Sébastien Martel - Vice President of Investor Relations Christopher A. Viehbacher - Chief Executive Officer, Director and Member of Strategy Committee Jerome Contamine - Chief Financial Officer and Executive Vice President Peter Guenter - Executive Vice President of Global Commercial Operations Pascale Witz - Executive Vice President of Global Divisions & Strategic Development Olivier Charmeil - Executive Vice President of Vaccines David P. Meeker - Chief Executive Officer and President Carsten Hellmann - Executive Vice President of Merial Elias Adam Zerhouni - President of Global Research & Development

Michael Leuchten - Barclays Capital, Research Division Mark Clark - Deutsche Bank AG, Research Division Philippe Lanone - Natixis Bleichroeder LLC, Research Division Luisa Hector - Crédit Suisse AG, Research Division Stephen McGarry - Societe Generale Cross Asset Research Eric Le Berrigaud - Bryan Garnier & Co Ltd, Research Division Graham Parry - BofA Merrill Lynch, Research Division Tim Anderson - Sanford C. Bernstein & Co., LLC., Research Division

Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the Sanofi 2013 Full Year Results Conference Call. I will now hand over to Mr. Sébastien Martel, Head of Investor Relations. Sir, please go ahead. Sébastien Martel: Thank you. Good morning, good afternoon. Hello, everyone. Thank you for joining our conference call to discuss financial results for Sanofi for the fourth quarter and year ended December 31, 2013. As always, our slides are available on the Investors page of our website. You can also follow our call today on the new Sanofi IR application on iPad or iPhone. Before we begin, as you can see on Slide 2, I'd like to remind you that our information presented today in this call will contain forward-looking statements that involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors that may cause actual results to differ materially. I refer you to our Form 20-F documents on file with the SEC and also our document reference for a description of these risk factors. On Slide 3, you can see the agenda for the call. First, Chris will discuss key highlights, then Jerome will review our financial performance. Following our business head, we'll discuss operations, and Elias will provide you with an update on R&D. Chris will then come back and make concluding remarks, then we'll open the call to questions. So with us today on the call are Chris Viehbacher, our Chief Executive Officer; Jérôme Contamine, our Senior VP and Chief Financial Officer; Peter Guenter, Executive Vice President, Global Commercial Operations; Pascale Witz, Executive VP, Global Division & Strategic Development; Olivier Charmeil, Executive VP, Vaccines; David Meeker, Executive VP and Chief Executive Officer of Genzyme; Carsten Hellmann, Executive VP, Merial; and Elias Zerhouni, President, Global R&D. So without any further ado, I will now turn the call over to Chris.

Thank you, Sébastien. Good morning and afternoon, everybody. So as we announced a year ago, we obviously were going to have a year at 2 different speeds. One was the first part of the year, where we still had a comparative period that included Plavix in the bottom line and Eloxatin in the top-end bottom line. And really, it's been since 1st of September 2012 that we got beyond the cliff, so we needed to get to 1st of September 2013 to get in the comparable period. And I think you've now seen 4 months of pretty consistent performance post-cliff and very much in line with where we expected the business to start to perform following the cliff. The growth platforms now account for 73% of sales compared to 43% in 2008. There's been a dramatic shift in the profile of sales in the business. I think one of the things that I'm most proud of, actually, which I think was one of the hardest things to do, is that Elias and his team have put together a pretty darn reasonable, I would say, one of the better pipelines in the industry with 9 high-potential late-stage projects. What most people don't really see Sanofi as yet is that we've really become a biopharmaceutical company. 45% of our sales today come from biologics, and 80% of development pipeline projects are biologics. So you don't have to be a math genius to figure out that the percentage of sales from biologics is going to increase over time. If we look at the quarterly sales growth on the next slide, you can see this profile emerging. Back in the third quarter, we'd already shared exceptionally the sales for the single month of September, which were mid single digits. And you can see that,…

Thank you, Chris. So I'll start with Slide 11, and I will put the focus on the FX effect as long as we have seen very significant currency movements over the period. So as you can see from this slide, both our top and bottom lines have been affected by strengths of the euro versus all other currencies. As a matter of fact, the FX impact in 2013 on sales, as well as EPS, more than erased FX gains that we saw during 2012. If you look at the fourth quarter more precisely, the strength of the euro continued, and we saw almost the same impact in the first quarter as we saw in the third quarter. So the results of the fourth quarter FX impact is EUR 0.16 decrease per share on the business EPS, which again was similar to the third quarter. The main currency impact on sales on profit in this quarter was from the Japanese yen, on the U.S. dollar, but also a certain number of currencies in emerging markets. So actually, the negative impact on EPS of the Japanese yen and the U.S. dollar during this last quarter was JPY 0.05 for the yen and $0.10 for the dollar. Now I move to Slide 12, look a bit more in detail into Q4 P&L results. So we see here that, as expected, Sanofi returned to growth. As Chris mentioned earlier, net sales increased 6.5%. Other revenues were EUR 88 million, which is a decrease of 33.6% versus last year, affecting the end of royalties on Enbrel sales in the U.S., which ended since last February. The gross profit was up as well as sales by 5.3% at EUR 5.6 billion. The cost of sales this quarter reflects the impact of vaccine manufacturing issue in Toronto,…

So thanks, Jérôme, and good morning or good afternoon to everybody. So my checklist today is really to provide an overview of the geographical performance of our commercial operations. So let me start with a look at our Emerging Markets on Slide #21. As you can see, we recorded a double-digit sales growth in Emerging Markets in the fourth quarter, making up close to 35% of our total group sales. So with sales of EUR 2.9 billion in the fourth quarter and around EUR 11 billion for the full year 2013, the Emerging Markets growth platform makes up the largest geographical segment of our business. Now within Emerging Markets, we do continue to see various dynamics across the regions. You can see that 3 out of our 4 regions in Emerging Markets delivered double-digit growth in the fourth quarter. Latin America, very satisfying. We grew the business by 10% to EUR 825 million in the fourth quarter. Within our Generics business in Brazil, showed nice recovery and strong improvement in the fourth quarter with sales of EUR 59 million, up close to 24%. In Asia, you can see that sales grew by 15.4%, reaching EUR 776 million in the fourth quarter. In this region, China recorded a very strong performance, growing 35% to EUR 400 million in the fourth quarter as a result of both the progressive recovery of the pharmaceutical sales and also very strong vaccine sales. Africa and Middle East continue to contribute to the double-digit growth in Emerging Markets, reporting EUR 568 million of sales in the fourth quarter. Finally, looking at Eastern Europe, Russia and Turkey, this region's growth of 5% was driven by sales mainly in Russia of EUR 250 million, up 10%, and also by Turkey, with sales growth of 16% for the quarter.…

Thank you, Peter. So let's start with Diabetes on Slide 24, where we see the Lantus impressive performance showing yet another year of double-digit growth, reaching sales of EUR 5.7 billion in 2013. Lantus is clearly the first choice for insulin therapy. With over 8 million patients worldwide, more than 10 years of clinical experience and extensive cardiovascular safety data, Lantus reported its 12th consecutive quarter of growth in Q4 2013, with sales up 20%. Part of this success is supported by the conversion of the -- to the SoloSTAR plan, which now represents 58% of the U.S. sales and the majority of the sales in Europe. Our other innovative pen solutions contribute to the success of Lantus in other geographies. So turning on to Lyxumia on Slide 25. We reiterate the key benefits of our once-daily prandial GLP-1 Lyxumia, which complements basal insulin. Lyxumia has a pronounced post-prandial glucose-lowering effect and a limited risk of hypoglycemia. It can be used in combination with oral therapies and with basal insulin. It is now commercially available in several countries, including Germany, U.K., Spain, Japan and Mexico, and we are encouraged by its initial market uptick. So as for the U.S., we continue to expect to resubmit our NDA to the FDA in 2015 after completion of the ELIXA cardiovascular outcome trial. Turning now to Slide 26, where we look at another of our growth platforms with Consumer Healthcare. We are the third-largest consumer health care player in a large but fairly fragmented OTC market. Q4 sales were up 6.1%, reaching EUR 722 million. For the full year, total sales were EUR 3 billion, up 5%, driven by the growth in the U.S. and in Emerging Markets. Our top 7 brands today account for 40% of total sales. And very recently, we have been busy preparing for the launch of Nasacort OTC in the U.S., which occurred this week, right in time for the spring allergy season. Nasacort OTC 24, which will be the first and only nasal spray in its class to be available without a prescription. With that, I will turn it over to Olivier Charmeil to review the Vaccine business.

Thank you, Pascale. Hello, everyone. Good morning, good afternoon. On Slide 27, we see that Sanofi Pasteur delivered stable sales of EUR 3.7 billion in 2013. This was achieved despite significant supply constraints last year. Importantly, seasonal flu vaccine savings for '13 set a new record, and I will discuss this franchise on the next slide. In mature markets, we generated EUR 2.4 billion. We are pleased to report that volumes of our pertussis-containing vaccines are recovering as a resolution of the Toronto production issues on track. In Europe, the Sanofi Pasteur MSD joint venture started the rollout of the 6-in-1 pediatric vaccine, Hexyon, in 2013. Additional country launches for this product are expected through 2014. In the U.S., Menactra sales were impacted by phasing, reflecting a high comparison basis in Q4 2012, which included CDC supplying this market, while our VaxServe business continued to expand. In Emerging Markets, continued growth were mainly driven by Pentaxim penetration. Also, the rollout of Hexaxim in Emerging Markets that is now launched across 4 continents in more than 15 countries continued nicely. Lastly, we expect the World Health Organization to prequalify our Shan 5 vaccine in the first half of 2014. Now turning to Slide 28. Looking at flu vaccines specifically, as you can see on this slide, our differentiation strategy resulted in flu sales of EUR 929 million in 2013, an increase of 9.3%. Our undisputed leadership position in flu vaccines is based on the sales of 215 million doses sold worldwide, of which 66 million dose were distributed into the U.S. market. Overall, 75% of our total doses were sold in the Northern Hemisphere and 25% in the Southern Hemisphere. We now have, in the U.S., a market share of 50% on the flu market, proving the relevance of our differentiation strategy. We have successfully differentiated our products to better serve patients and physicians, offering a range of options that feed specific needs that share proven [indiscernible] for elderly people: Fluzone Quadrivalent vaccine, a 4-strain influenza vaccine, that offer broader protection; and Fluzone ID, which is administered through an intradermal microinjection. In 2013, 41% of flu vaccine sales were from differentiated flu vaccines, up from 26% in 2012, and we expect this trend to continue. For 2014, given the ongoing resolution of our manufacturing issues in Toronto, we can confirm that we aim to return to annual sales growth. In H1, sales are expected to be stable versus last year, but only due to a high comparable basis. In the second part of the year, we expect a stronger performance than the previous year. Now I will pass the presentation over to David Meeker to discuss Genzyme business results.

Thank you, Olivier. So as Chris noted, Genzyme had an extremely strong fourth quarter, growing 31%, leaving us at 26% -- approximately 26% growth for the year. And if you look at the Rare Disease business unit specifically, it contributed -- it grew at 17.7%, leaving that business unit up 16.6% for the year, almost EUR 2 billion. This result was driven predominantly by our 3 main products: Cerezyme, Fabrazyme and Myozyme, each of which had strong double-digit growth. If you look at Cerezyme specifically, it's the product that was approved in 1991, so almost 20 years or more than 20 years later, we are still seeing significant growth in this market, suggesting we haven't fully begun to address the unmet medical need here. And that product grew 14% year-on-year. Fabrazyme regained its #1 position in just 4 quarters since coming back to full supply, growing 39% for the year. And again, this is a product with significant room still to grow. Myozyme remains the only approved therapy for Pompe disease. Again, we're relatively early in its life cycle. We remain committed to developing new therapies for Rare Diseases. We've got our next-generation ERT in the clinic for Pompe disease. And we have started development of a new oral therapy for Fabry disease. As many of you, I'm sure, know, we announced a expanded collaboration with Alnylam, which we're quite excited about. This is a new novel platform RNA interference. They're a company that has a stated goal of having 5 products in the clinic by 2015. Their lead product for familial amyloid polyneuropathy is currently in Phase III, and they're on track or ahead of their stated goal of getting 5 products into the clinic. So we believe this will be a significant contributor to the Rare Disease portfolio…

Thank you, David. Since I joined the company in September last year, our primary focus has been on gearing up Merial for the launch of our next generation of flea and tick control products for pets and to build a strong business platform for growth in 2014 and beyond. As you can see on Slide 32, full year sales of the Animal Health business were approximately EUR 2 billion in 2013, down 5.3%. Clearly, Companion Animal sales, which represents 6% of sales, suffered from a weak flea and tick season in the spring 2013 as well as increased competition from Frontline generics. But having said that, we have to bear in mind that all other businesses were growing, and Production Animal sales were up 2.1% and that represents 40% of sales. Frontline has been the major driver of our business, but its patent expired several years ago. So what is important now, though, is to regain the franchise through innovation and commercial excellence, and that's exactly what we have with NexGard and Broadline we're about to launch. NexGard, a chewable novel oral flea and tick product for dogs, was just launched in the U.S. It's basically a treat for dogs as a little beef treat. Regulatory approval is expected in Europe soon, and we also would like to launch the product in EU in time for the flea and tick season, which we expect to do. Broadline, a new topical product for internal and external parasite control in cats, will be launched in Europe also in Q1 2014. Also, other new launches are planned, and we will launch a number of new products in the next 3 years. And interestingly, these future growth drivers are equally split over our Companion and Production Animals segments. With that, I will now turn it over to Elias Zerhouni to provide an R&D update.

Well, thank you, Carsten. As mentioned by Chris, I think we're seeing a real turnaround in our R&D portfolio. As you'll see as I present the data, 2013 has really been a year where we've recovered the ability to push forward the very promising, robust, advanced pipeline with significant data milestones all throughout 2013. As you can see on the slide, we've had the successful completions of Phase III studies in U300, which is the replacement or the improved insulin that is being developed, as I will describe later. Alirocumab has also extensive results, extensive recruitments in a very large program which we will talk about as go forward, as well as other programs such as Dupilumab, which has been named the "Clinical Advance of the Year." So when you look at the slide, you see that these 6 exciting programs are advancing, but they also reflect the broader scope of our portfolio across different disease areas. And as Chris mentioned earlier, it's really important to note the strong shift of our pipeline to Biologics. Biologics have a historically high rate of success, which increases the robustness of our portfolio. And as you look at the innovation content of our portfolio, you'll be amazed, in my view, to see that over half of the programs are now in the first-class category -- best-in-class category, first-in-class category. So I'll walk you through the individual programs in more details later. And on Slide 35, I'd like to show you an overview of our approvals and regulatory submission that we achieved in 2013. We delivered 7 product approvals in the key markets in 2013. We have 2 projects in registration, Cerdelga and you heard from David about Lemtrada, which has been approved in 32 countries except in the U.S. for the reasons you…

Thanks, Elias. So as we look down to -- for the outlook for the year, we would expect that the business return to growth as we've seen in the fourth quarter, really from 1st of September, will continue through the year. We are extremely busy preparing for the launch of new products. We have launches rolling out. We have launches that have -- have launches that are being prepared. We clearly have a number of major development programs in place, but that all notwithstanding, we believe that earnings per share will likely rise between 4% to 7%, more than 2013 at constant exchange rate, always barring major unforeseen adverse events. I think 2014 is certainly one that's exciting for us. This is the first year that we're looking at growth for the whole year. This is the first year that we've got the patent cliff behind us. And in addition to the growth platforms, we now have real tangible assets that we're looking at in R&D. So it's busy at Sanofi, and we now look forward to taking some of your questions. Thanks very much.

[Operator Instructions] We have a question from Michael Leuchten from Barclays.

A question on your guidance, please. Clearly, consensus was or is quite a lot more optimistic about the orders for 2014, which is probably understandable given the momentum that you carry out of Q4 with your growth platforms driving a lot of growth. Your comments are, on a cost base, very helpful. But working it backwards, consensus was looking for about EUR 1 billion less in operating expenses than your guidance seems to imply, assuming that you're comfortable with the top line momentum. And that seems to be mostly within the marketing and sales and G&A cost base. So could you just offer us more color as to where you see the investment potential and requirements? So that's question number one. And then question number two on the balance sheet. The dividend's gone up -- or is going up by 1%. Your net debt-to-asset ratio is now about 7%. That's a very healthy balance sheet. Going forward, what's your thought about cash allocation, please?

Yes. So first of all, guidance of 4% to 7% is going to put us pretty well in this industry. I don't think it's going to be too many companies are going to outperform us this year. I think the biggest issue that people are going to have to work through is looking through the 2013 P&L. People are clearly focused on, yes, there's going to be some upside this year because we don't have the downsides from last year. But equally, there are EUR 350 million of nonrecurring income. Now we never know how much that's going to be. Some of that we envision, some of it we don't, some of it just -- someone offers you suddenly to buy out your royalty stream. Well, you don't always have that in plans. But if you actually look at that, then I think you'll find that, actually, there's a good healthy underlying organic growth in that. Remember, you've got a tax rate that's going from 24% to 25%, 25%, 26%. So you lose a little bit there. There's no question that we are putting more money into R&D and to launches, but I don't think you're going to see expense-to-sales ratios dramatically changing. We're going to be largely in line with 2013. I think it's really trying to -- for people to egg at the baseline for organic growth rate, make sure people are getting the exchange rate movement. I mean, there's been quite a significant decline in a lot of exchange rates. Say, who would have thought 2 years ago that the euro would be one of the strongest currencies in the world. I don't know whether that's going to stay or not, but it clearly had an impact in this year, and we've seen some currency turbulence at…

We have a question from Mark Clark from Deutsche Bank.

A couple of things. Firstly is a question for Jerome about the tax rate. The tax rate has trended in the last few years better than your initial sort of midterm assumptions, I think. So we're down at 24%. It's heading back to 25%, 26%. Can you tell us why it's heading north, and is there anything you can do to mitigate this, potentially move it downwards again, thinking patent boxes and the like? Secondly, in terms of the guidance for this year, I mean, I know you've already answered some question earlier, Chris, about this, but I would counter that you made about 350 of nonrecurring income, but you also had about 300 of nonrecurring hit in Brazil. Those 2 are pretty much a wash. Are you simply being conservative here after the disappointments of 2013? And could I say, would you rule out raising the guidance later in the year, or are there no circumstances in which you could envision that happening? And finally, looking into 2015, the news on the Lantus litigation in the U.S. potentially means that you've got a clear runway through to mid 2016, at least. Assuming the tax rate doesn't deteriorate further, should you not -- and I'm not pushing you for a financial forecast here. But arithmetically, it would seem likely that you churn acceleration in growth in '16 over '15 given that the -- there's moving parts in your business. I just wondered if you could comment there.

Well, Mike, I mean, I'm quite certain you don't expect me to sound [ph] being conservative. I will say, certainly, lowering guidance is not an agreeable experience and not something that I think any company should do on a regular basis. I think -- look, we live in a world where a lot of things can happen. We're at the beginning of the year. In the past, we have not ruled out raising guidance later in the year. Personally, I think at the start of the year, let's see how things go. I think we've had a good 4 months of performance under our belt. I'm extremely pleased with the new leadership I have sitting around this table, some of whom you've heard here. And we have a -- we really renewed commercial leadership in the business. I think there's an awful lot going for us with pipeline, potentially a longer run to establish U300. My real objective is not really to focus on just the guidance. Phase I really was to establish a different type of company, get some longer-term growth platforms going, do a dramatic restructuring of research and development and put together a [indiscernible] portfolio. And quite honestly, I have to say, being able to have these many assets in late stage considering we started from nothing 5 years ago, I think I'm extremely pleased about. Now we're really focused on building those assets and shaping them and bringing them to market because everything else we've done up until now is stuff we inherited from the past. This is kind of a new generation of products. And these are products we can shape. These are products we can love. These are products we can really bring to market with excitement. My view is that this industry is…

Okay. And can I just follow up and ask Jerome for the specifics on the tax rate?

Mark, so I think that you can look at the tax rate evolution that we'd like to have, in particular. So at the end of the day, you'll remember that now for why we won that, everything being equal. We have less [indiscernible] low tax rate, at least for a while, as long as we have less being used from patents. We have less that we use from patented drugs. On the -- just back 1 year ago, we said, well, it should be 24% in 2013, 26% in 2014 and 28% in 2015. So today, what we say and what I say is that we could do a bit better. This is why we're giving out guidance. It could be 25%, 26%. And you could say, well, why do you think you know it's [indiscernible] earlier. But as a matter of fact, I mean, it's pretty difficult to assess it more precisely. I mean, just as an example, think that the highest tax rate we have in the world are Japan and the U.S. So if the yen goes down, your other tax rates goes down. That's surprising, but that's true. So just this example shows that -- I mean, be too precise in the tax rate is not [indiscernible]. The second thing is, well, I mean, as time is passing, both our tax team but also tax facilities don't stay idle. So on one hand, we have a lot of tax audits ongoing, as you know. I mean, everything which happens in this industry is always of peak magnitude. So I mean, you need to take reserves on the issue you may have. And [indiscernible] also pricing, as an example. And then, of course, when we have the outcome of this [indiscernible], then you may reverse some of these reserves depending upon what happens. I mean, that has been the case this year. As you know, this -- at the same time, our team is not idle either and trying to optimize, so we have made some progress here. So I think today, the best assumption I can give you of 2014 is somewhere above, I mean, north of 25. And I can say as well that, everything being equal, we should probably see an increase of tax rate in 2015, when, time passing, if we have more good news for -- coming from patented products, then hopefully, this [indiscernible] is right. I mean, we will see the tendency going just around everything we need. My [indiscernible] for 2014.

Next question from Philippe Lanone from Natixis.

A couple of questions, if I may. First, I see that you have quite a recovery of your business in Europe, which is up, I think, 2%. So could you comment on the evolution of prices for your business in Europe? And is there something specific to Q4? Can we extrapolate that to '14? Also, can you give us some flavor on the Lyxumia launch in Germany in terms of market share and what kind of forecast we can do for '14? And lastly, I think that there is some generification of Renagel, especially. Can you comment on when it will happen and what kind of generification it will be? It will be a steep generic or just soft one?

Yes, I'll turn that over to Peter.

So first on Europe, actually, what you see is 2 phenomena. The first is that you start to see some fraction of the launches we have in Europe. So we have the Lyxumia launch. We have a couple of other launches having been rolled out in 2012 and going forward in 2013, so that's the first phenomenon. And the second one is also that you see that, slowly but certainly, you see the progressive washing out of the patent, mostly in Europe, on the other RX business. So if you take these 2 together, obviously, you come to a much nicer picture in Europe. And I think the trend you have seen in Q4 is something you can probably expect more of that going forward. And on the question about Lyxumia, so actually, we have launched this product now in a couple of European markets. So we have launched it in Japan. We have launched it in Mexico. And we see actually a pretty consistent picture of market share gains which are doing much better than the initial launch, for example, of Byetta, Bydureon. And we reached market shares in the neighborhood between 6%, 7%, 8%, 9%, up to 10%, 11% depending on the markets. Specifically, your question was around Germany. So in Germany, we reached pretty quickly a market share of about 8%. You might recall that we are discussing now with the German association of synchronous a [ph] pricing because the IQWiG, which is the HTA watchdog in Germany, did not give a added therapeutic benefit to Lyxumia for the reason of an inadequate comparator. And we are still in these pricing negotiations. Third point on Renagel, yes, in 2014, the patent goes off in the United States. This being said, today, we have -- there is no registration of a generic of [indiscernible], so I cannot answer your question with a high degree of precision. The only thing factually I can tell you is that today, we have no sights of upcoming generics in the registration pipeline.

We have a question from Luisa Hector from Crédit Suisse. Luisa Hector - Crédit Suisse AG, Research Division: Firstly, on Lantus, could you give us the split of volume and price for Lantus in the U.S. in 2013? And has there been any change in your strategy now that you have the litigation ongoing and the 30-month stay. So I'm thinking the size of the sales force, the pricing strategy, any changes there? And then maybe I'm afraid to come back on the guidance because, again, I'm still struggling a little bit with it here because there are so many positive drivers and not so much in the way of negatives. Perhaps you could tell us whether there are any significant items that lead to you having that range of 4% to 7%. And just to check maybe on other pharma in Europe because that has been quite a negative drag, but it does seem to have eased in the last 2 quarters. So just to check whether you think that could deteriorate in 2014 or whether we're seeing a more stable situation there in Europe.

So on Lantus, I think, for the U.S., Pascale?

Yes, well, I can start. Well, for Lantus in the U.S., we see a price volume, a split of about 2/3, 1/3. Globally, it's more 1/2 and 1/2, so that's what we have been seeing. On the litigation on Lilly, I mean, as you have seen, we can see that there has been an infringement of some of our patents. And we have started a process, and it will follow its due course. So at this stage, we cannot really project on what can happen along these lines.

Yes, and concerning the 30-month stay, I mean, let's wait and see. I mean, the underlying strategy is still very much the game plan, which is we have a U300, which is a next-generation insulin. We have 4 studies now that demonstrate safety and efficacy, so we've got a fileable drug. I think Elias gave you a very clear understanding of where we see that differentiating versus Lantus, not only on the hypos but also on the full 24-hour coverage. It's both a PK and a PD study, while degludec has -- had kind of oriented everybody to the importance of hypos, but that was largely because degludec has a 40-hour half-life. And so they preferred not to talk about that part of the story. We've got LixiLan now is starting Phase III. We've got Lyxumia rolling out. We would be able to start to file Lyxumia, even in [indiscernible], next year. So there's a broader portfolio here. In terms of investment, I think we continue to want to defend the whole sector. In terms of the 30-month stay, clearly, we had a deep analysis of this, including external attorneys. When you have the situation, we can request information from the biosimilar filer. And that's why we believe that there is infringement on 4 of the patents. Normally, that 30-month stay will only end if Lilly could get a summary judgment, and I'm not going to be speculating on court processes in the U.S. But obviously, we wouldn't have launched this if we didn't think that we had a very robust case to defend this. I think the major -- that does hold the major benefit of that, and clearly, you've got an even better time to establish U300 as the standard in diabetes care. Jerome, why don't you take a crack at the guidance since I...

I mean, to me, I mean, Chris explained it already. I mean, the [indiscernible] with the simple. On one hand -- and I think [indiscernible] also expressed it. So on one hand, it's true that we should have natural recovery on the negative one-off events as we had last year, such as the Virginia situation, but also the Toronto manufacturing issues with pertussis from supply in the market in the U.S. for a period of time. At the same time, to make things simple, we have EUR 350 million of nonrecurring event that we cannot count on when we keep the guidance. We don't know what will happen, as Chris mentioned, but I mean, you can count on that when you give guidance. On the top of that, we are growing 1% more, our increase on tax rate. So basically, these 2 elements are watched. So if you exclude these 2 elements and you think about the underlying business, and if you compare to the competition, and I don't want to compare, but just look at the guidance which were given by some of our competitors, I mean, I feel that it's really going to be strong guidance that we give today. And well, I mean, that's basically obvious. I mean, I don't see that the 4% to 7% is just a [indiscernible] of the business. More or less, it could count like that. It's plus or minus 1%. So I don't think there is anything hidden. I think that, as I said, we should see an improvement on the cost of sales to sales ratio, which, of course, requires an effort because there is an evolution of business mix. I'll say as well that the R&D and the SG&A should increase somewhat. But the ratio at the end of the day of the OpEx to [indiscernible] move to be getting close to what we have experienced in 2013. I don't know, maybe slightly better, slightly below. I mean, it's really of the marginal variation. And if you put all that together, I mean, that's how we'll kind of guide you to the guidance, if I could say so, at this stage of the year. Luisa Hector - Crédit Suisse AG, Research Division: Okay. And then in other operating income, we'll just get that negative effect of the ACTONEL, Copaxone washing out as well?

Yes, I mean, the light is [indiscernible]. We have a [indiscernible], some [indiscernible] there. So I mean, that's -- I mean, direct, that will not come from that, that [indiscernible], that is. The rest will be mutual. Maybe I should also add that, I mean, the consensus tend to give a glow on the final for expenses, consequently, when you reduce your debt, and I don't know exactly what these expectations or anticipation here. I mean, you don't reduce that matured cost of debt, quite simply because, I mean, the revenue you get from the deposits are pretty low. At the same time, you use [indiscernible], and as Chris mentioned [indiscernible] and we have bought some shares from Regeneron. Part of the powerful expense includes also the computed -- I mean, the computed cost of -- final from cost of the pensions. And this is [indiscernible], some saying, which is a [indiscernible], so we'll just use a long-term rate, and this we not share from one year to another. But then on December 30 [ph], it was EUR 160 million. You remember, this is a newer IFRS [indiscernible] that we apply to '13. So there is a part which is not moving at all. The rate is decreasing, but not hugely. So if you put all that together, I think that most of the P&L is in there. Luisa Hector - Crédit Suisse AG, Research Division: And the European pharma tale, that seems to be doing a bit better. Does the outlook look positive?

Well, it's, of course, an incredibly long list of many, many, many products. And you're right, if you compare the last quarter with the average of the year, it looks better. What you see in there is a lot of small generifications that are washing out. You might also see a little bit less of a price pressure because you are narrowing or you are nearing, let's say, the bottom of the wave in terms of price pressure, how far you can get. So I think you will see in 2014, moving forward, still a negative picture on this, what we call the tail of the tale, but perhaps a little bit less negative than the full year 2013.

And I think the reason it's also hard to say is that the tail gets smaller, and therefore, the erosion actually can mechanistically get a little smaller as well.

The question from Steve McGarry from Societe Generale.

Three questions. Firstly, just on U300, when you look at its profile, it seems sensible to combine now, at some point, with a Lixisenatide as a combination. Is that something that's on the cards, and when could we expect to hear something on that? Secondly, on eliglustat, can you give any guidance on what the potential pricing of that product could be? Because obviously, being a small molecule, if you priced it right up in the average of Cerezyme, you would assume that the profitability could be significantly higher. And then thirdly, if you look at the R&D costs over this, let's say, 2014 to 2016 time span, you have the Lixisenatide cardiovascular outcome studies completing. Several of the alirocumab Phase III is completing, and the Sarilumab Phase III is completing as well. Could we have actually a situation over the next couple of years where we could see R&D decline in real terms?

I like the last question. We'll hear from our R&D chief, but I'm not getting too many messages that R&D is going to decline. We'll take these in order. Elias, why don't you answer the question on [indiscernible] and Lyxumia and then maybe how you see R&D costs evolving? And then we'll turn it over to David on the pricing for eliglustat.

So on the combo, as you know, we already [indiscernible] the approval in the label for Lyxumia to combine Lyxumia on top of Lantus. And so we have a lot of data actually validating the notion that by combining the 2, you get a better effect because you can actually provoke a weight loss with Lyxumia and counteract the weight gain of insulin. But in addition, we see what we call insulin dose sparing. In other words, patients don't go up as fast and they have lower doses of insulin, which ultimately is providing a good combination. So LixiLan is essentially the representation in a single product that can be used by patients as they go into the first injectable. And so if you really think about the importance of that from the medical standpoint, this is a shift in the medical practice that will basically say, well, if you have to take a GL -- an injectable, you have to really combine the 2. So that, we proved. And therefore, the next step is going to be to enhance that with the unique pharmacological profile of U300. But right now, Lantus is approved, so we're doing the LixiLan development because we have good medical evidence. We're going to do the LixiLan development, get a much better read about the efficacy of this, especially in the first injectable space, and obviously develop that with U300 as we learn more from our current trials.

R&D budget.

R&D budgets, you're putting me in the best spot here because we don't tend to negotiate budgets with Chris in the call. But think about it. I mean, if you look at our pipeline, not only the one that is being developed, and you look at the requirements of the regulatory agencies in terms of regulatory mandated studies, what the trend is worldwide is that as you succeed, you also have to sustain the approval through often post-marketing studies, and then you can hear from David about Lemtrada, for example, and so on. The second is that we have also a rich midstage portfolio which should really reinforce our current portfolio. We have very exciting molecules. One is an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody I haven't talked to you about. We have a sarcopenia monoclonal antibody against GDF-8, which is also coming to development. We're having proof-of-concept studies. So personally, I see a pretty stable R&D budget. We're going to continue to do what we've done, and I know it's restructuring the fundamental budget structure of R&D to try to put more money into our development, more money into our collaborations to enrich the portfolio as we go forward. So I don't -- I see a pretty stable or a slightly increasing budget, really.

And I mean, I'll just say I think Elias has done a great job also of restructuring the nature of the costs. And we started off with the equivalent of 15,000 people and we went down to 9,000 people. So there has been quite a significant shift away from the fixed cost of R&Ds into program costs. And when you've got over 20,000 people on PCSK9 and you've got an IL-4 program, an IL-6 program, you've got a dengue vaccine, you've got a C. difficile program, these are all big programs. We want to move more into the clinic in Genzyme. So it's actually getting to a point where I'm not so sure we're going to be able to fund everything within the EUR 5 billion envelope. I don't see that exploding. And I'm not about to see it go up until we really demonstrate to shareholders that they really see all the value in that. But I think it is a [indiscernible], and if you look at the Regeneron relationship, this is really generating quite a series of targets. The molecule is coming along behind that. Alnylam will likely generate a number of new clinical programs. So R&D is really clicking at the moment. And I think we've done an awful lot to carve out some of the fixed costs. We're not going to give up on that. But in all transparency, I don't think we can really say that the R&D is going to decline. It probably will start to gradually increase, not faster than sales, but it probably will start to increase, not necessarily this year but probably from 2015 onwards. Dave, do you want to talk about eli?

Yes. So pricing, not surprising why we don't reveal or make decisions about pricing until close to launch, when we understand the label and the indication and the other factors which will help guide that. But a couple of things to think about this. One is people often underestimate the cost of development in Rare Diseases. They think programs are smaller and cheaper, easier in some way. I'll remind you of the largest program we're on yet to date with 400 patients, and we first we put eliglustat into development back near 2000. So we're 14 years along. We're not done. And as Elias indicated, it will for sure come with postmarketing commitments, as all of these approvals do. So there's a significant investment that goes into these, so that's a consideration. With regard to the market itself on the community, our goal will be to really create a choice for the patients. The results of the clinical data that we have to date, again, is highly favorable. We're extremely encouraged by how it compares to Cerezyme. And so again, we want to leave physicians and patients with the ability to make a choice, not have it driven unduly by economics that might force somebody to choose a less-than-optimal choice for them. And as we said, Cerdelga won't be for everybody. There'll be a significant number of patients who will be remaining on enzyme replacement therapies, specifically Cerezyme, and they should. So those are the things we'll take into consideration as we develop pricing.

A question from Eric Le Berrigaud from Bryan Garnier. Eric Le Berrigaud - Bryan Garnier & Co Ltd, Research Division: Four questions, please. First is on cost of goods. It looks like, in vaccines, cost of goods went up by 8.8% in 2013. So is it fair to expect that to partially or even perhaps fully disappear in '14? Could you expect cost of goods to go down by the same magnitude as it go up in '13? And a more general question, do we have to expect also cost of goods to go down beyond vaccines that -- for the global statement about cost of goods in 2014? Second question is very short, on share buyback. Above and beyond what could happen with L'Oréal, could you commit to the same kind of statement you made 1 year ago, saying that you should at least offset any option exercise and to keep the number of shares stable? And if nothing happens with L'Oréal, could you make any EUR 1 billion or EUR 2 billion share buybacks? Third question, on the price of PCSK9, I know it's very early day. But how could we see this kind of product? What could be the good benchmark? Could basal insulin as a chronic injectable product be a good benchmark? Or is it more into the specialty care and so more expensive? Any kind of insight into how we can think about that? And lastly, and sorry that it's guidance, but it's not annual guidance. It's a more general question about how you move towards guidance and visibility. As you move through the end of your patent cliff, it looks like it's now less clear than it was and less clear than your peers. Less clear than it was because we used to have a mid-term guidance, and we no longer have this long-term guidance. And less than peers because others are providing some kind of sales growth estimates, and we only have EPS estimates with you. So could we perhaps -- could you perhaps tell us whether the mid-term guidance, saying 5% growth, at least for top line and bottom line above top line, beyond '13 that is now behind us, is relevant going forward? Could that be the case for '14, for instance? And in other words, is there any leverage between top and bottom line?

Jerome, why don't you first take the cost of sales and the share buyback?

Yes. Okay. So on the cost of sales, probably, I mean, Olivier can comment more specifically on vaccines. Yes, we continue to see some productivity improvement on our pharma business. And this will be the main driver for improvement of the cost of sales to sales ratio, keeping in mind that contrary to the previous years, we don't have the negative effect of dilution coming from the end of sales from blockbusters. So it's clear on the, let's say, traditional pharma business, we should see some improvement this year. The biologic part is a bit more complex because biologics, in general, are always a bit more difficult to forecast. We also have a rate of destructions of the products that we cannot put through to the market, which is a bit uncertain when you start the year, so we can keep some budget. And there are some plans and some actions being taken to reduce the level of destructions that we experienced last year from our manufacturing activities, but it's a bit difficult to forecast. And this is one way to measure it. But there are many aspects of the yield, as another example, which are more uncertain to forecast when it comes to cost of goods and parts of cost. You should also keep in mind, and this goes to -- into the cost of goods, that as long as you have not received a full visibility on the Phase III results, we take as a charge all the lots you produce for the new product. This is true, for instance, Cerdelga. In fact, it's true for dengue, definitely. So when it comes to vaccine, to your point, 2014, we still experience the charge-off as also lots we will provide for testing up to the time of approval. So…

I think it's a little premature to think about PCSK9 pricing. I could certainly tell you that you're thinking too low on basal insulin. First of all, I think we would say that our own basal insulin pricing was way too low. That's why we've been doing the price increases. Even after the price increases, we're still at around $6 a day in the United States, where little round-like pills in the form of DPP-4s are about 40% to 50% above that. And Victoza is sitting there at anywhere from $12 to $18 based on dose. And I think you can take it from there. There's going to be a lot of work in terms of thinking about early populations, later populations. There's still quite a big population of just statin intolerance and with the familial hypercholesterolemia. And obviously, we've got a competitive situation, so we'll be attentive to that. But I think you've got an extremely efficacious drug. For the moment, it appears to be a highly tolerable drug. I can certainly tell you that concerns around injection part don't seem to be an issue if you think about the fact that we've got over 20,000 patients on Phase III. Amgen does. Pfizer has got one of them going, and it has been no trouble to recruit patients, very low dropout rates. So I think the acceptance of that form of therapy seems to be, at least on the basis of clinical studies, to be favorable. So then I think we'll probably give some closer guidance to that as we get closer to launch, probably sometime in 2015. In terms of mid-term guidance, look, mid-term guidance was done in September 2011. When we were facing the patent cliff, people really had no idea where we were going to go.…

We're into 2014, so -- and as you know, traditionally, and we do like tradition here, that we give you earnings per share guidance. That's not something we give on a short-term basis.

A question from Graham Parry from Bank of America.

Just starting off on the margin outlook into 2014. During the guidance you've given there on the cost ratios for COGS, you've guided constant exchange rates. Just wondered if you could give us a feel for the impact of FX on that ratio. And with R&D and SG&A, the guidances that you're saying about the increases there, is that in constant exchange rates or reported? And if it's constant exchange rate, again, can you give a feel for FX sensitivity there? Secondly, on use of cash again, I'm afraid, at which point do you think you would have an effect for L'Oreal and then are still looking at excess cash flow beyond that, that you may need to deploy into excess dividends or buybacks? And then finally, if I can just push you there, Chris, on your 2015 guidance comment. If we take your 2012 sales base and grow it at 5% per year less the currency impact that you saw, that would equate -- that you've seen, at least in 2013, and then expected spot rates in 2014, it would still imply about EUR 36.6 billion of revenue. To get there, you would have to be delivering something around 7%-plus CAGR in sales this year and next year. Do you think that's achievable?

Well, Graham, nice try, but I think I've said all I'm going to say about 2015. It's one thing to give this kind of guidance when you're 3, 4 or 5 years away. I think when you're here, I mean, clearly, if we start talking about 2015, I'm effectively giving guidance for 2 years instead of 1 year. And I think we'd like to focus on 2014. And use of cash, I mean, you'd do us all a great favor if you could go ask Nestlé the question about what they're going to do, and then if you wouldn't mind also calling up L'Oréal, then you could tell us, and I think I could answer your question a little bit more. But it really -- I think, if you listen to what's out there and the rumors, I mean, all we know is that the shareholder pact comes to an expiry in April, I believe it is. There's no guarantee that Nestlé moves into April. But one will see, I think, that, that will be kind of a first card to turn over, if you like. But to a degree, we're flying pretty blind on this ourselves. Obviously, L'Oréal is a major shareholder. This is highly price-sensitive information, and they're not about to share anything with us. And I suspect L'Oréal doesn't have any greater clarity other than Peter Brabeck's comments a few months ago, either. So I guess, all I can really do, I know it's not very satisfactory, but is watch this space. It is clearly something that is worth looking at. It's pretty obvious, without again spending hours on spreadsheets, that it would be accretive to do. But you'd have to put that into the whole calculation of what are your other uses of capital and how much of it is occurring. Remember, this is something that generates a high degree of cash flow for L'Oréal. So it's not necessarily the case that L'Oréal puts all or any of the stake up for sale for Sanofi, even if Nestlé decides to sell back some. So all of that is an unknown. So we, in the circumstance, I think, want to keep our powder dry. But beyond that, we really don't know any more than you yourself do. And so just as a final bit, I'll turn it over to Jerome on the margins and the -- everything, when we talk about margins, it is at constant exchange rates. But I don't know, Jerome, whether you can shed more light on this?

Yes, okay. So Graham, maybe a few lemons to give you a flavor but maybe not an answer on all your questions, and [indiscernible] to try. So maybe to start on the cost margin, I mean, I can't -- because I mean, what I can say, as you know, is that we have been -- I mean, we have been taking the view that we should manufacture locally for years. And this was done not only for FX reasons or competitive reasons, but it's also done to access to market. So this, no wonder, is more than -- if 80% and 90% of our production which is manufactured locally when it comes to Emerging Markets. And well, when it comes to Europe and the U.S. or Japan, it's a bit different because the driver is more maybe to know our own historical positions. But to give you a flavor, and if I take 2013 -- and of course, you know that in 2013, we suffered from a big headwind from -- coming from currencies. The impact of the cost margin of the currency fluctuation has been in the range of 0.4%. So to give you a flavor, I mean, if you go further, I mean, you can take many assumptions, extremely complex to compute. Also the sources, the API real value are also varying, so we try to optimize. But I think that it gives you a view. When it comes to the rest, I mean, I will more give you some sensitivity on currencies on the profitability. And here, I mean, 2 elements. So first of all, where are the revenues coming from? And just as a reminder, there is 1/3 of the revenues which is denominated in U.S. dollars. We have 7% of our revenues which are denominated…

We have the last question from Tim Anderson from Sanford Bernstein. Tim Anderson - Sanford C. Bernstein & Co., LLC., Research Division: I'm sorry, just going back to 2015 -- or sorry, the 2014 earnings guidance, some companies just simplify it and give us the impact of all the different currencies at current rates. I'm just hoping you can do that. I've looked at the slide, and it gives us only part of the answer. The second question is, historically, Sanofi has done a lot of acquisitions over the decades. You haven't done much since Genzyme. I'm assuming some of this relates to the L'Oréal situation. But if L'Oréal ends up not going through, you end up not buying that stake, why wouldn't you look out -- look and potentially go out and pursue larger targets? So in areas like consumer health and animal health, we've got assets up for sale by some of your peer companies. I guess one of my questions is, what's your penchant for acquisitions in those 2 areas? And why not potentially go larger because that's certainly been part of the growth strategy over time? And then last question on U300. Is there -- can you kind of assure us that there's really no regulatory risk at this point with that product, whether it's on CV safety or manufacturing or anything else? It seems like it's one of your more important near-term products here.

Yes. Let me just take the 2 last ones and then ask Jerome about the FX. I mean, on -- I would say, first of all, the L'Oréal situation is not really weighing on acquisition strategy. I think I've been pretty clear over the years, my first priority is to invest in the business, but have to be invest profitably in the business. The real problem has been -- is that I've seen plenty of opportunities to make someone else's shareholders wealthy. I haven't really seen that many opportunities where I can create value for Sanofi shareholders. We have been pretty rigorous on our return metrics. Accretion is not enough to do a deal for us. It does have to meet return on investment criteria. We are also in a situation where, I think, organic growth is actually -- is pretty good. And so I'm not really looking at something and, "Okay, well, I've got a gap here or there." It is true that there are some assets that appear to be in play. It's not clear that they are all for sale. I think there's some people who want to do swaps, it seems, and there's some who may be selling. On animal health, we're reasonably constrained because of antitrust. We obviously look at everything, and we're not really inhibited by it. There are some other antitrust concerns on some other areas. But yes, I mean, if we can do a deal that meets our return on investment criteria that is within our existing perimeter, and then that is our first priority. The question is always can you get a deal done at the right price. And even, as I say, it's not really clear whether L'Oréal even sells the whole stake. And certainly, that level of acquisition of…

Well, I was wondering, I mean, if by going further, we would be more precise. But I will give you a further, then. So a, once again, I mean, if I look at 2013, 90% of the exchange rate impact is coming from the U.S. dollar and the yen. So this has been the main impact. Now I've tried to make a case relation. Assuming that all other Emerging Market currencies would have been at the level of December 2013 instead of being at the average level of 2013, of course, here, I assume that all currencies are moving in the same direction, which, of course, won't be the case in 2014. So if we assume that, altogether, the impact is in the range of between 1.5% and 2% of the profit. So in other terms, if you move all the exchange rates from where we were, average 2013, to December 2013 for Emerging Markets, the EPS would have been somewhere between 1.5% and 2% lower than what we published.

In fact, we've seen the yen strengthening a little bit. So I mean, I think, quite honestly, I think all we can really do is tell you what the sensitivity is, as Jerome has done. I mean, we'd be happy for suggestions and perhaps we could take it offline sometime, Tim. I mean, we'd be happy to make it transparent. We just -- there's just a risk of confusing people more about it. But predicting where that could go is obviously difficult for all of us. So thank you, everybody, for -- I apologize for having gone over. But given the interesting questions, we decided to extend the session. I think 2013 had, certainly, bumps, really with the Brazil situation and the Toronto situation. I think the fourth quarter has shown that we have been able to address both of those issues. I think the fourth quarter -- not only in the fourth quarter, but September sales were largely in that, so we've got 4 months of performance. Now 4 months of performance is no more than 4 months of performance, but I think you saw very good growth again in Emerging Markets, some very strong growth in Diabetes, Genzyme performing extraordinary well, our consumer business, I think, performing well. We would expect a much better performance out of vaccines. First quarter, as Olivier had mentioned, remember that there was an extraordinary situation where we were actually able to still continue to sell the flu vaccine in the U.S. in the first quarter, which is highly unusual. But I think as you look at it for the whole year, we're going to see a much better performance out of Sanofi Pasteur. And I think the same is true of Animal Health. We're already rolling out NexGard. We'll be rolling out Broadline. And a lot will depend still a little bit on, well, to a degree, on the seasonality. But I think we've got not only those 2 products coming along, but actually there are another 10-or-so new products coming along in Animal Health as well. So pretty much everywhere we look, we've got innovation going on in our portfolios, including Consumer Health, where we've got the Nasacort switch ongoing. So we're looking forward to a much better year in 2014. You've got guidance for the early part of the year. And of course, what we would traditionally do is give you an update, as appropriate, at the half year point as we've looked at the first 6 months' results. So thank you, everybody, for listening, and we'll see you all soon on a roadshow somewhere in the world. Take care.

Ladies and gentlemen, this concludes the conference call. Thank you all for attending. You may now disconnect.