Good morning. I'm Serge Belanger, one of the healthcare analysts at Needham. I want to welcome everybody to Needham's 25th Annual Healthcare Conference. For our next session, we have NewAmsterdam Pharma with us, development-stage company, late-stage, developing a novel product for metabolic diseases. From the company, we have the CFO, Ian Somaiya, with us. I'll kick it over first to Ian. He can give us an overview of the company, and then we'll move on to some Q&A. Ian, thanks for joining us this morning, and I'll hand it over to you. Yeah. Happy to be here, Serge, and thank you again for inviting us to participate. It's always been a welcome addition to our conference season and obviously, we're excited to present to you and to the investors that are kind enough to join. For those that are maybe not as familiar with NewAmsterdam Pharma, we are developing two treatments for elevated cholesterol, obicetrapib, as well as a fixed-dose combination of obicetrapib and ezetimibe. Over the course of, let's say, the past 18 months, very exciting period of time, with three pivotal data readouts, not only demonstrating consistent benefit across those phase III studies from an efficacy standpoint, but also remarkable safety profile. As we look at the phase III dataset from the BROOKLYN and BROADWAY studies, which are for the monotherapy obicetrapib as well as TANDEM, what we've now seen is a consistent 35%-40% LDL lowering with the monotherapy, and roughly a 50% reduction with the fixed-dose combination. I think equally important is the benefit we've observed beyond LDL. This is a treatment or modality, and there have been several CETP inhibitors that have been studied in the past that has shown reductions in Lp(a), which is a lipid marker that's of acute interest today, and a subject of multiple phase III studies including outcome studies. We've also seen improvements in diabetes, and this is a hallmark characteristic of the class of drugs and something we're obviously quite excited to report on in our phase III studies. What was quite surprising was the early MACE signal, which we observed in BROADWAY, which was the largest of the three LDL-lowering trials. There we observed a 21% MACE benefit, which again, does speak to the role or the impact that obicetrapib is having above and beyond simply lowering LDL. Because what would've been expected based on the LDL reduction is roughly a 9% benefit, and what we saw in the trial was 21%. It's been an exciting period of time from a data release perspective. As I think about the future of the company and where we're devoting a lot of our resources and attention, is continuing to execute on the clinical trials, the phase III trials that are ongoing today, which are obviously PREVAIL, I'm sure we'll spend a lot more time on. PREVAIL is the outcome study. We also have REMBRANDT, which is an imaging trial, but we kind of view it internally as an outcome study for the fixed-dose combination. The other phase III study is RUBENS. It's a study that we initiated at the end of last year, and there the population is limited to those with metabolic syndrome, but not established cardiovascular disease. This is an important patient population because when you look at the number of diabetics in this country that are high risk for cardiovascular disease, those are 30 million in number, and you could pretty much double that if you start to look at the pre-diabetic patient population. This is also a patient population which when you look at the results from BROOKLYN and BROADWAY, where we had some of the best outcomes. Again, another important trial for us. Outside of or beyond the clinical side, we're also preparing for the launch of obi and the fixed-dose combination in the U.S., where we've maintained geographic rights to. That entails expanding the commercial footprint, bringing on key members of leadership within the commercial organization. The most recent was Steve Albers, who joined us from Novo Nordisk, where he was responsible for U.S. payer access. Someone that was involved in the negotiations with the current administration for their diabetes and obesity drugs is obviously going to play a huge role in navigating us through payer discussions as well as whatever MFN looks like in the future, that along with a lot of the enabling functions. When I say enabling functions, it's the HR function, it's the finance function, as well as legal function, which need to grow along with the overall organization growth, and our company has doubled in size with a little bit over 100 people today. We are also getting ready for the commercial launch in the U.S. It's been an exciting period of time, both a period where we've been able to share with you and the investor community in terms of clinical data, but also just wanted to emphasize the organizational growth that enables us to be ready for what's next. Great. Well, thanks for the overview. Like you mentioned, you reported results from three phase III studies over the last 18 months, a lot of data, positive. You feel it's really changed the perception of CETP inhibitors with KOLs. It was a class that had a history, and now we have a lot more new data. How has it changed that perception? Yeah. When we look at the lipid-lowering landscape, what we find are treatments that are quite effective at lowering LDL. They have very little role to play in other risk factors that these patients also experience. Most notably, it's the Lp(a), the diabetes, as well as the impact obicetrapib has on clearing smaller particles. Those are aspects of cardiovascular risk that have resonated well with the clinical, as well as the KOL community. Going beyond that, the role that ApoE4 plays in enhancing Alzheimer's risk, that is an aspect of the drug's profile that we shared results from last year, and that also has garnered a lot of attention and enthusiasm and will lead to start of a dedicated phase II study later this year in a preclinical Alzheimer's patient population. Okay. I think the PREVAIL outcome study is a big focus, especially for this year. People aren't sure if they're expecting data, but I think we're going to get an update by mid-year. Maybe let's just talk about how you design the study. Mm-hmm How you think it's de-risked, then we can go on. Yeah. I think that's exactly it, the operative word here is de-risk. As Michael likes to put it, we've designed a study that's going to really enable the drug to succeed. Put it another way, we want to take every measure we can to not fail the drug. When you look at the PREVAIL study, it takes all the learnings from previously conducted outcome studies and really takes them into account. From a design standpoint, first and foremost, we have a patient population with elevated LDL. As you know from the baseline in PREVAIL is well over 100. It's one of the highest baseline LDLs for an outcome study. We've also taken steps to eliminate patients who are unlikely to benefit from a lipid-lowering therapy, so specifically patients that have had heart failure, because those are just too far along to benefit from a single modality in the case of just simply lowering LDL. It's aspects of that and also enhancing for other risk factors such as diabetes, such as Lp(a), that we think sets the trial ultimately for success. The other aspect of the design is having the longest minimum follow-up of any outcome study to date. Patients will be followed for a minimum of two and a half years, and that is the first of the two triggers for stopping the study. The other trigger is that we need to get to a requisite number of cardiovascular events. Those could be mortality, those could be heart attack, those could be stroke, as well as revascularization. Once both of those triggers are met, the minimum follow-up, as well as the events, then we can disclose the results from the trial. You're absolutely right, we do plan to provide an update middle of this year. The reason for the update middle of this year is we would have had the opportunity to follow patients for a minimum of two years and adjudicate events at that time point. Once you get to the two-year mark and beyond that, the event rate is quite predictable. More specifically, the event rate in the placebo arm will be more predictable, and then we can give you more precise guidance on when to expect data from PREVAIL. Okay. Are you also planning a publication on the study design for the study? Would there be any additional new data for us to chew on? What you're referring to is a design paper. You would learn more about the background of the patients. Having said that, we've shared quite a bit of that information with you already in terms of the baseline LDL and the different aspects of the other baseline risk factors, and the proportion of patients that are on different combinations. A lot of that will be in the design paper. While the team continues to work on that, we'll obviously find ways to enrich it for more information. It's premature for me to say what to expect in that publication. Okay. I remember at this time last year, the conversation was around the primary endpoint, the three-component MACE or the four-component MACE. Yeah. I think you went forward with the four ones. Maybe just highlight what went into that decision, why there was even a discussion. Yeah. It was a discussion that was primarily internal. As we've done in the past, we've always been transparent with the investment community. There was an internal discussion in terms of whether to move forward or maintain a four-point MACE, versus evaluate a three-point MACE. The reason for even considering the three-point MACE was the magnitude of the benefit observed in BROADWAY, that 21% MACE signal with a four-point MACE. With a three-point, it was slightly higher. Where we ultimately ended up is remaining with the four-point MACE, and this is something that obviously is the basis for the CTT regression line. What we've always seen quite consistently across different outcome studies is the translation of LDL to also include stroke, which would've been one of the endpoints we would've excluded if we left it to three-point. It's classic in terms of the definition we're using. Having said that, we're also going to be looking at the three-point MACE, and obviously we'll report on that as well. The BROADWAY trial reported data in late 2024. I think that the headline of that data was that 21% MACE reduction. Mm-hmm. Is that the bar for success for PREVAIL? How should we think about the data and how it compares to that MACE reduction you were able to show at one year? Yeah, that's a question, obviously, that's on everyone's mind. We've tried to answer that by engaging with the clinician community, as well as payers. Because ultimately, we want to also know what the translation of MACE is from a commercial success standpoint, and the answer's been pretty consistent. At this point, we've engaged with well north of 1,200 clinicians globally. We've engaged with vast majority of the payer groups, both in the U.S. and outside to get their perspective. The answer consistently is they want to see clinical success. What that means for them is a translation of LDL reduction, and LDL is a biomarker, to MACE benefit. This is a biomarker that's been validated in well over 20 studies. We expect to be able to do that as well in PREVAIL. I can easily imagine what the follow-up question is going to be. Yes, we did test different thresholds of MACE benefit, and what we consistently heard from the clinicians as well as the payers is it's a p-value. As long as you reach the requisite p-value, and the trial is successful, payers will provide access, and provide broad access, and physicians will use the drug. The determinants of how the drug will be used, and in sort of which patients and how quickly, those are all the other factors that we've discussed in the past, the LDL plus characteristics of the drug. Now, first and foremost, we have a treatment that can get vast majority of patients to goal, and especially if you look at the fixed-dose combination, depending on their risk-based goal, if it's below 55, we can get north of 70% of those patients to goal. If it's less than 100, we can get well over 90% of those patients to goal. It's beyond that, in the proportion of patients that also have Lp(a) as a risk factor, that could easily be 10 million-20 million individuals in the U.S. If patients do have elevated Lp(a), it's clear that obicetrapib would be used in that patient population. Same thing for diabetes, and we'll find out over time, because we tested this, but we'll test this more in the future, is the role that the Alzheimer's potential benefit could play in adoption. The initial feedback from the Alzheimer's front was that the data we've shared with you, which is this analysis of the subgroup of patients in the BROADWAY study, that alone would lead to a 30% increase in use of obicetrapib above and beyond what the CV profile would support. Yeah, there is really one magic number, and the magic number is a p-value. Okay. I'm sure that's not as satisfactory as some MACE number, but it's also good to know that there's a consistent view or perspective on the PREVAIL study. You find that that view is consistent across payers and KOLs pretty significantly? Yeah. Yeah. No, it is. It is. Got it. Okay. When the study reads out, are you also looking at some of the AD biomarkers and some of the diabetes? Are we going to see more data from this in the PREVAIL study? Yeah. BROADWAY was designed to be a mini PREVAIL, and the wealth of data that BROADWAY really allowed us to share with you, it makes it for an exciting outcome in PREVAIL. Obviously, first and foremost is we want to make sure the trial is successful, and the clinical operations team has done a phenomenal job in ensuring quality metrics or metrics that we can control. We're exercising every control. Simply, it's making sure every patient stays on therapy, and every patient stays in the trial. It's really that. Going back to the Alzheimer's front, we have the benefit of a patient population in the study that's four times larger than BROADWAY, and treatment duration that's potentially also four times longer. We're keen to evaluate the Alzheimer's biomarkers that we shared with you in BROADWAY, but also the other aspects of the drug's profile. You mentioned one, diabetes. The other one I would mention is the improvement in kidney function that was also seen in BROADWAY. These are all, by the way, HDL-related. As we think about Alzheimer's benefit, the diabetes benefit, as well as the kidney function improvements, these are all related to the HDL-raising aspects of the drug, which is obviously a key differentiating feature of obicetrapib and the CETP class compared to the other drugs that are on the market today. Yeah. Before we move on, just in terms of regulatory plans here, I think in the past, you've talked about wanting to proceed with the U.S. launch once the outcomes data was out. Mm-hmm. I assume when you give the update, that'll also give us an update on the regulatory plans. There's been no change on that strategy? No, no. We're in a unique place, in terms of starting our outcome study at the same time, nearly the same time as when we started the LDL studies. There's a much shorter lag between LDL data and outcomes data compared to studies that were done in the past. Mm When you look at past programs, whether it be statins or ezetimibe or some of the PCSK9s, and that's also true for the PCSK9s that are in development today. We want to leverage that by launching in the U.S. when we have outcomes data in the public domain. Just want to be clear there, we don't really need to have outcomes data in the label. We just need to have the data in the public domain. Whether that's through a scientific presentation or publication, more likely it's going to be both and right on top of each other. That's what the feedback from the payers has been. They just want to know the trial is successful, and if that's confirmed, then they'll provide broad access. Yeah. I think your European partner is taking a different approach. Yeah. They're expecting to have approval later this year. Mm-hmm. Is it still on track for second half of 2026? Yeah. We do expect approval or recommendation for approval from the CHMP, and then a formal approval in the second half of this year. Our partner, Menarini, then would be able to launch. What we find quite typical with European launches is U.K. and Germany are the sort of first two countries you launch, Germany first, U.K. next. That's what we would expect either later this year or the early part of the following year. Okay. Would the E.U. launch be a proxy for what we could expect in the U.S. or given that it's so segmented by country? Yeah There won't be outcomes data, it could be very different? No, it is. It is quite distinct in that regard because it can take upwards of two years to launch in all the countries in Europe. The pace of adoption tends to vary. We need to get through pricing negotiations, or Menarini does, for each of those countries. There is obviously access that's available at the time of launch, and all this takes time. There's a schedule that Menarini has that they plan to execute on. As a result, Europe is not a proxy for the U.S. As a result, there's just a lot of nuances at play. One of the things you mentioned was launch timelines in Europe are obviously ahead of the availability of outcomes data. One of the reasons for that is, so using Germany as an example, once we launch there's still a 12-month period of time when price is negotiated or finalized. During that period of time, we would expect to have the outcomes data to help influence whatever the final price is in that country. Yeah. In terms of market opportunity, I think everybody understands the LDL-C reduction opportunity is large. Yep. There's been a significant development activity. There's new entrants coming in. There's been new treatment guidelines. I guess now that we're seeing some involvement of the marketplace, where do you see obicetrapib kind of fitting in there? You highlighted the AD component, diabetes and all that. Mm-hmm. Just how it plays in. Yeah. Let's spend some time on the treatment guidelines that were just recently updated. Prior to the treatment guidelines, we believe there were 30 million patients in the U.S. that were sort of target population for obicetrapib. With the updated treatment guidelines now advocating not only lower LDL goals, so getting patients to 55 or below, but also potentially earlier start, not waiting for patients to have had their first event or have established cardiovascular disease, but really preventing any events at all. We're looking at a patient population that's obviously quite large in the U.S. alone, and when you think about the global opportunity, even larger than that. Our perspective on the competitive landscape is this is an opportunity for all of us to succeed. The focus has to be on patients, getting patients on treatment. Because what we know from existing data is, especially when you look at the LDL goal of 55 mg/dL, fewer than 10% of patients are able to achieve those goals with the treatments that are available to them today. There is a need for more effective treatments. When you look at the TANDEM results with our fixed-dose combination, we're able to get upwards of 70% of patients to goal with a background of a statin. If you have patients on statins plus our fixed-dose combinations, we can greatly impact goal achievement. Above and beyond that are the other risk factors these patients do experience, which are related to diabetes, Lp(a), but let's not forget the particles. If you have a patient that's on a statin today, and let's say statin or with a combination with ezetimibe, the LDL that remains are primarily the small to medium particles. That's what obicetrapib does a wonderful job of eliminating. As you think about even residual risk limited to LDL, there are few treatment options available to these patients and obicetrapib should be preferred as a combination agent in this patient population. As we think about future treatments are basically two in number in terms of the two oral PCSK9s that are in development today. The profile we already know, they are just PCSK9, and they are, as a result, LDL-lowering treatments, but both offer the convenience of an oral regimen. We think that's going to resonate quite well with physicians based on our market research. There's a general preference by physicians as well as patients in choosing oral versus an injectable. The opportunity for us is to deliver a low-dose, quite safe oral treatment that gets vast majority of patients to goal, but has benefit that goes beyond LDL. That also speaks to the future and the development, the strategy for obicetrapib being a pipeline in and of itself. Today, we're developing a fixed-dose combination, which we expect to launch on the same day as obi alone. The future is fixed-dose combinations that go well beyond that. You can think about statin combinations, PCSK9 combinations, Lp(a), as well as oral GLP-1s. As a result, the opportunity size will just continue to grow. Yeah, in terms of commercial strategy here, even though this is a very large market, we've seen both large companies and small companies commercialize their own products. Just curious what approach when you start building out your commercial presence here for a potential launch? Yeah. We have vast majority of the commercial leadership in place. I mentioned Steve Albers, who joined us from Novo Nordisk, and the role he's going to play heading up payer access for us, which is obviously key to success in any market, most notably in the U.S. There are several other hires, which we'll announce in due time. The commercial leadership is in place. The MSLs were deployed almost two years ago now. The opportunity to speak to the unique aspects of CETP as a mechanism and the role it could play in the future, I think that's a message that we're continuing to deliver to the clinician community. Obviously, we can be a lot more open once the product is approved by the FDA. That's the next step in terms of preparing for the launch, which is the hiring of the commercial organization, in terms of the sales reps. That doesn't happen really until a few months before regulatory approval. As you think about the costs associated from a commercial standpoint, they're going to be quite low and quite manageable, up until we're basically staring at launch. Okay. At the top in your opening comments, you mentioned some of the other studies that are ongoing, REMBRANDT. I think some of them are exploring obicetrapib's impact on diabetes. I think they're starting a Alzheimer's program. Is the goal here for these studies to potentially seek out separate labels? Yeah Different things or just to have complementary data to enhance the commercial potential of the product within LDL-C reduction? Yeah. It really depends on the study and also depends on the geography. In Europe, if you look at the label for inclisiran, we do see Lp (a) there. That's what we would expect in Europe for obicetrapib specifically. In the U.S., we haven't seen that, and we don't know if that's a facet of time or in terms of when outcome studies are able to confirm lowering Lp(a) leads to a benefit. Would we see a change from an FDA standpoint? Today, obviously that's an unknown. Our expectation today is that Lp(a) is not on the label in the U.S. From RUBENS, and RUBENS is a study that is looking at LDL in a patient population that is defined as those with Metabolic Syndrome, obesity, and Type 2 Diabetes. This is a patient population that doesn't have established ASCVD. It is a different patient population, but the endpoints are LDL-focused, and we do think there's an opportunity for that patient population to be part of the label. I don't want that to be translated or interpreted that to mean that we're going to have a diabetes claim in our label. Those aspects of the drug's profile have been published, and we'll continue to publish on them because those have been quite important to this community. As it relates to REMBRANDT is akin to a marketing study. It's something we want to be able to demonstrate, that when you lower LDL, that there is stabilization of plaque volume that can be captured in a CT angiogram. This is a powerful visual that we want to be able to put in front of physicians as well as patients. There's nothing like a patient seeing the benefit of lowering of LDL and not only seeing their plaque stabilize, but potentially plaque volume decrease. It's analogous to a cancer patient that sees reductions in their tumor volume. We think it'll be a powerful message for the community and ultimately will drive adoption and compliance. In terms of timelines for these studies, I forget now which ones are. Yeah Most advanced and could report data in the near term. So RUBENS is enrolling quite rapidly, and we expect to complete that study by the end of this year. And we hope to be also able to report data by the end of this year. And I always add a caveat when we have studies that we'll report at the end of the year, and it's the same caveat I use for BROADWAY, which is we don't want to impact anyone's holiday. So if it gets into the latter part of December, we'll likely hold the data until early in the new year. So that's something that's also true for RUBENS. REMBRANDT is a study with an 18-month follow-up. Once we announce the completion of enrollment, which we expect to do this year, then sort of the clock begins on the 18-month follow-up, and your guess is as good as ours in terms of how quickly we'll be able to then analyze the data and share that with you. Those are the two sort of the big phase III studies that are expected. There are also other studies that are important that are not being conducted by us. I'm sure everyone's aware of the Lp(a) studies, one that's expected to read out this year, which is the Novartis and Ionis-sponsored study called HORIZON. Yeah For their Lp(a) drug. That's expected at some point in the second half, and as the management teams have suggested, some point middle of this year. We're expecting that some point in the third quarter. Obviously, they're best at guiding to exact timelines. That's going to be important because it'll be the first outcome study to read out, and will help confirm that the reductions in Lp(a) do translate to an outcomes benefit. Given the BROADWAY results, which I've already shared with you, and the related analysis where we think Lp(a) likely contributed about five to six percentage points of the 21% MACE benefit we reported, there's really very little read-through to PREVAIL. In the event that HORIZON shows a trend and doesn't hit stat sig, I think that still confirms the point that Lp(a) is causative and there are likely other factors at play, most notably trial design, because this is the first Lp(a) program to evaluate an outcomes benefit and the challenge of determining what the event rate would be in a placebo arm and ultimately how long a trial would take and the magnitude of the benefit. Those are a lot of the unknowns that Novartis and Ionis had to face when designing that study, which has led to the trial being delayed and could play a role in ultimately what the results may show. We don't expect the trial to fail outright because there have already been a couple of interim analysis. At a minimum, we do expect a trend, and we are hopeful that we do see a clear benefit with that treatment and that translating to a statistically significant outcome. You think that's a key data readout to potentially differentiate obicetrapib from the PCSK9s who have less of an impact on Lp(a)? We believe so in terms of how the clinician community will look at the data set. Because when you look at the injectable Lp(a) agents, the limitation there is the enrollment of patients that have very high Lp(a) at baseline. To be more precise, it represents about 10% of the patient population that have the highest Lp(a) expression levels. Risk begins at a much lower threshold, roughly 50 versus the 150 or higher that we see with the injectables. There are another 40% of patients who are at risk because of their Lp(a) that are not going to be candidates for these injectables. As a result, physicians will continue to need to find treatments that could help these patients reduce their overall risk. Today, those patients receive PCSK9s. We can imagine in the future obicetrapib could be a preferred treatment option. Yeah. Maybe just to wrap up our conversation on clinical development, go back to AD. I think you're moving forward with a trial to further evaluate the impact you saw on the biomarkers. Just give us some color on what you're seeking here. Yeah, we are unlike the BROADWAY study, which obviously enrolled ASCVD patients. Again, one point we highlight, those patients that have established ASCVD, many of them are also at risk for Alzheimer's, whether they're ApoE4 homozygous or heterozygous. There is an overlapping patient population there. When we think about the next study, the next study is going to be in patients that are at risk for Alzheimer's, and these are not patients with ASCVD or any semblance of cardiovascular disease. That's not the goal. The idea is to confirm the benefit that was observed in the BROADWAY sub-study on the biomarkers, starting with p-tau217, but really looking at half a dozen biomarkers that are quite predictive for Alzheimer's developing in the future. We also wanted to look at a subgroup of patients where we can evaluate for cognitive decline. Can we prevent, if we get to these patients early enough, can we prevent cognitive decline? This is likely to be a one-year study, so we don't think the probability of showing cognitive decline, given the type of patients we're enrolling and the duration of treatment, is going to be low. We do want to at least take an initial step to look at that, to evaluate for that. Another trial that could play a role in further connecting those dots are the studies being conducted by Lilly and Biogen, and those are evaluating not only cognition and evaluating PET scans, but also are evaluating the same biomarkers as we are. If they see a consistent benefit where reductions in biomarkers or improvements in biomarkers did lead to an improvement in PET scans and improvement in cognition, then I think that could ultimately serve some of the purpose for our phase IIb study and really catalyze what our regulatory strategy could be in the future for Alzheimer's. Got it. I think we're up on time here. I'll give you the last few seconds, maybe just an overview of financials and your runway with current cash balance? Excellent. We were able to finance on the back of the BROADWAY data at the end of 2024, which allowed us to end 2025 with a cash balance of nearly $730 million. That's enough not only to complete our ongoing clinical trials, all the ones we've discussed and some others, but as well as fund the initial launch in the U.S. All right. Maybe just to wrap up here, anything that you think we didn't touch on or any aspect of the story you think remains underappreciated or misunderstood by investors or analysts? No, I think we touched upon a lot of the important ones. First and foremost, there's a lot of data this year, some from us, but some from other organizations, which will just continue to educate the investor community on the opportunity for obicetrapib. I would say what does not get enough attention is the impact that the treatment guidelines will have on the size of the market, and why, when we look at the existing drugs that are on the market today and the sponsors of those drugs, the focus is on getting patients to be treated, to come in and to be treated for the LDL. There's very little in terms of sort of a competitive dynamic where, one, there's counter-detailing. Really, this is an opportunity for all of us to go back to the 1990s and the early 2000s, where you had half a dozen sponsors focused on clinicians treating patients and getting those patients to their LDL goals. There's not a single company, a single drug that's going to be able to solve for that. I think here, really, there's an opportunity for all of us to work together. If we do, then commercially, from a revenue standpoint, I think we'll all be very, very successful. All right. Well, I guess we'll have to end it here. I want to thank you for spending time with us this morning. Great overview of the company, and like you mentioned, I think the LDL-C reduction market is growing and is evolving rapidly here, so exciting times. Yeah. Thank you again, Serge, for the invitation, and thanks to everyone that was able to dial in. Thank you.