Thank you, Vikram, and good afternoon, everyone. Thanks for joining us on our Second Quarter 2022 Earnings Call. Carl Hull, our Chairman and Chief Executive Officer; and Kevin Herde, our Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer. Our correct press release and the slides that accompany today’s call are posted on our website. If you look at the version of the press release that has our EBITDA margins at XX percent, please refresh your browser or go to our investor website at investors.maravai.com for financial information and quarterly results for the updated version. As you can see on Slide 2, Carl will first provide you with a business update, and Kevin will review the financial results and guidance. We’ll open the call up for your questions following the prepared remarks. On Slide 8, we remind you that the forward-looking statements that we make during the call, including those regarding our business goals and expectations for the financial performance of the company are subject to risks and uncertainties that may cause actions or results to differ. Additional information concerning these risk factors is included in the press release we issued today as well as those that are more fully described in our various filings with the SEC. Today’s comments reflect our current views, which could change as a result of new information, future events, or other factors, and the company does not obligate or commit itself to update these forward-looking statements, except as required by law. During the call, we’ll be using non-GAAP measurements of certain of our results and in providing guidance. Reconciliations of GAAP to non-GAAP financial measures are included in the press release that we issued this afternoon. The metrics will be discussed in today’s call, net income, adjusted EBITDA, income tax expense, and adjusted earnings per share. These adjusted financial measures should not be viewed as an alternative to GAAP measures that are intended to enable investors to benchmark our current results against historical performance and the performance of our peers. So I’ll now turn the call over to Carl.

Well, thank you, Deb, and good afternoon, everyone. We appreciate you joining us for our call today. Let me start with the fact that we had a great quarter. Our strong second quarter results completed a record first half of the year. Broad-based strength across the Nucleic Acid Production portfolio drove better-than-expected revenue, earnings, and cash flows. Let’s turn to our second quarter results in more detail on Slide 5. Today, we reported $243 million in total revenue for the quarter, growing 10% compared to the prior year. Our adjusted EBITDA of $188 million was up 15% over the prior year, and we reported a record 78% adjusted EBITDA margin for the quarter. That adjusted EBITDA performance led to an adjusted EPS of $0.54 per share for the quarter and adjusted free cash flows in the quarter of $175 million. On Slide 6, you’ll see our results on a 6-month basis. Revenue for the first half of the year was $487 million, up 33% compared to the prior year. Our base business, excluding COVID CleanCap revenue was 15%. This top-line growth resulted in adjusted EBITDA of $375 million for the 6-month period, which represents a 77% EBITDA margin. As you can see, 2022 is off to a very solid start. Turning to Slide 7. Growth across the Nucleic Acid Production segment is robust. Maravai’s offerings today address multiple modalities within mRNA therapies, genomic medicines, cell therapies, and other oligonucleotide therapies, where we see a strong pipeline and demand for our products. Our Nucleic Acid Production business had revenue of $225 million in the second quarter, up 17% year-over-year. Excluding COVID-19-related CleanCap revenue, our base nucleic acid business grew a healthy 21% year-over-year, demonstrating some we are experiencing enabling the non-COVID pipeline. We also have some good news to share on…

Thank you, Carl, and good afternoon, everyone. I’m happy to review our financial results for the second quarter and to discuss the components of our current guidance for the full year of 2022. Given that we present some of the financial highlights already, I will briefly cover some more details regarding the second quarter results, and then dive into our updated financial guidance for 2022. Starting on Slide 16. Beginning with the GAAP numbers. Our GAAP net income before the amount attributable to non-controlling interests, $150 million for the second quarter of 2022. This compares to $135 million for the second quarter of 2021. Income from operations was $181 million in the quarter from operating margin was 74% R&D spend in the quarter was $4 million, which compares to $1 million from Q2 2021, and as we continue to increase our R&D spend as a percentage of revenue at this quarter of the base business. Moving to Slide 17. Adjusted EBITDA GAAP measure was $188 million for Q2 2022, compared to $164 million for Q2 2021. This represents a 15% increase year-over-year. The net adjustments from GAAP EBITDA to adjusted EBITDA continue to be small with our adjusted EBITDA only $1 million or less than 1% of our reported GAAP EBITDA for the quarter. Adjusted EBITDA margin was a record 78% in Q2 2022, up from the 75% reported in Q2 2021 and slightly better than we had forecasted. There is still a favorable gross margins in the quarter. Turning to Slide 18. We present here basic EPS, diluted EPS, and adjusted fully diluted EPS. Basic EPS, our GAAP measures, and net income attributable to our Class A shares divided by the weighted average Class A share. Diluted EPS, also a GAAP measure with basic EPS. And to the extent…

Thanks, Kevin. To wrap up on Slide 24, we are playing in the right target markets with strong leadership positions and exceptional growth in our base business as we build our product portfolio in other high value. As Kevin said, our disciplined business and our strong cash position allow us to continue to invest in operations, facilities, and people to support the many exciting growth opportunities in our base Nucleic Acid and Biologic Safety Testing businesses, and innovate in ways that support our messenger RNA and cell and gene therapy customer’s rapidly evolving needs. I would now like to turn the call back over to Vikram to open the line for your questions.

Thank you very much, sir. First question from the line of Matt Larew with William Blair. Please go ahead.

Hi. This is Max on for Matt. Thanks for taking my questions. I appreciate the color on the 2023 COVID business. I was hoping you could go into a little bit more detail around how much exactly of that is already booked. How we should expect the cadence trend the year? And then any detail you can provide around the nature of those contracts, whether or not they’re still bigger pay?

Well, Max, our model, and our relations haven’t changed with our customers. The issue for all of us now is just there’s very little visibility into 2023 volumes, when it comes to the vaccines themselves and that cascades backward though the supply chain. So I can’t really comment on how much of that is booked right now, but is just to say that it’s the focus of all of our discussions with our customers.

Got it. Thank you, Carl. And I hate to go out even further in the future here, but you had mentioned that you expected COVID demand to get settled out in 2020. I’ll be curious to hear your take on whether or not you still think that’s the case. And then I recognize that it’s going to be difficult to say, but is there anything you can do around how you’re thinking about what the demand looks like long past 2023 and what that run rate kind of looks like as we move past next year?

Yeah. Well, look, if you look at this guidance, you’ll see that we’re saying roughly, we think next year will be a third to a half of what the volume was at its peak here in 2022. My personal view is I believe that the longer-term prospects are going to look similar to that. I really don’t see this kind of monotonically declining. And I think most people at the vaccine market have reached that same conclusion that there is a certain baseline and it’s probably going to be somewhere around where 2023 ends up. But – you just don’t know based on the number of variants and the number of vaccines that actually have to be made. And always remember that we focus on how many vaccines need to be manufactured not necessarily how many immunizations are actually delivered, right, in the people’s arms, there is a delta between those two.

Got it. Thank you for taking my questions.

You bet.

Thank you. We have a next question from the line of Matt Sykes with Goldman Sachs. Please go ahead.

Hi, Carl and Kevin. Thanks for taking my question.

Sure.

Maybe just to kind of shift gears a little bit. Just the commentary you made about the customer in China that had canceled the contract and they’re switching to GMP from RUO. I mean, we’ve heard similar things in the channel that people are using GMP earlier in the process. And obviously, with your Flanders facility, you’re going to be able to serve that capacity, but where do you feel you are today in terms of serving the potential GMP capacity that you’re forecasting, and do you assume that people are going to start using GMP earlier in the process and therefore, maybe would be additional CapEx requirements as you sort of transitioned not away from RUO, but just focus more on GMP going forward?

Super good question. I would say that, first of all, just to clarify, say that the customer was in China. I think Kevin was also talking about the China lockdowns and the same couple of sentences there. But this large customer had committed to an order for RUO material. And as they evaluated it with some changed partnerships on their side, they made the decision they immediately need a GMP, which they thought would be later in the program. So it’s exactly the example that you cited. And we think that’s occurring more often. I’d say the main driver of that is you’re getting more big pharma involved in earlier programs. And you’ve seen, of course, some of the announcements about partnerships and relationships around a candidate therapeutic. So as that happens, I think the big pharma mindset is very much one of eliminating any potential compliance early on, and that will drive them to G&P. I think we’re well positioned. The Flanders site is designed exactly to allow us to do this. And I think the capital investment that we have anticipated there and the support that we’ve got from the government will allow us to meet those demands, just unfortunately not as quick as this past quarter.

Okay. Got it. Thanks for that. And then just on M&A. Kevin discussed a little bit in terms of balancing inorganic with organic. But just given your balance sheet currently, given some of the valuations that have likely come down in certain areas, I guess, outside of MyChem there would have been more activity on the M&A side. Is there something in terms of valuation or ability to find the right companies or a timing aspect that might have held you back from M&A? And should we accelerate? Or is this just simply a case-by-case basis waiting for the right opportunity, which is probably what you’re going to say? So I should…

Thank you for answering your own questions. So, I mean, a little color here. It’s just that we are picky about what we look for, and we have certain expectations and aren’t always null . And while you’re right, valuations have clearly come down in the market. Management acceptance of those valuations may not be as quickly adjusted. How is that?

No. That’s fair. Thank you. And then one last question just on previously disclosed, and apologies if I missed it earlier in the call, as I joined late disclosed non-COVID that you’re involved with. Is there any update to that? And apologies again if you had disclosed this earlier in the call.

No. I don’t think there’s any update to it. What we said before, Kevin? 183 total programs and I’m looking for the split. I’ll tell you, well, we’ll come back to you on that. I have it here, but I just can’t seem to locate here right now.

Okay. I’ll follow up you later. Thanks very much. Thanks for taking my questions.

Sure. All right.

Carl, we had previously talked about 183 programs. That was about based on an in-depth market analysis that we did earlier in the year. It really hasn’t changed. We haven’t revisited that market analysis. So it’s not something we’re necessarily keeping an absolute rolling tally on what we visit it periodically, as we see changes of 183 MRI programs. But we’re not – again, that’s an internally derived metric that we work with our third parties on accumulating that at a point in time and are using that information to inform some other decisions.

Got it. Thank you.

Thank you. We have the next question from the line of Tejas Savant with Morgan Stanley. Please go ahead.

Hey, guys. Good evening. Carl, I appreciate the visibility on 2023 year, but when we think about that $200 million to $300 million COVID assumption, which by the way, at the midpoint sort of lands right on top of where we were. Is it fair to assume that we should be thinking sort of one booster dose per individual? Can you name some of the other assumptions embedded in the low versus the high end of that range in terms of perhaps vaccine uptake, applicable geographies, and market share?

Yeah. I mean, we were pretty thoughtful about the way that we’ve looked at it. So we didn’t just consider the number of vaccines potentially being made. We also looked at the rate of change from what we understood 2022 to be in the first half? And what that trajectory and projections by the various participants has been – of course, we’ve got an offset, because while we’re in the largest market share program that’s out there already and exposed to that trajectory downward, we’re also in a number of smaller programs that are still in clinical trials and coming up. So there’s a little bit of an offset in there as well. So we feel that this is kind of a triangulated number that we will be able to refine and it’s communicated as soon as we had completed the external work to generate.

Got it. That’s helpful. And then just continuing along those lines. I mean with COVID revenue expected to normalize and you’ve also got plans to move to these new facilities at Leland and Flanders. Carl, how should we think about sort of margin headwinds in 2023, perhaps as occupancy of those – or utilization of those facilities takes time to ramp?

Yes. Look, we’re not going to necessarily get into any more guidance on 2023 other than the COVID number at this stage. But from our perspective, the overall facilities burden we have here is not a huge cost. I mean it is very reasonable. We got these good times. They are long-term leases, long-term investments. So they’re spread out for a very long period of time. And we think certainly having the capability and the flexibility with our investments in these facilities is extremely important. So these are small molecule manufacturing lines, if you’re talking specifically about COVID, they can do and likely will do some other things, as the market changes in our mix of revenue away from some of the COVID-related CleanCap demand to some other items. So we’re putting in place the things we think we need to support this business over the mid- and long-term. And that’s certainly going to be something that is very important to us. And we’re not overly concerned necessarily today about the fixed cost structure. We think it’s necessary to have the capability and to be able to respond to the demand that we see shaping up over the next several years.

Got it. And then one follow-up for me. With the cost of capital rising, concerns around the recession, et cetera. Are you thinking of any sort of OpEx reduction efforts, perhaps cash conservation efforts here? And how do you think about your cell and gene therapy customer base at this point? Any elongation and purchase decisions, project delays, or cancellations that you guys are beginning to see out there?

Well, I’ll deal with the latter part, and I’ll let Kevin talk about the first part, Tejas. I think that are not seeing any pullback or diminution of the number of customers that we have who are working on this. As we’ve said before, we are well-funded in the 2020, 2021 time frame and quite well funded in some cases, as you all know. But I think that what we may be seeing is examples where a company that was trying to move by programs forward time maybe concentrates on four or three programs, and tries to move them forward to show some progress in their own conservatism and cash conservation, but they’re not abandoning the field by any stretch of the imagination and there’s still more and more entrants coming in. So that’s how I characterize what’s going on here. And, Kevin, about cash conservation.

Yeah. Nothing specific, Tejas. I mean, we’re always trying to make the best business decision for everything we look at. Certainly, as our revenue profile might change a little bit, we can manage that. We run into various shifts. We can manage the mix of our products through our attrition and hiring how we backfill and other things. So we’re pretty tight on how we manage labor, how we manage our expenses, obviously, given our historical margins and sort of the profitability of the company. But there’s no concerted effort right now to make any changes. We look investments we’re making. And again, we’re on the game here, and we feel able with our cost structure and the investments we’re making to address that a little well.

Got it. Thanks, guys.

Yeah. And with free cash flow of $175 million in the quarter, we’ve got a little bit of cushion.

Got it. I appreciate the time, guys. Thank you.

It’s my pleasure.

Thank you. We have the next question from the line of Paul Knight with KeyBanc. Please go ahead.

Hi, Carl, you had mentioned in the past of a growth rate ex-COVID, Pfizer of kind of in the 40s. How do you feel about that growth rate today?

I think you’re referring to, if you look at our core NAP business, I think we were up closer to that number prior to the revisions to our guidance this year, which I think brings that number of around 30%. Again, that’s specific to this year. I think what we’re seeing both this year with this updated guidance and seeing that base business grow 30% at the midpoint right here with some sensitivities on each side of that number is sort of the opportunity. And I think that that is what we’re seeing now. And I think with the capacity and capabilities, we’re increasing, albeit for a slightly different mix of business going into the future, that’s why we’re continuing to support and invest in that business, because the market work that we’re doing and the long-term growth and some of the statistics that Carl cited earlier in the prepared remarks underscore the need to support that type of growth rate.

Yes. But I would say, Paul, this is more choppy now as we’re getting bigger because we’re getting some very jobs and slight slippages from quarter-to-quarter can and do occur. So I think we’ll be a little bit tempered as we look at that and would just say, it’s probably going to make more sense to look at 6- and 9-month trends and is necessarily be to compare 3 months to 3 months.

Right. And then last, the $47 million approximately of ex-COVID that would include some of the MyChem transaction, right?

Yes. It would include some of that. We’re not separately breaking it out that that would roll into the non-COVID totals.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you. We have the next question from the line of Michael Ryskin with Bank of America. Please go ahead.

Great. Thanks for taking the question, guys. I’m going to follow-up a little bit on Paul’s last question, I think, we’re going to be getting at the same point. Could you talk a little bit more about the non-COVID Nucleic Acid Production component? You’re guiding to 30% now and the guide was more than 50% year-over-year in the first quarter. So a little bit more detail on 2Q in the fiscal year, you mentioned a little bit on China. I think you hinted a little bit of Russia. If you could go into more detail on what’s going on in that and then the non-COVID component of nucleic acid.

Yeah. Well, the major component in those changes and estimates has to do with, for example, not having a GMP capability online right now at a time when we have rather a large contribution from raw materials. So that’s one. The second is China and other Asia-Pacific effects have really been primarily in our Biologics Safety Testing business. That’s where they hit. So it is kind of when we talk about base business, because we talk about base business for multiple as a whole, and we also talk about base business from Nucleic Acid Production. So you have to kind of distinguish just two things. Kevin, do you want to clarify that any better?

Yeah. I think that’s right. As we talked about, the lowering at the midpoint was half of it was COVID-related, which I think we all under. And I think the remainder of roughly $20 million or so. The biggest part of it as Carl alluded to, was the raw material purchase a little here in the Biologics Safety Testing using us bringing that growth expected down a little for Europe for the reasons we cited. And then just again, just growing in, there’s a little bit of uncertainty from APAC region. There’s a lot of little smaller things out there that we just didn’t have the certainty to keeping our guidance for this year. Certainly, the potential upside things come through. But I would say there’s probably just a little uncertainty out of that region. And given the relatively small number and the fact that some of our orders can be pretty big and pretty choppy, as Carl alluded to, we want to make sure that we were adjusting guidance based on what we see today and can be confidence in delivering probably that.

Okay. All right. And then a follow-up on that and this is for the second half, I guess, and a little bit for 2023. You already discussed a little bit your COVID outlook for the second half of the year, COVID outlook for next year? And then also that nucleic acid production non-COVID, it looks like for the second half, you’re guiding to about 20% year-over-year. So, I guess, my question is, given what’s changed from one of you last spoke in May to stay some of these orders going away, some of the more uncertain. How do you read your outlook for the second half of the year? Is there for downside? Is this sort of a little bit of conservatism built in? Because – I’ll use COVID as an example, but you can apply this across the board. There’s a scenario, right, where COVID is a little more and where maybe some of those variant specific vaccines don’t come back in the fourth quarter. Is this something where both for COVID and non-COVID, do you feel like this is sort of debate and there’s only upside from here? Or is there a situation where 3 months from now, we’re having a little bit of a repeat conversation of this? Thanks.

Yeah. I think from my perspective, certainly, the number, I think that’s relatively derisked just the – of how our contracts work there and these things are delivered and already a lot of them manufactured are on POs and those sort of things. So I don’t see that ticking down within the calendar of fiscal 2022. Certainly, Nucleic Acid Production doesn’t have that larger percentage as the COVID number as far as being kind of guaranteed or locked in. So there’s certainly still some variability in there. But I think that when we go through our forecasting process every month in detail with our commercial team. We have sensitivities on both sides of our base forecast. This basically reflects our base assets we have it today as we always have and giving guidance, and we run kind of with one set of numbers, and that’s what we’re looking at. So there’s an inherent business risk, of course, there’s some inherent opportunity as well. But, I think, certainly on the COVID number, that’s pretty solid. And there’s probably a little bit more to get just on the nature of our business, but it’s certainly brought it down to a level that we feel comfortable in delivering at this stage.

And put it this way, Michael, for a couple of years now, we’re pretty conservative in how we guide.

Okay. All right. Thanks so much.

Yeah. You bet.

Thank you. We have next question from the line of Brandon Couillard with Jefferies. Please go ahead.

Hey, thanks. Good afternoon. Kevin, not sure you’re willing to comment, but I’ll take a flyer on this. What would the run rate EBITDA margins look like under a scenario where the COVID CleanCap revenues do drop down to a baseline of that, say, $200 million run rate?

Yeah. I would say about the first part of your question, we’re not going to go there for 2023. Look, I think if you look back at what Carl presented when you were talking about valuation and you look at that point in time, that 2020 year that we had there, we had $280 million revenues, $100 million in COVID CleanCap, and a 60% EBITDA margin, we’re going to be bigger than that. So I think we look at that as just an example of where we were with a lower level of CleanCap on COVID and non-COVID and where we will be going into 2023. So, I think, that just give to you a little bit of sense of this was a very profitable business prior to the spike in COVID-19 and will continue to be a very profitable and high margin business prospectively.

Got you. And second question, any chance you could put a dollar number around the customer order that was canceled? Just can you quantify that?

High signal-digit lines.

Great. Thank you.

Okay.

Thank you. We have the next question from the line of John Sourbeer with UBS. Please go ahead.

Great. Vikram, this will be our last question. John, go ahead.

Hi, thanks for taking the questions just maybe two here. One, just following up on what Tejas asked about cell and gene therapy slowdown. But, I guess, when you look at some of the non-COVID mRNA programs and just the funding environment, have you noticed any slowdown there? And are you willing to comment on the base nucleic acid business, how much is exposed to biotech?

Well, look, I think that we are not seeing a reduction in the number of customers or the outright cancellation of programs. As I think I mentioned there may be prioritization that’s going on within the smaller companies. But it’s also fair to say that our business ex-COVID consists of everybody from the largest pharma companies, all the way to virtual mRNA start-ups. So we’ve got a little bit of everything in there. But the bulk business and the revenues really come from programs that are advancing and for which they need greater and greater quantities of either mRNA or CleanCap or other components. So, I would, guess from a revenue point of view, the waiting probably tilts toward the larger biopharma, mid-to-large. And the number of program will till the other way with more customers that looks like they’re smaller. That would be my intuitive answer.

Thanks. And then, I guess, another one on the base business. When you think about the customer order patterns outside of the shifting to the GMP. But have you noticed any changes there, and maybe, if there is any stocking at all when you look through the second half?

I am sorry, the first part of the question, I said what?

I guess when you think about specific business nucleic acids, could you talk about customer order patterns there? And have you noticed any stocking within customers?

No. Not on the base side of the business, all that stuff was consumed pretty rapid programs specific and it may be sensitive. So that’s not the kind of stuff that you would stock up.

Got it. Thanks for taking the questions.

You bet.

Okay. Well, thank you, everyone. Go ahead, Vikram.

Yes. Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, we have reached to the end of the question-and-answer session. And I’d like to hand the call back over to Deb Hart for closing remarks. Over to you.

Well, thank you, Vikram, and thanks, everyone, for joining us today. We’ll be at a couple of conferences this quarter. So please check out our Events page. Apologies to anyone in the queue that we didn’t get to, feel free to call me with any questions, and we hope you have a great night. Thank you.