If you have any questions, please reach out to your Morgan Stanley sales representative. I am very pleased to be hosting this afternoon Royalty Pharma. Presenting from the company, we have Pablo Legorreta, the company's CEO and Chairman. Thank you. We have Marshall Urist, who is Head of Research and Investments. Thank you both so much for being here today to join us on the first day of our conference. Really looking forward to it. I thought maybe we would start high level, Pablo, and then again, we will go to some of the pipeline portfolio questions later on for Marshall. Again, as I look back, your five-year deployment target that you set was $10 billion-$12 billion back in 2022 at your investor day. You hit that about a year ahead of schedule now.
How are you thinking about the next set of targets here and the deployment goal as you think about the business?
Well, first of all, thank you for the invitation to participate in your conference, and for the relationship with you and Morgan Stanley, which has been key to our growth over decades. Yes, we have been able to invest the amount we guided when we went public, $10 billion-$12 billion quicker, a year quicker. That is obviously because the deal flow has been really robust. It continues to be very active. There are a couple of things that have become real opportunities for us that I think we did not guide to when we went public in 2020. The guidance just for everyone, so we all are all on the same page, was $2 billion-$2.5 billion per year and $10 billion-$12 billion over five years.
The two things. A lot of that guidance was based on deals that we had been doing for decades, buying royalties from universities, hospitals, foundations, biotechs, pharmas on approved products, but also funding late-stage trials in what we call synthetic royalties that had become a really important part of our business. The two things that are new that were not that important at the time were deals with Big Pharma in China, and those have materialized. I will briefly mention, talk a little bit about both. In the case of Big Pharma , you saw us last year do a deal with Biogen funding a really exciting lupus drug that they refer to as the crown jewel of the company, a deal with Teva on an LAI, a long-acting injectable for schizophrenia.
This year, a deal with Teva on a drug for vitiligo, a $500 million deal, then a deal with J&J. A really exciting deal where they are combining two antibodies. It is a market we know extremely well because we have been investing in this therapeutic area for decades with HUMIRA, REMICADE, and CIMZIA in the early stage drug, then TREMFYA. This one is a combination of TREMFYA and SIMPONI, essentially to try to treat patients that are progressing. A $500 million investment. We had done deals in the past with Merck and other companies, but I think the fact that a company as important as J&J has decided to do this with one of their top programs really sends a signal to the industry that this is something that is worth doing for Big Pharma .
That has resulted in so many discussions we are having daily with Big Pharma s globally, not only in the U.S. It is very active. I think we have a decent chance of this really becoming an important driver of growth for Royalty Pharma. It is a whole new thing. We are very excited about it because it will require many billions of dollars per year. Obviously, we have to be very selective and see what we want to fund. The other opportunity is China, that we actually have now really made steps to be present in that market, hiring one of the top bankers in Hong Kong focused on China. He is in the room, Ken Sun, and he is going to help us build a business there.
We did a large deal last year with BeOne for $900 million+ upfront, buying a royalty on Amgen’s Imdelltra in that product. We can talk later if you want to more details as to why China and what we see exciting in China and also Big Pharma . Obviously, the capital deployment has been very strong, and we think it is going to maybe accelerate. I think are we going to invest more than $2 billion, $2.5 billion per year? We have been doing that. I think we will continue to do it, but we still want to be conservative in terms of the guidance. I think how much capital we deploy is important. I think another metric that is important for us is the top-line growth, and we have guided to double-digit top-line growth through 2030.
I think it will go on for much longer than that given all of these growth drivers.
Okay, great. We'll unpack a bunch of these over the next half hour or so here. The R&D co-funding opportunity, I know we talked a lot about in the past on the synthetic opportunity. R&D co-funding we haven't spent as much time on, but again, sounds like you're seeing a real change here. So maybe just remind us why does pharma want to do these deals? What are they trying to solve for? Again, you guys always like to be the go-to party for these kind of transactions, but what are they solving for?
We started this in 2012 when we decided to actually, in addition to investing in approved products where there was already a license in place, we said we're going to fund late-stage clinical trials for biotech and pharma. We practically started that in 2012. Since then, we've deployed $28 billion, of which about $18 billion is in approved products and $11 billion is in products in development. So it's become an important part of our business. We started to talk to Big Pharma back then, and I had a meeting one-on-one earlier today when someone was asking, is there a negative bias there with Big Pharma that they may want us to fund the less interesting products in their pipeline? Absolutely, there was a negative bias initially.
We would go and talk to these big companies, and I'm going to give some numbers just to illustrate, but big company that might have 80, 90 programs in phase I, phase II, and phase III, and they might have in their P&L. It's not about cash because they have cash. They might have $30 billion of cash, $20 billion of cash. It's about the P&L. They might have a P&L budget where they have R&D of $12 billion per year. That $12 billion allows them to fund 60 programs, but they cannot fund programs 60 - 90. 30 programs that get delayed or shelved.
When we started to talk to them, they would say, "Oh, look at the bottom 30." We would say, "Thank you, but no thank you." How are we going to get excited with a program that you're not excited about and you've decided not to fund? We would say to them, and eventually we managed to figure out how to persuade them to open up and let us look at the more interesting programs. What I would say to them is, "We want to win with you. If we want to be your partner, if you want us to be your partner in five years, 10 years, we need to win with you.
So we need to be funding the top programs, and we're going to be able to put a lower discount rate on something that is priority." The math also works, Terence, because if you think of us funding one of the bottom programs, we're not going to do it because there's no interest. Why would we do it? But just as a mathematical exercise, if the drug is going to be smaller, $500 million , for us to put a lot of money on the table, hundreds of millions, so that it really matters for them, we would require high royalty. Big burden. Doesn't work. If we are able to fund some of the top programs, multi-billion dollar drugs, we can put hundreds of dollars on the millions of dollars on the table and ask for a mid-single digit royalty. The math works. Everything works.
Now, how does this work? Years ago, there was a transaction that was taken to the SEC by a Big Pharma, and unfortunately, the conclusion after analyzing the accounting was negative. It really slowed down building this business for us. We didn't like it, and we said, "No, we need to fix this because we want to build a business funding Big Pharma." So we had to go out, hire a guy that used to work in an accounting, one of the top accounting firms that his job was to work with Big Pharma, how they account for deals. Brought him in. With him, we spent years, four or five years, trying to fix this, and we managed to do it. We were able to change the way that FASB and the accounting firms account for these transactions. The solution is that it's contra R&D.
If, like in this deal we did with J&J where we committed $500 million , we're going to spend that, say, over three years. In one quarter, and it's going to be every quarter, we would write a check for half of the money spent. If in one quarter the amount was $80 million, we would write a check for $40 million. That $40 million that we spent becomes contra R&D for the Big Pharma. It lowers their R&D expenditure. So what happens is that we essentially, by doing that, created $500 million of capacity for them to go and fund another program. That might be program 61, 65, they can decide. But by doing that, what we're really doing is we're expanding the P&L bandwidth. The other important thing is risk mitigation. If it doesn't work, they're not going to lose $1 billion.
They will lose half. Obviously, for us, that would be a negative thing, and we want to make sure that that doesn't happen, but it's both things, risk mitigation and allowing them to fund more things. I think there's many things in our business that when I started, were just not the case. It was a green field. Investing in royalties was not done before I started. It's been a question of just focusing, trying to get the market and players change their mentality and accept things, and for those things to become mainstream. I think the idea, for example, of us funding biotech companies has become mainstream. I think the idea of us funding Big Pharma could become mainstream, and that will be a huge source of opportunity for us.
So it sounds like if it's not mainstream yet, it's not as competitive. Is that a fair assumption on the.
I think it's a good question. We've always kind of existed in a competitive environment. I think there are other people who are doing this. It's a smaller group.
Yeah.
There's no question. But I don't think we're super focused on competition right now in this space. I think to Pablo's point, it's really about growing the pie and trying to make this a large, ongoing source of business for us.
Yeah.
And honestly, having multiple players in the market is a good thing, right? Where if there's depth of the market, it gives all the pharmas out there confidence that they're getting sort of good competitive tension and a good price.
Okay. Maybe just talk about the return profile for those. I'm assuming because it's pre-commercial, that would require a higher return, essentially, because you're taking on risk.
Since we went public, we guided investors to a high single digit, low double digit return on approved product, unlevered. The reality when we looked at what's happened over the last three-ish years, maybe a bit longer, when we look at capital that has been deployed in approved product, is that the returns are higher than that. It's probably ranging in the 12%, 13% unlevered, which we're very happy about.
Yeah.
But in unapproved, the returns are in the high teens and even into the 20%s, depending on the asset and the risk. But they are higher, and those returns are unlevered. What I've seen happens with our business all the time is we make an investment that was modeled at high teens, low 20%s. It gets approved. All of a sudden, that asset now can be levered. Not before, but once approved, it can be levered. If you add leverage at our cost of debt, which right now it's 3.7, the weighted average coupon is 3.7, it really boosts the returns to a much higher level. It's become an important part of our business and with very attractive returns. Now, obviously, there are things that don't work. You saw what happened with pelacarsen. It was a $150 million investment. It's part of our portfolio.
There's many, and we would expect that in a portfolio, there's some things that are not going to work. Obviously, the ones that work have compensated for the ones that have not worked.
Yeah.
These pharma R&D deals are without question in the targets that we've set out for unapproved projects. Something that is maybe overlooked a little bit is having a partner where the scale and the people and the infrastructure to run phase III to commercialize globally is a massively positive thing. When we work with smaller companies, part of our calculus is what is achievable, is someone going to come along and buy them? Here, it's a very different way of thinking.
Okay. Makes sense. Maybe just on pelacarsen. I have some other questions first, but maybe there, just given the timeliness, maybe just anything you want to share in terms of your views. I know it's early, Marshall, but we haven't seen the data, but what was your kind of big picture takeaway? I know you guys put out a press release to frame the financial impact, but just maybe from a high level, how do you think about what that means for olpasiran, I guess?
Yeah. So, the negative outcome for pelacarsen, obviously a disappointing thing for us. I think like we outlined, we did, of course, buy it in a very risk-protected way, which I think is an important lesson for our shareholders about how we think about structuring and when we deploy capital. It's very early to say. I think we can have a much more informed conversation about this once we see the full data here in a couple of months. There are certain reasons to think that olpasiran could have a better outcome. Wouldn't be the first time that the first person who runs a big cardiovascular outcome study, everyone else coming behind them learns the lessons of their unfortunate outcome. So, we're excited to see it, and we can have a conversation when we know more.
Yeah. Okay. Maybe just.
The one important thing there is that the deal with olpasiran and the Amgen drug is for much bigger dollars. We put a lot more money in that investment, and also the royalty is higher. There is a scenario here where if that one does work, which we think there are reasons to believe why it will work, Amgen could end up, for a period of time, dominating the space. Bigger drug, there is not going to be a competition. Us having a bigger royalty and also having invested more money could result in a very attractive outcome for us.
Okay. Great. Maybe going back to the high level, I think another thing you guys have talked about in terms of a competitive advantage is just your data platform. You guys have spent a lot of time building that out. As you think about layering AI on top of that data platform, maybe just talk to us how that is going, what are the advantages that you see in terms of your business model.
Sure.
Leaning into that and how you think that really sets you apart from some of the.
I will give you some top-level comments, and then maybe Marshall can drill into how we are using it and what the team does.
Yeah.
On a day-to-day basis. We have been investing in data since I started the business 30 years ago. Initially, it was IMS data on prescriptions. A decade ago, we started to buy data from many data providers. As you know, we have data on 200 million Americans, claims data, which is really interesting data. It gives you much more information than, for example, historically other sources. Electronic medical records for 44 million Americans. We have longitudinal data. We have been investing. We have been building a data science team. We have a team in place for five, six years. We hired a guy that used to be the CTO of Verisk, this company that actually gathers insurance policy and casualty information for the entire insurance industry and then gives the data back to the insurance companies. He was CTO of Verisk.
He came to work with us three, four years ago and started to help us take the data science part of our business to the next level. More recently, I was very excited because we wanted to bring to Royalty Pharma someone with a lot of AI expertise. We looked at, I think we interviewed 30 people. At the end of the process, we found one person that top of the list, and I was super happy that he agreed to join us. He was the guy that was responsible for AI of IQVIA. This is the biggest CRO in the world that has 1,200 clinical trials running at any point in time. Then they have the data side of the business, which used to be IMS Health. IQVIA is a merger between Quintiles and IMS Health.
Lucas Glass had about 300 people under him, and he was introducing AI throughout all of IQVIA, a company with 100,000 people. He decided to join a company with 100 people, Royalty Pharma. You understand the scale. The reality is that in conversations, what we concluded was that he was the right person because of a lot of things. He is a guy that loves to code, really hands-on, versus other people we had interviewed that were not of that nature. What I think he concluded was that he wanted to join a company smaller, more entrepreneurial, that could really drive how AI is going to impact this entire ecosystem. He thought that with our platform, he could really help us to take this to the next level. That is already happening.
He is already starting to have an impact on our business with a lot of things that we are doing. I am super excited. When I had the interview with him, I showed him two slides. One slide, many more, but he focused on two. One that had 1,700 opportunities that we have reviewed over the last three years, 450 in oncology, 250 in CNS, and so on. I said, "Lucas, we get sign a confidential letter agreement, we get patient-level data for all of these assets that we review. We get FDA minutes and many more information." The way we used to do things is you would put clinical trials side by side and compare and say, "Okay, this trial worked, this didn't. What happened?" The human brain cannot connect the dots when you have 450 trials in oncology.
Maybe they are looking at specific cancer, could be 40 trials, and also so many variables. But you apply AI to that, and the insights that you gain are really interesting. That is going to help us, again, make us a better investor, but we can share those insights with the companies we are working with. That is a big distinction between us and our competitors, where we are trying to position Royalty Pharma not only as a capital provider, but also as a partner that can share insights based on data with our partners to help them think about their clinical trials, about commercial. But I showed him that slide, and he said, "Absolutely." Anyway, then I showed him another slide, which has all of the modules of all of the diligence, all of the things we do, 20 different modules.
He basically concluded every one of the things we do with diligence, with doctors, with payers, every one of those things can be made more efficient with AI. I think what is going to happen with our business over the next years, it is going to evolve, and we are going to embrace AI. But maybe you want to talk a little bit about how it is helping the diligence process and the.
Yeah, absolutely. I think it is a good example, maybe to start at a high level, of how we have really been dedicated to investing and extending a competitive advantage. Like Pablo said, I think we were out ahead in our part of the world on use of data and data investments. Now we have made a big investment on the We continue to invest there, adding, investing aggressively in AI behind that to, again, just be really committed to innovating and being at the forefront of how we do what we do. I think specifically what we have seen is it is very early, but it has been really exciting to see on how we have gotten better in two ways. I think one is depth. How much data you can analyze at scale. Pablo mentioned individual patient data.
That is extremely time-consuming, but once some of the tools we are developing really makes it sort of tractable at scale, so we can do more deeper work important as we think about pharma R&D deals and other things like that. Then the second is speed. I think the other important thing is we continue to want to position structured finance or royalty financing as an alternative to other things that are out there. The extent to which we can be faster, more responsive, give people confidence that we have an outline of a economic deal that we are going to run really hard towards executing. We are an increasingly attractive alternative to other things. So I think we are at the very beginning. I think what we are seeing is super exciting, and it is only going to get better from here.
What we're doing now, and it's going to take time, is train the models. Right?
Right.
Because we have so much information of three decades of looking at deals and products, we can feed all of that into models, train them, and it's going to be incredibly helpful. People are always asking, "Is it going to make you change the business in a positive way or a negative?" I think it will change it in a positive way, because you still need the human intelligence, judgment, in a lot of these things. But we have an advantage because we have a lot of data that we've collected over decades that is going to be very useful.
Yep. What about the number of deals? Does it increase the throughput through the funnel? I know you want to maintain a high level of discernment as you look at these deals, but does it allow you to scale and essentially do more deals? I know you guys are constrained by the number of people, obviously, that you have working on these things, but does it help you look at more deals effectively?
I don't think we see it as necessarily a path to be doing more, because I think we feel pretty good that we've identified the quality important things that.
Right.
Investments we wanted to go after. It certainly does help with our first pass that things can be deeper and quicker. I think a lot of people are kind of applying in that way, and we'll see where it takes us. But I think the important things for shareholders that we can do are, again, depth and quality of our work when we bring it to bear. Then I think that's going to, as Pablo said, filter through to our partners that we're a better partner, a more constructive partner, and I think that's going to be a win-win for everybody.
Okay. Maybe I want to go to one of your other recent pipeline wins is the RevMed deal and the approval. This was a synthetic opportunity. Maybe Pablo outline for us why you're excited about these synthetic opportunities. Again, this is the latest example, I think. But then Marshall, maybe you could just elaborate on the approval, the label, and how you think about the commercial opportunity for this asset.
This is a synthetic deal where we agreed to fund a biotech with a really exciting program. We have been doing that for a decade. What's different about this one is the scale, and also the asset. There's a lot of differences, okay? We had been in contact with Revolution Medicines for a while and had been following them. In about late 2024, early 2025, we started to hear that they were looking to raise. They wanted to raise a lot of money, $2 billion, and they were potentially considering a big pharma partnership. Obviously, with that asset they had in their hands, the data they had, this was an incredibly attractive asset. Probably one of the most attractive, if not the most in biotech.
We decided to engage, and I flew with Marshall and the team to San Francisco, March of last year, 2025. Came to see Mark Goldsmith and his team and essentially said to him, "We will deliver the $2 billion to you, and we're going to propose something that is going to be much more attractive than a big pharma partnership. Because in our case, we'll give you the $2 billion. It'll be a 7% royalty, and the $2 billion is $1.25 billion for the 7% royalty." Marshall can explain how the royalty deal is structured. But then $750 million as debt that can be pulled once the drug is approved. What I told Mark is, "We will give you that money, commit it, and the economics we will get are far lower than a big pharma partnership." big pharma partnership will be a 50/50 deal.
Could have different versions of that, U.S., non-U.S., whatever. But roughly, in our case, it's going to be much less. So you're going to keep 93% + of the economics. Then the other thing is that we will be passive. We can share data with you, we can share insights, we'll be your partner, but we will essentially be passive. No need for a steering committee. I told them one thing. I was at Lazard for 10 years before starting Royalty Pharma, and there was this very wise man, Felix Rohatyn, that had incredible quotes. Felix used to say, "The problem with part" One of many quotes. "The problem with partners is that partners have opinions." So what I told Mark is, "You're going to have a big pharma partner. They're going to have an opinion. Their opinion is going to be different than yours.
They're going to want to design the phase III in a certain way, maybe not the same as yours. Commercial, they'll have a view, and you're going to have to compromise, and you're going to have to have a steering committee, and they might slow you down." I said, "We're going to be passive." So at the end, they agreed. The deal was announced in June. In my quote the day we announced the deal, I said, "This really shows that Royalty Pharma can be the alternative to a big pharma partnership." $2 billion. We had a lot of calls from many biotechs in the months that followed that wanted to potentially do a deal like that.
What's interesting for the company is that if you looked at the market cap of Revolution Medicines before the deal, between March, June, whatever, it was $6 billion, $7 billion, $8 billion, somewhere in that range. By January of 2025, at the JPMorgan conference, the market cap had gone up to $20 billion. Why? Because I think investors realized they have the money now, $2 billion. They can do it by themselves. They'll capture all of the upside. So it got up to $20 billion. By the time the data came out, it was already at $30 billiob. I had a conversation with Mark at the time, and I said, "Wow, your investors went from $7 billion, $8 billion -$ 30 billion.
If you had done a big pharma partnership, it would be probably half of $30 billion, and maybe less, because then you have one big pharma partner, and in any takeout situation, you have a buyer." Maybe not many. Now it's $45 billion, some number like that. So it's been an incredible deal for them, for us. Obviously, in our case, we're delighted to be involved with this incredible product that is going to change patients' lives. There was a recent article in The Wall Street, which I think talked about the fact that what they did was really an interesting deal that allowed them to stay independent, not have to do a big pharma partnership.
That's why I think it was a really attractive deal for us, and hopefully there will be many more like that where we can really help companies achieve their goals, but also create a lot of value and also help patients, which is really why we're all here. But do you want to?
Yeah. I think the other things that were definitely innovative about it, about that structure, as we talked through it, Pablo mentioned it had two parts. One was a $1.25 billion synthetic royalty that was divided into five different $250 million tranches. The first one was at close. The second one was when the phase III trial read out positively, and that was $500 million of synthetic royalty. That gets us. We now own a downward tiering royalty that starts at 4.5%. The remaining $750 million is at their option, right? So it gives them the ability to think about at important points in time. One just happened, actually, the approval. There's a sales milestone, and another one is on the frontline approval. So what's interesting about that is the flexibility, number one, right?
It's huge scaled capital, but they have flexibility to kind of curate capital structure as they move through time. The second really innovative thing about it was each of the individual tranches actually had a lower cost of capital, right? Because at each of those points in time, these are positive developments for the company, for the product. The risk comes down. That has to be reflected in each of those tranches. So that declining cost of capital as the company progresses was hardwired into the deal, which is another, I think, very cool, kind of innovative part of it. So yeah. Everything from here is at RevMed option. On the debt side, $750 million, $250 million of that is required now based on the approval, and the rest of it is at their option.
I think it's a great way to show our flexibility, to show how we can design something that works for one of the most innovative companies in this space. Then lastly, how we can commit over a really long period of time, right? Its first dollar in to the last tranche trigger is going to be, I don't know what the most recent timelines are, but many years, right? So us as an institutional partner is a different kind of investor in a different way that we can partner than what else is available out there.
Yep. Then just anything on the market opportunity that you want to highlight for us in terms of the initial label approval?
Look, I think it's exciting. We thought it was a great drug. I think the data has certainly surprised the upside. I think the breadth of the label also surprised to the upside as well. Obviously, I think it's no secret, it's going to be a great launch. So we're excited to see it happen.
Great. Maybe just in the last few minutes, because you touched on it early in your remarks, Pablo, is just your strategy in China.
Sure.
That's obviously a new endeavor for you guys. How should we think about the timelines and the scale of that business? Is this something that could reach the scale of what your current business is here in the U.S.? I know it took you a long time to do that, but.
It'll take time, but yes. Marshall and I and other members of our team went to China about 10 years ago. Exploratory trip. We met the VCs, the companies. At the time, we said it's a bit premature. But then as time went by and we started to see how science was progressing, maturing, we said we need to pay attention. That led to the deal we did last year with BeOne, where we bought the Imdelltra royalty for $900 million +. What we ended up doing is going out and trying to build a business, and that's when we decided to go and hire Ken, who's here. We went through a process. Again, we looked at many people, and we were so fortunate that the number one guy on our list was him, and he agreed to join us.
We're going to build this business. What's so interesting about China for us is, in conversations with Ken and others, what they pointed to me is that there's something like 3,000 biotech companies in China, according to them. Huge number. 8,000 was the number I had in my head globally, but maybe the number is bigger because there's 3,000 in China. When you think about it, except for a few companies that are potentially global and can run global trials, BeOne one of them, and maybe there's a few others, the vast majority of these companies are local companies, great science, good management teams, but they need a U.S. and European partner to run the trials and to commercialize. That will lead to transactions, where they license the drugs.
For the European and U.S. companies to do a deal with a Chinese company, what they also want to see generally is for the IP to be outside of China. So the IP generally is put into a subsidiary that could be in Cayman or Jersey or whatever. The deals that get done generally are also done based on U.S. or European laws. So from our perspective, if we invest in a royalty like the one from BeOne or we buy a royalty from another biotech company in China, it's very likely that the product is going to be in the hands of a U.S. or European company. So it's no different. The IP will be in a subsidiary, the contract will be in U.S. or European law contract. The payer will be, like in the case of Imdelltra, it's Amgen paying us directly.
The cash flows don't go to China. The credit worthiness of the payer is Amgen, so it's no different. What's so interesting, when I look back at how the business started when I was buying royalties from academic institutions in the U.S., the royalties were generally single digit, 2%, 4%, 7% was a big royalty. What we've seen now with these Chinese companies is that the royalties are higher in the teens and 20%s. Why are they higher? Because they add value. They take the drugs through phase I, phase II, so there's more value. There's also a competitive process. There's scarcity for attractive assets. So, big companies that are licensing the drug have paid higher, they share more. So it's a very interesting business. The last thing I would say is that it's a royalty, not equity.
Investing in equity is more complicated to structure the deals. Sometimes governments have negative views about investments in equity, hurdles, other issues. A royalty is under the radar. It is a contractual agreement. Now, the last thing also is the capital needs of Chinese companies are very, very significant. The capital markets, even though Ken did an amazing job taking companies public, it is still a more limited market, not as big as the U.S. or other markets. The capital needs are so big that we can really become a funder of these companies through structures like the ones we have been applying in the U.S. all the time. It is very exciting. I think it will be big. I think we are going to be patient because we want to find the right product. It is a big source of revenue growth for us.
That, as I said, Big Pharma. Those things were not in our guidance in the past. I think we need to start to think of how that is going to impact our business because I think they could become really important.
Great. Well, I think we are up against time, Pablo, Marshall, appreciate it.
Thank you.
Thank you.