the price -- the delay in the price increase.

Our next question comes from the line of Robert Ottenstein with ISI.

Very strong results in China. Revenue per hectoliter was up strong, as was revenue per hectoliter for SAB Miller. Can you just give us your assessment of what's going on now in the Chinese beer market? Is there any kind of particular change? Are we at an inflection point here?

Robert, I mean, this is Brito here. I mean, I think our results in China, we're very happy with it. This is the number -- year #4 of our strategy. And we have been very consistent in what we've been saying and doing. It's all about developing 2 national brands, Budweiser and Harbin, especially Harbin Ice. It's also about developing our original brand, Sedrin. So these are the 3 Focus Brands that represent approximately 73% of our business, growing double digits. Also, our strategy in China continues to be one of not only growing the organic footprint, volume within the organic footprint, but also expanding the footprint via some acquisitions and also some greenfields, and this is all public. And so again, this has been part of the strategy since year 1. So China continues to grow, not at the same pace, in terms of industry, as compared to some years ago, but continues to be very healthy growth. And our net revenues per hectoliter continues to benefit big time from the fact that consumers are trading up. So we have the brands that consumers are going towards because they are going up. We have the brands that are up here, and some others are chasing consumers from down under, which, I think, it's a worse place to be. So I think we're very well positioned. We're investing behind our brands. And that, again, is the fourth year of our strategy that has proven to be the right one. So we're very glad with what our team has accomplished in China once again this quarter and once again this year-to-date.

And I guess the trade-up is also reflected in your market share gains. When you define the market share gains, is that for the entire country of China, or just in the provinces that you were concentrated in?

No, entire country.

Our next question comes from the line of Brett Cooper with Consumer Edge Research.

A couple of questions, if I might. With the macro pressures in your core markets and across the globe more broadly, how does this impact your plans for the rollout of the Corona brand in your key markets and Focus Brands in, I guess, new markets?

Well, Brett, if I understood your question correctly, you're talking about the short-term pressures on our key markets, and how does that affect our plans for developing our brands, right?

Correct.

Yes. So I think we need to separate what's short-term pressure and long-term opportunities. I think, if you look at our main markets, we continue to be very bullish in terms of the U.S., Mexico, Brazil, China. Of course, China has no short-term pressures, but if you look at Brazil, U.S., Mexico, yes, there are some short-term pressures because of the economy, because of consumers being under pressure, because of food inflation, so different reasons. But if you look at the fundamentals of why we've always been bullish about these top countries of ours, they haven't changed. I mean, look at Brazil, for example. The macroeconomic environment in Brazil could certainly be better, but it has improved this year. But I think more importantly is that the federal government is keeping their agenda of keeping inflation under control, stimulating investment in both public and private sectors and keeping unemployment at a low level. Second, demographics remain favorable: young and growing population and, more importantly, continuous social mobility. Third, the fundamental growth opportunities in terms of beer per capita consumption remains there in terms of regions and overall, and the premiumization has finally happened after many years, and we have the brands to take advantage of that. And finally, for next year, Brazil is hosting the World Cup and, in 2 years, the Olympics. So in the next 3 years, we'll see lots of events that are very beer-centric, especially the first one, the World Cup. And the Brazilian consumer, which has been under pressure because of food inflation and disposable income not growing as much this year as in previous year, is also -- some of these things are getting to a better place. And in the meantime, we're focusing on the things we can control with our pack price…

If I can ask a follow-up, and I'm not sure if you want to answer this, but now that you own a business and have been able to see the contracts, do you have any view on the timeline of gaining more control of the Corona brand in markets in which, when it was owned by Modelo, it was given -- or it was part of another brewers as a distribution relationship?

Yes, that's a very good question. I mean, Corona we see as an amazing potential in terms of mid to long term. Of course, we'll have to respect the contracts that are in place. We'll transition them in the best way for the brand as they become due. And that will be a country-by-country, importer-by-importer type situation. And of course, we'll do the right thing for the brand. But it's very exciting. The brand is an amazing brand. It's very premium. Everywhere you do consumer research, it's very well positioned. And I think, as we bring it to our system, as it happened with Budweiser, we'll see different patterns of growth going forward. So very exciting and very margin accretive to our business.

Our next question comes from the line of James Edwardes Jones with RBC Capital Markets.

How concerned should we be about Bud Light's performance? It seems to me that your rhetoric has become a bit more negative. Is that a reflection of a worsening brand next year, or am I reading too much into it?

Sorry, what's the question again? Is it about the U.S., or in general or...

No, about Bud Light specifically. I just get the impression you were talking a bit more negatively about that, and I'm wondering if the brand equity scores are deteriorating, or am I just reading too much into that?

But again, top line in general or top line in the U.S.?

Bud Light.

Sorry, I have a hearing problem today. All right. No, Bud Light performance, I mean, let me tell you what we think about it. First, #1 beer in the country, so our top priority has not changed. I mean, our top priority in the U.S. is to grow Bud Light. Bud Light has maintained its share of premium light within the premium light segment, but the premium light segment has declined this year. But that's only for this year, so it's not a long-term trend or anything. The premium light has been under pressure this year, but if you look at last year, that was not the case. So we know we can improve on Bud Light performance, and we're putting plans in place to drive the brand forward because we want to gain share in the premium light segment, as we're doing right now, but we also want to keep the share, at least keep the total -- its share in the total margin. The line extensions have been very successful: Bud Light Platinum, Straw-Ber-Rita, the Ritas, and so that has helped the family. And we have a clear action plan to grow Bud Light's market share going forward. A couple of points. First, we're going to increase media investment, supported by a sharper brand position and communication. In that respect, we have appointed a new agency, BBDO, and we're also leveraging our major properties even more, like the NFL. We also are putting major package innovation towards Bud Light, like the 25-ounce can and the 16-ounce resealable aluminum bottle. So the focus for the brand going forward will be finding new ways to connect even better with today's millennials and consumers. So again, Bud Light is a big brand. It's our top priority in the U.S. It's gaining share within the premium light segment, but the premium light, as a segment, is under pressure this year, but that's not a long-term trend. It's only this year. And we have great plans for the brand going forward, including its line extensions and including more focus on Bud Light brand, with more investments and a sharper position.

So has there been any change in the trajectory of its brand equity scores, or is that all fine?

No, I mean, what we've said in our press release is that the Bud Light family this quarter has lost 25 bps in terms of market share performance, considering the total market. But the Bud Light brand gained share within its segment, premium light, but the segment declined because it's under pressure this year. So I mean, that's the overall picture. But again, we see opportunities, given the size of the brand. When you think about it, in a market like the U.S. with so many brands, one brand has 20% share of total market. So we think this brand, given its size and stature, can do even more in terms of connecting and bonding with the new young adult males and do even more in terms of executing and activating its properties, like the NFL, and that's our commitment.

Our next question comes from the line of Mitch Collett with Goldman Sachs.

Just coming back to the admin expense in LATAM North. I accept it's a much less severe decline on the 9-month view, but it is still down, I think, about 15% for the 9 months. Maybe you could just explain a bit about how much of that has to do with variable compensation, whether you think that's a sustainable level, given that inflation is running at mid-single digits. And then secondly, perhaps, just if you could update us again on the gap between premium and sub-premium in the U.S. Is that still something you are trying to close, and roughly at what level is that today?

Felipe here. In Brazil, on a year-to-date basis, yes, there is always the efforts to drive admin expenses down overall, but the majority of this is more variable pay linked, although we did not split precisely how much is coming from what. But if you take into account that our goal is to, overall, keep costs or overheads moving below inflation, and if you take inflation in Brazil being the range of 5% to 6%, then you can have a guesstimate of what is what. In terms of price gap, U.S. premium, sub-premium, we are currently at 23%, coming from as high as 30%, 25%-30%, currently at 33% -- 23%, sorry. And we continue to believe that 15% is a kind of ideal level, but this cannot be achieved in one shot. We are gravitating to that range, but we are not there yet.

Our next question comes from the line of Tony Bucalo with Santander.

Brito, looking at your Central and Eastern European group, it's been about 2.5 years since we've had anything really resembling a constructive quarter in that division. I mean, looking forward, can we assume that there'll be any kind of a recovery in that division, or are we sort of stuck with sort of a negative trend that's going to go on for the foreseeable future?

Well, Tony, I think we can split the trajectory of our Central and Eastern European business in 2 parts, I mean, before and after the excise tax increase 2009-'10 and the restrictions in terms of trade. Of course, this affects everybody, but it made us change our idea about what to do in that market, how to win in that market. I think before 2009 and also the financial crisis, I mean, the market was growing double digits, we were expanding throughout the country, and we intended to have a presence in all segments. I think today, what became clear after the tax increases that destroyed more than 40% of the profit pool of the industry and lots of its volume, and since we're not the market leader there, I mean, it became clear to us that we have to be much more focused. We have to invest and shift resources around to support the brands that are premium-plus and super premium because that's the only way to make sense of that market. But that's a long road because we still have lots of our volume based on value brands that will not be part of our future. And we're transitioning resources, volume attention, share of mind, share of heart from those brands into the brands of that will be our future. So the good news in there, if there is a silver lining, is that Budweiser has reached a 2% share. It's a brand that we launched in 2010, continues to grow, very healthy margins. Siberian Crown, Stella, and that's the future -- and Klinskoye for Russia. So the other brands are going to brands that we're gonna be phasing more and more out in terms of attention and putting resources behind what we think our future is. But this has been a tough market because, first, there were the taxes, then was the media, then was the distribution restrictions, one on top of the other. So we've had to rightsize our structure and shift our resources around and come up with a new strategy that, yes, will take some time to pay off. But we're there to stay. It's one of the top 5 markets in the world in terms of volume, and we want to have our feet wet in that market, be present, because we have investments there. And it's a market where premiumization is also taking place, and we have the brands to take advantage of that, but it will take some years for us to see what we used to see before 2008 there.

Do you see Corona playing a role in that region at some point?

Sorry?

Do you see Corona playing a bigger role in that region at some point?

Yes, for sure. I mean, that's part of the premiumization strategy. Corona is pretty much absent of the region, and I think, together with Bud, Stella, Beck's, Siberian Crown, Klinskoye more of as a core play, I think this will be our future. And also, what we're doing right now in Russia is also, because of that focus in premium brands, we're also focusing more on certain regions as opposed to being widespread throughout out all the time zones because -- in recognition that, if you want to be more focused on the premium side of the business and core-plus, your route to market has to reflect that. The way you allocate sales reps and your sales structure have to reflect that, and that's the transition, the rightsizing that we've been through last year and this year.

Our next question comes from the line of Sanjeet Aujla with Credit Suisse. Sanjeet Aujla - Crédit Suisse AG, Research Division: Do you expect the combination of your Western and Central and Eastern European businesses to yield in cost savings? That's the first question.

No, that's not the main opportunity. I mean, we see that -- 2 reasons. I mean, first, we think that the zone will be better positioned to tackle industry challenges that are common in both zones and leverage our innovation and premiumization opportunities as one zone. So again, 2 zones today, similar issues, similar focus, so why not put it all under one umbrella and share the best practices? And the other thing is to reduce complexity and improve efficiency because that's something we should always strive, especially in a company like ours, where we're always trying to be more efficient each year. So when you look at the CE in my last question, my previous question, it used to be a zone that has a different growth profile and today has more of a growth profile -- or a known growth profile is more Western Europe. And the premiumization strategy that was not there before, now it is there, which is the same as we have in Western Europe. So all of a sudden, these 2 markets became much more similar than they were in the past. And therefore, we saw an opportunity for more focus, reducing complexity and improving efficiency. So that's what's behind the decision. Sanjeet Aujla - Crédit Suisse AG, Research Division: Okay, great. Secondly, on Brazil. At the Q2, you talked quite positively about trading in July. Did you see a big deceleration, then, in August or September, or was it both those months?

No, I think -- I mean, I think Q2, we had the Confederations Cup that, as we said, was -- made up a big difference for Q2. In Q3, we didn't have that. And the issues of food inflation and disposable income remain. So Q3 was better than Q1, but still, it's a tough year. And what we're saying for the year is that the industry should be, as guided before, within that flat to negative low single digits. The only thing we added this time is that given Q3, that range, the industry should be more towards the lower end of that range. So that's for the full year. I think we shouldn't look at quarter-by-quarter. We're talking about the full year.

Our next question comes from the line of Caroline Levy with CLSA. Our final question comes from the line of Ed Mundy with Nomura.

You split out the mix impact on your revenue per hectoliter in the U.S. of 100 basis points. Could you split out the various constituents of the 6% revenue per hectoliter growth you're seeing in Brazil beer between pricing, mix and distribution?

In Brazil, we don't split that out, and the impact is much more in Brazil, for sure.

Okay, let me try another question, altogether separate from this. Your optimal capital structure is 2x net debt-to-EBITDA but you've indicated that once you get below that, from 2014 onwards, you'd be looking at share buybacks. You haven't indicated what the upper ceiling, from a leverage perspective, would be. Do you see yourself going, in the event of an industry-transformational deal, going back up to 5x net debt-to-EBITDA, as you did back in 2008?

I couldn't speculate. We couldn't speculate on the M&A, but we couldn't rule out that option as well, given the proven track record of our ability to quickly deleverage as we are beyond the 2x optimum leverage. But again, this is always going to be a function on how attractive the potential transaction is and the overall economy and everything and our willingness to go to that level.

Well, so thank you. So if I could, yes, back to you, Jackie.

That was our final question. I'd now like to turn the floor back over to Carlos Brito for any additional or closing remarks.

Okay. Well, I'd like to thank you all very much for your time, for attending our call. I think the quarter had some solid numbers. The one that's missing, of course, is industry's volume. We're continuing to work hard. And in terms of our main markets, yes, there are some short-term pressures, but the fundamentals are there, and we continue to be bullish on our main markets. Okay, so thank you very much. See you next quarter. Have a great day. Goodbye. Thank you.

Thank you. This does conclude today's teleconference and webcast. Please disconnect your lines at this time, and have a wonderful day.