Inside the GLP-1 Gold Rush: Eli Lilly CEO on New Breakthroughs, Addiction & Mental Health, Pricing

[Music] GLP-1 drugs have become increasingly popular. Eli Liy coming to save us here >> has had its market capitalization increase by about 860% since he became CEO and the stock price is up a little bit more than a,000%. >> No need for needles. Eli Liy says it has a pill. >> Eli Liy's experimental pill appears to work as well as the injected drug. >> It's everyone's job to move the science. We should always be pushing forward. [Music] >> Ladies and gentlemen, please welcome Eli Liy CEO Dave Ricks. [Music] How are you? >> Hi, David. Good to see you. Good to see you. How are you? How are you, >> Dave? All right. >> You want to say thank you? I just want to >> Dave. >> Yes. >> I don't want to make it awkward. >> Well, we were sitting here three years ago on this pod and Chimath was calling me a fat bastard. >> He wasn't wrong. I was 213 lbs. I'm afelt 172 right. Awesome. >> And it's because of what you've done. >> Thank you. >> Can I give you a hug? >> You can. Yeah. Bring it in here. Bring it in here. >> I appreciate it. >> Congratulations. That's >> also Sax lost 20 pounds. So together we've lost a Freedberg. That's actually my husband. Come on. >> Nice. Nice. >> How much money are you guys printing? My lord. >> What do you do with it? You have wheelbarrels. What do you do with Can I please start? >> Yes. Go ahead. Okay. Sorry. I got four more jokes. I'll get them in the end. >> Um I mean you really have built one of the most incredible business in America, but you've done it because you took an enormous bet long time ago. >> Yeah. Um, do you want to talk us through the journey and the process you had to go through and what you saw early on and um, how you made the bet on this class of drug? >> Yeah, great. And thanks for having me here. I'm trying to up my cool factor. That's what they tell me in M Midwest I need to do. >> Can you get a Tomas Ford uh, suit as well? >> No, I'm actually disappointed in the in the ties. Like that's I don't know. That's not >> You and I are you and I guy wears ties. >> Dave Suit Supply does a great job. Just own it. Okay, there we go. Just donate. Okay, so uh yeah, GLP1 drugs, we all know about it. It feels like an overnight success, but what what happened? You know, drug development is hard and long and requires a fair amount of failure and discipline, a huge amount of capital. So, actually in 2006, we launched the first GLP-1 drug. Nobody really knew the name of it. It was a twice a day injection for diabetes, but the cover of our annual report uh in 2007 had a lady on it and she said there's a quote. It says, "Oh, my diabetes is under control and I'm losing a little bit of weight." So, that was 18 years ago. I mean, and since that time, we're now we've been inventing new versions of that, solving various problems with that twice a day. We wanted to make it more convenient. Needed to get the dose up and people tended to lose weight, more weight when you when you got the dose up. And then tzepide which um you ask how much money we're making but in actually in Q2 we reported uh global sales which surpassed Kitruda to becoming the bestselling drug in the world. Actually the bests selling drug in the world of all time in Q2 this year. >> How much did it make in Q2? >> We 8.1 billion in revenue >> and growing at 80%. Yeah. >> And and how many people are on a GLP1 globally now? >> I'd estimate around 20 million take prescription GLP1s. some unknown amount of people take nonprescription. But anyway, so >> that would be compounding >> compounded or synthetic. >> Yeah. Or just like not for human use. We can talk about all that. Yeah. So anyway, um 2014 comes along. Uh four scientists at Lily decided to combine GLP-1 with another peptide that your stomach produces when you eat that's appetite suppressing. They made the single molecule culture. That's what's Mjaro now. But that happened in 2014. 2016 I be I was named a CEO and I got a call that fall and one of our chief scientists called me and said hey we're we have to stop an early phase study for tepatide that's usually a bad call so I'm like ah like this is the followup to our second gen version of the GLP1 he said no no it's actually good good news we were running this study in Singapore with healthy male volunteers you can imagine what a healthy male Singaporean looks like at baseline right they're they're not overweight And we had to stop the study because they were losing too much weight too quickly. They were basically not eating. So scientists like actually it's good news. We can tune the dose down. We can work with this. And from there it was kind of just just execution. We knew it was going to be huge. And we started building out supply chain, building out factories, running a massive clinical program. We currently have over a hundred clinical studies with the medicine going on for all kinds of other uses as well, not just slowing down. >> We're going to go there in one sec, but I just want to go back to this. So the problem now, and maybe you can comment on this, is you have this enormous success. >> Yeah. >> There is a very active gray market, particularly in China, peptide synthesis, that are producing drugs that are basically the equivalent of your drugies, >> working around copies. Y >> um talk to us about that. How do you deal with that and what do you do about that and what should people do about that and when they encounter it? >> Yeah, it's an unusual situation. I think there's always been counterfeit medicines. We're not used to it in the United States because we one have a for most people a pretty good system to subsidize some of the benefit via the insurance markets. So there's not a lot of incentive to go outside the system. That's different for these drugs because insurance quality is poor. or most I don't know if you bought out of your own pocket but most people have um and so >> did you pay out of pocket? >> Well, interestingly when I first got it four years ago I had this revelation when I was in forto de Mar and um I had heard Tim Ferrris talk about it on his podcast with a friend of mine Kevin Rose and I went to my doctor and I said hey I want to get on this. He said what is that? He said oh no you don't need that. That's for people who are diabetic. You're not even pre-diabetic. I said no I want to do it for weight loss. It's off market. >> He said I don't know if I can do that. I said I'm going to get a different doctor if you don't. and he said, "Let me try." >> Yeah. >> And he got it on prescription. After I lost 20 pounds and my BMI got below 30, which really, I mean, I don't want to get emotional, but I got three daughters. I want to stick around. And it really changed my life incredibly. >> And in in many ways, I was embarrassed that I couldn't have the discipline to do it. And then I realized there was a food noise that I had that was constantly screaming. And once I cycled off of it for many months and now I'm on extremely low dose, the food noise and my discipline has come back. There's something about a certain moment where you get too far over it. So now I I do have to pay for drug. >> Yes. >> You've always Yeah. And I I think you know the the question I have for you about this big picture is >> there's a lot of demand for it. It is still a bit too expensive. You're wildly profitable. This going to be a pill format. I think you're >> Yeah, that's ours. That's coming next year. >> So, is there some thinking when your, you know, head hits the pillow, hey, I'm having such a profound impact on so many people's lives that all of the diseases we have are downstream of obesity. We know that this thing is helping with many other things. >> Do you have a moral imperative to bring this down, you know, 50% in price? I would think you that must weigh on your conscience that it's too expensive and you're too profitable in a way and there's shareholders who want you to print money but there are lives at stake here and there's longevity and there's health span so maybe unpack that. >> Yeah, we're committed to bringing the pricing down and I want to come back to the supply situation because that led to some of the compounding but also affects pricing. Um you know we've we've led in reducing the out-of- pocket costs but from it was originally $1,000 now it's $4.99 from us. Um, we'll push that down further with new medicines like orals. >> What's the goal for orals? >> The the main goal is to get it reimbured. Why is it we pay for anti-hypertensive drugs that the moment you stop taking them, you have the same exact risk as before, but we don't pay for anti-obesity drugs? That makes no sense to me. Why do we pay for surgeries that don't work, but we don't pay for these? >> What's the number on the pill? What's the target? You can tell us. >> Yeah, I don't have a target in my mind, but lower is the direction. We've told we've told the street expect singledigit deflation in this category over time. >> 5% a year it goes down >> uh or more. Yeah. >> Or more. 10%. So you get it down from 5%. >> But here's here's the risk Jason is if if we cut the price to say I don't know $100, there will be no more new medicines in this category. >> Okay? >> Because we'll have snuffed out essentially the incentive to create the next thing >> R&D. >> So we have to balance that. We want to create the next better medicine. We spend 25% of sales on R&D. This year that'll be 14.2 2 billion. Wow. >> That has to get paid for paid for through revenue. >> So, so with the cash flow that the business is generating, is that how you think about capital allocation? Some percent to R&D, some percent I'm assuming, to capex and supply chain durability, >> some percent maybe to buybacks. I mean, how do you think about where the capital should be allocated? And maybe on the R&D side, you can tell us a little bit about diversification and and how else you think about deploying capital. >> Yeah. Well, I think we're we've had this totally asymmetric uh success. So what do we do with it? I think one version of it is to sort of play out the cash flow game, return it to shareholders and return at some future date remembering that in pharma all our we have no enduring franchise. Everything we make goes to zero because of the patent system. So in 2030 something Mjaro will go to zero. >> Yeah. >> And so should we think about our company as one that will just return to the previous baseline, send all that money back to our shareholders who took that risk over 15, 20 years with us and pay them back. That's a little bit like I don't know how kind of Apple is running their company, right? Yeah. And >> that's viable. That's great for shareholders. I And at Lily, we think about our job a little differently. We want to create a solution to some other problem people have. And we think we're good at that and can uniquely do it. So, we should try. >> We should not try to no end. That's wasteful. You can just bury all that money. And that's sort of the history of the industry is people have found success. Wasted money. they go back to the baseline anyway, but the shareholders don't get rewarded. That's the So, we're we're running this experiment now. We're betting a lot on organic R&D buildout. We currently have about 4,200 PhD scientists at Lily, by the way. That's about the same as MIT and Harvard combined. >> So, the scale of the science enterprise is huge. >> How do you Dave, how do you push people on the risk spectrum? There's a tragedy of riches that can happen because you're so successful. There's this one drug. There could be like some emergent scientist in your organization who wants to take a long shot but then just doesn't feel motivated because like h it's just like this is not going to do anything. Yeah. >> How do you get that person unlocked so that they go for the big moonshots? >> You mean that their idea isn't big enough to matter. >> They think that but they may not know and they may stumble in a different path. >> I don't think that's our bigger problem. I think in big companies in general and pharma companies maybe in particular the bigger problem is people thinking they have a big idea but having no way to advance it. Right. >> So I'm trying to work on that side which is if you think you have something that could be big, how does it become easier >> to advance your idea in our company versus leaving us and raising money in venture? We can talk about venture and biotech in a second because it's totally totally broken broken right now. But um anyway back to David's question. So first priority invest in organic R&D. Secondly build out the supply chain. What's different about MARO and the following drugs is they're injectable drugs. These are very capital intensive technically difficult things to scale. We've committed with President Trump uh to build all that in the US. We're currently constructing six plants. We're going to announce four more in the next 6 months. I was hoping to be able to announce one today, but that'll come in a few weeks. So, yeah, this is creating um 20,000 construction jobs in this period and ultimately five or six thousand manufacturing jobs. Um and so we'll become a net exporter at scale for these. And unless some Chinese stateowned enterprise gets in this business, it'll be very hard for others to build that out and follow. >> Well, they're doing in the car business. So, >> yeah, if they're determined, they might. But then the final is is actually to buy external innovation where it makes sense to tuck it in. >> And maybe that leads us to market. You just you bought that gene therapy, right? >> Yeah. We recently bought a gene therapy company in in June. We can talk about that. But um we're doing a deal about every two weeks. Most of them are smallish. Biotech funding right now is a is in a dumpster fire. U peak got to about 20 billion in new checks a year into biotech. We're now around five. >> Um and >> just just walk walk the audience through the dynamics. So why is biotech cratered? Why is it so hard for capital to flow back in? What's what are the dynamics that are that are that are driving this market condition right now? many factors but the first one is competition for other venture ideas driven by the industry you guys are in right so there's just a crowd out going on with AI and other things that if it your cycle time to return is just more visible or faster >> biotech is hard and slow um secondly I think too many biotechs IPOed in the last decade and so the liquidity market has sort of collapsed because there's a lot of investors deeply underwater half of biotech that's publicly traded is trading at or below cash, >> right? >> So investors look at that and say, "What's my future here?" >> Yeah. >> It's unless you can really analyze the technology and take a differentiated bet on the drugs they're working on. I think general investors don't want to participate in that. >> And then you have China, which is the other factor, right? So China is investing heavily like they do every other stateowned thing. They're subsidizing their own companies. They have like a swarm model here where they'll subsidize many small things really against followon ideas betting they can execute faster than us. Um it's a national priority for a long time. >> Can you talk about issue there the patent and IP issue? So in the US you know when we make a filing and what goes on with respect to China they don't respect any of our IP do they? Well, I think right now they they are okay amongst so if I have a patent and I file and launch a product, I don't see immediate copies because it's in their interest to have a patent system right now for the reason you're raising. So we um changed the patent laws in the US in 2011 I think the American vents act where it's first to file. It used to be first to invent and all the pat litigation we had was all about whose lab notebook said January 5th versus January 4th on this invention. that was the case not did you file it in a reasonable time but did you invent it first now it's first to file so there's no question about who we don't care who invented it first it's just who got into the patent office as a consequence of that our biotech companies and big companies like Lily Fizer etc we file as soon as we can because we don't get beat on first to file what does that do it a patent exposes the invention to the world China's getting very good at patent hacking so what they do is they look at that chemical structure they work backwards sometimes driven by AI algorithms to find chemical structure that will behave similarly but are outside the patent scope and they go fast. So they're really quite a derivative biotech market but that is also hurting biotech valuations in a significant way. >> How old are you? >> I'm 58. >> You're 58. You look great. >> Thank you. >> You look like 40. What do you want? Off the menu. You >> come on. You look great. >> There's You got some off the menu stuff going on. What do you got? You're on the Wolverine. You want It's actually an interesting question. What is your lifestyle routine? Like, do you supplement? Is there anything else? I know. You have Brian Johnson coming. Okay. I I follow him on on X. I'm not doing the Brian Johnson. >> He's the opposite of you. He looks like he's dying. >> You're handsome. That guy looks like he's turning into a >> You know, that's a vampire. >> There's another Brian Johnson, the liver king. I don't know if you ever follow. >> Yeah. Both of these guys are taking it too far. But but seriously, be >> I get up early. I I work out. I read. Okay. >> Try to go to bed early. >> Sleep is important. >> Sleep. Okay. There's like four things in life that I think really matter where there's evidence. Sleep, eating healthy foods, mostly plants, movement, and social relationships. I think those are the things that over time that's cuz I got a meditation app. If you got a feedback, >> you tried to get me to do that. I My wife tried I haven't tried yours. But >> have you been motivated to try some of these drugs prophylactically? >> You know, I people ask me if I've used the GOP one drugs use. I haven't. Um yet is my answer because what's happening as with all medicine technologies you start with the sickest the most extreme cases and you work your way as you prove safety to general use. I think what we're seeing now with the broad benefits everything from metabolic disease less drinking lower inflammation uh our competitor Nova is going to read out a study in a few months on dementia risk. It probably won't be positive. That's my guess. But it will probably be in the right direction. So you have these sort of general what scientists would say pleotropic effect like broad-based positive things. >> I think we're going to get to a point where taking pretty low doses for most people say over 60 58 is not a terrible idea and may help you live longer. >> I just want to follow up on this one specifically. Um these peptides are becoming quite the rage in the biohacking space. Have you been tracking the Wolverine Protocol, BPC 157, and the tremendous impact people are reporting from it? >> There's lots of communities like this trying different things. We don't ever recommend that because we live in a world of clinical studies and FDA approvals, >> but you watch it, >> of course. Yeah. >> And what do you think of those specifically? >> I are you pursuing them? There are broad well we're pursuing them in the path we do which is taking those disease states or people with the pre- disease state like pre-diabetes and then we study it and we prove an outcome. So we did that with MARO and showed a 93% reduction in conversion from pre-diabetes to diabetes. That's kind of how we work is like slicing the medical stack. These guys are coming at it the other way which is sort of saying I'm already healthy. Can I generally stay healthier uh with small doses or other regimens, supplements? That's not our game, but we watch it. >> There's a handful of drugs that I would say are epidemically prescribed in America. Probably at the top of the list would be SSRIs and anti-depressants. >> Yeah. >> And there's a lot of anecdotal evidence that GLPS and this class of drug actually is quite helpful with just the psychological >> health of an individual. Um can you talk to us about that? Like what's ongoing? What is a readout that you think could be transformational in that space? >> Yeah, so this is interesting. I mean sometimes we engineer a medicine to do something like we did GLP GIP towards appetite to reduce body weight, lower blood sugar and lipids and then sometimes along the way you discover an effect you didn't predict. So one of those is like smoking sensation. When we started doing these studies at scale it was immediately obvious people stopped smoking. Like a lot of people stop smoking. also gambling and >> gambling and online shopping all kinds of >> this is why on it because he was stuck in the game >> poker's not gambling but go on >> so any anyway >> I was talking about craps >> so then there have been reports and there's a big VA study that read out and we know our veterans suffer from a lot of mental health yeah and there were pretty dramatic reductions for those that were using GOP1s who had diabetes so we are now right now starting studies in bipolar disorder and major depressive disorder along with these addictive hedonic pathways where you're sort of self-medicating um with a new GOP1 a different one that probably that has a little less weight loss but a little more brain activity >> really >> so dialed in for these uses so we'll get that drug in three or four years if it works and I think it could really change some of these terrible mental health conditions >> well can you take a step back maybe and jump off from SSRIs give us a description of the landscape of the American human health the ma the maha movement you know what Bobby and his team are now doing at HHS. >> Yeah. Long overdue. I mean, I think the the food system in particular um I you're working on this, but could be changed in a much more positive way. I think we are the the least healthy metabolic big country and probably the reason for that is the food we feed ourselves. processed food chemicals, >> highly processed food chemicals. This whole carb thing that went on for 30 years, which was has been totally debunked and uh food companies have a lot of influence and they've >> you're saying the anti-carb the low carb or no carb thing, >> the the anti-fat, high carb diets, which we were feeding people for 30 years, and I think most people don't believe in that anymore, but it led to a big part of the obesity curve, glycemic index kind of thing. So, I I'm all for all that and I think we should reform that and find ways to make quality food cheaper and more accessible for many people Kennedy. You like that he's shaking it up. It's a big part of Bobby Kennedy. I think that part I think we we have a lot of alignment on. I worry about um I'm all for skepticism of science. That's what scientific process is is questioning and challenging. I worry about some of the stuff going on with vaccines right now. Uh because I don't see why we're making the asking these questions. But it's okay to ask them. But if we restrict access while we're asking them, I worry about that. Can that hasn't really affected the medicine world. We don't make vaccines. But um at least recently we have. >> Let me ask you a hard question. >> Yeah. >> Um the mainstream media in many cases make 25 50% of their revenue off of advertising from companies like yours. >> Yes. >> We allow you to advertise. Should we allow you to advertise? And have you captured that mainstream media? Is that the intent when Anderson Cooper makes double digits of his money from your firms? >> Uh well, I would be for a system where we don't have nearly as much drug advertising >> to be clear. Yeah. Yeah. >> Well, that that's paradoxical. How do you then you just want to rise and fall based on your reputation? >> Mutually assured destruction, right? People the ads annoy people. They're poorly constructed. Why? Because of regulation built, believe it or not. If you read the regulation, 1992 FDA published a regulation on advertising built for magazine print advertisements. Yes. And now we have to follow that regulation for TV advertisements, which is why you have the scrolling side effects as if they were printed on the back of the ad. That's literally how we're here. So the ads are poor. They don't represent the patients we're serving, etc. By the way, more than half of our consumer spending to reach consumers is not on TV. >> So already the technology does work for you. Does it move the needle when you do a big ad buy >> there? It does unfortunately. Um that's why people keep doing it. Uh of course the the productivity of that is debased when your competitor does it but then you're then everyone wants to go up above the >> prisoners dilemma. Yeah. >> A little bit. So um I would be for a system where that got reduced. There's been a lot of legal actions that said that that were fought over this through the years and it's pretty clear under first amendment we can do it. It's hard to regulate. There's been some efforts in Congress to tax it differently. I'm okay with that. Yeah, it doesn't move my needle at all. >> You'd rather see that money go into R&D. I would suspect >> Yeah. You're not going to know what what's available off the sh, you know, on the doctor's shelf to you without any sort of knowledge or information. Truth is most primary care doctors are way too busy right >> to even attend a continuing education even know what's happening people what what do you think of people using chat GPT and large language models to do their research and then they come to their doctors sometimes with much deeper research than the doctor's aware of. Is this a plus or a minus? Do you trust it? Do you do it yourself? >> I think it's a huge plus I would say and I do do it myself. I also do it just to see what the different models are producing about our drugs. Yeah, it's like an audit. Um, but mostly it's accurate and um, they've it's gotten better over the last two years. I'd say substantially better. And many, including Google, to their credit, have a >> like a way to sort of uh, click through and check the facts directly, which is a useful thing. They've served that up a little more proactively. That's good. >> Poor consumers owning their health and for more information. >> Do do you work directly with them? Do you have an arm that will go to Grock, go to Gemini and say, "Hey, we did these searches. Here's some things you need to improve." >> So, we've pointed things out when there are mistakes. It does feel a little bit like we're lobbing into a black hole. >> Um, and maybe that's a capacity issue on their end, or maybe it's a they're taking the point of view that our model's just trained on the internet, >> the corpus of information on Reddit. >> Yeah. Yeah. Right. And it is what it is. We don't want to own >> the bastion of intellectual. Yeah. We don't want to own the outcome of that. >> Before we run out of time, I just want to get your view on um uh research funding in this country. The NIH uh budget uh cuts have been that have been proposed. How what will the follow-on effects be? Are these cuts going to be to low ROI research programs that ultimately wouldn't have translated into the clinic and and into improving lives? or are you worried about NIH funding cuts and what they're going to do to the pipeline of therapeutics in America? When will we realize the effects of that? >> Yeah, great question. I don't think anyone knows the answers to those. It's not obvious. Let me put it that way. No doubt that the NIH over its history has done some landmark things that no market could do. And I'm for more of that. mapping the human genome, a mega project that could only be done by government and undoubtedly produced a ton of good and economic value for the country. Um, I think if you look at the first of all, NIH total budget is a little over $40 billion. Most of that is extra mural. They're granting that to institutions in very in smaller checks, sometimes very small checks. I personally kind of wonder what the impact of that. Is it sort of a VC model where we spread a ton of bets and a few of those will bloom into giant successes or is it just sort of filtered out without a strategy? I I think that's a question that should be asked and maybe Jay's asking that. Um I think the other problem with the NH granting is as you do that like any government mechanism it gets influenced by the people who are making the grants. Who are those people? People receiving grants. M >> so there was a little bit of a backscratching uh issue here and I think exposing some sunshine onto that to you know sort of say what is that process is it truly competitive and is it truly pursuing ideas that the market can't solve itself >> and should it be done at universities let me just ask you this are universities the right research institutions today and going forward we've got two university leads tomorrow that we're going to have a conversation with about this topic amongst others but what's your you when you look around the world at how research is done xus what's the right what's a what's a what's the right model is this the right model >> I probably too much that way I'm on the board of an R1 university so I have to I'm a little biased maybe myself but I think a lot of good things have happened in universities but we should not exclude that to other applicants I I think there could be a place for other participants >> Dave um tomorrow we're going to have Mark Cuban >> yeah great >> and we're going to talk about PBMs >> yeah And one of the big >> he's on fire. >> Well, one of the big boogeymen in healthcare are these PBMs. Can you just explain, you know, quickly 30 seconds. What do they do? And what's your view on whether they should even exist in American healthcare? >> Probably we're at the end of that S cycle and we should get to something else. We actually owned a PBM in the '90s. Why do they exist? Two reasons. To match up claims. So you can go into any pharmacy in the country with a card that says here's my benefit and that benefit can be adjudicated to you. That was a big IT problem in 1993. It's not really a big IT problem now. And there's dozens of these so-called transparent or light PBMs. Actually, our company is moving to one off of one of the mainline ones because it's in our business interest, but also their service is better. The other thing is negotiate like bulk discounts. So, gather up a bunch of employers or plans, go to the drug companies, get a lower deal. I think that's fine. I'm for that, too. What happened is you know the like any uh consolidated terminal state of an industry what's the term the inification of their service is they just they just become so every every action they make is about their benefit not the customer and that's what's happened that's why everybody hates them >> s kind of came out of nowhere as this big category what if you had to guess what do you think the next big surprise category would be that we're not thinking out. >> It's hard to predict that, but I would say probably a brain disease. I think if you look at human suffering globally, 40% is brain diseases. And it's so broad we we could spend a whole panel talking about them. Um, and what we've had so far has not worked. You know, when Bobby's raising the question, why do we have so much autism? That's a great question. What's causing it? Depression rates despite the advent of I we invented Prozac, so many drugs. People are aided, but it's not solvent. We still have lots of depression in this country and maybe it's growing in youth. So these are huge problems as our population ages dementia and brain you know these. So I'd bet there part of what we try to do is allocate capital into spaces where there are no drugs hoping you know to hit hit the dart board where there isn't a competitor. That's how we got obesity drugs. We're working on that but it'll be hard to it's hard to predict. >> Ladies and gentlemen, please thank you David. Take a break. >> Thanks bro. Great to see you. Yeah, I'll be I'll get ready. Good to see you, baby. Yeah. Thanks, baby. Appreciate it. Congratulations, my man. I appreciate you. Appreciate it. Take care.