Good morning, everybody. Welcome to Syncona's annual results. My name is Chris Hollowood. I'm the Chief Executive of Syncona. We've had a very strong year against a very difficult macro backdrop. We set out in November, a set of growth targets over the next 10 years that was gonna increase the velocity of this business and its overall delivery. What we've seen, is great progress against that. We've expanded the team, have some terrific new hires, into the team to augment the team that we already have. We've actually delivered four new companies against a target of three new companies, we're already seeing the velocity of the business, as we want it. This is against a backdrop that is a very, very difficult macro environment, and we need to be cognizant of that. We have seen a NAV decline over the course of a year of about 4%. This has been driven mainly by our listed portfolio companies trading off, also a partial write-down of a private company, SwanBio, where we've restructured that business to focus on its lead asset, SBT101, which has shown great executional progress and actually dosed its first patient last month. We need to reflect the fact that the pipeline of programs that sat behind it are now no longer in the value of that business. In our valuation, we've adjusted that. In this market, active management and a strategic balance sheet are absolutely essential, and we'll walk you through the focused decisions we've made around the portfolio to ensure delivery, and the capital allocation decisions we're making to maximize value for our shareholders, making sure our capital is going on the best risk-adjusted returns that are going to deliver the growth over the near and medium term. We're already seeing the positive clinical progress across the portfolio. This year, we have seven clinical stage companies. As we enter the year, that's more than we've ever had, and it's clinical data that really delivers growth in our sector. That is the currency, and we're very excited to see those clinical data sets come in over the next 12 months. The other thing you need to do is you need to be sophisticated about how you access capital. What you've seen across the portfolio is us take a number of different strategies to bring capital in, third-party capital, alongside our own capital, to make sure that these companies are well-financed to deliver those milestones that deliver growth. You look at the numbers, that's GBP 394 million of capital raised across the portfolio in an incredibly tough market, of which we've done GBP 177 million. That includes a really exceptional deal by Quell with AstraZeneca and another pharma deal in there as well, that brings in strategic capital, but also really validates those companies as the leaders in their space. That is our model to build global leaders in their particular technology space to deliver products. Before we go through the detail, what I'd like to do is remind everyone of the core premise of our strategy. In our sector, disproportionate value comes to differentiated products that make it to late-stage development. If you look back over nearly 20 years, 18 years on the chart, what you see is the number of billion-dollar exits against the years from registration, the years in which they get licensed and sold to patients. In that data, you can see that there's over 60 billion-dollar exits, of which 90% are of companies that are three or less years from the market. Only 10% are 4 or greater. Our strategy is to build companies that can take products into that zone. Now, the difficulty you've got is there's no proprietary source of investments to take it into that zone, we build our own. We do that by taking the world-class science here in the U.K. and actually further across Europe. We back it with balance sheet capital that allows us to invest strategically and over the long term, and we build great teams that are able to execute on world-class strategies and the complexity of taking programs to late-stage trials. All of those things to come together, capital, team, strategy, great science, to deliver Syncona's model. The fantastic news is, this is a strategy for all seasons. What the chart on bottom on the right-hand side shows you is the valuation of companies by stage on Nasdaq, on the listed exchange in the U.S., and the gray bar is the value before the macro winds started hitting us, and then the other bars are actually December, 18 months ago, then June, then December, and then actually February this year. What you can see is late-stage assets have returned to value. That completely underscores everything that we believe in and everything we're building Syncona in. What it also says is that the market is starting to be rational again. You are seeing capital flow back, not very far, but you are seeing it flow back, and you're seeing it flow back into late-stage assets. All of the decisions we are now taking are all about how do we get as many of our companies into that zone as possible in macro conditions, when you cannot rely on third parties for capital access in the same way you could two years ago. That means focus, that means execution, that means discipline. Across our clinical-stage portfolio, some of our preclinical portfolio, you're seeing those actions being taken. I touched on SwanBio at the beginning. It's a company set up to deliver gene therapies for central nervous system disorders, particularly of the spine, the lead program is in a disease called adrenomyeloneuropathy. This is a horrible disease where patients through their twenties start to lose the ability to balance, then walk properly, and eventually, by middle age, will end up in a wheelchair. Nothing slows it down, nothing stops it, these guys have developed a medicine that's the first-ever gene therapy to treat this disease, they dosed a patient last month. The market environment is incredibly difficult, this company is built on a wider strategy of having a pipeline of programs that sat behind that lead that then will come through behind. We have taken the decision to focus capital solely on adrenomyeloneuropathy and maintain that momentum. We need to reflect in our valuation that that pipeline of programs is no longer available to us. We have had a partial write-down. In Autolus, we were already focusing pretty much all the capital on obe-cel. We're seeing the results of that with the clinical data coming out in the pivotal trial and also the manufacturing facilities they've built. They're ready for commercial. In Freeline, we focused all the way down onto just the Gaucher program, which we think is the best program in that pipeline. We've restructured the business to bring the cost base down. We've also sold non-core assets, such as the manufacturing facility in Munich, to extend the runway into Q2 next year for that company. In Quell, we've done a deal with AstraZeneca, which has brought in $85 million of value into that company. What that does, validates Quell as being one of, if not the leading TREG company out there, which is a very exciting space to be in. It gives Quell the runway to continue its execution on its lead program to deliver the data there when it gets into the clinic this year. Neogene, we took a different decision, but the same premise. This is an incredibly exciting company that was on the cusp of getting into the clinic. When the capital environment moved, we looked at the amount of capital this company needed to get to BLA. We weighed that up against an offer from AstraZeneca. We decided the prudent thing to do, take the money, retain the value, and use that capital to deploy elsewhere in the portfolio. At OMass, we've opened up the Series B to more capital to make sure the company has an extended runway to deliver its data. There's always going to be a need for innovation and new products. Our strategy is for a long-term Syncona growth strategy over 10 years. We need to make sure we're starting the next wave of cutting-edge biotechs. That's what we've done this year. We started four, and what we're seeing is that the thesis of investment in this sector for the last 10 years has shifted for the next 10. Last 10 years, it was driven very much by a big new modality, two of them, cell and gene therapy, coming through, that really drove innovation, really drove clinical impact, really drove growth. Syncona was at the forefront of that one, and that has actually delivered the business we have today. The next 10 years is going to be about finding proprietary targets that have high impact in disease and actually using the suite of modalities that now exists. 20 years ago, you had two choices between using a small molecule and antibody. Today, I think you have over 10. You have to use the right modality against the right target in the right disease context. If you do not get that combination right, you will get outcompeted. Our strategy is now built around that. We are going to be at the forefront of this for the next 10 years, just as we were for the last 10. The businesses that we've started, Kesmalea, we talked about in the interim, is a protein degradation business. Mosaic is one that we've announced earlier in the year, which is out of the Sanger Institute in Cambridge, in molecular oncology. Very excitingly, we were able to use the market conditions to acquire a late-stage program in X-linked retinitis pigmentosa. We're buying a company called AGTC. If you think about our capital allocation decisions, what you've seen us do is take capital allocation away from preclinical programs and apply it to clinical-stage programs to balance the portfolio to greater value access in the near term. This is a terrific deal. We're very excited by it. On top of that, we were also working on a preclinical retinal gene therapy company called Beacon with Robert MacLaren, who is the founder of Nightstar, and we made licensed technology out of Oxford as well as some other places, brought that in, and then in that same capital efficiency strategy, we've merged them together. We have one management team, one manufacturing platform, bringing the overall capital footprint of that down, but still delivering the same value. On top of all of that, in each of these companies, we're staying absolutely true to our strategy of building world-class companies, building the great teams that need to go in them around the right strategies, but we've added third-party capital from the start. OSC have come into both Kesmalea and into Beacon. Mosaic, CIC joined us in that round. What that allows us to do is continue to deliver this core essence of our strategy, but do it with a greater financial strength in the cap tables of each of those companies. What that means is, we've entered this financial year with seven companies at the clinical stage. It's clinical data that drives value. We've never, ever had that number of companies in the portfolio at the clinical stage, and that's reflected in the value. Where last year, 40% of the value of Syncona's life science portfolio was clinical stage, it's 71 now. That is a big shift and really reflects the executional progress, but also the rebalancing that we've been doing. That's going to deliver many clinical data sets over the next 12 months, and that's important. That drives growth. Equally. The fact that they're so numerous, there's 10 of them, reduces volatility. We're not relying on any one of these two out of these. There's two late stage in there, which is obe-cel's BLA filing, and also we're awaiting the phase II data from Beacon, which will then allow the entry to phase III. Then across the rest of the portfolio, Quell will deliver its first patient in its liver transplant program. Swan will confirm the low- dose cohort safety of that adrenomyeloneuropathy program. Anaveon, we will get data from their dose escalation, Freeline data from their Gaucher program, Achilles further data in the non-small cell lung cancer setting, the melanoma setting, Autolus will deliver further data in different indications. There's a real suite and cadence of data that's gonna come through the next 12 months. Autolus, a company many of you are very familiar with, started by us in conjunction with UCL and Martin Pule, it's made great operational progress over the year. It has delivered its pivotal trial result that shows definitely a best-in-class safety profile, shows durability that is probably better than the rest of the field, and we're going to advance to a BLA filing this year. On top of that, I think a few people have been to visit the manufacturing facility they have at Stevenage. It's a world-class facility. It is capable of delivering commercial product. Not only are we filing, we're building for the next stage of that company's growth. I'm going to pause there and hand over to Elisa, who's going to talk you through Beacon and then some of the other portfolio. All right. Thank you. Thank Thank you, Chris, good morning, everyone. I wanted to talk to you today about a really exciting company that we created this year. Chris has already mentioned it, Beacon Therapeutics. Chris has talked about Beacon in the context of our broader portfolio management approach, but Beacon is also a great example of our differentiated approach to sourcing and then company creation. We first invested in the retinal gene therapy space back in 2017, when our team met Robert MacLaren, a world-renowned professor from the University of Oxford. We founded a company called Nightstar, and we licensed programs in choroideremia and in XLRP, which are two conditions which typically result in patients becoming legally blind by the time that they're in their 40s. Nightstar went on to be a success for us, delivering promising data, and was sold to Biogen for $877 million. Alongside Nightstar, we also created Gyroscope, another retinal gene therapy company, developing a product targeting dry AMD. The company went on to deliver exciting data and was acquired by Novartis in 2021. This extensive experience in the space has meant that we've closely followed a number of retinal gene therapy companies for many years, including AGTC, a Nasdaq-listed company. The team identified that AGTC had a very attractive asset, AGTC-501, targeting XLRP, which is a condition that we knew very well. Following a rigorous diligence process, we took the decision to acquire AGTC, which is a great exemplification of the Syncona model. In practice, this meant applying our hands-on operational approach to building companies. We brought in key members of our HR, legal, and finance teams, as well as our executive advisors, and we worked together to restructure the business, to redefine the clinical and regulatory strategy, and to reset the manufacturing plan. We've also brought in a world-class management team. David Fellows has joined as Chief Executive Officer and Nadia Waheed as Chief Medical Officer, and they bring deep expertise in the retinal gene therapy space, most recently from their time at Nightstar and at Gyroscope, respectively. In parallel, through our network, we identified two highly complementary and exciting preclinical retinal gene therapy assets. One with the potential to treat dry AMD via an intravitreal route of delivery, and therefore accessible to a broader group of patients with this condition, and the other targeting a cone-rod dystrophy. This latter program comes from Robert's lab in Oxford, these two preclinical programs form the substrate for another ophthalmology, Syncona NewCo. Syncona has now brought these companies together to create Beacon Therapeutics in a GBP 96 million Series A, with Syncona committing GBP 75 million, and OSE and Oxford University committing the remainder. This combination has created a leading ophthalmic gene therapy company with a world-class team, an exciting set of programs, and importantly, it includes a late-stage asset. The XLRP program has a strong body of clinical data that is generated through two separate clinical studies. These studies show that the product delivers encouraging improvements in retinal sensitivity and a good safety profile. We're very excited to see the 12-month phase II data from the SKYLINE study, which should be published in the second half of this year. Across the rest of our portfolio, we have a diversified range of preclinical companies operating in exciting areas of science, and these are shown here on the left-hand side of the slide. Syncona has been an early mover in precision medicine, and the new companies we create continue to be powered by the innovation from this revolution in medicine. As Chris mentioned, you know, as we look for new potential company creation opportunities, our focus is on identifying the best targets for a disease. The targets we like best are those with a strong genetic basis or that have been derived from clinical data sets, or where the underlying biology is well understood. We select the modality that best enables us to access that target, and that is best suited for the patient population and the patient setting where we are seeking to develop a drug for. With the advent of advanced therapeutics, there's now a real arsenal of modalities available to us, and each with their pros and cons, and we believe that careful modality selection is therefore crucial to the success of a drug. The promising set of companies we have in our portfolio ranges across a number of modalities. We have cell gene therapy, biologics, and small molecule companies. The company we focused in on the right-hand side here is Mosaic Therapeutics, a company we invested in this year, and a deal that was led by my colleague, Magda Jonikas. Mosaic Therapeutics is an oncology company focused on drug development against genetically informed targets. It's employing a unique and proprietary platform to deconvolute the complexity of cancer, to discover and develop novel targeted therapies for cancer settings with high unmet need. It's based on the world-class research at the Wellcome Sanger Institute in collaboration with the Netherlands Cancer Institute. Syncona led a twenty-two and a half million pound Series A financing, committing sixteen and a half million pounds alongside investment from Cambridge Innovation Capital, thus diversifying the company's financial strength at the company's foundation alongside a strategic partner. We're also very pleased to have been able to attract Brian Gladstone to lead the business. Brian joins Mosaic after 15 years at Novartis Oncology, where most recently he was SVP and a member of the worldwide leadership team, responsible for global commercialization and strategy for the portfolio. All right. Thanks, Elisa. Good morning, everyone. Excuse me. I'm going to try and walk you through the financial performance for the year, and then take a look at our capital deployment and our forward-looking guidance. I'm going to touch on the capital pool position and share how we're thinking about balance efficiency going forward. As Chris said, it's a very challenging macro market out there, but we are disappointed with the negative return on our life science portfolio. No one likes to see the value in your business going down. However, we have continued to deploy capital in line with our guidance, and specifically into the maturing portfolio and exciting new companies. We did see some modest uplifts in some of our smaller portfolio assets during the year, and we've continued to benefit from U.S. dollar tailwinds. This upside has been offset by the continued decline in our listed life science assets, in addition to that, the partial write-down in SwanBio, as it's focused on SBT101. Ultimately, driving NAV growth is going to come from helping our portfolios navigate both the clinical and funding pathways through to clinical data, which, as Chris has pointed out, is where the market attributes greatest value. During the year, we raised GBP 394 million into our portfolio companies, of which Syncona invested GBP 177 million. Our investments are focused on GBP 83 million into later-stage clinical assets, Beacon Therapeutics and Nautilus. Both companies are strongly positioned with late-stage assets, which could be publishing data in the coming months, we'd expect, if that data is positive, could be a driver of near-term NAV appreciation. GBP 81 million into existing companies in the portfolio as those increasingly shift to clinical-stage assets, and GBP 11 million in bringing in new early-stage businesses, which can provide long-term growth. Looking forward, we expect to deploy a similar level of capital into new and existing portfolio companies, and we set a guidance range of GBP 150 million-GBP 200 million for the forthcoming year. As Chris has pointed out, our capital pool is a strategic asset, and never more so in the current volatile market conditions. Our aim is to keep around three years of financial runway, so we can have the flexibility and confidence to support our investments. Our approach to managing our capital pool is to balance liquidity with capital preservation. We do this by keeping up to 24 months of capital in cash and treasuries. Our longer duration needs are held in a range of funds. This combination, alongside holding some of our funds in U.S. dollars as a natural hedge to our expected near-term needs, delivered a 5.5% return in the year. I wanted to touch on how we think about balance sheet efficiency. Our business model is designed to drive shareholder return through long-term capital appreciation. We do recognize that it can deliver a lumpy cash profile at times, which does not give us the optimum balance between capital needs and balance sheet efficiency. Our capital policy aims to reflect that if we have benefited from realizations and we have capital levels over and above our three-year forward needs, we will consider returning capital to shareholders. We think this approach adopts the right balance between enabling the business to fund with confidence and rewarding shareholders when the business has delivered significant financial returns. Back to you, Chris. Thank you, Rolf. The core of the Syncona model is really the coordination of great science with capital, we have strategic capital on the balance sheet, great people. At the Syncona level, we have a fantastic team that we've built over the last 10 years, really understand our model, but also we've managed to add a new Managing Partner, Rolf Bulthuis, to the team, who comes with 20 years of investment experience in the life science sector. Hugely experienced, hugely networked, really brings that experience to bear across our entire portfolio and helping the team grow as well. We talked to the interims about Elisa Petris getting promoted into the lead investor roles. Now for the first time, we have essentially six people that can lead brand-new investments across the portfolio, manage the portfolio companies, bringing a huge amount of executional capacity and portfolio management capacity that we've never had before. It's not just in the investment team where we've strengthened. We've built a launch team, which we talked about again, at the interims, that Fiona, our Head of HR, heads. The function of this team is to ensure that we put companies into the ground in a highly efficient, high-quality way. That takes that role from the investment team, who's traditionally doing it, and therefore frees them up to do the thing that they're best at, which is finding the science, putting a strategy around it, finding leadership team members to come and join those companies. It also increases the quality with which we put the companies in the ground because we have the same team doing it again and again and again. We get the repeatability there, and we get the learning there, so we're always making it better and better. We built out an executive and advisory group, we've had two new people join that, which we say new. Ken's not quite new, but he's come back. Two new people join it, which we've announced today. Ken, who you remember, was with us just over a year ago but left to be chairman in Zymeworks, Chairman and CEO of Zymeworks, a company that he is very familiar with, had a lot to do with its initial founding, and he felt a duty to go back and turn that company around. He's done an exceptional job in doing that, if you track that story. We're really pleased that he thinks that it's stable enough now that he can come back and help us out in the Syncona team. We've also hired John Tsai, most recently. John was Chief Medical Officer at Novartis. John just brings a huge wealth of clinical experience. When you think about our model, when you think about the stage of our portfolio right now with seven clinical companies, he's going to have a really big impact on how we deliver those clinical trials and the quality of the data that comes out of them. He will also take executive roles across the portfolio to really help drive some new investments for us. I'll give you one example of this working in practice. Gwenaëlle, who's a regulatory advisor for us, when we bought AGTC, one of their key risks was regulatory. We felt that the regulatory strategy could get really reset. Through doing that, we could access an approval for that drug in Europe and the U.S. in a way that AGTC hadn't really considered. It's all very well thinking it, you got to do it. Gwenaëlle's gone in effectively to be interim head of regulatory at AGTC. We've been to see the European regulators, in dialogue with the U.S. regulators. We've had a very productive set of discussions. We now feel very optimistic that we have come up with endpoints and regulatory paths that were not available to AGTC that will really unlock the value in that company. That is our model. That is our new model in action already. You know, it has been a tough year because the macro environment is tough, and there's nothing you can do about that. What we need to do is execute what is in our control, make sure we're doing all the right things for the portfolio we have, but also keeping an eye on the future by starting the new companies and moving to the operating model and building the team that will allow that growth. I think we've done all of that. On the new company front, we started four. We announced it at the interims halfway through the year, and we've already done four against a target of three. Really great companies as well. Very excited about all four of them, which is now three, because we merged two of them together. They're on our thesis, which is accessing novel targets for horrible diseases, now matching modality to target and disease setting. That puts us on the trajectory to our steady state target of 20-25 portfolio companies. Started the year with 11, added four, sold one, merged two. You get 13. They are all diversified by stage now and modality and therapeutic areas. I think that brings a risk profile to Syncona that we've not had before. I think the cadence of news flow out of Syncona will reduce the volatility. The key bit is getting those companies into that late-stage zone that really delivers value. That's where our three to five companies to late-stage development comes from. Ortles is already there. Beacon is knocking on the door. We do believe that we remain on track for what we set out to do, 20-25 companies by delivering three a year. That, through the delivery of exceptional clinical data, will give us that GBP 5 billion target within a decade. Thank you for listening. Really appreciate the support of Syncona. I'm very happy to answer any questions you might have. Hi, guys. It's Paul Cuddon from Numis. The strategy to focus on later-stage assets within the sort of your larger holdings. I'm just wondering what you can do with the new company formation to get them through to that point sooner, whether you're gonna be asking them to run slightly differently earlier? Yes, we are is the answer. You know, the cell and gene therapy modalities, because they were never, ever heard of modalities, and you had to build everything in each company, were expensive to build, and that was appropriate given the level of innovation there and the access to capital there. In these new companies, the modalities are not as expensive. Sometimes they're off the shelf. The innovation is actually coming from the target. These are, A, lower-burn companies, and B, we're adding financial strength into the cap table from the start. The draw on our capital of these companies to get them to clinical data will be less. To be honest, there is more risk in that clinical data. How we're addressing that, is we're going to do three companies a year and make sure we have many, many shots on goal. We're keeping the core of the innovation there, so when one of those lands, it will be very high impact. Fantastic. Thank you. We have had a lot of, kind of, updates from Autolus recently. I'm just wondering if you could just spend a bit of time giving your perspective on the data, the competitive positioning, and, I suppose the catalysts throughout the rest of the year? Obviously, the most recent data came out, ASGCT, I think it's very confirmatory of the profile we've been suggesting that drug would have. What I think you've got in that drug is a safety profile that is highly differentiated in that setting. Importantly, what that means is, if the requirement to manage the patient is less, you can get out to more clinical centers when you roll the drug out. It gives a patient access aspect to it that the other drugs don't have. The durability. The thing about durability is you've got to wait to prove it, the durability looks on track to be better or no worse than the best durability in that setting. It comes down to execution, there's a commercial launch ahead of that company. It's done all of the right things. It has a manufacturing facility built that can serve the market. It has all of the resources in place to do it, needs to execute. It's nice to be in a situation of just that. I I say just execution. Execution is hard, but it's nice to be in a situation of just execution. Execution is in your control. You have the data in your pocket. That's, that's where Autolus has got to. Obviously, not all our companies have that data in their pocket. It is to see, obviously, the BLA filing going on time. That's key. Then it's to see them doing all the right things that you would expect for a company that's heading towards a genuine commercial launch. Excellent. Thank you. Go ahead. Thank you. Simon Baker from Redburn. I'll limit myself to three. I'll kick off with one on the funding cycle. As you say, it's been tough, very tough this year, but the good thing about cycles is they don't go down forever. In this particular cycle, it tends to be backstopped and supported by M&A, which we are seeing over the course of the year. Really just wanted to get your thoughts on where we are now. When do you expect things to start to improve? What's your. Yeah Y our level of optimism on that? Yeah. There's one part of the sector that's not cyclical, that is late-stage assets, because pharma has incredibly stable cash flows, and its cost to capital is not very volatile at all. What's nice, I think, and the chart we put up, you couldn't have put up 12 months ago. What's nice is rationality has returned to the market, and what you're seeing is those late-stage assets are now getting priced for exactly the phenomenon you're stating, which is M&A is real. That tells me that structure's returned and panic is gone. Unless there's another reason to panic, I think it's not having a big leg down, in my view. We'll find out. I can't predict how quickly we're getting out of it. What we need to do is make sure that the things we have in our control, we control and make sure we can deliver them over whatever period we think it is to take out. My optimism comes from, I think, there's structure back in the market, and I think there's stability back in the market, and we've got GBP 650 million. My optimism doesn't come from, I think by Christmas we're shooting back up again. Great. That's very clear. A slightly different, bigger picture question. We ask everyone in the space about the impact of the Inflation Reduction Act. Mm-hmm. Is that making any difference to portfolio considerations, decisions, planning? Not huge. We're very cognizant of it. One of our team, Alex Hamilton, has done a piece of work for us all and educated us on it all. We're aware of it, and do think about it. When you think of where we are and you grade the risks, our risks are: Does the thing work? Then if you get through that node, is what you're gonna get for it? Of course, we think about the commercial opportunity, but with the Inflation Reduction Act, it's a refinement on that commercial opportunity. The big bucket of value hasn't moved. It might be this or it might be this, but it hasn't really moved. We're very cognizant of it. We do think it through. We're really focused on just delivering dramatic data, because dramatic data, clinical impact, solves everything, not just the patient. It solves capital. It solves everything else. In our discussions with pharma. It does come up. They do raise it. It's clearly something that's concerning them. I think it will skew some of their decisions towards more complex modalities, which I think is great for us, because that's what we do. I haven't really seen it come through in a, "The lights have gone out here," type way. Yeah. I think, you know, again, when you talk to pharma, they're not really sure exactly how it's all gonna come out. That's very clear. Finally, on the subject of modalities, we've talked about plenty today, but I'm just interested to know: What's your level of interest and enthusiasm around antibody drug conjugates? Well, it's clearly a very hot area, okay? The question for us is not just, is it good? It's, are we there first in a proprietary way? I think antibody drug conjugates are working really well. Clearly, you know, if you go back 10 years, everyone thought, "Well, that was nice, but didn't really work out." Seattle Genetics gets bought for whatever they get bought for. I think as an example of the cycles these technologies go through, where initial wave kink, work out kinks, value comes back. You know, for us, we would need to believe that you've got something highly differentiated for us to enter that sector. What I wouldn't want us to do, invest in something that we just think is a better mousetrap. You know, they got a mousetrap, we want an elephant trap. Great. Thanks so much. Hi there, sorry, Miles from Peel Hunt. If I could just go back to the strategic review. You described that you're focusing on later-stage clinical assets. Does this come at the cost of any focus on the platform technology, i.e., if there's success with the first asset, do you have other cassettes that can come online? Yeah. Let me finesse it, Miles, because it's not quite total focus on late stage. What it is a very strict capital allocation approach. If cost of capital has gone up, what that means is your risk-adjusted returns on the assets in your portfolio are going to skew late. We're just being rational in following that. Where we've got really good things in the portfolio, we're going to back them. We are also cognizant that this sector is going to be around forever, and it's always going to need innovation. Making sure we put really exciting new things in the ground, so when the sun comes out again, we're well positioned for that. To Paul's question, we're doing that in a very thoughtful way to the capital environment. In the middle, there's some programs that we won't fund now, and I think that's right. The platform value. What we remember about platforms, is platforms only count if they deliver drugs. It's the drug first, platform second. If you need to build platform capability to deliver the drug, you have to do it. If you're building incremental platform capability on the hope it's going to deliver something once you've built it, I think we're much more reticent about that decision. It doesn't stop you returning to building out the platform when the capital cost environment returns to something more benign. We're not throwing those assets out or those capabilities, we're just asking those teams to focus here now. Capital comes available, swan, switch the pipeline back on. Great. Were there any other pillars of that strategy review, whether it be, you know, approach to exits or thematics or? I think, you know, the absolute core of what we do, you know, is fundamental and unmovable for us, which is innovation delivers high clinical impact, delivered to the late stage, delivers lots of value. Unlike 10 years ago, when we just thought it and crossed our fingers, not quite, this 10 years, we've done it, and we know it, and the data supports it. What we thought, if we put that slide up 10 years ago, it would have been 20 exits, and it wouldn't have been as clear. What you're seeing is this complete skewing in the direction we predicted. We're going to be unmovable on that aspect of it. A lot of strategic review, you know, was conducted over the last 18 months. A lot of it was trailed at the interims, and it was. There's lots of innovation out there. How do we operationalize that better? I know. Let's build a bigger team, get some great people in. Let's reconfigure how we work. Let's have more lead investors. Let's support them with some great executive partners that can do that initial executive piece, but also bring the experience. We're putting that into practice now, and we're seeing that actually turn the cogs. On the technology areas, you know, it's sort of not new. It's always been about targets. It's always been, can I be first to a novel target that's going to impact a horrible disease? That's not a new thought. We went a different direction for the last 10 years, kind of, put a bit of a spin on it, which was, these things turned out that had such incredible impact, they should be built, and you'd have value if you built them. We did. We built cell, and we built gene therapy. If you boil those back, what they were, they were targets, because in choroideremia, which is the first gene therapy program we backed, that was an inherited form of blindness, just like retinitis pigmentosa. Everybody knows the target. 100% of the patients have a mutation in this one gene. That's the problem. What no one could ever do is access it in a way to have impact. Gene therapy actually turned up and said, "Well, you can take this virus, get a piece of DNA that delivers that gene, stick it in the retina where the disease is." It was a target thing, because it unlocked that. Where we're getting to now is looking at targets in a different way, which is all of the keys to unlock. You never had this range of keys to unlock targets that we've got now. That's really exciting. It's also jeopardy, because if I go after a particular target with an antibody, and I find out that actually patients don't want to take antibodies once a month for the rest of their life, they'd actually like a one and done thing, and someone comes with a new therapy, I'm stuffed. It's that kind of layering of decisions now that really came out of the strategy that we ran on the technology front, and really underpins all the companies that Elisa talked us through. Got it. Just lastly, on the flip side of the funding landscape, given that largely preclinical early-stage assets, Nasdaq is now shut, are you seeing many more opportunities? I mean, I know you've built out function and ability. Yeah, I've always felt that, you know, our model is proprietary deal flow, because the businesses we build are not available in the form that we build them to anyone else, 'cause it's our strategic vision, it's our teams and execution, and then ultimately, the operating team that we build in the company. We've never really had any competition for it, and particularly because we go to world-class founders and we say, "You know, these guys are super smart," They talk to these guys at a level that they don't get from a lot of other investors. Then we say to that person, "We're gonna take your life's work, and we're gonna be very careful with it, and we're gonna take it all the way to a product, which is what you wanted to do." That's not what they hear from other investors, so that's incredibly compelling and a very sticky relationship. That's what gives us our proprietary deal flow. Yes, there's less people looking, but we were never out-competed anyway. Where I think the competition, where the receiving of competition has really helped us, and you see in the capital, is an AGTC-type deal. You know, if you could do deals that were just 6 years from the market, so you get within 3 years of the market in 3 years, just do that all the time, you would do that all the time, because that's what the data says. You can't, because those deals aren't available with space in the cap table to deploy significant capital at price points that are attractive, and so that's why we start stuff. In this market, that's not true. We can go buy a phase III company for $25 million. You've seen us do one of those. You should imagine that's a core part of the thinking right now and a strand that we're currently running. Hi, Natalia Webster from RBC. Historically, you've talked about manufacturing capabilities as an important part of cell and gene therapies, and you mentioned Autolus being ready for commercial manufacturing. Given the tougher funding environment and the spare sort of capacity in the cell and gene therapy space, does this change anything from a strategic point of view there? I think it is different. Take Autolus as a separate example. Autolus is trying to commercialize a product. It needs manufacturing, and the fact it's got it in control and it's built the capacity it needs, means it doesn't have redundant capital costs, so different setting. I think when we started in cell and gene therapy, nobody could do it, so you had to build it yourself. I wouldn't say you necessarily needed to control the building it was done in, but you did need to control all the processes, all the analytics, because they didn't exist, and you had to build them yourself. Clearly, you know, as contract manufacturing organizations saw that market opportunity, they built capability, and I think there's a much more widespread availability of that in the market. The incumbency on you to have it yourself is less. That said, in each of these companies, you do need a team that know what they're doing to make sure the CDMOs are operating right. Where you don't want to get caught, and where a lot of companies have got caught, is where you cited, which is overcapacity manufacturing, where they've gone and built themselves a swanky GMP facility that they only need to run for three months. They've got nine months spare capacity, and they're paying for the facility and the team. That is killing companies in the U.S. right now, and it's not something we ended up in that strategy for that reason, 'cause we could see that coming. Great. Thank you. Thanks. Paul Cuddon from Numis. On the potential to return capital from realizations, for what it's worth, I think that's probably a good idea in this environment. Does it impact the ability to deliver what we see on the screen, the three new companies, 2020-2025, that 10-year plan? Yeah. No, it doesn't. I mean, the core thing that we're looking to do is to drive the strategy forward. The way we're going to drive return to shareholders is through capital appreciation. I think what this is recognizing is that, if we have executed well and we are trading above that from our capital, that we basically want to share that with the shareholders. The primacy is our ability to deliver the strategy and the new builds. Well, no more questions. Really appreciate you coming and listening. Obviously, we're available for questions, either through our investor relations team or directly.