Royalty Pharma, Terrance Coyne, CFO, Marshall Urist, EVP of Investments. Gentlemen, welcome. Thank you so much for making time to be with us at this conference. Before we get into Q&A, we'd just love to hear your kind of state of the union of the business and what we could look forward to in the next 12 months Yeah, so thanks, Mike, and Umer and Evercore for having us. Yeah, I think 2025 has been a pretty amazing year for Royalty Pharma, a transformational year. We started the year off with a bang when we announced a major strategic transaction where we internalized our external manager, kind of put the company together as sort of one consolidated business, which was really important from a strategic and from a financial perspective, and then we've had a lot of great deals throughout the year, returned a record amount of capital to shareholders, and have performed really well financially, so overall, I feel like there's a ton of really positive momentum, pipeline's really strong, and we're super excited to wrap this year up and get into 2026. Fantastic. Terry, there's a lot of fundamental questions to go through, but maybe just at a very high-level macro question for folks because this comes up in some conversations. Could you remind us, I think you've been on certain high-profile indices like Russell 1000 Growth, etc., in the past, and I think the stock was in there, it's not in there, but now the cap is back. Is there any conversations you've had on anything along, any meaningful index-like changes coming? That's a good question. I'll be honest. Do you get notified ahead of time or they just do it? I think we find out at the same time that everyone else does. So, I'll email you that. Yeah, but yeah, I mean. But this stuff correlates with cap, right, for their? I think that's right. Yeah, I'm definitely not an expert on that, but I think, yeah, I mean, we're really happy with how the stock has performed this year. Right. And just to level set also for everyone, can you remind us the leverage where it's at right now? So yeah, it's around three times total debt to EBITDA, and so fairly low, fairly conservative. It's super important for us to maintain our investment grade credit rating. It's sort of critical to our cost of capital. But we have a lot of financial flexibility. So if we need, if a lot of deals come along, we can easily take leverage up to four times. We have cash on the balance sheet, access to a revolver. So for us, having access and dry powder is critical because you never know when that big royalty is going to come along, and we need to always make sure that we're in a position to jump on it if it does. And one more sort of higher-level question also. I recall one of the themes that was starting to occur a couple of years ago was across a range of deals you guys were signing up, there was like this 1.6-2x cap on when those returns happened, the royalty stop, which was starting to happen more frequently. But I noticed in the last 12 months or so, almost the last two years of deals, I was like hand compiling, and I noticed it kind of stopped happening. Now, maybe that correlates with how the market environment was as well. But is that something that was sort of very intentional and deliberate on your end? I wouldn't say it's necessarily been a priority, right? We've talked about before, we use caps when we need them, right, or think they're appropriate for the deal. I think you're right, though, this year that has not been a characteristic of the deals we've done, which is, I think, exciting. We'll certainly see them in the future on some deals as it makes sense? Absolutely. So it's probably more a reflection of deal mix and type of seller, etc., more than anything else. We try to approach every deal with sort of being pretty open-minded and trying. So the right product over the right. Yeah, and it's a discussion. They have different goals, and so partners have different goals. We obviously are trying to generate attractive returns, and so it's that trying to find the right balance. Makes sense. Got it. As we think about just portfolio receipt growth during the next five years, at your investor day, you got it to $4.7 billion plus in 2030, which reflects roughly a 9% annual CAGR from now until then, and also assumes steady annual capital deployment of around $2.5 billion. So what are the macro pushes and pulls that are kind of baked into that guidance? You can just give us an idea of that. Yeah, so what we said at the time, and the portfolios evolved a little bit since then, but we said that around half of that growth would come from things that we already owned that are already in the portfolio. And then the other half of that growth would come from new investments, that $2 billion-$2.5 billion per year. I think we would characterize that $2 billion-$2.5 billion as kind of a conservative modeling assumption. I think there's a lot of reasons to believe that we could do better than that, but I think we want to be, we also want to make sure that we're comfortable that we can at least do that. And then within the existing portfolio, we look at a lot of different scenarios. We have a lot of products that are growing with a lot of great growth ahead, a few over that time period, a few potential LOEs, but pretty small in the grand scheme of things. And we look at different scenarios for commercial outcomes for the different products as well. So I feel really good about that number. At the time of our investor day, we pointed out that consensus was only at around $4.1 billion, I believe was what we said, and we believe we're very comfortable that that $4.7 billion plus is very doable. I think consensus has moved up a little bit, but it still hasn't gotten all the way there. Got it. Okay, considering that 50% of growth of portfolio receipts will come from the existing portfolio, that implies around $800 million, give or take. Yeah. What products do you expect to mostly drive this? It's going to be a mix. I mean, we have 45 products, and so the approved products that have a lot of growth ahead are products like Voranigo, Tremfya, Trelegy, Cobenfy, Trodelvy, and then Imdelltra was one that we recently added a couple of months ago. And then within the pipeline, we think we could get some contributions, although some of that could be more. We have a lot of things that are going to kind of read out in the next couple of years and some approvals that could happen in the next couple of years and could play into those numbers. But a lot of the pipeline will probably be more things that will drive beyond 2030. Yeah. Okay. So on the pipeline, is it? I mean, I was just trying to map out where the largest revenue streams might come from, and it felt like RevMed perhaps is one of them. Definitely. LP Little A is perhaps one of them. Absolutely. What else, Marshall? I put on that list, we did a deal last year for a Sanofi product for MS called Frexalimab right? They were talking it up. Yeah, which is a nice-sized royalty, double-digit royalty as well, and a drug that Sanofi has talked about having $5 billion plus of peak sales potential. That's one. And then I guess the other one on the list is Trontinemab. Depending on how that market develops, we have a mid-single-digit royalty on Roche's brain shuttle. That could be a big product as well. Oh, fascinating. So maybe just touching up on a couple, I want to kind of go through a little bit on each of those because they all have very interesting risk profiles and interesting data sets. So I'll do it a little quickly. Perhaps starting with Frexalimab, we had Sanofi here yesterday, and we were going through this in detail with them. So Paul Hudson brought up what you just pointed out on Frexalimab. I remember the way I asked him was, I was like, "Ocrevus has pretty meaningful relapse reduction. What does Frexalimab add on top?" And his point was twofold. One was on the sort of the commercial infrastructure they have, which obviously supports a certain launch profile. But also he said, "Outside of relapses, you got to think about disability." And I wasn't necessarily aware that Frexalimab has data both on disability and on relapse reduction side. Is that right? They do. And I think commercially, our thesis too is the CD20s have been an incredible, are an incredible class, right? But there are a significant population of patients who have been through those drugs and either off because of infection side effects or other things. And so there's a big population of patients out there that need something else. But isn't it the same thing mechanistically? So it is a different mechanism, sort of broader than just the B cells for CD20. So CD40 is a broader mechanism at kind of a different point in the immune system. So definitely has the potential to offer differentiated efficacy. I see. Okay, got it. When is the phase 3 readout for this? It's ongoing, is my understanding. It's ongoing, and I think it's a 2027 event. Okay, got it. So that was the first one. Yep. The second one was on Lp(a). There's and you guys have economics on two of them, if I remember correctly, right? We do. Which one is it? Where was the economics more indexed to? Yeah, we definitely have. So we have two royalties. As you mentioned, the Pelacarsen from Novartis that'll read out next year. That's a smaller royalty. That's a mid-single-digit royalty. We have a larger royalty, kind of high single, low double on Amgen's Olpasiran, which sounds like that will be a 2027 plus event based on Amgen's latest guidance. Marshall, I got to believe you and your team have been doing work on trying to understand why the event rate has been slow to accrue, but also why the endpoints didn't deliver. And the understanding is the event rate is slow, but also in the low cutoff, it's even slower. Any feedback you could share on that broadly? I mean, we don't know much more than the world does. I think the observation that event rates have been lower in cardiovascular outcomes trials is a pretty general observation, not just across Lp(a), but other areas as well. Then we're not surprised that this trial is going to the final analysis. It was always our base assumption that given one, it's a new class and you want as much safety information as possible. Two, we've seen that time is your friend in terms of effect size in these studies, that there was a pretty strong bias to see this through to the end. Okay, got it. And then as it relates to sort of LP Little A and the effect size, I guess one thing that is unique about GLPs has been the CRP lowering outside of weight loss, etc., which drove some of the outcomes benefit. But that logic over to LP Little A's and lack of CRP benefit, do you think that biases the maximum possible outcomes benefit towards closer to 0.8 or so? That's a super hard question to answer, Umer. I think we are going to learn, right, what is the benefit in patients who have, in the population of patients whose cardiovascular disease is presumably really driven by their high LP Little A. So what that means in that population of patients, particularly the patients who have the highest levels of LP Little A, we're going to see. So I don't know that I'd conclude that because you don't have that sort of acute inflammatory effect like we see with GLP-1, you're somehow fundamentally limited. I think we're going to learn what LP Little A disease really means. Got it. Got it. RevMed, I think you guys did the deal right around ASCO this year, if I remember correctly. Yeah, it was middle of summer. Yeah. Right. So I'm assuming you saw some of the data, because RevMed has data in lung and pancreatic, but the data focus has been on pancreatic. Within pancreatic, they have data both with Folfirinox combo and Gemcitabine combo. And they've only focused on sort of the Gemcitabine and Paclitaxel combos and not so much on Folfirinox in external disclosures. For your diligence, did you see all of that? And were you comfortable that with the profile they're showing and the type of mutations the responses are coming from, that it's very competitive versus what's out there? So one of the things that differentiates us when we do deals with companies like RevMed is that we are able to sort of see all of the available data at that time. So we got to do very, very, as we normally do, very fulsome diligence. And yes, we're kind of confident in the profile and its competitiveness. We probably shouldn't get into details. That's RevMed's job. But you've gone through all these. We had a lot of resolution and insight into what the data were. Got it. Go ahead. Sorry, I was just going to follow up with a question which I've had some confusion around. I don't really know the answer, but because it's so relevant commercially. When we think about the type of construct RevMed's is, and it could apply to G12D, it could apply to G12V, it could apply to a range of mutations. One thing we don't see in their disclosures is the responses they do have, are they driven by G12D patients or G12V patients, etc.? Because if they're primarily driven by G12D, then I got to start comping it versus G12D data sets as well. So I guess, should we be worried about the G12D emerging drugs as we think about the commercial opportunity and the implied royalties, or it's not a big concern? The way we thought about it was there were kind of multiple ways to win, right? We were very convinced about the lead program, RMC-6236, the pan-RAS inhibitors activity in pancreatic cancer. I think the fact that RevMed has a portfolio and can do combinations as well is another interesting angle for them in what is a competitive market. But yes, that was something we thought a lot about was a competitive landscape and really like being partnered with RevMed. Got it. And sorry, just one or two more on this just because it's relevant. Terry, I remember there was this table you put out a fair amount of detail on this RevMed transaction. I was just curious, how do we figure out and get comfortable on how many of those tranches they'll draw on, or some of those are set in stone on how many they have to draw on as long as the data keeps developing a certain way? They have to draw on the second tranche. Okay. That's the positive phase three data. Correct. Pancreatic. The third through fifth tranches. Which are. Are at their options. Approvals and sales driven. Approval, sales, and then the first line label expansion. The first line. So those are up to them. That's up to them. If they don't draw, is it possible they don't draw beyond? It's certainly possible. It's tough to say. I think it shows that this deal shows the creativity of how we can help our partners, and it's there for them if they want it, if they need it, and if they decide that they don't need it, then they don't have to draw on it. So the first and second tranche being triggered is sub 5% royalty, correct? Yeah, the first tier, I think together it's like just over four and a half maybe. Right. Okay, got it. So it's still a real royalty. Still a real royalty for what we think could be a very large drug, for sure. Yeah. Just while we're on the subject of Revolution Medicines, such a creative and unique structure. I mean, could this have established a new precedent for future deals? I remember, I think it was on your 3Q call, you said that after this deal, you kind of received inbound from potential partners asking if they can get the same thing. But you said it's not for everybody. Maybe could you please elaborate on that? Yeah, we definitely think there's lots of elements of this that, as we mentioned, got people's attention about a new way to fund at scale in a way that's flexible. So we're going to, I think you'll definitely see us partner with companies using elements of what we did with RevMed, and we'll also continue to innovate and think in new ways. But definitely, I think it caught a lot of people's attention about what was the art of the possible with synthetic royalty funding. I mean. Before, there wasn't a true alternative to a pharma partnership, right? You could do equity, but to do $2 billion of equity would be really hard. And so for the first time, we think that we've shown that this is a viable alternative to that pharma partnership. It allows companies to develop, to turn those cards over, to realize more value, and to still retain all the optionality that they otherwise would have. Fascinating. Just one more thing. Marshall, I was surprised because normally when you structure this, you put in all the obvious clinical unlocking events. You always somehow reflect that in the way the structure is made. But you didn't put lung in any of this. Why was that? Or is that not in your model? No, no, no. We think the drug has real potential in lung. At the end of the day, like Terry mentioned, when we start talking to companies, right, it's a real conversation about how much capital is ideally available to the company at what stages by what dates. And it just so happened that in this transaction, it lined up really nicely on the pancreatic side for when the cadence of the draws would come for them. And that's kind of where we ended up. So I wouldn't read anything negatively about our view on lung. Okay. Maybe just a quick one on China. Again, at your investor day, you said that you've been cultivating relationships in China for the past 10 years. And I think on your 3Q call, you said you've made multiple trips to China alone just this year. Just given the fact. That was for shopping. Yeah. Just given the fact that capital raising is much more challenging over there, how might future deal structures differ than what you've historically done in the past? Will synthetics play a bigger or less role perhaps in China? Yeah, I can start. What we see that's exciting is everyone has been talking a lot about the volume of licensing transactions that has left a lot of royalties in the hands of Chinese biopharma companies. And so the royalty monetization market there doesn't exist. I think we're certainly focused on being part of developing that as sort of the stage one of this. And the timing of when that's going to happen, who knows, but we want to be there and be a part of developing that market. And could it evolve to be synthetic royalties and other opportunities beyond that? Absolutely. Got it. Will Royalty Pharma need to establish operations locally in China in order to do business there? It's something that we're exploring seriously and trying to get our arms around what approach makes the most sense, but we recognize that it's a huge market and we absolutely need to be there and be very focused on it. Got it. Last question, Terry, just to level set everyone. Can you just remind us just the timelines on Vertex resolution, RevMed phase three data, LP Little A's next year? But just remind us some of the key events just so that we could think through. Yeah. So Vertex, we've said that we expect that to be resolved by around the end of 2026. End of 2026? Yeah. I don't know why I thought 2025. Okay. Now that would be very soon. Yeah. Yeah. And And then RevMed. Data is next year sometimes. I don't think RevMed's refined the timing. And then LP Little A, same thing, is next year, tracking for next year as well. So it should be an exciting year. Pell Carson. Yeah, Pelacarsen. And then the. We are hosting Royalty Pharma, Terry Coyne, CFO, Marshall Urist, EVP of Investments. Gentlemen, welcome. Thank you so much for making time to be with us at this conference. Before we get into Q&A, we'd just love to hear your kind of state of the union of the business and what we could look forward to in the next 12 months. Yeah, so thanks, Mike and Umer and Evercore for having us. Yeah, I think 2025 has been a pretty amazing year for Royalty Pharma, a transformational year. We started the year off with a bang when we announced a major strategic transaction where we internalized our external manager, kind of put the company together as sort of one consolidated business, which was really important from a strategic and from a financial perspective. And then we've had a lot of great deals throughout the year, returned a record amount of capital to shareholders, and have performed really well financially. So overall, I feel like there's a ton of really positive momentum, pipeline's really strong, and we're super excited to wrap this year up and get into 2026. Fantastic. Fantastic. Terry, there's a lot of fundamental questions to go through, but maybe just at a very high-level macro question for folks because this comes up in some conversations. Could you remind us? I think you've been on certain high-profile indices like Russell 1000 Growth, etc., in the past. And I think stock was in there, it's not in there, but now the cap is back. Is there any conversations you've had on anything along, any meaningful index-like changes coming? That's a good question. I'll be honest. Do you get notified ahead of time or they just do it? I think we find out the same time that everyone next to us. Oh, you do? Yeah. But yeah, I mean. But this stuff correlates with cap, right, for their. I think that's right. Yeah, I'm definitely not an expert on that. Oh, got it. But I think, yeah, I mean, we're really happy with how the stock has performed this year. Right. And just to level set also for everyone, can you remind us the leverage where it's at right now, and? So yeah, it's around three times total debt to EBITDA. And so fairly low, fairly conservative. It's super important for us to maintain our investment grade credit rating. It's sort of critical to our cost of capital. But we have a lot of financial flexibility. So if we need, if a lot of deals come along, we can easily take leverage up to four times. We have cash on the balance sheet, access to a revolver. So for us, having access and dry powder is critical because you never know when that big royalty is going to come along, and we need to always make sure that we're in a position to jump on it if it does. One more sort of higher-level question also. I recall one of the themes that was starting to occur a couple of years ago was across a range of deals you guys were signing up, there was like this 1.6-2x cap on when those returns happen, the royalty stop, which was starting to happen more frequently. But I noticed in the last 12 months or so, almost the last two years of deals I was like hand compiling, I noticed it kind of stopped happening. Now, maybe that correlates with how the market environment was as well. But is that something that was sort of very intentional and deliberate on your end? I wouldn't say it's necessarily been a priority, right? We've talked about before, we use caps when we need them, right, or think they're appropriate for the deal. I think you're right though, this year that has not been a characteristic of the deals we've done, which is, I think, exciting. Will we certainly see them in the future on some deals as it makes sense? Absolutely. So it's probably more a reflection of deal mix and type of seller, etc., more than anything else. We try to approach every deal with sort of being pretty open-minded and trying. Yes, so the right product over the right. Yeah, and it's a discussion. They have different goals, and so partners have different goals. We obviously are trying to generate attractive returns, and so it's that trying to find the right balance. Makes sense. Got it. As we think about just portfolio receipt growth during the next five years, at your investor day, you got it to $4.7 billion plus in 2030, which reflects roughly a 9% annual CAGR from now until then, and also assumes steady annual capital deployment of around $2.5 billion. So what are the macro pushes and pulls that are kind of baked into that guidance? You can just give us an idea of that. Yeah. So what we said at the time, and the portfolios evolved a little bit since then, but we said that around half of that growth would come from things that we already owned that are already in the portfolio. And then the other half of that growth would come from new investments, that $2 billion-$2.5 billion per year. I think we would characterize that $2 billion-$2.5 billion as kind of a conservative modeling assumption. I think there's a lot of reasons to believe that we could do better than that. But I think we want to be, we also want to make sure that we're comfortable that we can at least do that. And then within the existing portfolio, we look at a lot of different scenarios. We have a lot of products that are growing with a lot of great growth ahead, a few over that time period, a few potential LOEs, but pretty small in the grand scheme of things. And we look at different scenarios for commercial outcomes for the different products as well. So feel really good about that number. At the time of our investor day, we pointed out that consensus was only at around $4.1 billion, I believe was what we said. And we believe we're very comfortable that that $4.7 billion plus is very doable. I think consensus has moved up a little bit, but it still hasn't gotten all the way there. Got it. Okay. Considering that 50% of growth of portfolio receipts will come from the existing portfolio, that implies around $800 million, give or take. Yeah. What products do you expect to mostly drive this? So it's going to be a mix. I mean, we have 45 products. And so the approved products that have a lot of growth ahead are products like Voranigo, Tremfya, Trelegy, Cobenfy, Trodelvy, and then Imdelltra was one that we recently added a couple of months ago. And then within the pipeline, we could get some contributions, although some of that could be more. We have a lot of things that are going to kind of read out in the next couple of years and some approvals that could happen in the next couple of years and could play into those numbers. But a lot of the pipeline will probably be more things that will drive beyond 2030. Yeah. Okay, so on the pipeline, I mean, I was just trying to map out where the largest revenue streams might come from, and it felt like RevMed perhaps is one of them. Definitely. Lp(a) is perhaps one of them. Absolutely. What else, Marshall? I put on that list. We did a deal last year for a Sanofi product for MS called Frexalimab, right? They were talking it up. Yeah, which is a nice-sized royalty, double-digit royalty as well. And a drug that Sanofi has talked about having $5 billion plus of peak sales potential. That's one. And then I guess the other one on the list is Trontinemab. Depending on how that market develops, we have a mid-single-digit royalty on Roche's brain shuttle. That could be a big product as well. Oh, fascinating. So maybe just touching up on a couple, I want to kind of go through a little bit on each of those because they all have very interesting risk profiles and interesting data sets. So I'll do it a little quickly. Perhaps starting with frexalimab. We had Sanofi here yesterday and we were going through this in detail with them. So Paul Hudson brought up what you just pointed out in frexalimab. The way I asked him was, I was like, "Ocrevus has pretty meaningful relapse reduction. What does frexalimab add on top?" And his point was twofold. One was on the sort of the commercial infrastructure they have, which obviously supports a certain launch profile. But also he said, "Outside of relapses, you got to think about disability." And I wasn't necessarily aware that frexalimab has data both on disability and on relapse reduction side. Is that right? They do. And I think commercially, our thesis too is the CD20s have been an incredible, are an incredible class, right? But there are a significant population of patients who have been through those drugs and are either off because of infection side effects or other things. And so there's a big population of patients out there that need something else. But isn't it the same thing mechanistically? So it is a different mechanism, sort of broader than just the B cells for CD20. So CD40 is a broader mechanism at kind of a different point in the immune system. So definitely has the potential to offer differentiated efficacy. I see. Okay, got it. When is the phase 3 readout for this? It's ongoing, is my understanding. It's ongoing, and I think it's a 2027 event. Okay, got it. So that was the first one. Yep. The second one was on Lp(a). There's and you guys have economics on two of them, if I remember correctly, right? We do. Which one is it? Where was the economics more indexed to? Yeah, we definitely have. So we have two royalties. As you mentioned, the Pelacarsen is Novartis that'll read out next year. That's a smaller royalty. Mid-single digit. That's a mid-single digit royalty. We have a larger royalty, kind of high single, low double on Amgen's Olpasiran, which sounds like that will be a 2027 plus event based on Amgen's latest guide. Marshall, I got to believe you and your team have been doing work on trying to understand why the event rate has been slow to accrue, but also why the endpoints didn't deliver, and the understanding is the event rate is slow, but also in the low cutoff, it's even slower. Any feedback you could share on that broadly? I mean, we don't know much more than the world does. I think the observation that event rates have been lower in cardiovascular outcomes trials is a pretty general observation, not just across LP Little A, but other areas as well, and then we're not surprised that this trial is going to the final analysis. It was always our base assumption that given that it's a new class and you want as much safety information as possible. Two, we've seen that time is your friend in terms of effect size in these studies, that there was a pretty strong bias to see this through to the end. Okay, got it. And then as it relates to sort of LP Little A and the effect size, I guess one thing that is unique about GLPs has been the CRP lowering outside of weight loss, etc., which drove some of the outcomes benefit. But that logic over to LP Little A's and lack of CRP benefit, do you think that biases the maximum possible outcomes benefit towards closer to 0.8 or so? That's a super hard question to answer, Umer. I think we are going to learn, right, what is the benefit in patients who have in the population of patients whose cardiovascular disease is presumably really driven by their high LP Little A. So what that means in that population of patients, particularly the patients who have the highest levels of LP Little A, we're going to see. So I don't know that I'd conclude that because you don't have that sort of acute inflammatory effect like we see with GLP-1, you're somehow fundamentally limited. I think we're going to learn what LP Little A disease really means. Got it. Got it. RevMed, I think you guys did the deal right around ASCO this year, if I remember correctly. Yeah, it was middle of summer. Yeah. Right. So I'm assuming you saw some of the data. Because RevMed has data in lung and pancreatic, but the data focus has been on pancreatic. Within pancreatic, they have data both with Folfirinox combo and Gemcitabine combo. And they've only focused on sort of the Gemcitabine and Paclitaxel combos and not so much on Folfirinox in external disclosures. For your diligence, did you see all of that? And were you comfortable that with the profile they're showing and the type of mutations the responses are coming from, that it's very competitive versus what's out there? So one of the things that differentiates us when we do deals with companies like RevMed is that we are able to sort of see all of the available data at that time. So we got to do very, very, as we normally do, very fulsome diligence. Yes, we're kind of confident in the profile and its competitiveness. We probably shouldn't get into details. That's RevMed's job. But you've gone through all these. We had a lot of resolution and insight into what the data were. Got it. Sorry. I was just going to follow up with a question which I've had some confusion around. I don't really know the answer, but because it's so relevant commercially. So when we think about the type of construct RevMed's is, and it could apply to G12D, it could apply to G12V, it could apply to a range of mutations. One thing we don't see in their disclosures is the responses they do have, are they driven by G12D patients or G12V patients, etc.? Because if they're primarily driven by G12D, then I got to start comping it versus G12V data sets as well. So I guess, should we be worried about the G12D emerging drugs as we think about the commercial opportunity and the implied royalties, or it's not a big concern? The way we thought about it was there were kind of multiple ways to win, right? We were very convinced about the lead program, RMC-6236, the pan-RAS inhibitors activity in pancreatic cancer. I think the fact that RevMed has a portfolio and can do combinations as well is another interesting angle for them in what is a competitive market. But yes, that was something we thought a lot about was a competitive landscape and really like being partnered with RevMed. Got it. And sorry, just one or two more on this just because it's relevant. Terry, I remember there was this table you put out a fair amount of detail on this RevMed transaction. I was just curious, how do we figure out and get comfortable on how many of those tranches they'll draw on, or some of those are set in stone on how many they have to draw on as long as the data keeps developing a certain way? They have to draw on the second tranche. Okay. That's the positive phase three data. Correct. Pancreatic. The third through fifth tranches. Which are? Are at their options. Approvals and sales driven. Approval, sales, and then the first line label expansion. The first line. So those are up to them. That's up to them. So if they don't draw, is it possible they don't draw beyond? It's certainly possible. It's tough to say. I think it shows that this deal shows the creativity of how we can help our partners, and it's there for them if they want it, if they need it. And if they decide that they don't need it, then they don't have to draw on it. So the first and second tranche being triggered is sub 5% royalty, correct? Yeah, the first tier, I think together it's like just over four and a half maybe. Right. Right. Okay, got it. So it's still a real royalty. Still a real royalty for what we think could be a very large drug, for sure. Yeah. Just while we're on the subject of Revolution Medicines, such a creative and unique structure. I mean, could this have established a new precedent for future deals? I remember, I think it was on your 3Q call, you said that after this deal, you kind of received inbound from potential partners asking if they can get the same thing. But you said it's not for everybody. Maybe could you please elaborate on that? Yeah. We definitely think there's lots of elements of this that, as we mentioned, got people's attention about a new way to fund at scale in a way that's flexible. So we're going to, I think you'll definitely see us partner with companies using elements of what we did with RevMed, and we'll also continue to innovate and think in new ways. But definitely, I think it caught a lot of people's attention about what was the art of the possible with synthetic royalty funding. I mean, before, there wasn't a true alternative to a pharma partnership, right? You could do equity, but to do $2 billion of equity would be really hard. And so for the first time, we think that we've shown that this is a viable alternative to that pharma partnership. It allows companies to develop, to turn those cards over, to realize more value, and to still retain all the optionality that they otherwise would have. Fascinating. Just one more thing. Marshall, I was surprised because normally when you structure this, you put in all the obvious clinical unlocking events, you always somehow reflect that in the way the structure is made. But you didn't put lung in any of this. Why was that? Or is that not in your model? Yeah. No, no, no. We think the drug has real potential in lung. At the end of the day, like Terry mentioned, when we start talking to companies, right, it's a real conversation about how much capital is ideally available to the company at what stages by what dates. And it just so happened that in this transaction, it lined up really nicely on the pancreatic side for when the cadence of the draws would come for them. And that's kind of where we ended up. So I wouldn't read anything negatively about our view on lung. Okay. Maybe just a quick one on China. Again, at your investor day, you said that you've been cultivating relationships in China for the past 10 years. And I think on your 3Q call, you said you've made multiple trips to China alone just this year. Just given the fact. That was for shopping. Yeah. Given the fact that capital raising is much more challenging over there, how might future deal structures differ than what you've historically done in the past? Will synthetics play a bigger or less role perhaps in China? Yeah, I can start. What we see that's exciting is everyone has been talking a lot about the volume of licensing transactions that has left a lot of royalties in the hands of Chinese biopharma companies. And so the royalty monetization market there doesn't exist. I think we're certainly focused on being part of developing that as sort of the stage one of this. And the timing of when that's going to happen, who knows, but we want to be there and be a part of developing that market. And could it evolve to be synthetic royalties and other opportunities beyond that? Absolutely. Got it. Will Royalty Pharma need to establish operations locally in China in order to do business there? It's something that we're exploring seriously and trying to get our arms around what approach makes the most sense, but we recognize that it's a huge market and we absolutely need to be there and be very focused on it. Got it. Last question, Terry, just to level set everyone. Can you just remind us just the timelines on Vertex resolution, RevMed phase three data, LP little a's next year? But just remind us some of the key events just so that we could think through. Yeah, so Vertex, we've said that we expect that to be resolved by around the end of 2026. End of 2026? Yeah. I don't know why I thought 2025. Okay. Now that would be very soon. Yeah. Yeah, and then RevMed. Data is next year. Sometimes I don't think RevMed's refined the timing, and then LP Little A, same thing, is next year, tracking for next year as well, so it should be an exciting year. Pell Carson. Yeah, Pelacarsen. And then the other LP and Frexalimab is the following year. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Fantastic. Thank you so much. Thanks a lot. Great. Thank you guys. It was great. Thank you. Thank you.