Passage BIO, Inc. Q1 FY2020 Earnings Call

Thank you all for joining us this morning for the Passage Bio first-quarter 2020 financial and operating results conference call. I will now hand it over to Zoe Mita. Zoe, please go ahead.

Thank you, Operator. This morning we issued a press release that outlines the topics we plan to discuss today. This release is available on the Passage Bio website at investors.passagebio.com under the news and events section. On today's call, Bruce Goldsmith, President and Chief Executive Officer, and Rich Morris, Chief Financial Officer, will review our first-quarter 2020 financial results and discuss recent business highlights. Gary Romano, our Chief Medical Officer, and Jill Quigley, our Chief Operating Officer, will also be available for the Q&A portion of the call. Before we begin, please note that today's call may include a number of forward-looking statements, including, but not limited to, comments on our expectations about timing and execution of anticipated milestones, including initiation of clinical trials and the availability of clinical data from such trials; our expectations about our collaborators' and partners' ability to execute key initiatives; the ability of our lead product candidates to treat the underlying causes of their respective target monogenic CNS disorder; manufacturing plans and strategies; trends with respect to financial performance in cash flows; the Company's ability to fund research and development programs; impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on the Company's operations; and its ability to manage costs along with uses of cash and other matters. These forward-looking statements are based on assumptions that are subject to risks and uncertainties that could cause the Company's actual results to differ significantly from those suggested by these statements. Given these risks and uncertainties, you should not place undue reliance on these forward-looking statements. Please refer to the Company's filings with the SEC for information concerning risk factors that could cause its actual results to differ materially from expectations, including any forward-looking statements made on this call. Except as required by law, the Company disclaims any obligation to publicly update or revise any forward-looking statements to account for or reflect events or circumstances that occur after this call. It is now my pleasure to pass the call over to Bruce Goldsmith. Bruce?

Thanks, Zoe, and thank you all for joining us this morning. We are really excited to be here today to talk about the progress we have made since the start of the year. I will go into more detail in a moment, but since January, we successfully completed an upsized IPO to significantly improve our cash position and runway. We strengthened our Board of Directors and internal team across all functions to increase our capabilities. And we also recently announced that we expanded our agreement with our partners at the University of Pennsylvania's Gene Therapy Program, headed by Dr. James Wilson, adding potential depth and breadth to our pipeline. Passage Bio was founded in late 2018 with the goal of truly helping patients suffering from serious life-threatening rare monogenic central nervous system diseases. Our vision is to become the premier genetic medicines company by developing and ultimately commercializing transformative therapies that dramatically and positively impact the lives of patients suffering from these diseases. With patients at the center of our mission, we are focused on advancing our lead candidate into the clinic as soon as possible and plan to do so later this year. A large part of what makes our Company unique is our strong partnership with Penn and the Gene Therapy Program, or GTP. This collaboration gives us access to what we believe is the best discovery, technology, and research in the field of gene therapy. This includes preclinical development and manufacturing experience that will help guide our programs as we move into the clinic. The focus of our collaboration remains on identifying and advancing transformative therapeutics that have the much-needed differentiated profiles to address patient needs. Last week, we announced that we expanded this collaboration, allowing us the opportunity to deepen our product pipeline and enhance our access to GTP's pioneering gene therapy expertise. The amendment increased the number of additional options available for us to license from 6 to 11 and extended the exercise window of all remaining 11 options through 2025. We have already licensed a total of six to date, bringing our total potential product pipeline to 17 programs. Under this agreement, we have committed to fund $5 million annually for discovery research conducted by Penn. As a result, we will receive exclusive rights and licenses to certain technologies resulting from discovery research for Passage Bio products developed with the GTP, such as next-generation capsids, toxicity reductions, and delivery and formulation improvements. We are tremendously proud of the progress we have made to date through this collaboration. And beyond the enhanced access to technology and programs, this continues to demonstrate the extremely strong partnership between Passage Bio and Dr. Wilson's team at the GTP. Given today's environment, we are working closely with Penn, our manufacturing partners at Catalant, and our external partners across the healthcare fields as we navigate the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic. Like many of our peers, our primary goal is serving patients, particularly those with no alternative effective and safe treatment options. As such, we remain steadfast in advancing our programs into the clinic and are committed to meeting our development goals. At this time, we do not anticipate any delays in trial initiations for our three lead programs. With the strong cash position from our IPO, strong collaborations, and a growing team, we feel confident in our ability to execute on these goals. While the full impact of the COVID-19 pandemic remains uncertain, so far our employees have demonstrated their ability to be flexible and have exemplified our Company's commitment to best-in-class productivity. We are focused on employee safety, physical and mental well-being, and engagement in our mission, as we believe our team is an extremely valuable asset. As we do everything we can to keep our employees safe, we are also focused on the safety of the frontline healthcare workers, patients, and their families as we think about our first clinical trial initiation later this year. In the spirit of patient focus, we are now going to highlight our three most advanced development programs in GM1 gangliosidosis, frontotemporal dementia, and Krabbe disease. Our lead candidate for the treatment of GM1 gangliosidosis is PBGM01, which we are developing for the treatment of the infantile form of the disease. GM1 is a rare monogenic recessive lysosomal storage disease caused by mutations in the GLB1 gene encoding beta-galactosidase. These mutations result in an accumulation of toxic levels of GM1 gangliosides and lead to rapidly progressing neurodegeneration. Infantile GM1, which is characterized by onset in the first year of life, is the most severe form of the disease, reducing life expectancy to only two to four years. Infantile GM1 is the most common subtype of this disease and represents almost two-thirds of total GM1 cases. Unfortunately, patients with infantile GM1 have no effective disease-modifying treatment options available to them. Our development candidate PBGM01 is a next-generation hu68 AAV capsid designed to deliver a functional GLB1 gene that expresses beta-galactosidase. Based on capsid comparison studies, this next-generation capsid was selected due to the superior transduction observed in cells of the CNS and peripheral organs, which we believe gives us the potential to treat both the CNS pathologies and the peripheral manifestations of GM1 in order to restore development potential in patients. Our planned Phase 1/2 trial will be an open-label dose escalation study of PBGM01 administered by a single injection into the intra-cisterna magna or ICM in pediatric patients with infantile GM1. The primary endpoints for this study will be safety and tolerability as well as treatment effects on the prevention of further developmental regression, restoration of developmental milestones, prevention of disease progression, and extension of ventilator-free survival. We will also be evaluating the effect of PBGM01 on a number of biomarkers, including CSF and serum beta-gal enzyme activity as well as EEG and MRI measurements. We anticipate the first patient to be treated in the fourth quarter of 2020, and we expect initial 30-day safety and biomarker data in late first-half 2021. Last month, we were happy to report that the FDA granted orphan drug designation to PBGM01. This designation represents an important recognition of the dire need for an effective treatment option for these children and their families while granting us financial incentives to support clinical development and the potential for up to seven years of market exclusivity in the US upon regulatory approval. In addition to the planned clinical study for PBGM01, we are sponsoring a natural history study in collaboration with the University of Pennsylvania's Orphan Disease Center to collect prospective data on clinical disease progression in both infantile and juvenile GM1. The study is the first of its kind evaluating patients with infantile GM1. We now have three sites open, though due to the impact from the COVID-19 pandemic and concern for patient safety, we have not enrolled any patients. To address these enrollment delays, we are working with sites to explore enrolling and following patients remotely. We are also simultaneously accessing additional sources of historical control data from this important population of children. Now I will turn to our next most advanced program, PBFT02, for the treatment of frontotemporal dementia or FTD. FTD is a neurodegenerative disease and one of the most common causes of early onset dementia, causing impairment in behavior, language, and executive function with further progression to immobility and death. Currently, there are no approved disease-modifying therapies for these patients. In approximately 5% to 10% of patients with FTD, or a prevalence of approximately 3,000 to 6,000 patients in the United States, the disease is caused by mutations in the granulin gene, which leads to deficiency of progranulin. Emerging evidence suggests that progranulin's pathogenic contribution to FTD and other neurodegenerative disorders relates to a critical role in lysosomal function. Our product candidate PBFT02 is an AAV1 viral vector that is designed to deliver modified DNA encoding GRN to patient cells. Preclinical studies have demonstrated its ability to significantly increase progranulin above normal levels in the cerebrospinal fluid. As part of our preclinical studies, we tested ICM administration of the AAV1 capsid against other capsid types in nonhuman primates and found that AAV1 provided the strongest transduction and also achieved up to 50 times the normal human cerebrospinal fluid level of progranulin. Based on the encouraging safety and efficacy data from our preclinical studies, we plan to initiate a Phase 1/2 trial in the first half of 2021. Our second most advanced pediatric program is in infantile Krabbe disease, a rare and often life-threatening lysosomal storage disease that results in progressive damage to both the brain and the peripheral nervous system. Krabbe disease is caused by mutations in the galactosylceramidase or GALC gene that leads to accumulation of psychosine, which in turn kills myelin-producing cells in the CNS and PNS. Without myelin, nerves in the brain and body cannot properly transmit signals, leading to rapidly progressing neurodegeneration in infants. This results in a short life expectancy of only two years for those diagnosed with the early form, which manifests before six months of age, and approximately five years with the late form, which manifests between 7 and 12 months of age. There are no current disease-modifying therapies available to these patients, and we believe incidence may be higher than reported due to lack of adequate screening at birth. Tomorrow there will be a presentation of data from our Krabbe program at ASGCT by Juliette Hordeaux from GTP. While the full data set will be presented tomorrow, data from the twitcher mouse and the naturally occurring Krabbe dog model show that administration of AAV hu68 carrying a functional GALC gene into the cerebrospinal fluid resulted in normalization of GALC enzyme activity and improved all parameters of Krabbe disease. We believe these data are very supportive of our clinical approach. Our development candidate PBKR03 utilizes the same next-generation AAV hu68 capsid as used in the GM1 program. For PBKR03, AAV hu68 will be used to deliver DNA encoding the GALC enzyme to a patient's cells to reduce psychosine accumulation and restore myelin. We believe that PBKR03 has the potential to address the underlying cause of the disease and plan to initiate a Phase 1/2 trial in the first half of 2021. In addition to these lead programs, we also have three additional CNS programs in the discovery and candidate selection stage: PBML04 for MLD, PBLA05 for ALS with a C9orf72 gain of function mutation, and PBCM06 for CMT2A. We are currently coordinating with GTP to conduct discovery stage preclinical studies for these programs and look forward to progressing these into IND-enabling studies. Lastly, I want to take a moment to discuss manufacturing, which is a key aspect of our business. Earlier this quarter, we finalized a development services and clinical supply agreement with Catalant to secure clinical scale manufacturing capacity for our gene therapy programs. This agreement formalizes the supply terms for the previously announced collaboration with Catalant for Passage Bio's dedicated manufacturing suite, which we expect to be functional by year-end. Once it is up and running, the cGMP suite will be capable of meeting production requirements for our current lead product candidates for any clinical needs through early commercialization. Having our own dedicated suite is an important step toward our goal of having expanded control of the supply chain, which we believe will set us up for both clinical and commercial success by allowing for greater flexibility and control in terms of scalability and prioritization as we move products through development. And with that, I will turn the call over to Rich to give a financial and operations update.

Thank you, Bruce. As we reported in our press release this morning, we ended the quarter with cash and cash equivalents of approximately $367 million, compared to approximately $159 million as of December 31, 2019. In the first quarter of 2020, we raised approximately $228 million in net proceeds from our IPO. We expect our current cash balance to fund our operations and clinical expenses into 2023. R&D expenses were approximately $13 million for the quarter ended March 31, compared to approximately $3 million for the same quarter in 2019. The increase was primarily due to an increase of approximately $5 million in R&D costs incurred with Penn in connection with the preparation of several IND filings, as well as an increase in other research costs of approximately $3 million as we prepare for our clinical trials to begin in the second half of 2020 and early 2021. We also had an approximately $2 million increase in personnel-related costs and approximately $200,000 increase in facility and other costs due to increases in employee headcount in the R&D function. G&A expenses were approximately $5 million for the quarter ended March 31, compared to approximately $1 million for the same quarter in 2019. The increase was primarily due to an approximately $2 million increase in personnel-related and share-based compensation expense due to increases in employee headcount. Our professional fees and facility costs also increased by approximately $600,000 and approximately $800,000, respectively, as we expanded our operations to explore our research and development efforts. Net loss was approximately $18 million for the first quarter of 2020, compared to approximately $8 million in the same quarter of 2019. Net loss per basic and diluted share was $1 in the first quarter of 2020, compared to $1.83 net loss per basic and diluted share in the first quarter of 2019. As part of ongoing efforts to continue to grow our organization, we have signed an agreement for new office space, which we will move into in early 2021. We also continue our active recruitment efforts, focused on leveraging the burgeoning cell and gene therapy epicenter and our unique access to a strong pool of local candidates in Philadelphia. We have made a number of key hires over the past quarter and are excited to continue to grow our team of talented, dedicated scientists and business personnel. With that, let me turn the call back to Bruce for closing remarks.

Thanks, Rich. In closing, I would like to reiterate our commitment to continue to make 2020 a transformative year for Passage Bio and the patients we serve. As a newly public company, we believe we are well positioned with internal financial and operational strength, external collaborations, and a continued focus on healthcare providers, patients, and their families. This is an important time for Passage Bio for the key remaining milestones in 2020, which are the initiation of the PBGM01 clinical study for the treatment of patients with infantile GM1, with first patient enrollment anticipated in the fourth quarter of 2020; advancement of two programs in FTD and Krabbe towards clinical study initiations in the first half of 2021; and continued expansion of the clinical, manufacturing, and operations teams to support these programs. I am absolutely confident in our team's ability to continue to execute and we look forward to updating you on our progress. We would now like to open up the call for your questions. Operator?

Our first question comes from Salveen Richter from Goldman Sachs. Your line is open.

Thanks for taking the question. This is Andrea on for Salveen. I was just hoping you could speak a little bit more on how you are thinking about conducting your trials in a COVID-19 environment. You have mentioned, I guess on this call here, that you are thinking about potentially remote enrolling patients. And just given how rare the disease is, are there additional hurdles associated with remote versus traditional methods? And then how are you thinking about patient monitoring and data collection?

Hi, Andrea, this is Bruce. Thank you for your question. There are two key points we would like to address regarding COVID-19. First, the remote monitoring you mentioned actually relates to our natural history study. After my introductory remarks, I'll have Gary Romano, our Chief Medical Officer, elaborate on that. The second point is that we are aware of the global impact of COVID-19 and potential delays on the trial start for PBGM01, which is aimed at treating patients with infantile GM1. As of today, we do not expect any impact on the IND filing, and we are actively discussing with our sites, along with other biopharma, clinical teams, and CROs. While we recognize the global effects of COVID-19 on site openings, we believe that hospitals will continue to prioritize trials for life-threatening conditions. Therefore, for PBGM01, which we plan to initiate in the latter half of this year during the fourth quarter, we do not foresee any specific impacts from COVID-19 at this moment. Our focus remains on identifying patients and ensuring their safe treatment as they come to the sites. Gary, could you please provide some further insight into the natural history study and the remote monitoring we are expecting?

Yes, thank you, Bruce. I would just add that we are putting into place capability to remotely monitor patients in a natural history study. That includes conducting the assessments of developmental scales over the phone and over video. We are also exploring how we might use structured video data collection to evaluate patients' progress and treatment and response in the trials. This is going to start in the natural history study, and the learnings that we take from that we will apply as well to the interventional trials for patient follow-up visits as necessary.

Great. And then maybe just one additional question, if I may. Just as it relates to the expanded collaboration with Penn, could you provide some color maybe on the thinking of what spurred the decision and why now?

Sure, thanks, Andrea. When considering the timing, it builds on the collaboration and the successes we've achieved so far with Jim and the GTP team. We assessed the specific research areas the GTP is pursuing, not only regarding our lead programs but also future ones. We recognized the opportunity to access insights on the next-generation capsids GTP is discovering and their other technologies aimed at reducing toxicity and improving delivery and formulation. Therefore, we determined this was the right moment to enhance our collaboration. Our goals include continuing to support innovative research and applying that research to our ongoing or future programs as suitable. We see this as a chance to access valuable technology while also adding five additional programs, totaling 11 programs we could access now. Additionally, we now have five years to execute those programs and begin the research, as opposed to the initial agreement, which allowed only two years. We have several reasons for believing this is the right time to access technology, expand the collaboration, and extend our timeline.

Our next question comes from Yaron Werber from Cowen. Your line is open.

Hi, guys. This is Brendan on for Yaron. Thanks very much for taking the question and congrats on the progress so far. I actually just really wanted to ask you a little bit more broadly on kind of how you're thinking to prioritize some of the programs a little bit further down the road. If you are still thinking to kind of really maintain initiation of Krabbe and FTD simultaneously. And then actually beyond there how you kind of think about which opportunity to pursue first. And then also I was actually hoping to just get a little bit more kind of just your thoughts on if there is any update on the newborn screening progress. I know this is actually going to come up quite a bit across kind of the industry and in times of COVID, so I was just wondering if there is any kind of updates there. Thanks very much.

Thank you for the question. I will start with a brief comment on newborn screening and then let Jill elaborate on our general efforts in this area. Regarding FTD and Krabbe, we are on track to begin clinical studies in the first half of 2021, consistent with our prior guidance. We aim to initiate studies for both FTD and Krabbe in the same half, depending on progress in IND filing, manufacturing, clinical site initiations, and patient recruitment, all of which will determine the exact timing of the clinical trials. We are building internal capacity within our clinical and manufacturing teams to support the parallel development of these programs, and that aligns with your first question. For your second question about prioritizing and selecting new programs, our main focus is on patient needs, considering input from our internal team, Board advisors, and externally with Jim Wilson and his team at GTP. We evaluate how to reduce risks in various areas such as delivery method and biodistribution to ensure our approach is differentiated and optimized. This process informs our selection of upcoming programs, allowing us to continue diversifying our portfolio as we have with our first six programs, which focus on rare monogenic CNS disorders and some very rare pediatric conditions. We are actively collaborating with Dr. Wilson and his team to discuss indications with these considerations in mind, and we will maintain this engagement. Regarding newborn screening, I will let Jill take over shortly, but I want to emphasize that we are working closely with advocacy groups as well as academic and clinical leaders during this COVID-19 era to implement and expand newborn screening initiatives, not only for GM1 but also for continued collaboration on Krabbe. Jill, could you share your thoughts on the necessity and expansion of newborn screening?

Sure, Bruce. Yes, newborn screening is going to be very important, of course, for early identification of patients eventually when there is a treatment available for various different diseases. We continue to have strong relationships with patient advocacy groups and KOLs. Both patient advocacy groups and KOLs are absolutely critical as we think about newborn screening and the strategy around that to support the patients that we are serving. So we have identified a few different opportunities to support the advancement of newborn screening, specifically with GM1. There are already programs, I think as everyone knows, in place for Krabbe. We will continue to support those opportunities as we work towards newborn screening not only at a pilot state level but continue to try to find a way to move towards broader application.

Thanks, Jill. And putting that in context in COVID-19, which I think was also your question, yes, I think we recognize that all of the aspects of newborn screening, patient identification, and patient recruitment are challenging. So we are partnering with groups that are in touch with patients and looking to, despite COVID-19, initiate some of those programs and partnerships. But you are absolutely right that these remain significant challenges in the era of the pandemic.

Hey, guys, thanks so much for taking the question. A quick one from me, and I'm sorry if you guys already answered this because I have been hopping on a few different calls this morning. But can you give us an update on the natural history strategy for both GM1 and Krabbe specifically? It's a little bit of a follow-on to the prior question, but any update there would be helpful. Thank you.

Sure, I'll provide a brief comment before handing it over to Gary. Regarding the natural history study, we are still working on it. Gary can update us on the number of sites that have been opened and the status of patient enrollment, which has been particularly challenging during the COVID-19 pandemic. Additionally, we are exploring complementary approaches, including remote screening and other data sources. Gary, could you also share our thoughts on where we stand with Krabbe from external perspectives?

Let me begin with GM1. Our strategy for accessing natural history data to compare with our interventional trial data involves a prospective collection of data through a protocol supported by the Orphan Disease Center at Penn. This protocol is nearly identical to the GM1 interventional protocol we will use in our study. The study is taking place at sites worldwide, including those involved in our interventional study, which we believe will enhance the quality of the data by considering site-specific factors. Currently, we have three open sites, with several more expected to be operational soon. While we have not yet enrolled any patients in this study, we are moving towards enrolling patients remotely and then following up with them. This approach is feasible as many patients are well-known, allowing for remote baseline assessments. These patients have already been officially diagnosed at the sites. Additionally, we plan to enhance prospective data from the natural history study with retrospective data. We are collaborating with global centers that have extensive longitudinal data on these patients, and we have agreements to access that information. Consequently, we will have both prospectively and retrospectively collected data for GM1. For Krabbe, our approach will primarily rely on retrospective natural history data, as there is a wealth of existing data on this condition. We are currently coordinating with universities around the world that possess this data and developing protocols to extract this information from their databases. Throughout this process for both GM1 and Krabbe, we will maintain early and frequent communications with regulators regarding our strategy and statistical analysis for utilizing natural history study data as comparator controls for our single-arm trials.

Our next question comes from Gbola Amusa from Chardan. Your line is open.

It's Gbola Amusa from Chardan. Thank you for taking my call. I have a broad question regarding your vision. You've mentioned your goal of becoming a leading genetic medicines company instead of just a gene therapy company. Could you discuss whether you have access to non-AAV-based genetic medicine capabilities from your collaboration with UPenn, or if you plan to acquire such capabilities from an external source? Additionally, the expenses from the first quarter may not reflect future trends. Can you provide some qualitative or directional insights on the expected expense increase from the first to the second quarter, then to the third and fourth quarters, as well as from 2020 to 2021 and 2022, particularly since you have a significant runway into 2023? I will pause there.

Great. Thanks for the question. So I will take the first part and turn this over to Rich for some comments around the burn. So you are absolutely right; I think it is a great observation that we do believe that we have the potential and certainly our vision is to become the premier genetic medicines company. And right now, our strategy in terms of the foundation that we have laid with Penn is certainly on gene therapy for patients with rare monogenic CNS disorders. We think that with that foundation, that will allow us to build the clinical, manufacturing, and commercialization efforts that are going to be supportive of that goal. We do recognize that there is more to genetic medicines than specifically the gene therapy that is supported by the GTP current relationship and we think that there are a number of ways of accessing additional technologies that could support that goal. One is through an expanded relationship that may be either selective or broad with our existing partners, such as the GTP Group. The other is other opportunities external to that, which could come from academic partnerships or biotech partnerships. I think that is the long-term goal and the long-term vision because we do not want to be distracted from the near-term goals of building the clinical and manufacturing and commercial infrastructure around our extensive portfolio of up to 17 programs. The way we think about this is what we are laying out and executing on right now is the foundation and the genetics medicine vision or mission, if you will, from a long-term perspective is just that: a goal that we want to achieve over time as those technologies and, quite frankly, the ability to address the same goal of patients with significant unmet medical need with transformative therapies come to be realized. So I would balance the initial focus with a long-term focus in my answer to your question. Rich, do you want to talk a little bit about the burn? Or do you have a follow-up? Sorry.

Good morning. Thank you for joining the call. The first quarter will not represent the rest of the year on a quarterly basis. You can expect that both quarterly expenses and year-over-year expenses will increase. We anticipate significant growth in our headcount throughout the year, which will impact our spending not just in the first half but also carry over into next year. Additionally, there will be an increase in R&D expenses due to the ramp-up of our three clinical trials, particularly in the latter half of this year. We will also account for a full year's worth of expenses for these trials in 2021 compared to 2020. All these factors have been incorporated into our guidance, and we are excited about our strong cash balance as we approach early 2023.

Great. I have a quick follow-up. There was a paper by Dr. Wilson in April that went public in molecular therapy methods and clinical development, which compared ICM injections to other types of injections for CNS indications. Do you believe there is anything in that paper that the market does not fully appreciate about your ICM approach?

I believe the ICM approach, based on the volume of publications and our internal data, is very effective and safe so far. We need to demonstrate this through clinical studies as well. We're also aware that other groups are utilizing ICM. One advantage is the excellent distribution and transduction observed in nonhuman primate studies. Additionally, our partnership with Penn has shown that their study and others back a solid approach in terms of safety and delivering through the blood-brain barrier, which is guided by imaging. Gary, do you have any further comments? I think that's the overall perspective, but I would appreciate any additional thoughts on the safety and efficacy of ICM's delivery method.

No, I just want to emphasize that the best and most complete biodistribution is achieved with ICM approaches compared to other intrathecal methods, like lumbar puncture. We also believe there are significant safety and biodistribution benefits when compared to intracerebral ventricular methods.

I am showing no further questions in the queue at this time. Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for participating in today's conference. This does conclude your program and you may now disconnect. Everyone, have a great day.