Good afternoon, everyone. Pleased to welcome you to this, our last session of day one of the conference. Very pleased to welcome Christopher Simon, President and CEO of Haemonetics. Thank you again for making the trip to Miami. We were catching up before this. It's been a long time- Long time. since I saw you. You were here last year, but obviously we go back much farther than that in terms of the evolution of the company. Maybe just, you've completed an LRP, you've just set out fiscal year guidance. Talk to us about where are you in this transformation of Haemonetics? Thanks, and thanks for having us at the conference. Delighted to be here, and another chance to tell our story. Yeah, you talked about the LRP. That was a four-year plan that wrapped up about three months ago. If I reflect on that, we were coming out of COVID, we were managing the transition of a large customer. It was a challenging environment, to say the least. We went out with what we thought was bold, aspirational goals, and I'm pleased to say for the team that we achieved almost all of them. We thought we would grow high single digits. We actually grew 10%. We said we would grow mid-teens on our earnings. We actually grew mid-20%s and felt good about that. We had this very powerful combination of free cash flow in excess of $650 million. The margin expansion, where we fell a notch short. We were at 18% operating income margin when we started. We said we'd get to the high 20%s. We actually got to 25% and change, so 700 basis points, 770 to be exact, but not quite where we had thought to go. We would argue, and the guidance is something I'm sure we're going to talk a bunch about. The vast majority of the things we did over that four-year period, portfolio evolution, capability building within the organization, streamlining our operations, investing in a major ERP program, the vast majority of those are sustainable and bode well for where we go from here. Excellent. You're right. I do want to dive into the guidance here for FY 2027, the 3%-6% organic growth that you've set forth. Obviously, coming in below where you were over the LRP timeframe, understanding that there are some specific factors specific to 2027. Maybe just talk to us a little about the guidance framing and the considerations that went into setting the outlook. Again, delivery against bold, aspirational goals, unfortunately, due to a series of idiosyncrasies, most of which were actually beyond our control, institutional investors have abandoned the position and the sector, and our multiple is compressed now to historic lows. I don't want to be ignorant of that reality. We trade like a low to mid-single digit grower, and under the circumstances, thought it was best to be highly prudent and keep our guidance conservative in things we directly control. We're driving share gains across our businesses. We'll factor those in. We're executing on innovation that we know is valued as such in the market, where we have a price premium. When it's already contracted and we have hard deadlines, we're going to account for that. A very modest level of growth in collection and procedure rates, but all that's against a backdrop that I think more so than any time in my 10-year time with the company, we're a show-me story. It's about execution and rebuilding momentum with a goal of returning to a pattern of under-promising and over-delivering, and that's what you see in our guide. Let's talk about that a little more. I think one of the things that as we look at company guidance, we've started using as a benchmark is what do you have to believe takes place operationally to hit these numbers? If you did that exercise for Haemonetics, what are the things in your markets that have to be true, or what are some of the operating considerations that need to play out to hit the 3%-6%? Yeah. Well, we break down our businesses, and this is an interesting one, right? Because I've heard from investors, "You guys have become very complex." That's not true. We're very straightforward. We are three products, NexSys, TEG, and VASCADE. They make up more than 80% of our total revenue, the vast majority of which comes from here in the U.S., the products all manufactured here in North America. I think it's a pretty straightforward story. When I decompose those to get to your question, for NexSys, it's always been about three things. There's the market share gain or loss. There's what we command, a price premium or contraction for competitive pressures, and then ultimately collection volumes. We have line of sight to ongoing share capture. What we've put into the plan is the annualization of what we already did last year that's yet to annualize. Where we deal with pricing, we had a lot of pricing benefit last year from Persona. This year, it's going to be about the rollout of Persona PLUS, our latest technology. What's in the plan is where we have a contract and an agreed timeline. There will be further upsides to that. That would be upside to the plan. On collection volumes, we're doing exactly what we did last year, where we're saying essentially it's 0%-2%, and that's some number we'll talk about. From our vantage point, we feel quite good about the underlying health and vitality of that business. They're the three things that drive plasma. There's a separate set of things that drive interventional technologies and the broader blood management TEG business, again, though, procedure volume, share gain price is the basic story. We're putting in a modest degree, 50-100 basis points of margin expansion, operating income margin expansion. There will be some gross margin, but probably more so than you've seen in the past, that will be operating leverage as we scale those med-surg businesses. I want to talk a little bit about the sector just because you brought it up, but maybe just sticking on the guidance for a second here. Within that range of 3%-6%, or even thinking outside of those bands, what are the factors that would need to materialize to see the number be 6% or better, or what are the things that would need to take place to be 3% or lower? I think if I, again, if I'm breaking down plasma, I'd say a more rapid uptick in Persona PLUS. We know it's superior technology. The other companies can't match us. Our customers are very excited about the prospects. It will add roughly another 5% yield on top of the Persona adoption, and that will be a more balanced yield, just given the way the algorithms work for a number of our customers who have a different mix of demographics in their donor base. They'll all see that meaningful mid-single-digit growth. That's positive. If that happens faster in this environment, that'll be upside to us. Ongoing share gains, I think that defines us in plasma, but we've been conservative, and we want to make sure there's hard and fast commitments. On the collection volume, collection volumes grew 9% last year. We don't see that falling off a cliff. We think the end market demand for plasma is as robust as it's ever been, and our position within that's better than it's ever been. We don't control it, and because we don't control it, candidly, it's a non-guide guide. It would be wrong if we said it was 0%, so you get 0%-2%. Pick your number. What I can tell you is what we've done as a company over the last decade, we're going to grow 200-300 basis points above market growth on the things that we control. If plasma collection volumes look like they did last year, then that would be significant outperformance. On blood management technologies, it's the ongoing conversions, it's the share captor, and it's just driving utilization. It doesn't get talked about enough. Hopefully, we'll spend time on it today. That has grown 15% per annum for the last five years. It's not always linear, but it's always been double-digit and sometimes go up into the high teens. We think TEG, in its own right in med-surg, defines durable growth, and we're looking forward to surprising positively on interventional technologies, given the investments we've already made to get that business back on its foot. Unfortunately, I think you announced a re-segmentation. Yeah in the past, after I prepared my question. I want to talk about that a little bit. Before we dive into that, maybe just zoom back out to the sector. One of the things I think that's also a conversation around MedTech is just the overall health of volume. You listen to managed care companies and you think like, no one's going to the doctor. You listen to hospitals and Q1 was a little wobbly, but it's just the fault of weather and seasonality. We get Medtronic last week, and they sounded pretty good. You had the benefit of, you reported, obviously, your quarter ends in March, but you had seen some additional data points April and a lot of May when you reported this. Maybe what are you seeing? How are you kind of putting all this feedback together, and what's your perspective on the latest kind of volume outlook? Yeah. We want to pay really close attention to this. There's obviously large macro forces that can disrupt things. Candidly, we don't see any of it. We see very healthy volumes. If you look at TEG as an example, TEG is general cardiology, it's cardiac surgery, it can be used in interventional cardiology as well. It's big in transplant, and it's big in trauma. They're all categories where the growth remains really robust. We overlay driving greater utilization and a meaningful uptick outside the U.S. and Europe and Japan, where we've been running hard at those targets. Yeah, we're not hand-wringing about the underlying procedure volumes derailing our growth opportunity. When we look at interventional technology, both electrophysiology and structural heart, again, healthy markets. I think it gets obscured because there's meaningful share shift going on. Depending on who you talk to, if they're on the receiving end of that, perhaps they look and feel a bit different from us. The underlying strategy of enabling technologies, we're agnostic as to whose therapeutic you're using. What we care about is the access site holes that need to be closed, and can you use the best available? There is real science behind what's the total available access sites. People get confused because they see mid-teens growth in AFib. The reality is, last year, we think the access site growth for AFib was in the low single digits, probably 3.5% overall. That same number this year should be between 6% and 7%. I'm happy to walk through that, but basically, as they adopt the more advanced PFA technology, we're losing typically one access site per procedure. Same is true for concomitant therapy if they're doing AFib and left atrial appendage simultaneously. The good news, the silver lining here is that adoption rate has progressed so far so fast that the market is stabilizing, and that stability is a great backdrop for us to resume above-market growth. The base market, like I said, 6% - 7%. Eventually, we get on the other side of this, and that could be as early as the latter part of this year. Our growth rate and number of access sites will return to whatever the procedural growth rate is. We're looking forward to that return to double-digit growth. In the meantime, we're going to get it done with share capture. Great. I do want to talk about TEG and go into some of the specific products. Maybe you just talk about the reporting changes that you announced and what was sort of the genesis behind it and what you're sort of intending to communicate to investors with the new view of the company. The changes largely aim to align our external reporting with how we're already managing the business internally. When we look at plasma and blood center, Source Plasma, that's a key opportunity. It's globalized quite dramatically. The outside the U.S. growth is now outpacing the U.S. growth, and a lot of that is coming from what traditionally were blood center customers aligning with our Source Plasma customers. It's all being done on a NexSys device. By reconfiguring and retitling to apheresis, you're going to see 80%- 90%, et cetera, concentration on the plasma apheresis. Then we have the other, which is not an area that's getting a lot of capital or. We'll continue to break it out. We're not looking to take away any information. The hospital side, we're just trying to align with the terminology that more accurately defines our products and the segments they compete in. Importantly, I think we tried to be really clear about this on Friday with the announcement. This is a reporting change. It's not a change in strategy or outlook. We have not updated our guidance. The guidance we issued back in May is the guidance for the year until we have an opportunity to upgrade it as the year progresses. For now, everything stays intact. I guess there's probably one more possible rationale that is further down the road. If you think about it, we think there's an opportunity to further clarify the intrinsic value of each part of the business. Today we know we trade at a significant, read that as massive discount to the current sum of the parts. If by being clearer about the individual parts helps to begin to help investors quantify that discount, so much the better. Appreciate that there's always two pieces to getting value. There's quantifying the discount and all of us can do that spreadsheet math. There's realizing the different that gap through something strategic and operational. Are you actively having those conversations at the board level about breaking up the company, or is that more of a valuation point that you're trying to make? Our first, second, and third point is we're focused on execution to drive valuation, long-term shareholder returns, period, full stop. I think there's been enough noise in the system, as I said, the idiosyncrasies, I think about us and the overhang that you really dominated, unfortunately diminished really strong performance in FY 2026. The first of was $153 million of non-recurring plasma blood center revenue, which we've talked extensively about. There was also the IVT disruption, which was in one part PFA, it was one part the OEM sensor guided business that we acquired that had a disruption from J&J and Abiomed. There's obviously the dislocation of the cooling market. Candidly, on the cash flow side, we had real things we needed to do to build devices to get the share gains we've now gotten in plasma. We built a new manufacturing facility, state-of-the-art operations in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, to deliver against all this opportunity, and we rebuilt our inventories after a massive depletion from all those things diminished. If I look at that, whether it's plasma, blood, whether it's the recovery in interventional technologies or a return to really robust cash flow, that overhang is behind us now. We've got to execute, and we got to execute across 100% of the business, not 85%. We know that. Sitting here this time next year when we sit down, if we're still trading at 10-12 times forward PE, then we'll have a different conversation because the company is just worth significantly more than that, period, full stop. Maybe just on the. Now you've sort of opened this. Go for it. box. I'll let you keep going. Look, PE has been increasingly active in MedTech. We've started to say, maybe we've been hearing about it for the better part of a year and a half, and I think in one of the public sessions here last year, our bankers talked about private equity interest in MedTech. Are you seeing inbound interest for the company, or are you still talking more the theoretical valuation level? I think the practical reality is anybody that lives at the intersection of MedTech and small mid, if you're not having these conversations, there's probably something wrong, right? Just in terms of valuation and our obligation as fiduciaries to deliver value. From our vantage point, we think the most important thing to drive value is the execution against the existing business, right? Get back on the path of exceeding expectations, delivering consistency, making sure the durable growth of this business and the outstanding free cash flow generation and conversion ratio becomes apparent. We do that, I think intelligent investors, public or private, will find their way to our doorstep, and at the end of the day, that's our obligation. Are you guys buying back stock? We've bought back stock meaningfully over the course of the past year. It's a second capital allocation priority behind the organic investment that we're making clinically and commercially in the business. We think the ROIC on that first-tier investments have been really attractive. A second priority is the buyback. We feel quite good about our balance sheet and where we are. We'll pay down debt opportunistically. For now, yeah, the buybacks, and we have just over $300 million, about $325 million remaining on a prior authorization. Opportunities present themselves, we'll buy back the stock. We understand the cost of our equity and the cost of our debt. Excellent. That's a good segue as you continue to reframe execution and dive into the businesses. Maybe, why don't we start, you pick. Where do you want to start from a business perspective? What do you want to highlight to people? Then we'll go through the key franchises. Let's touch on plasma, but make sure we spend enough time to go through med-surg. Yep particularly both parts of it. Okay, great. Plasma, I'd always thought about this market as high single-digit growth in terms of end-user demand. Collections should follow that in volumes, or probably lead that a little bit if companies want to build inventory. How do we square that with the 0%-2% number? Yeah. Again, 0%-2% is as close as we can get to a non-guide guide without falling back on any transparency at all, right? When we look at the underlying demand for this market, it all traces back to what is the underlying demand for IG, right? We look carefully at the end markets. There's lots of folks more learned and more knowledgeable about this than us, but we look at the 55% of the IG pharmaceutical market that's primary and secondary immune deficiency. That growth rate continues unabated, tragically, in part because of cancer therapy and reactions therein. On the autoimmune side, obviously, there's been new entrants. That's a good thing. It's a good thing for the category. It's a good thing for patients. There's very little to no evidence that the alternative therapies are picking up significant volume of new patient starts outside of the ultra-rare orphan diseases like myasthenia gravis. In the big categories, ITP, CIDP, IG remains first-line therapy. When someone's non-IG responsive or not responsive enough, you see the adjunct therapy. It's a good thing for patients. It's not coming at the expense of demand. There's different numbers out there. Pick your favorite number. From a long-term planning perspective, we tend to look at 5%-7% growth in demand for IG. We overlay what should we reasonably deliver, and that's my point earlier, about 200- 300 basis points on top of that, either through share gains or incremental pricing against superior technology. There'll be some uptick with regards to a move to subcutaneous, which requires more plasma, but there's also yield enhancements, ours and others that is coming from the fractionation side. That largely nets out. Take that 5%-7% as we see it, add a couple hundred basis points. That's how we've delivered what we've delivered, essentially for the last decade. That's helpful perspective. I want to go on to med-surg, but maybe just the last one. Does plasma collection serve as sort of a hedge in a scenario where there is macroeconomic weakness? I always thought about collections as being counter-cyclical. Unemployment goes up, collections go up. Is that a reasonable consideration? I think it's very reasonable. I'll just answer it in the here and the now. This is as good a collections environment as I've seen over the last decade. I think it's a very different economy for your typical donor than it is maybe for some other folks gathered here today. In that regard, our collectors are able to collect all the plasma they want at very favorable prices. Obviously, our yield enhancement, our speed enhancement, our software support, and what we can do to really drive donor loyalty helps the cause a great deal. I think this is as good an environment as we've seen. Excellent. Well, maybe not, but helpful perspective. Why don't we switch over to med-surg? Sure. Why don't you take us through what you're excited about? You talked a little about the dynamics with VASCADE and this EP WATCHMAN interplay. That sounds like that'll cycle through pretty clearly, maybe you want to start with TEG maybe, and then go from there. Yeah. TEG is on a run. As I said, it's grown 15% on average over the last five years. That's a variety of factors. We've added new indications, the most recent of which was heparinase neutralization, global heparin neutralization cartridge, that's really opened up the aperture for us to be able to move our existing TEG 5000 business, which is a lab-directed product that has a much broader swath of indications. Because we can now match it and the success ability, functionality is comparable, we're moving it more into a site of care. It's a new device. We get the device sales. We like that profile a lot. These are devices that we sell that are attractive returns. We have a whole package of software around TEG Manager that's helping drive heuristics and treatment protocols. The other thing that's coming out of this and the ultimate metric that we run to is we're seeing literally 2x the revenue per device on the 6s than we were even three years ago, which tells me we're making meaningful inroads in utilization. I get asked all the time, "Is this thing sustainable? This was a $100 million product five years ago." At $200+ million, it is absolutely sustainable. We think it defines durable growth in med-surg, a big part of that is nearly half the market still doesn't use viscoelastic testing or use it at scale. That's the opportunity right there. Even in Europe, which tend to be do-no-The viscoelastic testing readout helps avoid harm in terms of the underlying treatments. Yeah, we think TEG's best days are ahead of it. Excellent. Maybe we go on to the interventional business, just in the interest of time. We talked a little bit about the EP side. Maybe talk through structural heart as EP goes through this transition. It negatively impacts number of access sites. Help us understand the other growth drivers in the business that can supplement that. Yeah. Besides share gains. It's a critical question, right? When we look at IVT, we went in the wrong direction. We contracted 9% last year. An important distinction is 80% of that contraction was a combination of ensoETM, the cooling device for radiofrequency ablations, and the OEM portion of our sensor-guided technology. For ensoETM, we thought we were entering a category that would hold 25%-35%. We got that wrong. That's a mistake. If I could take it back, it's $160 million that we put out there for that asset. The market is just really challenged. We're doing what we can do, but it's a challenged market to be sure. That was of the $16 million contraction. That was two-thirds of it right there. We exited the year, we did roughly $2 million in the fourth quarter on ensoETM on a print of $346 million. It's at the point where it just can't hurt us. Right? The other part of it was the OEM sensor-guided business. We acquired that business. Shortly thereafter, J&J acquired Abiomed. They did two things. They leveled up the production. We have a contract that requires them to buy at least 50%. That leveling, coupled with that said they had over a year's inventory on hand. They wanted to take it down to a much smaller level. Fortunately, both of those effects have now annualized. At this point, we should grow certainly with the category or above. There's obviously questions around that, but we feel quite good about our ability to bring that business back to above-market growth. How about Vivasure? Vivasure, we had taken an option on that company several years back. What we think is really critical is the landscape for large bore closure is just really underdeveloped. We look at that as roughly a $300 million addressable market, predominantly for TAVR and EVAR. What we have is a product that's just meaningfully differentiated. It's sutureless, it's fully bioabsorbable, and it can handle up to that 26 French OD, nothing is left behind in the vessel. When you look at it clinically, leveraging the PATCH trial data, for example, immediate median hemostasis. Very strong safety outcomes. Clearly superior to anything that's on the market. It's a straightforward, easy procedure to use, the patch with a clip technology. Unfortunately, if you need to go back in 30 days later on a redo, you can go anywhere along the vessel because the patch is fully bioabsorbable and the patient's fully recovered. We think it's a market that we should do well. It is closure. It's one of the three things you should expect from us in FY 2027 to demonstrate we're back on our front foot. Okay, excellent. I want to make sure we can talk about margins a little bit, and cash flow. Before we go there, try to wrap this all together. As we think about the 3%-6% guidance that you're laying out, you kind of started me on the MedSurg side. Within the EP exposed segment, there are some market dynamics that you're managing through that I think everyone is very well aware of now, is the impact concomitant is having on standalone WATCHMAN procedures, the impact that PFA is having, and advanced PFA technologies that are all in one mapping and ablation that are having on access sites. That's going to cycle through. Yep. That you don't have a ton of control over how the market evolves. You can control your market share, but how quickly we move to stability and concomitant procedures or how market share plays out on EP is still they're fighting that out. Go to the TEG side, continue to see great upgrade momentum with TEG 6s and really strong growth there. Opportunity to do well with the TAVR and EVAR opportunity on Vivasure. We go over to the plasma side. It's like, okay, the market's good, we're just going to take a super conservative approach and the levers to the upside and the guidance really sit with plasma. Maybe in a scenario where the PFA dynamics play out faster or stabilize at a lower rate than people expect. That could be upside as well. Is that a fair way to characterize it? There's clearly upside in the apheresis business along the lines you described. I think even with the historical blood center business, we're not giving up on that business by any stretch. That's been a consistent outperformer. We've guided to negative mid-single digits there. We obviously did better than that last year. We would aspire to do better than that this year. The apheresis piece, I think exactly as you describe it, and then some. We're equally bullish on MedSurg, we guide it to mid-single digit growth. I just got done saying vascular closure is the biggest opportunity within IVT. We think the market growth rate is going to be roughly 6.5%. If we don't return to above-market growth, we would be concerned about that. We see upside in vascular closure. I talked about the guidewire business, where we're dependent upon FDA. We put cost in for the Vivasure product launch, PerQseal Elite, we don't have any revenue. That's just our convention and a way to be prudent. We get that approval in FY 2027, we're going to come out of the gates in a really purposeful, stepwise function. We want to play for the long term, make no mistakes, we're going to have guns blazing, and we're going to be successful with that product. There's upside there, for sure. TEG just delivered what they delivered for the year and for the last five years. We don't see them slowing down anytime soon, we don't control all the vagaries of the markets and the type of things that you and I are talking about here. Let's be conservative and give ourselves room to outperform. Excellent. Maybe sort of toggling over to the margin side. You just went through a period of a pretty significant margin expansion as you laid out 700 basis points over roughly, I think, a four-year period. Yep. As you talk about 50 -1 00 basis points this year, how much is that influenced just by the level of top-line growth? There's just some level of minimum top-line growth you need to achieve operating leverage. How much of this is just maybe a hangover from the sort of significant amount of margin expansion you realized in the prevailing period? Yeah. By far, the last four years have been driven by gross margin expansion. We've held it together and beat back tariffs and inflation and geopolitical disruption and cost to make sure that that drops through proportionately. We have not achieved the operating leverage that we had aimed for initially. I'll come back to that because I do think that's going to begin to manifest pretty materially this year. When we look at it, though, gross margin's not done. Sure, volumes matter. Mix matters. Both of them are trending favorably for us and should continue to do so. We put high marks on ourselves to continue to push price on valued innovation. Core productivity, which a lot of our productivity has gone to offsetting these headwinds. We come out the other side of that, and we've been very conservative in terms of how we thought about the cost of tariffs and inflation in our current plan. We catch a break there, or we get further ahead of our own cycle, we'll be back on the train to drive productivity in ways that it covers not just inflation and merit, but the broader cost. There's more to do on the gross margin. I think what's going to be new to the story, as you hear James talk about it, is our operating leverage, and that's just a scale play within hospital because we've already made the investments both for blood management technologies and interventional technologies. We have what we need to succeed. We now need to leverage it. Excellent. We have just about a minute left here. Maybe I'll turn it back to you as you think about your earnings call, your meeting with investors today, just obviously at our discussion here, what do you want people to walk out of the room with as the key take-home message? I use the phrase at the risk of being philosophical about it, the fog's clearing, and it's going to reveal a forest for the trees. The fog is that overhang that I ticked off earlier, the 153 and the IVT. What it's going to reveal is durable growth, where you have this apheresis business that's just an engine of mid-single digit growth or better, and the associated EBITDA and free cash flow, which strengthens the balance sheet and gives us real optionality. Flip over on the other side, I think we'll replicate the playbook that we've gotten very right in BMT as we execute in IVT. Now you start seeing operating leverage and a much higher potential, not just for durable growth, but outsized growth. That's what we're planning for. We understand where we sit in the market. We're a show-me story. We're going to underpromise and overdeliver and continue to do so until we're on the other side of this. Excellent. That's a great place to wrap up, Chris, really appreciate your coming to the conference again this year and giving us this update, we'll look forward to the next update in August, if not something transpiring before then. Great. Thanks for your time. Thanks, Chris.