Guardant Health, Inc. (GH) Earnings Call Transcript & Summary

Okay. Great. Thank you, everyone, for joining us at the Citi Healthcare Conference here. I'm Patrick Donnelly, I cover the tools diagnostics space here at Citi. Happy to have the Guardant team. We have Helmy, AmirAli and Mike, so the co-CEOs and CFO with us. So we'll look to cover a lot of ground. Obviously topical coming off of the report just last night. So again, thank you guys for the quick turnaround and joining us today. Maybe we can start just touching on the quarter again since it was just last night. And maybe one for you, Helmy, he's reported really strong revenue, $108 million, well above the Street. And the test volumes, particularly were quite strong in -- particularly in the face of the COVID outbreak, Omicron popping up at the end of the quarter there. Can you just talk about, I guess, the resilience of the business to that? And again, it didn't really feel like it impacted things. So again, the momentum as we enter '22 here would be helpful.

Yes. No. I mean we're very pleased with the quarter. I mean, really strong growth across the board, not just clinically but pharma samples as well, I think, really rebounded. In terms of the specifics around clinical volume, in Q4, actually, the biggest impact we saw was at the beginning of Q4, tail end of Delta, essentially, we saw some impact there. Things started resolving during the middle of the quarter in November, and we saw -- we were really getting to a really nice stride with around 50% of offices being opened, and the team was really jelling. If you think about it Q4, it was really the first full quarter of that -- we had access to the full new portfolio of products. The team has kind of been trained for a few months that we recently added and augmented. And yes, and so we were very pleased with it. We didn't see much impact from Omicron in Q4. It was really the beginning of Q1 in January where we saw the bigger impact. And fortunately, I think we're seeing that subside now as cases have obviously dropped precipitously and we're seeing mask mandates and so on, kind of get lifted. So we're hopeful the rest of this year is much rosier from a COVID perspective.

Yes. Yes. Maybe picking up on that point. You guys obviously gave kind of the initial '22 guidance, again, volume growth of over 50%, certainly encouraging. I guess maybe just talk about what went into that guide again. It feels like we have a pretty good handle, hopefully, on COVID settling down here. Just maybe what's implied in terms of those trends. And again, it seems like obviously a healthy recovery, some contribution from a reveal. But maybe just kind of deconstruct that number a little bit for us.

Yes. I mean I think we're seeing some impact on office access as well as some of the prospective trials on the pharma side from Omicron. But [Audio Gap] That as a result, we're back to a sort of new [indiscernible] and that office access essentially ends up at somewhere around 70%, 75%.

Yes. And then maybe just on the Reveal contribution, 4Q and then obviously into '22 as well. I know you guys don't break it out specifically, but maybe if you can just talk to how that's been ramping relative to your internal expectations, any metrics you should be willing to give would be helpful. But that's a big focus point, huge market, early days, feels like you guys are pretty well positioned there. So would love to talk about that a bit.

Yes. We saw a very strong growth in our overall clinical volume in Q4. I mean Q4 is one of those -- there's a lot of seasonality there, there aren't as many days, receiving days. So especially, you think about Thanksgiving and end of the year and the fact we had that kind of strong sequential growth, I think is a testament to growth in kind of multiple factors we saw. So certainly, the core business was growing very robustly in terms of 360. But there's no doubt that the new projects Reveal, Response and TissueNext, all contributed really well and beat our expectations. And so I think that once again was the first kind of full quarter that we had the full sales team really selling those products. Reveal, amazing sequential growth that we saw Q3 over Q4, and we're projecting that to continue to grow well. We're only in a single indication as we expand indications, we see a lot of upside there as well. So no, we've been very pleased with how all of our products have launched and the initial rollout and ramp-up.

Yes. And to your point on Reveal there, maybe talk through the catalyst set that we should expect in '22, both in terms of product expansion and then obviously, reimbursement is going to continue to come on. And maybe after that, we can have Mike just talk a little bit about ASP progression and the impact of Reveal on that. But maybe first, just on the data side and what your expectations are on the reimbursement front for reveal as we go through '22?

Yes. I mean, I think we'll expand to additional cancer types from colorectal right now. We presented some breast data at JPMorgan conference, and lung data is looking very good as well. So those are probably the next 2 indications that we'll expand. Reveal too, we're working on a number of other indications as well. And when those are ready and when those data sets already, we'll continue to expand the test. Certainly, CRC reimbursement would be the first from a medicare perspective. And then we're hopeful that we'll be able to get some traction on the other cancer types as data -- as we publish data sets kind of associated with those indications.

Yes. Mike, maybe just on kind of the ASP side. Obviously, Reveal, as that grows, great news for volumes as we saw, not so much in terms of revenue contribution. Maybe just talk through that dynamic just to make sure we understand it and how we should think about ASPs for '22?

Yes. ASPs for 2022. I'll start first with G360 since the ADLT rate for 360 CDx came in start of April. We've seen relatively stable ASPs for G360. So in this 2,600, 2,700 mark, and we expect that to continue into 2022. We had good news on the ADLT $5,000 rate. That stays in place for the next 2 years. So that gives us a lot of stability there. And there's always potential upside if some of the larger payers come on board with reimbursing CGP testing. So yes, that will be stable for 2022. New products as the volume start to ramp up. Overall, if you look at the blended ASP on clinical, there's going to be some pressure on that. And we've sort of taken this risk-based approach to our assumptions on reimbursement for all of the new products in the year. And we probably back-ended more of the expectation of reimbursement and revenue coming from the new products. So overall, we should see reimbursement for each individual product increased throughout the year. But yes, if you look at the blended, it will be impacted a little bit throughout 2022.

Okay. And maybe one more on the guide. I know you talked about development services being maybe $50 million. I felt like that was probably the only delta from the consensus numbers. Can you just talk, it seems like maybe starting at $10 million in 1Q and ramping from there. Maybe just talk about the trajectory of that because that I think maybe has less visibility for us, at least in terms of the way it's been modeled. It feels like it's in a good place now. But maybe just talk about why it's a little lower now, ramping and then how we should think about that as kind of a run rate going forward?

Yes. That line is always pretty lumpy. And in the back half of this year, we had 2 of the companion diagnostics programs successfully complete, and we booked the milestones related to the completion. So we saw lumpiness throughout this year -- sorry, 2021. For 2022, yes, some of those projects are finished. We've got a very strong pipeline of new projects coming down the line, but they take time to sort of start and then to ramp up. And so I think, yes, we sort of guided to $50 million for the full year and around about $10 million in Q1. And we expect that to just grow gradually throughout the year as some of these new projects come online. So we have pretty good line of sight of that pipeline. So I think we look at that number as being relatively solid number growing throughout 2022.

Okay. And then just got a question e-mailed in just on the -- and it's for Helmy on some of the other tests, Response, Reveal, TissueNext. I guess when you think about the revenue contribution, is that -- how small of a piece of that is that versus again, and obviously, the volumes are ramping, but I guess what level, if any, is really part of the kind of the revenue guidance related to those new tests?

Do you want to take that, Mike?

Yes. I mean we'd say it's relatively minimal in the revenue guide. And you can sort of see that in our clinical volume growth growing more than 50%, Precision oncology revenue growing around about 35%. And again, we're taking relatively conservative assumptions on achieving reimbursement and really looking at that in the second half. So without giving any specific numbers, yes, we'd say relatively minimal this year, but expecting it to grow and become more sizable 2023 and beyond.

Okay. And then, Helmy, maybe on Guardant360 kind of the core business. It's been a little while since you guys have talked maybe more about kind of the share that you guys have in liquid versus tissue. Just how we think about that market penetration? I know it's still -- it's become a relatively big business for you guys, but it's still pretty early stage -- early days, at least in kind of that penetration curve of the entire tumor profiling market. So, would be helpful if you could just talk a little bit high level about liquid, liquid versus tissue? And then again, G360's position kind of overall there.

Yes. No, it's an area that we're very pleased by the progress we've made. If you think about the overall market, we agree that it's still very underpenetrated in terms of where it can go. But there's also been developments in the sense that -- the utility of profiling has also grown where it's not just at a single time point, but we have to track tumor evolution, there's therapeutic response monitoring now. And so there are multiple tests per patient now versus a lot of the analysis before was thinking there's maybe 1 or 2 testing opportunities. So the market really has grown from a $6 billion opportunity in therapy selection to now $10 billion. If you kind of dive in a little bit more in terms of the progress we've made. We believe that we probably test the most lung cancer patients in the United States with comprehensive genomic profiling, whether tissue or liquid. So that's really an important kind of seminal milestone, the fact that liquid biopsy and Guardant360 specifically could be a dominant mode of testing for lung cancer patients today in the field. So I think it's shown that we've gone from a sort of do it if you have to, if you don't have tissue to something that is now becoming kind of a standard of care and the primary means of tumor profiling for many patients.

Right. Okay. And then AmirAli, maybe we can talk a little bit about ECLIPSE. I know you mentioned last night, we saw maybe a slight delay around COVID, but the time line is still largely intact. Maybe just kind of update us on what you guys saw? And then again, I guess, reassure us that the time line is still kind of on track?

Yes. Maybe I can go into more details of really what we saw. So for -- maybe it was 3 to 4 weeks, effectively, our productivity was lower than our projection or plan. And the root cause was almost every week during that 3 to 4 weeks, 10% to 15% of the personnel that we counted them to come to the office were calling sick for obvious reasons. And also, we've noticed that in terms of traction and communication between our CRO and our clinical trial site, there was some slowdown. We don't know exactly what was happening, but probably it was related to the same matter, but those days are over. So now for those 3, 4 weeks that we had lower productivity to plan, we experienced that. But there is good probability that we can even catch up and still even not see any impact by those 3, 4 weeks. If we cannot catch up, the impact would be the lower productivity that we had during those very few weeks. That's why I mentioned in the prepared remarks, I don't expect a material impact on our time line. And still, we feel confident with middle of the year time line.

Okay. And yes, maybe just kind of walk through the time line as well. I mean, obviously, we'll get the mid-'22 data readout, then FDA submissions. Maybe just talk through, I guess, the time line through commercialization there with ECLIPSE.

Yes. So the first one is actually going to be -- in terms of commercialization, the first one is going to be our Guardant Shield LDT launch that we mentioned is going to be the first half of this year. And we made great progress and we are on track. Based on everything I'm seeing, we're going to deliver on this and I'm very excited about it. On the IVD launch, we are expecting it, obviously, post-FDA approval, we expect FDA approval in 2023. In terms of milestones to get to that FDA approval, we are expecting ECLIPSE readout middle of this year. We are expecting PMA submission to the agency later part of this year, and considering the review cycle, which we don't have full control over, but having a reasonable kind of a review cycle not too fast, but not extremely slow either, 12 to 15 month kind of a time cycle for review. We are expecting to get FDA approval by the end of 2023.

Perfect. And then on the LDT launch, I know last night, you guys mentioned kind of have a 100-person sales force put together for this. Maybe just talk about, I guess, what's going into the launch, what metrics you guys and then I guess we should be looking at in terms of this being successful? Again, how big, if any, should we think of it as a revenue contributor? I'm sure not much, if any, is built into the guidance. But can this ramp to be a pretty big number? Obviously, we've seen a multi-cancer screen LDT launch put up some pretty big numbers in terms of revenue, at least expected this year. So curious how you guys are thinking about that launch?

So Patrick, we are going with our strategy that we want to go after, the unlocking of this $20 billion TAM opportunity. In order to unlock this, you need to make sure the test is accessible by tens of millions of people. The total TAM is touching about 130 million patients in the United States. And that's really -- in order to really get there, we need to make sure payers covering this as we are in the guidelines. We don't think just a self-pay opportunity through [indiscernible] market or redirecting funding from COVID relief into doing some kind of screening programs at state level is really a sustainable way of building screening business. But we are actually excited with the progress our friends in GRAIL and Illumina and the employer side. That's been better than what we thought and in fact, that's a great opportunity for the field that employers are showing a lot of interest in this kind of test. Regarding the success of our LDT launch, really like we planned it in such a way that we are going to maximize the growth rate post-FDA approval. So there's going to be a lot of market shaping and infrastructure building. In terms of making sure the test is integrated in a bunch of workflows, making sure that awareness is built in the field around the value of blood-based cancer screening, like we are talking about blood-based cancer screening for a few years. But when you go to PCPs, this looks like WiFi -- sci-fi, WiFi. Sci-fi at this time. So I talked about this like PC market is very interesting. Like some of the stuff that you think it makes sense, should matter like advanced adenoma performance. Still at this time based on our finding, still they are not latched on to it at this time. So we have a lot of work to bring the awareness of blood-based screening up and even show the compliance rate in different practices would go up, bunch of key stakeholders would get engaged, start using our test, have good experience with blood-based workflows for screening, which is different than stool, which is different than colonoscopy. So I think all these would be the KPIs that we monitor, and we are going to show the ROI right after FDA approval.

That's helpful. And I guess when you think about the data itself, and this is a question we get a lot, I'm sure you do as well. And we've seen some data sets from you guys already, including ASCO GI, where it looks really compelling. Again, the asymptomatic patient population, particularly. I guess when you see that data, should we expect this level of degradation to happen when we look at ECLIPSE. Obviously, some people believe it, some don't. I guess what's your guys' perspective on that? And if we shouldn't see it, I guess, why would that be the case?

So I appreciate some pattern matching that happens, but also actually, I'm encouraged with our friends and exact that now they are saying for Cologuard 2.0, they don't expect their biobank data to have any degradation relative to what they're going to expect in their prospective study because the samples are representative of what they're getting from their prospective study. So I'm happy that finally, they say what I've been saying for a few quarters. Really, I think this decay is a function of how representative is your biobank sample to what you're going to get in your prospective pivotal trial? Yes, if you go back to 10 years ago, look in to solve the data that was generated from symptomatic CRC patients. You are not going to get symptomatic patients in screening trials since it means to the average risk and clinical, that's a clinical variation. You should expect maybe performance would be different. We -- I'm latching more on early stage and asymptomatic data that we've shown so far. I think scientifically, they should be well representative of what we are going to see in ECLIPSE. We have to see again what ECLIPSE readout is going to have. But I'm very pleased. I'm comfortable with what we've seen so far.

Okay. That's a good answer for that. And then I guess you kind of touched on the pre-cancer part. How big of a focus do you think that's going to be -- I thought you showed some pretty helpful charts at JPM kind of talking about the adoption curve at different levels of data. But maybe just talk us through, I guess, you've certainly talked to a lot of docs. Obviously, you know what they want to see and they know what the focus points are. So I guess where is precancer on that list? How big of a focus should it be when we finally see the data? And then again, certainly, it would be helpful to talk about some of that elasticity of what the demand looks like at different levels.

Yes, I can tell you actually what we found in our 300 PCPs survey. It was a contract analysis of different product profile and then what fraction of your patient you're going to use such a product in your practice. And then some more detailed interview to understand their assessment better. What I can tell you on the precancer on advanced adenoma at least what came out from our survey is PCPs at this time are not able to differentiate and distinguish the performance of Cologuard versus Fit in terms of advanced adenoma superiority. One is in 20, the other one is in 40s. They can't distinguish that. So -- at this time, at least majority of the people that were covered with our survey. So -- as a result, I think when you think about the market shape as it is today, after a few years of messaging and education like the Cologuard, this is what it is at this time. But when you think about it in a longer-term horizon and more competitive messaging gets -- accounts get more detail around this and more educated. I think become a differentiating factor, but more on a mid- to long-term horizon. Can blood detect advanced adenoma? I think the answer is yes, how much you can detect it based on what we've seen. So I think it's probably yes. So now we have to see at the level with ECLIPSE. And we have some internal data that I talked about before in terms of having that data in some of our investigational studies, but the number of advanced adenoma data cases that we have data for is pretty limited. So really, I think we are going to find a lot of this characterization about our exact performance when we unblind the ECLIPSE forward.

Understood. And maybe last one on ECLIPSE. Just how do you think about kind of the way this market is going to develop I mean in terms of stool-based colonoscopy, FIT, blood-based, unscreened. I guess where do you see it shaking out? Where do you see your biggest opportunity? Is it going after the unscreened? Is it going after -- it would be helpful just to hear your perspective on that broader market obviously, massive market, but which part do you convert? And where do you see this all shaking out in the long term?

So now that actually we have trained people and some of them actually got deployed to the field now, more actual conversation with the accounts started to happen. I can tell you I'm very pleased with really confirmation of the opportunity here. And really, the market is asking for a high-performance CRC screening device that can have high compliance. And it's very clear, like when we are talking with docs, many of them off the bat, they have patients in mind that if our test was launched, they want to just start using it at the time being. The profile of those patients are obviously, the patients who are not compliant with any kind of screening or they are younger patient population that they experience tails that probably they are not going to have low compliance. And also some patients that they experience have showed doctors that even if they say yes to, let's say, a stool-based test, but at the end, 1/3 of them, they're never going to submit the sample, let's say, those kind of experiences are on top of the mind of some of the people, too. So I think based on the performance that we are going to see in ECLIPSE, different part of these opportunities are going to get opened up. But I think the level of interest out there is very solid.

Okay. That's fair. And reimbursement, how are you guys thinking about what you could get paid for this, again, once it's kind of fully out there established assuming a certain level of data, I guess?

SHIELD you're asking, right?

Yes.

So we are -- all of our modelings are based on -- we think we are going to have similar ASPs to Cologuard in long term. And conversations that we have with CMS still we are way before talking about pricing, but we didn't get any kind of indication that says we could be wrong in our assumptions. So I think the -- really our expectation is our pricing by medicare is going to be very similar to Cologuard. And same thing with private payers. When you look at the health economic models that the blood-based screening asset have, if not better than stool, it's very similar. And the main reason is when you're adding additional compliance factor in your model, there's a lot of actually health economic value that you're bringing to the community that the current stool-based model cannot capture that. So as a result, our expectation long term is we are going to have in the same ballpark of Cologuard ASP.

And will the interval be 3 years? Or is that going to depend on the data? How does that shake out?

At least on the CMS part, now it's final, we have final NCD, I believe it mentions there, it's going to be interval testing of every 3 years, if I don't make a mistake. And based on, again, the modeling and what we are expecting to see to be expecting interval testing to be still 3 years with ASPs that we talked about. Even like at the minimum bar that CMS has with 74% sensitivity, 90% specificity still, they think the test would be indicated for a 3-year cycle testing.

Okay. Perfect. And then help me just on maybe smart liquid biopsy, talked a little bit about that last night, it sounds like we'll hear a lot more about it. I guess it's going to be the focal point of that Investor Day in the fall. But maybe just talk a little bit about that. It sounds like maybe a launch late this year to biopharma. Is that the right time line? And then maybe as much details as you can give on it with, I guess, saving the bulk of it for the Analyst Day.

Yes. No. So it's something we're very excited about. We think this really takes a page out of the kind of disruption we brought to bear when we first launched Guardant360 in 2014. This is a fundamentally new approach to liquid biopsy. We're going beyond just looking at changes in mutations and the DNA sequencing. We're looking at really methylation, other biomarkers and immune system and so on, really trying to go to the heaviest hitters in terms of tumor biology, tumor genesis, tumor evolution. And this will allow capabilities that are ready for prime time on day one. So this is not something where we're just kind of investing for potential application 5 years from now. But the science has really moved quite a bit over the last 2 years in terms of really seeing kind of the impact and power that some of these other biomarkers have in terms of segmentation of patients, predicting responders and so on. And so we're very excited for what this represents. And a lot of what powers this is not just a bigger panel. In fact, if you were to just take kind of the same old approach that people are taking for liquid biopsies today, to this -- to the size of this kind of assay, it would be very cost prohibitive. It would essentially break the bank. So a lot of this is a new chemistry we've developed that really enriches for the most informative molecules that are there. So it allows us to look at large swaths of the genome at very low cost. And so it's -- and that's something that I think is very exciting for what this platform means for the future. We think it also because the capabilities are so vast, and I think it will be very hard to recreate this kind of without tens of millions of dollars of investment and all the know-how that we've put into the last 10 years. We really do want to partner, and we're already seeing strong partnerships with KOLs and pharma companies and so on that will help us populate a lot of the applications that we'll build on top of this. And so obviously, we're very excited to share more about this later this year. We'll see a launch initially to biopharma and then very soon after we'll launch to the clinical markets. But this is essentially an evolution of -- the sort of -- where Guardant360 is going.

Yes. I was going to ask, in terms of the portfolio, I guess, how does this kind of fit in, particularly in biopharma with Omni 360? How should we -- should kind of initially launch? And then to your point, it kind of -- is the future of 360? Is that the right way to kind of frame how our result tests all go together. Go ahead.

It's going to give us a really nice segmentation in terms of the product portfolio with biopharma. If you think about it, we will have this test, smart liquid biopsy that is broader on the genomics side as well. So it's going to have all of the latest and greatest in terms of gene targets there that have been associated with drug development and cancer biology. But it allows those collaborators to go well beyond the epigenomic kind of frame of mind, think about better targeting for checkpoint inhibitors, for instance, or neuro immunotherapies. And so this will really be the sort of flagship product from a research point of view in that portfolio. But then we still have Omni, we have CDx in terms of Guardant360, Reveal and other products as well. So I think it's an excellent addition to the portfolio.

Okay. And is that -- am I thinking about that right for the Analyst Day? Is it kind of to showcase this product, particularly -- anything else that we should read into in terms of the Analyst Day timing or anything?

No. I think we'll do a comprehensive review of all areas. Screening, oncology, certainly we'll share more about smart liquid biopsy, but we're hoping to share more of the other products as well.

Okay. Perfect. And then AmirAli, maybe on the trial, the lung side. Colon, obviously, isn't the only indication you guys are going after. I think you announced it last quarter, obviously, a longer term, I don't think we'll hear a whole lot in the near term. But I guess, when will be the first kind of interim data readout that we should keep an eye on? And then just maybe kind of talk about the enrollment process? I know it's a few years, but where we are in that and kind of anything we should be keeping our eye on for the next year or so for lung.

Yes, sure. So the SHIELD Lung just had FPI the beginning of the year, and it's going to take us about 3 years to really enroll about 10,000 patients. It's not going to have interim data readout in terms of a subset of patients, but the way it's study design after we get all the low-dose CT scan, we are going to have the readout and a year after we are going to have the final readout and some of it is related to -- some of the issues with low-dose CT scan. It's not a perfect scanning tool and maybe we find some stuff that scanning misses, and we are going to monitor patients for a year after also to make sure we have a good sense of sensitivity specificity of the test Now in terms of generation of the data, SHIELD Lung would not be the only vehicle to generate this data. That would be our registration study to get FDA approval to add lung indication on top of CRC indication to the next-generation Guardant Shield. But we are going to have some additional data that we are going to even present this year, kind of very comprehensive data sets in lung, some data sets around other cancer attacks are going to get presented throughout this year in different conferences.

Okay. Perfect. And then maybe on the spend side and probably is one for you, Helmy, I know you guys ended the year, I think, $1.6 billion of cash. Obviously, we've talked a lot about different trials and commercial build-outs. There's plenty of internal areas to invest in. So how do we think about the balance between internal and external? I know you guys look at a lot of deals all the time, haven't acted on a ton. You've done some nice technology ones. There are rumors here and there. But I guess how do you think about the M&A landscape? Are there parts of the portfolio or areas where you think you need to supplement inorganically? Or is the preference to continue to invest organically in all these various trials? Obviously, a big market to go after.

Yes, it's a big market. We have a high bar. I mean I don't think there's a company that has the breadth and depth of the pipeline that we have in this space and just how many programs that are tangible and coming up to kind of important inflection points. That being said, we have an $80 billion total addressable market before us. If we can tuck in certain new technologies or certain capabilities that increases our probability of capturing that and our probability and our pace of capturing that market. Then of course, we'll look at it. So those are the types of things we're looking at today. And so anything from very small technology type of ventures or additions to our pipeline to larger things. But I would say that the bar is high. We have a very fast growth rate as a company, a lot of opportunity before us. And so we are looking for things that will not be dilutive to that growth rate. We did raise this convert kind of a while ago now, and it was primarily for this potential opportunity where we see valuations coming down, and there are potentially some deals to be had. And so we are looking aggressively at the market. But the good news is we really don't have to do anything given where we are with our pipeline and the progress we've made.

Yes. Have you seen the pipeline become more active? I would think the IPO landscape is maybe not quite as attractive as it was a year ago for some of the privates. So have you seen a little more activity where maybe selling to a strategic is a better option than attempting to go public, has the conversation changed there at all?

Yes, there's definitely a lot more inbound. I think a lot of companies are in a sort of no man's land where maybe they can't quite raise money at an up round and the private side can't go public and so they're thinking about maybe some strategic type partnerships in the interim. So yes, it's a -- we're in a good place right now from that perspective.

Okay. Guys, I think we might leave it there. We're just up on time. So Helmy, AmirAli, Mike, I really appreciate it. I see a lot of ground to cover, and this was great, especially coming off the quarter last night. I appreciate you guys joining us after I'm sure it was a long night. So thank you very much for the time, and I'm sure we'll talk soon.

Yes. Thanks, Patrick.

Thank you, guys. Take care.