Seeking Alpha
We cover over 5K calls/quarter
Profile| Send Message|
( followers)  

Executives

Jay T. Flatley – President and Chief Executive Officer

Marc A. Stapley – Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer

Analysts

Dan G. Brennan – Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC

Illumina, Inc. (ILMN) Morgan Stanley Healthcare Conference Call September 10, 2013 1:30 PM ET

Dan G. Brennan – Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC

Great, well, thank you everyone for coming. Illumina session, my name is Dan Brennan. For those who don’t know me, I am our Morgan Stanley’s Life Science Tools and Diagnostics analyst. Pleased to be joined on the stage with me to my immediate left is Jay Flatley, CEO of Illumina and to Jay’s left is Marc Stapley, the Chief Financial Officer and in the audience is Rebecca Chambers, the Head of Investor Relations.

So before we start, for anyone we haven’t seen the disclosures associated with any statements by Morgan Stanley, you can go visit our website at www.morganstanley.com/researchdisclosures. Certainly we would encourage you to be participative if you’d like, so feel free to raise your hand during the presentation, I will try to look it periodically we can get you mike to ask any questions, thanks.

So Jay and Marc just kind of high level questions to kick it off, certainly 2013 has been another very strong year for the company, 32% growth from sequencing in Q1, about the same level in Q2. Just what if anything has surprised you the most from the demand trends that you are seeing?

Jay T. Flatley

I think probably the single most important delta from our internal forecast would be around the HiSeq instruments placements, we’ve had very strong demand for the HiSeq platform, over the last six months and through the latter part of last year as well. I think driven in part by the emergence of the prenatal testing market which has been extremely well for the company as well as increasing clinical demand in general for this platform, probably see a third element of this is the fact that even our largest customers have seen to push back up to near or actual utilization, which has caused them to start ordering incremental HiSeq’s on top of their existing fleets.

You combine that with the integrated effect of the reagents under the curve that we get from placing those instruments, I think has been largely responsible for our clinical performance in the first half.

Dan G. Brennan – Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC

Great. So while the company is transitioning for the growth in the clinical and translational markets, making academics it’s relatively smaller piece of the puzzle, and it’s still an important critical piece of your business. So I thought we would just start there with a few questions given the trends of the sequestration and Illumina has done quite well despite that. So maybe just give us a sense Jay and Marc, as we have gone through the summer, we are about to enter the next fiscal year, looks like it will be in continuing resolution, how are you seeing your academic kind of customer base act?

Jay T. Flatley

Yeah, I say our academic customers are behaving well, if we could phrase it that way. The largest challenge we had in the academic sector was during the period where there was tremendous uncertainty about what the budgets really were and once the budgets were nailed down, customers hunkered down the operator within the scope of the money that they had coming and I think we continue to do really pretty well given that macro backdrop in the U.S. at least.

I would say in addition I think that as we go into next year, we expect funding likely to be in the flattish range from 2013. And so we don’t anticipate any significant disruption in the customer behavior. Clearly had sequestration not happened in the budgets we’re rising 3% or 4% instead of dropping 5%. Our business would be even stronger, but we really consider ourselves pretty fortunate to be doing as well as we are given the situation.

Dan G. Brennan – Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC

And is there anything? I mean it sounds like just a continuing expansion of the funding towards NGS that you see may help to offset maybe some of that more depressing trends overall. Was there anything notable to point out there or this a continued evolution that you are seeing incrementally more dollars being granted or should we be aware of any more bigger inflection about grant down towards sequencing?

Jay T. Flatley

Well, I think we’ve seen that trend over the last few years where as a fraction of the pie sequencing is getting a bigger and bigger proportion. If there is any significant underlying trend, it maybe the fact that more and more of our customers, even the largest research customers are now moving into translational work.

So the genome centers when they reapplied for the NHGRI grant many of them in their outline of their strategy included translational work and so I think it’s just movement toward taking pure research-based sequencing, which customers were doing years ago and now in almost every case thinking about how the results of that sequencing may apply ultimately to patients in clinical care. It’s probably one underlying trend that sort of helping support the growth and the movement towards sequencing.

Dan G. Brennan – Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC

And then maybe staying on the academic customer, I mean if you look across the pond over to Europe, certainly there are budget pressure there is no doubt, but you’ve got some of the 2020 plan, I think the hedge research funding just maybe similar type of question over there. What if anything are we seeing is continued maybe – I mean maybe a stability given the improving macro over there, how you classify your European academic customers?

Jay T. Flatley

Yeah, I’d say overall it’s really stabilized in Europe, over where we were a couple of years ago where there was worry about certain general meltdowns in the economy and you’re certainly not seeing any of that. The Horizon 2020 program is in place and well, I don’t think that will be a huge incremental 2014 over where we are now, I think it begins to pick up significantly in 2015. So the overall funding there looks pretty bright. I’d also say in certain pockets in Europe, there is extra funding that’s coming available, it’s localized, but overall I think Europe is holding it down and we’ve also put some new leadership in place in Europe about 18 months ago, and that’s we think having a significant effect specifically for our company.

Dan G. Brennan – Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC

And kind of maybe related to that, so in terms of new leadership as they take in, will there be some low hanging fruit that maybe prior leadership wasn’t kind of exploiting some easy customer opportunities or having new direction and new leadership is taking, that’s really leading to an improved environment here.

Jay T. Flatley

Well, I think we made some personal changes in addition to the general management change in Europe. I think structurally we’ve improved our processes in Europe, we are dealing more effectively with the tender process, overall infrastructure has improved, and I would say, we’ve got a better talent pool in our European team than we might have couple years ago as well.

Dan G. Brennan – Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC

Okay. So maybe talking over to NIPT, I mean, you’ve been very constructive on not only the near-term trends, but also the real long-term opportunity in the sense that if you can get an IVD format, you advocated, but kind of to-date, with the initial launch or talk about Verinata, what can you tell us specifically about any color around demand trends you’re seeing and when would you feel comfortable giving us better visibility about kind of what that opportunity could be.

Jay T. Flatley

Well, I think at most basic level, this is the market that’s come online vastly faster than anybody would have anticipated. The transition from the traditional [indiscernible] approach to noninvasive testing, I think because of the inherent risk scenario and the fact that there are already dollars there to do those tests has allowed this market in the course of 18 or 24 months to get to the point where in the high risk section we sector of the market, it may be at 40% or 50% penetration so I think this has been a real success story for all the players in an NIPT.

I think another trend that’s very clear is that the tests are being used selectively for non high risk patients and that’s not too much of a surprise because of the test there is no bright line in 35 years of age where if somebody 34 versus somebody in the 36 that the test really measure something different, and so I think over time we’ll see a greater migration of this into moderate and lower risk populations, and particularly if the clinical data begin to come out in which will happen in 2014 there is a number of clinical studies underway in the non high risk populations and I think the result of that could help propel the market significantly as the test platform runs.

Dan G. Brennan – Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC

Okay and then in terms of your patent approach or your strategy there which you discussed that you’d likely be giving more color on your process to maybe exploit your kind f patent state if you will versus the competition. Just maybe comment on recent, I know there is recent court decision how was in fact that court decision kind of impacts your strategy or the timing of when you would discuss kind of the strategy with investors.

Jay T. Flatley

I don’t think that particular decision impacts our strategy very much there are other claim construction hearings underway this week and next week and I don’t think the outcome of that will affect our strategy in particular. I think that overall our goal here is to try to broker a settlement of the intellectual property in this field to allow the field to move ahead, less encumbered and to growth the market much more quickly. It’s still an open question whether we’ll be successful with that, but that’s certainly the goal we had when we purchased Verinata and it’s the area of focus that we have today.

If this sort of play out fully in the quarter we’re looking at a process that can take a couple of years and so I think it’s in the interest of most of the parties in this field to try to reach a settlement where everybody can execute their business and do that successfully.

Dan G. Brennan – Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC

Okay. Maybe kind of taking a bigger picture, just in terms of your clinical strategy. Certainly it’s a critical driver of your NGF demand going forward and I think today the company, certainly Verinata is a proprietary test, your CFSA which you file proprietary. I think you’ve discussed not wanting to necessarily compete with your investors. You’re going to arm them with the technology, the consumables, the products to enable their growth, so which has been a terrific opportunity thus far for you.

Maybe can you give us a high level view the next couple of years, how we should think about your kind of diagnostic strategy unfolding, is that this recent strategy, will you look to add more proprietary content so that you have more kind of complementary where you’re not just kind of the box player but the consumable player? Today you dominate that market, but the competition from that being as vibrant as the market.

Jay T. Flatley

Yes, I think our approach to acquiring proprietary content has if anything become less of a focus for us than it might have been a few years ago and then there is a number of reasons for that. One is it’s clearly what was happening in the course with respect to the Myriad [ph] decision, which don’t know the outcome of. I think secondary consideration is the fact that as we’ve learned more and more about the biology, it’s more recognized than any single variance and the gene is probably worth a lot less than people might have thought.

And when we had outside parties come to us and say well, we’ve got this marker for name your cancer or name your disease and it’s worth $5 million you guys to license this. I think what we realized is that it’s not ever going to be really that one marker that’s going to be the end of the story, and I think the way Myriad’s business has evolved by discovering thousands of variance in those genes to really get complete picture, means that anyone little piece in the intellectual property is probably not worth very much.

And as a result of that, I think our focus is much more on continuing to evolve the platform technology to put panels into the market that allow our clinical customers to get to their collective panels more quickly, and so we do the heavy lifting of all the housekeeping genes and methodologies that customers that might want helping to provide more sophisticated software let them ultimately get from the sequence data much more efficiently to final report for their clinical application, I think this is going to be an area of very important focus for us. And in general sort of enabling the regulatory sphere around the clinical space will be important.

I think one area you will see us focus very intensely on over the next years is the creation of IVD products. So to the extend we can work internally or with third parties to take the test that they may have an IVD [ph] environment, particularly if the FDA regulation gets little more stringent, we think we can push sequencing based test at least through the FDA faster than anybody else could.

Dan G. Brennan – Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC

Interesting. While that’s going to play out over the next few years, any particular kind of areas or focal disease states that you would like to apply more of your knowledge base and time?

Marc A. Stapley

Well, clearly NIPT is the first area of interest for us. I think in oncology in the long run, that’s of significant interest. In the short run, there is still lot of discovery to be done around many of these potential gene tests and so if we were to work there, it might be with partners who have had test in the market for some number of years and have significant experience in databases and clinical evidence built up already on their particular test. Infectious disease is another area where IBDs, on a sequencing based platform they make a lot of sense.

Dan G. Brennan

Okay. So Jay, if you think about like one of the prime again because when you just mentioned regarding taking the LDTs over to the IBD type. Today it seems like decent portion of the adoption for clinical sequencing might be hospitals just basically converting over an LDT that was one of the different platform over to like a panel-based approach. So just trying to think about that, I mean first, I don’t know if that’s the right way that kind of think about trying to frame a potential size of the market in the next couple of years how big the LDT market is? How quickly some of that could transition over to sequencing? I mean is that a reasonable way to come up with turn of an idea, I’m just trying to think about the growth has been so dynamic and so kind of slightly explosive like how do investors get kind of a comfort level on kind of sizing the market over the next few years for clinical sequencing?

Jay T. Flatley

Well, I think that’s a challenge. It’s a challenge for everybody including us and I think that there is no 30,000 foot way to do that. I think you have to look at the sub-segments of the clinical market and I think NIPT people will get a handle on that by thinking about the number of pregnancies in the United States and elsewhere, time some adoption rate. I think you can kick and work the math there. I think on the cancer side, which is probably ultimately the largest clinical opportunity, there are potentially many, many segments of the cancer market were sequencing could be the tool of choice. We may ultimately get to the day where we may be able to detect cancers in 3DNA and circulating blood and that would create the potential for a screening market.

Certainly there is the predictive part of early screening for cancers sequencing the tumor itself measuring minimal residual disease and then ultimately testing for recurrence. And if you look across that whole spectrum and you begin to think about price per test and multiply that by the number of new cancer patients every year and those that are in some sustaining ovarian cancer, you can get to some really big numbers. And those numbers are in the $50 billion-ish plus range.

So we will not spend a lot of time thinking about whether it’s $5 billion or $10 billion or $15 billion those numbers are so big that for successful I think clinical markets are going to be actually enormous targets for sequencing technology.

Dan G. Brennan – Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC

Okay, there is an obvious trend towards like how much in addition, but a debate if you will is kind of how much will centers want to outsource their sequencing like third-parties versus running it in-house, I know you’ve discussed in the past how to service model has only a place but it’s still going to be a much smaller portion of the market than those who want to adopt it locally.

Is there a chance that it becomes a much bigger market, I mean certainly your service business has been growing very quickly but as just the complexity of being able to run something locally to figure out the algorithms to all the time spend they are kind of run it locally, I’m just wondering with some there is clearly some high profile clear base models now being kind of go to the marketplace, just how you think about the outsource market versus the local markets.

Jay T. Flatley

Well, I think the market is going to be some combination of all those factors. Clearly if you are a large cancer center, it’s very likely you are going to want to do the sequencing yourself, and are much likely to be outsourced. If you are a community hospital, at least spend a short run you’re going to likely outsource sequencing, whether it’s to a third party that’s providing some panel technology or whether it’s to us for doing all genome sequencing.

We’ve actually spend a lot of time in our strategic planning sessions debating the question of whether sequencing in general will become more centralized or less centralized. And at the end of all of that we think the real answer depends on the evolution of the platform technologies and so to some extent to the degree that we can make sequencing technology much more approachable, easier to use, more sample to answer mode, less prone to human error, no requirements for high levels of skill and training and have a report come up the back end, that argues if we can get the technology to that point that it would become a less centralized science. If we can do that, then and it’s complex and hard to do and it takes experts to run then I think just remarkable tender to have a greater fraction of those business in a service line.

Dan G. Brennan – Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC

Give me sense of what percentage of cases deploying NGS today leads like actionable results that they can achieve a little more modality?

Jay T. Flatley

Well, it’s hard to know that globally, but I can give you one example, I was at a dinner last week with [indiscernible] and they do a lot of work on rare disease, sequencing of unidentified conditions, and he said, at that dinner that their success rate has risen from about 20% to 50%, and so in 50% they get to some deterministic results of the genetic underpinning of the disease.

Now whether that’s actionable in terms of the therapy varies from case to case, of course we don’t have enough of this statistics yet, we’re not in the tens or thousands where that result would really matter, but I think that if you can get to the genetic underpinning, you have at least potential for applying existing therapies or using some therapies off label on some cases, enrolling in a clinical trial, all of which are great outcomes compared to the alternative.

In case where it’s not treatable, I think it’s very important for the family to reach some sense of closure that has been everything that could understand, what is the basis of that disease, and then manage the rest of the life time event in patients in a respectful way.

Dan G. Brennan – Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC

Can you give us an update on the MiSeq application with the CF assay and just timing wise any, I mean I know we’re expecting to hear about it at some point near and certainly around this time and maybe back half of the year that expectation, has there been any communication with the FDA you could share or …

Marc A. Stapley

Yes, both on the analytical submission of MiSeq and on the CF assay in particular, those are in the FDA we’ve had a series of interactions with the FDA; answered their questions, and so we’re in a waiting mode now, and we’re not in a position where we can really predict what the FDA is going to come back with next or whether they are ready to approve it, we just have to wait and see but we’re sort of in the window where we’d expect them to give us some of the response.

Dan G. Brennan – Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC

So maybe in-terms of new product in order to raise is certainly could be very exciting new product for the company, and I think you are planning to have that the launch kind of later this year, so maybe a question on timing can you just update us there. And then secondarily the v3 experience shows one that was fantastic improvement in productivity, but yet something that good cause some volatility in the business model for a period of time as investors had a deal the company had to digest excess capacity which eventually they did so, how should we be thinking about the same issue around in order to raise your tempo, you saw that you could double your throughput like how do you price that effectively to make sure that you don’t have that same kind of capacity utilization…

Marc A. Stapley

I presume you are referring to the v3 kit on the HiSeq in 2011.

Dan G. Brennan – Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC

Yes.

Marc A. Stapley

Long memory. I guess what I can say about order to raise is that we are on track with the technology that what we said at the beginning of the years that we expect to have that in the hands of our first customers before the end of this year and that remains on track as well.

What we intend to do with order to raise is to deploy that technology selectively in particular chip, so this is not a technology that’s going to go out wholesale through our entire install base on every platform in every type of kit and every type of application. So we will pick and choose where and how we deploy it, the additional throughput that you get from an ordered array will depend on the particular platform that is deployed on because of the different optical systems and the instruments in the installed base.

So we actually have, we think, a very solid strategy about how we’ll deploy that into that market. That will be an upside opportunity for both our customers and for Illumina where we can get premium pricing for that can deliver more than that value back to our customers and prevent a recurrence of the excess capacity problem that happened with v3. So I would suggest to investors that we learned our lessons from 2011 and you shouldn’t worry about having that recur.

Dan G. Brennan – Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC

Okay. And in terms of other new product introduction, maybe a comment on the new MiSeq 15G offering, I think it’s out in the marketplace right now from [indiscernible] like what’s been the reception now, what’s been the level of customers wanting to adopt that level of throughput?

Jay T. Flatley

It’s very early on that kit. So just to refresh everybody’s memory, this is a kit only that and there is no hardware changes or anything else. So it’s software in a new reagent kit. We actually internally call it v3, but externally we just called it the new kit to make sure that nobody thinks again about what happened with HiSeq and I think customers selectively are going to love this kit. It produces the highest accuracy data as a company that we have ever made.

We’ve had some terrific technology improvements in this kit in the entomology and in the way we’ve managed cycle time and the reagent flow in this kit, but it’s not right for everybody. So there is some customers who don’t need that level of output and will stay with the older v2 kits and if that’s their desire, they can do that. So where the v2 kit stay on the market at a lower price, then we charge a premium in the range of 40% for the higher output. So we get 40% incremental revenue and customers get more than two times the output.

Dan G. Brennan – Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC

Okay. And then, I think this January we’ll be coming up at about four years from the time you introduced the HiSeq. Certainly the 2500 came out subsequent to that. So that was an important product upgrade in terms of the platform from the GA to the HiSeq and just trying to think about the evolution of the product life cycle competitively, you were in a very strong position right now.

So maybe there is no rush to have to move another product happen in the last four years. I think the delta between the GA and the HiSeq I think was around three years, might have been four, but kind of up on that four year mark, I’m just wondering about like how you are thinking about we should be thinking about the potential for kind of new kind of platforms, is 2014 a time where that’s a consideration or just any color around that?

Jay T. Flatley

Well, obviously we don’t talk specifically about what we are doing in terms of new product development, but what I can reiterate is the fact that we think that we have a tremendous headroom in our technology. We have ways to move it into many different market segments and you will see us continue to segment the market.

We think there is continued demand at the very high end of the market for every higher output and lower price and particularly as the world begins moving to these very large scale population sequencing programs that there is going to be need for the HiSeq platform to continue to evolve in that direction. There is always going to be opportunities for us to bring other platform technologies to the market.

You should think about our product life cycles probably being in the range of five years and the end of our product from sort of that initial launch shipment, sort of the peak of the product launches of some new platforms and then a wind down of a particular type of technology.

When we chose to put that in the market will depend on a lot of factors and competition is obviously one of those, but I don’t think anyone should conclude that our rate of innovation has slowed down in any ways because we have less competition at the high end of the market. I think our pace of innovation there has been terrific and you’ll see us continue to bring a series of very exciting products to the market.

Dan G. Brennan – Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC

How should investors think really like the mode around your business if you will even now technology re-swaps can happen and things can change quickly if it’s makes economic sense for research, but with clinical I would think that the adoption, the inertia to change is much dramatically higher than those on the research side.

So maybe you’re kind of key competitor, it’s certainly have an exciting product portfolio, but rate of innovation is really slow, it’s stalled and it’s giving you that much more relief. So anyway to think about just qualitatively, kind of what that stalling means. You’re already ahead of that competitor anyway, but how confident, how significant is your position today you think in the marketplace?

Jay T. Flatley

Well, we are in a strong competitive position, I mean, our competitor continues to make progress and we’ll give them continued credit for the progress that they’re delivering in the market and there is lots of other companies that are interested in this space, and plan to bring products to the market as well. So we never underestimate what our competitors might deliver here.

One of the imperatives for us as a result of that is to try to build a stronger mode around the core business we have and clearly the size of our installed base, is a help with that, our ability to back integrating into sample prep has been a huge help, because what we can do in the sample prep kits makes it much easier to do sequencing off of the output of our sample preps and ward off an alternative.

You’ve seen us do some acquisitions in this area, ALL being a key one of those that gives us the ability to increase the level of integration and automation around the front-end of our platforms.

And then similarly we’ve increased the integration on the back-end base being a key component of that, we now have over 2,000 of our systems connected up into BaseSpace, about 9,000 registered users. So this is really particularly in the clinical environment, a huge help to those customers, who don’t want to build a local infrastructure, and we put some of our tools into our app store and we are continuing to push to get more applications into the app store that makes the end-to-end work flow for our customers easier and easier and I think that creates a greater stickiness in our market even in the phase of increased competition.

Dan G. Brennan – Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC

So thank you for that. So you and Marc have discussed and I think Christian as well, investors should be prepared for the company to make a number of bolt-on acquisitions each year. Can you just give us little more color around that, I mean bolt-on what are the financial, what are the strategic criteria that we should be prepared for or that you’re kind of aligning yourselves for when we go out and go do a deal.

Jay T. Flatley

Well, I think when we refer to something as a bolt-on, we’re generally thinking of something that’s $100 million or less, roughly that has probably a little bit of dilution but not a lot a dilution and will largely come with little to no revenue. These are typically technology pieces that we add into our portfolio, integrate very quickly with something we’re already doing and use that piece of technology to leverage up the main revenue stream of the company. And so we’ve continued to do a whole series of those.

That will be a great example at the center maybe little bit of an exception because it did have piece of revenue, but that Nextera technology has been a huge technology addition to our sample prep set of capabilities, BlueGnome fell into that category. Verinata I had put outside the category of a bolt-on. I mean that was a pretty substantial acquisition, had a lot of other factors involved in it, but you’ll continue to see us do those smaller type acquisitions.

Dan G. Brennan – Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC

Great. One of the small ones like the molecular, so there is a larger turnover out there from. So regarding this year close to 20% top line growth, I mean does the market begin turn aside towards 2014? Can you – I mean probably everyone has focused on this quarter, no 2014, but nonetheless, can you help us think about the magnitude, are there any one-off factors that are helping this year in particularly that necessarily won’t repeat next year as we’re trying to think about 2013 as a springboard for next year. Can you discuss kind of what’s happened this year and what well it won’t repeat?

Jay T. Flatley

Well, in terms of unique things this year the 2,500 upgrade revenue will be fully out of the system after the third quarter is a little bit tailing into the third quarter. So that won’t be a recurring revenue stream for us in 2014. Let’s see other things…

Dan G. Brennan – Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC

Well, you have the consumable pull through benefit of the increased HiSeq plates in this year, next year helping the number, plus you will have a full year next year of Verinata as opposed to ramp up during this year.

Jay T. Flatley

But in terms of headwinds there’s not many other things that happen in 2013 and…

Dan G. Brennan – Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC

Okay and then kind of maybe in closing, [indiscernible] today so what you worry about that you have a lot of different opportunity so you maybe to your time just kind of focusing kind of where, which opportunities who exploit but what are the key concerns if you look back two years now and Illumina hasn’t capitalized on the opportunity ahead of itself like what could have caused that to occur.

Jay T. Flatley

Well, I think one of the key challenges we have as a company is that because we are of a substantial size now. We have lots of opportunities that come to us either in the form of acquisitions or in term of a long list of internal development programs that we can execute on. In general, we do a pretty effective job of getting those programs into our development pipeline and the high success rate of getting them out, but making the right choice is about what market segments we go into I think is going to be really important to our success over the next couple of years, and exactly what our contextures are going to be needed in those new emerging customer segments.

Historically, I think we have done a pretty good job of that, but we have probably a greater pellet of options now on the table because of all the pieces of technology that we have. So, being smart about how we make those choices and make sure we deliver them to market robustly over the next few years, it’s going to fundamental to your success.

Dan G. Brennan – Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC

Great, well with that thank you very much everyone for joining. Thanks Jay and Mark for being here.

Jay T. Flatley

Thanks

Marc A. Stapley

Thank you.

Question-and-Answer Session

[No Q&A session for this event]

Copyright policy: All transcripts on this site are the copyright of Seeking Alpha. However, we view them as an important resource for bloggers and journalists, and are excited to contribute to the democratization of financial information on the Internet. (Until now investors have had to pay thousands of dollars in subscription fees for transcripts.) So our reproduction policy is as follows: You may quote up to 400 words of any transcript on the condition that you attribute the transcript to Seeking Alpha and either link to the original transcript or to www.SeekingAlpha.com. All other use is prohibited.

THE INFORMATION CONTAINED HERE IS A TEXTUAL REPRESENTATION OF THE APPLICABLE COMPANY'S CONFERENCE CALL, CONFERENCE PRESENTATION OR OTHER AUDIO PRESENTATION, AND WHILE EFFORTS ARE MADE TO PROVIDE AN ACCURATE TRANSCRIPTION, THERE MAY BE MATERIAL ERRORS, OMISSIONS, OR INACCURACIES IN THE REPORTING OF THE SUBSTANCE OF THE AUDIO PRESENTATIONS. IN NO WAY DOES SEEKING ALPHA ASSUME ANY RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY INVESTMENT OR OTHER DECISIONS MADE BASED UPON THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ON THIS WEB SITE OR IN ANY TRANSCRIPT. USERS ARE ADVISED TO REVIEW THE APPLICABLE COMPANY'S AUDIO PRESENTATION ITSELF AND THE APPLICABLE COMPANY'S SEC FILINGS BEFORE MAKING ANY INVESTMENT OR OTHER DECISIONS.

If you have any additional questions about our online transcripts, please contact us at: transcripts@seekingalpha.com. Thank you!

Source: Illumina's CEO Presents at Morgan Stanley Healthcare Conference (Transcript)
This Transcript
All Transcripts