Good day, everyone. Thank you for joining the 23rd Annual Needham Healthcare Conference. My name is Joey Stringer, and I'm one of the biotech analysts at Needham & Company. It's my pleasure to introduce our next presenting company, Vaxcyte. Joining us today from Vaxcyte is CEO Grant Pickering, CFO Andrew Guggenhime, and Chief Operating Officer Jim Wassil. For those of you joining on the webcast, if you want to ask a question, please do so at any time. You can submit a question using the chat box feature at the bottom of your screen. So with that, we'll get started. Members of the Vaxcyte team, thank you so much for joining us today.
Thank you for having us, Joey. Really appreciate it.
We'll start off with a high-level overview. Can you provide us with a brief overview of Vaxcyte, why your approach is unique, in particular for developing pneumococcal vaccines, and what makes it different from some of the entrenched pharma players that are in the space with vaccines on the market?
Yeah. So Vaxcyte is totally focused on developing novel bacterial vaccines, led by our pneumococcal conjugate vaccine franchise, as you point out. VAX-24 has already yielded very compelling clinical data in a large set of phase II adult studies. The infant studies will be reading out next year, and we're really excited to have gotten VAX-31 into the clinic as well, for which we'll be expecting data later this year. And what sets us apart from the competition is while we're leveraging the same basic immunogens that have created the most protective bacterial vaccines, I think, in history, we're able to leverage a cell-free protein synthesis platform, Joey, that allows us to do site-specific conjugation of the immunogens, and that allows us to actually dial back on the amount of the protein carrier in each of our conjugates.
That's critical because it's that protein carrier that amasses across these broad-spectrum vaccines and ends up hijacking the immune response away from the target immunogens, which are protective against pneumococcal disease. We're able to make our conjugates with less protein in each one of them because we're able to dial in the T cell epitopes, which are really the reason why that protein carrier is on board to begin with, and it allows us to push coverage broader than the competition without sacrificing immune responses. We think that will be our calling card to create a really competitive pneumococcal conjugate vaccine franchise.
What are the current guidelines, or what's the vaccination schedule like for pneumococcal vaccination? And more broadly, how would you plan to position, say, your lead vaccine candidate, VAX-24 or VAX-31?
Yeah. So the market is really split into the infant market and the adult market. The adult market, there are two vaccines on the market, one from Merck, which is a 15-valent, one from Pfizer, which is a 20-valent. And even though the ACIP didn't grant a preferred recommendation for either vaccine, the market has really spoken, and it's the coverage that really drives adoption. So the Prevnar 20 vaccine, from what we understand, has about 97% market share. So really, doctors want to administer the most broadly protective vaccine they can in that moment. In the infant market, it's a little different. It's once again Merck's 15-valent and Pfizer's 20-valent, but the 15-valent from Merck was brought to market first.
Prevnar 20 is expected to dominate in that space and is expected to have the vast majority of the market share, but it's still playing out a bit based on the introduction of the, the two different vaccines. But it's been clear that the ACIP has struggled because while Pfizer's 20- valent is most broadly protective, the immune responses are substantially lower than the 15 -valent from Merck, which is a real-
Yeah
...clear indicator. As they push coverage, they sacrifice immune responses. So the ACIP has struggled with how to manage those trade-offs, and we're hoping to be able to deliver broader coverage and better immune responses, which would, I think, make a very clear choice.
Now, the PCV market is currently around $8 billion per year. What percentage of that is adult, and what percent is the infant opportunity?
Sure, Joey. So the adult right now is about 25% of the market, and the infant is 75%. But that said, in the infant market, 168 countries have already made a recommendation and put it on the routine calendar. So essentially, the growth opportunity is gonna be more in the adult. So I think what you'll see over the next three to four years, and it's an evolution where it gets closer and closer to more like a 60/40 split or, or maybe even, even more than that. Germany just recommended an adult vaccination program. I'm hearing some indication that the U.K. is also likely to follow shortly. And in the U.S., there's a debate that you may lower the age indication down to 50 years of age with a booster at 65.
So that could, that could potentially more than double the adult market. So while we see the—it's about an $8 billion market, the growth up to $12 billion is almost entirely in the adult space. So I think you'll see it evening out over the next three to five years.
... it's interesting. And in terms of the split, just in sales, U.S. versus rest of world, what is that split in the commercial opportunity?
Yeah. In terms of revenue, the U.S. probably dominates this market. It's a little over 50%. Yeah, as I mentioned, yeah, if they consider moving the age recommendation for the 50+ down, or the recommendation for adults down to 50+ years of age, you may even see that percentage grow in the next three to five years as well.
Jim, you kind of touched on this in your previous answer, but curious to get some additional thoughts. In terms of market expansion, I think you have said that Vaxcyte has said that they could reach $13 billion by 2027, driven by the growth in adults. Maybe go into some more of your underlying assumptions behind this, and what factors are expected to lead this type of growth?
Yeah, Joe, I'm happy to take that. You know, just kind of playing off of what Jim mentioned, you know, historically, right, you've got an $8 billion market, as Jim said, about a quarter of which is adult, $2 billion, three-quarters of which is infant, or $6 billion. And the adult growth is expected to be the dominant driver of the expected growth in the market from $8 billion to $12 billion, $13 billion, $14 billion, pick your number. As Jim said, you know, it's historically been a market that's been dominated by the U.S. proportion. And today, right, predominantly the age recommendation for adult vaccination in the U.S. is 65. There continues to be discussion about lowering the age recommendation to 50.
Yeah.
You've got about, call it 60 million adults who are 65 and older in the U.S., and you have 120 million or so who are 50 and older. So the lowering of the age recommendation substantially increases the size of the market, and therefore the expected sales.
Yeah.
And then, of course, if we do lower the recommendation for universal vaccination, that would also likely open up the adult market for a prime boost market, as we see in the infant market. Historically, adult market's been a one-dose market, but if you lower the age, as you immunosenescence, you're likely gonna need to boost adults as they get older, which further expands the size of the market. So that's kind of the, I think, the biggest one. The second one, as Jim said, is the recommendation for adult vaccination outside the U.S. We've seen that just in the last couple of months in Germany. Potentially we'll see that in the UK. But as other markets do that, that's gonna further increase the size of the market.
And then the last component, and this applies to both the adult and infant market, you know, as you introduce broader valent vaccines, you typically see premium prices accorded to them, just because of the health benefit that those are providing to society as well. That would be the third driver, just in the overall market increase.
Got it. Makes sense. Very, very helpful, and a good overview of the commercial potential here. Let's transition into your programs specifically, and upcoming data readouts. In the third quarter of this year, planning to announce some top-line data from the VAX-31, your next gen or follow-on vaccine in adults. Just to level set us and the audience, can you briefly outline the trial design?
Sure, Joey. So in many ways, we have a very similar study design to our VAX-24 program, but there are a few, you know, important differences that I'll note at the end. But essentially, what we're doing is we have a four-arm study. We have three different doses of our VAX-31. We have a low, middle, and instead of a mixed dose, we have a high dose. So we are actually looking at which dose we can optimize immunogenicity on the 31 program, and they're compared to PCV20. That's your fourth arm. Each subject gets one dose, and then about 30 days later, we take serology, and then we monitor for safety for up to six months of that study. Essentially, you know, we're gonna look at the top-line data in the third quarter.
That's gonna look very similar to before. We're gonna look at the, you know-
Yeah
... opsonophagocytic, or OPA, yeah, which is the regulatory comparator for licensure. So we'll still be doing all of that as well. The only other difference to note, though, is in this case, instead of doing a 65+ and a 50-64 separately, we're doing all of them together. So the same-
Fine
... ends cumulatively, but it's all gonna be coming out in one readout, unlike last time, where they came out separately.
Got it. In terms of the bar for success, excuse me, on immunogenicity, what GMR values would give you the confidence that you could hit that non-inferiority in a potential phase III trial?
Yeah, sure. So, I'll say, for the audience, that in order to demonstrate non-inferiority in this space, essentially the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval has to be at least 50% as good as Prevnar 20 for each serotype. So that's the lower bound in the 95%. So the question is: What is the point estimate or the ratio that would give us confidence-
Yeah
... moving into a phase III, that we would hit that? In my view, I think, you know, if, if you looked, you know, with previous studies from other, you know, PCVs that have gotten licensure, they've been, you know, well even below 0.6 or 60% below, and they could still meet the non-inferiority. We're saying conservatively, if we have a point estimate of 0.65 or 65% of PCV20 or higher, we think once we go into phase III, we increase the sample size, we tighten those error bars, that we feel we can meet that non-inferiority.
... Have you disclosed any of the powering assumptions for the phase II portion of the VAX-31 trial? I think previously in the VAX-24 readout, you had something like, I think all serotypes were 85% powered to show a twofold difference, and then something like more than half the serotypes were 95% powered to show a twofold NI margin. Anything you can disclose about the powering for VAX-31?
Yeah, so I'll, I'll say when we did the powering for the initial study, we had to use Prevnar 13 data to do our powering assumptions.
Yeah.
So in this case now, we actually have data. The mixed dose from our VAX-24 simulates the same type of formulation that we have going into the VAX-31 mid dose. So we took that mixed dose and used that as our simulation, and you know, fortunately for us, when we saw the VAX-24 data, we were 20%-30% higher. Our original assumptions where we would be equivalent to PCV20, what would the powering assumptions be? So we are using the exact same numbers that we used for VAX-24, but we actually think because of the responses we saw in the 2024 study, they were actually even better in terms of power to determine non-inferiority in this study.
For those 11 serotypes that are not in Prevnar 20, speaking to VAX-31 here, is the regulatory threshold still just a fourfold increase over baseline?
Yeah, so based upon historical precedent, the incremental serotypes, Merck used a fourfold rise, and they needed to show the lower bound of the confidence interval had to be at least 10% of subjects achieved a fourfold rise or higher. With VAX-24, if you recall, I mean, we were well above that threshold.
Yeah.
I think we've got a lot of opportunity or room to spare in terms of those incremental 11 based on the current regulatory precedent.
Of those 11 non-Prevnar 20 matching serotypes, obviously, the idea is to expand serotype coverage with your 24 going to the 31. Are there any in particular that have importance, in terms of extra virulence, things of that nature, that you would highlight as, you know, bad actors in particular?
Yeah. So there are some bad actors out there. There are those that have either increased antibiotic resistance, cause more severe outcomes, or, are a bit more, communicative or, or virulent. And for, for the first one, I would say I'd highlight it as 9N, and fortunately, we have 9N in our 24 and in our 31. The others that I like to highlight, 35B, has, you know, increased rates of resistance, and that makes sense because they cause about 15% of the otitis media ear infections. So there's a lot of attempts to treat, you know, for otitis media. So you have 35B, both for otitis media and for antibiotic resistance, and I think 23A would be the other one that I would highlight that...
All three of those have been moving up slowly on the prevalence scale. They're probably in the top five overall in both the adult and pediatric in terms of cause of invasive disease.
And then lastly, on... You know, obviously, safety tolerability will be very important. Is there any mechanistic reason to believe that the 31-valent would be different in terms of the overall profile relative to, say, the 24-valent?
You're talking about overall safety reactogenicity?
Correct. Yeah. Correct. Yeah.
So I would say I don't see there being any mechanistic difference. We haven't seen it with Prevnar going from 7 to 13 to 20.
Yeah.
When we did our three doses, our low, middle, and mixed dose in the 24, there was no dose-dependent response in terms of adverse events or reactogenicity. So we're not anticipating seeing anything of that nature based upon the previous data that we've seen.
Okay, great. That's VAX-31. Wanna switch to VAX-24 here. You have an ongoing program. In infants, you're expected to read out, I believe by the end of the first quarter of next year is what you've guided for, but correct me if I'm wrong on that. Just to level set us again, can you give us an overview of the trial design here, the key primaries and secondaries?
Yeah. So we just recently announced the completion of enrollment in that study. So we've enrolled 800 infants in this phase II study for VAX-24, and you've got it right. So we have guided to the data from that study initially coming out in the first quarter of next year. There are really two co-primary endpoints in these infant studies. So the first is the immunogenicity levels that you obtain after the primary series, and that's the data we'll have in the first quarter of next year. So that's after three vaccinations of VAX-24 compared to the results for Prevnar 20 after three vaccinations.
Then the second co-primary endpoint is the boost data that comes when the infants come back, when they're between 12 and 15 months year, fifteen months of age, and then they get a fourth dose of either vaccine, and we compare those immune responses. So yeah, that, that data will unfold over the course of next year. We expect the boost data by the end of 2025.
In terms of a bar for success in each portion of that trial, Grant, what are your thoughts on that? What should investors look for to consider it a win?
Yeah, it, it's very clear what the bar is. This has been established over multiple generations of these pneumococcal conjugate vaccines. So the basis of a full approval is now based upon the magnitude of the IgG antibody responses that you get across those two different co-primary endpoints. They're measured slightly differently. So after the primary series, there's actually a threshold of circulating IgG antibodies against each of the serotypes that tells you whether or not that infant is actually protected in their first year of life, versus being unprotected, for which they would be exposed to those particular serotypes. And so when you are comparing your developmental vaccine versus the standard of care vaccine, what you need to show is a certain percentage of those infants that are protected versus that percentage for the standard of care vaccine.
The specific precedent that you have to show is you have to be within 10% of those infants. So if Prevnar 20 was protecting 80% of infants above that threshold, we would need to be within 70% of infants that were protected at that threshold. The reason we've emphasized the timing of that primary series data is that the Prevnar 20 data showed that they were actually inferior on that threshold relative to Prevnar 13 for six of the serotypes in Prevnar 20. So that means that for those six serotypes, infants are not protected for that first year of life. So there is an exposure issue with that particular vaccine, which the ACIP struggled with. And if we can show a competitive advantage there, it will herald, obviously, very good things for VAX- 24 on a relative basis.
So that's the primary-
Yes
... series. I should point out that in the European theater, that primary series is restricted to only two vaccinations, instead of in the U.S., where we give those children three vaccinations. And when they ran the phase III study for Prevnar 20, they failed on that comparator 11 of the 20 serotypes.
Yeah.
In large part, we think that's the reason why Prevnar 20 was only granted the 3 + 1 series recommendation in Europe, whereas the entire European community, they give the 2 + 1.
Yeah.
It will be very interesting to see how the market reacts. But when we saw that they'd missed on 11, we knew that was gonna be a problem for them.
Yeah.
And so clearly, based on the adult data we've generated, we have high hopes that we'll continue to see improved immune responses relative to Prevnar 20 as a comparator. And we think we'll have a chance to show the biggest differences after that primary series. But just to complete the thought, then after the boost, you look at those IgG antibodies again, but in this case, it's more similar to what you do in the adult market, where you compare the mean responses, and you have to be within 50% of the immune responses of the comparator vaccine. So, those are the two co-primary endpoints that we expect to see our data over the course of next year.
Got it. And you, you have these, parallel advancement of VAX-24, VAX-31. On your last earnings call, you guided that you'll make the call between whether to advance VAX-24 or VAX-31 for phase III development, after the upcoming VAX-31 top line readout. Can you just give us a little bit more color around the decision-making process here?
Yeah, yeah, Joe, just to confirm, that's correct. You know, we've guided to making a decision, and this is specific to the adult indication.
Correct. Yep. Yeah.
Following the readout, whether to advance VAX-24 or instead pivot, if you will, to VAX-31 in that market.
Yes.
Just to digress for a second, in the infant indication, we would plan to take both VAX-24, followed later by VAX-31 to the market. The timelines are more separated than they are for the adult indication. And in the adult indication, the reason we are at that decision point is the ultimate BLA timelines, whether for VAX-24 or for VAX-31 in adults, overlap. So we will turn over that data card, obviously, our last guidance to have that data set in the third quarter. And we're really gonna look at, as do the regulators, at the totality of the data, and do we see a data set that we believe would represent an approvable product for VAX-31 in a phase III program?
If the VAX-31 data suggests we have an approvable profile in phase III, that would be the program we would intend to take forward.
You've already had significant discussion with FDA on regulatory requirements for VAX-24. How much of that can be leveraged if you decide to proceed with, say, VAX-31?
Yeah. So I think there's a lot that can be leveraged. Obviously, this is a very unique situation where you can get advice for 24. There's precedent from, you know, the 15- and 20-valent vaccines getting recent approval on what they needed from both a clinical and CMC perspective to get licensure. So we've had a lot of discussions. We had our end of phase II for VAX-24 as well. So we have an idea of what our phase III would look like for VAX-24, and I think for all intents and purposes, we're gonna look at the 31 results. Obviously, we'll do a real-time statistical analysis as to what we think the powering should be and what the number of subjects will be, so that may change a little bit. But for the most part, that's... clinical study designs will probably remain the same.
... And how about from a manufacturing perspective? Is there any significant difference between, say, VAX-24 and VAX-31? Is VAX-31, for example, more challenging to scale up?
Yeah, so the answer to that is similar to my previous one, which is there's a lot of synergy. We have a platform process. The polysaccharides will have a very similar process, the conjugations will have a similar process, and the DP, we already considered that we're gonna have to formulate either 24 or 31. So all of our DP formulation designs already had the incremental design capacity to add the incremental seven. So actually it's quite the opposite. There's a lot of synergy to help us to accelerate 31 rather than create any issues.
In terms of, wanna get your thoughts on ACIP, CDC recommendations here. Let's fast-forward and, regardless of whether or not it's VAX-24 or VAX-31, if it did make it across the finish line and were approved, can you speak to the puts and takes of a preferred, or a catch-up recommendation for ACIP and CDC?
Sure. So, I mean, the ACIP says that they'll give a preferred recommendation when there's a substantially improved or increased amount of coverage or efficacy, as was the case in Shingrix versus Zostavax. When we look at this, yeah, you can see that right now PCV20 has about 50% coverage of circulating strains of pneumococci in the U.S. Our VAX-24 has about 64%, and then our VAX-31 gets you to 95%. So I think it's clear that you can define a substantial increase going from 50 to 95, so I think we're very comfortable in that position, and we think we have a strong position for a preferential recommendation.
For the 64%, you know, that one I thought, you know, was gonna be a bit more challenging, but then recent data came out and said from a pneumonia perspective, Pfizer's PCV20 still has about 50% coverage, but ours is up to 73%-74%. So I think that's really interesting, 'cause, you know, pneumonia is about 100-fold more common than invasive disease. You know, there's still a significant burden of disease there. There's still a 6% in-hospital death rate, and there's about a 12%-13% 30-day death rate with people who get pneumonia. So I think that too could be compelling enough to drive a preferential recommendation with the ACIP.
And what would a... Maybe walk us through what the ACIP process would look like, once you do have an approved vaccine. Do you have to submit data package every year at certain times, and what data would you have to submit?
Yeah, so the way the ACIP will work is even before we get approval, we'll share with the working group all of our clinical data. They will be able to look at that and come up with what they feel is an appropriate recommendation. And we're seeing this with V116. V116 is not approved yet, but in February, they were looking at the data and having conversations. The goal of the ACIP is the first ACIP meeting after approval, they will vote and make a recommendation. It's only when there's substantive different data does the ACIP working group reconvene and re-debate that recommendation.
Essentially, a lot of the work is being done simultaneous with the filing so that you get a quick recommendation, and then after that, it's only if there are serious, significant changes in data.
A question on competitive landscape here. Obviously, a couple of big players in the space. I'll just list a couple. I'm sure most of the audience is aware of these, but in development, Sanofi has a 21-valent candidate. GSK, of course, has a 24- and a 30-valent. Merck has a 21-valent, the V116, and then Pfizer, they have a fourth-gen. The details are sparse. Not quite clear what's going on there. Guess I'm not asking you to specifically comment on the data and what the competitors are doing, but big picture, what does this mean for Vaxcyte in terms of the competitive landscape in these programs?
Yeah, it's obviously a really important strategic space for, for Pfizer, and Merck has made a real effort to get into this space. But across Pfizer, Merck, and Sanofi in particular, they're all doing effectively the same thing. They're using the same chemistry, and it's been clear by their behavior and even clearer by their own messaging, that they're really stuck with around 20 or 21 conjugates as the most that they can put together-
Yeah
... in a single formulation. You know, that, that's the big advantage that we have going forward, is we've shown we can push to 24 already and still get even better immune responses than they're seeing with their, their lesser valent vaccines. So when we imagine a future with, let alone a 24-valent, but also a 31-valent, it creates a real competitive advantage for us. So yeah, they're, they're each, you know, playing with their own set of cards, but effectively the same out of the same deck... and so Sanofi's got the 21-valent. They abandoned the adult indication. They haven't presented that data yet, but they have suggested they're moving forward in infants. Although, interestingly, they were silent on that program at their last pipeline update-
Yeah.
And obviously they're doing some pipeline review right now. So we'll see what comes out of that. Pfizer, as you say, has the fourth-gen program. They have acknowledged that what they're doing is they're layering on top of the, presumably the 20 conjugates that are in Prevnar 20. So they're already working with a really large amount of diphtheria toxin at the foundation, so it'll be interesting to see-
... what they try to layer on top of that to push coverage. As you say, the details have been sparse. And then Merck, you know, to their credit, they decided to pull out 10 of the conventionally circulating strains in the adult arena with V116. So good strategy, but, you know, we felt as though the ACIP would be loathe to withdraw the coverage of vaccines that have already proven that we can keep those strains at bay. And we saw that in the initial conversation of the ACIP recently. We'll see the final conversation in June, but it's our expectation that that vaccine would be approved, but would be commingled with Prevnar 20, which would, for the time being, be the foundational vaccine.
We think we have an opportunity to replace, the foundational vaccine, and both vaccines eventually, with our franchise. And then, lastly, and I should point out, that strategy doesn't apply for infants, so I think the latest thinking from Merck is they try to develop a 21-valent, conventional-type approach in infants. We'll see. And then GSK, yeah, as you say, they're doing something quite different. That appears to have been a bit of a struggle. They've, they've had to pull their pediatric program. They've suggested they're gonna get back into, the clinic this year. They've suggested they're gonna get their adult phase III program going later this year.
They're certainly still at it, but I think, you know, we feel quite good about our status and our approach, and we think the future's bright.
Yeah, we've got a couple of questions coming in from the audience, mostly centered around the phase III trial design in adults. The first one is: "Is there any scenario in which V116 would be a comparator for phase III in the, in an adult trial? And how would you assess the confidence in success in that case?
Yeah. So I'd say that if the ACIP moves as we think they're moving, which is recommending either V116 or PCV20, and allowing the GP to decide, my belief is that we will be able to pick which comparator we choose, whether it be V116 or PCV20. Looking at the data a little bit more carefully, when you know they recently published a lot of their data in South Africa at a scientific conference, it looks as if, you know, for some serotypes they're a little bit better than PCV20, for some they're a little bit worse. So, I think that, you know, the jury's still out on which one we would choose if we have that choice.
But I think that either one, we have a high probability of success, that my bias will be to go with PCV20, 'cause we did that comparator in the phase II, and I'd rather go with what's known than unknown. But based on what we see so far, you know, either one, I think we should have an optimal chance of meeting the non-inferiority.
And then another one on V116. How do you see V116 recommended at the upcoming June ACIP meeting?
Yeah. So I sort of, I sort of slipped that one in on the last question real quickly. What we're hearing from the working group, as well as from the last ACIP, and other sources, is that it looks as if they're tending-
Yeah
... towards not giving a preferential recommendation-
... that they're gonna have the GPs decide. You know, I'm not as much in favor of that, because I think, you know, GPs are not epidemiologists. You know, they're not gonna be able to-
Yeah
... be up on your, on serotype 4, for instance, which is now seems to be emerging, but not in V116. So how do you know which is the right vaccine to give to your patient population? But, nonetheless, I think that's, that's the way that the ACIP is going to, to go.
Great, and last question: what's your current cash balance and your expected runway?
Yeah, we're fortunate to maintain a strong balance sheet. I think, Joe, as you know, we completed the financing earlier this year, at the end of January. In pro forma for that financing, we have about $2.1 billion on the balance sheet as of December 31st of last year, which provides us the ability to fund through several milestones over the next few years. You know, we talked about the upcoming VAX-31 data expected in the third quarter, in adults. For VAX-24 in infants, the initial primary series expected by the end of the first quarter of next year, the booster data by the end of next year.
Importantly, whether we advance VAX-24 or VAX-31 in the adult market, the ability to stand up, you know, the phase 3 programs that will comprise either plan there, and importantly, the ability to fund through the non-inferiority data readout, which is the key study, whether we choose to advance VAX-24 or VAX-31, which our data sets would be expected kind of by the end of 2026. Lastly, you know, we haven't talked about it much, but the manufacturing is critical in this space, and the balance sheet we have today would also enable us to complete the build-out of this dedicated manufacturing suite, at which we're hard at work with Lonza to ensure we can supply, you know, the expected adult and infant markets, both in the U.S. and around the globe.
Great. Well, thank you so much, Grant, Andrew, and Jim, for participating. It was a very informative discussion.
Yeah. Thank you, Joey. I really appreciate the time, all the good questions, and being included in the conference.
Great, and thank you everyone for joining on the webcast. Everyone have a good day and a good rest of the conference.
Thank you.