Let us know when we can kick off here. We're ready to go. So good morning, everybody. I'm Chris Schott, the Pharma Analyst here at JP Morgan, and it's my pleasure to be hosting a fireside chat today with Pfizer. From the company, we have Dave Denton, the company's CFO. And before we jump into, which will be, I'm sure, a very interesting discussion, we're going to have Ronan from the IR team read a disclosure here, and then we'll dive into the conversation from there. Thank you, Chris. So I just wanted to inform you that we are going to be making some forward-looking statements. And they may- we're going to be making those looking forward statements that are true for today. And if you have any additional questions on the forward-looking statements, please see the relevant sections in our SEC filing under Forms 10-Q and 10-K. Great. Thank you. Thanks, Ronan. Great! Well, Thanks- Thanks for joining us here. Good to be here. Yeah, so I would love just to kick off the conversation. It's obviously been a very eventful few years for the industry, and I think for Pfizer in particular. I'd love just maybe just a bigger picture question to start with, of just how you see the company positioned today as we kind of are transitioning from this kind of pandemic stage and this, you know, kind of big bolus of COVID revenues into kind of a more diversified company with a lot of investments and M&A the company's pursued. So just let me just kind of hear your thoughts on where we see Pfizer today. Sure, sure. Well, first, thank you for inviting me here today, and thank you for your interest in the company. Obviously, it's a very interesting and exciting time for the company at this juncture. To your point, we've gone through a period of phase where the company invested heavily and managed itself through what we call the COVID crisis phase of the pandemic. Through that process, not only did we create vaccines, but also treatments through Paxlovid for COVID. We've also performed extremely well, both from a top-line and a bottom-line perspective. We've taken the proceeds from COVID and have invested that back into the business. We've more or less suspended over that period of time share repurchases, and we've taken the cash that has come out of that portfolio or that franchise and invested really to support our growth aspirations from 2025- 2030. We were talking about this earlier. If you just looked at the company, it's pretty easy to model the fact that we have products that lose patent protection in the back half of the decade. We've now invested such that we, in the back half of the decade, Pfizer is now a growth company. We're going to... Not only will we, our expectations are to overlap and grow based on the pipeline that we currently have in place, but also to date, we've invested from a business development perspective in hopes of generating in excess of $20 billion of revenue by 2030, from a BD perspective. This gives us promise in the sense that we've taken the proceeds from COVID, and now we've invested in oncology. With our proposed acquisition of Seagen, we're moving into the ADC space from an oncology perspective. That company has four products currently on market with a very robust pipeline. We've recently reorganized our R&D infrastructure to have a vertical from oncology perspective, to making sure that we're aligning our resources internally with that bet that we made from an oncology perspective. And above and beyond that, we have about 18 products that we're launching, or 19 products over the last 18 months, which, year to date, we've launched about 10. So we're in this phase of investing heavily behind product launches that are yet to come this year and early next year. So really interesting time for the company. We're very focused on the future and growth in the company over time. Obviously, we'll talk a bit about COVID as we now are managing a post-COVID crisis phase, but still a product portfolio that's very productive for us. Great. And maybe just building on that comment about the longer-term growth, and the company gave these longer-term growth targets. I guess maybe a two-part question. One, what gave you the confidence to kind of lay out these, you know, fairly large numbers, both in the pipeline and in the BD side? And then, two, I think we've seen consensus numbers clearly come up, but the street's still a bit below those long-term targets. So are there any obvious places when you look at where Pfizer's confident and where you think there's maybe a disconnect versus the street? Well, well, a couple things. One is, to my point earlier, it's easy to look ahead and understand the products that lose patent protection and be able to model that. I think what we were trying to do is look back, look at our existing in-line set of products, be able to, with confidence, forecast that utilization and pathway forward from a growth perspective, but importantly, look back into our pipeline and our portfolio of products in our pipeline and be able to risk adjust and forecast that out. At the same time, we have complete control over business development, and we we knew we were going to lean into business development to support our growth aspirations the back half of the decade. And so we wanted to give investors a parameter of which to hold us accountable for from that growth perspective. And I think largely, we've been kind of tracking pretty consistently against those expectations, and we've been giving investors a perspective on how we're doing, where we continue to have gaps or exceeded expectations, so that investors can hold us accountable for those actions and those levels of performance. Right. And then, lots of topics to get into, but maybe- Yeah ... digging into the COVID side of things to start with. Just the latest views on the COVID franchise. I know we've seen, certainly in the U.S., an uptick in infection rates, and just any insights you can share relative to where we stood with 2Q? Yeah, I think, you know, we said that coming out of Q2, we'd have a probably a better perspective for the balance of the year when we get to Q3, which is in late October, when we report our performance. As you know, the COVID vaccine was just recently authorized in the U.S. We're now beginning the vaccine program, at the moment, in combination with kind of the flu vaccine program that's being launched across the U.S. So by the time we get to late October, we'll have several weeks under our belt, so we'll get a good sense of how utilization is tracking, from that perspective, both U.S. and ex-U.S. So that's on the vaccine side of the house. On the Paxlovid side or the treatment side of the house, you see treatment doses being dispensed pretty consistently with underlying infection rates. So as infections go up, utilization of Paxlovid goes up. As infections come down, utilization of Paxlovid comes down. So I think we continue to monitor that very directly. Mm-hmm. Keep in mind that our expectation for this year is that from a vaccination perspective in the U.S. is roughly 24% vaccination rate. Keep in mind, the flu's probably closer to a 50% vaccination rate, so we haircut that pretty significantly for the year. We will see how that plays out as we look at the trends in the coming weeks in the U.S. and globally from that perspective. Can you talk too, maybe on the vaccine side? I know you're transitioning that business from government to a commercial model in the U.S. Is there any surprises with that transition so far as it's, and it's early, but? No, I think it's still pretty early. I, I'd say there's no real surprises, but what I would say is, think about, while we know that the vaccine's been out there for multiple years, this is, think about this as a product launch. Mm-hmm. We're developing from a commercialization standpoint the infrastructure from a field force perspective to be able to support this product. We're launching direct-to-consumer advertisements such that consumers understand the need to get vaccinated and at what rate and what level to get vaccinated. So there's a lot of infrastructure and investments being made behind both Comirnaty and also Paxlovid, ultimately as these products become commercialized in the U.S. and broadly around the globe. Any update on the current inventory situation with Paxlovid in the U.S., and when we could see the commercial transition there? No, probably no updates from that perspective. Obviously, it's we've been very clear and transparent that the U.S. government and globally many governments sit on inventory within their current infrastructure, and the burn down of the inventory will be necessary before we launch into the marketplace globally. So that will have the effect of essentially dampening 2023 revenue performance. As we transition out of this phase in 2023 being a transitional year, 2024 will be a year that will be much more typical, if you will, from a commercialization time frame. Okay. And then just maybe last on this topic, ex-U.S., I know we have the European contract, but are you seeing a more consistent approach for governments of how they're gonna handle vaccinations, and is that giving you any more, I guess, visibility into how to think about that piece of the business over time? I don't know if it's consistent. I would say that, you know, obviously, we signed a longer-term contract for Europe, so that gives us some visibility and some floor, if you will, for the next several years of sales from a vaccination standpoint. Each government tends to handle the patient population a little bit differently, but that does give us some visibility and stability into our forecast for multiple years out. And then just, I guess, given the uncertainty on the COVID dynamics, I think we're all trying to get our hands around how to, how to model all this. Yeah. Just talk about how you approach, I guess, guidance setting for this. And then, as you're thinking about managing the business, how are you thinking about kind of investing back in the business- Yeah ... given some of the uncertainty? Yeah. Yeah, a couple things. If you recall, when we gave guidance for 2024, we actually gave a lot of data around what we thought vaccination rates were gonna be, what we thought pricing was gonna be, what the rate of infection, both U.S. and ex-U.S. So we gave a lot of data points because we wanted to make sure that investors had a clarity around there are things that we can control, and there's things that we cannot control. Level of vaccinations and infection rates are things that largely we can't control. The virus, in some cases, will dictate that, and/or government mandates might dictate some of those. So we wanted to make sure that you had a sense for what our expectations were, and so therefore, you could see if vaccination rates were higher, you should hold us accountable for higher revenue yield. Mm-hmm. If vaccination is lower, sometimes we might not be able to control that completely. So I think we tried to give that transparency. I think now, coming out of 2023, with some of this now being more in the commercial space, we'll have better clarity of what 2024 and beyond begins to look like, and we'll try to lay out a similar set of facts and stats such that you can manage our expectations and our performance levels. But your, I guess, your hope would be kind of getting past this year, that, I guess, variability component... Yeah ... that might come in a bit. Yeah, I would hope that, that we start kind of, this becomes kind of more, I'll say, quote, unquote, "normal products," and we can begin to see some kind of normal variability up and down based on utilization across the globe. Okay, and maybe last question on that. Yeah. When you think about the two components of your COVID business, what do you expect will be the most volatile going forward? Yeah. Do you think that one of them will become, like, will become a Comirnaty becomes more predictable, or how are you thinking? Yeah, I do think the vaccine becomes a bit more stable over time because there'll be essentially a protocol that will be established kind of by country or by region about vaccination rates, and those protocols will become standard and more understood within the patient population. Clearly, Paxlovid utilization will be dictated based on the virus. Again, as infection rates go up, utilization of Paxlovid will go up. As infection rates go down, utilization of Paxlovid will go down, appropriately so. So I think that will be more difficult to predict, and I think that will be the obviously will be subject to how the virus behaves over time. Yeah, makes sense. Yeah- At some level, they're a little bit natural hedges. Sure, yeah. The more vaccinations occur, probably the less infections, and so I think they should somewhat, over time, offset one another. Maybe not exactly the exact time period- Mm-hmm. but you would think of that, largely to happen. If I think about Pfizer's OpEx, as we kind of think about this- Yeah ... you know, this revenue kind of ramp you had with, with COVID. Yeah. We saw OpEx obviously come up quite a bit. Yeah. I think your OpEx is maybe $6 billion above where we were sitting in 2020 or so. Can you just help me understand how much of that is tied to COVID investments versus redeploying some of those cash flow from COVID to broaden out the rest of the business as we think about the, you know, kind of the new run rate we've seen for OpEx? Yeah, I probably won't break it out that specifically, but what we have talked about specifically is, we are discussing the opportunity to, I'll say, rationalize our cost basis based on resilient revenue performance over time. And so we said, coming out of our Q2 earnings, is that we're evaluating a cost program to reduce our expenses across Pfizer, more broadly- Mm-hmm ... and aligning that cost basis to our resilient revenues over time. And so we're in the process of planning for that today. We will have a lot more to say about it as we get to the back half of the year and begin to give some understanding and framing of where we're focusing our efforts, number one. Realizing that we want to make sure that we're investing appropriately based on our R&D pipeline and the investments that we're making and bets that we made, particularly around Seagen, making sure we're investing appropriately in oncology, as an example. Investing in the COVID franchise as the COVID virus continues to mature and mutate, we want to make sure that we're invested appropriately there. But importantly, we got to make sure that those investments are aligned to the revenue performance of the company long term. We do not want to put fixed costs into our environment where revenues are less resilient. Mm. Making sure that now that we're coming into an out-of-the-COVID-crisis phase, we'll be able to do that more appropriately going forward. When I think about those maybe cost-cutting opportunities, it sounds like you're being thoughtful of not wanting to impact the core drivers of the business. Right. But should I think about this more on the R&D side? Is it more on the SG&A side? Is it the COVID business versus the non-COVID business? Just help us. It's gonna be a little bit of all- Right ... all the above. I think, think about this, you know, we're launching... Our pipeline has been very productive recently. We're launching a lot of products in the marketplace today and into early next year. Those launches, you invest in advance of those launches, and so we've now ramped up SI&A expenses in support of those products going into commercial market channels, both here in Europe, as well as in the U.S. Those are largely variable expenses, so as the products are launched, they begin to get momentum, we can begin to rationalize those investments. And so think about us across both the existing portfolio, the launches, as well as COVID, being appropriate from that standpoint. Right. And then, when I think about what that kind of means from an operating margin perspective, if I remember correctly, your margins, I think, were in the upper 30s as we, you know, headed into the pandemic. We're in the low 30s today. Is it reasonable to think of the company getting back to pre-pandemic margins over time? And- It is, with one little asterisk to that, that if you look at our product portfolio, particularly around the vaccine, around Comirnaty, we have a partner. Our partner splits 50/50 gross margin in that product, so if you mix adjust for that product specifically, our objective is to get back into the pre-pandemic levels from an operating margin perspective. Can you just elaborate on what it's gonna take to get there? Is that simply cost driven, or is this really having to launch the kind of these new product launches scale? It's both. It's both. I mean, we have, you know, we've invested ahead of these product launches. I think we have a fairly specific target for each of these products as far as their peak revenue and the, I'll say, the revenue curve around those products, is making sure that we deliver on that. At the same time, is again, going back, mostly from an SI&A perspective, ensuring that our cost base is supportive of the, that revenue performance in totality. So we're gonna get there both, in, in both mechanisms. I know you've laid out through 2030 some of the- Yep ... longer-term targets. I mean, are we thinking about this as kind of a longer-term process to get the margins back, or do you think- I think we- ... faster? I think it's faster than that. Okay. I think we're thinking about this in the medium term, if you will- Mm-hmm ... to be able to get there. Yep. I don't know if this is something you can directly comment, but if we think about 2024- Yep. Should we think about 2023 being trough margins for, for Pfizer? I, I think it's too early to talk about that in 2024. Keep in mind, you know, we're also acquiring Seagen, which is dilutive in the short term as well- Okay, yep ... but a very productive longer term for us. So I think when we get to giving 2024 guidance, we'll be able to give you a perspective around how we think, I'll say, the non-COVID business is gonna behave, how the COVID products are gonna overlay on top of that, and then finally, when Seagen is approved, assuming it gets approved, what the impact of that on top of our business in totality might look like. ... And then when I think about just the communication around this, it sounds like a lot more detail with the 4Q earnings. Yeah. I think there's some update you're going to provide with 3Q. What can we be expecting then? Yeah, I think what you'll see in Q3 is, you'll get a sense for now that we'll have several weeks under our belt from a COVID perspective, how that business is trending. You all, you know, we'll, if there's anything to report around Seagen, we will, but that will be dictated based on the progression through the Federal Trade Commission. But we, and we probably will give you an outline of how we're thinking about a cost, our cost management program. I want to be clear, though, we're probably going to give you a lot more color as we give 2024 guidance, both on, because I want to make sure that, again, our cost basis needs to be in perspective of our revenue performance. So putting, you need to kind of think about those in totality. So that's really more of a, when we give guidance for 2024, which is, you know, early next year. Okay. I think it's certainly something I know investors are trying to get their hands around. Yeah, sure. But it'll. It sounds like we're not that much longer we have to wait. Yeah, no, correct. And, and listen, we're in a planning cycle now, and we plan pretty, completely for next year, and it would take several, several months to put all those programs together. Right. Maybe just moving over some of the, the growth drivers. Can you just talk through the recent product launches and how we should think about those contributing to the step up in, in growth, I guess, for the non-COVID business, we think about- Yeah -where Pfizer was in the first half of the year versus what- Yeah You're forecasting for the second half of the year? Yeah, I think what's interesting is that if you look at just the launch pattern for this year, for 2023, the vast majority, almost exclusively, our launches for new products is back half loaded in the year. So if you look at our performance over each quarter, our back half, Q3 and Q4 revenue performance from a growth perspective ticks up because the launches do occur in the back half of the year. And largely on track. We've had a couple of little setbacks, largely with the one of our manufacturing facilities being damaged with a tornado in North Carolina and things of that nature, but largely on track for that. If you recall, our non-COVID business, we expect it to grow this year 6%-8% from a revenue perspective. We consistently are focused against that level of growth. And in terms—I know you've talked about some small setbacks. Yeah In terms of the, the launch profile. Have any of those affected your views on the long-term business at all, or? No, I think they have not affected our view long term. I think obviously some of the short term, I'll say headwinds that are modest in nature, but still headwinds nonetheless, we need to manage ourselves through those. I think we'll continue to focus against it. Getting some real-world evidence around some of our products will be really important as we think about the future of those launch programs. Great. Maybe longer term on the pipeline, I think you've talked about roughly $20 billion from these kind of near-term launch. Yeah. What are the really critical assets from your perspective to get to that? Well, the good news is not one. Mm. There's a bunch. You know, I think RSV is really important to us longer term. I think we've got a really nice set of products there. Elranatamab, from a cancer perspective, I think is also a really interesting product that we think will be best in class, from that perspective. But the good news is we have a list of 19 that all of which contribute to some degree to that yield of $20 billion by 2030. And I guess part of that is that, I mean, that breadth of portfolio is important to- Yeah, I think, I think we talked about this in some of our earlier meetings. You almost need to think about this as a portfolio to- Yeah ... some degree. We'll have products in that portfolio that will do better than expected. We'll have some products that might lag from that perspective. But in totality, we feel pretty, pretty good about our ability to yield $20 billion by 2030 in that space. Okay. A couple on the kind of end market portfolio. Yep. I guess one question I've been getting a lot has been on the Prevnar franchise. Yep. This is one of the company's largest products. Yep. You've had kind of a strong position in the market. Correct. A lot of competition seemingly on the horizon. Correct. How do you think about sustaining the leadership position, and how do you think about evolving that asset over time? Yeah, well, I think the good news is that we've had a long, storied history- Mm-hmm ... in the Prevnar franchise. We've been kind of the leaders in that market for many years. I think, we continue to invest heavily against the franchise, both from a new product perspective now, Prevnar 20. But importantly, we've kept up our relationships with those healthcare providers, and I think that, that history, that knowledge, that relationship that we have, in the franchise is gonna be really important as competitors come to market. And we welcome competition. In some cases, competition makes us a better, a better player in the marketplace, and we will work aggressively to... One, we have a great product, a world-class product. We'll continue to market aggressively against that. Do you see opportunities to continue to improve upon Prevnar, or- Well, we- Do you think you've got an asset that can stand on its own? Yeah, no, I think we have an asset that can stand on its own, but we're continuing to invest against the product, so I don't think we're done yet. We think there's still one way to further develop the product over time, and time will tell. The other, I guess, product I'm trying to get my hands around has been on Vyndaqel. Yep. It seems like this, at least in my model, it seems like every quarter... Nice source of upside- Yeah. You know, market bigger, you see any bigger and bigger than we expected? Yep. So I guess, first of all, how much more runway do you see for Vyndaqel to- Yeah to grow over time? I think there's a lot of runway left in the product. I think the product, again, is a really great product showing a lot of promise. I think what the challenge has always been is to get diagnosis in the patient population. We're constantly educating healthcare professionals such that they can diagnose patients who can really benefit from utilization of this product. And I think our focus right now is making sure that those patients are identified, they get the appropriate patients on the appropriate utilization of the product. And we're optimistic that there's still a big runway ahead of us in this product both ex-U.S. and U.S. When I think about competitive landscape, it seems like we're starting to see some data from competitors out there. How are you feeling about ability to sustain your leadership? We feel good about it. I think what we've seen is we have a really solid product here. I think we—again, to my point earlier, we actually welcome competition in many ways, 'cause I think it does make us a better competitor when we do—when we have competition. We have a good product, so we're—I think we're nicely positioned in that respect. Yeah. Maybe the last one is another question at the beginning is just on the duration of this franchise. I I think you've talked about kind of later this decade, that's been part of that LOE cycle. Is there an opportunity to extend this one beyond the 2020s? Maybe. I don't know if we know that for certain at this point in time. Okay. Yeah. Timing on visibility there is still a ways off, or? Still a ways off, I think. Okay. Yeah. Okay. Not in the near term. Okay. Maybe just pivoting a little bit here to, to Seagen, kind of- Yeah the acquisition, you know, maybe first just talk about, I know you mentioned earlier kind of creating this standalone oncology business. Yeah. How do you think about integrating Seagen into the Pfizer kind of portfolio? Yeah, so we, we have appointed a leader who's doing some pre-integration planning, a pretty complete pre-integration planning. A gentleman by the name of Chris Boshoff, who's a leader in our research and development area at Pfizer. Probably been with Pfizer probably over a decade now, an oncologist. He's created a... What we've done is we, we've reorganized R&D, so we have essentially a standalone, top to bottom, early to late stage R&D program around oncology. If you look at that, his announced org structure, it's probably 75% or 80% legacy Seagen scientists, and the rest being Pfizer. So it's almost the inverse, if you think about it from a acquisition standpoint. We've done that such that we believe that the pipeline and the science based in the ADC infrastructure is so important to our future growth that we've organized around that, number one. That is completely inverse, if you will, if you think about the commercialization aspect of oncology, because Pfizer has a long legacy of commercializing oncology and cancer products, both U.S. and ex-U.S. We're gonna use that commercialization engine to help bring those products to market sooner and get adoption of those products more rapidly across the globe. So, we're excited about the platform coming on board, the Pfizer commercial engine, if you will. Mm-hmm. We're looking forward to that happening late this year or early next year. I would say Chris is a world-class leader from a research perspective, and I think he's really excited about the pipeline with the two companies together. Yeah. Can you just elaborate a little bit? I think one of the areas the street's been trying to get their hands around is you, you targeting about $10 billion of sales from Seagen by end of decade. Yeah. I guess, where do you see the biggest delta versus the street to get to that target? Yeah, sure. Keep in mind that Seagen currently has, I think, four products on the market today, and it has a fairly robust pipeline. If you look at those four products and you forecast that out from a street perspective, those four products yield about $8 billion in revenue by 2030. That's what the expectations are externally. The delta between that $8 billion and the $10 billion that Pfizer put on it is the pipeline. Through our due diligence effort and our analytics, we applied some amount of revenue yield coming out of the pipeline, which I think is appropriate. So that's the disconnect, if you will, between the expectations from investors, from the sales side, largely, and- Mm-hmm ... our expectations. Then maybe just the last question on Seagen. I think you talked a little bit on the commercialization side, but I guess, what brought you to this asset? What can Pfizer do with Seagen, that Seagen wasn't going to be able to do on its own? Well, I think a couple of things. One is, you know, from a research and development perspective, we have a lot of scale and breadth. So I think we can expand clinical trials more broadly and get product to market sooner and much more broadly, if you will, from an indication perspective, number one. And then number two, Seagen has done a great job of developing these products, but they have really not had a lot of expertise and experience commercializing these assets. We have a big commercial presence globally. We can now plug these products into that commercialization engine and really accelerate adoption of these products and revenue yield over time. So I think that's the real benefit that we see, we talked about this earlier. This was not a play in which you put two companies together, and you harvest a bunch of synergies. That's not what this is about. This is about putting two companies together, each having really broad capabilities, either in research and marketing their products and distribution of products globally, will make one another better from that perspective. So this is about getting these drugs in the hands of patients more quickly. How do you feel the broader, I guess, ADC competitive landscape? It seems like different mechanisms, but there just seem to be- Yeah more and more activity in the space. I know Seagen was an early player here, but- Yeah. How did you factor in kind of competitive dynamics? Yeah, yeah, we certainly understood the landscape, but, you know, keep in mind, if you went back probably a decade or so, Pfizer was in the ADC space. We have a little experience here, so we understand the market a bit. The good news is, Seagen is a pioneer in the space. They're a leader from a technology perspective in the space. They're constantly developing and pushing the envelope to improve performance in their products and their platform. We're gonna continue to make that investment and that focus over time. So to my point earlier, competition does make you better if you embrace it, and you focus against it, and we're not gonna do anything differently in this space than we have in others. But yes, we know there's competition in the space. That is actually good for patients at the end of the day, because the more drugs we can get in the hands of patients who are fighting the battle against cancer, the better, and we're gonna be, we'll be a leader there. Still feeling confident with that $10 billion target for the- We are. Yes, we are feeling confident about that. We feel really good about where we stand at this point in time. Yep. Great. Just on the kinda broader capital deployment, kinda piece of the story- Yep. May you talk first about post-Seagen. How should we think about where leverage will stand, and ideally, where do you want to see the company move that? Yeah, I think- ... Yeah, I think immediately post the deal closing, leverage will be higher than it has been historically and typically. It is our expectation that once we close, and we start commercializing these products, and our launches begin to take hold, leverage will begin to come down. Mm-hmm. Is our expectation that we will need to digest a little bit both this acquisition and prior acquisitions before we, I'll say, are back into the BD space more completely. We will still be able to do smaller BDs, but we're not gonna do anything of scale in the very short term based on until we digest a bit from that perspective. And that's gonna take, you know, you know, several quarters for certain, if not more. I know we were talking about this earlier, but if I think about Pfizer historically, there was a lot of share repo, the company- Right. Yep. Yep. and you took the share count down pretty dramatically. Right. And then it seems like the last few years it's been kind of pivoting almost the complete opposite direction- Yes where there hasn't been much repo at all. Yep. How do you think about balancing, I guess, repo versus- Yep - further building out the portfolio over time? Yeah, a couple things. I think it was a very deliberate action to take the proceeds from COVID and not use them to do share repurchases, but actually use them to invest back into the business, either internal R&D or external BD, to improve performance longer term, really with a view of the 2025- 2030 time frame. I think we've largely, I'll say, checked the box. Maybe it's not completely done, but we've made a very significant dent into that program, and into that objective. Now that we've done that, as those products begin to mature, and they begin to grow in the back half of the decade, we should be able to perform much better from a cash utilization perspective, and therefore, we can get ourselves rebalanced into doing increases in dividends, doing share repurchases, at the same time investing back into the business. But we'll be a lot more balanced. Okay ... from that perspective. Do you see share repo as still kind of an important component? It is an important—I think it's an important and critical lever that we have to drive value for shareholders. At the same time, you know, investing in the business with the appropriate return threshold to drive revenue yield in the back half of the decade, I think is also important to investors. I know that creates a little bit of headwind near term, but longer term, it's the right thing, as we'll improve the cash generation capabilities of the company as we see those products mature in the back half of the decade. I think your $25 billion target, you're kind of at about $20 billion of that $25 billion. Right. As we think about the remaining portion of that- Yep ... just a little bit of, is there a bias within the company at this point of, is that more late-stage pipeline assets? Is it in-market? Is it platform-type deals? Yep. I mean, is there- I don't know that there's a bias. I think what we've always said is we want to buy the right science that supports our objective at the time. Mm. As we just said, I think, at the moment, we're probably in the digestion mode of BD, as opposed to, you know, looking for other assets to bring onto our platform. I think once we've kinda digested a little bit, then I think we'll take a step back, understand what the portfolio looks like and where we have opportunities to supplement it. Mm. Also look at the marketplace, because sometimes the market dictates what's available and what's not available, so we will make the right decisions at that point. Great. I know we've got about five or 10 minutes left here. Let me open up to the audience, see if there's any questions, and we can kind of keep going from there, otherwise. Yep. Yep. Over there. Just if there's any comment you could make on what the environment in terms of rules, regulation, reimbursement means in terms of pricing for the M&A, it feels tougher than it has been? Yeah, I think you're right. The I think the implementation of the IRA in the U.S. has changed the pricing dynamics a bit in the U.S. I think if you look at the impact of IRA on Pfizer, it's relatively modest, only because the likely products that are gonna be impacted by the IRA in the near term are products that are losing patent protection in 2026 and 2027. So I think the net present value impact is not that great. It will be painful when it occurs, but it's not a ten-year runway. I do think that it's not dramatically changing how we think about R&D. I think it is changing around our expectations of revenue performance in business development. So we would have factored that within our Seagen acquisition, we would factor that within our acquisition of Biohaven from a revenue curve perspective. So but it's, it's pretty dynamic. Yeah, obviously, we're watching it closely. There's a lot of, lot of press, some of our competitors are out there actively suing, the federal government to, maybe overturn that. We're not part of those suits at this point in time. But, but again, we'll keep, we'll, we'll keep it in mind. We'll, we, we will price appropriately, obviously, but it's, clearly a headwind to the industry. Sure. Just to follow up, is that creating... Is a wider bid-ask spread as you're considering, whether it's partnerships or deals, just given— I'm assuming you have to take a conservative stance of what IRA could look like, and then someone selling an asset, they may be- Yeah. -less conservative about it? Yeah, I think it does. I think there's no doubt about it. I think, you know, if you're probably not in the space day in and day out, you probably don't understand how the pricing dynamics might work. Mm-hmm. So if you're an earlier stage company, you might not have the insight to that- Mm-hmm ... versus a company the scale of our size, and we deal with that every day. So yes, I think it does create a disconnect to some degree. But from a Pfizer kind of organic perspective- Yeah ... it sounds like this is more tweaks to the- Yes, I- model versus something radical. Yes, I think that's right. I don't think you're seeing—in fact, I don't think you're seeing any big pharma dramatically change their R&D portfolio based on the IRA, IRA alone. There may be tweaks around the edges to it. I agree. Other questions out there? Otherwise, I'll keep going here. Maybe just sticking on the newer acquired products. We talked about Seagen. Can you talk a little bit about the Biohaven acquisition? Yeah ... how that's performed? I know it's one that I think Street expectations have been pretty broad. Yeah. Has that been living up to your expectations so far? Yeah. Or just any learnings from that deal? Yeah, around the franchise, migraine franchise? Yeah, migraine franchise. Yeah, sure. Yeah, in many respects, it's actually lived up to our expectations. Okay. If you look at our internal forecast and the performance of that product, it's actually been largely in line. We're seeing more patients adopt the product, and we're seeing the number of pills per patients actually increase a bit, which shows that people are on more of a maintenance regimen versus just an acute regimen for the treatment of migraine, which is appropriate. We have a follow-on product that's currently coming to market as well, that I think will be helpful over time. If you keep in mind that when we talked about the acquisition, we said that roughly $6 billion of peak revenue- Mm-hmm we still see line of sight to that level of performance over time. Okay. It's a great product, and I think we're seeing we're continuing to get adoption both in the U.S., but I think the real opportunity is getting some adoption ex-U.S. as well. Yeah. Yeah. I know one big topic comes up in all of our conversations is the obesity market. Yep. Talk a little bit about your opportunity there and how you're kind of thinking about the hurdles of what you need to see with that data set to move the asset forward. Sure. We have, we originally had two products or projects in the in our, in the clinic, in phase II. We actually now stopped one. We have one remaining in the clinic. We will have data readout of that product later this year, so we'll get a sense for kind of how that product might perform in the marketplace. At that point in time, we'll let the data determine what our next steps might be and what we would do appropriately. Keep in mind, this is a twice-a-day oral treatment product at the moment. And we will understand, based on how the product performs, where we invest, and how we invest going forward with that product to bring it to market. This is obviously, it's been very well discussed that this is a potentially very large market, $90 billion-$100 billion market globally. And we'll see how we play in that perspective. Does that size of market change the hurdles at all of how you think about how, you know, you'd want to invest around here? So it seems like even a small piece- Yeah ... of that market is gonna be a huge product for the company. Yeah, I don't know if it changes the hurdle, but it changes the opportunity you have to make the products, quote, unquote, "successful," if you will. Okay. 'Cause even a low market share in a huge marketplace- Mm-hmm ... makes the product sometimes financially viable- Mm-hmm ... even when maybe in other cases, a low market share in a smaller market might not make it viable financially. Yeah. But we'll see where we are. You know, we don't have the data yet. We'll understand by the end of the year, more or less, where we stand. Maybe just the last question for me is, if you think about just Pfizer as an organization, and it seems like it's been, you know, a really busy few years- It has been. ... with everything going on with COVID, et cetera. I guess as you start to now transition to this time where maybe there's a little bit of pull back on spend- Yeah ... there's an LOE cycle approaching. Yeah. How do you just—from an organizational perspective, how do you just manage, you know, maybe more of a normal run rate type of business versus what was, you know, what you've been going through the last few years? Yeah, you know, it's interesting. I do think we've learned a bunch as we went through COVID, and I think what we've learned is to get ourselves laser focused on an objective and get ourselves focused on making quick decisions, appropriate, with, you know, with the appropriate safety precautions, you know, obviously, within that. But making those decisions and moving it at a different pace than maybe a legacy Pfizer might have done. Mm-hmm. And that has given us confidence that we can go to market more effectively over time. I think what's interesting, and I think people forget this a little bit, is we're launching a bunch of products, and so this takes investment to get that done and kind of new muscles to make those products successful. But that's true of our pipeline products, but it's also true of our COVID products. These products, both Comirnaty and Paxlovid, has largely been sold through the government channels- Yeah. Mm-hmm ... which is now being transitioned, particularly in the U.S., into the commercial channel. We're these are product launches for us, and they're big product launches, so we need to invest behind them. So we're trying to make sure that we balance appropriately the performance from a cost infrastructure perspective behind the actual need to invest, to make sure that we can get the maximum reach of these products into the hands of the appropriate patients. And so it's an interesting and unique time. I think there's a lot of opportunities ahead of us- Great ... from that perspective. Just about time. Really appreciate the comments, Dave. Yeah, my pleasure. Thanks for joining us today. Thank you. Thank you.