Good morning, everyone. Thanks for joining us here at the Goldman Sachs Healthcare Conference. Thrilled to be joined on stage today by the team from Structure Therapeutics. It's been a really busy week with respect to obesity, I would love to actually open up there. We're coming on the back of ADA. What did you learn over the weekend, and how does that inform your view of the obesity landscape as it stands today? One, we had a great ADA, just coming from New Orleans. Dr. James Rosenzweig gave the opening lecture with our ACCESS data. I think what we sort of took home from that, we also had a Nature Medicine publication that came out simultaneously to the presentation on Friday of ADA. Coming out of ADA, we clearly have the best-in-class profile. We just saw data from AstraZeneca come out yesterday, and that was one of the pieces that I think the field was waiting to see. Yeah. There's a tight grouping, I think, of the oral pills down in that sort of 11%-12% range, and we've currently shown data up to 16%. We're feeling really good about that. The other piece, I think, from ADA that was also a highlight was the amylin progress. There was a whole symposia on Friday, late afternoon, on amylin. Then we released data, a presentation, on Sunday showing some additional data on our ACCG-2671- on the amylin that has a very different profile than our aleniglipron. The main thing that's different is it has a 60-hour half-life in non-human primates, likely it'd be longer in humans. Excited about that, and we'll release that phase I data next quarter. Amazing. A lot of news from ADA. A lot of news. Let's stay at kind of like the high-level obesity market landscape. I would love if you could talk a little bit about your philosophy on where the obesity market is going over the next, let's call it five to 10 years, recognizing we're in the midst of a lot of change right now. I would just love if you could kind of talk about the direction of travel for the market. Yeah, Corinne. If you actually just go back six months, let's go back to December. Is there room for oral pills? No. People were sort of still debating. They're like, "Injectables are fine. Injectables are actually the convenience of once a week and everything." Fast-forward only one month, oral Wegovy launch. It is the fastest launch five months later, now 14% of the market is already oral pills, and this is all growth. Yeah. 80% of it is growth. Now we have Foundayo, and they're really starting to advertise. I think the oral pill market is just going to continue to grow the field, and that's a really good thing. It's all about giving patients options at the end of the day. There was all this pent-up demand for oral pills, so I think that's sort of one place where it's going to continue to grow. I think the other area that we're going to continue to see is patient segmentation. Combinations are going to be really important in terms of patient segmentation. We're excited. We'll start our phase IIa for amylin next quarter, and then we'll start our combination of our GLP-1 with our amylin in the fourth quarter. We're seeing more and more of these combos for specialized markets. A combo of GLP-1 with glucagon for liver disease, a combo for, you can imagine, a PCSK9 or an SGLT2. We're going to see in 5- 10 years, combos are going to become more and more important. The foundation molecules, the GLP-1, our aleniglipron, our amylin, those monotherapies, they're really for the masses, the large numbers. Great. Maybe you could also talk about the direction of travel for pricing, as that's been a key area of focus as these new drugs have come to market. Yeah. Jun, you're the money guy. This is a rapidly evolving space, as you can imagine, and price has been coming down. The opportunity for us on small molecules is cost of goods are really low, right? Where cost of goods are going to be traditionally where small molecules are, and that gives us a real big advantage with respect to pricing. It's going to be different for oral peptides because their cost of goods are just going to be much higher, and they're going to need more dosing to get the same level of efficacy on top of the fact that they got to formulate it as oral in order to work as a peptide. Great. All right. With those kind of big pieces in mind, maybe we could talk about your individual programs. Starting with aleniglipron, you have demonstrated phase II efficacy across a couple of studies now. Maybe you could just walk through the highlights from that program and compare now versus a broader set of oral obesity medications, as you mentioned AstraZeneca data earlier this week. Yeah. We shared back in December, it was ACCESS and ACCESS II data. ACCESS went to 120 mg, and ACCESS II went to 180 mg and 240 mg. What we've seen between the December data release and the March data release is we've seen up to 16% with no signs of plateauing. Again, best-in-class profile in terms of efficacy. What we've also shown is, keep in mind in phase II, it's there to really explore, and we know that we do not want to start at 5 mg. We do see some tolerability challenges. When we go to 2.5 mg, we see the tolerability significantly improves. Again, our starting dose in phase III is going to be 2.5 mg. That's another sort of learning that we've had. I think we've done more phase IIs than even the big pharmas. One of the reasons why I sort of point that out is we've really figured out how to work with aleniglipron. The 2.5 mg start, the once every four-week titration step. We have additional studies going on in body composition, for example. How exactly do we do those studies in the phase III setting? What is the maximum dose that we want to go to? Again, we've tested up to 240 mg. We've had our end of phase II meeting with the FDA, so we'll start the phase III in Q3, and we'll update further on exactly the doses. We've really learned a lot from this that's really put us in a good position to start phase III. Okay, great. Well, that's a great segue to the alignment you have reached with the FDA in a phase III program. Maybe up top, what are the key features of that phase III program as you see it? The FDA, there's lots of turmoil at the FDA. We're all familiar with what's going on there. In this particular space, obesity, we've had a really good set of interactions. They're worried about obesity in the U.S. 70%+ of Americans are overweight, 46% are obese. They came out with new guidelines last January 2025. In those guidelines, they were very specific. It needs to be 52 weeks on maintenance dose after your titration phase. It needs to be 4,500 participants, 3,000 on drug, 1,500 on placebo. They highlighted maintenance. They're really, really worried. 85% of people discontinue injectables after two years, 60% after one year. They're really worried about what's referred to as the yo-yo effect. People lose weight, then they gain weight, lose weight, gain weight. They highlighted maintenance. I think this is where small molecule pills are really going to have a particularly important unmet need for long-term maintenance. With all those guidelines, one question we get is, would a strategic do anything different than what we're doing in our phase III? The answer is no. Strategics, they have the same guidelines from the FDA. We've already seen in the other designs that others have done. For chronic weight management, and I'm specifying chronic weight management phase III, it's pretty much really dialed in by what the FDA has guided everybody towards. It's very straightforward. Okay. In terms of the titration schedules and top doses you're taking forward, I know you've kind of figured this out internally, what should we know about how many schedules you're taking forward, how long it will take to get to the top dose, that kind of thing? What we've disclosed so far is that we are going to start at 2.5 mg. Why 2.5 mg for us is a sort of sweet spot is for sort of two reasons. One, the tolerability profile improved significantly when we started 2.5 mg, so it was a really big learning. Second, 2.5 mg, we can see some weight loss. It's really important. You may be familiar with what's going on with the placebo arm in these phase III trials now. You know if you're on placebo within four to six weeks. If you're not losing weight, if you're not having any of the sort of the GI AEs, you know, and keeping people on the trial is a real challenge. We've had a lot of learnings from the phase II studies on how to keep people in placebo arm on the trial for a phase III. 2.5 mg is the right start. You lose a little bit of weight so that you know that you're on drug, and then the sort of stepwise four-week titration steps. We haven't disclosed the titration scheme yet. We'll disclose that when we start the phase III. It really depends. We'll be using three doses, sort of a low, medium, and high dose is what we're going to sort of do, and really excited to sort of get that started. How did you think about what would be patient-friendly with respect to titration schedule in terms of how long it takes to kind of get to the highest doses, et cetera? One of the things I should have mentioned at the very beginning was, with the data release that we had on Friday at ADA, we also released simultaneously a paper in "Nature Medicine." In "Nature Medicine," Dr. Blai Coll, our CMO, came up with this idea of using heat maps. Basically, what we've disclosed, I think it's the most data anybody's disclosed, individual patient data of what exactly is the journey and dose by dose for that ACCESS study. One of the questions that we were asking was, if a patient skips a dose, what happens? Do they have to start to re-titrate? If a person has a GI AE, do they have to restart or go down and what exactly is it? What we learned from this heat map, it's in that paper, it's also in our updated corporate deck, is individuals skip doses all the time, they don't have any problem. Absolutely no problem at all. Life happens. You forget something, you travel, you forget to bring the pills. That was a really important finding from that ACCESS study, and that "Nature Medicine" paper came out with those heat maps. I hope that people start to include these. The cumulative AE tables that we get, if I ask you, it's not fair to ask you this right now, over the past nine months, have you been nauseous? Yeah. I think almost everybody would say, "Yeah, in the past nine months, I've probably been nauseous once." These numbers, it's what everybody reports, but I think these heat maps of individual patient journeys really tell what's going on with the patient. What they do, everybody modifies the titration. I mean, this is personalized medicine at a global scale. Most people don't even go, if I think about Zepbound, I only know two people that have gone to the 15 mg dose. Almost everybody that I know at least has gone to 10 mg at the max. We really want to give patients the flexibility to titrate on their own schedule. The clinical trial will try to be relatively organized on it, but we do allow down titration. We do allow holding titration. It's really up to the individual. What's most important is that they have a good patient experience, they follow a titration scheme that they're comfortable with. When we were doing our own research on this five years ago, I remember going to a clinic outside of Boston, outside of 128, we asked the physician, "What do you want the most in next-generation obesity medicines?" She was very clear. She said, "Look, my phone is ringing nonstop. I don't want my phone ringing nonstop. I need flexibility. I need to be able to give my patients simple instructions. I need to give them flexibility." If they want to cut a pill in half, if they want to hold a titration up and down, I need to give them that flexibility. Yeah. That's the way we try to design the drug. You mentioned the trial conduct challenges, particularly with respect to discontinuations across both placebo and treatment arms, largely because people know they're not on drug and they could go get the drug from many options. I guess, could you be more specific about what you've learned and how you plan to manage that into phase III? Yeah. One of the experiments, again, what Blai did in the trial design for ACCESS is he added in, again, the heat maps were really creative, innovative. What Blai also did in the ACCESS study was he did an open-label extension. What exactly that was after nine months, we gave participants the option, "Would you like to go on drug for another nine months?" What was remarkable was 86% of people signed up for the open-label extension. That includes a placebo arm. People don't want to stay on the placebo arm for another nine months. We gave them the ability after nine months, that they could go on, and they would start at 2.5 mg. That was really important to give them. Part of our solution on the placebo arm with these clinical trials is giving people the knowing, "Okay, I'm on the placebo arm. I get drug after the end of the initial period." Then they're going to be on drug. They're going to get the care and everything, the healthcare. That is an incentive for them to agree to conduct the trial appropriately and to follow the guidelines. Because we know, we just saw data this weekend at ADA. There were placebo groups in some of the clinical trials where a significant number of participants on placebo were getting compounded GLP-1s. They had a 5% weight loss in the placebo arm. The participants, they asked them, "Did you take a GLP-1 during the trial?" They said, "Yes. Great. That seems a real challenge. Yeah. You talked about the weight management studies and those being very similar across the board, whether it's being conducted by a large or small biotech. I guess as you think about the adjacent indications and testing other long-term health outcomes, which we've seen many of these programs do, how are you thinking about a broader phase III program, and what is your capacity to kind of execute beyond weight management trials? We actually feel very confident we can do a phase III in chronic weight management, based on our experience, as good as anybody else. Sure. We've really learned that. Our experience, our expertise does not go beyond that. We cannot do a liver sort of parallel phase III in liver disease, MASH. We cannot do one in heart failure. This is outside of the scope of what we can do. Chronic weight management really is the fundamental. It is the foundation in this field. It's all about sort of losing weight first. That's where we're focused. Yeah. The natural question and where this sort of goes to is, where does the strategic Yeah A partner sort of fit in? A strategic really has that ability to go into other disease indications. We continue having those conversations. Okay. As you think about and you're having those conversations, I imagine it does come up, like what adjacent indications would be the best fit for a product with this profile? I guess, what would you share in terms of the adjacencies that you think aleniglipron would be best positioned to serve? Yeah. Jun, you've had. Yeah. I mean, in terms of phase III, we're seeing this with other programs like orforglipron and other competitors. They're in type 2 diabetes. They're in fatty liver disease. They're in osteoarthritis and sleep apnea, right? These are all adjacent indications that can be pursued. With a strategic, we could expand into those indications. As Ray said, our focus is chronic weight management. We have the funds to be able to do that. We have the experience and the learnings to be able to do that. We've got the green light from the FDA to start that phase III, and we can deliver that data by the end of 2028. To put a finer point on it, when do you think you would be able to start a phase III program here in terms of a timing through the rest of the year? We're guiding to the third quarter, right? It was just last month that we provided an update with respect to the end of phase II. Again, green light. We're aligned with the FDA on what that phase III needs to look like. When we start that phase III in the third quarter, we'll provide an update with respect to the doses. You already understand the 2.5 mg start low, go slow, four-week titration strategy. Yeah The only remaining item is really the three doses that we'll provide an update, and we have that alignment with FDA on. One somewhat adjacency is the kind of maintenance area. You talked about it earlier. Just remind us the parameters of your maintenance switch study from weekly injectables, and what do you think the benchmarks are for weight loss and management in that kind of indication? Yeah. Right now we have another trial going on right now that we call maintenance switch. Really the sort of question, the scientific question that we're asking here is when you want to switch over, again, we know the discontinuation rates in injectables is significant. It's a significant issue. Do you have to re-titrate if you want to switch over to an once-a-day oral pill for long-term maintenance? Can you seamlessly go from one dose of an injectable straight over to an equivalent dose of an oral pill? That's the scientific question. Our hypothesis is that you should be able to seamlessly go over and maintain that sort of weight loss. That's the hypothesis. Once your body has adapted to this class of medicines, we don't think it's a molecule-to-molecule specific thing. It's really about you've modified your eating habits. Smaller portions. Your gastric emptying has sort of regulated. Even the sort of effects of food noise and everything have sort of settled down. This is the biological hypothesis, being able to go over seamlessly to the same dose of an oral. We need to do this experiment. We're doing that right now. That will read out in Q4. That will set the stage. We think that this is part of a significant go-to-market strategy of how exactly do we sort of enter the market, and switching from injectables over to orals is one of several different paths. Would you think about a registrational program, like with that kind of setting or cohort of patients? Is that as well defined in terms of what it would need to look like? I'd say let's stay tuned on that. Okay. Right now, what we're laser focused on is there is the foundational. The FDA has their requirements. Yeah That we have to meet. That's what we're sort of focused on. That is the sort of longest study. Yeah. Again, the 52 weeks on maintenance, that's defined by the FDA. These additional studies are a subset of that. Okay. You can imagine a series of phase IIIb. Okay, perfect. You did mention that you have the funds sufficient to complete a phase III weight management program, but could you be a little bit more explicit about what that kind of cost you anticipate being? Yep. Yeah, it's going to be a pretty typical phase III. It's 4,500 patients, and it's going to be in the range of $300 million-$500 million. Right? We have a billion and a half in the bank, and we will be able to complete that registrational phase III study. Okay, great. Maybe let's talk about ACCG-2671 or the amylin program that you referenced earlier. Maybe start with just the data you shared at ADA. What do you think people should be most excited about or take away from the poster you presented? First, this is a non-human primate, so I just want to sort of set that. It's still a preclinical sort of model. We have a phase I going on right now. That'll read out next quarter. That's a human, single ascending dose, SAD sort of study. The data that we shared was we see significant weight loss, both as a monotherapy and in combination with GLP-1. That was sort of one important thing. Non-human primates in this class of medicines really is the best animal to study in terms of human. That was, I think, sort of really good to see. The second thing is we got additional PK data. In particular, one of the things that's been a topic of conversation, the half-life is, in non-human primates, more than 60 hours, six zero. Typically in humans, you will see an even longer sort of half-life. This opens up real differentiated profile. Aleniglipron clearly dosed once a day. We saw best-in-class efficacy, so the eight-hour half-life is not an issue. This opens up additional sort of dosing regimens that I think, again, will create a potentially differentiated profile. Got lots of questions, had lots of really good conversations. What it also does is it sets the stage. I think of Structure has been traditionally, most of our value is really in aleniglipron. We haven't gotten a lot of credit for amylin itself, and it's still a little bit early on amylin. Once we release the human data, that's more in particular the proof of concept. We also, in Q4, will go into human trials for the combo, that's our GLP-1 plus our amylin. We're going to go from a one-product company to a three-product company in the second half of this year. Great. You mentioned earlier, one of the things you mentioned earlier was that there was a symposium on amylin at ADA. As you think about the role that amylin, but particularly oral amylin, could play in the market, could you just contextualize that for us? I think the rules are going to be very similar to the GLP-1 space. Is there a market? This was a question just six months ago, end of 2025. Yeah. Is there really a market for oral GLP-1 pills? Clearly, the answer is 14% of the market in five months, three million pent-up demand, 80% growth of the market. Clearly, there is a large market for oral pills. It's going to be the same with amylin. In amylin, the hypothesis is potentially better tolerability, potentially better selective weight loss, fat over lean muscle. There's all those pieces. I think the same rules are going to apply in terms of oral pills versus injectables. What's great is this is really about giving patients different options. Yeah. I think that's an important part of that. Great. It's my understanding that it's a relatively challenging technical endeavor to design an oral amylin. Maybe you could talk a little bit about why those technical challenges exist and how you were able to overcome them with the design of ACCG-2671. I'm smiling because I'm going to sort of geek out a little bit sort of on this. Amylins are more complicated. It's got a protein called RAMP that binds to calcitonin receptors that then creates the amylin receptor. There are three different RAMPS, so there are three different amylins as well. There's this debate in the field about DACRAs versus SARAs as well. What's the right sort of molecule? It has a bigger binding site, a more complex binding site. We're really proud. I'm incredibly proud of the discovery team. I have many friends in the different pharmaceutical companies, and they're like, "Ray," they know that I've been focused on GPCRs for 30 years, but you can't make a small molecule to that. The team did it. Not only did they do it, but we released back in January our dosing for our SAD. The dosing scheme is one, two, five, 10, 20 mg. It is a potent molecule. That's also really important as well. With this half-life, even more, with a big binding site, with the complexity. It was a tremendous, I think, scientific accomplishment to get there. Now that we're there, we know that there's a lot of competitors sort of coming at us now that the patents have started to publish. This is where I'm also really proud of our IP strategy. It's worked in the GLP-1 space. We have more IP than anybody else on GLP-1 small molecules. Our amylin strategy is GLP-1 strategy on steroids. We've really done a lot. We've made a lot of molecules. We have our discovery in Shanghai, China. It's where we started the company from the very beginning. We take advantage of that chemistry, the chemistry resources there in discovery. A lot of IP in order to maintain our first in class position for that. You mentioned the DACRA versus SARA debate. I guess what do you think is the important debate in terms of how amylins are going to perform in patients? Yeah. Last ADA, Lilly announced a molecule called retatrutide that showed some really good sort of properties. It was really impressive. That's where I think this heated debate got really sort of going over the past 12 months, whether really are SARAs the ultimate or DACRAs. This ADA, there was a symposia Friday afternoon, one of the leading authorities in the field highlighted he actually likes the DACRAs, because the calcitonin really shows opportunities in bone health, and particularly with sort of weight loss. When you're talking about lean muscle, one of the questions is, particularly in older population, is bone health a factor? The hypothesis is hitting the calcitonin pathway, you can really improve bone health. The debate's continuing to go. It's not going to get resolved, I don't think, anytime soon. I think the amylin space really is the early innings still. Yeah. Early stages. We continue to see a lot of molecules. We know the DACRA mechanism is very safe. You know, cagrilintide has been in thousands of participants. Yeah in the clinical trial, we know it's safe. It's going to be an exciting field. The debate isn't anywhere near resolved. From a Structure perspective, we have 2671 that's now in phase I. It'll go into a phase II-A next quarter. Excited about that. That'll be a 12-week study. We also have another molecule going into the clinic in Q4, 3535. That's a different chemical scaffold. We're making sure that we want to win in this amylin space. We will put multiple molecules in the clinic. Not that there's anything wrong with our current molecule. We're going to put multiple ones, and we'll put both DACRA and SARAs into the clinic from a small molecule perspective. While the peptide field continues to really educate us as to what's going on. I'm really grateful to the peptide field. They've taught us so much. We learn as we make small molecules, what's the best Target Product Profile- Yeah for a small molecule. Are there other features that you think will be important other than DACRA, SARA, as it relates to like drug-like properties, et cetera, that you think will play a role in how amylins perform? I think that the same rules are going to apply that we applied to GLP-1. It needs to be a once-a-day drug. We don't think that there's really the sort of market for a twice-a-day drug. That's part of our TPP. Safety is going to be up there, is going to be again, these are molecules, medicines that are being used by millions of people. Safety, I think combinability is really important we think about early on. We thought about from day one, we want this to be combinable with other medicines. The fourth one, and this is something, everybody uses this word access, accessibility, during ADA for the last five days that we were sort of in New Orleans, they're really not talking about accessibility in terms of price. Cost of goods. We've spent a lot of time on manufacturing. We're really proud of our synthetic route, of our manufacturing process. The people that really need these medicines the most are the people that can't afford insurance. We're talking about a global market as well. It's really about numbers. This is really a volume play, is how we look at it. We spend a lot of time, and we're really proud of the manufacturing work that we've done to make sure these medicines truly are accessible. It's not just a word that people are using. They really are both affordable, no refrigeration, no requirements and cost that sort of comes from that. That's an important piece for us as well. Okay. What benchmarks do you think investors should have in mind out of phase I data in both monotherapy and combination settings? Again, I want to manage expectations. In a phase I, we give one pill. You take one pill. Again, we're doing one, two, five, 10, 20 mg. What we're looking for is, first of all, safety. Is it safe? Was there any sort of issue with it? Second, PK. We have to have those PK numbers to design the 12-week multiple ascending dose study. Sure. That's critical. Weight loss, people should not set any expectations. If I give you just one pill, let's not go there. If I take lessons from the GLP-1 space, when we did the SAD study, we went to the highest dose. We did see some of the gastrointestinal AEs. If you go straight to a high dose, you should see some of those. That's another piece that we can start to see at the higher doses. In terms of investing further behind the program, what should we anticipate with respect to additional studies both on the monotherapy and again on the combination side over the near term? I think the combinations are going to be fascinating. We're really excited to get that started in Q4. One of the scientific questions that we have is the combination mostly amylin with a little bit of GLP-1 or mostly GLP-1 with a little bit of amylin? We got to work that out, and that's a scientific question. That'll go into the combo design. What's the perfect molecule? The perfect molecule is very tolerable with good solid weight loss, and having the right sort of range. You mentioned Lilly did an ATTAIN-MAINTAIN study. They did a really good study. Lilly's done beautiful work. In that study, though, what they showed was orforglipron was okay relative to semaglutide, but relative to tirzepatide, Zepbound, people regained weight. orforglipron gives you 11% weight loss. That's the max. Can we achieve We're up to 16% right now, and we still have more room. We haven't plateaued. I think, can we maintain more of that mid-teens level of efficacy, the best-in-class profile that we have to date? Can that be maintained in a combo, in a switch, in a maintenance, long-term maintenance? I think that's where we'll continue investigating. What is your hypothesis with respect to the balance that you'll need to hit between GLP and amylin? Do you have any? I do. The bet that I'm putting on the team, we are debating this across the board. I think that it's more with this long half-life of amylin, what I'm excited about is, and how it achieves steady state. It's probably going to be sort of more amylin with a little bit of GLP-1 kicker. That's my bet. The team is pushing back, and bottom line is we don't know. We just don't know. We need to do the experiment. How long are the There are no good models on tolerability. Yeah. How long are the studies that you'll have to run in terms of number of weeks on drug or whatever to really kind of dial in the? I think that the 12-week studies, the phase IIa studies, you have to still titrate relatively fast. Still not a lot. We want to spend six months on that maximum dose. That only gives us six weeks to get to the titration phase. Part of the reason we're skipping the four-week study, we don't get anything meaningful out of four-week study. Most of the weight loss is water. It gives a point where investors get some data, they sort of like that, but it's not that informative. We're going straight to the 12-week study. Okay. Getting to the 36-week is really where we get the once every four-week titration. We sort of learn. We've seen a number of companies now that because they're trying to catch up, they're skipping some of these steps. I think that's dangerous. Yeah. We'll do the 12-week, the 36. That really educates us on how to then do the phase III, because at the end of the day, there'll be some volatility as we learn in phase II, volatility of, say, the stock. The data that really matters at the end of the day, there's one piece of data that matters the most. The end of phase III, what goes on the label. That's what matters the most. Okay. We're optimizing for that. Okay. As you think about the broader development programs we just talked about, can you provide an update on cash runway and the specific activities that you have embedded within that guidance? Yeah, absolutely. The latest guidance is, again, $1.5 billion cash as of the end of first quarter. It'll fund the registrational phase III study through the end of 2028. We'll deliver data on that. We also have our portfolio, including the amylin 2671, the 3535 programs that are in the clinic. 3535 will go into the clinic later this year. With 2671, we'll be able to fund through the 12-week MAD study. That'll start in the third quarter as Ray described. Great. That brings us perfectly to time, so I appreciate all of the time and conversations this morning, guys. Thanks to everyone who joined us here and online. Great. Thanks, Corinne. Thank you very much, Corinne. Thank you. Good luck.