Perfect. Good morning, everyone. Thank you for joining this session of the Morgan Stanley Global Healthcare Conference. For those of you who do not know me, I am Sarita Kapila, European Pharma Research Analyst here at Morgan Stanley, and I am joined by my colleague, Adithya Venkat at MS. I am very pleased to have Richard Francis and Eric Hughes here today, the CEO and Head of R&D of Teva. Thank you very much for joining us.
Thank you for having us.
Before we get started, please note that this presentation is for Morgan Stanley institutional clients and employees. For all important disclosures, please see the Morgan Stanley Research Disclosure website at www.morganstanley.com/researchdisclosures. If you have any questions, please reach out to your MS sales rep, and I apologize for how many times I am going to say that over the next three days. Perhaps we get started. Richard, before we go into detail, perhaps you could start with introductory comments as to where we are in the Teva story today, progress on the pivot to growth strategy, and the outlook from here.
Okay. I will try and be brief because obviously I could spend the whole time talking about that. Where we are in the story, to answer that first part of the question. Pivot to growth we started in 2023. It was a three-part plan, return to growth, accelerate growth, and maintain growth. We are in the second chapter or phase, you could say. I would say there is a lot more to come, and we will be explaining why there is a lot more to come. I think over this period of time, what we have shown is we have started with the ambition of transforming Teva from a pure-play generics company into a world-leading biopharma company.
And very quickly, over three and a half years, that has become something which seemed slightly unbelievable in 2023 to something that is very believable now, just because if you look at the products we have, the pipeline we have, the momentum we have, then we clearly are executing well on that ambition. The pivot to growth strategy, and I see many familiar faces in the audience here, so you're used to me being quite boring about this, but I think the repetition is why we've done well. Pivot to growth is based on four pillars. Deliver on our growth engine, step up innovation, create a generics powerhouse, and focus the business, focus capital. We've been executing this seamlessly for the last three and a half years. It will be executed seamlessly going forward for the next, I'd say, seven at least.
Because we have a clear idea how we can create shareholder value, how we can continue to grow the top line and the bottom line. A lot of that comes from the fact that we've taken some innovative products, AJOVY, AUSTEDO, and UZEDY, and accelerated them and made people start to model them in a way that they wouldn't have modeled them before in their calculations. That's because we are really, really good at commercializing products. With step-up innovation, which I'm sure Eric will get a lot of questions on, and he should, rightly so, we've taken a company that was questioned whether you could develop innovative products and move them into the clinic and then move them through the clinic. I think we've done that. I think in most metrics, we are upper quartile.
So that means if the first pillar is we can sell stuff, and the second pillar, we're developing stuff very quickly, and I think some really unique assets, and we'll talk about the A readouts we have this year, then clearly those two show a lot of potential to create a lot of growth on the top and the bottom line going forward. Then on the third pillar, we've gone from a declining generics business to one that's now stabilized and over the last few years accelerated or grown, and we're going to add more and more biosimilars to that. Then finally, because I'm only taking two minutes, is we've returned to capital allocation from a deal-making perspective. So we've obviously done that with our first deal with Emalex, which I think we've seen as being strategically aligned to what we said we're going to do.
Be in the CNS space. It's very synergistic. I think we're going to be able to turn that asset into an asset that is going to fulfill those financial requirements that I've laid out. Then because my CFO is looking at me now, I must mention the fact that we've done two other things, which is actually today is a big day for us. So we've taken ADS shares and converted those to ordinary shares. So those will allow more investors to have access to the Teva opportunity, which I think is still significant going forward. Then the final thing, which I think relates to something which we never talk about anymore, which we did talk about a little bit at the start of my tenure, which is debt. So there's a good thing about debt.
Our debt has gone down considerably, and because we have become investment-grade now across all three of the rate agencies, over a year ahead of when we said we were going to do that, we did a refinancing last week where we were hugely oversubscribed. I think we got that financing done in a very short period of time at a very good price. That reflects, once again, all the other things I have said, because obviously that is looked at very closely. So congratulations to the team who did that last week. There is a lot within that, and I am sure we can go deeper, but maybe the fact there is a lot within it is why I am so convinced that the value creation story that we have started has a long way to run with Teva.
Thank you. Before we get into the innovative portfolio in more detail, perhaps we just touch on tariffs. President Trump has proposed 100% tariffs on imported generics from August 2028, rising to 200% a year later. Since Q2, you announced some agreements with the administration around U.S. manufacturing. Has that changed how you think about the tariff exposure, and could Teva's existing U.S. footprint ultimately become somewhat of a competitive advantage?
Obviously, it is an interesting thing. It is a very dynamic world we live in, geopolitically, in most areas, actually. I think what Teva has shown is that we have a real capability to maneuver within that world. But to your specific point on tariffs, I think we have the largest generic manufacturing footprint in the United States. I think that gives us an advantage on that one level. But I also think we have shown with our work with the administration, both through things we have done with HHS and IRA, as well as the potential deal we are going to close with the administration, that you saw at the White House a couple of weeks ago, that I think we have the ability to work well with this administration because we are a unique company.
We bring, I think it is close to $40 billion of savings to the U.S. every year, as well as the fact that we bring innovative. I think our seat at the table gives us a significant share of voice. But is it a competitive advantage? As we work together, you will find I am more measured. I do not lean into things too much. Let us see how it plays out. I think we are in a strong position right now. But I would also say that the changing dynamics of our portfolio, particularly around biosimilars, probably lends itself to also helping us in that more challenging environment.
Very clear. Perhaps we start on AUSTEDO and the 2027 outlook. To my understanding, Teva continued to target $2.5 billion of AUSTEDO sales next year, which is roughly in line with the midpoint of your revised guide. How should we think about volume growth next year to offset pricing headwinds, and how much could volume provide a tailwind versus your guidance?
I think everybody's trying to get me, and I can understand why, to give guidance for 2027 on AUSTEDO. But I did give guidance in 2023 on AUSTEDO, so I gave it really ahead of schedule at $2.5 billion. Look, the way I think about it, the first way I want people to always think about how I answer this question, I answer this question with $3 billion. This product will do over $3 billion, and that's the most important thing to be thinking about. What it does in 2027 is just a journey on that road to $3 billion. Okay? Greater than $3 billion. What will it be? Well, obviously, we've seen good momentum this year with AUSTEDO. The team at the U.S. are doing a great job. Where we'll be next year with AUSTEDO, we'll give guidance on that.
I think I'd remind everybody that the untreated population, tragically, is still really high when it comes to tardive dyskinesia. Our performance, our capability to capture patients, to get them onto therapy, to have them on the optimal dose, as well as to make sure they can adhere and stay compliant, is improving all the time. That is why I feel so confident about getting over $3 billion. When it comes to 2027, we'll talk closer when I have more data from Q3 and Q4, and talk to you about where I think the volume's going to come from, where I think we're going to end up from a revenue point of view. But I would remind everybody that it looks like now, where we are with our guidance, the midpoint, we're going to hit our $2.5 billion a year early.
We hit our $2.5 billion AUSTEDO a year early. We hit our investment grade across all three rating agencies a year early. There's a lot of things that we do that people didn't think we could do, and we do them earlier. When it comes to the phase III studies on many of our assets, we put them through the clinic, or Eric has, a lot quicker. That's maybe how I'd answer AUSTEDO. A lot more opportunity. Think of it as $3 billion plus, and then work back from there.
Understood. Perhaps we can touch on competition for AUSTEDO, too. Neurocrine has stepped up investment behind INGREZZA and says it's capturing the majority of new patient starts. Are you seeing any changes in AUSTEDO new start trends or prescribing behavior, and any changes in the competitive landscape?
Look, it's a very competitive area, particularly as our competition relies on the asset so heavily. It's very competitive. We recognize that. I think what we've shown throughout this three and a half years of really driving AUSTEDO on a different trajectory than anybody could have foreseen is we're very good at execution. We're very good about our capital allocation, what we need to spend versus what others spend, to make sure we get the right return on that, and we're focusing on that. I think we've shown that we can perform very competitively within that market. I don't really get into too much more detail about that. I used to sell pharmaceuticals, and I was always told, "Don't talk about the competition." I'm standing pretty with that. We stand by what we said we're going to do on guidance.
I go back to, we're going to do more than $3 billion. It is competitive. We don't ignore that. We're very thoughtful about how we allocate resources, but also how we elevate our performance and our execution, because I think the team can execute better every year with the resources they have or with even extra resources.
Perhaps we could move to AJOVY, which has been a bright spot. It continues to outgrow the injectable CGRP market and take share, and guidance has already been raised this year. As all CGRPs, I was going to say GLP-1, but as all CGRPs continue to take share, how sustainable is the outperformance and how important do you think the quarterly dosing is? Maybe you can touch on exceeding the $1 billion target.
For AJOVY, yeah. Isn't this extraordinary that we're sat here talking about AJOVY breaching $1 billion, and three and a half years ago, we weren't talking about AJOVY doing anything. I say that because I think it goes back to a lot of things we do at Teva, which is about being incredibly focused, incredibly operationally driven when it comes to performance. We saw that we had an asset in AJOVY that was underperforming, that could perform better, but to perform better, it needed to capture market share and outperform the market and outperform competitors, who are some pretty big competitors. We had to do that across every one of our regions. It has surprised me how well we've done, if I'm really honest, because at the same time we're driving AUSTEDO, we launched UZEDY.
To do this consistently well across all of our regions, I think just shows the capability that we have geographically, but in a hugely competitive area, not just in the injectable competition, but as you highlighted, the oral. How far can it go? The ambition we always have was we'll grow ahead of market, and we are growing way ahead of market right now. How long we keep that going? We'll see. I think we're going to have to start to give new guidance on AJOVY again because we seem to be catching up to the $1 billion very quickly. We'll probably do that to let people understand where that could go, and they can model that. I'd take it back to Teva can sell innovative products really well because we're really focused. We're very performance-focused.
Because of that, all of our assets, whether AJOVY, UZEDY, or AUSTEDO outperform in their particular segments.
Perfect. Let's switch to UZEDY. It's performed very strongly in the U.S., as you've highlighted. What is the latest kind of play with ex-U.S. launches? How should we think about the international opportunity for UZEDY, and when should we expect an update?
Yeah. I think UZEDY, I think, another great example of Teva going into a super competitive market, genericized, some big brands in there. How can you actually do well in that? I think two things is great product developed by Eric and his team, which meets medical unmet need significantly from the ability to be subcutaneous, get to therapeutic doses within 8 to 24 hours. You do not have to have any concomitant adjunctive therapy at the same time, so you can be released from the hospital and institution, but still competitive. Now people are talking about modeling this in a very different way. Can it go to Europe? That is a more of a challenging one because of pricing and where we get the pricing. I think that probably leads on to olanzapine, which you are probably going to ask me about anyway.
But olanzapine, we see, is definite opportunity to have a European launch. But once again, we have got to be very selective because two things is we want to make sure it is being appreciated for the value it brings. Also we want to make sure that ties in with some of the political questions you asked me earlier about MFN and how do we manage that. But I think we are pretty confident we have a path to launch olanzapine in the rest of the world. UZEDY, we never built it into our forecast, so it was never baked in. I think that is the right thing to do. But cumulatively, those two will do $1.5 billion to $2 billion. Now I think I am getting a few questions on whether that is the right number. Should it be higher? But let us launch olanzapine.
Let us get that to the market. Let us keep driving UZEDY, and then we can talk about whether we should change that.
Okay. So you did preempt my next question, which was on olanzapine and the launch. So how should we think about the launch dynamics? You have previously mentioned no meaningful revenues in Q4 2026, first half of 2027. Consensus is modeling roughly $210 million next year. So how comfortable are you with that, and what do you see as the biggest determinants of uptake in year one?
Yeah. So maybe reverse order. I am not going to comment on the $200 million.
Oh, okay.
Because, yeah, I have got to stay true to that. We will talk about that when we give guidance. How do I think about that? How confident do I feel about this? Despite my measured approach on many things, I am super excited about olanzapine. Why? Because of UZEDY. To take UZEDY into the market that was so congested, to have such a strong performance in where the competition, the share of voice, the pricing dynamics, the access dynamics was so tough, and to do so well, and we will talk about some of the metrics on that. We are the leading LAI now in risperidone. We have doubled that market in the time we have been there. So when you take olanzapine, which, so we have got all that muscle we built up. So we have that capability. We have that institutional knowledge. We know the physicians, the patients, the payers, the nurse practitioners.
We know where everybody is. We have a very good commercial team, a very good MSL team. We put olanzapine into their hands, which is far more straightforward. There is no real competition. The unmet need is huge because people want to be more compliant. So my ambition is that we have a really good uptake. Now, to revenue, what does that mean? In Q4, I want people to start sampling it. I want to make sure we get access onto hospital formularies as quick as we can, and that is how we should measure sort of Q4, Q1, Q2. The rate-limiting step is Medicaid. We have to get Medicaid, and that is state by state, as many people know. Some will get it at the start. Some will get after six months, nine, 12. I think after 12 months, we have about 85% of the market with Medicaid.
But that is a rate-limiting step. The way to think about it is TRx, the sampling. I think we will be able to communicate really early on how well we are doing. I am not going to hedge on this. We want that curve to be a curve that really takes off. We will not be getting that access with Medicare because we think that will require us to give discounts that we do not think are appropriate for the value the product brings. It will be Medicaid, and we will have to work slowly and hard on Medicare. I think in time, maybe the year after, with UZEDY and olanzapine together, that will create enough size that Medicare would want to do a more rational deal. Those are things to consider, but very excited. Very excited about the product and the offering for these patients.
By the way, with UZEDY and olanzapine, we will cover mild to moderate to severe, so about 85% of the schizophrenia population, and we are in those centers all the time right now. I can tell you the enthusiasm for UZEDY is high, but the enthusiasm for olanzapine is definitely palpable.
Staying with the franchise before I turn to Adithya to talk on generics, consensus for your combined UZEDY and olanzapine at peak is kind of at the top end of your guide of $1.5 billion-$2 billion. Given some of the comments that you have made around higher oral olanzapine use, long-acting penetration potentially in Europe, how should we think about the pushes and pulls on that target, particularly what drives upside?
Yeah. Look, I think a lot of this comes down to. There are reasons those people, very smart people, are thinking about this could be at the higher end, because olanzapine needs a long-acting, needs a severe patient. There is a reason that you could argue that the LAI market right now is about 13%-14%. Olanzapine should probably be higher than that. We will have to see how that plays out. It is also about making sure that at some point we do get access through Medicare, because that will open up a lot more. In Europe, we do target getting a number of countries, but at the right price. I think there are reasons to believe we could be at the higher end.
I like to take it step by step, and then we build the P&L, we build our future financial modeling on what we think is going to happen so we know what we can spend. As that changes, we can adapt that. But I am not going to lie, there are reasons to be optimistic. I just want to maybe get a first year under my belt before we can start to talk about changing numbers.
Perfect. Adithya?
Hi, Rich and Eric. Thanks a lot for your time. Pivoting towards generics. In terms of outlook this year, ex-REVLIMID, you are obviously expecting it to be down flat to low single digit. There is obviously reflecting fewer high-value launches, softer OTC, and increased competition there. In terms of the moving parts, what changes get you back to that 1%-2% longer term growth aspiration for the entire generics franchise?
Yeah, no, thanks for the question. It is actually pretty simple. It is based on portfolio, and our portfolio is changing pretty quickly in generics. If you think about it, the last three years, we have performed, I think as a generics business, from a decline in it for five years to a growth, a three-year CAGR growth. We have done that through improving our number of launches, improving our manufacturing, and making sure our supply is good, and improving our go-to-market model executing. The big change that is coming up is our portfolio is changing because we are having more and more biosimilars. I think probably in pretty much every asset we have, I think we are one of the best performing biosimilar companies in the U.S. I think you can see that with Semglee, you can see that with EPYSQLI, some other products we have. Our portfolio is changing.
The reason why that's exciting is because we've had our performance in generics, which I think has been really solid without having that. Now we're starting to add biosimilars to it. The U.S. is doing well. We're now starting to add more and more to Europe, and that's going to keep accelerating. I think we have 11 in the market now, and I think between now and the end of the decade, we're going to be adding roughly another nine, and with more partnerships coming on. So we have about 29 in our portfolio now, 26 to 29. So that's the big change, and that's why I do think the outlook probably could be a bit more optimistic. But once again, I want to get things done. I want to execute on the biosimilars in Europe. I want to keep the trend going in the U.S.
But the portfolio change is significant, and I don't think that should be underestimated.
Probably just sticking on the biosimilars, as you mentioned there, so you're well on track to exceeding $800 million in 2027 and another 14 biosimilars, as you mentioned, coming along to market. So in terms of your different states of play within Europe, where penetration is just starting to pick up and your uptake in the U.S. has probably been a lot more modest in aspect, where is the biggest upside coming from in terms of biosimilars opportunity today? What particular pipeline assets through towards 2030 should investors be focusing on there?
Yeah. So it's interesting. I think firstly, the fact that we're not in Europe, so as we go into Europe, as you highlighted, it's relatively straightforward. I mean, there are different market archetypes. So some are contracted, some actually have to go to the hospitals, but we know that. Outside biosimilars, we're pretty much number one in most markets, so we know how to do that. We know how to go through the channels. So as we get a biosimilar, and we've already seen it this year, we tend to be the best at launching. Even when we don't launch first, we often end up number one. The U.S., actually, I think you've maybe scored us down a little bit. I think in the U.S., we are performing really well, even when we come to the market late.
That's because it's a super complex market in the U.S., but Teva operates in every aspect of the generic biosimilar market, like every aspect at a national level and a regional level. Because of that, I think that capability has allowed us to execute far better in our biosimilars than most other people. I think, don't forget, we said we're going to do $800 million by the end of 2027. It's 2026. That's another one we've done a year early. By the way, at the time, that was seen as ambitious. So I'm excited by both because I think the muscle we had to apply to biosimilars, we just didn't have the biosimilars. Now we're getting them. I think you see the Teva generics muscle being applied to those. So I'm super excited about the U.S. biosimilar market. I know other people are struggling. We're not.
We see opportunity in that complexity. In Europe, I think we can build on the capability and just the scale we have there.
Thank you. Very clear.
Shall we switch on to, sorry, onto the pipeline. So I do want to get time in to speak.
You go ahead.
I know Eric's been sat here patiently. Maybe we can switch to duvakitug in UC and Crohn's. In June, Merck & Co. reported positive data, as I'm sure you know, but did not describe the benefit as clinically meaningful. The recently published phase II relief data for duvakitug looked competitive across induction and maintenance. How should we think about duvakitug versus the competitors in UC and Crohn's, and perhaps talk on the timelines to market?
Yeah. Thanks for the question. It starts with the science for me. For duvakitug, we have shown in our own hands comparing molecules that we have the most potent molecule, we have the most selective molecule when it comes to the decoy receptor, and we have the lowest anti-drug antibodies that we've reported out compared to others that have been reported.
The fundamentals were there. Then we ran a fantastic phase II program for both ulcerative colitis and Crohn's disease. Again, we reported the highest numbers for this class out there right now. It's been a great execution. Finally, we had the maintenance data this year. That was our first milestone for 2026, and that again showed maintenance that was competitive across the landscape of ulcerative colitis and Crohn's disease. Right now our data is very good. We've executed rapidly, and we're working very closely with Sanofi to run our phase III program. It's a very competitive molecule. I think that we've shown that we can accelerate things very quickly and be in the race. When you think about timelines for ulcerative colitis, first for that one, we're within the 18-month window, we believe, when it comes to our competition.
That shouldn't impact it. What will impact it is what the data looks like at the end of the day. Data is really king. The efficacy is king. When it comes to Crohn's disease, I'd say we're right in the middle of the pack. In fact, we have probably the best phase II data when it comes to the execution and the dose response that we saw. I'm very excited by the program. I think that it's a molecule that can stand on its own two legs.
Perfect. With UC and potentially Crohn's moving more towards a combination market, which some of your competitors are pursuing, how should we think about long-term UC Crohn's combination, and does Teva plan to initiate or pursue a combination strategy?
Yeah. Combinations is something I've done my entire career, thinking about how to increase the efficacy while maintaining the safety. There's a long way to go at this point. Right now, we're really focused on making sure the monotherapy lives up to its potential. You have to remember that this class of molecules is a totally new class. It's blocking a cytokine that's an amplifier of many different pathways and even might have a direct impact on fibrosis. Monotherapy has an incredible runway right now for discovery and to see what the efficacy is. Having said that, we do a great job in our Sydney lab in Australia when it comes to antibody engineering, protein engineering.
Bispecifics are something we are focused on, and since we're one of the innovators in TL1A, I think that TL1A is a great example of what could become a backbone for potential future therapies. But again, we have to make sure that the great safety profile of TL1A is maintained, that we'll discover that through these programs that are in development right now. But I think that's just going to be an upside in the future.
Very clear. Teva Sanofi have initiated TL1A trials in HS, to my understanding. Other competitors have also posted positive data here. How should we think about TL1A biology in HS? Does this have potential to be a first-line drug, or would you see it more second-line refractory?
Yeah. HS, or hidradenitis suppurativa, which I've practiced quite a lot over the years, is a fascinating area of discovery right now. HS is a pretty devastating disease in the fact that it really impacts your quality of life, and it's highly underappreciated. It's about 1% of the population, and it really can be painful, it's disfiguring. It can be socially isolating to have HS. We have a long way to go when it comes to the efficacy in it. There are a couple of biologics that are approved today, and there's a lot of small molecules as well in development. This indication has a long way to go. It's going to be a market that grows over the years. Now, when you think about TL1A for HS, I'm very excited by it. It fits a lot of our criteria.
Scientific rationale, speed, regulatory possibility of success, and market potential. Specifically for TL1A, HS is an inflammatory disease that has many different cytokine pathways in it, Th1, Th17. That includes 23, 17s, and TNFs, and it also has a big fibrotic component to it, too. So what better MOA would be than TL1A, which impacts multiple cytokines and covers many of those things? Those programs out there that are hitting specific targets can be effective, but I'm excited to be doing a study to show that the pleiotropic aspects of TL1A can really actually add benefit.
Perfect. Perhaps we can switch to ecopipam. The NDA was filed in June with potential launch in the first half of 2027. If we can touch on the phase III DIAMOND data, how should we think about the absolute efficacy versus D2 antipsychotics, particularly if ecopipam ultimately moves earlier line? I think you've referenced two additional indications beyond Tourette's. Perhaps you could touch on where you think the biology suits best.
Yeah. To start off, we've done the submission in June, and now we've announced that we received priority review. That was a really exciting addition to the news flow when it comes to ecopipam. Now, when it comes to what the value of ecopipam is, this is a brand-new first-in-class molecule for a D1 antagonist. Comparing that to D2s, it's a very different world. The D2 antagonists like Haldol or Abilify, they are hitting D2s that create a lot of side effect profiles, metabolic, weight gain, and other aspects of actual movement disorders. When you're thinking about someone who has Tourette syndrome, a child who has it, you can try behavioral modifications, you can try off-label uses of things that don't have tremendous efficacy.
But you can imagine if you're facing the choice of using D2 or all these potentially irreversible aspects, that shows you the unmet medical need. In contrast, in our studies where we've looked at this D1 antagonist, ecopipam, we've really shown that we don't see those side effect profiles. When you're looking for something that has a great treatment effect, something with a favorable safety profile is something people need. To your point, what's the added benefit? We've shown that we had about a 30% effect, compared to placebo, so a good efficacy when you look at it right off the bat in phase II. Then we've also showed the durability of the response in the phase III study, where 50% reduction and a relapse rate.
Those people, when we looked at them for another year, 66% of them stayed on the drug for a year. That's the real problem for D2 antagonists, where 20%-30% can only tolerate it for that long. I think that we have something that we can really deliver, that will help patients.
Perfect. Richard, perhaps we could touch on M&A strategy moving forward post-Emalex. What are the biggest gaps that Teva are looking to fill, and would it still be a neurology, immunology focus, or will you broaden therapeutic areas?
Yeah. Thanks for the question. I would not say we have gaps. I think it is more can we put more fuel on the fire? But in a thoughtful way from capital allocation. I think obviously, CNS is key, and you saw that with Emalex. You soon see the opportunity to build on our capability. You saw the potential deal with BioXcel, and I think that is thoughtful capital allocation, very synergistic if that happens. Immunology is a big opportunity we can build on. We do have respiratory, as we are launching. We will have the date on diary end of this year, start of next year, and we will be launching that probably in 2028. So that creates opportunity to maybe put products around that.
We have announced that we want to do rare diseases, because we think rare diseases is something that we could be very good at when it comes to executing on that. If they fit in those two TAs, that is great. If they fall out of it, we will be okay also because we think that rare disease is about a capability and competency of supply chain reimbursement, white glove service, things like that, as opposed to the actual TA. So that is how we think about it. But we do not have a desperate need to do M&A because you heard about the pipeline. We did not touch upon IL-15 with vitiligo and celiac disease. We may do that in the last couple of minutes, but that has another probably few indications. Duvakitug has probably another four or five indications. So I think our pipeline is attractive.
I think what we think is we have really good momentum. As we get capital, where can we allocate that to get a really good return on that capital? And I think it will still be nice, thoughtful, in licensing, maybe some small M&A if we think the right company comes up. But we are in a position where we do not have to do anything. But I do think anything we can do to give to either Eric or to the commercial team, I would like to, because they are so good at what they do.
Perfect. You somewhat preempted my last question, but perhaps you could help us understand or touch on what you think investors are missing about the Teva story, or is there a particular asset or drug you think we should be focused on that we are not?
I'm really careful to. That's a very quite provocative question to.
You can say sell-side analyst.
Okay.
What am I missing? Not investors.
Okay. Because yeah, I think some of the investors in the room here, and I thank them for being investors. For the ones who aren't, you have an opportunity now to maybe be investors. But I think the sell-side analyst, I think Teva is unique, so that makes it a bit difficult to look at sometimes. But I think what people are missing is we have got through some really tough years, and we did everything we said we're going to do financially and operationally, and we did it better than anybody thought. We're now moving into, I wouldn't say easier years internally, because we put a lot of pressure on ourselves to keep optimizing our opportunities. But we have all these launches.
We've got the muscle both in R&D, we've got the muscle in BD, we've got the muscle in commercial, and we're just going to keep building on that. I would say the direction of travel from a return to shareholders is clear. The debate is how much. I think to have Teva in your portfolio is a great asset to have in your portfolio, because I do think we have a clear path to keep growing shareholder value. I think what people may be missing is just how many innovative launches we have. We have five launches in five years, all innovative. We don't count emrusolmin, which we don't talk about until we get the data, because it's a high risk. Even without that, we've got five.
After that, we probably almost have a launch a year post-2030 because of the multiple indications duvakitug to IL-15. We have a company that's growing tremendously fast, and we have multiple indications coming out. We're thoughtful about what assets we tuck in from an M&A point of view BD. I'd like to think that rather than missing anything is maybe to double down on the analysis and start to model it and realize actually there is a good return here. Maybe just the question is how much.
Okay. Perfect. Thank you. Thank you, Rich. Thank you, Eric. Thank you to everyone in the room.
Thank you.