Bruker at TD Cowen Conference: Strategic Growth in Healthcare

On Wednesday, March 5, 2025, Bruker Corporation (NASDAQ: BRKR) took center stage at the TD Cowen 45th Annual Healthcare Conference. CEO Frank Laukeen outlined the company’s strong fourth-quarter performance and strategic initiatives, despite challenges such as potential NIH funding cuts. While emphasizing margin expansion and growth in key sectors, Laukeen also highlighted the company’s resilience and diverse business segments.

Key Takeaways

• Bruker reported 3.9% organic growth in Q4, surpassing expectations.
• The company aims for over 20% operating margin, with a focus on biopharma and Chinese stimulus.
• Bruker anticipates 5% to 7% growth at constant exchange rates in 2025.
• NIH funding cuts could impact US academic spending, but Bruker is prepared to offset this through other growth areas.
• CEO Laukeen remains optimistic about long-term value and growth prospects.

Financial Results

• Q4 2024 Performance:

- Organic growth reached 3.9%.

• 2025 Guidance:

- Expecting 5% to 7% growth at constant exchange rates.

- Anticipated organic growth of 3% to 4%.

- Margin expansion of 140 basis points from a 15.4% base in 2024.

- Projected EPS growth of 11% to 13%, or 14% to 16% without currency headwinds.

• China Stimulus:

- $15 million in bookings from China’s stimulus in the last half of 2024.

Operational Updates

• NIH Uncertainty:

- Bruker is modeling an 8% reduction in US academic spending due to NIH funding cuts.

- Worst-case scenario could see growth reduced to 3% to 5% at constant exchange rates.

• Biopharma Expansion:

- Increasing exposure to biopharma with expected growth by 2026.

• China Stimulus Program:

- Focus on proteomics, glycoproteomics, and spatial biology, with projects ranging from $10 million to $100 million.

• Advanced Packaging Metrology:

- Bruker leads in advanced packaging metrology tools.

• Market Growth:

- Market recovery expected, with mid-single-digit growth by 2026.

Future Outlook

• Margin Expansion:

- Targeting over 20% operating margin.

• Growth Drivers:

- Key areas include biopharma, semi, diagnostics, and Chinese stimulus.

• Product Innovation:

- New releases such as TimSOMNI for protein isoforms.

• US Academic Funding:

- Anticipate turbulence for a couple of quarters.

Q&A Highlights

• NIH Funding:

- New paradigm expected with a maximum overhead charge.

• China Stimulus:

- Orders to be spread over multiple quarters, focusing on leading-edge products.

For a detailed account of Bruker’s strategic plans and financial outlook, refer to the full conference call transcript below.

Full transcript - TD Cowen 45th Annual Healthcare Conference:

Dan Brennan, Tools and DX Analyst, TD Cowen: Terrific Listen. Thank you for being here, day three of the TD Cowen Global Healthcare Conference. I’m Dan Brennan. I’m the Tools and DX Analyst. Really pleased to be joined with me on stage here, Frank Laukeen, who’s the CEO of Bruker.

So Frank, welcome.

Frank Laukeen, CEO, Bruker: Thank you very much for having us. Thank you for your interest.

Dan Brennan, Tools and DX Analyst, TD Cowen: So so, you know, maybe, you know, the fourth quarter results weren’t that long ago. So maybe you can just kind of do a quick review of kind of how the year ended and, you know, as you think about the, priorities for 2025 and, you know, the organic guide of three to four, just kind of your thoughts on that.

Frank Laukeen, CEO, Bruker: Yeah. So the fourth quarter was a bit better than what we had anticipated and a little bit better than consensus. We managed to almost get to 4% organic growth. I think it was 3.9%, which was quite good. We thought we’d be almost flat because the prior year had been at like 16% organic growth and had been very extraordinary.

So good organic growth, so similar to the rest of the year. We had good bookings, which was also nice or improving bookings. So very, very close to a one book to bill in our BSI business, which is the best within the trend of last year, the best bookings. There were some initial China stimulus bookings. I’m sure we’ll talk about that, not a lot yet, but some in the last two quarters of the last year, it added up to a little bit more than $15,000,000 that makes up that this is not all baked into our guidance.

I’m sure we’ll talk about that. So there’s some positive drivers there as well. And the margin performance was better. It really shows that this broker management system working on the acquisitions and integrating them and making them taking them towards breakeven and profitability pretty quickly at a very fast pace. I think that showed that we’re delivering on that commitment.

We’ve also worked, of course, on the core. We’re not only taking cost out of the new acquisitions and restructuring those, but have taken cost out in other areas in order to support, which kind of brings me to the guidance, right, and to the multiyear outlook, a guidance that this year is modest on growth, but not bad, right, 5% to 7% constant exchange rate growth with 3% to 4% organic is decent, but not a standout year. But we wanted to be conservative and really very much focused this year and in the next few years to coming back towards 20% and beyond 20% operating margin for this year for 25%. We’ve guided to 140 bps of margin expansion. And by the way, that subtle, but it started at 15.4% for last year, not 15%.

So it’s good. So good fast margin expansion, which is going to be what we will be solving for this year and the next few years and therefore also good EPS growth. I think the reported EPS growth guidance is 11% to 13% and yes, life’s not fair. There’s some currency headwind without that it would be 14% to 16, but it shows you that’s a very much commitment to profitability.

Dan Brennan, Tools and DX Analyst, TD Cowen: Terrific. Yep. So I’m sure you’ve gotten this question or you will get it today, but in terms of all the policy initiatives from the Trump administration, you know, creating a lot of questions for the tools group, you’re a guy that contemplates some uncertainty in academic and government market due to NIH. You know, I know you publicly stated you don’t expect a large reduction in NIH related to the to kind of what’s been going on. So maybe just talk through a little bit about what your exposure is.

I mean, I think a lot of companies have an academic exposure and then within that, they have an NA exposure, so they’re doing their own math. Just give us a sense of kind of that exposure and kind of what you’ve assumed.

Frank Laukeen, CEO, Bruker: Yeah. That’s the, you know, that’s the elephant in the room. Right? Our CFO, Gerald, who was answering that in New York last week over and over again. So let me just preface this, and I’ll say I’ll go through some sensitivity so you get some numbers, and I’ll point out what’s what I think is most probable and our guidance and and some downside scenarios, which are not our guidance.

But since that we’re answering that question all the time, we might as well. Right? So, yeah, we’ve built in we we said, hey. This NIH uncertainty, and it’s it’s a little bit broader. I mean, it’s not just narrowly NIH.

It also affects much of US academia. We’ll have we’ll probably take a couple of quarters. It could take longer, but we think it may take a couple of quarters to sort itself out. And therefore, we’re modeling some sort of a reduction in that. We have modeled a number that seems reasonable, minus 8%, and that ended up with numbers that we can cushion in our in our guidance.

Yeah. So maybe some of the buffers that I built into my guidance was we always do. It is now less likely that we’ll have beat and raise, at least raises. So but, you know, I think that’s that’s all stuff we can buffer. That is our guidance.

That remains our guidance that we think is the most likely scenario and that can absorb because of strong other drivers in biopharma, in semi, in diagnostics with Chinese stimulus, maybe now some German stimulus, some Korean stimulus. Let’s see how quickly that moves through. We think we have enough drivers from the 92% of our business that is not US academia that we can make up for that more probable scenario. Why is minus 8% the right number or minus 10? I don’t know that it is the right number.

But if I look at all of Bruker in the COVID year 2020, how much were we affected? And that was above that number as well. So no, we didn’t go down twenty percent. So but now since you want to ask it and since I get asked all the time, what if it went down fifteen percent or twenty percent or twenty five percent? Again, I’ll preface that that’s not our guidance and also because I have so much backlog, I think it wouldn’t all hit us this year anyway if even it takes longer to sort out.

But you can do the math. Let’s just do the simple math, 25% down all of US academia in that unlikely scenario, but not implausible scenario, a bit extreme, that would be 2%. So that would imply that instead of 5% to 7% constant exchange rate growth, the implication of that would be 3% to 5% constant exchange rate growth. So still growth, still margin expansion, still EPS growth, but a reduced scenario whether we or others would have to look at a reduced scenario like this by mid year or after the third quarter, I cannot exclude that because nobody can. Again, I don’t think that’s the most likely scenario, but since people also want us to model a bit more extreme, but still within the plausibility range, there you have it.

Dan Brennan, Tools and DX Analyst, TD Cowen: And in terms of what you’re hearing, you know, we were just sounded at HBT, you were there as well. What we’re hearing is kind of mixed feedback, if you will, on this indirect factor. Some some labs are were fine and indirect doesn’t really impact us. Others are saying university is saying the halt spending, slow spending. Others are saying indirect actually pays for certain things.

It might pay for labor, so we may have to reach out of our pocket. Like, what’s, you know, in in a down eight or extreme down 25, you know, the you know, president Trump may suggest an age budget like he did in the first term down 15, and Congress has typically said, no. We’re gonna fund it flat or up a little, down a little. Is it more the indirect that would be the swing factor? And and if it is, I don’t know.

What is your salespeople hearing from their customers about how that might impact some spending?

Frank Laukeen, CEO, Bruker: No. I I cannot imagine anybody saying indirect doesn’t matter. It matters for everyone. It doesn’t just pay for G and A overhead. Right?

This is not just a bunch of universities have all bulked up in their bureaucracies, and and they could all use a lean program, and they can all use some restructuring. That’s good, but that’ll take a while. But it pays for a computation center, for an animal facility, for a proteomic center, and a bunch of other things that you need. In some grants, you can build that into the grant. In some grant, this indirect research facilities cost is an essential part of what US academia needs.

So the 15% won’t work. I’m also think we’re not gonna go back politically to that. Hey, just show us your calculation and we’ll pay you 60% or 70% overhead. I think those times are also over. So no no point in betting, but I’ve heard a university president bet or or or jokingly say, no.

I think this will come into 40%, maybe maximum, and others have said, yeah, maybe it’ll end up at 30%. That’s kind of in the middle somewhere, and that sometimes maybe that’s where the new political, you know, consensus will fall, the new deal with the Trump administration. And and it’ll be the new NIH director Jay Pachacera and and RFK Jr. None of those have said they wanna spend less on research. They said, hey.

I wanna focus on chronic diseases. That’s legitimate, right? That that actually feeds into our post genomic human phenome biology that might even accelerate some of those trends that could be in the second derivative pretty beneficial for Bruker. So it will take some time to figure this out. Nobody knows how long it will take.

I think it’ll take it’s not a matter of weeks. I think it’ll take a couple of quarters. It could take longer, but I’m assuming it’ll take a couple of quarters once the new head of FDA, new head of NIH are in, that they will then be empowered. And I don’t know that for Trump personally that that’s even in the Trump one point o, and I know two point o is different, but one point o, there were things that he took very much personally as his agenda and other things where he always said, let’s have less NIH spending, but then aging senators and and congresswomen and congressmen all of a sudden, we’re worried about Alzheimer’s and cancer, and and we know someone who is right, then they always increased it anyway. I don’t think The US will give out its leadership role in academic or in non academic life science and biopharma research.

I think that’s not gonna happen. But how long will the turbulence take until this gets into some new paradigm? None of us know exactly. I think it could be, you know, few quarters.

Dan Brennan, Tools and DX Analyst, TD Cowen: Yeah. We just hosted a panel this morning too with, on China, you know, with the Vice Chair of the National Security Commission on Emerging Biotech. They’re going to have a report on April 7, and I think they’re really going to try to promote R and D, so it’ll be interesting what they have out. In China? In The US.

Frank Laukeen, CEO, Bruker: In The US, okay. I didn’t.

Dan Brennan, Tools and DX Analyst, TD Cowen: Yeah, sorry about that. So so let’s, let’s talk about growth initiatives. One of the growth initiatives that, you know, that you’ve had is expand your business with pharma. Could could you could you just discuss kind of where we are on that path? You know, you’ve had pharma macro pressure, but it sounds like that’s that’s getting better.

How successful have you been? What’s the opportunity to look ahead?

Frank Laukeen, CEO, Bruker: Yeah. We I mean, first of all, organically, it turns out that our Timsoft product lines for proteomics, multiomics, soon also more for isoforms is very applicable to, to the biopharma industry and rather than so they tend to be maybe not relatively early adopters, our Timstuf business and so on. And some of our high end NMR business tends to be, you know, about 30% pharma, which for some other academic research tools, some of them tend to be 90% academia. No. This very early, big push into into from chemical proteomics to that that you need for drug discovery for these for certain for for these targeted protein degraders and and and protein glues and so on, plays a role.

The same will be true for some of our acquisitions. The Beacon platform of the old Berkeley Lights, Phenomex that we acquired heavily dependent on pharma. Therefore, last year wasn’t so fantastic for them, right. Demand wasn’t there for those bigger platforms. We think that’s now.

I don’t think that biopharma will snap back this year, but I think this year will be a growth year to where maybe you’ll be at longer term growth rates back in, you know, in 2026. And longer term growth rates in biopharma won’t be the boom years immediately post COVID. I think those were also unique. But, you know, if if I think biopharma for us, last but not least, sorry, NanoString significant biopharma business in good years. Last year for us or 10x or maybe Acoya or others also wasn’t so hot because biopharma spending was relatively weak last year.

That’s gradually coming back, but again, more with being at normalized whatever they will be growth rates probably by ’26, but some growth this year. So that already looks healthier. All in, Dan, our biopharma exposure or that being in long term one of the most valuable industries and most important industries for us is keeps going up, you know, from the low to the mid to the higher teens and that trend just continues. In some years, it’s good not to be 40% or 60% or 80% biopharma because then it does become an exposure. And one of the beautiful things about Bruker is that we are so broad and so resilient.

And yes, now we benefit from European defense spending and airport security and in between semiconductor metrology for a big new TMSC plant that does not only logic chips, but that will also look advanced packaging. One of the things you probably mercifully had no idea we’re doing, but we’re actually the leading company in advanced packaging metrology tools. I cherry picked a few things from recent headlines that actually are all positive for us, but that get drowned out right now with, hey, we’re all freaking out about NIH. Right. That’s fair.

Maybe

Dan Brennan, Tools and DX Analyst, TD Cowen: maybe kind of saying on some of the high level introductory questions here. So you talked about China a little bit, here and then on the prep call. The 20,000,000 orders to date maybe of China’s stimulus. You know, Agilent just announced pretty decent sized stimulus wins in their first quarter in food. Can you just send it out and give us a sense of we try to do work on China’s stimulus, and we’re just trying to understand what the program Yeah.

That you’re addressing, what you’ve seen early on, and kinda how you’re thinking about the opportunity for Bruker.

Frank Laukeen, CEO, Bruker: Yeah. We just, again, one of our most senior group presidents for the who runs also runs the mass spec business and and some other things was just in China and had a lot of customer meetings. So I have a little bit more incremental color and insights. So by the way, this part that Agilent reported on the environmental side and PFAS and so on, we don’t see that that much. That’s kind of an Agilent and others idiosyncratic approach.

We see stuff in proteomics and glycoproteomics and spatial biology that they may not see. So, confirming from our perspective, although challenged a little bit by what Agilent is doing because they’re in a different part of the market, is academic, high end, latest and greatest, preferably not quite released yet. That’s what they want to have because they’re not going to get these big money for these big ticket items. They may not get that for another five years again. So this is when they want to buy the latest and greatest and preferably something you’re launching at ASMS and just talking about for now, which is fine.

So that also that has implications in terms of timing. This won’t be a tight bolus over one or two quarters or three quarters of orders. It seems to be some very sizable projects that we’ve come across. The and these tend to be 10,000,000 to 100,000,000 type projects, not all coming to us. But, you know, we have a big chunk of it often and some other vendors and then there’s just some stuff that, you know, it’s not somebody just lab infrastructure and salaries.

But very often, they go to the latest and greatest in, yes, I will say, the post genomic era and this next chapter of looking at proteomics, multiomics interactions, spatial biology, very much on to the next chapter of life science, the genomic science. The last twenty five years were sort of at the the end of the beginning. It wasn’t the answer to biology. It’s not the blueprint of of of life. It was ended up, you know, most people say today, we understand maybe 10% to 25% of of human of biology because we have the genomics.

Some people say it’s much less than that. It just means there is other chapters to be written that we’re writing, that we’re that we’re in the leadership position and have fundamentally transformed ourselves to being a leader or perhaps the leader in this next chapter of studying things completely gets validated in how China is investing. So, you know, they are they are on to the next next thing, not only the last thing and getting more of that or we’re getting more capacity or getting another sequencing center going. This is incredibly favorable. And I think as The US environment will become highly selective because you’ll still you won’t you can delay some purchases where you just wanted more capacity or replace something from seven years ago and there is better, but you can you can delay that for a year and two and you will in in US academia if you have to make really tough choices right now.

But if something is the first tool where you can do the paint scape product, where we just launched that aGBT, a completely new lamppost in science, you can look at the three-dimensional spatial genomics, so not within the cell, but within the nucleus and within the chromosomal structures where they are located, how they interact, how they translocate, very, very important information, not only for cancer research, basic cancer biology, but how viruses affect our cells, so infectious disease. This is something this this will be a nature and cell paper printing machine. Nobody has anything like that. People will invest. They will prioritize than that.

Or what we’re gonna launch at at at ASMS, which will be the TimSOMNI that is very much looking at protein isoforms and doing looking at complete intact proteins and getting nearly complete sequence coverage. That will also create a new category. And interestingly, people are very, very keen on that in stimulus. And I think that’s also what I predict what US Science, when they have reduced funding, US Academic Science will invest in, because that they must have for new scientific enabling capabilities. So we’re well placed there, which doesn’t mean we won’t be affected by this turmoil.

We will be, but I don’t think as much as others perhaps.

Dan Brennan, Tools and DX Analyst, TD Cowen: So basically, just summing it up then, there’s some really chunky large orders that are brewing there on some really advanced proteomic technologies looking to tap into some of the newer things, and it’s not gonna hit in, like, immediately, but you’re talking about twenty, thirty, one hundred million dollars projects of which you could have Which will get

Frank Laukeen, CEO, Bruker: a fraction, but, you know, we might have a we might get 5,000,000 out of a big project or 10,000,000, and sometimes we just get a couple of million. But, you know, it does add up. Right? So there’s healthy funding. That we haven’t all built into our guidance for 25,000,000 because I think with a word of caution, I think it’s also coming a little bit more slowly.

I thought, well, it’ll probably come through in Q1 and Q2. No, these orders may be coming through through all of this year and maybe some into next year, which from a managing a business actually isn’t all bad. You don’t the boluses are nice while you have them, but then it makes for a tough comp. So it’s probably more steady, but there’s some very sizable projects. And they all got all the stamps from the Dean and from the Vice President of Research.

And now they just need the money released. And that probable that may be over many quarters rather than over one or two quarters. So probably more slowly, but I think overall a bigger a bigger opportunity and very much focused on leading edge leading edge products that give you that enable new science or new new cancer research. So there we’re absolutely in the sweet spot.

Dan Brennan, Tools and DX Analyst, TD Cowen: So maybe just kind of coming back down to the guide for 2025, like we have BioSpin up three, Caled up five, Nano up three. So kind of all around that three to four, but Caled the fastest grow the other two. Is that is that kind of the right way to think about it? Maybe can you give us some building blocks to how you guys thought about that organic outlook for ’25?

Frank Laukeen, CEO, Bruker: No. Actually, not quite. That’s an understandable way of modeling it. It turns out that BioSpin had very fast growth last year and will be flattish or low single digits this year ’25 and the same for best because of some of the trends in the MRI market that are driven by, you know, GE, Siemens, Phillips Healthcare. But, you know, so this year, they’ll be we’ll have a discrepancy with Nano and KALIC growing the fastest, pretty good growth rates and bBio invest just growing a little bit more slowly this year.

That’s how it comes together. In some years, everybody grows almost in sync. This year, there’ll be a little bit more of a difference.

Dan Brennan, Tools and DX Analyst, TD Cowen: So academic, we’ve covered in in in a lot of detail. So that’s a headwind for you. But in terms of getting from that three to five back to six to eight.

Frank Laukeen, CEO, Bruker: But not in other countries. Right? I mean, of course, we’re focused on The US. So how can we not be? And and here the investors are.

But but again, the in a in terms of all academic and government spending for us, 77% is outside of The United States. Europe is much more steady, low single digit increases. But because we’re in the right spot of that, for us, it can mean high high single digit or or double digit growth rates. Similar in Taiwan, Korea is planning some big projects, probably won’t benefit us till ’26. Whatever this German infrastructure and defense packages that they’re just hashing out right now, apparently, I was told by an investor this morning from Europe that, hey, hey, how did you see that also has some science funding in it?

I didn’t even know yet, so I hope it’s true.

Dan Brennan, Tools and DX Analyst, TD Cowen: So So But anyway, to your next question. Yeah. Right. So outside of US academic weakness, when you think about your three to five bridging the six to eight, what has to happen to get back towards that six to eight? Well,

Frank Laukeen, CEO, Bruker: two months ago, I would have said, well, we’re in a partial recovery of the markets. From last year, the market was, what, down 0% to minus 2%, and we grew 4% organically. This year, I as part of the guidance, we thought that maybe the markets would be growing in the low single digits, but not mid single digits yet. So a long term recovery to the mid single digit growth rates, this market These markets generally have seen the life science tools market, which we would expect for ’twenty six, maybe the second half of ’twenty five, but not for all of ’twenty five yet. So on top of that, you need The U.

S. Academia and NIH turbulence to settle into perhaps some new paradigm where you can just calculate your overhead and charge that, but there will be maximum. And then if you wanna have a separate computational facility or a new animal or proteomics facility, well, apply for a grant. I mean, people who’ve been at NIH, at senate hearings, speak and applying for NIH jobs have said, no. No.

We wanna spend more on r and d. We want the universities to take out a few billion in overheads and and and and bureaucracy, which isn’t entirely feasible. I mean, there are many layers of of bureaucracy that aren’t benefiting research, except this will all take some time. That doesn’t happen within until The US Academia restructures will be a two to three year process. But during that time, even quickly, they can take out tens of millions, which then will soften some of the reduced funding they get so that there will be lesser impact on R and D.

That’s why I’m not looking at well, I’m happy to answer the questions about worst case scenarios, but I think what we’ve built in of an 8% to 10% decline is much more realistic and probable.

Dan Brennan, Tools and DX Analyst, TD Cowen: So maybe just looking at CALID and Nano then. So CALID obviously you’ve talked about Timstopp about four times so far on this call. Just to grow 5% or 5% plus, just maybe where are we in the evolution of Timstopp and kind of how does that number compare to where you think that growth rate could be as things normalize?

Frank Laukeen, CEO, Bruker: Yes, that was growing more slowly in recent years because the astrol was the new kid on the block. It’s a very good new system that came out a couple of years ago that could could speed things up, do things in plasma and so on that were beyond what we could do two years ago. In a lot of these things, we’ve kind of caught up in other areas. We retain areas where we have advantages. And now we’re bringing out some things we talked about here at USUPO, some things the TIMSOMNI that we talked about.

At ASMS, we’ll have some very significant new additional releases to where not only have we come back to maybe an even market position in the last two years, we kind of clawed our way back into that with enough innovation and some new capabilities, but there’s a big push for some major innovation that’s coming out from Bruker this year.

Dan Brennan, Tools and DX Analyst, TD Cowen: So that will then will that get reflected, do you think, in your ’25 guide?

Frank Laukeen, CEO, Bruker: Could that Mostly ’26, it’ll maybe a little bit in Q4. We haven’t built much of that into the ’25 guide. So when you announce these new things and that’s why we’re talking to some of them earlier, so something will have budgets ready when this launches. Others will begin to look at budgets when they say, wow, this is something nobody can do. We need to be able to do that.

Most of that will help us in 2026 and beyond. So, yeah, but these things have time constants where it really helps your P and L sort of within after a couple of quarters.

Dan Brennan, Tools and DX Analyst, TD Cowen: So UK Biobank announced, I think, a 600,000 sample with like Olin and Thermo One null . Base two is we hosted a company yesterday and I’d like to get your perspective too because you compete here with the proteograph at the front end. I know you have a competitive product they’re talking about. There could be some really big mass spec like just protein type, not population sequencing. But I guess the question is, as you see these affinity based population studies, what’s going on in kind of mass spec related studies given how much faster the timsTOF is in ASHRAE?

Are you seeing a demand for that? Is that is that part of the excitement here? Would that be upside?

Frank Laukeen, CEO, Bruker: Yeah. With SEER on the one hand and, the EnRICH plus and p two technologies for sample enrichment or depletion, that has enabled mass spectrometry, team red or team blue or blue, to play a play a much bigger role in plasma proteomics. Proteomics by mass spectrometry had been terrific in cell lines and even single cell and immunopeptidomics. But in plasma, initially, the way to scale was with OLink or some logic. Right?

That’s why they did the initial studies, OLink, of the 50,000 samples of the UK Biobank. So that has changed now in the last few years with the other company that you mentioned and some some of the things that we’ve launched over the last year with our partner companies, Preomics and Biagnosis, the CRO. And now we can do very, very good and very deep, including tissue leakage, cancer biomarkers in plasma. Plus we can do the isoforms. Plus we have multiple peptide coverage and a much much higher 99% specificity.

Nothing nobody at homologics, somologics or or Olinx is ever talking about specificity, but it is dramatically less than that as and as far as we can tell. The benign interpretation is it’s complementary because people that have studied this and have really compared the various technologies find that they overlap less than 50% and then each have a whole bunch of 25% that you only see with O Link or only see with mass spectrometry. So at a minimum, you’d think you’d want to combine that. We have a program where a UK startup company is looking at the physiological plasma proteome on 50,000 samples of the UK Biobank. They haven’t made big announcements, but they’re off and running.

They’re doing this already while others are making those announcements. So and then there’s quite the our QK Biobank gets a lot of attention, but it’s one one data point per patient. Eventually, we’ll all be patients. Hopefully, we’re healthy individuals when that sample is given. They’re much better longitudinal biobanks where people are studied for years, once a year.

And then, you know, if at some point they’re within one or two years of getting colorectal or ovarian cancer or maybe the emergence of neurodegeneration before it’s caught as mild cognitive impairment. So these longitudinal databases that are a little bit smaller are much more valuable for biomarker and for and and pharmaceutical development in The UK Biobank that is well known, but it has its limitations. So there’s other programs that are more important. Mass Spec plays a big role in many of those.

Dan Brennan, Tools and DX Analyst, TD Cowen: So we’re almost out of time. Maybe I’ll just wrap up by asking your opinion. I know you own over 25% of the company. You bought back SAC in December. You bought back SAC recently.

So maybe just give a perspective on how, you know, how you view is that is that buyback? Obviously, you’re a largest owner of the company, so you believe strongly in the value here. But in terms of tactically doing it now, is that more a reflection of, like, 2025? Wow. We have so much wind at our back and, numbers and there’s cushion here or is it more just you’re looking at the long term value of improving?

Is it missing this rule that’s undervalued here?

Frank Laukeen, CEO, Bruker: Well, both. I mean, the valuation multiples right now are that that are out there in my opinion are totally are not are irrational, right. And so it’s an opportunity for me personally. We’ve also we have the company has buyback authorizations that we haven’t used much last year because we did a lot of acquisitions. Right now, as you know, we’re on a big deal diet for a while as we, A, deleveraging, but we’re not only deleveraging, we can also use some of that for share buybacks.

So yes, I mean, yes, for 25, but also very much the long term value. And in my opinion, so far exceeds where we’re presently at or that, yes, that’s an easy one.

Dan Brennan, Tools and DX Analyst, TD Cowen: Terrific. Well, with that, we’re out of time. Frank, thank you so much for being here.

Frank Laukeen, CEO, Bruker: Thank you very much for having us.

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