Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for standing by, and welcome to the Charles River Laboratories Fourth Quarter and Full Year 2025 Earnings Conference Call. This call is being recorded. [Operator Instructions] I would now like to turn the conference over to your host, Todd Spencer, Vice President of Investor Relations. Please go ahead.

Good morning, and welcome to Charles River Laboratories Fourth Quarter and Full Year 2025 Earnings and 2026 Guidance Conference Call and Webcast. This morning, I am joined by Jim Foster, Chair, President and Chief Executive Officer; Birgit Girshick, Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer; and Mike Knell, Senior Vice President, Interim Chief Financial Officer and Chief Accounting Officer. Jim will comment on our results for the fourth quarter of 2025 as well as our financial guidance for 2026. Following the presentation, they will respond to questions. There is a slide presentation associated with today's remarks, which we posted on the Investor Relations section of our website at ir.criver.com. A webcast replay of this call will be available beginning approximately 2 hours after the call today and can also be accessed on our Investor Relations website. The replay will be available through next quarter's conference call. I'd like to remind you of our safe harbor. All remarks that we make about future expectations, plans and prospects for the company constitute forward-looking statements under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Actual results may differ materially from those indicated. During the call, we will primarily discuss non-GAAP financial measures, which we believe help investors gain a meaningful understanding of our core operating results and guidance. The non-GAAP financial measures are not meant to be considered superior to or a substitute for results of operations prepared in accordance with GAAP. In accordance with Regulation G, you can find the comparable GAAP measures and reconciliations on our Investor Relations section of our website. I will now turn the call over to Jim Foster.

Thank you, and good morning. As Todd mentioned, I'm pleased to be joined today by Birgit Girshick, who will become our next CEO when I retire in May. As well as our interim CFO, Mike Knell. Birgit will provide an overview of our 2026 guidance and the key drivers behind our outlook, but before I hand the call over to her, I will provide details on our fourth quarter and full year 2025 financial results as well as an update on our latest developments and market trends. We were pleased that our 2025 financial results were at the upper end of the revenue and non-GAAP earnings per share ranges that we provided in November. Beyond our financial results, the fourth quarter capped a year that was marked by the stabilization of the biopharma demand environment, including substantial improvements in DSA net bookings, particularly during the first and fourth quarters. We also advanced several strategic initiatives that will enable the company to better capitalize on future growth opportunities and renewed our focus on scientific innovation that will reinforce our position as the leader in preclinical drug development. At different points during 2025, demand from both global biopharmaceutical clients and small- and mid-sized biotechnology clients showed signs of improvement. Many of our global biopharma clients progress through their restructuring and pipeline reprioritization activities and after holding back spending in 2024, move their programs forward with more urgency when new budgets were released in early 2025, which led to strong DSA bookings at the start of last year. The biotech funding environment slowed in the first half of 2025, and we subsequently experienced softer demand trends from our small and midsized biotech clients during the summer months. However, with a reinvigorated funding environment in the second half of the year, including a record…

Good morning, everyone. First, I want to sincerely thank you, Jim, for the tremendous mentorship and close partnership you have provided over the years to prepare me for this incredible opportunity and also for your significant contributions to build the company into the industry leader that we are today. I also want to thank and acknowledge our Board of Directors for the trust that they have placed in me. I'm deeply honored to become Charles River's next CEO and am committed to building upon the solid foundation that Jim has established. With a talented team at Charles River, we will continue to work tirelessly to lead the industry to accelerate the progress we have made in scientific innovation to advance drug development through our best-in-class science and client service and by continuing to focus on ensuring the company remains leading edge with world-class processes, a client-centric service offering and technology enablement. I am very excited to lead Charles River's next phase of growth. I will now provide details on our 2026 financial guidance and the improving trends that we expect. Organic revenue in 2026 is expected to range from down 1% to at least flat compared to a 1.6% decline in 2025. We expect the operating margin will improve by 20 to 50 basis points from 19.8% in 2025, driven principally by the benefit from the acquisition of the assets of K.F. (Cambodia). This is expected to translate into non-GAAP earnings per share in a range from $10.70 to $11.20, representing growth of approximately 4% to 9%. We continue to expect that the acquisition will add approximately $0.25 to earnings per share this year, which has been embedded in this guidance. By segment, we expect RMS revenue to decline at a low to mid-single digit on an organic basis in…

Good morning, and thank you, Birgit. It's been an honor to lead our talented finance team for the last several months, and I look forward to continuing to work closely with them and our new CFO to drive our future success. I would also like to thank you, Jim, and the Board for the opportunity to be Interim CFO. Before I begin, may I remind you that I'll be speaking primarily to non-GAAP results, which exclude amortization and other acquisition-related adjustments, impairments, costs related primarily to restructuring initiatives, gains or losses from certain venture capital and other strategic investments and certain other items. Many of my comments will also refer to organic revenue growth, which excludes the impact of acquisitions, divestitures and foreign currency translation. Let me start by providing some additional details on our 2026 guidance. Birgit highlighted our organic revenue growth and non-GAAP earnings per share outlooks. On a reported basis, we expect revenue will be between at least flat and 1.5% growth. FX is expected to be a tailwind as the U.S. dollar has continued to weaken and is expected to benefit reported revenue by 1% to 1.5%. We also expect a small revenue benefit from PathoQuest once the acquisition closes later this quarter. We have provided additional information on FX rates and our currency exposure in the appendix of our slide presentation. On Slide 31, we have also provided the segment outlook for 2026, which includes reported and organic revenue expectations. As Birgit mentioned, we expect several headwinds to impact the first quarter operating margin and earnings per share. Our outlook for the first quarter of 2026 assumes revenue will be essentially flat to slightly negative on a reported basis and will decline at a low single-digit rate on an organic basis. By segment, the RMS…

That concludes our comments. We will now take your questions.

[Operator Instructions]. And we'll go first to Eric Coldwell with Baird.

I wanted to dig into the broader topic of NHPs. There seem to be some, I don't know, dichotomy in the outlook and results here between RMS and DSA. Hoping you can just walk us through this and help clear it up. So RMS is facing a material headwind from lower NHP volume. We've also heard lower sales from one of your competitors. But at the same time, DSA is facing a material headwind from higher NHP sourcing costs and strong demand for NHP studies. So I'm just hoping you can walk us through some of these dynamics, the nuances between what's happening in RMS and what's happening in DSA and then talk about some of the drivers of the higher sourcing costs that are impacting you in the near term.

You guys want to take that?

Yes, happy to take it. Eric. So let me start with the RMS volumes. So the RMS volumes, the impact in Q4 is primarily timing. So looking for the full year, the shipments have shifted -- so -- and with that, Q4 was lighter than the year before. Looking forward, we talked about RMS volumes being a driver of less revenue in Q1. That is both timing as well as a little bit lower volumes. For our DSA business, we talked about higher sourcing costs, particularly in Q4, having some impact in Q1. We had more NHP studies coming in than we had expected in 2025 and early '26. So with that, we had to go to the open market and buy some NHPs at a higher price, which will have an impact on ROI. Part of the disconnect or that what you're seeing here is also the fact that we have -- always have 2 sources, so an Asian source as well as a Mauritius source, and they don't always connect perfectly of what we have available and internally from our own farms versus what we have to buy on the open market. So it's really mostly timing as well as timing between the RMS business shipments when they're coming in, but also what kind of source we are needing, how quickly we're needing them and that we had to source from the open market, if that makes sense.

It does. And if I could just ask a follow-up. What is the -- you provide in your appendix the NHP utilization for '24 and you gave an update for '25, which was pretty notable growth. is it too early? Or would you care to share your thoughts on the full year for internal demand compared to that data point provided in '25?

So for 2026, yes, it's a little bit too early. We're really just starting the year. But for 2025 compared to 2024, what you're seeing here is a higher number of NHP studies coming through, which is a little bit of mix, but also substantiate the need for this very important research model and that this research model is here to stay for a long time, which also required us to assert our supply chain and therefore, the K.F. (Cambodia) acquisition.

We'll go next to Luke Sergott with Barclays.

So I just kind of want to talk about the backlog here and the DSA bookings are starting to ramp the continued strength there. But you guys also hired ahead of what was expected to be that demand. So as bookings environment baked within your guide continue to improve, can you talk about your hiring needs as you continue to ramp whatever you're going to do on the DSA to exit the year? Do you guys have enough? Or should we expect some type of pickup there? Just trying to rightsize what the cost outs plus the capacity utilization and your hiring needs of what's going forward?

We -- from a capacity point of view, we have sort of 2 issues. We have physical capacity, which is in pretty good shape right now. So we're not optimally using our facilities, which obviously, that's a goal of ours. But still as the -- hopefully, the demand increases, we'll be able to utilize space that's already built and be able to fill that. We've been really careful for years, actually, but really careful the last 2 or 3 years to get our headcount in sync with demand and with our revenue. Obviously, this is a people business, and it's more than half of our costs. And last year, in 2025, we added some incremental people in our lab sciences building business and to fill vacant spots. So I think we're in good shape. Senior scientific staff and study directors and people like that are in particularly good shape. And principally, we're looking at direct labor. We need to bring direct labor on probably a quarter before we actually need them because there's some training associated with that. But we're quite confident we'll be able to do that in a measured fashion to both accommodate the work and not be a drag on our operating margins.

Got it. And kind of related to that, and this is kind of overall with the AI fears baked within the market and particularly within your business, you kind of gave the number there from an FTE perspective of percentage of cost. But as you guys continue to restructure, get more efficient, talk about -- I don't think that there's AI risk, but clearly, the market doesn't agree with me. So kind of walk us through the bull case on why you aren't going to be impacted by any AI coming through considering how much wet lab work you guys need to do?

Yes. So thanks for that. So we were frankly, surprised at the sort of violent share price reaction to the AI conversation has been going on across multiple industries actually for the last couple of weeks. So it is what it is. We got caught up in that. And so there are several things that I would like to say about that. AI is a NAMs, and we're focused on NAMs to the extent that the science is beneficial, the science is additive. And we view AI as an enabling technology to support our work over a long term and to complement it, but we don't see it as a disruptor AI and sort of discovery has been around for a while by many of our large clients. So that's not new. The conversations really haven't changed at all. And so for us, AI and NAMs is sort of a broader longer-term evolution rather than something that's immediate. We continue to see ourselves as an essential and logical partner to help validate NAMs, including AI as they -- if and when they become beneficial and additive, as I said. And so we hope to be able to run interference in a positive way. for both our clients and the regulatory agencies to validate these technologies if they're beneficial. So the NAMs are basically crude right now. AI is really early. There's a promise of AI that we think could be beneficial to discovery, and we don't quite see it in safety. We've had some investments in AI to virtual control groups, which we talked about in our prepared remarks, some of our scientific report writing, our sales effectiveness. We have data scientists that are working on this. So we're embracing -- I guess the bottom line for us is we're embracing alternative technologies sort of strategically, but the science will prevail. So the extent to which these technologies are beneficial, great, we'll use them. We think we'll use them more, we, the whole industry in discovery to help our clients get to a lead compound faster. Hopefully, that will have more molecules moving through preclinical tox and more molecules moving into the clinic and hopefully more molecules being approved. So we acknowledge it. We embrace it. We are participating in it. We actually don't see it as a threat to the company. And if these technologies are better in any way, besides just being augmented, they'll be embraced by the whole industry. But definitely nothing is imminent.

We'll go next to Max Smock with William Blair.

It's Christine Rains on for Max. Congratulations to both Jim and Birgit on what lies ahead. And for our question, just hoping you can give some context on DSA cancellations in the quarter. I think you said they were consistent with last quarter levels, but curious if they were within your normal range. And if you could remind us what your normal range of cancellations is and also if the distribution of cancellations due to client funding versus clinical and other competitive reasons were in line with expectations in the quarter.

So cancellations and slippage, as we call it, are sort of elements of our business. So slippage is when studies don't start when we anticipated they would start when the clients initially anticipate. And things just canceled because, I don't know, priorities change, therapeutic area focus changes or the drug just isn't performing well before we even get a hold of it. The clients just can't get it to a dosage that won't be harmful to patients. So we have cancellations all the time and always will. We have penalties for cancellations with insufficient notice, which tends to cover whatever cost we've been impacted by up to that point. And with a decent backlog -- we manage this really well. There's very little variability without a slippage or cancellations. So we've never given the actual percentage or dollar amount or whatever, nor will we. But we're definitely back to sort of normal expected anticipated cancellations, and we can manage that really well, again, without the volatility in our business model and to be able to accommodate clients across the board, both large pharma and biotech. And the -- and just to go back to the sort of 9 months backlog we have, we like that. It gives us a really great line of sight. If a study cancels or slips, we can almost always, not always, but almost always be able to slot something in the queue into real-time revenue-generating work to replace whatever has slipped and canceled. So as you know, because you asked the question, cancellations had gotten a couple of years ago much higher than we would have liked or we had seen historically, improved last year and is now sort of back to normal levels. Impossible to predict, but we wouldn't anticipate given the sort of market dynamics, cash coming into biotech, pharma companies finishing sort of skinning down their portfolios that they would increase again in any significant way.

We'll go next to Dave Windley with Jefferies.

Congrats, Jim. It's been a nice ride. I look back at my initiation. I think this is 100 conference calls with you. So thanks for the ride.

It's been a pleasure, Dave.

My question for you is basically a temperature check on demand or urgency of clients last year, you entered into '25 with some clients kind of booking some fast burn, wanted to start quickly type studies. Your demand book-to-bill in the fourth quarter certainly was strong. It sounds like month-to-month continued to improve. Just interested in any color you can provide about how that has continued into the early part of '26, knowing that you often remind us that it's not linear and January sometimes gets off to a slow start. But just kind of comparisons to maybe this time last year and continuation out of the fourth quarter would be great.

So I'll start, maybe Birgit wants want to elaborate. Demand is improving from a whole host of factors. So significant inflows of cash into the biotech coffers, pharma companies sort of finishing some of their blood letting and shrinking down their infrastructures and just the tariff stuff being sort of over and whatever pricing situation is going on between Washington and the pharma companies. So we think that, that sort of past them. So demand seems to be improving. We -- as I said a moment ago, we like the backlog situation. You'll recall, Dave, 2 or 3 years ago, the backlog got to about 18 months, and we loved it until -- we love until we hated it. It was just way too long. And clients got to the point of canceling studies because they just booked slots without a study. So last couple of years, we've seen a lot of post-IND work. We'll always have both, both pre and post. We're seeing more sort of general talks now, which is earlier than the post stuff. So that's good. We're moving towards a greater balance. So that would indicate clients are anxious to start their studies and would want to do that earlier, which obviously is a good thing for us. And while we do get some late-stage work, sometimes when we don't do the early-stage work, that's -- typically, we like both and get both. So if we get the early work and the drug is progressing nicely, we'll typically get the post-IND work as well. So sort of a balanced demand quotient right now. Maybe Birgit wants to add to that?

Yes. Happy to. Dave, so maybe just to add that the environment feels a lot more stable than last year. So discussions with global biopharma is all about how they can increase the number of candidates for -- in the upcoming year and upcoming years. So they're ready -- they're definitely ready back to work. They have their programs lined up. From a biotech -- small and midsized biotech, a lot more positivity in the marketplace that we are hearing about. Certainly, there's still some uncertainty in pockets. Certainly, we're happy about our net book-to-bill of above 1 in Q4. And so we're hoping that the demand trends will continue and get us back to growth in the second half of the year.

Great. If I could follow up real quickly. Relative to that, better environment, continuing improvement, the book-to-bill that you just posted in the fourth quarter, your comments about achieving the higher end of your revenue guidance range requires a 1.0 book-to-bill, again, with the caveat that things aren't linear, but that strikes me as a relatively conservative bar compared to what you just did. Perhaps add some perspective to that, please?

Yes. I'm happy to start and then certainly -- I mean, yes. So as you outlined, we need a book-to-bill above 1, and it's not going to be linear. So the quarters are not all going to be above 1, most likely. And the reason for our outlook and looking at H2 for growth on the top end is really that there's other factors in there. Start times, so bookings are still 1 to 2 quarters out before they can actually start, the conversion of the backlog, the timing for that and just then overall, the study starts from the book -- when we're getting the booking to when we actually can start and get it done in there. So just a lot of different factors that are playing into it, but certainly very positive of those trends continuing.

We'll go next to Charles Rhyee with TD Cowen.

Maybe first of all, Jim and Birgit, congratulations to both of you. And Jim, good luck for the future and Birgit looking forward to meeting you soon. Maybe if I could just ask about sort of the guide for coming up here, understanding the headwinds that you kind of laid out, particularly for the first quarter. And when you talk about sort of this material improvement in margins going forward, it sounds like you're saying that, obviously, some of these kind of reverse as we exit the quarter. Can you kind of lay out which ones fully exit or which ones might carry through? Or should we really kind of assume sort of a big step function in margins into the second quarter and then it kind of flattens out there? Or should we be modeling more of a gradual ramp back in margins as we think through the course of the year?

Mike, why don't you take that?

Yes. Charles, thank you. So when I think about the sequential improvement in the operating margin, there's really 3 main drivers for that. The first one, we're going to get continued benefit from the cost savings and our efficiency initiatives as we go throughout the year. And then second one is the lower sourcing related to the K.F. acquisition. So we're going to -- we solidified that supply chain. And I think the headwind that we're seeing in Q1 of having more bookings and have to go out to the open market to purchase those is really dissipated by the fact that we have such a majority-owned portion of that supply chain. So that will go away. And then our cautious optimism that the demand is going to continue to improve over the course of the year. So that strong book-to-bill that you saw in Q4, that's going to materialize into revenue as we progress into 2026.

And maybe just a follow-up then. Does that -- the extra sourcing cost where you kind of had -- because of the greater than normal number of study starts, so you had to kind of go outside more demand than the supply that you had. Is it that you expect that kind of level of sourcing required in that K.F. then offsets that? Or is it that you expect sort of that kind of bolus of study starts to maybe subside and so you don't need to tap the market outside of your existing supply?

Yes. I think it's a little bit of both, right? You're going to get the impact of the K.F. in the second half of the year. We've had obviously more time to plan for the increased demand in the second quarter. The other pieces of Q1 are the NHP timing. So that is just a function of when the models are ready to be used and shipped and when the demand is, and that's simply timing in Q1. And then, of course, in Q1, you've got the stock comp, right? That's just the accounting rules of how you have to accelerate the expense over the service period. So with the retirement and the succession, we're going to get a pretty heavy headwind in Q1 on the stock comp. That improves throughout the year, too. It's not a headwind on the year.

We'll go next to Elizabeth Anderson with Evercore.

Congrats, Jim, Birgit, on your new roles. I think that would be a good transition. Maybe just digging into the outlook here. Can you talk about the demand environment in China right now, particularly in regards to RMS, but anything else you're seeing there? And then anything you would the improvement in biologics to -- that you mentioned for the fourth quarter?

So our China business continues to perform well. It's all RMS, as you know. And it's an important market for us, and we feel that we've elevated the craft of producing really high-quality pristine animals and sort of taught the industry -- the benefit of utilizing those in terms of the quality of the work that they do. And China is becoming a more sophisticated, innovative locale for sure, a lot of investment by the government. And you didn't specifically ask this, but I'm just going to throw this in there that we're looking closely at China with regard to what additionally we can do there besides RMS, given that it's a big -- obviously, a big patient population. drugs developed in China have to be tested in China. And so we're -- except for the research model part, which we're thrilled with, we're not accessing any of the service revenue associated with that. So China may become a bigger part of our portfolio going forward. Biologics was -- it's been a really good business for us for a long time. It had sort of a complicated '25 due to some lower sample volumes from a couple of large clients due principally to project delays and regulatory challenges. But that business returned to growth in the fourth quarter of '25 due to higher demand principally from Europe, and we would expect some of those client-specific challenges. Those are behind us as we move into '26. So an important business, obviously, only testing large molecules, at least half the drugs that are approved are large molecules going forward. So a business that we think we have a strong position in. It has had years of very nice growth and escalating operating margins. So it's beginning to sort of come back. It was a business that was very much benefited by COVID, then things sort of slowed down, and now we're beginning to see them ramp up again.

We'll take our next question from Michael Ryskin with Bank of America.

I'll just do one given the time. Just following up on your earlier comments on DSA demand environment, what you saw in 4Q expectations for the coming year. I kind of want to go back to 2025. You had a pretty strong start to the year, then a little bit of a lull over the summer months in terms of demand and then a pickup again in the recent months. Just wondering that volatility, that uncertainty, those fluctuations, would you attribute that more to the macro environment, the geopolitical environment, rates environment? What I'm getting at is what gives you confidence that we wouldn't see something similar this year or that 4Q, the strength you saw in 4Q '25 is a little bit of a red herring and we take a step back? Just what makes you think that last year was an outlier in that regard?

I mean the big impact from us was overall soft demand from our client base, both large and small companies, both new and old companies who are really working on the biotech companies were really concerned about access to capital and whether they had enough funding to work on a whole range of drugs. So it's quite clear to us that they paused some drugs before they got filed their IND. So we think they're going to get back to that. And big pharma is facing another patent cliff, which we saw this, I don't know, 12, 13, 14 years ago, they begin to pull back on their cost structure. By the way, one of the things we do is help them alleviate or reduce some of their internal costs because we can the work that we do in Safety Assessment is as fast, if not faster, lower price point and probably in most cases, better science. So we're being cautious. We said that. We're trying not to overcall it because it's not linear and one quarter doesn't necessarily portend the next. But what is beginning to change is the massive amount of funding that went into the biotech companies, $28 billion in the fourth quarter was quite significant. And so if that continues, January was a good month as well. But if that continues, that should generate incremental demand going forward. There's usually a lag time between cash coming in and then booking studies. So we're going to see that in the second quarter, but more pronounced in the back half of the year. The fact that book-to-bill was above 1x and much higher than that in December is obviously a very important point, and that's also going to benefit the second quarter and the second half of the year. So we're trying not to overcall it, but what we have been looking for and what we've been hearing from our clients just in terms of funding and access to continued funding is beginning to happen. And since the preponderance of our revenue, we have really big market shares in big pharma, but the preponderance of our revenue and the growth rate for the last decade has been principally from hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of biotech companies, none of whom have the internal capacity to do anything that we do for them. So they must outsource. They don't have to outsource to Charles River, but most of them do. So they must outsource. And so -- just given the number and diversity of new modalities to treat or cure diseases, these folks have to get back to work, and that should generate additional volume for us. And we're obviously comfortable with the guidance that we've just given today. And again, we're being, I think, cautiously optimistic is really a good way to put it.

We'll go next to Casey Woodring with JPMorgan.

And yes, Jim, again, congratulations on retirement and Birgit, looking forward to working with you in the new role. Yes, maybe just sticking to one. On the capital deployment comments, so you talked about maintaining dry powder for M&A. How should we think about that in relation to some of the comments you made about the opportunity in China? And then how do we balance that versus repos this year? You mentioned the Violence share price movement of late. And then also curious if you're looking at other deals like K.F. that could potentially alleviate some NHP sourcing costs, some of the headwinds that you've seen in DSA to start the year.

So our NHP sourcing volume is in really good shape now given Noveprim and the deal that we just did with K.F. So it's highly unlikely that we'll need to source anything further or buy anything further. We already have plans to increase the Mauritian operation. And if the demand continues, we can increase both of them. So we feel that just in terms of quality of the NHPs, price point, just the quality of the farms that they're brought on, we're really, really comfortable in that. Capital deployment for us is pretty straightforward. We like to keep our leverage below 3 turns, and we've been able to by many, many businesses over the years, and we lever up to high 2s, occasionally over 3, and we usually delever within 12 months. So we feel really good about that. Our balance sheet is in really strong shape pre these deals. And even after these deals, our leverage is just in the high 2s, and we'll continue to work it down. So we have a committee of the Board that I sit on, and we try to object -- not try to -- we objectively look at uses of capital every single quarter in tandem with our Board meetings. And paying down debt, share buybacks, M&A is always on the table. So we're certainly continue to look at M&A in some of the areas that we've talked about. Bioanalysis is probably top of our list. And as I said, we're beginning to look closely at China, way too early to predict that. Buying back stock is totally dependent on what else do we better use and what does the share price look like. And we continue to pay down our debt. So I think we have a lot of flexibility right now. We just had a Board meeting last week where we talked about all these things, have another one in May, and we'll continue to stay on it. But there's definitely some areas that we'd like to continue to fill in the portfolio from M&A. And every once in a while, we may come across one of our businesses where we don't think it has long-term value for us. And so we would take a look at divesting those as well.

Our next question comes from Justin Bowers with Deutsche Bank.

Congratulations, Jim and Birgit. So I want to sort of follow up on Luke's earlier question. And hopefully, you can educate us a little bit more on NAMs. If I recall, it's about 20% of DSA revenue. Can you provide us with a sense of how the client base is using these methods? And the gist of the question is, are these technologies being platformed by high-end full of clients or more concentrated? Or is adoption and uptake fairly diverse across a large number of clients that are using those technologies perhaps to validate existing in vivo methods.

So we're seeing NAMs across a big swath of our client base. We would say that big pharma has been looking at utilizing in vitro or non-animal technologies sort of forever. Lots of that's proprietary to each company and some of it's just sort of standard stuff. It's definitely more pronounced in discovery as we've been saying now, as we've been talking about this more for the last year. And everybody hopes that some of these technologies, albeit somewhat anecdotal, help the process of accelerating our clients getting to a lead compound and spending less time on drugs that have a low probability of getting into the clinic and more time on drugs that have a higher probability. Of course, we get paid either way, whether the drug advances to the clinic or not. So we're there to help them. And if the technology helps us make a determination with and for the client, we're certainly happy to do that. As we've said before, there's -- our PathoQuest deal that we just talked about on this call is a non-animal technology, next-generation sequencing that literally is replacing some of the animal-based work that we do in our biologics business, and that's a really good NAMs that we're happy to provide that service, and our clients are demanding it and it gives better answers faster. We also have another business we talked about in the call, Retrogenics, we're looking at off-target effects of drugs, which is really, really important. So there are some NAMs now that are beneficial and utilizable. There are some that are sort of hopeful, but still early days, and we believe we're only going to see it in safety in this sort of narrow monoclonal antibody swath that the FDA has talked about and too much of a safety risk to be focusing on these as replacements, but likely to be augmentative to some of the wet lab work, particularly in the early phases. So we'll continue to license in technologies and periodically buy something that we think is really beneficial for our clients and will generate decent revenue and margin. We'll work with our clients in validation, but this is a long-term marathon and not something that's going to be done quickly or overnight.

And if I may, with just a quick follow-up since this is so topical. I was speaking with a top 10 pharma last week, and we're talking about AI and how that would potentially impact early stage. And they said, well, maybe we could see a scenario where we start with 20,000 targets instead of 10 at the top of the funnel. Can you help us understand how that would sort of flow through your business? And if that would be accretive, dilutive, neutral?

Yes. More targets would be -- if you can screen through more targets at the same pace or faster, that's obviously really beneficial for our clients and should be beneficial for us as well. As I said, if they can go -- just using your numbers, if they can screen through 20,000 potential drugs that hit the target and then they can focus on the ones that have the highest probability of actually working and being tolerated by patients and get into the clinic. That should generate incremental work for us, and it should also have a higher hit rate for the drug companies. It's sort of shocking, I would say that all of the U.S. pharmaceutical and biotech companies in the aggregate only -- we only have between 40 and 50 new drugs a year, right? So if that could be 100 or 200 or 500, that obviously would be better for society, that obviously would be better for human health. It definitely would be better for Charles River, it would be better for our clients. So the extent to which AI can get its arms, speaking to it as if it's a perfect, get its arms around more data earlier and have a bigger funnel that -- I think that would be beneficial for all of us.

We'll go next to Patrick Donnelly with Citi.

Maybe just one, obviously, you covered a lot of ground here. Maybe the divestiture process, Jim, can you just update us where we are there? It sounds like negotiation is still going with the buyers. What hurdles are left? It sounds like it will be done by midyear. When that capital comes in the door, is that deployed relatively quickly? Just a quick update on that process would be helpful.

I mean the process is ongoing. We have sophisticated investment banks working on these divestitures. We have interested parties. The comment that we made on our last quarter call still seems reasonable that we hope to close these divestitures sometime in the first half of this year. And -- and perhaps -- and hopefully, we can sign something sooner, but it's difficult to tell. I mean these deals aren't signed until they're signed and they're not closed until they're done. So we're very committed to finalizing the process. We think we have some interested folks and should be a good result. In terms of what we do with the proceeds, again, it's sort of what we do -- what we do with any of our cash as we look at M&A, debt repayment, share repurchases, all of the above or just one of the above. And it's always contextual and depends on what's going on with market demand, what the rest of our M&A portfolio looks like, what the share price looks like and we do that, I think, very well, very objectively, very thoughtfully every quarter. We don't have any sort of preordained feelings about that. So when we bring these deals to closure, we'll see what the world looks like at that time in terms of what we do with the assets.

Okay. And then maybe one last quick one on the NHPs. Obviously, K.F. is a nice impact this year. As you look out beyond this year, is it almost a compounding effect on the NHP side where you benefit more on the savings as you in-source more in '27 from Noveprim and K.F. both being on board there?

Do you want to take that, Mike?

Yes, absolutely. So yes, we said that there would be a $0.25 benefit this year. And then even next year would be even further. We think that there's approximately $0.60 accretion from K.F. as we go into 2027.

We have no further questions in queue. I will now turn the conference back to Todd Spencer for closing remarks.

Great. Thank you for joining us on the conference call this morning. We look forward to seeing you at upcoming investor conferences in March. This concludes the call. Thanks again.

Thank you. That does conclude today's Charles River Laboratories Fourth Quarter and Full Year 2025 Earnings Call. Thank you for your participation, and you may now disconnect.