Pro Medicus Aktie

Thank you for standing by, and welcome to the Pro Medicus Limited Half Year Results Briefing. There will be a presentation followed by a question-and-answer session. [Operator Instructions] I would now like to hand the conference over to Dr. Sam Hupert, CEO. Please go ahead.

Thanks very much. Good morning, everybody, and thanks for joining us. As most of you would know, we are a company in 3 jurisdictions. Melbourne, our corporate headquarters, Berlin, where we do all the R&D and support center for Visage product and the U.S., which is our main market where approximately 90% of our revenue is derived from. We have 2 product sets. Here in Australia, we developed a Visage RIS, which does all the scheduling billing back office interface to payers for some of the radiology groups in Australia. The Visage 7 product, on the other hand, is a clinical product. It's the radiologist desktop and it's the one that we are selling in the U.S. .

In terms of the results, we felt all of our figures headed in the right direction. Revenue was up 28.4%. Our underlying EBIT was up circa 30%. Our EBIT margins period-on-period increased. Our cash investment -- cash and investments went up by 5.3% despite a buyback increased dividends and an investment of $10 million that we made during the period. And our interim dividend went up 28% to $0.32 per share fully franked. So we felt that everything is moving in the right direction.

In terms of the highlights, it was another record half. We won 7 new contracts totaling $280 million at minimums. Putting that in perspective, just 2 years ago, that's what we would sell in an entire year. we reviewed -- renewed the FMOL contract. We had our first very material sale of our cardiology suite to Colorado. We completed 6 cloud-based implementations, our SMA 25 visibility as to date. We have made significant progress with the other ologies, radiology and pathology to name 2 and we believe we've formed a very strong base for growth in second half FY '26 and beyond.

Some of the highlights, as I mentioned, you see new Colorado was $170 million deal early in July. We followed that up with a very important client in University of Heidelberg, which I'll talk about a little later. We won a $44 million 5-year contract with the group ARM, which is their management name, but the name that co-partner market is a Radiology Associates of North Texas, the largest private reading group in the U.S.

Then in November, we had 3 contracts that together gave us nearly $30 million at minimum and finished off the year with [indiscernible] adding the archive to the viewers, which is a $25 million deal taking into. So a busy half. In terms of revenue splits, the salmon color is recurring transactional revenue. The blue is recurring again, which is more of our support licenses from our previous capital model -- and again, all of our splits in the revenue went up as predicted in the first half. In terms of the model, it is a highly scalable model. We think we're one of the most scalable in the market. there is no CapEx hardware or cloud. It's a software-only model. We charge for our training and installation, we have a very highly contained cost base, and hence, the reason the margin continues to grow as our footprint increases.

Just putting that in perspective, we believe our margins are somewhere around triple our nearest competitor. In terms of the transaction model, most of you would be familiar with this. It is based on minimums, our forward revenue for 5 years based on minimums, has broken through the $1 billion mark for the first time. There's a lot of upside as client examination volumes grow and our clients grow well above industry average. So we feel it's an annuity staff stream with far greater predictability. In terms of our investment during the half, many of you will be familiar, we made a $10 million investment, which is a hybrid of debt and equity in another ASX listed company in Medical. It's a 2-year term. for the investment. It has a coupon rate of 12.5% per annum.

But if the share price goes up from our entry point. If it doubles, we get back $20 million. And if it goes beyond that, there is an equity component based on the share price of our entry and the bank share price. And as we sit at 31st of December, that has provided an unrealized gain of approximately $150 million. or a market. Well, we are -- we have the largest footprint in the academic medical center market in the U.S. We do 11 out of the top 20 hospitals as rated by U.S. News and we see that we're now expanding not only at that level, but also at the next level down, a lot of the regional academic medical centers like UI, Kentucky, et cetera, that we picked up in the past 12 to 18 months.

So a very important space for us. But the biggest space is IDNs. It's about 40% plus of the U.S. market. We are increasing our footprint at ends of all sizes within that space. And again, with things like Colorado, which is a mixture of ID and an academic that we saw good growth in the half. The private market is an interesting one. It was 1 that was previously dominant. There was a lot of M&A activity up to about 20, 23 when interest rates started to rise. But we have been quite successful there. Flat ranges, as I mentioned, the largest radiologist and private reading group in the U.S., and we secured a $44 million 5-year deal at minimums. That adds to the 2 deals we made in the previous financial year, in Lucent and July.

So again, we're now looking at about $115 million at minimums in this market at grade. So we think this will become a material market for us alongside the atomical centers and IDNs. In terms of Visage RIS risk, that continued its growth. We sell it mainly here in Australia and in Canada, we do have long-term contracts with some of the largest radiology players here in Australia, and we are seeing increasing uptake of the RIS, particularly as new groups performing as sliver groups are coming to us.

So what makes us so special. Many of you have heard me say this many times before, but it still holds true. The 3 key elements of the systems speed, functionality and scalability, we are #1 in all these 3 areas, and it's the sum of all these parts that may visit what it is. It -- we've seen relentless increase in the size of data sets. One of the areas in particular over the last 12 months has been an area in CT or photon counting CTT, the [indiscernible] produced orders of magnitude larger than standard CT and it will become the new default standard.

So we do see past sizes increasing relentlessly as new modalities and refinements of modalities are being reduced. That helps us because pretty much all of our competitors still use the compress and send methodology. The files compressed, sent down the network, unpacked with local radiologists work station and all of the 3D manipulation enhancement is all done locally on that workstation. The problem with that model is the fastest, it's just getting too big. The gigabyte is a new mega and it's just taking too long on clogging up the networks.

We, on the other hand, have a unique proprietary streaming technology that we Visage developed in-house. And it's the basis of all of our speed and flexibility. It allows even the largest data sets to be visualized sub 2 seconds and in 95% basis. sub 1. It is a huge advantage for us, particularly nowadays where remote reading and home reading has become so prevalent around the world. The sales again going through than some of you may have seen this before, but University of Colorado. It's our second biggest deal. It's $170 million segment largest in company history.

I call it full stack plus 1 because it includes cardiology. So all 3 core products, that's Worklist archive plus our new cardiology offering, which is also making this a material sale for that new product. They are a highly respected hospital systems, as I said, a mixture of IDN and academic, and that we are looking to implement that within the next few months before financial year-end.

The second one is slightly different. Again, European, it's University of Heidelberg. It is a top general medical school and teaching hospital Heidelberg is one of the oldest, if not the oldest universities in Europe, possibly the world, still operating. The other thing is it's affiliated cancer center is the largest cancer research center in Europe. So very hard profile that will increase our footprint in Germany and in Europe because of the network effect of the top university and hospital that it is.

In terms of -- we are the value product, our highest charging product in the market, and we think that's where we should be. We provide the most sale, the greatest and proven return on investment. -- not only is it financial, but it is clinical. In other words, we allow radiologists to do what the wise would take too long to do with other systems or couldn't do with other systems, which is incredibly important for us. It's 1 thing to have the health softer, but it's another thing to put it in. We have a highly optimized fast-track implementation methodology.

We believe we can complete large-scale projects and under 20% of the time of industry norm and certainly many of our competitors. It is a huge saving for the clients, and it's a huge saving for us. We have used a highly optimized hardware model with people on site for training and people remote, which gives us the flexibility depending on whether the radiologists are at time inside the hospital in times of training and is a key differentiator. And I think it's becoming an even bigger differentiator now than it was maybe even 2 or 3 years ago because there is there are a number of our competitors that are having massive issues with implementations and timing of implementations, where sometimes they're delayed 2 to 3 years from time.

So again, a huge strategic advantage for us. We are also solving what's most probably the biggest issue facing radiologists, meters in general, but radial just in particular. -- the acute shortage with Bernard as new epidemic. We are able to address that. We can increase productivity of radiologists out of the gate day 1, they start using the system by north of 25%, sometimes as high as 40% or 50%, and this has paid huge dividends for the systems that have implemented us.

As I mentioned, the important thing for us, it's not just a matter of finances and efficiency. It's also the fact that we do move the needle clinically. Our growth strategy remains intact. We are expanding our footprint quite rapidly. We're now over 10% of the U.S. market. we are seeing above industry average transaction growth from existing clients because of what we enable. The new product offerings in cardiology and so pathology are starting to pay material dividends. We are extending our footprint in other markets at Harte in Germany, for instance. And we are releasing -- leveraging our R&D capability in terms of new add-on technologies, which includes around report generation and AI.

So all of these principles of growth for us remain intact. North American market, we estimate roughly 670 million exams performed per annum, growing on average between 2% 3% a year. We believe we, from a product perspective, can address 100% of that, and we're unique in that regard. In terms of when is a deal too small, it to be commercially viable -- we think that the tail is about 15% of the market for less. And that 15% is diminishing as the smaller players find it difficult to stand alone and are absorbed into latter health systems because of security, governance and the cost of doing business is just getting more -- so we're currently, as I mentioned, about now over 10% and growing.

So we do have a very large addressable runway, which we're going after. In terms of the pipeline, we feel is very robust at the moment. There are a lot of opportunities in there, those opportunities across all 3 market segments and across all sizes of opportunity, which is important -- we think there's been a very strong network attack from implementations in all 3 sectors of the market, which gives us an advantage at the and we have many prospects coming through various stages of the cycle. In terms of the products, the first 1 was a few -- we did release a number of years ago, a visit 7 open a part. It's a key part of our cloud strategy. And I'm pleased to say that most clients nowadays take both the viewer, the part and also the workflow product full stack. Not only does this increase the TCV for us, it makes the implementation so much easier because we don't have other third parties to deal with and we are seeing more and more and more of that in our sales and particularly in the last 24 months.

Cloud is huge for us. We have not put in an on-premise implementation in the U.S. around about 5 years now. We believe we are the only truly cloud-native application currently in the market. And we think that has made a significant difference for us in terms of competition and our ability and speed at which we can implement. We are cloud vendor agnostic. We have large-scale implementations in AWS, Azure and Google GCP, which gives us a lot of flexibility that orders just don't have. In terms of our strategy, Enterprise Imaging, or one fewer for modalities, we are moving much, much closer to that with our new product suite.

We now do radiology, cardiology and soon to be released pathology. We also do reflected light and videos, which will cater for all the other ologies like dermatology, ophthalmology. So we think we have moved a fair way down the track to being the only truly single platform for the entire edge enterprise. And we think that will increase our ad proposition going forward, particularly since all of it is cloud. So the end game is what we see here on the -- on this slide, it is cloud. It's got Visage 7 as the center of everything for all clinicians, in all ologies. It is also the repository of data for AI and generation of foundation models and AI algorithms and it is the conduit for all image within the health care enterprise and we are getting very close to delivering on that entire scenario.

Cardiology, as we mentioned, we've had our first really big sale with in Colorado, it is at the same basis Visage 7. It's ultrafast and gives immediate access to the cardiologists for large data sets, which they need. It also has all the intraoperability with third-party reporting systems such as Epic Cube, which is used by so many of the clients. We see this, as I mentioned before, full stack plus 1. So again, an ability to increase the total contract value -- we have in the pipeline, numerous opportunities, RFPs, that are for both radiology and cardiology, and we're seeing very strong interest on the existing user base in the cardiology offerings.

The last of the major ologies, digital pathology, we announced the release of that last year. We are going through the validation approval process for that. The important thing for us, again, it is the same visit platform. It is the same code base -- it's not a whole separate development. It's part of a standard development, and we've had an extreme amount of interest in that from prospective and user base. So the last question, the topic du jour is where I'm sure all of you have seen in the press recent -- of late is AI is at a disruptor or not. And I thought this was an interesting quote from the ABC just from last week.

But it basically says software is a sinkhole, AI may revolutionize the way we work could very well lay waste the business empires themselves only recently over through the old world order. And there's been a lot of headlines similar to this -- our view is that we think this is a gross generalization and overstatement of AI capability. certain 1 of the concerns around massive infrastructure investment by some of the hyperscalers in AI and data centers does not apply to us quite the opposite. We are a capital-light model with software only. We don't have any CapEx or data center build out pathway. As a matter of fact, we think will be the beneficiaries of the bill out done by others.

The other thing is our software is proprietary. It wasn't developed on an easily or regularly available toolkit or platform. It is deeply technical and highly visualized and very domain specific. So it's not a generic software stack, and it's not 1 that others know of technology because we have not only entered it, but we haven't published a road map of what we've done and to date, no one has been able to emulate our technology stack, even though it's been in the market over 16 years.

But having said that, our solution is more than just software. It's assisted some methods we've built around it. all the training, the right implementation that I mentioned. We often train thousands of tech, radiologists and clinicians in a single go live, and it's all around how we distribute it and support it because health care is a highly regulated environment, you can't just with upper program and there you go. It has to go through a whole regulatory call and be validated. And importantly, it is a mission-critical solution because patient safety is at stake.

So it's not a simple drag and drop and you've got visage mark to -- in terms of other moats that we have, unlike a lot of other SaaS companies, we have long-term contracts with our clients. They can't just cancel a win or a month or 3 months' notice. And as I mentioned before, we have over $1 billion at minimums of contracted revenue in the next 5 years. And we foresee that, that will continue growing. The AI tools that are around tend to focus likely to focus on system design rather than coding. That suits us because we use tools extensively throughout Visage in Pro Medicus. We have fewer smarter developers that are highly optimized to use of these tools.

And then on top of that, we also have the in-house capability to develop AI, which we've done previously and continue to do. And finally, the last comment I'll make is that AR was predicted to replace radiologists and therefore, would there ever be a need for Prometic's disaster in the future. I think that's proven to be widely over optimistic, at all manpower studies is recently is 1 published overnight. But predicting that AI will allow the catch-up of the bag but will not replace radiologists, if anything, that will help generate more work for radiologists.

So we think we're ideally placed the benefit from AI and I'm happy to any questions on that in the next few minutes. nzs These are some of our developments. We have breast cancer detection in FDA, the investment in Lucid, the investment in D and long AI that I mentioned before, the collaborations through a number of top AMCs, the latest being CSF joins Mayo Land NYU. And we have a growing number of third-party AI integrations to offer to our user base.

This is our leadership team, Malte Westerhoff and Delev Stalling are the 2 co-developers of the Visage platform. They're both PhD scientists in health care and health care data analysis and they lead a whole team that does not only our development but our efforts in AI, both in terms of using it and in production of our own algorithms. I'll finally finish off with something that we are seeing more and more use cases for that, the Apple Vision Pro the 3D and googles. if we were one of the first, if not the first, to have software ready for it. And this year, an unprecedented curve, Apple did a joint development with us a point -- session with us at the -- at their key Chicago Apple Store.

Apple are very protective of the brand of their store, the technology, it took 11 months to organize, but it was a wildly successful event. This is a picture of it. You see less than half of the audience. We estimate 300 to 400 people turned up to listen to 3 radiologists talk about how they actually use in the real world the Apple Vision product and technology. So there's quite a future risk. And finally, RSNA it was our biggest invest. This year, we had 62 people, which we needed full time and the stand that you see is pretty much the entire product is the footprint of our stand at RSNA. So it is growing every year and paying significant dividends in terms of new leads and new opportunities that we see.

So just finishing up, it's been the most successful half in our company's history. Majority of sales are full stack, and we see that continuing our proven implementation and support capability are really key strategic strengths as is cloud. We think we have an unparalleled value proposition and our North American footprint and pipeline continue to grow strongly. Cardiology, full stack plus 1. We feel that we will see more of these deals coming through the pipeline. Pathology, again, very well received to those that we've shown it to. We believe we are ideally positioned to leverage AI. It is a plus rather than a threat, and we do see increase in use cases. for Visage RIS and Apple Vision Product. I'll leave it there and obviously, happy to take any questions.

[Operator Instructions] The first question today comes from Annabel Li from Goldman Sachs.

I've just got 2, and I'll ask them one by one. So first on timing, we clearly have very strong visibility on your contracted revenues. But just from a timing perspective, are you able to give us some more detail around the drivers that we'll see into the second half and potentially into 2017? And then just confirming that revenue growth in that second half should start to accelerate as more of these contracts come online? And then just a follow-up on that one. With commentary that there are 3 more Trinity cohorts that will go live in the second half. Was that just in line with your prior expectations?

It is. And at our AGM, which was in November last year, our Chairman said that we were ahead of our internal budgets than we were right now. We knew that particularly Trinity, which is one of the biggest go lives -- one of the biggest contract wins in the history of our industry. We knew that the first cohort would only go live at the end of October. That was a time set by them, not by us. So we received -- there was only 2 months, and we knew that was going to be the case. There are 5 cohorts in the first tranche, and we have completed the second cohort in January.

So all of that is totally on track in terms of our timing. Because there's such large -- each cohort is as large as a huge academic institution they're very, very large. So each of those will contribute very significantly to the second half as well as anything else that we put in during the second half. We've got scheduled for another 7 -- well, besides Trinity, another 5 implementation -- not 5, another 3 implementations on top of the Trinity ones. So there's plenty to go on in this half, but I think the main thing for us will be the step-up in revenue from cohort 1 and cohort 2 in Trinity, both of which are completed.

And just to your question about Trinity, Yes, there are 4 cohorts that would be complete by the end of 30th of June, which was exactly how we thought that would be another one early July. So 5 cohorts by then and fully completed by October next year -- October this year, sorry. .

Got it. And then just my second question on AI. As you mentioned, we're seeing some very since advancements in AI. How might this have changed your thinking around the opportunity for PME like ramping up investments now versus a little bit later on? And I guess if you could share any key milestones that you might be thinking to in this business for years.

Yes. As I said, we -- we see through multiple prisms. One is we use it ourselves in our own development and have for quite a period of time, as we said, it does assist code. So it's not like something someone else has, and we don't quite be opposite. But then we also see the market for AI in our industry evolving to being very material, and we think we're very well positioned to benefit from that. So AI will be used throughout radiology in various steps not all at once, but I think it will become prevalent. But importantly, I think it will become prevalent as an aid to radiologists rather than a replacement. So I think the opportunity for us is to use our own development, which we have been doing. and we have highly optimized that. And on the business side for us, clearly, we are looking to position ourselves as a key player in that space in radiologist that rolls out.

The next phone question comes from Garry Sherriff from RBC.

A couple of questions, one on AI and the other one on your Department of Defense opportunity. If I start with AI, how should we think from a contract term perspective, mainly because if I think about health care customers as with everybody in this AI environment, are they seeking flexibility longer term just given the advances in AI impact soft, what do you think I guess, maybe not this current renewal period. But if I roll forward 3 to 5 years, do you think there's a risk that some of your customers might seek shorter renewals rather than be locked in for a 5- to 7-year contract terms.

So that's the first question, if there's been any conversations around that. And I guess related to that is also price, your margins are triple, your nearest competitor, which naturally attracts capital from other players. Do you think, again, that price could be potentially impacted longer term, given what's going on in terms of AI advances and competition?

Yes. So on a contract length, we're seeing exactly the opposite. So we've, in recent terms, written contracts 10 years out. We don't know any client that would even imagine writing their own product to replace us. What some will do and haven't always done is develop things in-house. It could be -- and they jump to us. So they develop their own AI algorithms in very niche and bespoke areas. And that has always occurred. There's nothing new in that. So if we think of anything we -- my view is we're actually seeing longer-term opportunity in our contracts. So that was the first one. And the second question, sorry, Garry.

Yes, more to do with price again.

Yes. If anything, I think it will help us extend our price because we are building AI into our platform as part of the core offering, which allows us to make it even more automated, even further ahead of others. So I think AI in terms of price, I think AI in terms of neex product will all be incredibly positive for us.

And the next one on an update on that Department of Defense opportunity. Anything you can provide status, any updates that you're aware of, you can let us know about?

I think just that we are progressing. We're nearly complete -- having our Vision 23 in cloud, they did upgrade during the first half to work with. So we'll have full stack in cloud, we always envisage somewhere around February, early March, and that's on track for that. And we think that will be the poster child for all the others. So yes, there's something we are close to the Department of Defense, looking at opportunities.

You may have noticed that they had selected another vendor for a large telehealth, teleradiology opportunity and they're not progressing with that. So again, maybe that will come out to market too, which would be of interest to us. So yes, we think that it is progressing well and all the steps we've taken with the FedRAMP authority to operate are all starting to come together in our favor.

The next phone question is from Josh Kannourakis from Barrenjoey.

The first one is just on pipeline and the second one, a bit of an extension Firstly, with regard to pipeline, I think last time when we saw some of the major contracts, Trinity, obviously kept a very close eye on the implementation and the success of the rollout with Baylor Scott & Wine. When you look at the pipeline currently, and you've obviously progressed and done 2 of the big go-live at Trinity, how do you see the opportunity opening up into some of those other top 20 sort of top 20 or so hospitals in the U.S.? And maybe if you can give any feedback on where you're at in that domain.

Yes. Look, there's no doubt that success at Baylor, even in early stages the first 2 cohorts and I mean each cohort is bigger than any go live, single go live attempt by anyone. So we're resetting the boundaries. All of that is resonating in the industry, and it's definitely being positive for us as a network effect because people go, well, if you can do Baylor, you can do [indiscernible] you can do Trinity and that you're somewhere between Baylor and Trinity and SaaS, we can do that too.they've all been flagship implementations. No question about that.

Okay. That's really helpful. And you talked a little bit just on the pipeline around the outpatient and the reading clinics. That seems like that market is growing. And obviously, with some of the shift in terms of reimbursement and things like that, that's becoming more important and a lot of them are on older systems like Intelerad, which has been -- just some more comment maybe on that in terms of how you see the opportunity staging up in pipeline on that front.

Well, it's moving very quickly for us and in a positive direction, simply with -- Rand is one of the most highest profile of the fully private groups. It's incredibly well known. The thing about groups like ramp, they won't take our card because they're not the archive of record, the hospital is so they don't meet it. But their volume expansion can be considerable. So we think that, that particular contract has a lot of upside in it. So we are seeing a lot more interest in the ambulatory market, pure ambiguity.

But having said that, a lot of our larger hospital clients are building centers or partnering with a provider for outpatient centers around their hospitals. And all of that has been good business for us as well. So from something where we really didn't have much of a looking about 3 years ago, that private space is growing very nicely for us, and we think that will continue.

Great, and just on AI, I'll take a different take on the prior questions. You've probably gone in a bit of detail on that. In terms of your ability to monetize, I think, one thing, often think about as a network across the academics and other major hospitals where they're trying to bring their IP to the real world and also using that network as a sort of validation rather than getting external validation outside the U.S., how important do you think that will be going forward in terms of segregating the different tiers potentially of algorithms? And have you seen much progress from those academics in terms of trying to bring some of these goes to market?

Yes. Well, I think the whole thing about algorithms is that who created them, who curated the data and how up to date they are. They're not a set and forget. And I think that's where the key academic centers have an enormous head start over others. And as you know, we tap into a number of them. So we see that they will serve multiple roles like the breast cancer detection algorithm that we are releasing with obviously, a lot of work in background, a lot of clinical work and a lot of validation.

We've had it validated in a second Tier 1 academic -- so secondary validation, which we can do quicker than anyone. So I think all that will be, as you say, not only a source of rims but a primary secondary and possibly tertiary validation and the more validation you have by Tier 1 names, clearly, the more the higher level of confidence in that algorithm by the people look to buy. So yes, I think all of that is working in our favor. And the first model of that will be the breast cancer detection that's currently in FDA.

The next question comes from David Lowe from UBS.

Sam, just a quick first question. Just the model -- the contract model that you have, as AI increasingly plays a role in assisting radiologists what does it do to your per click model? I mean is there any challenges there? Is that built into the contract that it wouldn't have an impact?

No. Basically, we look at AI for radiologists in sort of 2 camps. One sort of the bonnet that is built into the application, makes things quicker and will allow us to maintain our pricing and possibly increase it due to the value that, that gives. The second is around assisting a radiologist, second set of eyes as we call it, -- and there, we will look to charge on an opt-in basis. So they decide to use the breast cancer detection algorithm that's currently in FDA, if a client decides to use it, there will be a cost based on a per click for using it. So 1 embedded, and we think that will allow us to increase price. The other one is an opt-in where they pay for this to use it.

Yes. I guess I was worried that mine increasingly screening can to a lot of images and then draw attention to the ones that the radiologist should look at and that might have implications the way you set up the contracts, I take it, you thought of that.

Yes, yes. No. And to be honest, at the moment, some organizations talk about drowning in the workloads. So anything that could even just get from Square, which is what I think no talking about wouldn't take away from what we're currently doing in terms of volume.

Okay. Great. And then look, the other question just on competitive dynamics. We're not really seeing your competitor sort of they're also winning plenty of contracts. The way you describe things is pretty compelling. Do you think the reputation of Visage and Pro Medicus versus any of your peers as an obvious 1 there has moved at all in the last 12 months? Do you think there's still more education requirement. I mean, I heard what you said about network effects. But I guess I'm trying to understand those dynamics and whether there is a clear differentiation there.

I think there is. I think there's a big differentiation. And I think those that actually try before they buy, we'll see the difference being far bigger than they imagined. And we've seen more of that. And I think it's also reflected in how we can implement the technology work, the cloud works. I mean we know of others, I won't name names, but they've signed contracts and then 3 years later and nothing has been implemented. That's not us. So I think there is a difference. Not everybody, you can't win them all, but I think as we put more and more in the delta between us and others get bigger rather than smaller.

If I could squeeze just 1 more in on what you've said there. I mean is there any opportunities there where other implementations are clearly running behind schedule for Visage to place those who won the contract?

We hope so yes. .

If they come back out to market, yes.

And we've seen that before a number of times where people have gone for something else, something cheaper, something they thought would work and the patent and then we win that contract.

Trinity is the one, case in point, where it had been won previously by another group. And clearly, weren't satisfied with the implementation and came to us.

And you're right, depending on how the contracts are written, if groups are unable to deliver eventually, one would hope that the institution will go enough is enough, we've waited long enough, but all I know is that we can and we noted others having difficulty, and I think that's telling.

The next question comes from Andrew Paine from CLSA.

Just on FX. Just wondering if there was any impact in the first half? And also the outlook into 2 half '26? And then just also how that's assumed in terms of your forward revenue guidance over the next 5 years?

Yes. In terms of the half, that's been not a lot. It's an average of the 6-month period. And although the Australian dollar has appreciated since December. The average was pretty similar to the prior period. In terms of forward-looking, well, if I could predict FX, I wouldn't be here. But clearly, as we said today, it's higher than what we did in the half. Our 5-year forward revenue takes into effect FX as of today pretty much. .

Okay. So that's got $0.70, $0.71 in that.

Yes.

That's great. And then just also, just staying on the kind of competition dynamic at the moment. Obviously, there's been the acquisition by GE of Intelerad. Are you seeing any evolution of competition within the space post-acquisition and changes in the dynamics at all?

Well, we think -- to be frank, we think that acquisition is going is, has been really and will be good for us. There'll be some that field, which is my feeling that a software company that's meant to be agile and nimble doesn't sit well inside our modality, then it's a lot more structured. So yes, I think the dynamic will fit us and some of the opportunities that we're seeing in our pipeline sort of reflect that. .

Okay. So in terms of the Intelerad by themselves would be a stronger competitor because they're more nimble versus going into a large company like GE?

Correct. But I think they've also -- they originally founder led. There were 4 founders that they sold out to private equity quite a number of years ago and since that I think that potency has decreased in the market considerably, but this, I think, will be an even bigger and even bigger leg up, but that's a personal view. And we've seen the first window of it. So it will be interesting to see how that dynamic plays out. .

The next question comes from Paul Mason from E&P.

I've got 2 related to AI. For the first one, I was just interested to understand a bit more like with all the AI diagnostic tool partnerships that you've got underway. What proportion of like radiologists diagnostic problems that they have to sort of think about? Like my understanding is there's like maybe like 10,000 different potential diagnoses a radiologist might make. Like what proportion of that would you have covered like with the pipeline of your development?

And then the second 1 was just if you could maybe flesh out for us a little bit. Like currently, Pro Medicus has very big advantage around how much radiologist productivity comes out of using our tool because of how fast images load. What you think that would look like if you had like complete coverage of like diagnostic assistance inside the platform?

Yes. So look, the number of -- you're right. I think there are about 2,400 and something differential diagnosis that maybe there's even more when you look at the various body parts. So I think AI traditionally has been more single diagnosis, single body part. We're seeing a broadening of that in the market where some AI will look at a body part and have multiple diagnosis, so they cover multiple basis. The problem with that is the FDA needs to clear each one independently.

So the best 20 things they independently clear 20 different algorithms. Now that is slightly changing. So I think we're at the beginning of that journey, not us, the whole industry. But we are starting to see real-world application of AI as the next diagnosis, some specific cases have reimbursement, which obviously is easier for organizations to implement because they pay for it. so that helps too. But we're at beginning of that journey. In terms of efficiency, I think anything that the AI gives sits on top of our 25% plus.

So it doesn't -- you don't get 20x percent out of visas and then you use AI and it soaks up some of the advantage we have. It's all additive -- absolutely 100% additive. So yes. So I think we're fairway away from everybody part being covered. But the industry is moving quickly, and all of that we see will benefit us, but certainly not detract from the speed that we give on the platform that always is on top of.

And maybe just like a follow-up on that then. Just in terms of your ability to actually drive that versus needing to come out of like the academic institutions that you've sort of talked about, like do you have an ability to sort of forge ahead with that? Or do you need like a partner hospital to actually decide they want to develop something before you can go into it because of where the data is sitting?

No. We -- if you look at what we did with the Lucid, which is in cardiac CT, we will be partnering with them. We don't need anything from the academics we're taking an FDA-approved products from a third party and taking a pass through by putting it through the platform, and you'll see more and more of that. Where we use the academics is in the areas where we develop or codevelop, in other words, it's a build or partner type scenario with every algorithm.

And so we have a mix shift and the mixture is always dynamic depending on who is doing what. But we always feel we will be the point in the middle of whether something we do to CSF or something we partner with another third party that will all be on cards.

The next question comes from Christine Trinh from Macquarie Capital.

Just a couple. Firstly, on the margin piece, slightly better year-over-year. but less of an expansion than what we saw in the first half and, I guess, less than what the market was anticipating. But can we just get a bit of your thoughts on ongoing margin improvements, seeing pieces in there? I know you mentioned RSNA, but a bit of a breakdown in terms of what are your expectations for sales force or other cost contributions would be great. That's my first question.

Yes. Clearly, revenue increased and helped with the margins, so they did go up. We did say 6 months ago, we think the margins can increase, but don't expect them to shop through it too much higher. We might be able to eke out a few percentage here or there. costs in the first half, clear [indiscernible] there. So it's always lower than the second half. Employee Benefits was also a little higher this period. We had new employees that have started -- we had some mark-to-market LTI and STI that had to increase. So they are in this half that won't be repeated in the second half. But as I said, pleasingly, the EBIT margins to increase. .

And then just on AI developments, one of your competitors came out with a set of tools, essentially at reporting and diagnostics support. Is that something kind of you're building into the base Visage platform? Or is it in the pipeline? Like things like [indiscernible] and AI kind of voice recording?

Yes. We've already done that. We showed the RSNA the generative AI tools that we have that can look through into our checking and reports and also if you dictate just findings generate the clinical summary. So we're already there with that, and we're extending that capability in the reporting side. So yes, they may have announced, but we've really done it. .

Perfect. And then just one last one for me. On Trinity contracts. Apologies if I'm going over anything obvious. But just so I'm clear on the first tranche, your 5 cohorts will be complete by July. So just how much that represents in terms of a full contract? And then just an update on the following tranches, timing, contributions and what else?

That will be about 80% done, maybe a bit more, 85%. So we'll hit the new financial year, which will still be under their 1-year minimum at about 85%. So that will be good going into -- the last 2 cohorts to Trinity go live in August and then October. So that will be fully completed within 12 months of go-live which, again, as Sam mentioned, is unheard of in the industry. Proofs of that size in the past. We've had other competitors take 3 or 4 years even to start.

So whilst I think it has been missed a little bit in the market about the timing of it, we'll sort of stuff, obviously, for a better second half and then a better going into FY '27.

The next question comes from Sarah Mann from Moelis Australia.

First question from me is just on the pipeline. Obviously, you've called out that you've had a couple of cardiology wins in there. But today, just curious when you look forward, like what percent of the pipeline or just a rough idea, any color around how many of the clients are looking for your full stack plus 1?

Yes. Well, it's actually material. I don't know the exact number.

And it can change because sometimes people don't want it in their RFP and they look at it. So it is fluid. It can move around. These RFPs, as you know, can be 18 months to 24 months. So things can be added.

Yes. But we know that there's some already where it is in the RFP, and we're seeing a lot more of that than we would have seen maybe even 12 months ago. So look, we're not saying every single deal will happen. But we do believe we will see more of it, not less. That's for sure.

Got it. And then on the pathology opportunity as well. Can you give us a feel for approximate time line of when you think you're going to be able to launch that and I guess, curious as well in terms of the discussions you're having now that you've, I guess, kind of prototype at RSNA, how many of the people in the tender pipeline are interested in the pathology aspect as well?

So the launch is imminent. We have one client that we know we will be able to put it into which they do our own internal validation, therefore, doesn't mean regulatory. So that's within the next few months or less. What we have seen is not so much people putting a piece of pathology, or with pathology included, but it's an important decision maker. They're looking at vendor. So I'll say we're not looking at it for 12 months or 18 months, but we need to know that you'll have that sort of thing -- and I think the fact that we've announced that they've seen that validation and up for them.

So I think you will see more and more throughout the year, but it's not that people are just it's not like cardiology, whether it's here and now. I think you'll see more and more looking at it within the 12-, 18-month period, but it's important for them to know you have it now. So Clearly, it's a very important thing for us strategically.

The next question comes from Peter Meichelboeck from Select Equities.

Just a couple of questions. Firstly, in relation to the buyback, obviously, the share price come back a fair bit since the first part of the buyback, now that the results are out of the way. Just wondering what your thoughts are on the buyback going forward are? .

Well, clearly, that's a decision for the Board. And we obviously would look at that. If we thought that the buyback made sense at a higher price that I think it's telling you something. But again, I can't comment fully on that until we as the Board sits together with I'm sure we will. .

Great. And just second one, in terms of renewals, you called out the renewal that you had in the in the first half, we've done MRL. Anything else coming up for renewal in the next 12 months?

Yes, we have a few. And I think we've mentioned before at Mayo CLinic and Mass General and few others are coming up. So there have been a few that we're working on. I will use another one. So yes, all moving forward.

Are you in sort of discussions or active sort of discussions there on those ones or?

Yes, absolutely. .

Yes.

Moving to the webcast questions. The first webcast question is, do we have a sense of the likely uptake of PME's cardiology add-on? And how potentially significant is it longer term?

I think it's going to be very significant for us. One is in its own right. So we -- as we've just mentioned, we won new Colorado, which is a big one with cardiology and we are seeing a trend in the RFPs. I think the second thing is it's important strategically because people are looking at the broader enterprise and the fact that we can do cardiology and to do pathology on the same platform, and I stress that because no one else can do that, that they I think strategically, they're very important for us. .

The next question is, does Pro Medicus see its relationship with 4 medical growing? And what does the future hold then?

Well, as you know, most of you would know I was on the 4D Advisory Board. So I'm familiar with their technology. We have made the investment, which today, as it sits is a good investment. And we also said when we made the original deal that there was potential to put the technology in our platform. So again, it's something we're looking at in a month other algorithms, as we mentioned before, third-party algorithms on the platform and the PC could potentially be one of those. .

The next webcast question is how do you interpret the PME share price over the last full year, ignorance regarding AI, misunderstanding future income commitment, competition potential changing.

Well, I can't -- we don't control the share price, but certainly, we do believe there has been a lot of generalizations and misapprehensions around AI in general and its role in terms of software disruption. I think it's been totally over simplified and almost exaggerated. And we've put our view forward on that as have others. We also think we have the most future commitments of any company and certainly the most in our history, which we've now announced over $1 billion.

So take that for what it's worth. We do think -- we're sitting in a good position with no future contracts at minimum with that increasing day by day.

The next question is, what is the view on realizing the $149 million 40x gains given the huge volatility in share price and markets, what is the thoughts around keeping and why versus realizing with the contract pipeline, what percentage is in negotiation phase by value?

Well, in terms of realizing the 40 gains, it's a 2-year loan proposition, debt and equity. So it's only real opt for 2 years. We can't break that before then. So there's no chance of realizing that before end.

Yes. It's purely -- we -- through accounting standards, have to show its value as of 31st of December. But clearly, the ultimate value will depend on the share price in end of July 2027. .

The next question is, what is the fast track implementation cycle in days? It seems that it is not translated in ramp-up of use or sales.

I certainly think in terms of days, we don't have -- 1 track what we know is we've implemented things within 3 to 6 months where others have taken new years. Clearly, the bigger ones like Trinity, new Colorado, we specified it in the announcement when we saw them toward day would be longer than normal, and that's generally based on them, not us. which is getting their ducks in a row, making sure they have radiologists available to train just hydro organization. So it's still a fast track implementation compared to the competition. It's just sometimes for others. It takes longer for our customers to get organized.

Yes. And also on translation to sales, I've actually disagreed with that, quite the opposite. We have in this half, sold more than just 2 years ago, we did in the whole year. So it is translating to increase sales. We've had record last year with Trinity and others, and we're well on the track this year to just shy of $300 million in new sales. And that's a minimum. So it has definitely translated to improved sales, no question on that. .

The next question is regarding the VISN 23 extension. Is it for a 5-year term? What is the total per annum minimum revenue from this contract now, what is the potential in expanding to other VISN?

Yes, it is a 5-year deal. When we originally signed them in 2013, it was for a bit under $3 million, $4 million over 5 years, and it's now around $11 million. So you see, it's more than doubled, a bit over $2 million per annum. So it's more than doubled in 10 years that we've had them. They've taken additional product plus they have more licenses than they've ever had. In terms of expanding into other VISNs, I think Sam spoke about the opportunity there.

And we are looking to move VISN 23 into the GovCloud secure government cloud with AWS and that should be completed by the end of March. And then we have a reference site for other opportunities in that space.

So we think there's good potential because the government has said everything needs to go into this GovCloud. And we feel we're one of the few, if not the only one that has been able to show that we can do it. So clearly, we are speaking to the under VISNs, and we are going to be using VISN 23 as the example or post the chart with how we think it should be done.

The next question is, given the significant share price decline we've seen today, despite what appears to be a solid operational result, can you help us understand what it is you believe is driving the market's reaction and specifically, from your perspective, what individual investors should do now, should long-term holders stay on board? And what key upcoming catalysts or indicators should reassure us of future growth?

I can't comment on share price. My view has always been share price as a market tone, and I let the market decide that. But I think our view is that we have shown, hey, we've grown 30% with our biggest implementation only coming at the end of the period and 30% off a big base. We've had our second highest dollar value of sales in the half over and the year is not finished. And we know that we will have completed, we've already completed 2 major cohorts of Trinity, our biggest client.

So we think that the base has been well set up. We have said at our AGM that we expect the second half bars to be stronger, and they are the reasons why. And we're on track for that because the other 3 chorts of Trinity or measuring to exactly the plan -- and yet, we think the pipeline is strong. And so therefore, we're hopeful that will be more opportunities to add to that $1.80 billion that's sitting there over the next 5 years as a minimum.

Our second biggest contract also in new Colorado goes live in April, which includes both radiology and cardiology. So again, sets us up for a good reference side, other cardiology opportunities, but also [indiscernible] given the size.

The next question is, does cardiology suffer the same issues as radiology?

It has the same sort of issues around data size. Cardiology with ultrasound and video clips now the studies that regularly are per gigabyte each -- so what makes us good for radiology in terms of speed, the scalability applies equally well to cardiology. So that's why we think it will be a significant contributor for us going forward.

The next webcast question is, has the company lost any tenders to the competitors since August of last year? And if so, why?

We have. We -- I wish we could win every single RFP, but that's never really been the case. We have lost a few. Invariably, it's been around price, which I think is a false economy because radiology generates so much income for the institution that you really want to give you radiologist tools. But yes, we've lost a few, but it's always been around price.

The next question is, would you be able to please describe in a little bit more detail what you mean by third-party AI integrations Furthermore, is there a good usage of those integrations in production?

Yes. So something like with Lucid. So Lucid have AI for cardiac CT. And what we would do is not just sell it as a stand-alone, we would sell it so that the output of it could be viewed within Visage as part of looking at that particular study. So it would just make it more seamless. Any of our integrations would make it far more seamless and intuitive for the radiologist to use. And that has been one of the big problems with AI in general, that some radiologists feel it's not well integrated and therefore, takes additional steps and actually slow them down rather than speed them up. And we think the integration is secure. .

The next question is, how will AI be implemented on Visage? Will it help triage images flagging scans with potential critical findings, intracranial bleeds and move it up the stack for the radiologist. How will revenue be generated, subscription or per use model?

Yes. I think that sort of prioritization, we can already support. There are third-party AI algorithms to do exactly that. They prioritize their signs of bleeding. That's what we think is low-hanging fruit. I think the integration that we're looking at is even more sophisticated like if there is a lead where in the brain is of which images inside the stack have the bleed and can we open the images to at that point. That's an example of a much higher degree of integration and the latter that we're looking at. So as I said, the more integrated, the more seamless it is, the more it will be adopted. .

And in terms of the model of the mode, more likely fee per study, so similar to what we do already so to discrete AI that we sell on top of our current offering it would be in that methodology. If it's within our product, we were just part of the cost stack.

The next question is, is there a pipeline of investments along the lines of the 40x model?

We have been approached by a number of companies, as you would expect over the years. We we have a person, [ Tim Korn ], who's joined us recently as our Chief Strategy Officer to look at exactly those sorts of opportunities. But look, again, we're very selective and we'll only look at opportunities where we thought our involvement put a value. But yes, we potentially see that there could be others going forward. .

The next question is, could you see 4DMedical as a potential bolt-on to Pro Medicus? Would it complement your current offering?

I think I referred to that a little earlier, but basically, we would see it as a third-party algorithm as we do others like what we're talking about Lucid in cardiac CT and there's a whole raft of other third parties in and around both the cardiac and noncardiac space and could potentially be one of those. p.

The next question is UC Health will implement in a few months year-end. So how do we look at UC Health revenue contribution in 2H 26? In general, do we think of how the implementation at this stage? Does cardiology impact the speed of implementation?

In terms of the contribution by U Colorado, yes, it starts in April and finishes around July. There's 3 phases. So it will have a small bush of revenue in the second half of '26, but clearly, pretty much full revenue for '27. In terms of the impact on speed, it doesn't affect it in this case because we're remaining both at the same time to both radiology and cardiology. We're not doing radiology and then 6 months later coming back and doing cardiology. It's all at the same time. .

So I think the implementations are exactly where we thought they'd be at this stage, which, again, I think may have been misinterpreted in the market.

The next question is great AI investments to third parties. Can you provide more color related to those in-house capabilities to develop AI? What is the perspective of in-house AI development?

We have the capability to do it in-house or with our clinical partners, and we've shown that in the past. It really depends on the opportunity in the AI. So and whether someone's already got something out there in the market and therefore, we just replicate that. So it really depends on the opportunity. We do see most of the applications being third party just because they're literally going to be thousands of them. But that won't be static either.

There will be times when we develop things become when we develop it. in a year or 2 and use third party in between, it really is what suits the client best, that's how we would approach it. SP1 The next question is -- you've locked in contracts at 80% of planned volumes and have had substantial overage in the past. Are you seeing the same level or growing overage from your contracts? Can you give any additional color to the percentage attributed to cardiology in the recent 2 contracts announced over a medium and long term, how do you see revenue segmentation based on radiology, cardiology, pathology will radiology always be 80% of revenue?

Yes, we are still seeing averages in our volumes. So we still see them on a quarterly basis, and we always get overages from the contracts. -- if the planned minimum is 80%, they tend to do the 100% within the first quarter and then grow from there. So we're seeing larger than the industry standard in terms of growth. In terms of the contribution from cardiology, we mentioned with new Colorado, it was around 13% of the total contract value.

So significant material in that way. Vancouver Clinic was pretty similar around 10% to 12%. So it is a fair size of it. the revenue segmentation, I think radiology has a massive head start literally 10% of the market. So clearly, it's a bigger base. So Will it be in the revenue not going to be greater than that because it's not based on the minimum, it's based on what they've previously done. But cardiology and pathology or cardiology is are already starting to grow and pathology will follow suit.

Yes. So in any particular deal, we think that radiology will be between 70% plus. If you add cardiology and pathology that may take between 20% and 30%. But clearly, that's as we see it today, it could become bigger, pathology becomes bigger. .

The next question is stripping out the $149 million noncash gain from 4DMedical, does that impact figure mean we are seeing the lengthening of sales cycle in North America?

No. I think all it's showing is that we reached 30%, knowing 30% NPAT, knowing that one of our biggest implementations, there would only be 2 months with in the first half, that's in auto. Obviously, it will contribute 6 months' worth in the second half and the second cohort of Trinity will contribute bit over 5 months. So that's why we think there'll be a second half bias.

And just on that, the $149 million is a pretax amount. So it's not a risk of taking the NPAT of $171 million and take $149 million from that. I've seen some commentary around that with some profits only 20. That's not the case. That's obviously going to take effect on it as well. So just to be clear, the $129 million is a pretax noncash guidance.

The next question is, with the share price reacting negatively today, what specific business metrics or milestones should individual investors track over the next 12 to 24 months that you believe would naturally translate into share price growth if delivered?

I think the things we've talked about today, the fact that we've been able to grow first half by 30%, and we know that it's a stronger second half, and we've talked about that. The fact that all our implementations are large ones. -- the Trinity cohorts and new Colorado, 2 of our biggest deals ever in our history, they're all on track to get implemented within the next few months and deliver material revenue step-up. .

And then the fact that we've sold in 6 months what we used to sell in 10 years and all of that revenue is ahead of us as well. I think they're all the signpost along the road.

The next question is, can I clarify regarding the volume-based pricing model, please? The volume is the total images going through the whole workflow, including what AI tools screen initially and what human radiologists look at without the AI's initial assessment.

When we talk about volumes, we're talking about our exam volumes that we get for radiology, Clearly, for cardiology, pathology, AI, that's separate to that. So we don't include that when we're talking about our volume-based pricing. If we have a model that's for AI or something else, we would charge that separately on a more likely volume-based methodology. But when we talk about our volume of numbers, is clearly what we do for radiology.

And the other thing is, at the moment, we don't know if any autonomous, fully autonomous reading that even if they're exams sort of densely normal by AI, they usually looked at by radiologists. But our volumes are the ones looked at by radiologists, which is the volumes created. .

Thank you. The next question is, revenue split in the last 3 years has been 45 -- sorry, 46 to 54, 1H to 2H. Do you expect the same larger or smaller split in FY '26, excluding the impacts of FX?

Yes. We spoke about it at the AGM, and I think we mentioned it on this call, that we expect it to be bigger than prior periods. So how much that will be, we'll have to wait and see. But we certainly think the second half will be bigger because of -- I know I keep saying it, but implementation of Trinity and the different phases of that.

The next question is, did any of the cost lines grow greater than expected?

Not really. No. I mentioned around the salaries, advertising is already -- is a larger cost in this period because of RSA. But in terms of salaries and new employee costs, it grew in line with what we expected. And pleasingly, like I said, our EBIT margins still continue to grow. p.

The next question is, can AI usage drive even more efficiency in a radiologist workflow if the viewer and reporter are connected.

Certainly, integration does do that. It really depends on the integration, although we have seen that even an unintegrated viewer and reporting that we can eke out quite material efficiency. So it really depends on the outpatients themselves. .

The next question is, what is the average price per scan? And how has it trended over the last 12 months? How do you forecast that average price per exam scan going as you get into these other ethologies .

We don't actually give out the average price per scan other than to say that the cost or the price has been going up. over the years, we think because we can prove additional value. So those are bought years ago, we would have bought it at a lower price point than today. And again, is you can't keep raising price forever, but we've been able to incrementally raise it year-on-year. And I think we don't see that per se changing in any material way. .

Thank you. At this time, we're showing no further questions. I'll hand the conference back to Dr. Hupert for any closing remarks.

Just to say thanks very much, everybody, for joining us, and appreciate the interest. Thank you.

Well, good morning, everybody. On behalf of my fellow directors, I'd like to welcome you to the Annual General Meeting of Pro Medicus Limited, and thank you again for taking the time to be with us today.

As most of you probably know, my name is Peter Kempen, and I'm Chairman of the Board, and I will act as Chairman of this meeting.

We are meeting in Horton, a suburb of Melbourne, and I would like to acknowledge the Traditional Owners of the land, the Wurundjeri people of the Kulin Nation.

As indicated in the notice of meeting, this AGM will be a hybrid meeting with physical attendance here at Leandra and online through the MUFG Corporate Markets facility. Link was much easier, but unfortunately, they have been taken over. So I'm instructed to use MUFG Corporate Markets.

I'm delighted that many shareholders have decided to join us today, either in person and I'd like to welcome all shareholders to the meeting. There will be opportunities to ask questions and to vote during the course of the meeting, either in person or online. And I will go through the process later in the meeting.

I'd now like to acknowledge my fellow directors, and they might stand when their name is mentioned. Ms. Deena Shiff, Nonexecutive Director and Chair of the People and Culture Committee; Ms. Alice Williams, Nonexecutive Director and Chair of the Audit and Risk Committee. Sorry. She's just -- she's standing because she just walked in. Dr. Sam Hupert, Joint Founder, CEO and Executive Director; Mr. Anthony Hall, Joint Founder and Executive Director; Mr. Tony Glenning, Nonexecutive Director; Dr. Leigh Farrell, Nonexecutive Director. And we're also accompanied by Clayton Hatch, the Chief Financial Officer; and Mr. Danny English, Company Secretary.

Also joining us is Matt Bennett of Ernst & Young, the company's auditor, and he's sitting right in the front row. So if you have any questions, they will be directed to him. He is available to answer any questions in relation to the financial statements and the report and they report to the shareholders.

It's also very important for me to mention the following key personnel who in addition to the executive directors have provided excellent leadership during the year. Malte Westerhoff is our General Manager Europe and Global Chief Technology Officer; Sean Lambright, who is the Global Head of Sales; Teri Gschwind, who is the Global Head of Customer Service; Danny Tauber, General Manager of Australia, who is, I think, here. Brad Levine, who's General Manager of North America and Global Head of Marketing. Clayton I've mentioned; and Sharni Redenbach, Director, People and Culture, and she's here, too. Each of those individuals is depicted on Page 10 of the annual report.

Before we deal with the formal business of the meeting, I will provide my report to you, which will be followed by a report from Dr. Sam Hupert, our CEO. As I mentioned earlier, there will be an opportunity to ask questions during the course of the meeting and following the formal business.

And now to my Chairman's report.

The overview. The company has enjoyed another extremely successful year, both from an operational and a financial point of view. The success of the company and the markets that we serve continues to be due to the quality of our leading technology and quality of the management team. The passion, enthusiasm and the dedication of all our staff and the robustness of our business model. The company continued to deliver the highest level of service to clients and their patients.

Your company is fortunate to have a group of highly skilled professionals led by Dr. Sam Hupert, and the management team. The majority of our staff has been with us with the company for many years and the core management team for over a decade. As a consequence, the company has continued to deliver long-term profitable and substantial -- sustainable financial results by delivering on the milestones in accordance with the company's strategic plan.

The group continues to invest in our best-of-breed suite of innovative products to maintain market leadership which we believe is fundamental to our company's success. In addition, we look to further add to our product suite by acquisition or licensing arrangement. We also continue to invest in our management staff, which is growing in line with our strategic objectives. Dr. Hupert will no doubt provide further commentary in relation to the company's personnel in his presentation.

New contract wins and renewals. During the fiscal '25 year, the company announced 7 new contract wins in North America, including our largest contract to date, Trinity Health, which you'll be pleased to know, finished implementation in late October '25, along with many others implemented during the year. Since 1 July 2025, the company has announced 6 new contracts, 5 in North America, including those that we announced this morning, which are slightly smaller in each individually, but collectively quite significant. And the one in Germany as well. In addition, we have one client renewal and increased transaction fees and with additional products. An increasing number of new opportunities continue to present and as a result, our pipeline remains strong.

Financial results. Fiscal 2025 was another record year for the company, with revenue increasing by 31.9% to $213 million and net profit after tax increasing by 39.2% to $115.2 million. The company continued to be cash flow positive. We retained cash and liquid investments increasing from $155.4 million to $210.7 million after a $7.9 million buyback of shares in March and April and paying increased dividends. The Board anticipates fiscal '26 will be another strong year. The budget for the current financial year has been determined anticipating continuing strong profitable growth from both existing and new clients. I'm pleased to advise that the results today are ahead of budget on both a constant currency basis and an Australian dollar basis despite some volatility in currency markets during this period.

We are entering the second half of the year with strong momentum, driven by successful completion of Trinity Phase 1 and University of Iowa implementations in late October, both of which will contribute a full 6 months of revenue in the second half. In addition, we have several major contracts scheduled to go live early in the second half. We, therefore, appreciate that the second half bias will be greater this financial year than in prior years.

Surplus cash and M&A. As I indicated earlier, our cash and other financial instruments have continued to grow during the year. These funds are maintained to allow the company to continue to invest in the development of its product suite, including AI, to meet our dividend obligations and to take advantage of opportunities that might arise. In July '25, the company invested $10 million in ASX-listed company 4D Medical Limited. This is in the form of a line with very attractive terms and conditions. The Board is also continuing investigating potential M&A opportunities, which meet our criteria, and this process is ongoing.

Dividend policy. The Board is pleased to increase dividend payments for the '25 financial year to $0.55 per share fully franked. This represents an increase of 37% over the previous year and a payout ratio of approximately 50%. The dividends were funded from the company's internally generated cash flow. The Board anticipates that future dividends will continue to be fully franked. The Board will continue to determine an appropriate level of dividends coming in regard to the profitability of the business, its need for ongoing investment and the necessity to retain sufficient funds to pursue other growth opportunities.

Strategic planning. The 2026 financial year, which is the one we're currently in, is the final year of our current 3-year strategic plan. And the Board and senior management are confident that the company will achieve all of the strategic goals which we set 3 years ago. However, we do not intend to rest on our laurels. Last month, the Board and senior management met to discuss the next 3 years of the company's development. The meeting noted our current position and the opportunities for further growth. The meeting determined another set of ambitious targets for fiscal '27 through to fiscal '29 and agreed on strategies to reach the ultimate goals of that plan.

In closing, on your behalf, I'd like to thank all of our dedicated staff in Australia, North America and Europe for their contribution to the company during what has been another very successful year. And I'd also like to thank my fellow directors who have also worked tirelessly and diligently to ensure that the company continues to grow and prosper. That ends my report, and I'd now like to hand over to Dr. Sam Hupert to give you an overview of the performance of the company over the last year and provide you with an update on the company's current activities. Thank you, Sam.

Good morning, everybody, and thanks for joining us. As you all know, we work in 3 jurisdictions, Melbourne, our corporate office and where we do the development for our RIS product; Berlin, the development and support center for the Visage imaging product; and the U.S., which is our biggest market and where we now have our biggest base of staff. I don't know what the number was last year. But as of now, we were about 142. So we have continued to grow, but in a very measured manner, and we'll talk about that a little later.

The product set remains pretty much the same in Australia, it's Visage and Pro Medicus.net, which is our electronic delivery, secure delivery of results mechanism and in the U.S. and the rest of the world, it's the Visage 7 product which is the product that the radiologist use as a day-to-day desktop.

As Peter said, last year was our best year ever. I won't dwell on all the numbers. They have been out for a while, but I think all of our key metrics headed off up in the right direction. It's not just about growth. It's about profitable growth, and we've been able to maintain that momentum over the years and into last year. The company is debt free, and as Peter said, we do use some of our retained earnings in terms of payment of dividends, which is -- makes us a little bit of a hybrid because we're a growth company at the front and very traditional at the back in terms of no debt dividend payments, et cetera. But that's our DNA, and I don't think that's going to change.

In terms of the revenue split, again, I won't go column for column, but I think the main thing is the pink columns and blue, our recurring revenue. So you'll see the vast majority of our revenue is recurring year-on-year. So whatever we implement in this year forms a bigger base as we go forward into next year.

We had a busy year. I was reading a question this time last year, which was, where are all the new sales? Because as I stood here last year, the only sale we had in the pocket was the first one up the top, which was one of our smallest ever, which was Lori Children's in Chicago. Now the reason we did a sale like that was twofold. One, they're sort of on-campus with Northwestern, who many of you may remember, are a large and important client of ours; and b, we do special sort of -- we lowered the bar of entry for 2 sorts of hospitals, which I'll talk about later, pediatric and cancer -- specialist cancer hospitals. And we announced 2 of those sales today in the bundle that we talked about.

Having said that, as soon as we adjourn the AGM and Clayton and I were in the lounge on our way to Chicago, which we do this Thursday, we announced the Trinity deal, which was our biggest deal and still is. And then a cascade of deals in all forms of the market, which I'm sure you've seen in the slides before. So it was -- turned out slow start, came home with a big finish.

So the result was a record year. As Peter mentioned, we had our biggest year in terms of new sales. We also had 2 very large contract renewals. We sold additional clients -- additional product to clients in NYU and [ Zug. ] We completed a lot of implementations. RSNA last year, I can talk about that because it's gone, was our busiest, and I'll show you some photos. We made significant progress with our other ologies in AI, and we formed a strong base for FY '26.

So where are we year-to-date? Well, we've come out of the gate pretty strongly this half. Early in July, we announced our second largest deal ever. U Colorado Health, you see Health Colorado, as they call themselves. We announced a renewal and upgrade for Franciscan, or FMOL. We won a key contract in Germany, Heidelberg University, which is one of the top medical schools in Europe. We won another deal in the private radiology, which we announced about a week ago in Advanced Radiology Management. And this morning, we announced 3 deals in their own right, we most probably wouldn't announce independently, but just to show that we are doing work up and down the scale. So at the beginning of the half, we had a huge one in U Colorado. As we sit here today, we had an amalgamation of 3 small- to medium-sized ones and everything in between.

In terms of finance, as Peter said, we are ahead of our budget today, which is very pleasing. We are also on track to deliver on or above the 3-year growth target we set ourselves back in 2024. That completes at the end of this financial year. And as Peter said, not giving us management arrest, we've already cranked up and planned out for the years to '27 to '29 going forward.

We have successfully sold at a minimum a total contract value of $273 million so far in the half. We've implemented Trinity Phase 1 in October. I'm sure it's the biggest single big bang implementation in the history of our industry. It's the equivalent of roughly a few million exams, over 100 radiologists. I hate to think how many technologists and support staff all went live that Monday morning. But it is the first of 5 phasings to Trinity, and it went very successfully. We also completed U Iowa, which we announced last year. And our bookings for RSNA, which we tend to get bookings in advanced, are, by far, the strongest than the most we've ever had in terms of pre-bookings.

So we are building momentum from the first into the second half. Full 6 months of Trinity Phase 1 and U Iowa. We have another one of our academics, which we announced last financial year, and U Kentucky going live next month. We then have 3 quite large implementations in the first few months of calendar year '26. Our existing client base is growing well above industry average. Industry average is around 2% to 3%. Our clients are growing 8% to 10% on a compound basis. The pipeline, we believe, will continue to grow materially following this RSNA. And as Peter said, based on all our budgets and the timing of the implementations, we believe the second half bias, which we have from year-to-year, may be a bit more exaggerated towards the second half because of timing of these implementations going forward.

Our products, Visage RIS, we still manage to be the leading risk supplier in Australia. We are getting incremental sales, some of the corporate smaller players are splintering off and we tend to pick up a fair bit of those going forward. So we are actually growing that base in Australia, albeit in smaller percentages than what you would see for growth in the U.S. but it is good and profitable growth nonetheless.

So to Visage 7, the cornerstone product we sell in the U.S. I mentioned 3 things, and they still are very, very pertinent where we're #1 without any doubt, speed of the product, speed at which the images come in and which a radiologist can work. Functionality. We do all of the basic things, the middle things and super complex things in one desktop. We are still the only ones globally that can do that. And scalability because now our clients are dealing in petabytes. And I can't even remember how much Trinity's archive is, but it's many, many, many petabytes to which they keep entering near petabytes every year. So you're talking about at-scale data that needs to be accessed on demand.

Things that are driving the industry, those of you who have heard me before, the explosion of data, the cameras are just creating bigger images, it's happening exponentially. So what makes us different? Legacy technologies, pretty much everybody else in the market must compress that image, send it down the network, unpack it locally and then do the manipulation and rendering on that workstation. The problem with that is it worked well in the old days when a chest X-ray was 35 megabytes or a CT was 300 megabytes. But now with photon-counting CTs, 4 gigabytes is not unheard of in terms of one file size. So you've got 10x data size explosion, and this does not work. Sorry, we went back. So our streaming solution, which is proprietary, no one has been able to copy it that we know of, has changed the whole paradigm. So we can, on demand, look at diagnostic images usually sub-1 second, which when you're looking at multiple gigabytes, almost defies physics, but that's how it works in the real world, and that's so incredibly important for our customers and for the industry going forward.

Which markets do we work in? You have seen before the academic medical centers, you know the names. We've picked up a few more academics in U Iowa, U Kentucky, and you'll see in some of the new sales, there are always medical schools built in. So we've picked up Baylor Medical School. And even though they're known as large IDNs, there is a teaching university and teaching medical school in a lot of our clients.

IDNs, they're the large hospital networks. They can be any size actually, but these are the larger ones. They are the bulk of the market. We estimate there are roughly 40% of the market, maybe a touch more. As I mentioned, it's not a black and white delineation between them because some of the IDNs do have universities. But it is a market where we've seen incredibly strong growth over the -- even from the beginning, but even more so in the last few years. And you'll see, in some of the sales we made last year and this year, there's a good representation of this market space.

Because Trinity was an announcement I stood up here last year, I'm going to mention a few things about it. It is one of the top 10 IDNs in the U.S. hospitals. I have hospitals -- I don't know how many, Clayton might know, but too many to count, but in 26 states, so half the U.S. They took full stack. So they took everything worklist, archive. It is fully cloud deployed or is going to be. The Phase I, as I mentioned, has already in its own right, bigger than a lot of other institutions in the U.S., just 1/5 that we've done. Next 4 key regions will be completed by the end of this fiscal year in June '26. And we believe that is still, to this day, one of the largest purely IT contracts in the U.S. market.

The other market, which we talked about last year and is growing very strongly for us at the moment is the private market, private practice imaging centers which, for a while, was dominant because there was a lot of M&A activity up until about 2023. And then that sort of stopped. We did announce Julie Health last year. Elucid that gave us about $70 million worth. And just the other week, we announced another big private market. This group reads for hospitals and other groups. It does not have any bricks and mortar, a deal worth a minimum of $44 million in 5 years. So we are picking up pace in this market as it starts to evolve.

University of Colorado, as I mentioned, we started off this fiscal year with a bang early in July. It's $170 million, 7-year deal. I think the thing is it's now full stack plus 1. So it's the full stack, the worklist viewer archive plus cardiology out of the gate. Highly respected health system. It is -- does have an academic medical center in terms of University of Colorado Hospital. So it is a bit like Baylor. It's one of the hybrids, a mixture of academic and large regional IDN.

Heidelberg, a little bit different. Big teaching hospital, known as one of the best universities in Europe. It's affiliated with and shares colocated campus with the top cancer research institute in Europe. So it's a dual deal for the institute and the hospital. And we think it will have a material impact on increasing our footprint, not only within Germany, but longer term within the European market.

It's one thing to sell them. It's another thing to put them in. We talk about our fast track implementation, and we now know that we can put in systems 1/4 to 1/5 of the time of our competitors, sometimes even quicker than that. And when we look back at Trinity, one of the key things they wanted us to make sure of or they wanted to make sure of with us is that we could put it in quickly. They had a failed implementation with another vendor. They were already 3 years behind their project, and they didn't have a moment to waste. So we will complete Trinity in record time for a group of that size within the industry. And I think that is an enormous strength because it's now coming out in the market, some of our key competitors are failing in the implementations or taking 2 to 3 years which clearly a client doesn't want. So it is becoming a very big differentiator for us.

We talk about ROI. It's both financial and clinical. We are the most expensive product, which is where I think we should be positioned, but we believe we give the most back. So we keep measuring that. We keep using that in terms of our sales. The usual why should we pay more for you, et cetera. We think we have a very credible and proven answer for that question.

So now, I showed this slide last year. If anything, it's getting even worse in the industry globally. There is a scramble to hire radiologists. And if you -- any of you are going to be at RSNA next week, you'll actually see a lot of the groups having their own [indiscernible] trying to recruit, right. The chair, sitting there, trying to recruit radiologists. It is getting that bad. So fewer of them, more images. They even talk about silent quitting where radiologists are so exhausted, they just do the minimum that they have to do just to stay there, which clearly is demoralizing for them. So the industry really needs an answer to an acute manpower shortage. And we believe we're part of that answer. We can prove an efficiency gains between 25% plus, which is huge. So often, we will come into a site, they're days or weeks behind in the reading. And within a few days, they'll be up to date and never fall back again. That's how dramatic it can be.

As much as it's about efficiency and money, it's also about moving the needle clinically. We do believe that we allow the radiologists to do a better interpretation either by allowing them to do something they couldn't do before or something that they could, but it would take so long that they wouldn't. So when we do things like Fusion, which is overlaying things, it will take another system 6 to 7 minutes, we do it in 3 seconds. That can be the delta.

The growth strategy. Again, we're delivering on that. It was obviously keenly discussed in much more detail in the slide at our strategy meeting a month ago. Expand our footprint, which we're doing both in the U.S. and in Europe. We are getting above-average industry average growth of transactions from our existing user base. So the bigger the base becomes, the bigger the multiplier that is. We have brought out new product offerings, which I'll talk about in a minute. We are looking at new markets, in particular, Europe as it starts to get cloud and starts to become a bit more, I call it, North America like in the way it budgets technologies. Now that's just starting, but we can see that progressing. And we are looking to leverage our R&D capabilities.

North America, biggest market by far, $0.60 in every dollar spent on health care is spent in the U.S., which is amazing. We believe we can address from a product perspective 100% of the market. We can work in small private practice. We can work in Mayo Clinic and everything in between with the one product set. Our current market penetration is now a few bps above 10% with the new sites that we won and growing. So we -- whilst our footprint is material, there's still plenty of runway ahead of us.

Quickly go through the products. The first product is our viewer. That's our cornerstone product. That's the test that the radiologist uses. This was our second product, the archive. It's software that manages the images. As I mentioned before, it can be petabytes of images that we have to manage, make sure that all the past exams for the patient are there and available for the radiologist as they're looking at the current test because radiology is largely about comparison. It is a very key component of our cloud strategy, the way we store, how we use tiered storage to minimize cost of storage. There's a whole lot behind this that's not apparent from the slide but it is very critical for our go-forward strategy, and that's why some of the largest IDNs are coming with us because the way we deal with them, not only in scale, but also in storage is very important for them. And it is transaction based. So the more work they do, the more we get.

The workflow is the last product. Again, a similar concept. It's the worklist tells the radiologist what examinations to do. There's a lot of smarts in it, a lot of AI behind it in terms of prioritization. The radiologist doesn't see or feel any of that. They just see what's coming next, which is how it should be. And again, the beauty of this product, not only is it a third product and a third transaction, but it means that we don't need to deal with third parties if the client takes full stack. So we can't be held up if the work is vendor, if the third-party guy is running at, if it's all us, it's only us to deal with. And so not only is it good for us financially, it's far more efficient.

Cloud. We've been in the cloud now fully for nearly 5 years. We believe we're the only -- believe it or not, the only company that has a full cloud offering. Cloud is actually even faster than on-premise, which is counterintuitive, but it is. It's very secure, and that's why people want it. And I think most health systems realize they're in the business of providing patient care, not managing data centers. So they want to offset as much of their technology stack into cloud.

Now a few things. Not only is it big in terms of data, it's mission-critical. That thing cannot go off for 1 minute, right? Because if it does, certain parts of the hospitals stop. So cloud is part of that solution of -- an uptime redundancy and speed.

We see pretty much all of our opportunities now. One Cloud that pretty much mandated. We are agnostic. We have big implementations in all 3 major clouds in Azure, AWS and Google GCP. We see that as a competitive strength. And we note that as we become more successful to try and plug the hole, our competitors talk about hybrid solutions, which no such thing exists. It's an on-premise solution with a cloud back up. To me, that's not cloud, that's been around for 15 years. We think it gives us a significant strategic advantage, and we think that will just widen as there are other can-dos and the ones that can't.

The One Viewer is becoming really important for one technology stack, which now will do radiology, cardiology and soon digital pathology. It's the one source code, one product. We're the only one so far that has been able to do that. And we think we'll see more growth opportunities, and we've started to see it in the cardiology offering, which is next.

Again, cloud-based, part of the same source code. Our first really big major client was -- it will be U Colorado. We have other RFPs out that want imaging and cardiology. So we're hopeful that we'll see more of this full stack plus 1 as we progress. And we're seeing a lot of interest for cardiology from our existing client base. So we believe we'll be able to, without much impedance, sell that back to them.

Digital pathology, that is pieces of tissue you look at under a microscope. It is emerging. Unlike radiology, only about 5% to 7% of the market in pathology has gone digital. So it will be new rather than replacement. It is something that we have available. We will be showing it at RSNA. We're waiting to start going through the regulatory FDA cycle that it requires. But it will be another string to our bow as we look to do more and more departments in the hospital.

AI, I won't dwell too much about it because most of you have been AI-ed out by the -- by all the news lately, but we think that it will have a major role in medical imaging as a second set of eyes, an aid to diagnosis for the radiologists. And so there are a number of things that we're doing. We're just in FDA. We have entered our breast cancer detection algorithm into the FDA. Unfortunately, with the government shutdown, everything stopped for a while. So we were caught in that sort of go-slow traffic, but it started again. We're hoping to release that commercially next year so that it becomes almost like a second radiologist, looking over the shoulder of the radiologist and will pick up something if the radiologist thinks it's normal, the algorithm, thinks, hang on, I see something, it will actually warm the radiologist. So a lot happening in that space, and I think we're well positioned for it.

Our leadership team, they're all PhDs in this area, Malte Westerhoff, Peter mentioned, our CTO and a co-founder and Detlef Sterling. So their PhDs are in imaging and in health care. So very much aligned in terms of what we need to supervise the technical part of our AI developments.

Something different. Many of you may not know, self-congratulations. But this year is 25 years since the company IPO-ed. So going back into the past, we IPO-ed in 10th of October 2000. So pre-IPO, this was -- these were our newsletters. Anthony and I thought we were great marketers at the time. We called the newsletter Profile. The first one actually had a photo of -- my daughter who's in the front when she was 1. So it shows how far back we go. But in that, you may not be able to read it, but we say Profile is back this year bursting with news. Since our last edition, there are many exciting changes here, new products, new offices, new everything. That was back in 1997. And you'll actually see down the bottom right, it's a bit dark, a photo of the office just as we moved in a little while earlier. We had gone through the late '90s, and we've seen something we had never seen before, which was technology coming front and center in terms of investment. The Internet was starting to become real. There were a lot of companies, and there was this huge tech boom that went on around us. The next Profile was in late '99, and we were talking about the year 2K bug, which most people would have forgotten by now. So we're showing our age.

So there we were in '99 looking to IPO. Here's a graph, and the reason I mentioned the graph is you see the big peak. That was the time we were about to announce to the market. So weekend that we were going to IPO on the Monday. And guess what happened afterwards? Tech rec. Tech rec occurred the exact weekend before we were about to announce to the market. And if you have a look at what happened -- and some of the things in the slide, it was just a complete wipeout. Anthony and I thought there's no way now we will ever IPO. We've done all this work, put in all this money, and this is going to take years. But we were wrong. Our brokers in J.B. Weir and the person leading our fleet, which happened to be Peter Kempen at the time, rang us and said, we think there's appetite for your stock in the market. And I said, well, what happened, they go, you make money. That was literally the answer. You make money because before then, everything was just pure hyperbole. And so we were pictured looking very sort of [ dire ] in front of our new office float just what the doctor ordered by line in the age. This was just the day before our listening and our then Chairman, Founding Chairman, Mill Ward, who was with us for 10 years until he, unfortunately, passed in 2010. So there we were just 2 boys coming to an IPO, we didn't know how it was going to go.

And here's the press after we IPO-ed because 2 IPOs before us didn't trade for 3 hours and then went underwater completely. Thankfully, we started up with a large amount of shares trading, and we traded up the whole day. So the share price was $1.15. We traded as high as $1.60, finished the day at about $1.41. And then all the papers were like a first way to get away in months. And so we had this at healthy premium, big demand, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

So just last thing about the float that seemed so long ago, we issued 100 million shares at $1.15. Our current shares on issue, 104,495,170. Thanks, Denny. So we have increased our shares on issue less than 5% in 25 years. All of those shares have been issued to staff as part of an LTI. So I think we're a little unusual on the ASX because we have been entirely self-funding throughout, and we've never had any debt. Thank you.

From the past to the future, I'm nearly finished. Don't worry. The Apple Vision Pro, these are the 3D virtual reality goggles. We were a launch partner with our special software for them. It is quite amazing. We are starting to see a number of real-world uses for it clinically, which is great because people thought, is this just a toy? It looks great, but can it be used. We are starting to see a number of real-world applications to the point where, today, week in Chicago, Apple are putting on a huge event in their Apple store in Michigan in the Magic Mile. It's only still big enough to hold an event like this. They expect 100 to 200 people to turn up, and it will be all around the Vision Pro, and it will be 2 users who use it in real-world clinical environments. And Malte Westerhoff, our CTO. So it will be highlighting our capability with VisionPro, hopefully, for a whole lot of radiologists and other clinicians there at the Apples store Monday week. So any of you're in Chicago, feel free to come.

RSNA, that's why we're going. It's our biggest show. Last year, we had 50 staff. This year, we're going to have 62. So 62 out of 142, nearly half our staff will be in Chicago. It is huge. We build a literal city that you see there. It's a bit hard to tell. But at the back there, 3 conference rooms, one is a theater that will hold 35 people. The whole thing is built, used Sunday to Wednesday and just gets dismantled and taken away. So it is amazing. It's like a little village. That's what the team looked like last year. I did wake up in time for the group photo. So I stood in front, but it will be even bigger this year. Some of you may notice they're all wearing these green or black stripe shoes. One of our staff, them I went, they're great. He goes, "Can we make those official kit, yes. So you'll now come to RSNA and most people will be wearing those.

Summary. FY '25, I won't go through it all, but we do think it was most probably our -- it was our biggest year. In terms of year-to-date FY '26, we are off to a strong start, as Peter mentioned. We do have $273 million of sales contracted so far year-to-date. And the half hasn't finished. We have completed 2 big implementations. We are ahead of our budget year-to-date. U Kentucky to go live next month. So as Peter mentioned, we think that there will be a stronger second half, which always is a bit stronger, but it will be more skewed to the second half than has been the case for recent years. Thanks very much.

Thank you, Sam. I feel like I'm Sam straight man in this environment. But I hope you got a lot from that. I just want to make 2 comments before we go to questions.

Yes, we did party. Unfortunately, we couldn't invite all of you to join us, but we did have a party to celebrate our 25 years. And needless to say, it was a great event.

And I just wanted to reflect on $1.15 per share. I don't know whether there's anybody in the room who, 25 years ago, decided to invest in the small emerging company, but I'm sure you're well satisfied with the return to date if you managed to be here at the beginning or even shortly thereafter, even at $1.60. It was good value.

So I'd now like to invite shareholders to submit any questions they may have. We will initially deal with questions in relation to comments made by Sam and myself, and later, we'll seek to answer questions in relation to the items of formal business when we deal with each item.

We'll deal with the questions in the following order. Normally, I would say written question first, but I don't believe we have any of those. So secondly, questions from those attending in person. And thirdly, question from those utilizing the online portal. And finally, if there are any questions, those attending by phone. Shareholders attending online can submit their questions during the meeting by clicking on the Ask a Question button. To ensure questions reach us in time, I ask that you submit them now if you haven't already.

Before I go to the questions, I just did want to reflect on the question that was asked last year at the AGM by a shareholder. They raised the question of whether it would be appropriate to undertake a share split, recognizing the level of the company's share price. The Board did some investigation on this issue and considered it in some detail. And we did receive some external input, including from some shareholders, most of whom were -- didn't see the advantages of doing so. And the Board, in conjunction with other advice that we received, decided there was no particular advantage for the majority of shareholders in undertaking a share split. So we don't intend to do that in the foreseeable future.

So may I take questions from the floor, please.

Sir in the blue. Thank you.

Stuart Burn, representing the Australian Shareholders' Association. We noticed that there's $35 million in franking credits in the financial report. Can you please advise if there are any plans to return these to shareholders via increased dividends?

As you appreciate, we've tended to have a policy of returning 50% of the after-tax profits each year to shareholders, and they're all fully franked, as I mentioned earlier. At this stage, this is probably the largest level of franking credits we've actually held because over the years, they've been quite modest. So we haven't turned our mind to disbursing any additional franking credits at this stage, but we will. We do intend, assuming profits continue to rise, we do intend to increase dividends, and therefore, franking credits will be provided.

Okay. And my second question is, can you please advise the investment by PME in 4DX is strategic as they have very similar profiles? And are there any plans to invest in other similar companies?

4DX is probably a special case. Yes, it does have software that's quite interesting to us, and they are in a similar space. There may be -- apart from the financial aspects of the arrangement, there possibly will be opportunities for us to be involved with the development of the marketing of that software when it becomes more available.

I just -- sorry, Peter. I just want to add that the investment was financial to begin with. We could possibly resell their software, like we could any other third-party AI. We would not have to -- I don't believe we'd have to take an equity stake to do that. It was just -- it came to us as an opportunity because many of you may know, I used to be on their advisory board, so I knew them prior to listing. And I think the Board felt the terms were such that from a financial perspective, it stood up in its own right, that was first and foremost. And whether we decide to want to sell it or not still remains to be seen, but we have that right.

I should just add to that, that if Sam was -- had some involvement with the company earlier on, and that conflict -- the potential conflict was disclosed, and Sam didn't -- wasn't party to the actual decision taken by the Board.

Another question at the back? Thank you, sir.

My name is Barry Telfer. I've seen literature recently about spec imaging. And I'm just curious, is that a sort of imaging that you can bring into your system?

Yes, we cover spec. Spec is a type of nuclear-type scan. They do a lot of spec for heart. But yes, we covered that in amongst PET, spec and other forms of that type of imaging.

Okay. And can I just -- one more.

Yes.

4D Medical, because of the lung imaging, I'm just curious, why not Cyclopharm?

I don't -- I'm not that familiar with it. I was familiar with 4D's technology. Their first technology around lung function was something that we felt was good, but we wouldn't add value to because it spits out a PDF report. This particular one, which is around pulmonary embolism, the one that just got FDA, you need to look at all the CT images with it, so we can add that value, hence one of the reasons we invested. But look, there's plenty of algorithms, plenty of good technology. We invested in a company called Elucid 2 -- 1.5 years ago that does AI for cardiac CT. There are now 2 companies in Australia that are looking to do the same. So we are looking at them. I should introduce, we've got a new staff member. That's Jim Kern, our new CFO. He didn't make the cut for the AGM. He's part of next year's. But we are looking at part of Jim's remits to look at all these things. But there are a lot -- they're a lot and you can't look at everyone. We try trying do a curated list of what we look at.

So just wait for the microphone.

Rick Howard on behalf of myself. With the data that you're uploading from these new huge clients, do you have the right to train your algorithms on them to make an even better product?

No one does believe it or not. So if you are a researcher at one of these institutions and you're on staff and it's an official research project, you still have to go through a process through a board called an internal review board. You have to say what you want the data for, how long you need it for. Only that subset of data is given to you and it's all anonymized.

It's about one thing in our mind.

So we don't. But on the flip side, we have currently 4 research agreements with Yale, Mayo, NYU and UCSF. And in those research agreements, clearly, if we're working on things, some of which I've mentioned in the past, then we and they have access to that subset of data. We do have 2 other data right agreements with 2 other clients, but that's not standard in the industry. But we have access where we need it, but you have to go through this process.

I think -- sorry. Just -- I think it's right to say that some of the AI products that Sam mentioned have been done in conjunction with 1 of those 4. And we have effectively had access to prove up that the algorithm actually works. I think in one case, it was quite a lot of data for a company. That's 10,000 or...

Yes. It's even more. So it was NYU. With them, we developed a breast cancer detection algorithm. We and their researchers had access to all their past, mammographies, breast tomosynthesis, breast MRI from everything that they have. Yes, it's a huge advantage. But data is not the only thing. It's how well curated the data is. So you can get tens of millions of exams, but if they're not expert radiologists, you may not get the right answer. So it's not just the volume, it's the quality of curation. If you look at the people like Mayo and UCSF, you're really at the top of the tree modeling.

I'm Sung Chang, and thanks for sharing on the product ideas and so on. I have a question on how much of the current contract pipeline by value are expected to convert in the next 12 to 24 months?

If I tell you, I'd have to kill you. Well, we hope as much as possible. So the pipeline is dynamic. So this time last year, I had the biggest pipeline I've ever had. I had Trinity sitting there, and I had 6 other contracts, all of which drop within a few months. And they went bang, bang, bang. Was there any reason they all came to contract in that time period? 0. They had nothing to do with each other. It wasn't like they were all on hold waiting for Donald Trump to say something, it just happened that way.

I think what we can say about the pipeline is, obviously, the day Trinity comes to contract, there's -- if the pipeline gets smaller by Trinity, there's another one just waiting. Like a chair, someone gets up another person sits down. But we have been able to rebuild it with a lot of good opportunity. And we think this year's RSNA will most probably be -- I can't preempt it, but I think we will get more pipeline opportunity than we've ever seen before because these people actually book with us. So we know who's coming.

So the pipeline gets rebuilt. The other thing is we -- I think if you've seen the range of markets that we sell in is also important because we want as big a market share we can get. So we can't leave any of the market alone other than the really tail bit that's too small to contract with by themselves. And if you look at all our sales over the last few years, you'll see it's across the whole range, the whole spectrum. And the one area that was sort of quiet for us that now is coming on full steam is that private market. You see 3 pretty material deals in the last -- I don't know, 12 months or less, and we see more opportunity in there.

So all I can tell you about the pipeline is it is healthy, it's across a large range of market segments. And I'm only talking U.S. I'm not talking anything in Europe or possibly Australia.

And the next question would be you have gone around 7 contracts, and each of the contracts come into pipeline, into the system? And how would it impact the margin? Would you be able to share a bit?

Yes. That one I can tell you. They go up. The margins go up simply because the revenue goes up more than our cost base. So we often get asked, are you investing enough in the company, particularly around R&D? And the answer is, we believe we do. So myself and my executive team, our job day in, day out is to rightsize. Make sure we have the results we need. Don't get too overblown, don't get too thin that you can't service.

So I'll give you an example. We can't always predict when people want systems implemented. And these implementations are really big. There's a lot of organization that goes in between. We might have bought one line and say, we did Trinity. I mean, there's months and months and months of work behind that. Having said that, we have never ever, ever missed a go live date. So we have to make sure we have the people there, train people, you can't just bring people off the street. So that's what we do. We think all of them that we mentioned will be implemented within the next 6 to 12 months.

Now often, not always, it's up to the client. So we signed Trinity in November. They only went live in October. That was because of them, not because of us. And they reckon 9 months is world land speed record for them. They normally would get ready in 2 years. So basically answering your question, yes, margins go up a little new sales.

The margin in go up that much though, because the base is getting bigger.

So I just wanted to pick up one point in the pipeline. At least one of our more recent announcements took 2 years from start to contract signing. So it's very difficult to predict. And then as Sam mentioned, the implementation is another period. So the tail is quite long from first discussions to contract to implementation. So that's why we can talk about a pipeline which has a long tail.

There's a question at the back.

Mine is more of a comment than a question in that when I first got interested in this company, we used to meet over the river with maybe 20 people turning up to the AGM. And I would like to thank you now, just looking at this, for the measure of the success of your company has been, and like to thank you very much for what you've done to the value of my shares.

Thank you, sir. I remember with some fondness that meeting over the river. But yes, it was a bit cramped over there, wasn't it?

Well, I'm going to tell you, our first AGM was actually in the bigger hall in Leonda. And we had even more people because we were one of the first IPOs after tech was successful. But it hasn't always been an easy ride. I mean, in 2010, when I came back as CEO, our shares were down around, what, $0.20. We were off the radar. So it hasn't just been like that. It's gone up and down, but thankfully, more up than down.

There's another question in the back. Sir?

Clive Shell. Could you quantify what the benefits and advantages might be out of that access to the American veteran system?

The VA?

Yes.

Yes. Thanks for that. In America, they have Department of Defense, which is roughly broken down into 2 arms, active duty and Veterans Affairs, or VA. The Americans love going to war. They've gone to many them, and they have a huge health system for veterans. They have their own hospitals, their own clinics, their own specialists. It really is very extensive.

What they do is they divide the country into a thing called the [ VISN, ] which is an integrated service network. So it's geographic. If you're a vet that lives in that area, you can go to any of the hospitals or clinics in that area. In the past, there was a special government contract called Impact that you needed to deal with military, either active or VA. And now they're pushing everything to go into the cloud.

So you may have seen some of our announcements. The first one is we have a thing called FedRAMP. FedRAMP means you're certified to go into a government cloud. It doesn't talk about military. It's purely around the government because it's a hypersecure cloud. It's not the normal AWS. Recently, we got another certification which was in the military itself called an ATO, not Australian Tax Office, but authority to operate. And you need one of those to do anything in the military hypersecure cloud. Yes. So it's very, very bureaucratic. It's all around security and permissions. And so we recently got an ATO, which normally takes years to get. And that ATO will allow us to move our first VA Vision 23, which is on-prem into this hypersecure FedRAMP cloud.

So we think we'll be the first, if not only one, that will have the model of where all the other VAs want to get to. So that opens up the -- I suppose, gives us a hunting license and some credibility that there is a model that they can follow. Now it sounds easy, they can't just go out and buy it. They have to go through a process, but they can't buy you if you're not on the list, and we're on the list.

Just a question. AGL, a happy shareholder. I just wanted an update, Sam, on the competitive landscape, like your new competitors coming in? Any leaving? Is it becoming easier or tougher?

Well, it's never a dull moment in our industry. So they're the traditional players. And a week ago, I would have told you the traditional players like the Ts, Philips Siemens, the only one that's doubled down is Philips. But this last week has made me a liar because GE has bought a company called Intellired that is in our space. Intelerad as a company we know well because they have a presence here in Australia. We don't see them in the upper end in the U.S. You won't see them in Mayo Clinic or an NYU, they just don't have the sophistication. They're more for the private market. That's been their strength.

So landscape -- competitive landscape just changed again. I think, truth be known, don't quote me on this, because I think it's good for us because I don't think that's where a dynamic software company lives best or sits well, but that will be for GE to work out. But we've seen some new entrances at 1 or 2, some Internet-based start-ups. You see them every few years. It's not uncommon. You see companies like [indiscernible] for, for instance, we used to do we're trying to reinvent themselves. I mean what this announcement by GE show is it is a very big market, which we have always been saying it is, and there will always be people attracted to it. So competitors come and go, and we have to deal with that. But as we see it today, we don't see another competitor that can actually work in cloud, take the whole thing, put it all up in cloud and decommission all the hardware. And this particular one that GE bought is in that boat as well. So they can't do it either. But look, we keep an eye on 2 things in the future. Run faster than the competition, never stop; and make sure you know what your competitors are doing so that you can make sure that what you're trying to do keep ahead of them.

Yes. Can I ask a second question just on how people -- how you'll customers pay you? Like these new contracts, do they always sort of -- do they pay out front by scan? Or is it always -- is it different? Or is it generally the same?

Except in Europe, which when you buy from the government, you don't have a choice or sell to the government, which is what we did in Munich in Heidelberg. But the way it works is we charge professional services, which are all the configuration, training, everything else. That is actually charged up as we d it. Milestones usually at the beginning of the contract. Because of accounting rules, we amortize that across the life of the contract. So professional services $1 million in its 10-year contract. We take $100,000 to revenue each year. But then all the rest of transactions, and we bill them once they're done. So we -- as they do them, every quarter, we bill them. Danny and Clayton's team manage all of that and then we send them out a quarterly account. So it would be for the quarter in arrears as they do them.

When we announced a contract, any of ones we've announced, that is the minimum commitment. So even if they don't do one test, which, of course, never happens, they will pay us that amount over the life of the contract.

Are there any other questions from the floor? If not, are there questions online, please?

Yes, we do. First couple are from Stephen Maine. So a question for the Chairman. Peter Kempen is a former partner of EY. When are you planning next to run a full tenor for your audit work? That's not -- it's not a way to suggest there's anything wrong with EY's audit work, nor is it a compelling case for change.

Well, we have no plans at this stage to run a process.

When you last saw approval for a listing in the nonexecutive director fee cap from $0.5 million to $1 million in 2020, the poll results showed that the founders didn't vote, and there was a little opposition. Is that the situation again in 2025? And also, as we seek approval again to double the fee cap to $2 million, did all the proxy advisers recommend in favor? And did all of their institutional clients vote in favor? What is the planned percentage pay increase for individual directors once this is approved?

So that's 4 questions in there.

One, you're going to answer and a few [indiscernible].

I'm just trying to remember the question. Sorry. The reason for the increase -- well, I'll go back. What did the proxy advisers -- so the ones that we've seen, I think which is most of them, have all indicated or advised their institutional or their customers to vote in favor of that resolution. In relation to the question of does this mean that the current directors are going to get massive pay increases, the answer is no. The main reason for the increase is to allow for us to build additional skills on the Board. And that means additional directors. As the company grows, we haven't had an increase in the director numbers for some years and we are anticipating there will be an increase in the next year or 2.

Does that answer the question? I can't remember all the other questions. That will work.

Question for Sam, Dr. Hupert. Great achievements. With the AI going forward on full throttle, will it be beneficial for the company or could it be concern for the growth of a company?

We think we're incredibly well positioned. First of all, we haven't spent $400 billion on infrastructure like a lot of others. So that's a good thing. We see our platform being AI optimized. In other words, we've always had GPU technology. We started using NVIDIA 20 years ago, none of you would have heard of them then. And the words AI and NVIDIA were never used in one sentence. So our clients have AI-capable infrastructure out of the box. The way we allow you to take pixel data, which is what a lot of AI generates -- in other words, an image, we can overlay it across the X-ray or CT images, which most companies can't do. And we're looking to then where do we get the algorithms from. And we know we're not going to be able to develop all of them ourselves. It's just not possible. So we develop some ourselves, some with our academic partners. And for those where we feel they are the best in breed, we will look to license them and bring them into our universe.

Now with the Elucid, if a client buys a Elucid through us, they'll know it's a Elucid. We're not looking to white label it. We're just looking to add value around it. That's why the client will buy it from us rather than someone else.

So we think AI is a plus for us. The other use of AI is what we call under the bonnet because radiology is all about measurements and what we call segmentation. Is this tumor tissue is a normal tissue? AI can speed that up enormously, and that's another area that we're investing in. So our product, the Vision -- Visage 7, becomes even more ahead of its competition.

So we see 2 use cases for it. We've been working in this area for many years, and we think we're well positioned.

Great. Another question for Dr. Hupert. Noticing some Visage 7 competitors such as sector are also making strong wins in the U.S. May I ask whether Visage has lost any material deals lately and on what grants?

We will always have some we don't win. And if we don't win them, it's usually around price. It's usually around price or it's a renewal, someone's already in there and the simplest thing is to renew them. So we do -- there are competitors. I wish we didn't have them, but I think we win far more than we lose, and we win them at a much higher price point. So if you look at our competitors, and I won't just single that one out, our margins are 3x our nearest competitor. So it's not just about winning them. It's winning them at the price point where you can actually provide that service. But having said that, we think we give a much better result. And therefore, they pay more, they get back more. So we don't win everyone. I wish we did, but we win far more than we lose.

Just on the question of renewal. You're actually talking about the renewal of clients we don't have, not our own renewals?

The renewals of clients we don't have where the client turns around and goes, oh, I'll just renew with my current vendor for 2 years. That I don't see as a loss. You just don't get in the door on those at that point.

Because we have had instances where it has been renewed. And then 2 years later, they come back and buy it from us.

Yes. They use the short-term renewal, then they're ready to go to market. Then they put out an RFP, then we compete like hell. And more often than not, we win them.

Question from Mr. Dickson. I applaud the company's performance and leadership to date. Has the company had any interest in being taken over? And what is the current attitude to any such approach?

Well, the easiest one is no one's ever come. So no one's offered. That's an easy one to answer. We go about our business doing what we do best. And if things like that occur, then we'll look at them if and when. But to date, no one has ever offered to come and buy the company.

Another question for Dr. Hupert. Could we get an update on the market adoption trend of the AI products already commercialized on Visage platform, e.g. breast density module, Elucid or another third-party AI function?

Yes. That answer is simple. We're just about to start putting those into the market early next calendar year. So that we have them. We're packaging them up. We know how to sell them. We know how to price them. We believe you'll see them in the market early coming calendar year.

Congratulations on another fantastic year. I'd like a comment on government regulation risk. And despite the U.S. being a huge market, what would be your idea geographic mix? And do you see more opportunities in emerging markets?

Well, as I mentioned before, $0.60 in every dollar spent on health care globally is spent in the U.S. So it's, by far, the biggest market. But not only the biggest, it's the market which has least government interference. Sure military, that's all on it's own. If you deal with some state governments like we did with new UCs, UCLA, UCSF, they're all part of the state of California. There are some nuances around all of that. But nothing like dealing with public hospital here or [indiscernible] or even in Europe. I don't know how Malte got the heart of the deal, but he did.

So we think U.S. for that reason, less impedance, much bigger up opportunities. But we are opening up to other markets like we think Heidelberg will be material for us to win more work in Germany. And we think Europe is going to eventually become a lot more U.S. like with all the cloud and other things that will make it much easier for us, but that's just starting.

But is there anything geographically that stops us? Only 2 markets we can't or don't work in China for obvious reasons; and Japan because you need to go through a regulatory cycle. And whilst I'm sure we'd be able to get that, we just feel it's a very closed market to foreigners, and they're better off, at this point anyway, focusing our resources on U.S. first, maybe U.S. second and maybe Europe third.

There are no more general business questions.

Thank you, Danny. Okay. That brings us to the business of the meeting. And the formal part the meeting, which is set out in the notice paper, which you would have received or accessed online. And with your permission, I'll take that notice of meeting as read.

Minutes of the previous Annual General Meeting. The Board reviewed the minutes of the meeting held on the 25th of November 2024. And I have signed those minutes as a true and accurate record of that meeting. The Company Secretary as a copy, if any shareholder would like to refer to them. With your permission, again, I'll note those minutes added to a record of proceedings last year.

I'd now like to refer to the process of shareholder questions and voting on resolutions before the meeting. Those present at this meeting may ask questions as each resolution is considered. Those attending virtually online may ask questions and vote using the portal. And if there's anybody on the telephone, I don't know what there is, then we will do with those as well. That will be invited to ask questions.

So shareholders, just going back over what I said earlier, shareholders can submit written questions during the meeting by clicking the Ask a Question button. To ensure questions reach us on time, I ask that you submit them now if you haven't already. Again, any general shareholder questions submitted online during the meeting will be addressed after the formal business is completed. If we aren't able to get through all of them today or if there are specific questions that would be better addressed on an individual basis, we'll respond to those after the meeting. If we receive multiple questions that are similar, we'll try to amalgamate them into one or choose to answer the broadest question, which will cover off the others.

And the voting instructions are on the screen for those who are here and hopefully online. So I won't go through those other than to say that the resolutions will be -- the voting on the resolutions will be conducted by a poll. And Jim -- I'll try again. Our MUFG Corporate Markets will act as the scrutineer or returning officer, and he's sitting just over there. So when you come to cast your vote in the room, please recognize Jim as the person who wishes to receive your votes. And of course, the results will be published on the ASX and the Pro Medicus website after the meeting.

The slides are getting ahead of me. The slides are getting ahead of me. Item 1, the accounts and reports, which is the first item on the agenda. To receive and consider the financial statements of the company for the year ended 30th of June 2025 and the related directors' report, directors' declaration and the auditor's report.

Whilst no vote is required on this item, I would call for any questions shareholders may have in relation to this. And as I said earlier, Matt from Ernst & Young is here to answer any questions you may have, which perhaps relate to the audit or the audit report. Are there any questions? Are there any questions online?

Yes. Sorry. We have one online on the reelection of Dr. Sam Hupert. If I can ask now or I can wait?

No, hold that until that one comes up. Thank you.

if there are no other questions in relation to that matter, we'll just note the receipt of those accounts at this meeting.

Item 2, remuneration report to adopt the remuneration report, which is contained within the annual report on Pages 30 to 42 for the year ended 30th of June 2025. Whilst the vote in relation to this item is not immediately binding on the company, we naturally take seriously the views of our shareholders.

Before putting this motion, I'd ask are there any questions in this motion.

Stewart Burn from the Australian Shareholders' Association. We noticed that the remuneration of Anthony Hall has gone down this year. Does this mean he's working less time or withdrawing from directorship of the -- sorry, participation in the company? Or is there a reason for his remuneration decreasing?

You caught me on the hop there. I didn't think it had on there. I think it's the same. It might be just an adjustment of the other benefits, is it? It is actually cheap. But I should indicate that both the executive directors are resistant to having more paid to them. So -- but I don't think Anthony has gone through the trouble of actually reducing his own -- or asking for a reduction in that modest amount. But you've caught me on the hop. I didn't think it's actually gone down. Must be minimal. That must be a misprint. I'll have to take that on notice. So I'm not aware that -- I mean you should note that Mr. Hall congratulated the question -- question. Well, I'll have to take that on notice. Sir, I must admit, I hadn't noticed that when reviewing the report. But we'll investigate that.

Are there any other questions in relation to the remuneration report? And I hasten to add that, of course, the directors can't vote on this item. So -- and we -- as shareholders, and we haven't -- or if we did, Jim would have excluded them.

So I'll put the motion. Those in favor of the motion, could you please indicate? And those against? And as you can see, the slides are getting ahead of me, and the resolution is carried. And we're pleased to see it's as high as 95.7%.

Okay. Let's move to the -- slides seem to be getting ahead of me, but I'll keep going. Reelection of directors. 2 directors are to be considered for reelection. Anthony Glenning and Sam Hupert. Item -- the first item is 3.1 that Mr. Anthony Glenning, being a director who is retiring in accordance with the company's constitution and Listing Rule 14.4 and being eligible, offers himself for reelection, be reelected as a director of the company. Details of Anthony's background and experience are outlined in the explanatory memorandum, which was attached to the notice of meeting. I'll now invite Anthony to address the meeting prior to putting the motion.

Thank you, Peter. So perhaps for those that don't know me, I'll just start with a little bit about myself. As Peter mentioned, my name is Anthony or Tony Glenning. I hold degrees in computer science and electrical engineering from the University of Melbourne and a Master's degree in Electrical Engineering from Stanton University. I worked in Silicon Valley for 14 years, starting as a software engineer, then starting my own software company in 1999, which I successfully sold to Google in 2007. There, I worked at Google for a few years before pivoting to venture capital in 2010, a field in which I remain active today.

That said, over the last few years, I've scaled back my venture capital work to focus more on public company directorships. Currently, I sit on the boards of Pro Medicus, Oscar Healthcare and Iris. At Pro Medicus, along with contributions more broadly to governance, I also specifically make contributions to strategy, M&A, product road map and bring a high-growth mindset to the company's goals. I serve on both the Audit and Risk Subcommittee and the People and Culture Subcommittee.

When I joined Pro Medicus, which I will say it was long after the IPO, the stock price was around $4 and the market cap around $400 million. And today, as we know, the stock price is about 60x that at $250, thereabouts, and the market cap about $26 billion. And I share this not to dwell on the past or perhaps only a little bit, but because even acknowledging that incredible growth, I still believe the company's best days are in front of us. AI will revolutionize many businesses, and I firmly believe that the field of radiology is one of them. And as Sam addressed in some of his answers to the questions that the current generation of AI using large language models is ideally suited to process enormous amounts of data and draw meaningful conclusions. AI will help with more accurate readings in much less time. It will most certainly move the needle on clinical outcomes. And with our cloud-native technology and back-end image processing, Pro Medicus is perfectly situated to be at the forefront of this digital transformation.

I see very exciting times ahead. So with your support today, I would like to continue to fulfill my fiduciary duty in requiring good governance and driving accountability of management. But I would also like to challenge the management team to deliver on the enormous potential that I see within Pro Medicus. Thank you.

Thank you, Tony, and I should emphasize that if anybody holds management or forces management to think [indiscernible] into account, it is Tony on our Board. And he always plays a very strong role when we get together as we did last month on the strategy meetings that we held. So rest assured that he is pushing hard on your behalf. Are there any questions of Anthony before I put the motion? I will now put the motion. Those in favor? Thank you. Those against? No one. And the proxy votes, we can now see, hopefully, there we are. So given there's a majority of shareholders voting in favor, they've endorsed Anthony's reelection, and I take the opportunity to thank Tony for -- on his reelection.

Now this is a harder sell, 3.2. Dr. Hupert, there's 3 people in the front row here who are going to heckle at this point. For those who don't know, the -- Sam's offspring. So Dr. Sam Hupert, being a director who is retiring in accordance with the company's constitution and Listing Rule 14.4 and being eligible, offers himself for reelection being reelected as a director of the company. I think everybody is well known to Sam, but Sam is well known to most of you. With his background and experience as outlined in the explanatory memorandum attached to the notice of meeting. Are there any questions before I put this motion?

One. Well done for putting Dr. Hupert for a vote today, when you could have used the exemption from election available and the Australian law for CEOs. Co-CEO Anthony Hall was last elected in 2023 and will presumably be up again next year. What is the history of his practice at Pro Medicus? And have we ever used the exemption for [ either ] of our funds? Rupert Murdoch wasn't elected for decades as Executive Chair of News Corp, and Richard White has never been elected as Wisetech. So well done for showing others how to do this.

We don't have any plans to use the exemption. We think it's good governance to have the CEO face election like any other director.

Any other questions?

No.

Thank you. I'll now put the motion then. Those in favor? Those against? And the proxies? Well, before I -- well, I will congratulate Sam first on his reelection. And note that he got 4 percentage points higher than Tony. Well done.

Item 4 being Nonexecutive Director remuneration. As indicated in the explanatory memorandum attached to the notice of meeting, the current approved limit is $1 million for the aggregate remuneration of nonexecutive directors, which was set back in November 2020. The level that's currently being paid in this financial year to nonexecutive directors is $900,000. And so we feel we don't have a lot of headroom to either increased director fees or more importantly, to add any new directors until we have an increase in the cap.

So -- and this is -- it's certainly this motion is in order to ensure the company continues to reward its nonexecutive directors appropriately. But as I said earlier, the additional is probably more key than trying to pay everybody a whole lot more. So we are seeking to shareholder approval to increase the aggregate nonexecutive remuneration limit to $2 million. And I would hope that this means we won't be back for another 5 years -- until another 5 years has expired rather than be back every year to increase the cap. Are there any questions? And I think I answered one before for this issue. But any other questions on this motion?

I'll now put the motion. Those in favor? Those against? And the resolution? Well, I think that percentage point is higher than Sam's reelection. We must be doing a great job. Thank you very much for that. I appreciate your support, and it will certainly motivate us to keep pushing the management team to continue to achieve the sort of results we've enjoyed in recent years.

Other business. I don't have notice of any other business, but invite you to ask any further questions. Are there any other question -- burning questions that anyone has before we wrap up? No other questions?

Before closing, I'd like to remind you that particularly if you're online, you have 5 minutes after the conclusion of the meeting to cast your vote on any of the resolutions. And I think we'll collect your votes in the room now.

[Voting]

Okay. I think all the votes are collected or will be. So thank you all for attending today. very much appreciate it, and I look forward to seeing you again next year maybe. And in closing, I'll invite those present to join the directors for refreshments. Thank you, and I'll close the meeting.

Thank you for standing by, and welcome to the Pro Medicus Limited Full Year Results Briefing. [Operator Instructions] I would now like to hand the conference over to Dr. Sam Hupert, CEO. Please go ahead.

Thank you. Good morning, everybody, and thanks for joining us for our FY '25 full year results. As most of you know, we are leaders in enterprise imaging and radiology information systems. We work in 3 jurisdictions. Our group headquarter in Melbourne, Australia. Our R&D center and support center in Berlin. And our largest market, which is about 90% of our revenue from North America with our offices in San Diego.

We have 2 product lines in Australia. It's the Visage RIS, which does more of the practice management, back office billing scheduling and Visage 7, which is a clinical product. It's the radiologist desktop that they use to call up images, enhance them and make the diagnosis, and that's the product we sell globally and particularly in the U.S.

In terms of our results, I think it's fair to say that all of our key financial metrics moved materially in the right direction, revenue up just under 32%. Profit after tax, approximately up 40%, underlying EBIT around 40% and our margins, which are more than any of our competitors by multiples in the industry went up from mid-72s to 74%. As a result, we increased our retained earnings by about 36%, and we've announced a fully franked dividend of $0.30 per share for the half, up 37.5%.

In terms of the summary of the year, it was another record year by any measure. We won 7 contracts totaling $520 million at minimums. We also renewed 2 large contracts worth $130 million and we had upgrade for additional products with existing clients for a total of $39 million. So in all sales areas, new sales renewals and upgrades, we made material strides.

We also did 7 implementations. We signed a research collaboration agreement with new UCSF that joins those from the Mayo and NYU. RSNA, which many of you know is our key conference that's in November, December, end of '24 was our busiest to date. We made significant progress with other ologies and AR, which I'll talk about a little bit later. And all of that, we think, forms a very strong base for continued growth in FY '26 and beyond.

In terms of the highlights of the year in terms of sales, our first sale came very early in the year. It was a specialist Children's Hospital in Chicago. And then just after the AGM, some 5 months later, we had a slew of contracts that came in a short period. The largest being Trinity at $330 million. We think it's most probably the biggest contract let in the industry software only. Then Duly in December for $30 million, a key academic in U.K. health care for $33 million in January, then BayCare, a large IDN in Florida for $57 million. And then some more early on in March and April with LucidHealth, Iowa.

As mentioned previously, we had 2 sales of additional products. We often get asked, will archive be sold back to additional clients. And here were 2 examples, NYU Langone taking both Visage 7 OpenArchive, and worklist. Duke taking Visage 7 OpenArchive. And as part of that process for both of them, we're transitioning them from on-premise to cloud. The 2 renewals I spoke about a little earlier, Mercy and a renewal of an Australian contract. And as we said, RSNA was busy, and we were very busy on the implementation front.

In terms of revenue split, for those that are new to the graph, the sand color is recurring transaction revenue. The blue is recurring revenue normally around service contracts from the older style where we used to sell upfront licenses and service. The green is professional services, so we charge for implementation and training. Those costs are spread equally amortized equally across the life of the contract. So it's a 5-year contract. We take 1/5 of that revenue every year. And the yellow is the data migration as we're doing more and more full stack, more and more archive, including NYU and Duke. The archive migration component this year did kick up, and we expect that it will continue to grow as more and more new contracts come in, particularly those that have the archive as a component.

So the model that most of you are familiar with, we believe it's highly scalable with a lot of operating leverage. We don't sell hardware. Cloud fees are netted off below the line, so not part of any of these revenue figures. We charge for our training and implementation and travel once the contract is signed. We have maintained a highly contained cost base. And as a result, our margins, with industry leading -- by a long shot, as I mentioned continued to grow in the full year.

So the transaction model, again, we talk about a concept of a minimum. If we have a new opportunity, they tell us how many examinations they did in the prior 12 months. We usually get them to commit to, on average, around 80% of that volume, and that's what we call the minimum. So each of these contracts that we announced has material upside built into it even if they just do the same volume as they did the previous 12 months, which invariably they do. And we've noticed that our clients as a whole grow well above the industry average. So all that growth then gets captured in additional transaction volume.

The forward revenue has increased materially with the recent sales. It's a 5-year window. It's moved up from 600 -- low $600 million to $948 million. Again, these are minimums. We see upside as client examinations continue to grow, and we see this very much as an annuity style revenue base. In terms of who we service, many of you would already know, we service pretty much all the markets, all the segments of the market. In the academic medical centers or we call them Tier 1 academics, we do 11 out of the 20 -- top 20.

Now these are usually all academic centers because they're rated on clinical excellence and research. But I think we do at least 2, if not more multiples or higher multiples than our nearest competitor. The other area of the market which is the biggest area of the market is the IDNs. IDN stands for integrated delivery network. They are usually regional hospital systems. The bigger ones are often multistate. And we've seen that in some of the clients.

Early days, we had Mercy and Sutter then a number of years ago gained Intermountain and MedStar, then another sway with Novant, Inova and Allina and recently, obviously, our biggest one to date, which is Trinity. So a very large section of the market, very important for us, and we have some material clients in that space.

The next is the risk product. As mentioned, that's largely Australia focused. We do have some implementations in Canada. We have -- that was our core product prior to acquiring Visage in February 2009. We deal with the 2 largest groups in Australia in I-MED and what used to be Primary now called Lumis. We are seeing some increased growth as new practices start to form in this market. And you will have noticed that our Australian business grew just under 5% this year, largely through new additions around the risk for not only existing clients, but some newer smaller clients.

Visage 7, that's a key product we sell in the U.S. We believe we are still #1 in the 3 core areas that make the product that's so important to the product. Speed, functionality, the capability of doing 3D, 4D advanced visualization as well as 2D in the one product. We believe we're unique in that capability and scalability because some of our clients are literally dealing with petabytes of data per year, and cloud is also a key part of that equation around scalability.

In terms of what's driving the industry, it continues unabated. The data sets are just getting exponentially bigger. Breast imaging is usually the canary in the coal mine. In the past, 2D mammography was a few hundred megabytes each exam. We have now 3D, which is called digital breast tomosynthesis, where we're now talking about 3 gigabytes per exam and in high resolution, they can go as high as 6 gigabytes per exam.

So the data sets are increasing massively. With all of the new modalities, in other words, all of the new acquisition devices. So what makes us different? We think that all of our competitors use a standard legacy technology of compress and send, where the files come from the scanner, they're compressed as much as they can be without losing any fidelity, and that file is sent to a workstation that is highly configured, unpacks the file and does all the enhancements and manipulation locally on that workstation.

We, on the other hand, have a unique and proprietary streaming technology where the files come to a central spot. Today, that's cloud. All the 3D and advanced visualization is done in the near real time, and we actually stream the pixels. We don't actually move the file. And this causes a delta, particularly around speed that can sometimes be many orders of magnitude. So we are one second in most exams, whereas in some cases, if compression and technology was used, that could be many minutes as a comparison.

So it is a huge differentiator, particularly important as organizations get larger and more distributed and particularly now that pretty much every radiologist wants some capability to work at home for part of the week, and they need the same functionality and speed at home as they do within the hospital.

Just going through some of the clients. I talked about Trinity that came just after the AGM. It is one of the top 10 IDNs in North America. I think they have facilities in 26 states, just to give you an idea of their size. They have committed to us for 10 years for the full stack. It will be fully cloud deployed.

We will do our first go-live in October this year. It will be phased over an 18-month period purely because of the regional spread and 2 of their smaller regions are getting new electronic health records, which they want completed before we complete those. But we believe the Trinity deal is one of the largest deals announced in our industry historically.

The other market that we talked about in the past was the private market. There's usually partnerships of radiologists. A lot of them have sold fully or partially to consortiums or private equity. It had been dormant because there was a massive amount of M&A activity culminating up until 2023. But we are seeing movement in that market and landed 2 deals in the year, one in December at Duly Health and one with Lucid.

So a total of $70 million just at minimum for those private. So this joins some of our other private clients like BayCare and CRL that we had previously announced. So I think the main thing about this is it opens up that segment of the market, but importantly, it also shows that our platform is well suited to a broad range of market segments and not confined just to 1 or 2. We did have 2 renewals. Again, I won't go into it too much. Our run rate for renewals is -- remains at 100%. Just post financial year-end and beginning of July, we renewed the last renewal for this year, which was FMOL, that not only did a renewal but took the archive and made a cloud transition at the same time.

So our next renewal will be in calendar year '26, so no further renewals scheduled for this year. We also had the Visage 7 OpenArchive upgrades. As I mentioned, 2 key clients. Again, the material implementations, material revenue, $24 million from NYU and $15 million from Duke. That is additional to the existing contracts for Viewers. So that sits on top of the contracts we announced for those clients when they originally signed up with us years ago. And we believe that this is a logical upgrade path for many of the clients that currently are Viewer-only and on-prem.

They're looking to cloud, and we're able to transition them seamlessly by putting the -- converting their archive from on-prem to Visage7 OA and cloud and then bringing the whole Viewer stack into cloud as we do for all our new implementations.

So the solution we talk about when we look at what is our nirvana is one cloud instance with all of the branches of diagnostic imaging being serviced, so advanced visualization, 3D breast imaging, all in One Viewer. And we're now looking at the connection -- connectivity with AI and with all the other modalities and other ologies, which I'll talk about as we progress. The other strength we have, which clearly relies on the technology is the ability to implement. We believe it's unique to us. We're able to implement even the larger scale enterprises in 1/4 or 1/5 the time of industry norm. As an example, we completed the go-lives for Baylor within a 3-month window. And prior to Trinity, they were our biggest client.

So it gives you an example of how we are -- can do this seamlessly and quickly, which we believe is a significant factor in reducing the barrier to change because previously, companies would take 2, 2.5 years to complete an implementation where we do it in a matter of weeks or months. So our ROI, we position ourselves as a premium product in the market. We believe we provide significant return on investment, multiples of what the clients spend with us, in 2 areas. One is infrastructure and unparalleled clinician efficiency. We quote between north of 25% radiologist improvement, which we've been able to log in a number of clients. But as important as that is, there's also the clinical capability because it is a clinical product, and we do believe we have moved the needle in terms of what a radiologist is capable of doing with our application as compared to others, and that changes the clinical outcome, which clearly is a very important part of this -- of our technology stack going forward.

In terms of our growth strategy, it is multifactorial, obviously, expanding footprint, which we did more in this last 12 months in terms of new sales than we've done previously. We have got transaction growth from our existing clients, which is we think about 2 to 3x the industry average across the client base. New product offerings, which I'll talk about in a minute. And we're leveraging our R&D capability in terms of not only new product in other ologies, but also in AI and some of the research collaborations that we have with existing clients, including the new one with UCSF.

The TAM, we've updated our figure from $650 million to $670 million based on growth rate of roughly 3%. In any 1 year, the industry grows between 2% and 3% organically. We believe we're able to address 100% of that TAM from a product perspective and about 85% from a commercial perspective. That is the tail of 15%. Some of the opportunities are most probably too small to address one-on-one, but that tail is shrinking as a lot of the smaller people are being merged into some of the larger health organizations in their area.

Including a recent sale of UColorado, which came just after 30th of June, we estimate our current penetration is about 10% and growing. So whilst we have a material footprint, we still think we have a very large addressable runway. We often get asked about pipeline. Clearly, the pipeline is dynamic. We're standing up at the AGM in November. I think the pipeline was the biggest it's ever been. We had all of the sales that occurred within the next 3 to 4 months still in the pipeline at that time a week later.

Clearly, Trinity transition from pipeline to contract and then all the other contracts. But I'm pleased to say that as a result of RSNA '24 and other opportunities, the pipeline has been continually refreshed. And I think the UColorado opportunity was a perfect example of that, that may have just come into the pipeline around then, but obviously came from pipeline to contract in early July.

The product set has expanded over the years. Archive was the first -- I won't go into it too much other than to say it's an integral part of our strategy of moving people into cloud. So that strategy like with Duke and NYU and of course, all the full stack solutions, all cloud-based, all Visage 7 OpenArchive. So it's an integral part of our go-forward strategy. And like our view, it's a transaction-based model. So there's potential upside with every deal. The last of our 3 core products, workflow, we released a few years ago.

Again, it's been very popular. We've been able to sell that back to NYU and to others like Yale, but also all of our new opportunities or the majority of them take the workflow as well as archive as part of the full stack solution, clearly increases our total contract value. And not only that makes the implementations easier, so we don't have to deal with third parties. Again, it is a transaction-based model with upside.

One of our key strengths is cloud. We are we believe the only company that does 100% full cloud at scale. So there is no hardware on site anymore. There is no PACS hardware that all gets decommissioned, and it's all 100% in cloud, as you would expect. We have been able to show it's suitable for all size implementations from some of the smaller IDNs that we do all the way up to the groups and the likes of Baylor Scott & White, where we're talking about millions of exams and petabytes per year.

I think the important thing about cloud is the market has shifted drastically towards cloud over the last 3 to 4 years and maybe a bit longer. For us, we are agnostic. In other words, we work well in all 3 cloud environments, AWS, Azure and Google GCP. So if our clients have an existing agreement with 1 of the 3, we enable them to use that agreement because they've made commitments that they want to use, and we allow them to do that without any delta between the 3. So we see that cloud and the ability to work in all 3 as a major advantage going forward.

Just rounding out it in the last few minutes, we have talked in the past about one few of 4 modalities. We did announce about 2 RSNAs ago, our cardiology product, which is not only out in the market. We had our first implementation in the year, but we are able to not only work in the other ologies, but also reflective like photo and video because we see image becoming a much bigger part of the patient's electronic health care record.

So we did talk about cardiology. I think the important thing that often gets missed, it is in the same code base as the Visage 7 product. It's part of Visage 7. It's not a separate product. It's not a separate platform. So it's -- we believe it's the first offering that is fully integrated into the one platform. It has native tools clearly that allow specialist cardiology measurements that are required, and it has integration into third party because particularly in cardiac ultrasound, there's a statutory need to transfer those -- that information to a health care body.

So you need an interface that allows for that to occur over and above what you normally do in radiology. But cardiology, we think, is often, as I mentioned, off and running. Our first implementation has gone well. And with UColorado, it was a material sum that was involved in the cardiology going forward. Something new, most of you wouldn't have heard from us before, is digital pathology. Again, unlike others, it's not a separate platform. It's part of the same code base. We are starting to show it to prospective clients. It is a work in progress. We believe we will have it out in the market this calendar year.

It is, again, fully cloud-based and one of the few. And the other thing that's very interesting is we've also interfaced it with Visage Ease VP for Vision Pro, which means that pathologists could potentially use Vision Pro to replace both screen and microscope, which we believe no one has done before.

We've also had it recently validated at the IHE Connectathon, where it's an interoperability against standard Connectathon, and we believe we were the first to satisfy the digital pathology profile. AI, a few things that have transpired during the year, and we think position us well. We have codeveloped a breast cancer detection algorithm with NYU, which is commercialization, getting ready to commercialize pending FDA clearance. This will sit next to our breast density and provide a full breast AI suite. We have made an investment in Lucid for cardiac CT to help round out some of our cardiac offering and recently an investment in the Australian-based 4DX for lung AI.

We've also announced an additional research collaboration agreement with UCSF, which is one of the top academic medical centers in the U.S. and we have a growing number of third-party AI integrations that we're bringing to market. Again, Visage Ease VP for Vision Pro, without going through all the details, we were the first to release a product for this -- we are seeing some real-world use cases emerging from our client base, particularly around interventional guidance for procedures.

And as I said, we see some of this potentially moving into other fields as we release our pathology offering going forward. This gives you an idea of what it looks like through the goggles. There's a 3D volume that you can manipulate using your fingers and gestures as well as being able to see what looks like a screen so you can actually do the 2 concurrently.

Finally, RSNA 2024, it was our biggest to date. This is a shot of the booth that we built for -- and this is -- yours truly in front with Clayton right next to me. We had about 52 people. Staff this year, we think will be even bigger purely to meet demand. So in summary, most successful year in our company's history by any measure. We've expanded our product portfolio full stack, and that's proven to be very popular.

Our implementation and support capability continues. We're refining it and are able to do even the biggest ones even quicker than we were, say, 2 or 3 years ago. Cloud is a huge strategic advantage. Our North American footprint and pipeline, we believe, continue to grow strongly. Cardiology, as I said, first site was implemented very successfully now with UC Health Colorado to follow in this financial year. We will be releasing digital pathology towards the end of this calendar year.

We think the efforts we've done in the AI will be able to leverage as AI becomes mainstream, and we are seeing increased use cases for Visage Ease on Apple Vision Pro. At that point, I thank you, and we look to take questions.

[Operator Instructions] Your first question today is a phone question from Garry Sherriff with Royal Bank of Canada.

A question on pathology and a question on AI. The first one, the pathology product, certainly exciting. In terms of a market sizing perspective, we've done a little bit of digging on the size of the market. I just wanted to try and clarify it with you. In terms of volumes for those relevant areas of pathology like histopathology, it appears to be about 2/3 the size of the radiology market. I just wanted to clarify that, that was about right. And secondly, from a pricing perspective, how are you thinking about pathology exam pricing versus radiology exam pricing?

Yes. I think the pathology market is where the radiology market was about 20 years ago. Radiology, as you know, went from film to digital. The use case and the imperative for pathology to do so is slightly different. Because the bulk of pathology is not image. It's what we call biochemistry like someone's cholesterol or hemoglobin count. Having said that, the big drivers for digital pathology are around AI and the ability -- pathology is becoming very subspecialized much like radiology has, and you can't have a melanoma-specialized pathologist at every single point that you do it.

So I think the ability to remotely read has become a little bit more acute in pathology than it was in the past. I think the market, we've sized it may be a bit less than what you think. But I bet to be honest, I don't think anyone really knows, and it also will depend on whether the organizations will scan their historical slides because of these glass slides that by all, they still have to keep. Mind you, small. There's 6 small glass slides on average per test. But I think a few things about pathology. We are seeing it as an emerging market. And we think our technology, particularly with cloud and with storage because pathology files are huge because they're in color and high def. Our platform is well suited. And as I said, I think it is an expanding market. So your -- the figures we have may be slightly smaller than yours, but I don't think anyone really knows because it's so nascent in terms of overall adoption, but we think that will speed up pretty quickly from here.

And in terms of the pricing, how are you thinking about that relative to radiology?

Again, we haven't done that. We're doing some of that analysis. We do believe it will be a similar model. In other words, how many tests you actually do. And all the hospitals know roughly how many new tests that they do, and we believe it will be on a per test basis, but we haven't determined that pricing yet.

Understood. Next question, just moving to AI. I mean, given the advances we're seeing in AI, ChatGPT-5, people are creating CRM systems in like 16 seconds. It's seeing a democratization, I guess, of software development and algorithm creation. As a consequence, I assume barriers to entry are starting to fall a little bit. How do you defend your existing technological leadership position when these barriers appear to be falling purely from a technological perspective?

Yes. So I suppose there are 2 things and a lot of what we talk about generative AI, we're seeing more of that on what we call the reporting side because as you know, radiologists dictates a clinical impression of the images. And so we're seeing that sort of ChatGPT generative AI more in that area. The AI that we're also looking in other things like breast cancer detection with NYU is clinical. And there, you have to go through quite a rigorous clinical validation process. You can't just do it and say, well, we tried it on 5 breast mammography exams and therefore, it works. There has to be quite a rigorous clinical process behind it. And that's actually not only time consuming, but you need willing partners, okay, the hospitals to do that.

So I think there are 2 streams of AI in our space, generative AI, where if it's going to help and do conclusions for report, you don't need FDA and that's an aid and an efficiency. But I think the clinical part, there's still quite material barriers to entry and FDA clearance, et cetera, that you have to go through. So I don't think -- I mean, the way of learning has changed because of large language models, but the actual key parts of the process are the same.

Your next question comes from David Low with JPMorgan.

Sam, if we could just start with cardiology and the addressable market there. Just wondering how you think about the back book there? I mean how much opportunity is there from the existing list of customers? And is that the first quarter call? Or is cardiology pretty different? And if you could size it for us, that would be great.

Yes. So cardiology works with the same equipment as radiology. The one that was always deemed to be cardiology specific was ultrasound or cardiac echo, which is the first option that we put forward. We are seeing a lot -- a significant increase in cardiac CT as a screening test instead of angiography that it's replacing in a lot of places. Then there's cardiac MRI and cardiac nuclear.

So with all of those together, we think depending on the organization, if they took all 4, it could be between 15% and 20% of radiology. There are far fewer tests done, but each test is more expensive in terms of the -- what you can charge, the industry charges more for cardiology because they're more involved.

So if you get all of them between 15% and 20%, in New Colorado, what we did was the key piece of ultrasound, and that was north of 10%. So it is material. We do think we will be able to sell it back to existing clients, and we are putting it out in conjunction with full stack, it's something that new clients can take from the getgo.

Any reason we should think that the uptake would be different to the experience with radiology? I mean it's the opportunity -- that the starting period is I guess, gradual, you add 1 or 2 customers and then we see a speed up in the growth rates. I mean, is cardiology likely to be different in what you've experienced so far?

Not really. You have a slightly different audience, as I mentioned, with ultrasound because you're dealing with cardiologists where image and -- acquiring and diagnosing image is part of their day, whereas with the radiologist, it's 100% of their day. But having said that, once you build the base of referenceability, then clearly, the ability to sell after that gets easier. So we think the first step is getting it out, next step getting our first client. We think we've taken another step with this new sale. And again, we think that, yes, it should have a similar dynamic to what we did with radiology.

Just to clarify, when you say 15% to 20% of radiology, you mean by value or by volume? Value -- dollar value.

Your next question comes from Mathieu Chevrier with Citi.

I was just wondering about the shape of the revenue stream for an OpenArchive upgrade compared to a new customer that goes with full stack. For example, we had this NYU add-on $24 million over 5 years. Is that evenly distributed over time? Or is that more front-loaded?

Yes. Mathieu, it's Clayton here. Because of the data migration that they need to go through, we can take a lot of that -- well, we take that revenue upfront. So we bill it on milestones. So we normally bill on a quarterly basis, but we take a percentage of completion of the data migration. That revenue is taken as we do it. And then the exam revenue is spread pretty evenly over the rest of the period. So for NYU's sake, that would be about -- because it was announced separately, 10% to 15% of that total contract value. For full stack clients, it will be a smaller percentage because there's more revenue in the mix, more exam revenue from all 3 components.

Yes. But the charging model is the same. Whether they take it upfront or whether they take it as an additional module like NYU and Duke.

Yes. Yes. I was just more asking from a modeling point of view. And then I was just curious to get your views on -- I don't know if you've seen this, but RadNet has come up with a solution called TechLive that received FDA approval just a few days ago for remote scanning. I was just wondering what kind of opportunities and challenges that you think those kind of solutions could bring to Pro Medicus?

Well, it's not the area we work in. That's the image acquisition area. So from what I understand and read it means that a technologist can supervise a scanner that they're not next to. We don't see that as any threat whatsoever. And it's something more on the client side. So it wouldn't impact the number of scans that we would see or do or charge for.

So it's neither here nor there. But it enables groups, and I would assume it enables groups and I would assume our clients as well if they use similar technology because a lot of the equipment manufacturers are trying to bring that out so that you have 10 Siemens scanners, you don't need 10 technologists. That really is more client side and really doesn't impact us at all.

Do you think it could be a tailwind, though, to volume growth over time?

It could. It could mean that you need fewer people to do more scans, which could be good for us.

Your next question comes from Andrew Paine with CLSA.

Look, just one that we get all the time, just in terms of older legacy systems. Just would be good to know how long you think these can continue to service radiology and what percentage of the market you think remains on these older systems?

Yes. It is an interesting question. I think that in certain areas, that sort of technology is cracked. And the canary in the coal mine is always in breast imaging because that was always where the files were large and have now become just exponentially larger. So some groups are just struggling under the load.

And the other thing that's created a much bigger load is breast imaging mammography used to be 2D. With the advent of breast tomosynthesis, the files can be up to 10x what they used to be in 2D because it's like a 3D. It's like a scan, like a CT, turn them into a scan at a certain -- through a certain level of anatomy. And the interesting thing is in the U.S., in particular, and the rest of the world will follow, tomosynthesis 3D has overtaken 2D in screening. So it's more than 50%. So you've seen a new technology become mainstream and those files becoming huge.

Now having said that, it's the same with everything. In the old days, a CT scan had a few hundred slices. Now it can be 5,000, 10,000 slices. So we're seeing the data sets getting bigger and bigger and bigger. And particularly, when you start looking at remote, a lot of these systems are starting to, what I call, crack. And we think we're going to see more and more of it where they just don't really keep up. So breast imaging, the canary in the coal mine, in reality, we're seeing this particularly with remote reading, with other modalities as well.

Okay. That's great. Just the size of the market for these legacy systems is probably pretty hard to estimate, but have you got any idea there?

Sorry, we didn't hear you well, Andrew.

Sorry, just in terms of the size of the market for these legacy systems, like what percentage of market share do you think they still have?

90% because we have 10%. That's probably the most straightforward answer. And bear in mind, some of them have, over the years, developed more sophistication around how they push the images around. But again, that's coming to its high-water mark as well. So we really don't believe anybody else has been able to do this on demand regardless of if you push the button and the file is there in full res, stop 1 second. We don't believe anybody else has been able to crack that nut except for us.

Yes. That's great. And then just as a follow-up to that, probably the second most asked question that we get is just around any steps why these legacy systems kind of update? Or why aren't they updating and trying to remain in the market given it's quite an attractive market still?

Yes. So to do it, and people have tried in the past but have stopped, you have to go right back to the beginning. You can't upgrade them, you have to bring out a totally new platform. And that's a multiyear job. Then you have to get it FDA-approved. So is it possible? Absolutely. Is it a simple 12-month process? No.

And then the last thing is our product is proprietary. So Visage was built from the ground up by the team in Berlin, and it was built without using an existing toolkit. So you can't get a sort of Microsoft toolkit and get to 70% out of the box and then refine the rest. So those that have got existing systems, it's a really, really, really big job, a, to bring out a new system and then not only that, get it FDA-approved, get it hardened, get it scaled and then transition clients to it. But as far as we know, and I think we have a pretty good view over the market, no one's been able to do that.

Your next question comes from Josh Kannourakis with Barrenjoey.

Sam and Clayton, a couple of questions from me. First, just on pathology. Do you have a bit of a read-through of how many players in the market are using specific cardiology plus pathology solutions versus those that are sort of inbuilt to broader enterprise agreements that would be using radiology plus pathology, et cetera?

Yes. So pathology is actually just starting to come of age. There's a very small percentage that have adopted it. And in the past, the reason was around it's a small part of the enterprise, but a very data-intensive part. And if you did it on-prem, the cost of data storage would just be too high. There are a number of pathology-only players that have tried to get into the market. most pathology is sold by our radiology competitors where they package someone else's or package or do a separate platform and sell it as part of that, like a Philips or a Fuji or et cetera. But in those cases, they're all separate platforms. It's not part of their main radiology platform. It's a totally different one. It's the same badge, 2 platforms.

But I think there's only been a small number of pure pathology players, particularly in the U.S., there's been more in Europe, and that's where a lot of them have come from. One or 2 have just gone FDA. The thing with pathology, selling it in its own right, it's a bit like cardiology. There's a high cost of sale and the actual dollar value of the sale is nowhere near as big as radiology, certainly not at this stage. So the competitors are 2: The sort of standard ones that we deal with on the diagnostic imaging side, and we are seeing a small number of independent pathology players, but a lot of them are hitching their wagon not so much to the platform, but more to AI around it.

Got it. No, that makes sense. And so just to round out, like we talked about cardiology being 15% to 20% of radiology in total. How are you sort of thinking today about pathology?

Yes. It's sort of one of the questions we got asked at the beginning. We haven't really sized it. It's very hard. We thought we needed to do it to get a complete single platform across everything. So that was one incentive. And we think that market will continue to grow. I don't think it will be as big as radiology, certainly not from what we're seeing, but it could be material if it goes from the 5% or 7% adoption to a more generalized adoption.

Got it. And just a second question, just around the funding environment. Obviously, the Big Beautiful Bill has come out. There's underlying [indiscernible] there, a bit of a crunch on funding. But also, I think if you sort of look into the detail, there's quite a bit of a shift in reimbursement to the sort of outpatient clinics, which has been happening for a while, in the U.S. anyway. How are your clients reacting to that? And if you could give any sort of context around how you think you guys could be impacted, from a positive or negative perspective, in terms of demand for the platform?

Yes. I think earlier than that, I think the COVID crunch, like a lot of industries, a lot of hospitals bulked up and then now they're standing saying, "Our profitability was impacted. We need to sort of optimize." And so you can look at optimization, particularly in our area, through 2 prisms. One is just cut cost, buy something cheaper. The other, which I think makes more sense, is buy the most efficient product because that's where you'll get the most bang for buck.

So obviously, there are times, as you know, that we don't win every single opportunity, pretty much 100% of the time, it's because of the perceived cost. I think that's actually the wrong way to go because you spend the money, you don't get the full result. But clearly, we seem to be winning those arguments more than we're losing them and hence, the reason for the additional sales. But yes, there is a feeling and maybe this Big Beautiful Bill will sort of heighten that. We haven't seen that, but there has been a feeling that hospitals, particularly post-COVID, became unprofitable and now they're sort of tightening their belts and optimizing and our area is one of them. And if they use us, then we believe we give them the result.

Your next question comes from Annabel Li with Goldman Sachs.

I also just have 2 questions, please, and I might ask them one by one. So first one, just a follow-up on pathology. Are you able to comment on the uplift in R&D or sales head count that might be required and potentially, any forward indications from customers that you might have already received so far?

Yes. So the actual product is in our current R&D budget. So the R&D figures for the year included pathology. I think, as the product evolves, it's probably not so much in R&D, but we'll get more domain knowledge through a product specialist, someone that's lived and breathed pathology. It's similar to radiology, but it's not exactly the same. So I don't think you should expect significant cost increases around that opportunity. So it's all pretty much what we're releasing. It has been already incorporated in the existing R&D budget.

Yes. The huge advantage of obviously using the same code base for both cardiology and now digital pathology or within the Visage 7 platform, the development team is already in play. As Sam mentioned, as we get people onboard, similar to what we've done in radiology, we will have product specialists, but the core development team stays relatively the same.

Yes. And all the other things we've built around radiology, we look at, saying, "How can they apply to pathology?" and an interesting thing is Vision Pro. Now this is incredibly early days, and so it's a concept. But the difference between the radiologist and a pathologist looking at an image is the radiologist has an image and they move their head to see the whole image because it's on a big screen in front of them. In pathology, a pathologist looks down a microscope. So they actually move the slide under the microscope. They never move their field of vision. So the thing you can actually do with Vision Pro is exactly that, that the goggles can sort of almost be like this immersive microscope where with your hands, you move the image in front of your eyes.

So we're trying to see what other assets we have in terms of not just the core platform, but Visages, Visages Pro, that will make the pathology offering even more differentiated. Now that won't require much R&D because we already have those technological assets as part of the core stack. So as Clayton said, being able to do it as the one platform not only has huge implications for us in terms of development, it also has massive implications for the clients because currently, sometimes they have to manage 50, 60 different back images to get what we do in one. So again, it's part of the R&D, but we're also looking to see what other assets we have that will make it applicable to pathology.

Perfect. And just on contract renewals. I appreciate you won't have anything come up until next year, but just wondering if you've started these conversations and maybe what the initial response has been and your expectations that they will stay on Visage?

Yes, we have started conversations. Fair to say that they're pretty much in the same format as we've had all the previous ones. So you would expect -- particularly with the bigger ones, some of the bigger ones where they want to have the conversation a little earlier, but sometimes it's quicker, sometimes it's something that they talk about, put on the back burner and then, as time gets closer, it comes to the front. They each have their different cadence. But yes, we've sort of started with some of the ones more towards the front of the year, broaching that conversation, but it's pretty much what we've had, similar sort of conversations to what we've had in the past.

Your next question comes from John Hester with Bell Potter.

A couple of questions for you. For Clayton, can you just run through the implementation schedule for the next 6 months, please, Clayton, starting with Trinity and working through Duly and so on.

Look, I don't have them right in front of me at the moment, John. So I can probably take that off-line. They haven't changed too much. As Sam mentioned, someone like Trinity starts in October and is spread over an 18-month period. Duly, I believe, is early next year and over different periods. But nothing has changed much from the contract announcements, but I can certainly take that off-line with you.

Yes, no problem. I just want to come back to the investment you made or the debt facility you established with 4DX, a $10 million facility, Sam. Tell us what was your thinking process on that? And also, is that the extent of your commitment to this company? Or is there more to come, do you think?

So for full disclosure, as you know, I was on their Advisory Board prior to them listing. And after they listed, I am no longer. So I knew the company. I think this was purely an investment made through the Board. I abstained from voting on it because of my prior association. And I think some of the rationale around it was the new V/Q product that they're looking at, which is a replacement of an existing test to determine pulmonary embolus. We think it's more in our wheelhouse in terms of our capability that could be useful on our platform. So really, we looked at it or the company looked at it, PME looked at it, through 2 prisms and investment. And with the algorithm, could that be something we could potentially add to the platform as we would, let's say, an Elucid. So that's why we did it. I wouldn't read more into it than that. And again, I can't talk about future investments at this point. I think the whole concept was that one and leave it at that.

Okay. So this is a potential add-on on technology, but you're sort of saying that you're open-minded as to whether there's sort of more investment to come?

I'm saying that we looked at the $10 million as the investment. We haven't really discussed more.

Your next question comes from Christine Trinh with Macquarie Bank.

Sam, Clayton, congratulations on a strong result. Just two for me. Firstly, on pathology, to piggyback off of Annabel's previous question. I think you mentioned you started kind of soft-launching pathology to clients. What's the initial reaction been? And I guess, do you think the pathologists are kind of ready for this technology? Or will it be a bit of a slower uptake?

The reaction has been good. It's early days. So let me preface it. But a lot of the issue around pathology with the large data sets, and that's our strong suit. So the fact that 2 things, one, we can handle them and store them and store them efficiently in cloud because, if you don't, it breaks the piggy bank because I think each test is about 6 to 8 gigabytes because they're in color. So being able to efficiently store it is an important part. And I think pathologists realize that.

The other thing is the speed because it's a streaming platform and they have all the things that -- what makes it good for radiology makes it good for pathology. But it's early days. And as I said, most institutions are thinking about digital pathology, but haven't gone that fully down that path. So we're at the beginning of a new cycle, whereas in radiology, it's a replacement cycle because everyone went digital 20 years ago.

So slightly different dynamics in the market. We think there's an advantage of having it all on one platform because it then becomes a licensing issue, not an infrastructure issue. It has all the attributes of streaming cloud, all the things that our diagnostic imaging product has. So we think it has a lot of advantages, but it's very early days. And we'll update the market as we progress further. Clearly, FDA is one of the steps. And as I said, we believe we'll be putting in for that this calendar year.

Perfect. And then just quickly on the U.S. defense contract. You're probably tired of answering this one, but have you got any updates for us there?

Military.

Military, yes, sorry. No, there's been a fair bit of interest and activity. The military hasn't actually done anything other than they're looking and they're continuing to investigate what's out there. We don't know again of anyone other than us that's got FedRAMP for cloud, but they may. It's one of those things. But Certainly, that has positioned us well in terms of further discussion. But military is government and the government -- as you know, in America, everything has been [ involved ] with the new President. And so you would expect it would be going slowly. But we are getting the engagement, what that means longer term, we'll just have to wait and see.

Your next question is a webcast question from Michael Porter with Economic Concepts. This reads, can you quantify cardiology, e.g., ejection fraction type growth in PME business, scope for penetration in China market profitability?

Yes. So cardiology, if you're looking at ejection fraction, that is the ultrasound portion. And as we said, that's somewhere around between 10% and 13%, 14% of radiology, depending on the organization and how much they do. Certainly, we're looking to sell it back and replace what are the traditional systems that are used because the traditional systems are used by the equipment vendors. They sell 20 or 25 ultrasounds to an institution and then cardiology, ultrasound package on top, which really just does that. It's not part of a broader package, which ours is, which you need to have. So that's that.

In terms of China, we don't have any current aspirations for sales in China due to a whole lot of reasons. But could it be used technically? Absolutely, it can be used anywhere. It's purely because there are nuances around the Chinese market that we currently feel we should -- it's not part of our -- not a region that we're actively looking at, at this point.

Your next question comes from [ Daniel Stewart ], a private investor. This reads, does Pro Medicus plan to take the relationship with 4D Medical further than just an investment such as distributing 4D Medical's products?

As I mentioned just in answer to one of the previous phone questions, that's a possibility. The agreement we have with them and the investment opens the possibility for that. But we don't have -- at this point, it's a bit too early to have a reseller agreement. So it's possible, but there's nothing firmly on the table yet.

Your next question comes from Michael Porter with Economic Concepts and reads, has Mayo Clinic upgraded full package?

No. Mayo Clinic is one of the ones we're speaking to about renewal next year. Currently, the whole of Mayo uses an archive called Media that they codeveloped. So at this point, the answer to that is no. What happens in the future, clearly, we have to see what plays out.

Your next question comes from [ Neil Stomak ] with Far Eastern Group. This reads, can you explain the contract and its terms, e.g., USD 15 million minimum over 7 years is USD 15 million over 5, about USD 3 million per year or USD 15 million per year? When start paying 3 months later, pay upfront, e.g., on January 1 every year or arrears. Move to subscription base. For Duke, are you a U.S.-based company selling to Duke? There's no tariffs on U.S.-based software sales.

Well, I'll answer the last question first. There are no tariffs at this stage on software, but we do contract through our U.S.-based customer. So for any of the opportunities, that's what we do. In terms of the contract, yes, $15 million deal over 5 years is $3 million per year at minimum. So it's at a minimum number of exam volumes. There's always inherent upside to that contract on the actual exam numbers that they do. In terms of payment, we have some professional services that we bill upfront. and pay that over time. But they get paid and spread over the length of the contract, and then we bill on a quarterly basis in arrears and get paid for it on a quarterly basis. So it's already pretty much a subscription model based on a minimum number of examinations that get topped up.

Your next question is from [ Stella Wang ], a private investor. This reads, regarding the next major renewals, when is Mayo first signed July 2016 due to be renewed? If I remember right, they only previously signed for Viewer. What's the profitability of Mayo taking up the full -- probability of Mayo taking up the full stack?

Yes. So you're right, it's Viewer only. And I just mentioned with the answer to a previous question, we are looking to renew them. The first part is around the Viewer clearly because that's the contract they have with us. In terms of other applications, often, we don't do those deals at time of renewal because the organization is just looking to get the renewal out of the way. FMOLHS, our last renewal was an exception to that because not only did they renew, they took the archive. And again, with Mayo, we can't talk about the future. But clearly, we are making them aware of all the applications we have, including archive, worklist, cardiology and now we're also making them aware of our pending pathology offering.

Your next question comes from [ Neil Stomak ] from Far Eastern Group. This reads, can you discuss your competitive landscape, please? Your financial metrics are so strong. Why doesn't GE, Siemens, Google, Tempus AI, et cetera, work to buy you or compete aggressively against you? Aren't competitors enhancing AI research collaboration? How soon before AI and cardiology reach inflection points estimated 2027, 2028?

So in terms of competitive landscape, you're right, we compete against a broad range of competitors, and they all compete aggressively against us. So whether they're Siemens or whether they're a cloud-based start-up, we see them all as competition. In terms of acquisition, I can't speak for them, but no one has offered to buy us, and we try and run our own race. Everybody is looking to enhance their AI capability. I think our strategy is multipronged. We think that the platform itself is the best platform for AI regardless of who actually creates the algorithms. So it's not just developing algorithms or partnering to create algorithms. It's the platform itself.

And in terms of inflection points for AI and cardiology, we think we've taken, as I mentioned before, some big steps in cardiology. Colorado will be the next one. AI, I think it's still an emerging nascent market. I believe you'll see more and more pockets emerge in the coming year or 2. But is it going to be an avalanche? I don't think so, but those pockets will coalesce. So I think both markets are emerging, and we have keen interest in both of them.

Your next question comes from [ Ian Lee ], an investor. It reads, Sam, what percentage of your pipeline is now cardiology?

So there are 2 parts to it. Cardiology that we're looking to sell back to existing clients, so clearly, we're putting our best foot forward, showing clients what exists, trying to get in front of their cardiologists because, as I mentioned, it's a different audience to the radiologists. So we're obviously doing that. And in a number of RFPs, we're starting to see the reemergence of cardiology and radiology together. And the fact that we have a really good offering for cardiology positions us well. And I think UC Health Colorado is a perfect example of that. So yes, we're looking at it through both existing clients and clearly new RFPs.

Your next question comes from [ Tony Tan ], a private investor. Would you be able to name 1 to 2 closest competitors to Visage in terms of cloud and AI implementation? And what is PME doing to maintain the moat?

Yes. In terms of cloud, I'll be honest, you go to RSNA and everybody has those exact 2 words on every single stand, cloud and AI. Reality is we don't believe that any of our major competitors have a truly 100% cloud-based offering. They talk about hybrids where you have to have a system on site. And to me, that's non-cloud cloud. I mean, totally defeats the purpose. So as far as we know, whilst there's a lot of marketing hype and noise around it, we believe we're the only ones that can do true cloud at scale. And as evidence of that, we haven't put an on-prem implementation in the U.S. in the last 4 years. And all of the small to biggest have been cloud. So again, AI is something similar that everybody says they have AI in various bits and pieces, but we don't know anyone that's taken the march on AI and won the market by any means quite the opposite.

Your next question comes from Claude Walker with A Rich Life. This reads, congratulations on the multiple big wins this year. I just wanted to check, has the company lost any of the pipeline contracts to competitors in the last year?

Look, we will never have a 100% hit rate. I wish we did. That would be unbelievable, bearing in mind that we think we outsell most of our competitors put together. The ones that sometimes we lose them early on, they just look at price and go, "You've got to be kidding." Having said that, it's not unheard of for those people to come back a few years later. And sometimes people just look at something and they feel that their budget is x. So there'll always be some that were either excluded from fairly early on or people looked at price. Sometimes there's the concept that maybe the opposition have a broad range of product, which I don't believe is the case. So we're not going to have 100%. But clearly, our recent hit rate has been the highest we've ever had.

Your next question comes from Sinclair Currie with MA, Moelis Australia. This reads, do you have any insights about timing of when customers' contracts with alternative solution providers roll? And can it provide any information about timing of pipeline conversions?

We have some. It's very hard because some of the systems that have other vendors will sometimes just roll over a contract for a year. We tend not to do that. Our contracts and renewals, as you know, are longer term. So we have some insight, but it's not like a clear crystal ball. I don't think anybody has that. And we try and remember that and certainly, RSNA try and encourage those people to come and see us, but it's not as easy to ascertain as you might think from the outside.

Your next question comes from [ Neil Stomak ] with Far Eastern Group. This reads what are your efforts to build sales and scale in Germany and Asia, 3 to 5 years later, large? Are the TAMs for Germany and growing Asia, respectively, large relative to the U.S.? What are your obstacles, sales technicians, regulatory approval, competitors largely from North America or Europe?

So there are really 2 markets we look at as blocks, you could think of them as 3 now, so Europe, U.K. and Asia as a block, excluding China and, at this point, Japan because Japan has its own regulatory cycle and very different dynamics to maybe places like Korea and Taiwan. We have said in the past, and we still say it, U.S. is the biggest market. I think about 60% of health care spend globally is spent in the U.S. That's how big it is.

Having said that, we have had some success in Europe, particularly in Germany, which is our base. And we're looking at the possibility of extending our capability there. It's not a technical thing. It product will work anywhere. It's purely market dynamics. Having said that, cost of sale is much higher in Europe. Each opportunity is smaller. Each opportunity is pretty much government run. So a lot more bureaucracy, a lot bigger tenders. So the bang for buck in terms of return is not there as it is in the U.S.

But we are seeing slowly a change, particularly as cloud vendors come into the mix because currently, there's pretty much 0 cloud in health care in Europe, and that may help us. So our message, I think, we maintain U.S. first. That's where the biggest opportunity is. We've got a material foothold of 10%, a huge runway, and that's where we see the least impedance to doing business. But clearly, as things change, particularly with cloud, we can see the other markets, Europe and Asia, possibly opening up in the future.

Next question comes from Abhishek Jain with Citi. This reads, what level of OpEx growth should we be expecting for FY '26 versus FY '25?

Yes. I think it will be a similar level of growth in our operating costs, mainly through bringing on new head count, which will help drive that growth for newer opportunities. So it will be in similar areas that we've done in the past, both in sales, implementation, project management, development and all the key areas that we have in terms of head count. So it should be on a similar level that we've done in '25.

Your next question comes from Jacob Garfield with Avidity Partners. This reads, what is the rate limiting factor on signing more new customers?

There's not any particular rate limiting factor. It's purely in terms of what RFPs come to market. It's not that we don't have capacity or other bits and pieces, it's purely the number. And it's purely, as I said before, putting our best foot forward and showing the value that we have rather than just competing on price, which we don't do. So there are no particular limiting factors at this point.

The next question comes from [ Matthew Nicolatis ], a private investor. This reads, are you seeing any delays in implementations due to client resourcing or macro factors?

No, not at this stage. I mentioned, I won't go through them individually, but we haven't pushed out any of the implementations from a client level or macro level. They are pretty much on -- they are on track from what we've announced previously in the contract announcements. So all ahead in terms of implementations. We do have a number of them, but we do have a schedule that will see them coming through.

Your next question comes from Jacob Garfield with Avidity Partners. This reads, which cloud-based start-ups are you seeing compete, New Lanton, Sirona, Synthesis?

Well, every start-up, and anyone in the area we see as competition and we don't take any of them lightly. We have not seen those particular companies in major RFPs that we're currently tendering for. That's not to say that maybe some of the smaller organizations, really small ones would look at them rather than ourselves or any of our key competitors. But we haven't seen them in the mainstream of what we're currently doing, certainly not up to this point.

Thank you. There are no further questions at this time. I'll hand the conference back to Dr. Sam Hupert.

Just wanted to say thank you, everybody, for joining us and for your questions. Appreciate it very much. Thank you.

Thanks.

That does conclude our conference for today. Thank you for participating. You may now disconnect.