So as you know, our #1 priority is buying royalties. But we do think that with our stock at these levels, it’s returning some capital to shareholders through share repurchases is also a really attractive tool that we will certainly look at from time to time. Your second question on pre-IPO shareholders. Yes, on pre-IPO shareholders. So we did see a major shift in the shareholder base, over the last couple of years. We feel like that has mostly run it — actually, it’s really run its course at this point. So there’s not really much left that is really obvious to us. But that was definitely something that was a headwind for the business as we saw that transition, but we do feel like that’s largely run its course.
Marshall Urist: And then just quickly on your last question, Andrew. So the answer is no, we don’t think that there’s any kind of major material exposure there. The only caveat I would say is and we’ve discussed this before that we don’t always have perfect insight into the payer mix of some of our royalties. So, there is some lack of precision there. But as of right now, no, we don’t think there’s a material impact.
Operator: The next question comes from Umer Raffat with Evercore.
Michael DiFiore: This is Mike DiFiore in for Umer. Congrats on the progress this quarter. Two questions. One big picture, one on the pipeline. The big picture one dovetails on what was asked previously a little bit. I mean, clearly, Royalty Pharma has been pursuing less development stage deals since 2020 despite deploying increasingly greater capital. And my question is, are compelling or high-conviction Phase II, III opportunities becoming increasingly scarce despite a growing opportunity set? Or has there been a fundamental change in Royalty Pharma’s risk tolerance? Or could it be more macro or interest rate driven? And I have a follow-up.
Pablo Legorreta: Sure. Thank you. Marshall, do you want to take that question?
Marshall Urist: Sure, Mike. Thanks for the question. So overall, no, there’s no change in strategy or how we think about approved versus unapproved investments. We’ve shown from one of the slides in the prepared remarks about how it has really varied when you see approved and unapproved from year-to-year. We have seen greater levels of investment in approved products over the past couple of years. But I wouldn’t interpret that to say that’s a permanent sort of strategic positioning, as we’ve talked about in the past. It really is about finding the things that we are most excited about in any period of time. And so that’s what that looked like over the past couple of years. But I think we do think about the business and the strategy over many years at a time. And so I would continue to expect there to be some variance in approved and development stage investments from year-to-year like you’ve seen historically.
Michael DiFiore: Got it. Super helpful. And my product-specific question is on trontinemab from Roche. The CTAD data showed very little ARIA. And some folks out there think that Roche simply got lucky, given the notably high Cmax. My question is, what gives you confidence that ARIA rates will remain low and that this investment in trontinemab will remain competitive?
Marshall Urist: Sure, Mike. We were excited to see the trontinemab data. And I think we are looking forward to seeing more. As to your specific question on ARIA, very hard to generalize right now. I think given the technology, given the dynamics of how the drug is taken up into the brain. It’s probably very hard to compare it to historical data sets. And I think we’re just going to have to see how Roche moves it forward. But I do think at a high level, it really speaks to how we do build the portfolio and how it’s really nice to have things like trontinemab in the portfolio that do give us some option value and flexibility as that development moves forward.
Operator: The next question comes from Terence Flynn with Morgan Stanley.
Unidentified Analyst: This is Dan on for Terence. Just two from us. First, on the opportunity set, maybe can you talk a little more about the current state of the opportunity set for large pharma company partnerships? And any common themes that are coming up in those discussions. And then second, on the pipeline, can you maybe talk about what you’re hoping to see from the Tremfya versus Stelara head-to-head study in Crohn’s disease following recent data from [indiscernible].
Pablo Legorreta: Thank you, Dan. So Chris can answer the first question about the opportunities set and then Marshall will take the question on Stelara and Tremfya.
Christopher Hite: Sure. Thanks, Dan, for the question. Look, I think I probably referenced it a little bit my answer to one of the questions earlier, but we continue to see opportunities to invest with large pharma in their pipelines. That has not slowed down. I think there’s — in fact, there’s probably a growing interest amongst them to share risk and partner with us. For us, it’s really — we want to be very thoughtful and really pick the quality assets that they are most excited about. And that’s really keeping a very high bar for us. So we are seeing an increasing set of opportunities to help fund R&D. It’s just a question of making sure we choose the right asset and being very disciplined.
Marshall Urist: And on Tremfya, yes, thanks for bringing that up. This is one of our portfolio products. We are really excited about the growth has really been spectacular. And as we’ve discussed in the past, IBD as that gets into the label is going to drive another wave of growth. And as you point out, I think it’s pretty interesting to see the head-to-head studies that we’ve seen from other IL-23s and no reason to think Tremfya is not going to participate in that going forward. So I think we’re really excited about it. And again, Tremfya is exactly the type of product that we’re looking to add to the portfolio with incredible science, incredible benefit to patients, a super strong marketer in Johnson who can support the label development and run big head-to-head studies like that to continue to expand this marketplace. So we’re really excited to have that in the portfolio for years to come.
Operator: The next question comes from Jeff Meacham with Bank of America Securities.
Unidentified Analyst: This is Susan on for Jeff. Just a related question. So on the upcoming catalysts in the fourth quarter, when should we expect to see top line growth contributions if the catalysts are positive? And then just a follow-up on one of the products, [indiscernible]. If the primary endpoints are mixed as we saw with [indiscernible] are there any special economics we should be aware of? Is there any sort of optionality on continuing to add additional royalties or milestone payments?
Pablo Legorreta: Sure. Thank you for the question. Terry, do you want to take the question on growth and then Marshall, the second question.
