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

October and December was another challenging quarter from a macro standpoint with significant foreign exchange headwinds, modest market growth and continued political and economic volatility. Against this backdrop, we were able to deliver organic top line growth and currency neutral core earnings growth that were in-line with our going in expectations. Organic sales grew 2% in 4 or 5 business segments, Baby, Feminine and Family Care, Grooming, Healthcare and Fabric and Home Care reported growth versus the prior year. Top line growth trends improved as we move sequentially through the quarter finishing with mid-single digit organic sales growth in December. Organic volume was in-line with the prior year. Organic volume was up one point in developed markets; developing market volume was down slightly as we took pricing to offset foreign exchange devaluation across several countries. Pricing and mix each added a point to sales growth. Overall, we held or grew worldwide share on businesses representing about half of company sales and about 60% of sales in the home U.S. market. We continue to grow share in Latin America and held share in Europe and India, Middle East and Africa. We lost some share in Asia, principally in China and Japan. As we reported at the analyst meeting in November, we're growing share on more of our category leading brands in countries where it matters most, Pampers, Tide, Gillette and Pantene in the United States for example. We have opportunities on other important businesses like Family Care in the U.S. and in countries like China. On a constant currency basis, core [inaudible] share were up 6%, in-line with our expectations keeping us on track for double-digit constant currency core earnings per share growth for the fiscal year. Virtually every currency in the world devalued versus the dollar with the Russian ruble…

[Operator Instructions]. Your first question comes from the line of Wendy Nicholson from Citi.

My question has to do with the multiplier effect between the currency pressure on your top line and bottom line because it's just so much bigger than we see at any other company and my question is how much of that I've how much of that is going to go away and this is sort of a long term strategic issue how much that is going to go away as you get your new plans any manufacturing facilities online and emerging markets is that just a structural thing whenever going to have more three raises in place plans disproportionate significantly on our earnings.

Clearly as it is apparent you understand from your question, the difference between the top line and bottom line impact FX is driven by sourcing. And were product is being manufactured and imported two. And it also has to do with where we're disproportionately sized versus our competitors just in terms of our business footprint. We disproportionately impacted due to our business size and market position in countries that have seen some of the highest levels of devaluations. In Venezuela, Russia, the Ukraine and Japan, we have significant businesses and we estimate that in those markets our top and bottom I impacts are more than double our top multinational competitors and then we're also importing significant amount of product in the markets like Venezuela into markets like Argentina into markets like Russia and Japan. We're working as we rightly point out to further localize our manufacturing supply chain over time and that should help as we go forward. We're building roughly 20 new manufacturing facilities, all of which are in developing markets which are the ones that have been most impacted by foreign exchange. As we do that and even with our existing manufacturing platforms, we're working to localize our suppliers with us. As I mentioned in the example on the ruble, this is both a cost in terms of importation product but also importing materials and the more that we can localize both of those components of the supply chain the better off we're going to be in terms of being operationally hedged to FX. The issue will never go away and its entirety. Again, think you mentioned a very good example on blades and razors. We're not going to have 180 blades and razors manufacturing facilities but we're localizing to a greater extent even that supply chain. With significant investments we made for example in Mexico. So, hopefully, this will continue to reduce as we move forward but it is not likely to ever completely disappear.

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

Jon, I guess obviously FX drives and need for pricing. Jon, I think you said you're going to be more aggressively taking pricing in the back half. But I guess the question is with crude at 45, was there a risk that we get into a situation like '08 - '09 where you can price more than peers and ended up losing share?

Fair question and that's, obviously, something we're going to watch very carefully. The good news if you want to call it that is in markets where the most significant pricing is needed, the currency impacts far overwhelmed the energy costs impacts. So again going back to our example of Russia with 78% currency devaluation we might not be able to recover all of that and certainly we're going to have to take into account both competitive consumer dynamics which will reflect the commodity cost environment as well. So we'll watch that carefully. That's also why as I talk about the efforts to offset FX, I always mentioned as well productivity and cost savings. There is going to have to be a higher component of that this time around for the reason you cite as well as for the simple reason that our euro and yen domicile competitors don't have as much of a headwind as we have. So we're going to have to approach this very deliberately, very carefully. But still I think there is a significant opportunity for pricing.

Your next question comes from the line of John Faucher with JPMorgan.

Want to talk a little bit about the organic revenue growth guidance here and you talked about an improving trends in the second quarter, can you talk about what you are seeing? Potentially what you're seeing in the third? And then going back to -- looking at this -- why not just take it down to low-singles, I guess from that standpoint. Not that I think many people are pricing in it but it seems a little overly optimistic and then, sort of looking at Chris's question here, what's the outlook if you look at things getting better sequentially in terms of the volume versus pricing breakdown? Is it all going to be pricing as things get better in the back half of the year? Do you think you can get volumes improving? Thanks.

So first of all, low single-digit organic sales growth is as you know covered within our guidance range and we're going to have to -- there is both tailwinds and headwinds going forward here. We have seen some pickup in the U.S. market as I mentioned in our prepared remarks, volume was up two points in the developed markets in the quarter and we have seen an increase in the market growth rate in the U.S. And if that continues, that's obviously our biggest market and our most profitable market that could be a real benefit to the top line. We have several businesses where we have admittedly struggled recently but where we believe the fix is right around the corner. I mentioned in our prepared remarks the family care business, that's a big business for us in North America where we've been losing share. We've adjusted pricing on that business and are starting to see both volume and sales respond. So, hopefully, that picks up for us. Another big business that I didn't mention in the prepared remarks is Mexico. If we look at sales in Mexico were down almost 20% on the quarter, it constitutes almost a full point of organic sales growth. So if it were not for Mexico we would've rounded it to 3%. And the driver there is a combination of three things. There is a consumption tax increase which was put in place January a year ago. So that's annualizing on the consumption impacts of that are annualizing. We also took pricing to deal with the value in peso and we changed some of our trade terms to pricing transparency in the marketplace. All of that should begin to annualize here very shortly. So if we continue to make progress, if we continue the growth that we have on some of our big brands, if we can address a few of the admitted challenges that we have, I mentioned China as another example, there is no reason we couldn't get up into pick up another point of growth. And then we will have to see what happens as we price as Chris mentioned as you rightly mentioned to market sizes in some of these other markets. I would say quite honestly there is more uncertainty in the top line and there has been in sometimes because of all these variables. But there is both positive variables and variables to watch out for.

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

I guess two things. One was just to clarify that last point, Jon, that when you say pick up another point of growth that you meant another point in the back half not another point on the full-year from the 2% run-rate?

Yes.

Perfect. The other thing was on the other promotional environment in the U.S. I think Unilever's comments were pretty direct around their savings be it on commodities or obviously currency benefits being reinvested in past back to the consumer. So was curious about your view of the promotional environment particularly in the U.S. and then also specifically looking at beauty. It just feels like there is -- this is anecdotal, but it feels like the year has started off in a very, very promotional way. So I was just curious about particularly on beauty that would be great.

Okay let me start way on macro and then I will get down to micro including beauty. In general as you know, promotion is the last place we would like in most cases to spend a dollar, we would rather spend it on equity or innovation and if you just look at the drivers of our top line growth over time, I think that it bears that out. So in the quarter that we just completed pricing inclusive of promotion was a one point benefit to the top line, it's been a benefit for 16 consecutive quarters, it's been a benefit for 10 consecutive years. So it doesn't mean that we won't have individual product categories that are up and down at a given time given both the trial needs of innovation we're putting into the market and the competitive situation but broadly that is not our game. Reflecting just on the U.S. market, so the first point of your question, if we look at the indices for percentage of volume sold a promotion over the last four quarters, the indices sequentially have been a one-to-one, this is all business category business not just P&G, 101, 103, 101 and 98. So broadly, that's not indicative of an environment that's heavily promotional. Now, again within individual product categories of course there are differences. And to be fair those figures that I just provided you don't include couponing, but they don't include couponing at the base period either. So they are kind of free of that. On P&G Beauty we did increased promotion a little bit particularly on hair care behind some of the product I mentioned that are driving share growth on Pantene and Head & Shoulders. It's very important particularly on Pantene given some of the struggle that we went through prior to the last that seven months that we give opportunities to consumers to experience and re-experience and retry our brands. So there has been some level of promotional increase but again most of our spending is on equity building and innovation and will remain that way.

Your next question comes from the line of Olivia Tong with Bank of America Merrill Lynch.

On M&A and the pairing down of your portfolio, do the current market dynamics change your thinking anyway a brand brands or businesses that might be up for divesture or harvesting including the time of [inaudible]? And conversely as you speak with potential inquirers I suspect some of them might be overseas without going into specifics, have your discussions have been impacted in any way as map [ph] changes for that?

We view the strategic were making on the portfolio as a long-term strategic move and so the impact of one year in FX either positive or negative doesn't dramatically change that. And in my conversations with potential buyers, they seem to be similarly oriented. They're looking at longer periods of time. Now you can imagine that there are specific situations where let's say you have a large component of the business that happens to be operating in Russia or the Ukraine or name a couple of markets, that certainly -- I wouldn't say that it affects buyers strategic interests but it affects, obviously, the tone of the overall conversation as it should but I view that really as on a margin on the whole as the years of all and as the currency situation has worsened. Honestly I can't think of one conversation that we've been holding with potential buyers that has changed dramatically in terms of its tone as a result of currency. So I think we're full steam ahead.

Your next question comes from the line of Dara Mohsenian with Morgan Stanley

Jon, you highlighted the recent volume pickup in the U.S. and it looks clearly like retail sales growth has accelerated the last couple of months in the scanner data including through mid-January release today. That being said, the two year average look relatively stable given easier comps the last couple of months in the scanner data. I just want to get a sense from you on how much of the recent U.S. top line rebound in your mind is due to a more sustainable U.S. consumer recovery or is it more easier comps? And then second on pricing can you give us a bit more granularity on how much of the FX pressure this you think you can eventually recover through pricing and also from a commodity standpoint given its expected return to a tailwind by Q4, do you expect to get a margin windfall at some point looking out to fiscal 2016 or do you think that will be priced back to the marketplace? Thanks.

Sorry, I was struggling there to remember all components of this. I'm going to start from the back and go to the front. On commodities, if oil stayed at current prices we would expect an annualized benefit of about $600 million before tax that should start flowing through in the fourth quarter. If you look at the combination of our contractual lags and our inventories, on average they are six to seven weeks, so the recent moves should start coming through really by the very end of this quarter, but more fully in the fourth quarter and we will just have to see what happens in terms of what competitors do relative to pricing. Having the FX issues at the same time, though, directionally moves us in a position of expecting more pricing rather than less. But you're right to point it out as something that we need to watch. Historically in FX moves like this, not identical to this because this is one of the bigger ones we've ever seen, but historically, we've been able to recover over time about 50% to 2/3rds of the impact through pricing and then we get the balance through productivity savings. My sense is we're going to have to move that balance and maybe this time we will get 40% or 50%. We'll see. We're going to have to depend more on productivity savings to get there. The good news is we've got a very strong productivity program that we have visibility on for a couple of years going out. So that's how I look at pricing in general. On your question on the U.S., of how much of that is just better comps and how much of its market, again, I would just point to the market growth rates which are up about 0.5 point in the U.S. So at least that portion of it is due to the market and then I mentioned that we're holding or building share in businesses representing more than 60% of sales. So there is an element there of share growth as well, all of that combined with the easier comps driving the data.

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

Three questions. The first is there a concrete turnaround plan in China? Because it seems like it's been two or three years now with share losses in a lot of big categories and I know you guys understand that there is a problem there but I haven't really heard anything concretely what you are going to do to turn it around. And then on the divestitures, I know you said 35 brands have been sold. Can you tell us what percentage of the 10% of sales you're done with there? And then the last one, which is more technical, how big magnitude-wise is going to be the Swiss franc impact in the March quarter? Thanks.

So again I'll start with the last one. There should be about an $80 million after-tax balance sheet revaluation impact from the Swiss franc in the third quarter and then we will have the translation issue as well. As I mentioned, we're short the franc overall and that's driven by the fact that we have a very large cost base there. Our European and Eastern European, Middle East, Africa headquarters are there and Switzerland is a small country so we have proportionately less volume. So that will be an impact from a balance sheet evaluation in the third quarter and from a translation standpoint in both the third and the fourth quarters. On China, we've built that business. We've grown about 50% over the last four years; it's now our second largest business in both sales and profit. There are two things that we're working to improve in China. One, quite frankly is the amount of price transparency that exists in the marketplace. I think the market in general has become over the last year or so, last two years, a little bit too promotional in nature which tends to happen when you have major changes in consumption patterns. But it's created a degree of opacity in terms of consumers and customers understanding the true value equation that exists and we need to fix that. I think in general the industry is working to fix that and that's why you see some of the impacts that you've seen from some of the other manufacturers in terms of their results in China as well and I would say that we're in the fifth inning in terms of getting that squared around. And then as I mentioned in several categories discussions previously, there is just a massive opportunity in China as that market [inaudible]. If you look at that market by price tier, the premium and super premium price tier, so the top two price tiers now represent 50% of consumption in the market, so across competitors and those tiers are growing at 11%. The balance of the market is flat. In some categories, we haven't followed the consumer as quickly as we needed to up that price ladder, that's part of the issue on Olay. We're not yet where we want to be for instance, on Pampers. Though as I mentioned, the premium pant product coming to market this month will help significantly. So those are really two of the areas generally that we're focused on, on dealing with China, but again, there is huge opportunity in that market

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

Jon, a question on Beauty, maybe following up a little bit about your comments there just on Olay. I guess it continues to be a work in progress with organic growth negative despite successes like Pantene domestically. Can you talk just a little bit more about the key initiatives there and what is likely to change versus stay the same given David Taylor's new appointment to that segment? Thanks.

I mentioned the progress on Pantene and the Hair Care portfolio broadly which we're very encouraged by. On Olay, we actually did fairly well in the U.S. in the last quarter. I think we were up about 3%, John, can get that number right for you afterwards, but I think that's pretty close. But we're still working in several other parts of the world as I mentioned to increase the salience of the brand in terms of both the channels, the price tiers and the product benefits that consumers are looking for in skin care products and that's work that takes some time. I would say we're still in the early days there. We have people working on that business who have deep experience in skin care have been associated historically with the better days on Olay and so we continue to be very hopeful that will come around. David, frankly, brings a new set of eyes which can only help and has tremendous brand building experience across many of our product categories. He's managed in the beauty business before, he managed our hair care business in China when he and I were working in China together in the mid-90s and so that's only good.

Your next question comes from the line of Nik Modi, RBC Capital Markets.

Most of my questions were asked but I was curious, Jon, if you can talk about pricing analytics at P&G and over the last couple of years if you've seen an evolution or increased sophistication, more accuracy because if you go back the last couple of years on the pricing, it really led to a multi-quarter kind of string of share losses. So I'm just curious if you kind of sharpened some of the analytics on the pricing side? Thanks.

Yes, the first thing I would say, Nik, is the primary metric that we're looking at as we analyze pricing choices both up and down is value creation and that may mean and I don't want to overstate this that there may be such situations where it's right to accept some share loss to get the structural economics to an attractive place in our brands. In terms of, though knowing if value creation is the primary metric, whether we're delivering that or not on a real-time basis, we have been constantly working to improve our analytical capability. I won't say that we're all the way to where we need to be and I mentioned that's an investment in capabilities and this is one of the area, analytics in general that we're investing in, but simple things like our sales force being in the field as opposed to being in the office working on brand work will only help in terms of understanding what's happening on a real-time basis. Also as I mentioned, I think in response to John's question we're going to be depending just as much on productivity as we're pricing to try to deal with this FX issue and that was not the case in the years that John mentioned. We didn't have the productivity program and certainly didn't have it at the level that we have it now. So we were more dependent on pricing as a way to restore those structural economics. But this is obviously something that we have to stay close to as you rightly point out and as several others have and is something that we will. We will not get it right every time. We cannot predict competitive behavior; we can't completely predict consumer behavior and so there will be some steps forward and some steps backward. But hopefully, the net is forward as it has been historically.

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

My question is on Beauty and particularly on Prestige. It seems like it led the decline of the [inaudible] this quarter and more broadly when you talk about the portfolio you basically said it's structurally attractive categories that play to Proctor's strength and I wonder whether you would say that channel source specific Prestige Beauty and professional hair care do you think that plays to Proctor's strength or not? Thank you.

A large part of the trend in Prestige is driven by a very strong base period where we had a very strong innovation program. So that's primarily what's going on there. I think your question on fit with P&G's core capabilities and strengths is a good question and an appropriate question. I'll just provide a quick refresher on those capabilities and strengths because they do provide along with structural attractiveness and track record, the screens through which we look at our portfolio strategy and those core strengths are branding, innovation, consumer understanding, go-to-market and benefiting where appropriate from our scale. And I've given the example before on our pharmaceuticals business where if you go across those capabilities, consumer understanding not terribly relevant, brand building, advertising, only legally permissible in three countries in the world, innovation challenged just because of the model in the industry, go-to-market, grocery stores, mass merchants, doctors. That's a clear example of a business that doesn't benefit from our core capabilities. Our job in that case becomes to find somebody who does have those capabilities who can create more value than we can create and then monetize some of that value for our shareholders. We have gotten out of businesses because of channel fit in the past. I would argue that the pet care choice was in part related to that. There was a specialty pet channel; there was an influencer channel with both the breeders and veterinarians that we did not have broader company expertise in. So those are the kinds of things that we will be looking at as we finalize portfolio choices.

Your next question comes from the line of Michael Steib with Credit Suisse.

My question relates to how you expect mix to impact earnings going forward in the second half in particular? It was obviously a tailwind on the top line growth this quarter but a drag on gross margin. I wonder why that is and how you expect that to drive earnings going forward?

Basically in a scenario where we have relatively similar growth rates between developed and developing markets and where we have relatively similar growth rates across our product segments. So in other words, Beauty grows faster than it did in the last quarter, but the mix impact is not significant. In quarters where one of those -- two things aren't true, so where developing markets grow disproportionately or where our higher margin businesses like Beauty don't grow as fast as the rest of the portfolio. We will have a mix impact on the bottom line and so it really comes down to your estimation of those two drivers going forward as to what the mix impact is going to be.

Your next question comes from the line of Connie Maneaty with BMO Capital.

I do have a question on Venezuela. I appreciated your commentary about all the components in FX impact and in that context I'm wondering why you're still reporting your results at the official rate given where SICAD 2 is and where the parallel rate is? So can you quantify for us the move of your Venezuela results from SICAD 1 to SICAD 2?

We provide all of our exposures in our disclosures because we know this is an important item for investors. I haven't actually done the math, but you can, the reason that we continue to translate our results at a combination of SICAD 1, which is 11 to 12 and then the 6.3 official rate is simply because those are the rates at which we're transacting business in Venezuela. We're getting dollars at those rates for imports of both finished product and raw materials. We're told that dividends and royalties would be paid for example, at the SICAD 1 rate, right now as I think you may be aware, the Government of Venezuela's working through as I understand it modifications to the exchange regime. I don't have transparency or visibility into that. Obviously, we will look at that and understand really what's the rate at which we're going to be transacting business and that's the rate that we should be translating our results at. Importantly, I'm in no way suggesting that others will come to different outcomes or are doing anything that's wrong or incorrect. For them it should reflect what rates they are transacting business at.

Your next question comes from the line of Joe Altobello with Raymond James.

Just two quick ones, I guess. First, how much of the pricing you've taken so far or announced to the trade has been matched by competitors? And here I'm specifically talking about the developed world not developing and then, secondly was there anything unusual in the month of December organic growth of 5% because previous to that, if you look at October-November it looks like your flat to modestly down going into that month and I would imagine there was probably some pre-buying or pull forward ahead of some price increases? Thanks.

Joe, broadly without going into detail because we can't do that, our pricing is going to be centered on the developing markets. There is not a lot of developed market pricing that is planned. As a result and because of the timing of certain moves, it is still early days in terms of understanding both what the competitive and what the consumer dynamics are going to be. Maybe we will have an update for you at CAGNY, but even that will probably be too soon. We're in the early days there, but again, the main point is most of this we focused on developing markets not on developed markets.

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

Just actually following up on Bill Schmidt's question which I'm not sure I got the answer to, percentage of sales that the 35 brands that you've divested or consolidated represents of kind of that total 10% and whether that 10% number is actually change as you have started to look at the portfolio a little bit closer? And then also with regard to -- I didn't really understand what you're saying in terms of the timing of the shares coming back in a little bit later from the Duracell divesture, so maybe can you help me understand that too?

Yes, all helpful and thanks for reminding me of the other part of Bill's question. You know what the Duracell sales are, you know what the pet sales are, they have all been moved to discontinued operations and we've given you the amounts of those moves that have been made and those are the two largest. And then, there is a bunch of smaller things. I think you can get pretty close to an estimate with a little bit of thumb in the air on where we're at. The number is not a static number, it does change. We have said very clearly that we intend to create value as we exit businesses. It doesn't make any sense to exit a business if we can't create value in the process and so by definition, we haven't made definitive choices on what goes and what stays as we're still working to negotiate terms and see if we can in fact, create sufficient value in some instances. So that's not a static figure that was a figure that was designed to get us close. Oh shares, thank you. I mentioned that -- as I've read several of your updates from the sell side, we obviously haven't given you a lot of direction other than saying sometime in the second half we will close the transaction with Berkshire Hathaway on Duracell and retire those shares. And so I've seen a number of the estimates, understandably picking different time points and one of them being July 1st and my only point is while we're making good progress, I don't expect that this will be complete by July 1st. I do expect it will be completed in the second half of the calendar year, but I think July 1st is aggressive as you model the retiring of those shares.

Your next question comes from the line of Ali Dibadj with Sanford C. Bernstein.

So believe it or not I still have a question around FX and I get that you're guiding everything organically effectively the same and you're attributing the guide down to FX alone. But I guess, why is that good enough? So why aren't we seeing things like some of your peers are doing that's more aggressive internally to offset some of those impacts? We've talked a little bit about pricing, but productivity, it doesn't seem like it's ramping up, at least it doesn't look like it yet. It certainly looks like your investing in some areas in SG&A and I'm certainly mindful of the word that you used earlier, balance. But what are you doing internally to pull in the belt a little bit more given the headwinds from currency that you are facing?

First of all, I think if we step back and look at constant currency earnings growth that we're forecasting for the year and guiding to, it's double-digit. So that's not an insignificant number and I get asked just as frequently and I think appropriately, if that isn't too much as I do if that isn't too little and it all comes back to this balance point. If you look at our competitors, I mentioned in response to Wendy's question whether we like it or not our impacts from FX are more significant than some of our competitors simply because of our footprint and obviously we have others that are as you know either euro or yen domiciled or have largely a U.S. focus of their footprint. And so even with that double-digit constant currency earnings per share growth, we end up at or slightly below a year ago. We will pull forward not necessarily -- we will execute any smart cost savings program. I mentioned the fact that we're going to be close to the top end of our range on overhead reduction by the end of this year, that's more than a year ahead of pace. And again, is at the top of a 6 point range. So we're continuing to move pretty aggressively. But as you rightly point out and as we have tried to communicate, we need to do that in a balanced way. We just have so many things that present opportunity, both in the way that we operate in our long-term cost structure in delighting consumers with some of our brands, products and technologies that it would be the wrong answer to pull back from those. So we will continue to be balanced. We will continue to be diligent and aggressive in terms of the identification of savings opportunities. Another one for example that we've talked about, granted it doesn't happen all this year, but getting those six mixing centers set up and operational by the end of February that was acceleration of a project that we did specifically to help deal with the current reality and we'll look for more opportunities like that.

Your final question comes from the line of Jon Andersen with William Blair.

Jon, I think you mentioned earlier that volume actually declined in developing markets in the quarter. And I'm wondering if you could just talk a little bit about that, is that a reflection of further slowing in consumption in developing markets? Or do you attribute it to this FX related pricing that you discussed and what your expectations are there going forward?

Quarter-to-quarter there was no significant change in developing market growth from a market standpoint. The one exception to that which is very difficult to sort out is Russia, which when you look at it actually the growth rate increased, but I think that's a large part purchase ahead of pricing that people know are coming. But I would say the market is not a big driver of the small volume reduction we had in developing markets. One driver is one that you rightly point out which is foreign exchange. Where we haven't priced yet on some of the most recent moves like the big ruble move, we have been pricing in places like the Ukraine, Mexico, Argentina, Brazil, Venezuela obviously when that was legally allowed and so that is having some impact. And typically we see that having an impact in most cases for about a 12-month period, in more significant cases like Russia maybe a longer period of time. The other impact is what I indicated which is some issues we've had in both Mexico that was, sales were down 20%. I'm not sure what the volume was but it was significant and in China, where we’ve been kind of flattish. So those are two situations where we're working to improve. But really, markets with the exception of the unknown in Russia are pretty much holding quarter-to-quarter.