Welcome to the afternoon session. So this is the second day of the first annual Citi Global Healthcare Conference. I'm Jeff Meacham. I'm the Senior BioPharma Analyst, and we're thrilled today to have Royalty Pharma on stage and Terry Coyne, CFO, right next to me, and Marshall Urist, Head of Research and Investments. So, guys, welcome.
Thanks for having us.
Yeah. So maybe just kick it off, guys, with, you know, kind of what the business momentum looks like for the underlying, you know, royalties going into 2025. I know you guys have, you turn the card over on a lot of new drugs and new launches, and I just, you know, wanted to kind of think about that as being maybe an accelerant for, you know, for top line.
Yeah, so it's a great question. I think we're really excited about the products that we've added to the portfolio. Certainly, we've had a good year of adding exciting, you know, launching growth assets this year, but really, since our IPO in 2020, we've expanded the portfolio dramatically, added over 30 different products, varying stages of maturity, but most of them still with a lot of growth ahead of them. So when we sort of think about the portfolio overall heading into next year, we're looking at, you know, strong growth drivers like Tremfya and Trelegy and Evrysdi to continue to be major contributors for us. And then just recently, we've added a number of products that are launching or expecting to launch, you know, in the near term. So just to sort of name a few: Voranigo, which is a product for low-grade glioma.
It's marketed by a private French company. So maybe there's not as much excitement on that product in the investment community, but we think that it's going to be, you know, a really important product. We're excited to watch that launch next year. It actually launched, I guess, in.
Third quarter.
In the third quarter, but we expect that to be a nice contributor, and then, you know, product like Yorvipath and Niktimvo and.
Rytelo.
Rytelo. Yeah. So we've kind of been prolific over the last couple of months and added some really interesting products. And I think that all that we think will be important drivers next year. And, you know, we also have a base of products in the portfolio that we still, you know, are going to continue to be important contributors for us, like cystic fibrosis and Xtandi and Erleada, just to name a few. So we.
So Cobenfy looks like you picked the right one.
Oh, gosh, I forgot to mention that one. Yeah, so Cobenfy, exactly. So, yeah, lots going on next year.
Yep. Well, let's talk bigger picture. I know you probably guys have gotten a lot of questions on, you know, on potential policy changes. We just had a chat with Scott Gottlieb, you know, and talking about IRA changes. I mean, maybe just help us kind of bookend, like, what, you know, you would think would be the pressing, you know, policy issues most directly affecting Royalty Pharma. I think most people expect rates to go down, inflation to go down, you know, maybe greater investments, but wanted to get kind of you guys' perspective.
Yeah, I think, you know, for us, like a lot of people in biopharma, I think we're a little bit in wait-and-see mode, right, to see what happens in terms of how the administration comes together. Overall, on IRA, I think whichever way things go, we're sort of fortunate that the portfolio just doesn't have, you know, a ton of IRA exposure. We do one of the products Terry mentioned, Trelegy. I think, you know, assuming no other changes to the 9 versus 13, you know, is one that will be negotiated. But I think overall, you know, the portfolio is positioned, you know, so that, you know, the IRA changes are not going to have a massive impact on our portfolio.
Right. And given some of the disruption on bigger policy issues like, you know, tax reform and the like, I mean, I think unlikely, but what's the, you know, is that something that could be thrown into the mix next year?
No, and we're, you know, I think we wouldn't expect anything from a tax position change there.
Okay. And Terry, you mentioned the, you know, all the deals that you guys have done. And I think when you IPOed, it was what, $5 billion over three years or something like that, and you've done two a year, right?
Yeah,
Is there an opportunity as your top line grows and your EBITDA grow to further expand that above kind of a $2 billion threshold on an annual basis?
It's a good question. So just to, we actually, when we went public, we got it to $7 billion over five years. It was like one and a half or so. And then two years into that, we increased that number to $2-$2.5 billion. So, you know, $10-$12 billion over the next five years. And we've been kind of at the upper end of that range. I think for us, there's certainly opportunity. You know, there could be an opportunity for that number to grow. I think it, you know, it's going to happen sort of naturally over time because the capital needs are so significant. The role of royalties is increasing. And I think that we're continuing to, you know, make sure that we take a measured approach and invest in the best assets across the industry that we can.
And, you know, at the same time as the business continues to scale, there's also an opportunity to, you know, look at how we're going to return capital to shareholders as well, which we think is a really important tool, so we have a dividend in place, and we're committed to growing that by mid-single digits, but also we have a share buyback, and we certainly recognize the value in our equity, certainly at these levels, which we think trades at a pretty significant discount to this intrinsic value, so.
It does. Yeah. I mean, let me ask you just on that. I mean, the priority number one by a wide margin is still to redeploy and reinvest in new royalties, right?
We see a really big opportunity there, and we have been really excited by what we've added. We don't see any signs of that slowing down. The pretty amazing thing is, as our position in the industry has grown and the role of royalties has grown, we've been able to sort of see sort of an upward trend in the sort of returns that we are able to generate, which is unusual for a company that's been at it for 25 years.
Right.
To feel like we're still, you know, we're on a little bit of an upswing there, which is great because that's kind of the opposite of what you typically see.
Yep. I know, Marshall, the, you know, everyone, you know, always asks you guys like how the process, you know, has evolved like from, you know, 10 years ago to sort of right now. I mean, you have a lot more assets. I would say, you know, I mean, sort of it looks—I mean, drugs can launch a lot quicker, you know, now, and you have some really unusual situations like with GLP-1s or the COVID vaccines, right? So is there, you know, substantial changes to the process, or has it evolved that really much at all in the past like five years?
Yeah, no, that's a great question. It's evolved a lot in the sense that I think, but the core principle that Terry mentioned of what we're looking for is really, really high quality, being, you know, associated and invest in really high quality products with structures that are win-win for us and our partners. So, you know, and I'll talk to process in a second, but, you know, as Terry was talking about, you know, we talked about two to two and a half a year on average, right?
But it's not as though we get to work every day if the first half of the year is slow and say, "Oh, we got to turn on, we got to find some stuff because, you know, that's the, because that's what we've said." You know, the truth is we're out there just, we have a bar, and, you know, we've seen a lot of, I think what you've seen in terms of capital deployment is just having a ton of great opportunities that, you know, that met that threshold, right, rather than us trying to hit a number every year. On the process side, you know, we've made investments in both expanding the team, right, as the size of the opportunities. So we've grown the team very substantially over the last few years to be able to meet that and process everything that we're seeing.
We've invested pretty aggressively in data and resources. So to your point about, you know, as the commercial markets have become sort of more complex, you know, in understanding them, we've tried to bring every kind of resource to bear to keep us ahead of the curve. So, yeah, I mean, I think the number, when I think back 10 years ago, you know, to the number of kind of data inputs per investment, you know, the number of different, you know, ways that we have to analyze something has expanded dramatically, right, over the last few years.
Has it increased your probability, though, of success or too early to tell at this point? Like using more analytics, using more, I'm assuming, more scientists, more, you know, sort of basic research type of analysis looking at some of the opportunity?
Yeah, I mean, that's part of it. The biggest place we've invested has actually been on the commercial analytics side, right? You know, understanding, you know, patient journey, you know, being able to build our own sort of epi assumptions and not just relying on them from like a pharma company's investor deck or like an academic paper is really investing there aggressively. And yeah, I mean, I think it definitely has expanded our opportunities because, you know, we can look at something and, you know, drive kind of our own differentiated view. And sometimes, you know, that's just not available anywhere else, right? And, you know, if you don't have the data, if you can't drive the insight, most of the time we're going to walk away, right, because we don't have sort of the requisite conviction.
But you know, in terms of informing our ability to, you know, be high conviction on, you know, on any number of markets, I think those investments have been a big part of that.
Yeah, and I know from a category perspective, I mean, orphan historically has been a big category and it is for CF, but I guess increasingly as the size of your top line increases, you need kind of bigger, you know, type more impactful assets to move the needle. Is there a shift away from more nichier, you know, kind of opportunities, or do you not look at it on a category basis?
No, I mean, we don't look at the world on a category basis. I mean, if you look at even this year, what we've done, you know, we did a phase 3, you know, a product that's in phase 3 at Sanofi for MS that's a CD40 drug called Frexalimab that's a sizable royalty. And that can be, you know, we know MS drugs, you know, can be big drugs. Terry mentioned a, you know, a little over $900 million deal we did for this product for low-grade glioma. So, you know, we're kind of, you know, we range pretty widely, right? Even, you know, even within finding, you know, bigger things that can move the needle.
Yeah, and when you look at next year, I mean, I suspect capital markets are likely to improve after a couple of years of pretty, you know, pretty bad conditions and coming off like a high of 21.
Yeah.
Does that give you guys any unique opportunities to kind of inject, you know, capital into maybe more, I wouldn't call it early stage, like phase, but like more mid-stage companies that you otherwise wouldn't have moved the needle on?
I mean, I don't know that it changes anything or sort of motivates us to sort of be, you know, focused a little bit earlier. I think, you know, what we've seen actually, we get the question a lot is, you know, how does our business kind of fluctuate in relationship with the general sort of biopharma capital markets? And the truth is, I think, you know, it doesn't really have much of a relationship. I think a lot of people find surprising, right? You know, if you look at our business, even since we've been public, right, we've been through some incredibly robust markets. We've been through, you know, some things which have been kind of painful for everyone. But through that period, we've consistently, you know, done really high-quality investments. So, you know, I just don't think it's necessarily related that way.
I think it's more the aggregate amount of innovation that's out there. Like Terry said, the, you know, aggregate capital need is so great that, you know, it's kind of driving a diversification of the types of capital, you know, like ours that fit at different stages in development. You know, I think we do believe, though, that a healthy and functioning capital markets environment is going to be important, obviously, long-term for the industry. And it's going to help move companies along in the development sort of cycle. And it's going to lead to more royalty opportunities in the end because more companies will have access to capital and will advance to a stage where we are an important, you know, potential partnering source for them.
Yeah.
That is how we kind of position it: that every company should be thinking about royalties. We want to be having those conversations.
Right. Well, just along those lines, Terry, you know, when you talk about synthetic royalties, I think historically that has been for bigger companies, right, that, you know, may or may not need, you know, the royalty infusion. Talk about that trend over the past couple of years. I know it's a dedicated effort from you guys, and we've seen an uptick in synthetics.
Yeah, you know, I can start. I'm sure Terry has thoughts too. But, you know, synthetics just for, you know, maybe for people who aren't aware is, you know, when we partner with a company and create a royalty on a product, right, where one didn't exist before, and it's just a contractual arrangement. And so, you know, that's been used, I think, in becoming a more important source of capital to fund late-stage development. And really, I think one place we've seen us do a lot of it is also to fund commercial launches. So, you know, just in the past few months, we've done three of them for three commercial launches that Terry mentioned.
And, you know, I think it is becoming just, you know, on the list as companies think about building a capital structure around their company. How to drive your product is, you know, is a royalty, is a core part of that discussion. And I think that's out there. It's been interesting. We've seen institutionalization of that market, right? So bankers calling on companies talking about royalties, you know, as part of the capital formation plan between equity and debt or partnership. And so, you know, that's driven a lot of interest. And, you know, we, you know, and so we've, I think we've been, you know, we've built, you know, part of our team has been built to try and drive that on the relationship side. And so we're excited about that as a, you know, as an important part of our business.
I think the bar, again, to stay on the theme, the bar will remain high as we do it, right? If you think about the products that we've done are all, you know, differentiated, you know, first in class in some way there, and so we're certainly excited about that as a significant part of our business.
Yep. And just on the competition for those types of deals, I mean, we're, you know, used to be we were just worried about, you know, Blackstone and other bigger players, but now there are a lot more, you know, private capital, you know, a lot more creative like financial companies. Are you still, you know, seeing, do you see that competition for bigger deals recede a little bit just given maybe better opportunities in like, say, private credit, or has there been a change at all?
Certainly on the bigger, you know, on the bigger deals, we feel like we haven't, you know, we still have, we have a scale advantage that's tough to compete with and a cost of capital advantage and a diversity of portfolio advantage where we can make a billion-dollar investment and it doesn't concentrate us, it actually diversifies us, which is unique and we think is an asset for us. You know, depending on the type of deal and what the company or the counterparty's goals are, you know, the competition can be more or less. But we feel like, you know, with our brand, our reputation, our ability to kind of be partners along a company's journey has really been important for us in winning these deals.
If you look at a company like Ascendis, last year we did a deal as small as $150 million on Skytrofa, and we kind of just copied that template for Yorvipath and did another deal with them this year on, you know, a new product. The list of companies where we've kind of been a serial partner over time is pretty big and is growing. Actually, I don't think that any of our competitors have done that at all. So that is differentiating, and it speaks to the relationship and how we operate in the industry. I think, if you, I'm sure some of our partners are in these halls today, and if you were to ask them what it's like to work with Royalty Pharma, I suspect the feedback would be really positive.
To the extent that, you know, I don't know if they've worked with the competition or whatever, but, you know, I think that the feedback on us has been really, really good.
Have you guys hired anyone from those shops ever?
Not really. I mean, most of the vast majority of our team, we've kind of developed.
Internal house,
Yeah.
We kind of have our own way of doing things. I think we like people to sort of learn at the RP way rather than hiring from the outside. You know, the other thing I think is important, one of the things Terry said was, you know, these are not like, you know, just a simple financial transaction in the sense that, you know, when you have a product that has an IP duration of 10, 12, 15 years, you know, this is a long-term partnership. Like you're going to be on the phone with the people who you partner with, you know, consistently over many years. So I think we've really worked on kind of brand being, you know, being a kind of transparent organization. Like the people who you do the deal with are going to be the people who the post-transaction relationship is with.
I think also being 100% focused, like this is all that we do. You know, we're not doing real estate or industrials or whatever else it might be, right? You know, I think there's real value to that, right? That we're kind of an institution and this is all we do.
Yeah. Well, let me ask you on that, Marshall, just to follow up. If you look at, you guys have had a front row seat to some of the biggest, you know, innovations in the, you know, in the biopharma space. And admittedly, like you're looking at, you know, lower risk deals, right? Which by default means maybe more mid-stage, not super early. But what have you guys done or what have you considered like monetizing? How do you monetize that? You know, if you look at like, I'll give you the proxy, like, you know, with Merck and Keytruda, I mean, they've been front row seat on everything, the latest and greatest in IO for going on like, you know, eight years now, right? And some novel mechanisms have come out of it, but nothing too transformational.
But I would think you guys and your market intelligence would give you some keys to, you know, I don't know, figure out a way to also leverage that as like a value creation.
Yeah, we, you know, that comes in a couple different ways. I think Terry mentioned one, which is, you know, doing, you know, doing serial deals with quality partners and being able to, as they innovate at that company over time, like Biohaven, Cytokinetics are great examples, right? Where you develop a relationship or Ascendis was the same thing. You know, once someone trusts you, right, the momentum that you bring to the next transaction is incredibly high. The other thing is, you know, is I think the other thing you've seen us do kind of related to your question is, you know, invest in multiple products in the same class. And, you know, a lot of the reason we do that is when we do really deep work on one thing, right?
Like we're hearing, you know, physicians or people in the industry are excited about this product or that product and how do we go out and add that to our portfolio as well. So I think it's not always like totally, I think, clear externally how we monetize it, but I think we are pretty good at, you know, trying to get as much leverage as we possibly can out of the deals that we do, the work that we do, the relationships that we have. We've talked about in the past these, you know, a theme of ours is to sort of pick up on these waves of innovation. We don't get everyone, right? And there's some that, you know, for whatever reason, we have not made investments, not for lack of trying.
But I think that, you know, when you look at historically, like we, you know, starting with the anti-TNFs as a prime example or the HIV drugs that came out of Gilead back in the mid-2000s, we were on that wave. And then you move to the sort of major changes that happened in multiple sclerosis in the last decade with Tecfidera. We were right in the middle of that. And then CF obviously was another important wave of innovation. And then, you know, moving now to the current portfolio, we've made a number of investments in the schizophrenia space where we think there's a lot of room for innovation there. And then also the Lp(a) space is something we're really excited about. We have investments in the two lead assets there. We'll see data in 2025.
That's going to be a really exciting, important event for the industry, for us, and, you know, I think that continuing to find where there is that innovation and have the conviction to make, you know, one or multiple bets there has been a sort of core element of our business model and we think will continue to be in our sort of DNA.
Plus you guys also make equity investments in addition to the royalty investments. Has the pace of that or like the percentage of that change over the past couple of years? Pure royalty deals versus royalty plus equity or is it just like sort of on a random?
It's kind of still a minority of the deals that we do, although we've had some success with it. We've had some big wins on the equity side, but that's not really the core of our business. I think the way that we look at it typically is if we invest in equity, there are situations where we're excited about the lead product at that company. We probably have a royalty in that product and the equity is probably going to, you know, move in the same way as the product goes. So if the product is successful and our royalty is successful, the equity is going to be successful. So it's all linked. Those are the situations that we're typically looking at.
It does give a lot more optionality to the stock though, right? If you had, you know, a greater percentage, I guess. It's hard to know what's kind of baked in at this point.
Yeah, yeah.
Let's talk about CF. I think probably not a lot you can say on the royalty, you know. I don't know what the formal legal dispute, I guess, with Vertex, but I look at it another way and to say, okay, well, if Vertex is correct that Vanza, there are 5,000 people or more not on Trikafta, like that's zero royalty-bearing patients, you know, and whatever Vanza can get, even if it is a lower rate, that's still a net positive.
Yeah, yeah, yeah. And so 4% royalty on, you know, I think Vertex has said 6,000 patients. So yeah, and to the extent that they continue to expand the market, I think that, you know, that's a net positive. We'll see what ultimately happens in terms of conversion. I think consensus right now has almost two-thirds of patients converting to the new triple.
In a year or?
No, no, no, but by 2030. Sorry.
Okay.
Yeah. I think it's fairly gradual. But, you know, I think we've laid out a scenario where we did this almost a year and a half ago where we said that if between 50% and 75% of patients switch and we are wrong on the royalty rate, we continue to maintain and feel really strongly that we should be owed an 8% royalty on the new, on the Vanza triple. But, you know, if we're wrong and it's only a 4% royalty rate and 50%-75% of patients switch, it's $200 million of impact to us. So relatively small in the grand scheme of things, especially when you put it in the context of the deals that we've been doing. Like, you know, any one of these products, like Voranigo, we think that's going to be a blockbuster product.
We have a 15% royalty on sales up to $1 billion and 12% royalty on sales above that. So like one deal you kind of make up for any potential gap there. And we feel good about our legal position, but I think certainly, you know, it does not seem like when we look at our equity, it seems like the assumption is worst case scenario and then some.
Right. Multiples of worst case.
Yeah, yeah, yeah. So, you know, I think that we.
What's the timeline for approximate, like visibility on that? I mean, is it calendar 2025? You may have resolution. Is there willingness to settle, meet halfway? I don't know the range of potential outcomes.
Yeah, it's really tough for us to be specific on that. You know, we've disclosed that the dispute resolution mechanism in the contract is arbitration. That is not a long drawn-out process like if you went to district court and you had multiple appeals and things like that. So, you know, it's not something that's, but we haven't been specific.
Okay.
Yeah. I understand people kind of want specifics. It's hard to really be totally specific.
When you look at the percentage of CF patients that are exon mutation or nonsense mutation, is that completely different under your agreement or because I wasn't sure that because you're not developing small molecules for that, right? So using a different technology for that patient, would that be completely outside of the scope?
Yeah, it would be. I mean, if they're not, if it's not one of the molecules that was discovered by the, you know, through the collaboration with the CF Foundation, then, you know, it wouldn't be in the scope of the agreement. It just depends on the, you know, it depends on the specifics of that.
From a tech perspective, I guess you could express the gene mechanistically and then activate it through one of the molecules and that would probably be covered then, right?
It would depend on when the molecule was, you know, was discovered. So I think it's all kind of fact-specific.
Yeah, I gotcha. Well, I mean, I think when you look at the CF business, I mean, it is very unusual to have an orphan disease, which is this big, right? Number of patients, like 75 or 80 is their number, but in reality, there probably is over a hundred when you account for markets outside of, you know, U.S. and Europe and Australia. And I think the only other market that could be that size of an orphan is like DMD or things like that. Do you guys filter opportunities kind of that way, like top down, like what's the TAM or is it just, you know, or is it more focused on the risk of success in a Phase III?
We come at it different ways. I think, you know, certainly that kind of, I don't know if you call that top down or bottom up, but whatever you call that sort of thing, looking for opportunities, you know, that are kind of underexploited from that perspective. I mean, certainly as part of, you know, what we do in terms of looking for those kind of opportunities, you know, we do sort of think like, hey, that's a big market that could support, you know, major drugs and there's a lot of unmet needs. So we should look around there, and I think we certainly do those exercises, you know, and then, yeah, but still, you know, the underlying program or product that we're investing in has to be right, right? We got to be comfortable with the risk or the return that we do. So.
I mean, the history, you know, the history with CF, but when we first made that investment, you know, it was 2,000 patients that had Kalydeco treated. And then obviously there's been a tremendous amount of innovation from there. And I think that, you know, one of our strengths is to sort of maybe recognize those opportunities that are not appreciated. And so, and where we can also invest and scale. And I think that's what we did with CF. And I think that, you know, we're always looking for those types of things.
Yeah. I mean, I know you guys did the Pfizer investment in Ibrance in development.
You had to bring that up.
I know, but I'm saying like that's. But that's like, you know, that provides a lot of optionality. Like, are bigger companies, but bigger biopharma is more receptive to sort of co-investing and perhaps a high-risk indication, or what's been the reception of that of late?
Yeah, you know, we're always very active in conversations there. Not to sound like a broken record, but, you know, we are very choosy when we do those, right? Because the obvious risk in those kind of relationships is you get negative selection for, we didn't want to fund this. Would you like to? Right? And, you know, usually the answer to that is no. I mean.
Have I got a deal for you?
Right, exactly. So you know, we did a nice deal with Teva for their Olanzapine LAI in that kind of a setting. And, you know, we're pretty active with those kind of discussions. I think when they come together, you know, it has to be right. We have to be convinced, you know, that this is a priority and it's going to be a priority for, you know, for the duration. So. It has not been a core driver for us.
Yeah.
As those, you know, large pharma partnerships, lately, you know, certainly over the last couple of years, the bigger driver has been in the small and mid-cap space.
Yep.
You know, there's a lot, there's just so much more opportunity. You know, there's more need for capital. And so that's, you know, I don't think our expectation is that that's going to change a lot going forward.
Gotcha. And from a technology perspective, I know we're, you know, there are some gene and cell therapies, you know, available today that are multi-billion, but that's not a, I don't know if it's that, that's not even a percentage of your portfolio, right? It's pretty.
It's, yeah, it's very small. You know, that's a space we followed really closely. We have looked at a lot of things. You know, and same thing on the any sort of cell therapy bispecifics side data is obviously extremely compelling. I think, you know, again, our issue or our approach there will be, you know, it's got to be in the right hands. You know, it has to be, you know, have the right sort of competitive landscape behind it to be right. And so, you know, I think our sort of slowness to invest there has, I think mostly it's been the right call so far. You think about the, but, you know, we'll continue to do things kind of as they come, you know, when.
I remember being on a panel in like 2018 or 2019. You may have been at this event, and somebody asked like, why, what's the holdup? Why are you guys not investing in gene therapy? And I, you know, my response was, you know, we're taking, we're kind of taking a wait and see approach here. We're going to try to invest in the right asset. And I think it's five years later. We finally made our first gene therapy investment last year, right? And we're excited about that. That's the last one is the product marketed by Ferring, which is a private company, but we're excited about that one. And I think that, you know, that sort of deliberate approach has paid off. But then, you know, if something came along that we were really excited about, we'd go all in.
Yep.
Yeah. I think when you go back and look at the, you know, you guys' investment, and I guess indirectly, but in gantenerumab, right, which that was, you know, that trial didn't hit, but I think the potential for Alzheimer's opportunity gave a lot of, you know, investors a lot of, you know, excitement. Do you look at categories like that that are massive unmet needs and are you willing to take more risk in that versus say, you know, a next-gen like I&I or IO kind of, you know, kind of approach?
Yeah. I mean, I think we certainly look at like LP( a) came out of that kind of an analysis, right? Sort of say like, you know, there's been basically no innovation beyond managing LDL in that space in I don't know how many decades.
Massive opportunity.
And massive opportunity, what's next? And I think, you know, all the kind of data behind LP( a )as a risk factor and a modifiable risk factor was very compelling to us. And so we did that. So I think certainly, you know, certainly we look for those. You know, we, again, we have to be compelled by the, you know, by the story and the data around it purely as a kind of, you know, as a risk-reward. This is extremely high risk, but could be extremely big, you know. It's not typically our style of investing, right? Sort of, you know, low probability of success, huge payoff is not typically our approach.
Yeah. We still have, we do have royalty on the Brain Shuttle version of Gantenerumab, Trontinemab, which is still in development. So.
You know, we'll see what happens there, but I think we're hopeful that there's still, you know, a big opportunity there.
Yeah, for sure. I mean, last question, I guess, Terry, you mentioned this, you know, I know for the stock, it's been, you know, operationally you guys have delivered on upside raised guidance, you know, you name it. I think, you know, optically there are some concerns on CF, but I think they're a little bit overbaked. But what's been your feedback with investors over the past year or so? Like, I mean, there's frustration with the stock doesn't necessarily reflect, you know, the success and the fundamentals, but what do you think, you know, could be, you know, could be a tipping point with investors? Is it the investor base? Are you looking for somebody outside of healthcare that could be more, you know, more interest?
So I would say, you know, a couple of things. The engagement from investors has been extremely high recently. And it's maybe not the, you know, the traditional healthcare investor, specialist investor, but more the generalist investor who recognizes the innovation in this industry, doesn't want to have to try to pick the next hot thing, but sees that, you know, we have a great track record of doing that and this big diversified growing portfolio of cash flowing assets. And so I think that that is resonating. And I, you know, it's tough to say what, you know, drives sort of the change. We've been a little bit surprised that the stock performance has not matched what we view as been really strong execution. But I think, you know, from our perspective, we know what we can control is the execution side of it.
If we keep doing that, keep generating really nice returns on investments, driving sort of intrinsic value, which we've done for, you know, we did it for 20 years as a private company. We've continued to do that as a public company. And I think that over time, our hope is that investors will start to really appreciate it and appreciate the amazing unique aspects of this business. We're going to be out there continuing to talk to people and trying to explain that to them. It is, you know, it's always tough when you're an N of one and there aren't clear comps. It would probably be a lot easier for us if there were 10 royalty companies out there because then everyone could recognize that we're doing a great job. But that's not the case.
And I think, but we remain really excited about the opportunity. And, you know, I think that there are. It's the great thing about the business is that we generate so much consistent cash flow. That's going to create increasing opportunities over time to create value for shareholders. We have the buyback in place. And, you know, there's ways through, you know, with the buyback and, you know, the return of capital to shareholders are going to be really important tools that we'll continue to use as well.
Awesome. Terry, Marshall, thanks a lot.
Great. Yeah.
Yeah. Thanks.