PureTech Health plc (PRTC) Q4 2025 Earnings Report, Transcript and Summary

Greetings, and welcome to the PureTech Health 2025 Annual Results Conference Call. [Operator Instructions] As a reminder, this conference is being recorded. It is now my pleasure to introduce your host, Allison Mead Talbot, Senior Vice President of Communications. Thank you, Allison. You may begin.

Thank you, everyone, for joining us for PureTech's 2026 Annual Results Webcast. Our annual report will be made available later today, portions of which are also filed with our Form 20-F. This information is available on the Investors page of our website at puretechhealth.com. I would like to remind you that during today's call, we will be making certain forward-looking statements. These statements are subject to various risks, uncertainties and assumptions that could cause our actual results to differ materially, and we ask that you refer to our annual report and our SEC filings for a complete discussion of these items. We undertake no obligation to revise or update any forward-looking statements or information, except as required by law. I also want to remind you that we will be referring to certain non-IFRS measures in this presentation. The presentation of this non-IFRS financial information is not intended to be considered in iCeleation or as a substitute for financial information presented in accordance with IFRS. A reconciliation of the IFRS to non-IFRS measures that we will be referring to today can be found in this presentation and is also available on our Investor Relations website at investors.puretechhealth.com and in our SEC filings. I'm joined today by members of our senior management team: Robert Lyne, Chief Executive Officer; Eric Elenko, Co-Founder and President; Chip Sherwood, General Counsel; Michael Inbar, Chief Accounting Officer; as well as Sven Dethlefs, CEO of our founded entity, Celea Therapeutics. Rob and Eric will discuss our strategic vision and path to value creation, including updates across our portfolio and our differentiated innovation engine. They will also provide a deep dive into the Gallop program, review our financial highlights and outline our anticipated catalysts for the remainder of the year. With that, I will now turn the call over to Rob, our Chief Executive Officer.

Thank you, Allison. Welcome, everyone, and thank you for joining us today. We are at a pivotal moment in the company's trajectory. Having announced our near-term operational focus in December, I'm pleased today to walk you through our refined strategy and portfolio progress. This next phase of our evolution is designed to translate our proven innovation model into greater shareholder value. As a reminder, PureTech is a Boston-based LSE-listed biotherapeutics company operating a hub-and-spoke model with a proven clinical and financial track record. Programs originate within the PureTech hub based on a thesis of targeting molecules with validated pharmacology and are then advanced through early clinical and technical derisking. At defined value inflection points, we scale them through founded entities backed primarily by external capital. This model is both powerful and differentiated for two reasons. First, it improves how we innovate. We focus on opportunities where the underlying mechanism has already shown evidence in humans, allowing us to reduce technical risk while improving probability of success. Secondly, it improves how we allocate capital. By leveraging external capital at the founded entity level, we maintain portfolio breadth, preserve balance sheet strength and retain long-term upside through equity milestones and royalties. Because we develop these programs internally, we typically begin with full ownership of assets and proprietary IP to which we can attach nondilutive milestones and royalties. This means that in contrast to traditional venture capital investors, we do not need to continue to write large checks for every subsequent funding round in order to preserve a meaningful equity stake. Instead, our model allows for prudent equity dilution, allowing us to retain large equity positions in multiple founded entities whilst they diversify their own shareholder registers. Having a balanced shareholder register makes it easier to raise external equity and is vital if our founded entities are to IPO. Throughout this process, our royalties and milestones are protected, providing optionality for derisking ahead of inflection points and preservation of long-term value for PureTech. This result is a model designed to create superior overall financial returns while limiting concentration risk. Through this model, we have developed meaningful clinical and regulatory success. We have generated 3 FDA-approved therapeutics from our innovation engine to date, including the schizophrenia treatment, Cobenfy. We've also achieved substantial cash flow, generating over 1 billion growth from monetization of our economics in our founded entities, all while continuing to build a diversified pipeline of future opportunities. Looking ahead, our focus is clear: sharpen execution, strengthen capital discipline and ensure that PureTech's distinctive model continues to translate breakthrough science into meaningful value for both patients and shareholders. To deliver on our strategy, we have focused on 4 pillars of operational refinement, a streamlined structure. We intend to operate a significantly leaner and more efficient hub following the completion of the CLA financing. As part of this initiative, we announced this morning our intention to voluntarily delist from NASDAQ, recognizing that the vast majority of our trading remains on the LSE some 5 years after our initial NASDAQ list. This step simplifies our structure and reduces cost and administrative burden for the business, whilst retaining our primary London listing, providing access to both U.K. and global investment community. Launching founded entities early. In recent years, we've advanced certain programs further internally before transitioning them to founded entities. While this allows us to retain larger equity stakes, it required greater capital and operational infrastructure at the PureTech hub level. Going forward, we intend to establish and capitalize these entities earlier in the development life cycle once programs have reached key clinical value inflection points. Since return on capital is typically higher early in the cycle, this approach will allow for the creation of a greater number of founded entities. And we believe, therefore, that overall financial performance from the portfolio will improve. A refined innovation focus. Our innovation engine remains the foundation of future growth. Led by my colleague, Eric Elenko, our expanding innovation team continues to progress their work with this goal in -- over the next 3 years, we plan to generate up to 2 development candidates, each of which has the potential to become a new founded entity supported by external capital, allowing us to drive the next wave of growth for PureTech. Moving to capital returns. Finally, this refreshed strategy strengthens our capital discipline and enhances our flexibility. To ensure shareholders benefit directly from our success, we intend to return a greater proportion of future cash generation to shareholders, particularly in the event of an outsized return, whilst maintaining appropriate operational runway for the business. PureTech's value today is underpinned by multiple distinct components. These include our economics in Cobenfy, Seaport Therapeutics, Celea Therapeutics and Gallop Oncology as well as an innovation engine capable of generating future opportunities. We believe this diversified structure is a meaningful strategic advantage and one that is not fully reflected in our current valuation. Across our portfolio, I'm pleased with the progress that was made during 2025 and so far this year. Celea is our most clinically advanced founded entity developing deupirfenidone for the treatment of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis. Deupirfenidone demonstrated a robust efficacy with the potential to replace standard of care treatments in its Phase IIb trial and is now Phase III ready. I'm pleased to share today that Celea's fundraising is substantially complete, subject to continued negotiations. Plea has secured multiple nonbinding commitments from external investors in addition to participation from PureTech. Whilst mindful of macro factors, Celea is targeting to close the financing by early in the third quarter of 2026. The financing is intended to support the Phase III SURPASS-IPF trial, which Celea expects to commence in close proximity to closing the financing. This would represent an important value inflection point both for Celea and for PureTech. Next is Gallop, which is another founded entity, which we currently own 100% of. Last week, we announced positive top line data from the Phase Ib trial of LYT-200 in relapsed/refractory high-risk myelodysplastic syndrome, or MDS, and relapsed/refractory acute myeloid leukaemia. We are pleased with the data, which guided our strategic focus to advance LYT-200 for relapsed/refractory high-risk MDS. Gallop is now preparing to engage with the FDA regarding a potentially registration-enabling trial design in this indication. As Eric will discuss shortly, we believe Gallop represents another strong example of our model in action, differentiated science, disciplined development and the ability to attract external capital at the appropriate stage. Seaport is our most operating advanced founded entity. The company has progressed 2 clinical trials for neuropsychiatric conditions in 2025 and 2026. And as many of you will have seen, Seaport filed a registration statement for a potential initial public offering on NASDAQ. This progress further validates our ability to create and scale attractive stand-alone biotechnology companies from within the PureTech hub-and-spoke model. Beyond our core founded entities, we also retained rights to Cobenfy, a commercial stage product that originated in our innovation engine. PureTech is a co-inventor of Cobenfy, which we house in a founded entity called Karuna Therapeutics. Karuna was acquired by Bristol-Myers Squib $14 billion, though we continue to hold significant non-dilutive economic rights. Based on current analyst consensus of BMS sales expectations, the projected value of PureTech is approximately $160 million from these rights through 2033. Due to the nature of our Cobenfy economics, we are only exposed to the early performance of Cobenfy sales and any reduction in analyst forecast of early sales, even if modest, can therefore have a material impact on projected inflows. Nonetheless, we expect substantial financial inflows of PureTech from COBENFY and are confident that it will improve the lives of large numbers of patients around the world. Going forward, we intend to provide regular updates to PureTech's economic forecast of Cobenfy sales based upon evolving marketing consensus at important points during our earnings webcast in the future. We also note that any monetization events from any of our funded entities, including the Cobenfy economics, represent pure upside. We do not factor any potential inflows from these entities into our runway assumptions. Indeed, whilst we have the option to collect royalties and milestones as they fall due, we also have the flexibility to monetize such rights ahead of time. This was the case with Cobenfy, where we have already secured approximately $125 million in payments to date from a previous royalty sale. This provided PureTech with capital that is unaffected by future commercial sales fluctuations and demonstrates our disciplined approach to structuring founded entities and managing upside thoughtfully. Beyond these founded entities, we also maintain the interest in what I'll call our legacy holdings. These are historical founded entities that continue to have the potential to be a source of capital to us, but they are not a current focus of our capital allocation, nor do we currently expect them to have a material impact on the overall value of PureTech moving forward. As our founded entities continue to mature and secure external funding, we intend to provide greater transparency around valuation benchmarks where appropriate. This is consistent with our capital-efficient model of maintaining a lean hub while creating value through externally financed founded entities. It also builds on Seaport post-money disclosure, which we introduced last year. Our objective is straightforward: to help investors better model the embedded upside across our portfolio, bridge what we believe is a disconnect between intrinsic value and current market value and ultimately support stronger shareholder returns. As part of this transparency, we are today providing an update on our Q1 cash position with PureTech level cash and cash equivalents as of March 31, '26, standing at approximately $248 million on an unaudited basis. I would now like to welcome Eric Elenko, our Co-Founder and President. It is no overstatement to say that Eric has been instrumental to our many successes to date. He will walk us through the latest progress at Gallop Oncology as well as share what he and the innovation team are currently working towards.

Thank you, Rob, and thanks for the kind introduction. As Rob mentioned, PureTech is focused on how we translate scientific opportunity into programs that can ultimately deliver a meaningful impact for patients and value for shareholders. At PureTech, that involves both identifying new opportunities and making disciplined decisions about how to advance them, where to focus, how to allocate capital and how to position programs to reach their next value inflection point. Gallop Oncology being a recent example of our disciplined approach. Last week, we announced positive top line results from the Phase Ib trial of LYT-200, which is being developed through our 100% owned subsidiary, Gallop Oncology. I will briefly review the data, but more importantly, what it means for the program and how we are thinking about the path forward. LYT-200 is a monoclonal antibody that targets galectin-9. It is thought to work through 2 complementary mechanisms in the context of the haematological malignancies we studied in our trial. First, it relieves immunosuppression to enable the immune system to act on the cancer cells. Second, it directly kills cancer cells by inducing cell death through DNA damage and apoptosis. The trial was in relapsed/refractory high-risk myelodysplastic syndrome, or MDS, and relapsed/refractory acute myeloid leukaemia or AML, which are closely related to blood cancers where patients unfortunately typically have poor outcomes. The trial evaluated LYT-200 in a dose escalating manner, both as a monotherapy and in combination with a hypomethylating agent or HMA in patients with MDS and in combination with an HMA and venetoclax in patients with AML. All the patients were heavily pretreated. For example, 100% of the MDS patients had previously received an HMA. The objectives of the study were straightforward, establish safety, identify a dose for further development and generate the data needed to determine whether Gallop should prioritize MDS or AML for a subsequent study. We achieved all 3 objectives. LYT-200 had an excellent safety profile with no dose-limiting toxicities or myeloid suppression, which has historically been a challenge in developing treatments for MDS. We also observed a dose-dependent efficacy response and identified 12 mg per kg of LYT-200 as a dose for the next study. The data were strong across both patient populations studied. And importantly, the study provides the clarity needed to define our next step. I want to provide some additional context on how we arrived at the decision to prioritize relapsed/refractory high-risk MDS as our next indication. This decision reflects both the clinical data generated in the study and strategic considerations. Going into the study, we had preclinical data supporting the potential for LYT-200 in AML, whereas MDS is a more challenging setting to study preclinically. AML and MDS are both myeloid malignancies and are closely related. MDS can progress to AML and they share underlying disease biology. Because of this, it's common in early-stage oncology development to evaluate therapies across both populations within a single Phase I study to efficiently assess safety and initial activity. As a result, the trial was designed to generate the clinical data needed to inform indication prioritization. The data were strong in both MDS and AML. Advancing a potentially registrational enabling study requires significant capital and our clinical strategy has to intersect with our financing strategy. We seek to balance dilution for PureTech with ensuring that a founded entity is sufficiently capitalized to reach a meaningful value inflection point. As a result, it is important to prioritize where we believe we can create the greatest near- to medium-term value. If capital were unconstrained, we would consider advancing both MDS and AML in parallel. We decided to prioritize MDS given that it emerged as a particularly compelling opportunity. Historically, nothing has meaningfully moved the needle for patients with relapsed/refractory high-risk MDS following HMA failure. In fact, literature suggests that 0% to 5% of these patients respond if they're treated again with an HMA. Against this backdrop, the activity we observed in this study was particularly encouraging. The broader competitive landscape, both commercially and in terms of clinical trial patient recruitment are also compelling for MDS. There is only one approved drug, which is applicable to only 3% to 5% of the population. An efficacious drug with an excellent safety profile of the type observed in Phase I would have blockbuster potential. And the competitive pipeline is thread there, and therefore, there is less competition to recruit patients compared to AML. At the same time, we continue to believe LYT-200 has broader potential across other haematological malignancies, including AML, which we intend to explore over time. Consistent with this approach, Gallop intends to pursue third-party capital to support a potentially registration-enabling trial in MDS with the majority expected to come from external investors. Our objective is to ensure the program is sufficiently funded to reach a meaningful value inflection point while maintaining discipline around dilution for PureTech. The next step is interacting with the FDA later this year. In parallel, we are actively generating the next set of programs that will form the basis for future founded entities. Historically, many of our programs and PureTech's greatest successes have come from identifying therapies with validated pharmacology and addressing the specific issues that limited their potential. Our founded entities, Karuna Therapeutics, Seaport Therapeutics and Celea Therapeutics all exemplified the approach. Going forward, innovation will focus on validated pharmacology. We have refined and formalized this approach over the last few decades into what we call the light model, launching innovation from existing pharmacology. As shown on this slide, the life model is a systematic framework for identifying areas of high unmet need, selecting drugs with demonstrated human efficacy, understanding what has constrained their full potential and designing targeted solutions to fully unlock their value. We then conduct focused pillar experiments with rigorous predefined success criteria established in advance of data readout to ensure this process remains highly capital efficient. In addition, any solution must support strong intellectual property and be attractive to both physicians and payers. Importantly, this approach allows us to innovate with greater speed, lower technical risk and significantly greater capital efficiency than traditional de novo drug discovery. Using this approach, we expect to focus primarily on small molecules while remaining open to traditional biologics such as antibodies where the opportunity is compelling. While we consider opportunities across a range of therapeutic areas, we anticipate an emphasis on areas of traditional strength such as CNS. Looking ahead, we aim to progress up to three concept stage pharma programs with modest capital deployment. We define a concept stage program as a therapeutic opportunity that has passed initial internal diligence and is continuing to be derisked. We are currently progressing several promising programs to a concept stage process with the goal of nominating up to two development candidates over the next three years that could serve as the basis for future funded entities. Innovation has historically been the foundation of value creation of PureTech. We're excited about leveraging the best approaches we have learned and applying them to develop new therapies that have the potential to help patients and create value for our shareholders. Now I'll turn it back to Rob.

Thanks, Eric. We are indeed very excited about the potential with Gallop and the work of the innovation team in progressing the next wave of founded entities. Now I'd like to go over our financial highlights. At the PureTech level, we ended 2025 with cash, cash equivalents and short-term instruments of $277.1 million compared to $366.8 million at the end of 2024. On a consolidated basis, our cash, cash equivalents and short-term investments were $277.3 million at the end of '25 compared to $367.3 million at the end of '24. At the PureTech level, as of March 31, '26, we held unaudited cash and cash equivalents of $248.1 million. On a consolidated basis, our cash and cash equivalents were $248.2 million. Based on our existing financial assets as of December 31, '25, we expect to have operational runway at least through the end of 2028, which is inclusive of our expected participation in certain and fundraisings. Our revenues are mostly driven by milestone-based payments and royalties from license agreements and are expected to continue to fluctuate from year-to-year. On a consolidated basis, our revenues in '25 were $4.7 million compared to $4.8 million in 2024. We reported a lower operating loss of $98.5 million in 2025 compared with $136.1 million in 2024. This decrease is largely due to lower G&A expense as a result of the deconsolidation of Seaport in 2024, which reduced workforce-related costs, including payroll and noncash stock-based compensation expenses and new stock awards granted to founders, directors, employees and executives of Seaport in 2024 prior to its deconsolidation. Decrease is also attributed to lower R&D expenses in 2025, mainly as a result of the deconsolidation of Seaport in 2024. On a consolidated basis, we reported a net loss of $110.1 million for 2025 compared to net income of $27.8 million for 2024. The change primarily due to the absence of $151.8 million onetime gain from the Seaport deconsolidation, which was recognized in 2024. By excluding that item, we saw improvement in operating costs in both G&A and R&D, as mentioned above. Looking ahead, we expect to streamline expenses and operate the lean model following the completion of the SLA fundraise in line with our refined strategy. This measured approach allows us to protect our balance sheet and preserve capital flexibility to fund opportunities with asymmetric value potential. In summary, I am pleased with the operational and clinical progress we are making at PureTech and across our founded entities. At the same time, we remain focused on execution. In 2026, our priorities include advancing SLA and Gallop, both operationally and financially, driving value from our founded entities opportunistically and progressing our innovation engine towards new candidate nominations. We believe our refined strategy positions us well to do so with greater focus, discipline and capital efficiency. In closing, I'd like to thank the various stakeholders who make PureTech what it is today, including our team, shareholders and the broader clinical community who are vital to the important work we do. It's a privilege to lead PureTech at this important moment. We have a differentiated model, a strong foundation and meaningful opportunities ahead, and we remain firmly focused on translating that potential into sustained progress and value creation. I'll now turn to the operator to take questions.

[Operator Instructions] Our first question comes from Miles Dixon from Peel Hunt.

Forgive me if some of the questions go over topics that you've already talked about, my line dropped a few times. But can I just double check on cash, firstly, I mean, it's a change in the guidance from into 2028 to the end of 2028. Can I just double check on two important points. Firstly, this is at least until the end of 2028, subject to further realization and that it's inclusive of any participation, I know as you said, in entity fundraising, but also specifically for Celea, where the trial cost might be slightly higher? That's the first one.

Myles, thanks for joining. Yes, no, absolutely. As you say, it's at least through 2028, and that reflects the conservative approach that we take to cash runway. So as you say, we don't factor in any realizations into that cash guidance, and we are assuming commitments into SLA and also support for Gallop as well in that runway guidance.

Brilliant. And then moving on to LYT-100 and Celea. I mean, obviously, the IPF landscape continues to evolve and heat up, suggesting more and more people are looking at it. But -- and clearly, your data today is great, but how are talks progressing with the funding partners? You said you've used the word substantially complete. But can you give us anything on the profile of this potential partner in the endeavor? Or in the earlier comments that we've just made about cash, I'm assuming that the majority of the kind of liability is going to be settled by the partner in this. If you can just give a bit more color, that would be really helpful.

Yes, absolutely. So as we're updating today, we've made very substantial progress on this fundraise. Obviously, these things are never done until they're done, and there are various things that need to fall into place before we'll be able to announce any completion of the fundraising. However, we've made very substantial progress now, and we have a clear line of sight to getting this done. As you've indicated, Myles, we are looking to raise a very significant amount of capital in this raise, but the majority of that capital is very much coming from external partners, and that is reflecting our model of leveraging external capital whilst providing the commitments that we need in order to maintain meaningful equity stakes in these founded entities.

Great. And now just moving on to the other exciting bit of clinical data news Gallop Oncology. Eric, I think I caught you talking about the selection of MDS versus AML. And I very much understand that it was about capital. But could I also ask whether there's any read across from trials, whether it be TIBSOVO and this label extension when you were thinking about potential patient cohort size? And should we make any read across from that? I think it was 170-patient expansion from AML into MDS for TIBSOVO.

Yes. Myles, thanks for the question. We're prioritizing MDS because of the very compelling clinical data. And really, as you indicated, there's really only the one drug approved in the relapsed/refractory population, which is TIBSOVO. And TIBSOVO because it's appropriate for patients with a specific mutation, that's really why it's limited to that 3% to 5% of the relapsed/refractory population. And that really creates a tremendous need. And if you look more generally with regards to the pipeline and what exists and what's being developed, it's really thread there. And what that means is that a drug that if it is approved in the relapsed/refractory high-risk MDS population has blockbuster potential. It also means from a clinical trial perspective that there's less competition for patients when it comes to recruiting. So the decision with regard to prioritization was driven by the very compelling clinical data we had, but also the other factors that I was describing.

Great. And then lastly for me before I get back in the queue on Seaport, obviously, some more progress currently being made. Robert, can I just ask, I mean, obviously, the S-1 registration document suggested that you have, I think it was 42% or 43% versus the original 35% that was disclosed. Will you guys be thinking about taking a board seat post any IPO? And I mean, again, you talked about the 3% to 5% tiered royalties that you would have. Is that on all Glyph products on that potential platform or just those in the existing pipeline? Any color that you can give me on those topics would be great.

Absolutely, Miles. Obviously, we're limited in what we can say at the moment about Seaport given that they're on file for IPO in the U.S. But it is our general practice with founded entities that we don't take board seats once they IPO. And that is a general approach that we've taken in the past and we would expect to be taking going forward. It's also the case that we do have royalties beyond just the GLP application in terms of the economics that we have there from -- and again, that stems from the -- obviously, the developmental work that was done at PureTech around that technology.

We will now move on to our written questions. Our first question is, are you keen to hold a significant stake in Seaport beyond future funding rounds?

It's a great question because it really goes to the heart of our hub-and-spoke model. We -- obviously, because as indicated just with the Gallop platform, because we undertake developmental work on these programs internally at PureTech at the hub level, we typically start out with 100% ownership of our founded entities. What that means is as we leverage external capital, we often retain very large equity stakes in our founded entities even once they've raised large amounts of capital. So very often, you'll see that even through private rounds and even potential public fundraisings, we typically may end up even at that stage still being the largest individual shareholder. So why do we end up in that situation? Well, look, for us, it has two benefits. One is to PureTech. It means we don't have to keep writing ever-increasing checks to hold our corner and to maintain a significant equity percentage. instead at the PureTech level, we can allocate that cash to other programs, typically earlier-stage innovation, where we will often see the potential for a higher return on capital than we would in investing in later-stage rounds of our founded entity fundraisings as well as capital allocation within PureTech and aiming to increase our overall financial returns, it also allows the founded entities to diversify their shareholder registers. This is vital if they're going to raise external capital, particularly if they do ever want to IPO, that would not be practical in a situation where PureTech was the 100% shareholder of the business. So we see that dilution as beneficial both to PureTech and to the founded entities, but also it's allied with the nondilutive economics, which we retain in founded entities, which obviously are unaffected by the equity dilution that we may see.

Our next question comes from Christian McGlenny from Stifel.

I just follow up then on the -- around the new asset formation, the concept stage. Just a bit more around that. I mean, is this sort of ballpark figure in terms of how much it costs to do those sort of concept stage assets? And then just to clarify, were you talking about new candidates on the candidate side, 2 assets, was that over a 3-year period? Or was that 2 assets per year? And then just finally, therapeutic areas of focus here. I mean, you've got a pretty broad spread in terms of your existing portfolio. Is that likely to continue fairly agnostic on therapeutic area? Or do you see some areas where you think are particularly of interest for those sort of new concept assets?

Thanks for the questions, Christian. Look, just taking them in order, what we find so exciting about innovation is we can actually make really significant progress with pretty modest amounts of capital. So when we're doing very early derisking or proof-of-concept studies, we can make really great progress with 6-figure -- modest 7-figure amounts of investment. And maybe to one of the earlier questions that we just spoke to, you can give an idea then of the kind of return of capital that we can make on that kind of modest early capital deployment compared to later-stage investments in founded entities. So that's one of the reasons that we find innovation so exciting, both in terms of what we can do for patients, but also in terms of the financial returns that we can generate there. And just to your specific question, we're looking at two developmental candidates over a 3-year period in terms of the cadence going forward. In terms of sort of therapeutic areas and how we think about that, I might turn that over to Eric to answer that piece of the question.

Yes. A lot of our focus is really in areas where we've had historic success and strength. For example, central nervous system CNS is an area of great focus. There are other areas of interest, for instance, I&I. We do maintain a therapeutic area agnostic policy so that if we do see an opportunity that we want to pursue that's available to us -- but given that our approach is proactive, we do tend to concentrate in certain areas and again, particularly CNS being really one of the biggest areas of focus.

Our next question is, thank you for the transparency on the runway to 2028. It's good that you don't pencil in any credency realizations in this guidance. Can you clarify how this runway might be impacted from a more rationalized group post Celea finance completion? Also, what monies have you set aside for funding some of these financing rounds as well?

So as we indicated, we take a conservative approach in terms of our runway guidance. And so I'm quite right to identify that we don't have any commentary realizations. We also don't assume any other realizations from any founded entities that may come through. We are looking and in our assumptions, we are planning for some reduction in our cost base following the spinout of Celea. Once we get that spinout completed, we'll be looking to revisit that cost reduction and try and reduce that as far as possible to see if we can stretch that runway even further as well as not including any income from any monetizations. We have included participation in both the Celea fundraise, which as we've indicated, is now coming up to a place where we think we've got line of sight to completion in due course. We also are reserving more modest amounts for supporting Gallop oncology as well, which we've guided that we'll be looking to commence fundraising towards the end of this year, looking to try and complete a fundraise by the first quarter of next year. The exact amounts there are still to be determined because it's subject to commercial negotiations on the 2 fundraising structures. But it's in terms of guidance, we certainly expect a significant commitment into the Celea round given the scale of fundraising necessary there for a Phase III, and we would be considering a more modest commitment into Gallop. And obviously, as and when we're in a position to complete those financings, we'll be able to provide full detail on the capital commitment that PureTech will be making.

Our next question is, should we be ascribing any value or realizations from Silica, Vedanta, Sunday, Elvio or Integra?

Look, we're very proud of the innovation and work that went into these founded entities. However, in terms of helping shareholders understand where we see value in the business at the half year last year, we introduced the concept of legacy holdings, which is where we're now bucketing these founded entities. We are continuing to support those that have operations still where we think that we may still be able to extract some value. However, in terms of modeling guidance, we are guiding that we do not expect material financial returns from any of these assets. To the extent that changes, we'd obviously be delighted to update shareholders. But for modeling purposes, we don't ascribe material prospect of material inflows from these founded entities.

Our next question is, can you outline your thinking on capital allocation, specifically in terms of where potential capital return sits in terms of your updated priorities?

Certainly. So one of our focuses since we've been refining our strategy over the last 9 months or so has been to put an emphasis on capital returns. We recognize that ensuring that our shareholders participate in the scientific, but also most important, the financial success of PureTech is absolutely critical. This is one of the reasons why we've deliberately taken a cautious approach to our cash runway, ensuring that we are able to fund an ongoing business without relying on realizations coming into the business. Because of that, we will be looking to ensure that when we do have significant financial inflows into the company, which we've had in the past, and we see potential for again in the future, that we will be looking to return meaningful proportions of those inflows back to shareholders directly. The exact form of that return would need to be decided at the time, but it is our intention that those significant wins back into PureTech will result in financial flows back to shareholders directly.

Thank you. That's all we have time for today. I'd like to thank you all for joining, and you may now disconnect your lines.