Who is LNTH (Lantheus)? A company that profits from the “supply infrastructure” for radiopharmaceutical diagnostics—now being tested as competition intensifies.

* This report is based on data as of 2026-01-08.

First, the simple version: what does LNTH do, and how does it make money?

LNTH (Lantheus), in plain English, is “a company that makes ‘marker drugs’ that help find disease—and gets them to imaging sites on time.” In imaging tests like PET, a drug that concentrates in specific lesions makes it easier to see “where the disease is” on the scan. LNTH’s core strength is radiopharmaceutical diagnostic imaging agents—diagnostics that use radioactive materials.

The key nuance is that radiopharmaceutical diagnostics lose usefulness as time passes after they’re produced. That means this isn’t a business you can win with “a good drug” alone. The real value is running manufacturing, quality control, and distribution as one coordinated system—and completing delivery to the right site within a tight time window. LNTH is both a drug company and, to a meaningful extent, a supply-infrastructure business for nuclear medicine diagnostics.

Who are the customers (who is receiving the value)?

The primary customers aren’t patients—they’re providers.

• Hospitals (diagnostic imaging departments / nuclear medicine departments)
• Independent imaging centers
• Distribution and supply networks that serve these sites (structures vary by region)

Ultimately, payment is largely shaped by insurance systems and reimbursement rules, and adoption is driven not only by clinical value but also by whether the product fits cleanly into billing and day-to-day payment workflows.

Revenue model: why revenue can scale quickly when it scales

The core monetization engine is straightforward: selling diagnostic agents that are required for each scan. As scan volumes rise, utilization increases, creating a per-scan model that can translate into rapid revenue growth. Depending on the geography, LNTH can also earn revenue through partners via license income or royalties (for example, the announcement of a licensing agreement tied to the Japan rollout of a prostate cancer PET agent).

Revenue pillars: what supports the company today / what it is trying to build

Pillar 1: PSMA PET for prostate cancer (PYLARIFY)

The biggest pillar is the PSMA PET diagnostic agent PYLARIFY, used to diagnose and assess lesions in prostate cancer. The clinical value proposition is easy for physicians to understand, and results often flow directly into treatment choices (surgery, radiation, drug therapy, etc.), which supports a utilization curve that can scale as demand expands.

LNTH also leans heavily on supply execution as a differentiator in a crowded market. Specifically, the company is pursuing approval of a new formulation (new prescription) intended to stabilize supply and expand patient access, with a review deadline of March 06, 2026. The materials indicate an objective to increase batch size by approximately 50%.

Pillar 2: Contrast agents for echocardiography (ultrasound)

A separate pillar outside of PET is contrast agents that improve visualization in cardiac ultrasound exams. This segment is less about headline-grabbing technology battles and more about how well the product fits into routine hospital workflows—and whether supply is dependable.

Pillar 3: Brain PET (Alzheimer’s, etc.): scaling Neuraceq

A major recent development is LNTH’s completed acquisition of Life Molecular Imaging, which includes Neuraceq, a PET imaging agent used to assess Alzheimer’s disease. The strategic intent is to build a brain franchise and reduce an earnings mix that can lean heavily toward prostate cancer. If brain PET use cases broaden (for example, identifying patients eligible for therapy), the growth runway can expand alongside buildout of the supply network (the materials also point to progress toward label expansion for Neuraceq).

Forward initiatives: diagnostics + therapy (theranostics) and manufacturing infrastructure

In radiopharmaceuticals, a key long-term direction is the idea that “find (diagnose)” and “hit (treat)” increasingly move together. Through acquisitions and other actions, LNTH is also working to add pipelines and capabilities aligned with this trend and position them as future growth drivers.

Within that context, the completion of the Evergreen acquisition matters. The materials frame Evergreen as a step toward adding radiopharmaceutical manufacturing infrastructure (including CDMO), broadening the story from “one product’s success” to a radiopharmaceutical platform.

Why it has been chosen: the core of the winning playbook (success story)

LNTH’s playbook isn’t just about what’s “in the vial”—it’s about execution: operating under regulation to deliver the required quality to imaging sites within a narrow time window. Think of it like a “glowing pen” used to find something in a dark room: LNTH provides agents that make lesions visible. And because that “glowing pen” quickly becomes unusable, delivery capability becomes a real competitive edge.

The materials group what customers (hospitals and imaging centers) can readily evaluate into three categories.

• Clinical clarity: tends to generate information that directly informs treatment decisions (especially in prostate cancer)
• Supply reliability: whether same-day operations can keep scans running
• Ease of operational integration: whether it fits into hospital protocols and ordering habits

The materials also cite three recurring structural sources of dissatisfaction.

• Concerns about supply and lead-time constraints: when supply tightens, scans stop
• Complexity of reimbursement and billing treatment: operational fit can directly determine adoption
• Comparisons and switching considerations as competitors increase: more apples-to-apples comparisons on price, contracts, and workflow

The long-term “pattern”: what the past 5–10 years of fundamentals indicate

To frame LNTH through a Lynch lens, the quickest starting point is the company’s long-term “pattern” (the shape of the growth story). The takeaway from the materials is that LNTH looks like a growth stock—but with meaningful volatility.

Revenue, earnings, and cash: strong long-term expansion

• Revenue CAGR (FY): +34.6% annualized over the past 5 years, +17.7% annualized over the past 10 years
• EPS CAGR (FY): +40.7% annualized over the past 5 years
• FCF CAGR (FY): +53.3% annualized over the past 5 years, +64.2% annualized over the past 10 years

Revenue stepped up meaningfully from $425 million in FY2021 to $1.534 billion in FY2024, suggesting the last five years were an “expansion phase.” The 10-year FCF CAGR is extremely high, but it also reflects a small starting FCF base in the early years. It’s better not to overgeneralize and instead stick to the factual point that FCF expanded substantially over the long term.

Profitability: strong in some years, but not stable—moves by phase

• ROE (latest FY): 28.7% (upper end of the past 5-year range vs. a past 5-year median of 6.28%)
• FCF margin (FY2024): 32.15% (above the past 5-year median of 19.96%)

ROE in the latest FY is high, but the FY earnings history includes loss years. That suggests LNTH is not a “steady-ROE compounder,” but a business whose profitability can swing by phase—driven by product cycles, competition, supply dynamics, costs, and other variables, which is the interpretation most consistent with the data.

Source of growth (one-sentence long-term summary)

Over the past five years, revenue growth has been the primary driver, and the latest year also shows margin improvement. Put together, it’s reasonable to summarize the EPS outcome as a high-likelihood case of “revenue expansion + profitability improvement” contributing to EPS growth. At the same time, shares outstanding have risen over the long term, which can dilute per-share results—another factor worth keeping in view.

Through Lynch’s six categories: what type is LNTH?

The materials conclude LNTH fits best as a hybrid (Fast Grower + Cyclical).

• Fast Grower rationale: 5-year EPS CAGR +40.7% (FY), 5-year revenue CAGR +34.6% (FY), latest FY ROE 28.7%
• Cyclical rationale: large EPS volatility, including flips between losses and profits even within the past five years, with loss years and profit years mixed in the FY EPS series

Here, “Cyclical” is less about macro exposure and more about profits swinging with business phase (products, markets, supply, competition, costs, amortization, etc.).

Where things stand now: momentum over the latest TTM to ~8 quarters and whether the “pattern” is holding

Even when the long-term pattern looks attractive, a Lynch-style check asks: “Is the pattern still intact today, or is it starting to break?” Based on the materials, LNTH’s current state is Decelerating.

Facts over the latest year (TTM): growth has slowed, and EPS has fallen sharply

• EPS growth (TTM YoY): -57.656% (TTM EPS 2.4782)
• Revenue growth (TTM YoY): +1.946% (TTM revenue $1.526 billion)
• FCF growth (TTM YoY): -10.112% (TTM FCF $406 million, FCF margin 26.625%)

Revenue is higher, but growth is modest, while EPS is sharply down. FCF remains large in absolute terms, but its growth over the latest year is negative.

Versus the 5-year average (FY): basis for the deceleration call

“Deceleration” here simply means the latest year’s (TTM) growth is weaker than the 5-year average (FY CAGR). It does not assign a cause or claim a structural break.

• EPS: TTM -57.656% vs 5-year CAGR +40.7% → Decelerating
• Revenue: TTM +1.946% vs 5-year CAGR +34.6% → Decelerating
• FCF: TTM -10.112% vs 5-year CAGR +53.3% → Decelerating

Direction over the past 2 years (~8 quarters): a “twist” where revenue/FCF trend up while EPS trends down

• EPS (TTM) 2-year CAGR: -27.1% (correlation -0.787)
• Revenue (TTM) 2-year CAGR: +8.49% (correlation +0.879)
• FCF (TTM) 2-year CAGR: +25.3% (correlation +0.739)

Over the past two years, revenue and FCF have trended higher, while EPS shows a pronounced downward trend—making the earnings picture harder to read at a glance.

Has the “high-growth stock profile” disappeared?: pattern consistency check

The materials conclude the latest TTM does not show the near-term momentum typical of a Fast Grower, while the magnitude of profit swings is consistent with Cyclical characteristics. In other words, within the hybrid profile, the Cyclical element is currently more visible.

ROE is also confirmed to be high at 28.72% in the latest FY, suggesting the company is simultaneously in a strong profitability phase. Where FY and TTM tell different stories, the materials treat this as a time-window effect.

Financial soundness (bankruptcy-risk framing): what is providing cushion today

When growth is slowing, it becomes more important to check whether the balance sheet is being stretched. Based on the figures in the materials, LNTH appears to have a fairly solid cushion, at least for now.

• Debt ratio (debt to equity, latest FY): ~0.57x
• Net Debt / EBITDA (latest FY): -0.57 (net cash position)
• Interest coverage (latest FY): 22.91x
• Cash ratio (latest FY): ~3.80

These factors reduce the risk that a near-term slowdown forces the company into inaction due to funding constraints. From a bankruptcy-risk standpoint—based on leverage, interest coverage, and liquidity—pressure looks relatively limited today. That said, in periods of ongoing M&A, balance-sheet strain can show up with a lag, so integration monetization and leverage trends deserve periodic monitoring.

Dividends and capital allocation: an income stock, or a reinvestment story?

The materials note that dividends are hard to evaluate as a primary factor because dividend yield, dividend per share, and payout ratio for the latest TTM are not available (insufficient data). The annual history shows: “years paying dividends: 5,” “consecutive years of dividend increases: 0,” and “last year the dividend was cut (or suspended): 2021.”

As a result, it’s difficult to frame LNTH as an income idea. From a total-return perspective, the focus shifts to cash generation and capital allocation (growth investment, M&A, etc.) rather than dividends. The materials show TTM FCF of roughly $406 million, or about 26.6% of revenue (though this information alone doesn’t allow a definitive read on how that cash is allocated).

Cash flow “quality”: how to read the EPS–FCF divergence

A notable near-term feature is the split where EPS is decelerating sharply while the FCF margin remains high. That can happen for accounting reasons (timing of expense recognition or one-time items), and it can also reflect economic pressure such as competitive response costs or mix shifts. The materials don’t take a side, instead flagging it as something to watch given the possibility of “Invisible Fragility.”

Capex burden (capex as a share of operating cash flow) is listed at ~10.1%, which doesn’t look unusually heavy. However, with TTM FCF growth at -10.112%, the materials’ cautious stance is that investors shouldn’t assume the current high level of FCF will keep compounding at the same rate.

Where valuation stands today (position within the company’s own history)

Without benchmarking to the market or peers, the materials place LNTH against its own history across six metrics (PEG / PER / FCF yield / ROE / FCF margin / Net Debt / EBITDA). Where FY and TTM look different, the materials treat that as a time-window effect.

PEG: difficult to compare ranges because growth is negative

• PEG (based on 1-year growth): -0.48

PEG is negative because TTM EPS growth is negative at -57.656%. Since a normal historical range cannot be constructed / data is insufficient, the right approach is not to label it “cheap” or “expensive” versus history, but simply to note that PEG is currently reflecting a negative-growth period.

PER: within the normal range over the past 5 years, but above the median

• PER (TTM): 27.83x (past 5-year median 24.52x; toward the lower-to-mid portion within the normal range of 19.18–50.50x)

Versus LNTH’s own history, this isn’t an extreme high. However, with near-term EPS growth negative, the PER can look optically elevated more easily in the current setup.

FCF yield: high versus the normal ranges over the past 5 and 10 years

• FCF yield (TTM): 8.88% (above the upper bound of the past 5-year normal range of 7.25%)

This reflects the interaction between the share price and FCF. The materials don’t label it as good or bad, instead emphasizing that FCF sustainability needs to be assessed separately.

ROE: toward the upper end of the past 5-year range (but not a breakout)

• ROE (latest FY): 28.72% (close to the upper bound of the past 5-year normal range of 30.98%)

Profitability is clearly strong right now, but given how much ROE has moved year to year, it’s more consistent to read this as a phase rather than assume LNTH is “always” a high-ROE business.

FCF margin: upper end over the past 5 years; above range over the past 10 years

• FCF margin (TTM): 26.62% (above the upper bound of the past 10-year normal range of 21.60%)

This suggests LNTH is in a period of unusually strong cash-generation quality even relative to its own history.

Net Debt / EBITDA: negative, indicating substantial financial flexibility

• Net Debt / EBITDA (latest FY): -0.57

This is an inverse indicator: the lower (more negative) it is, the larger the cash cushion and financial flexibility. It sits within the past 5-year range and slightly below the past 10-year normal range; the materials frame this as a phase where financial leverage pressure is relatively low.

Competitive landscape: what LNTH is fighting, what it wins on, and where it can lose

Competition in radiopharmaceutical diagnostics isn’t just a typical “best drug wins” contest. Three dimensions matter at the same time.

• Whether it aligns with clinical standards (guidelines, indications, reading conventions)
• Whether the company can execute regulatory, quality, and supply systems (same-day operations)
• Whether it integrates smoothly into reimbursement and hospital operations (ordering, delivery, scan slots)

In areas where demand has surged—PSMA PET being the prime example—more competitors mean facilities can more easily compare supply, contracts, and workflow support. That dynamic can push differentiation costs higher and make profits more volatile. The materials emphasize that LNTH itself has stated competition intensified in PSMA PET and impacted its key product.

Key competitive players (by segment)

• PSMA PET: Telix Pharmaceuticals, GE HealthCare, etc.
• Brain (amyloid PET): Eli Lilly (Amyvid), Blue Earth Diagnostics (Vizamyl), etc. (LNTH participates via Neuraceq)
• PET/SPECT and supply networks: Bracco Imaging, Curium, radiopharmacy networks (e.g., PharmaLogic), etc.
• Manufacturing infrastructure / CDMO: radiopharmaceutical CDMOs, radiopharmacy networks, etc.

In PSMA PET, differences in supply models—such as centralized manufacturing and distribution for F-18 versus on-site labeling for Ga-68—can change facility workflows and be experienced as “product differences.” But because the best approach depends on geography and the availability of radiopharmacies, the materials caution that it’s hard to declare a universal winner.

Switching costs and barriers to entry: strong, but not a “perpetual monopoly”

Once a hospital’s protocols, reading/reporting standards, ordering pathways, and same-day operations are set, switching becomes inconvenient. On the other hand, if competitors arrive with comparable operational capabilities, the decision often shifts toward contract and supply terms. And where facilities can run multiple products in parallel, the market is less likely to become monopolistic—highlighting both sides of the equation.

Barriers to entry come from stacked real-world constraints—regulation, quality systems, manufacturing equipment, isotope supply chains, and time-sensitive logistics. This isn’t something AI can simply “disrupt” in the near term. Still, as competitors build out their own supply networks, differentiation can narrow. The materials therefore frame the moat not as a perpetual monopoly, but as a compound capability to execute supply, quality, and same-day operations.

Moat and durability: what determines LNTH’s defensibility, and what tends to wear down

LNTH’s moat is less about patents or brand in isolation and more about a compound ability to execute supply, quality, and same-day operations under regulation. It’s difficult to replicate and tends to function as an “operational bundle” that can’t be matched by equipment alone. But as competition increases, comparisons become more transparent and competition can migrate toward contracts and supply terms.

The materials point to two levers that can improve durability: expanding supply capacity (new formulation) and diversifying diagnostic exposure (prostate → brain, and further into manufacturing infrastructure). Durability can weaken if PSMA becomes locked into price/contract competition that persistently compresses margins, or if reimbursement and hospital operating rules change in ways that shift facility decision-making.

Regulation and reimbursement (payment rules): a variable that works through “operational ease” more than demand

In the U.S., public insurance payment rules can influence how usable a product is for hospitals—and therefore utilization. The materials highlight payment-rule changes heading into 2025 (moving toward separate payment under certain conditions) as an important variable. The impact isn’t just “whether demand exists,” but the practical friction around whether hospitals can run the process smoothly.

Story continuity: are recent developments consistent with the “winning playbook”?

The materials describe the past 1–2 years as a story with two tracks.

(1) Core franchise: one-way growth → “defend and re-strengthen” under competition

While broad PSMA PET utilization remains a central theme, the company also acknowledged that intensifying competition affected performance in 2025. That shifts the narrative from pure “growth” to “re-strengthening under competition.” The near-term numbers are consistent with that framing: TTM EPS has decelerated sharply, and profits have fallen materially even though revenue hasn’t collapsed.

In this phase, less visible profit pressures—competitive response costs, mix shifts, one-offs, and similar items—can be in play. The materials don’t conclude on causality and instead limit themselves to noting the consistency with the observed pattern.

(2) Portfolio: prostate cancer concentration → diversification (brain, manufacturing infrastructure, theranostics)

Integrating Life Molecular (Neuraceq) and Evergreen (manufacturing infrastructure, including CDMO) pushes LNTH toward a “radiopharmaceutical platform company.” From a narrative standpoint, this can reinforce the story by building the next growth engines as the core franchise’s momentum cools. At the same time, integration complexity and integration costs remain distinct risks.

Invisible Fragility: eight items to check precisely when things look strong

These are not predictions of an imminent break, but a checklist of deterioration paths that can be easy to miss.

• Single-franchise dependence: The more PSMA PET dominates the mix, the more competition, reimbursement, and supply changes can flow directly into results.
• Rapid shifts in the competitive environment: Intensifying competition often shows up first in margin and operating efficiency pressure rather than in revenue.
• Loss of differentiation: As markets mature, comparisons shift from performance to supply and workflow, and even a supply disruption can damage trust.
• Supply chain / manufacturing dependence: If isotopes, equipment, quality processes, or transport become bottlenecks, revenue becomes harder to capture (execution of the new formulation is a prerequisite).
• Integration risk from consecutive acquisitions: More complexity can create priority conflicts, heavier standardization work, and slower decision-making.
• A pattern where profits break first: The current “weak profits / strong cash” split raises the possibility of less visible wear-and-tear.
• Deterioration in financial burden: Interest coverage is strong today, but M&A can create lagged pressure, so integration monetization should be tracked.
• Changes in systems and operating rules: Reimbursement/payment changes can move utilization through workflow friction rather than clinical value.

Structural position in the AI era: tailwind or headwind, what strengthens and what weakens

LNTH isn’t part of the AI stack’s foundation (semiconductors, cloud, models). It sits in a frontline-adjacent layer close to clinical decision-making. Its advantage is rooted in physical operations that AI can’t easily replace: manufacturing, quality, and logistics for radiopharmaceutical diagnostics, with a longer-term direction of layering in analytics, quantification, and workflow support.

Network effects: not extreme, but there is stickiness from “workflow lock-in”

Rather than consumer-style network effects, the stickiness here is low-to-moderate and comes from repeat use embedded in provider operations—workflow lock-in at the facility level. But as competition increases, it becomes easier to compare supply, contracts, and operational support, which makes it hard to turn that stickiness into a monopolistic network effect—consistent with the materials’ framing.

Data advantage and AI integration: less about replacing tracers, more about “maximizing value”

In an AI-driven world, the data advantage is less about the images alone and more about whether operational data linked to images, clinical context, and workflows can be quantified and fed back into decision-making. LNTH has an AI-enabled software area that supports quantification in PSMA PET, and acquisitions have also added commercial infrastructure and Alzheimer’s R&D. However, the materials provide limited basis to claim the data itself is exclusive.

AI substitution risk: hard to say it will rapidly replace PET demand, but it can change the form of testing

Rather than making diagnostic agents obsolete, AI is more likely to change the incremental value and execution format of testing through better image analysis, quantification, and imaging workflows. Research directions include complementing PET with other modalities such as MRI, as well as using AI to improve PET image quality—forces that could change the “form of testing” over the medium to long term. At the same time, clinical standardization, regulation, and accountability constraints are significant, and the materials conclude it’s difficult to argue for a near-term risk of rapid demand displacement.

Leadership and culture: supply-centric strengths and friction during transition and integration

LNTH is in the middle of a leadership transition. CEO Brian Markison will step down effective 2025年12月31日, and Mary Anne Heino will move to Interim CEO starting 2026年1月1日. Markison will remain a strategic advisor at least through 2026年3月31日, supporting continuity through the transition. Separately, the President (Paul Blanchfield) also stepped down effective 2025年11月7日, signaling change in key commercial leadership roles as well.

The core vision is “supply and commercial execution”: consistent with the business narrative

Transition priorities highlighted include continuity in commercial execution, successful approval and launch milestones tied to supply and patient access, and continued shareholder value creation. That aligns with the reality that radiopharmaceutical diagnostics are often won or lost on same-day operational execution.

Generalized cultural pattern: control can be a strength, but can also create friction when competition is intense

External reviews often describe a culture where decision-making can be concentrated at senior levels, project management is tightly run, and performance expectations can feel intense. In this business, strict control can also be an advantage given the demands of quality, regulation, and same-day operations. The trade-off is that as competition heats up, frontline burden and internal friction can rise.

Fit with long-term investors: positives and watch items

• Where fit tends to be strong: The culture emphasizes durable fundamentals—supply, quality, and regulatory execution—at its core / financial flexibility is substantial at present.
• Watch items: If the company over-optimizes for short-term commercial responses during competitive phases, progress on the second pillar could slow / continued acquisitions can raise cultural integration costs and slow decision-making.
• Current governance: The CEO transition is described as not being driven by disagreement, and continuity is supported through the transition / the board composition is presented as mindful of independence.

Investor “KPI tree”: a causal map of what moves LNTH’s enterprise value

LNTH generates frequent news flow, so a Lynch-style KPI tree—mapping which variables ultimately drive enterprise value—can help separate signal from noise.

Ultimate outcomes

• Long-term growth in earnings (including EPS)
• Long-term free cash flow generation capacity
• Sustained profitability (capital efficiency)
• Financial flexibility (capacity to continue competitive responses, investment, and integration)

Intermediate KPIs (value drivers)

• Scan volumes (usage frequency) and facility penetration (workflow lock-in)
• Supply stability (ability to avoid disrupting same-day operations)
• Manufacturing capacity and supply resilience (how much can be produced and how broadly it can be delivered)
• Product mix (degree of PSMA concentration and progress on diversification)
• Margins (often move ahead of revenue in competitive phases)
• Competitive response costs (contract terms, promotion, supply investment, etc.)
• Integration execution (ramping acquired assets and standardizing operations)
• Fit with reimbursement and payment rules (operational ease)
• Financial cushion (cash flexibility and lightness of debt burden)

Constraints and bottleneck hypotheses (Monitoring Points)

• Supply constraints (product characteristics with strong time constraints) can set both the ceiling and the floor for revenue.
• Intensifying competition often shows up as “profits get hit before revenue.”
• Complex reimbursement and operational rules can create friction for adoption and continued use.
• If acquisitions/integration overlap with organizational transitions, execution speed can slow and resilience can thin.
• It is necessary to continuously monitor whether supply-capacity enhancement (new formulation) is actually resolving bottlenecks.

Two-minute Drill (the core of the investment thesis in 2 minutes)

The core question for underwriting LNTH long term isn’t simply “medical testing will grow.” It’s whether LNTH can stay embedded in frontline clinical standards through regulated, real-world execution—supply, quality, and same-day delivery.

• LNTH has historically won by executing on the hard part of radiopharmaceutical diagnostics: delivering within a narrow time window, with PSMA PET (PYLARIFY) as the largest revenue pillar.
• Over the past five years, the long-term data show strong expansion in revenue, EPS, and FCF, with periods of high ROE and FCF margin; however, profitability can swing by phase, making it a “hybrid” profile (growth plus volatility).
• In the latest TTM, EPS has decelerated sharply and revenue growth is modest, with the Cyclical side of the pattern more visible. That can be consistent with a setup where “profits get hit first under competition,” which makes driver attribution important.
• The balance sheet is currently net cash (Net Debt/EBITDA -0.57) with strong interest coverage, leaving room for competitive responses and integration; however, sustained M&A can create less visible risks through integration friction and slower execution.
• Looking ahead, the debate narrows to whether supply reinforcement (approval and ramp of the new formulation) and diversification via the brain franchise (Neuraceq) plus manufacturing infrastructure (Evergreen) can monetize in a way that dampens volatility in the core franchise.