All right, great. Really excited to be joined by the team from Dynavax here at the Goldman Sachs Global Healthcare Conference. Kind of disappointing because the sun finally came out and we're all stuck inside, but c'est la vie. We're required to make certain disclosures and public appearances about Goldman Sachs' relationships with companies that we discuss. The disclosures relate to investment banking relationships, compensation received, or 1% or more ownership. We're prepared to read aloud disclosures for any issuer during the sessions upon your request. However, these disclosures are available in our most recent reports available to you as clients on our firm's portal. In addition, updates to those disclosures are available by ticker on the firm's public website. Goldman Sachs agrees to host this information on the basis that no third-party seeker will provide confidential or material non-public information. In addition, by attending this conference, you provide Goldman Sachs the right to record and redistribute the conference information. The views of third-party seekers do not necessarily reflect those of Goldman Sachs. With that, let's jump right in. Let's maybe start with Dynavax's obviously kind of like flagship enterprise, the hepatitis B vaccine, HEPLISAV-B, and really start with a kind of broad-ranging discussion of the HEPLISAV-B commercial outlook. Obviously, you all have made great progress in gaining market share, with 37% of the HPV vaccine market share and even higher share in key channels. Really going forward, as you think about kind of the forward progress of HEPLISAV-B, where does your focus lie to potentially continue that growth? Well, first, thanks for having us. Appreciate being here at the conference. You know, you highlighted market share. That's a pretty key element for us of growth. We have a number of key segments that we're focused on. We've had great progress recently. Again, Q1 was another record quarter. We do hope to continue that trend, both with revenue growth and market share growth. Two key segments that we're focused on for growth are the retail channel and the integrated delivery networks. We continue to build our partnerships within retail to really leverage their capability, one, for expanding the brand utilization, but also the opportunity around the universal recommendation. Those two things together, you know, there's a bit of a market event created there, which they both help each other. As we have an opportunity to expand the universal recommendation, it does play into an opportunity to leverage our profile. The universal focus does help support our expansion in both the IDN and retail channel. We think there's a good opportunity to continue the momentum through that share expansion. Maybe coming to that, by the ACIP universal recommendation of hepatitis B vaccination, so obviously you provide a broad strain of HPV vaccines. How much do you think market expansion is achievable with the ACIP universal recommendation relative to where we were kind of in a pre-universal recommendation world? I mean, the reality is, with each passing day, the confidence grows on the ability to expand and drive the universal recommendation. In February last year, when the recommendation was made, it was an exciting time, but I think the reality is understanding how it will be implemented and what will the uptake look like. It's hard to predict. We were also in the middle of or coming out of the pandemic, which had pretty big disruption for the vaccine space broadly. As we came into Q1 of this year, we really got to see a quarter of real true growth as it relates to the universal recommendation. We saw specific customers that had significant growth over their historical baselines that we also knew from a detailed relationship perspective, was driven by their implementation of universal recommendation and patient identification. That created a lot of confidence that this can be done and can be done well. Patients are receptive and with the right level of organizational influence. Pretty excited about the opportunity. We're still very early on in that growth, but we're already seeing traction. Maybe coming down kind of two of these aspects. We've discussed two of them, the market expansion because of the universal recommendation, market share gains for HEPLISAV-B, given the product profile. Combining those two, plus potential ex-U.S. growth as you start to roll out, or as your partners start to roll out, HEPLISAV-B outside of the U.S. and price increases, how should we think about these four parameters in terms of how they will influence the HEPLISAV-B growth story in the coming, like, 12 to 18 months? Yeah, they will all definitely play their part, right? Again, this year, market expansion versus market share increase, I think, are kind of on equal footing. Ultimately, while the ex-U.S. opportunity, we've launched in Germany with our partner, we're looking to launch another partnership within the private markets in the U.K. Those will be important continued expansion opportunities over time although the focus to the size of the opportunity will always be on the U.S. I think as we move out of 23 into 24 and beyond, recognizing that the expansion has the opportunity to double the market, that will become that will take over as a more important factor beyond share shift, I think, as we continue to gain share throughout this year. Right now, 23, so there's a share shift and market expansion are both critically important, and I think ultimately, ex-U.S. opportunities will take a back seat to the value opportunity in the U.S. Maybe coming to that, because you mentioned the long-term market expansion is probably the longer-term value driver. What do you think is the effective ceiling for kind of market share kind of uptake? Do you think that there's, like, a certain limit where we shouldn't be thinking about market share expansion as a primary driver? Like, where do you think that levels, that shovels out? Yeah, well, I think we've always been pretty transparent about one segment of the market, which is tough to cover with personal promotion and knowing that this product, we love the profile. It's made a real impact, I think, both for us and for patients. The competitor products are entrenched. They've been around a very long time. There's about 25% of the market that is very small individual practitioners that use less than 10 doses a year. There's 40,000 different sites of care. That's not an efficient part of the market to target for personal promotion. We have much lower share in that piece of the pie, and I expect that that will always be behind from a share perspective. I think the challenge is knowing where that can get to with continued progress around the rest of the market. Will that eventually bleed into that segment and how deep? There's a big question mark around that segment because we don't have the ability to control it as directly other than marketing initiatives. When you think about share, you just have to have a different view over time of that particular segment, which right now is about a quarter of the market. I think it'll shrink as the rest of the pie grows from the universal expansion because we don't expect to see a huge amount of expansion in that setting. I think that gives you some of the challenges we'll face between majority, when defining what majority market share is. We've been pretty clear that we believe between share expansion, the universal recommendation price, that we believe the market can be [$800] million by 2027, and we will take a majority share. I think that, you know, when projecting that majority, that one particular segment is probably the harder piece to project at this point. Although, over the coming years, I think we'll be able to tighten up our view of that and possibly even identify new tactics to be able to penetrate that segment more fully as we progress over time. We've been discussing at a very high level considerations of the hepatitis B market, let's now get really granular and think about HEPLISAV-B revenue numbers through 2023. At a first level, how should we think about the 1Q revenue? You mentioned it's a record number. How should we think about that and how it reflects demand, both seasonally and through the year? Sure. Really, really happy with the print in Q1. As Ryan mentioned, you know, $43.5 million is our strongest quarter in terms of revenue. Historically, Q2 and Q3 have been the strongest quarters of the year, of the calendar year. We do see some seasonal weakness in Q4, historically, mostly just because of the, you know, number of selling days impacted by the holiday periods. Really happy with Q1. I think the momentum that we've seen in market share in particular and gaining, you know, market growth and sort of seeing those leading indicators, coming out of Q1 and into Q2, gives us a lot of reason to obviously reiterate our guidance range and also be clear that we are tracking to the higher end of that range. To that end, how should we think about the kind of cadence of revenues through the year? Should we expect kind of quarter-over-quarter improvement, Q2, Q3? Like, how should we kind of think about it at a more granular level? Sure. We sure hope so. I mean, I think Q2 and Q3, as I mentioned, are historically the strongest quarters. This year, uniquely, as we do start to see some of the indicators of the market also expanding while we're growing share, those two things combined, we hope to have, you know, sort of sequential growth as well as, you know, growth in both of those indicators individually. Q4, we'll be able to sort of, you know, see if that's an anomaly this year or not, especially as the market continues to expand. All right. maybe coming down to it more frankly, more bluntly. Given the strong 1Q print, given that 2Q and Q3 are your best quarters of the year generally, what would it take for you to raise guidance for the year? Sure. Philosophically, we do take each quarter earnings cycle as an opportunity to look at our guidance, recast our guidance to the extent appropriate. Coming out of Q1, we're, you know, we were, as both Ryan and I mentioned, really excited and happy with the print, but it is one, you know, one quarter, so it hasn't yet made a trend. I think coming into Q2, we'll certainly look for the opportunity to revisit our guidance, and to the extent appropriate, we'll, you know, reset expectations based on what we have, you know, at that time. Maybe stepping back from HEPLISAV-B. We've gone through kind of the high level of thinking about the market opportunity, the more granular look at kind of revenue through 2023. What do you think people are missing about the HEPLISAV-B story? Do you think upside is mostly based upon kind of forward execution, any kind of catalyst beyond just quarterly numbers? What should we be looking at from HEPLISAV-B more broadly? I mean, I think, I think the reality is, we've projected a fairly significant amount of growth on the back of this market event, but historically, we're coming out of a disruptive period. You know, I think where we are in our life cycle would have been quite different had we not had the pandemic. At this point, what I think investors are focused on is understanding whether or not, you know, how real the growth opportunity is and how fast it'll be achieved. I think what we're seeing, and we're very impressed by this, gets back down to the expectation comment around Q1, that we said pretty clearly that Q1 exceeded our expectations, was the amount of growth seen in Q1, where we're in the very beginnings of being able to project what we think the growth can look like based on ACIP. I think there's an area of focus from the investor community of is, you know, how real is this opportunity for expansion? How fast will it go, and how will market share continue to progress? As far as what people are missing, I think it's the confidence that this is a real market event. We're seeing, we're starting to see that evolve and that it's a, it's a very reasonable set of projections around both majority market share and the size of the market that we put out there. This is not create the highest number you could possibly think of, because every single person is going to get vaccinated, it's all going to happen with HEPLISAV. Well, that's not the way we've taken up kind of projecting our opportunity for growth. I think that's probably the thing I would say, if we were looking for anything. I think, frankly, the story is pretty clear. The level of reasonableness that we put into how we talk about the market, our opportunity, and what we can accomplish, I think is something that we want to keep trying to make sure people understand, that we think we have a very reasonable approach and expectations for this brand. Moving to the adjuvant program. You guys have done a really good job of highlighting the kind of paucity of immediate demand for CpG 1018 for COVID vaccines currently. I guess, kind of that being said, how do you think about out your demand for COVID-19 vaccines with the adjuvant? In particular, when do you think that demand could start to emerge relative to what's been existingly supplied to your partners? Sure. There's two major elements. One is the amount of material we've supplied, compared to how the endemic market shapes up for each partner in their particular geographical region. I think the most challenging part of that is we're not really in a defined endemic market for COVID vaccines yet. I mean, we're in the endemic stage, but we haven't gone through this season. We haven't really gone through the shift from government procurement, internationally. Right now, for example, China is still in a nationalized vaccine campaign for their. I don't know which dose they're on. They're on their 5th dose, I think. Next year it will evolve to a traditional market. I think the other thing that's going to happen this year is we're going to see multivariant approaches and, you know, who shows up for vaccination and how the season goes. There's a number of elements that are going to still play out to define the endemic market. Once that's defined, I think it'll be a little bit easier to understand potential opportunities in each region and how the various collaborators will fare with overall doses, and which will then obviously translate into utilization of adjuvant inventory and overall future-looking opportunities. What I can say, though, and I, you know, I think the two largest players that we have going forward are Biological E and Clover. Clover is publicly traded. I think it's, you know, it's very easy to kind of look to them on their expectations. They are working on a multivalent COVID vaccine to be part of the ongoing endemic market in the private market. Biological E still continues to have their, you know, base business focus, which is supplying WHO pre-qualified countries with meaningful vaccines. You know, I think the reality is 2023 is a reconciling period for sure. We'll see how 2024 goes. Ultimately, the upside opportunity for CPG is going to be dependent on how the endemic market evolves, and I think we'll see that this year and next year. Okay, I guess, kind of more practically, then, you would say that the recent COVID wave that happened in China doesn't really affect those kind of longer-term expectations? I think it absolutely does culturally. One of the things that's unique about China is they didn't use a ton of flu vaccine historically, compared to the size of the population. They have a very unique experience with the COVID pandemic. How that plays out culturally into how they see vaccination, and this is what I was getting at in the first part of my question, is the way the endemic market evolves by region or country could look very different. Europe, the U.S., South America, Africa, China, Australia, they can all have very different realities with how they choose to utilize COVID vaccines, similar to how we saw different utilization of flu vaccines. Really, this recent wave and the past history could make China a country that uses a lot of COVID vaccine or is very amenable to COVID vaccination and boosters over time. I think we have to see that play out. I think there's just too many cultural aspects of each region that are too hard to predict at this moment. Let's move over to your shingles program. You guys recently presented data from the shingles program. If you could walk through some of the highlights for that, and then also maybe talk to us about next steps for the shingles program. Yeah, sure. The data at ACVR was very similar to what the top line data that we released a number of months ago, where we highlighted that we had very robust responses with our adjuvanted shingles program compared to the active comparator. We did see lower systemic, local and systemic adverse events, post-injection reaction, adverse events, or tolerability, improved tolerability. That was great because that supports the product profile that we're trying to generate. We did see robust T- cell responses, robust fold increases. That data is presented in more detail in that presentation at ACVR. We're, you know, very pleased that we're continuing to move that program forward. This summer, we're engaging with the FDA to touch our pre-IND meeting as we move forward with our phase I/II study that will start, we anticipate will start in the beginning of next year using our gE antigen. Our prior phase I was really, an adjuvant dose-finding study utilizing commercially available antigens. Now we'll be able to titrate the adjuvant with our own antigen dose in our next study. Our pre-IND meeting with the FDA will also look to confirm the longer-term path to regulatory approval in the U.S. Our main focus there is assessing the ability to run a placebo-controlled study as opposed to a head-to-head study, which could provide a, you know, challenging reality given the high level of efficacy expected for both vaccines. Yeah. Maybe following from that, given the striking efficacy seen with SHINGRIX, what do you need to see in terms of target product profile to really be confident in a new entrant in the shingles vaccine landscape? I guess on the other side of that coin, kind of, we're in California, so let's use tech terminology, like, what would you need to see to kind of fail fast in the shingles vaccine landscape? I think, that is a challenging question because we're talking about immunogenicity results. If we have the same, tolerability profile, you're not going to improve efficacy. I mean, it's very, very high, so matching efficacy is critical, but we believe we can improve tolerability. Thankfully, our phase I study showed we had an improved tolerability profile, at least in the number of subjects we had in that study. That was helpful. That would have been an opportunity to fail fast if you had the same tolerability profile. I think now the question is, as we go through our phase I/II study and can really look at the T- cell signatures more closely with our gE protein and our, in our dose- ranging, understanding whether or not we believe we are over the line, right? Over the line for high levels of efficacy. I think there's not a perfect, you know, correlate or line that I can use as a definition, but we're going to be paying very close attention to how we can close the gap between T- cell frequencies, both after initial expansion and contraction, and with different dosings of our gE antigens. You know, it will all just depend on the interpretation of the data and understanding the regulatory pathway. Okay. I guess, I mean, the FDA interactions and kind of your own experience with kind of larger vaccine studies, kind of you would tend to approach from a more conservative perspective of like, really testing the hypothesis rigorously, rather than kind of like looking to see what can be there or not. Like, should we think about it in those terms, or? Yeah, I think practically after our phase I/II data, we'll be in a great position to have clear regulatory feedback. We'll have appropriate data from our product construct, with different dosing regimens. We'll also have a read on the competitive landscape. With all those pieces in hand, we'll be in a great position to make a very clear decision on how to advance that program. Maybe to be more, more blunt, that in this FDA interaction coming this year, they're going to say, "No, sorry, you got to run against SHINGRIX." How much does that frame your decision calculus? That would definitely be something we'd want to take into account in making decisions. Absolutely. Okay. All right, great. Maybe moving beyond shingles, how do you think about some of your other pipeline programs? I think specifically about Tdap and plague, in terms of the kind of both how they're progressing, how we think about catalysts from these other programs. I mean, Tdap's in a very similar spot, frankly, as shingles. We have FDA interactions going on now. We also are completing our non-human primate challenge study, which will provide us some more insight on nasal colonization as well as T- cell signatures. I mean, one of the goals would be to try to shift the balance of the TH2 response to a TH1/TH2 response with using CpG 1018. You know, fundamentally changing the underlying immune response, which could lead to things like more durability. We'll be able to see that, at least, have an initial look at that in our non-human primate study. We're also developing a challenge model with an investigator in the background, which will be the first human challenge study that allows for progression to disease post-vaccination. All of those things being funneled into the FDA interaction will be important because previously in our pre-IND meeting, there was no human challenge model, so the regulatory path was, you know, a little bit undefined. We want to get a little more definition on the regulatory path to get to licensure, and then combine that with what we know we need to do, which is create meaningful clinical data showing differentiation and strategizing on, you know, our approach to do both those things. That, that same timeframe this summer, we'll have feedback from the agency. We'll have progressed our challenge model and with the ability to execute our human challenge study at the end of this year or early next year. Okay. Plague also, there's a two part program there for our phase II trial funded by the DoD, and we completed this part one in January. We're doing the part two, announced completion of enrollment. Very excited about how well we internally have progressed that trial and the relationship with DoD. We'll have data from that phase II trial in next year, which will hopefully be supportive of continuing to advance an opportunity with DoD for an adjuvanted plague vaccine. Okay. Maybe let's shift away from existing programs to kind of potential future programs. You've discussed previously the idea of business development, where y'all are the buyer. I'll just ask, and you're not going to probably give me the answer. I got to try anyway. Is there anything imminent planned on that front? You're exactly right. We will not answer that or ever answer that question. We'll announce it when we have, you know, have something that we can announce. Ultimately, you know, we're working very hard to try to identify the right opportunities, and we'll let you know when we do. Let me press on that one, though. What would you consider your overview of your BD philosophy? What is the right opportunity and what is the end goal for bringing new programs into Dynavax? I think really thinking through that for a minute, it is valuable because we have a great business right now. HEPLISAV is growing. We're not burning cash this year. Depending on how HEPLISAV grows and how we advance our pipeline, you know, we'll see how cash flows shake out next year, eventually, the path to profitability. We're not a desperate organization like needing to go run out and do, you know, high risk BD or corporate development. We do have a business platform here that I believe is not completely leveraged. Our broad capabilities in manufacturing, GNA, commercial, just across the board, we're a fully integrated company with a late-stage commercial asset and a very early-stage pipeline. We do have opportunity to leverage this team more fully, and we're well capitalized. We're trying to take a very organized approach, starting with, you know, the most obvious things first and then working down the list from there. That would be a late- stage of commercial vaccine asset that can leverage our team to the fullest. Recognizing the number of opportunities that are there are small, we're also considering other commercial assets that could be accretive, leveraging our full complements as a late-stage organization. Those are our current primary focus, and we'll walk you through each of those potential areas diligently now before considering expansion into, you know, late-stage development assets in other adjacent areas. Maybe kind of coming to that, how do you look at the competitive landscape for business development in late- stage or commercial vaccines? I think about kind of like where you describe the octagon of vaccine players as y'all versus the very Nordic, or y'all versus the large vaccine players. Like, how does that landscape look today? Yeah, within vaccines, I mean, I think you kind of highlighted there's a couple different levels of players in the space. I think the reality is, you know, we can compete. We have very unique capabilities here. We have a U.S.-based team, so they can launch products in the U.S. We're well capitalized, like I've mentioned before. Obviously, competing with the larger pharma companies for any BD transaction can be challenging. I think the difference, though, is we also have the opportunity to be able to triage, you know, get more closer to things that may not have the same obvious market potential, whereas our large pharma competition might focus on larger opportunities. I think we have to just recognize the spot we're in. We can add, you know, meaningful assets are a low. Have a lower total TAM, possibly, than what our large pharma competitors would have. I think practically, we're all organized very differently. I think Dynavax has a unique set of capabilities, both on kind of our organization and focus on the U.S. market and the size of team we have focused on the U.S. market for vaccine opportunities. I think we're very competitive there, and can be very competitive with assets. I'm gonna turn to the other side of the BD calculus. Is there a specific catalyst or a set of catalysts that might drive you to pursue a strategic transaction with Dynavax as the seller rather than the buyer? I mean, we still believe we have an opportunity to add value to shareholders by continuing to advance our business, whether it's HEPLISAV-B growth, advancement of our pipeline, or taking a very diligent and well, you know, structured approach to potential corporate development to fully leverage our organization. That's what we're going to do. That said, obviously, if there was any sort of interest in the organization, we would have to pay attention to it, and we would do that with a lens of always making sure we do what's best for our shareholders. Maybe moving to operating strategy, what would it take to allow Kelly to bring the axe down and strip down R&D, kind of move towards something more practical around cash flow positivity and profitability, really focusing on the commercialization of HEPLISAV-B alone? I don't want to put you on the spot, not just you, Kelly. No. You want to talk about taking the axe down? This is you. No, I mean, look, like I said, we're focused on driving value. I think under certain circumstances, that's typically a reaction that you'd take if something changes in your primary strategy. I mean, I think our company's just done too good of a job to be focused on what would happen if things didn't work out as planned. I think we have lots of ways for things to continue to progress, whether it's excelling in HEPLISAV, our pipeline, identifying early other non-1018 vaccine opportunities that we can put into the pipeline. You know, I think we're just, we're well-organized and well-capitalized, so we're focused on driving success. Okay. Maybe kind of following from that, how should we think about the balance sheet? How should we think about runway? I guess more practically, how we should think about, beyond that, like how we should think about the cap structure of the company? We exited Q1 with over $650 million in cash and equivalents. We have guided, you know, for a couple quarters in a row now that that's more than enough to get us to be able to prosecute our current pipeline portfolio, on the back of growing HEPLISAV revenues without having to go back to the capital markets. It was a pretty tremendous threshold that we were able to cross at some point last year. As we think about deploying that capital, you know, first and foremost, we're gonna continue to identify ways to maximize HEPLISAV. We've been focused on certain retail customers in particular, that have very high ROI, and we see unique opportunity there for some incremental investment. Secondly, of course, to Ryan's point, we'll look for opportunities to continue to drive value through our early-stage pipeline and our portfolio of assets there. Also looking for innovative ways to generate value through, you know, potentially our preclinical program as we continue to advance those in very, very early stage. As we think about corporate development opportunities, that's where I think we can really leverage our balance sheet and our capital structure to be able to unlock the door on certain assets that, you know, other smaller organizations or less well-capitalized organizations might not have the opportunity to access. We are taking a very sort of fundamental and holistic approach to making sure our balance sheet not only matches what we need today, but also as we look at, you know, what Dynavax could look like in this next chapter. Maybe following up on how do you think about kind of the capital structure and, I mean, the questions around deleveraging, is there any thought around deleveraging kind of from the convertible debt on hand? The convertible debt isn't, it isn't due until 2026. We do have a provisional call option that kicks in mid-next year. You know, right now, you know, we don't see anything to really do with it. Anything that we need to do with it would be very high friction right now if we were to de-lever that part of the balance sheet. I think also just $225 million, relative to our market cap and that specific instrument, you know, I think it makes a ton of sense for us to hold on to that where we sit today. As we think about de-levering or, you know, any kind of returning value to shareholders, it's definitely something on the list that we evaluate from a value creation perspective, comparing and contrasting with other opportunities for capital allocation. Beyond that, what do you think people are fundamentally missing about the Dynavax story? Not just on that one, but overall as a company, what do you think kind of are the main things you all are focused on in the next, say, like, 12 to 24 months? Yeah, I mean, I think the reality is we covered it all through this whole conversation. We think our story is pretty clear right now. Growing HEPLISAV-B, both market share and expansion, starting to set that trend so we can build and increase the confidence that this is a trajectory we're on and will happen. I think also identifying the pathway forward for our pipeline development to fully leverage our organization, and ideally adding some other opportunities to fully leverage our capability in the late- stage and commercial area. The story's pretty clear. I don't think there's a lot missing, frankly, as far as the story goes. I think it really just comes down to being able to solidify the trend because of the disruption from the pandemic. I think we're really gonna benefit from the HEPLISAV trend being solidified so people can really, you know, in my mind, check the box that, okay, that's happening, that's on its way, now I can start thinking about the rest of the business. Ultimately, I love where we're at. I think the company is in the strongest place it's ever been in. We have a team that's focused on continuing to maintain that strength as opposed to squandering it. You know, I think it's ultimately gonna play out very well for us. I think it's kind of more practically, outside of the quarterly numbers, which are obviously very important for you all, what do you think is the kind of, are the key catalysts in the next, again, 12 to 24 months? Outside the HEPLISAV growth and the core— Yeah Numbers there, I think it will be, how do our R&D initiatives progress, whether that's through our organic programs or if there's any earlier stage programs that we see opportunity to add to the list. How, you know, how do our BD and corp dev activities progress? Because I think those are potential catalysts for ways to leverage our org to do more things, depending on what opportunities we can bring in the door. Great. Beyond HEPLISAV. Although I do think HEPLISAV growth and continued growth is the number one, you know, factor in the very near term to demonstrate value creation. Okay, maybe finally, the question we're asking every company in the conference: What is the reason to own Dynavax stock in the next 12 months? I mean, I think like we said, the story's clear. You can understand it. I think we're very confident in our ability to continue to grow revenue. We think that provides a very unique investment opportunity in this marketplace. We're well capitalized, we're well organized internally, and we're disciplined, and I think we have the right strategy for growth. Okay, great. Any questions from the audience? All right, great. Well, we're glad to have the people from Dynavax here with you for joining us this afternoon. Thanks so much. Thank you. Thank you.