Anavex Life Sciences Corp. (AVXL) Earnings Call Transcript & Summary

Thank you. Greetings. Welcome to the PVG Asset Management Corporation Town Hall. [Operator Instructions] The conference is being recorded. I will now turn the conference over to your host, Patrick Adams. Patrick, please go ahead.

Thank you for joining today. We've got a pretty detailed press release. It's going to take us a while to get through all of it, but I think you'll find the information very helpful. And we are looking for your help, as shareholders, to help support us to turn around Anavex. Anavex, the board nominees, the four nominees currently on the board, own a total of 5,000 shares, three of which of those nominees hold no shares. I think this is a major misalignment with shareholders. And we've seen very recently, and over the past, leadership issues and governance issues to this company. And again, we need your help as investors. We'll be going over a number of different things today, talking about what needs to be done, how we're going to do it, and then how to vote your shares. So, introduction. PVG began acquiring the shares back in September of 2024. We think that there is great value in the pipeline. We have very unique CNS, and unfortunately, the company has been misguided, not represented well by the board of directors. And it started with the EMA submission for Alzheimer's. So the Alzheimer's drug at the EMA was causing the stock to fall 35% in a day. We think the board could have handled this more appropriately and avoided this major issue. So the CEO was terminated for cause, which set off some more lawsuits. One, an employment agreement lawsuit, but then another suit against the four existing board members. The major issue that we have recently is the appointment of a CEO with no prior experience as a CEO, and we can't really find any clinical achievements that she's had either. Termination of key people at the company. There's been a massive brain drain at this company. It's rather disturbing to see all the people that were let go, that were very knowledgeable about the drugs and the development process. The NASDAQ delisting notification, now the company's resolved this, but to me, if you can't report your financials on time, you're really not a public company, and we need to make changes to make sure this never happens again. But because of this, it all put their ATM on hold for 12 months. As I mentioned, that there's no skin in the game from this current board. They don't own very many shares. I don't think they're particularly aligned with shareholders. They're not really focused on the biotechnology team that we've put in place. So, the stock has obviously really underperformed. The stock is telling investors basically there's a problem here and it needs to be fixed. We went to the board, two of the board members. I had conversations and said, we're here to help. What can we do to help? That didn't go anywhere, so we had to file our nominees to replace the board. Again, please use the gold card to vote your shares. Now, we're going to go over our nominee versus their nominee. That's me. I'm Patrick Adams. I've been in the investment business for 40 years. I've done a lot of biotechnology investing. It's a specialty. This is a very inefficient market. It's ripe with opportunity, but you have to know what you're doing. So 40 years, you learn something every day. I feel like I'm an expert on this particular area. We've done a lot of investing in the CNS group. I like to compare this company with a company called Axsome, which had private financing of the company, then it went public. And in 2019, as an example, the two companies, Anavex and Axsome, were at $2 a share. Under their leadership, Axsome is a stock that's over $200 a share, and Anavex has gone basically sideways over these seven months, or seven years rather. Ma, she comes from the telecommunications space. She recently did a SPAC that has fallen now 99% value. So a negative 99% return. She owns no shares in Anavex. And I have another slide just so you can visualize what's occurred there, and we'll do that after we go through the nominees. Renee Mora. Renee, can you please go over your background?

I guess I can. I hope everyone can hear me. So I'm Renee Mora. I am a physician scientist by training. I have an MD and a PhD from the University of Chicago in biochemistry, practiced for a number of years as a physician scientist in the Harvard hospital system, in the area of pulmonary and critical care medicine, where again, I was an NIH-funded scientist at Harvard Medical School for a number of years. Joined the financial services industry after a few years at Harvard, where I joined LARINC from its fledgling days as an early organization, spent a total of 20 years at LARINC. First 10 years building the METACORP expert network, which included heavy representation of experts in the regulatory space, and where we actually published a regulatory newsletter in addition to carrying out market research and carrying out deep diligence on emerging biotechnology and pharmaceutical products. After 10 years on the MetaCorp side, I joined what was then the incipient effort at LARINC to build an investment banking effort. And I spent 10 years there helping and built that effort. I will point out that 15 years later, LARINC is now the number one investment bank in the United States for biotechnology and biopharma financing. I retired from LARINC in 2020, went over to the buy side where I spent five years at Monashe, a $3.5 billion investment hedge fund managing the healthcare portfolio both on the public and the private side. I do have board experience; I was a board observer at Hotspot Therapeutics, one of these companies that Monashe invested in as a crossover investment. And I currently sit on the board of trustees of the University of Chicago Medical Center, which is a multi-hospital system with 20,000 employees and a multi-billion dollar budget. Certainly that's a solid background, very experienced. Peter on their side is a physician.

I'm sure he's a nice guy, but I wouldn't have my doctor on a board of a biotechnology company, personally. Next slide, please. John, please give your background.

Thanks, Pat. So my name is John Boris. I am also a scientist by training, a degree in pharmacology from Philadelphia College of Pharmacy and Science in Philadelphia. Interned through the hospital networks throughout Philadelphia. After pharmacy school, pivoted right directly into the industry, started my career with Eli Lilly and Company. The tenure there was mostly concentrated on the central nervous system side through the launch of the antidepressant Prozac, which had significant off-label use and additional psychiatric type indications. After spending approximately four and a half years at Lilly, pivoted to Warner Lambert, where for seven years ran the neuroscience portfolio at Warner Lambert prior to the acquisition by Pfizer. Some products that were in the portfolio there were the first Alzheimer's drug Cognex in addition to Neurontin, Lyrica on the major pharma branded side and then we also had some orphan disease drugs like Fosphenytoin for the treatment of status epilepticus which was launched throughout the U.S. Hospital Network. Upon completing that tenure, pivoted to Wall Street. Started my career on Wall Street at Morgan Stanley. Worked for a person by the name of Glenn Brayson, who is pretty well recognized in the MedTech Hospital supply area. After three years at Morgan Stanley, pivoted to Merrill Lynch. Merrill Lynch. We were a part of the number one team in major pharmaceuticals. Post 9/11, approximately a year after that, pivoted to Bear Stearns where I was the lead analyst, major pharma, specialty pharma and covered some small biotechs. Fair Stearns until the implosion there, then pivoted to Citi, where at both shops there I was institutionally recognized by the buy side for the work that we had done. Following that 25-year tenure, pivoted to banking, spent approximately two and a half years in banking, and then from banking went on to do asset management where I invest currently in both public biotechs and private biotechs, and especially those that are within the CNS area. And then on the other side we have part of the audit committee that issues with the.

He also comes from the space. And I tell you, as a biotech investor for a very long time, I don't want to get on a board. Next, Curtis.

Thanks, Pat. A quick word on my background. I started my career 35 years ago in clinical research at a biotechnology company working with Dr. Rosenberg's lab at the National Cancer Institute. I then worked for several years with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office as a biotechnology patent examiner. And I've spent decades in biotech and pharma investing in equity research at various firms, including Discovery Capital and Citadel. I was recruited to the board of Aulus Therapeutics, a publicly traded company, as it navigated a significant transition, and I served as its interim CEO and principal financial officer. So I've sat in the seat of studying the company and managing its finances through a difficult stretch. I also serve on the board of Wondering with Willow, supporting families affected by Rett syndrome, which keeps me close to the rare disease community that matters so much to this pipeline. If you look at the right, the incumbent, Axel Paeger, has an executive record in hospital group operations, not drug development. Per the company's own filings, he holds no shares in Anavex. He has no skin in the game. That's the difference this slide shows: relevant experience and real alignment with shareholders versus neither.

Thank you. Jason. Jason, you probably need to unmute your line.

Operator, can you unmute me? Okay, great, thank you. So very similar combination of experience to John.

We can hear you.

Okay, great. Thank you. Started my career as a chemist on the bench with Warner Lambert, went to Schering-Plough, launched Intron A for hepatitis C, as well as Claritin, so I got a lot of commercial experience there. Came back, started a career on Wall Street, spent many, many years as a sell-side analyst, buy side and ran a portfolio making investment decisions with Susquehanna for seven years and then made a transition to microcap biotech. I worked in the cell therapy space, was very active, learned a lot about how to raise capital when you're a microcap biotech, and then decided to transition back to the sell side where I remain today. I have focused over the last 10 years in the CNS space and actually was part of the original team at Maxim that took Anavex public. So, you know, I've followed this company very closely for its entire life and, you know, seen both the pitfalls in data and clinical trials, but more recently, the lack of communication with a management team which I think has become an exacerbating effect to the stock and to the stock valuation.

And then on their side, you know, we were kind of excited to see this gentleman's background until we realized it was in oncology rather than CNS. So unfortunately, it's not the right fit for this company. Ralf von Ziegesar, he – on the next page, page nine – he's 30 years experience in the asset management area. He's got a very impressive background. He was an investment officer at Société Générale, among other very well-known investment companies. He runs a multifamily office in Germany. He's our guy in Germany to help deal with the investors and to kind of lead that, or in Europe to lead that, to obtain more investors and to talk to investors in that continent. On the other side, Patel, he's into acquiring companies and doesn't have any real focus on biotech that we can see. So we've got a really good guy on the investment side in Europe on our side. Now page 10. Okay, so we're getting... On page 10, I just wanted to show you this chart. Ma's company. So through her SPAC, she bought a company called Mobius Labs. It's a semiconductor company. The SPAC came out at roughly $100 a share, like most SPACs do. This stock is now down to about $1 per share. And then the cash over on the right-hand side of this chart, you can see it's about at zero. So unfortunately, we see these things happen in the biotechnology space, that boards or executive teams allow the cash to dissipate to a point that they become... It really just kills the stock. Next page, major issues. So the company says that they are moving forward with the Alzheimer's indication and we support that. However, there's only $118 million in cash. It seems like a lot of money, but the Alzheimer's trial is going to cost roughly $150 million. So it's a little bit of a disingenuous sort of plan in place. The first thing that has to happen is they need to raise money. So in our view, the company has poor governance, evidenced by the SEC filings and material weakness and internal controls over the financial reporting, which has resulted in the company not being able to use the market equity financing. That's the ATM. So they can't go to the market to do that. And they've raised about $36 million for this fiscal year prior to this. The company also employs employee litigation, brain drain medical experts, inexperienced executive leadership, and limited clinical experience as well. We believe that just changing two board members as what they're proposing and hiring a first-time CEO is not going to fix the problems. So as the cash evaporates and the intellectual property time is ticking away, Anavex needs to act ASAP. We need to get this fixed right now. So we think the stock, as you can see, is going to spiral. And the cash is going to tick off over time. So we need to get going. According to the company's proxy that was put out on 8-10-26, the new rookie CEO has no prior experience leading any company, which we've... PVG has a positive bias toward the line, but if the company can't convince us, which we have a positive bias towards, they're not going to be able to convince other investors either. Well, we could just sell the stock, move on. We've got other really good ideas. But we view this as kind of an axiom, a $2 stock that can become a $200 stock. So we see the upside and we think if we put the right team in place, we could have a very fruitful return and bring some really good drugs to the market. So the company has a pipeline of potential drugs and very large unmet medical needs such as early onset Alzheimer's, Parkinson's. The company has two rare disease drugs that will need some funding regardless, so you just can't move forward without funding for these drugs as well. We believe voting for PVG nominees is the safe bet. We have submitted a wealth of deep biotechnology knowledge, financial markets, business acumen, banking, et cetera. We think we are highly motivated. Our team is aligned with shareholders and bringing in executives. We will bring in executives needed to be successful to rebuild this company, basically. So we see the upside, and we want you to vote for our slate of board of directors. So Jason, we'll let you take over for the next slides 12 through 17. Thank you. Operator, can you unmute his line please? Jason is unmuted. Okay, Jason. Not hearing Jason, I'll take over until we get to line six, I guess. But the shares have underperformed the biotechnology sector by a wide margin. So this is May 5th through July 23rd. So when these announcements were made, the stock actually dipped 28% versus the biotechnology index up 10% and the S&P XBI biotechnology ETF up almost 14% over that period of time. Now, this is on page 14. Anavex has dramatically underperformed the peer group of companies over a one-year period. You can see there, the gold one is the company we've mentioned before, up 84% where Anavex is down 63%. So the market is speaking very loudly. Three years, again, Anavex down about what is that, about 50%. And again, Axsome up 204%. Page 16, this is a longer term chart, and you can see over a five year period, Anavex is down about 80%. Other peer companies up nine fold over that period. Page 17, three years, again, Anavex underperforming the XBI, IBB, two broad market biotechnology ETFs, underperforming in a major way. The XBI up 117%, the IBB up 72%, and Anavex down 59%. Okay, so we're on page 18, on page 19. So the first thing we think we need to do is reconstitute the board. We need to bring in people that have biotechnology experience, that have been doing this a long time, have executive experience, have been successful. So that's what we're doing. Obviously the priority is the pipeline and to move forward the key indications. So we will as a team go through each drug and determine what needs to be done to move it forward and the financing that needs to happen. You don't want to come in and disrupt anything that's happening at the company. Let things continue as they are, as long as they're appropriate, but let the current development, if there's things that are happening, go forward. I think it's a really good idea. There's what's called genetic super responders, okay? We think that getting that for compassionate use for Alzheimer's can really show the regulators that this drug has some strong efficacy. So that's something that we would like to get going as soon as possible. And then probably focus on part of the RET indication, potentially the Fragile X, and then determine what to do. We're moving the Parkinson's forward, which the company has, it looks like they've killed that off, but move the Parkinson's forward and the schizophrenia as well, maybe in some sort of partnership agreement. So, the key is to de-risk these trials, to set them up for the as high a holiday of success as possible. And with a new CEO hired and a new team in place, we also encourage the management team to bring in the best and brightest to run these trials. It's important to shareholders that we don't get diluted with the stocks currently doing with what we've experienced over the past several years by a lot of losses that have occurred, but we want to do as much as possible and non-dilutive financing. I mentioned this, that the company needs to rebuild the clinical team. Well, we lost a lot of good people. Nine scientists or nine executives were fired, excluding the CEO. So we want to do a proper transition of all that knowledge that we lost with the firing of these key people. And we think this is board of directors 101. The board needs to have skin in the game. The board members need to own stock and we want to have an active board that owns outright shares in the company that we buy with our own money, expertise in biotechnology, corporate governance, it's critically important. Addressing the bad governance, and then markets, capital markets experience, dealing with Wall Street. And out there, right? And we're going to try to take it up at much lower levels. Out there, right? And they're going to try to take advantage of buying the stock at much lower levels. And we have to be aware of that and protect our shareholders. So there's an issue with the executive committee that was formed. The board decided that the company is best off not allowing the board to participate, having an executive committee to take over control of the company and make all the decisions, and basically excludes the minority board members from having any, excuse me, from having any input. So this is reckless. This is what we believe that's occurring at the company. Again, we think all direct officers of the company should own shares in the company outright by law. So our plan, this is on page 20. Our plan is, one, is to hire an IR firm that's not focused on real estate, but it's focused on biotechnology. So we're going to hire an IR firm. Probably a great little IR firm, but it's not the – they don't know the biotechnology investors. They don't know the big funds, which we don't think they do, and the smaller funds and the family offices that would probably like to be in the industry to get some confidence. Additionally, to do one earnings call a quarter. Recently, Anavex has done no earnings calls. But we want to do one earnings call a quarter, talk about the pipeline, and the path. We want to do another conference call for investors, one a quarter, with a key opinion leader on the drugs we have. So one specific drug per quarter by a key opinion leader. These are obvious things that the existing team should be focused on, but we need to move these drugs forward. We need clinical success, so a strong team to run these trials. We need to improve the patents of these drugs. So there's ways of doing this, we need to extend because we've let too much time expire on some of these drugs. Manufacturing and commercialization. We've seen over and over again in the biotechnology space, when those plants aren't ready to go, it delays the launch of these drugs by roughly a year. Input we had in the manufacturing and it's done properly. Partnerships with Big Pharma, we're rather surprised the company hasn't done this already. So we could get non-diluted financing this way and still own a significant portion of that drug. Most important, a successful capital plan to commercialize these drugs. We believe Anavex's current leadership has underperformed. Shareholders need experienced leadership and a credible, actionable plan. The PVG group is committed to this. We're going to be active board members. So Curtis, please take over at page 21.

Thanks, Pat. This slide is a summary of our plan organized around three priorities. The first is leadership. This is where it starts. As Pat stated, we intend to recruit an experienced CEO who's a proven expert in CNS and rare disease. Rebuild the management team with high performing professionals and rebuild the clinical team with real team depth. And critically, we will require meaningful stock ownership, skin in the game for every director and officer. Leadership that owns the stock thinks like an owner. Second, advance Blarcamesine. We prioritize early Alzheimer's disease, recognizing that it needs funding, and we establish a credible regulatory pathway built on direct feedback from both the FDA and the EMA. There we work to accelerate approval and commercialization, and we strengthen the patent protection across the pipeline so the value we create is durable. And third, unlock the rest of the pipeline value. We pursue non-dilutive financing and strategic partnerships. We explore partnering the Parkinson's and schizophrenia assets, programs with encouraging data that the company simply cannot fund alone. We re-engage European regulators and address the CHMP's concerns head on rather than walking away. And we preserve and leverage the institutional knowledge built over years of investment, knowledge this board has been letting walk out the door. The objective is simple, and it's at the bottom of the slide. Maximize the value of Anavex pipeline for shareholders while advancing therapies for patients. Those two goals are not in tension. They're the same goal. Now on slide 22, this is the summary of the first 100 days across six work streams. I won't read every line. You have the slide, but let me hit the priorities in each. Leadership and management, hire that experienced CEO with a genuine following among institutional investors, rebuild the clinical team without disrupting the trials already underway, and conduct a proper transition, including with the nine executives who were let go so we recover the institutional knowledge that's been lost. On clinical development, make sure the trials are designed for the highest probability of success with independent outside input. Stand up a special board committee with real clinical expertise to oversee trial risk and de-risk the phase three Alzheimer's design, including proper patient selection, catching patients early, rather than moderate, which is common and costly for in Alzheimer's trials. On capital and partnerships, raise money at a higher stock price, or non-dilutively, not from a position of weakness. Partner with Big Pharma on the indications we can't fund alone and do a complete review of every asset, its financing needs, and its patent life. On governance, legal and regulatory, address the outstanding litigation, put real board oversight accountability in place, and require meaningful stock ownership from board and management. On investor relations, communicate actively and credibly with shareholders in the scientific and financial communities, and bring in capable IR and PR firms to rebuild visibility. And underpinning all of it, accountability. An active board that expects results and directors and management who put their own capital into this company. Last point ties the whole plan together. Thank you, okay.

Okay, so page 23, why is PVG seeking change? Page 24. This is a little detail-oriented, and I'll do my best to hit the important points. But I've seen this over and over again. And the sharks start to circle. And so what we're seeing is a spiral down in the stock. Wall Street has little confidence in what's going on currently. So what happens is stocks tend to follow down the cash. And as we go through time, they've discussed that the cash will last until March of 2028, approximately, and then they'll be roughly out of cash. So what happens is the stock follows the cash down, has to do a 10 to 20 or whatever reverse stock split to get this stock back up. They don't have a good institutional following. So a financial buyer of the stock loaded with warrants typically comes in and takes on, keeps the warrants and sells stock. So this occurs over and over again in biotechnology, and like I said, I've seen it over and over again. So, we believe the existing board lacks the alignment with shareholders, has demonstrated poor corporate governance as a background in other industries, not biotech. Lacks capital markets knowledge and, you know, frankly how they've handled the firing of the CEO and the transition of the business and reporting the financials and not being able to use the ATM that, you know, demonstrated poor business acumen. So we think we can do a lot better. So it's important to bring in somebody knowledgeable on CNS. And we're not saying we're going to fire the rookie CEO as soon as we get there. I'm sure there's things that she could do to help. We need a transition. We need to bring in a new CEO that has that following and experience, somebody that's been there, done that before, right? Okay. It's really important to have that history in CNS, in our opinion. Alzheimer's trials are very complicated. So one of the things that was disclosed in the most recent filings, that is a little bit concerning to us, is the weakness controls at the board. So that audit committee and the board and the CFO did not have a proper process to get the information from the CEO. So there's this issue that was at fault. And more or less, the audit committee, the board, and the CFO really are in charge of this process. It's become a problem, it's costly, stock went down because of it, they're probably going to have retaining employees or hiring new employees. This was in their 10-Q filings. So by losing, by not filing the financials, I just wanted to focus on this point. They've raised $36 million on the not ETM, that's S3 filing. So that S3 filing is dead for a year. To get more money, they're going to have to go to Wall Street and get investors to actually do a stock offering. So at this point, it's going to be very difficult with the team that they have in place that doesn't have a lot of credibility, and you can see it in the stock price. The Executive Committee, as I mentioned, is comprised of MAW, Bounder, Velden, and Pager. So two of the three are from the telecommunications department and the other one runs a hospital. And so we have this committee that's basically running the board and the company, to our knowledge, and they don't really have experience in running these type of companies. So we need to refresh the entire board. If these three individuals stay in place, then what we read from their proxy statement is that this committee can stay in place indefinitely. Then there's been some nonsensical statements, I'll say nonsensical, that's a polite way of saying it, that we are seeking control of Anavex without a credible plan. I think we went thoroughly through our plan. I think it's very credible. And the other, there's more, there's other statements that they've made that we're not paying a premium for the shares. Well, we've paid a big premium. The stock's down considerably. We're not acquiring the company. We're not taking the assets. We're investing along with everybody else. We want to see the stock go up. And then the other thing that we hear is that the former CEO is paying us to do this. That's just completely insane, okay? Wouldn't consider it. And, you know, we think it was probably time for the former CEO to move on. He's been there 13 years. He brought the company to where it is, had some success. We need a new team to come in and take it from where it is currently. So, this is page 25, why PVG is seeking change. Okay, so we spoke to four of the six board members, a number of different former employees, their medical team, analysts, bankers, long time investors in this. And we know what's going on at the company. And we really think that the board needs to be replaced. So looking at the big picture from December 2023, the all-female, and it was good. Not great, but it was good. You know, they made some mistakes in the trial. Well, three years, roughly three years have gone by, and they spent $130 million. And to our knowledge, really nothing has. So we look back at this and we say, if there was an active board, a board of new biotechnology, they would have asked the question, or they would have pushed forward the Alzheimer's trial or gone a different path. So why didn't the board push forward the phase three trial knowing the company had to go to the EMA and the EMA was going to require them to do another phase three. That was well known. The FDA and EMA required them to do another phase three trial. So why didn't the board instruct the company to do so? So obviously discuss this in detail. Well, two of the four board members that are left are from the telecommunications industry. I think they're probably good people. They never ask the question, in my mind. They're not from biotechnology. So page 26. So we're disappointed in the hiring of the new CEO. Like I said, again, she probably can be helpful to us transition out. We need to get a new CEO in place that has experience. The brain drain at the company, unfortunately, it happened the way it did. We understand there's a lot of information that wasn't passed along. There needs to be comprehensive transition of all the knowledge that left the company. And then, importantly, we need biotechnology people involved in the company that know how to ask management teams tough questions and to be actively involved in monitoring. And lastly, we need an IR firm that's focused on biotechnology. Okay, so Renee, you're going to hit this very quickly, page 27.

So in the interest of time, this slide illustrates clearly the brain drain that has occurred at an event that Patrick was referring to. Last week at a conference, I happened to be in a meeting with Al Sandrock, who was at Biogen for 21 years and was chief medical officer when he left the company and basically was in charge of all research. He talked about the key pillars to drug development in central nervous system diseases. And one of his three key pillars is you need to have the right team in place in order to get these trials done. They're complicated, they're difficult, and you need to have the right personnel. Right. Without prejudging the qualifications of every individual on this slide, you can just see that for a company whose task is supposed to be to carry out that clinical development of CNS drugs, that these should be the critical people that you need in order to carry out the clinical trial. So if you've chosen to lay off all this group of people, you need to have a credible plan in place as to whom you're going to replace them with. And again, we're not going to prejudge exactly where these individuals stand, but I think it's clear that we need to look very carefully at the personnel and make sure we... Obviously, the CEO will do this, but with the oversight of the board, we need to make sure that the right team is brought back into place.

Thank you, Renee. Page 28. We've talked about this. You can read it for yourself, but it goes through what happened with the audit committee, the board, the chief financial officer, the CEO, and the processes that were delinquent. And it's causing a lot of concern. We're concerned it's going to create some legal liabilities as well. It's a problem, okay, and it's not been fixed yet. It doesn't appear to be. Again, under 10-Q, it was filed. You can see on page 12, this is rather disturbing for me, that they gave back a Michael J. Fox grant for Parkinson's. The Parkinson's, you can read the press release that was dated March 17, 2026, that there was a strong signal of fiber density nerve growth back for the dopaminergic area of the brain. I think that's really interesting. So Jason, if you're available, please do pages 29 through 35. Can you please unmute as well?

Hello. Okay, great. So on page 30, board alignment, share ownership, it's a very, very simple slide. Does the board have skin in the game?