Welcome, everybody. My name is Chris Shibutani. I'm a member of the Goldman Sachs Healthcare Research Team. We are very happy to have Royalty Pharma join us once again this year. I was just telling Terry that actually, you know, we've had a couple of inbounds this morning, and then this week, folks paying attention to thinking about the second half of the year. You screen intriguingly. So I think this will be a very use-
Good to hear.
Yeah, no, this will be a very interesting conversation. Perhaps just introduce yourselves, your titles, your roles, and what brought you to Royalty Pharma. Start with you, Chris.
Okay. Chris Hite. I'm a vice chairman at Royalty Pharma. I've been at the company 4.5 years. Prior to that, I was the global head of healthcare investment banking at Citigroup. Sorry. And prior to that, I was the global head of healthcare investment banking at Lehman Brothers. And I had known Royalty Pharma for 20 years prior to joining. Always really admired the team and their thoroughness and ability to find great assets, and decided to join.
Okay.
Yeah. So Terry Coyne, I'm the Chief Financial Officer. Been at Royalty Pharma for 14 years, and in this role for five. I was on the research and investment team for the first nine years at Royalty Pharma and worked on a bunch of really exciting deals over that period, and transitioned over to this role ahead of our IPO.
Mm-hmm
... 2020. Prior to Royalty Pharma, I worked on the sell side. I worked at J.P. Morgan.
That's right. We were colleagues.
Yeah.
Um, And so, yeah.
You're still recovering from that process.
Still recovering, yeah.
Actually, I often tell people that the entire C-suite is full of people who have sort of, you know, run in the same terrain, and so I would think that the engagement with conversations, we have Dana from the investor relations team, as a former Goldman Sachs colleague as well. So this is an interesting environment to be in overall. And what always strikes me is when people ask, it's often just all sorts of investors, right? And they're trying to figure out what is the business model, and it's really unique, and unique is fantastic. I think it's been one of the reasons that it was one of the most meaningful and significant, sizable, and attention-drawing IPOs. It also has another side of the coin where people are trying to figure out, "I'm one of the six blind men. Which part of the elephant am I touching?
How do I measure this?" And all that sort of stuff.
Yeah.
So, you know, kind of a mixed blessing. What's the best way that you think that people, particularly, let's say, for this audience, institutional investors, this is a healthcare conference, what's the right way to think about you guys? And I think about that because here I am, pharma and biotech analyst. Most of the sell side are that way as well. Your C-suite is composed of those people, so you're good at messaging. Who are you?
We are an N of one. You know, clearly, we don't fit squarely in any bucket. There are elements to our business that are very similar to pharma.
Yeah.
The things that drive our business are the same things that drive pharma.
Yeah.
We like to think that there are elements to our business that are advantages versus traditional pharma, particularly sort of the cost structure, the ability to be totally therapeutic area agnostic, the efficiency of the business, and sort of our track record of making what we consider value-enhancing investments. So, you know, but I think we... That is one of the, you know, one of the challenges in communicating the business at times is exactly what you're asking.
Mm-hmm.
I think the best way we would describe ourselves, though, ultimately, is we're a compounder. And, you know, I think that this is a business that we're gonna make investments year in and year out. We're going to be very efficient with our, with our capital. We're efficient in how we fund ourselves, and over time, this is a business that we think will continue to deliver, you know, value year in and year out on the investments that we make.
I think that oftentimes, I speak with investors, and they think of you, and if I'm trying to get a sense for describing your portfolios, like, it's almost like sneaking a peek over someone's shoulder, looking at their homework, and a bunch of smart guys have this book, and you're getting a chance to sort of see where are they, where are they going?
Mm.
You know, what is their interpretation? Because you're very forward-looking. You, you tend to be thinking about long-term kinds of returns. And a lot of the portfolio is testament to the fact that you were in the right place at the right time in a lot of key areas, and the portfolio has been going through progression here. What areas are you finding at this point here, June 2024, going forward, to be interesting? And it's a bit of a provocative question because certainly the market has this, you know, magnanimous fascination with things like three things:
Mm-hmm.
... obesity, obesity, and obesity, right?
Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm.
And so I have some buddies on the sell side who are just like, "Why aren't you doing something there?" So what's intriguing to you in the context of the royalty model, which does tend to have a longer arc?
Well, look, I mean, I think one thing is that we are therapeutically agnostic. What we really try to do is focus on drugs that are for unmet needs, that are going to be in the hands of great marketers, that have blockbuster potential. That, by definition, can be a lot of different therapeutic areas.
Mm-hmm.
Obviously, we would like to have. We don't, don't have something currently in obesity, but we're always looking. But I think what we did just in the last month or so has been, you know, a great testament of the ability to find really unique assets, really great assets that have the promise to fulfill all of those things I talked about, which is unmet medical needs, large indications, large potential products, great marketers. So, for us, it's really—it's a unique thing that we really can bring to the table of going out and not being burdened by being a cardiovascular company or an oncology company. We can do really everything, and we've really shown the ability to do that over 27 years.
I don't think, you know, I think there are times in the industry where the crowd is all focused in one area. And we're getting lots of questions about why we're not invested in that area. There are so many opportunities. And so while everyone may be looking over here, you know, there's all of these other things that we're looking at on the other side. And, you know, some great, great assets that we've added to the portfolio, like Chris mentioned, just in the last month. An MS product that we think could be, you know, really important long term, a brain cancer drug. And so, you know, these are... That's how we have operated historically. We don't feel like we need to, you know, follow everyone else. We can kind of...
chart our own course, and I think we have the track record of identifying, Mm-hmm, amazing assets that might not be obvious.
Right
the day we make the investment.
Right. Now, I think it's the exact opposite of an ETF or some sort of index, right? It's, it's that combined opinion and thinking base of the team, and that team has been very consistent, and loyal, and dedicated. There really is this core cadre, and people are sort of saying, "Where is the value here?" And we always talk about the C-suite, but it's especially so with you guys. I think, you give Marshall a benign title, like, Head of R&D. It's like, dude is making some very important decisions, right?
Yeah, yeah.
And so that are very defining and shaping. So from that standpoint, it's interesting. Let's talk about the process. You have your signature funnel, right?
Mm-hmm.
It talks about all the different stuff that can come inbound your way. Curious about that funnel. How much is, you know, that you're seeking versus stuff that's coming towards you? And I ask that because you guys are the 900-pound gorilla in the space.
Yeah.
So what's the percentage of stuff that's coming at you versus things that you're hunting down and finding? Because the history of the company was with Pablo, when he was a real pioneer, he was sort of, like, igniting the idea-
Mm
- of the royalty concept across a bunch of smart people at institutions that couldn't figure out that there was an abacus or an Excel sheet somewhere down in the future, right?
Yeah. I would say last year we had. You know, Chris talks about our funnels, over 400 opportunities at the top of the funnel.
Right.
A couple of years ago, we had our Analyst Day, and we actually gave the statistics around how many outbounds versus how many inbounds, and it was, you know, the vast majority were inbound opportunities.
Mm.
The vast majority of the deals we did were our outbounds, and I would say that would probably hold true today.
Mm-hmm.
A lot of what we actually end up executing on is us doing outbound calls to potential partners. But I would say what has really dramatically changed. Certainly, I've been there four and a half years, but even really before I joined, is the profile of doing a transaction with Royalty Pharma, an R&D deal with Royalty Pharma, a synthetic royalty with Royalty Pharma. And thinking about royalty financing as a piece of the capital structure is really, I think, mainstream now.
Mm.
And so you have large pharma calling us, talking about funding, helping them fund their R&D, helping them fund R&D at an M&A target, as an example. You know, I don't think that existed at all five years ago.
Mm.
We are really now sort of mainstream in the thinking of how we can partner within the ecosystem. A lot of that is, you know, also great relationships. We've been at it, as you point out, a lot of us, a long time, multiple decades, and within that period, you're building fantastic relationships, both inside of RP and outside of RP. But what you see is people trust us. They like to work with us. I think we're easy to work with. I think we're generally nice people, and we try to do things in a way where it's win-win. We don't wanna do deals where it's not a win-win transaction, and I think that breeds upon itself.
Mm-hmm.
So that's really. You know, I think it's a long-winded answer for you, but I think for us, we try to identify really exciting assets, and we go talk to the counterparties about helping them in a way that, you know, they raise capital in various ways.
Mm-hmm.
We- I've never been in a period of time in my career on the street where we're all like armchair economists and thinking about interest rates-
Mm-hmm
... and macro factors-
Mm-hmm
and the whole group is floating up and down, based upon a lot of these, you know, sort of forces that clearly influence, risk parameters and, the willingness of investors to act. Clarify, to some extent, there's this whole notion that with the interest rate environment, how that sort of changes. There's this overly simplistic sense that it's a favorable environment for you versus an unfavorable environment for you. And I would ironically think that in an unfavorable environment for a lot of the small cap biotechs, actually, you guys may be crystallized more in the picture because you have certain ability to be a little bit more dynamic with your structures and to be more creative in ways that, like, a strict financing might not enable you to.
So I get the base case assumption that it's like, in this interest rate environment, there's gonna be a challenge for you to execute deals and for you to get the kind of returns above that. But I think that's something that you frequently have to sort of-
Yeah
help people understand the level set.
Yeah, I think, you know-
...We really feel like our business is rate agnostic, because the reality is, you know, we're reinvesting every day.
Mm-hmm.
Or, you know, maybe not every day, but we're looking at things every day. And, you know, as rates ticked up, the return expectations kind of ticked up a little bit as well.
Mm-hmm.
And so we feel that the spread that we're earning above our cost of capital has been maintained. There has been-- We don't feel like we've given anything up there-
Mm-hmm
As the rate environment has, you know, evolved. Now, you know, on the other hand, the opportunity set has grown dramatically. And, you know, royalties as a way that the industry funds itself has been growing a lot.
Mm-hmm.
That's a huge tailwind.
Mm-hmm.
And so if you think about, you know, our business and, you know, we have a portfolio that we own today, and that has clear value. You know, our debt, the duration of our debt is matched really well to the duration of the portfolio.
Mm-hmm.
And then you look at the new investments that we're gonna make, and we think that that opportunity set is growing consistently. And we are able to maintain really attractive spreads above our cost of capital and even our incremental cost of capital. So just last week, we raised $1.5 billion of new investment-grade debt, and the interest rate on that is, like, around 5.5% coupon on that. So it's certainly higher than it was before. But you look at the investments that we've been making, and, you know, we said, you know, pretty clearly with the Agios investment. Well, sorry, with the vorasidenib, it's an investment that we made for a product for low-grade glioma that we think is gonna be a blockbuster and gonna have a great launch.
We said that we're gonna generate a teens return there. We think we'll generate a teens return. So you look at that, and you look at funding that with 5.5% debt, and, you know, it's not complicated math to know, to sort of figure out that the return on the equity is going to be really attractive from that perspective.
Mm-hmm.
You know, and the teens are, you know, high, high teens are better.
Mm-hmm.
We've been able to consistently do that, regardless of the rate environment. So, you know, we really feel like it's noise. It's something we think about, of course, but, you know, I think that it's a dynamic business because we're reinvesting all the time.
Talk a little about the mix of the deals. Historically or traditionally, people think about it in terms of, like, approved products, therefore scientific and regulatory de-risk. It's about commercial execution, and how big do you think that peak sales is gonna be? There's been more of a blend recently, where you've taken on a little bit more risk. It's where you're actually bringing to bear your insights into knowing where, perhaps at a phase II asset, you have some ability to have confidence, and therefore acting as its investors in, through certain key rites of passage, the regulatory process, even just before saying it's already a percentage of revenues kind of calculation. Where is that mix now? Where is that gonna go in terms of the commercial versus the development stage?
Yeah. I think over the last 10+ years, maybe 12 years, the mix has been roughly 60% on approved drugs, 40% unapproved.
Mm-hmm.
We don't see that mix necessarily changing. Now, when I say unapproved, people might say, "Wow, I mean, I didn't realize that, you know, you're doing early stage," you know, and it's really not early stage. It's really post proof of principle, so it's proof of concept, data, and beyond. And so that could be phase III, that could be during the regulatory review process. It's, but that's that 40% bucket. And we see that as a very good blend.
Mm-hmm.
I think it ebbs and flows. I mean, you've seen... this year, we've done a lot of investing on pre-approved products.
Right.
So frexalimab, which is a Sanofi drug that's in phase III development in MS. Vorasidenib that Terry mentioned, which is-
Mm-hmm
Hopefully gonna get approved here relatively quickly.
We don't fund, we don't fund that actually until it's approved.
Yeah.
So that's not really a-
Right. And then the Cytokinetics transaction, which is all, obviously all unapproved products. Now, but those are various stages of risk, right? I mean, some of them are obviously very close to approval, but those all would go in that unapproved bucket.
Mm-hmm.
And you sort of, we do try to weigh that with, you know, transactions where we're buying very well-established products. So, over the last couple of years, we've done deals on Tremfya, which was a blockbuster, Trelegy, which was a blockbuster, but nice, growing blockbusters with potential, especially with Tremfya, additional indications, which could grow the drugs even more. So it's a very healthy mix, and the return profile of that is also very healthy because obviously, on some of the unapproved products, you're able to strive to get higher returns.
Mm-hmm.
There's a tendency for investors to give credit for what we can see and a wait-and-see, not give you credit for stuff that we cannot see. And that's-
... probably objective, but a little unfair. Because if you look at your track record, you guys talk about, you know, I mean, the traditional pharma company may have something literally on the pipeline, and we have like, you know, certain milestone events. We love that sort of stuff. 3Q readout, you know, details, medical conference, all this probability of success waiting. There's a bit of a mystery that's associated with where you can go. There's an element of trust that is necessary, and, you know, you certainly think about, you know, how established the organization is and the track record that you've had and your hit rate. So there should be some belief.
But I think one of the elements that probably makes, you know, George feel as if things are unfair a little bit, is that people aren't willing to give you the credit for the things that are on the come here. So how would you respond to that, separate from just the notion of, like, you've seen what we've done, and it's like, "I know, but I, I live in the future, and if I can't put it in my model, it's hard." So how do you think about that?
Well, yeah. I mean, I think we would say at these levels, we don't think we're even getting, you know, appropriate value for what we already own.
Well-trained by George, yes.
You know, we've highlighted the-- and we have a pipeline-
Mm-hmm
... of unapproved products that, you know, there's some that have some risk, but some that are really, you know, already pretty significantly de-risked.
Mm-hmm.
Like something like KarXT or-
Yeah
-Aficamten.
Right.
seltorexant, which J&J has talked about recently, progression.
Yep.
You know, we don't feel like we're getting credit for even that.
Mm-hmm.
And so, you know, but let alone the team and the platform that we've built and the huge, huge moat that we've built around this business-
Mm
... that makes it so hard for others to compete. You know, I think all we can control right now is execution.
Mm-hmm.
Doing great investments.
Mm-hmm.
We feel like, you know, we're confident we'll continue to do that, and we're just gonna grow the intrinsic value of the business year in and year out. I sure hope that eventually we start to get credit for that.
Mm-hmm. We started this conversation talking about the N of one and the uniqueness, et cetera. You know, there's this element of interest in trying to figure out, you know, how you may find some parallels with competitors within your sector, and there really isn't, right? I mean, I think your market share, you have that famous pie chart that talks about that. That's—You've had a pretty big chunk of that pie for a while, and that hasn't been moving around too much. Who else are relevant competitors when you're, you know—As you're walking in the building, who's walking out? Is that ever in the case? Actually, you're probably walking out first. I bet you guys get the first meeting.
I can start, and then Chris can
Competition.
Competition, you know, it depends on the deal, but it's there. You know, it depends on the stage and the profile of the investment that we're looking at. But, you know, competition's there, but we think we have major competitive advantages. We talked about the cost of capital. It's tough for somebody else to compete with us.
Mm-hmm
... on our cost of capital because we can fund the business with investment-grade debt.
Mm-hmm.
You know, the business is really efficient, you know, in terms of, you know, the most of what we invest goes to the bottom line to get reinvested.
Mm-hmm.
So, you know, the cost of capital is a major advantage and the scale of the business, the portfolio that we've assembled, that we can do the biggest deals. And it doesn't concentrate us like it would someone else. It diversifies us. And then the team and the brand are really powerful, and, you know, we're known as—we're known in the industry. If you were to ask anyone that we've ever worked with, it would be—I think it would be hard to find somebody that had, you know, those guys were really difficult to be partners with, very unhappy with them.
Mm-hmm.
I think it's a testament to the amount of repeat business that we get. We've done multiple transactions with Cytokinetics, Agios.
Mm-hmm.
These are just the... In the last month, you know, Biohaven. It—the list goes on and on.
Mm-hmm
... of places where we've made, done multiple transactions, and that, I think, speaks to the power, to the, you know, quality of the team and the relationships and, you know, just being good partners, so.
Mm-hmm.
Competition is there. It's not a bad thing.
Mm-hmm.
You know, the more companies that are out there talking or people that are out there talking about royalties, that's gonna be great for us because maybe they'll, maybe they'll shake something loose, and they're gonna, they're gonna still come to us to find out if we're willing to pay more.
Okay, that makes sense.
And the only thing I would add to that, Chris, is competition in a lot of ways, if you're at a large pharmaceutical company, think of now, an R&D funding deal. It's do you partner with another large pharma, and, and share the risk, of the product, of the clinical development program, but you're also sharing in the marketing, right? And the same thing with a midcap biotech. So if you think of Biohaven, you know, Vlad could have partnered with large pharma earlier on-
Mm-hmm
... instead of us.
Mm-hmm.
But what would he have given up in exchange for that, right?
Mm-hmm.
Would he have had to give up half the United States? How would that have made him look to potential acquirers? Less attractive. And so a lot of the competition isn't really what you would think is, you know, two football teams are competitive, right?
Mm-hmm.
Or whatever.
Mm-hmm.
It's really, what's the alternative to large pharma internally, right? What's the alternative to biotech on, you know, partnering earlier, giving up more value earlier?
Mm-hmm.
That's really, I think, the-
Or doing a-
-competition
... or doing a really dilutive equity deal.
Yes, the capital markets.
The capital markets are our competition.
Yeah.
We think that we have
Yeah.
... At least we know the evil from which we speak. Okay, so let's do a couple of quick hits. Three things that are typically clouds in the sky, and then I'll let you pick three of the more recent deals or things that you'd like to cap off at the end to highlight and things, and things to watch. So three familiar clouds in the sky. One is IRA exposure. People bring up that as a worry. How do you respond?
Yeah. We have very limited IRA exposure currently in our existing portfolio, Imbruvica, Trelegy, and Xtandi, and it's very limited headwind. Both Imbruvica obviously has competitive headwind already, and the other two are relatively short on the duration anyway, so it's very limited. We're very fortunate that our existing portfolio and new investments, we do a you know, a really, I think, a conservative view of how the IRA is gonna impact potential new investments. So we build it into every new investment dollar going forward.
Item number two, cloud in the sky, the Vertex dispute over CF. Anything to know? Particularly, I think people are just familiar enough now, but some sense of getting asymptoting towards resolution might be helpful.
Yeah. So, just to take a step back, for anyone who doesn't know the background, Vertex has four products on the market. We're entitled to royalties on all of the components of all four products right now, and the biggest of those is Trikafta. The royalty rate on Trikafta is around 9%, and they are developing a new triple combination. They had data earlier this year. I think, you know, our view is it looks more like Trikafta than not, but it is once daily, and, you know, there are going to be patients that switch over time. There is... For that new combination, we know we're entitled to a royalty on the tezacaftor component.
That would bring our royalty on that, on that new triple combination to around 4%.
Mm-hmm.
The question is, there is a component, deuterated ivacaftor.
Mm-hmm.
We believe that deuterated ivacaftor is the same as ivacaftor, and we know we're entitled to a royalty on ivacaftor. Now, Vertex has a different opinion there, and so that's the area of debate. If, if we're right, then the royalty rate would be on the new triple combination, be about 8%. If we are wrong, it would be 4%. And so that's kind of—those are kind of the bookends.
Mm-hmm.
What we've done is we've said, "Look, you know, let's assume worst case scenario here." It's not our view.
Mm-hmm.
We actually feel good about our legal position.
Mm-hmm.
But, you know, let's assume worst case scenario, and it's only a 4% royalty and 50%-75% of the patients switch.
Mm-hmm.
What's the impact on our business? And if you run that scenario, it's $200 million by 2030. And when you put that in the context of the growth that we see ahead of ourselves, and we've guided to grow around 10% or more throughout this decade-
Mm-hmm
... on the top line, that brings us to about $4.7 billion by 2030, and that assumes a worst case scenario. That takes into account the potential-
Mm-hmm
... for a worst case scenario.
Mm-hmm
For this Trikafta or this CF outcome. In terms of timing, we can't really give an update there. And, you know, I think we're just trying to be very smart about this, and I recognize that investors are very focused on it and wanna, wanna know, but I think that, you know, we have to sort of take the long view and be sort of thoughtful about how we approach it.
Mm-hmm.
So-
I might even choose a different F word: fatigued.
Yeah.
Third cloud in the sky, the original IPO's ownership, and there was a little bit of turnover of the shareholder base, and sometimes there were periods where I would get calls in the last two years, and people would say, "Why is the stock down?" I'd say, "More sellers than buyers." And it's like, really, I'm not being a jerk. There is this process where you've had the shareholder base, and we brought this up in discussions previously. Where are we in that? Are we kind of at a steady state, stable point, so that people don't have to feel like something's being sold out from underneath them?
Yeah, for folks out there that aren't aware, I mean, the company is 27 years old. We went public in June of 2020. The investors, a lot of the investors when we were private, were endowments, a lot of endowments at universities that, you know... Universities have specific allocations to private equity or private investment managers, which we were one of, and a lot of them, those endowments, aren't really permitted to hold single stocks. So when we went public, a large percentage of our shares had to be sold by those endowments, and that took time. That has run its course, and all of those pre-IPO shareholders are gone. I do think that was a headwind. It was really incumbent upon...
You know, when you think about historically, biopharma companies going public, they go public, and they're $400 million equity value, and venture capital might own 50... They owned a lot. But when they are selling within six months or a year, maybe the biotech company's $500 million or maybe $1 billion. You need to find $500 million of new, new... I mean, we were, you know, $20 billion equity value. So when you're losing 50% of your share base or turning over, that requires you to find $10 billion of new shareholders.
Mm-hmm.
I think we've done a really good job finding those shareholders. That's a process that needs to happen, and it's happening. It's really incumbent upon us to go out and tell the story.
Mm-hmm.
We are an N of one, as we've talked about.
Right.
We're unique. It takes time, but I think we're really excited about the shareholders that have come into the story. And it's a daily thing we're very focused on.
So classic of me, I was watching the clock. I was thinking three clouds, three things of sunshine here. We're a little bit shorter on time, but I'll let you still... I do wanna make some emphasis, and you can choose, but what are your recent deals? What are the new signs that people should be paying attention to and sharpening their pencils on? Name at least two for us.
Yeah, I would say, you know, the frexalimab investment that we just made-
Mm.
and vorasidenib investment that we just made, those are emblematic of the things that we do
Mm-hmm
As a firm. Frexalimab, for those of you that don't know, is a drug in development by Sanofi for multiple sclerosis and other autoimmune diseases. Sanofi has talked about peak potential thereof over EUR 5 billion. We've said that we think MS alone can be north of $3 billion. It's a space we know extremely well.
Mm-hmm.
We've made around $4 billion of investments in MS and have had a lot of success.
Mm-hmm
in MS with Tysabri and Tecfidera.
Right.
The data, for anyone that wants to dig in, the data for frexalimab is really pretty striking, published in the New England Journal. It, you know, the imaging data looks phenomenal. There were almost no relapses. It's not lymphocyte depleting. It is a differentiated product in a, you know, in a land of, you know, drugs that are lymphocyte depleting.
Mm-hmm.
So it's really exciting. We're very excited. Using those Sanofi numbers, it could be over $400 million of royalties to us. It's, you know, it's, it's gonna take a little longer to play out, but we're, we're happy to make those types of investments because we, you know, we have all this that's gonna be what drives us well into the next decade. And then vorasidenib-
Mm-hmm
is one that we just announced a couple weeks ago. That's a drug for low-grade glioma.
Mm-hmm
in development. It's one of those ones that's sort of, I would say, a classic Royalty Pharma investment because it's a little bit under the radar.
Mm-hmm.
And that's partially because it's in development. It's gonna be marketed by Servier, which is a private French company.
Mm-hmm.
But super excited about for people who were at... I wasn't at the meeting, but, last year, my understanding, you know, the data is really-
A great example of how we look at things and follow them for a long time, because we-
Mm-hmm
... we were very focused on vorasidenib-
Sure
back in 2020 when we did deal with Agios back then.
Right.
Agios sold their oncology assets to Servier.
Sure.
But we had followed it and continued to follow it-
Uh-huh
And we were super excited to get that.
That's one that we think is gonna... That can generate north of $150 million of royalties. So just in the last couple weeks, you put those two deals together-
Mm-hmm
you're talking about, you know, mid-$100 million of collective royalties. We're doing things like that all the time, so that's why we're so excited about it.
Mm-hmm. Yeah.
We're so excited about it.
No, and your history going back with a lot of the traditional blue chip players, whether it was David or Jackie, with a name like-
Yeah
Agios, you know that there's credibility underlying the science and and that opportunity for you to capture that value. There is another high-profile deal that we particularly find intriguing, that is the KarXT. You managed to get that one in there before they got scooped up.
Mm-hmm.
What are the economics there?
3% royalty on sales up to $2.2 billion-
Mm-hmm
-and then, steps down to a 1% royalty on sales over-
Mm-hmm
over $2 billion. Yeah, that's one we're really excited about. You know, about $100 million or so upfront on that investment.
Mm-hmm.
And, uh-
It's a great example of fragmentation in the sector-
Right
-because we got that from PureTech, not from-
Right
not from Karuna.
Okay. Uh-huh.
But that happens all the time. People forget about those licensing deals.
Exactly.
Yeah.
Yeah. Yeah, no, Daphne did some really creative and terrific things there, so that's the network effect, I think, of your knowledge base and the people there. So if anyone's getting mileage out of attending an event like J.P. Morgan, it certainly is you guys, so.
Mm-hmm.
Well, I think we're out of time here, but really appreciate your addressing many of the different touch points that I think are just commonly discussed, often not well understood, and I think the reason where we started here was how often you guys are coming up in a screen. So I think it's some exciting opportunities, particularly with the recent flurry of deals.
Yeah.
So carry on.
Thanks.
Yeah. Thank you very much.
Thank you.