I have a question about the question-related issues. I want to understand the current status.

Last year in June, some of our products received an import alert. Last year in the third quarter, ship hold was announced based on the inspections.

The ship hold was going to be largely completed within the fourth quarter. That was the explanation last time, but it's still part of this fiscal year's plan.

I want to understand the current status of ship hold and the schedule of the inspections. How is it progressing?

Please share the current status.

Thank you for the question. Let me address both parts of that.

You mentioned the import alert first. The import alert, again, is largely tied to our Aizu facility.

Until that Aizu facility is reinspected, that import alert may not be lifted, and to put the import alert in context, that was roughly 1% of sales. That's the import alert.

The inspections that took place in the fall, as I mentioned on our Q3 call, in an abundance of caution, we put a number of products on ship hold. As I mentioned, I think it was 20 or so, the majority of those began to be released from ship hold during Q3 and Q4.

The reason that some of this remains in FY '27, as I mentioned and Michael mentioned, largely in the first half, is we do have a few products that remain on ship hold that we would expect that would be off of ship hold by the second half of FY '27. That's an answer to your question in terms of what's the current state as it relates to import alert as well as products on ship hold.

どうもありがとうございます。

Thank you very much. I have one follow-up question.

From this fiscal year and beyond, what happens to Elevate cost? What is the outlook for Elevate and quality-related expenses?

In this fiscal year's plan, 24 billion negative in the other expenses, is it going to be completed before the end of this fiscal year, or does it depend on future inspections? Is there a risk that this expense will grow bigger than this?

Thank you for your second question. You are correct, in FY '26, Elevate cost was approximately 200 oku yen, as we shared, and 50% of that was in SG&A, and 50% of that was in other expenses.

Elevate cost as a program is ending in FY '26, as we announced, and importantly, the spend that we will continue to do in the quality area will be treated within SG&A and not below as a one-off cost as had previously happened in Elevate. This is important, and the reason we're able to do that moving forward is a lot of the good work that Elevate done in terms of core quality processes, we're now able to leverage in our ongoing quality program.

You should expect to see a dramatic reduction in below-the-line quality one-off costs, as it relates to this specifically. Thank you for the question.

That's all for me. Thank you.

Right now, about quality control issue, the Fukushima plant itself, as of February, has not received inspection yet. What is the timeline at the moment, in the first half or second half?

If possible, what is the preparedness towards the inspection? That's my first question.

As backdrop, we are in close ongoing communication with the FDA in a very constructive manner. They have not notified us of any more upcoming inspections, I don't know the answer to the first part of your question.

The second part of your question is important, and that is we've been preparing all of our plants, including Aizu, for inspections and maintaining all of our facilities in the state of inspection readiness, because this is where we expect our plants to operate on always. Don't know when they would be back, but our preparation for Aizu and other plants is ongoing, and we feel good about the quality work that is underway across our operations footprint.

Thank you for the question.

Thank you very much. My second question.

This year's guidance is my second question. In terms of the GIS, the range for the profit is larger than the range for the sales.

What is the impact of China in GIS? Also, in Q4, it seems that there is a tremendous deterioration in China.

Could you also talk about the Q4 results in China?

Thank you for the question. Let me talk about China overall.

As I mentioned on our Q3 earnings call, I expected that our progress in China would be bumpy as we got back to reasonable growth in China. In fact, what you saw in Q4 is that China remains a challenging market, for sure.

Q4 reflected greater caution in hospital procurement than we saw earlier in the year. Importantly, over the medium to long term, our plan is to return China to sustainable growth, and what we've done I think is really important in China.

As I've mentioned on previous calls, we've replaced the leadership team, improved our commercial discipline, expanding our locally manufactured portfolio to improve competitiveness. What I believe you'll see is this ramp as we move throughout FY '27.

In sum, I believe we're taking the right actions. It will be choppy as we get China back to a mid-single-digit grower.

Importantly, that's when I talk about the 3-4-5 plan from '27 through '29, I simply need China to be a low- to mid-single-digit grower as opposed to a decliner, and I'm confident that we have that opportunity in China with the actions we have underway. Thank you for the question.

Understood. Thank you.

I would like to ask my question in English. Oh, thank you very much for taking my question.

Congrats on a very strong result on March '26. I've got a question about the competitive landscape for the GI endoscope globally.

We understand that the competitor is now growing very quickly, not only in Japan, Europe, where the hospital budget is restricted, but also in US. It seemed like they are commenting that gaining the market share.

We are really worried about your competitiveness, even in US might be disrupted. How do you evaluate the current situation as of now?

Also, I understand that you are going to launch the new scope for the EVIS X1 globally in the second half of March '27. Do you see any risk that product launch will be delayed?

Maybe FDA issue might be if it's become complicated. I'm just worried about that risk to be delayed.

Could you briefly comment on this, my concern? Thank you very much.

Yes, thank you for the question, and I'll have Keith talk specifically about his view of the markets within GIS and our competitive position. Before I do that, let me offer that our market share position is strong across all regions, including North America, and you saw in Q4 when we have new products in the hands of our sellers, you see tremendous results, and so you saw that just Q4.

Before I turn over to Keith, the one other point I wanted to make, which to the second part of your question, which is our new product pipeline is very robust, and we continue to get new products approved by the FDA on a very good cadence. While we work through quality remediation, that has not impacted our ability to get new products approved.

Keith, why don't you add your thoughts on the competitive nature and how we're positioned?

Look, we have confidence in our competitive position in the markets. If you look at how we performed in Q4, double-digit growth in the United States, really strong growth in EMEA, strong growth in APAC.

In Japan today, we're working on a new commercial model to drive higher competitiveness, right? A more focused sales organization.

In China, Bob covered China before. When we think about how we compete in this market, we've got confidence that we can compete at a high level.

From an execution standpoint, we continue to increase our ability to execute both in our commercial organizations, but also in R&D, as we look to bring new competitive products to the market.

Thank you very much. One additional question is that I was a bit surprised to see that especially, Bob, you decided to consider the option for the surgical endoscope.

What makes you that decision? I know that you came from Medtronic.

Medtronic also hasn't a similar product, maybe if you could share the view on your decision. Thank you very much.

Thank you for the important question. The reason I'm announcing a strategic review of surgical is when we look at surgical, and again, for everybody on the phone, surgical, as we defined it, is comprised of surgical devices, surgical endoscopy, ENT, and OR integration.

When we look at these businesses as a group compared to the growth profile and the weighted average market growth of Olympus, as well as the margin profile that we aspire to, we made the decision that these businesses should be put under strategic review. Nothing's off the table as we explore a range of options to unlock value.

Not going to be specific on timeframe, but I am going to be specific that we will update you as we go through this process, because I think it's really important for our investors and our shareholders to know that this is a management team that is going to take courageous, decisive action on its portfolio and ensure that we're in a position to win and grow and produce profitable growth, as well. We'll keep you posted on that.

Fundamentally, our decision came back to the criteria, which was strategic fit, accretive growth, and return on invested capital. Okay.

Thank you very much.

Thank you for taking my question. Two questions.

One, just a question concerning the believability or confidence in your forecast. When we go back, if you recall, in Q2 Olympus basically said that they were very confident about the remediation, the progress.

In third quarter, of course, we were surprised with ship holds and, well, eight inspections, which I think is quite unprecedented. How confident are you that when the time comes for the Aizu plant reinspection, you won't have any additional ship holds and additional cost for remediations?

How confident are you that some of the Form 483s you've received will not turn into a warning letter? That's my first question.

Thank you for the question, and let me unpack that for you. First off, I'm very confident in our forecast.

I believe our state of readiness at our manufacturing facilities continues to improve. You were right that it was a bit unprecedented, the eight inspections that took place at the end of last year.

The observations that resulted from those inspections helped us further accelerate and strengthen our existing initiatives. Which is why, to an earlier question, I don't anticipate a bolus of cost in the ongoing remediation, because as you may know is following those inspections in December, we turned in a comprehensive response to all those observations.

In that response, we make a number of commitments, and we're executing on all of those commitments. Let me just say, there is absolutely no difference in what the FDA wants and what Olympus wants in terms of patient safety and quality.

I'm confident we're doing the right work, and I believe we're in a good state of readiness as we continue to progress.

Thank you. Are you sure sort of the Form 483s will not turn into a warning letter?

Is there any sort of communication with the FDA or any assurances that that's not going to take place?

Thank you for that question, too. Of course, the inspections remain an open matter for the FDA, while we meet with them regularly in an open, constructive dialogue.

They have not signaled any action yet as resulting from those inspections. One could anticipate that, in general, although this also isn't necessarily a rule, that somewhere between four to six months after inspections take place, the FDA lets you know what they thought, but we've not heard anything yet.

We continue to do our work, right? That's the focus.

We're doing our work and meeting our commitments. It's difficult for me to say, but there's no indication yet from the FDA.

Would it be accurate to sort of describe what happened in the third quarter as in you guys weren't expecting eight inspections all at once, and that's why you had to resort to ship holds? If it's just Aizu, then you're kind of more prepared?

Is that how we should think about it?

Yeah. I did not expect eight in Q3.

That was a bit—

No one does. You could go for the Guinness record, yeah.

Make a Guinness record. That was a bit unprecedented.

Again, that taught us we still had some things to work on. It pointed that we had to accelerate the globalization of some of our quality systems.

We had some things to work on. Again, that was in my mind, that was a signal: keep doing what we're doing, do it faster.

To your point, certainly we'd expect a single site to be a lot less complicated than eight simultaneously. Look, we're responsible for all of that.

It's not just Aizu that's being prepared; it's all of our facilities that are on a state of preparedness for its upcoming inspection.

Thank you. Just lastly on the surgical endoscope, obviously we were a little surprised because we were expecting things like THUNDERBEAT and things like that to be put on the sort of, put under review.

Now, it is true that I don't think Olympus has ever really demonstrated much competitiveness against Stryker, and so but isn't there any thought of trying to accelerate sort of development of being able to compete with Stryker? Obviously this surgical endoscope probably has some sort of synergy with your ongoing work at Swann endosurgical, right?

Isn't there a thought of trying to strengthen this through an alliance or something?

To be clear, which is why I wasn't announcing a very specific set of actions, but saying as we take this surgical business under a strategic review, there very well may be elements, there may be underlying platform technologies that are enablers that continue to enable our progress in other areas, as well. When I say specifically nothing's off the table, that also means that we'll see how this develops.

I think it's important that I signal what our expectations are relative to growth and margin and return for each of our businesses.

No, we appreciate that. Thank you.

FY '27 guidance. Adjusted operating profit and operating profit, the gap between the two is a 24 billion.

Now, what kind of expenses are included in the adjustment?

Our guidance, do you mean adjustments below the line when you talk about adjustments to it, right? Michael, I'll have you take this.

The point I was making to the previous person who asked the question was last year in '26, we saw significant below-the-line cost for our quality remediation for Project Elevate, that roughly 200 oku, half of which was in SG&A and half of which was below the line. The point I was making to that previous question was we expect that below-the-line quality costs to, in fact, be reduced significantly.

The other measures below the line, whether it's workforce optimization, GTAM, etc. Michael, perhaps you want to provide further below the line.

Sure.

The adjustments that we put below the line I think the question was focused more on the future guidance for '27, not on '26. There will still be some expenses related to GTAM in '27, although they'll be drastically different in scale, as well as some tail-end quality costs that will be below the line, but again, a very different scale than what we saw in '26.

Typically, the adjustments below the line are going to be targeted towards one-time items like R&D impairments and things of that nature where you have one-time items or you have large-scale programs that you're putting below the line. What I would tell you is the difference between the full year '26 numbers and the '27 figures that we have are driven from the fact that these large-scale programs are being minimized in '27 from a perspective of the amount that we're going to be spending on them.

In the guidance, you're going to see that difference, and that's what's driving the profitability higher below the line in that respect. Hopefully, that helps give you some clarity as to what's the drivers.

あ、

Thank you very much for explanation. I have a follow-up question.

Middle East related expenses, what kind of expense items are you accounting for? That's my follow-up question.

Thank you. Regarding the Middle East, it's a good question.

We're monitoring that situation very closely. To date, the direct impact has been limited, but the way we're thinking about this is first from a cost and logistics perspective, we're actively managing our logistics providers and have identified contingency routes to mitigate both space constraints and rate volatility, starting to see some cost pressures in transportation, in freight surcharges primarily driven by higher crude oil, but we've not yet faced material restrictions on that.

Regarding energy and material costs, of course rising crude oil prices create upward pressure on energy-related expenses, but we're closely monitoring that as well. When you think about our supply chain, we're working very closely with key suppliers, governments, by the way, logistics partners to systematically reduce our supply risks.

We also have inventory coverage currently for critical components in line with our global standard levels, and importantly, there's no impact today on our customers or our patients. This is a situation that we monitor closely.

When we look at the cost as we know today, it's manageable for us within the guidance that we gave you.

Understand. That's all from me.

Thank you. I have a question about Q4 financial results.

In your press release, there was a mentioning about the North America, which was much better than the expectation in sales compared with your internal expectation. What were different?

What were the upside that you had for the fourth quarter compared with your expectation for North America?

Thank you for the question. As we mentioned on the Q3 call, we had good expectations for North America in Q4.

Particularly around Evis X1 scopes, our new product, we wanted to see demonstrations turned into sales. I would also offer you that Q4 North America performance and performance in EMEA and APAC and elsewhere around the world really showed the strength of the entire Olympus operating team coming together from the commercial organization to the operating organization, global operations, supply chain, to ensure that we were able to produce, ship, install products.

It was great to see us execute and awesome to see our customer demand for this product. It was us fulfilling demand, and that's where we believe it was a good tailwind as we go into FY '27.

Thank you very much. You said that demonstration Evis X1 equipment, there was a shortage for all those Evis.

That's why there was a concern that you express in Q3 call that there may not be enough deliveries. What was different from your expectation?

Regarding the equipment available for demonstration, did you have enough number of equipment, or for the SIS business, was there anything that was different from your original expectation for SIS?

Again, I think one, we saw great demand for Evis X1 scopes in the US, and importantly, our factories produced more. That was great we were able to meet that.

We also saw a tremendous uptake in our GORE VIABIL stents following our January launch, this was a healthy pipeline that then converted in conversion rates. That was particularly strong.

On the SIS side, when we pulled them off of ship hold, they also delivered meaningful contribution. It was a team effort across the organization that allowed us to really have a very strong Q4.

Understood. Thank you very much.

That's all the questions I have. Two questions about the United States.

In Q4, the sales was strong, but do you feel the absence of that in the first quarter of the following fiscal year, or do you think that strong momentum will continue into the first quarter of the following fiscal year and beyond?

Thank you for the question. The strength we saw in Q4 was particularly strong.

We saw tremendous growth. Importantly, we see strength continuing in the US, and we look at that based on our leading indicators of order activity, pipeline visibility.

We believe that sets us up for a very productive FY '27 in the very important market of North America.

If that is the case, we don't have to worry about the absence of the strength of the fourth quarter. The strong momentum will continue each quarter in the new fiscal year.

Is that the correct interpretation?

Again, let me be clear on our guidance, which if you look at Olympus overall, and I talked about China being a little choppy in the first half, we still have in SIS some products on ship hold. I was answering the question particularly about GIS in North America.

We like the strength that we saw in Q4, how we exited, and we expect solid strength here as we move throughout the year. We're going to leverage that to offset some of the other pressures that we saw across the business that I talked about, which is why I wanted to be transparent and talk about the phasing as I see throughout the year, which I would view it as a slower start to a stronger finish, which is exactly what Michael mentioned as we talked about consumables versus capital sales.

That's why I feel confident in our guide we gave you, which we're targeting 3% growth, 100-plus basis points of operating margin improvement in FY '27.

Thank you. One more thing.

Impact of tariffs in the United States. For the FY '26, 25 billion yen a negative impact on profit.

For the new fiscal year, how did you include that tariff impact in your guidance?

Right. Michael, I'll have you pick this up.

We basically assumed that the 15% tariff was going to continue in FY '27, and we know that's a dynamic situation. That's the way we thought about it.

Michael, you want to pick up any more detail on the tariff scenario?

Yeah. Obviously, the dynamic with tariffs is pretty much unchanged year-over-year, despite the Supreme Court's ruling.

We assumed 15% for our full year 2027 numbers, as well. Despite some good news from a cash flow perspective when we can get our refund, we've baked in the expense into our expectations in 2027 as similar to what we saw in 2026.

Thank you very much.