Good morning, everyone. I'm Evie Koslosky, the Life Science Tools and Diagnostics Analyst here at Goldman Sachs. I'm joined here by Prahlad Singh, the President and CEO of Revvity. Thank you so much for being here. Morning. Maybe to kick us off, you had a solid start to the year, growth driven by both diagnostics and life sciences. Maybe start by walking through some of the key takeaways from the quarter and how things have progressed since then. Yeah, Evie, good morning. Just as we look at the businesses, as you said, we had a great start to the year. On the diagnostics side, reproductive health franchise continues to do very well. Immunodiagnostics to ex-China was performing well across other geographies. On the life sciences side, [planet single], our reagents business grew low single, coming back, as we've said now for a couple of quarters. Academia and research did well. It was more broad-based, and we've started seeing signs of recovery, as we pointed out during the earnings call, across geographies and across end markets. We feel very optimistic as to what's in front of us. Great. The other major announcement on your quarterly call is the divestiture of your China immunodiagnostics business. Maybe digging into some of the implications there, that was a drag on growth, but also on the cash flow side as well. Maybe now that you've stripped that out, how do you think about plans for reinvesting this cash flow in any particular areas in the remaining portfolio that you would focus it on? Yeah, again, as we mentioned during the earnings call, we expect to close on this towards the end of 2027. As you said, it was a drag both on growth and on cash flow. We don't expect to have a huge cash influx coming in from the divestiture. We would typically use it, whatever comes in, for typical either share buybacks, which is probably our primary target right now, or look at tuck-in acquisitions that would fill any gaps we would have in our portfolio. Primarily, I think if you would see us, we will continue to be, as we have been aggressive on our share buyback. Yeah. Maybe touching on some of the logistics of the divestiture itself. You signed a letter of intent. Can you talk through your confidence in the level of communication that you have with the management -led buyer group, and then when we should expect to see a definitive agreement on the deal? Yeah. As we've said, as you mentioned, Evie, we know the buyers. They are the management team that have led and created this business over the past few decades. We have a very high degree of confidence in their ability to run the business and for us on closing the deal. Timing-wise, we hope to sign in the near future, and when we do, we'll publicly announce it. It is progressing very well. Great. Shifting to diagnostics and maybe specifically reproductive health, which I think had a very healthy growth rate, low double digits. Understand you had the Genomics England contribution, you had extra selling days, there's also some Revvity -specific drivers there. Maybe walk us through the moving pieces and then how durable the above LRP growth is in reproductive health. Let's start from the LRP piece that you pointed out. The reproductive health business has done much better than what we have had it in our LRP model. This is despite significant pressure on birth rates that we've seen across geographies. I think inherently and fundamentally what we have put in place in terms of geographic expansion, as we know there are nearly 100 million newborns today that are still not screened, and menu expansion with more and more emergence of therapeutics for rare diseases, there is a desire and intent to have a screening program for those diseases. SMA, DMD, MPS II, there are a whole host of these rare diseases which require screening programs. That has really been the engine of growth for the reproductive health business. In terms of the extra bit, that reproductive health really didn't contribute towards that. All of that came from the reagent side of the business. On the life sciences reagent side of the business. I think within newborn screening, the guide does imply a little bit of a step down in growth from 1Q. How much conservative is baked into that assumption, and why shouldn't we see the strength kind of continue in that market? I think as you pointed out, maybe there is a level of conservatism in the guidance that we have for the reproductive health business. As we pointed out in the first quarter, it is not just in the reproductive health business. If you look at the way we've guided for the year, we don't have any ramp in the second half at all. I think we feel very comfortable and optimistic about the way we've guided for the year. The reproductive health business, if you look at it's not that the growth that came in in the first quarter was from any one-offs or any big CapEx deals that we did. We feel, I would say, very optimistic about the way we have forecasted it. Great. You touched on the geographic expansion a little bit earlier, but maybe dig into that a bit more. Are there any particular areas where you're finding success in penetrating new markets? Yeah, I would say globally, we are seeing markets where excuse me, wherever newborn screening programs are going. Even in there, it is a twofold approach. Areas where newborn screening today has been adopted, they are taking on newer disorders which were not screened. U.K. and France being two primary examples, where the number of disorders that they are screening for has now increased. Italy has always been at the forefront of screening type 1 diabetes that they have launched. That's the only country right now that screens all newborns for type 1 diabetes. Among emerging geographies, Indonesia, India, are two countries where we are starting to see an adoption of newborn screening at the more basic level, TSH, PKU, basic disorders that country starts screening for. Great. Moving to the ex-China immunodiagnostics, this grew mid-single digit in 1Q. Is there a framework we should think about moving forward on the path to ramp back to the LRP target of 9%-11%? Yeah. I think, obviously, China has been a drag on that business for some time. If you look at other geographies, like in the U.S. as a primary example, as we said, it was 5% of the revenue for Euroimmun. When we acquired the business, it's around 15%-20%. Rightfully, it should be around 40%-45% of revenue coming from the U.S. There's a lot of traction in this geography, Latin America, Asia, parts of Europe, that the incidence of detection of autoimmune diseases is still in its nascency. That's where I think, the Euroimmun business and overall immunodiagnostics portfolio will do well. I think the one piece that has dragged it a bit has been the Oxford Immunotec business. With latent tuberculosis, as you've heard, whether it's around immigration policies or around testing for latent TB, has seen a significant slowdown. Till that comes back up and ramps up, that will be the one I would say the opposite side of it, where it will be a bit of a drag on the portfolio. Got it. I guess within the U.S. IVD market, what are the gating factors for driving further penetration there, maybe excluding TB? I think in the past you've talked about additional automation. Maybe where are you in terms of commercializing the high throughput system, and how should we think about the penetration ramp in the U.S. over time? The automation and the high throughput system is for latent tuberculosis. As that comes on board, obviously that will help get some more market share on the latent tuberculosis side. Outside of that, it is just us getting more and more assays through the system, whether it is through the FDA regulatory bodies or putting LDTs out in the marketplace. On the autoimmune side, there is still a lot of room and leeway for growth in the U.S. marketplace. On the latent TB side is where we would need to get the high throughput system into place. Okay. Shifting to the life science side of the portfolio. They saw low single-digit growth in 1Q, which was a slight acceleration off of the 4Q exit rate. Maybe talk through some of the moving pieces in that portfolio. How much of an impact did the extra selling days have, versus underlying improvement of what you saw in the end markets? I would say the extra selling days were probably about 1% of the growth that you saw. I would say 50 basis points of it was also a drag from the snow and the storm days that we expressed. As you know, this is a run -rate business, every day that reagents are not used is a day lost. I would say it was overall a 50 basis points net benefit from the extra selling days. I would say, again, if you recall, for us, even academia and life science research are coming back, which is actually a very good sign. Digging into the biopharma /biotech piece to start. We've seen improved funding in recent quarters. This can take a while to translate into performance for the tools companies, maybe less so on the consumable side. It feels like a lot of that funding is actually focused on clinical-stage assets rather than preclinical. What are you hearing in the market? Maybe help us understand how we should think about these recent funding improvements in biotech. Just to bifurcate the question, you're absolutely right. The funding that you are seeing primarily tends to go into clinical side of it, and that's where you see the initial benefit of it, both in terms of the actual clinical trials, but everything else that supports that piece to get new therapeutics out for approval and commercialization. Overall, I think these fundings eventually requires that you start filling the funnel back from an innovation perspective through discovery and development. I think that's where, if you recall, what we've said is over the last couple of quarters, we are starting to see signs of that coming back clearly, as you've seen in our performance on both in the fourth quarter and even in the first quarter. This is where eventually, whether it's big pharma or biotech or even mid, small pharma /biotech, the innovation engine will have to take off. You mentioned an improvement in the academic end market. I guess, what are you seeing from those customers? The NIH budget seems to be slightly higher. Are you seeing that start to flow through, and what's the activity level at the academic customer? I would say still at the initial stages, because in the first quarter, there was still a level of nervousness. That is this permanent or is there going to be another wave or another policy change that might impact there? As you would naturally expect, there is a level of nervousness and edginess in that customer base. That eventually is starting to subside, whatever the new normal is essentially taking place. I think that started seeing signs, I would say, of stable in research, but signs of growth in pharma /biotech. That's the way I would differentiate between those two end markets. Okay, that makes sense. Another piece of the life science portfolio that's been particularly strong for Revvity is the China piece. We've seen a lot of funding go into that market from MNC pharma sort of entering the region. I guess, why is Revvity well-positioned to capitalize on this growth, and what are you seeing from the biotech investments there, and maybe how you think about the durability of that market in China? Yeah. China, if you look and you compare our performance in the life sciences side of China versus our peers over the last even 2.5 to three years, when the market has been quite depressed, we've done exceedingly well. I think that is where the differentiation in our portfolio shows up. I know we are talking about China as a region, but even in other geographies, that is where we are going to start seeing the benefit of the portfolio that we have. If you look on the platform side, we sell non-commoditized specialty instruments. We are also on the reagent side. Once we get into a program, whether it's for screening or validation purposes, they're very sticky. They are there for several years. It is a big turn for a customer to swap from what they are using to another reagent or an assay. That's the benefit that we are seeing in terms of how the growth of our reagents business is taking on, and also on the life sciences platform side. Great. Another kind of key growth driver that you mentioned on the earnings call was GLP-1s and the impact those have on your instrument portfolio. Can you remind us how your portfolio is positioned in that market? Yeah. Again, it comes down to screening and validation. Once a customer puts a screening program, the hurdle rate to get into that program, whether it's from a validation perspective or a screening perspective, is high. Once you get into that program, and GLP-1 is a classic example, as GLP-1s are being explored for newer indications, they are already on the screening pathway where our assays and our platforms are being used. That stickiness is where we see the advantage coming from. GLP-1 is just one example. Whether it's around GLP-1s, neurodegenerative diseases, or nephrology, these are areas where there is a lot of stickiness to our reagents, and that's the benefit that we will see earlier on, I would say, than compared to our peers. Okay. Shifting to the Signals business, you've had a lot of recent innovation in the Signals software side. Maybe highlight some of the recent and upcoming launches, then timing of when we should expect those to actually flow through the P&L. Yeah. I think as Steve likes to say, either one of these NPIs would be one of the biggest launches that we would have in the history of that business, having three of them in the same year is going to pay very rich dividends over the next several years for that business and Revvity as a whole. Starting with BioDesign, that was essentially adding features to our Signals One portfolio in the large molecule area where we did have a gap. Then I think this fills that gap on the biomolecules and the large molecule side. Xynthetica, which we announced the partnership and launched off it earlier in January, will be launched in a couple of weeks, so that launch is coming up. That brings the ecosystem of 200+ biotech companies that TuneLab and Lilly brings to the table. Then the last one is LabGistics. That essentially provides an AI-integrated workflow into Signals One, seamlessly bringing in from discovery to filing to taking it on to the clinical. One unique enterprise-level platform that is able to have all of this ecosystem for drug discovery to commercialization. Great. Then BioDesign is one. It was very recently launched, and you mentioned that it kind of fills this unmet need. I guess, what has the early feedback been on that launch, and what are you hearing from customers? Yeah. I think if you recall, the way we develop our NPI portfolio, especially on the Signals side, is through user groups that we hold 3x- 4x a year. BioDesign is an ask from our customers. The features that they are is something that they have been trying and playing with for several quarters, even before the launch of it. I think early beta customer feedback has been pretty positive, but typically, it takes a couple of quarters or few quarters before you start seeing traction, and it all comes down to contract renewals or when those features are added on to the new contract for the customer. Okay. The ACD/Labs acquisition, which closed in January, are there any areas of the software portfolio where you feel another small tuck-in acquisition would make sense? How do you balance the decision to build versus buy? Yeah. ACD/Labs is a perfect example of a tuck-in for the Signals portfolio, specifically where it was an add-on. It provided a lot of synergies, both from a revenue perspective and from a cost perspective, as it seamlessly integrates to our offering today. We have a great team of talent that came along with the acquisition, and not only are they going to help with what currently ACD/Labs offers, but also the newer pipeline. I think as we look for opportunities, if something come along that fits that mold. Whether it's in Signals or in life sciences or diagnostics, we will continue to be acquisitive. Would there be a ranking of where you would be focused on more? Is it more when the deal comes along opportunity? I think more than ranking, we tend to look at strategic fit, unmet need, and financial profile. I think we sort of rank more based on those three elements than which company it is. Okay. In AI impacts, thinking about your software portfolio, what's the risk that pharma companies try to develop some of these software solutions in-house? In thinking about that investment from a pharma /biotech perspective, how quickly could they replicate these internally using AI? Would it even make sense for them to do so? Well, let me start by saying, Signals is in every pharma and biotech environment today from a research perspective. It is the plan of record over the past several decades in terms of where all the research is done, where all the data is collected, where all the analysis is done, but more important, where all the information is housed for QA, QC, nomenclature, IP filing, regulatory filings. I would say that it is the system of record. Now, would you be able to eventually move to a point where some of the mundane and more routine work can be done in an automated fashion? Absolutely. I think the real benefit for our customers, which our customers also fully appreciate and realize, is how do we take advantage of what automation and what AI does to bring it into the ecosystem and work and collaborate together so that the output improves both productivity and efficiency for our customers. I think that is where our focus is on working with all, if not some of the other automation companies. Yeah. The other question we get from investors often related to AI is how pharma companies change their behaviors in the preclinical R&D settings in terms of wet lab work versus in silico. I think an emerging theme is the need to actually build out data sets to fuel AI models. What instruments in your portfolio would be most exposed to this trend, and how do you kind of see that playing out over the longer term? We and others have talked about this lab-in-the-loop model, right? When you start with in silico design, you take it to the wet lab, you do the validation, post-discovery, and then take that data, come back to the in silico designs. I think our portfolio is the best suited, and I'm not just saying because of where I sit. If you think about it, on the in -silico side, you've got Signals. That sort of is the plan of record in terms of the platform where in silico designing would be done. As these compounds come and become lead candidates, they would go through the validation phase in discovery and into validation. This is where high content screening is required. As you go into animal studies, you would require in vivo imaging. You require reagents to do the research and then move to screening and validation. This is where our reagent portfolio fits well. I think the way the portfolio is designed and unlocking the value of the portfolio is what the new process, as in silico designing, becomes an integral part of drug discovery will start playing a role. Is the data set build out something that will be continuous over time, or will it get to the point where you have your data set and you can just keep going back to that same set, or will it be something they have to continue to do over time? I think it's akin to saying that in the next five years, drug discovery will be done, and then there'll be no more drug discovery. Yeah. Right? It's not going to happen. There's always going to be new diseases, unfortunately, and there's always going to be new discoveries, both for existing diseases and newer diseases. I don't think innovation is going to stop. I think what definitely will happen is that it'll be much faster, much more efficient, much more productive. I think the way to envision it is that there'll be a whole lot more therapeutics coming out at a faster pace. Where the bottleneck will end up being is around the validation of these compounds. As these lead candidates move from early discovery to lead candidates to IND candidates, that's where the validation probably. Or another way to think of it is that the mouth of the funnel, as I keep saying, might get narrower, but the stem of the funnel will get broader. You'll have a lot more compounds moving into the development phase. That'll require more and more of our reagents and instruments. Okay. When we talk about some of these trends, I guess, what are you seeing today with customers? Or are these more conversations that you're having as they talk about their plans longer term? I think some of the initial growth rates that we are starting to see in our portfolio is a direct result of this. As the discovery, I would say probably towards the second half of last year when there was a new way of thinking, more of certainty around MFN status and sanctions and tariffs and all of that. As the discovery engine started to take traction again, we've started to see this new behavior coming into play, where this is now another integral part of discussion around drug discovery and development. Okay. Maybe shifting to guide. You updated the pro forma organic revenue growth. It's 3%-4% now for the full year. That kind of implies a step down from what you saw in 1Q. Maybe remind us of some of the moving pieces as we move throughout the remainder of the year, and then anything on cadence that you would call out. Yeah, I think we did close to 6% pro forma in 1Q, and we've said 2%-3% in the second quarter. I think the best way to think of it, Evie, is that we have no ramp up in the second half. Then I think that's what should give significant level of confidence to our investors and shareholders as to how we have structured and guided to the second half. You talked about reproductive health as to how much conservatism you might expect to be baked in. Our reagents business is starting to do very well, pharma, biotech, and academia research is coming back. Our platforms business, again, grew mid-single digit in the first quarter, and we expect that to continue to do well. I would say rather than skepticism, there is a significant way of optimism on our side, some level of conservatism that we have built in our forecast. That's great. On the margin piece, the divestiture helps. You also had some underlying margin and EPS improvement as well in the first quarter, excluding the divestiture. How should we think about the margin cadence throughout the year? I know there was an impact in extra selling days in 1Q. I guess, should this actually help you later in terms of ramp? Yeah. I think we did 24% in the first quarter, which was better than what we had expected, and this was despite, I think, 50 basis points from FX drag and 100 basis points coming from the extra week that we have, which would not be there in the second quarter. I think we are at 27% in the second quarter. In the second half, we are 29% and 33%. I think we'll start seeing, as we have said, the impact of the cost measures that we have taken in the second half of the year. In the fourth quarter is just the normal volume growth that you see typically in the business towards the end of the year. Again, we feel very comfortable with the margin profile that we have now, especially as we look at it pro forma. I think more importantly, as we move into 2027, that is also going to be a significant driver of continued margin growth into 2027 and beyond. That's the operating leverage kind of on some of these end markets coming back. The calendarization- Yeah. .... that you would naturally see from the second half of this year onto the first half of next year. Because these are structural costs that are coming out of the system, whether it's from rooftop optimization, integration activities that are going on in the company. These will have a lasting favorable impact on the margin. Okay, great. You touched on it a little bit before, the capital deployment strategy in balancing between share repurchase and M&A moving forward. How do you view the M&A environment? Balancing with your aggressive share repurchase strategy. I think if you were to ask me today, we still feel that share buyback is the best opportunity that we have in the marketplace. At the same time, as we have said, we will continue to keep our eyes and ears open, and as long as there is a strategic fit, a good financial profile, and something that fills a gap in our portfolio, we will continue to do more tuck-in acquisitions similar to the ACD/Labs acquisition. Outside of that, we have got the bond that we have to pay off, which we plan to do in the second half of the year, and be acquisitive around share buyback. We feel very strongly today there is no better opportunity than buying our shares back given the growth profile that we have for this year and beyond. All we would need is for the pharma market to come back to normal, we are already in our LRP range. If you look at our Signals business, if you look at our reproductive health business, we are already in our LRP range. It is the life sciences piece of the portfolio. With pharma /biotech coming back, we feel very good that we will soon be in the LRP range of what we have projected. I guess touching on the pharma /biotech piece, we have seen the funding improve, is there anything else that you think has fundamentally changed in that market? I think as we look at the tools growth rate broadly, not even just for Revvity specifically, there is a concern of is this market something that is fundamentally changed now post-COVID? How do you kind of see the moving pieces of what we should look for of this coming back? I think there were two or three things that really hit pharma /biotech post-COVID. One was that there's significant amount of overbuying that happened during the COVID phase. I don't think people really appreciated the amount of money that was spent during COVID in pharma /biotech. We had the interest issue, inflation issue, CapEx spending drying up, MFN. There were so many acronyms of three-letter policy changes that were happening. Tariffs hit. Pharma /biotech has had to endure a significant amount of external policy changes that have impacted the end market. At the end of the day, as these therapeutics are going off a patent cliff, if the pharma /biotech industry is to succeed, survive, and we as a human generation, we need the therapeutics, and that is only possible through innovation. Bring it back to, if you look at it, whether it's through in silico design or drug discovery and development. Over the past 5+ years, we've done a really good job assembling a portfolio that fits that infinity in a loop model, which we've talked about for a couple of years now. Now we're glad to see that it is coming to fruition and is actually playing out as we had hoped for. That benefits us because not only do we have the software component of it, but even on the reagents and instrument side, the non-commoditized portfolio that we have fully leverages this opportunity. We're really excited with the portfolio we have, and we hope to be able to demonstrate the value of it in the next quarters. Great. One thing you have talked about in the past is building out some GMP capacity as well. How do you view that shifting over time and in your ability to stay with these programs in the early stage through the clinical? I think maybe the way to think of it is one of the growth drivers. It's one of the irons that we have in the fire because, as you know, to get onto a GMP program, it takes a few years for it to get on. Once you are on, not different to our reagent side of the business, they become very sticky and lumpy. I think as we get into late 2027- 2028, we are going to start seeing the benefit of that. That is one of the irons that we have in fire. The extended number of disorders on reproductive health, the application of automation and machine learning on a life sciences platforms business, all of these are growth drivers. The partnership opportunities that we have with pharma /biotech, whether it's around T1D with Sanofi or TuneLab with Lilly or what we are doing on population genomics with U.K. and GEL as an example, these are all growth drivers that add to the baseline that we have on our LRP. There are significant opportunities above that provide upside to what we have put on the LRP. Great. Just I guess with the couple minutes we have left, what do you feel investors are most underappreciating about the Revvity story today? You walked through some of these growth drivers, but if you had to call out a couple as probably most exciting over the next couple of years. I think, Evie, I talked about them just 30 seconds ago. I think the component that really we feel not fully appreciated is our ability to execute. I think as we've brought this in, we are still a very new company, and our investors are looking that will we be able to execute consistently and flawlessly. I think we've shown that over the past several quarters, and we will continue to do so. If you look at our cash flow conversion, I would contend that it is at least the best, if not amongst the best in the industry. If you look at our organic growth rate this year, it is in the top quartile. On the margin profile, we probably will have the significant margin improvement that we will see this year that will continue in the next several years. In each of these components, I think you will see the benefit that bringing together this portfolio will have on our financial profile. Great. All right. Good place to end. Thank you so much. Thanks, Evie. Thank you.