Good morning, everyone. We might get started. My name's David Bailey. I'm part of the healthcare team at Morgan Stanley, based in Australia. Joined today by Chris Behrenbruch and Kevin Richardson, CEO and CEO of Precision Medicine, respectively. Thank you very much both for joining us today. Great to have you here. Thank you. Thank you. Chris, I might just start with you. The PIXCLARA FDA approval over the weekend is the first approved candidate for imaging glioma. My question is, with a company that's navigating the regulatory pathway for a new class of therapies, what are your takeaways and learnings, and what have been some of the challenges, I suppose, that you observed, and how will that inform your future pipeline? Well, good morning, and first of all, thanks very much for having Kevin and I. I think GBM is a tough space, and there hasn't been a lot of innovation, a lot of progress made. It's difficult to run clinical trials in that space, and we took a pretty innovative approach to that particular NDA submission. As with all of our pipeline, for every target that we go after, we develop both an imaging agent and a therapeutic. That's the strength of radiopharma. It's a unique It's the only class of drugs where you get to see where your drug goes in the body, whether it's being used for informing treatment decisions or whether it's actually therapeutically treating a patient. We developed the PIXCLARA platform, and it really is a platform. It's got a huge breadth of indication potential. Obviously, we've started off with a fairly narrow label for the first approval, although the guideline use for PIXCLARA is a lot wider than our label. We have currently other clinical activity running to expand the label over time in the fullness of time, and maybe Kevin can talk more about that later on. But we developed that program because it images the target that we are treating therapeutically. Our TLX101 program's in phase III right now. We've got some really exciting clinical data around that program. The imaging and the therapy is really very complementary, and one de-risks the other. I think, the strategy that we have as a company, it's been well-informed. This is our third drug approval. It's been well-informed by the prostate program, which again, we take a very similar approach. The field has really evolved to expect that patient selection and treatment response assessment is done with imaging. That is not expected to be any different in glioma. In fact, it's more critical. That's true. Okay. A broader question here is that Telix has been in the radiopharma space for more than a decade, and you successfully navigated an increasingly dynamic landscape, including recent industry consolidation. You've also now got three imaging agents in the market. My question is, what do you believe it takes to stay competitive in this market today, and how do you see this field evolving in coming years? Yes. I think, first of all, there's a growing bifurcation in the market approach between centrally manufactured products that rely more on cyclotron-based approaches or larger-scale centralized manufacturing, and then more of the nuclear pharmacy-centric business. We're going to see a lot of the consolidation kind of fragment along those lines. I actually think that the truth is to win in the space, you need to be able to do both, and that's the approach we've taken. We see nuclear pharmacies as being the last mile delivery for therapeutics and diagnostics in equal measure. Just to illustrate that, many of our nuclear pharmacies are licensed in multiple states in the United States, and many of our nuclear pharmacies have broad therapeutic isotope licenses and have the infrastructure to, for example, dispense lutetium drugs. We see the pharmacy working in tandem with a more efficient manufacturing infrastructure and to really to go that last mile. Where the theranostics space is going is moving away from this idea that we're going to do fixed-dose administrations. I think radiopharma is the only field of oncology where we do a prescribed fixed dosing for a patient irrespective of their biology or their body weight. To be able to go in and actually start to optimize treatment, you're going to need to have something that does dose calibration and dispensing into a prefilled syringe, and you can't do that without a nuclear pharmacy. You really need to have both. You need to have the central manufacturing capabilities, which we have, and you need to have the last mile of delivery, which we also do both internally and with certain very important and select partners. The distribution piece is really critical, and I think historically, companies kind of felt, well, we can be a radiopharma company and we can do pipeline and we can create cool products, but they don't really think about how they're going to operationalize those products. You need to have pipeline, right? You need to have supply chain manufacturing and infrastructure, and you need to have really control over your isotope supply chain, which we've made a number of critical investments in. Then, the nod to Kevin when he talks later on about some of the activities in Precision Medicine, you need to have a sales force because selling radiopharmaceuticals is not the same as selling conventional pharmaceutical products. You're not shipping a blister pack or a vial. You're actually delivering a clinical workflow that goes from the time that that radioactive product is delivered to a customer site through how do you do injection, how do you do safety, ambulatory radiation exposure, scanning, dosimetry, and even we do waste recovery. Right? It's a full cycle of service that sits on the back, and if you don't have that, then you're ultimately not really going to deliver radiopharma. We've taken a very holistic approach. We think that on a strategic basis, there are many pieces of that value chain that we want to vertically integrate, and that's been reflected in our investment activities over the last few years. An extension there is just maybe the RLS acquisition, how that sort of fits in with your strategy, too. Maybe talk a little bit about that and how it sort of fits in with some of the points you've mentioned. Yeah, that's right. When we launched the company, we were entirely dependent on third-party distribution. But we're seeing some distribution moving up the value chain into pharmaceuticals. We're seeing some pharmaceutical companies being inquisitive about distribution, like we are and others. Ultimately, there's a scarcity value in the nuclear pharmacy networks and distribution. I think over the weekend, we heard about GE's acquisition of SOFIE, which is yet another example of a company annexing distribution capacity. I think that this is kind of the trend. We were ahead of the curve. We think that the assets that we acquired and the capabilities that we acquired are the best in the industry and give us an advantage in terms of how we take control of our product distribution in the future. Yeah. Yeah, if I could just add a little bit to that. As we think about that base of delivering the product, how you compete in the future is really what you're developing now. When you look at both the therapeutic pipeline and the diagnostic pipeline and the theranostic pairs that we're putting together, market leadership is about not only being able to develop those products, have the ideas and the discipline to go into those different therapies and into those disease states, being able to deliver it is a key component of that, and then the kind of third strategic pillar is building out a specialized commercial team that really represents the product and builds a preference for Telix products out in the marketplace each and every day. Our specialized team, we've talked about several times, but it's more modular. It's not just a salesperson, it's a field market access, it's a clinical specialist, it's a medical science liaison. It's really about what does it take for that customer to be successful, to bring it into their clinical workflow and make it a part of their patient service line that they offer, and it helps them then compete in the marketplace as well. Strategically, the imaging with the therapeutic, do you see that as differentiated relative to your peers? Do you think this is a strategy that Telix is looking to implement? Do you think that sets you apart from other players in this space? Well, I think it does. We can acknowledge the challenges of it. The challenges of it, that it's extra capital deployed, that maybe the products have a different return on investment, but they also have a different development risk associated with them. We've been very fortunate. We've built a business, this year we do about AUD 1 billion in sales, and it finances hundreds of millions of dollars of R&D. So it hasn't been a detour for the company at all. As Kevin said, it's paved the way for building relationships with key oncology and radiology nuclear medicine stakeholders. There isn't a better advertisement for a new therapeutic than the scan that shows the target expression from your toes to your nose kind of thing. We see huge strategic value, financial value, and regulatory de-risk. I would even go so far as saying that we've seen the explosion of lots of small radiopharma companies. They treat radioactivity as just another payload, and those companies will find to their peril when they go and talk to regulators that they don't really have a game plan for patient selection. The regulatory view in this space is that if you're going to subject a patient to the exposure conditions of radiation, you have to make sure that that patient is really eligible for that therapy. These therapies are not for the faint-hearted. When you see a scan of a patient that successfully responded to PSMA therapy or CA9 therapy or FAP therapy, that patient has undergone a dramatic biological response. These are highly potent therapeutics, and it's great. The patient outcomes are amazing. They're actually only amazing, though, if you select the right patient, and that's why the imaging is so vitally important. Our view is that a radiopharmaceutical therapeutic is not viable, particularly in advanced disease, without a more sophisticated patient selection approach. I'll come to de-risking and label expansion in a second, maybe to Kevin. But to Kevin, to you, some very strong financials in the first half driven by the PSMA franchise. Can you maybe talk a little bit about how you're thinking about the growth opportunities for Precision Medicine, including PIXCLARA and Zircaix? Sure. When we think about Precision Medicine, we do look at it longitudinal like that. We believe, and can talk more about BiPASS in a little bit, but when we think of PSMA, we still see that franchise growing. But we also see that Precision Medicine and that diagnostic customer that we talked to, the nuclear med physician, as kind of the key point of that nuclear scan. We think PIXCLARA is that next stepping stone and then Zircaix as well. When you really think about those three products, we're talking to really the exact same customer that's reading that scan. Two of those fit really well into the urology franchise, and then one of them is in the neurology franchise, and we have a specialized team, like I talked about that modular approach, to really build out that neurology relationship and that referral right back into the nuclear med physician that's actually reading that scan. When we think about Precision Medicine, we think about it broadly now. Again, what we think a market leader does is expands the opportunity for their customers to treat their patients better and do that in multiple different disease states that they treat and work with each and every day. It is a big part of the way we see PSMA continuing to grow, building and developing a new market in neuro-oncology, and then adding to it with Zircaix and doing something very similar to what we are doing now in PSMA, in Zircaix, by taking a disease state that has really no good way to diagnose it. The watch and wait, the scanxiety that develops when you are told, "If you have a lesion in your kidney, we are going to watch it with a scan every six months." That has a lot of anxiety built to it when really what you want to know is simple: Is that cancer or is that not? We believe that Zircaix is going to help us build out that. We are seeing the confidence in PSMA scans and in nuclear med scans is growing each and every day, which is why we believe that the PSMA scans still have room to grow because more and more urologists every day believe and have confidence in that scan and what it is going to tell them. Yeah. In terms of Zircaix and very strong data, ZIRCON-X, so some really good data there as well. It is within guidelines. Now it is just a matter of getting the bits and pieces sorted until we maybe see that approved later sometime in 2026, 2027. Well, yeah, we are very close to resubmitting. As you know, we had a late amendment to our CRL, which we had to respond to, which delayed our submission from around the middle of the year till around about, as I have repeatedly said, any time now. We still expect to resubmit that this year. The package is in good shape, just a question of dotting the I's and crossing the T's. In terms of thinking about label expansion, I suppose there are two points here. One, you can internally fund your own R&D program. You have the initial approval for PIXCLARA, but then you have the ability to extend the label into metastases. Can you maybe talk a little bit about how that could expand the market even further above the initial label? Then I will jump into BiPASS for something similar. Sure. Well, maybe I will do the mets and you can do the bi. Yeah. Well, so there is a lot of misconceptions about PIXCLARA. When you have an orphan drug strategy, it is really different than a large indication strategy like for PSMA. We also wanted to focus on the data that is most impactful to decision-making in GBM, right? There is a huge clinical conundrum when you have a patient that reoccurs. You do not know whether the disease is actual progression, pseudo-progression, treatment-related effects, and that is where the clinical evidence for FET- PET is very strong. If you want to build a beachhead with your stakeholder, you want to build one that is mission-critical, and that is the most mission-critical application for amino acid imaging. The package that we submitted to the agency and the corresponding label that we have now is quite broad, really covers the patient journey for GBM. Now, the practice guidelines are much wider, and we want to, in the fullness of time through clinical activity, fill out the space to align the label with the practice guidelines. A patient gets scanned many times in the journey of their GBM progression. It is not a single time point activity. So when you are very dogmatic about the market opportunity for PIXCLARA, it looks at first blush like it is a small opportunity, but in fact, it is longitudinally a very significant opportunity in that progressive reoccurring GBM space because you are constantly monitoring those patients. Outside of the United States, where FET is more commonplace, still not super commonplace, but more commonplace, it is used just very regularly in that treatment management process. We then see a step change potential in the number of scans when you add the metastatic indications, so mets from non-CNS primaries, where really the goal is to better manage patient palliation, typically with external beam radiation. That is where we sort of see the next event horizon for PIXCLARA. We have a phase III trial up and running now that is recruiting. It is expected to recruit quite well. It is an unmet medical need. There is a lot of enthusiasm for the trial. We wanted to hold off on filing it till we had clarity with the FDA, because did not want to confound the conversation. But when we were confident that we were on the right track, we filed it, and that protocol is up and running. As I said, that is going to be, again, a really meaningful increase in the procedure volume for PIXCLARA and the patient impact. It also, I think, speaks really well to our partnership with Varian. Being able to increasingly guide treatment decisions around external beam radiation in certain application areas is very powerful, and we are very supportive of that. Maybe just in terms of that orphan status versus the broader market, is there any sort of think about there from a sales perspective, a revenue opportunity perspective, anything to compare and contrast versus the PSMA business? Well, we have not gone out with a lot of visibility on pricing. That will come in the coming months. But clearly, it is a more specialist product. It is a much lower volume product than, say, prostate. It is still a great volume, it is still a decent number of scans. So our pricing will reflect more the niche nature of the market. It is also we have to accommodate a wider variety of patients. So the label supports patients from one month and above. Yep. That is really, again, as we deliver the product to the customer, there is a little bit of customization that is required there, and that will be reflected in the pricing structure. Kevin, might move on to BiPASS. You recently shared your view on how transformative this could potentially be. Can you talk about the landscape and the limitations today in diagnosing prostate cancer and what you are trying to accomplish in this regard? Yeah, really exciting transformation, we think, in the space. Every 40, 50-year-old man starts to start hearing friends, neighbors, and family members that are going through this process with an increasing PSA, which is still a difficult test to trace. The pathway right now is increasing PSA too high over 4 or 5, you get an MRI scan. Your MRI scan has an index called a PI-RADS, and they will rate you 1 through 5. Based on that, we have an indication right now that if you are a high-risk male or suspicious for metastatic disease, you can get a PSMA PET scan. That is where we sit right now. What happens now in the trial, it goes PSMA, MRI, PET, and then biopsy. If you do need a biopsy, there are about 800,000 biopsies a year right now in the U.S. There is really a million men that need it, so about 200,000 men just say no, and then later on they get picked up in the high-risk male category if they progress. But what we think can happen is, and the way the trial is set up, is that if a patient has a negative PET, then they will not need to go on to the biopsy, which is super painful. It is a snap-type core needle biopsy 12- 20 times to really make that diagnosis. So it is not nothing. It is not a quick test, it is not a skin biopsy. It is pretty invasive. Those men that are negative on PSMA PET will not have to get that. If they are showing the same indications, they will still go under the physician protocol of another scan every year or every two years based on their presentation. What you will hear from doctors when they do a biopsy and it comes back negative is the hard part. One of our leading physicians that did the recruitment would say, "I cannot tell you that you do not have prostate cancer because you have a negative biopsy. I can only tell you that we did not find it." That means you are going to come back in, watch your PSMA, and maybe get another biopsy in a year or two anyway and still go under that biopsy needle. We think that by looking at what the number of negative biopsies that we think we can rule out in PSMA will both do two things. It will transform one small step for mankind is not getting the biopsy. Then we think it will be transformational for the TAM that is involved with that, because we think there is 800,000- 1 million scans. When you talk to our strategic advisory boards and some of our leading recruiters in that, they believe that done correctly and placed correctly in that algorithm of a patient presentation, that initial staging, you will catch all that with the BiPASS biopsy, so that indication will decrease. Then because they are treating patients better because they have got a better view of the prostate cancer, they believe that biochemical recurrence will come down a bit. The overall market then shifts to the left. We call it before the biopsy, so it is pre-biopsy, and then doubles basically from the entire market that we see what it is today at 600,000+ scans to 1 million-plus scans on the other side, of which we believe that once a doctor starts with a gallium scan like Gozellix, then they will want to follow that patient with a gallium scan so they can really look at apples to apples instead of apples to orange. So we believe it is a big change in the thought process, and that is why I mentioned that urologists are so important because they are starting to understand the value and the power of a PSMA PET scan. That is why they are excited about the TLX250 product that we have. They are also seeing now the value of how sensitive and specific it can be. We just sit down with the strategic advisory board the other day, and the selling process that they have to go through sometimes to get a man to do a biopsy is quite difficult at times because they are trying to do what is best for the patient. The patient has heard how difficult these can be and is not wanting to. The idea is to be able to do this scan up front, quickly rule out those that do not need it, and we call it none and done, and then as you find something positive, then you would simply target your biopsies in a more precise way where the prostate cancer is and yield better results. That is the idea of BiPASS and what we are trying to demonstrate. We will see that data. That data, as you know, we finalized enrolling that trial last month, and now we have a six-month window that we have to do follow up. Yeah. Then we will start the FDA process again. Just to add to that, I think it is instructive to think of the current indications that we have, which essentially bookend a prostatectomy. That was the training wheels that we needed in the industry to get confidence, to get physician confidence. Now, because we have demonstrated the sensitivity and specificity, and it is exquisitely sensitive and specific, and particularly gallium, because it has a much lower incidence of indeterminate bone lesions, which is a hallmark of fluorinated products. We actually can not only capture that upfront space, but we can keep it. What we think is that is going to, as Kevin said, is going to push the scan volume to the left and really reduce the need to bring patients in, particularly for high risk. Because we are going to have better patient compliance, as Kevin pointed out, a lot of that 200,000 men that prefer not to, a lot of those are the people that get into the process too late and then end up contributing to the BCR pool on the back end. We are also going to see, hopefully, because that would be a great outcome for patients, to see less recurrence because we are staging and diagnosing better on the front end. Yeah. I think it's a really big shift. The specific numbers, I think, that you provided, AUD 670 is currently up to AUD 1.32. I am going to be a bit more specific than a bit over AUD 600 and a bit over AUD 1 million. It is quite significant. I suppose the extension here is there is some pretty good data out there already. In a sense, somewhat the risk from a clinical data perspective, maybe just briefly, just in terms of what's out there, in terms of other clinical data. From a payer perspective, you mentioned less biopsies being done from a reimbursement perspective, it does not make sense from a public health perspective. Right. Yeah. The pharmacoeconomics health, we did all the health economic studies. It is clear that it saves the healthcare system money by managing that biopsy process better. From a reimbursement perspective, it is a clear business case. What was the other part of your question? Sorry, jet lag. Data. Data. Data is out there already. Data, yeah. Data's out there already. Mm. Well, yeah. We always get to build on the shoulders of giants, right? So there's the PRIMARY and PRIMARY2 studies. We actually took the PRIMARY study data, which was published some time ago, and the PRIMARY2 protocol when it was first announced. We actually took that collaboratively to the agency to see whether or not we could use PRIMARY2 as a registration-enabling study. Because it was a hypothesis validation study, it wasn't really statistically structured for a registration study, so the FDA declined. BiPASS was born, which should really be thought of as PRIMARY 3. The same investigators contributed to the study, designed the study. We went through four or five turns with the agency because this is a big health outcome if the study's successful, and there's a lot of sensitivity around changing practice and medicine. It took a few turns to get there. I think that we have a high degree of confidence in the study because of the hundreds of patients that have been studied in well-powered and well-designed studies before it. So yeah, but high degree of confidence. Yeah, maybe just coming back to an earlier question I had. Just given this iterative engagement with the FDA, do you think you are getting better and better at doing this? Have you learned through previous applications and things like that now that you are just finding that you are fine-tuning that process a little bit? I do not think anyone ever gets good at dealing with the FDA. Fair enough. We might move on to therapeutics if we can. You have got several late-stage programs, Chris. Given your presence in prostate cancer, can you talk about the therapeutics portfolio and how the pipeline candidates are positioned within the prostate cancer treatment landscape? Sure. We have a Phase III trial that is recruiting now. It is actually recruiting nicely, ex-U.S. This is for our TLX591. This is our antibody-directed therapy. This is in first and second-line castrate-resistant disease. It is a very nice trial design because it incorporates a very flexible standard of care. One of the things that I think is underappreciated by the market around this asset is the fact that it is a very short treatment duration. The reason why clinicians love it so much is it is very easy to layer into the treatment journey. It is not 40 weeks of therapy like this current standard of care. It is two shots, 14 days apart, that is it. It has been shown in prior studies and in the widespread use of the asset that it gives really prolonged slow decline in PSA over a very long period of time. It is disease stabilizing. We have presented preliminary PFS data that shows that it's competitive, but the dosing schedule and the amount of injected radiation is just a lot lower. That's really important. It's important that when a patient goes to get injected, they don't have radioactive pee, they don't have radioactive vomit. It's a very benign administration process. There's no salivary gland or no material salivary gland uptake, so quality-of-life issues are very high. But the principal advantage is that it's a short deviation to nuclear medicine, and then the patient goes back to their referral physician, right? In some countries as well, the standard of care is an inpatient process because of the relatively high levels of activity. For example, in Japan, we already have a drug class ruling as an outpatient procedure because our imparted dose is so low. That has a big impact on reimbursement and economics. Some countries we will win just based on that. Anyway, very exciting phase III trial. We have a futility analysis or an interim analysis that's based on futility that we expect to read out sometime around the end of this year or early next year. It's event-driven, so we just don't know exactly when it's going to be. But the trial is recruiting well ex-US, and we did have a good meeting with the FDA to look at the, w e had a run-in study that we agreed with the agency as part of the phase III activity. They were happy with the data. We have a green light subject to an IND amendment, which is just in the process of kind of going through an IND amendment to then include U.S. patients into the study. But we don't see any barriers to doing that, and clearly, we've got a lot of investigators that are excited about bringing that asset on. That program, because it's an antibody, it's a macromolecule, it's designed really for targeting bulky disease. That's a very good asset in the castrate-resistant space. When you start looking at hormone-sensitive cancers, it's a very different biology, it's a very different disease burden. For the last few years, we've been researching a small molecule approach, actually originally intended for use with actinium. The goal really to compare biologic versus small molecule delivery approaches for actinium. So we're not sold one way or another. But the general goal is you want to have low hematologic toxicity. You want to have no real kidney dose. You want to watch the salivaries and the lacrimal glands because they tend to be damaged pretty badly by actinium, and if you're moving into an early patient population, and that's a man that's going to live for a very long time, and you blow out their salivary glands, life is a much less pleasant journey from that point onwards. So that's how TLX597 came to be. We see, given that the data in the hormone-sensitive space it's a bit controversial, let's say. It's not a slam dunk. We do see an opportunity for better assets to play a role there. We have to obviously demonstrate the clinical utility, but we feel like we've got a really winning asset there in terms of much higher imparted tumor dose, one-fifth of the kidney uptake, a similar sort of reduction in salivary gland uptake. That means that the dose and dosimetry profile in what are relatively healthy patients compared to where we have been traditionally doing RLT. I think the TLX597 program is very exciting. We have completed a 120-patient randomized trial to look at dose intensification strategies there as well. We are really taking advantage of the better dosimetry of this asset to much more aggressively treat the patient. It turns out that on the first dose of PSMA radioligand therapy in a hormone-sensitive patient, PSMA levels rise. You can follow, you can slipstream that first dose a couple of days later with a far more aggressive treatment schedule. We are really doing with TLX597 what we have been doing with TLX591, which is building that dose intensification, very short treatment schedule, day one, day three, day 15, and that is the substantive therapy for the patient. I think that is a big new way of thinking in the field. The data that we are generating is really exciting. You will see over the next six months, more as that data matures, you will see more outcome. If the asset lands the way that we think it will, we will probably move it into a phase III study next year. Just to be clear, strategically, various parts of the patient disease progression. It is not like one is replacing the other. No. You are looking at TLX597 at the hormone-sensitive, TLX591 at the castrate-resistant, just to be clear. Correct. Yeah. The OPTIMAL study was in castrate-resistant disease so that we have an apples-to-apples comparison when we go and talk to regulators, to have that comparable safety profile. We now have the OPTIMAL-e study running, which is the hormone-sensitive. Yeah, that trial is recruiting really fast and hopefully will be done in the next couple of months. Got time for one more very quick one if I can. Earlier this year, you announced a collaboration with Regeneron to develop next-generation candidates. Can you walk us through the strategic rationale behind the partnership and what each company brings to the collaboration? Yeah, look, we don't talk hugely about it. Fundamentally, we're one of the few companies that is really targeting agent-agnostic. We develop small molecules, we develop peptides, we develop antibodies. We've always taken the view that the pharmacophore should be chosen on the basis of the scientific problem you're trying to solve, and I think that's really reflected in the pipeline. We do really like biologics, and it's an underexplored area in nuclear medicine, mainly because the historic academic leadership in nuclear medicine didn't have the resources to make antibodies and engineer proteins and stuff like that. So it's an underdeveloped opportunity. But with biologics, you get incredible selectivity. You can control the pharmacology of your assets. I just think that if we're really thinking about what does next-generation products look like, where you want to match your pharmacology to your half-life of your isotopes, we've got things like actinium, we've got things like Lead-212, we've got astatine, very high potential, let alone the things that we've been developing historically, based on lutetium. But I think if you can really align particularly the alphas with the biology and the targeting agent, well, you're going to get much better next-generation medicines. So what we bring to the table in the partnership, we know how to a first approximation, develop radiopharmaceuticals. We have the commercial infrastructure to manufacture, distribute, and sell them. Regeneron, of course, is a commercially formidable organization, but I think their real strength is in the science of biologics. They are just a machine cranking out superb proteins, protein engineering, bispecifics, just stuff that could be really a game changer in radiopharma. I think they are very complementary forces, and it is an exciting collaboration from that perspective. Okay. We are on time, so I will finish it there. Thanking you both very much. Great to see you, and hope to chat again soon. Yeah. Great. Well, thank you for your time.