Bio-Techne at BofA Securities 2025: Strategic Growth Amid Challenges

On Tuesday, 13 May 2025, Bio-Techne (NASDAQ:TECH) presented its fiscal third-quarter results at the BofA Securities 2025 Healthcare Conference. The company reported a 6% revenue growth despite facing market volatility. While the Protein Sciences segment led with a 7% increase, the Diagnostics and Special segment experienced slower growth due to order timing issues. Despite these challenges, Bio-Techne maintained strong EBITDA margins of 34.9%, showcasing operational efficiency.

Key Takeaways

• Bio-Techne achieved a 6% revenue growth in fiscal Q3, led by the Protein Sciences segment.
• EBITDA margins stood at 34.9%, reflecting operational efficiencies.
• The company faces challenges from U.S. Academic funding and tariffs but is optimistic about long-term prospects.
• Biopharma, contributing 50% of revenues, saw large pharma outperform expectations, while biotech remained flat.
• Cell and gene therapy showed a trailing twelve-month growth rate of over 30%.

Financial Results

• Overall: Revenue growth of 6% in fiscal Q3, with strong EBITDA margins of 34.9%.
• Protein Sciences Segment: Achieved 7% revenue growth driven by core reagents and the Protein Simple franchise.
• Diagnostics and Special Segment: Recorded a 2% growth, impacted by timing issues with diagnostic reagents and controls.
• Biopharma: Accounts for 50% of revenues, with large pharma showing double-digit growth, while biotech was stable.

Operational Updates

• U.S. Academic Funding: 21% of revenues are from academic business globally, with 12% from the U.S. Despite budget uncertainties, the company remains optimistic.
• Tariff Mitigation: Bio-Techne aims to negate a potential $20 million tariff impact by shifting manufacturing locations.
• Cell and Gene Therapy: With 550 customers in the pipeline, the company is taking a deliberate approach to sector growth.
• Spatial Business: Continues to experience double-digit growth, supported by its competitive instrumentation and reagent pull-through.

Future Outlook

• Fiscal 4Q Guidance: Anticipates a moderation in large pharma growth to low to mid-single digits, with overall growth expected to align similarly.
• Fiscal Year 2026: The company hopes for market stability and a clearer recovery path amidst ongoing volatility.

Q&A Highlights

• Acquisitions: M&A remains a high priority, with a focus on assets that can grow double digits and achieve over 30% margins.
• Academic Spend: Spending has normalized since February, with no reported laboratory layoffs.
• China Tariff Reduction: A 10% tariff reduction is beneficial, though the company remains prepared to manage exposure.

Readers are encouraged to refer to the full transcript for a detailed understanding of Bio-Techne’s strategic direction and financial performance.

Full transcript - BofA Securities 2025 Healthcare Conference:

Michael, Analyst: Fireside Chat. I’m joined by Kim Kelderman, Chief Executive Officer and Jim Hipple, Chief Financial Officer. Gentlemen, thanks for being here. Thanks for having us. Format is going to be a fireside chat, and then we’ll open up to the audience.

If there’s any questions, just raise your hand and we can squeeze you in as well. I guess just to kick things off, you reported fiscal 3Q results recently, solid results, especially considering some of the macro headwinds and macro uncertainty. We’re going spend a lot of time talking about that, but maybe you can just give us some highlights from the quarter, just sort of how it played out relative to expectations. Where were you a little bit able to exceed expectations? Where you saw a little bit more headwinds?

Kim Kelderman, Chief Executive Officer: Yes. Thanks for the question, Michael. And of course, thanks for acknowledging that it was a very solid quarter considering the volatility in the market. Yes, 6% growth. We were quite pleased with that.

We have the largest part of the company in Protein Sciences segment, actually ran at 7% growth, and really what drove the results, top and bottom line, which was very broad based. And we’re very pleased to see that our core reagents, which is still over half of the company, did really well. And our instrumentation related to detecting and analyzing proteins, the protein simple franchise, did also really nice. That’s the second quarter in the Back in the Black, which we really applaud. And then last but not least, cell and gene therapy has continued to be a driver and also boosted the results.

We jump to the other segment, the Diagnostics and Special segment. Their growth was a little muted, 2%, boosted by the continued growth of the Epi, the prostate cancer test, as well as by the other diagnostic side. The more volatile corner where we saw some timing of orders, not really end markets related, but timing of orders related was the diagnostic reagents and controls. I think some timing issues as well as the assuring kits that go into laboratory also related to timing issues. We did our homework there.

So we’re quite pleased that we know it’s not a market related issue and or a competitive issue, but your timing. And that put that segment at 2% growth and overall 6%. Something the team should be very proud of as well is the bottom line, 34.9% EBITDA margins in these conditions. I applaud the efficiencies we continue to show, of course, very deliberate inefficiencies around our operational footprint. And combined the top line growth with these efficiencies, we were quite pleased how that rolled out.

Michael, Analyst: Okay. Want to next, want to touch on some of the specific headwinds we’ve all been focused on in the market. First, let’s talk about U. S. Academic, U.

S. A and G. Can you remind us sort of what your exposure is here, what you’ve seen as calendar first quarter fiscal 3Q played out, sort of how April has gone for you?

Kim Kelderman, Chief Executive Officer: Yes. So academic globally for biotechnology, twenty one percent of our revenues come from academic business. 12% is related to U. S. Academic.

We believe that half of that or so is exposed to NIH funding, partially or fully. And then we do less than 1% of our revenue is direct business with NIH. So that scopes kind of the revenue exposure. Yes, February, when this got announced, of course, these end markets specifically got very nervous and didn’t fully understand what it all means. And I think they still don’t fully understand what it all means.

That’s all to be settled. One thing is certain is that there will be more clarity around these uncertainties. But there’s definitely a stalling for a little bit. Fortunately, we saw a more normalized activity a month later in March. And we are happy to see things, at least as it comes to new brands, etcetera, are back up and rolling.

We clearly saw that our consumables actually, which is fortunately the largest part of our company, right, 80% of our business is related to consumables, we held relatively steady, and it was really the equipment that took a the majority of the hit when it comes to activity. And that’s fortunately not only related to us. We saw that also from our peers. And it’s something that obviously, if you hear that your budgets are not certain and your grants are not certain, that’s the first thing that you hold back on. We are actually still very positive about the end markets, maybe not short short, but short mid- long term just because we as I mentioned, our product portfolio mix of 80% of consumables, we feel it’s less volatile there.

And then we also feel that the use of proceeds of the grants are the rhetoric has it that they are more focused away from the pandemic and resource related to the pandemic, the vaccinations, etcetera, and going more into chronic diseases, neurology, immunology and oncology, which are actually research fields that are much better aligned with our product portfolio and our usage of our instrumentation. So we feel that the use of proceeds, even though they could come down, with them going more into the fields that are aligned with our product portfolio, we feel that there could be a positive move to our results. And we saw the opposite, by the way, over the last couple of years, where funding was obviously very focused on research in infectious diseases, and there were significant increases, and we were still growing mid single digits because we were not the benefactor of it,

Michael, Analyst: and we feel that the other way around would definitely see a little bit. Okay. What should we keep in mind as far as forward indicators of how the end market is going to do? There’s a lot of indirect funds and indirect cost caps. There’s a question on fiscal year twenty six budget.

You know, the president’s put out his his initial proposal. Now, we have to wait for congress. You talked about shifting funds priorities within USA and G sort of how do we monitor that and try to get a forward indicator of

Jim Hipple, Chief Financial Officer: of how that can play out.

Kim Kelderman, Chief Executive Officer: I’m not sure if you have an opinion on that.

Jim Hipple, Chief Financial Officer: Yeah. Yeah. I mean, it’s just it’s really just getting more and more certainty around how that does point out, right? I I I I think our view is that if we got out earlier today, when is the other shoe going to drop an academic and my joke was there’s no more shoes to wear. They’ve all dropped, Right?

So I think all the possible worst case scenarios and bad news that’s out there just played out into, the tariff thing. That’s kind of how the strategy’s been with the administration is put the worst case thing out there and then negotiate your way back. There’s still even a lot of uncertainty around the 4040% of what? Is that just the indirect cost saving? You’ve heard that that’s the intention.

It’s not really meant to intent intended to impact direct spending. So I think you gotta step back and say, rationally, are the likely outcomes here? And we’ve heard from our own customers that the indirect cap is probably the biggest issue, although not as big as, you know, as so the impact from every university different. We’ve heard some customers that they were shocked to hear that some universities got the cap rates they got because they never saw that. It was really it’s kinda crazy how it was done historically.

It was all just individually negotiated. And so whatever political clout you had, it would depend on how much your your university got. A lot of this money also goes to general funds, which general funds could be spent on anything. So, you know, at the same time, we’ve also heard from our customers that a 15% camp is probably on the on the on the stringent side and they probably wouldn’t need to do some cuts and direct funding to help cover for that. It’s like everything else.

The truth is somewhere in the middle in terms of where a win win would play out and I think there’s still a lot of opportunity for that win win to happen and congress hasn’t gotten their hands on this and let’s remember, you know, it wasn’t that long ago in the first Trump administration, he proposed 20% cuts and the congress that was was before, you know, that they’re to buy a bipartisan but it was still controlled by the Hakim party for a couple of years or two of the years came back with very solid interest. I think, you know, it’s it’s you you got to kind of see the forest for the trees all this. I think at the end of the day when that settles, it’ll be fine. But in the meantime, in the very near term, as I mentioned, it does cause distraction, if nothing else, more academic customer base, and if they’re distracted by work, thinking how they’re going to write their next grant or where that may come from, they’re not at the bench doing the current work. And so that’s what we have to work through in

Michael, Analyst: the very near term. Yes. You mentioned earlier when you’re talking about performance in the first quarter and A and G, sort of the differentiation between consumables and instrumentation. When we think about the consumable side of things from a customer spending perspective, I think probably one of the better indicators is just absolute headcount. Scientists at the lab, if you’re at the lab, you can’t not be ordering reagents and consumables, you’ve to do something.

So what have you seen there in terms of, you know, hiring freezes, maybe actual reductions in force on some academic labs? Is there anything there that makes you concerned about forward momentum?

Jim Hipple, Chief Financial Officer: I I often I’ve I’ve seen reported on up in our customers are telling us, okay, you know, we all saw the headlines around this first hit February around universities postponing and renew and renew students for for PhD programs, etcetera. But that was right out of the gate in the very early stages of this, and I we haven’t heard any feedback that that’s continued. I think, you know, so but that’s the short answer that we haven’t heard that that’s the case or not. We definitely haven’t heard about some sort of lab like that running off people in academic at this point. And I think it’d be very premature for them to do so because it’s like they don’t have the money now.

They’re worried about maybe the money twelve months from now where the next grant’s coming from. And and to to to take those kind of drastic actions when it’s still so much uncertainty where this all plays out, I think it’s and for most for most of our customers, they wouldn’t be wise to do that anyway. Okay.

Michael, Analyst: I want to talk about the other big policy issue which is tariffs. Give us an update on your tariff exposure mitigation efforts, and especially in light of the news yesterday of China tariff reductions of 3010%.

Kim Kelderman, Chief Executive Officer: Yes. The new news is obviously welcome. But even before that, over the last couple of weeks, we’ve talked about our exposure. If we would do nothing, we would be exposed by $20,000,000 or so, if it comes to cost and tariffs. But fortunately, we had very the luxury of having a nice global footprint that we can utilize to lift some manufacturing from A to B and with that, reduce the number of cross border shipments and with that, reduce the tariffs.

And we had line of sight to do those shifts within months. We have line of sight to do it in months. It might not be as necessary anymore, but we think it’s still prudent to some of those projects in case things go backwards. And with that, negate almost, and I’m talking hundreds of thousands of dollars off from the negate almost all the 20,000,000 within the quarter, so that we would have a fresh start without that cloud of tariffs hanging over us for the fiscal year 2026. Now most of our products are being produced in The U.

S. So our highest exposure was really instruments that we produce in The U. S. That would go into China. For that reason, we have several locations that build our instruments, not all models, but we would have swapped some of those models around and negated relatively easily.

And that might now be less of a savior because things resolved itself, is welcome for the industry and we applaud. Yes, so for us, really what we did over the last couple of months is assess it, make sure that we plan for the worst and be ready for things to get better. That’s exactly what happened. And I’m really proud of the fact that management had really precisely dedicated certain groups of people with limited exposure for the whole company to this tariff stuff, right? Because the one risk you really have is that your whole company is suddenly working on tariffs.

And I’ve certainly chatted with peers where that seems to be the case. I want to make sure that we have real clean teams that have all the authority and know how to make a dent and negate these things, but ring fence it so that the rest of the company is still innovating, still making sure that we launch products and send high quality products and selling and helping our customers going through this nervousness. And I think we did a good job on it.

Michael, Analyst: Okay. I mean, you talked about the mitigating steps you’re doing and potentially scaling back on them. Are any of them sort of we’re going to move ahead no matter what, or are there areas where it’s relatively quick and easy to say, you know what, at 30% versus a 45%, it doesn’t make as much sense to to implement that.

Kim Kelderman, Chief Executive Officer: Yeah. So we

Michael, Analyst: Or So it’s ten one point five.

Jim Hipple, Chief Financial Officer: It’s ten ten Yeah.

Kim Kelderman, Chief Executive Officer: We’re going to make that distinction. It will be 10% going into China. Yes. I mean, the NPV of these projects goes down drastically. But then again, I was mentioning that the how big of a workload it is, is also very small, and that’s why we could do it on such short term.

And therefore, I think since we started lifting, we’ll just finish the lift. We internally didn’t even look at how much it cost and how much distraction it is because it was just so limited. And we figured those are we told them internally what are the hiccups. Nobody got moved. We’ll execute on those.

Michael, Analyst: Okay. And then the other topic I want to touch on before we go into specific products is just biopharma overall, your biggest exposure there. What did you see in the third quarter? How do you expect the rest of

Kim Kelderman, Chief Executive Officer: the year to play out? Any changes there? Yes. Biopharma is 50% of our revenues, right? So with large pharma, 30% and biotech, 20% of that.

As you might remember, when we guided for the year, we did our soft guidance thinking that our first quarter would be relatively flat to the fourth quarter of last year. But then we would slowly see biotech stepping it up, and we would see China getting back into the black, and we would see at the end of the year, our year, which is more or less right now, we would see pharma kicking in. And that was a real good logical approach to the year, and that almost came out like that. But a couple of changes if it comes to timing and which were the real drivers. I think pharma, large pharma really surprised us to the upside.

It was stronger earlier than we thought. So it was already in our Q2. It was at the end of the calendar year last year. It was we saw some traction. And then our Q3 and our Q4 I’m not talking about Q4 yet.

Our Q3 certainly saw a huge tailwind from pharma being in double digits, right? And so that was really good. The biotech, though, was relatively flattish, And that’s very much in line with how we all look at funding levels, and we saw that funding levels have not been extremely strong in biotech, very much related to capital markets, right, and appetite to invest in newer ventures. So they struggled a little bit more, and we saw that in our results with kind of flattish results in that end market. But in aggregate, it was more or less how we expected it.

We’ll talk about our Q4 forecast a little bit later. So I won’t go into that part. But obviously, those two dynamics will are going to play an important role in our Q4 results. Okay. All right.

And the China component as well as the academic component we just talked about, China component was supposed to come back in the black, but basically was on track to do that in Q1, but it took a step back to negative mid single digits this last quarter and more or less in line with the overall sentiment. So we saw that there was a little bit of stimulus, but not a whole lot. We know that there’s a housing or a real estate market crisis. We know that there’s unemployment is relatively high and that consumer sentiment in China is lower. And I think that, that is not going to change significantly in the upcoming quarter.

So that would be basically flattish in our assumptions. However, this newer deal could spark activity levels, right? We don’t know how fast and to what extent, but that could be a positive jolt to the local economy.

Michael, Analyst: Okay. You’re talking about the change in the Let’s talk a little bit about some of the various product segments. The core portfolio of research reagents, antibodies, assays, proteins. There’s been a decent amount of consolidation in that space over the last couple of years, over the last two, three, five years.

That changed the industry dynamic a little bit? How do you feel like you’re positioned relative to some of these more consolidated vendors?

Kim Kelderman, Chief Executive Officer: Yes. It changed the dynamics probably because it used to be many, many small and some midsized players, and now obviously several of the very successful assets became part of larger global companies. And obviously, well won companies and they will do really well. But we focus on what we are famous for, and that’s having a tremendous portfolio of choice after forty nine years of being at it. And then combine that with a very high quality and consistency of these reagents and there with a good reputation.

Very important is also that we have a sales force that is highly technical and can help customers pick the right stuff very quickly. And that’s how we’ve competed in the past. We have always outperformed by a couple of percent in the competition, and we have continued to do so. There is more visibility now for us in some of the disclosures as to how we do and how others are doing. And we’re actually quite happy to see that we continue to outperform.

So even though the dynamics might have changed, our formula is still effective.

Michael, Analyst: Okay. Got about 10 left. If there’s any questions from the audience, feel free to jump in. Otherwise, we’ll keep going. I want to ask about cell and gene therapy, especially GMP reagents, big part of that business.

Sort of what’s the split of your exposure there between cell and gene? And can you talk

Jim Hipple, Chief Financial Officer: about how Q3 played out relative

Michael, Analyst: to your expectations, what you’re seeing in that end market?

Kim Kelderman, Chief Executive Officer: So the expectations for that market, we mentioned basically quarter by quarter just because the percentages were fluctuating so significantly. We had 40%, sixty % and a 90% quarter, I think. And we always went back and said like this, and we want to talk about trading twelve months because it’s just very volatile, and that’s inherent to having some larger accounts. So if you think about it, we have five fifty or so customers in the pipeline. Of that, 85 are in clinical studies, and of that, six are in Phase III.

And in Phase III, obviously, the volumes are exponential compared to the other phases, so that means the orders related to those getting through those phases are much bigger, and that means timing becomes an influence. And this quarter was mid- to high single digits, and that puts us at a trailing twelve months of little over 30%. And that’s where we kind of expected it, where we also guided throughout the year that people should we have guardrails of between twenty and forty. Well, 30 sits nicely in the middle, and that’s where we’re currently sitting. Okay.

Michael, Analyst: There’s been a lot of noise from a policy perspective here in terms of new political appointments within FDA, HHS. Obviously, still very recent, but has that changed in your conversations with the customers or has that changed their sentiment or their appetite to invest in these cell and gene therapies?

Kim Kelderman, Chief Executive Officer: Yes, there’s several of them, so I can go one by one. I think in cell and gene therapy, the nice side of the conversations are that nobody is questioning that the new therapies are groundbreaking. They are just going to enable to cure diseases that we’ve in the past not even been able to or to treat, right? So there’s no discussion on whether this is a very promising field. The discussion is how stringent you should be and how high the hurdles, the regulatory hurdles should be before you can go to market with them.

I think that’s a good discussion, because at the end of the day, yes, we make money in all the clinical stages, and of course, if a drug then goes commercial, we would make money there, too. Probably in larger volumes, so that’s all good, but sometimes a drug doesn’t make it. The most important part is that you don’t want a great opportunity like cell and gene therapy enter the market too quickly and then have a negative blowback, where the drug doesn’t do what it’s supposed to do, or you have fallout or a recall, and that would set the whole industry back. So we were actually much aligned with take it at a good pace, have a good pipeline, make the right diseases, and we want to play in all of them. And we will make money along the line, and as long there’s no big equals or missteps, as you saw fifty years ago with small molecules and things going horribly wrong, right?

And at some point people start doubting is that actually the right way to go. We don’t want that in cell and gene therapy, so that’s pretty much aligned. If you hear the FDA appointment and you think about the drive towards using organoids more than animal models, that is very much aligned with our philosophy already. Like you saw earlier this year, we separated a business from fetal bovine serum because we didn’t believe that animal derived products are going to be long term beneficial for us. And we have a fantastic portfolio of a whole menu of ingredients to help customers build their organoids.

And this would just wind in the sails of that bet we’ve made over the last five to ten years to build a whole portfolio around organoids. We were big believers in it. And then last but not least, what was the third one? Think it might be the drive of NIH towards chronic diseases. Those were the three kind of announcements with new directions when it comes to So three of those we so far we like.

Okay.

Michael, Analyst: I want to talk a little bit about the spatial business. Can you give us an update on how that’s fared? Where are you most focused? Where do you see some of opportunities going forward? Is that matures a

Kim Kelderman, Chief Executive Officer: little bit? In a spatial business, basically, can separate it in a couple of components. At the end of the day, it’s we’re going to make this offering in a full workflow, but we have a very competitive instrument that is doing really well in the market and still we talked about in the earnings call, still hit the double digit growth in spite of the turbulence that we had last quarter that we saw last quarter. And so very competitive, fully automated, multi omics, high plex. It’s just a state of the art instrument in the industry, and we’re very proud of that.

Now what is really cool is that it uses the different reagents, right? So you want to look at RNA or mRNA, you want to look at your proteins, and this system can do both in the same slide, and even protein protein interactions. And that is very unique, but in the meantime, that means it pulls through all the RNA reagents we have, and we have 70,000 different probes, and that’s $110,000,000 or so in run rate in reagents. So it’s the largest reagent portfolio in the spatial industry. And then secondly, we have fantastic antibodies, and we now have completed more than 50 that will be run on this spatial instrument.

So we like that the instrument is very competitive and it will pull through all of our reagents that and that’s exactly the model that we were aiming for. Okay.

Michael, Analyst: We got a couple of minutes left. I I want to hit on a couple of topics. You you mentioned oh, we got a question. Yep. Yep.

Unidentified speaker: Can everyone hear me? Okay. Yeah. You’ve made a lot of of acquisitions over time, your last one being in spatial. Do you think you’ll continue that trend?

And what areas do you think it will be in to kind of add

Kim Kelderman, Chief Executive Officer: on? M and A is definitely something that is has our highest priority if it comes to allocating our capital. So yes, spatial was the last one. That was the instrument I just talked about. So that definitely had this symbiotic model that we tend to have where, yes, we buy an instrument or a disposable that pulls through our reagents because we have really high quality, high margin reagents, so that makes the model very viable.

It is high on the priority list. Expectations when it comes to value were somewhat out of whack in our minds, so we stayed very disciplined. We wanted to make sure that there is a return on investment at a certain point, a return on capital and that there is potential that whatever asset we acquire has potential to grow double digits and hit margins over 30%, so that eventually is not dilutive to the company. And that’s what we hold in high regards, and we will continue to aim for that. Right now, even though the turbulence and inconsistency in the end markets are unsettling, but they are working towards more reasonable price expectations.

So it’s been really busy in the last nine months or so. We’ve landscaped, we looked at all the specific targets. We, of course, maintained relationships. We’ve looked at several acquisitions that would have been nice but out of whack from expectations. So now we feel that things are coming closer to being able to take place, and then it will be a good deal for both, right?

So sometimes it’s a good deal for a seller. But if a buyer overpays, then it’s painful for a while as well. And I think we’re entering an environment where you could have win win.

Michael, Analyst: Got maybe one or two minutes left. I want to throw in a couple of last questions altogether. Maybe talk about fiscal 4Q earlier and sort of your expectations going for that. Could you walk us through that? And then I’ll bridge that to a fiscal year ’twenty six question.

Just how do you approach setting guidance in an environment like today? You know, so much volatility, so much changes on a day to day basis. How’s that going to impact your, you know, thinking ahead in the

Jim Hipple, Chief Financial Officer: next twelve months? Well, at a very high level in terms of Q4, the things you know is we’re still in the midst of uncertainty even though there’s positive, there’s positive uncertainties and then negative followed by negative and then probably positive. But at the end of we’re still in period of uncertainty. And when there’s uncertainty, there’s there’s distraction regardless. That being said, you know, we saw our academic run rates level out in March and we kind of expect that continue in April.

So, basically, the same kind of relative performance we’re expecting in Q four. Same goes for for biotech and as Ken mentioned, we think biotech is right now being psychologically if nothing else impacted by the concerns around the the greater capital markets. So, you know, the announcement for a couple of days around the easing of China tariffs may help that which would be welcome but nonetheless, we would have seen that that level of large growth rate will continue for small biotech. Same for China, kind of the same the same there but I think China’s also been influenced by the macroeconomic situation around tariffs. So who knows?

It could be some upside there and maybe we’ll turn the corner there the quarter and next we’ll see. But for now, we’d assume the same kind of global performance. So the only difference really is large pharma, right? So large pharma will carry the day for us in Q3 at double digit growth. And now with the most recent activity here in April and into May around and still yet to come, we think, with regard the large pharma and impacts of whether it be tariffs or most favored nation.

No one really knows yet what that neutral positive or negative, but it’s definitely uncertain if nothing else. And so we still saw growth in our pharma in April, but it was definitely a lower growth rate, which made sense to me. So we basically got that lower growth rate growth into our Q4 forecast, which could shift down to a more low to mid single digit overall growth rate. So that’s kind of high level of thinking behind the current quarter. And all I can say about fiscal year twenty twenty six is I’m glad I have another quarter to wait on that one yet because how is it different from where we were a year ago when we thought a year ago we’d sit in rather uncertain times, but yet not nearly as the recovery and the pace of recovery was uncertain, but the here and now was it was more stable, right?

We were already well under the thick of the biopharma revamping their pipeline in response to IRA. We were seeing uptrends in biotech funding. We heard about stimulus coming in China in the back half of our fiscal year. So we saw a pathway to recovery. And that pathway, as Kim talked about, was more or less right on track up until the January when the early bombs started to fall, but we didn’t see a fourth coming nine months ago.

And right now, we’re not in any kind of real stable at all. We’re still very unknown how how this all plays out. So, I I’m just hoping that three months from now, things are more stable. It’s nice to start building a constructive case for what the what the recovery looks like and that we can do something similar. You know, it gives the kind of

Michael, Analyst: guidance we gave last year for next year. Got it. Okay, that’s fair. Alright, with that, we’re out of time. Thank you everyone for joining us.

Thank you. You.

This article was generated with the support of AI and reviewed by an editor. For more information see our T&C.