STIFEL 2026 HEALTHCARE CONFERENCE - Zymeworks Inc.

All right, we're going to go ahead and get started. Thanks to everyone who's stuck around for the last presentation of the day. I am Steve Woolley, one of the senior biotech analysts at Stifel, and glad to have with us here to wrap things up, Ken Galbraith, who's the CEO of Zymorx. Ken, any opening statements you want to make before we go? It's been an incredibly busy year for you and your team. And I'm sure seeing Zanny getting across the finish line in front of my GEA had to have been the highlight. Yeah, there's nothing better than working in this business and realizing you've done something that changes the standard of care for a big patient population. And by changing, I mean you give a median OS benefit for patients with GEA in their two-hour expressing space. It's eight months by this time. And that's on the median. So you realize in some part of the patient population, you're giving them a long-term durable survival benefit. I mean, that's why we do this work. So that's really gratifying for us to realize that's something we invented, came up with. It's pretty unique and differentiated. No one else is really doing the same thing, which is the heart of our business to find that. We found a way to develop that in the clinic. We found a way to bring on B1 as a partner in Asia Pacific and having the ability to do clinical studies in that indication specifically in China and rest of Asia was so important. We wouldn't have got it approved without that. And then bringing on Jazz as a Partner in 2022 to provide the additional resources to get us across the finish line and launch as they're doing now in the U.S. I mean, all of that was a long 10-year time frame, and a lot of times in biotech, it doesn't end in that type of positive outcomes. We're pretty encouraged by that, and it makes you want to do it again. So I think we're focused. We celebrated, I think, that day for patients. The next day, we said, how do we get this feeling again with the innovative R&D we have? And we have to find a way to turn that into a new medicine somehow to help patients and keep a share of that success for our shareholders to reward them for the risk capital is put up to to make those innovations. So pretty, pretty excited. Obviously, at the beginning of the year, we set a pretty aggressive agenda for moving every part of the business in this diversified business model that we have, to showing how improving all the different components that wehave available to us can end up in something that's much more valuable at the end of theyear. And as you saw in our Q3 earnings on Monday, we've done a lot of it. There's still seven weeks left in the year, so there's still time to do the rest of it, but I think hopefully by the end of the year and we're sitting early in January, we can talk about all the work we did to move different parts of the business together, which cumulatively or together really showed a huge appreciation and value for our shareholders and moved a lot more money to the market. We've moved a whole lot of new medicines closer to where ZenaDataMed is. And then for 27 and 28, we just need to do it all again, do it better, faster, outcomes for us in terms of value and find the next Xanadatum app somewhere in that portfolio that we can work upon. So I'm pretty excited about where we are for this year, but looking forward to where we need to get to over the next two years to really show how this diversified business model can be effective in turning R&D innovation into something that's meaningful for patients and shareholders at the same time. Okay. Yeah, I know the visibility you've been able to gain into Xani with respect to milestones and royalties has really allowed you to kind of lean into this thing now, right? I know it's a little bit non-traditional. I know, it's fairly simplistic concept, right, you're going to preserve long duration cash flows and still do R&D, right. It seems pretty simple, but I know it's kind of against the traditional biotech dogma. So, as you've been out like post leaning into this pretty aggressively. How has that messaging process gone with investors? Yeah, it might be a different pathway than people are used to to think about how do you take an R&D innovation and turn that into something valuable for patients and shareholders. We just think there's multiple ways to do that. We made the choice with Center Data Web not to forward integrate to our own sales force, at least in the U.S., to drive that.We felt partnering that would be a better solution for our shareholders in terms of the risk-return profile. And we certainly avoided a lot of dilution of capital to get Zanny to this position. The share of success we'll get from Jazz and B1 on Zanny is pretty fundamental to our shareholders and pretty interesting from that construct. And I think once you've made that decision, it does open up lots of optionality and flexibility on how do we move interesting R&D forward that's just not off our balance sheet, unencumbered, hoping we can take it all the way ourselves. And I think we've seen lots of situations where that works out, and we've seen lots situations, probably more, where that doesn't, or the equity dilution and the risk associated with that, the binary risk associated with some of those studies, destroys shareholder value. And at this point, we think we have a really good, interesting shareholder model based on just our existing partner programs. If you look at just Xenodatamab, over its lifetime, hopefully, Pasirida-Mega has a successful phase three readout in the first prostate cancer phase three next year. That's also an interesting component for us. And then we have a commercial product, the Appelry that we acquired in the TheraVents acquisition that we co-promote with Beatrice, which can also add to the top line. So we have a really great shoulder model with what we have right now. And so what we're trying to do is be additive to that without destroying that value that's in front of us. And so I think when you look at the way that we construct capital planning and development plans and partnering strategies around future R&D innovations, you'll start to see that we have more optionality than just leaning into our own balance sheet and using that to develop things on our own. And, you know, we did a recent Roche deal, which I think is interesting. You know, we've talked about the fact we're still working on the idea of carving out or spinning out a portion of our portfolio around the Pan-RAS ADCs, which gives us an equity stake and a royalty stake in something, but relies upon investor capital to fund something forward from where we've gotten this right now. So I think there's other elements we can still execute to show how we do that. And at the same time, we're still at the heart of innovative R&D companies. I think if you look at our recent scientific disclosures, you know, at CITSE last weekend, we put it up pretty innovative, tri-specific PD-1 VEGF IL-7. So we're already trying to move the needle on PD-2 VEJF, and that's a really interesting tri-specific. And I don't think anyone else is doing that. So we are showing the innovativeness we have. And if you look at upcoming at ASH, we have an abstract that will present around a Penta-specific antibody. So we've moved rapidly from biospecific to tri-specific engineering to now five arms of an antibody that can be useful in a single biologic for AML. It's logic-gated. It's really interesting. It involves our COSTIN platform. And no one else is really doing that. So that really will be the first scientific disclosure of a real Penta specific antibody. So it shows our approaching engineering skills, shows our innovation. What happens after that and how we develop those and whether we do those ourselves on our own balance sheet for a while, partner those, think about those as a future spinoff. We have lots of optionality to consider how we do that and now we allocate capital to those things. So I think you can still be an innovative R&D company. You can still develop a financial construct which provides your shareholders with the right risk-return relationship around innovative R & D. And you can do it in a way that doesn't destroy the value we've built up so far but can be added to that value in years to come. Okay. How do you now think about, and again, maybe this is a more relevant question with Jazz increasing their peak sales guidance to $3 to $5 billion, but there's obviously a near-term path, if not a media path, to sustainable profitability. How do you think about allocation of capital now, right, between the kind of three different pillars, whether it's internal R&D investment, whether it's strategic acquisitions, whether its share repurchases, you know, are these just, you know, cut and dry, cost of capital driven decisions? Or are there some other kind of guiding set of principles that you're leaning on as you think about how to allocate across the business? Yeah, I think we look at all that through a strategic lens. And obviously, you know, Jazz's peak sales guidance that they've set out now of, you know, $3 to $5 billion peak sales opportunity for Zanny. I think back in 2022, when we did the partnership with Jazz, we always thought it could be a $1 to $4 billion peak sale. I know that's a broad range now. It's narrowed to the high side, which is great. And what we start to think about is that peak sales, that means between $500 million and $900 million in royalty income for us. So we don't have that all today, but we need to think about how we allocate that capital thoughtfully into the right places now, because that's only going to become a continued issue for us. I think if you look at what we have done this year, that's a pretty good illustration of the way we think about it. So one, we have kind of a core R&D funding in our organization. And yes, it's about 20% less than it was last year, but it's still a pretty substantial commitment to a pretty broad class of molecules and therapeutic categories. And that will always be in there as a core. And I think it's still meaningful if you look at our Q3 results, you'll see that. At the same time, we borrowed some money from Royalty Pharma against the future Zani royalties of $250 million. We put half of that into a stock buyback, and we used the other half ofthat to make the TheraVance acquisition. And beyond that, we supplemented this share buyback with some additional proceeds. So I think we're over $150 million in buying back shares this year. In total, I think we've bought back 14 million shares since we started doing this. So we've brought back almost 20% of the company over the past two years at a price that we think is attractive to shareholders because we think the underlying value is still much higher. And so I think you can see how we can have the right mix of a core R&D funding, a core commitment to always returning capital shareholders on a regular basis, and a commitment to being opportunistic on M&A when it presents itself. and it's about getting the balance of those three things right and at the same time if we're able to run our business properly with the right financial discipline we'll have excess cash flow every year i mean we have it now that then we need to think about how do we supplement those core positions and which ones do we complement and that'll be based that'll Be opportunistic there's no formula so if we see an additional great r&d opportunity maybe we take the upfront from roche that we're going to receive in December $55 million, recycle that back in R&D to actually do something more there. If we see an opportunity to maybe buy back more shares than we contemplate now, we can be more aggressive there. And if we see a M&A opportunity, we could save some firepower to fund that. So it'll be strictly opportunistic. It's about getting the right balance between all three of those elements. If you get that right balance, then on a longer-term basis, we think driving total shareholder return over the long term will be pretty interesting in that model, If we can continue to execute in 27 and 28 beyond the way we did this year, then I think that's a really interesting construct. And there's still opportunistic ways for us to rebalance that by leaning into one or the other over time. And that's the way I will think about it. So for next year, there's no predetermined allocation of all the excess cash flow we think we have. We will have some available that we can put to work when we see the opportunities. But we'll always support R&D. I think returning capital to shareholders is a good thing for biotechs to do. And we think there are more M&A opportunities for us to be opportunistic about beyond TheraVance. Okay. Yeah, I think the TheraBance was, or that acquisition was interesting, right? Because I know that you had been kind of messaging the strategy here, right, is like you're able to look at things, whether they're assets or opportunities that maybe some of the traditional acquirers in the space wouldn't be willing to do. So do you kind of feel like having that perspective on the business development landscape, having that kind of flexibility gives you kind of a little bit of a monopoly in the corner of the market where you can do things in a way that, you know, aren't necessarily your traditional bidding war processes that tend to play out? Yeah. I mean, usually we don't like using the word monopoly in our business unless I'm playing a board game with my children. But, you know, when I think about, you know, putting yourself in a position where no one else is, we like that. And on the R&D side, we do that. Think about Xanidatamab. That's a unique differentiated molecule. And nobody's been able to really repeat our protein engineering success with Xani. That's clear. I think if you look at Pazritamig, which we built with J&J around there, KOK2, Antibody, that's a unique structure, I think, for sure. I think it's a really unique structure. If you look, if you're looking at ZW209 that we just partnered with Roche, that's really specific structure, this co-STEM platform is very unique and differentiated to us. And if you look at our two most recent scientific disclosures that we've made or making, we're doing things that no one else is really trying to do. So for the R&D perspective, we always try to put ourselves in a position where we're unique and differentiated and think there's a lot of value and benefit from that. There's no reason we can't have that same approach on the acquisitive side of the business. So being interested or ascribing value in things that maybe others can't find a way to ascribe value is the way I think that you find, you know, mispriced opportunities in M&A. And so I think we're really excited about that Theravance opportunity. I think мы paid a fair price, but not beyond a fair price. I think we were one of the few people that were in that bidding process. If you look at the merger summary, that we're able to ascribed the right type of value to convince Theravancer shareholders that that was an interesting proposition for them. Our entire IRR is based upon modest growth in your powery and the financial structures that we use underneath that with the cost of capital to acquire that that drives the mid-teens IRR everything over that is upside your power growing beyond people's expectations making utilization out of the R&D assets which has been at their events for 30 years now of their 30-year life some of the other licenses the tax attributes that's all upside so I'm very pleased we're able to find an opportunity like that where we were probably the folks who could describe the most value and be the obvious acquirer, but not overpay, not lean in too far on what has to happen for that IRR to be achieved, but be able to use the upside in R&D and tax attributes in a way that others couldn't. And so that's not the only one. That was the one that was transactable for us and we wanted to do first. So I think there's a number of other situations where we might be the most identifiable acquirers who can ascribe the right value to the counterparty, but not have to lean in so far that we have to stretch ourselves to be able to make that IRR, that target IRR happen. So I think we're looking, we're obviously still looking at other opportunities where that makes sense for us in the business. Some might lean more into the commercial side of the business as their events did, because your power was the reason to do that for the IRRs. That's a commercial product in the US that we haven't co-promote right with Beatrice with. Some of those things might lean more into R&D assets, which we think are really interesting additions to our own R&P portfolio. And some might be a different balance than maybe it's thought in their advance. But that being said, we love to find ourselves alone in the R&B business and working on something. That's what we all try to do. It's really hard. I think we'd love to fund ourselves alone on an M&A transaction that makes the most sense for us and no one else. I think will always do well if we can find ourselves in those situations of both R&E and M&E strategies. Okay. Maybe we can talk about the pipeline and start with a place where you're not alone, which is EW191. So we saw the data at ESMO. I still think that there's some clear differentiation here that we haven't seen with some of the other fully receptor alphas. We know that there is a lot of them. I think you're kind of running a process now to find a strategic partner. Or, you know, just curious, based upon kind of the updates that we've seen for that asset over at ESMO and prior to, where do you see opportunities for differentiation just kind of relative to the data you've presented today? Yeah, I think we had a really interesting idea back in 2023 with the approval of Mervituximab is that we could do better with a topo-loaded ADC. And so we set out ourselves the idea that we'd create molecules that would be superior to that. And so, we created ZW191, which is our fuller receptor alpha targeting ADC with our own payload on it. And we also developed ZW220, which was our NAPI-targeted program, also for gynecological tumors with our topopayload. And we felt we could beat mervituximab. That would just be an improvement for patients, and we should pursue that. And that would mean both beating it in the label indication for mervutuximib, but also broadening out the usage. If you look at our data, our data supports exactly what we designed. So I think we see clear differentiation in the Mervituximab label, where I think we've been able to generate from a 40% ORR, at least in our data set, above 70%. So a pretty substantial difference in ORR for that patient population on label, which has translated into some interesting duration of those responses. And we have the ability to broaden out the label beyond that. So I think there's some clear differentiators in the way that we look at our ADC. We do see some relationship between the response rates and the expression profile for the receptor alpha. That's where we think ADCs work best. I think what's happened in ADC development in gynecological tumors is that we've seen a flood of folks with different targets, different payloads, different Laker strategies, pursuing unselected patient populations, trying to cover the entire segment of patients with gynecological tumors, whether it's P-ROC or P-SOC. And that's just created a competitive environment that really is a little beyond what we expected. And clearly, we still see differentiators in our molecule. I think CB191 is pretty interesting for further development. It just makes it harder for us to commit our shareholder capital to continue to pursue that on our own. So I think we made the decision, and we've talked about this earlier this year, that we think that's a really interesting asset. We think it does deserve further development. It is something that could provide a differentiated clinical benefit if it's moved to market. We just have to find somebody who understands that and is willing to push that forward. We were in a very similar situation with Zannie back in 2021, where I think people didn't think I was competitive with her too. There were all sorts of other ADCs being competitive, and it was jazz who shared the belief with us that this could be a really successful product and new medicine in the HER2 space and joined us. And I think we're just need to find that same person with that same belief who wants to put their capital, their resources alongside us to move that forward. So I think it's really interesting. You know, the other ADC we developed that same time was obviously two five one on GPC three for HCC. Not as many ADCs have been developed there. We're seeing obviously some of the bispecifics be there, But that's one that I think we have the same idea that we can really move the needle in a first-line situation with people with HCC, really as a combination therapy with immunotherapy, which is used now as a standard of care. That one's not as competitive right now. Hopefully, it stays that way because we've got a really good molecule. So I think it just tells you, you know, you like to be in positions where you can be by yourself and more unique and differentiated and own a category. Sometimes you'll start out with that idea. If a part of that changes for you, then you do have to react to that. So I think specifically in gynecological tumors, we didn't take CW220 into the clinic. We stopped it right at IND. It's a really interesting molecule as well that NAPI targeted. And the full receptor alpha targeting, we've invested clinical money and still are. But the idea of going alone without a partner just seems like it's not the right competitive move to make. And so we've been focused on finding a partner to provide the resources to move that forward. And GPC3, you know, still has a pretty good feel about being unique and differentiated in the NEC format. Obviously, we've got to follow the activity and tolerability around the 401BB by specifics, which look interesting as well. But that's one I think just still supports a really interesting prospect. It's as unique and differentiated as we set out when we started that program. So maybe with respect to 2501 and maybe just this is a question that applies to the rest of the pipeline. But how do you broadly think about kind of striking a balance with respect to, you know, the amount of clinical data that you need to generate for an asset when you ultimately want to find a partner for it, right? So in the case of 251, you know, you're running the dose escalation, presumably dose expansion single agent now. Would you kind of feel like you would need to run, you Know, a cohort of frontline patients in combination with IO to kind of establish that combinability profile in frontline patients before you could give that to a strategic? Just curious as your thoughts as you look now to partner more things, right? I think like valuations for a lot of these early stage assets seem pretty healthy right now, right? So I'm guessing there's a point whereby generating more clinical data doesn't necessarily get you paid more. Is that the right way? I think that's right. I mean, there's two things, really. It's just, you know, we don't have any predefined notion of how far we take something in development. Every stage of development has to be justified by data. So I thinkthat's an important point for us to have internally, at least. There's no predefined point. I think if you look at ZB209 as a good example, we're ready to put that in the clinic ourselves. And we had a potential partner who became our partner, Roche, who had a desire to get involved with that earlier than clinical data so they could help to help manage the clinical development program from the start. And so we thought that was a pretty reasonable proposition that as long as we got the right financial structure, that made a lot of sense to us. Made a lot sense to use in terms of just being able to move that forward maybe faster or more broadly than we could do on our own with more capital. but also we could certainly see small cell lung cancer turning into more of a combination therapy approach than maybe we thought a couple years ago we started working zw209 you've seen the benefit of a t-cell engager with pd1 now from esmo you're still seeing more and more interest in maybe combining a t cell engager within adc whether it's the same ta or a different one for small cell cancer and you might find the actual real solution for patients is thinking about a combination of a T cell enganger immunotherapy and an adc if it can be tolerable so I think when those combination approaches come up, it just leads you to think about, can I find a partner now that has all of those elements and removes this idea about then how do you do combination regimens later by trying to get access through clinical collaboration? So I think Roche was a natural for us because they have a PD-1, they have immunotherapy, they have ADCs that might read on small cell lung cancer. So that drove that one by interest and what the entry point would be. And I don't think we're all tied to that. I think our R&D portfolio is always going to be a combination of three things. I Think things that we keep unencumbered that we're driving with our own shareholder capital, and we can take that into the clinic and develop clinical data with that if we want. We're going to have a part where maybe we make a decision about partnering strategically, and that's CW209. And that brings us financing resources maybe we don't have, plus it monetizes some capital. We can read a play elsewhere. And I think the third leg, which we're still waiting to execute on, which hopefully we'll show soon, is this idea that maybe we think about partnering with financial investors to put something in a dedicated spinoff entity. But then can be pushed forward where I don't own 100% of it, but I own a big stake of the equity and I have a license on a royalty. So I get both of those and that's my return. And I think we can see our portfolio developing over time to having all three of those elements. We'll always have unencumbered R&D that we're investing our own shareholder capital in for upside. We'll also have a lot of equity and we'll always partner in programs where it makes more sense to work with someone else in their capital. And I Think we've got this third area that we are trying to show we can do, which will be partnering with financial investors to move things forward where I have an upside in the equity stake I own and plus a royalty interest in that portfolio. And so I think that's how we'll try to develop it. Those things are stage agnostic. So I don't think we're as concerned about the stage and predetermining it. Just looking at interest, looking at strategic reasons why partnerships might make sense. That's forever 191. That's probably much more interesting for us to think about a partnership because of the competitive nature. And with 251, it's less of a concern right now. And I think in 251, if you think about combination therapy, getting access to a PD-1 and Bev is a little bit easier to think about than getting access to another element that might be necessary, as we are in small cell lung cancer with Roche. Okay. So with respect to this notion of maybe trying to pursue spin-outs and sourcing external investor capital, it sounds like that can occur in a way that's stage agnostic, right? So I know you've referenced the RAS payload, the ADC platform that you have as maybe being kind of a poster child for that opportunity. I don't know if you've declared development candidates or not, but it sounds like in a stage agnostic way, maybe you don't in order to create that structure. Yeah, I mean, if you look at our Pan-RAS ADC portfolio that sits right now, there's four development candidates in there. Three we publicly disclosed at ACR, one we haven't talked about publicly. I think partnering one of those is not the best way to get value out of that. I think being able to move all of that forward in an unencumbered way would be the best value proposition. But that requires more capital than we can provide for that, to do that on a timely basis. So I think finding a way to partner with investors, which then keeps those programs unencumbered for us and those investors, is probably the right thing to do right now. And then move those into the clinic as quickly as we can and let clinical data decide which of those might be more interesting beyond that. So I Think that's a really interesting construct for us strategically is to keep those unpartnered specifically, but not have the drag of funding all of those on our balance sheet or off our P&L. we can bring in financial partners to help do that and keep a good stake and keep a royalty interest and just let those see what happens with those. We're really interested in, in how that works. And Panrash just popped up as something that seemed like it was a whole new company within Zyme that was created. And we're not in the business of trying to try to fund multiple companies. We're trying to fund one good one. I think it's also an illustration of just how productive and diverse our R&D group is. And they keep generating these opportunities, which are just unique and differentiated, but require capital to move forward. And we have to find a way to do that that just doesn't do it all off our P&L or off our balance sheet. And we Have a great financial foundation, but it doesn't mean that's the obvious place that the default that that's where it has to go. And so using these partnerships like we did with CW209, using a spinoff, which we hope we can do for the Pan-RAS ADCs, that just gives us a thought about this unencumbered piece that we do on our own can be a part of the R&D portfolio, but not all of it. And until our R&D group stops being productive and creating all these great things inside the company, we'll have to keep using that model. And so far from what we see, and I think our recent two scientific disclosures around the PD-1 VEGFIL-7 and around this Penta-specific antibody in Hemonc, which is our first Hemonk disclosure, you just don't see the end to how productive that group can be. So we won't constrain them with our balance sheet. we'll find ways where we can use partners and investor capital to make sure that all the ideas that we think deserve to be moved forward, we can move forward. And that will build a lot more value for our own shareholders than trying to be capital constrained and not pursuing those opportunities the way that I just described. Would you want to maintain a majority ownership stake in these spinouts? Or are you agnostic to that? I think we want to make sure we have the right share of success, given the fact that investors we bring in share risk with us, bringing Roche into 209, they're sharing risk with us from day one. They're sharing clinical risk. So I think we just want to make sure that we have a proportionate share of success. And also, if there's upside, that we can get that. And I think in the Xanadatamab deal with Jazz, we did a good job of making sure that if there was more upside than we thought there would be in Xanatatamad, which there is, we're making surethat we have our share of the success of that and not be monetized and topped out in how we share that. So we're more interested in maybe the structure of that and just make sure that we're treated fairly along with others who are joining us to share risk and share capital. Okay. Yeah, I thought the timing of the DLL3 transaction with Roche was pretty interesting, right? I mean, it was, I think, on the day or before the day we saw the tarlatan data at ESMO, right, so I think it was certainly a signal from Roche that there's more differentiation to do in this space, right. The game is not over. Yeah. Sometimes timing just works out the way it works out. But certainly, you know, we were ready to move that molecule in the clinic ourselves. We love our Coastin platform. We got a lot of Tri-TCEs that we have in the portfolio that are preclinical, but bringing them along from day one, going to the clinic just made a lot strategic sense for us. And the structure of the deal just allowed us to think that's a pretty fair proposition for someone who's going to come in and share their capital and risk at that stage. And the validation they can provide in 209 will just open up a whole platform of other tri-TCEs with the same COSTEM technology platform in it that are also owned by us. Do you think that tri-TC platform, and again, I think that was maybe the first glimpse of all those preclinical candidates that you have in development. That's the first time that we had seen it. I would imagine, or maybe I would speculate that that tech platform would also So perhaps be ripe for a spin-out candidate as well? Is that a fair assumption? Or do you think you're better off maybe doing those on a one-off basis? Yeah, I think we'll, you know, we have the option to make decisions about what we keep as unencumbered. We want to do ourselves, what we might partner, and what we think might make sense to go into a spin off with financial investors as partners, as opposed to a pharma company. So we don't try to predetermine that. We try to look at all of those options and think about what's the best thing for the product. And if you do that, that ends up being the best thing for the company and our shareholders. So we're pretty excited about the prospect of doing that. No one has figured out the Coast Implot form in a single dry specific. Certainly, J&J showed at CITSE with their combination of a CD3 bispecific, PESRID omega, and the CD28, as well with the PSMA, that two signals together can be more interesting than one single when you're talking about T-cell engagers. So I think they certainly showed that. And what we're going to try to show with DLL3 and the other ones is that having that controlled within a single biologic structure might even provide more advantages than two bispecifics given separately. But that data was pretty validating for this idea that a little bit of a push with a second signal through CD28 can really enhance what already was a really great bispecific antibody in PASB to MIG. So that data is pretty encouraging for us. If we get that right in a single-bottle logic structure, which we can show with W209, then I think that is a winning platform, and we have a lot more we can prosecute beyond that, whether we do it ourselves, do some more with partners on a one-off, or think that maybe goes into something that could be a broader spin-out with investors as partners. We can make that decision once we're there. Okay. Anything we didn't cover you want to just quickly mention before we wrap up? No, I think we're, hopefully you can see, we think this diversified model of all these different attributes adding together is the way to build value, at least for us and where we're situated. So, you know, it's important that we have multiple ways of building value and multiple approaches and thoughtful capital allocation to drive that. And I think hopefully this year we started to illustrate how we think that makes sense and works. And you can hopefully see that in our Q3 earnings based on the progress we were able to make the first nine months of the year. And we just have to stay diligent and just repeat that over and over again and get better and better at this. I think if we do that, we'll build a lot of long term value for our shareholders. Ken, thanks a lot. Thanks. Appreciate it. Thanks, everyone.