GSK plc (GSK) September 2026 Conference Transcript

We'll kick off the next section. Thank you very much, everyone. It's Sachin Jane here from the European Pharma team. It's my pleasure to introduce Glaxo from the company. We've got Julie Brown, TFO, which is very timely just after the recent CMD. We've also got IR folks at the front. So we'll just do Q&A, I think, Julie, if that's all right. So we'll just kick off big picture. We're just on the back of the CMD where the management team outlines and a new strategy, new mid-term targets, et cetera. So perhaps you could just pressy that as an intro to this session.

Yeah, sure. Morning, everybody. I'm delighted to be here and thanks to Sachin for the invitation. So, yeah, we recently did a presentation at the end of July and the work that led to that was really two major work streams. The first one was all about how could we accelerate growth? How could we accelerate the assets within the company? That was led by Luke, our new CEO, and it was all, the Strategic Portfolio Review. And then on the other side, we were looking at how would we fund the acceleration. So we were determined that it would be a sort of self-funded situation. And we looked at how we could simplify the organization to drive that funding, which resulted in a funding saving of 1.9 billion that we could then put on the right-hand side in terms of strategic portfolio review. And through that work, we came to the conclusion we wanted to accelerate seven major assets across about 18 indications. And interestingly, there was a big emphasis there on the oncology portfolio and the opportunity that that gave us. So net net, as I mentioned, it resulted in 1.9 billion of savings. And we decided to say the majority of that would be funding the pipeline. But what we also said was there'd be an element that would drop through to the margin in the years that people were concerned about, which are the years where we lose the Dolotegravir patent in HIV, which is 2028 to 2030. So it gave us the ability to say through that period, our margin will be stable to improving. So the organization, you know i think we were really proud of the communication we were pleased with the reaction to the market i can tell you now when i was in the u.s last week working with this team in the u.s we've got a lot of change going on in the organization it's caused a level of energy around those projects together with an energy around how we can simplify further and drive further productivity in the business and i think very importantly we've built a track record now have been able to do this well. Over the last five years, if you think about the 21 to 26 period, we've actually delivered strong top-line growth, you know, more than 7% sales growth is expected, more than 11% profit growth is expected during that period. This is all based on guidance for this year. And together with an improvement in our margin of over 500 basis points, at the same time as taking our R&D spend up significantly, So we've proven, I think, we can invest significantly in R&D, but still deliver productivity through the P&L.

Okay, very good. So I'm going to kick off with some of the commonest questions I get asked on the big picture. So obviously the target is greater than $40 billion. Consensus, I think, is in the mid-high 30s memory. What do you think the biggest deltas are as you now look at versus consensus?

So consensus is now at 36.4. not that I count but it's a 36.4 so the biggest deltas and to my mind it's quite usual to have a gap sometimes between the company and the sell side because typically and I've done extensive work on this when I was in one of my former companies I was with AstraZeneca for a long time typically the sell side pick the asset up when it reaches a certain degree of maturity and it's got certain data behind it. And so this is quite a pattern. But the largest area, I mean, there are puts and takes across, I've got a chart in my mind, there are puts and takes across the board, but the largest area of difference is oncology. And there you've got a difference coming through with the ADC portfolio, MoRes and RisRes. We just had fantastic data on RisRes just recently at World Lung. But that's one of the areas of difference. Blenrep is another area of difference. Together with small differences in products like Gem Purley, and again, Gem Purley, we've got endometrial cancer on the market, we've got rectal cancer just read out, and we've also got colorectal coming, and we've got head and neck coming in 28. So because of this, you get, you know, the recognition of the indication isn't fully accepted until it comes through. I should emphasize all our forecasts have got PTRS adjustments against them, so probability of technical and regulatory success.

You've put almost an entire delta to oncology and are there any, you sort of said puts and takes, are there any assets where you think consensus is too optimistic that then drives the oncology delta even bigger, if that makes sense?

It does, I mean I wouldn't want to go into the specifics because the other difference is you get puts and takes of say half a billion across the board and there are elements where the market is a little bit stronger and there are elements and it tends to be the newer products that's a bit slower to recognize so consensus is a bit slower for example with some of the HIV innovation it's also a bit slower with Accenture okay we could talk about Accenture we'll get to both of those yeah yeah i guess my question i was sort of left it open but you think hiv cliff is roughly correctly modeled in consensus i don't want to be drawn into yeah fine we'll move on into guiding biotherapeutic area i think we we've we've come a long way with hiv um i think the market was concerned that the patent expiry effectively started earlier than it did in you know material terms. I think we've established now and the market consensus is much closer that the material impact on HIV is 29 and 30 because we lose the Dovato patent in December 29 and Juluca in July 2030. And this is in the US because the US is the material point and we've got a whole strategy around protecting that business.

On from the top line, we'll do big picture margin and I'll come back to specific products. So shape, you sort of alluded to the bulk of the savings drop through in the 28, 29 period. But perhaps you could just give us a sense of the shape of the margin. What I'm getting to there is the new valence sort of comes in next year, a bit of trilogy pressure. And then the savings, I think you've referenced, is coming through more 28, 29.

So do I think of that as more flattish or whatever wording is for next year and then an inflection 28 or whatever colour you can give? yeah i think um we've we've got we've we've sort of decided not to guide the margin year by year i think i mean as you know there are so many moving parts in a business what we're confident of is that the savings i mean just come from uh you know internal doing internal work on this we're absolutely confident these savings will come through we are confident because of the amount of work that's gone on into the margin and the integrity of the margin going through it and also the drivers of that in terms of number one the business is more and more moving to specialty which means it's a very selected specialist cell which means you get margin accretion coming through for specialty and the specialty part of our business I mean it used to be when I joined in beginning of 23, we were a third, a third, a third. We were a third vaccines, a third specialty and a third gen med. We're now just over 40% specialty. By 2031, we're going to be over 50% specialty. So it gives you a natural lift to those margins. Secondly, we've got the Accelerate Growth Program, as you say, when the savings have come through, 1.9 billion coming through you know by 2029 and then also on top of that we've got this drive for productivity that we started a number of years ago and you've seen the evidence through the margin accretion and through our sgna to sales ratio coming down and that's where you'll see the bulk of the impact of the change in our business is we're driving the sgna down through productivity and we're driving r&d up okay and if i then move on to launches uh so let's do the ones that are ongoing blend rep extensia um there was sort of a narrative of you know you've obviously been clear on both they're

going to slow and take time and potentially inflection post jk now in the data we see that's not particularly obvious and so the simple question i get is two q sales where if combined around 60 consensus next year is just you know depending on just shy of 800 that requires a lot of lifting from here so just how do you think about how the curve inflects and the level of comfort to the extent you want to comment to that consensus number next year um yeah so if we take the the two the two products um extension and blend rep will take them separately because and it was i've spent last week in the u.s with the brand teams actually just talking about this the um the overall position so with extension i'll come back to your point about the j code

extensure is a six-month treatment for severe asthma it's groundbreaking because it's a biologic and it means basically that somebody is protected with just two injections a year and it's got very good data underpinning it because it's a 72% reduction in exacerbations that cause hospitalization So fantastic data. So that's the good news. The bad news is, because it's six months, it means that there's a big outlay for the physician if they are wanting to prescribe it to a person. And therefore, there's a system in the US called the Buy and Bill. The problem, therefore, before you've got the J-code, and it's interesting, there was a lot of emphasis on the J-code, but it's not just the J-code, it's the administrative part of the J-code taking effect in the insurance system. and that's happened just a couple of weeks ago. So therefore, the J-code was the 1st of July. I think people thought it would be like this. It's not like that. But what's happened now is we would expect, having removed one of the largest barriers, and when we do physician-to-physician research, you find that the actual outlay, the initial economic outlay for Extensure, was seen to be significant because it was six months rather than one. That's a big change. and therefore now it goes into the administration, it goes into the health insurance plans. That barrier to actually prescribing it, knowing that the prescription can be fulfilled, is going to be very different as we go into the fourth quarter.

Okay, so it was J-code happened, but it still needs to work through the administrative system, which has just happened, and we should see an inflection fourth quarter.

So the administrative system piece was a couple of weeks ago, and then it's got to go from there into the plans, you know whether it's etna or united or whoever it may be going going through into the plans that's only then you know is the physician assured of getting the reimbursement i'd touch on two other topics so um payer coverage the last time i think you commented was running at like 50 and i think i'd ask the question at one of the breakfasts that sort of typically needs to be north of 70 to see physicians comfortable enough to prescribe where are you with payer coverage Yeah. I think this is a topic that we'll definitely, we'll cover at Q3. I mean, it's moving as we speak. And like I say, it was in the US last week. And so I think let's pick it up as part of the Q3. Because literally, you know, the contracting piece is critical. Now you've got the administration and you've got the J code. So that unlocks payers? It unlocks payers. It's unlocks payers. Yeah, no question.

And then the third bit was the bridge program.

You wanted to, did you want to talk about Blender?

Yeah, I'll just do the bridge program on extension.

Okay. Yeah, so we had a sort of an access program running. In this period in particular, it was more, it was required because of this, you know, the reimbursement piece. That's gone well. I mean, it would go well because it's an access program. The key thing is once you've got the insurance coverage in place and the reimbursement in place, is it's actually they're moving those patients from the access program into commercial. Because you're dealing with a six-month, this is one of the... Six-month is fantastic, but it's also got some disadvantages. You've got to wait until the next dose is ready before you're doing it.

Very clear. So, some update at 3Q, payer coverage bridge program, path into 27.

The team are very comfortable with how it's moving. um we've got a fantastic guy in the u.s who's in charge of this area and um yeah i left feeling optimistic but understanding much better about the dynamic in the u.s market yeah okay let's do blend rep then yeah blend rep blend rep's different um blend rep is different because with blend rep we we always said we would go slow to go big so blend rep has got a history as we all know. And the benefit of Blenrep is it's got fantastic data for those who are not so familiar with it. It halves the risk of death from multiple myeloma and it triples progression-free survival. So the data is fantastic. It is going into an area of the market that currently is quite unmet because 70% of the patients in the US are community. They're treated in the community. And most of the other therapies that have got that level of efficacy that I spoke about at the beginning, you need to be hospitalized to be able to have the treatment, CAR-T's and bispecifics. So Blenrep is a 30-minute infusion that can be dealt with in the community, a very, very different situation. So there's an unmet medical need. The problem with Blenrep is it's got eye side effects. And the reason, therefore, it has to be very carefully monitored. And in the U.S., before each dose, the eyes have got to be checked. And we found through the trials, DREAM 7 and 8, that there is a resolution of the eye effect as long as you elongate the dose. But the physician and the patient have to understand that the efficacy is not lost if you elongate the dose. So it's got to be managed very carefully. And we really wanted to ensure that it was almost a white-glove treatment with physicians and with patients also understanding this and basically managing this situation because you've got to connect the physician, say, yourself with the eye professional, say, Constantine on the front row and the two of you have got to work together before you can carry on with the dosing. So net-net, we wanted to deliberately do this and also we feel that physician to physician conveying the experience is an important part of the uptake. We never thought this would be big, like big soon, We thought it would be big over time. The other important factor with the U.S. is we've got registrations now in over 50 countries. The U.S. is the only country where it's a third-line label. Everywhere else, it's a second-line label, which means it follows on from DASA, from J&J. So the advantage in most other countries is you're going in much earlier. So, yeah, you probably saw the NICE data that Blenreps got a leading share in second line in the UK, which was the first country we launched in. The US isn't going to be in that position because it's going in third line. That means the patients are usually older, frailer, you know, more difficult to get a positive experience than it is in second line. So net-net, we'll go slow to go big.

Okay, so is it fair, I'm not putting words in your mouth, but Extensure, good level of comfort that we get there, 27 payers, administrative, blend rep, sounds like it's tracking as you thought, but consensus may have got the shape wrong short term.

No, I'm not saying that, actually. I'm not saying that, as you say, in aggregate, you know, across the two. No, I'm not saying that consensus has got it wrong. No, don't take that message. Just, I guess, recognise the dynamic underpinning it about why you don't go up in a way that some products do. It's a different characterisation of the product.

I'll move on to some other launches, if I may. So HEPB, around the corner. We had a physician survey, tough to model. Where's the level of excitement? Targeting, I think Nina's talked to sort of five or six states, which there's particularly amenable. So just any updated thoughts on how you're thinking about that launch, pricing, cadence? Yes.

Well, there's been, it's interesting, this one, because when I first joined and people were asking Tony what he was most excited about in our pipeline, this is almost four years ago, his answer was Beproversum, which tells you something, that he was excited about it all those years ago. And the reason, as we know, is that it's basically giving 19%, like one in five people, a functional cure, and it's reducing surface antigen for a further... So net-net, you've got like 49% of people benefiting from this. And together, it's taking the surface antigen level down to a level that should not cause liver cancer. So it's got very, very good data. I think, as Nina mentioned, the commercial opportunity is in three countries, China, the U.S. and Japan. We've now got approval in Japan and the pricing negotiations are ongoing. So net-net, we feel we're in a strong position in Japan. China, the population affected by Hep B is huge. It's like 75 million. And in China, there's a lot of stigma associated with the disease. In the U.S., the other countries have comprehensive testing for Hep B. In the US, it's not across the board. And so therefore, we find there are certain states in America, usually the California, the West Coast, together with Florida, together with some in the South, actually, in the southern states. So those are the major states where it's most prevalent and where we believe there's an opportunity. We're excited about it, just because key opinion leaders, and you may have seen some of the calls, I'm sure you joined, they said this was transformational. And it is transformational because previously, these people were on nukes and the functional cure rate was a single digit low percentage. And they felt like they got flu all the time that they were on them. With Beproverzin, they take it for six months. And then basically, for one in five people, it leads to a functional cure. And halfway through the treatment, they get a good readout about whether they will be the one in five or not. So net-net, we are hugely excited. Again, I was with the US team that are leading the charge on this. The excitement is phenomenal. Really, really. And we've got, again, a very, very relatively new appointment on this team.

Okay. I'll do China first. So China approval from memory is mid next year?

I'm expecting it to be, yes.

How long, should you talk me to the payer dynamics in China to get this going? Because obviously you referenced it as a huge opportunity. Should we be thinking about China as a 27 or more into 28 sort of dynamic?

Yeah, as you say, and you've done a model also on this, probably Beproverson is one of the harder products to actually model, for us as well as probably for you guys. and I think it depends on obviously you've got reimbursement and you've got access points but you've also got how the testing works how the follow-through works and just whether people have often asked us are you dealing with a bolus or are you dealing with you know an even growth with this one you could be dealing with a bolus because those patients who are already on some form, they're diagnosed, they're being tested, they're on some form of treatment, there's likely to be a high rate of switch of those people. But in terms of guiding on each year and guiding on by country, I can't really get drawn into that. And it's a really hard call.

When you meet with the US team, do they give you a sense within your 5, 6, 7 states, how they sense the size of that bolus?

I mean, I've got KOL feedback, it's just interesting what your team say on that um they're giving at the moment um we're doing the you know we call it the plan we do the plan internally at the moment um there are there are there's not a single case there is not a single case on this one i think it's hard okay yeah so for for new launches you'd normally deal with a windsock around it depending on a whole series of factors we do the same with the extension actually um and this one is is is difficult it's even broader it's even broader it's even broader and it's for those it's for the dynamics because of the dynamics we've we've talked about yeah last one i think at the um cmd nina alluded to hep c type pricing not exactly but um what's your payer reception to that if you've had the conversations because again our kwell feedback is the functional cure it's a lot lower than hep c and therefore a bit of surprise on that pricing but obviously you must have had those combos so any color you can give that yes i mean we are um we're relatively you know comfortable with the with the comment around around pricing i think it's um it's because the data is so phenomenally different from how people are currently being treated and previously you know the treatment with with nukes was just so the side effects were so serious and the benefit was so low you know this is probably why key opinion leaders say this could be transformational against i think it's something like 75 percent of liver cancers are caused by hep b so again transformational for people transformational for healthcare systems yeah move on to the next set of launches so um new valent assets yes um So just, I think, one's come, one's pending.

These commentaries roughly have been consensus isn't roughly the right place, but again, excitement, launch prep, et cetera, as we think about that into next year.

Now, again, the oncology team in the US at the moment are on fire because of the new valent. We met some of the members of the new valent team as well. We were delighted, obviously, with Judetro, Zidusantinib, because its approval was ahead of its PDUFA date. And, you know, we're very, very well prepared for the launch. You know, it's underway. Patient recruitment is going strongly. Yeah, I mean, our U.S. head and the team are, I think, really proud of that one. We've got Neladelkib, which is, of the two, the larger opportunity. Neladelkib initially will go into second line. The PDUFA date is towards the end of November. And again, all the preparation is going extremely well for the launch, including recruitment ahead and everything else. So yeah, Neladalkib is looking very positive. Again, the data from Neladalkib, as you know, it's a fourth-generation ALK. But the data is very compelling when you compare it with current lines of therapy. Lorlatinib, it's got a much more tolerable profile to Lorlatinib. These are young patients in the 40 to 50 age group. usually females. They want to be able to work. They want to be able to go out and do things. And unfortunately, the side effects of some of the competitive products have not enabled them to do so because it can lead to psychosis and it can lead to serious weight gain. So net-net, we feel very proud of the profile of Neladelkib. The big opportunity for Neladelkib further down the track is the first line indication, which comes a number of years later and the trials are ongoing associated with that. So yeah, we're very pleased.

Since you mentioned, I wasn't going to ask him, but you said a number of years later, frontline, you haven't really given a lot of colour on timelines. I asked the question, CMD, 35% study recruited, felt a little bit slower to me. So that feels like 28, 29 read. Is that roughly correct? We should be thinking about that inflection sort of towards the end of your forecast period.

We see it in that sort of timeframe. The recruitment's going really well. I'm not sure when you got your last data set. Okay, so it's a couple of months now. Yeah, no, I mean, obviously I was in the U.S., but they're not going to give all the information that we're going to give at Q3. The Q3, the recruitment, and it's a good sign. And I think because of the side effects of current, you've got two things going on. Efficacy on the one hand, and Neladelkib is still, you know, going strong. It's 84 months overall survival. Some of the competitive products are so much less than that. they've got a more tolerable profile but they're dealing with much shorter the one that obviously lorlatinib has got a longer duration of effect the problem though is the side effects are serious so you you've got a combination here with Neladalkib of tolerability and efficacy and that should be a winning formula so again we we should think about some update on patient recruitment at 3q yeah but the timeline is towards the end of your forecast true I wouldn't say, you know, because we go to the end of 2031. I mean, we're seeing 29. And we think the uptake on that should be very strong because, you know, the market conditions and the market competition is relatively weak compared with the profile we've got. I know we're excited about Naladalka. And to your point, the centres are up and running together with the patient recruitment is quick, which is a very good sign of a successful product when you've got a strong uptake. Okay.

So you've gone through a lot of launches and positive drivers into next year. Perhaps I could touch on, or perhaps you could think, you know, list for where you think some of the headwinds we should think about. I have my list, which is Trilogy, IRA, sort of vaccines, annualization, some of the bolus. But just if you could comment on those two and anything else we should think about for 27.

Yeah, I think for 27, the major headwind comes from Trilogy. I think in terms of step down because we've got the pricing impact through going into the IRA. And we factored that in and we've known it's been coming for quite some time and we factored it in very early on. And actually it was slightly better than we anticipated originally when we were guiding a few years ago. So Trelogy, I would definitely call that out. i think in terms of obviously the the major other point is that the products some of the products now that have been driving a lot of growth become harder to lap the higher base you know you see that with with shingrix to some degree having said that there's a big opportunity with shingrix still because we are only 12 penetrated in the rest of the world versus you know 45 in the united States. So there are still growth opportunities with some of these products, but you're just on a much higher base. I don't think there's anything else to call out because there are also growth drivers coming through, Extensure, Blendrep. New Carla COPD is growing very strongly. And one of the benefits we found with launching New Carla and COPD, which again has got good data, is the halo effect then on severe asthma. It also has a benefit. So yeah, I don't think there's anything else major we start to see some hiv erosion coming in but it's in smaller markets uh but it's not eroding hiv overall like it's just a downward pressure patent yeah yeah patent any other of the specialty products you call out base effects um no i don't think so no major yeah it's and then i might have missed it um but have you guided to the trilogy ira impact We haven't given the specifics of it. And important to remember with Trilogy, it's one of our highest rebated products. So sometimes people look at the list prices and say, okay, we're dealing with a major issue. It's got a very significant RAR on it. So net-net, we haven't given the specifics of it, no. I'll ask the question and the answer, as you will.

So Novo, basically on a Zempick, which is every rebated, saying IRA is going to be no deviation to historic pricing. The average IRA price cut is like 20%, 25%. So should we be thinking about that sort of top-to-tail for Trilogy next year?

I won't be drawn any further on it. It's all in the forecast. It's all in the guidance. It's all in the forecast.

So if we move on now, and I'll do the Southside CFO question, So I'll ask you on the third quarter, but we've sort of done the top-line pushes and pulls for next year. One of the, and you sort of referenced in your intro, one of the hallmarks of your tenure in at least the recent years has been the operational financial leverage. I'm less clear and just interested as to how that plays for 27, new valent, both margin impact and net financial impact. So, and I'll ask the question and answer it as you will, but should we rethink that pattern continues next year with operational financial leverage or is it a bit tougher given what we know is coming?

It definitely, well, I suppose it gets tougher as you drive productivity through the organisation. And you see we've done quite a lot of that already. You've seen I've been putting pressure on SG&A to drive productivity, to invest in R&D. We've been doing it for a number of years. The reason, the major tailwind now is the program that we recently announced, which gives us the 1.9 billion. It ramps up, 28, 29 are the big, more significant year. So it doesn't give you a massive lift. And we're not dropping any of that through in 27. So what we deliver in 27 in terms of leverage doesn't come through the program we just announced. It's more about just productivity. I won't guide on the specific margin in a particular year what I can say though is there's no reason to see us dropping that margin we believe that when we guided a number of years ago that we would be more than a 30% margin by 26 we are on track to be then we re-guided to say more than 31% margin by 26 we're on track to deliver that. You know, we've made commitments to the market. We will deliver.

I'll move on to some competitive aspects, if that's okay on the top line. So two, just interesting. So you mentioned Nucala COPD. And if you're with the US team, reimbursement takes time, but Astra had some interesting data, Padua first quarter. Just interested if that is coming up in conversation as to potentially impact Nucala.

Yeah, it certainly comes up in conversation. Our view is Astra has some good data for sure, and they've got the benefit of being able to go across the eosinophil range. Nucala got a good label, as you know, for COPD, because we were able to go, you know, quite a lot lower, 150 plus. The Nucala uptake, as you probably saw from the chart at Q2, has been extremely strong in terms of compared with dupixent. We continue to see that with Nucala. It's performing very, very strongly. And together with that, as I mentioned, what we're finding increasingly is you've got, Nucala's got a very extensive label now. It's been on the market for a while. and it's got, you know, nasal polyps, severe asthma, HES and eGPA, multiple indications. And what we find with the population is they've got comorbidities. So it's much easier for the doctor, you know, because COPD is a very heterogeneous disease. It's much easier for the doctor to have something that's more comprehensive. It really is. it's one of the reasons that we decided to accelerate extensure indications and as you know instead of rolling them out year by year we went for you know four or five in one effectively we got eGPA readout coming up with extensure the reason for that is this comorbid argument now AstraZeneca have got a very good label for COPD but it's one in multiple and that's a big I think the big difference very clear the second one i've and i've spoke to deborah lots about this is the lenis latrevir so i know you know that once weekly from gillian and merc so i understand her message on reasons for protection so we won't go over that one i'm sort of more interested as a cfo

as you have to sort of think about the puts and takes how do you think about in that into next year and in potential impact of devato growth in particular um yes we uh like i say we watch We watch the competitors like hawks.

I think the reason we feel strong about HIV is, as you probably know, you've got evidence from patients and you've got evidence from physicians. The evidence from patients, when we've done assessments of what they prefer, the patient voice is huge in the US, they prefer long-acting injectables. And when I first joined the business, I thought, why? Why would you prefer a long-acting injectable over a tablet? They prefer them because they know they're safe with them and the frequency of the injection and the stigma associated with having HIV is significant. So 90% in the SOLAR study, this is patients preferred long-acting injectables and then physicians prefer them and the data monitoring committee stopped that trial in latitude because the data was so strong with long-acting injectables because they know they've got the protection. So we've got two months on the market. We've got a readout, importantly, for prevention this year for four months. We've got a readout next year for the next one in terms of treatment. And therefore, we feel in a strong position because the preference is long-acting injectables. I mean, it's great that there's innovation, but we believe in injectables are better than orals.

Okay. Last topic, BD. yeah um guardrails of what you want to do i mean every time i see luke it's he's kind of like i want to do more quicker and bigger so i mean i'm paraphrasing obviously but just you know um how would you talk to the urgency of continuing to add assets within the organization um i i wouldn't necessarily call it urgency i would call it um you know in my experience for sure the best science is never just internal.

The best science, you've got to keep your mind open and you've got to be reviewing both all the time. And we have this SPR group, the people who review the pipeline every two weeks. We have a BD meeting. We had one yesterday every month. So we're looking at, you know, the best science in the industry and the BD team and the scouting team. There's a lot going on in China, as you can imagine at the moment. We do a lot of work on Tinder. And then we're looking together with with the internals so i wouldn't say it was sort of urgent i would say it was wise i would say it was the right way to run a business and we've got we've got a healthy balance sheet you know we post the new valent acquisition on a pro forma basis we're just shy of two times net debt we've got a healthy balance sheet and we drive productivity through the p and l to be able to absorb more and build the pipeline and you've seen what we've just recently done we've gone from 10 phase three starts that we announced at the beginning of the year to 20. In fact, it's 21 now because we've just announced MRNA over the last couple of weeks. So yeah, I think it's a sign of a dynamic company.

So that two times, what sort of headroom does that give you for deal sizes?

It gives us reasonable, first of all, we've still got, even after New Valent, reasonable deal size for the rest of this year. But then very importantly, we've guided more than 10 billion of CGFO, cash generated from operations, for this year. So the company generates, you know, we've been able to generate capacity to be able to do the new valent deal. And we continue to do that because one of the other things I'm focused on is the conversion of profit to cash, which has improved a lot if you look at the data over the last few years because we've got I've got a team focused on just that conversion last one just because I'll get out it's the next are you focused on a more new valent type large deal or you sort of done that and we're sort of back to the smaller earlier stage stuff um it's it's entirely dependent we I mean I've got the the the list in my mind as I'm answering this question, entirely dependent on where we won't be driven by late or early. It'll be driven by the quality of the asset. And the, you know, yeah, it'll be the quality of the asset that we'll win through.

Right, we're up on time, Julie. So we've covered a lot of ground there. So thank you very much. To the rest of the day and great session. Thank you.