Good morning, everyone. Thank you for joining day one, first session of the conference this year. Pleased to have Anthony Pagano from Genmab with us. Anthony, thank you for joining. Yeah. Great. Great to be here today, Rajan. You know, thanks for having us back at the conference here today, and look forward to having a great discussion with you. Yeah, sure. Do you want to maybe just kick off by making a few introductions? Yeah. That'd be great. I appreciate the opportunity to kind of set the stage and then dive into your questions. As I kind of reflect on Genmab at the moment, really what stands out for me is us coming off a very strong Q1 and a very strong ASCO. You sort of think about what's driving that, that positive momentum and that strength in the ASCO and the Q1. For me, it really starts with the super strong foundation that we've built out over the last number of years. That's really across our entire business. It starts with the team. Think about the team that we've built and how they've been both executing and delivering. Think about on the development side how we've really been able to put our foot on the gas pedal around Epkinly, and how we're very well poised to do that again for Rina-S. You're looking at potential first in human, potential approval at record speed. That development team is really executing. Likewise, from a commercial perspective, look at how that team is executing and, in many cases, winning in the marketplace against very fierce competition. The strong foundation starts with the team. Of course, it extends through to the technologies. Of course, you all know HexaBody and DualBody. We've added on to that with the acquisition of ProfoundBio and the ADC platform. Super strong technology. Pipeline, 10 assets in the clinic. I'm sure we're gonna do a deeper dive there across a number of those. Of course, the financials. Very strong start to the year, 19% revenue growth, 62% operating income growth. It is really that super strong foundation that creates our future growth opportunities. That foundation allows us to execute today and create those strong growth opportunities moving forward. Really, at the beginning of the year, in more concrete terms, we outlined for all of you what those growth opportunities look like moving forward, particularly around EPKINLY, Rina-S, and Acasunlimab. We outlined how we're gonna create value for patients and also drive revenues moving forward. Think about the progress that we've made so far this year. At the beginning of the year for EPKINLY, where we outlined the potential $3 billion plus peak sales opportunity, we outlined the five phase three trials that are gonna drive that revenue in the future. We also outlined that three of those five phase threes will read out between now and the end of 2026. Excitingly, in May, we had the first phase three readout in second line FL, and have already filed that. It goes back to outlining that framework and then actually delivering on that promise and then executing very quickly in terms of getting that filing done. More to come for EPKINLY. Rina-S, again, made substantial progress. At the beginning of the year, we outlined that this is a potential $2 billion-plus peak sales opportunity. We outlined the building blocks there. Look at where we're at today and where we're gonna be at by the end of 2025. We have an ongoing phase 3 in second line-plus PROC. We have then two additional phase threes that are planned to start by the end of 2025 in terms of second line plus endometrial and the PICCOLO trial as well. As a reminder, in addition to the phase threes, there are two potential accelerated approval opportunities, one in PROC and one in endometrial. Last but not least, in terms of Acasunlimab, very excited there about the potential of that potential product and sharing more data in the later part of this year. If we start to step back and just look again at that very strong foundation that allows us not only to execute and deliver today, but that strong foundation is really the engine that will create these future growth opportunities moving forward. When those growth opportunities emerge, allow us to actually realize their full potential. I think Genmab is in a super strong foundation, super strong position and a great start to the year, with the Q1 results, as well as a very strong ASCO, where we were there to ASCO to really round things out. We were able to present some very exciting data, particularly in second line plus endometrial cancer. With that, maybe we dive into your questions. Yeah, sure. We'll get into the pipeline and the micro as we talked about there, but just maybe just kind of starting out from a sector perspective and a macro where there's been a lot of focus recently. Could you just maybe talk about potential implications of tariffs on the sector if they are applied and sort of how you're thinking about mitigating any potential effect? Yeah. I think, as you kind of enter in any discussions along these lines, Rajan, I think it's important to always remind ourselves why we're here at Genmab or why we're here as an industry, and that's to help patients. That is our first and foremost goal. Our job is to make sure that we have all of the tools in place to do just that. That's what we stay laser-sharp focused on every day as we wake up, making sure we're really going as fast as possible to bring important medicines to patients. That's what we have to be grounded in. There's always gonna be potential risks out there, whether it be the things that you're talking about or others that may emerge. Our job as an industry and people that are, you know, running a business like Genmab is to evaluate those risks, look for potential opportunities to mitigate them, and then think about how we exactly want to do that. That is what we're focused on here at Genmab, really applying all of the tools that we have to deliver breakthrough therapies to medicine, to patients. As potential risks emerge, we think about how we can potentially, you know, mitigate those. As a matter of just sort of, you know, maybe more directly answering your question now, we're not gonna get into speculation. You know, until we have actually real firm policy out there, we're not gonna get into speculation what this may or may not mean for our business. Rest assured, we have a team in place that's evaluating all the potential risks for our business, including these, and coming up with potential mitigation strategies. Okay. Cool. Maybe we'll switch gears then to Epkinly. So obviously, as you talked about, it's been a, it's been a pretty encouraging start. How would you kind of characterize the success of the launch relative to your initial internal expectations? I think as you think about Epkinly or more broadly our journey or evolution from a, let's call it a development sort of stage biotech to a company that's actually commercializing its own medicines, this didn't happen overnight. We actually started thinking about this more than a decade ago and then really started in earnest, planning and building out the team as we got into the 2019, 2020 timeframe. We started making important investments then that are now paying dividends. This was building out the US market in the first instance, then building out our Japanese market and being very thoughtful about what kind of resources and what level of resources we wanted to deploy. As we started thinking more particularly about building out the team and the resources and everything that you need to, to launch a product for Epkinly, we had an eye towards not this, this not being a third line plus product. We had an eye that this was a product that could make a meaningful difference for patients, ultimately get into second line, ultimately get into front line, and also acknowledging that there was fierce competition. This was a thoughtful multi-year build, and we can see it now, you know, paying, paying dividends. I think the success that we're enjoying today, of course, it starts with the product characteristics that Epkinly enjoys. We can dive into those, but it really is a, also a function of the team and the overall resources we put in place, over a number of years to make sure that we were positioned for success when Epkinly was, was launched. Okay. You kind of talked about laying at the top of the session, you kind of talked about earlier in the year how you laid out the opportunity for Epkinly. Can you maybe just sort of build the blocks as to how this gets to where your guidance is, how this becomes a multi-billion product? What are the key trials that we should be focusing on? Yeah. So right now, Epkinly, as everyone knows, is in the market and approved in many countries for third line plus DLBCL and third line plus follicular lymphoma. That is driving the business that we see today, helping pay those patients and driving the revenues today. In addition to that, there are five ongoing phase three trials that will read out between, well, three of those five will read out between now and the end of 2026. Of course, the major building block there is the front line DLBCL trial. Again, that fits within that timeframe. We look very much to seeing that. We also have the second line plus follicular lymphoma, again, that read out earlier this year and remind everybody that data has already been filed with the FDA. Those are the major building blocks I would highlight. You pointed out that the second line follicular trial read out earlier than expected. Is there any possibility that the DLBCL trials could be earlier than expectations? Yeah. We're gonna stick to our guidance, Rajan. We said between now and the end of 2026, when I'm in a position or Genmab's in a position to provide more refined thinking around timelines, if at all, that's when we would, you know, do that. As everyone knows, this is an event-driven trial. We are, you know, dependent upon the events occurring. Okay. There was obviously your competitor, Roche. They had a negative ODAC opinion. Could you maybe just talk about Epkinly's potential approval in the same setting and how confident you are there? Look, we've built out the overall development program for Epkinly thoughtfully with our partner over a number of years. These trials, these five phase threes, are now in a very good position to start reading out, as I've highlighted. All I can say is those trials were thought out carefully. Obviously, in any trial, there's inherent risk, but those trials were thought out carefully, and we look forward to seeing the data when they're ultimately released. I'm not gonna get into commenting on Roche's ODAC. Okay. Cool. Maybe we'll come back to Epkinly, but also wanted to touch on Rina-S just given the recency of the ASCO data. Again, could you, I know when you sort of talked into the event, we talked about a bar for the data on the response rates of around 10% to 15%. You obviously came in much stronger than that. How does that change perception of Rina-S and what the potential of the asset is? When we looked at potentially acquiring Rina-S, our hypothesis was that this is a phase three ready asset, and this product had the potential to treat patients regardless of folate receptor alpha expression levels. You know, so far, that hypothesis is really, you know, proving out. Still, you know, early days, but we've been able to demonstrate and put our foot on the gas pedal by starting these phase threes, planning more, as well as the data we're seeing both in PROC, platinum-resistant ovarian cancer, as well as second line plus endometrial cancer. We're seeing this hypothesis prove out there as well where we're able to treat patients and help patients, again, early days, small patient numbers regardless of folate receptor alpha expression levels in doing that while maintaining a very, relatively speaking, very high response rate in both tumor settings. On one hand, this is, you know, very encouraging, and maybe to the market a bit of a, an upside surprise. For us, it's delivering on what we thought we were getting when we bought. It's basically our hypothesis is being proven out, as we move forward. I think we shouldn't forget, you know, obviously, response rate in terms of the number of patients you can help is very, very important. However, what's even maybe as important or more important is that duration of response. There, the data we've been able to present so far, particularly in PROC, is very encouraging, what we're seeing in terms of the duration of the response. Not only are you helping more patients at a higher rate, you're also then helping them for longer. There's actually three potential tiers to the, the benefit or the relative benefit that, that Rina-S is able to provide for, for patients. And for me, that's super exciting, as potentially delivering on all the promise and hope when we acquired the product, you know, only over one year ago. Yeah. Could you just remind us on timings then? As you said, the two phase threes are ongoing. When should we be looking at phase three data and first launch? Again, I think the other thing about the evolution of Genmab is it goes back to the team and the execution. When we acquired Rina-S, we said that we were potentially gonna get this to market, first approval in 2027, and that remains the case here today. We're absolutely on track to do that, whether it be through the phase two accelerated approval or the phase three, both potentially could drive that result in terms of first approval in 2027. Absolutely remain on track to deliver just that. That would come from PROC. Yeah. If you go down the accelerated approval path, do you have alignment with the FDA on what kind of response rate will be required? Overall, it's gonna be data dependent. I mean, there are, you know, it's gonna be data dependent. Certainly, we've had discussions with the FDA, but it's absolutely gonna be data dependent. That will be a function of response rate and duration. Okay. Okay. In terms of next data updates, when should we expect that from a presentation perspective? We've, maybe to set the scene here a little bit, we presented some really nice response rate data for PROC at the back half of last year, provided the duration data earlier this year. We're looking for a potential update to that data, whether it be in the back half of this year or early next year. Okay. Would that be more patients or just longer exposure? Longer exposure. Really, the idea was to put our foot on the gas pedal here, really finish out that. Of course, we did the dose expansion work. That's sort of now locked in terms of patient numbers. Now the idea is putting all the patients into the potentially pivotal phase two. Yeah. And then maybe if we just kind of think about the competitive landscape in the folate receptor alpha space, there's a few other ADCs in development, one approved. How do you think about the differentiation of, of Rina-S, from a technological perspective? Is there something different on the, in the, in the ADC that means it's differentiated relative to, EGFR, for example, or we saw some data from Lilia Asko as well? I think about, we talk about our product and Rina-S, and we, again, one of our hypotheses when we bought the product was that this is potential best in class. Yeah. Now a year plus later, we think in our minds that is proving out that that potential is there, and our job is to actually realize that potential. Now, what's driving that? Really, you think about ultimately what is an ADC drug trying to do, it is trying to deliver chemo to the tumor. That is a function of really how much chemo you can deliver and what is the strength of that chemo. We think with the characteristics of Rina-S in particular, we're able to deliver a lot of chemo, the DAR of eight and a super strong chemo. I think that is ultimately one of the reasons we're seeing this very nice effect and benefit for patients. Now, what is that benefit? I spoke about it earlier. Relative to existing competition, we're able to help potentially, right, more patients. We're able to help them at a higher rate, higher response rate. Third, we're able to essentially drive a duration of response that is significantly longer. There are again three tiers to that potential benefit of Rina-S relative to existing competition. In terms of future competition, you know, I think we are ahead in many respects. Our job, again, is to put the foot on the gas pedal to go as fast and as broad as we can. That brings me back to what I said earlier, having the right team in place to do just that. I think we have a product with the characteristics to potentially be best in class, and we absolutely have the right team to, you know, exploit that product, the characteristics. Okay. And then obviously, you've talked about potential of Rina-S in opportunities outside of ovarian cancer, outside of endometrial cancer. We've seen some of the data where it looks like there's good levels of folate receptor expression. Can you maybe just talk to some of the other indications where the asset may have some utility? Yeah. I think, again, it goes back to the product characteristics of Rina-S. Given the way we're able to deliver the chemo to the tumor via this product, it means that ultimately we're able to help patients with lower levels of folate receptor alpha expression levels, which then potentially opens up the field for future, you know, indications. In a first order, we're super focused in ovarian cancer and endometrial cancer. There we already have ongoing phase three work, and there's probably more to come there as we move forward. Now, given the product characteristics, it's absolutely incumbent upon us to look for expansion opportunities. That's exactly what we're doing. We're starting off with non-small cell lung cancer. Of course, we keep our eye open for additional opportunities, you know, moving forward. In the first order, this expansion work or this work, this phase two trial that we announced over a week ago is a signal-seeking study. The idea here is to really get Rina-S in the non-small cell lung cancer setting into the appropriate, you know, centers of care and sites, really specialists to really do the proper evaluation of the product in that setting. Yeah. Obviously it's relatively recently since you announced or at least disclosed the phase two trial in non-small cell lung cancer. Can we just kind of run through a few details there? Is that going to be enriched for folate receptor expression? I think the idea initially is that this is gonna be an all-comers trial. Okay. That it won't be in any specific driver mutation? No, for the startup. I think initially it's gonna be in the EGFR mutated. Okay. Okay. And then maybe just in that setting, again, there's a competitive development space that exists in second line non-small cell lung cancer, including in the EGFR. You've got the TROP2 ADCs, for example. How do you think Rina-S could compare there? I think that's why we're gonna do the trial. I mean, you could have said the same thing about Rina-S potentially in ovarian cancer. You could have said the same thing about Rina-S in endometrial cancer. So far, we've shown a product that is really standing out. The reception at ASCO was very, very strong for Rina-S in endometrial. There was probably maybe some skepticism from some going into that about what the actual product would look like. I think we've demonstrated, at least in endometrial, that it's, at least for now, really separating itself from the potential competition. No promise there that we can do the same in non-small cell lung cancer. Given the product characteristics, this is an investment that Genmab should absolutely be making to see if we can expand the opportunity. That's exactly what we're gonna do. More to come. Yeah. I think so far Rina-S is demonstrating some very encouraging activity across the board. Again, why is that? It goes back to the linker enabling us to deliver a lot of chemo and a very strong chemo. Okay. The phase one data to support the, the initiation of the phase two, that's from the basket trial, right? Yeah. I think the logic for us going into this trial is a function of the totality of the data we've seen regardless of tumor type. It's not just the small number of patients in that basket trial. It's really looking at the totality of patients that we've dosed so far with Rina-S and how they're responding to the drug. Now, again, part of drug development is really making sure you're setting up your drug for success, and that's a function of many things, but it also includes running the exact proper trial. That's why the team is focused in on running this phase two trial, standalone phase two trial. That's going to be focused on really getting the right sites up, the proper sites to evaluate Rina-S in that setting. Okay. When will we see the phase one data from that basket trial? I don't think we've committed yet. We'll have to wait and see. I wouldn't take a lot from that trial. Again, it's gonna be a very, very small number of patients, dose escalation. I think really what you're gonna be doing is waiting for the phase two data from this new trial that's just to be initiated. Yeah. And then we'll talk Acasunlimab in a moment as well, but obviously that's second line non-small cell lung cancer. So there's an overlapping patient population here. Is that fair? And could both of these assets actually coexist? I think for, for 1046, I still call it 1046. Yeah. Or DualBody PD-L1 4-1BB, Acasunlimab, probably in order of ease of saying the names. That's a non-driver mutated. I think these are two potential shots on goal to help patients in second line plus lung cancer. Still a well, very, very underserved patient population. It's, look, I mean, if we're not gonna go after this with an ADC approach, we know that others are. I think, you know, you kind of get this overlapping question once in a while. To me, you know, if you have a product that potentially works in a setting, you should at least do some clinical work to evaluate if it is really gonna provide a benefit for patients. Because if you don't do it, I'm pretty sure that somebody else will. It's coming back to, you know, the competition you see in the space at the moment. And you talked about the strength of the efficacy data at ASCO. I guess one of the very small niggles that came out was potentially the neutropenia profile of Rina-S. How confident are you there, and what's been the feedback from physicians and PIs on the trial? Overall, we feel that it's very manageable. The feedback, whether it be in ad boards or from people exactly on the trial, has been positive. Overall, this is manageable and no real concerns as we think about putting this now into the phase three setting. They think that the kind of the risk-benefit profile is very clear in terms of the benefit of this product. That's both in endometrial as well as in PROC. Of course, any safety considerations are important. The team looks for ways to try to mitigate this. Okay. And then just to wrap on, Rina-S, so you have guidance of $2 billion as a, as a potential opportunity. Can you just kind of walk us through the building blocks of that? Is that ovarian and endometrial and anything beyond that would be upside? Correct. Right now the $2 billion is a peak sales estimate. Again, you should think about the context of that $2 billion. When we acquired Rina-S initially, we said $1 billion, and based upon the strength of the data and us executing against the development plan in one short year, we've upgraded that guidance to $2 billion. But you're correct. That's a function of ovarian cancer as well as endometrial cancer. Okay. Anything on top of that would be potential upside. I think let's not get the cart in front of the horse. Let's get the actual signal from indications outside of the gynecological oncology space, and then we can reevaluate potential forecasts. Sounds good. Maybe just staying with lung cancer, and we could touch on Acasunlimab. I think on this one, most investors that we speak to seem to think 'cause this is kind of a high-risk trial, high-risk development path, and potentially have limited value for it in the model. Is that the right way of thinking about it? I mean, obviously we're running the phase three trial. If I said yes, I would be sort of talking against my own or, or our own strategy. Look, we were very encouraged with the data that we saw last year at ASCO. At that point, we showed 17.5, I think 17.4, 17.5 months of overall survival benefit. That compares very well to existing standard of care, which is kind of in the 10-12 month range. It is a significant improvement. We'll have additional data later this year. If that signal were to hold up in that ballpark, we think this is a potential meaningful product for patients in that second line plus lung cancer setting, which again is a very underserved patient population. Ultimately, you know, the data will speak for itself. We think so far the data we've presented is quite compelling. We hear and understand some of the pushback and feedback. Again, we'll have more data in the second half of this year. Okay. And then just in terms of evolving standard of care in the front line, if for example, the PD-L1 or PD-1 bispecifics were to become a new standard of care in first line non-small cell lung cancer, do you think that the trial that's set up for Acasunlimab's insulated, that they could, it still could be used in a second line setting? I think first of all that has to be proven out. We think, and this is a different mechanism of action. The 1046 program or Acasunlimab is really meant to enhance and unleash the power of 4-1BB. We think that this would still have a role in second line plus setting regardless of what standard of care in front line. Okay. On the 4-1BB topic, maybe that's a segue to 1042. When can we expect the update there? Because that's sort of been one of these areas where we've been expecting an update on a development path. Is that still coming this year? Yep. That's absolutely what we're focused on doing with 1042. Yeah, acknowledge it's taken a little bit longer, but sometimes that's how it is in drug development. There are certain products, whether it be Epkinly, Rina-S, there you're dealing more with direct cell kill, broadly speaking. You kind of get an answer quicker. There we've been able to put our foot on the gas pedal. With 1042, we've taken more of a stepwise approach. That's what we continue to do. We'll provide an update in the second half of this year. Okay. And what is it exactly that you're looking for in terms of making that decision on a, a go or no-go basis? I think there's nothing unique there for 1042. When you're looking to, you're at an important point in drug development is transitioning from, let's call it earlier mid-stage to late stage. As you make that transition, there are important considerations, at least, around the financial investment that is required. You're starting potentially then a later stage trial. You're really then unleashing significant manufacturing investment. That's a very important decision, not just for 1042 or for any product. When you do that, you're gonna look at the actual product, the potential risk-benefit, you know, what benefits can provide for patients. You're gonna look at it compared to your own pipeline, and different trade-off decisions you may or may not wanna make. You're gonna look at the external environment. The thought process around 1042 will not be any different than it is for any product that we want to put forward into late stage development. It is a very important decision, and it is a decision that we do not take lightly, you know, at all. Just to remind everybody, in terms of Genmab really being focused on prioritization, as part of our Q3 earnings last year, it would have been in November, we had some pretty compelling data for Tisotumab vedotin in head and neck cancer, second line plus setting, and made the decision not to move forward. It was the same thought process that I just outlined there. There should be no read across for 1042. I am just trying to walk everybody through the thought process around how you make that decision to potentially make a significant investment in a late stage program. Okay. Maybe on that topic of investments, can we talk about BD M&A? It's obviously an area that you've had some success with, with Rina-S and ProfoundBio. It's an area of focus as you've outlined in your capital priorities. Could you just outline what the focus would be from a Genmab perspective? Yeah. I mean, if we think about our capital allocation framework, number one is investing back into our business. And we've outlined how we're doing that, particularly around Rina-S, Epkinly, and Acasunlimab, and also continuing to invest in our commercial capabilities to drive revenues today and set us up for tomorrow. Now, moving forward in terms of future growth opportunities from that earlier stage pipeline, I'm fully confident that there will be more products that get into that late stage, you know, category. I'm also confident, in terms of Rina-S and Epkinly in particular, that there'll be more phase three trials, you know, moving forward. So that first platform in terms of investing back in our business is gonna be a function of more for Rina-S, more for Epkinly, and another product transitioning from earlier mid to late stage development. The second priority in terms of capital allocation is looking at external opportunities. Now, you're right, Rajan, we've done a, I think the team did an excellent job in terms of identifying ProfoundBio, particularly Rina-S, evaluating, transacting, and now really being very good owners of that asset, Rina-S in particular. Now, moving forward, we're looking for assets along the same lines of Rina-S to be very clear. These are potential, either phase three or phase three ready assets, and/or later stage than that, and really looking for something that is, that where we can be very, very good evaluators of it, and then ultimately very good owners. The way to sort of headline the way I think about it is something that looks very similar to Rina-S, that we can be very good evaluators and ultimately very good owners and drive benefit for patients and then, of course, for all of our stakeholders. Okay. In terms of modality, is there a focus here in terms of specific, I think oncology is clearly the place, and you've talked about that. Jan's talked about that in the past as well. From a modality perspective, are you agnostic? Again, I think the overall framework is being very good evaluators. Now, okay, that's simple evaluators. What does that mean? It is what are your capabilities? Our capabilities right now are obviously in antibodies. No one's gonna question that, in oncology. There in oncology, you could look at, you know, where we built up expertise in the gynecological oncology space, in certain blood cancers as well. Obviously we have a bias towards antibodies. For the right opportunity, I think we could probably open up the aperture a bit. Okay. In the last couple of minutes, I just wanted to kind of talk about long-term trajectory. Obviously you have the LOE for Darzalex coming that we all know before the end of the decade. How do you think about profitability through that period? Is there a scenario in which you could grow or keep it flat? Great question, Rajan. Where do profits come from? Profits come from revenue, right? Of course, we all know that we are gonna lose Darzalex. This is not a surprise. We've been planning for this some time. This is one of the reasons we started to scale up our research and discovery engine a number of years ago to create, to build out the pipeline further. Think about it now. We have 10 products in clinical development. Again, first thing to think about, this is not new. We've been planning for this. Second, my comments, where do profits come from? They come from revenues. We've outlined our overall revenue projections for the three lead assets: $3 billion plus for Epkinly, $2 billion plus for Rina-S, and $1 billion for Acasunlimab. Now, for those three programs, particularly Rina-S and Epkinly, I think we can do more, more phase threes, to drive that revenue hopefully up higher. You gave the example of potentially getting outside of the gynecological oncology space for Rina-S as being one idea. For Epkinly, one idea could be getting into, say, CLL, for example. I think we can do a lot more with those three assets. We can also do more in terms of putting our own products into late stage development. We'll do that. The first order is the revenue being there. Revenue looks very, very strong from the Genmab pipeline. Transitioning to revenue also in terms of the royalty medicines, we do not just have Darzalex, right? There are six royalty medicines today, meaning there are another five products that we currently are enjoying revenue from. Those are gonna be growing as we exit this period based upon most projections. There are two additional programs that are either in phase three, these are royalty medicines, or already with the FDA or be with the FDA soon for potential review and approval. That royalty business can also help us grow. Now, as we think about the revenues being there, nice profile for there, both from our products as well as royalty medicines. Ultimately, your question on profitability, I think what we've demonstrated more recently is us delivering on our financial commitments, increasingly focused on prioritization and increasingly focused on realizing the important scale benefits that are in front of us. I'm not gonna give you revenue guidance today, like beyond what I've already done or profitability guidance. Rest assured, we are focused on driving this business the right way in terms of driving revenues. And then secondly, we do have an eye towards, you know, how we're actually running the business in terms of profitability as well. Perfect. I think we're right at time. So thank you very much, Anthony. Yep. Thank you very much. Pleasure to be here with you today. Thank you again.