Puneet Souda: So maybe, Emily, I’ll start with a one sort of a high level question for you. I mean, you’re seeing NGS growth here. Your orders are up on NGS. Your top end of your fiscal ‘24 guidance is just sort of slightly shy of where Street was in revenue. And you just delivered 20% growth. You’re expecting what implies as somewhere around 17% to 18% next year, mid-20% for 4Q, December ending quarter. So again, all of this looks like you’re doing better versus what the backdrop is. You’re expecting significant pickup from Express Genes. It seems like you’re production ready. So, I think the question is really the demand in the market, which according to most of the life science tools peers is weak, to put it briefly.
So maybe just help us understand how Twist is seeing the market sort of differently versus other NGS oligo peers and overall what we’re hearing from the broader market? Just help us contextualize where you think you’re going to continue to win, and despite the market backdrop.
Dr. Emily Leproust: Yes. No, thank you. That’s a very thoughtful question, and, I think, at the end of the day, it all comes down to the platform. We’ve always said that the success that we have comes from two things. One is the innovation in the silicon technology that we have, and the second is the very violent commercial execution that we have. And, I think you see it in our guide for next year. I can see that — I agree with you that when you look at our peers, it seems like the demand is weak. However, we just have very, very differentiated product. And I think, in a difficult environment, our platform just shines. If you think about NGS, our big customers in NGS are diagnostic customers. What they need — as their own funding environment is difficult, as their own reimbursement is difficult, they need really improved margin.
And that’s what we sell in NGS is if you switch to Twist, because of the quality of the product that we provide, because we have all the regions from A to Z, we’re able to provide a comprehensive solution that expands margins for our customers because of the lower cost of sequencing. So, that resonates really well now. And as some of our customers that we’ve been working with for years, finally going to commercialization as those panels and tests starting to run commercially, we benefit because we — for every patient, there’s some DNA that is being burned. In pharma, on the SynBio side, there’s definitely some funding pressure. And at the same time, that means that the researchers, they are under the pressure as we get the latest and greatest technologies to get to this, grow and develop their therapies.
And that is exactly what we provide is more shots on goal. And now with our huge investment in improving the speed, we’re able to enable them to, again, do that work, not any better because they can get access to margins, but this faster, which is very useful for them. So I think what you’re saying is just a combination of the great work that the Twisters have done and leveraging the technology where it’s a real differentiator based on technology. We’ve had competitor trying to emulate our marketing, but at the end of the day, it’s not about marketing, it’s about real product capabilities. And I think we just shine, thanks to the platform.
Puneet Souda: And then, if I can touch on Biopharma, I mean, you’re implying a high-single-digit growth here. Could you maybe outline how much of that is from services or any other sort of milestone payments that you’re expecting here? Because when we look at some of the antibody discovery fears, obviously, the market is pressured by the emerging biotechs pulled back meaningfully. Maybe can you talk a little bit about how much of the mix is large pharma versus those emerging biotechs? And what does that mean for the source of new projects that you expect to receive in Biopharma in 2024 — I mean, fiscal ‘24?
Dr. Emily Leproust: Maybe I’ll start. So the guide implies no maximum royalties. It’s all a fee for service guide. And I agree with you that if you look year-over-year, the growth looks not very big. However, actually, if you look at the low point of Biopharma in ‘23, compared to the higher point to Q4 2024, we’re going to see some substantial growth. We had a stumble in commercial execution, and so we had a few quarters of Biopharma services going down, but now we’ve rebuilt the commercial team. We had sequential growth in our orders. As we say inside the Company, we’ve done it one quarter in a row, and now we have to just go do it again, and I expect to see some significant growth when you look from the low point to Q4. And that’s the direction we want to see.
Puneet Souda: And then if I could ask one brief one to Jim. Jim, what are you expecting for to spend on data storage in fiscal 2024? And then, maybe if you can provide how should we think about the cash burn as we go into sort of the next two years?
Jim Thorburn: Yes. So, overall, operating expense for data storage is going to be in the range of $37 million to $39 million for this year. In terms of cash burn — approximately about $30 million to $32 million in terms of cash burn, for data storage.
Operator: Our next question comes from Catherine Schulte with Baird.
Catherine Schulte: Maybe first, it looks like you are, but can you just confirm that you’re still expecting to achieve adjusted EBITDA breakeven for NGS and SynBio in the fourth quarter? And thanks for parsing out the DNA data storage spend. But how should we be thinking about adjusted EBITDA loss for Biopharma for the year?
