Operator: One moment for your next question. Your next question comes from the line of Umer Raffat of Evercore ISI. Umer, please go ahead.
Mike DiFiore: This is Mike DiFiore in for Umer. Thanks so much for taking my question. Two for me. With respect to the IRA, the CMS guidance documents specifically call out the terms active moiety versus active ingredient. As it respectively pertains to identifying, qualifying single-source small molecule and biologic drugs, whereby drug products, i.e., small molecule products with the same active moiety will be considered single source. And biologic products with the same active ingredient will be considered single source. All that said, what are your thoughts on this? And does this influence your willingness to invest in royalties linked to reformulated biologic drugs? And then similarly, but separately, your thoughts on how the CMS guidance documents bodes for fixed-dose combination products such as Trelegy, Ellipta and Airsupra? Thank you.
Pablo Legorreta: Sure. Marshall, do you take this question?
Marshall Urist: Sure. Yes. Thanks. Hey, Mike. Good morning. So two questions there. I think, first on the active ingredient versus active moiety question. That’s something that we have talked with the external consultants and advisers that we use to – as we continue to all follow IRA. You guys have done some interesting work there as well in terms of defining that issue. So it’s something we continue to follow. I think it highlights an important point though, which is our overall – our overall strength of our business model in this IRA era, which is as we learn new things, about how the IRA will be implemented as we are. As we work through that, we can implement that in our investment process and are right now in terms of looking at – and it has become, I think, as for all of us, a really core part of how we look at every project, which is, what is the potential exposure to IRA, what are the scenarios and work through that and fits really well with our scenario-based approach that we’ve talked about before.
On fixed dose combinations, I think there, the world seems a little bit more clear that those are considered – that they are considered kind of individual products, which was kind of consistent with our expectation, and we’ll have their own kind of clock from an IRA perspective. So that’s our view. Like I said, we’re continuing to follow it and confer with all the outside advisers who we use to continue to process all the new learnings by the IRA.
Mike DiFiore: Great. Thank you.
Operator: One moment for your last question. The next question comes from the line of Ash Verma of UBS. Ash, please go ahead.
Ash Verma: Hi, good morning. Thanks for taking my question. So just a different angle on the M&A. So as you look at the your deal-making environment for royalties with these biotech companies. Do you think the M&A is route for them directly competes with them trying to monetize the assets by the royalty route? And in your view, like do the strategic acquirers kind of prefer targeting wholly-owned assets with unencumbered economics. And so biotech might be health and to get into royalty agreements before if they want to sell eventually? Thanks.
Pablo Legorreta: Thank you for your question. But on our side, we were always taking our heads not really being able to listen to the first part of your question clearly. So, I don’t know if maybe you can close here to the microphone or something, but I was start just to understand, sorry.
Ash Verma: Yes. No worries – so here, – like do you think when you’re making these deals with the biotech companies, do you think that the M&A exit route for them kind of directly competes with them trying to monetize the asset wide, the royalty route? What I’m trying to get a sense is like if the strategic acquirers, do they prefer assets with unencumbered royalty? And that’s why the biotech companies might be hesitant into getting a royalty arrangement with you if they eventually want to sell.
