Structure Therapeutics Inc. (GPCR) Earnings Call Transcript & Summary

Perfect. Thanks. Everyone who's joining us here at the Goldman Sachs Annual Healthcare Conference. Thrilled to have Ray Stevens from Structure Therapeutics here to join us. Maybe you could just start with a quick overview of the business. I would love to kind of get started there, and then we'll dig in.

Absolutely, [ Corinne ]. So Structure Therapeutics is really built around accessibility, plain and simple. We -- in the obesity space, what we see is a real health care inequality. And the really great news that we sort of see is that patients are really going to have a lot of options at the end of the day. We think that oral small molecules, which is where we're focused. Our platform is structure-based drug discovery think of any biologic peptide drug using structure-based design, we can convert it into an oral small molecule. In the obesity space, GLP-1s, this is a sort of perfect spot for us. And I've been working on GLP-1s for about 15 years. So at Structure, what we've been able to do is we've been able to create an oral small molecule called aleniglipron. Aleniglipron is the second most advanced oral small molecule GLP-1. orforglipron is ahead of us. And aleniglipron is right now in the middle of a Phase IIb, 2 different Phase IIb studies called ACCESS and ACCESS II where we'll be testing 120-milligram dose in the ACCESS study and then for increased weight loss, 180 and 240-milligram dose. And then in addition, we probably have the broadest small molecule portfolio with an amylin. SARA is going to be only amylin small molecule. And then we have a GIP small molecule, a GCG small molecule as well as an Apelin small molecule. And what we -- we think the future really, at the end of the day, is all about fixed-dose combinations and what we like about small molecules is we can combine these in different ways for different needs to get patients even more options.

Yes. You alluded to some of this in your last answer. But at a high level, can you just talk to us about how you think about the current kind of and future state of play within the obesity market? How do you think like orals versus injectables will fit? And where do you see the opportunity for like the new opportunities or new agents to kind of play a role?

Yes. The really, really good news is patients are finally going to have multiple options. The injectables, there's a convenience to them, no question, the once-a-week injectables, once-a-month injectables. We're eventually going to get to once every 6-month injectable. So we think that, that's important for convenience. But we also know, based on our research, there is a significant population that they would prefer a once-a-day pill. They want to have their -- they want to get their coffee, take their pill, drive to work. And so this is all about giving patients options. And so I think that's where the field is going. I think the other piece is obesity is finally now being acknowledged as it is a disease and it's a pandemic. It continues to grow, and we're seeing all these indications that expand from obesity into chronic kidney disease, liver, cardiovascular, CNS. So we're learning this excess weight that we have on our bodies, how it can have a pronounced effect on us. And so that's just going to increase the opportunities in the field or the need in the field to continue giving patients more and more options.

Yes. So within the suite of options that you expect patients to have, you're operating specifically in the oral class of therapies. Maybe you can talk to us how you think within that oral class, what are some of the most important things? How do you balance things like efficacy, tolerability, convenience.

At the end of the day, you have to have efficacy. The drug has to work, no question. With small molecules, one of the things as a chemist that we worry about safety. We really -- and I'm talking about off-target safety with this class of drugs, we think about the off-target and there is the GI tolerability, which is more an on-target safety, but we think about safety. We -- and so we put the bar -- we're in the fortunate position where we go after very validated targets. GLP-1 as a target has been validated. We just passed our 20th year anniversary for the first GLP-1 on the market back in 2005. And so safety is there. We also think about manufacturing. So today, at Structure Therapeutics, we have the ability to manufacture 6,000 metric tons. What does that mean in terms of patients? That means we have the ability to make enough material for 100 million patients per year, and that's with Structure Therapeutics with 1 manufacturer. So we -- small molecules have the ability to scale at a global scale. We know the need is 1 billion. Now, and it's going to grow through 2030. So manufacturing is really important. And then the last one is we think that the future, I mentioned this fixed-dose combinations. It's really about -- you think about semaglutide as a selective GLP-1. Tirzepatide is a GLP-1 plus a GIP. We're hearing about GGGs. With small molecules, we have the ability and the test tube to combine GLP-1 with an amylin like CagriSema, except in the small molecule, we can really play with the ratios, 1:1, 2:1, 1:2, 5:1 in a fixed-dose combination in a single pill. So we have more flexibility to design the next generation of drugs that are out there. So it's one of the things I like about small molecules. More flexibility. And then the last piece on this really is what we hear from the KOLs, the physicians, they want flexibility. They don't want to get calls in the middle of the night saying, I have this nausea or the side effect. They want to be able to tell the patient cut the pill in half or change the dose day by day to really learn how to go on these drugs. Most people discontinue these drugs after a year or 2. And so we think that, that flexibility between the patient and physician relationship is really important. And this touches on the last point, which is in maintenance. Long-term maintenance, we think is another advantage to the small molecules.

All right. Let's talk about the specific assets then. aleniglipron, as you mentioned is your lead program, it's an oral GLP. And you described the asset as having best-in-class potential within that landscape. What does that mean in your view? And what are the key metrics we should use to judge best-in-class within the oral?

Yes. So everybody is going to be comparing, first of all, efficacy. So I believe that the small molecules have to be as efficacious as the peptides. So we're going to see this. We're already starting to see this with orforglipron versus semaglutide. I think our right comparator is probably going to be orforglipron. We have a lot of respect for orforglipron as a drug. So that's one level. Tolerability is another level where you have to be as tolerable. We put -- coming back to the competitors' safety. Again, we spend a lot of time making sure the off-target safety is at a really high level with a sort of small molecule. And then it gets back to combination, combined ability with other medicines. And not just other incretins, we're really excited about the possibility of combining a GLP-1 with an SGLP-2 with an oral PCSK9. And so there's a lot of opportunity for growth. Once we have these backbones, aleniglipron is our first backbone. And then we have our Amylin as our second backbone.

Okay. Maybe you could spend some time talking about the key design features of aleniglipron that provide -- that profile you just described, things like beta-arrestin bias, half-life. How do all of these kind of compare? And what do you think the translation into the clinic could be?

Yes. So the -- first of all, the biased signaling. We are big believers in biased signaling, where you do not hit beta-arrestin signaling, primarily you're going through this cyclic AMP pathway. We think that, that's important. We like to leave the receptor on the cell surface to get that maximum effect. So we think that's important. And I think the field is starting to show that more and more sort of consistently. So that's one design principle. We've already talked about sort of safety as being a really important put the bar at a really high level for a drug that's going to be taken by 100 million-plus people per year is really important. Coming back to combinability being an important component as well, how do we exactly sort of mix these medicines together into a single pill fixed-dose combination. That's also going to be an important feature.

Okay. Great. And you have some ongoing Phase II studies. I guess, what is the kind of trial design for those Phase IIs? And how are they designed to showcase the features that you're just describing?

Yes. So there's 2 different trials that are ongoing right now, 2 different Phase IIb's. The first is ACCESS and then the second one is ACCESS II. We're asked frequently why did we have to do these as 2 separate studies. And the answer is we did not feel comfortable in a 12-week study where we do a once-a-week titration scheme we did not feel comfortable going up to 180 or 240-milligram dose. We didn't think that would be well tolerated by other participants. We felt 120 milligrams was the maximum dose we can go with a weekly titration. So that's why we have ACCESS study itself is 120 milligram. That study will answer the question, we think that's likely to be equivalent of orforglipron. But we have the opportunity to go up in dose further because we have not seen -- we have preclinical data. We know we have not saturated receptor. We still have room for receptor occupancy. And based on our clinical data, we're still seeing dose proportionality so we can go up higher in dose. And then that sort of begs the question, well, why didn't you go higher in dose in the Phase IIa, the 12-week study. We did not think we could go to 180 or 240 in that study. So now is the right time now that we can finally get to this once every 4-week titration steps with a 36-week study, we have the time to titrate slowly, the mantra in the field, start low, go slow. It's what the peptide field has taught us for now 20 years. It's taught us your body needs time to titrate. So you want to sort of have that titration scheme. That's what we're excited about between the ACCESS and ACCESS II studies. And we believe the tolerability will come down dramatically as we've seen from orforglipron. Orforglipron from their 12-week study to their 36-week study. They saw a pronounced improvement in tolerability. Now to the Phase III data that they recently announced top line data, and we'll see more information in 10 days at ADA in Chicago, we've seen that the tolerability gets even better. And so we expect the small molecules. It's still the early days in the small molecules. Peptides, we saw this history of titration schemes. Now we're going to see with the small molecules.

Okay. So maybe let's be more specific and start with ACCESS. How many different dose cohorts, how many patients? And which dose do you think is kind of like the one that we should be comparing with orfo?

Yes. So with ACCESS itself, it's a 36-week study. It is 220 participants. We are looking -- again, we're going up from maximum dose, 120 milligrams. The -- and we think that's equivalent to orforglipron's 36-week, 45 mg -- sorry, they are 36 mg, 45 mg dose. We think -- and we think that's the right comparison as the orforglipron 36-week data of the Phase IIb.

Okay. So then what does the win look like in terms of efficacy and then tolerability?

I think similar efficacy and similar tolerability for that ACCESS study.

Okay. So then ACCESS II, you mentioned you're going at higher doses. I think that there's a couple of different titration schemes included. Could you walk through the different cohorts?

Yes, absolutely. So we have -- so again, we have -- there's a sentinel cohort that's there as we evaluate and then we go up to 180 milligrams and then we go up to 240 milligrams. The 180 milligrams participants are only on for 8 weeks and then the 240 milligram, they're only on that top dose for 4 weeks. So common question we get is, are they really on drug long enough to really see efficacy. And it's a fair question. What we're really looking for is directionality. We're looking for, first of all, is there any adjustment in tolerability at this sort of higher dose? Second, do we see directionality changes in terms of efficacy. We're not looking for the ultimate sort of weight loss number. But if we see an indication of directionality that is going in the right direction that we can go to a higher dose, that's really informative to us. At the end of the day, the purpose of a Phase IIb study is dose range finding. We use it to educate ourselves what is the best plan for Phase III. And we want to -- we simply want another question. We know 120 milligrams works really well. Can we -- should we in the Phase III include a higher dose at 180 or 240 in that Phase III.

Okay. I guess that does kind of beg the question of like what is directionally, it sounds nice, but like what does that really mean in practice? And if we're kind of interpreting the study from the outside, what would we want to see to say, okay, there is best-in-class potential here? Like what's fair?

Yes. Absolutely. So first of all, I think what's fair is, I think, showing equivalents. I think the bar really is orforglipron. Again, a lot of respect for orforglipron. We think that's where the right bar is. Coming back to your best-in-class again, we believe based on our preclinical models, off-target safety, we have that potential for best-in-class. And then in terms of efficacy, to me, one of the things that I appreciate the most when I look at the data, is the shape of the curves. So one of the things we're really looking forward to 10 days ADA is the shape of the curve, are you seeing plateauing? Or are you sort of seeing it continue to go down. So as we look at the data, the 180 and 240. Are we seeing a change in the slope of the curve that's going to give us the encouragement. For me, a win, if we're as good as orforglipron and then we can do this in combination with so many other medicines, that's a win. If we can get even more efficacy with a higher dose, that's an extra bonus win. So that's how we're looking at it.

As you think about next steps then, you're going to get these results and you're going to move forward towards presumably a registrational trial? I guess how many doses do you think are going to be appropriate to take forward into the Phase III program? And how would you like determine kind of the best doses to take forward?

The most likely, we'll go into 3 different doses in Phase III, the sort of low or medium and high. And that's again we're in the Phase IIb study, we're really asking ourselves how high can we go. And so that's the big question. And again, 120 is likely to be one of those doses. That will probably be sort of the potential sort of medium dose. We're also asking ourselves the question, maintenance dose. So we think that, again, long-term chronic usage, we think a real opportunity for small molecules is in maintenance. And so what is that maintenance dose. We want to sort of learn about that. One of the -- you've asked about sort of more top doses. One of the other things that we're also continuing to learn on is what is the right starting dose. And so in the Phase IIb, it's really about pushing the upper limit. In the Phase III, we have the ability to go down even further in dose because, again, we believe with the [indiscernible] telling us all these years, start low, go slow, and so we started at 5 milligrams, both in ACCESS and ACCESS II. We have the ability to go lower in dose if we want to.

Okay. In terms of Phase III programs, I guess, the agency has been relatively clear about what the scope and scale of this need to be. But how are you thinking about the Phase III program? What does that need to look like?

Yes. So with all the chaos that we're sort of seeing right now with the FDA and everything. There was good news in January. So in January, the FDA came out with very clear guidance in obesity. And so that guidance was, first of all, for chronic, they acknowledge chronic weight management is a pandemic. Second, the chronic weight management direction would be 4,500 participants, 3,000 on drug, 1,500 placebo. The other piece -- there were 2 other pieces that we sort of picked up in their January release, and they had not updated their recommendations think 2007 was the last time they updated. So it was a long time and a lot has changed. The other 2 things that we picked up on, there's no cardiovascular outcome required. That's significant. Other indications and we certainly would like to explore that, but for chronic weight management given this obesity pandemic in the United States and globally, no cardiovascular outcome study needed. And then lastly, they used the word maintenance 6x, which was for the FDA, we don't usually see that word a whole lot used. And there was in reference to titration phase where you titrate up and then maintenance phase as well. But again, they're seeing this discontinuation rate being a potential new health crisis, where people go take these drugs, they lose weight, then they stop, they gain weight and what we sometimes refer to as the yo-yo effect. And so they do not want to see the American public go through a yo-yo sort of mechanism. So the maintenance is something that they're acknowledging is really important.

Okay. You mentioned the outcome study. But what about adjacent indications? Are there other indications you think are important?

Absolutely. And this is where we've been clear in terms of one of our common questions with investors is partnering...

That was going to be my next question, but go ahead.

In that regard, we feel comfortable with chronic weight management. Again, it's very defined -- the -- and it's a straightforward path. But there is so much opportunity. I mean, again, type 2 diabetes is one obvious sort of direction, but we're seeing sleep apnea. We're seeing chronic kidney disease. We're seeing liver disease, cardiovascular disease. And so as a biotech company, one of the things that we would really like to consider is doing more than just chronic weight management. And that's where potential strategic partnerships come in. Strategic partners have the ability to do multiple Phase III studies. And so that's one of the reasons. And then the other reason is, again, what we have over the kitchen sink, making medicines accessible to all. We now feel comfortable. This is a molecule. This is a drug that is going to make it to market. We don't have any doubt on that right now. But to commercialize this to really get us to get -- to meet our mission statement of accessibility we would like to have a partner for commercialization to make sure that we can really get this drug to all the people, all the patients who are waiting.

Okay. So that's kind of breaking up a question of timing, like what's the right time to seek a partner and get a partner involved. Is it pre-Phase III, pre-commercialization, mid Phase III?

We started having these conversations about a year ago is when we had our Phase IIa data release. And just one of the reasons we actually couldn't attend the Golden Meeting last year. We were in a period where we're just -- we're right on the heels of releasing the data. And so that sort of kicked off the sort of process of starting to have the conversations we continue to have those conversations. There's interest both in aleniglipron as well as our amylin small molecule that will enter the clinic at the end of this year as well as our GIP and our GCG. Again, we probably have the broadest portfolio of small molecules that hit all the incretins and combinations with other medicines. And so -- but we'll when exactly do partnerships get finalized. It's a process. We continue having the conversations. We continue to set the priority. We want to be measured by the people that get access to our medicine. But we think that's the right place, way to be measured, and that's just done with the right partner. But that could take place before Phase IIb data that can take place right after the Phase IIb data, that could take place during Phase III, all that period. I think the -- one of the questions that we get asked again a fair amount is what are strategic looking for? I think part of it is derisking. This is a significant investment. There's lots of activity of people looking at partnerships in China, where we have our research base. So we're very familiar with what's going on in China. We look at it as having the second most advanced, we are the most derisked GLP-1. Our amylin small molecule with all the amylin data that's going to be coming out, amylin's becoming more of a derisked target that helps, but we will have the most derisked amylin small molecule. So long-winded answer to a lot of conversations, a lot of interest. We'll continue having those conversations. But what we're really focused on in 2025, we always knew 2025 was a year of execution. We are laser-focused on, really, I'd say, 2 things, ACCESS, ACCESS II. That data readout, we really need to make sure that we do the flawless execution as possible. And the amylin small molecule, and we're really excited about that as a second backbone. So we're also laser-focused on execution for that.

That's going to be a great segue to my questions on the amylin and the pipeline. But before we leave the partnership conversation, I did want to follow up on something, which is just to understand, how important to you is it that you find a partner that understands sort of the portfolio you bring to bear versus being focused on a single agent?

It's important because I think in this space, it's really -- the future is fixed dose combinations. Again, we've been saying this for multiple years is we like the monotherapies. So aleniglipron is a really good monotherapy. Our ACCG-2671, our amylin small molecule is a really good monotherapy. But it's really -- we're in a fortunate position of being successful at all these different incretin and amylin small molecules. And so it's really is the sort of combination of all of these together.

Okay. That's great. Let's talk about amylin. Maybe let's start with the design features of 2671. What are you optimizing for when you were designing and discovering this agent? And how do you think about the target product profile for this kind of.

From day 1, we use cagrilintide as kind of our benchmark. So cagrilintide is a DACRA, a dual amylin calcitonin receptor agonist. And the reason why we chose cagrilintide, again, we started working on this. We've got the structure in 2016. So 10 years ago, we've been working on amylin. And in cagrilintide really has data set out there from Novo Nordisk. And we like cagrilintide. We've got some challenges with mixing and stuff. We have our other favorites now in the amylin field, but it was really the best data set that was out there. So it was our benchmark. Just like with GLP-1, we had to have efficacy similar, so similar in our cell-based assays and everything, a binding potency even in animal models. But then the second criteria, just like with our aleniglipron safety, we put a safety bar really high off-target safety. So making sure that we did not see any liver tox signals or anything at all. So we're really, again, proud of the preclinical work that we do in terms of safety. Just like with aleniglipron, we look at combinability. Are these molecules really combinable with each other. So again, not just GLP-1 with amylin, for example, but an amylin with an SGLT2 or PCSK9 that are starting to come out. And so combinability is important. And then the fourth sort of pillar that we sort of call it is manufacturing. Can we make this -- can the cost of goods be at the point where we can make this at a scale where it's available to 100 million people per year. So those are all our design principles that went into our Amylin molecule, which was the same design principles with aleniglipron.

You mentioned this is a dual agonist. There was also a selective agonist that you've talked about. But where are you on the kind of debate between which is more advantageous the DACRA versus a selective agonist?

My blunt answer is, we don't know. One of the things that we're really excited about, again, next Friday at ADA in Chicago is an amylin symposia. And we're going to see more data from both SARA, selective amylin's and DACRA's. We think that the big question in the field is what is the calcitonin signaling component doing? Is it a liability or not? Is it adding some feature. So our approach is we have the ability to develop both. So we're developing both a DACRA and a SARA. It just happens DACRA was first because we use cagrilintide as our benchmark. And it really has helped to educate us on hitting both. But we're actively working on the SARA as well.

Okay. You being kind of the first small molecule amylin agonist in development have the opportunity to set benchmarks the way that orfo has for the GLP space. What do you think is the right way to think about targets for an amylin like a small molecule amylin analogue?

I think amylin is more complex. I think with orforglipron or the GLP-1s, it was sort of selective. So there were fewer questions. The biggest questions in the field was could a small molecule be as efficacious and tolerable? That's been answered. But it's simpler. With amylin, it's just -- the reason why I say it's more complex is, as you mentioned, it's a combination of amylin signaling and calcitonin signaling. There's an equilibrium between these 2 receptors. There's also -- I think as the field is evolving, we're seeing, again, we think a lot about combinability. So how combinable is this with, for example, a GLP-1. So we start to look at the complexity there a lot more as well. So it's more complex. That's why it's taking longer, but the field is moving. I mean, there's 5 clinical readouts in 2025 that we're seeing with injectable peptides. And so we're going to learn a lot not directly to your question. But one of the other things that we've learned is the IP space, the intellectual property space is very crowded in the GLP-1 space. We're seeing this, IP, patents are coming up and people are getting scooped left and right, particularly from assets from China that we're seeing, we think amylin will be very similar. And so our strategy has been, from day 1. What I love about is structure-based drug design. We get to visualize. We can actually see the binding site. We can see all the molecules that are actually binding in there and fitting into the knobs and the grooves. And so we have more IP than anybody even in Pfizer, Lilly in terms of GLP-1. And we also have more IP on oral small molecules for amylin. I mean there's not a lot out there right now, but we've been very aggressive at really trying to understand this binding site and all the chemical diversity and scaffolds that fit there.

Do you think there's a role for monotherapy amylin analogue, a small molecule in particular? Or do you think this is more about the combination strategy?

I think absolutely, there's a role for as a monotherapy. The diagram that we have in the office is aleniglipron and ACCG-2671 are both monotherapies. And I think that is good for the teens weight loss. Those are good monotherapies. The hypothesis around amylin is potentially more better tolerability and potentially better selective weight loss. Based on preclinical models, we see more fat loss than muscle loss with amylin. And we think that's important. But what we again, what we like is the ability for a more significant weight loss is a combination. So that's kind of how we view it as aleni, 2671, monotherapies, combos we can do for different indications.

Okay. So what are the next steps for 2671?

So right now, we are completing the 1- and 3-month tox studies. And so that's progressing. That will be in the clinic by the end of this year. So we're feeling very confident on that. In parallel, we're always quick to sort of mention because we are the first, do not expect this to be the last small molecule that sort of enters the space from us. And we expect to have multiple DCs we expect to enter multiple molecules into the clinic because there is more, as you asked earlier, it's just less known on Amylin, yes. And so we really want to sort of explore with different scaffolds with different properties, different molecules to really be able to pick the winner. We're largely driven philosophically within structured therapeutics around the statin story. The statins, it was Mevacor and Zocor the first and second. But it was Lipitor 10 years later, sixth-generation statin, one at the end of the day. We approached the GLP-1 space in the amylin space in the same way. And we're taking a multigenerational approach. We think this is the early innings in this space. And so there'll be a lot more activity on amylin in the near future.

You have a number of other small molecule candidates that are in discovery stages. When could we anticipate additional INDs.

So the other small molecules that we have in development, we have a GIP, a small molecule. We do not see that as a monotherapy at all. We see that in combination with an amylin or with a GLP-1 in our GCG, same thing, a glucagon receptor agonist. Also, we see the same thing that's really in combination and then we have the ability to do triple or whatever other combinations that we want. And then we have an Apelin receptor agonist that's completed Phase I. And we're evaluating this, we're in the very fortunate position the Apelin receptor agonist is for selective weight loss in combination with GLP-1. We're in the fortune position. We have 2 different molecules in Apelin and an Amylin that are really good at selective weight loss. So we're doing a number of studies to sort of figure out which is the right one to put forward. If we can do it just with amylin kind of like that sort of path forward. But Apelin is currently in development. So back to Apelin is Phase II ready. GIP, we down prioritize it a bit because we really wanted to prioritize amylin, and that's what we've been doing. But GIP is in the sort of second slide. And then GCG is in the third slide.

You sort of are alluding to it then. But in terms of prioritizing, you could obviously do a lot in the clinical side with aleniglipron you've got all of these other molecules coming through. How do you prioritize your spend across the more advanced pipeline versus early pipeline versus discovery efforts?

Yes. We were faced this question a year ago, where we asked ourselves, we were doing both type 2 diabetes, which we think is a really important patient population in chronic weight management. We concluded at the Board level, the unmet need, the urgency is to get these drugs in chronic weight management. Again, coming back to even the FDA sort of gave their guideline -- their guidance that came out in January about the urgency of chronic weight management. So right now, we are laser-focused on chronic weight management. That's our #1 priority. This comes back to partnership discussions and going into other indications. There's a lot of other indications. But the overwhelming unmet need. It's chronic weight management.

Okay. You kind of are answering this, but I'll ask it specifically, you've got another asset in development for IPF that seems kind of like one of these things is not like the other one. So how does that fit into your portfolio? Where is the prioritization?

Yes. It's a fair question. When we started the company gosh, really sort of 10 years ago, we looked at a number of different targets in our LPA1 molecule, we made a -- it's a really nice molecule. We love it. And so we started a Phase I study essentially just sort of derisk it, but you're completely correct. It does not fit in with everything else. We're focused on metabolism and obesity. And so we will be looking for potential partnering opportunities...

A way to monetize it.

Yes. A way to monetize it, that can help sort of offset some of the burn in the metabolism obesity space. But it's a great molecule.

Yes. Okay, then cash runway is last question. What's your current cash runway and what activities are embedded within that?

So cash runway as of the end of Q1, I think the number was $837 million. So we have -- we're well capitalized. We have runway until the end of 2027. That includes all of the studies, all of our different programs that includes Phase III readiness. So all the activities making API, drug product and everything, getting everything ready for the Phase III and all the associated studies but does not include the Phase III study itself. So we're in good shape financially.

Perfect. That brings me to the end of questions and basically end of time. So I really appreciate you joining me today, Ray. And thanks to all of you who joined us here and online.

Thank you very much. Pleasure being here.