Andrew Lazar - Barclays Capital, Inc.
Analyst · Barclays.
I guess, first one would be the bid for Unilever was interesting on many levels, but maybe no more so than it was considered sort of a growthier asset than some of the others than you've done, given the emerging market exposure, the household and personal care exposure and such. So, I guess, more generally, my question really is when you think about synergies of a transaction, can they be enough almost at any level, I guess, to fully compensate maybe for a set of brands or assets that maybe might be in more of a structural decline? In other words, how do you balance those two: the synergy capture versus maybe long-term structural decline in a set of brands?
Paulo Luiz Araújo Basílio - The Kraft Heinz Co.: Hi, Andrew. This is Paulo. So, to think about – the way that we think about our M&A framework, which hasn't changed since the beginning, and the framework is pretty much that we want to own brands that we'd be happy owning these brands for the long run, brands with strong equity, strong relative market share, brands that can travel. But we also analyze a lot how the business operates, the go-to-market of the business, and more important than that, how the business operates better, how they would operate better, how they grow fast being together. Okay? And, of course, doing this analysis, we take everything into consideration, including all the synergies that we have, all the options that we have in terms of getting a better performance. And, again, everything that you said is always to improve our portfolio, right, when we have this type of framework.