Operator: Thank you. With our next question comes from David Windley from Jefferies. David, your line is now open.
David Windley: Hi. Thanks. I will start with the first question, just a slight follow-up to Tejas. With the — for Mr. Greisch, the strategic review, you mentioned the first meeting in September. Could you tell us when you would expect to be in a position to report out findings of the committee or plans as a result of the committee? What approximate time frame would you put on that?
John Greisch: Yeah. It’s hard to put a pinpoint a time line on coming out with conclusions or recommendations from the committee to the Board. So I hesitate to put a specific time line on it. I’d just reiterate what we said in our prepared comments, working with Elliott with a sense of urgency, working between Alessandro and his team and the Board really to drive the things that we spoke to, assume we are going to be taking some actions sooner rather than later. But to put a specific time line on it, I think, would be, I think, imprudent at this point in time.
David Windley: Okay. Thank you for that. From a — for Alessandro and Matti, Matti, congrats on the new seat. On guidance, you have commented both in prior calls and today about trying to improve the accuracy or the conservatism in your guidance. I wanted to maybe understand practically how you are doing that, but maybe more specifically to look at the PCH segment outlook in a mid-to-high single-digit growth rate on that, which quite honestly seems pretty optimistic. The environment, the comments by some of your peers on demand, the potential for a slowing economy, all seem like they would point to a more conservative assumption there and so, I guess, I would ask kind of substantiate that the way you are going about guidance this time around is more conservative than the mistakes that were made in the past? Thanks.
Alessandro Maselli: Yeah. Look, I will cover first probably the second part and lean into the first part. Look, with regard to our PCH segment, it’s always harder to really understand trends when you evaluate business and primarily on a year-to-year basis, because again, we have a business that has a high level of concentration in a few assets. So — and the way you look at the performance of PCH into fiscal 2023, it was a sure below expectations. It’s below what you expect from a business that should really grow in the mid-to-single digits. So when you extend your time of observation and time evaluation on a longer period, you would see that PCH is really growing in the middle of the range that we expect the PCH to grow, where you extend your evaluation on a three-year horizon clearly in mind that in between you also have some inorganic contributions to the growth there.
Speaking of some more specifics, as we pointed out in our prepared remarks, some of the reasons why we were impacted the PCH last year, where delayed approval on some new programs and as such launches Consumer Health, which on a year-to-year basis was really not performing as expected. And one key product, which has a significant impact on revenues and more so on profitability, which was impacted by our supply chain disruption and in reality didn’t contribute to the story of last year. So all of these elements are a little bit returning back now, the Consumer Health is stable, while the approvals have happened in the second half of last fiscal year, now we expect these launches to contribute. And finally, there is — this product now is back on track and not only we need to satisfy the end-market demand, but we also need to restore a safety stock levels, which of course, will create a short-term higher than normal demand for these very assets.
I would also add that the underlining in the business, we still have a very good franchises like Zydis, which continues to be on a high path of growth. So, overall, across the Board, there are elements to be optimistic, and I would say that, there is a lot of realism in how we are guiding a PCH for — in the mid-to-high single digits and we feel pretty good about that guidance. With regard to the second part of your question, I am going to give a very brief perspective for me that maybe is more historical and I am going to give the word to Matti elaborate more. Look, I believe that we have been surely learning a lot in the last 12 months, sometimes learning the hard way, but we are learning a lot not only about how we should be thinking about COVID, but also how we should be thinking about the growth profile of some of these new modalities during this time period both.
And we also have changed a little bit our internal mechanism to go after the forecast and to build the forecast from ground up. So I feel that these improvements have brought the right level of balance and conservatism in our future forecast, and as such, again, I feel confident about the guidance we are putting out today. Matti?
Matti Masanovich: Yeah. I think that’s fair everything you just said, Alessandro. I mean, I think, at the end of the day, going to a ground up forecast, looking at it, looking at, pulling out any stretch that’s in there, pulling out any items that just don’t have a business or a plan behind it, I think, that’s the critical nature of the forecast and getting on it sooner. It will allow us to identify pockets of underutilization sooner and then we would get after that, get after those pockets of higher utilization. So I think that’s what’s really driving it.
David Windley: Great. Thank you. It’s helpful.
Operator: Thank you. Our next question today is from the line of Jacob Johnson from Stephens. Jacob, your line is open.
Jacob Johnson: Hey. Thanks. Good morning. Maybe a question on Bloomington. I think from some recent headlines it seems like there could be some new therapies ramping there this fiscal year. Could you just — how should we think about utilization at Bloomington in FY 2024, given the COVID roll-off and then some of these new tech transfers? And then maybe kind of longer term, with this kind of reset in COVID at Bloomington, how should we think about the long-term growth opportunity in kind of fill finish broadly?
Alessandro Maselli: Look, Bloomington is a launch pad for many new therapies, hands down, has always been and will always be. Sometimes some of the reasons why it’s in the news for inspections more than other facilities, because of that reason, because there is a lot of PIA work going on, there are a lot of launches, a lot of launches that are also requiring those inspections. Sometimes the timing is a challenging one and you need to work through these situations. We continue to be pleased about the pipeline, we have assets which are very heavily utilized, we have been sharing all along that we are seeing a significant demand in prefilled syringes and so that capacity is very highly utilized. And I believe that, overall, we are at the — not only at the pipeline, but also some of the franchises where we expect to play a major role, one of the biggest one being a GLP-1.
It’s something that we have been investing on and investing in for a few years, now coming to fruition and we are very excited about the opportunity coming from that specific therapeutic area, which we expect to be a very dominant one in years to come.
