BeOne Medicines AG (ONC) Earnings Call Transcript & Summary

Good morning, everyone, good mid-morning. Thanks for joining us. Appreciate it. This is the fireside chat with BeiGene. Happy to have with me on the stage John Oyler, CEO; Mark Lanasa, CMO of Solid Tumors; and Aaron Rosenberg, newly joined CFO of BeiGene. Thanks for joining us. Appreciate it. Before we get started, let me read a brief disclosure statement. For important disclosures, please see the Morgan Stanley research disclosure website at www.morganstanley.com/researchdisclosures. And if you have any questions, please reach out to your Morgan Stanley sales representative. My name is Vikram Purohit. I'm one of the biotech research analysts with Morgan Stanley. And we should just get right into it.

So John, I'm sure everyone in the audience is pretty familiar with BeiGene. But just to level set in case there are some here that aren't, do you want to just hit on some of the highlights for the business that you feel like BeiGene has hit recently some of the recent milestones and where you're currently focused on the company, and then we can go into specifics from there.

Sure. I think a quick overview. BeiGene's 14 years old. We were started with a belief and desire to get medicine more accessibly and affordably to people all around the world. We're well on our way to doing that with about 10,000 people in our team today. Our business has built up and grown nicely. It's led really by BRUKINSA, complemented with a broad portfolio and other products. The organization did about $929 million in revenue last quarter, so it certainly is substantial with rapid revenue growth. That is, again, led by BRUKINSA, which is 1 of 3 products we have in CLL. We also have a BTK degrader and BCL2 that is presenting as best-in-class at the moment. And our belief is we really have one of these unique situations you see in the biotech industry, where you can build a lasting sustainable franchise in CLL, a $12 billion space over time, as you've seen Gilead do in HIV or J&J in multiple myeloma, for example. The company's well on the way to its mission operating and commercializing, I think, now in with approvals in over 70 countries. And the vast majority of what we're doing, our revenue base is of that $929 million, 52% of that is here in the U.S. That's actually a greater percentage of revenue than you see for like Pfizer, AstraZeneca, some of the other companies, from that point of view. As an organization, from the beginning, we've been very global. We believe that by being global, we can run our own clinical trials and dramatically reduce the cost structure of clinical trials. Clinical trials are probably 75% to 90% of the cost of a medicine delivered to a patient. And we do that through being global and not working with CROs. And as a result, have built this very substantial global organization of 3,000-plus people doing clinical trials all across the world. That's complemented with our own manufacturing. Big excitement last quarter was the groundbreaking -- not groundbreaking, opening I guess, and beginning of manufacturing at our large biologic $800 million investment Princeton Innovation Center site just in New Jersey in Hopewell, not far from here. So manufacturing, commercial and research, we think we're a powerhouse at this point in all those areas. We're able to do things on a cost-advantage basis. And as our revenue has grown, our excitement in the second quarter was showing adjusted positive operating income. So that's a big stage for any company and a stage that we've now passed through. Last piece, I think, is very exciting and compelling late-stage commercial pipeline in hematology, probably one of the most exciting pipelines going on in hematology today. And in solid tumors, a very exciting early pipeline, which marks our solid tumor CMO. So we can talk about that a little later. But I think the prolific research team has put 4 or 5 assets in the clinic already this year, and we've guided that we'll have over 10 new molecular entities entering the clinic this year. So it's really, really fun and exciting for BeiGene.

Great. Great overview. I wanted to just double down on the point of geographic diversity of your revenue base. Could you talk about the specifics of how that was broken out in 2Q and how that's evolved maybe over the past 1 to 2 years?

Sure. Well, it's -- I think, as I said, it's about 52% in the U.S. today. I think it's 9% in Europe. The 9% in Europe is Europe, we've launched a little bit later. It takes you time to work through to reimbursement. You traditionally would see that be 20% to 30%, I think, in a multinational pharmaceutical company, and we do expect to continue to grow that dramatically as we build out and further launch in those countries. We really have just started in Korea and Japan, and that's revenue to come. And in rest of the world, because we run these global clinical trials, we have a lot of KOLs with experience with our medicine. We should be able to do disproportionately well there. We have been previously revenue proportionate in China because we realized there was an opportunity in the world's second biggest market to build a distribution competitive advantage there. That's a market that 7, 8 years ago, there was no national reimbursement. There was less than probably $1 billion in innovative medicine being sold in oncology. Today, there's probably $15 billion to $20 billion. That will grow to $25 billion to $30 billion by 2030, probably. And from that perspective, it was clear you were going to build commercial teams, and no one had one. So we realize this opportunity as some of our medicines were getting approved, and we went and in-licensed some products from Celgene, products from Novartis, products from Amgen and EUSA and other companies to complement ours. And we've really been able to become 1 of the 3 major global oncology distributors in China today. And I think we think we have the best innovative team there, and that's doing over $1 billion in revenue, but it gives us a strategic distribution advantage, which is really hard for any biotech company to build in across oncology in the world's second biggest market. That's complemented in heme, which heme has always been easier to build. Celgene has done that, for example, because it's a smaller footprint with a finite number of KOLs and clinicians that you can address in a very attractive market. So in heme, we're growing to be one of the major players globally. In China, we've already become one of the major players in oncology, and now I think we're working on solid tumor across the world.

Great. Great. On the topic of geographies, you mentioned recently that you're planning to redomicile the business to Switzerland?

Yes.

What impact do you think that could have on the company overall in terms of org structure, manufacturing pipeline plans, if any?

Yes. So when we started the company, we had a clever lawyer who said it's tax advantage to have your corporate parent being Cayman, which is true. And from that perspective, as we started, that was our corporate home. The problem with that is, as you grow up as an organization, Cayman has no tax treaties with anyone. And when you try to do these licensing deals, which we've done in the past and we'll probably do in the future, there's withholding tax, and it's highly problematic. So as we grew up, we realized we needed to move our IP, for anything we might partner, to Europe. So the IP for most of our research stage and early-stage assets is originally in Cayman. But then ultimately, it would graduate to Switzerland, where it became, where you got a tax credit for doing that, but it was in Switzerland. And that's where the PD-1 and BTK IP has been sitting. We also have built out our clinical presence in Europe, which is quite sizable. And I think in Basel, we have over 300 people. So as we looked at this and said, how are we going to grow up as a company, we're kind of outsized for Cayman. Cayman's a lot of crypto companies. It also is a parent location for some of the large Chinese companies like Alibaba. And to us, we're a global company. We always knew we'd grow up from there. The question was where would we go. And since our IP, historically has been moved to Switzerland and is already there, it was a natural place. In addition to that, I think, we're in oncology. And the 2 big moves we made this year, one is this manufacturing center and clinical research center in New Jersey, that's the heart of U.S. Oncology. Merck, J&J, BMS, it's where Celgene was. And from the European perspective, Basel, where we're redomiciling to, is the center of European oncology. It's Roche and Novartis. So there's incredible talent from there from a global perspective that we can recruit and bring into our organization. And it's a great place to be because we're also collaborating with these major companies. We've collaborated or been invested in by many of them. So it's just a great and natural place. Structurally, it doesn't change much. We've always been a highly distributed company. Aaron is our CFO. And I was famous for saying our headquarters was on United or Zoom or whatever. But Aaron is living in New Jersey. Mark is in D.C. I have lived all over at the moment. I have a place in New York and in San Francisco and Montana, and I'm going between them. But our General Counsel and Head of HR are here in New York, and we have some people in Beijing, people in Basel, people in Sydney, everywhere across the world. That's kind of the way we're set up and have been structured. We do think it's important to physically spend time together, and we try to do that a lot. But the organization, it's global by nature because it needs to be. The cost structure of our industry is such, if you want to affect the cost, you have to run clinical trials globally, and then you need to commercialize products globally. And to do those 2 things, you have to be a global organization. So by nature, that's really, really important to us.

Great. Great. Let me ask you one more corporate/financial level question and then we can turn to the pipeline. So you mentioned in your opening statement that with 2Q, you hit positive adjusted operating income. So with that, I'm sure that part of your P&L is becoming more and more of a focus. Where do you think improvement in that line item comes from moving forward? Is it more from the top line? Is it more from cost discipline? And then longer term, what sort of margin profile do you aim to hit in relation to kind of other companies that are going to become kind of your buyer from a peer set over the coming years?

I'm going to largely let Aaron answer that with intro to say, BeiGene for a long time, people said, look, you spend a lot of money. How can that be? How are you going to not consume cash? We've known BRUKINSA is as good as it is. We know our pipeline is very, very strong. We believed in the revenue growth. It was a fair point 2 years ago because we've spent -- I think we've generated $6 billion in revenue over our history through January, and we've reinvested that all. We've built manufacturing. This is an $800 million biologics facility in Princeton. We've built this clinical team of over 3,000 people globally. We've built commercial distribution. We've built a 1,200-person research team. We're able to do things internally. But it was all built with the intention of being able to provide medicine more affordably, so it's very cost focused. Our gross margins are some of the highest in the industry. Our research cost per scientists are the lowest. Our clinical trial cost per patient, it's the lowest. So it's been big investment that does require revenue scale to break over, but then it's highly, highly cost advantage because of these investments. So I think to me, I've always wanted to meet this cross point, we're kind of there in terms of how we look moving forward. And I think it addresses a misperception. We've spent a lot, but we've spent a lot to be cost efficient. Hopefully, people will understand in our business. We're one of the best places to invest $1 in R&D because it's the most cost-efficient spending you're going to get. Please?

Thanks, John. So first, I'd just start with the fact that we don't issue guidance, so I'll refrain from any operating margin targets for your question. And I would start by saying we're a growth company. And we did achieve, as we aspired earlier this year, to achieve non-GAAP operating income in Q2, $48 million. And of course, profitability is a measure of sustainability for any business. I'd say that margin improvement is very much driven across the P&L. Of course, we have very strong revenue growth, as you've seen in our results, not just last quarter, but in the quarters prior. And the mix of our business allows for gross margin expansion. You saw in our Q2 results, gross margins of 85%, which are amongst the top in the industry, of course. As we do that, we are a growth company, so we continue to invest. And we talk about cost discipline, but it's really about investing our marginal dollars to value creation. We have the benefit of an emerging and significant portfolio. We will continue to invest to ensure those potential medicines are brought to patients with urgency. As we think about the profile, we do invest significantly in R&D today. We have a portfolio, so there are existing late-stage and commercial assets. Eventually, over time, you would imagine as any portfolio that as the new products come on, whether it's our existing late stage or early products, those will -- the relative investments of resources will pivot as well. So I'd say it's really across the P&L and the top line certainly helps in that regard, but we continue to maintain discipline across the entirety of the P&L. And it's an important objective for the company.

Great. Great. Very helpful. With that, let's turn over to the pipeline and talk first about BRUKINSA and TEVIMBRA, your BTK and your PD-1 assets. So on BRUKINSA, John, what do you think has been the key driver of uptick in recent months? Has it been the ALPINE data that you presented at ASH last year? Has it just been more just familiarity with the product? And then looking forward over the coming 1 to 2 years, what do you think keeps the momentum going?

Sure. I think the ALPINE data is the longer-term follow-up which people wanted. And again, ALPINE is a head-to-head data, head-to-head trial run in CLL against IMBRUVICA. And in that trial, we had a positive hazard ratio in PFS, and showed superiority on efficacy and on safety, safety being AFib. That is a trial that was similar to a head-to-head trial run by acalabrutinib against IMBRUVICA in actually an easier population, harder population that has worse prognosis, but a population in which we know IMBRUVICA does not perform well. So in their trial that was a head-to-head, they had a hazard ratio of 1 and declared victory they are the same. And a Grade 1, Grade 2 AFib that was superior, and declared victory on superiority similar on efficacy, which was great. They had 39 months of follow-up, which we now have with the follow-up that we have, similar follow-up. So in that setting, the hard-to-treat population, this is this deletion 17p TP53. IMBRUVICA doesn't perform well there. Our population was all comers, where IMBRUVICA does perform well. So it's a much harder hurdle to show superiority in because patients do well on IMBRUVICA that have better prognosis. But if you cut our data and you look at this hard-to-treat population, we still have, I think it's like 75 patients versus 75 patients in that population. At the 39-month cutoff, actually what had been shown in the acala versus IMBRUVICA data was an initial advantage for acala in PFS. But at 29 months, it crossed over. And actually, IMBRUVICA performed 7% better at 39 months. Then the study stopped, no comment. Read into that what you like, but the hazard ratio was 1, so they're the same. But actually, the milestone PFS is worse by 7% at that time. Actually, acala's milestone PFS is 30%. I think IMBRUVICA's is around 37% in that population. For us, in the 75 versus 75 population, you see a data set that's very -- looks very different. IMBRUVICA, in our study, performed 31%. And you can say, wait, 31%, it was 36% or 37% in the acala study, why is that? That's explained by COVID. It was run during COVID. There was a lot of COVID deaths associated with that, that if you adjust that, it looks much more similar. But in that period, not even adjusted for COVID, our milestone PFS is 59%. It's 59%, it's nowhere near 30%. You can explain a lot of cross trial whatever noise you want, but it's 59%. And if you adjust it for COVID, of course, it's much higher. I think that in reality, KOLs are seeing this and they're understanding it now. They're using our medicine. And when they use our medicine, they're seeing the results and their experiments. So in their patients, they're seeing what is the actual implications in the real world. I think if you look at the actual revenue growth in this space and you say, where is it going, it's very, very clear. You can see it in the reported numbers, it's going to BRUKINSA. So this is the actual best comparison you could do. Two head-to-head studies, it's not perfect. There's not a head-to-head study between the 2, but this is the best way to look at the data. By the way, in the study, even though the Grade 1, Grade 2 AFib was superior, Grade 3, Grade 4 was numerically worse for acala than IMBRUVICA. So it's not meaningful, it's small data set. But this is settings where when people actually are in the data, they start working through it. They can see things and it becomes more clear. There's been a lot of noise in the space. There's been noise about do we need longer follow-up. There was noise about some resistance, which is inconsequential. There's a lot of noise that's created to distract from the real data. The real data is the head-to-head data. Everyone knows that's the gold standard. It's very clear what it says when you work through that and when KOLs have time to see that data and work through it. So from that perspective, we feel very good and very strong about where we are in that point of view. We think there's a bright future where BRUKINSA clearly is the medicine of choice and the BTK of choice in this space.

Understood. That's helpful. And pricing has also been a consideration for the BTK class. To the extent you can comment, what can you tell us about growth and net pricing for BRUKINSA versus its BTK competitors? And then also, we recently received the IRA negotiated prices, including for IMBRUVICA. What, I guess, first order and second order impact do you see on the BTK class and BRUKINSA from that price announcement?

Yes. I mean if I work my way backwards, I think the IRA played out about almost exactly the way our team assumed it would for IMBRUVICA. We've never thought that, that matters because we have a head-to-head study where we're superior. It should also be noted in our head-to-head study that 1.8% of the patients who took IMBRUVICA had a sudden cardiac death event, 1.8%. That's pretty serious. IMBRUVICA's labeled with 1% by the U.S. FDA. The belief that anyone would force someone to this medicine to save money for a system, like that's not an ethical thing to do. So I think from that perspective, we've never viewed IMBRUVICA as a credible substitute for BRUKINSA. We've never thought IRA for IMBRUVICA has any impact on it whatsoever, nor on acala because acala does not have that sudden cardiac death rate from that perspective. So we think it's a nonevent from that point of view. And we just continue to move forward. I don't think we comment on our gross to net at all and don't plan on it, but this is, in our mind, a space where we have a best-in-class asset, and don't have a high expectation of people having data, which is comparable.

Understood. It's a good position to be in. Understood. Fair enough. Switching gears to TEVIMBRA. So I think sales for that asset were roughly 1/5 of your overall sales base for the first half of the year. Product sales, currently China-based, but you do have approvals ex China as well. So what's the plan for TEVIMBRA to kind of broaden out its reach, and what can people look forward to learning there from a regulatory perspective, from a sales perspective?

Do you want to start?

Yes. Great. Thank you. So we have invested a lot of effort into the global regulatory submissions related to TEVIMBRA, and we're very happy with what's been achieved so far, particularly in Europe earlier this year where we've now had approvals, not only in gastric and esophageal cancer, but importantly, in non-small cell lung cancer. Europe is a very important precedent regulatory market. So we're now able to take those approvals to other secondary markets and again, filed that dossier, and we've had good receptivity. Here in the United States, we're now approved in second line esophageal cancer, importantly for patients who have not had prior treatment with a PD-1 inhibitor, so that's a small patient population today. We're under review for first-line esophageal and first-line gastric cancer. Those are much larger, more substantial indications. So we are looking in a, shall we say, rightsized way to build out the commercial footprint for TEVIMBRA. The other point that I think is important is that by having approvals in multiple indications globally, that provides a foundation for us to then build best-in-class combinations with our innovative portfolio.

Got it. Got it. Okay. In TEVIMBRA, you want to keep, at least for the near term, do you want to keep that asset in-house? Do you think there's partnership potential for certain geographies for that program or?

It's in-house. In-house.

Yes, fair enough. Okay.

We've partnered it twice. It's generated a lot of revenue to pay for a lot of the development. But at this point, it's launching, we're very comfortable with our ability to launch it. There was a lot of interest in Asia, for example, because there's a strong Asian data set in many indications. And like in Japan, it should do reasonably well. But we've decided to hold on to it ourselves, and are very comfortable with that decision. And again, it's not an asset that's being approved that there's no experience with. There's over 1 million patients that have been treated commercially with this medicine. And it's a great medicine with a well-established safety profile and efficacy profile.

And from a development perspective, we're deeply committed to progress in non-small cell lung cancer, upper GI malignancies, where PD-1 is clearly a frontline standard of care, and having it in-house is really important to forward the innovative portfolio.

Got it. Got it. Okay. Helpful context. On the pipeline, you've talked quite a bit recently about your BCL2 inhibitor, sonrotoclax. You've talked quite a bit about the BTK degrader 16673. I guess the first question, how did you choose to prioritize your development efforts in heme for late-stage programs on these 2 targets? And then where do you see these programs secondly fitting into the CLL treatment paradigm in relation to BRUKINSA?

Yes. I think that with both of these assets, they're well characterized now. So the BCL2 has seen over 1,000 patients in clinical trials. So we know a lot about it. I think it is presenting very strongly like a best-in-class BCL2 that's meeting some of the desired features of an improved BCL2. There's a real problem about usability with venetoclax which gates its usage, because there's a lot of monitoring and hospitalization that needs to occur that can't occur in many places cancer patients are treated. So that is addressed by this in addition to just a better potency, selectivity, PK molecule. So there's great promise for that, and it's already in 2 registration trials, and we'll be expanding into other areas in CLL and in other indications, including broadening into AML and potentially into multiple myeloma. For the degrader, the degrader has seen over 300 patients worth of data, and our patients we've disclosed on clinical trials, we haven't disclosed the data yet for all of those, but we will be sharing additional data at ASH. In terms of how these fit together, we think a lot of potential exists, having the primary BTK backbone in BRUKINSA, the safest, the most efficacious backbone. Having a degrader that has outstanding data that to us compares favorably with anything presented by any other degrader. And in addition, is far ahead of any other degrader. And then with this BCL2, which really, I think, is unique in data set and where it is, it just takes a little bit of time to push forward. So for us in CLL, this is about putting together the right solutions for patients in the future. And we probably have many of the most important agents for this $12-plus billion CLL space on a moving forward basis. It's really a unique franchise opportunity in the biotech space, I think.

Got it. Got it. And you alluded to competition in the space for your BTK degrader, but just to put a fine point on it. How is your CDAC differentiated in terms of design, I guess, versus others in the space? For example, like Nurix Therapeutics has a BTK degrader as well.

Yes. I mean I think they have 2. I can't speak. I think the first one had some [ tox ] issues. The second one is in the clinic. I think it's -- I think they've disclosed maybe 70-ish patients on trial. We have 300 patients, but honestly, very few of them have been on the medicine for a year. So talking about the [ tox ] in this space, it's premature. It's premature for them. It's premature for us. Even talking about the efficacy, it's premature because you need to really look at the sustainability of responses. Look, we're seeing lots of responses. We are seeing things that make you think this is very promising. But at the same time, you don't really know a medicine until you have long-term follow-up. And I think that a lot of the experience with [indiscernible] in the real world, people say is quite disappointing from a long-term follow-up perspective. So it's early days. But clearly, a degrader is a hard thing to do. There's a reason there aren't tons of them. I think we're pretty good at this, and this degrader set that we have, we're really delighted with the data. We're really moving that program aggressively. We think that it is likely to be used in combination with a BCL2 and BTK or both, and we're in a much better position to do that than other people. So we're excited about the mechanism. We also put an IRAK4 degrader in the clinic, which is not for oncology, but is exciting and are starting to generate early data on that, which I think is meeting our expectations. But again, is even earlier, and we have an EGFR degrader that will go in the clinic at some point later this year. So that's an area we're really, really active. We're probably really investing a lot and quite competent in and do believe in for what it's worth.

Got it. No, that's helpful. On the IRAK4 degrader, do you think seeing constructive positive data there could push you to look at more efforts in I&I?

We're doing a decent amount actually in I&I already. A little bit with our current portfolio, but also I think from a research perspective, we've said roughly 10% of what we're doing trails into that space. Not everything we do works. We actually had one of the early [ TYK2s ], but we killed the program early in the clinic because it didn't present what the PK we were looking for. So we just killed it. So we're very aggressive from that perspective. But this isn't our first I&I dedicated asset in the clinic. It's just not everything works, even for us.

Understood. And that TYK2, that was an inhibitor or a degrader?

That was an inhibitor.

Okay. Got it. Looked good preclinically, didn't have the PK. It happens. I guess more broadly than when you think about the targets you want to pursue, the indications you want to pursue, and when you're kind of filling your early-stage pipeline to enable later-stage kind of R&D productivity, what fits the bill in terms of what are you looking for from a target biology perspective, from a commercial opportunity perspective, like what's the filter that you kind of go through before you nominate something for Phase I development and put it in your pipeline chart?

Well, I think I'd make a couple of broad research comments, and then I think we can talk about the clinical hurdles. One thing is we follow science and what's happening. So I think what has happened very clearly in the last 3, 4 years is there's an understanding that bispecific, trispecific is a good way to go. And the next-generation ADC is a good way to go. And I think the actual clinical data associated with this has been incredible and outstanding. I think the obvious next things to do, there's a lot of obvious next things to do. If you have the right technology platform, it just takes time and energy to do them. I think from that point of view, with the scale of the research team we have and our own manufacturing, we're really in this poll position where we can move very, very quickly and bill [ beachhead ] in many of the important areas from an ADC and bi-, trispecific area. And I think you'll see us do that. And when you compare us to other companies that are known to be ADC or bispecific company -- we actually have very substantial manufacturing, which is a huge advantage. A lot of these companies, whether it's -- BioNTech who's in-licensed a lot, they don't have biologic manufacturing, Genmab, no biologic manufacturing. A lot of the smaller biotech companies, no biologic manufacturing. A lot of them have been relying on CROs that may not be tenable in the future to rely on. So what are they going to do? Seagen had its own manufacturing and was building more, and Pfizer bought it. So -- but in this area, like who is really there able to do this and move quickly and control their own destiny, that's an area that we see incredible obvious opportunity. And it's really not that the targets per se are that novel, but it's applying a technology that is really working right now to known targets and intelligent bi-, trispecific ways to -- and ADC or not ways to address those targets. And just being in a situation where you can do that with a speed and quality that [ few can't ] cost that few can. From the other perspective, in the degrader area, degraders are really hard. They're big, ugly molecules that it's hard to make them, that don't have selectivity issues, that don't have PK issues. It's difficult. And I think it requires exceptional chemistry in CMC, and that's something we have. And we actually have been very good in that space. The 2 BCL2s we put in the clinic are like that. They are very big [indiscernible], ugly medicinal chemistry molecules, but ones that have the features that are necessary to be successful. There's a reason there's not 10 BCL2s in the clinic. There's a reason that even though degrader has been a hot discussion for 5, 6 years, there aren't a lot in the clinic. They're hard, and I think that's something we're really good at. So in that area, I think you'll see a lot that's obvious. In addition to that, we're doing a lot of areas where we're looking for the other cutting-edge science, and we're first or second in class with the CDK4. There's one in the clinic. It's Pfizer ahead of us, and we're second. So in some of the other areas, we're even first. So I mean, you can speak to that a bit.

Well, so we have made really great progress with our CDK4 [ earnings ]. I think we said that we had treated around 60 patients. We're now around 80 patients progressing monotherapy, different combinations, doses and schedules. And I think that we'll be able to replicate that type of early investigation success across our broader portfolio, given the operational capabilities that we've built and the relationships we've built with early phase investigation.

Great. Great. And we're unfortunately out of time, so we'll have to end it there. A lot that we didn't get the chance to unpack in the business in the pipeline, but we've got through quite a bit. So thanks for making the time. Really appreciate it. John, Mark and Aaron, I appreciate your -- thank you for joining us. Thanks, everyone. We'll close out.

Thank you.