金寶湯 (CPB) 2026 Q3 法說會逐字稿

Good morning, and welcome to The Campbell's Company third quarter 2026 earnings question-and-answer session. Today's conference is being recorded. (Operator Instructions)

各位早安，歡迎參加金寶湯公司（The Campbell's Company）2026 年第三季財報問答環節。今天的會議將被錄音。（接線員指示）

I would now like to turn the call over to Joshua Levine, Chief Investor Relations Officer at Campbell's.

現在我想把電話交給金寶湯投資人關係長 Joshua Levine。

Good morning, and thank you for joining The Campbell's Company's third quarter fiscal 2026 earnings question-and-answer session.

各位早安，感謝各位參加金寶湯公司 2026 財政年度第三季財報問答環節。

Earlier this morning, in conjunction with today's earnings announcement, the company published its press release, Form 10-Q, and slide presentation as well as both a written and audio recording of management's prepared remarks. All of these materials can be found on the Investors section of our website. Shortly after the conclusion of today's live Q&A session, we will post a transcript and audio replay of this call.

今天稍早，配合本次財報公告，公司已發布新聞稿、10-Q 表格與簡報投影片，並提供管理層事先準備發言的文字稿與音訊錄音。上述所有資料皆可在我們網站的「投資人」專區找到。今天的即時問答結束後不久，我們也將上傳本次電話會議的逐字稿與音訊重播。

Joining me today are Mick Beekhuizen, President and Chief Executive Officer; and Todd Cunfer, our Chief Financial Officer.

今天與我一同出席的有：總裁暨執行長 Mick Beekhuizen，以及財務長 Todd Cunfer。

During today's discussion, management may make forward-looking statements, which reflect our current expectations about future plans and performance. These statements rely on assumptions and estimates and are subject to risks and uncertainties. Please refer to slide 3 of our presentation or our SEC filings for a discussion of factors that could cause our actual results to differ materially.

在今天的討論中，管理層可能會做出前瞻性陳述，反映我們目前對未來計畫與表現的預期。這些陳述仰賴假設與估計，並受風險與不確定性影響。請參閱我們簡報第 3 頁或我們向 SEC 提交的文件，以了解可能導致實際結果與預期有重大差異的因素。

We also use non-GAAP financial measures that we believe provide useful information for investors. Reconciliations to the most directly comparable GAAP measures are included in the appendix of our earnings presentation. Non-GAAP financial measures are not intended to be considered in isolation from or as a substitute for the financial information presented in accordance with GAAP.

我們也使用非 GAAP 財務衡量指標，並相信這些指標能為投資人提供有用資訊。與最直接可比的 GAAP 指標之調節表已收錄於財報簡報的附錄中。非 GAAP 財務衡量指標不應被孤立看待，亦不應作為依 GAAP 呈列之財務資訊的替代。

We will now open the call for questions. Operator?

現在我們開放提問。接線員？

(Operator Instructions) Andrew Lazar, Barclays.

（接線員指示）Barclays 的 Andrew Lazar。

In today's prepared remarks, you discussed some, quote-unquote, tough decisions that will need to be made in Snacks as well as the potential for an incremental 2% to 3% unmitigated inflation above normal levels, again, potentially.

在今天的事先準備發言中，你們提到在零食業務上需要做出一些所謂的艱難決策，並且提到可能會出現較正常水準額外增加 2% 到 3% 的、未被緩解的通膨（再次強調，是「可能」）。

I know we're not getting into specific '27 guidance at this point, but maybe you can help us with maybe the magnitude of some of these key puts and takes for next year, including the size of potential mitigating actions. I'd assume much of your ongoing productivity is going to be used to offset sort of baseline or underlying inflation?

我知道你們目前不會提供 2027 年的具體指引，但也許你們可以協助我們理解明年一些關鍵因素的量級，包括可能採取的緩解措施規模。我猜你們持續的生產力提升，很多會用來抵消基準或底層通膨？

Yeah, sure. Andrew, so base inflation -- before the Middle East conflict, we were looking at base inflation of around 3%. Obviously, with the price of oil where it is. And look, if oil stays around $100 a barrel, we're looking at an additional 2% to 3% inflation on top of the core 3%. Also, as you probably know, there's a driver shortage out there that not only are we having higher diesel costs, but that is causing higher inflation from a logistics and freight perspective as well.

好的，當然可以。Andrew，就基礎通膨而言——在中東衝突之前，我們預期基礎通膨大約在 3% 左右。顯然，考量目前油價水準。你看，如果油價維持在每桶 100 美元左右，我們預期在核心 3% 之外，還會再增加 2% 到 3% 的通膨。另外，如你可能也知道，目前存在司機短缺的情況，這不僅使我們的柴油成本更高，也從物流與運輸費率角度帶來更高的通膨。

We obviously have the reset of our incentive comp, as we've talked about before, that's now about a $40 million impact to next year. We'd love to be able to obviously continue to invest in our brands. So we're anticipating some higher marketing investments. So with all that as context, elevated productivity is essential for us going into next year.

我們也如先前所談，獎酬激勵的重置，明年大約會帶來 4,000 萬美元的影響。我們當然希望能持續投資品牌，因此預期行銷投入會提高。在這些背景之下，面對明年，我們必須仰賴更高水準的生產力提升。

As we had the previously announced $100 million SG&A takeout over the next couple of years. We announced an early retirement package, which was well received. So we'll have some significant savings from that. And so we're going to have to get as much of that $100 million into next year as we possibly can. It won't all get into next year, but we'll fast forward as much as we can to offset some of those cost pressures.

如先前已宣布，我們計畫在未來幾年內削減 1 億美元的 SG&A。我們也推出了提前退休方案，反應良好，因此可望帶來可觀的節省。接下來我們必須盡可能把這 1 億美元中的更多部分提前到明年實現。雖然不可能全部都在明年落地，但我們會盡量加速，以抵消部分成本壓力。

And obviously, net price realization as needed as required. We're going to look really hard at our trade ROIs. And if we need to take some pricing, that's kind of a last resort, but obviously, we'll need to do that. So definitely some cost pressures going into next year. We're taking this very seriously. We have some elevated productivity and RGM will be a very, very key component going into next year.

此外，視需要與情況而定，我們也會追求淨價格實現。我們會非常仔細檢視促銷／通路投資的 ROI。如果需要調價，那會是最後手段，但顯然我們也必須這麼做。因此，明年確實存在一些成本壓力。我們非常嚴肅看待這件事；更高水準的生產力提升與 RGM（營收成長管理）將是明年非常、非常關鍵的組成。

Okay. And then just a follow-up. You talked about previously tightening your belt around cash flow and sort of capital allocation options. I guess given all the potential costs and reinvestment coming in fiscal '27, I guess, as you think about what changes in capital allocation may be needed and sort of your current thoughts on where the dividend is at?

了解。再追問一題。你們先前提到會在現金流與資本配置選項上勒緊腰帶。我想在 2027 財年可能面臨的各項成本與再投資之下，當你們思考資本配置可能需要做哪些調整時，對股利目前的看法是什麼？

Yeah. So look, the dividend is extremely important to our shareholders. As we talked about before, no -- or no intention of increasing that dividend anytime soon, obviously. This -- the dividend rate is a Board decision that we have on a very regular basis.

是的。股利對我們股東極其重要。如同我們先前談過的，我們目前沒有、或說近期沒有提高股利的意圖。股利水準是董事會定期審議的決策。

And we're obviously trying to balance that dividend rate with our ability to reduce leverage as quickly as we possibly can, maintaining that investment-grade rating is an imperative to the management team. It's an imperative to the Board. And so we are getting very aggressive on how we can get back down to the low 3s over the next couple of years.

我們也在努力平衡股利水準與我們盡可能快速降低槓桿的能力。維持投資級評等對管理團隊而言是必要之務，對董事會而言也是必要之務。因此，我們正以非常積極的方式，力求在未來幾年把槓桿降回到 3 倍出頭的低區間。

Obviously, first and foremost, is we've got to stabilize earnings and ultimately grow the profitability of this business. So that's -- we're working very hard on that. we will aggressively reduce working capital over the next couple of years.

當然，首要之務是我們必須穩定獲利，並最終提升這項業務的獲利能力。這方面我們正在非常努力。同時，我們也會在未來幾年積極降低營運資金。

From a CapEx perspective, we are only -- we're focusing on the highest priority projects. And then as some of our peers have done, we will consider hybrid debt instruments to try to make the rating a little bit stronger than it normally would be.

在資本支出（CapEx）方面，我們只會聚焦於最優先的專案。接著，如同部分同業所做的，我們也會考慮混合型債務工具，以使評等表現比原本可能呈現的更強一些。

And obviously, M&A right now is off the table. So these are constant conversations we are having internally. We obviously -- this is very important to the management team and shareholders. And so we're working as hard as we can to get that down in the low 3s as soon as possible.

此外，目前併購（M&A）不在考量範圍內。這些都是我們內部持續進行的討論。這對管理團隊與股東都非常重要，因此我們會盡一切努力，儘快把槓桿降到 3 倍出頭的低區間。

Tom Palmer, JPMorgan.

JPMorgan 的 Tom Palmer。

In the prepared remarks, I did want to follow up a little bit on Andrew's comment in terms of Snacks and the commentary about rationalizing the portfolio and consolidating nodes in the network. I wondered if you might expand on this. Are there brands that you have in mind when we're talking about rationalizing? And then when I hear nodes in the network, should we be thinking manufacturing or distribution as kind of that area of focus? And I guess, anything on the timing of when we start hearing more definitive action taken?

在事先準備發言中，我想就 Andrew 關於零食業務的評論再追問一下，特別是你們提到要精簡產品組合、以及整併網路中的節點。我想請你們多談一些：所謂精簡時，有沒有特定品牌在你們腦中？另外，當我聽到「網路中的節點」，我們應該把重點理解為製造端還是配送端？最後，在時間點上，我們何時會開始聽到更明確的行動？

Sure. Tom, let me give you a little bit of context. So I'm really looking at this in the context of simplification. And you hear us talk about focusing on the core of the portfolio and also the core of the brand. It's a good example of that is when you hear us talk about Goldfish and focusing on households with kids.

當然可以。Tom，我先提供一些背景。我主要是從「簡化」的角度來看這件事。你會聽到我們談到聚焦產品組合的核心，以及聚焦品牌的核心。很好的例子是，當你聽到我們談 Goldfish，並聚焦於有孩子的家庭。

That is proven to be a fruitful strategy. You've seen that over the past two quarters, that core part of the Goldfish brand has stabilized and we are going to continue to put incremental fuel behind that. That's the Goldfish example. We have other examples throughout the portfolio. So it is really at the brand level focus on the core.

這已被證明是一個成果豐碩的策略。你在過去兩個季度已經看到，Goldfish 品牌的核心部分已經趨於穩定，而我們會持續加碼投入更多資源。這是 Goldfish 的例子。我們在整個產品組合中還有其他例子。因此，這確實是在品牌層級聚焦核心。

And then additionally, from an innovation perspective, making sure that we support fewer, more meaningful innovation. Instead of having a broad proliferation of small innovations actually go bigger certain piece of innovation and make sure that we support them so that they truly become meaningful for the brand.

此外，從創新角度來看，我們要確保支持更少、但更有意義的創新。與其廣泛推出大量小型創新，不如在某些創新上做得更大，並確保我們提供足夠支持，使其真正對品牌產生實質意義。

Another area in the context of brands and the role of the brands within the broader Snacks portfolio are choices that we're making around brand support and specifically certain brands require more advertising support and are ready for that versus others. So we're being very consciously about that allocation. That doesn't mean that we're going to focus on growth across the broader Snacks brand portfolio, however, making very conscious choices across the portfolio.

另一個面向是在品牌以及品牌在更廣泛零食產品組合中的角色脈絡下，我們會就品牌支持做出取捨；具體而言，某些品牌需要更多廣告支持且已準備好承接這些投入，而其他品牌則未必。因此我們在資源配置上會非常有意識。這並不代表我們不會著眼於整體零食品牌組合的成長；而是代表我們會在組合內做出非常有意識的選擇。

And finally, from a cost perspective, we need to make sure that we have a fuel to support our brands. Todd gave a couple of examples of different initiatives that we have across the broader organization. But when I look, for instance, within the Snacks portfolio that the -- there are certain cost savings initiatives that we have implemented in the past. We're going to continue to focus on the broader improvement of margins that is both on the SG&A side as well as on the supply chain side. And we have made some changes in the past, particularly with continued volume pressures, there's more opportunity there.

最後，從成本角度來看，我們必須確保有足夠的燃料來支持品牌。Todd 已舉了幾個我們在整個組織推動的不同計畫作為例子。但以零食產品組合來看——我們過去已經實施了一些成本節省措施。我們會持續聚焦於整體毛利率的改善，這同時涵蓋 SG&A 端以及供應鏈端。我們過去也做過一些調整，尤其在持續的銷量壓力之下，這方面仍有更多機會。

And then finally, when I look more broadly at the brand portfolio coming back to the top line and the focus on the core, there are -- there is a tail of SKUs in certain brands. It's not a lot of sales. However, we believe that the reduction of that tail could actually allow for further simplification and as a result, improve the overall operations and improve our overall network. So hopefully, that gives you a little bit of context of what we're working to.

再更廣泛地看品牌組合，回到營收端與聚焦核心：在某些品牌中存在一段 SKU 的長尾。這部分銷售額不大，但我們相信，縮減這段長尾實際上能帶來進一步的簡化，進而改善整體營運並改善我們的整體網路。因此，希望這能讓你更了解我們正在推動的方向。

It did, Mick. I had just a quick follow-up. In the fourth quarter, it seems like there's a mention of a tariff refund. I didn't see it quantified anywhere, including in the Q -- maybe any framing of that? And will that be isolated to the fourth quarter? Or is there any tail there?

確實如此，Mick。我只是有個簡短的追問。第四季看起來有提到關稅退稅，但我沒有看到任何地方有量化，包括在 Q -- 能否提供一些說明或框架？另外，這會只發生在第四季嗎？還是之後還會有延續影響？

Yeah. So the impact we're projecting for Q4 from a tariff refund is about $0.03 to $0.04 a share. That is solely offset by the higher fuel cost, the driver shortage, the impacts of the Iran conflict that we're already seeing so far. So those -- that $0.03 to $0.04, a good guy and a bad guy kind of offset each other.

是的。我們預估第四季關稅退稅對每股的影響大約是 0.03 到 0.04 美元。這部分會完全被較高的燃料成本、司機短缺，以及我們目前已經看到的伊朗衝突影響所抵銷。所以那 0.03 到 0.04 美元，一個好因素和一個壞因素大致互相抵銷。

The tariff -- the tariff refunds, there's two pieces. There's the direct piece that we are able to get back directly. Think about that as the Rao's La Regina part of our business. Then there's a piece -- there's a second piece, which is a bit smaller, which is our vendors who are getting those refunds for us. That will probably take a little bit more time until they get the money and then we can get that money back. There's a chance we could get some of that in Q4. Some of that might roll into next year.

關稅 -- 關稅退稅有兩個部分。第一個是我們能直接拿回來的那一部分。可以把它想成是我們業務中 Rao's 與 La Regina 的那一塊。然後還有一部分 -- 第二部分，規模稍小，是由我們的供應商替我們取得那些退稅。那可能需要多一點時間，等他們先拿到款項，我們才能把那筆錢收回來。有可能第四季會拿到其中一部分；也有一些可能會延到明年。

Peter Grom, UBS.

Peter Grom，瑞銀。

Great. So I was hoping just to get some perspective on just kind of the organic sales outlook for the fourth quarter, which implies a pretty material improvement versus what we've seen year-to-date. So can you maybe just unpack the 4Q outlook in terms of some of the timing dynamics that are -- that will help that you mentioned versus maybe what you were expecting in terms of underlying consumption?

很好。我想請教一下第四季有機銷售的展望，因為這暗示相較於今年迄今的表現會有相當明顯的改善。你能否拆解一下第四季展望，從你提到的、將帶來助益的一些時點因素來看，並對照你們對於基本消費需求的預期？

Yeah. So obviously, some noise around the ERP conversion from Sovos affecting Rao's, particularly Q3 versus Q4. So that negatively impacted Q3, that $30 million lap comes into Q4. So M&B will have some strong growth from a net sales perspective in the quarter. The consumption is running right now slightly positive. So that is a good story.

好的。很明顯，Sovos 的 ERP 轉換帶來一些雜訊，影響了 Rao's，特別是第三季相對於第四季。這對第三季造成負面影響，而那 3,000 萬美元的比較基期會在第四季反映出來。因此，M&B 從淨銷售角度在本季會有較強的成長。消費端目前略為正成長，所以這是個好消息。

We're anticipating it will probably kind of continue to hover in that range as we close out the year. There's also a fair amount of pipeline fill from innovation. M&B has got some pretty exciting innovation, primarily on soups and sauces, which will help Q4 as well.

我們預期在年底前大概會持續在那個區間附近徘徊。另外，創新產品也帶來相當程度的通路補貨（pipeline fill）。M&B 有一些相當令人振奮的創新，主要在湯品與醬料，這也會對第四季有所助益。

So M&B, from a net sales perspective, we are anticipating having a very solid Q4. Snacks will probably be fairly similar to what you saw in Q3 might be a little bit worse than that. So all in all, net sales should be flattish to slightly up for the quarter.

所以 M&B 從淨銷售角度來看，我們預期第四季會非常穩健。零食（Snacks）可能會與你在第三季看到的相當接近，甚至可能略差一些。總體而言，本季淨銷售應該會大致持平到小幅成長。

That's really helpful. And Todd, a lot of moving pieces as it relates to earnings as well, which you alluded to in Tom's question, but the outlook still embeds a relatively wide range. So can you maybe frame what would put you closer to the higher end relative to the lower end? And just given the higher share count, input costs, et cetera, is the lower end more realistic at this point?

這很有幫助。Todd，獲利面也有很多變動因素，你在 Tom 的問題中也提到，但展望仍然包含相對寬的區間。你能否說明一下，什麼情況會讓你們更接近區間上緣、相對於下緣？另外，考量股數增加、投入成本等因素，目前下緣是否更為現實？

Yeah. I would say from a net sales perspective, I think the lower end, that minus 2% is more -- probably more realistic assumption at this point. From a gross margin perspective, organically, we should probably have similar results to what we had in Q3. We were down 240 basis points. So somewhere in that range, though.

是的。就淨銷售而言，我認為下緣，也就是 -2%，在目前可能是更 -- 可能更現實的假設。就毛利率而言，若以有機口徑來看，我們大概會有與第三季相近的結果。第三季我們下降了 240 個基點，所以大概會在那個範圍附近。

With the La Regina acquisition now -- a partial acquisition, now being in our financials as we go into Q4, if you remember. So that co-man margin will come into our P&L. We'll get about 70 basis points to 80 basis points of a benefit from there for the first time. Marketing and selling, we anticipate, will be up slightly. We thought it would actually be up more in Q3.

另外，La Regina 的收購現在 -- 是部分收購 -- 在我們進入第四季時已納入財報，如果你還記得的話。因此，那個代工（co-man）毛利會進到我們的損益表。我們將首次從那裡獲得約 70 到 80 個基點的助益。行銷與銷售費用方面，我們預期會小幅上升；我們原本以為第三季會上升更多。

Some of the marketing shifted out of Q3 into Q4. We originally thought Q4 would be down and it will be slightly up. Interest, taxes, no big impact in there, but the share count because of the way GAAP requires us now to include approximately 7 million shares from that acquisition, we'll kind of artificially raise our share count from 299 million to 306 million. So I would say net sales definitely at the lower end of that minus 1% to minus 2%. And I would say the EPS still some moving parts there but that probably is more $2.20 to below.

部分行銷支出從第三季移到第四季。我們原本以為第四季會下降，但實際上會小幅上升。利息、稅負方面沒有太大影響；但因為 GAAP 現在要求我們把該收購約 700 萬股納入計算，我們的股數會被某種程度上「人為」拉高，從 2.99 億股到 3.06 億股。所以我會說淨銷售肯定在 -1% 到 -2% 的下緣。而 EPS 仍有一些變動因素，但大概會更接近 2.20 美元或以下。

Peter Galbo, Bank of America.

Peter Galbo，美國銀行。

Todd, I just -- in your response to Andrew's question around kind of the puts and takes for '27, I just wanted to clarify that would include the step up share count from La Regina? I just wanted to make sure that, that mechanically, that's flowing through next year as well.

Todd，我只是 -- 針對你回覆 Andrew 關於 2027 年各項利多利空的問題，我想確認那裡面會包含 La Regina 帶來的股數上調嗎？我只是想確定在機制上，這也會反映到明年。

Yes. Yes. So for the full year, we'll have 3 -- approximately 306 million shares, yes.

會的。會的。所以以全年來看，我們會有 3 -- 約 3.06 億股，是的。

Okay. Okay. And then, Todd, my other question is just around the -- in your comments, the possibility of issuing hybrid debt, understanding and maybe I'm a little out of my depth here, but understanding it will help more on the leverage side, but you also mentioned kind of trying to stabilize.

好的。好的。然後，Todd，我另一個問題是關於 -- 你在評論中提到發行混合型債務（hybrid debt）的可能性。我理解、也許我有點不太熟悉，但我理解它在槓桿比率方面會更有幫助，但你也提到某種程度上想要穩定。

I would think that a hybrid issuance would come with a higher coupon rate. Just how do you think about reconciling those two things of kind of stabilizing the earnings on one hand versus kind of the EBITDA piece, I know that they're considered differently by different constituents, but just maybe you can help frame that for us.

我會認為混合型發行會伴隨較高的票息。你如何看待並調和這兩件事：一方面是穩定獲利，另一方面是 EBITDA 的部分？我知道不同利害關係人對它們的看法不同，但你能否幫我們做個框架說明？

Yes. So I mean the hybrid debt, as you said, tends to be 150 basis points, 200 basis points higher. So yes, that will be a drag on EPS, obviously, would not affect EBITDA. So different people look at differently. So there's a little bit of a negative impact from an earnings perspective.

是的。所以混合型債務，如你所說，通常會高出 150 個基點、200 個基點。是的，這顯然會拖累 EPS，但不會影響 EBITDA。所以不同人會用不同方式看待。從獲利角度來看，確實會有一些負面影響。

Depending on what type of hybrid debt you do what you execute, you tend to get about 50% equity credit. So that's a positive from a rating agency perspective. So that's obviously the consideration there. So look, everything is in balance. We're trying to balance what's best for shareholders, what's best from a credit perspective.

取決於你做的是哪一種混合型債務、以及你實際執行的結構，通常可以取得約 50% 的股權認列（equity credit）。因此從信評機構角度來看是正面因素，這顯然是我們考量的重點。所以你看，一切都在權衡。我們正試圖在對股東最有利、以及信用面最有利之間取得平衡。

So we're trying to thread that needle right now. But look, hybrid can be a very, very useful tool. And as I've said earlier in the call, some of our peers have done it very successfully. So it's something we'll consider.

所以我們現在正試著在兩者之間找到平衡點。但你看，混合型工具可以非常、非常有用。而且如我在電話會議前面提到的，我們的一些同業已非常成功地使用它。所以這是我們會考慮的選項。

Chris Carey, Wells Fargo Securities.

Chris Carey，富國證券。

I just wanted to start on the price increases or the concept that you might be willing to use price increases in the -- as a sort of tool in the toolkit to confront this higher inflation backdrop. Can you just expand on how you would think about this given the competitive dynamic right now? And perhaps how you would see that price realization versus RGM and specific areas in the portfolio where you would think you would have the highest cost justification for incremental pricing?

我想先從漲價或你們可能願意把漲價作為工具箱中的一項工具、用來應對較高通膨背景這件事開始。考量目前的競爭態勢，你能否延伸說明你們會如何思考？以及你們如何看待價格實現（price realization）相對於 RGM（營收成長管理），並在投資組合中哪些特定領域，你們認為最有成本理由來支撐額外的定價？

Yes. Maybe I'll start off and Todd. So first of all, I mean, Todd mentioned this earlier as well, as we continue to see those inflationary pressures, we're going to stay focused on generating elevated levels of productivity, incremental cost savings initiatives and then also focus on that positive net price realization.

是的。也許我先開始，然後 Todd 補充。首先，我的意思是，Todd 先前也提到，隨著我們持續看到通膨壓力，我們會持續聚焦於創造較高水準的生產力、推動額外的成本節省計畫，並同時專注於正向的淨價格實現。

Todd also mentioned that we're building up the revenue growth management capability that's been something that we've been very focused on over the past six months. We're making good progress on that. And as a result, I believe that there is opportunity there.

Todd 也提到，我們正在建立營收成長管理（RGM）能力，這是我們過去六個月非常專注的事情。我們在這方面進展良好。因此，我相信這裡面存在機會。

Now as we also mentioned earlier, as our last resort, I would go towards, hey, is there any need for potential list price increases. But Todd, anything else that you'd like to add there?

另外，如同我們先前也提到的，作為最後手段，我才會去看，嘿，是否有需要進行潛在的牌價（list price）上調。但 Todd，你還有什麼想補充的嗎？

Yes. Look, look, the cost pressures are -- remain kind of where they're sitting right now, we could actually be looking at 5% to 6% inflation. So the different components of RGM will have to be will have to be utilized. There is a big opportunity in just the trade investment ROI. There's a number of our investments that, quite frankly, just are not returning terrific benefits for our company, and we are adjusting those as we speak.

是的。你看，如果成本壓力 -- 仍維持在目前這個水準，我們實際上可能面臨 5% 到 6% 的通膨。因此，RGM 的不同組成部分都必須 -- 都必須被運用。其中一個很大的機會在於通路投資（trade investment）的 ROI。我們有不少投資，坦白說，對公司帶回來的效益並不理想，而我們正在即時調整。

If that's not enough, if we need to do some surgical pricing in different parts of the portfolio, to maintain our margins, we'll clearly take a look at that. But more to come. Obviously, the environment externally here globally is very volatile. It changes day to day, we're going to take the appropriate actions as necessary.

如果這還不夠、如果我們需要在投資組合的不同部分進行更精準的定價（surgical pricing）以維持毛利，我們會明確地加以評估。但後續還會有更多資訊。很顯然，外部全球環境非常動盪，每天都在變化；我們會視需要採取適當的行動。

Okay. Perfect. Regarding the margins in snacking, during the quarter, there was an improvement relative to last quarter, which is encouraging. Obviously, you remain below where you had wanted the business to be over time. Give us a sense of how that fiscal Q3 margin came in relative to your own expectations?

好的。完美。關於零食業務的毛利率，本季相較上季有所改善，這令人鼓舞。顯然，你們仍低於長期希望業務達到的水準。能否讓我們了解一下，這個會計年度第三季（Q3）的毛利率表現，相對於你們自身預期是如何？

Was there any timing dynamic with lower marketing? Or are you starting to get your hands wrapped around the margin structure and perhaps we expect some stabilization at a minimum from here?

是否有因行銷費用較低而產生的時點因素？還是你們開始更掌握毛利結構，因此我們至少可以期待從這裡起出現一定程度的穩定？

Yes. Look, the good news is we went from EBITDA margin last quarter, a little over 7% to about 10% this quarter. So we said we'd have sequential improvement from Q2 to Q3. We did. It was largely in line with our expectations.

是的。你看，好消息是，我們的 EBITDA 利潤率從上季略高於 7% 提升到本季約 10%。我們先前說過，Q2 到 Q3 會有季比改善；我們做到了，而且大致符合我們的預期。

That's the good news. The bad news is both quarters were still down around 400 basis points year-over-year, which is obviously not acceptable. The higher margin in Q3 was really driven both sequentially and year-over-year by lower trade spend. So again, some of those RGM capabilities are starting to kick in, which is great. And then we had a little bit less marketing.

這是好消息。壞消息是，這兩個季度的利潤率年比仍下滑約 400 個基點，這顯然不可接受。Q3 較高的利潤率，無論是季比或年比，主要都是由較低的通路促銷支出（trade spend）所驅動。因此，一些 RGM（收益成長管理）能力開始發揮作用，這很好。另外，我們的行銷投入也稍微少了一些。

We had more marketing spending year-over-year in Q2 than we did in Q3. So that really helped the margin structure a lot. And we talked about the bakery performance, the good news is it is getting to be stabilized. We are improving on-shelf availability. And to get that improvement in on-shelf availability, we basically canceled all promotions in Q3.

我們在 Q2 的年比行銷支出高於 Q3。因此，這對利潤結構幫助很大。至於烘焙業務表現，我們談過，好消息是它正趨於穩定。我們正在改善貨架可得性（on-shelf availability）。而為了提升貨架可得性，我們在 Q3 基本上取消了所有促銷活動。

So that hurt volume in the top line, probably helped margins a little bit because we pulled out the vast majority of the trade. So kind of a mixed story here. Again, we feel good that we got it up to 10%, but it's not nearly where it needs to be. We'll probably see a similar type of profile in Q4. But as we talked about, look, we have significant things we have to go do.

因此，這在營收端的銷量上造成了影響；但因為我們撤出了絕大多數的通路促銷，可能也對毛利有些幫助。所以這是一個有點混合的故事。再說一次，我們很高興把利潤率拉升到 10%，但距離應有水準仍差得很遠。Q4 可能會看到類似的輪廓。不過如同我們所說，我們還有很多重要的事情必須去做。

The key to improving those margins over the next couple of years is, number one, got to grow Goldfish. We've stabilized the business, but it's still kind of down 1%, 2%. We've got to get that to growth. That's the biggest and most profitable piece of the Snacks portfolio. Mick has mentioned, simplifying the portfolio, which we're in the process of doing, which will improve mix.

未來幾年提升這些利潤率的關鍵是：第一，必須讓 Goldfish 成長。我們已經讓業務穩住了，但仍大概下滑 1% 到 2%。我們必須把它拉回成長。這是零食組合中最大、也是最賺錢的部分。Mick 提到簡化產品組合，我們正在進行中，這將改善產品組合（mix）。

It reduces the amount of waste that we have out there and quite frankly, makes the plants more efficient. And then we're just going to have to continue to look at the fixed cost structure of the Snacks business, both from a network and from an overhead perspective. And those projects are well underway.

這會降低我們在市場上的浪費，坦白說，也會讓工廠更有效率。接著，我們必須持續檢視零食業務的固定成本結構，無論是從供應網路（network）或管理費用（overhead）的角度。而這些專案都已在積極推進中。

David Palmer, Evercore ISI.

David Palmer，Evercore ISI。

Obviously, heading into fiscal '27, you're going to be dealing with the inflation you talked about. And the choices you're making around Snacks and those things will be cause for noise and varying degrees of sales or profit pressure.

顯然，展望會計年度 '27，你們將面對你們提到的通膨。而你們在零食等方面所做的選擇，會帶來雜音，以及不同程度的銷售或獲利壓力。

But I'm wondering if you're just thinking about your core businesses and the goal of returning those to at least some modest growth, profitable growth, where do you think are the near and medium-term potential wins, most improved areas that we'll see from an organic sales perspective? And then I have a quick follow-up.

但我想問的是，如果只看你們的核心業務，以及把它們帶回至少溫和成長、且具獲利性的成長這個目標，從有機銷售的角度來看，你認為短期與中期有哪些可能的勝利點、最有望改善的領域？然後我有一個簡短的追問。

Sure. Even if you look at this quarter, I'll highlight a couple of areas, and I appreciate you asking the question because there are very clear proof points in this quarter that we can continue to support. Within the Meals & Beverages portfolio, the at-home cooking consumer trend is resilient, and we expect that trend to continue. And that is a big part of our Meals & Beverages portfolio plays right into that consumer trend. We've seen consistent growth throughout this fiscal year and I expect us to continue to support our portfolio within that particular area.

當然。即使只看本季，我也想強調幾個領域；也謝謝你問這個問題，因為本季有非常明確、我們可以持續支持的實證點。在 Meals & Beverages（餐食與飲料）組合中，居家烹飪的消費者趨勢仍具韌性，我們預期這個趨勢會延續。而我們的餐食與飲料組合有很大一部分正好切中這個消費趨勢。我們在本會計年度一路看到持續成長，我也預期我們會繼續支持這一塊的產品組合。

That is both within cooking soups as well as Rao's and another great brand within that is Pacific as well. So that's very clearly an area within Meals & Beverages that's working and expect us to continue to support it and we'll have some great innovation going into the next fiscal year.

這包含烹飪用湯品（cooking soups），也包含 Rao's；另外還有一個很棒的品牌是 Pacific。因此，這非常明確是餐食與飲料中表現有效的領域，我們預期會持續支持，並且在下一個會計年度推出一些很棒的創新。

Then from a snacking perspective, you heard us talk about Goldfish. Goldfish is an important part of the Snacks portfolio. We're stabilizing the core and we need to make sure that we bring the brand back to growth. We're doing everything across their brand in order to support that growth, and it's also important from an overall profitability perspective.

接著從零食角度，你也聽到我們談到 Goldfish。Goldfish 是零食組合的重要部分。我們正在穩定核心，但必須確保讓品牌回到成長。我們正在從品牌各個面向採取行動以支持成長，而這對整體獲利能力也很重要。

And then within Pepperidge Farm, which is obviously another core part of the Snacks portfolio, we're making great progress from an operational perspective, and Todd just described that, which is really important. And those are -- again, if you hear me talk about it, you also hear me talk about our big brands with -- we now have $4 billion-plus brands with Campbell's, Rao's, Goldfish and Pepperidge Farm. And we need to make sure that we're set up for success and are growing in those different areas.

另外在 Pepperidge Farm（顯然也是零食組合的另一個核心部分），我們在營運面取得很大進展，Todd 剛剛也描述了這點，這非常重要。再者——如果你聽我談這些，你也會聽到我談我們的大品牌——我們現在有超過 40 億美元規模的品牌，包括 Campbell's、Rao's、Goldfish 和 Pepperidge Farm。我們必須確保在這些不同領域都具備成功的條件並實現成長。

I guess I had one quick follow-up, and it's just about just that soup and sauces business, you're doing condensed -- Campbell's condensed sauces. Why is that a big idea? And why is that the right extension of condensed? And I wonder -- I don't want to say how hopeless it is for ready-to-serve and condensed eating soups, if you will, that part. Is there anything you can do to stabilize that part of the portfolio? And I'll pass it on.

我想我有一個簡短追問，關於湯品與醬料業務：你們在做濃縮——Campbell's 的濃縮醬料。為什麼這是一個大點子？為什麼這是濃縮品類的正確延伸？另外我想問——我不想說即食（ready-to-serve）與濃縮食用湯（eating soups）那一塊有多無望——那部分是否有任何方法可以讓組合中的那一塊穩定下來？我把問題交回去。

Yes. Good. So let me address those in two parts. First of all, our condensed soup portfolio, about 50% of that portfolio, actually a little bit over 50% these days, is used for cooking as an ingredient. So think of cream of mushroom.

是的，很好。我分兩部分回答。首先，我們的濃縮湯組合中，大約 50%——其實現在略高於 50%——是作為烹飪配料使用。比如奶油蘑菇湯（cream of mushroom）。

The other half is the eating part of the portfolio. The cooking part of the portfolio has consistently been growing. And we're seeing consumers go to the soup aisle, buy our condensed cooking product in order to make scratch meals at home. That's a consumer trend that's working, that's been around for a little while, and that's what we're leaning into with the condensed sauces that we're launching. So it's really coming back from a consumer insight that on the one hand, they're already using our condensed cooking products for that purpose.

另一半則是直接食用的那部分。烹飪用的那部分一直在成長。我們看到消費者走到湯品貨架，購買我們的濃縮烹飪產品，用來在家做從零開始的餐點。這個消費趨勢運作良好，已存在一段時間，而我們推出的濃縮醬料正是順勢而為。這其實是回到消費者洞察：一方面，他們已經在用我們的濃縮烹飪產品達成這個目的。

And then on top of it, what we're seeing, and we've talked about this in the past, is that the consumer is exploring different flavors, and that's exactly what these different products lean into. So it's really the combination of -- on the one hand, that continued cooking resilience, people go to the condensed cooking aisle and are buying as a result some of our products, and we're combining that with incremental flavors.

此外，我們看到——而且過去也談過——消費者正在探索不同風味，而這些不同產品正好切中這點。所以這是兩者的結合：一方面，持續的居家烹飪韌性，人們到濃縮烹飪區購買，因而帶動我們部分產品；另一方面，我們再加入增量風味。

And I'm very excited about that innovation that is going to come out in the next fiscal year. Then with regard to ready-to-serve soup, ready-to-serve soup is an area where we've got some work to do. So on the one hand, we have part of the portfolio is working. So the premium part of that ready-to-serve portfolio is working. That's about 20% of the RTS portfolio. That's Rao's and Pacific. They are growing. However, that mainstream part of the portfolio is under pressure.

我對下一個會計年度將推出的這項創新非常興奮。至於即食湯（ready-to-serve soup），這是我們需要做些功課的領域。一方面，我們的組合中有一部分運作良好：即食組合中的高端部分表現不錯，約占 RTS 組合的 20%。那就是 Rao's 和 Pacific，它們在成長。然而，主流部分的組合正承受壓力。

So what do we, as a result, are going to do? We've got to make sure that we support the premium brand growth because that's working. And then additionally, we need to increase the relevance of our mainstream portfolio. So on the one hand, we are looking at within the existing portfolio at the tail and that's where we see a disproportionate headwind, so we need to address that.

因此我們要做什麼？我們必須確保支持高端品牌的成長，因為那一塊有效。同時，我們需要提升主流組合的相關性。一方面，我們正在檢視現有組合中的尾端（tail），那裡是我們看到逆風不成比例集中的地方，因此我們需要處理。

And we -- on top of it, we need to make sure that we increase the relevance of some of that part of the soup aisle, which is the ready-to-serve soup aisle and that comes back with some exciting innovation that we're launching next year. It's really focused on better-for-you and some of the positives of the product. So more to come on this.

此外，我們也必須確保提升湯品貨架中那一部分——也就是即食湯貨架——的相關性，而這會回到我們明年要推出的一些令人興奮的創新。重點會放在更健康（better-for-you）以及產品的一些正向賣點上。後續我們會再分享更多。

Megan Clapp, Morgan Stanley.

Megan Clapp，Morgan Stanley。

I wanted to come back to some of the comments on the 2% to 3% additional inflation that you cited as we look out to fiscal '27 if oil stays around $100, and I appreciate you giving that number. I guess -- maybe just to dig into it a little bit more.

我想回到你提到的評論：如果油價維持在每桶 100 美元，展望會計年度 '27，你們可能會面臨額外 2% 到 3% 的通膨；也謝謝你提供這個數字。我想——也許再深入一點。

Can you just maybe help us understand how the inflation cadence might flow through the year, presumably given where you were hedged, I would think it might be a little bit more back half loaded as hedges roll off. But maybe you can just give us some context on where we're hedged today for fiscal '27 and maybe bucketing kind of the biggest pockets of pressure just as we think about tracking given oil is very volatile.

你能否協助我們理解通膨在年度中的節奏可能如何傳導？考量你們的避險部位，我會猜測隨著避險到期，影響可能更偏向下半年（back half loaded）。但你能否提供一些背景：目前你們在會計年度 '27 的避險狀況如何？以及在油價非常波動的情況下，若我們要追蹤，最大的壓力來源大概會集中在哪些區塊？

Yes. So I mean, obviously, we're almost fully hedged for our fiscal year '26 which ends in July. So it should be very little noise around that area. We have -- we do have some hedges in the first half of the year. Given the elevated cost environment, we probably have a little bit less than we would normally do because we're anticipating things will calm down a little bit, and prices, which are extremely elevated right now, will mitigate.

是的。所以我的意思是，很明顯，我們在截至7月的2026財年幾乎已經完全避險了。因此在那一塊應該不會有太多雜音。我們——我們在上半年確實有一些避險。鑑於成本環境偏高，我們做的可能比平常少一點，因為我們預期情況會稍微冷卻，而目前極度偏高的價格會有所緩解。

But obviously, there is a risk in that. Look, just given where prices are right now, the one thing that is looking more and more clear every day is that the first half inflation will be pretty high. Those prices are kind of set even if the war ended, conflict ended today, it would take a while for oil prices to come down. It would take a while for fertilizers to start moving in, for aluminum to start moving out of the region in a way that would bring prices down off their highs. So we'll have elevated inflation for sure in the first half of the year.

但很明顯，這裡面是有風險的。你看，就目前的價格水準而言，有一件事每天都愈來愈清楚：上半年的通膨會相當高。那些價格某種程度上已經定下來了；即使戰爭今天就結束、衝突今天就結束，油價也需要一段時間才會下來。肥料要開始進來、鋁要以能讓價格從高點回落的方式開始從該地區流出，也都需要時間。所以我們上半年肯定會面臨偏高的通膨。

The question mark is what does the second half look like, do things calm down and we get more closer to the 3% versus the 5% to 6%. If the war continues for several more months, we could be looking at a full year of elevated inflation. So that -- those are some of the kind of moving parts right now. And as we said, we're looking aggressively at cost savings. The RGM team is looking aggressively of optimizing our trade spend and then pricing is necessary.

問題在於下半年會是什麼樣子：情況是否會冷卻，讓我們更接近3%，而不是5%到6%。如果戰爭再持續幾個月，我們可能會面臨整年度的高通膨。所以——這些就是目前的一些變動因素。正如我們所說，我們正積極尋找成本節省。RGM團隊正積極優化我們的通路促銷支出，然後在必要時進行定價。

Okay. That's helpful. And then maybe just a follow-up on Snacks, Mick. Just trying to put the pieces together. There's been a lot of helpful commentary. Goldfish core seems to have stabilized. Bakery, although we haven't talked about it much, I think, in the prepared remarks, some of those self-inflicted headwinds seem to be abating.

好的。這很有幫助。那接著也許再追問一下零食（Snacks），Mick。我只是想把各個線索拼起來。你們提供了很多有用的評論。Goldfish的核心業務似乎已經穩住了。烘焙（Bakery）方面，雖然我想在事先準備的發言裡我們沒有談太多，但一些自我造成的逆風似乎正在消退。

And so the real question, Mick, just feels like Salty, and I know we've talked about it a lot. But the question is, could things get worse before they get better on the Salty side, just in terms of you're talking about SKU rationalization and simplification as we go through that? Is there any way to kind of help us understand the trajectory of Salty and maybe what a realistic timeline in your mind is for that business to stabilize?

所以真正的問題，Mick，感覺是在鹹味（Salty）這一塊，我知道我們談了很多。但問題是：在鹹味端，在你提到的SKU精簡與簡化推進過程中，情況會不會在變好之前先變得更糟？有沒有什麼方式可以幫助我們理解鹹味業務的走勢，以及在你心中，這個業務要穩定下來一個較為現實的時間表是什麼？

Yes, yes. You're right, is on the positives, Goldfish working making sure that we maintain momentum. On the fresh bakery side, as Todd mentioned, feeling better from an operational perspective, which allows us to start reintroducing some of the promotional activity, which would allow us to start to better on that front as well.

是的，是的。你說得對。先講正面部分，Goldfish運作良好，我們要確保維持動能。至於新鮮烘焙（fresh bakery）端，如Todd提到的，從營運角度來看感覺更好了，這也讓我們能開始重新導入一些促銷活動，進而讓我們在那一端也能開始做得更好。

And from a Salty perspective, and you also saw this in my prepared remarks, really focus on its simplification, with like strengthening the core. It comes also back to some bigger bolder innovation, and we need to improve overall in-market execution.

而從鹹味（Salty）的角度來看——你也在我準備的發言中看到——我們會真正聚焦在簡化上，例如強化核心。同時也回到一些更大膽、更具突破性的創新，而且我們需要全面提升在市場端的執行。

That's going to take a little bit longer. So I'd see that in the near term, we're going to continue to feel some pressure on Salty and then as some of these plans take shape, that should start to improve the trajectory. But you're right, that's going to take a little bit of time.

這會需要更長一點的時間。所以我認為短期內，我們仍會在鹹味上感受到一些壓力；接著當這些計畫逐步成形，走勢應該會開始改善。但你說得對，這會需要一點時間。

Robert Moskow, TD Cowen.

Robert Moskow，TD Cowen。

Todd and Mick, you both talked about improving your RGM and finding those opportunities to eliminate trade programs that weren't working. Is there any further detail you can give or anything thematic there? Are there any types of promotions that are proving out to be more effective than others? And maybe in terms of -- you could break it out in terms of like, hey, we need longer duration deals or we need deeper deals? Is there anything to this?

Todd和Mick，你們都談到要改善RGM，並找出機會去取消那些效果不佳的通路促銷方案。你們能否提供更多細節或一些主題性的說明？是否有某些類型的促銷比其他更有效？另外就——你們是否能拆解一下，例如：我們需要更長期間的促銷，或需要更深折扣的促銷？這方面有什麼看法嗎？

Yes. So I'll start off. Look, the most and this is fairly obvious, but something we just need to get a lot better at. Look, when we run a TPR, just on the shelf, you don't get a great return. And we've got to limit those as much as we possibly can.

是的。我先說。你看，最重要的——這其實相當明顯，但我們必須把它做得更好。當我們只做TPR（臨時降價），只是貨架上的降價，你拿不到很好的回報。我們必須盡可能限制這類活動。

When we get feature and display, the ROIs are really, really impressive. And so we need to work from both the marketing and the sales organization to make sure we're getting as much feature in display as we possibly can, and that's where we focus our investment. And TPRs, if we can't get a feature and display, we're probably going to walk away from some of those TPRs because the returns -- we feel good but the reality is the returns aren't there. So I would say that's the biggest thing that we're working on.

當我們能拿到主打陳列（feature）和端架/展示（display）時，投資報酬率（ROI）真的非常、非常亮眼。所以我們需要從行銷與銷售組織兩端合作，確保我們盡可能爭取到更多的主打與展示，並把投資重點放在那裡。至於TPR，如果拿不到主打與展示，我們可能就會放棄其中一些TPR，因為回報——我們感覺不錯，但現實是回報並不在那裡。所以我會說，這是我們正在做的最大重點。

Yes, there are a couple of other pieces that I'd add is from making sure that we have the right price point when it really matters. And there are certain drive periods that are obviously critical and making sure that we support those.

是的。另外我想補充幾點：要確保在真正關鍵的時候，我們有正確的價格點。而且有一些帶動期（drive periods）顯然非常關鍵，我們要確保能支援那些時段。

And to Todd's point, whether it's feature display, whether it's also broader brand support so that the whole package works. Then the other piece that I'd add, and this is maybe a little bit of a nugget around Goldfish, if you look at it from a price pack perspective, you see that multipacks are growing. So in the last 13 weeks, actually, multipacks is growing 6%.

再呼應Todd的觀點，不論是主打展示，或是更廣泛的品牌支援，讓整個組合能夠奏效。然後我還想補充一點——這可能是關於Goldfish的一個小重點——如果你從價格/包裝（price pack）的角度來看，你會看到多入裝（multipacks）正在成長。所以在過去13週，多入裝實際上成長了6%。

So it's areas like that, that even within the brand that making sure that we have the right price points that we have the right price pack in the marketplace is absolutely critical.

所以像這樣的領域，即使是在品牌內部，確保我們在市場上有正確的價格點、正確的價格/包裝組合，都是絕對關鍵的。

Max Gumport, BNP Paribas.

Max Gumport，BNP Paribas。

First off, with regard to the tariff refunds, it seems like you're able to hold them. Commentary from retailers would suggest there's potential that they're looking to give back tariff refunds to the consumer. Do you see any risk that the retailer puts pressure on you to give them back some of these funds as well?

首先，關於關稅退稅（tariff refunds），看起來你們能把它留住。零售商那邊的說法似乎暗示，他們可能想把關稅退稅回饋給消費者。你們是否看到任何風險：零售商會施壓你們，也要把其中一些資金退回給他們？

I guess there's always a risk there. We have no intention at this point to give any of that money back. Look, the -- we -- if you look at our gross margins, we obviously have not -- we have not been able to offset those tariffs and just the normal inflation. We took some minimal pricing this past year. So right now, our intention is not to refund any of those tariffs.

我想那裡總是有風險的。但就目前而言，我們沒有任何打算把那筆錢退回去。你看——我們——如果你看我們的毛利率，我們顯然還沒有——我們還沒能抵消那些關稅以及一般通膨。我們在過去一年只做了很小幅度的漲價。所以目前，我們的意圖是不退還任何關稅。

Yes. And the only thing that I'd add to it is there's obviously always a lot of puts and takes. And per my earlier comments, we are very focused to make sure that we provide value to the consumer. That's something that we think about every day. We talk about every day, and there are obviously a lot of different considerations that are taken into account when we work through that, those decisions.

是的。我唯一想補充的是，當然一直都有很多此消彼長的因素。依我先前的評論，我們非常專注於確保為消費者提供價值。這是我們每天都在思考的事情、每天都在談的事情；而在我們推進並做出那些決策時，顯然會把很多不同的考量納入其中。

Great. And I just wanted to clarify that the 2 points to 3 points of incremental inflation that you've called out for FY27, that's a holistic number beyond just oil and commodities related to oil? Correct? It's your best guess at this point in time based on every input that you are procuring?

了解。我只是想釐清一下：你們提到2027財年額外增加的2到3個百分點通膨，這是一個整體性的數字，不僅僅是油價以及與油相關的大宗商品，對嗎？這是你們在此時此刻基於所有正在採購的投入項目所做的最佳估計？

Yes. So again, prior to the conflict as we were looking at our initial planning for FY27, we were looking at inflation close to 3%. The incremental piece from oil and the things around the Strait being shut down will add another 2 points to 3 points, which gets you to the 5 points to 6 points. So it's just not oil directly but it's everything that -- oil obviously gets into products, whether it's packaging, whether it's logistics.

是的。所以再說一次，在衝突發生之前，當我們在做2027財年的初步規劃時，我們預期通膨接近3%。而油價以及海峽被封鎖相關因素帶來的增量部分，會再增加2到3個百分點，讓你到5到6個百分點。所以不只是直接的油價，而是所有——油顯然會滲透到產品中，不論是包材，或是物流。

And then we're seeing some aluminum which comes out of that region is very, very elevated. At this point, fertilizer, which could have an impact on the farming community this year could have an impact as well. So everything that conflict is impacting goes into that incremental 2% to 3%.

另外我們也看到一些來自該地區的鋁材價格非常、非常高。就目前而言，肥料也可能對今年的農業社群造成影響，進而也可能帶來影響。所以衝突所影響的一切，都會納入那額外的2%到3%。

And we are out of time for questions today. This will conclude today's conference call. Thank you for your participation. You may now disconnect.

我們今天的提問時間已到。今天的電話會議到此結束。感謝各位的參與。您現在可以掛線。