Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd (TEVA) September 2026 Conference Transcript

Okay, perfect. So, good morning, everyone. Thank you for joining this session of the Morgan Stanley Global Healthcare Conference. For those of you who don't know me, I'm Sarisa Kapila, European Pharma Research Analyst here at Morgan Stanley, and I'm joined by my colleague, Aditya Venkat at MS, and I'm very pleased to have Richard Francis and Eric Hughes here today, the CEO and Head of R&D of Tether. But thank you very much for joining us.

Thank you for having us.

So before we get started, please note that this presentation is for Morgan Stanley Institutional Clients and Employees. For all important disclosures, please see the Morgan Stanley Research Disclosure website at www.morganstanley.com forward slash researchdisclosures. If you have any questions, please reach out to your MS sales rep, and I apologize for how many times I'm going to say that over the next three days. So perhaps we get started. Richard, before we go into detail, perhaps you could start with introductory comments as to where we are in the Tether story today, progress on the pivot to growth strategy, and the outlook from here.

I'll try and be brief, because obviously I could spend the whole time talking about that. So where we are in the story, to answer that first part of the question. So pivot to growth, we started in 2023. It was a three-part plan, return to growth, accelerate growth, and maintain growth. So we're in the second chapter or phase, you could say. So I would say there's a lot more to come, and we'll be explaining why there's a lot more to come. But I think over this period of time, what we've shown is we've started with the ambition of transforming Teva from a pure plate generics company into a world-leading biopharma company. And very quickly, over three and a half years, that has become something which seemed slightly unbelievable in 2023 three to something that is very believable now, just because if you look at the products we have, the pipeline we have, the momentum we have, then we clearly are executing well on that ambition. Now, the pivot to growth strategy, and I see many familiar faces in the audience here, so you're used to me being quite boring about this, but I think the repetition is why we've done well. Pivot to growth is based on four pillars. Deliver on our growth engine, step up innovation, create a generics powerhouse, and focus the business, focus capital. We've been executing this seamlessly for the last three and a half years. It will be executed seamlessly going forward for the next, I'd say, seven at least, because we have a clear idea how we can create shareholder value, how we can continue to grow the top line and the bottom line. And a lot of that comes from the fact that we've taken some innovative products, Ajovi, Stedo, and Yoseti, and accelerated them and made people start to model them in a way that they would have modeled them before in their calculations. And that's because we are really really good at commercializing products and with stuff up innovation which I'm sure Eric will get a lot of questions on and he should rightly so we've taken a company that was questioned whether you could develop innovative products and move them into the clinic and then move them through the clinic and I think we've done that and I think in most metrics we are up a quarter so that means if the first pillar is if we can sell stuff and the second pillar we're developing stuff very quickly and I think some really unique assets, and we'll talk about the eight readouts we have this year, then clearly those two show a lot of potential to create a lot of growth on the top and the bottom line going forward. And then on the third pillar, we've gone from a declining generics business to one that's now stabilized and over the last few years accelerated or grown, and we're going to add more and more buyers to that. And then finally, because I'm only taking two minutes, is we've returned to capital allocation from a deal making perspective. And so we've obviously done that with our first deal with Amalek's, which I think we're seeing as being strategically aligned to what we said we're going to do, be in the CNS space. It's very synergistic. I think we're going to be able to turn that asset into an asset that's going to fulfill those financial requirements that I've laid out. And then, because my CFO is looking at me now, I must mention the fact that we've done two other things, which is actually today is a big day for us. So we've taken ADS shares and converted those to ordinary shares, so those will be, will allow more investors to have access to the Teva opportunity, which I think is still significant going forward. And then the final thing, which I think relates to something which we never talk about anymore, which we did talk about a little bit at the start of my tenure, which is debt. So, there's a good thing about debt. Our debt has gone down considerably and because we're becoming investment grade now across all three of the rating agencies, over a year ahead of when we said we were going to do that, we did a refinancing last week where we were hugely oversubscribed and I think we got that financing done in a very short period of time at a very good price and that reflects, once again, all the other things I've said because obviously that's looked at very closely. So congratulations to the team who did that last week. So there's a lot within that and we'll see if we can go deeper, but maybe the fact there's a lot within it is why I am so convinced that the value creation story that we've started has a long way to run with Tavac.

And before we get into the innovative portfolio in more detail, perhaps we just touch on tariffs. So President Trump has proposed 100% tariffs on imported generics from August 2028, rising to 200% a year later. So since Q2, you announced some agreements with the administration around U.S. manufacturing. So has that changed how you think about the tariff exposure? And could Teva's existing U.S. footprint ultimately become somewhat of a competitive advantage?

So obviously, the interesting thing, it's a very dynamic world we live in, geopolitically, in most areas, actually. And I think what Teva has shown is that we have a real capability to maneuver within that world. But to your specific point on tariffs, yeah, I think we have the largest generic manufacturing footprint in the United States. I think that gives us an advantage on that one level. But I also think we've shown with our work with the administration, both through things we've done with HSS and IRA, as well as the potential deal we're going to close with the administration that you saw in the White House a couple of weeks ago, that I think we have the ability to work well with this administration because we're a unique company. We bring, I think it's close to $40 billion of savings to the U.S. every year as well as the fact that we bring it innovative. So I think our seat at the table gives us a significant share of voice. But is it a competitive advantage? As we work together, you'll find I'm more measured. I don't lean into things too much. Let's see how it plays out. I think we're in a strong position right now. But I would also say that the changing dynamics of our portfolio, particularly around Biosummers, probably lends itself to also helping us in that more challenging environment.

Very clear. So perhaps we start on Ostedo and the 2027 outlook. So to my understanding, Teva continued to target $2.5 billion of Ostedo sales next year, which is roughly in line with the midpoint of your revised guide. So how should we think about volume growth next year to offset pricing headwinds? And how much could volume provide a tailwind versus your guidance?

So I think everybody's trying to sort of get me, and I can understand why, to sort of give guidance to 2027 on Estedo. But I did give guidance in 2023 on Estedo. So I gave it really ahead of schedule, $2.5 billion. Look, the way I think about it, the first way I want people to always think about how I answer this question, I answer this question with $3 billion. This product will do over $3 billion, and that's the most important thing to be thinking about. What it does in 27 is just a journey on that road to $3 billion. A greater than $3 billion. What will it be? Well, obviously, we've seen good momentum this year with Esteda. The team at the U.S. are doing a great job. Where will it be next year with Esteda? We'll give guidance on that. I think I'd remind everybody that the untreated population, tragically, is still really, really high when it comes to tidal dyskinesia. Our performance, our capability to capture patients, to get them onto therapy, to have them on the optimal dose, as well as to make sure they can hear and stay compliant, is improving all the time. That is why I feel so confident about getting over $3 billion. So when it comes to 2027, we'll talk closer when I have more data from Q3 and Q4, and talk to you about where I think the volume's going to come from, where I think we're going to end up from a revenue point of view. But I would to remind everybody that it looks like now where we are with our guidance, the midpoint, we're going to hit our $2.5 billion a year early. So we hit our $2.5 billion a year early. We have our investment grade across all three rating agencies a year early. There's a lot of things that we do that people didn't think we could do, and we do them earlier. When it comes to the Phase 3 studies on many of our assets, we put them through the clinic, or Eric has a lot quicker. So that's maybe how I'd answer Stato. A lot more opportunity. Think of it as $3 billion plus, and then work back from there.

Understood. And perhaps we can touch on competition for Estedo, too. So, Neurokin has stepped up investment behind Ingressa and says it's capturing the majority of new patient staff. So, are you seeing any changes in Estedo Newstart trends or prescribing behavior and any changes in the competitive landscape?

Look, it's a very competitive area, particularly as our competition relies on the asset so heavily. So, it's very competitive. We recognize that. I think what we've shown throughout this three and a half years of really driving instead on a different trajectory than anybody could have foreseen is we're very good at execution. We're very good about our capital allocation, what we need to spend versus what others spend to make sure we get the right return on that, and we're focusing on that. And I think we've shown that we can perform very competitively within that market. And I don't really get into too much more detail about that. You know, I used to sell pharmaceuticals, and I was always told, don't talk about the competition. So I'm standing with that. We stand by what we say we're going to do on guidance, and I go back to we're going to do more than $3 billion. It is competitive. We don't ignore that. And we're very thoughtful about how we allocate resources, but also how we elevate our performance and our execution. because I think the team can execute better every year with the resources they have or with even extra resources.

Perhaps we could move to Azure V, which has been a bright spot. It continues to outgrow the injectable CGRP market and take share, and guidance has already been raised this year. So as oral CGRP, I was going to say GLP-1, but as oral CGRPs continue to take share, how sustainable is the outperformance and how important do you think the quarterly dosing is? and maybe you can touch on exceeding the $1 billion target.

So for Ajobe, yeah, so isn't it extraordinary that we're sat here talking about Ajobe breaching $1 billion and three and a half years ago we weren't talking about Ajobe doing anything? And I say that because I think it goes back to a lot of things we do at Teva, which is about being incredibly focused, incredibly operationally driven when it comes to performance. and we saw that we had an asset energy that was underperforming that could perform better, but to perform better it needed to capture market share and outperform the market and outperform competitors who are some pretty big competitors and we had to do that across every one of our regions. Now, it has surprised me how well we've done, if I'm really honest because at the same time we're driving Estedo, we launched Uceti so to do this consistently well across all of our regions I think just shows the capability that we have geographically but in a hugely competitive area but not just in the injectable competition, but as you highlighted the oral. How far can it go? Look, the ambition we always have is we'll grow ahead of market. And we are going way ahead of market right now. How long will we keep that going? We'll see. I think we're going to have to start to give new guidance on Ajovia again because we seem to be catching up to the one billion very quickly. And so we'll probably do that to let people understand where that can go and they can model that. But I take it back to Teva can sell innovative products really, really, really well because we're really focused. We're very performance-focused. And because of that, all of our assets, whether they're Joby, Ussedi, or Estedo, outperform in their particular segment.

Perfect. Let's switch to Ussedi. So it's performed very strongly in the U.S., as you've highlighted. But what is the latest play with ex-U.S. launches? is how should we think about the international opportunity for USETI, and when should we expect an update?

Yes, so I think USETI, I think another great example of Teva going into a super competitive market, genericized, some big brands in there, how can you actually do well in that? I think two things, there's a great product developed by Eric and his team, which meets medical unmet need significantly, from the ability to be sub-Q, get to therapy with doses within 8 to 24 hours, and you don't have to have any concomitant adjunctive therapy at the same time, so you can be released from the hospital and institution, but still competitive. And now people are talking about modeling this in a very different way. Can it go to Europe? That's more of a challenging one because of pricing and where we get the pricing. I think that probably leads on to olanzapine, which you're probably going to ask me about anyway, But a Lanzapine we see as a definite opportunity to have a European launch. But once again, we've got to be very selective because two things is we want to make sure it's being appreciated for the value it brings. And also we want to make sure that ties in with some of the political questions you asked me earlier about MFN and how do we manage that. But I think we're pretty confident we have a path to launch a Lanzapine in the rest of the world. You said we never built it into our forecast, so it was never baked in. and I think that's the right thing to do but commutatively those two will do 1.5 to 2 billion and now I think I'm getting a few questions on whether that is the right number, should it be higher, but let us launch Olanzapine, let us get that to the market let us keep driving your SETI and then we can talk about whether we should change that.

So you did pre-empt my next question which was on Olanzapine and the launch, so how should we think about the launch dynamics you've previously mentioned no meaningful revenues in Q426, first half of 27. Consensus is modelling roughly $210 million next year, so how comfortable are you with that, and what do you see as the biggest determinants of uptake in year one?

Yes, so maybe in reverse order, I'm not going to comment on the $200 million, because I'm going to stay true to that. We'll talk about that when we give guidance. How do I think about that? How confident do I feel about this? despite my measured approach on many things I'm super excited about Lanzar B because of Yuseti to take Yuseti into the market that was so congested to have such a strong performance where the competition the share of voice the pricing dynamics the access dynamics was so tough and to do so well and we'll talk about some of the metrics on that we are the leading LAI now in Risperidone we have doubled that market in the time we've been there So when you take olanzapine, which, so we've got all that muscle we've built up. So we have that capability. We have that institutional knowledge. We have, you know, the physicians, the patients, the payers, the nurse practitioners. We know where everybody is. We have a very, very good commercial team, a very good MSL team. We put olanzapine into their hands, which is far more straightforward. There is no real competition. The unmet need is huge because people want to be more compliant. So my ambition is that we have a really good uptake. Now, to revenue, what does that mean? In Q4, I want people to start sampling it. I want to make sure we get access onto hospital formalities as quick as we can, and that's how we should measure sort of Q4, Q1, Q2. The rate-limiting step is Medicaid. We have to get Medicaid, and that's state-by-state, as many people know. Some will get at the start. Some will get after six months, nine, 12. I think after 12 months, we have about 85% of the market with Medicaid, but that is a rate-limiting step. The way to think about it is TRX, the sampling. And so I think we'll be able to communicate really early on how well we're doing. But I'm not going to hedge on this. We want that curve to be a curve that really takes off. But we will not be getting access with Medicare because we think that will require us to give discounts that we don't think appropriate for the value the product brings. And so it'll be Medicaid, and we'll have to work slowly and hard on Medicare. I think in time, maybe the year after, with Yuseti and Olanzapine together, that will create enough size that Medicare would want to do a more rational deal. So those are things to consider, but very, very excited. Very excited about the product and the offering for these patients. By the way, with Yuseti and Olanzapine, we'll cover mild to moderate to severe. So about 85% of the schizophrenia population, and we're in those centers all the time right now. And I can tell you the enthusiasm for Yuseti is high, but the enthusiasm for olanzapine is definitely palpable.

And staying with the franchise before I turn to Adi to talk on generics, consensus for your combined Yuseti and olanzapine at peak is kind of at the top end of your guide of 1.5 to 2 billion. And given some of the comments that you've made around higher oral olanzapine use, long-acting penetration potentially in Europe, how should we think about the pushes and pulls on that target, particularly what drives upside?

Yeah, look, I think a lot of this comes down to... Look, there's reasons those people, very smart people, thinking about this could be the higher end, because olanzapine needs a long-acting, needs a severe patient. So there's a reason that you could argue that the LAI market right now is about 13% to 14%. The lands of beans should probably be higher than that. But we'll have to see how that plays out. It's also about making sure that, you know, at some point we do get access through Medicare because that will open up a lot more. And in Europe, you know, we do target getting a number of countries but at the right price. So I think there's reasons to believe we could be at the higher end. You know, I like to take it step by step. And we build the P&L, we build our future financial modeling on what we think is going to happen so we know what we can spend. As that changes, we can adapt that. But I'm not going to die. There's reasons to be optimistic. I just want to maybe get a first year under my belt before we can start to talk about changing numbers. Perfect.

Matthew? Hi, Richard. Eric, thanks a lot for your time. So probably pivoting towards generic. So in terms of outlook this year, XRevLimit, you're obviously expecting it to be down flat to low single digit. So there's obviously reflecting fewer high-value launches, software OTC, and increased competition there. So in terms of the moving parts, what changes get you back to that 1% to 2% longer-term growth aspiration for the entire generics franchise?

Yeah, thanks for the question. So it's actually pretty simple. It's based on portfolio, and our portfolio is changing pretty quickly in generics. So if you think about it, the last three years we've performed, I think it's a genetics business from a declining for five years to to a growth the three-year k got growth and we've done that through improving our number of launches improving our manufacturing and making sure our supply is good and improving our go-to-market model executing the big change that's coming up is our portfolio is changing because we're having more and more biosimilars I think you know we are I think probably in pretty much every asset we have I think we're one of the best-performing biosimilar companies in the United States. I think you can see that with Simlandi. You can see that with Episcale, some other products we have. So our portfolio is changing. And the reason why that's exciting is because we've had our performance in generics, which I think has been really solid, without having that. Now we're starting to add biosimilars to it. The U.S. is doing well. We're now starting to add more and more to Europe, and that's going to keep accelerating. And so I think we have 11 in the market now, and I think between now and the end of the decade, we're going to be adding roughly another nine and with more partnerships coming on. So we have about 29 in our portfolio now, 26 to 29. So that's the big change, and that's why I do think the outlook probably could be a bit more optimistic. But once again, I want to get things done and I want to execute on the biosimilars in Europe. I want to keep the trend going in the U.S. But the portfolio change is significant, and I don't think that should be underestimated.

And probably just sticking on the biosimilars, as you mentioned there, so you're well on track to exceeding 800 million in 2027 and another 14 biosimilars, as you mentioned, coming along to market. So in terms of your different states of play within Europe where penetration is just starting to pick up and your uptake in the U.S. has probably been a lot more modest in aspect, where is the biggest upside coming from in terms of the biosimilars opportunity today and what particular pipeline assets through towards 2030 should investors be focusing on there?

Yeah, so it's interesting. So I think, firstly, the fact that we're not in Europe. So as we go into Europe, as you highlighted, it's relatively straightforward. I mean, our different market archetypes, so some are contracted, some actually have to go to the hospitals, but we know that. I mean, we're, outside biosimilars, we're pretty much number one in most markets, so we know how to do that. We know how to go through the channels. So as we get a biosimilar, we tend to, and we've already seen it this year, we tend to be the best at launching. And even when we don't launch first, we often end up number one. The U.S. actually, I think you've maybe scored us down a little bit. I think in the U.S. we are performing really well, even when we've come to the market late. And that's because it's a super complex market in the U.S., but Teva operates in every aspect of the generic biosimilars market, like every aspect, at a national level and a regional level. And because of that, I think that capability has allowed us to execute far better in our biosimilars than most other people. and I think, don't forget, we said we're going to do 800 million by the end of 27 it's 26, that's another one we've done a year early and by the way, at the time that was seen as ambitious so I'm excited by both because I think the muscle we had to apply to biosimilars, we just didn't have the biosimilars now we're getting them, I think you see the Teva generics muscle being applied to those so I'm super excited about the US biosimilar market I know other people are struggling we're not we see opportunity and that complexity, and in Europe, I think, you know, we can build on the capability and just the scale we have there. Thank you.

Shall we switch on to the pipeline? Because I do want to get time in. I know, Eric's been sat here patiently, so maybe we can switch to the Vakotug in UC and Crohn. So in June, Merck reported positive data, as I'm sure you know, but did not describe the benefit as clinically meaningful. and the recently published Phase II relief data for Duvakitug looked competitive across induction and maintenance. So how should we think about Duvakitug versus the competitors in UC and Crohn's and perhaps talk on the timelines to market?

Yeah, so thanks for the question. And, you know, it starts with the science for me. For Duvakitug, we have shown, you know, in our own hands comparing molecules is that we have the most potent molecule. We have the most selective molecule when it comes to the D-chloride receptor. And we have the lowest anti-drug antibodies that we've reported out compared to others that have been reported. So the fundamentals were there. Then we ran a fantastic phase two program for both ulcerative colitis and Crohn's disease. And again, we reported the highest numbers for this class out there right now. So it's been a great execution. And then finally, we had the maintenance day this year. That was our first milestone for 2026, and that, again, showed maintenance that was competitive across the landscape of Ulster-Quest and ChronoCity. So, you know, right now our data is very good. We've executed rapidly, and we're working very closely with Sanofi to run our Phase III program. So it's a very competitive molecule. I think that we've shown that we can accelerate things very quickly and be in the race. So when you think about timelines for ulcerative colitis, first for that one, we're within the 18-month window, we believe, when it comes to our competition. So that shouldn't impact it. What will impact it is what the data looks like at the end of the day. So data is really king. The efficacy is king. When it comes to the coronavirus, I'd say we're right in the middle of the pack. In fact, we have probably the best phase two data when it comes to the execution and the dose response that we saw. So I'm very excited by the program. I think that it's a model that surely can stand on its own two legs.

Perfect. And with UC and potentially Crohn's moving more towards a combination market, which some of your competitors are pursuing, how should we think about long-term UC-Crohn's combination, and does Tether plan to initiate or pursue a combination strategy?

Yeah, so combination is something I've done my entire career, They're thinking about how to increase the efficacy while maintaining the safety. So there's a long way to go at this point. Right now, we're really focused on making sure the monotherapy lives up to its potential. You have to remember this class of molecules is a totally new class. It's blocking a cytokine that's an amplifier of many different pathways and even might have a direct impact on fibrosis. So monotherapy has an incredible runway right now for discovery and to see what the efficacy is. Having said that, you know, we do a great job in our Sydney lab in Australia when it comes to antibody engineering, protein engineering. Bispecifics are something we are focused on, and since we're one of the innovators in T1A, I think that, you know, T1A is a great example of what could become a backbone for potential future therapies. But, again, you know, we have to make sure that that great safety profile of T1A is maintained. We'll discover that through these programs that are in development right now. But, you know, I think that's just going to be an upside in the future.

Very clear. And Teva Sanofi have initiated T1A trials in HS. To my understanding, other competitors have also posted positive data here. So how should we think about T1A biology in HS? Is this, or does this have potential to be a first-line drug, or would you see it more second-line refractory?

So HS, or Hydrogenitis Superativa, which I've practiced quite a lot over the years, is a fascinating area of discovery right now. You know, HS is a pretty devastating disease in the fact that it really impacts your quality of life. And it's highly underappreciated. It's about 1% of the population, and it really can be painful, it's disfiguring, it can be socially isolating to have HS. And we have a long way to go when it comes to the efficacy in it. There are a couple of biologics that are approved today, and there's a lot of small molecules as well in development. But this indication has a long way to go. It's going to be a market that grows over the years. Now, when you think about TL1A for HS, I'm very excited by it. It fits a lot of our criteria, scientific rationale, speed, regulatory possibility of success and market potential. But specifically for TL1A, HS is an inflammatory disease that has many different cytokine pathways in it, TH1, TH17. That includes 23s, 17s, and TNFs, and also that has a big fibrotic component to it, too. So what better MOA would be than TL1A, which impacts multiple cytokines and covers many of those things. So those programs out there that are hitting specific targets can be effective, but I'm excited to be doing a study to show that the pleiotropic aspects of T1A can really actually add benefit.

Perfect. And perhaps we can switch to ECHO-PYPAN. The NDA was filed in June with potential launch in the first half of 27. If we can touch on the Phase III diamond data, How should we think about the absolute efficacy versus D2 antipsychotics, particularly if echopypam ultimately moves earlier line? And I think you've referenced two additional indications beyond Tourette's. Perhaps you could touch on where you think the biology suits best.

Yeah, to start off, we've done the submission in June, and now we've announced that we've received priority review. So that was a really exciting addition to the news flow when it comes to echopypan. Now, when it comes to what the value of echopypan is, this is a brand-new, first-in-class molecule for a D1 antagonist. So comparing that to D2s, it's a very different world. The D2 antagonists, like Haldol or Bilified, they are hitting D2s that create a lot of side effect profiles, metabolic, weight gain, and other aspects of actual movement disorders. So when you're thinking about someone who has Tourette's disease, a child who has it, you can try behavioral modifications, you can try off-label uses of things that don't have tremendous efficacy, but you can imagine if you're facing the choice of using D2, all these potentially irreversible aspects, that shows you the unmet medical need. So in contrast, in our studies where we've looked at this D1 antagonist echopypan, we've really shown that we don't see those side effect profiles. So when you're looking for something that has a great treatment effect, something with a favorable safety profile is something people need. So to your point, what's the added benefit? We've shown that we had about a 30% effect compared to placebo, So a good efficacy when you look at it right off the bat in Phase II. And then we've also showed the durability of the response in the Phase III study, where, you know, 50% reduction and a relapse rate. And those people, when we looked at them for another year, went on 66% of them stayed on the drug for a year. That's the real problem for D2 antagonists, where, you know, 20% to 30% can only tolerate it for that long. So I think that we have something that we can really deliver that will help patients.

And then, Richard, perhaps we could touch on M&A strategy moving forward post-MLX. What are the biggest gaps that Teva are looking to fill? And would it still be a neurology, immunology focus, or will you broaden therapeutic areas?

Yeah, I mean, thanks for the question. I wouldn't say we have gaps. I think it's more can we put more fuel on the fire, but in a thoughtful way from capital allocation. So I think, obviously, CNS is key, and you saw that with AMLX. You see the opportunity to build on our capability. You saw the potential deal with BioXL, and I think that's thoughtful capital allocation, very synergistic if that happens. Immunology is a big opportunity we can build on. We do have respiratory as we're launching. We'll have the date on Dari and this year's start of next year, and so we'll be launching that probably in 28. so that creates opportunities to maybe put products around that and then we have announced that we want to do rare diseases because we think rare diseases is something that we could be very good at when it comes to execution on that if they finish it in those two TAs that's great if they fall out of it we'll be okay okay also because we think that rare disease is about a capability and competency of supply chain reimbursement white glove service things like that as opposed to the actual TA so that's how we think about it but we don't have a desperate need to do anything, because you heard about the pipeline, I mean we didn't touch about anti-R15 with vitiligo and celiac disease, we may do that in the last couple of minutes but that has another probably few indications Divikitu has probably another four or five indications so I think while the pipeline is attractive I think what we think is we have really good momentum as we get capital, where can we allocate that to get a really good return on that capital, and I think it will still be nice, thoughtful in licensing may be some small M&A if we think the right company comes up. But we're in a position where we don't have to do anything. But I do think anything we can do to give to either Eric or to the commercial team, I would like to because they're so good at what they do. Perfect.

And you somewhat preempted my last question. But perhaps you could help us understand or touch on what you think investors are missing about the Teva story. Or is there a particular asset or drug you think we should be focused on that we're not?

You know, I'm really careful to, that's a very quite provocative question.

You can say sell-side analyst. What am I missing, not investors?

Okay, okay, because, yeah, I think some of the investors in the room here, and I thank them for being investors. For the ones who aren't, you have an opportunity now to maybe be investors. But I think the sell-side analyst, I think, look, I think Tevrit is unique, so that makes it a bit difficult to look at sometimes. But I think what people are missing is we have gone through some really, really, really tough years, and we did everything we said we were going to do financially and operationally and we did it better than anybody thought. We're now moving into, I wouldn't say easy years internally because we put a lot of pressure on ourselves to keep optimizing our opportunities. But we have all these launches. We've got the muscle both in R&D, we've got the muscle in BD, we've got the muscle in commercial and we're just going to keep building on that. So I would say the direction of travel from a return to shareholders is clear. The debate is how much. But I think to have Teva in your portfolio is a great asset to have in your portfolio because I do think we have a clear path to keep growing shareholder value. And so I think what people may be missing is just how many innovative launches we have. We have five launches in five years, all innovative. We don't count Emre Salman, which we don't talk about until we get the data because it's a high risk. But even with that, we've got five. And then after that, we probably almost have a launch a year post-2030 because of the multiple indications duplicate to an hour of 15. So we have a company that's growing tremendously fast and we have multiple indications coming out. We're thoughtful about what assets we tuck in from an M&A point of view, BD. So I'd like to think that maybe rather than missing anything is maybe to double down on analysis and start to model it and realize actually there is a good return here. Maybe this question is how much.

Okay, perfect. Thank you, Richard. Thank you, Eric. Thank you to everyone in the room.

Thank you.