“I think we continue to believe that in terms of the running the business part of our G&A spend, we should be able to drive efficiency and gain leverage as we continue to go through our top-line as we go forward.”

In context

“, John. Let me take those two questions. I think on G&A, as you kind of heard me talk to in my commentary, there are really a couple of drivers for this year that resulted in that adjusted outlook. The first one is the stronger impact of the stronger U.S. dollar. So if you think of our G&A, let's call it, formula to get to the percentage, 60% of our sales come from outside of the U.S. So obviously, we're translating those sales back into less U.S. dollars and 70% of our G&A spend is U.S. dollar based. So that's the first impact. The second impact is obviously just the general inflationary pressures that we're seeing on costs, which obviously is also coming to play in our G&A expenses. I think what I would say coming into the role is certainly, it's an area that I'm going to be focused on. I think we continue to believe that in terms of the running the business part of our G&A spend, we should be able to drive efficiency and gain leverage as we continue to go through our top-line as we go forward. That's important for two reasons, one, the efficiency part, but also we want to make sure we've got the G&A capacity to ensure that we can spend on areas like technology and digital or innovation where we want to drive things that are going to drive growth. But I think the net of that formula is that we continue to believe we should gain leverage in G&A as we go forward. I think the second part on capital I think capital, there were kind of two reasons why we adjusted guidance down from the $2 billion to $2.2 billion to now about $2 billion. Again, one of them is just the stronger U.S. dollar, about 60% of our capital spend is outside of the U.S. So we're just translating that spend back into fewer U. S. dollars. I think the second bit is slightly less openings due to kind of the permit t”