Good afternoon. Welcome to Needham's 23rd Annual Healthcare Conference. I'm Serge Bélanger, one of the healthcare analysts at Needham. We're happy to have for our next session, Clearside Biomedical, biotech involved in the retinal disease space with their own proprietary delivery platform. Company's currently in an advanced stage program in wet AMD. And to talk about the company today, we have the company's CEO, George Lasezkay, as well as the new chief medical officer that recently joined the company, Victor Chong. So, I'll hand it over to George and Victor for some comments, an overview of the company, then we'll move on to some questions. For those listening online, you do have the option to submit questions via the platform on which you're viewing the presentation.
If you prefer, you can also email them to me, and I'll ask the questions as they come through. So with that said, I'll hand it over to George and Victor.
Okay. Well, thank you, Serge, and thanks to Needham for having us participate in the conference and this time together. What I'd like to comment on first is just our priorities for the company. Then you can get into the more detailed questioning with Victor on what we're actually doing in the clinic. But for 2024, our priorities are singularly focused on completing our ODYSSEY trial with CLS-AX in wet AMD. It's a Phase IIb trial, and that's where we're throwing all our attention at the present time. We still anticipate top-line data readout in third quarter of this year. Everything's on track, going according to plan.
Recently, you'll know that we raised $15 million, and with that, it's provided Clearside with sufficient cash to get to run our operations into 2025, into Q3 of 2025. So we're in good position right now for a cash runway. Things are going well in the ODYSSEY trial, and Victor will talk more about that with you, Serge.
Yeah.
It's Serge, do you want me to explain anything about suprachoroidal injection and administration at this point in time?
Yeah, why not?
Or-
Or unless Victor wants to cover it, I mean, I'll leave that up to you guys.
Okay. Well, and just for those that don't follow us that closely, our technology allows us to access the suprachoroidal space, and that's an expandable space that's behind the retina, and it's behind the visual field. And I think that's important for people to understand is where we inject our therapeutic entities is behind the visual field, not in front of the visual field. So it really kind of minimizes or even eliminates the possibility of anterior chamber issues with vision. We think there's three advantages to the suprachoroidal space. One, we're putting drug directly in contact with affected retinal tissues. Two, as we've said before, we with our small molecule program, the drug is compartmentalized in this space.
It stays there, it doesn't spread systemically, it doesn't go to the anterior chamber, and it does its work, right, in direct contact with the retina. And thirdly, because it's compartmentalized, we believe that it remains bioavailable for longer periods of time, giving us sufficient drug levels and extended durability and duration of effect. We've been using this suprachoroidal, our suprachoroidal microinjector now, with well over 1,000 administrations, both clinically, in clinical development, and commercially. It's proven to be a very acceptable and safe form of delivery of drugs to the eye. With, you know, our first product was XIPERE, was approved back in late 2021. It's been marketed by Bausch + Lomb in the United States.
And we've shown that in recent polling, even of doctors that use it, it's a very acceptable form of delivery that's been useful to them. And with the proper training, it's become an acceptable route of administration for drugs in eye diseases. And we think potentially it has a very important future with delivering ocular gene therapies in particular. So that's kind of a very quick overview. Again, our space that we believe we're the leader in and continue to be the leader in is delivering drugs to the suprachoroidal space for the treatment of retinal disease. And with that, Serge, I'll turn it over to you and let Victor introduce himself, and then I'm sure you have some questions about our current ongoing trial with our tyrosine kinase inhibitor, axitinib.
Sounds good. So, Victor, I think you just recently joined Clearside not too long ago as a chief medical officer. Maybe if you want to start introducing yourself and telling us what attracted you to Clearside.
Yeah. Thank you, Serge, and thank you, George. I'm a retinal specialist by training, and I've always been in the academic track. And I grew up around London and trained mostly in London in Moorfields Eye Hospital, and then joined the faculty in King's College Hospital, and then become the head of department in Oxford. And but I always run my lab as well, so not just a full-time clinician, but always in the lab side as well. And so after being the head of department of Oxford University Eye Hospital, I got an opportunity to join Boehringer Ingelheim to build a group over there.
And some of you know that it's still a privately owned, but it's one of the top 20 big pharma in Germany, that in Boehringer, at that time that we have fairly to idea on how to build a portfolio, and that's why they appointed me to take that.
In the six years, just under six years with them, I managed to get in 11 new NME, new molecule, then six IND openings. And even after I left, there's another few molecules that I started become IND open as well. And then I got the opportunity to head the group in J&J, and move over to San Francisco about three years ago, and head the group there. And the difference between Boehringer is Boehringer are more small molecule and biologic, and then in J&J are more gene therapy and oligo. So give me really a good big spectrum of anything from small molecule to gene therapy, potentially. And so a few...
With that, almost I suddenly become almost a decade in big pharma, but from a very strong academic background that, I think that when in part of a J&J, I look at more than 100 company for J&J. And so I can, you know, I can argue that I know the field pretty well, and also that being big pharma for almost a decade, then I also know how big pharma think about, you know, smaller biotech. And then, attracted to me, to Clearside is really that I think George has been humble to say the suprachoroidal, you know, we are leader in the suprachoroidal space, and I would argue that we are not just a leader. You know, we are leader by a big margin.
With FDA approval device, the other people that would want to look into space and often think that this could be quite straightforward and easy, but when you actually look at it in detail, then you find that it's not that straightforward. And again, you already mentioned several time that ODYSSEY is a very important for the company, and I think for me, it's also important that I join now, that got about six months to really understanding ODYSSEY better and understanding the drug better, and also then using my previous experience that I was involved in the phase III design in other clinical trial, and then use that experience to really to try to build a phase III and get this new medicine to patient.
I think on top of that, I think I see that George has already alluded to, but actually don't need to be restricted to gene therapy. There's still a lot of small molecule out there that would be able to use the company device and formulation platform, and which some of these small molecule might be too toxic to be given systemically. However, that using our device and formulation, we might be able to delivering the drug right there with a very low systemic exposure. So all those fit, tick all the boxes in my book. You know, we are keen to see how that to move SCS from more a device focus to be a true biopharm.
I think George would say that we've always been a biopharma, but I think that, you know, I think that we have the ability to try to do that.
Great. So obviously, as you've had a chance to look at the OASIS trial data, I'm interested to see what you thought about it and what you were most impressed about that data set.
Well, I think that we started with the design, first. You know, I think that that was even before I joined the company, I, I'm impressed with the design, that, that one of the key criteria or maybe potential different is, George mentioned previously as well, that is, this is really a patient with active disease. Because there is also a lot of, physician would say that, well, you know, sometimes you don't need treatment, you just because you don't need treatment. But I think that if you've got active disease, it's certainly one point that is important, that at least that when you've got active disease, that they would still need treatment.
I think the second thing is already mentioned that this is slightly different because if you're injecting something inside the eye intravitreally, but it which is not a pure liquid, you know, you will see things float, floating around, and we have experience of that. You can argue it's not a big problem, but I think that once you're injecting more of those things, then you can become a problem. But we will not have that problem at all with the suprachoroidal space. And more importantly, I think that certainly from looking it from the outside before I joined, I was very impressed about the thought about how that the design allow you to repeat the treatment and redosing. And I think it might sound like nothing, but in fact, that is a major de-risk on a chronic disease.
Now, if AMD is something that you just treat once, then you only treat six months, that might be different. But AMD, wet AMD, for me, is almost a lifelong treatment for most patients. So at least that even you never repeat it, you always have that risk or concern, what about repeating it? And again, you know, if you need the center of care for rescue, also disrupting what retinal specialists more used to do. So by allowing to do retreatment or redosing, then we have the opportunity to really to be switching for retinal specialists, to really switching from, you know, what they their current preferred anti-VEGF to our drug, which is lasting longer.
So it's not like that you need to watch for the six months, you don't need to watch, figure out which patient will need rescue, or whether you see the patient all the time, you know, to, to decide that which patient need rescue. I appreciate that we do that in clinical trial, but I actually, as a practicing retinal physician up until I moved to the U.S., I think that the pattern, how do we do things as a retinal specialist is quite important.
Okay. And obviously, the next big catalyst for Clearside is the upcoming readout of the phase IIb ODYSSEY trial. You know, what will you view as kind of the success parameters when that data reads out?
Yeah, so I think that we have previously mentioned that we are redosing at 24 weeks, around six months, loosely the term 24 month. I think that we designed the study- well, shouldn't say we, but, like, you know, I was lucky coming to this design, the study that you go to 36 weeks. So every patient that get to week 36 will have at least one redosing. So we have experience of redosing for every single patient that went complete the study on our drug. And obviously, that the ideal situation would be, have a large number of patient does not need to be redosing does not need any redosing earlier than week 24, and I think that is important.
But yet that, you know, this is not really critical, you know, to a certain extent, that everyone has to be, you know, redosed only at week 24. Because there's opportunity for us to redose at week 20, and week 20 is already way more than some of the current leading anti-VEGF.
Yeah.
And again, obviously, that you know the idea is that to think a little bit more about, let's say, you know, faricimab, that you still have the proportion of patient will need every 8 weeks, and then some of them need every 12 weeks, some of them can manage at week 16. I think that you will see that we hope that we'll have a very small number of patient will need redosing at week 12, and then, you know, we might have a little bit of number of patient in week 16, and then some of them will be week 20, and then, you know, hopefully majority you know would be only need redosing at week 24.
But we will have a score, you know, of number, and I think that will be something to how that we can compare that with the current, or the newer drug, which we believe might be the market leader in a few years' time.
Yeah. From your experience in this space, would you expect the next trial to be similar to ODYSSEY in terms of the comparator and the duration, and the endpoints?
Yeah, so I think in wet AMD, the endpoint is quite clear. However, that I think at the moment, we are. I'm still three weeks in, and we are discussing multiple option of a phase III design. I think that what I was trying to say is that, you know, I think about, CLS-AX is a competitor for faricimab or for Eylea high dose, because in three or four years' time, those are the one that we believe might be, market leader. They're, they're moving to that, toward that direction. And so the question is that, how I can generate data that physician will be comfortable to use our drug, replacing their so-called favorite anti-VEGF?
And so I think that is the direction of travel, and then the question is that, you know, as I said, it's only a few weeks in, we want to think a little bit more, we want to understand a little bit more, and then we also want to look at different option. The plan is already in place, that we have a rough idea what we think that we should do. We are exploring the opportunity with external consultant that, you know, most of them are good friends of mine, and regulatory consultant as well, and then we would then intended to go to the FDA ahead of our data report in the Q3.
So I think all those things will be done in the next few months, and I think that, you know, I thank George for the insight that to bring me in now, rather than bring me in the summer, will be very difficult to do those things. But actually, at least coming in in March, that I will have time to go through all that discussion.
Yeah. And, you know, as you look in a crystal ball into the future, you know, which patients do you think would benefit the most from a treatment like CLS-AX? Is it treatments that are currently being recruited or have been recruited in the ODYSSEY trial, or some of the more treatment-experienced patients that were in the OASIS study?
Yeah. I reaffirm that our goal or our competitor direction is faricimab and Eylea high dose. So I reaffirm that desire, and so I think that I think there's always sometimes a little bit of confusion, what is the loading phase and what is the maintaining phase? And so I want to reaffirm that, you know, way back that, as I said, I was involved in the Eylea development way back, you know, and sitting in the steering committee in the Phase III trial, but do involve a little bit on the original design. And the thing about it that way is like, well, the loading dose is the first three injection, and really, after the first three injection, it's already in the maintenance phase. Again, there is a little bit of confusion about that. Some other people think the maintenance phase is year two and year three, and so on.
You know, I think that really, after the first loading dose, after the first 3 injections, we're then moving to the maintenance phase. And so, that is what we are thinking about. Again, as I say that, you know, like, this is still early days. You know, where, you know, is it really just after the first injection, or is it after 6 months, or whatever? That I think that you need to wait a little bit longer. We are working out all the pros and con, on how that we can delivering a clinical trial design that will satisfy the agency for sure for approval, but yet that would get our, my colleagues in, retinal physician to be comfortable to use our drug as they are currently doing and without changing the way that they do things.
Okay. As you know, this is an area where there's a lot of activity, a lot of assets and development. Wanna get your take, I guess, first on the gene therapy programs that are in development. You know, how you feel the bar they need to meet, and what kind of role they could play?
Yeah, I think that gene therapy for the wet AMD space in particularly could be quite challenging. And the way that to think about it is that if you are thinking about gene therapy in an inherited disease, when you've got a very clear way, it's because you have a defective gene. And again, I come from that world, and I really think that, you know, like, Luxturna is really an amazing, you know, advance of the development. However, that when you come to common disease, especially when you really talk about gene therapy, it's not really correcting a gene, but you're just using the gene therapy technology to delivering a molecule. So I think that separation, I think that probably you yourself will know, but not everyone know about that two things are very different.
And also, when you've got to cure the common disease, when you have, you know, no alternative, it will be also different. But when you have multiple alternative, gene therapy will need to be shown to be safe and also doesn't require a meaningful number of rescue. And again, where we see today that those are challenges that I don't think that we have completely resolved. As you know, in intravitreal, the inflammation could be a problem, and you can see that even a small one or two cases would already crash the program. And subretinal, you know, the surgical part, that whether that, you want to do a surgery, you know, to do this. So the risks for surgery is also, are there. So that is actually what gene, you know, George mentioned.
I believe that not just the... You know, one of the reason I joined Clearside is I do believe that if we ever going to do gene therapy in common disease, suprachoroidal is the way to go. And again, our partner are start doing this, I don't want to comment about our, our partner's program, but indeed, that whether that there is a good opportunity that we can improve the capsid to improve the transfection. And so there might be one day, but it's probably not in the very near future.
Yeah. And then maybe the two other programs that I think Clearside is often compared to are the ones by EyePoint and by Ocular Therapeutix. Just your quick view on those two programs, and where do you think they could compete?
Yeah, so I think that, you know, like, some people would say that we are the third TKI, you know, and then I would, I already said, you know, that I think this is the third time I said it, you know, we are, we are gunning over faricimab and Eylea high dose.
They are gunning for something else. They are, they are doing for six months, or they might be gunning for PDS, the Port Delivery System, or maybe gene therapy. So we are not in the same place, at least from my point of view. So my focus is more to think about how that we can compete in the faricimab and Eylea high dose world, and because we can. And other company that you mentioned might not able to do that, you know, and they are in a different place. Now, I do agree that, you know, you say that a competitor, Ocular Therapeutix, that axitinib, and I do believe axitinib is the best TKI, and so we share that.
You know, I think that's important that we call out that axitinib is potentially the best TKI. Knowing that a lot of TKI do have a wider range, but we need to accept the fact that anti-VEGF is the key. And then in anti-VEGF, that, you know, you really want to look at the IC50 for the VEGF receptor. So no point to think about anything else that, you know, end of the day, that, I think that we should focus on anti-VEGF is so effective, and if we can have a very high potency on the lower IC50, we should be able to be a better drug and a better TKI. And being much more focused on that area, I think to be fair to me, is the right TKI to use.
And again, you know, if you talk about Ocular Therapeutix and us, as we already mentioned, that we are the only company with a FDA-approved combination drug. And our current, and the, our CLS-AX are using the same device, and the formulation are very similar. So you have that, you know, ability to talk about that we can do combination therapy, we can do combination approval. And again, whether other company that you mention can do combination approval, and whether that the combination approval that they have, you know, has been used in the individual space or not.
And I know it's early, and I'm sure neither George or Charlie would allow you to think of CLS-AX beyond wet AMD, but where do you think that approach of a suprachoroidal TKI would also be useful outside of wet AMD?
We allow him to think like that. He can think like that.
Yeah. So, so I think that is definitely a possibility, right? So, so, so we have the luxury of seeing the other TKI company, you know, what they, what they achieve. Now, as I mentioned that, you know, like, I definitely think that we are... You know, wet AMD is the biggest market. So, so, so we are definitely gunning over, Lucentis and Eylea high-dose. On the other hand, that, you know, why would we not do other disease, you know, as time goes along? Now, I think that, you know, it, it, it makes sense from that point of view, and then logically, that there is no reason why not. If it work for wet AMD, why it wouldn't work for other things?
But then, you know, in a way that we have our friends collaborate, you know, you can call it competitor, doing those study for us to do a proof of principle. So we might actually end up doing something slightly different, is we can actually move to phase 3 directly, potentially, in some of the other indication. Now, this is all thinking when I'm 3 weeks into the company. You know, but I think that, you know, like, it will make a lot of sense that if our competitor has shown that the TKI actually work in those other indication, when the biologic work, then the question will be why not, rather than, you know, that we would, we will not going. You know, the question is really why not?
Great. Well, thanks for that overview, Victor. Appreciate it, and welcome to Clearside. George, if you wanna go through some of the collaborations that are ongoing.
Sure. You can see, Serge, how Victor's already kept us very busy.
Absolutely.
He's very busy at the company. Three weeks in, and we're thrilled to have him, and everybody at the company has really enjoyed Victor, and he's full of ideas, and we're thrilled to have him on our side. He's got a great, great insight on everything, and coming from J&J really has got a very good view of the entire space, so it's great. But you had a question for me, Serge. Go ahead.
Yeah. Well, yeah, I agree with you. I think it's a great addition to the team. Wanted to maybe get an update on some of the ongoing partnerships. I know you have three or four.
Sure. Well, let me take our XIPERE first, with Bausch. Bausch is... They've been refocusing their efforts on uveitis specialists. They got the new CPT code in January, as you know, which has helped very much with adoption. They focused on training and uveitis specialists in particular, which are the ones that are gonna use the drug most often. And so we think that this could be a good year for XIPERE in Bausch's hands because of the refocus on uveitis specifically and because of the CPT code. With Arctic Vision in China, they've completed the enrollment of their phase 3.
We would expect to see their phase 3 data readout sometime before the end of the year, and they could be filing before the end of the year for approval in China sometime in 2025. So that's exciting, and they've had some issues in China, as you know, from the general business news out of China has been a little challenging, and but they did a very good job in recruiting through Covid and in the Covid lockdowns in China. That held them up a little bit, but they were very persistent, so we're really expecting good things out of that.
When you look at the REGENXBIO relationship, and Victor's touched on their gene therapy approach to wet AMD, it's really interesting, and it's a comment on the space because if you look at 4DMT and you look at Adverum, kind of their competitors in the gene kind of space for wet AMD now, those other two companies had a lot of side effects and a lot of inflammation going through into the vitreous. And when you look at what REGENXBIO was doing in the suprachoroidal space, the use of their prophylactic steroids was very limited, seven weeks versus 20-22 weeks of very intensive steroid therapy, not just topical, but in some cases oral. Some cases they were putting in Ozurdex implants in the other two companies.
REGENXBIO used topical for only 7 weeks and had no signs of inflammation. You know, it's, it's really kind of a testament that the suprachoroidal space is just inherently a better space, we think-
... to accept gene-based therapies. I mean, you know, what Tom Ciulla used to say every time, he said, "What do you expect? You put a gene in your body, your body's going to react against it. That's what your body's designed to do." And it seems like, not like the subretinal space, which is largely immune-privileged, but the suprachoroidal space seems to be a very acceptable place to put gene therapies, contrasted to the, the vitreous, which seems to be not a very good place to put gene-based therapies. So we're encouraged by that. They're going to be making an announcement about their DR trial with their collaborator, AbbVie. We think sometime in May they're gonna make a decision on phase III, and then sometime later this year they'll make a decision on wet AMD.
Aura Biosciences continues to do very well with their choroidal melanoma approach. You know, they do double injections on their visits, so we know that the space can take more than 100 microliters. They approach the tumor from two sides, and that seems to be very effective to them, and they've enrolled now a few patients in their COMPASS Phase III trial, which is a global trial. So that's been very exciting for them, and we look forward to those results. And the final one was our most recent collaboration with BioCryst, with a plasma kallikrein inhibitor for diabetic macular edema. We've been working very, very closely with them, doing a lot of preclinical work and formulation work for them. That's gone very well.
They've been a great partner to work with, very collegial and collaborative, and we're hopeful that they may be able to initiate some clinical work sometime next year and file an IND and start some basic clinical trials maybe as you know as early as next year. So those relationships have gone really well for us. They take a lot of time and a lot of effort on our part. We're not just simply a licensor of injector technology, but we work very carefully with them on formulation issues, packaging issues, modifications to the injector issues.
There's a lot of work that has to, oftentimes has to be done to adapt to the particular, therapeutic entity that's being used and the disease state, and, so we, we really pride ourselves on being a very good partner. When we decide to collaborate, we want to be the best partner we can be and, a fully committed partner to, to our licensees. So everything seems to be going pretty well with those, major collaborations.
Just going back to the REGENXBIO collaboration, you mentioned there are important decisions coming up regarding Phase III.
Are those whether or not they'll select which program to move forward into phase III?
That's a good question, Serge, but it's a question for AbbVie, because I think that's-
Okay
... that decision rests largely in AbbVie's hands. I'm sure they'll be talking to Regenx about that, but AbbVie has the right to take it on into Phase III and commercialize it, so I'm sure there's some internal analysis, as Victor would very well know how big pharma does this. I assume they're dredging through all the data, trying to do their market analysis and making a decision. Personally, we think the DR data looks really good, and that may be something they want to go ahead. I think they will, as Victor mentioned, in wet AMD may be a more complex decision for them, but we're very hopeful.
We think out of those three companies that I mentioned, they're the ones that has the clearest path forward from an acceptability point of view and an efficacy point of view for physicians and patients. I think, I think it's really difficult to justify doing an intravitreal injection and then 22 weeks of oral and topical and occasionally a steroid implant. That just for wet AMD, when we have other safe treatments for wet AMD, and they're not one and done, but they have to be repeated, just seems to me like if anybody's gonna do it in gene therapy, it's gonna be REGENXBIO. So that's our view, but the questions are better asked of the other companies.
Curious, with how many? We have five collaborations now. Clearly, suprachoroidal injection is getting more mainstream and getting more validated in terms of its differentiation and improved tolerability. Does that mean you have more people knocking on your door for additional collaborations?
Yes. We get cold-called on a regular basis by people that are interested, and we carefully evaluate each opportunity and what it means for us. We know there's a lot of people that want to go into the suprachoroidal space. The question is: what value creation proposition is it for Clearside and Clearside shareholders? So we're very careful about. We have no internal goal to have X number of collaborations or anything like that, so we look at it very carefully. It depends on the partner, the partner's therapeutic modality that they're interested in. Some of them come to us, and we just don't think they're gonna work in the suprachoroidal space. Some of them come to us and have really no money to develop it.
And then some of us, we're approached by some companies that could be very interesting strategic partners for us. So, we take them as they come, and we make a strategic decision to collaborate when we think it's in it, it can create value for the appropriate value for shareholders of Clearside. As I've said before in other presentations, we've decided to collaborate in areas where it was just we had no internal expertise, or developing that internal expertise was too financially difficult for us, or it would take too much time. So if other people are farther along and want to try suprachoroidal, we're open to that.
But we're about creating value for our shareholders, and as Victor would like to do, and as I've tried to do for a long time, we'd be very happy people if we could start developing our own internal pipeline better than we've been able to. Victor's a big champion of that, and he's got support from me on that, so we look for those opportunities to develop our own internal pipeline as well.
Great. I know you already covered financials, and in terms of catalysts, we know the third quarter is when the ODYSSEY trial reads out.
So maybe just to wrap up, what do you think is the facet of the Clearside story that remains the most underappreciated at this point?
Well, you know what? I think actually maybe that's a better question for Victor, because Victor comes from the outside. I keep thinking that, you know, people don't appreciate that. I think people overestimate the challenges of suprachoroidal injectability. And so I think Victor can comment on that, and I think that's one thing that people overestimate, that that's kind of really difficult, really complex, very patient, not patient-friendly. And I've been in the company, in this position for over five years now. I don't believe that's true, but I'll let Victor do a final comment on that.
Yeah, I think I echo that. I think it's different, but it's not difficult. So when a physician want to do it, then it's actually not difficult at all. I mean, a lot of retinal specialists like myself, you know, like, you know, if you can do a vitrectomy, this is just piece of cake, right? But I think it's slightly different, so I think there's a little mindset differences. Like, you know, I think just like practicing it, you know, understand what is it different, I think that's all, we ask physician to do. I think that would be really the key things. But I think also that I think there is some misconception that there is a lot of people can do suprachoroidal space in a commercial FDA-approved fashion.
Again, that misconception might also make people undervalue that what Clearside actually have.
Yeah. I'll echo that, because everybody says, "All you need is a little sharp needle, and you can just go in there." If it was that simple, everybody would be doing it. And people look at our injector and say, "Well, this is so simple." I can tell you, over $100 million was spent making that thing seem so simple. So there was a lot of engineering, a lot of design went into that, and to make it as simple and as easy to use as possible, and as Victor said, you know, retinal physicians with an hour's worth of training and a couple of practice can do this. Remember, perpendicular, go slow, make a dimple. That's really what they have to learn, and things.
It should be very acceptable, and it's proving to be a very acceptable form of administration.
Great. Well, I think we're up on time, so we'll have to wrap it up. I want to thank you both. Great, great chat, and it was nice to meet you, Victor. Look forward to hearing more from you.
Thank you.
Thank you very much, Serge. Thanks for the time. Appreciate it.