Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for standing-by. Welcome to the Charles River Laboratories First Quarter 2015 Earnings Call. At this time, all participants are in a listen-only mode. Later, we will conduct a question-and-answer session. Instructions will be given at that time. (Operator Instructions). As a reminder, this conference is being recorded. I would now like to turn the conference over to our Corporate Vice President of Investor Relations Susan Hardy. Please go ahead.

Thank you. Good morning and welcome to Charles River Laboratories first quarter 2015 earnings conference call and webcast. This morning, Jim Foster, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer; and Tom Ackerman, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer will comment on our first quarter results and update guidance for 2015. Following the presentation, we will respond to questions. There is a slide presentation associated with today's remarks which is posted on the Investor Relations section of our website at ir.criver.com. A replay of this call will be available beginning at noon today and can be accessed by calling 800-475-6701. The international access number is 320-365-3844. The access code in either case is 357368. The replay will be available through May 14th. You may also access an archived version of the webcast on our Investor Relations website. I'd like to remind you of our Safe Harbor. Any remarks that we may make about future expectations, plans and prospects for the Company constitute forward-looking statements for purposes of the Safe Harbor Provisions under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Actual results may differ materially from those indicated by any forward-looking statements as a result of various important factors, including, but not limited to those discussed in our annual report on Form 10-K, which was filed on February 17, 2015, as well as other filings we make with the Securities and Exchange Commission. During this call, we will be primarily discussing results from continuing operations and non-GAAP financial measures. We believe that these non-GAAP financial measures help investors to gain a meaningful understanding of our core operating results and future prospects, consistent with the manner in which management measures and forecasts the company's performance. 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 to those GAAP measures on the Investor Relations section of our website, through the Financial Information link. Jim, please go ahead.

Good morning. I'd like to begin by providing a summary of our first quarter results before commenting on our business prospects. We reported revenue of $320.4 million in the first quarter of 2015, a 12.8% increase over the previous year in constant dollars. Our early discovery acquisitions contributed 8% to first quarter revenue growth and from an organic perspective the Safety Assessment and EMD businesses were the primary contributors. Sales to mid-tier biotechnology clients again generated a double-digit revenue increase as robust funding enabled these clients to continue to invest in their pipeline and they chose to partner with us because of our broad early stage drug research portfolio and extensive scientific expertise. The operating margin declined 80 basis points year-over-year to 16.2%. The DSA segment reported a significant 600 basis points increase in this operating margin, but the improvement was offset by margin declines in RMS and Manufacturing as well as higher corporate costs. As you know because of our high fixed cost base, lower sales volume has a disproportionate impact on the operating margin which is amply demonstrated in the first quarter. In addition we have undertaken efficiency initiatives like the facility consolidation of Japan which have yet to yield cost reduction. We recognize costs of these initiatives in the first quarter but don't expect to gain the benefits of the second quarter of this year. Earnings per share were $0.79 in the first quarter, a decrease of 3.7% from $0.82 in the first quarter of 2014. The year-over-year decline was due in part for lower RMS revenue and the negative impact of foreign exchange, but the largest factor was the gains from limited partnership investment. Gains were only $0.02 per share in the first quarter this year compared to $0.08 in the first quarter of 2014. Despite…

Thank you Jim, and good morning. Before I recap our first quarter financial performance and outlook for the remainder of the year, let me remind you that I'll be speaking primarily to non-GAAP results from continuing operations. We experienced a slower than anticipate start to the year based on a number of factors that effected our operating results, including foreign exchange. We believe the slow start for few of our business was stringent and remain on track to achieve our EPS guidance for the year. I will now provide additional information on foreign exchange, operating margins and the limited partnership investment gains, each of which had a significant impact on our first quarter results as well as our outlook for the year. Foreign exchange was the most significant headwind affecting our 2015 guidance and has become a larger headwind since we provided guidance in mid-February, due to the continued strengthening of the U.S dollar. FX reduced revenue growth by 5.8% in the first quarter, which was slightly higher than we previously anticipated and reduced EPS by $0.03. For the full year, based on current rates, FX is now expected to reduce revenue by approximately 5.5% of the last year, and EPS by an incremental $0.05 for a total of $0.17 per share in 2015. Foreign exchange has also become an increasingly relevant factor with regard to our EMD business. We have expanded our global EMD business rapidly over the last decade. The international expansion, coupled with the fact that EMD business manufactures products in the U.S. and distributes them globally with the resulting sales recorded in the local currencies has intensified the manufacturing segment's exposure to foreign exchange. The continued strengthening of the U.S dollar caused a meaningful revenue and operating margin headwind in 2015, which drove almost half of…

That concludes our comments the operator will take your questions now.

(Operator Instructions) And our first question will go to John Kreger with William Blair. Please go ahead.

On the models business, are you seeing any change in a competitive pricing dynamics, given some of the recent consolidation there?

I would say not. Everybody is getting price. But we're seeing 2% or 3%. Everybody typically raises price although we don’t all do at the same time. I think on a price list basis, our competitors actually raised their prices slightly higher than we did. But one never knows how that’s going to hit the market from a discounted basis. It's really different for different trend and models for different competitors. But I would say that everyone has raised prices and god knows increase prices meaningfully.

Tom, does the guidance assume an improvement in the models business in Europe and Japan? Or are you assuming more of the same for the rest of the year?

It includes a modest increase in the overseas markets.

And it also includes an improvement in earnings in Japan because we get the benefit of consolidation of facilities in the second quarter. So we've already done it but the cost benefit begins to accrue to us then. So you're going to see the margin begin to move back up in that business total.

And one last one, as you try to bring on some additional capacity for safety assessment, if and when you decide to bring on -- open up some of Shrewsberry, can that also be done in a way that does not impact margin significantly for that segment?

We still have a team studying Shrewsberry and interfacing with clients in particular in the Cambridge and Boston life sciences hub, to get their demand quotient. I would say that our initial thinking continues to that we will open a portion of that facility principally for non-GLP work, so in-vivo pharmacology and pharmacokinetics things like that, hire the staff, get them trained up to do that work, we’re quite confident we will be to do with the little over no drag at all to operating margin. And of course we can use literally the same space and the same people, trained slightly differently to do GLP tox work. So we should be able to liaise into that relatively in the not too distant future although we'd to validate equipment and stuff. So we wouldn’t will be able to do that overnight. So unlike the way we did it the first time, which is opening in very large, very expensive facility, we have no intentions of doing that again. When we do, we’re going to gradually do it.

And we will go to line of Tycho Peterson with JPMorgan. Please go ahead.

Jim, you commented that the selling cycle is getting a little bit longer for the integrated drug programs. We've heard similar comments from some of the other CROs. Can you maybe just talk about start delays, whether some of the starts are kind of getting pushed off? And as the integrated drug programs are becoming a little bit more complex, how was the pricing discussion evolving?

I wouldn't say that they're getting pushed off. Clients really enthused with the prospect that we can take them literally from target IDs through IND filing. They are really enthused with the reality that we can hopefully find them a target with an integrated program which takes a few years and a few million dollars. We’re still working really hard to just even get the word out there that we do this now, and who is this Argenta and BioFocus, and can they really do what we say they can. So you don’t have to meet our senior scientist and we have talked through the pricing and the timeframe and what we actually deliver and what we have historically done for other clients. I think we’re doing that really well. I've had a lot of the conversations myself with R&D heads from almost all the major pharma companies and many of the largest biotech companies and they're all quite interested. They have different levels of potential engagement. So I would say it's more just working through the details and the complexities, making sure that we’re able to do what they want to do. And when we say it's taking longer, it just a little bit longer than we had anticipated, but I don't think anything has changed and I think that their former technology, or the technology of Argenta and BioFocus is a part of our portfolio. It's much more powerful sale and conversation with the clients, and of course now we have the connectivity between that Early Discovery work and the non-GLP work, and then hopefully eventually the tox work. So yes, we’re still quite enthused with the prospect.

And then can you comment little a bit more in the weakness in GEMS? I know you have also talked about investments in that business in [indiscernible] and some of these other technologies. But what’s driving the weakness right now?

A couple of things. As we indicated, we have one really large client who rather quickly reduced their colony sizes. It has nothing to do with us, has nothing to do with anything except the utility of those models or the work that they were doing and this particular client moves really quicker. We've tried to talk to you about that in the third quarter. And what we have started to talk about is that we think that this is beginning of scientific change in a way the business is operated, there are really robust technologies, which we have the license for to create models, more models more quickly than a multi-genetic knockout. And we think that the breeding work associated with that will be lots of shorter term contracts with some churn as supposed to kind of these long-term contracts where clients were trying to figure out the utility of the model. The utility of these models now have will be much better because of the strength of the generic mapping and translation benefits that they will give clients. So we’re actually really excited about it. I was actually in a conversation yesterday with some of the world's leading oncology experts and I was really pleased listening them talk about how important GEMS models are to their research, and the fact that they get increasingly better, because this is so exquisite industry from a generic point of view and that’s actually getting really good information that’s extrapolatable to cancer patients. So in some ways we're more enthused with the future of the business, that just like so many of our businesses, kind of hard to look at in the quarter to quarter basis.

Okay, last one on pricing. It was good to hear about the 5% increase in the quarter for DSA. Are you willing to take a look at shot at where you think pricing could end up for the year for DSA?

I think that’s probably not really a good idea. We're really pleased that we're seeing exactly what we thought. So that capacity is selling. So clients are more eager to get their work in the queue. We have a really good mix of specialty versus general tox. It's really, really complex studies that are requiring some change orders while they're actually in progress, and with the light of it, our operating margin is already better than our goal. Pricing is still materially lower than it was at the high point kind of in 2007 and 2008. So I would just say that directionally we do think we'll get more price. We do think that all of those factors that I just indicated, including and particularly mix will continue to be enhanced. And we're pretty excited about the growth rate and the margin contribution of this business, which was obviously very challenging for four years or so. And we worked really hard to get it to this point and that’s gratifying to be here now.

And we'll go to the line of David Windley with Jefferies. Please go ahead.

John kind of asked one part of my question, which was around Shrewsberry? And I guess combining Tycho and John's questions together, Jim, could you comment on the work, the rooms that you're bringing on in Sherbrooke and Ohio that you commented on? And given what appears to be pretty good growth in DSA, I presume GLP driving at least part of that, will these rooms that you're bringing on last you as you had previously signaled to us? And on Shrewsberry, what do you think is your trigger? What gets you comfortable enough to authorize spending on Shrewsberry to really move toward opening that and out of just an evaluation period?

That was a great question. So our Ohio facility I would say is a particularly efficient compared to some of our other sites, pretty low cost operation, does really good work, and we built very creative and very flexible new building that we actually stopped. We were 80% completed and over the last few years we've began to finish it a few rungs at a time, which I think was a thoughtful way to do it, because we knew we had the envelope. So getting the run time was pretty straight forward. So we love that site. We have lot of really large and solid clients there. We liked the growth rate and that will help us to launch for '15 and that site will be beneficial to accommodate work right to release some meaningful portion of '16. Sherbrooke operation is a satellite operations that we've build and scratch for the month that we acquired and we did in the rest of 2004. Also very I think creatively built facility, slightly lower cost than the core Montreal facility and built for flexibility. And so what we're doing now is creatively adding additional space in the footprint that we have. But the building was built to grow a 100,000 feet tranche at a time with the current HVAC infrastructure. So we'll be able to sort of push that facility out -- push the walls out and add to it relatively quickly. So we're thinking of that both short term and longer term to accommodate growth for this year and beyond. I would also just remind you that we have some opportunities in Edinboro, and what we call the fallow states in Reno. So I think you've probably been there but its space that the shell is done, the HVAC is there.…

Thank you for that answer. If I could switch to RMS and asked just ask one question there? I apologize if I missed it. But I know you had FX drag there. Clearly volume must have also been down and then pricing was up, as you said, 2% to 3%. Is the volume environment in the RMS business actually softening more? I guess we’re thinking -- I'm thinking that Europe and Japan should be coming around on a lag to the North American recovery and models. And so kind of looking for that to stabilize or cycle back up eventually. But I'm wondering if the volume here in the first quarter actually softened even more.

I would not say the volume is softening for us, and we have to be a little bit careful with talking about units as you know because different strange and species have totally different ASP. So while there is an overall unit decline principally in Europe and Japan because of continued facility reduction, there is some continued facility reduction in the States by the way. As you said, we are getting price. We’re seeing pretty good sales of our progress to CROs and mid-tier. And so we we'd love the CRO portion because even work we don't get, we actually get a piece it by supplying them the animals. So we like that. As we pointed in the prepared remarks, we are seeing continued increase in immunodeficiency animals which have really ASPs and in inbreds, which have higher ASPs as well. So the mix is directionally a positive one. The unit decline is totally predictable and logical and absolutely related to capacity, with the primary supplier of all these big R&D sites, many of which have closed in the last few years, probably a few more would close. I know great stage but it doesn't look like we’re going to have any lag around the mergers. I think that’s how we goes well, sort of the additional massive reduction, and we'll see about that also. So at some point Europe and Japan will stabilize. Again we still get pricing there and we're still competitively priced, strong, though it's not about us. It's about those markets and as we've always seen, they absolutely lag the U.S. So I'm not surprised by that either. So David, it feels a little bit worse as I think probably to you and maybe others than it is because of the margin in the first quarter but as we pointed out, that margin will improve back up to the high-20s throughout the year. We’re going to get the benefit of a Japan consolidation. We’re going to continue to get the benefit of pricing and hopefully some share in the academic marketplace to mid-tier. So we feel it's good about the research business as we can, given the fact that this sort of multiyear decline in units, we feel that we’re holding our own.

We will go to line of Eric Coldwell with Robert W. Baird. Please go ahead.

First question, and I'm sorry if I missed this, you normally provide a breakout between research models, products and services in terms of revenue. I may have just missed it. But could you possibly give us those numbers?

So you didn't miss it Eric. We've been thinking about this a lot, and the termination of the NCI contract crystallized this whole thing for us and we are finding ourselves saying well the North American research model business is up, but a lot of that has to do the NCI contract, and then we kind of stopped ourselves and said, well, yes, that’s kind of the same business and we’re still producing and selling those animals, cancer researches around the world. We're actually selling more of them than we thought that we would. Isn't that the research model business well? Yes As is the GEMS business, as is the rads business, as is the [indiscernible] business, as we currently do it. So we’re going to report that sector as one sector and start nuancing the details that we think it's more confusing than elsewhere.

Okay, and at risk of sounding frustrated on some of these smaller businesses that perhaps the Street pays less attention to or understands less well because of their size and limited public coverage, you do have some businesses like GEMS and biologics testing, in sourcing et cetera that to be fair, I really can't remember the last time you had a consistent year of performance in some of these businesses. And I guess the question really is just as you sit back and think about your portfolio, you've been moving to more integrated selling in sort of a soup to nuts model with clients, but are there any businesses that you look at in your portfolio where you ask yourself whether instead of investing more, perhaps you should invest less and perhaps exit because of the lack of a consistent market dynamic or consistent performance and how much it influences the overall Company when some of these higher fixed costs businesses go the wrong direction?

Certainly a fair and thoughtful question, Eric. I would say that we continuously, management on its own and with the board periodically often look at the portfolio, the value of the portfolio, whether we're getting returns on our investment, whether we like long show along from growth metrics, how we feel about the competitive scenario and margin contribution and whether we have things that are a distraction to our core strategy. So all I can tell you is that it is a continuing process, if and when and as we have businesses that we don’t think are core any longer, and shouldn’t be part of portfolio and our dispassion, we'll think about whether they should remain in the portfolio? I guess the inverse is that the fact that we have what we have would be supporting commentary to the fact that we like the portfolio a lot right now and if you look at things like biologics, which had some variability in it. But if you look at the power, you obviously understand this really well, that the power of these large molecules and how many are getting to market and what this portion versus small molecules, that just has to be a better long term and more consistent business for instance. The in sourcing solutions business, it's falling a little more slowly than we would have liked. And of course we have these government contracts in it, which makes it lumpier. But as clients reduce infrastructure or have no infrastructure or want to reduce headcount, we potentially provide a really good solution for them. So I think a lot of this is timing, kind of the way safety assessment has been and was now looks like it is and type of discovery has starting that way. As the drug industry utilizes external resources better, I think that some of the lumpier businesses, many of which are services by the way, I think we'll have more consistent yield for them.

We'll go to line of Jeff Bailin with Credit Suisse. Please go ahead.

If I could talk a little bit about the RMS margins, typically we see seasonally that those moderate in the second half of the year, but it sounds as though you're confident in the annual margins in the high 20% range. So are you suggesting that you think that maybe some of the efficiency initiatives and the consolidation in Japan should maybe help the Company buck that typical historical pattern?

That would be part of the answer as well as I think trends will be modestly better in a couple of our businesses. But the efficiencies will play into that as well. So that’s it. You got anything else Jim?

We think that a couple of the businesses that are problematic will get progressively better throughout the year. And we are confident with the sort of recent order activity and [indiscernible] and first quarter is been a little unpredictable in the core annual business. I'd say over the last few years needs to be categorically a stronger quarter than -- January has been a little bit funky. So second quarter tends to be a nice quarter for us. So there are several types of pieces to that segment. We think that Europe and Japan kind of continuously get better. And so we do remain confident subject to the predictable historical summer [indiscernible] bid of holidays at the end of the year. But in specific year-over-year drag, we feel pretty good about it.

Thanks for all that color, and just a quick follow-up for Tom. Obviously the DSA margins were quite strong. But are you able to help us qualify how much the Canadian dollar might have impacted the margins in that segment this quarter?

I'd have to double back on that. The Canadian currency does provide a benefit to us in the cost. We didn’t break out that separately. So let me double back and we'll see if can get that to you.

We'll go to line of Ross Muken with Evercore. Please go ahead.

So you guys have done a great job the last few years with tuck-ins. You're anniversarying some over the next quarter. The balance sheet's still in great shape. Tuck-ins are still a priority. Give us a sense of what the pipeline looks like and how you're thinking about, based on where the business is trending in the various developments, where you're thinking about potentially adding capabilities or the like.

I would say that our M&A pipeline is unusually strong. We have a host of businesses, I would say principally service related. Many of them upstream early when the drug molecules that discovered. We also have some opportunities, but I'm not going to get too specific, but we have opportunities with regard to certain of our other services businesses sites, certain of our other high growth businesses to add to those, both in terms of scale and depth and perhaps geographic diversity. So we’re in the midst of several serious conversations right now, and we always have to fall short of predicting what if anything we'll own by the end of year because due diligence often uncovers surprises, and/or we can't get to a price increment. But I would say that we’re in a particularly strong position to acquire these companies. There is some competition for these deals but not as much as you would think. We have a lot of our competition that's private equity and venture owned to unnecessary [indiscernible] to those assets. So we’re quite optimistic. As we said before we’re quite interested in building a larger more scientifically powerful discovery business because one of the ways that we tease the work out, particularly from big pharma clients, which have really great scientific capabilities where they say wow, that’s great, we don't have to own at ourselves if Charles River does. Obviously it's easier with biotech who often has limitations on how many people they will hire and of course we have lots of relationships with venture firms who have virtual companies. So I don't think we've seen M&A pipeline ever this good. I actually you can get better because we’re just working it better than we used to. We have a much more clear view of what we would buy and add and it could do for us.

We will go line of Ricky Goldwasser with Morgan Stanley. Please go ahead.

I have a couple of follow-up questions. The first one is on the margin expansion in DSA. So obviously a very strong operating margin. And you're getting very close to your long-term target of low 20s for the segment. So can you just talk a little bit about how you see that expansion? Do you think there's an upside to your target?

I am just pausing because we’re always reluctant to raise those targets, it's taken so long to get here. Yes, I would say that all and including the discovery business, which has lower margin as we've disclosed a few times, we’re essentially at 20% right now. Capacity is getting full but totally slow, pricing is still quite low. So yes, I would directionally there is some margin opportunity. I probably would stop short at this time of calling where it could get. Obviously will drive margin as effectively as we can. We obviously think that we should be paid more for this study, comprising of now where we wanted to be. And I think our competitive stature is longer than it ever has been. Also I do think that clients, and if you look at the biotech industry, you have got -- you have really good -- a lot of companies that have become real operating companies now and people are really interested in speed to market and not really interested in waiting very long to initiate their studies. So I do think that the timeframe will be little bit frustrating to the clients, and a little bit beneficial to us in terms of get some more price. So yes, I think directionally we should be able to get more margin. No I don't think we’re ready to call that yet, and we want to continue to live it and have that be a consistent reality for us. Because it's really taken us a long time to get here but we’re obviously delighted that we've had two quarters with double-digit growth rates with escalating operating margins and better capacity utilization.

Okay, and then one follow-up on the safety assessment business. Obviously it's been three or four months since the LabCorp Corvins [ph] deal closed. Are you seeing any changes in industry dynamics, or any benefit for your book of business from that?

We have. We had -- before that deal closed, we had specific expressed comments from clients saying not comfortable with the deal, don’t really understand it, makes us nervous, integration rift, blah, blah, blah and we got some work from that definitely. And we started probably in the fourth quarter and to some extent the first. I would say as a more general proposition, we’re absolutely [indiscernible] to hear many of our competitors, many of whom are potentially for sale, but I think that’s makes people nervous. And not that we're going to have all the business obviously. We still have very good competition who are credible. But we have a stable corporate business model. We owe this for the long term, and by nature of our structure, unlike for competition, we have a longer term solution. So yes I would say that the potential dislocation disruption in the marketplace from our competition has helped us get more shares.

Next we'll go to line of Doug Schenkel with Cowen and Company. Please go ahead.

This is Adam Wieschhaus on for Doug. My first question was on RMS. You mentioned RMS revenue was strong in China. Can you talk about some strategies you have to drive more revenue growth in China outside of research models? For example Vital River, I believe provided you with an initial footprint in that large China market. Have you had a chance to speak with those customers to see how leverageable that relationship is in broadening to different products and services?

We're focused principally I would say on the research model parts. So Vital River is a research model business. We do have a small and obviously potentially much larger GEMS business and diagnostic testing business which are part and parcel of the research model business. For us the goal is going to be continue to expand our geography as research moves. We're in Beijing. I think we lot of clients in Shanghai that I think having Shanghai presence is going to be essential. And then moving beyond that as well, because there are obviously lots of large cities with lower cost structures in China, where research is increasing. There's a lot of money going into Biotech as you know there. So we want to be clearly the premier player, for sure scientifically but principally from a sales point of view there. As you may recall, we had a safety assessment business in China that we built. Nobody came and we closed. But we will be very reluctant to go back into China with safety assessment unless there's overwhelming solid demand. We had a so much work in the U.S and Europe that – and the quality of the work is so far superior to China that we're neither concerned about competition from there, nor are we interested in going there. I would say that China potentially is a place that we would consider in vitro or in vivo biology, maybe chemistry. But it's not clear how we would best do that. But yes, from early discovery work is possible, but I would say that we are principally focused on RMS right now in China.

That is very helpful. My second question. You mentioned CRISPR in your prepared remarks. I know it might be too early, but have you had -- or have you experienced a lot of customer interest in that technology? And could that technology potentially improve efficiencies in the RMS segment as the model of creation there would ostensibly be much shorter than a more traditional method?

It's clearly much faster, much better, much more beneficial technology. It's picking up speed. And as I've said earlier we do think we are over time -- not immediately but overtime change how the GEMS business is done; change the ability for us and other creating models quickly, better models, more context models more quickly and to get better translational information for our clients. So yes, I think it's going to be very helpful to researchers around the world and it's clearly a technology that the vast majority of researchers has embraced and acknowledged that’s utility and quality.

And we'll go to line of Rafael Tejada. Please go ahead.

Just quickly on Argenta BioFocus, we were looking for a little bit more contribution during the quarter. Can you just talk about the growth trajectory? How it's looking. To start the year and any potential seasonality that's involved at the beginning of the year?

Those businesses are performing accordingly to our operating plan. I'm not sure we know enough about the seasonality yet. But typically they can have a later in the year. They are stronger later in the year than some of our other businesses. So I think that is more predictable. That business is somewhat impacted by our ability to garner larger integrated deals, early in the year or all throughout the year and those are a bit unpredictable as well. But we are quite confident with our ability to use that portfolio to get Argenta and BioFocus services directly, to engage them directly with our pharma bio tech clients, but also to engage them on an integrated basis with those clients as part of a larger offering, including our safety assessment business. So the dialogue and feedback and the business response, in terms of new businesses are really quite gratifying.

Just one other question. It's for final bio similar guidelines were recently issued. Can you just remind us of any potential benefit from biosimilars?

I think it's still little bit murky in terms of what that will mean and what that will yield, but since -- it now looks like that those drugs will get to market. There's obviously some opportunity to continue do some testing with regard to those. B, it will of course probably greater activity in innovation side companies whose drugs have rolled out pad and now there are competitive biosimilars. So they have to invest more into discovery platform. So yes, that should be beneficial for us, a little bit higher to quantify that late breaking news. And we'll see how many others follow and how quickly?

Thank you. And at this time there is no more time for questions. Please close.

Thank you for joining us this morning. We look forward to seeing at the upcoming Baird and Deutsche Bank and Jefferies conferences in May and June. This concludes the conference call. Thank you.