Okay, great. Good morning, everyone, and thank you for joining us. My name is Matt Delatorre, and I'm the Generics Pharma analyst here at GS. We're really pleased to have Teva joining us this morning with Richard Francis, President and CEO. Maybe, Richard, just to kind of get us started on the high-level outlook, we're just off your recent Strategy and Innovation Day, where you expanded upon many aspects of the company's pivot to growth strategy and highlighted how Teva is now in the acceleration phase. Maybe walk us through the key aspects of the acceleration phase and what you all are most focused on from an execution perspective over the next 12 months- 18 months. Okay. Firstly, Matt, thanks for having us. Appreciate it. You're right, we have entered the second phase of our pivot to growth, which is the acceleration phase, after successfully completing the first phase, which was return to growth after several years of decline. In Q1, it was our ninth quarter of consecutive growth. The acceleration phase is really a continuation of the strategy, but a doubling down on it. Let me explain that. In the first two years, the strategy is to move Teva from a pure play generics to a biopharma company. Obviously, two years ago, that seemed like an idea as opposed to something that could happen. Now, in the last two years, we've put $1 billion of revenue on our innovative portfolio, and we aim to put over $1 billion by 2027. I think the acceleration phase is all about accelerating our ability to commercialize our innovative products, Austedo, UZEDY, and Ajovy, and then to bring our pipeline through our late-stage pipeline, which is olanzapine long-acting treatment for schizophrenia, our dual-action rescue inhaler for asthma, and then we have Emrusolmin. We obviously have duvakitug in UC and CD. The acceleration phase is just adding more and more products to our innovative portfolio. I think we've shown we can commercialize those really well. It is worth noting that we do not have any LOEs of any significance on the horizon. You are adding launches, I think, on top of launches in areas where there is significant unmet need. That is what the acceleration phase is. The generics part of the business is about creating what we have done in the last two years of stability, because that is a big business still, and it throws up a lot of cash. That allows us to, one, continue to improve our balance sheet, but also to invest in this innovative portfolio. Just reminding that duvakitug and Eric at the Strategy and Innovation Day, Eric Hughes, Head of R&D, highlighted Anti-IL-15. These two products, one could argue theoretically, have the ability to go into 8 indications-10 indications. We need to be able to fund those and maximize those. That is why the generics plays an important part in that as well. Great. Maybe kind of stepping back, if we look at the business from the different segments today, is it fair to say the outlook is strong growth for branded and generics flat? Or are you guys still trying to grow generics to some degree? Yeah, I think the headlines, I would say for everybody to take it as that, strong growth, very strong growth for innovative, and flat for generics. Now, that said, I do not want to say we do not have the ambition or the capability to do more, but the way we financially plan our capital allocation is that it has the potential to be flat. Now, for the next few years, it will be flat, because obviously we lose generic Revlimid next year, which we have well communicated. We will get back to the same level. We will compensate for that by the end of 2027. The way we do that is we have the one thing that you need in a generic business that we have at Teva is a deep pipeline, both in standard generics, complex generics, and biosimilars. Those will keep coming through, and we have really good coverage. I think we have the ability to continue to make that business perform, but we financially plan from a stability point of view, just because I think that allows us to be more prudent when it comes to capital allocation decisions and financially plan. The last two years, I think people had a lot of skepticism of our generics business, and we grew it across all three regions both years and grew it very well. What we forecast for the next up until 2027 is flat, because obviously we have to compensate for generic Revlimid. Back to your high-level sort of summary, that is correct. This is about the branded business looking to growth based on the growth rates of the products we already have in the market, as well as the products we're going to add to them, which have significant unmet need, which we believe we have the ability to make those successful. That is the way I think to think about it from a sort of opportunity point of view. Great. The margin trajectory has also been an important focus for both Teva and investors. You all have announced significant cost reduction efforts. If we take a longer-term perspective, obviously this margin expansion will just happen as naturally as you shift to more branded. Maybe speak to us about kind of the key challenges or the things that you have to balance in the near term to reach these 2027 margin targets. Yeah, it's one thing that we've obviously there's a lot of interest around. I like the 2027 targets in that they mean that we have to be ruthless about capital allocation. Back to that initial question, we could talk about we could grow the generics business, we could grow the branded. We've made a really specific choice to really maximize the opportunities in our branded business, because it's so exciting. To do that, we need to make sure we fund it. We fund it from a commercialization point of view as well, from a pipeline point of view. To do that, we need to be very focused on cost and OpEx being capital. Where do we place that capital? Where do we take it away from? I think the last two years we've shown we're good at that. We have highlighted this $700 million program, which is about reducing expenditure in G&A and manufacturing and to increase it into our innovative business, while at the same time allowing us to compensate fully for the profit that we are going to lose from generic Revlimid. I think as we go forward, it will still be that ruthless capital allocation, making sure we keep allocating capital to the things that give the best return on capital, which is going to be innovative. What I like about Teva is, and what we do not want to lose is there is a generic mindset when it comes to cost. Cost, when you spend money, you have got to get a return on it. What I want us to, as we move to a biopharma company, we still keep the mindset of every dollar is really important, how we allocate it is really important, and how we allocate that capital should get a good return. I think you'll see that over time. Remember, as we transition our portfolio, we change our profitability profile significantly, both on operating margin and on gross margin. That allows us, as we keep growing our top line, to allocate more capital to the things that are going to keep driving OP margin and gross margin. I think we've got a really good future ahead of us if we keep executing, which we will. Great. Maybe before we shift over to kind of some macro policy topics, is there anything we should keep in mind heading into the second quarter? I think obviously we started quarter one, and we had a good quarter once again showing a bit of this strategy playing out, innovative performing very strongly. The generics, I think I reminded everybody that Q1 was going to be a high watermark, the 3% growth. I reminded people we had a lot of launches last year. Just an example, Victosa was launched in Q2 last year. We also have things going on, one called the macro, because it is more U.S. around maybe the reduction in pharmacies with Walgreens. Those things will happen. I think from a generics point of view, remember that the 3% is a high watermark. We are generally back-ended on our generics business anyway. That is probably the thing to keep in account. We have got comparison years. We had a lot of launches last year. We did really well. Keep that in mind. I probably can't get into any more detail than that based on the fact that we're just a few weeks away from Q2. Great closing. Okay, so maybe just switching to kind of some macro and policy topics for a second. I realize it's very difficult to handicap still at this point, but what is your latest thinking on the likelihood, timing, and scope of potential pharma tariffs? Oh my God. What I think that maybe the way we think about it at Teva is we plan for multiple scenarios. We continuously plan really well. We have already planned, and I think we have taken into account. In Q1, I think Eli Kalif, the CFO, highlighted that the tariffs which were put in place then, we have mitigated, and we are not changing our forecast for the year. We have worked through every single sort of potential outcome, whether they get to what are termed the car tariffs or higher. I think we have an ability to manage our business well within those scenarios. We will have to see. We have taken action. We have things that we can pull. Obviously, we want to see how it actually plays. It is super dynamic. I mean, it's on a macro level, global level, things are put in place, and they're taken away. There's good discussions, and there's bad discussions. I think for us, it's about do we have the plans in place, regardless of how it plays out, that we can protect our long-term growth trajectory on the top and bottom line. I think that's I feel we're well covered on that with the caveat, I don't know where it's actually going to land. Could you comment on whether or not you've had or are having any interactions with the administration or Congress on kind of maybe the treatment of, say, generics versus branded, or just kind of more broadly the potential for these tariffs? Yeah, we do both. We engage in the branded business, because we want to educate on that side. We definitely educate on the generic side, both with the associations as well as individually. I think people forget that Teva, I remind people, one in 14 scripts in the United States is a Teva script. We are a massive part of the healthcare system. The generics business is, I would say, a very cost-effective part of the healthcare system in the United States. It is very efficient. You do not really want to alter that ecosystem, because I think the payers, Medicaid, Medicare in the U.S., do very well out of the generics from allowing good access and good value for money. We educate them on that. We also educate them on the pressure on cost of goods and manufacturing. That is a very different discussion than on branded and where that should be. That said, we point out we have, I think it is nine manufacturing sites in the U.S. We are the largest manufacturer of generic medicines in the U.S. We are very committed on that. Also, on the branded side, Austedo is made in Florida, made in the state. I think we just keep educating on what are you trying to do. Are you trying to improve the ability to maintain the healthcare system? Generics is going to help you do that, but this is how you need to think about generics. The branded, the same thing about branded. Yeah, very actively involved in that. We will see how that plays out. I think one of the things I would say is the administration, at least the ones we're talking to on 232, is they're seeking to understand. They really are seeking to understand. That is encouraging, because the more they understand, I'd like to think they'll come to a rational conclusion, one would hope. The most important thing is they're having that discussion. We are having it with them individually and with the associations. Great. Maybe just lastly on the kind of policy side, President Trump's recent MFN executive order has been an overhang for the sector. What are your latest thoughts on the prospects for such a drug pricing policy and given Teva's current branded portfolio? Is it fair to say you all are fairly insulated from this for the most part? Yeah, I mean, look, it was another one we have to see how it would play out, because it's sort of, yeah, there's a lot of rhetoric around it and your understanding where could it actually fall. You're right, because of where we are as this emerging innovative biopharma company, we haven't launched our products internationally. It's only shame. That gives us the optionality. One, whatever happens, it doesn't impact us immediately. We can strategically plan where we're going to launch and what price we're going to launch. I think in a way, we're in a good position, because we're this emerging biopharma company that doesn't have to deal with this big geographical footprint yet. That's our plan. Our plan is obviously to launch Austedo in Europe, olanzapine in Europe, and duvakitug, we're going to promote that in Europe, and Emrusolmin globally. We have all those plans, but we can now think about strategically how we do that and what that looks like, depending on where we end up. I was even reading some comments yesterday that some of the pure play biopharma people are maybe less concerned about that now. With Teva, our default is we're concerned about everything. We then develop contingency plans. If things do not need to be used, then we're okay. We never try and look for a macroeconomic situation to benefit us, because we can't control it. Makes sense. Yeah. Maybe trying to shift into the portfolio and pipeline, or the branded portfolio and pipeline. We've seen great growth for Austedo in recent quarters and years now. And you all gave long-term guidance of more than $3 billion at your recent strategy day. Maybe I know you've talked about this in the past, but kind of just briefly, what are the dynamics you're seeing in that market that give you the confidence that that trajectory can continue? Yeah. Firstly, I'd like to sort of commend the team in the U.S. for driving the growth of Austedo. That was, I remind people, when we started this strategy, I think everybody forecasted peak sales of $1.4 billion. We gave guidance to $2 trillion roughly this year. We've shown that if anybody doubted our ability to drive an innovative product commercially, we can do that. Now, when it comes to the opportunity, unfortunately, it comes down to the huge untreated population. There's nearly 800,000 people that suffer from tardive dyskinesia. Still the majority, vast majority, I think only 10% are on treatment, maybe slightly more. There's a huge unmet medical need. The way we think about it, if we can keep driving those patients into physicians' office, get them diagnosed, get them onto treatment, then the market and the product, the market has the potential to grow. Obviously, Austedo being doing very well in the market will benefit from that. For us, the greater than $3 billion in 2030 is based on sort of the maths. If more patients get treated and we pick up a fair share of that, then that should be achievable. Great. CMS negotiations for 2027 are ongoing. Is there anything you can share in terms of how those negotiations are progressing? What is kind of your base case relative to the first wave that was around a 20% net price hit on average? I can't comment, because literally we are in the thick of it. What I would say is when we launched the pivot to growth, we put a number in. I think before most people were thinking about doing things like that. That goes back to our philosophy: if we're not sure, we plan for something to happen rather than hope it does not, because hope is not a strategy. We are in the thick of it. What I would say is the number we put in is wrong. Is it too conservative? Is it the other way around? I do not know. I remind people, regardless of where that falls, there are still the majority, 90% of patients are not treated. Regardless of what happens, Austedo has a great growth trajectory. I'd also say from a Teva becoming a biopharma company, we still have UZEDY growing really well. We still have Ajovy. We'll have olanzapine. We'll have DARI (Dual Action Rescue Inhaler). And then we'll have duvakitug. All our chips are not on Austedo, although I think Austedo has great potential. I always remind people that Austedo, regardless of CMS, will be able to grow just because of those untreated. We have a whole portfolio of innovative drugs which are coming to the market. That's the thing that's exciting. I talk about UZEDY, maybe talk about that, how well that's growing. I talk about how the fact that Ajovy is growing and growing over 20%. I talk about Austedo, but then you add olanzapine, DARI, then you think, okay, if you're modeling it, you can model this one maybe has a steeper growth trajectory than this, but they're all growing. That's the exciting thing. Maybe just lastly on Austedo, there has been talk, I think it was in one of Trump's recent executive orders about maybe getting rid of the pill penalty. Is that, I mean, clearly not something you're going to bank on, but is that something you all consider? And do you have any thoughts on the likelihood of the pill penalty being removed? All I can say is I think it should. I mean, probably not best to get me started on the IRA anyway, because there is lots that if we can have another go at it, we can improve. Yeah, the pill penalty made no sense. I mean, ultimately, we are supposed to bring drugs to the market which fill an unmet medical need and help society. Whether that is a pill, a biologic, or whatever, it does not really matter. That should not be the focus. Why it was, I never fully understood. I hope they are successful. The fact that they have actually started that discussion so early on is encouraging. Once again, it is about seeing what happens and what gets executed and what gets changed, I think. If that could be, that would be really positive for the industry as a whole and for patients. Maybe shifting to long-acting olanzapine, you all recently gave long-term or, I guess, peak sales guidance for both UZEDY and olanzapine of $1.5 billion-$2 billion. I guess kind of the first immediate question is, why can't it be bigger? Why can't it be as big as a competitor's franchise, which I think was around $4 billion in 2024? That is the first question. Okay. I feel like I'm in a budget discussion. Firstly, I welcome the question, because isn't it great we're having a question about Teva about can you do more with your innovative launch than you've got? I mean, I welcome that discussion, even if we may not get. What we think about it is, firstly, there's some of the things that have to happen, I think, for that to play out. Now, UZEDY, I think, has been a surprise to everybody that we've gone to a congested risperidone long-acting market. I remind everybody that risperidone is genericized long-acting. In fact, we've launched a long-acting generic a while ago. It has long-acting generics. It has long-acting brands. UZEDY has surprised everybody. The reason why it surprised everybody is, one, it's a great product. It fills an unmet medical need, whether it's subcutaneous, non-refrigerated, pre-filled syringes, or most importantly, the fact you get to therapeutic levels within. That has really got traction. We've got a great commercial team who have executed it really, really well. One would argue that obviously then we launched olanzapine, we're sort of, it's a running start, so we should be able to do even better. The thing that I think maybe is the difference in the modeling is how does the long-acting market grow, both in the U.S. and international? It has been a market which has in the U.S., I think, is 13% of the whole schizophrenia market. It should be a lot bigger. It's trying to understand why. Maybe those are because there hasn't been a subcutaneous available. There hasn't been something that's patient-friendly. There hasn't been something that's hit therapeutic levels so quickly. Maybe there is an opportunity to expand that. I think for us, the way we talk to investors, we think we have the ability to do this across these products. That's how we sort of model and how we think about how we build our P&L going out, how we think about capital allocation. Now, if things end up being better than that, that's great. What we're trying to do is say, this is the realms of what we think about. As we execute and we think there's a bigger opportunity, we'll obviously communicate it. We're definitely not conservative. I think when I was on stages like this a year ago, people had very different numbers. Now, based on the success of UZEDY and things, I think it could be more. There is a lot still to happen. Do not forget, in the U.S., these are part of an area that is getting significantly more managed than ever in CMS. That is something where payer access is harder. Knowing what that is going to look like in 18 months is. We are always very measured on that. We are not assuming everything is going in our favor. That is probably where we get to slightly different numbers. We will definitely try and make the number as big as possible. Right. And then maybe just kind of lastly, this technology that you've used for both UZEDY and olanzapine, is there potential to use that in other molecules? Or is it kind of this is where it's going to stop? I think it sort of goes back to an area of expertise which Eric talked a lot about, which is we're very good on drug delivery, whether that's being devices or that's long-acting. Because obviously, one of the things being a generic company, we have to do them all. So we understand how the different modalities work and how you move into different areas of long-acting, because we've done them all over the last 30 years. We have a good capability. We're always looking at it. Obviously, med tech is the technology we use for UZEDY and olanzapine. We look at that across other areas. There are many other long-acting technologies that we're constantly looking at. It's about finding the product that needs that. It's not about moving something just to long-acting. Does it give the physician flexibility as well to adjust dose? Not everything can go long-acting. Definitely, I think that sort of also, we did not speak about it, but one of the things I like about the pipeline we have is, and this is something which sometimes is a bit controversial, I think it is a very de-risked pipeline. Because olanzapine, the technology that we are using there is the same as UZEDY. We have seen the efficacy and the safety data, so we know that works. The dual action rescue inhaler, one could argue that is not super sexy, but huge unmet medical need. We know those products work. We have been manufacturing devices for 30 years. The POS, that is super high. One could argue duvakitug, based on the phase II results, probably success in phase III, I would argue is high, based on phase II is very predictive of phase III in these diseases. Once again, I'd encourage people to look at our pipeline and go, it's a good pipeline, but it's good because a lot of it has a high POS. And then maybe Emrusolmin, which is the treatment for multiple system atrophy, is probably not a high POS, I'll admit to that, but a huge unmet medical need. I didn't mention that. If that comes to the market, then we have a phase II that is designed to be powered enough to make it registrational if it did show the efficacy. That could come in 2028. As I highlighted two weeks ago, it's a multi-billion dollar opportunity in rare disease. Yeah. That's a one A. Maybe kind of shifting to that real quick. Obviously, that's probably your most valuable pipeline asset at this point. It's received a lot of attention. You all are, of course, developing it as a pipeline and a product. When do you think we might start to see phase II proof of concept studies in some of these other indications you guys have recently highlighted? Yeah. Yeah, that's a good question. Everybody's interested in that, which I'm pleased they are, because people understand it can be used in different indications. We've worked through that the last year, actually, with Sanofi. I think we'll be in a position in the not too distant future to communicate something. I think we're always a bit cautious of wanting to highlight the opportunities, but also try and keep our gunpowder dry a bit as to what we're doing and why we're doing it. Because ultimately, there is a slight competitive advantage. The reason why we partnered with Sanofi was because they saw the attractiveness of a pipeline and a product. Obviously, they've got a lot of experience with DUPIXENT. We knew they had that capability. We will be announcing something. How much and how clear it will be, we'll work through. We definitely, for the partnership, see this as multiple indications, no question. Is there a chance that we could see phase II readout ahead of the IBD phase III? Or is that probably a little? I mean, the good thing, and this is where Eric's probably thinking, what's he going to say? The good thing about TL1A is it's because it has such a good safety profile. So good. As Eric reminds me, if you want to move anything to a new indication, you've got to have an understanding from a science point of view. What you don't want to do is create issues. Because it's so clean, that allows us to move maybe a bit more in an expedited way into the phase II, which is probably what you're touching upon. Yes, we are thinking like that. We are thinking about can we now, I don't think we're at the stage, but one could argue in the future where you could jump into a phase III even. That's a long way down the track. I think right now, having a cleverly designed phase III, which is quick, allows us to get some data quick and then move into phase III is how we're thinking about it. Absolutely. Maybe just kind of briefly, you're obviously partnered with Sanofi here. They have an industry leader, and that's clearly a major advantage in terms of launching into all these INI indications. Could you speak to maybe how aligned you two are in terms of kind of the pace and the breadth of development for this asset? You know, I think we are very aligned. I mean, the good thing about it is because those are the two key things. You're aligned on the breadth and the pace, because that's where, like any relationship, you start with good intentions and then maybe drift apart. The reason why, as I said, I like Sanofi is one is they have a lot of experience. So we can help them execute. They can help us execute on multiple indications. But, and I'm sure Paul doesn't like me saying this, but they do have DUPIXENT, which at some point will end. That creates a sort of a line in the sand where they also need to be bringing things to the market. As we partnered together, I knew they had a sense of urgency because of that. TL1A, being a pipeline and a product, allows them to think of, okay, if we execute on this, then we have something which can help offset that. Sometimes you have to have the pushes and pulls and the urgency sort of forced upon you. I think we have it because we want to drive growth and financial return. They have it because they need to start building a pipeline that offsets some of their LOEs. Yeah. Makes sense. I just phone them constantly. You phone them. Whenever it does. Maybe kind of lastly on the pipeline, we'll see phase III data for DARI in second half, potential launch in 2027. Consensus sales for AstraZeneca's competitor drug are about $1.2 billion right now. I guess the question for you guys is, how big of an opportunity could this be? What's going to be the greatest kind of just commercial challenge if we assume that this phase III is probably pretty de-risked? Yeah, we think it is. Firstly, we have to recruit. We're recruiting well. And just so you know why we're so good in development at Teva is because we execute, and Eric's team executes really, really well because they're looking at the data all the time. There are no multiple phase III that we just look at and we're just sort of it's Eric's in the detail. He believes we'll have full recruitment by the end of this year. Because it's an event-driven study, we just have to see how that plays out. The reason, firstly, I don't agree with the consensus on AZ's PCRs is because there are 10 million Americans who should be on this therapy. If they're on this, they can't be at 1.4. If even only a fraction of them are on this, it's going to be a lot bigger. They should be on it because it's stopping hospitalizations and all the things which are the reason why the guidelines have given that advice. The reason why I think we have the ability to be successful commercially is you never want to be second to a market unless, and this is one of those unless. The market's created by AstraZeneca. I think they're a world-renowned respiratory company or have capability. They create the market for dual action rescue inhalers. We come in three years later, and we do have a pediatric indication, which is 25% of the population. I think the way we planned it out is we obviously just go and say, we're indicated for pediatrics, and you can use both. We also think we have an advantage in our device. Our device is very simple. I think that will play out into a wider population as well. Look, I think the market's going to be bigger than people have predicted. I think one could argue if we just get what we're solely indicated for, we get 25% of the market, that's a good business. I think that market's with two players in it, it's going to be driven and grown over the longer term. Great. Maybe shifting to capital allocation, which you all have emphasized is a very important aspect of approaching the business. You all have highlighted neuro, INI, and rare disease as kind of your key areas of interest given where your current capabilities lie. Maybe just kind of speak to your level of appetite for bringing in an additional branded pipeline asset over the next 12 months- 18 months. I mean, we have a high appetite for it, definitely. At the same time, once again, we think about capital allocation, return on capital deployed. We think about an internal pipeline that's now starting to come. We want to launch that well. We're lucky. We have a lot of organic growth. I do want to do BD because I think we can sell stuff really, really well. We're really good at it. Whether if you look at Austedo, UZEDY, Ajovy, very competitive markets. Some we've had to bring patients into the clinic. Others we've had to compete with big companies or congested market. We've shown we can do it. I feel that I would like to give the team more opportunity. We're actively looking all the time. We're very thoughtful about it because, one, we can be because we have that organic. We want to make sure that we are allocating capital to something that will have a good return, particularly in the short medium. Because what we bring in, we want to be de-risked. So we'll not be bringing anything in that carries a significant amount of risk because why would we do that? It's going to be de-risked and one that can add to our top and bottom line relatively quickly. Okay. So in terms of stage, you would prefer something maybe phase II or phase III or later? Even later. I mean, look, obviously, you've got to build. We almost look to the future a bit. Do not forget, we have two products which are pipelines and an asset. As I said, anti-IL-15 and duvakitug are going to have a lot of indications. We have to plan for that. We would still bring some stuff in earlier, but it is always going to be in the clinic. I do not think you are going to see us do anything preclinical. We would want something that is phase III or. Commercial. Commercial. Because we can put it into our machine, and we can execute on that. Those are hard to find that fit. We want it to be synergistic as much as we can because then we get a it falls to the bottom line really quickly. That is what we want to do. Those are hard to find, but we're constantly looking. That is the way we think of it. If we find that, we know we're not carrying risk. The risk is just on execution. If we execute well, we'll get a good return on the capital. I would do that. We're looking hard. There are not a lot of those around. Right. Right. And then anything in terms of the deal structure, would this be, do you have preference for an acquisition or a partnership licensing deal? Probably more licensing just because often you'll get a better structured deal. It allows you to have milestones and allow you to think about certain things. I just don't think right now, from a capital allocations, M&A is something we need to consider. I think in licensing is something which I look at as being really attractive. Once again, if you think about the macro environment for biotech, it's hard to launch now. It is really hard to launch. Really hard. Not just to raise capital to launch, but to launch successfully and to get a return on that quite quickly. I think one thing that Teva's now getting recognized for is we can launch really well, and we can commercialize really well. If you want to think about that, we can license it in. We can give investors a return on their investment. If it is structured well, we can give them a return in the long term. I think that is how we are trying to create that opportunity. Maybe the time is right. Once again, it comes back to not doing something for the sake of doing it. Is this the right allocation of capital? Great. With that, I think we're all out of time. Richard, thank you very much for being with us. Really appreciate your time. We appreciate it, Matt. Thanks very much. Yeah. Thank you.