Chris Schott: Great. Thanks so much for the questions. I just had another one on just the environment. I guess, can you just elaborate a bit on the, I guess, the tone of the conversation you’re having with potential partners, I guess, specifically, you have kind of the needs and objectives of some of these partners changed at all given the prolonged challenges in the biotech funding environment? And is that kind of changing the way you’re thinking about the type of deals or structures of deals you’re doing? And then the second piece of that is just about the competitive landscape. So, I guess with – on one hand, higher interest rates, but maybe on the other hand, seemingly more involvement of the large-cap biopharma names looking to either like partner acquire assets in some of the verticals that you’re targeting as well.
Are you seeing kind of a different competitive arena than you might have thought about kind of two or three years ago? Or is that largely kind of the same as what you’ve experienced? Thank you.
Pablo Legorreta: Thanks, Chris. Chris Hite, can address that question.
Chris Hite: Thanks for your question, Chris. On the first one on the tone, as we shipped some pretty good slides at our last quarter – quarterly call, which talked about just the number – how the royalty market is growing and how our initial reviews have gone up, I think, 75% since 2019. So in the backdrop of the royalty markets growing six-fold since 2015 in the sense of number of deals, tenfold since 2015 and a number of dollar value of transactions. With that as a backdrop, of course, the capital markets environment is challenging for biopharma right now. And I think that’s in part what has led to a little bit of the increase in our number of opportunity sets. But keep in mind, in 2020 and 2021, the capital markets were extraordinarily robust, and we still announced lots of transactions.
So the tone of the market is one in which we see a lot of opportunity, but we’re going to continue to be very selective in the deals that we do. So, I guess that’s how I’d answer the first question. And then the second question, as it relates to competition, once again, we see some deals are competitive. Some deals are not. The nature of the competition hasn’t really changed on the backdrop of the overall environment growing. This is a growing marketplace in biopharma land. We continue to dominate that marketplace with greater than 50% share, especially on the larger transactions. So we certainly see a growing environment. We welcome competition. It’s certainly there. But we feel very confident with our competitive advantages, especially around our cost of capital and our access to capital.
Pablo Legorreta: I think our competitive advantages have even increased since we went public in many ways, but we can talk about that more later.
Chris Schott: Great. Thanks so much.
Operator: One moment for the next question. The next question comes from the line of Steve Scala from Cowen. Steve, please go ahead.
Steve Scala: Thank you. I have two questions. First, GSK seems to be refocusing on respiratory overall after deemphasizing it a few years ago – entering the chronic cough space is a recent example of that. I assume this could have impact on future royalties of Trelegy in a positive way. Is there any stipulations in the contract either positive or negative that could reflect GSK’s commitment adjustments to respiratory in the future? Secondly, I think you’ve been asked this before, but given how quickly the market is developing, I thought it might be worth asking again. And that is that Royalty Pharma has no exposure to obesity. I can think of three reasons for this; number one, you have not come across opportunities; two, there are opportunities like the molecules or terms; or three, you are not convinced on the size of the market.
I’m wondering if you can tell us which of those three is the most prominent factor that you’re not involved in obesity? Thank you.
