Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for standing by, and welcome to the Ingredion Incorporated Fourth Quarter 2020 Earnings Conference Call. At this time, all participant lines are in a listen-only mode. After the speakers’ presentation, there will be a question-and-answer session. [Operator Instructions] Please be advised that today's conference is being recorded. [Operator Instructions] I'd now like to hand the conference over to your speaker today, Tiffany Willis, Vice President, Investor Relations and Corporate Communications Officer. Thank you. Please go ahead, ma’am.

Thank you, Shannon, and good morning and welcome to Ingredion's fourth quarter 2020 earnings call. I'm Tiffany Willis, Vice President of Investor Relations and Corporate Communications Officer. On today's call are Jim Zallie, our President and CEO; and Jim Gray, our Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer. We issued our results today in a press release that can be found on our website, ingredion.com, in the Investors section. The slides accompanying this presentation can also be found on the website and were posted today for your convenience. As a reminder, our comments within this presentation may contain forward-looking statements. These statements are subject to various risks and uncertainties. These statements include expectations and assumptions regarding the company's future operations and financial performance, including the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. Actual results could differ materially from those predicted in the forward-looking statements, and Ingredion assumes no obligation to update them in the future as or if circumstances change. Additional information concerning factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those discussed during today's conference call or in this morning’s press release can be found in the company's most recently filed annual report on Form 10-K and subsequent reports on Form 10-Q and 8-K. During this call, we also refer to certain non-GAAP financial measures, including adjusted earnings per share, adjusted operating income and adjusted effective tax rate, which are all reconciled to U.S. GAAP measures in Note 2, non-GAAP information included in our press release and in today's presentation appendix. And now I’m pleased to turn the call over to Jim Zallie.

Thank you, Tiffany, and good morning, everyone. Before discussing our strong fourth quarter results, I’d like to comment on the events of last year and put in perspective what it said about the resilience of our business, the character of our people, as well as the quality and relevance of our strategy for growth. Guided by clear priorities from the start of the pandemic, in support of our employees’ health and safety and our customers' needs, we were able to not just ensure business continuity but enhance business services, improve operational efficiency, drive commercial excellence, and improve the customer experience. Our business adjusted quickly to the abrupt and historic slowdown of economic activity in quarter two, to ensure we were well positioned to participate in a steady second half recovery and enable us to exit the year with positive momentum. Throughout the year, our people kept rising to the challenge, persevering with a purpose and progressing an ambitious operational agenda. Finally, last year further validated the robustness of our strategy, providing us with continued strong confidence in the targeted areas we are pursuing for growth. Now turning to the fourth quarter and full year results, we were very pleased with our operational execution and financial performance. For the quarter, global net sales were up 3% compared to the year ago period. Absent foreign exchange impacts of $26 million, net sales were up 4% versus the prior year. Quarter four net sales results were sequentially better than the third quarter’s 5% year-over-year decline, thus demonstrating demand recovery. Adjusted operating income for the quarter was up 11% year-over-year and up 13% absent foreign exchange impacts, driven by lower operating costs and favorable price mix in North America, as well as strong price mix and better volumes in South America. For the full…

Thank you, Jim. North America net sales were flat for the quarter versus prior year, volume continued to improve following net sales declines in the previous two quarters. Operating income was $129 million, up 14% versus the prior year. The increase was driven by the layout of corn costs during the year and favorable price mix. For the year, net sales were down 4%, driven by sales volume decline in the second and third quarters due to COVID-19 impacts on consumer mobility and consumption. Operating income was $487 million, a decrease of $35 million, which was driven by significantly lower away from home consumption across the region and the shutdown of brewery customers in Mexico in the second quarter. Partially offset by lower net corn costs and favorable price mix in the fourth quarter. Moving to South America in the quarter, net sales were up 6% versus prior year. Absent foreign exchange, sales were up 19% driven by favorable price mix across the region and better volumes in Brazil. Q4 operating income was $44 million, up 26% versus prior year, as favorable price mix and higher volume, more than offset foreign exchange impacts. Excluding foreign exchange impacts, the adjusted operating income was up 40% in the quarter. For the year, net sales were down 4% driven by foreign exchange impacts primarily in Brazil. Excluding foreign exchange impacts, net sales were up 10% due to strong price mix. Full year operating income was $112 million, an increase of $16 million from the year ago period, due to strong price mix, which was partially offset by unfavorable foreign currency and lower sales volumes. Excluding foreign exchange impacts, operating income was up 35%. Moving to Asia-Pacific, net sales were up 8% on the quarter compared to the prior year, which includes the addition…

Thanks Jim. Before taking questions, I’d like to share with you some recent recognition we received. Ingredion was recently recognized once again by Fortune as one of the world's most admired companies for the 12 consecutive year. Also in recognition of our commitment to diversity, equity and inclusion, we were included for the fourth consecutive year in the Bloomberg Gender-Equality Index and earned a near perfect score on the human rights campaigns 2021 Corporate Equality Index. These recognitions are a testament to the progress we continue to make to fulfill our purpose to make life better for our employees, customers, suppliers and all stakeholders. Before closing, I'm also pleased to announce the addition of Eric Seip to my Executive Leadership team. Eric joined Ingredion as Senior Vice President, Global Operations and Chief Supply Chain Officer in January. Eric brings more than 30 years of operational excellence, supply chain, logistics and procurement expertise to Ingredion. Finally, all of us in Ingredion continue to be directed by our roadmap for value creation. Despite the unprecedented challenges of last year, we look back with pride on the progress we made to strengthen the value propositions of our growth platforms, connect and co-create a new and different ways with customers and have our employees live each day inspired by our purpose. That includes my comments. And now, let's open the call to questions.

[Operator Instructions] Our first question comes from Ben Bienvenu with Stephens Inc. Your line is open.

Hi, good morning everybody.

Good morning, Ben.

I want to ask about your 2021 guidance, I think it's notable and probably pleasantly surprising to most the 1Q guidance is as strong as it is in light of how much net corn costs that – you're like they could have gone up. I'm curious particularly guiding to flat up income for North America in the first quarter. What's going on operationally, whether it’d be hedging or product mix that you guys have seen that give you the confidence to guide that way? And then alongside that, given that 1Q looks to be one of the toughest compared to the year, it makes the full year guidance look potentially conservative. Is that just a by-product of uncertainty related to COVID or is it something else?

Yes, I'll take the last question first. I think that the uncertainty that exists still around the world is the reason to be cautious, for the outlook for the full year to be able to have visibility that far into the future I think is the reason why you may interpret the full year comment to be the way they are. As it relates to the net corn equation, let me turn that over to Jim to talk about. Jim?

Yes, Ben, our North America contracting was substantially complete by mid-December. And as you know, our hedging practices match the changes in the gross cost of corn with the changes in the co-product values. So given the increase in corn futures layout after mid-December, we really feel like both Q1 and into the first half of the year, we hedge effectively as our customers were contracting. We've taken that into consideration, obviously, the run-up in corn really after mid-December all the way up and through and what we're seeing today in January. We've taken that current layout as of mid-January into our outlook for both North America, as well as the company.

Okay. Makes perfect sense. You – we appreciate the guidance you did provide on 2021, as it relates to the operating income, you also provided the tax rate guidance. Is the reluctance to provide adjusted EPS guidance a function of the financing costs and the exposure to Argentina hyperinflation, or what – that kind of that last missing variable, what caused you to be reluctant to go all the way to an adjusted EPS guidance?

I’ll take it. I think two questions, or two reasons. One is just, as we look at the impacts of COVID, we're definitely seeing more muted impacts of a surge in infection rates on away from home consumption. I think if you’ve looked at the end of the year, December, the impact of food service in the U.S. for example was much, much less than the impact of food service back in April of 2020, yet we're still cautious. It's not as clear at the pace of the vaccination roll-outs and we're still going to be prudent about what a surge in cases can do to various government actions, restrictions on indoor dining, and generally how people feel about consumer mobility, so that's reason one. I think the second reason as you mentioned is that, if you have a devaluation of the Argentina peso, because we’re under hyperinflation accounting that will impact financing costs and puts a toggle, puts a variable into the EPS, even though it's a non-cash expense that likelihood or probability still looms out there in the future.

Okay. Thanks and congrats on the results.

Thanks, Ben.

Our next question comes from Ken Zaslow with BMO Capital Markets. Your line is open.

Hey, good morning, everyone.

Hi, Ken.

In terms of the specialty business, can you talk about what the volumes were for the quarter? And then can you – is there a way to differentiate – is there a differentiation among geographies of products among the 32% of specialty products? And can you give some color on that now, given that it's now a sizable part of the portfolio?

Yes. I mean, special – we were very pleased with our specialties ingredients performance in the year. They proved particularly resilient in 2020 with all the regions showing growth. And what we also felt very strongly about was that the impacts of the pandemic really did not change in any way, the strategy or where the value propositions inherent in those growth platforms. All of them are very complimentary to one another from a standpoint of the formulating possibilities that we can offer our customers, when you think about sugar reduction for example, we use the term functional bill back as it relates to providing the mouth-feel and bulk that is lost when sugar is replaced when you're using a natural high intensity sweetener like Stevia, for example. So that's a very good compliment. When it comes to plant-based protein, it's not just about offering the nutritional quality, but it's also about offering a complete textural solution. So in the case of alternative meats or alternative dairy for example, a system's first approach for us is something that we are – what that is resonating with customers in our offerings, as it relates to being able to not only structure a meat alternative or a dairy alternative, but compliment it from a mouth-feel standpoint with starch or a hydrocolloid, for example. So all of them are different, unique, but all complimentary, and they're supported by our fifth growth platform, which is food systems, which we continue to target for geographic expansion as well as capability build, because we genuinely believe the industry is much more accommodating, given changes in labor availability for more integrated complete solutions and the four growth platforms supported by the fifth really allow us that capability. And I – go ahead Ken.

No, there you go, if you're going to answer the other part of my question, that would be helpful.

I think that underlies that is an insights into consumer preferences. And each of the target areas that we look at for specialty is mid-single to high single-digit volume growth.

Okay. So generally speaking, but there – is there a variance among geographies or product mix that you think about it, or should we assume that the – it all grows, the 32% grows, 5% throughout the whole portfolio? You're just giving us an average, is there any dispersion?

Yes. Ken, last year, we talked about the different growth prospects or the net sales outlook for the growth platforms for the four year period, going back to CAGNY last year. And just to give you the specifics, I'm just going to remind you of what we said in CAGNY last year, starch based texturizer is 3% to 5%; clean and simple ingredients, 5% to 8%, plant-based proteins would be up significantly because they’re all the small base. Sugar reduction in specialty sweeteners that was pre-PureCircle, we had said 10% to 14%; and food systems was up 7% to 10%. Just as a little bit of a teaser, we will be discussing this at CAGNY and revising and updating this at CAGNY in a couple of weeks. So if that's helpful.

That’s be helpful. Thank you. And then my last question, just to understand, the North American business, you've talked about the pricing and the dynamics there. In the – can you remind us how it works outside the U.S. and what is the typical lag? And is there some sequential improvement throughout the year as you get more pricing, given the higher corn price? How do we think about that on a cadence throughout the year and how do you think about the pricing dynamic outside the U.S.?

Let me start and let me then have Jim compliment what I'm going to say. So let me take Europe for example. So Europe goes through a traditional annual contracting cycle, very similar to the United States, and that is complete, and we feel good about where that ended up. Pakistan will have two corn crops and we'll price throughout the year, so – and that business has – and the pricing has proven to be very resilient. In South America, South America over the last number of years has demonstrated I think tremendous pricing agility to be able to price through. Typically there is a lag of three months we say, but they have developed increasingly strong pricing muscles that have enabled them to push through, in fact, on one of the earnings calls not that long ago, I talked about I think we got to almost 90% of our pass through within a quarter, typically it's about 70% to 80%, and then it catches up thereafter. And in Asia Pacific, it's an annual contracting period, and there are always though new opportunities that develop throughout the year. And so we're pricing as we go based on new wins, for example in that region, and I think you're very familiar with U.S. pricing and contracting.

Great. I appreciate it.

Thank you, Ken.

Our next question comes from Robert Moskow with Credit Suisse. Your line is open.

Hi, thanks for the question. Jim Gray, I just wanted to make sure I understood the explanation for how the price negotiations in December came out. And then what happened after, I think you said that corn cost started rising after that. So are you saying that – you think the negotiations went well that you covered where corn was in December? But then there was an increase after that, that needs to be coped with specifically in North America, or am I misunderstand?

Yes, let me. Rob, let me take it since it relates to contracting piece and then let me let Jim add any color commentary. When we go back to say the beginning of contracting in early November, prior to the news of an effective vaccine coming out on November 10, I think it was, the industry was facing uncertainty regarding the important recovery in food service demand in the U.S. and then the subsequent demand for beverage consumption away from home. So that was the kind of climate as we entered into contracting. As a result, we expected to see, and we expect to see increased consumer mobility and volume recovery in 2021. So against that backdrop, as we went into contracting, contracting for us ended up with expected volume gains and some modest margin compression, that said we expect full year profit growth in North America from manufacturing productivity and strong operating expense control. Jim, do you want to add to that?

Yes. Maybe Rob, just to help you with the timeline, right, because you did see, corn was kicking around as a futures layout between $3.80 a bushel, $4.15, $4.20 a bushel up until about mid-December. And we were largely complete with contracting and it followed our hedging practices, as we mentioned previously. As you see the corn futures move up to what we're seeing the layout today with the first half of 2021 futures higher and the back half of 2021 futures lower, the co-product values have also moved and the co-product values are that offset. So we're seeing some balance, so we're just going to watch the market and we'll talk about the layout of the corn, as we move through the spring planting and expectations for what the summer harvest looks like. But we're watching and we've got our hedges placed, and we're looking at the co-product values relative to the elevated cost of gross corn, and so that's what we'll watch as we go through the year.

And I think it's fair to say, Jim; that the comments that you made earlier and the comments that you're making now relate to where corn sits today. So obviously, we're going to just continue to watch it and hopefully there is nothing extraordinary show manifest itself with planting and all of that.

Okay. And a quick follow-up, in terms of the net corn cost layout last year, was the toughest comparison already passed you by the time 2020 started, like I remember fourth quarter was really pretty hard. But where the byproducts improving in 2020? So how does – where are your easiest comps in 2020, as these quarters move ahead? Or are there easy comps?

Well, I think the – in Q1 of last year, we started to see some co-product values increased, particularly corn oil. And then in Q2 and Q3, you saw, I think, easier comps from a lower cost of corn, right. And that's really – Q4 really easiest in gross corn, right. So now, in the Q4, you see your – in 2020, you saw your gross cost of corn starting to spike up, right.

Right. Okay, all right, thanks a lot.

Okay. Thanks Rob.

Our next question comes from Adam Samuelson with Goldman Sachs. Your line is open.

Yes. Thanks. Good morning, everyone.

Hi, Adam.

Hi, Adam.

Hi, so I wanted to just maybe clarify a little bit on the guidance. So on the full year, the point on sales to be modestly up. If I'm looking back to 2020, volumes were down for – and so especially with the second quarter when you were down 13%, I mean, you're going to be lapping that. So the modestly up on a global basis with really easy volume comparisons, where some just important customers will work offline that I presume you're not expecting to repeat. I'm just want to make sure I'm thinking like why – I mean, volume is, why are they only modestly up against that? And I presume also that there should be some price mix tailwinds given some of the corn pass-through that would happen both in your tolling contracts in North America but also outside the U.S. So maybe just I'm trying to parse out a little bit first.

Yes, I would point to – quarter one for us was a strong quarter, for the most part, Asia-Pacific, obviously was beginning the pandemic at that point. But quarter one for us was a strong quarter. And…

So, Jim, I just asked there. I mean, you were – your volumes at the corporate level were flat in the first quarter of 2020, just want to clear on the comparison.

Yes, I understand that…

It's a mixture.

I think it's a mixture from a standpoint of the various regions and how that all worked out. But what I think we are saying is, we're taking an outlook that reflects continued uncertainty and lack of visibility when you consider the fact that we're still in lockdown and/or partial lockdown in many places around the world. And so, we in – what we factored into our guidance have indicated that that will continue through the first half of this year and then start to ease in the second half of the year. And so that's what's taking into – that's what we've taken into effect as it relates to our sales guidance. That's the biggest variable, Adam, which is that, when you look around, not just what we understanding in the United States, how vaccine rollouts in Europe, but also in South America as well as Asia-Pacific, which seems to be much more kind of government-controlled based upon a flare-up with the pandemic and more restrictive movement. What we're looking at is, hey, how can we see the return of the volume demand from some of the categories that really moved. So, your HF and your beverages, some of our brewing inputs, some of the sweetener volumes that go inside of bakery or confectionery, right. These – the demand from our customers is tied to have greater consumer mobility, shopping at informal channels, going to pubs and restaurants. And so that's – we're just – look, there is a pace to that recovery. And that's what we're taking into consideration.

And the other consideration is that the amount of stimulus that went into certain country, certain regions, we don't believe will be injected at the same degree. Brazil is an example of that. So Brazil is sitting on very high deficits, of course, like most countries, but they infused a tremendous amount of stimulus, which helped with volumes in quarters three and four. That expired in December 31, and the economic minister has come out with some cautionary tone in regards to what they can do going forward. So those kind of things were all taken into consideration as we put together our outlook.

Despite those things Adam, I mean we're still saying that we're looking at net sales to be up modestly.

Okay. And then in the operating income up modestly against that sales outlook, you've talked about targeting $63 million of incremental run rate savings from Cost Smart. I believe that's a gross kind of number just from a productivity perspective. What's the net kind of cost savings that we should be thinking about in the 2021 bridge as it relates to Cost Smart? And that's a run rate, so maybe year-end. So I was just trying to think about what actually hit the P&L in 2021?

Yes. So obviously, we have savings that are coming out from initiatives that we ended the year in 2020, and so some of that will be a benefit to 2021 as we enable and take actions in 2021 as we get to the end of 2021 with our targeted $170 million of cumulative run rate savings. We'll see a difference in that benefit that you highlighted, spread between 2021 and 2022. That's how I'd characterize that.

Okay. And then I just want to clarify one of the…

That $60 million of spread is benefit in 2021 from end-year savings, and that's also been carried over into 2022 from that.

And then, I just want to clarify kind of some of the other points on corn. So from a hedging perspective, trying to say, I mean, especially in North America your hedge on corn for the year? And so if there is – if corn stays at these level in 2021 to 2022-ish, I should say is when we have to think about the pricing actions to offset cost inflation. I'm just trying to make sue I'm understanding those comments properly?

Yes. So I think any modest exposure we may have in our U.S. flat price or fixed contract business, in the second half due to the continued recent run-up in corn costs, we think will be mitigated by concurrent increase in the co-product values, along with the anticipated kind of volume recovery that we referenced earlier, right. So we intend as well if there's any kind of net exposure there, we're looking at both manufacturing productivity as well as op expense to be able to mitigate that.

Okay. I really appreciate all that color. I'll pass it on. Thank you.

You got it, Adam.

Thank you.

Our next question comes from Donald McLee with Berenberg. Your line is open.

Good morning, guys.

Good morning.

Hey Donald.

So I was hoping that you could maybe give your thoughts on last week's announcement of product development partnership between one of the major global food and beverage companies and then an emerging packaged food name. I guess within that, just. First, are these types of arrangements novel? And then second, would you consider it as complementary or maybe in competition with the value that Ingredion adds in the product development cycles from those food systems business?

Are you referring to the joint collaboration, joint venture between PepsiCo and Beyond Meat?

Correct, yes.

So what I would say is that just provides, I think, us opportunity because we have offerings from an ingredient standpoint, food systems formulating standpoint that would appeal to both of those companies in their quest to formulate a range of plant-based snacks. Jim Gray was pointing out to me when we were discussing this because he joined us from PepsiCo and reminded me of their meat-based snacks, which everybody knows, those high-protein meat snacks are growing. So an alternative meat-less plant-based version of that is a great concept. And I'm sure those two companies will be working on that, and we hope to be certainly working with them and other companies as we formulate our approach toward food systems leveraging again plant-based proteins and a whole range of other specialty portfolio ingredients that we have.

Yes. Donald, I just – I think you're touching on something which is a confluence of what generations or younger generations might want to eat, so – is what they're eating and the choices they're making both sustainable, but also delivering the nutrition make up. So, that more protein, less carbohydrate or a balance, right but then also is it combined with, is it snackable, is it on the go, is it convenient. And I think, this is not just PepsiCo, but other customers of ours have really looked at this space. And think that it's not just about a tasty carbohydrate and a fat in our oil, but can we change the nutrition makeup. And so we've been talking to that as Jim references, that when you start to change the underlying ingredient components, that's when you really engage Ingredion to help with not just maintaining the texture, but the taste and then are also delivering the nutritional value.

Yes. And we also feel that one of the things we've learned from the many years of formulating with specialty starches, that you need a portfolio of ingredients, and that's why having a range of pulse-based flowers, concentrates and isolates, that all increasing in protein along that continuum and having the formulating capabilities gives us the most optionality to help customers from a food systems standpoint for these different snacks and alternative meat-type products that they’ll be developing.

Okay. Thanks. That's really helpful, guys. I'll turn it over from that.

Thank you.

Our next question is follow-up from Robert Moskow with Credit Suisse. Your line is open.

Thanks. Just a quick follow-up, but do you have an estimate for what the incremental benefit in 2021 will be from PureCircle compared to 2020, and also Verdient, like – will Verdient contribute positive profit and maybe PureCircle gets back to flat or something like that?

Hey, Rob, as we think about the five months of the impact that PureCircle had within the 2020 financials, we noted today that has an $11 million operating loss. As we look forward to 2021, we see a loss it's less than that for the full year and working because as we've noted the $14 million of cost synergies that we've actioned, those will start to reduce the overall OpEx. And so, we'll see PureCircle at a run rate of a loss in Q1 of still kind of 2-ish to 3-ish, and then we're going to be working that down as we get more to Q4 and all of the cost synergies savings impact are affected on the business.

Okay. And Verdient?

So Verdient, right now, we're working on that integration, I think what we're kind of come back to is just talk about more of a plant-based protein overall platform. And we'll shed some more light on that as we get into CAGNY.

Okay. Okay. Thanks a lot.

Okay.

Thank you. And this concludes the question-and-answer session. I would now like to turn the call back over to Jim Zallie for closing remarks.

Okay. Thank you for joining us today. And we look forward to continuing our discussion later this month, virtually at CAGNY. And in the meantime to everyone, please stay safe, vigilant and look forward to talking to you at CAGNY.

Ladies and gentlemen, this concludes today's conference call. Thank you for participating. You may now disconnect.