so much for joining us. Really pleased to have Stéphane Bancel, CEO of Moderna, with us. Maybe to start here, Stéphane, you know, in the context of the current environment, both from a COVID demand and regulatory standpoint, and the overall healthcare policy that we're seeing flow through from HHS and FDA, and, you know, and then there's the drug pricing dynamics. Just walk us through today where Moderna's business stands from a revenue and expenses standpoint, and also a pipeline strategy when you start to absorb kind of all these dynamics that are playing out.
Sure. Good morning.
Good morning.
Thank you for having us. You must be exhausted because I have seen a lot of emails coming from you this week and your team, so thank you for your work. Thank you for having us. Basically, let me start maybe by Moderna, and then I will talk about how the context around us in the U.S. impacts us. Basically, as you know, because you follow the company pre-IPO, we have this mRNA platform that we built over many, many years doing the science because we always believed it would be zero drug or a lot of drugs because mRNA' s information. We focused on infectious disease vaccine, oncology, rare genetic disease, and we think over time we could also play in other fields including autoimmune disease. If you look at where we are today, our priority is pretty simple, three priorities.
One, drive a top line back to growth with existing products. Priority number two is launch new products. As you know, we have around 10 products that we can launch in the next couple of years, which is very exciting for patients and for shareholders. Third is to really drive a cost down, to right-size the company to where we are today compared to where we were during the pandemic. Because as you know, the company scaled tremendously because we worked really hard to get literally billions of those to the market. Of course, the company was not ready for it. We did not do it efficiently because we had to do it with high quality and we had to do it with speed. Cost was not the highest priority at the time.
If you look at where we are now, the next few years, our strategy is to finalize our portfolio of respiratory vaccines, focus mostly on people at high-risk, meaning the elderly, 65 plus, and adults 18- 64 at high-risk. As you know, we have now three products approved, which kind of prove the platform and the science is really working. Three products approved, including the third one happening at the end of May, a few days ago. Our strategy is to finalize this investment in R&D because all the phase III are behind us. As you know, we're going to get the flu data this summer for phase III efficacy, as we shared recently. Those costs are going to basically phase out.
This is going to become a very profitable franchise because the manufacturing infrastructure is already here because of COVID. If you think about what we are trying to do over the next few years, it is finalize the respiratory portfolio to have a broader respiratory portfolio, COVID, RSV, flu, and flu plus COVID combo, generating a lot of cash, investing that cash into our oncology platform. Of course, there is INT, but as you know, there are around 10 products that are just beyond INT. Some are moving into phase II, like our immunotherapy product. We have quite a number of products that we shared at ASCO last year that are going to, are in the clinic, are going to move into clinic very, very soon. Of course, there is a rare disease as well.
What we have decided to pause for now because we're focusing on cost is the latent viruses. As you know, we shared that vaccine day 18 months ago. I think great data for EBV in phase I too, for VZV in phase I too. We have some HSV product. But those products, as we said last year at R&D day, last September, we will not take to phase III on our own now. We are actively looking at partnership, have a project financing like we did with Blackstone last year in flu, or Big Pharma. As you know, we've done a lot of deal in our history with AstraZeneca. We've done several deals with Merck and our colleagues at Vertex. And so we are able and willing to do deals when it's the right thing for the company and the shareholders.
That's a bit where we are in terms of strategy. In terms of the sales, I think it's important to look at U.S. sales where the context I'm going to come into in a minute is important, and also outside the U.S. sales. If you look at the U.S., if you look at it, the recent guidelines that were published in The New England Journal of Medicine by the Commissioner and the new head of CBER, we actually see as constructive because as you know, there was a lot of worry in the media, a lot of headlines about COVID, or they're going to take the COVID vaccine out of the market.
If you look at the paper, I think what is quite interesting is that the population they want to focus on, which we think makes a lot of sense, we've always talked, as you know, you've seen our presentation for many years, we said the people at high-risk are the ones that need to be protected. It's mostly the elderly, 65 plus, 18- 64 at high-risk. If you look at their paper, they mention in the U.S. a population of around 100 million people that will qualify for those respiratory vaccines that I will extrapolate from the COVID because it's sort of the same as we know. What is interesting is if you look at last year, the number of COVID shots given in the U.S. was actually 40 million doses, four zero.
There is a potential world if you look the next few years that we might have stabilized the COVID number of doses. With the authorities wanting to really protect people at high-risk, there is a potential upside. Again, it is too early to tell. If you look at the paper we just published, and again, this is the FDA commissioner, there is a potential upside that if they want to recommend and have the medical community and the pharmacy channels really focus on that population, there could be some upside. RSV, as we know, had a great first year, but what is happening now because of an ACIP recommendation last year, the market has slowed down tremendously in terms of size. We believe it is going to be a few years before we get clarity.
I think the CDC is basically looking at epidemiology and trying to figure out when should people get boosted, again, people at high-risk. As you know, we should soon have a pseudovirus for the RSV high-risk, 18 to 64. We already have a product approved in 65 and above. That would be, we think, important because, again, aligned with COVID and again, similar things should happen to flu. It is for respiratory vaccine. You want to really provide them and protect people at high-risk. That is kind of priority number one in the U.S.. I know there is a lot of headlines, but this New England Journal FDA COVID policy paper and the approval of 1283, you know, end of May on its pseudovirus.
I've read a lot of people in the media, a lot of analysts, a lot of investors that were worried, are we going to even get it? As you know, there's been a lot of delays across the industry on [PFI] in the last few months. We are very pleased and very thankful for our team and the team at FDA. I know the working team at FDA works really hard because we're in daily discussions with our team to get this to a finish line. We are very pleased that there's going to be a new product with higher efficacy in a head-to-head efficacy study that's just Spikevax available to the elderly. We think it should help drive also the market and the penetration based on what the Commissioner and the government administration is trying to push through.
The other piece is outside the U.S. W e should not forget that our business is roughly 50/50. And what I think is not fully always appreciated by all investors about Moderna, you know, our U.S. strategy is two things in terms of growth looking forward. One is what the three countries where we have set up, you know, factories for long-term partnership. Those are seven years partnership from when the factory is up and running in Canada, U.K., and Australia. If you look at those, this year, those factories are coming online, so you will not get a full year impact. In 2026, we're going to get a full year impact of those factories. And they are not only for COVID. They are for respiratory vaccine.
As we have RSV approved in most of those countries and soon 1283 and then flu plus COVID, you can see a world where the sales are going to be substantial. To try to help you calibrate this just back of your envelope, last year, if you look at our SEC filing, we had around $500 million of sales in the U.K. and it was just COVID. I think using a $500 million for the U.K. moving forward is not a crazy number. I think other market-wise it's reasonable knowing there's going to be also flu, RSV, and flu plus COVID. If you look at the population, to help you with the math, Canada and Australia are roughly the same population as the U.K.
You could see that ballpark getting when those factories are running full speed next year in 2026, could have potentially $1 billion sales there. If you look at the guidance this year, $1.5 billion-$2.5 billion, you can see that those three countries are going to be significant in 2026 in terms of growth and then in terms of stability of cash flow and sales in the next seven years. As you know, we have been excluded of Europe on COVID because of a contract that was done without a tender by the EU during COVID in 2021 and Pfizer. That contract expired in 2026. We're starting to see a little bit of sales because some countries like Poland, it's public information, have sued the EU and are out of a Pfizer contract. Last year, for example, we supplied Poland.
There's a lot of countries in the Nordics and countries like Portugal that actually have been using that contract pretty quickly because we have high vaccination rate. I mean, we think in 2025, we should have more opportunities in Europe and even more in 2026. I mean, in 2027 because it's end of 2026 contract, we should have the ability to really play. And by then, if you think about it, we'll have RSV, flu, COVID plus flu. So the ability to grow and compete. If you, and then we have good position in Taiwan, South Korea. If you look at the world in terms of growth, because we're obsessed about growing the top line again, I really believe that 2025 is going to be our lowest point in terms of sales.
We go into 2026 with what I talked about in those three countries where we have factories and the availability of 1283 and potentially the flu plus COVID combo and our flu in the U.S. in 2026. You could see 2026 with growth and 2027 with even faster growth. There is also the INT product, which is why I transitioned to the pipeline. You know, we're finishing to get with flu, mono, and flu plus COVID, finishing the respiratory job to get the whole portfolio. Then we have INT. As you know, we've said that based on the shape of the environment curve of phase III in melanoma for INT with our colleagues at Merck, we should see the data for phase III in melanoma in 2026. The factory, as we said, is ready. It will not be critical path.
We should have a launch in 2027. Then there's norovirus. Norovirus, like any of those viruses where you have to guess the epidemiology when you run your phase III study, is set up as a two-season study like the flu study. We do not know yet if we're going to hit in one season or if we're going to need two seasons. That's a potential 2026 or 2027 launch. Again, we'll see when we get the data. There's also CMV. We should get the phase III data this year. If you look at the whole portfolio and you just look at one or two years out, I do not think it's hard to see growth and then a lot of growth because, of course, we have no patent expiry on your topic. You're going to see a lot of growth.
If you look at the next five to ten years, you're going to see a lot of growth starting in 2026 and then accelerating. Diversification of sales away from COVID, which I think will give a lot of people a bit of encouragement because people have developed anxiety in terms of whether COVID stabilizes before potentially COVID grows. We should not forget that we also have some tailwind for us in terms of respiratory virus, which is the world is getting older. As we know, age is a risk factor for respiratory virus hospitalization and deaths. That's people, because a lot of scientific skepticism and anti-vaxxer sentiment, as you get less people vaccinated, viruses are also going to spread faster.
If you have this combination of virus spreading faster, because even in the community, young people not getting vaccinated, of course, increases the spread of the virus and more people that are of older age. You see this over the next couple of years and you compound this, we think we're going to have some tailwind there. I think policy is stabilizing. I think we've seen the worst of headlines in terms of what concerns us and then reacceleration of the business. Maybe to go to your last piece is cost, which, as I said, for us, it's really important. We have resized the company tremendously and we're not done. If you look at it, last year we had $6.3 billion of cash cost. We've guided this year for $5.5 billion. Next year, $4.7 billion and the year after, $4.2 billion.
If you look at it in Q1, we are down 19% year-over-year cash cost and we are ahead of plan. If you do some modeling, you could see that it's possible that we're going to do better than $5.5 billion. We're keeping $5.5 billion as a guidance for now. We'll update it as appropriate as we move forward and as we know more. We are very focused on cost and it goes through a lot of things. Streamlining the pipeline. We stop program. We pause, like we talked about the latent, we pause programs. It goes about driving productivity, working very hard to reduce costs with suppliers. We have hired an amazing head of procurement 18 months ago and we have really worked very diligently with Jamey, our CFO, and with the team across the board.
We've already saved hundreds of millions of dollars just on better negotiation at same volume. We've reduced the volume, as I talked about. We're doing a lot of work also with technology and AI, spending a lot of time to drive productivity with AI. Just one of the new features that was just launched recently on GPT Enterprise is the ability to use unstructured data. You can use now data in your email. You can use data that are on OneDrive or data that are on SharePoint. The ability to just accelerate that. I think we have up to 2,000 GPTs across the company. Really, there's no silver bullet, but we're just looking at everything and we are not done. I'm going to work really hard to actually do better than those targets.
To follow up on some of the points that you just raised, are you still, you know, right-sized, I guess, or just, you know, confident here with the goal of returning to profitability by 2028?
Correct. Because our current plan, as I have told you, I'm going to work really hard to beat the plan, is to deliver $4.2 billion of cash cost in 2027. So if you look at the trajectory of the cost, that could mean similar or even lower cost in 2028. We'll see as we get closer, but now we're working on the $4.2 billion for 2027 and working hard to beat it. Let's talk about the top line because, of course, you have a side of your question for profitability.
If you look at the midpoint of a guidance this year, $2 billion, as we just spoke about, we're having in 2026 the Canada, U.K., Australia coming fully online. That could be a billion dollar of sales. If you look at the U.S. last year, we had $1.7 billion, but we had $200 million of returns. So that's $ 1.5 billion . If you assume no growth in the U.S., just on COVID, because you know there was almost no RSV, but we're going to start to see RSV growth and then 1283 and then the new product. If you look at $ 1.5 billion in the U.S. and you look at already one outside the U.S., we're already at $2 .5 billion , assuming no new products, no INT, no nothing.
There is Europe, as we talked about, that's coming back online a little bit more in 2025, a little bit more in 2026, and a lot in 2027. As you can assume, there are some countries that are not so happy that they've been locked into a single contract, especially as you know, there's been a lot of real-world evidence post-COVID showing that Spikevax in the real world has higher efficacy, less hospitalization than the Pfizer product. You can understand there's been a lot of hospital, a lot of doctors, oncologists very upset for a few years that they could not give what they thought was the highest efficacy vaccine to their patients. I believe that we should get a fair share in Europe from January 1st, 2027.
If you look at those timelines with the launch of those products, and then there's also Noro and CMV. CMV, as we said, should be a slow launch because we have to build the market. Initially, the indication should be 16 plus, you know, for women before they get pregnant, but in the age of having a child. It's going to take a bit of time, but norovirus could be a pretty quick commercial ramp. As you know, norovirus is not a fun virus to get. You have, again, the population high-risk we talked about, 18 plus high-risk elderly. You have, you know, nursing home when you have, you know, a lot of older people in the community. Somebody gets sick, the whole community gets sick. You have something in kindergarten.
You have also an interest for children, which will take us time to get there in terms of vaccine. The educators, if you do focus group with educators, if you do focus group with healthcare professionals, nurses, doctors, after all this, they will want a norovirus vaccine. We will be the only ones to have one. If you think about our commercial strategy in the U.S. in the retail segment, portfolio, as we have been saying, is key. Last year, we suffered at being a mono product company because RSV came so late. Now we have RSV and we have, you know, Spikevax, the 1283, the new higher efficacy product for COVID. As you think about flu and then flu plus COVID and then Noro, we could be the company with the most interesting portfolio from a profitability standpoint to the retail channel.
As we know, you know, Walgreens is going private. CVS is having financial challenges. All, you know, right ahead bankruptcy. If you look at all of those, they need profitability. As you know, vaccine is a highly profitable business. Sometimes they lose money because of PBMs on the drugs, the prescription drugs. Vaccine, between the administration fee that they get from the payers and the discount that they get from the manufacturers, is a very profitable business for retail pharmacies. We think that we're going to build in the next two years, most probably the most exciting portfolio for the retailers, which gives us negotiation leverage with the retailers.
With regard to the 2025 revenue guidance that you just cited, what are the risks to achieving this guide?
Yes. I would say the risks are, of course, in U.S. first.
As I said, if you took last year normalized for returns $1.5 billion, how much is the market reduced? And will it be reduced? Going back to what we talked about, the new policy and new framework from the Commissioner and the head of CBER. It's interesting to look at this spring. This spring, as you know, there's a recommendation for a booster for people at high-risk. If you look at the data of the last eight, 10 weeks, it's actually on par or some weeks even better, like last week as an example. You have had several weeks where it's better than last year. It's important to understand for context, this happened with no CDC promotion. This is one of the things that the CDC canceled under the new administration. There was no advertising, nothing.
If you look at last year, there were radio ads run by the CDC. There were ads in clinics, in doctors' offices, and so on. This did not happen this year. They canceled all the budget for promotion. Despite that, you had people who understand they are at risk, who went to get their vaccine. That makes us, I would say, cautiously optimistic. Again, we want to be careful because the season is ahead of us, not behind us, that if the time is similar, we should have a similar level of sales. There might be a bit of pressure on price. There might be a bit of pressure on market share. We will see again. This is in the guidance.
Again, because the $1.5 billion is the bottom of a global guidance, with the $1.5 billion in the U.S. being the number of last year net of returns, we think that we have put those into the guidance. Another risk is those three countries, they need the factories to be approved by the local authorities to start shipping. Everything is currently on track. The teams are working really hard. Because we depend on the regulators to review, inspect, and approve those facilities, every week delay is going to reduce the sales. Of course, we put some buffer into the guidance. It is a broad range this year because there are just so many uncertainties on the downside. That is another thing. It will be one-off.
It will not have impact on 2026, but it will have potentially an impact on where we are in terms of the guidance of $1.5 billion-$2.5 billion. I think those are the two biggest risks we see.
Just given the fact that you can take this technology and go extremely broad, how are you thinking about BD and partnerships on the forward? But also, you yourselves, are you going to continue to just stick with mRNA as a modality, or are you thinking about even going beyond that?
It's a great question. Let's start by the latter one. At this stage, we're sticking with mRNA just because if you look at our industry, the hardest thing to do in this industry is to come with a drug, right? An innovative drug that adds value to the doctors and creates, as a consequence, return for shareholders.
We have an abundance of drugs. A lot of our companies look at our Big Pharma colleagues. They have figured out what do they do when all those drugs expire. Because we're a new company, new technology, because we've been so aggressive in terms of filing IP, we have an abundance. We have 40 drugs in the clinic right now, four zero. Our biggest challenge is to be disciplined about the cash and the investment, which is why we are putting on ice right now the phase III investment for the latent portfolio. As I mentioned, we're working actively with pharma companies on the one hand and financial partners on the other hand because we want those products to get to phase III. We want to sell those products. I don't need to build another factory for them.
I can use norovirus because plus those viruses being latent, being DNA-based, they are very stable. They do not mutate easily. I can make those off season. I literally could, we could literally launch EBV without adding $1 of CapEx. We could launch HSV without adding $1 of CapEx. We could launch VZV something without adding $1 of CapEx. I mean, you get the story. We are very actively talking to partners, potential partners right now. What we are always doing is we want to figure out who is the best partner in terms of capabilities and in terms of value. You know, we have $8.5 billion of cash. We would rather wait a few months to get the best partnership than being in a hurry and destroy value for shareholders by being in a hurry. Because again, we have $8.5 billion.
We have years, we have cash for many years to come. We believe the cash balance will take us because of the math we've run to profitability. Yes, we're actively active in BD, both with pharma, U.S. and outside the U.S. company, as well as financial partners.
I want to delve into some of the changes that have played out on the, you know, on the regulatory side here. One is we saw the news about ACIP, the CDC's ACIP here, and it'd be great to get your thoughts there and how that impacts you. But also, just given the regulatory framework and CDC guidelines with regard to, you know, the healthy children and pregnant women, as well as the need to run a randomized placebo-controlled trial, just put this in context for us on the impact, but also help us understand how it impacts your R&D spend on the forward when you have to run these placebo-controlled studies?
Sure. Let me start by the end because it's pretty easy. For 1283, one of the things we discussed with the agency is to run a placebo control because the phase III for everybody might not be familiar like you are, is we run it head to head to Spikevax, which was agreed with FDA when we started that phase III. Because as you know, this is how things have been done previously. We will manage the portfolio to have no impact on cost.
As you know, we have a big portfolio, we have a big R&D budget, so we'll manage it. You know, and so to your other questions, I think for ACIP, first, it's too early to tell. As you know, the announcement came on Monday or Wednesday morning. I think we'll have to figure to see who is appointed to the committee. The second piece we'll have to see is what is the process and what is the disclosure and transparency about decision-making. The thing that for us is really fundamental is, look, our vaccines have shown great data on efficacy, great data on safety. We're going to this new context with confidence. We're going to, of course, figure out and observe like everybody else. I think it's too early to have an opinion on what it's going to look like precisely.
As we talked about, look, we just got a product approved 10 days ago by the FDA. A lot of people believed over the last few months and sentiment that I perceived was getting worse, that we will not get 1283 approved. And we got it approved, not only approved, but we got it approved on the PDUFA date, which is a lot of other drugs in other disease areas, which you will think from a headline standpoint are higher on the FDA priority list to get approved that have missed their PDUFA date. At the working team level, as Stephen Hoge mentioned on the Q1 earning call, at the working team levels, our teams are very active with FDA counterparts.
They're both working really hard to be able to answer the question that the FDA teams have to answer them with either CMC or clinical data or safety or anything that they have constructively, like it has been the case in the past to get done. I would say we are working with the agency constructively, and we always will, like we always have. We've done the same over the world, which is, you know, in this business, you have one regulator per country. Like, you know, they are plan makers, they have the FAA, and banks have their own regulators, and you work with your regulator and you work for things. There's a lot of dedicated people at FDA that are working using science as their North Star and using data to make decisions.
I want to pivot over to the portfolio that you have and the upcoming data sets. Maybe to start here, the INT program. Walk us through the timelines for this portfolio as to when we'll get some data sets to inform not just melanoma, but other indications as well.
That's a great question. If you look at what we are trying to do with our partners at Merck with INT, I would say, and I say that with a lot of humility, it's kind of a playbook of what they've done on KEYTRUDA, which is, as we know, immuno-oncology has revolutionized cancer care and helped so many people over time. We think it's the beginning of that new field of treating cancer.
Given the signal we have seen in melanoma in the phase II, which, as you know, was randomized, whereas, you know, the P-value and the hazard ratio was pretty exciting. We, and as you know, the KEYTRUDA only arm was very similar to the KEYTRUDA phase III study. This was kind of real. We believe very much so. What we have done with our colleagues at Merck is to say, look, this is not an accident. This is real. We need to chase that signal. We have started a lot of studies in addition to melanoma, including a phase III for lung. We also study in kidney, in bladder cancer. As we said publicly, we are very interested. We will share the news when it is the right time to do so.
We are very interested to try INT as a monotherapy earlier in disease. Because as we all know, as you go earlier in disease, patients have a much stronger immune system. Disease is, of course, less spread. And as you recall, because I know you've followed the company for a long time, as you recall, in 2018, pre-COVID, when nobody really paid attention to INT at ASCO, we showed interesting data in lung, in melanoma, in a few of the tumor types as monotherapy. Because you know, it was a basket study, like you start oncology studies. And so we want to chase that signal. And so I think INT is going to really go across tumor types, go earlier in time.
Once we start to get next year the big phase III data on melanoma, I think after, I would not be surprised if every six months-ish, you start to see a rolling, like literally flow, very constant of new data on different studies. We are extremely committed to this program. Our colleagues at Merck are also extremely committed to this program. There is a lot more discussion that the teams are having right now that is not public yet. I will announce new indications. I think, again, saying that with humility, the KEYTRUDA playbook is a bit how people should think about how we and Merck are going to invest beyond INT. That is for patients in stage 2 or 3. As I said, we want to go to stage 1 early, where IO is not really used because there is too much toxicity.
I think one of the things that sometimes people forget is the safety profile of INT is really spectacular. For those who don't know the technology, it's exactly the same technology that we use for infectious disease vaccine. So that's a pretty spectacular product. Think about an INT monotherapy that people could use at stage one with a safety profile of an infectious disease vaccine. Literally, you could get the shot as intramuscular and on your way to work. That would be such a change for the care of those patients. If you look at another product that we started to talk more about on the Q1 call, our checkpoint product, that is a treatment that we own. This is not a partner product. We shared some early data, those escalation data last year at ASCO that were quite exciting, of course, early.
What we shared in the Q1 call is that we are quite intrigued by the signal we have seen so far, because we've seen more than what, of course, we showed at ASCO last year. We'll show more this year. We are basically accelerating the phase II enrollment for that program. That program is used in stage four patients. The data that we have seen that gives us hope is for patients that have failed over checkpoint. It is very early, but it just kind of gives you a sense of the importance of a pipeline, that we are not a COVID-19 company. We also have very exciting drugs in oncology.
From a strategic standpoint, as I said in my intro, we are really deploying the cash that is being generated by the respiratory vaccine as we do those phase I only once. Generating the cash flow into oncology and over disease like rare disease and potentially autoimmune soon.
Just to touch on CMV as well, you know, your confidence here around this update that we're going to see.
We remain optimistic about CMV. I always want to be careful. This is a product in phase III for which I'm blinded too. I do not know the outcome. I will just go back to a few things.
We know through our work across, if you go back through data, through the COVID data in terms of T-cell activation, CD4 and CD8, we know through the work we showed on VZV compared to Shingrix, again, on CD4, CD8 showing same or even better performance than Shingrix, which is known to be a very durable vaccine for a latent virus. If you look at our phase II data, we've shown up to three years of duration of antibodies, which of course is not efficacy, but the antibodies are very, very stable at the same level as antibody of people that have been infected naturally that are CMV positive. Of course, given there's never been a successful CMV vaccine in the world, we do not know where the bar is.
A bit like if you recall during COVID in 2020 when all those clinical trial studies were going, everybody was using antibody levels of people naturally infected as the benchmark of a target. We'll see. There's a massive medical need for CMV. There are around 20,000 kids in the U.S. every year that have birth defects due to CMV disease. We believe there are some miscarriages that are due to CMV. Everybody has tried to do a vaccine. Everybody has failed. We think we have the right biology. The phase II data is really encouraging. The other data points on the platform, INT, I did not talk about INT, but INT only works because of T-cell, all right? Fingers crossed, but we remain optimistic about CMV. We really want this product to make it because people need it.
Great. W ith that, Stéphane, thank you so much.